The Catalan Independence Movement

What’s Happening in Catalonia?

Located in northeastern Spain, Catalonia (Capitol: Barcelona), is one of seventeen semi-autonomous regions in the European country. Moreover, the region has a diverse culture and distinctive language: Catalan. While the region speaks Spanish, you will both hear and see Catalan more than Spanish. 

The people of Catalonia are incredibly proud. They will almost always say they are Catalan, before they say they are Spanish. This stems partly from the fact that Catalonia never wanted to be part of Spain. The region lost its independence in 1714 and has since been granted vastly disparate levels of autonomy. The Spanish Civil War marked some of the worst times for the region. During the war, Catalonia, a secular region, leaned left and strongly resisted Franco and fascism. Spain’s Civil War ended in 1939 and Franco established his military dictatorship, which quickly outlawed the Catalan language and culture. Political killings were common and left many lasting scars on the relations between Catalonia and Madrid. When Franco died in 1975, Spain slowly transitioned to a constitutional democracy, and Catalonia was given more autonomy.

So, why vote for independence now? Well, this is not the first time Catalonia has held a vote. In 2014, there was an informal vote that revealed about 80% of Catalans supported independence. The increasing tension between Catalonia and Madrid stems from the 2008 recession that drastically impacted Spain’s economy. Catalonia is one of the most economically powerful regions of Spain and Catalans feel they pay a tremendous amount of taxes to subsidize other less affluent regions. This is partly true; Catalans paid 8 billion euros more than they received back in taxes in 2014. Although, as a caveat, Catalonia currently owes about 52 billion euros to Madrid.

A majority of Catalans wanted to vote on independence, however it’s unclear whether the majority of the region truly wants total independence from Spain. Nonetheless, the primary issue in Catalonia regards the Catalan leadership’s hasty approach to achieving political independence; especially considering the ramifications of a complete separation from Spain.  Simply put, a vote for secession will affect not only Spain, but the entire European continent. 

Carles Puigdemont, the leader of the Catalan government, was elected by a minority of the population. His coalition includes both conservative and far-left parties, whose only common interest appears to be secession from Spain. However, instead of taking a planned, deliberate approach to the political process, Puigdemont has acted rapidly, arguably to the point of recklessness, without any sort of negotiation with Madrid or even opposition parties within the Catalan parliament. The legislation to hold a referendum was ultimately forced through and the referendum was held on October 1. However, even before the vote, it seemed clear that Puigdemont would attempt to secede from Spain. Such action is in sharp contrast to the type of independence vote that took place in Scotland in 2014. 

With this sort of recklessness, it’s unsurprising that Madrid vehemently opposed Catalan independence. If the Prime Minister of Spain, Mariano Rajoy, had acted responsibly, and simply declared that Spain refused to recognize the vote, the situation might have defused. However, Rajoy called for referendum to be stopped by any means necessary, which ended violently.  The resulting photographs showed a government violently preventing its own citizens from peacefully voting. It is repugnant and sad to witness a democracy use such force, which injured at least 900 of its own citizens. Moreover, Rajoy did not back down as he began to receive criticism for the treatment of the Catalan people.

Puigdemont responded on Monday, October 2, that of the 42% of the total population who participated in the vote, 90% voted for independence. Puigdemont then announced he would declare independence from Spain in the coming days (even though a majority of Catalonia’s citizens have not voted for independence, although some have said they did not vote due to intimidation from both sides or simply wanted to boycott an illegal vote). The King of Spain, made a statement attempting to quell unrest, however many Catalans viewed the statement as an insult, as he never mentioned or made an apology for the violence, nor did he make any call for dialogue between Madrid and Catalonia. Many Catalans took to the street to protest Madrid’s reaction to the vote.

The consequences of the above-specified events remain unclear. After the Spanish Constitutional court suspended a meeting of the Catalan Parliament, Puidgemont still signed an independence declaration on Tuesday, October 10. The declaration, however was suspended. Puidgemont instead called for talks with Madrid before any official separation. If Puigdemont moves in the coming weeks for actual independence, Spain can constitutionally take direct control over Catalonia, which could be as extreme as martial law. 

