When the Soviet Union broke up, no seemed to have any problem with it now being 15 or so new countries. Hardly an eye was batted over Czechoslovakia becoming Czecho and Slovakia. The only resistance from Yugoslavia’s break up was from the Serbs; western countries actually helped Bosnia and Croatia achieve independence.
Yet, this tolerance does not extend to countries outside Europe. When Iraq was conquered, many people suggested that it be broken up into 3 sort of natural countries: Sunni, Shi’a, and Kurdish. The PTB dictated outherwise. We probably would have much fewer problems in that area if it had been broken up. Almost certainly no ISIS.
There’ve been other situations where a breakup seemed the best solution, but Western diplomats strongly disagreed (Somaliland is one and there are others, but I can’t remember what they were). Other than the special case of Singapore being ejected from Malaysia, there only seems to be a few instances (three I can think of) of new countries becoming independent from another outside Europe, not counting colonies becoming independent. And all those were despite the efforts of the West.
So why is this? Is it purely neo-colonialism? Or do they have some other rationale?
Who’s doing the “creating”? You can’t just invade a country, wave a magic wand, and create 3 functioning states out of the wreckage. And the notion that since some areas have a majority of one ethnic group it’s natural to create a state “for” that ethnic group ignores the problem that just because there’s a majority of one ethnicity there are still sizable ethnic minorities left behind in the wrong state. So now comes the ethnic cleansing.
It is simply not possible to draw clean boundaries that give each ethnic and religious group self determination and a homogeneous identity. No matter how you slice it there are going to be people of the wrong ethnicity on both sides of the border. And even if you could, wait a decade and find that populations have changed and a city that was once majority ethnicity X is now majority ethnicity Y and is on wrong side of the border.
In the case of more or less functioning states there’s no real impetus to breaking them apart or amalgamating them together, or adjust borders to reflect ethnicity. If ethnic minorities are treated decently what’s the point of changing the borders? And if ethnic minorities aren’t treated decently there’s no way to change the borders peacefully anyway.
All this ignores the fact that the real world isn’t a game where you can just rationally reshape nations and states to your liking. Nobody, not even Presidents or Kings or Autocrats can just stretch out their hand and create a new reality by fiat, like some sort of Solomon deciding how to slice up the baby.
Africa was basically created by the Western powers by drawing arbitrary lines on maps. There would be a case for creating dozens of new countries based on ethnic criteria–so countries are hostile to creating any new ones in fear they would be adversely affected in the future.
Mind you, in the Yugoslavia and USSR breakups, those secessions were themselves made along the internal first level political unit borders established by those states in the 40s and 50s, rather than along natural geographical lines or ethnic majority zones, and any further sub-secessions or border readjustments to reflect populations have not gained broad support. In Yugoslavia it led to war in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo right away, and in the former USSR they continue to fester and every so often erupt into violence (see: Chechnya, Transdnistria, Georgia, Crimea, Donbas). In general the sanctity of the borders set by the post-WW2 powers is maintained because of the concern that letting go of it would mean virtually everyone everywhere would fortwith demand liberation for their own 40 acres or that the border should extend to over THERE where three people of their nationality once lived and it all becomes an unmanageable mess.
Especially since the oil is not distributed equally throughout Iraq’s territory, so that if you break it up into three countries by ethnicity/sectarian lines, you create unevenly wealthy countries, which could be a recipe for perpetual oil wars.
No, East Timor had the support of the West. But it was based on a Portuguese colony, as opposed to the rest of the island that used to be owned by the Dutch.
This could have been gotten around. For instance, they could have created a company to be owned equally by the three countries. The company would own all the oil and its only job would be to pump it and market it. Each country would get an equal share of the profits.
Part of the problem with your Iraq example is that the three countries you’d be creating should probably be annexed with other territories.
The Kurds are the example I know the most about. There are Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iraq and if they had their way, would prefer a single “Kurdistan” including parts of all three existing nations. The Turkish and Syrian Kurds are known terrorists and mostly enemies of the US (because we’re allies with Turkey), but the Iraqi Kurds have consistently been better US allies than the rest of Iraq (going back even pre-war).
So… you give the Iraqi Kurds their own territory and what’s the guarantee that they live happily ever after? In fact, now the Syrian and Turkish Kurds have a government supporter of their terrorism against Syria and Turkey. So Syria and Turkey oppose this measure, and this costs the US one of their few real allies in the region. Syria already hates the US, so that’s no loss, but losing alliances with Turkey would be ugly.
