The vote to determine Scotland’s independence is being followed closely around the world by disaffected people who would also like to create their own independent states. Catalonians in Spain, Walloons in Belgium, Texans in the U.S.—all are watching this vote closely.
Would the world be better off if every disaffected population had its own state? We could have a giant federal system in which local groups would have self-government, but would also cooperate to solve problems that spill beyond national boundaries.
Self-determination, which was one of Wilson’s 14 Points after World War I, has an inherent difficulty. Just how do you determine what peoples get “self determination,” and what do you do when the populations are mixed?
Would India be better served by ten or fifteen independent states? Would the U.S. be better served if Texas were granted independence? Would Canada be better off with an independent Quebec?
On the one hand, we are all united by global issues—environmental problems, trade, technology; on the other hand we are still divided by medieval loyalties—language, religion, race.
In a world of Facebook and Twitter, we have religious groups beheading people.
I am not optimistic.
(But I do hope Texas leaves the U.S. What a wonderful thing that would be for the rest of America. I’m sure King Perry the 1st would do an amazing job.)
No comments:
Post a Comment