|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Separatism
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Iran probably will come apart.
I haven't heard this one before. What makes you say this?
The Kurds, Arabs and Baluchis are all vying for independence. I doubt Iran will fall apart but I could possibly see it being a little smaller.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Iran probably will come apart.
I haven't heard this one before. What makes you say this?
While driving on the w/e we listened to a rebroadcast of CBC's The Current. I had also read A War to End All Wars a while ago. Both caused me to understand that the boundaries of Ottoman Empire successor states were deliberately created so as to combine ethnicities in ways that would allow the French and British to play the parties off against each other. Iraq is already expressing this. I found a link to the show. The discussion of Iran, possibly was unrelated to the show which discussed this. We drove for 8 hours or so, some of it is a blurr.
Iran contains Kurds, Turkmeni, Balochi and Azari. It can't really go in a democratic direction without discussing rights of nationalities and breakdown of current national borders, something the Ottomans dealt with via Millet system and the shah with secret police and American/British "advisors" who promoted (or directly caused, who exactly knows?) the coup which replaced the nascent democracy of Iran with the shah-dictator in the 1950s. Most probably things like the western-back shah coup and the successor Islamic republic merely have postponed the splintering. The problem obviously concerns more than Iran, Iraq and the other middle eastern countries. All of which means that the west has nil interest in real democracy in these countries, because we cannot control the outcome and more importantly, the economic policies of new governments/states. That's why we liked Saddam in Iraq for a long time, and why we like the Saudis now. They control things and continue the flow of oil.
The Turk-based Ottoman empire was replaced by Arab dominated countries and rulership in many mid-east countries, with Iran being differently dominated by Persians. Turkey successfully ethnically cleansed itself of Greeks, Armenians and most of its Kurds in the early 1920s, hence its more democratic nature. -- at least this is the apparent line of argument. If a country has too many nationalities, an authoritarian regime is better than democracy for the immediate survivability of the general populace, viz., the former Yugoslavia before and Tito.
So, in my view, separatism is the wave of the future, and the very idea of democracy within current national borders, with at least some focus on minority rights, will make it happen. Then we will regret that we promoted it, and reinstall dictators. Which will help us keep economic dominance, at least for a while. The counterfoil to this is the WTO, various free trade agreements. But we are cynically controlling those too, merely replacing tinpot dictators with an appearance of the rule of international law, while in actuality bullying our way through.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm thinking that Unionist socialists and liberals are mostly believers in subsidiarity - that decisions need to made at the appropriate level of government. Local decisions are made by parishes or unitary authorities, regionwide decisions by regional assemblies, national decisions by national governments and transnational treaties by transnational bodies.
The Tories seem to believe that all decisions need to be made by national government.
That's exactly the opposite to how I see it. I associate Conservatives with nice people on parish, district, and county councils, and Labour with enormous quantities of red tape designed to prevent elected local government being able to do anything other than follow unionized local government officers' five-year plan, which turns out at closer inspection not to be their own, but one imposed from on high via a regional quango.
Leaving aside for the moment your comments on Labour's local government style, it is true that historically the British way was to govern locally. This began to change in the C20 but there was a strong attachment to local government among Conservatives (and others). Central governments of both parties- including Thatcher's, as much as Blair's- undermined this but there's still a strong localist leaning among many Conservatives (although less so than among the Lib Dems). Doc Tor please note.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Doc Tor please note.
When budgets and planning decisions are made not at local but at national level, I find it extraordinary that you seem to think that the Tories are friends of localism.
We started with rate-capping (Thatcher), and it simply didn't stop.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Iran was never part of the Ottoman Empire and its boundaries have little to do with the Ottomans. It was always its own state.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Iran was never part of the Ottoman Empire and its boundaries have little to do with the Ottomans. It was always its own state.
I'm glad you posted that, I thought I was going mad for a couple of minutes there...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Doc Tor please note.
When budgets and planning decisions are made not at local but at national level, I find it extraordinary that you seem to think that the Tories are friends of localism.
We started with rate-capping (Thatcher), and it simply didn't stop.
Oh FFS just try to read what I actually wrote. I specifically mentioned Thatch (not, by the way, a Tory and only doubtfully a Conservative rather than a right-wing Liberal) and...jeez, what's the point. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Iran was never part of the Ottoman Empire and its boundaries have little to do with the Ottomans. It was always its own state.
Indeed, Iran claims to be the oldest continuously existing state. I'm sure its borders have moved over time, but the core is pretty stable.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Political separatism is a red herring. What is actually happening is integration. This is taking place both economically and socially through globalisation, and politically through international treaties.
Scotland is a very good example. What is proposed is hardly independence in the traditional sense. What the SNP want is to integrate into the wider EU on its own terms, rather than those of Britain as a whole. Whether this is realistic is a matter of debate. What is not really debatable is that independence for many countries is far less of a great unknown than previously. A country's economy is far less determined by government than previously, people move around more, the Internet means more awareness of what it's like abroad. So, while the self-determination that independence used to mean has beenn eroded, such self-determination as one can have looks a lot less scary than it used to. Scotland, like Catalonia, has always had a strong sense of self-identity. Splitting away from its existing state looks a heck of a lot less precarious than it would have in, say, 1930. It looks a lot safer.
