Secession and libertarianism – Ukraine IV

   The most basic rule of schoolyard behavior is this: Don’t challenge the school bully if your knees are buckling under you. Mr Obama keeps ignoring the rule, with predictable results: One tyrant, one despot after another receives his confirmation that the USA is no dangerous, no matter what you do. Thinking the US in not dangerous is very dangerous for the world. I keep challenging the ones and the others, including mainstream libertarians, to say what will, or should replace the pax americana that has given us relative peace since 1945. No one cares to answer.

    This introduction, not by way of beginning to argue that the US should have gone to war over Crimea. I don’t believe it should have; I don’t even think the US should have risked war ever so little because of Crimea. I think rather that Mr Obama should have been absent, with a pass for the nurse’s office, for example. Neither am I being pathetically “realistic,” here. Mine is a principled position. Let me explain.

    Anyone who has any libertarian fiber but who maintains his criticality should be instinctively in favor of secessions. Two reasons.

    First if being governed is an assault on individual liberty, being governed by those who are unlike you in some fundamental way is a doubly liberticide. Fundamental differences include, but are not limited to, language. That’s because your language largely determines the way you see the world and your sensitivities, what’s important to you as a person. Governors who have different beliefs, who operate on the basis of different assumptions, who nurture different dislikes than you are bound to commit slow rape on you every day of your life. That’s true even if they harbor zero hostile intention toward you. And that’s unless you volunteer, of course, as many immigrants like me – do.

     I wish good luck to the Catalan independentists and to the Scottish autonomists. I would even if you proved to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that powerful economic interests undergirth their efforts. It’s true that Catalonia is more prosperous than the rest of Spain. It does not prevent Catalans from feelings how they do. They probably would, if they were less prosperous. I don’t know if the Scots would like to split from the UK absent North Sea oil but, if they do, they do, and that’s it. I believe, of course, that the Tibetans have had a solid claim for secession for all the time they have been under Chinese rule. (And, yes, it may well be that the objective quality of their lives has improved under Chinese Communist Party dictatorship.)

    Am I saying that it’s better to be oppressed by those you think of as your kin?

                                Yes.

    The Crimean population overwhelmingly wanted secession from Ukraine. Without the presence of Russian guns, the referendum would have been, maybe, 76 % in favor rather than 96%. The final result would have been the same. It’s not difficult to entertain this double thought: Putin is a gangster and the Crimeans would rather be Russian citizens.

    Speaking of Putin: The fact that he used exactly the same arguments as Hitler in 1939 does not logically imply that he did something like dismantling and gobbling up independent Czechoslovakia. The Czechs and the Slovaks, were not volunteers the way most Crimeans are. The annexation of Crimea by Russia changes little to all this. (See below.) Crimeans did not feel Ukrainian, overall and they were tired of being very poor under the Ukraine. They would rater be moderately poor as Russians. It’s not hard to believe either.

    The second reason for libertarians to favor secession instinctively is that rational people cannot treat the boundaries of nation-states as if they were sacred, the way most governments pretend to do. At best, one could argue that that fiction contributes to world stability. (I doubt it but it’s not a stupid position.) Rather, the borders of existing nation-states are often the result of centuries of sometimes successful wars (France), or of recent shameless robbery of one’s neighbors (the US), or of colonial bureaucratic insouciance (Iraq). In some cases, the tracing of boundaries looks like a joke: Take for example the long penis-like extension of Afghanistan into China in the eastern part of the former country. The mapmaker, probably a junior English officer, must have chuckled with relief in his loneliness.

    National boundaries may be useful or even indispensable ( to control entry, of undesirables, for example) that makes them a necessity, or a necessary evil. Nothing confers on them a status above critical thinking: Sometimes, the violation of existing borders should not be countenanced; sometimes, such violation deserves only a shrug.

     Note with respect to the present annexation of Crimea by Russia following this secession, I am saying nothing about the ensuing strengthening of the Russian kleptocracy. The encouragement of tyrants inherent in the Putin impunity also belongs in another essay.

    The fact is that the prevention of secession has always produced tons of mischief, most of it violent, much of it an affront to basic human decency.

