Why are countries against secession?
October 17, 2005 8:13 PM   Subscribe

Why are countries and most people against secession?

I honestly do not understand why England fought so hard for Ireland, why Russia won't let Chechnya go, or why the North (U.S) felt it had to keep the South. Is it all about money and power? Why not let the troublemakers/dissidents/people who think differently go?
posted by Hobgoblin to Law & Government (29 answers total)
 
India partitioned fairly willingly (despite the best efforts of the Mahatma), as did the Czech and Slovak republics.

Basically it all comes down to ego I think.
posted by wilful at 8:35 PM on October 17, 2005


Mostly money and natural resources. For instance, Chechnya is Russia's only connection to the last cheap oil on earth in the Caspian Sea. The North's great wealth in the 1800's was due to the cheap cotton they got from the South. Sometimes it's just about the johnson though. I believe Ireland's secession was the last nail in the British Empire's coffin and I remember reading a quote from Lyndon Johnson that he didn't want to go down as the first US President to lose a war.
posted by any major dude at 8:36 PM on October 17, 2005


Some people actually believe in federalism.
posted by Miko at 8:39 PM on October 17, 2005


In the case of England, it boils down almost entirely to maintaining the illusion of post-colonial pride in a long-standing era of decline. But many mainland Englanders now tire of North Ireland "Royalists" who wave the Union Jack with the fervor of a Red stater driving a yellow-ribboned SUV. Their peace accords come none too late.

From my understanding of the region, in addition to its own oil production, Chechnya sits along important oil distribution lines between Russia and the Caspian nations. For the republic not to be under Russia's control would probably hurt Russia's nearly-renationalized oil industry.
posted by Rothko at 8:41 PM on October 17, 2005


Taxes & territory.

Also, if one part of you decides to leave, will another part want to, too? Or will they (the other parts of the country) use that as an excuse to extort more from the federation in exchange for staying?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 9:45 PM on October 17, 2005


There are lots of specific reasons in different situations, but yeah, I think the overarching one is fear of a slippery slope. If you let one part go, it's tough to rationalize why any other part shouldn't split off whenever and for whatever reason it wants.
posted by mookieproof at 9:53 PM on October 17, 2005


Quebec had a very close referendum in 1995 to separate from Canada (50.6% No, 49.4% Yes).

What if the proportion wishing to separate was a very, very tiny minority? Resources and territory probably had a big role, but if almost half of the population wanted to stay the national government would be very reluctant to let them secede. (And Where would you draw the line?)
posted by curbstop at 10:06 PM on October 17, 2005


I've often thought regarding the US Civil War that one of the reasons the North would have had to have fought the South is that eventually, the two would have come to blows over some issue of territory or idealogy. Peaceful coexistence with our North American neighbors is the rule now, but the 1800s told a number of very different stories. And quite a power the South could have turned out to be. Lincoln's choice was very likely war then, or war later and and weakened chance for a real union as the South continued to develop a divergent identity (and became a more formidable force on the continent).

I suspect that many such conflicts basically get down to that issue: as a group of separatists or a geographical area develops a separate identity, it becomes increasingly more difficult to resolve conflicts of interest in a civil manner.
posted by weston at 11:03 PM on October 17, 2005


I have wondered this too.
I visited Scotland in 1993, and my host remarked that recently in driving from England to Scotland he noticed they'd moved the border somewhere for the convenience of the highway builders. (Highwaymen?) He remarked "A hundred years ago, men would have given their lives to prevent such an occurrence," and we marveled at their motivations.

Are there oil reasons keeping Kurdistan in Turkey, like there are keeping it in Iraq?
posted by Aknaton at 11:11 PM on October 17, 2005


There's two general reasons I can think of. One reason is that in international politics, power is closely correlated with size. If you lose a significant portion of your territory and population, your power (with respect to your neighbors) will be correspondingly reduced.