If independence were to truly happen, it is unknown how an independent Catalonia would interact with the EU. Catalonia currently trades 2/3 of its goods with the EU. Moreover, outside of a flag, parliament, and a police force, Catalonia lacks any sort of state institutions, such as defense or taxation. 

For all the trouble this vote has created and will likely continue to create, it is important to note that this is all happening not because Madrid was acting as dictator over Catalonia, but because Catalonia simply wishes to no longer be part of Spain, much like Scotland and the United Kingdom. There’s nothing wrong with a region wishing to exercise self-determination, however this is an extreme method to accomplish that goal. Hopefully, Catalonia and Madrid can come to their senses and negotiate a real solution before they stubbornly throw their country into madness.

Author: Mary Macleod

"Mutual Assured Destruction:" Antiquated Doctrine or Viable Military Strategy?

"Mutual Assured Destruction:" Antiquated Doctrine or Viable Military Strategy?

Author: Elena Sakelaris

Mutual assured destruction (“MAD”) is a military strategy doctrine in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two (or more) opposing sides would bring about the complete destruction of both the attacker and responder.  During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union relied upon the MAD doctrine.   MAD ultimately plays out as a standstill of sorts. Both sides are equally armed and capable of total destruction of the other—neither side has the incentive to initiate conflict nor disarm.  While there were times the United States and Soviet Union were on the brink of nuclear war, and at some points in the conflict tensions were much more escalated such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, it never reached the point of actual launch.  Rather than utilizing nuclear weapons for their destructive purpose, both sides used them for political leverage during the Cold War.  Nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the character of war; the question is no longer one of victory or loss, but rather survival or total annihilation. However, rational leaders in the United States and Soviet Union remained unwilling to bring about the total destruction of mankind.

It has now been almost 26 years since the official end of the Cold War in December of 1991; however we find ourselves yet again facing the potential risks of nuclear war. A nuclear strike by North Korea or the United States would constitute an act of war.  In response to recent threats against the United States and its allies from North Korea, President Trump stated in his speech at the UN that the United States would respond with force and “totally destroy” North Korea if necessary.  This extreme speech is not new, since the tensions have escalated between the United States, both leaders have respectively issued hyper-aggressive statements.  Since February of this year, North Korea has launched 11 missiles.  What concerns many people is the perceived—whether it is true or not is not the subject of this post—instability of both men. Individuals who tend to be more rash will generally respond faster and more aggressively than others might have. The appropriate response to the threats from North Korea is also not the topic of discussion here. I would argue a response is necessary because Kim Jong Un has become emboldened and the threats against the United States and its allies cannot be ignored.

However the point of interest here is that this is a conflict between two nuclear-armed nations. Unlike the Cold War, the degree of nuclear capabilities is not remotely close. The United States has a nuclear arsenal incomparable to that of North Korea’s arsenal.  This raises the question of whether is this truly a MAD situation?  However, the strength of the arsenal compared to North Korea’s does not diminish the devastation a nuclear attack against the United States would have. The ability to respond ten, twenty, fifty times stronger does not mean there will be no suffering in the United States or among our allies.

Accordingly, the question remains whether MAD is simply an antiquated principle or can still be effective in preventing nuclear war?  In order for MAD’s deterrence to be effective, a nation’s abilities and powers must be believable. Deterrence is only effective if other hostile nations do not doubt one’s willingness to use nuclear weapons if necessary. Nixon’s Foreign Policy Advisor Kissinger presented to Nixon the “madman” theory which essentially argued that the President could not be totally predictable: “If everyone knew that the president would never initiate a nuclear war, then there was no need to take his nuclear posturing seriously.”[1]  President Ronald Reagan famously said before a radio address in 1984, “My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”  While this was a joke, Reagan was well aware of what he was doing and what he was saying.  Some have suggested that this is what President Trump is imitating now and his boisterous speech is a rhetorical tool embracing Kissinger’s theory.

