Paris, however, will have to choose between aggression and concessions to the island. It is another matter how generous it will be and whether the Corsicans will be satisfied with the level of their freedom from the “metropole”.
In the mass consciousness of the French and not only them, Corsicans are aggressive ungrateful “separatists”, “savages” and creatures far removed from the French mentality in general. The only truth here is that Corsicans do have a different mindset than the French, if it means “blue blood”, i.e., the titular nation.
Even today, in the unbridled 21st century, the Corsican identity differs culturally, morally and psychologically, and even outwardly from the French proper, and from the majority of the population of the Fifth Republic in general, in its predominantly patriarchal way of life, its deep religiousness, and its adherence to tradition. The Corsicans, rather, are more similar to the Italians, more precisely, to the inhabitants of Sicily with their “code of honor”, with their practice of vendetta, even less than a century ago.
The preservation of the Corsican language remains a particular concern of the Corsicans, which is not surprising: the fourth largest and most beautiful island in the Mediterranean was and is, according to the locals, under the “foreign boot”. Now the role of such is played by France, which seized Corsica in the 18th century: before that, the island belonged to the Republic of Genoa.
Without going into the historical vicissitudes of the depth of centuries, let us note that for a while Corsica was a sovereign state, with its own Constitution and even a national university. But that period faded into oblivion, and reign of terror against Corsicans remained a serious problem, even when Napoleon Bonaparte, a native of the island, came to power in France.
The Corsican struggle for independence has gone through various stages, but it has not stopped. There were acute tensions in the 1960s, when French citizens from former African colonies began to move to Corsica, as the metropole provided them with the best land and did not care about the opinion of the Corsicans about Paris’s migration and repatriation policy for the island. Ajaccio, understandably, was accused of separatism: it demanded political sovereignty, independence from France or at least the extension of Corsica’s autonomous rights; free “circulation” of the Corsican language and its teaching in schools.
The Corsicans also demanded the withdrawal of the French army from the island and the removal of the NATO military base there. The unrest then seemed to have reached its peak. But, as we see now, it is only just beginning: Corsicans have taken a strong dislike to Macron’s France, and riots of varying degrees of severity continue on the island. Using the carrot and stick method, Emmanuel Macron has apparently finally realized that it is not working, as well as in some of the de jure former French colonies and dependent territories, and de facto territories under the protectorate of Paris. Some of them (we will come back to this) rebelled, and recently literally shoved the French out the door.
But the Corsican issue was not resolved so “easily”: the most Macron did or is “prepared to do” is to enshrine in the French Constitution the autonomous rights of Corsica. But according to preliminary information, the matter will not go further than “reflecting historical, linguistic and cultural peculiarities” in the Constitution.
Will this satisfy the Corsicans? The answer lies on the surface: it will not. Will France honor its promise to enshrine Corsica’s autonomous status in the Constitution (the island now has the silent status of “Territorial Collectivity of Corsica”)? Also unlikely, since other “French regions”, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guiana, Réunion, Mayotte and others, will probably make the same request. That is, a broad autonomy or independence of Corsica will open a “Pandora’s box”. And it will only escalate from there.
If the majority of Corsicans agreed to autonomy, they would negotiate with Paris and propose different options for the appropriate status. Paris would not be passive either and would try to cut its losses, since it would absolutely not consider the issue of Corsican independence: institutional changes can only take place within France. In the context of overseas territories, Macron talks about “restructuring of the entire territorial architecture of France”, but underneath this loud bluster, it is essentially a question of expanding the powers of local authorities. That is all.
One extremely important circumstance should be mentioned here: the position of the European Union on the issue of the “territorial integrity of France”, i.e., the regions remote from it. And then it is automatically the question of independence not only of “French territories”, but also of all overseas territories, for example, those belonging to Denmark and the Netherlands, which are considered to be “special territories of the European Union”—there are 32 of them. If they “shift”, even if not simultaneously, Europe will suffer enormous reputational, military, financial and economic damage, incomparable to the damage caused to France by its banishment from African states, in particular, from Niger and Gabon, on which Paris was heavily dependent for the supply of raw materials, or rather, their plundering on the “black continent”.