A second reason to fight against secession is to prevent a hostile power, with its own army, from materializing on your doorstep. Regarding the American Civil War, Samuel Eliot Morison writes in The Oxford History of the American People:

As always, one could have kept the peace, had one been willing to pay the price, which in this case would have been a permanent division of the Union and the prospect of an interminable series of internecine wars. Suppose Lincoln, on his accession, had recognized the Confederacy as of March 1861. The pulling and hauling of Virginia and the Border states [between North and South] would have gone on, the Confederacy would have insisted on a share of the territories and southern California, and dissension would have sprung up over fugitive slaves, reopening the African slave trade, the transit trade of the Mississippi, and aggression at the expense of Spain or Mexico. This war to preserve the Union, long and bloody though it was, prevented many more wars, and a probable fracturing of the United States into several confederacies, reducing North America to something approaching the present status of Central America.

One counterexample that comes to mind: the Malayan Federation expelled Singapore in 1965.
posted by russilwvong at 12:24 AM on October 18, 2005


I can't understand it. Spain is starting to crumble and I am wondering what it would be like if the nationalist Basques, Catalanonians, or Gallegans get their way. It won't be good for any of the areas even with the unity of the EU to hold them. The Catalanonians are especially crazy because they are trying to enforce more solitary use of their language which no tourists really want to learn. When was the last time you thought of taking Catalan in high school? They are even forcing out the use of Castillian Spanish as the language for everything, meaning kids there will not speak anything but Catalan. If they get their way, Barcelona is probably going to start going down the shitter.

Many of the smaller nations that split from the USSR, ended up with troubled economies, unable to find markets which compared to what was previously in place.

Crazy nationalism is at the heart of all independence movements and leads to all sorts of economic and racial ills. Unions and multiethnic countries are supposed to unite people and lead to greater stability. It allows for different groups to try and work together for common goals. When people try to stop working together in smaller political realms like Spain, then war begins to seem like an inevitable solution.
posted by JJ86 at 1:03 AM on October 18, 2005


With Ireland, Britain took a long time to accept that it wasn't just a tiny minority of rabble-rousers, but the majority of the country; and when they did, they had to accept that they were defending a Protestant minority that fervently wanted to remain in union against a Catholic majority that just as fervently did not. Obviously the Irish Republicans have taken many years to accept the "secession" of Northern Ireland from Eire proper, even though the situation is essentially reversed.

And while the violence has not been present in any comparable form, Wales and Scotland still feel the sting, at times, of Anglo-Saxon conquest -- hence "devolution" which has given them regional legislatures. (Why doesn't the UK just accept federalism as a principle, already?)

There's the ever-present "giving in to terrorist demands" sort of principle, too.

In Chechnya, the Russian repression began long before oil was part of the equation, and today I'm not certain it's that important. Moscow could barely accept the breakup of the Soviet Union's constituent republics into independent states, but allowing Chechnya out would give a lot of similar tiny enclaves the desire to seek their own autonomy. Russia is particularly keen not to lose Siberia -- which it is already losing ethnically to Mongolian, Chinese, and other immigrants seeking work. Concessions on the 1991 borders would put them in a weakened position down the road. Additionally now Russia fears that an independent Chechnya would become a radical Islamist state. Ironically, the Chechen attacks outside the region -- Beslan, Nalchik -- demonstrate how effective Russian control of the province is now.

India partitioned fairly willingly

Separate states for Muslim and Hindu areas had been discussed for decades, but it took horrific escalating violence to convince the political elite, and it's led to decades of intermittent war. I don't think that's quite an example in the direction you want. Now, Norway and Sweden, there's a peaceable divorce.

As for Lincoln, not only would a Union defeat deprive the North of important agricultural territory, it would have weakened the basis of the Constitution. The remaining states might have called a Constitutional Convention. I don't think a South American example is far-fetched -- California might have considered it would be better off without the East (pox on both houses), Utah would have become a Mormon state, Texas and the CSA probably wouldn't have gotten on well, and so forth. The border states would have continued to be a problem, from Maryland to Missouri. The US would have had to cede Washington. The Indians might have taken the opportunity to work together long enough to create a nation in the Plains. And the abolition cause would have been delayed -- one can never be certain how much longer the Confederacy would have continued the institution, probably making it more humane only in fits and starts (see Jim Crow).