    Hitler used the existence of a sizable German minority in a strategically important part of Czechoslovakia, of smaller Hungarians-speaking and of Ukrainian-speaking smaller minorities elsewhere to start World War II. It’s possible, even likely that Hitler would have used another excuse absent this one. But linguistic minority aspirations gave a cover of semi-legitimacy to his aggressive action. Without such legitimacy, it is quite conceivable that British and French public opinions would have demanded that Hitler be stopped while it was still possible. (The whole sorry story of Western passivity and vacillation in 1938-39 is recounted in minute, hour-by hour detail in William Shirer’ s classic: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.)

     In more recent times, we witnessed violent and massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo , the three-year long siege of a large city one hour flight from Rome, Sarajevo, and the starvation and daily bombing of its civilian population, and the massacre of thousands of men and boys, also in Bosnia. Most of these horrors could have been avoided by finely wrought enough secessions, even at county level if necessary.

    A contrario examples abound of the healthful, virtuous nature of secession as a solution to intercommunal tensions. Some come from the most unlikely places.

    The dissolution of Czechoslovakia – a radical form of secession – in 1993 was so peaceful that it went almost unperceived . The resulting Czech and Slovak Republics have since continued separately on their fairly prosperous paths. They maintain sound relationships as good neighbors (as very good neighbors, more or less like the US and Canada).

    Paradoxically, today’s Iraq offers a striking example of the virtuousness of secession. The world follows with a tired eye Iraqi Arabs eviscerating each other along communal lines. That is, the Sunni Muslim Arabs there and the Shiite Muslim Arabs there are slaughtering each other every day, same as when the presence of Americans was said to cause all the murderous civil strife. Many Sunnis and many Shiites consider themselves members of existentially different groups. They do so for reasons that are probably difficult for Westerners to understand (except those who remember the Wars of Religion in Europe, of course, between 1520 and 1648.) It matters not; as far as they are concerned, those are reasons worth killing and dying for. Keeping them bottled up together, forced co-habitation, is not likely to attenuate these sentiments. (Think of ill-matched college roommates.)

     In the meantime, you hardly ever hear of the Northern third of the same country, bloodied Iraq. I refer to “Kurdistan,” still formally a part of the Iraqi republic. Kurdistan, which does not exist officially, is people mostly by Kurds, a group with a distinctive language unrelated to Arabic. They comprise both Sunnis and Shiites. As far as the facts on the ground are concerned, Iraqi “Kurdistan” has achieved secession from its bloodied mother country. No shot was fired in spite of the quick-trigger violence of the Middle-East. The Kurdish area is so prosperous and so peaceful that others go there on vacation. The vacationers are first of all, Arabs from other parts of Iraq seeking relief from incessant violence in their part of the country. Second, Turks are crossing their southern border in increasing numbers for the same purpose . (May of those Turkish tourists are probably themselves ethnic Kurds.)

     And we should not lose track of the fact that the 25 years of Saddam tyranny over all of Iraq, accompanied by internal massacres and two wars he started deliberately found what legitimacy it possessed in the supposedly sacred duty to keep Iraq unified. (Keep in mind that the Saddamite regime utterly lacked traditional legitimacy and religious legitimacy, or the political legitimacy that comes from winning fair elections, or any other source of legitimacy.)

    Had Iraq broken up earlier into a Kurdish north, a Sunni center and a Shiite south, the world and, especially, the martyred Iraqi people, would have been spared enormous misery. It’s not too late to achieve this end.

    I am speculating that many people’s unexamined attachment to the general concept of national border harks back to an earlier time, a time when they were coterminous with economic boundaries and with information boundaries. Not long ago, French citizens ate almost only French food, they wore only French-made clothing (there was even a lively traffic in illegal, smuggled blue jeans), and heard and read only news originating in France in French. All was produced almost entirely with French capital. National boundaries were then the very containers of our existence defined in the most concrete ways. None of this is true anymore for most countries. Borders are porous to most things including words (if not yet to people). Many people are thus ready to fight for a reality that disappeared quite a while ago.

    A major more or less unintended effect of this pursuit of ghosts is that it easily turns to bloodshed, domestic and international. So, many Spaniard are resisting the threatened secession of Catalonia as if it would become a catastrophe of sorts for them. There is still little realization that nations that perceived themselves as homogenous (for whatever reason) are spared major conflicts, including civil conflict. Homogenous Denmark, with a similar level of development, is more peaceful than bi-community (linguistic communities) Belgium. Either a Walloon or a Flemish secession there would improve the lives of both Walloon and Fleming.