I think this is particularly true for Europe. In the rest of the world, what we have seen - firstly, with the break-up of the colonial empires, and then with the break-up of the Soviet Union, is the re-emergence of states with previously-existing identies who - by force of circumstance - now find themselves co-operating with their neighbours to a far greater extent than history has ever seen.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
I would suggest that Welsh, Scottish and even Irish nationalism are direct products of the UK culture which has always been very London and South East centric. If the powers-that-be had gone down a Federalist route in the 1800s, much of this pressure would have been removed. But London has always Known Best, and now it's too late. Certainly as far as Ireland is concerned, and very possibly for Scotland too.
Personally, I would like to see Home Rule for the Danelaw.
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180
|
Posted
This is a topic I have thought about for a long time, from the standpoint of an internationalist. I was a member of the United Nations Association at the age of 16, and slightly later of the Federalist movement. Federalism can mean all things to all men, exemplified by the fact that an early meeting I went to at the House of Commons was chaired by Duncan Sandys, with whom on most other issues I would certainly have disagreed. I rather think internationalism in the UK took a heavy knock during the Falklands crisis: I must confess that at the time I felt the red mist come down as the ships sailed away to the Southern Atlantic, and I couldn't understand why the youth group of the United Nations Association marched against going to war with Argentina.
If you analyse anybody else's nationalism it can seem illogical: our own we regard as normal and take for granted. 'Separatism' is something the English, with all our imperial history, have always regarded as a BAD THING, and the recent balkanisation of the Balkans probably reinforced this.
It has already been pointed out that the idea of Scottish independence makes sense at this time because Europe has an unprecedented degree of security within the European Union. Actually I think NATO, the Council of Europe, and a host of other European organisations few people have heard of are probably equally important. I would extend the argument a stage further: if the United Nations was a more powerful institution there would be even more wriggle room for separatism (or, better still in my opinion, federalism).
Nation states have emerged because of their ability to fight wars. All the modern wars I can think of off-hand have been launched with lies of one kind or another. (The Second World War would seem to be an exception, but then we lie to ourselves by ignoring the fact that it effectively started in 1931.) With democracies, lies would seem to be a necessary part of waging war, since if people knew the truth they wouldn't fight.
There are something like 200 states in the world today. I suspect there is probably an equal number of distinct peoples living within some of these states who would like to form their own nations, and in the right circumstances would pop out, as they did when the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary collapsed, or in more recent times the Soviet Union. Wider regional groupings, on the lines of what has happened in Europe, would enable this to happen. So we have seen South Sudan become a nation with the blessing of the African Union.
Although many peoples aspire to have their own nation state, I believe, paradoxically, that the nation state has had its day. Globalisation is a stronger force. Nation states can no longer fulfill their core function of protecting their citizens. Back in the 1960's keen internationalists like me were eagerly discussing how the development of multinationals with bigger budgets than some countries could only be kept in bounds with stronger international government. In the early 21st Century it would seem foolish in the extreme to confront problems which face the entire human race, and the planet, by relying on the nation state whose raison d'etre is to protect us from other nation states.
For that reason, to answer (part of) the original question, I hope the issue of Scottish independence is resolved by more federalism within the United Kingdom.
Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Although many peoples aspire to have their own nation state, I believe, paradoxically, that the nation state has had its day. Globalisation is a stronger force. Nation states can no longer fulfill their core function of protecting their citizens. Back in the 1960's keen internationalists like me were eagerly discussing how the development of multinationals with bigger budgets than some countries could only be kept in bounds with stronger international government. In the early 21st Century it would seem foolish in the extreme to confront problems which face the entire human race, and the planet, by relying on the nation state whose raison d'etre is to protect us from other nation states.
What on earth makes you think that some putative "one world government" would look after the interests of people rather than those of multinational corporations? Surely it's far more likely that on a global scale the only ones with enough resources to make themselves heard by the politicians would be those same corporations!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
All the modern wars I can think of off-hand have been launched with lies of one kind or another... With democracies, lies would seem to be a necessary part of waging war, since if people knew the truth they wouldn't fight.
Sort of - I admire your idealism. I think this needs to be qualified as "launched on at least one side with lies of one kind or another."
Surely the democracies on the "defensive" will fight without being lied to, as it's defensive? To that extent, we could go on for paragraphs about who said what to whom in the run up to 1982, what mixed messages the Argentinean government were sent from London, etc, but once the enemy forces were on the islands I don't think the British government had to lie to get public backing for sending a task force.
I'd also be willing to go a certain way down that line for Kuwait 1990 - whoever drew the maps 70 years before it was a pretty safe assumption that the Kuwaitis didn't want the Iraqis there, whatever the other motivations may have been. Actually, I might go as far as to say neither side was lying in that war - both pretty genuinely thought they had a case.