MAD is an effective deterrent if both countries are rational and are not truly seeking self-destruction. While Kim Jong Un may not be seeking self-destruction, it is unclear whether he is fully against it.  This increases the element of fear and instability, North Korea could be utilizing nuclear weapons to bolster its position internationally or it could truly be seeking their use. On balance, it is not clear if President Trump is attempting the “madman” theory or if he is going beyond the use of nuclear weapons as a bargaining tool as well. MAD will remain a relevant military strategy so long as neither side is suicidal.

 

---

[1] Suri, Jeremi, “Nuclear Weapons and the Escalation of Global Conflict since 1945”;

Canadian International Council 63, no. 4 (2008): 13.

The Legality of Mercenaries in International Conflicts

Mercenaries are Here to Stay: Time Now for International Law to Provide a Set of Rules

At the end of August, Blackwater’s founder Erik Prince gave a candid interview about advice he gave to the White House. The White House meeting arose after he posted a May op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal advocating for a private mercenary force to handle the on-going conflict in Afghanistan. Prince advocates that by using private contracted soldiers alongside U.S. Special Forces, the cost of the Afghanistan campaign can be reduced to just 7% percent of the current overhead. In addition to the economic benefits, Prince further argues there is a strategic advantage to using mercenaries as well.  

But one cannot help but mention Blackwater’s Nisour Square massacre, where seventeen Iraqi civilians were killed through the course of a U.S. Embassy escort. How exactly would mercenaries be legally accountable in the same manner as members of a nation’s armed force? This question becomes more important given that the Nisour Square murder convictions were overturned at the start of August on technicalities.

The idea of private contractors and war is not new, and mercenaries played a huge role during medieval times. However, the international laws and protections afforded to traditional soldiers do not extend to mercenaries. International law specifically denies a mercenary the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war (APl I, Art. 47). This means that all mercenaries, regardless of national contract, are unlawful combatants. In other words, mercenaries are murderers as defined by the laws of war and subject to a controlling party’s domestic laws (and technicalities of law as seen above with Blackwater). As such, mercenaries have no legal standing to operate in international law. But we know that they do, so how do you know if a combatant you have is a mercenary?

According to the Geneva Conventions, all captured soldiers must be treated as lawful combatants with POW status until facing a competent tribunal deciding otherwise (GC III Art. 5). Depending on the holding nation, the United Nations Mercenary Convention might apply, defining a mercenary slightly different than AP I, Art. 47. Further complicating the matter is the legal attachment of private military companies and civilian logistical support staff in military units (GC III, Art. 4.1.4). Private individuals legally can support war operations, and be protected by the rules of war. The distinction would need to be determined by a competent tribunal. But all this probably does not matter given the nature of today’s wars.

All over the world mercenaries are currently participating in armed conflict such as in Syria and Yemen. Their lack of accountability seems to be their main selling point. Mercenaries can be whisked in and out (much like Blackwater did) in the event of mistakes and abuses. There is no responsibility on the country employing mercenaries to enforce discipline as they would with the traditional military force. And most countries employ a “self-monitoring” system. Any accountability comes only in the face of publicity, and only under the domestic laws. While the international community has recourse for addressing mistakes and abuses by armed forces, none exist (absent physically capturing the individuals) for mercenaries. And, given the amorphous nature of today’s armed conflict, they have major appeal as an option against insurgent groups like ISIS.

All these factors speak towards the need internationally to readdress the status and expectation of mercenary forces. Today, NGOs (who frequently act and address problems traditionally overseen by nations) are employing private military companies to provide security and support. These relationships have further cemented mercenaries as a permanent feature in the international community. Addressing the laws and expectations surrounding mercenary forces is critical to ensure accountability. Further, as more and more nations use mercenary forces as a screen to prevent the outbreak of international armed conflicts, countries will continue to abandon their responsibilities under the law of war. This undermines the fundamental purpose of humanitarian law. Until mercenaries are addressed more comprehensively under international law, the laws of war can be avoided. Mercenaries are here to stay—the international community must get serious about making sure they play by a set of rules.

Author: Matthew Goepfrich