In other words, France’s colonial policy, which began in 1661, during the reign of Louis XIV, has not ceased during Macron’s presidency, although it has taken a slightly different shape. But the conviction that having colonies is a prerequisite for the progressive development of France has remained unchanged. And although it has lost and continues to lose its overseas possessions, it has not abandoned its policy of active expansion. If in the 19th century France conquered Algeria, Cambodia, Senegal, and others, and in the 20th century it also gained something for a short period of time (Syria, Lebanon), then in the 21st century it seems to have set its sights on Armenia.
Meanwhile, the French colonial empire is still enormous today: its area is 559,655 km² (13 (!) territories), and it must be retained, according to French colonial thinking and priorities, despite major failures in foreign and domestic policy. This was the aim of the establishment of the International Organization of La Francophonie, which unites states in which at least part of the population uses the French language, recognizing historical and cultural ties with France and encouraging the development of French culture and language. Now the organization includes 88 states, and Macron is trying to add the Central Asian republics (at least Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) to it. Paris is using all possible means of lobbying to expand this area.
But what, essentially, is Paris doing with its de facto colonies? It restricts the access of foreign goods to their markets; compels colonies to export their goods to the metropole; forbids the production of goods from local raw materials needed for the French economy; imposes its own ideology and “values”. That is, Paris does not give a damn about the benefits of those countries and territories, even if they are de jure independent. And so on and so forth, including the appropriation of foreign exchange earnings. Hence, anti-French coups, sometimes successful on the “black continent”, the formation of a multipolar world, and the activity of the Global South.
Does Corsica, deprived of even its mother tongue by France, want to live under such appalling conditions? Who are they, the Corsicans? Are they “separatists and bandits”, or fighters against colonization for the creation of their own state, with legitimate reasons to do so? Should we expect the armed resistance to the metropole promised to Macron by the Corsican National Liberation Front, which demands the return of independence to the island? On the other hand, there is also a category of Corsicans who prefer to be part of France under conditions of broad autonomy. But is it possible with the French “bulimia” and Paris’s failures in foreign policy, including its banishment from a number of states of the “black continent”?
Corsica has become a kind of time bomb for France, which planted it itself. But its “clockwork” has probably run forward: first, amid the Ukrainian events, and second, with the horrifying example of Palestine, whose fate in the “French manner” the Corsicans do not want to share, and this is being actively discussed on the island. The situation of farmers in France can also become a detonator of destructive processes, directly affecting the Corsicans: remember the farmers’ recent mass protests, when hundreds of tractors blocked the roads leading to Paris. But even then, the authorities did not yield to the French agrarians.
And even more so, they will not yield to Corsica. It will lose an armed confrontation with the metropole, and the EU will undoubtedly support Paris, despite its “values”, which “work” in an extremely selective way, following the well-established scheme of double and triple standards. That is, the EU persistently ignores even the fact that the Corsicans, who are not directly related to the French, are denied recognition of their identity, the right to use their native language in any sphere except the domestic one, and their historical self-name is outlawed.
In short, Europe is cracking at the seams: Scotland under the “friendly tutelage” of London; Ireland, which experienced the genocide of its metropole; Catalonia; the provinces of Lombardy and Veneto with the capital in Venice (Italy). Not all is well in Germany (Saxony and Bavaria have remembered their former statehood, and in general they are gravitating more towards Austria); Belgium and Flanders, and so on. And then Canadian Quebec may step up (again).
It is another matter whether they have a chance of peaceful (or non-peaceful) separation from the metropole. Corsica certainly does not: Paris will not let it go. And Catalans are not Africans. But they are hardly vulgar separatists either: not only they are fed up with France, and the issue is not “Corsican nationalism” at all, but the excessive arrogance and greed of the Fifth Republic, which abuses all possible rights of its citizens, especially those who do not “look like” them.
This has already become a vicious rule of the modern “civilized community” with its double and triple standards. When it is beneficial, the principle of the right of nations to self-determination dominates, as exemplified by Kosovo. And when the principle of inviolability of borders is used—no way (Corsica or Catalonia).
But a new world order is just around the corner. And the age of colonization is unlikely to easily and massively usher in the age of neocolonization or post-neocolonization. The “black continent” has proved it.
Irina Jorbenadze
Translated from Minval.az
