Do you think forceful population transfers are acceptable as a part of a peace agreement?

[Caligula's_Horse]

The concept is simple enough. Take an ethnically or religiously mixed population at a disputed area somewhere around the world; lets call them group A and group B to keep things generic. Group A and Group B both claim ownership upon the same piece of land and have been fighting over it for years, but through some combination of being sick and tired of war and outside coercion to negotiate, group A and group B decide to sit down and sign a peace treaty. Under the deal, a border is agreed upon by both parties, and where there was once a mixed population, at the end of the process, one side is now homogeneously composed of group A, and the other side of group B.
Homes are wrecked, land and property is permanently lost, the displaced will almost certainly have trouble readjusting after being uprooted, and there are unavoidable casualties as some of the transferred populace resists their relocation. On the other hand, there is now a clear, mutually respected border, and the number of minorities left on either side of the border is now miniscule; so effectively, the region is no longer disputed, and the chance of a future war igniting over it has dramatically decreased.

Now, historically speaking, population transfers used to be seen as a practical method of conflict resolution. Take for example the Greece-Turkey border which was stabilized through the practice a century ago, and hasn't had a war fought over it since. In modern times however, the practice has been declared a human rights violation due to the amount of immediate suffering it causes; while some still advocate for it, its by and large no longer sought after as part of a deal.

So what do you think, would you be willing to accept a forced population transfer as part of a peace deal? Or is the trauma of forcibly removing people from their home too great, despite the potential refusal to do so will result in the re-igniting of the conflict later?

[Hobbes]

that. No state should have that much power over society.

[Caelifer_1991]

If it allows for prolonged peace and so brings a net decrease in suffering in the long term, then so be it.

[Stavroforos]

Just to be clear, such population exchanges are ethnic cleansing, through and through. What happened between Greece and Turkey was ethnic cleansing which was agreed to by Greece, Turkey, France, and Great Britain.

Since the modern state is a nation state, the only way it can be stable is if the absolute majority of its population all identify as the same nation, however that nation is defined. If it wants to be stable, then it must force those who don't identify as part of that nation to assimilate or leave. So yes, I do think there is a place for ethnic cleansing, or population transfers, which is just ethnic cleansing but with the approval of the Great Powers.

[Hobbes]

Which is why nation states are a rather bad idea that has been the cause for the suffering of millions.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Just to be clear, such population exchanges are ethnic cleansing, through and through. What happened between Greece and Turkey was ethnic cleansing which was agreed to by Greece, Turkey, France, and Great Britain.

Since the modern state is a nation state, the only way it can be stable is if the absolute majority of its population all identify as the same nation, however that nation is defined. If it wants to be stable, then it must force those who don't identify as part of that nation to assimilate or leave. So yes, I do think there is a place for ethnic cleansing, or population transfers, which is just ethnic cleansing but with the approval of the Great Powers.

Careful with that term ethnic cleansing. I'm not sure what the entry in the dictionary says, but the connotations it raises aren't of a transfer, but of a massacre on a national scale.

Which is why nation states are a rather bad idea that has been the cause for the suffering of millions.

Nations states are the only thing keeping away warlords from taking power through force of arms. In fact nation states originated precisely from such warlords, though their modern incarnation is quite a bit more pleasant then the warlords and militias that'll pop up if the nations weren't there to nip them in the bud.
Just look at places like Somalia or Lybia, if you want to see what a situation without nations looks like. But we've strayed off topic...

[Stavroforos]

Which is why nation states are a rather bad idea that has been the cause for the suffering of millions.

Indeed. The only nation I accept as valid is one that is based on citizenship as its only defining factor.

Careful with that term ethnic cleansing. I'm not sure what the entry in the dictionary says, but the connotations it raises aren't of a transfer, but of a massacre on a national scale.

Ethnic cleansing doesn't have to involve killing, and usually when it does it's a question of where does ethnic cleansing start and genocide begin. While an organized and peaceful population transfer may not need to resort to violence to achieve its ends, its purpose and result is essentially the same.

[Aru]

It is the purest form of ethnic cleansing. It's purpose is to clean an area of certain ethnicity. Whether they like it or not. It's just done in legalized manner, rather than scaring away the population to leave through threats or violence.

I can't answer such question with simple yes or no. I can write a long wall of text considering my low opinions on concept of ethnicity, how much it is important for others and how far should one go on hurting minority for sake of majority's confort and safety, but I still won't be closer to yes or no.

[classical_hero]

This sort of thing happened straight after WW2. It has a mixed bag, but some results are encouraging. Quite frankly it is happening in the Middle East right now and also in the past. Any Jew who wanted to live in the ME had only once choice if they wanted some sense of security and that was to live in Israel because living under Muslim rule was basically a death sentence.

[Treize]

I support the forcefull relocation of Jews from Palestine to Poland, hmmkay?


The OP comes with ludicrous suggestions.

[Hobbes]

Indeed. The only nation I accept as valid is one that is based on citizenship as its only defining factor.

Shame that the concept didn't cross the pond, in my opinion.

[Stavroforos]

Shame that the concept didn't cross the pond, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, much of the wisdom across the pond is lost on Europeans. "What do you mean separation of Church and State?!"

[SLN445]

There is a time and place for Population transfer, though in today's world it would require the support of the vast majority of those involved in said move.

[Enros]

Only deranged fascists could be happy with the government having that much power over anyone, not just citizens. I even think former colonists should be allowed to stay unless they actively help their former homeland in a new bid for colonialism.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Population transfers are strictly illegal under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Right to Return Law.

[sumskilz]

Population transfers are strictly illegal under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Right to Return Law.

I don't think that's actually true, unless the Wikipedia article is incorrect.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits population transfers by belligerent powers, but not as a peace agreement.

Anyway, I think the OP's question is more about the ethical, rather than legal, angle.

[Akrotatos]

Populatin transfers leave traumas to the collective psyche of the moved population...Nearly 100 years after the population exchange between Greece and Turkey, the descendants of Anatolian Greeks still lament the tragic loss.
However one can say that this protected both Turks and Greeks from further massacres during WW2 and military juntas that came in power in both countries in later years.

It's a grey area.

[Phier]

I think under some circumstances it may be the only way to see a lasting peace and as such are ethical even if not desirable.

[hellheaven1987]

I think under some circumstances it may be the only way to see a lasting peace and as such are ethical even if not desirable.

Except those people probably would just come back anyway in today's condition, unless you also ban them to enter your state for life.

[GussieFinkNottle]

Which is why nation states are a rather bad idea that has been the cause for the suffering of millions.

Ironic that you should think so when your namesake philosopher was all about peace through the mighty centralised 'leviathan' nation state. And congratulations by the way on your imminent 10,000th post!