SELF-DETERMINATION: TOO OFTEN IT'S A CASE OF BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

When Jefferson Davis and other secessionists invoked it, Abraham Lincoln declared it to be treasonous and fought the Civil WAr to prevent it. When Woodrow Wilson entered World War I, he forced the Allies to accept it as a fundamental premise of his new world order. It's called self-determination. On the surface, it's reasonable, fair, just and statesmanlike, but more often than not, it's unworkable.

Lincoln fought the Civil War to preserve the union. Slavery confined to the South was initially acceptable, but only in the context of an undivided union. Self-determination was branded disunion and deemed the greater evil.

Yet, Wilson made self-determination a central focus of his Fourteen Points for the formulation of a lasting peace. Prime Ministers Lloyd George of Great Britain and Georges Clemenceau of France winked their acceptance. They would wink at anything that Wilson said since they were so desperate for America's military entry into the war. Eight of Wilson's points, all pertaining to specific territorial settlements, advanced the principle of self-determination. Interestingly, another point dealt with the "settlement of all questions affecting Russia and for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy." It went on to assure Russia "assistance also of every kind she may need."

Wilson and his finger-crossed peers assured the world that the diverse peoples of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires could fashion their own destinies. Wilson was intoxicated by the spirit and aroma of self-determination, but really didn't want to cope with its specific application. It is then that noble theory surrenders to crass reality. For example, Wilson wanted a new Poland and must have known that it would contain millions of non-Polish peoples.

And so at Versailles (and later at Sevres) greedy map makers carved up the world as they saw fit, realizing that Wilson's self-determination simply didn't fit. It most certainly didn't fit in the new nation where Serbs, Croate, Slovenes, Macedonians, Albanians and others were thrown into a pot and called Yugoslavians. They were united by name, but divided in heritage and spirit. Today Serbs and Croats are shooting their way into their disparate concepts of self-determination.

Now, the Soviet Union begins traveling the ethnic nationalistic road. Every time Boris Yeltsin beats his chest about Russian greatness, millions of Ukrainians grow worried. How do you apply self-determination in the Soviet Union? Each Republic contains some Russians; some as much as 20 to 30 percent. Can democracy flourish more fully in a divided Soviet Union? Can efficient free markets evolve separately? Will individual republics pose a greater or lesser threat to peace?

Self-determination has finite limits. Bangladesh is the only example of post World War II secession to succeed in its announced aim of independent self-determination. All others Katanga, Biafra, the Kurds, the Basques etc. have failed.

Wilson's noble principle results in stunning contradictions. When carried to extremes, self-determination can ignite disaster.