Anyway, I’m not saying it would be impossible to divide them up, just that it’s likely to create whole new instabilities in the region.
Also, regarding Iraq specifically: the intent was bungled, but still relevant. The allies in the Iraq war expected to remove the existing government, install a new one into the old infrastructure and leave. This was supposed to be a simple reshuffling of power and not a ground-up nation-building effort. It might even have been the best plan… they just bungled the execution.
If Somaliland successfully seceded and was recognized as a sovereign nation by the international community, their success would likely embolden several other regions or provinces with secessionist leanings - Puntland springs most readily to mind. But Puntland is not the only one and there is a legitimate fear official international recognition of Somaliland could result in a domino balkanisation effect. (this scenario assumes secession of Somaliland happens without incident, an extremely remote possibility.)
The status quo is the best solution at the moment - the Mogadishu government does not really have the resources to bring Somaliland back into the fold whilst de facto independence provides a degree of security and peace unavailable to the average Somali. Hardly ideal but far better than secession or reincorporation.
Ignoring the role that the West may or may not have played, countries - whether USA, Nauru or Zimbabwe - are reluctant to simply cede land and attendant resources to secessionists. South Sudan was established after atrocities considered by many observers to be acts of genocide were perpetrated against the people of South Sudan. I am not very familiar with the other examples but IIRC they were established under similar conditions of oppression and protracted civil conflict.
The issue is controversy not geography. The new nations that have been widely recognized are those which were created through diplomatic means and in which there were no countries arguing against the creation of the new country.
But there are international disputes over the creation of other countries and recognizing such a country means you’re taking a side in the dispute. This is why Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, and Transnistria are not generally recognized.
Let’s say your country is having some ethnic conflict. So you decide to split it up.
Congratulations! You’ve now taken your ethnic conflict, upped the stakes (after all, someone has to get that oil field or whatever), and set it on stone. Now, people can fight out that ethnic conflict for generations! You’ve made a great setup for ethnic cleansing, endless border disputes, interstate war, and civil war as these new countries sort out their internal power issues. You’ve not only failed to solve the fundamental issue, you’ve given them a lot more to fight about. And, since new countries usually don’t gel without some civil war, you get all that, too.
And then, one day, likely after a great deal of blood has been spilled, people will decide to grow up and the nation will grow into a multi-ethnic modern state (well, that or the state eventually fails or becomes reliant on someone else to survive) The nation will be united by common ideals and a shared history, and people can work together toward a brighter future.
Getting to that end state is the way to long term peace. Splitting up nations does not hasten that, and often slows
It down.
Well, the Kurds would have been in favor of it; the others, perhaps not so much. But if you soilve the oil issue, you could probably get more of them to go along.
There’s already lots of other independence movements without a successful Somaliland example. I really doubt it would make a difference.
Somaliland has already successfully achieved independence. Without a major incident, as far as I know. It just hasn’t been recognized.
So they wouldn’t have enjoyed the peace and tranquility the country has experienced since the US invaded? Ah silly me.
The chances of that plan succeeding were somewhere below zero. Anyone at all familiar with the country would have known that. Oh right, neoconservatives…
Wrong. Portugal effectively abandoned the colony in 1974. Civil war broke out between political parties. Eventually in 1975, one of the parties declared a new state, independent of Portugal. Several days later, Indonesia invaded. Go look it up.
He said they declared independence from Indonesia. That was wrong. Until Indonesia invaded, they didn’t have a claim on East Timor. And they didn’t invade until an East Timorese state had been created.
Doesn’t sound like there is much desire for secession amongst Iraqis then.
My understanding is that the Kurds (in Iraq and surrounding nations) favour an all encompassing “Kurdistan”. I’m not aware of any significant support amongst Kurds for a sovereign state only incorporating parts of existing Iraqi territory.
If you wish to continue this particular argument I’m going to have to request a cite that a majority of Iraqis would favour dividing Iraq into three states. (I’m assuming that you consider the will of the Iraqi people to be an important factor in determining whether Iraq should be split into two or more sovereign states.)
I find it hard to believe that if Somaliland achieved international recognition and de jure sovereignty in the current climate, that it would not encourage other secessionist movements in the region to intensify their campaigns, leading to an escalation of violence in an already extremely volatile region.
Yes, I’ve already noted that they exercise de facto independence. However, recognition by other states is an essential element of statehood and a rather important one at that. Without that recognition, you’re not a state; you’re essentially a province with a great deal of autonomy.
On an unrelated note, I’m surprised no-one has mentioned Taiwan in this thread.