What's wrong with self-determination

[romulusnr]

If South Ossetia wants to be its own country, let it. Same for Abkhazia, Transnistria, Palestine, East Timor, or the British colonies in North America.

Why is self-determination not accepted as a universal right?

[Xipe Totec]

1. That's a good question

Unfortunatley, we (the US) are not in a position to give anybody advice on self determination.

The US Civil War (to keep the South in the Union)
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
Intervention in Venezuela (creation of Panama)
Intervention in Cuba (bay of pigs)
Intervention in Vietnam (after Ho Chi Min is democratically elected)
Intervention in Chile (Deposed Salvador Allende)
Intervention in Haiti
Intervention in Panama
Intervention in Nicaragua
Intervention in Honduras....

[romulusnr]

7. its not just the us though

It seems like most western nations have come out against south ossetia recognition. Why is it so important for the nation state to have fixed borders? Nations and states are two different animals. "Territorial integrity" is bullshit, an excuse for governments ill-suited to rule a people to oppress minorities. Lessee, Tibet comes to mind. Is Tibet better served by being a vassal of China instead of being able to handle and direct its own affairs?

[gaspee]

2. I would love

for my region of the US to form it's own country. That would be so awesome.

Lessee -- New England = CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, ME --- sounds good to me! We could hook up with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and have a GREAT country.

[romulusnr]

3. as a native bahstonian

i'm with you there.

[Donnachaidh]

4. I seriously doubt NS and NB would go along with that.

It was tried in the late 1700's. Didn't take then - won't take now.

[gaspee]

6. Not by force, silly,

By invitation!

And hey, we don't have a problem with fundies trying to interject their religion into everyone else's lives - well, that's not exactly true - they try it and get smacked down for it.

Not too many conservatives around here, either. Well, none that get anywhere with their extremist views, anyway.

I moved back here, after living in a few different parts of the country, for a reason.

[romulusnr]

8. what about

Not too many conservatives around here, either. Well, none that get anywhere with their extremist views, anyway.

Howie Carr? Is he still around?

[dysfunctional press]

5. our region would make a fine country as well-

minnesota, wisconsin, illinois, indiana, michigan, ohio, pennsylvania, new york- and we get ontario.

with all of the great lakes within our new borders we'd have one of the most fresh-water rich nations on earth.

[romulusnr]

15. really? you want to keep indiana?

I guess every nation needs a VRWC stronghold. NE has NH, Canada has Alberta, so it fits.

[dysfunctional press]

19. it's mostly about encompassing the great lakes.

i guess that as long as we're re-drawing the maps, we could lose the southern half to three-quarters of indiana AND illinos...big chunks of ohio and pennsylvania, and even parts of the state that elected...norm coleman?.

[Radical Activist]

9. Most of the rest of America would be OK with that too.

:)

[romulusnr]

12. i'd move back for that. [nt]

[Marrah_G]

11. It will happen someday

All empires eventually break up when they become to large.

The sooner the better in my opinion.

[Marrah_G]

10. I am all for Vermont seceding from the union right after I retire there !

[romulusnr]

13. it was independent once!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Mountain_Republic

[romulusnr]

14. Nine Nations of North America

this is a well-known book on the border-irrespective cultural regions in North America. Written in '81 it's still largely true if not more so.

Note that NS/NB are in "New England" which reflects what another poster has said in this thread...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America

[dysfunctional press]

20. i like that Foundry includes maryland...i love crabcakes.

but we'd definitely have to invade breadbasket to gain complete control over the great lakes. and probably a pre-emptive assault on north dakota to keep the from retaliating with nukes.

and- what's up with the whole "empty quarter" thing? kind of a bleak name- is that the best they could do? what about the children? how fucked up are they going to be, growing up in a place called 'empty quarter'...?

[romulusnr]

22. empty quarter

Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Nevada... sounds pretty bleak in my book.

[dysfunctional press]

26. vegas! baby...and the entire state of colorado?

empty quarter definitely has some of the best skiing areas- they'd probably do very well in the winter olympics...

BUT- what about the mormons? :shrug:
maybe they could take utah and parts of the surrounding states and call it mormonia... besides, without the u.s.of a. there'd be no national park system, so who needs utah anyway?

[romulusnr]

28. yeah, they tried that too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Deseret

[dysfunctional press]

30. well there's something i never knew about u.s. history...

how much of this is touched upon in u.s. history courses(outside of deseret itself, that is) in the public schools?

i went to a lutheran high school in the chicago area, and it was NEVER discussed, and i don't recall it at all from the history textbook either. :shrug:

[rug]

16. Because Penn State has 14,000 more students than South Ossetia has residents.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Do you know the history of the region? If you did, you'd quickly realize

that independence means in essence a protectorate of Russia...

I know, most people are missing this FULLY

[romulusnr]

21. you're not helping

do tell

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

18. Because it doesn't exist without protection against oppression, at least.

I doubt "self-determination" exists, at all.

:shrug:

[romulusnr]

23. being part of another country

doesn't protect you from oppression. In fact I dare say independence would probably be better in most cases.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

25. if our own nation doesn't protect us from oppression,...what would you have us do,...

,...to protect another nation from oppression?

:shrug:

Are you seeking to distinguish between military and economic oppression? I have no idea where you seek to go with this trip. All I know, for a FACT is: there is little to no difference between economic and military oppression except the guns are flashed a bit differently.

I mean,...seriously!!!!

:shrug:

[joe_sixpack]

24. I bet Lincoln struggled with that

As smart as he was, and as well as he knew the principles of the constitution, he had to realize that the South probably was justified in seceding from the Union, regardless of how ignoble their cause was. It was always my belief that he thought the greater goal of keeping this great experiment called America alive, was far more important than self determination.

[TexasObserver]

27. Why don't you ask Abraham Lincoln?

[pampango]

29. It is not accepted because existing governments are afraid of it.

Established governments and the international organizations they create run the world. Almost all governments oppose self-determination because it threatens a loss of territory and power, e.g. Georgia in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia in Chechnya, the US in the Confederacy, France in Algeria after WWII, Nigeria in the Ebo territory, and innumerable other examples.

In a better world self-determination would be the rule, but in the real world it often leads to conflict when governments and their militaries seek to preserve their territory and power. Unless we can do something about this reality, it could be irresponsible to encourage separatists to break away and form new countries, except in limited circumstances.