To Be or To Be Theirs?

Self-immolation may have become a somewhat grisly global phenomenon through the Arab spring, notably during the struggles in Tunisia, but recently it has tragically returned to where it has the most traditional associations: Tibet. Four Buddhists have set themselves alight in recent weeks in protest against the Chinese government, which they feel is suffocating the culture and impeding on the lives of the Tibetan people. In Catalonia, Spain, there is talk of an independence referendum following the re-election of Artur Mas as president of the region’s parliament. In Scotland, even, where the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) holds a majority, there is an independence referendum set for 2014. And here in the United States, following Obama’s election, secessionists have started petitioning the White House from pro-Republican states. Although on completely different scales, these are all current examples of independence movements.

It is interesting to contemplate how far this can go. It is the founding principle of the UN that there exists “the right of nations to self-determination,” but what exactly constitutes a nation? When each and every region and faction has its own interests, its own culture, it naturally expects political powers. This logic can be followed down to the smallest of levels — regional, local, even tribal or familial. But if one reaches the point when each and every community wants nationhood, then a fair system of international relations would become impossible. In a world where each group becomes its own government, true anarchy would ensue. The obvious solution to this huge puzzle of tiny independent, culturally homogenous states would be larger infrastructures uniting them. They would be like unique individuals; to keep them in order one would need a higher political surrounding. You would, thus, end up requiring a government. This vicious circle points clearly towards the fact that independence movements ultimately shoot themselves in the foot. I am not for a moment defending China in the Tibetan struggle, but merely using current events as an example from which this argument can stem.

More relevantly, Scotland could leave the United Kingdom and lose a lot of its economic power. In order to consolidate this anticipated loss it plans to join the European Union; thus, being absorbed by another large supra-national organization, would Catalonia in turn do the same? Most probably. We live in an increasingly inter-connected and inter-reliant world; it is suicidal to detach oneself from the powers-that-be. No one wants to be an unheard minority, but the argument that splitting off in order to become one’s own majority goes against all modern social ethics. It negates all dreams of a multicultural, melting-pot society, all notions of international consolidation, as well as potential dreams of world peace. Siding with differences, splitting countries along every possible line, does not solve problems — it represents giving up on them.

The choice between breaking down nations to the smallest common denominator of shared culture and specific identity vis-à-vis uniting various groups in order to provide all with theoretically better lives is the same as the age old dilemma between the desire for power and the desire for freedom. It is also a vicious circle that many small and weak nations will need higher organization for power, but then in turn any supra-national power would impede on its constituents’ freedom, leading them to crave independence, and so on. In the long term, the pinnacle of each cycle is neither the struggle for nor the establishment of the new country, but the state of the old and larger one before it started to fall apart. That is where we should aim, towards fair, strong and powerful nation-states that do not effortlessly disintegrate over time.

It may seem like neo-imperialism when I’m preaching for larger political entities rather than smaller ones, but in the situation of a fair democracy this assures the best for all. The current dreams of independence may be a genuine reaction to true unfairness (Tibet), but in other less desperate circumstances it goes against all logic to make your people belong to a weaker, and not necessarily fairer country. And although I’m sure no one is really taking them seriously, the sore right-wing losers petitioning for secession in Texas and elsewhere fall perfectly into this category. Some smart nations are thankfully, however, picking up on the opposite trend — the U.S. must soon debate a potential new state: Puerto Rico.