Thank you for that. Everyone else is getting to involved in the details of this or that potential or actual breakup. I don’t want to get into those arguments.
I’ll admit it could be an oversimplification. But I thought I saw a significant pattern, and I haven’t yet been convinced it doesn’t exist.
The real question is, why, outside of Europe, does no one ever think outside the box of preserving the colonial boundaries?
you want pure abstraction to imagine outside the boundaries of the reality then.
It is only a real question if you ignore the actual history of the decolonizations, the bloody history of the partitions when they have occured and the real roots of the European case, which are not the post Soviet break-up, but the imperial break-ups after the WW I, based on the romanticism of the idealized blood-and-language nationalism of the 19th century, which indeed set the case for the bloody struggles in Europe, for WW II and the mass population expulsions post WW II.
With a naive recentist framing very typical of Americans, it gives you the false vision.
In the decolonizations, in the Africa, in the Asia there has always been in the composite countries separatist movement and action. Even those that succeed have not been extremely happy stories that make the naive idea of splitting them up to solve problems look correct. The South Sudan, which contrary to your statement was indeed supported by the western powers, is not an encouragement, for example. The Indian sub-continent partitions and splits also not.
So, the impression is superfical and it is not well informed by the real history.
And why are you so hellbent on “outside of Europe”? There are several nationalistic situations in Europe which are also not going anywhere near as “now we’re one, now we’re two” as the Czechoslovakia case did.
I suggest you think about my question on your opinion of national self-determination.
Nobody from outside has imposed new borders on Europe in a long time. You’re suggesting that outsiders impose new borders outside of Europe for some strange idea of fairness. Why do you think that replacing old colonial borders with new colonial borders is a good idea? Because it worked out well the first time?
I don’t believe I used the word “fair” anywhere. I thought that working out new borders with the interests of the people living there in mind might work better than the ones imposed for the convenience of people in London or Paris a century or two earlier. Maybe I’m just too idealistic.
The Soviet Union broke up in the middle of a power vacuum in Moscow (due to the August coup), and the Soviet constitution explicitly allowed republics to secede, so there wasn’t a whole lot either legally or pragmatically that the collapsing Soviet government could have done. There are legitimate questions about how deeply felt the secessionist sentiment was (a referendum earlier in the year on whether to dissolve the union had failed in all 11 republics where it was held), but there wasn’t really that much to be done about it. Same for Yugoslavia, although there were several wars there regarding the breakup. Since then the international community has not as a whole been able to come to much consensus about further breakup of the former Yugoslav or Soviet territories. Russia and its allies are the only ones who recognize Abkhazia, Transnistria and South Ossetiya; not everyone recognizes Kosovo; and thus far no one except the aforementioned three ‘states’ recognizes the Donbass republics. Russia fought a long and bloody war to keep Chechnya in the fold.
I believe in a strong sense of national self determination, so I’d prefer a world in which it was easier for small nations to declare their independence from larger ones (and yes, that includes the Chechens, as well as Somaliland, Kashmir, Transnistria and others), but for a variety of reasons powerful countries usually like to keep the status quo as far as existing borders intanct. The breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were special cases and that has less to do with them being in Europe, and more to do with the power vacuum and the legal issues at the time.
I think you’re still missing something: you’re criticizing old borders drawn for the convenience of people in Old London or Old Paris, but you seem to think that New London or New Paris will do a better job of working out borders for people living wherever.
For the third time, why should third parties be drawing new borders at all?
Came here to post a similar sentiment. I think a reasonable, entertaining and enlightening discussion could have been had about what is necessary for a prospective country to be recognised, or even argue why a particular prospective state should or should not be recognised.
Instead we’re treated to a half-baked hypothesis that Western countries don’t wish to recognise countries outside Europe because neocolonialism. How neocolonialism is supposed to favour the status quo is never made clear.
For this hypothesis to work even a little, OP discounts the wave of decolonialisation that peaked in the sixties, but includes the nations formed after the dissolution of the USSR in the nineties. OP also ignores inconvenient examples such as Transnistria, the less than universal recognition of Kosovo and incredulously states that the West was opposed to the formation of South Sudan.