Anyway, lotta words. This is all tied up with the rise of Nationalism, the creation of a state of a people rather than of a royal possession (a principle which remained into the beginning of the 20th century). If you're going to have a state of a people, then you have to start defining who the people are. Then you get further along into suppressing those who don't fit the model.

From my point of view, secessionist movements are often essentially nationalist movements writ small. It's as much about (say) the Catalonians not feeling Spanish as it is about the Castilians not believing that Catalonian isn't really just Spanish with an accent. So I'm not always ready to jump on the liberal bandwagon regarding "oppressed peoples" because very often the expression of ethnic minority status has some root racialism at its heart.

Thus I prefer to focus on creating political and social structures which minimize the harm done to regional peoples through the system of national administartion. I've said for some time that having an EU umbrella means it's much less important to hang onto these small enclaves -- let them go, have their own autonomy within the larger system. Basque, Brittany, Corsica, Flanders, Cornwall ...

Now, Russia is coming to see the value of international institutions in Central Asia; they've accepted the position of the "Stans" as independent states, and through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are building a new controlling structure through soft power. Now that Ukraine and Georgia have made great steps toward becoming "normal" European democracies, it's possible that a similar mature structure can develop in the Caucasus. I certainly hope so. Then we can turn our attention to Belarus and Trans-Dniester. ;-)
posted by dhartung at 1:24 AM on October 18, 2005 [1 favorite]


Wow, I had no idea JJ86 was using the same examples to come to a similar (but more pessimistic) conclusion.

What's that big button marked "Preview" do, anyway?

I don't think that Catalonia can become isolated within the EU, and I suspect that the Spanish "solution" is going to look linguistically a lot like Switzerland. Half the people almost anywhere in Europe speak English anyway, and certainly it's no trouble to learn enough Spanish to get along.

But, and here's where I share your fears, it's entirely possible that this presages problems down the road for massively interethnic conglomerations such as Europe. Right now progress is being madeonly haltingly because of disagreement over the "idea" of Europe. If states within the EU begin losing that shared idea, the union will eventually fail. Today still the memory of the World Wars motivates people to get beyond the era of nationalism, but it's not clear what will happen with coming generations. Look at the widespread skepticism about Turkey.
posted by dhartung at 1:40 AM on October 18, 2005


The EU can only do so much and it's unity is starting to appear more questionable as it grows. Catalonia is much more complicated than what you think apparently. Their independence movement is more sinister than most others with a severe nationalistic overtone. And it is something which has increasingly evolved only more recently unlike the Basques. United Spain has been around since 1492! It was united through consolidation and not by conquest. So it is an entirely strange thing to suddenly have some split like this happening.
posted by JJ86 at 2:25 AM on October 18, 2005


Also not to mentions that the provinces in Spain are already autonomous politically.....
posted by JJ86 at 2:26 AM on October 18, 2005


As well as what other people have said, Ireland was also deemed strategically important during the Cold War, for its position close to North Atlantic shipping routes.

I do get the feeling these days that the British are pretty open minded about secession (30 years of bombs will do that to you I suppose). The view of Scottish devolution for example tends to be more complaints that Scottish MPs can sit in the UK house while the reverse is not true, and discussions about Gibralter are normally greeted with a hearty "meh".
posted by bifter at 4:47 AM on October 18, 2005


Just a note for historical accuracy: Scotland, unlike Wales or Ireland, was not brought into the union by conquest. Actually, it's questionable whether Wales was - the medieval kings did conquer the independent kingdoms, but actual union with England came in the sixteenth century under a dynasty (the Tudors) widely perceived by the Welsh elite to be Welsh (supported by the bards), and with the support of the Welsh gentry. Union was an opportunity to regularise government and to reduce the power of the Marcher lords.

