|
In the post-Soviet world, the fundamental issue of peoples and nations has risen again and again. For millions of people, the collapse of the Soviet Union meant freedom from a regime that had killed or oppressed their loved ones. For others, it meant the ability to associate and interact freely with people throughout the globe. For even more, it meant the chance to claim ethnic identities long suppressed by the all encompassing label of state communism. This phenomenon, of peoples flexing their political and cultural voices for the first time, has remained a defining feature of the modern world. For better or worse remains to be seen.
Based on the American experience we may be tempted to enthusiastically support these independence movements. Centuries of historical evidence provided by violent separatism arguably counsel otherwise, however. If one takes into account the violent crackdowns in nations such as Tibet, where Chinese soldiers are reportedly responsible for dozens of deaths, or Bhutan, where an entire minority has been exiled in favor of homogeneity, it would seem that the forces of ethnic self-determination cause more chaos than benefit. Imagine the destruction if every group, no matter how small, felt that they had the right to political independence. Still, the fact remains that the very notion of national sovereignty forms the basis of international political relations. If the Tibetans or the Kosovars cannot legitimately claim to be a separate ethnic group, capable of independence, what justifies the claims of more powerful nations to the same? In addition, it has already been acknowledged that the majority of modern conflicts have been caused by the forces of ethnic nationalism. Perhaps if each group receives the recognition it deserves the international community can finally put an end to the ceaseless violence. Proponent Arguments - Many conflicts in the modern age are inspired by the forces of ethnic nationalism. These include Iraq, Bosnia, Tibet, and Rwanda. If each group were given its independence and political self-determination, the number and severity of these conflicts should be drastically reduced.
- A nation cannot at the same time claim to be sovereign by virtue of the people it is based on and at the same time deny that claim to minorities.
- Many brutally oppressed peoples, such as the Kurds, deserve an ethnic homeland in areas that they have lived for centuries.
- Ethnicities freed from the bonds of others often go onto become the success stories of their regions.
Opponent Arguments - Keeping in mind the flagrantly forced assimilation of Native American populations, the United States government cannot legitimately adopt a policy supporting ethnic self-determination.
- To support the independence movements of certain ethnic groups, such as the Tibetans or the Kurds, would be an international relations blunder of unparallel magnitude.
- When considering territorial and economic concerns, it is almost impossible to equitably place newly independent ethnicities. Consider, for example, Iraq and Israel.
- Many ethnic groups, including the Irish and Tibetans, have been part of other states for centuries. It can be argued that they are just as much British or Chinese as they are Irish or Tibetan.
Still Undecided? Check out the following links for more information, and remember that the best position is an informed one.
“Kosovo puts self-determination on global stage” Taiwan Journal; March 20, 2008 “National Self-Determination: The Legacy of the French Revolution ” International Studies Association Annual Meeting; March 2000 “Dilemmas of Self-Determination ” Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security; December 1994
 |
