With the independence of East Timor, one more nation-state has been added to the nearly 200 that previously existed. This may seem like a lot but, in fact, tens of thousands of minority groups jostle for space and recognition within those 200 nations. Some wish to exist in peace, as loyal citizens, while others are restless, and still others long for the destruction of those among whom they live. Some are well treated, others are subject to discrimination or persecution (economic, political, religious, cultural, linguistic), even mass murder. Hundreds of these groups make demands, ranging from that of linguistic freedom (the right to speak their native tongue), to the formation of a state. Given the numbers of such groups, and the many and various claims they make on the world's attention and sympathy, it would be useful to find criteria that might be generally applied.

The more expansive the claim, the more carefully it must be examined, and subject to what, in American constitutional adjudication, is called strict scrutiny. For it is one thing to permit linguistic autonomy, of the kind finally granted to the Berbers of Algeria by the majority Arabs (who previously had made it a crime for Berbers to speak their own language, rather than state-mandated Arabic). It is quite another to demand territory and for outsiders to support such a claim, one ordinarily based on Woodrow Wilson's principle of "self-determination," which requires the recognition that the world consists of different "peoples" and these "peoples," no matter how small, deserve, whenever possible, a state to serve as a vehicle for their unique political and cultural expression.

The claim for "self-determination" is easy to make. It is harder to validate, especially when such a claim denies some other people their own self-determination, by rendering them more easily subject to aggression, or even defenseless. The question to consider is whether the claim of a "people" for self-determination is adequately satisfied by any of the existing nation-states. This requires a judgment as to whether the claimants are sufficiently distinctive from, or actually form part of, a people that already possesses a nation-state (or more than one). The claims of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, for example, are less compelling than they might otherwise be, because an independent Albania already exists. The creation of a free Kurdish state in northern Iraq is currently opposed by Turkey (which worries about its own Kurdish minority). But, in fact, a Kurdish state carved from northern Iraq and western Iran would weaken, not strengthen, the separatist claims of ethnic Kurds living in Turkey. Among the characteristic distinguishing features of a "people," at least one of the following should be expected: a distinctive language, religion, popular culture (from food to fairy tales), historical memory, and sense of identity. An identity can even be strengthened by a shared persecution.

Some "peoples," such as the Jews, possess all of those features, yet the Jews had to wait 2000 years for the restoration, in their ancient homeland, of a Jewish commonwealth. Among the current peoples without a state, it is likely that the Tibetans, with their distinctive language, culture, and religion (a branch of Buddhism), have the strongest claim to self-determination.

The question to consider is whether the claim of a "people" for self-determination is adequately satisfied by any of the existing nation-states.

Of all the "peoples" who have presented their claims on the world, from the Tibetans, to the Basques, to the Chechens, to the Uighurs, to the Kashmiris, to the Bretons, to the Kurds, to the Berbers, to the Sudanese blacks, to a thousand others, it is the "Palestinian people" that has been most successful and singleminded, using all means to bring itself to the world's notice, especially through terrorism. Hardly a single international forum is now held without attention being focused on the "plight" of the "Palestinian people," whatever the putative topic (Treatment of Women, Abuse of the Child, the Fate of the Family, Water Resources, World Health). The U.N. and its ancillary organizations devote more than one-third of their time to the issue of "Palestine" and the "Palestinian people." As a result of this fixation, other issues and causes are often ignored, and the cost has been great.

Yet the concept of a "Palestinian people" is suspect. First, there is the matter of its recent origin. Prior to 1948, the word "Palestinian" was always applied to the Jewish inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine (which was entrusted to the Mandatory Authority, Great Britain, solely for the "establishment of the Jewish National Home"). The Arabs did not, at that point, appropriate the word for themselves. Indeed, in the records of the United Nations, whether for 1948, or 1967, or for any years between, when tens of thousands of pages of material were de-

June 2002               - 3 -               Outpost