IF A STATE DOESN'T RECOGNIZE TO ITS NATIONS WE DON'T RECOGNIZE IT (*)

In political philosophy there is a more important concept that that of self-determination or independence and that it precedes to both... it is that of recognition, since that it is the principle and end of the coexistence between people and nations. For that reason, the philosophe Nancy Fraser locates it in the root of all justice.    

It is to assume that others care the same as you. 

Only if you recognize me like I am: different from you, but also same in rights and obligations, later you will be able to talk to justice. The minority nationalisms are nurtured from the rejection of their states to accept their existence and to assume that there is more than a nation in their territory. 

Does the full recognition of a nation imply to consent to its independence? 

It would be to accept their self-determination, but I am not a radical independent: to have a State is no longer the only road today so that a nation is recognized as same by all the other ones. 

How other roads exist? 

On one hand, the globalization generates new forms of sharing sovereignty, as the European Union or the NATO, to those that the states give powers in the past nonnegotiable. For that reason, some small nations are capable today of creating their new State, becoming emancipated of the old one and doing without of their intermediation, to be integrated in those new blocks.    

Does the globalization multiply states? 

It facilitates new, but he/she also opens other roads to the nations to be recognized, because the international community is more complex today that a mere attaché of nations: we advance toward a new world chain of sovereignties and shared recognitions.   

How would that chain that proposes be? 

If a democratic State recognizes fully to the nations of its territory, he becomes this way multinational and he also obtains for all them the international recognition.   

And if it doesn't recognize them? 

If a State denies the recognition to its nations, neither it should be recognized internationally. And it is the international community the one that should look after that justice. 

Perhaps be a philosophical and fair principle, but the states have interests. 

I am political philosopher and, therefore, very aware that the laws usually arrive late to the reality; what I attempt now is that the philosophy doesn't arrive late to the laws. Remember, also that the radical positions of one century constitute the sense common of the following one.    

Which will the sense common of the XXI century be? 

The more cleared sentences of the Supreme Tribunal of Canada Quebec it has more than enough, largely adopted by the UN, he opens the road so that that recognition principle is universal. 

Because better principles that conflicts. 

When it is considered common sense that all State, to be recognized internationally, it should recognize all their nations before, a chain of mutual recognitions will begin that it will guarantee the long term stability of the frontiers and it will avoid wars.    

The reality, I suppose, it is more complex. 

The reality is that when a State doesn't recognize to the nations of its territory and he tries to unify them without more, like he makes the Spanish State with Catalonia, it generates a conflict. And if it admitted what is natural naturally: that he has several nations in their territory, there would not be him. 

Others believe that the recognition would not fill but rather it would feed the separatism. 

I take 40 years studying the case quebequés and our conflict is softened in the measure in that Quebec obtains recognition, and if the Canadian Constitution recognized it completely, most would give ourselves for satisfied. If there is not recognition, those national conflicts continue latent and they resurge cyclically.    

But the other territories of a State usually demand also symmetry in the treatment. 

It is the problem of Quebec in front of the Canadian federal symmetry. The other states press so that our singularity is not recognized. The solution is an asymmetric federalism: to admit that the identical treatment is unjust, because we are not identical territories. And to be as what we are, a nation. 

And should not the citizens be treated equally by the State, do live where they live? 

For that reason, although there is transfer of resources, it should not be so much he makes that those that receive them from richer territories have worse treatment. In that sense, I find the principle of German federal ordinal exemplary.   

The New York Times remembers that the secessionists have never won a referendum in a democratic country. 

The independentism in Quebec obtained 49,6% of the votes in the referendum of 1995. And I would say that the unionists achieved to their favor 54.000 votes of difference scaring the voter saying him that the capitals would escape and they would toss us of the international organisms. Everything was false, but their effect was very certain.   

Do they think about a third referendum? 

The small nationalisms are nurtured of the rejection of the big ones. For that reason, if to the quebequeses they gave us full constitutional recognition and the other territories admitted our singularity, Canada would be a perfect and stable State multinational.     

Does he hope to obtain it soon? 

We have excellent jurists and constitutionalists that, with subtlety, they have seen this way it. God willing they also have here his. 

* Entire transcription of the article of the same name published today in the newspaper The Vanguard author Michel Seymour, philosopher political quebequés, and author of 'The nation in question'