Dio vi salvi Regina France is playing with Corsican fire

Corsican state officials are not allowed to use their native language while performing their official duties. In particular, members of parliament have been banned from holding debates in the Corsican language.

A court in the town of Bastia issued such a decision, specifying that the notion of "the people of Corsica" is contrary to the French constitution. Back in 1991, the French Constitutional Council banned the wording "the Corsican nation as part of the French nation", stating that there is only "the French nation consisting of all French citizens without distinction of origin, race or religion". Later, in 2003, the country's Constitutional Council refused to ratify the European Convention for the Protection of National and Ethnic Minorities. Thus, the 1991 decision prohibiting Corsicans from being called a "nation" remained in force.

We will not go into the details of French law now, but we will note that there is pure nonsense. The Constitution cannot simply abolish the people; it is like abolishing air or water. There is nothing unfair about referring to all French citizens as French as a state supra-ethnic identity, but this principle should not deny small nationalities the right to have an ethnic identity as well. If the rule of "abolishing" ethnic origin is true to a certain extent in respect of migrants who came to a new land, it is totally discriminatory in the case of the Corsicans, the indigenous population of the island of the same name, whose representatives have never sought to become French.

It is banal: French chauvinism is simply trying to turn all the peoples of the country into imperial French ethnos. How can this be reconciled with the lofty values of liberty, equality, and fraternity, which have been proclaimed as the founding ideals of French politics for almost two and a half centuries (with brief interruptions)? It turns out that these principles are only valid for those who have renounced the elementary right to call themselves by their own name. Freedom for those who have renounced freedom?

It is interesting to compare French policy with the situation of national minorities in Finland. Swedish, the language of the former metropolis (!) and now just a neighbouring country, is spoken in Finland by about 5 per cent of the population. Yet it is recognised as the second official language in Finland. Here is genuine respect for human rights. This is the absence of chauvinistic and imperialistic urges.

It is the opposite in France, which is clearly visible in its foreign policy. France tramples on the rights of its mountain people and at the same time laments the "plight" of other mountain people living thousands of kilometres away from its borders. France denies the basic rights of a nation that is entirely composed of its own citizens but is eager to promote the establishment of a second Armenian state in the remote Caucasus. No justice in this, but a logic to realpolitik, in its most cynical expression.

Following the neo-colonial imperialist agenda, France is doing all it can to gain a foothold on its far frontiers without weakening its core. Although a correction must be made here to ensure that "weakening the core" is understood somewhat archaically by the French. By keeping an entire community under oppressive pressure, Paris runs the risk of destroying its foundations and its core even further.

Following the same logic of neo-colonialism, France cynically cast its vote for Kosovo's independence at the UN, even though the Albanians already have their own state. The question of recognition of Kosovo was dictated by the immediate objective of weakening Serbia, which is seen as a fifth column of Russia in Europe. It does not occur to great European strategists that such measures of France and its partners only fuel antagonism between the Serbs and Greater Europe.

Maybe French politicians have seen some differences in the situations with Corsica and Karabakh, allowing them to apply different criteria to these issues. And perhaps they should be told that the differences are indeed significant, and they are not in favour of France and its sister state Armenia.

The Armenians are an immigrant population of Karabakh, unlike the Corsicans, the autochthonous inhabitants of Corsica. Armenians have their own state - the Republic of Armenia. The Corsicans have no such state (it is important to note here that the Corsicans, unlike the Armenians of Karabakh, do not demand independence - they just want the right to be called a people and to use their own language. And even this is denied by France). Karabakh is in the heart of Azerbaijan, Corsica is an island separated from France, with 170 kilometres in between. Logically, if any community has the right to independence, it is the people of Corsica. Although Azerbaijan upholds the territorial integrity of any country, it has the right to apply the principles of Realpolitik in response to the identical policy, applied to it. All the more so in the case of Corsica, the conditions of justice are at play.

By the way, the UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues Fernand de Varennes has already expressed his dissatisfaction with the court's decision. On his Twitter account, he wrote: "Allowing only French to be used in Corsica is discriminatory and a violation of international law. Thus, as long as English is used in public universities, the Corsican language is banned."

Given the above considerations, why don't we take the initiative to have some organisation representing the interests of the Corsican people as a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, following the example of New Caledonia? Serbia (with observer status in NAM so far) will definitely support this, and then others will catch up. The world community has the right to protect the rights of the Corsican people.

A new wave of decolonization is coming!