    Secession is usually a good thing overall, for peace, and for individual liberties. Let them go and they will lose the ability to stab you in your own kitchen with your own kitchen knife. They may even become your friends, after a while.

    N.B. I still have not heard anyone, or heard of anyone saying that he regretted voting for Obama. Amazing!

Update: Now I know one! See the firs comment below.

About these ads

About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English. When I write in French, I often use my middle initial “J” to avoid confusion with another blogger with views very different from mine. I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!)
This entry was posted in Current Events, Socio-Political Essays and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Secession and libertarianism – Ukraine IV

  1. McHenry says:

    I regret voting for Obama. Though, I have a strong distrust of Mormons. They started it.

    I still wouldn’t vote Romney. But I think he would have done a better job.

  2. Well, that’s half the decision. You don’t have to have a good chair in sight to get off the stove that’s burning your ass!

    You wouldn’t vote for the guy who would have done a better job because?

    I have heard others say they don’t trust Mormons. I don’t know why. They surely have strange beliefs but so do all Christians.

    • McHenry says:

      The first time I entered a Mormon town they called the police on me. The first time I recall meeting a Christian they tried to convert me. That is my experience, people aren’t all the same but I thought Mormonism needed a closer look because of it.
      Christianity has the advantage of starting a long time ago, so at least believers can hide behind the vale of history. The teachings of Mormonism were created and spread during a time when humanity already knew them to be false. Belief requires some kind of double life to keep reality separate from church, much in the way that creationists do. At least Christians make an attempt to modify their claims for improved accuracy.
      Anyway, I can’t trust Mormons to hold rational views of the world so I won’t trust one to make rational choices for our country. On principle.
      I think Romney could have kept his politics separate, and so would have out performed Obama at this point….but on principle I still would not endorse him, just in case he too wants me jailed.

      • “Humanity” did not know that Christian beliefs were false when Mormonism started in the early nineteenth. It still does not. If you insist on eliminating from high govt responsibilities all Christian and similar believers, it surely narrows the field!. It might come down to you and me. I’ll tell you what: You can have it.

      • McHenry says:

        Let’s see….Mormons seem to believe: the garden of Eden is in Missouri, salt lake is a second Jerusalem, the US govt was supposed to crumble under its own evil weight to give way to the Mormon empire (once in the 1800′s and again in 2000), American Indians are a lost tribe of Jews, they fought a race of armored giants whose remains can still be found today, that the prophet speaks directly to god (and the prophets is never wrong, except when he is, but that just means he’s human sometimes), there are 4 original prophets who never die (they live in America), and that the proof polygamy is divinely ordained is that it naturally feels right to have multiple spouses.

        I was just thinking somebody should asked a few more questions before spreading this around.

      • Well, It’s not all bad, McHenry. First, I heard American Indians speak Yiddish with my own ears. (It was in a Mel Brooks’ movies, maybe.) Second: All Christians without exception are required to believe that the body of the agitator Jesus, was not NOT removed from its tomb by the Roman authorities, or by the Temples priests (both for political reasons) nor by his followers, for reasons of respect. If you suspect any of the above, you are not a Christian although you may be a friend of Christianity.

        By the way: Not a word against Jesus. I think I would have liked him. He was not a wimp and he took the trouble to change water into wine and not the reverse.

    • McHenry says:

      True. I like Jesus.

      Although the beliefs of a true Christian are easily comparable to what I am calling impossible in the Book of Mormon, I think the difference is in modern times the general definition of “Christian” has become watered down.
      Yes, a true Christian has some lofty beliefs, but many in this county identify as Christian having only a vague awareness of the teaching and without ever attending church. And this is fine in that I’ve never known a devout Christian to call out a casual one. And, like I said earlier, at least over time Christian leaders attempt to adopt modern principles into tier religion. (Example would be that I now hear God started evolution.)

