Originally Posted by fireangel:
All states are created artificially. There is none such thing like political borders falling from the sky.
No shit, Sherlock. The difference is, however, that the Westphalian state system that is currently the order of things is, in a way, "native" to Europe because it evolved through wars, political interactions and the way nations were formed on the European continent. European colonisers then took this particular notion of statehood with them and transposed them to Africa, where these particular structures have no historical or cultural basis. Perhaps I should have clarified and said "artificially
imposed." Forgive me.
There have always been peaceful and not so peaceful creations of states throughout history, and I guess most of them were rather not peaceful. Where do you draw the line and say: from here on, all new separations and declarations of indepence are unlawful? Or do you want to go through history and check which definitions of borders have been made in agreement and without a war? Then probably more than half of today´s states are based on borders forced upon them for one reason or another.
You said it yourself: where
do we draw the line? The issue isn't historical accuracy of borders; if it was, I'd be calling for the return of Finland and Norway (and all their oil) to Sweden. Especially Norway, how dare they secede with all their oil? Hell, why stop at that: I want our empire back - Prussia, the Baltic countries, the lot!
About the precedent: sit down and think about secessionist movements all over the world. How many can you think of?
Here's a small list to aid you. Granted, not all of those have serious claims to independence (or even autonomy), but you get the picture.
Why would this be a bad thing, then? Well, see Mag's post for the first reason. Furthermore, you may not agree with the reasons why most states wish to retain their territory as much as possible, but alas, I'm afraid that's a reality we all have to live with. Thus, any attempt at secession of a province will provoke a response, usually not a benign one. Read in the news about the Serbian reaction lately?
Secondly, as I know I mentioned in a previous post: what about viability? Yes, of course it's all lovely and wonderful for you and your 45 friends to be able to declare the meadow you reside on an independent state, but what will you do once you are independent? Unless you strike oil somewhere underneath that meadow, you won't fare particularly well. What will your economy be based on? International aid is not a viable alternative. There needs to be a capacity for self-sustenance, and quite frankly, I'm not seeing Kosovo as a particularly strong candidate for being able to develop a Singapore-style economy any time soon. Even when Montenegro gained independence there were doubts about how well it would actually fare.
But it's not really about what I think; I didn't design the current international system. However, to answer your question of what I think is a good reason to form a state, I do believe that any new state must be able to function independently on the world stage, it must be able to provide for its citizens. My outlook is that the world is the way it is, and we may dream of a utopia where we can all live in tiny little homogenous states together with our genetic brethren and inbreed until we've all got webbed feet, but this is not viable because of how the world functions today. Have I said viable enough yet?
And, to return again to that first question: fairness. Where do we draw the line? I mentioned the Roma before, where would we put them? God knows, no country in Eastern Europe (or elsewhere) wants them. All Roma also do not have the same heritage, which means we'd have to arrange several states for them. Where? On whose territory? Perhaps we could convince some country to cede a piece of economically unimportant desert to them, but I wouldn't count on it.
I'm not saying that no new states should be allowed to form, ever. I'd support Taiwanese independence (Taiwan can take care of itself), but only if China would grant it. This is the other bit of precedent that concerns me. Montenegro was not a problem and was easily recognised because Serbia actually agreed to independence (from what I understand it had to), but wherever there's a radically differing opinion about whether independence should be granted or not, there will be conflict. Usually, conflict involves violence. If Kosovo is recognised despite Serbia's reluctance, there's legally no reason why other groups should also not be allowed to secede, regardless of what the state they belong to says.