Scotland was certainly not brought into the Union by conquest. James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne and thus a Scottish king took over England. That he moved his capitol to London is a sign of the sheer economic power and greater population that England had, due to geography (better land, closer to trade routes). Cromwell did conquer Scotland during the Civil Wars, but the Scottish crown and parliament were both restored in 1660 with the English. The Union of England (and Wales) with Scotland occurred in 1707 through mutual negotiation between elites on both sides, to protest from both sides. The English wanted to make sure that the Crowns would stay united with the Hanover succession, and that they wouldn't be facing a hostile Stuart Crown on their border. The Scottish wanted in on the profits of the English empire (which would be considerable). They each got what they wanted, though not without compromises.

As for the army that went into Scotland in 1715 and 1745, following Jacobite rebellions - that was a British not and English army. It's no different from the Union army in the South in the American civil War, only Scotland was much more divided in opinion than the South was. If you read the history of the British army in the eighteenth century, and British imperial history in general, you will see many Scottish names. Just as you will when you study the Highland clearances - promulgated by Scottish landlords against their tenants.

As for the Anglo-Saxon conquest of lowland Scotland - this happened at the same time as the Saxons were moving into England (c.500-600 AD), and about the same time that the Gaelic-speaking Scots were themselves invading from Ireland. Neither group has a previous claim on Scotland - that belongs to the Picts.

As for why are people against sucession? Well, if Quebec had left, they would have insisted on taking the primarly native northern half of the province which did NOT wish to succeed (but had oil and resources). They would also have cut off Maritime Canada, which did not wish to succeed. I don't know what would have happened if it had been a much larger percentage - certainly separation should never happen without at least 2/3 or more support.

As for Ireland - it was because the country was divided in opinion - and because Irish elites (aka the ones in charge in Ireland) were at least in the 18th and 19th century primarily British elites who had reasons to want to be part of Britain. Many in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) probably didn't care. In this century, it's been about the right of people to self-determination. Gibralter should stay British not because Britain wants it, but because the people of Gibralter want to be part of Britain. And it's the vast majority there, not a slim majority.
posted by jb at 7:14 AM on October 18, 2005


Because they are, in Maturana-Varela terms, autopoeitic. One of their main functions is maintaining the integrity of their boundaries. That's what they're for.
posted by signal at 7:36 AM on October 18, 2005


One amusing side-note of the Quebec referendum on sovereignty is that Montreal, the largest city in the province, is home to a large number of Anlgo- and Allophones, who sure as hell didn't want to secede. So the rumours were that the city government (or at least many residents) would have supported partitioning Montreal from Quebec. But that probably would have been... ugly.
posted by GuyZero at 7:52 AM on October 18, 2005


dhartung said pretty much everything I would have wanted to say, so I'll just add this:

JJ86, I see from you're profile you're from Madrid, and I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're Spanish; don't you think it's possible you may be overreacting just a tad to Catalan desires for autonomy, just as Anglophone Canadians overreacted to the desires of the Québecois for a higher profile for French in Quebec?
posted by languagehat at 9:07 AM on October 18, 2005


England and Scotland help to illustrate one additional point here. On the surface the border could not be clearer. In practice it's not so simple. Within the towns and cities, particularly in the capital, Edinburgh, there are large communities which would not immediately identify with the Scots.

Why not? Well large states, like the United Kingdom, create their own acolytes, whole classes of merchants, administrators, lawgivers, educators and policemen who identify with the state rather than the province. Trade and education is geared to the values and interests of the state, loyalty and economic self-interest follow the national flag. Secession challenges those structures, this powerful middle class can be distinctly ambivalent about the prospect, seeing a direct threat to their status and livelihood. In Scotland members of this class are easily identifiable, branded by the way they speak (their accent). In addition there are large number of people from outside the province just passing through, resident because of a job or posting. What happens to them?

The problem with secession is partition and the problem with partition is the Cities and those who live there: think Karachi, Jerusalem, Nicosia, Baghdad, Londonderry .......

