Let It Go Already!: Secession, Violence, and Geopolitics

[pax]

This was alluded to in the Putin thread and I thought, as some other post-ers did, that it would be a good thing if this topic had its own thread.

For example...what the hell does China want with Taiwan? Wouldn't it be less trouble if we just let the Kurds have their own damn country? And wouldn't Texas prefer to just become a sovereign entity at this point--and would anyone really mind? (j/k)

Thoughts welcome.

 

[DrTeeth]

It's pretty much all about money, religion and/or stature. I say, if a large majority of an area wants to be independent, let them. Of course this is very general, there might be exceptions to this.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Independence for some states is simply not a viable solution, for a state entity to exist you must have a population that can be sustained. For example a Palestinian state would be very difficult to maintain as a soverign entity, it would be totally dependent of foreign assistance and would no doubt be rife with lawlessness and corruption.

As for the situation of Taiwan, I think that it has shown over the last 60 years that it can exist a an independent entity, however that will not prevent the mainland making an attempt at unification. This is one of the most scary situations on the planet because it has the interests of two nuclear superpowers pitted against eachother.

In the end the entire concept of a nation-state is messed up. I would rather see a unified humanity than one divided by resouces and religion.

 

[Klaus]

Well israel, too is completely dependent of foreign assistance.
Noone ever thought that, just because of this, it's a bad idea to give them their country

 

[STING2]

This was alluded to in the Putin thread and I thought, as some other post-ers did, that it would be a good thing if this topic had its own thread.

For example...what the hell does China want with Taiwan? Wouldn't it be less trouble if we just let the Kurds have their own damn country? And wouldn't Texas prefer to just become a sovereign entity at this point--and would anyone really mind? (j/k)

Thoughts welcome.

Taiwan historically was apart of China. Taiwan is a democracy though and China is not. Taiwan has been independent of China for nearly 60 years now, and I don't think you can force a people with their own democratic government to suddenly submit to a communist dictatorship. For many years after the initial split, many in Taiwan wanted the United States to help them take back China for them. Most people who live in Taiwan today have no memory of living in or under China. For many, having Taiwan as their country is all they have ever known. The only way that Taiwan and China will ever be re-united is if China becomes a multi-party democracy. Even if that happens, Taiwan may decide to remain independent.

The Kurds are but one of many nationalities that are tucked within states or split between states. Giving each of these nationalities their own state is not the answer and would probably make the situation even worse. The answer is to develop strong responsive democracy's in these countries where Kurds and other ethnic groups have the same opportunities for prosperity and to shape the future of the country as everyone else.

Texas prefered once in our history in becoming independent, but that was over 140 years ago. A lot has changed since then. The whole premise of the question suggest that people in Texas are not really American in some sense and our out of step with the rest of the country. One could make similar statements about California and Massachusetts. The fact is all are Americans and just because certain parts of the country tend to lean Republican or Democratic does not mean they are not American and one should discuss parting ways with them.

In general, I do not support independence for nations or ethnic groups that live in area's where they have democracy or are in a transition period towards democracy. I think independence is only an option when one does not live in a democracy or is unable to have the rights that others have in a democracy.

 

[verte76]

I think you can develop problems in a democratic state if you don't give certain people equal rights. Turkey is a democratic state, but a pretty flawed one. Kurds don't have any rights as Kurds; they only do as "Turkish citizens". Until recently it was even illegal to use the Kurdish language in public. People were busted for making speeches in Kurdish. Turkey would have its ethnic problems no matter what, but would they be as bad as they are if they'd accomodated their Kurdish citizens in a more tolerant, and not so aggressive fashion? Democracy is great, but it's no panacea.

 

[STING2]

I think you can develop problems in a democratic state if you don't give certain people equal rights. Turkey is a democratic state, but a pretty flawed one. Kurds don't have any rights as Kurds; they only do as "Turkish citizens". Until recently it was even illegal to use the Kurdish language in public. People were busted for making speeches in Kurdish. Turkey would have its ethnic problems no matter what, but would they be as bad as they are if they'd accomodated their Kurdish citizens in a more tolerant, and not so aggressive fashion? Democracy is great, but it's no panacea.

Turkey should be more accomodating of the Kurdish population, but at the same time, I disagree with Kurdish terrorism over these issues and I also disagree that this is grounds for an independent Kurdish State.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Democracy alone is rife with danger, liberty is the remedy to this - hence we get the Liberal Democracy, freedom, strong human rights and equality for all citizens.

 

[U2Kitten]

In general it would look that way, if someone is not happy being a part of your country, why not just let them go? I even feel that way about the US Confederacy. I don't know what the problem is with the Kurds having a country, but Turkey and Iraq have brutally supressed them and even committed genocide. There are various reasons why people do or do not let a country go. But the main thing I have to say about the Chechnya thing (and the Israel/Palestine situation too) is that you cannot go around committing terrorist acts to get your way. No one is going to reward terrorism so the demands will never be met. It's only hurting their cause, but because some people think that way you can't convince them. If their demands were met, it would only show others that terrorism works and is a way to get what you want, and the world can't have that.

 

[Klaus]

U2Kitten
If you would give the kurds a own country they would be verry wealthy because there is lots of oil there.
Obviousely therere is an interest by the Iraqi government to keep these oilfields and there is an interest by Turkey that the people don't become wealthy and influencial after Turkey commited genocide on them

 

[pax]

U2Kitten, you and I don't always agree, but I have to say I think we're of the same mind on your last post. I think much of the violence of separatists could be avoided if such issues were decided democratically rather than bureaucratic fiat. For example, how often do you hear of Quebecois separatists committing terrorist acts? Hardly ever (if ever at all--can one of our Canadians fill me in on this one?), possibly because the Quebecois had a referendum on independence.

Additionally, Czechoslovakia managed to separate peacefully. It seems possible to work out an equitable solution to these problems without resorting to terror tactics.

 

[verte76]

It's actually the Armenians that the genocide attack in Turkey was against in 1915. The Kurds haven't fared well, being forced to speak Turkish in their schools and such after the Republic was declared and the Lausanne Treaty signed. Sting, I don't agree with the terrorist stuff the PKK has been up to, they've been responsible for many deaths and that's not good.