Since time began, sovereign nations have had to deal with the problem of secession from within their borders. Such is the case with the UK and Ireland, Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Greece and Cyprus, Israel and Palestine, Serbia and Kosovo, India and Kashmir, the list goes on.

     Independence-seeking territories have always been the thorn in the side of larger, more powerful nations, mainly due to the fact that over the years nations of this calibre have acquired an empire of some kind, thus putting the fate of select smaller nations under their control. More often than not it is either the abuse of the smaller country’s resources by its ‘emporer’ which provide the catalyst for rebellion, however matters such as religious freedom, economic autonomy and human rights also factor.

     Throughout history there have been numerous cases wherein the wishes of these aspiring territories have been granted, either by the empire itself or as a result of pressure on the empire from other world powers. 

     Probably the most significant historical geopolitcal case is that of the Roman Empire in 406, closely followed by the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. In both cases, dozens of nations were granted self-rule and given the oppertunity to decide their own fate rather than be governed by a foreign power.

     The question that is frequently asked is when should an independence-seeking territory be granted its independence, and when it should not? This argument was recently thrust into the forefront of international politics when Kosovo unilateraly declared independence from Serbia on February 17 without its approval. However, the Western powers supported Kosovo’s secession and welcomed it to the group of new nations. The countries Spain, Portugal and Russia did not support the secession and warned that it would ’set a dangerous precendent.’

     And indeed it did.

     Just a month later, Russia announced that it would provide de-facto recognition to South-Ossetia and Abkhazia which the pro-Western nation of Georgia considers part of its nation. Russia began supplying weapons and economic support in its lead up to officially supporting the secession of these two territories. Naturally, this angered the West and has helped fuel a new cold war between Russia and the United States.

     Should not every territory reserve the right to secede if it is their wish? The issue is certainly complicated.

     Take Palestine for example. If Palestine declared independence unilaterally with East Jerusalem as its capital and Russia supported it, imagine the chain reaction. Or if Kashmir declared unilateral independence from India and Kashmir with full Chinese support. Another example may be if Kurdistan declared independence on Turkey’s border with Israeli support. In these scenarios we are looking at three viable flashpoints for a Third World War. Indeed it is very lucky that Kosovo has not yet materialized that way.

     As a general principle, the international community (ie, the UN) has deduced that where there are sufficient and reasonable grounds for a territory to secede, independence should be granted. A particularly good example is if the territory has been under the unwanted occupation of a foreign power. Such is the case with Iraq, yet the US and several of its allies remain there more than five years after they invaded.

     The risks have to be weighed when making the decision to grant autonomy or independence to a given territory, but the ethical argument is squarely in the favour of the underdog. If a territory wants its independence, wants to be free from central rule and authority, let it.

     After all, it would not be fair of parents to deny their 47 year old son his wish to move out, would it?

     In faith, -BJH