I think it fair to say that the Partition of India was such a disaster, the worse for being so well intentioned, so carefully and intelligently planned, that anyone proposing a partition has to explain why this murderous precedent does not apply. That's tricky.
posted by grahamwell at 10:00 AM on October 18, 2005


This thread reminded me of my desire to understand what compelled China to decide that Tibet and East Turkestan were part of China. China has to now deal with their fights for independence and employ breeding programs and other means of integration to make them Chinese. In this situation I think it's more than just taxes and exclusively ideology.
posted by scazza at 1:32 PM on October 18, 2005


China basically takes the position that any territory ever controlled by China is Chinese, however long it's been out of Chinese hands. I don't think I met anybody in Taiwan who didn't think Vietnam should be part of China, despite the fact that it chucked the Chinese out a thousand years ago.
posted by languagehat at 5:28 PM on October 18, 2005


Vietnam? Really? I've never heard any references to Chinese claims on Vietnam.

This is a key question in international politics--how far do China's ambitions extend? Do they extend beyond Tibet and Taiwan? If they do, there could be Big Trouble.

An article by Andrew Nathan and Bruce Gilley in the New York Review of Books (subscribers only, unfortunately):

In their internal remarks, the new leaders [Hu Jintao, Li Ruihuan, etc.] present their country not as a dissatisfied power, as some in the West portray it, or as a challenger to the United States for regional preeminence, but as a pillar of the global status quo, a force for stability and peace. China supports the United Nations, as well as what it calls multipolarity—the principle that many nations will have a say in world affairs.
posted by russilwvong at 12:07 AM on October 19, 2005


languagehat: don't you think it's possible you may be overreacting just a tad to Catalan desires for autonomy

Well no, like I said they are an autonomous province already. It isn't about autonomy. There is an old Francoist tourist slogan, "Spain is Different". The provinces are much more independent than states. The crazy thing is that even neighborhoods or barrios in the cities are autonomous. I am not too much up on the intricate politics of the whole situation if it is possible to understand. But I know what I read in the newspapers here and it has been a major front page issue for a long time. The only time when issues like this reach the shores of the US is when ETA bombs something.

When autonomy is taken out of the equation, then the question of independence becomes less clear. Logically that would be the main point. About the only other main issue is taxes. But the average citizen pays the same no matter who is in power. Especially as a full member state of the EU, there are contributions that must be made.

I guess the biggest issue to me is the modern state that is Cataluña was built by Spain for the past 500 years. It's like if you had an out of work cousin who you decided to help and let live in your house gratis as long as they did the housework. Then one day they demanded independence from doing work or following your rules and they also demanded half of your home. Would you just say sure, no problem?

Or similarly if Polish Chicago decided to unite with Poland and secede from the US. Or maybe Irish New York City, or African Detroit, or .... you get the picture?

List of demands of Cataluña.
posted by JJ86 at 1:57 AM on October 19, 2005


Vietnam? Really?

Really. I was surprised too. And when I expressed skepticism (very cautiously) about the likelihood of Taiwan's retaking the mainland (which was then official policy), I was told that Chinese were very patient, and even though it might take many years it would happen, just as... and here they went into a historical analogy that I eventually realized was referring to the Three Kingdoms period of the third century. Chinese have long memories.

It's like if you had an out of work cousin who you decided to help and let live in your house gratis as long as they did the housework. Then one day they demanded independence from doing work or following your rules and they also demanded half of your home...

That's what I thought. Dude, you're letting your own nationalism get in the way of being able to think usefully about the situation. You sound like the Chinese talking about Vietnam. Take a step back and try to imagine how things look to a Catalan, remembering that they had their language and culture repressed by the Spanish for a long, long time. Yes, I know, things are different now, but people don't forget historical grievances easily.
posted by languagehat at 7:20 AM on October 19, 2005


Dunno, I'm American dude.
posted by JJ86 at 8:15 AM on October 19, 2005


Ireland was also deemed strategically important during the Cold War, for its position close to North Atlantic shipping routes.
emm, Ireland was independent since 1921, long before the Cold War ever happened.
posted by daveirl at 2:12 PM on October 19, 2005


You're American? Well, there's no excuse for you then... I mean, you seem to have gone native. Maybe you should move to Barcelona for a while and see things from that perspective. Perspective is always a good thing.
posted by languagehat at 8:06 PM on October 19, 2005


« Older online bill paying   |   When what you wanted isn't good enough anymore. Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.