Commentary: Secession movements around the world!

April 15, 2014 - The world is abuzz over Crimea. 95% of the Crimean people recently voted to reconnect with Russia after a twenty-three-year hiatus. Although Crimea had been Russian for over 200 years, Western powers hollered, "foul!" over the re-unification.

In addition to Western pundits commenting nightly that such an occurrence is an international disaster, the world seems to be taking up sides over the possibility that any other former Russian territory may also choose to re-unite with Russia, and sabers are already rattling all round.

We tend to forget that, although the world map has looked more or less the same since the end of World War II, it has been the norm, throughout history, for large parcels of property to change hands fairly often. Boundaries move. Countries become larger, smaller, or disappear altogether. Large empires are created, swallowing up smaller countries, sometimes lasting for 200 years or more, then inexorably breaking up into smaller remnants.

Certainly we are heading into a period of dramatic change - economic change, social change, and certainly political change. Whenever such a period occurs in history, changes in the lines on the map inevitably also occur. Although no major changes have taken place recently, early rumblings can be heard all over the world.

• Venetians send 71 billion euros to Rome annually, yet only 50 billion euros return in services and investment. As they have become "tired of supporting the poor and crime-ridden south," 89% of Venetians have recently voted to create their own sovereign state. Following the vote, Venetians declared independence from Italy. Already this decision has sparked an interest in Sardinia to have a referendum. Discussions are afoot for Lombardy, Trentino, and Friuli-Venezia Giulia to possibly join them.
• Scotland was an independent country until the 1707 National Referendum, when it became a part of the United Kingdom. However, in September 2014, they will vote to decide whether they will leave the UK and become independent. The UK has, since the 1950s, taken a passive position in relinquishing its colonies, and the majority of them have gone independent since then. However, if a colony (now called a British Overseas Territory) wishes to remain a colony, the UK firmly defends that choice. This "let the people decide" stance is extremely admirable and may well be unique in the world.
• Spain lost Gibraltar to the UK in 1704, and they want it back. Understandably, Gibraltarians have a great deal more faith in a tie to Britain than to Spain. The Spanish would also like to once again have Andorra. To add to the drama, Spain is having problems over Catalonia and the Basque provinces.
• Across the Atlantic, sabers are also being rattled in Argentina. President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner seeks to retake the Falkland Islands, despite a recent overwhelming (99%) vote by Falklanders to remain a part of Britain (and despite a decisive victory by the UK only 30 years ago over the same islands).

In much of the world, small countries are hoping to retain their independence, while portions of larger countries are trying to establish their independence. Understandably, they're meeting with resistance, as it's usually the areas that are the net-contributors to the larger economy that seek independence, while the areas that are the net-recipients wish to take the conglomerate approach (and to continue to eat their neighbor’s lunch).

What will the outcome be: the end of the nation state, as libertarians would hope, or something akin to George Orwell's Eurasia, Eastasia, and Oceania?

It may well be that neither will be fully realized. Human nature being eternal, the world will always have the libertarians on one end of the spectrum and the dominators on the other. The struggle will be unending, and we shall continue to see empires and associations rise and fall, while smaller nations break away at intervals.

The real question is how we choose to deal with this eternal condition. Do we as individuals take comfort in being a part of a conglomerate, with its promise of full equality, security, and cradle-to-grave care, regardless of how insincere (and impossible) that promise might be, or do we choose the smaller, more independent state, with its goals of productivity, greater opportunity, and self-determination?

If the latter, we should examine such smaller states and those that are emerging. Some, like Hong Kong, Andorra, and the Cayman Islands, are well established. Others, like Venice, bear watching, for they may provide the future of free-market self-determination.