CIAO DATE: 08/07

Georgetown Journal of International Affairs

Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Volume 7, Number 2, Summer/Fall 2006

 

The Federal Solution to Ethnic Conflicts
Baogang He

 

Excerpt

Baogang He is chair professor in International Studies, Deakin University, Australia. His next work, Federalism in Asia, will be published in 2007.

Two thousand five was a watershed year in the contemporary history of Asian federalism. The formation of asymmetric federalism in Indonesia was marked by the granting of substantial autonomy to the Aceh people in the 2005 peace agreement. In the Philippines, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s 2005 State of the Nation address to Congress has accelerated the process of federalization. These two events point to fundamental changes in Asian governance with regards to minorities and ethnic conflicts.

Conflicts over ethnic homeland rule, the right to territorial autonomy, and even nation-statehood have been played out in Asia, where it has been debated whether federalism is the best system to reduce or contain ethnic conflicts. The international community has questioned whether the multinational federalism of Spain and Canada offers a successful model for Asia. It has also questioned whether underlying norms such as the right to territorial autonomy, the right to self-determination, and the right to remain unassimilated are universally acceptable.

In the 1940s and 1950s, many Asian countries attempted to build federal systems but most failed very soon after. Federalism was conceived as a form of political union between India and Pakistan and between Malaysia and Singapore. The British attempt to impose a federated union upon these former colonies failed, resulting in the partition of India and Pakistan and the secession of Singapore from Malaysia. After these events, federalism nevertheless was introduced in India, Pakistan, and Malaysia. Indonesia became a federated republic of ten provinces in 1948, but this federation was short lived, since a unitary structure was firmly established. China also quickly rejected the Soviet type of federalism in the 1950s.1

In the first few decades following decolonization, Asian states, distrustful of federalism, attempted to build unitary and homogenizing nation-states. Now, despite failure, frustration, and obstacles, there have been calls for federalism in most Asian countries. The voice for federalism is much stronger in countries where there have been resistance movements from ethnic and religious minorities, secessionist movements, or civil wars—for example, the Philippines, China, Burma (Myanmar), Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. Even the former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew raised the question of whether Malaysia and Singapore could reunite as a federal entity one day.2

There are currently several stages of federalism in Asia. India is a well-developed federalist state that is often compared with the United States and Australia. The Philippines and Indonesia can be considered “incipient” or “infant” federalist states, since they are moving toward federal-style governance, although Indonesia may not accept the term. Frustrated hopes for federalism in Sri Lanka and Burma (Myanmar) classify them as “failed federalisms.”3 Mainland China and Hong Kong have developed somewhat authoritarian but nevertheless quasi-federal institutions. Other nation-states that could consider federalism include Thailand, in order to address the aspirations of Patani separatists in the south, and North and South Korea.

This paper will examine the state of Asian federalism and argue for asymmetric federalism appropriate to Asian governance with regard to minorities and the national identity question. It will briefly review Asian federalism, examine the debates on the Western models of federalism, discuss the relationship between federalism and the national identity question, and finally, investigate whether and how federalism can reduce or contain ethnic conflicts...

1See also the failure of federalism in South America , the Caribbean, Rhodesia, and Nyasaland in 1953-1965, and in the British West Indies in 1958-62.
2LiangeZhaobao, 29 January 2002: 22.
3South Africa, Mexico, Nigeria, and a long list of other countries were treated as the failed federalism, but they have now achieved certain degree of federalism.