At the same time, I wonder how much your advocacy of wider federation actually holds. Yes, South Sudan now exists with the blessing of the African Union, but the border hasn't been exactly peaceful, and it's doubtful if there is much residual blessing from the rest of the Sudan, however optimistic things seemed last summer. Below that, the interesting thing is how spectacularly unsuccessful federation has been since the 19th century. Germany has worked, Italy perhaps less so, but along the way we've lost the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.
It's interesting in the last day or so that George Soros has started to predict the unravelling of the EU....
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Although many peoples aspire to have their own nation state, I believe, paradoxically, that the nation state has had its day. Globalisation is a stronger force. Nation states can no longer fulfill their core function of protecting their citizens. Back in the 1960's keen internationalists like me were eagerly discussing how the development of multinationals with bigger budgets than some countries could only be kept in bounds with stronger international government. In the early 21st Century it would seem foolish in the extreme to confront problems which face the entire human race, and the planet, by relying on the nation state whose raison d'etre is to protect us from other nation states.
What on earth makes you think that some putative "one world government" would look after the interests of people rather than those of multinational corporations? Surely it's far more likely that on a global scale the only ones with enough resources to make themselves heard by the politicians would be those same corporations!
Hi Marvin the Martian. My point was that the problem of multinationals was being discussed among fellow schoolchildren and students in the early sixties, but seems to have taken till now (when I'm in my late sixties) to have become a widely discussed issue. At that time, the British branch of the Association of World Federalists had the slogan 'World Peace Through World Law'; at this time, my own thinking having mellowed a bit, I would no longer regard the phrase 'World government' as a useful selling point for the idea of internationalism: indeed, in certain parts of the world, the whole idea would freak people out.
Alongside the perennial problem of peace (and in some parts of the world simply the problem of getting decent government) there are at least half a dozen other problems facing the human race that are completely new, and which can only be solved by international agreement. International agreement is the present basis of world government that actually operates, but I think that more international institutions should be part of the mixture of jurisdictions if the world is to be a reasonable place, or for that matter if the human race is to survive. But I agree with you that international institutions are subject to the same dark forces that can be a malign influence on national governments or separatists, multinationals or the super-rich.
Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
All the modern wars I can think of off-hand have been launched with lies of one kind or another... With democracies, lies would seem to be a necessary part of waging war, since if people knew the truth they wouldn't fight.
Sort of - I admire your idealism. I think this needs to be qualified as "launched on at least one side with lies of one kind or another."
Surely the democracies on the "defensive" will fight without being lied to, as it's defensive? To that extent, we could go on for paragraphs about who said what to whom in the run up to 1982, what mixed messages the Argentinean government were sent from London, etc, but once the enemy forces were on the islands I don't think the British government had to lie to get public backing for sending a task force.
I'd also be willing to go a certain way down that line for Kuwait 1990 - whoever drew the maps 70 years before it was a pretty safe assumption that the Kuwaitis didn't want the Iraqis there, whatever the other motivations may have been. Actually, I might go as far as to say neither side was lying in that war - both pretty genuinely thought they had a case.
At the same time, I wonder how much your advocacy of wider federation actually holds. Yes, South Sudan now exists with the blessing of the African Union, but the border hasn't been exactly peaceful, and it's doubtful if there is much residual blessing from the rest of the Sudan, however optimistic things seemed last summer. Below that, the interesting thing is how spectacularly unsuccessful federation has been since the 19th century. Germany has worked, Italy perhaps less so, but along the way we've lost the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.
It's interesting in the last day or so that George Soros has started to predict the unravelling of the EU....
It was a bit of a throwaway remark, so I guess I will have to try to justify it! I think the Falklands War was fought as a war of deterrence. Had we handed matters over to the UN or simply accepted a fait accompli every other red dot on the globe we acquired during the 19th century would have been a potential target, perhaps even the 18th century 'prize' of Gibraltar. However, the idea of defending the democratic rights of the islanders became the headline issue.
The idea of lies being necessary for modern warfare was pinched by me from a book by the military writer J.F.C.Fuller. John Pilger has, from a totally different political standpoint, argued the same thing for the Vietnam War. So I thought perhaps they were on to something.
With regard to South Sudan, I would say that this was a part of Africa where Britain screwed up spectacularly. The Sudan was acquired for purely strategic reasons, to safeguard the route to India, which we felt would be compromised if the French controlled the headwaters of the Nile. In order to save money, and perhaps to honour the memory of General Gordon, it was occupied from the North rather from British East Africa. Although it was officially part of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan it was controlled by a handful of British officials, and indeed in fairly recent newspaper articles the fact that they did this armed with nothing more than swagger sticks was apparently one of the glories of the British Empire. The reality was it remained isolated not only from Egypt but from the rest of the world, as unprepared for independence as the neighbouring Belgian Congo. South Sudan suffers from weak government, but it is a vast improvement on the decades of civil war that preceded it.
In general I think the development of regional groupings in Africa is to be welcomed, and that the African Union will, among other things, encourage stronger and more efficient government. Above all, the existence of these wider units of government will, at last, allow Africa to stave off the bullying of other countries and corporations.
Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
