Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Ivan's post and following comments

"I always look at separatist movements like this, is it worth me sending people to die to keep them in the fold. I would just let them go (probably in the US civil war, I would have been a person saying , well if they want to leave bad enough to fight, let them, and leave the door open to coming back into the fold later on).

Though I don't support other countries supporting separatist movements for their own good."

Yours truly, and Candace makes the following comment.

"cube: that argument might be worthwhile if it wasn't for the fact that the whole state is on the verge of disintegration. It's already in a region that's ripe for terrorism, letting Georgia go to pieces is really not a good idea. It isn't like a strong state holding on authoritatively or anything."

I have detailed my support of separatist movements in the past here and here.

first, if a person is willing to die to save their way of life or to live the way of life that they want to live, I am not willing to die to force them to live my way of life. If one thing that people want most in life is freedom? Then I am willing to hand that to them along, with a large does of self determination.

Secondly, I will mention a few separatist movements that I have a brief knowledge of. The IRA, Basque separatist, Kurds in Turkey, Kashmir, Taiwan, and don't forget French Canadians. Here is a link that has a lot more.

How many lives could be saved if people just let others go and do their own thing? Peaceful separatist movements are the way to go. I do not support letting go with no strings attached, but the strings attached should be fair compensation to the State that has lost land, infrastructure, and tax payer money. A country getting it's own government should be handled through the capitalist avenues we have available.

The only way to stop a true separatist movement is to outlast them (The brits and the IRA are a good example of this), destroy them (the Jews are a good example of this one), destroy their cultural identity (can't think of any good examples of this one, though forced marriages to people of others cultures would be an example of this), or to make your country so nice that it undercuts the movements base of support. Some of those options lean toward the violent side, or at least toward removing personal liberty.


To address Candace's statement: "that argument might be worthwhile if it wasn't for the fact that the whole state is on the verge of disintegration."

That fact is what make my argument valid, the entire state is falling apart. Out lasting the movement seems like a bad option, or making the country nice seems impossible. So the only options for keeping that state together lean toward the violent or oppressive.

cube

3 comments:

the fbg said...

Cube --

I know of nobody in the entire world with any credibility who believes that the Georgian state should disintegrate. You fundamentally misunderstand the situation. Separatism would not lead to independence for any of these utterly inviable statelets. At BEST, Russia would integrate them -- but they've got enough on their hands.

You can't support something universally on principle. I know it sounds nice, but if you can't wrap your head around the surrounding issues, you're advocating something on shallow ideas, no matter how sincere. That's like saying "people have a right to defend themselves" and forgetting that sometimes self-defense is thinly veiled agression. Or saying "women have the right to decide whether or not they want to have children" and using the argument to support all forms of family control, including out-of-womb infanticide.

Because we tend to know less about international issues, and they don't often hit home, we often analogize with real issues we've been confronted with and just apply them blanketly. But that's wrong 99% of the time. You made a really quick decision on what you supported here, right after first hearing abou the issue. Please spend some more time reading and thinking about it before advocating a position this dangerous.

If you want more history of Georgia, check out Caucasus reports from RFERL or go into my not-updated-as-frequently-as-it-should-be blog, http://bloggeorgia.blogspot.com.

the fbg said...

Oh, and by the way -- they're not peaceful. And disintegration of the Georgian state is not only violent in the process, but in the aftermath. You want to open up another area of the world to terrorism... you'll see what I mean if you look into it a litte more. I think your idealism is nice and you mean well and I'm sorry if my tone makes you defensive, and I think that learning more about separatism in general would really change your mind on the issue, if peace and liberty are your goals.

Wish the world was that pretty, but it's really not.

Cubicle said...

"I know of nobody in the entire world with any credibility who believes that the Georgian state should disintegrate. You fundamentally misunderstand the situation"

I don't support disintegration, i just support not fighting it, which basically is supporting it (though peacefully).



"Separatism would not lead to independence for any of these utterly inviable statelets. At BEST, Russia would integrate them -- but they've got enough on their hands. "

Well what if they want to go back to the mother land?


"You made a really quick decision on what you supported here, right after first hearing abou the issue."

Maybe, but that does not mean i am wrong. When i look at the history that i know about separatist movements, it never turns out well. The only thing that i have not heard of being tried is just letting go.


"Please spend some more time reading and thinking about it before advocating a position this dangerous."

Hmmm...maybe but i would really just prefer to get a once sentence synopsis while i am playing video games. And i don't see how just letting go and not fighting could be dangerous in this case, but i will look into it.