If you go back as far as the end of World War II, a lot of new countries have been created or have been given their independence. The reason that you think this has been mostly confined to Europe is that you’re only going as far back as 1990. Outside of Europe, there were many new countries created or given their independence between 1945 and 1990. And, yes, I think you have to include newly independent countries in your count even if they previously existed as a colony. Here’s a Wikipedia article with relevant numbers:
No I explicitly excluded colonies gaining independence in the OP.
I think I’ve raised a reasonable question - as have others. You’ve ignored it several times when I think it is the crux of the whole issue. May I ask, am I wasting my time trying to ask it once more with an expectation of an answer?
By specifically excluding countries which gained their independence, you’ve automatically eliminated the most recent changes in Asia and Africa and Oceania (and, to a small extent, the Americas). Much of Asia and Africa consisted of European colonies before World War II. A great deal of those countries received their independence between 1945 and 1990. Having received their independence, they were much more recently formed as independent countries than the countries of Europe and North America were. You might then very well expect for them not to feel that they had tried their new forms for a very long time, which the countries of Europe might well feel they had.
Part of the problem is setting you time boundary at 1990, as though that’s a long time ago. Perhaps you’re young enough to think so. I think of 1990 as being quite recent. It’s when I moved into my current apartment. I think of fairly recent history as being since World War II, which means since 1945. Getting their independence was a big thing for the countries which got it. It’s at least as big as splitting up their country.
Is this the question you’re refering to:
Answer: I have no problem with it as long as the country in question actually works. Do you think it’s a good idea when the country is purpetually engaged in civil war? Or when it’s not, it’s only because one tribe is brutally suppressing the others?
As far as the time frame, I’m talking about any post-colonial period. My examples were from 1990-onward, but I never said I was only talking about that period.
I think I should explain my position a little bit better.
Everyone agrees that the borders in much of the third world are poorly drawn. They were drawn for the convenience of the colonial powers, not the people who live there. We can’t do much about most of them, but every once in a while, there’s an opportunity to maybe do a bit better job of it. No we’ll never be able to get them perfect, but I think some improvement is certainly possible. I identified a couple instances where I think we could have done so, and am wondering why we didn’t. There may be other instances, although none come to mind.
yes you did and it has led you into the profound analytical errors, which are magnified by an ignorance also the history and of the recent post 1990 history even of the regions you pretend to care about.
The tribe? Funny use of word.
and so the studied avoidance of the engagement with the numerous examples given here of the many instances where the redrawing of the Imperial borders provoked the repeated wars and the ethnic strife and the ethnic cleansing is happening for what reason?
they are not ‘third world’ people?
It is the common easy assertion and an assumption that is automatic for most of the non-Africans about the African continent which is the hidden subject here, although typically such people actually know very little about the actual specific histories.
Is it the truth is a different question.
And in the Europe the borders were drawn for the convenience of the Imperial Powers and Kings, not for the convenience of the people who live there.
Sometimes, just like in the African or the Asian cases this followed some of the ethno-linguistic boundaries (you can say ‘tribes’ to continue the inaccurate discriminatory lagnauge), sometimes the boundaries of the ancient kingdoms conquered plus some added terriroties that might or might not have the relationship with the conquered kingdoms.
it is indeed not much different from the the European case, except the discourse about the colonized.
Who is “we” ?
More of the neo-colonial condescension?
What better job? Like the South Sudan, which is living in such peace and harmony now?
The Good Civilized People to save the poor uncivilized with their deep understanding so developed from the last exercise of the Civilizing Mission?
No, no thank you. Please stay away from us.
The countries and the stability are things as the real European history -not the romantic fictions - shows painfully constructed, and internally.
Agreed, few would consider that to be a contentious position.
You did identify some instances. And when people responded, you said:
Not sure what debate you want to have here.
More poorly drawn than what? It would be unbackable odds that were omnipotent you to sit down with a 1” to 100 mile scale map and draw national borders for ethnic home lands you’d make a bigger pigs breakfast than what currently exists.
Why limit your scope to the third world?
There are 10 substantial panhandles within the geography of the US.
How about resolving those anomalies when you have almost homogeneous demographics before you start tilting at windmills.
And even if the new borders don’t cause immediate civil wars, what happens in the instance you get a mass migration caused by a gold rush, a war, a humanitarian crisis or perhaps a economic opportunity? Are the national borders of your model redrawn every election cycle? Like some latterday Vroomfondelian demand for “rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty"?