The Troubling History Of The United Nations And Peoples Attempting Self Determination

The United Nations, established in 1945 with the aim of fostering peace and cooperation, has long prided itself on promoting self-determination. Its founding principles declared support for the right of peoples to choose their own destiny. However, in practice, the UN has often ignored or sidelined the independence movements of small, minority groups across the globe. This has resulted in a troubling trend where such groups—despite being vocal about their desire for self-rule—are left in limbo by the very organization that claims to champion human rights and sovereignty.

In large part, this disregard stems from the UN’s prioritization of geopolitical stability over the aspirations of minority populations. When the United Nations has addressed independence movements, it has frequently focused on post-colonial transitions, primarily involving large states or regions with strategic importance. Consider, for example, the decolonization wave after World War II, when the UN played a role in helping former colonies like India, Algeria, and Ghana secure independence. However, smaller ethnic or cultural groups within these newly established states were often overlooked, as the UN opted to recognize the sovereignty of the larger national entity rather than supporting secessionist claims.

One prime example is the Kurdish population, spread across multiple countries, including Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Despite the Kurds numbering around 30 million people—making them one of the largest stateless ethnic groups—their push for independence has never gained the formal backing of the UN. Even during times of crisis, such as the aftermath of the Gulf War or the Syrian Civil War, when Kurdish forces played pivotal roles in stabilizing regions, the international community, including the UN, remained silent on the issue of Kurdish statehood. The desire to maintain the territorial integrity of existing states took precedence over the Kurdish people’s desire for self-determination.

In other cases, the UN has been criticized for not acting when minority groups face repression or violence due to their independence aspirations. The situation in Tibet illustrates this failure. Since China annexed Tibet in 1950, the Tibetan people have consistently called for autonomy or independence, with their spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, being a prominent voice on the global stage. Yet the UN has rarely intervened in the conflict between China and Tibet, unwilling to challenge China’s territorial claims or influence in the international arena. Despite China’s well-documented human rights abuses in the region, including the suppression of Tibetan culture and religious freedoms, the UN has maintained a neutral or passive stance, choosing to engage China diplomatically rather than support Tibetan aspirations.

Similarly, the case of West Papua provides another stark example of the UN’s inaction. When Indonesia assumed control over West Papua in 1969 through the controversial “Act of Free Choice,” the UN sanctioned the process despite significant opposition from West Papuans, who had no meaningful input. Ever since, West Papuans have sought independence, often at great personal risk. Thousands have died or been imprisoned in their quest for freedom, yet the UN has continued to support Indonesia’s sovereignty over the region. This situation has highlighted how the UN’s commitment to state sovereignty often comes at the cost of ignoring the democratic and human rights of smaller, marginalized groups.

At the heart of the issue lies the UN’s structural limitations. The Security Council, dominated by the five permanent members—China, Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France—wields disproportionate power over the organization’s decisions. These major powers have little interest in supporting minority independence movements, especially when doing so might destabilize regions where they have strategic interests. Moreover, many of these countries have internal minority groups with separatist tendencies. China’s concerns with Tibet and Xinjiang, Russia’s issues with Chechnya, and the United States’ historical concerns with Hawaii and Puerto Rico all serve as obstacles to the UN endorsing secessionist movements, even when they have legitimate grievances.

The lack of attention from the UN has not gone unnoticed by minority groups around the world. Many have voiced frustration, noting the inconsistency in the UN’s approach to independence movements. When it comes to larger geopolitical struggles—such as the independence of Kosovo or South Sudan—the UN has been more willing to act. In Kosovo’s case, the UN played a crucial role in facilitating its separation from Serbia following the breakup of Yugoslavia. South Sudan’s independence, after years of civil war with Sudan, was also recognized with UN support. Yet these examples are the exceptions, not the rule, and they tend to involve situations where the major global powers stood to benefit from the outcomes, either by reducing regional instability or curbing the influence of rival states.

Ultimately, the UN’s silence on many minority independence movements reflects a broader problem within the international system. As long as the organization remains beholden to the interests of the major powers and to the principle of state sovereignty above all else, small groups seeking autonomy will continue to be marginalized. Their voices will remain unheard on the world stage, unless the international community begins to recognize that stability cannot come at the cost of justice and freedom for all peoples, regardless of their size or strategic importance.

This pattern of neglect should not continue. If the UN is truly committed to upholding human rights and supporting the principle of self-determination, it must address the aspirations of these smaller groups. Anything less is a failure to live up to the ideals that it was founded upon.

Sincerely

Marc Ruiz Evans

Founder of Calexit 2014-2024

Share This Post:

Share This Post:

Latest Articles

Uncategorized

Timeline for Achieving Calexit

Uncategorized

What is “signature gathering” and What are the Rules?

WHAT IS IT: RULES

Updates & Events

WHERE YOU CAN SIGNATURE GATHER (collect signatures in public for Calexit petition)

-“Because libraries are government buildings, federal and state law allow individuals to use outdoor spaces on Library property to gather ...

Analysis and Perspectives

TRAINING VIDEOS (Calexit petition)

How to collect signatures (training) 1 LINK How to collect signatures (training) 2 LINK BEST TRAINING VIDEO – 20 minute ...

More Like This

Uncategorized

Timeline for Achieving Calexit

Uncategorized

What is “signature gathering” and What are the Rules?

WHAT IS IT: RULES

Updates & Events

WHERE YOU CAN SIGNATURE GATHER (collect signatures in public for Calexit petition)

-“Because libraries are government buildings, federal and state law allow individuals to use outdoor spaces on Library property to gather ...