      Not so for Mormons. Those who loosely believe, and who I met in Utah, are called “Jack Mormons” and they are not part of the main church. Temple is for the true believers who do not waver from their belief. Unlike the willing changes in Christian belief, Mormons have only done so when forced. Used to be blacks were evil and not allowed in the club….until the US government threatened to revoke their status as a recognized religion. And then? Well, the prophet went home and had himself a vision that night where God said “oh, just kidding about that! Blacks are fine!”
      There is a differece between the modern Christian and Mormon, it seems to me, because I don’t think Christians are tightly tied to a certain story, leaving them open to rationality.

      • OK, McHenry, your soup is too thick.

        Many descendants of Christians have stopped being Christian at all. (That would be me.) There may be people who call themselves “Christian” as a default option. That’s not what we were talking about. You explained your distaste for the Republican candidate in terms of his Mormon beliefs. You even illustrated abundantly (and with talent) some of those beliefs. Hence, we must compare belief with belief. The central Christian set of beliefs revolves around Easter. I described accurately the last part of the Christian belief in Easter. I did this to point out its simple improbability. I could do more by taking apart other phases of the Easter story. I would show that it’s just as improbable as anything the Mormons cooked up.

        It seems to me that you should be saying that you don’t want religious believers in general in the Presidency. No Mormon, no Christian, no Muslim, etc The problem of course with your denouncing the more exotic beliefs of the Mormons is that, to be consistent, you must denounce many others. By doing so, you narrow the field of acceptables to an unsustainable point.

        Personally, I give credit to Christianity for having unwittingly opened the path to free thinking to a greater extent than other religions: Most atheists in the world have Christian antecedents, I think.

  3. Thomas H. says:

    Sir,

    Regardless of the policy and complicated politics of it, that the Russians in the world are again feared at this point and so on, and that your other points on territorial changes and the like are well – taken, maybe note the following: Despite its location on the Black Sea, a body of water greatly polluted and nonetheless obviously important strategically for all of Eastern Europe with its flagship administration still in Russia, there are great privations in this place (Crimea) as part of the far provinces from the capitol – as part of Ukraine, people cannot afford fuel, food, housing sometimes and so forth. Forget the complicated politics and history here, and that even the Russians might just have avoided a war with their referendum on secession from Ukraine, and some other talking and decision points – people of the world mostly vote with their pocketbooks and their feet, for example, and the Crimea, apparently versus additional wrangling and open argument and conflict due to economic iniquities as part of Ukraine, as perhaps a Russified people has made a choice to accept a deal from Russia proper. Probably the peninsula voting to separate from, again Ukraine, avoided a slippery slope with respect to regional considerations and the current outcome is not so great, but by this avoided a breakout of what might have been very pitched and unthinkable hostilities. Please consider this. .

  4. Thomas: Strategy matters. I did not say that libertarians should support all secessions but that they should instinctively favor secession. Instinct is no substitute for analysis. It may make you open your eyes. It’s necessary to say this to Americans because of the heavy weight on their consciousness of the War between the States.

  5. Gabe says:

    It’s hard to imagine any election would win by 96%. How did you draw the ~76%?

    If Crimea wanted to be apart of Russia so bad I would imagine Putin wouldn’t have had to roll in his tanks and flex.

    I don’t think you can draw a conclusion if Crimea really wanted to be apart of Russia.

  6. Gabe:

    The 97% made me squirm too, as I said. The 75% is just a guess to say that the pro-independence vote would have won overwhelmingly irrespective of anything if it had been allowed under normal circumstances.

    The Ukraine, the US, the UN have declared the referendum illegal. It probably is. But I don’t see how people should be forbidden by law from expressing their preference. This is a time when “legal” does not cut it. The proposed referendum for Catalonia has also been declared illegal by the Spanish government. I don’t care there either.

    The Ukrainian armed forces, though weak, were strong enough to prevent a Crimean referendum.

    Putin rolled tanks into Crimea to make sure the “illegal” referendum would take place. (Also, he is an ex-KGB agent and old habits die hard.) A couple of weeks later, there are no protests in a Crimea which is crawling with journalists. Not a single journalist has been expelled. The shows of joy by some of the Crimean population cannot readily be faked with the projectors of the world turned on that small piece of land.

    According to the today’s WSJ, there are only 5,000 Russian troops in Crimea.

    Putin is a gangster and an old-style fascist and the Crimean did not want to be citizens of the failed state that is the Ukraine. No incompatibility there .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s