Self-Determination or Territorial Integrity?

[Mosov]

These two principles have often contradicted each other in cases of regions trying to break apart from their parent country. Do you believe that self-determination overrides territorial integrity or the other way around?

For example, if a given territory of a land has a legitimate reason for separation and expresses that will democratically, do the people of that territory have the inherent right to self-determination and self-governance? Or does the territorial integrity of the country they are in supersede any such will?

[Joe McCarthy]

A thorny question. I think democratic ideals often clash with reality and pose serious security concerns. In the case of the US, for example, had the Confederacy succeeded in seceding from the Union it would have opened up the entire country to the threat of foreign influence and intervention. Historically division has very often led to conquest by foreign powers.

In truth, if countries break up, it is often not just the 'nation' seceding that benefits, but rival states. The Russians would just love it if some secessionist movement caught fire in the US, for example.

[Ouistreham]

The Russians would just love it if some secessionist movement caught fire in the US, for example.

Mr Joe McCarthy could have mentioned "The Chinese", "The Mexicans, "The Muslims", who all would equally rejoice in the U.S. of A. were to split.

But no, his agenda wanted him to say "the Russians".

Since you hate Europeans that much, what exactly are you doing here?

[Joe McCarthy]

Mr Joe McCarthy could have mentioned "The Chinese", "The Mexicans, "The Muslims", who all would equally rejoice in the U.S. of A. were to split.

But no, his agenda wanted him to say "the Russians".

Since you hate Europeans that much, what exactly are you doing here?

I mentioned the Russians because unlike Mexico and China, they have prominent figures who salivate over the US breaking up.

[SilverKnight]

Self-Determination, I strongly believe in inheritance.

[Anarch]

Self determination, absolutely. Had the Confederacy successfully seceeded, I have little doubt Confederate and Union guerillas (as well as standing armies) would've waged a successful campaign against foreign intrusion on what is now the US. I'm not convinced either side would've hated each other to the extent they'd welcome concrete foreign 'assistance' in fighting each other, had the north simply accepted Southern independence and not waged the northern war of aggression.

[Joe McCarthy]

Self determination, absolutely. Had the Confederacy successfully seceeded, I have little doubt Confederate and Union guerillas (as well as standing armies) would've waged a successful campaign against foreign intrusion on what is now the US. I'm not convinced either side would've hated each other to the extent they'd welcome concrete foreign 'assistance' in fighting each other, had the north simply accepted Southern independence and not waged the northern war of aggression.

As it was the Confederacy committed treason by actively seeking foreign intervention. They offered Napoleon III cotton at cut rate prices if he'd help break the naval blockade of New Orleans. The French only declined because the British refused to help them.

Waging some dumb guerilla campaign would of course been entirely unnecessary and implausible had the blasted Confederates not seceded in the first place.

[Zephyr]

This question has no meaning in the New World except for Quebec.

As the matter a fact it's even opposite. Colombia and Venezuela are different countries based on nothing. Mere political games. Colonial countries who split, did it because of political factions, not ethnic consciousness.

Look at how the USA states divide. Some are just squares.

In the Old World, Wales is a nation, Catalunya is a nation, Brittany is a nation, not just arbitrary drawings resulting from bureaucracy.

[Jake Featherston]

I mentioned the Russians because unlike Mexico and China, they have prominent figures who salivate over the US breaking up.

The Chinese are 10,000 times more our enemy than Russia, and I'm sure they'd love to see a secessionist movement in the USA.

[Jake Featherston]

As it was the Confederacy committed treason by actively seeking foreign intervention.

The CSA regarded itself as rightfully independent, hence it wasn't treason.

[Joe McCarthy]

The CSA regarded itself as rightfully independent, hence it wasn't treason.

Yeah, the usual loophole argument against the treason charge. Nonetheless, it was waging war against the United States, and actively sought to bring in foreign powers onto our soil to assist them in rebellion.

Getting the French involved in North America could have untold consequences. Just look what they've done to Canada.

[Padre Organtino]

This question has no meaning in the New World except for Quebec.


Well, if the current trends continue we may witness those separatist movements inside US as well. And I don't have only Southerners in my mind.

[Anarch]

As it was the Confederacy committed treason by actively seeking foreign intervention. They offered Napoleon III cotton at cut rate prices if he'd help break the naval blockade of New Orleans. The French only declined because the British refused to help them.

Waging some dumb guerilla campaign would of course been entirely unnecessary and implausible had the blasted Confederates not seceded in the first place.

Following this line of logic, the United States of America should never have seceeded from the British Empire. Breaking a naval blockade is entirely different from one side encouraging the active expansion of French colonies at the expense of the other.

[Joe McCarthy]

The Chinese are 10,000 times more our enemy than Russia, and I'm sure they'd love to see a secessionist movement in the USA.

I certainly wouldn't go that far. Don't let the fact that they're white blind you to reality.

While I'm sure the chinks wouldn't mind seeing us break up, I'm unaware of any prominent figure in the Chinese government saying so publicly, unlike Russia.

[Joe McCarthy]

Following this line of logic, the United States of America should never have seceeded from the British Empire.

Apples and oranges. The British Empire had surrendered sovereignty by declaring us outside the protection of the law. In the case of the American Revolution rebellion was necessary to restore law and order.

[Anarch]

Yeah, the usual loophole argument against the treason charge. Nonetheless, it was waging war against the United States, and actively sought to bring in foreign powers onto our soil to assist them in rebellion.

Getting the French involved in North America could have untold consequences. Just look what they've done to Canada.

If I recall correctly, the French provided assistance to American insurgents during the independence war.


Apples and oranges. The British Empire had surrendered sovereignty by declaring us outside the protection of the law. In the case of the American Revolution rebellion was necessary to restore law and order.

And what exactly was the attitude of Lincoln towards the South's rebels?

[Joe McCarthy]

If I recall correctly, the French provided assistance to American insurgents during the independence war.


Naturally, but in that case it was the United States doing it, which is to say the French would have been unable to gain a foothold with a rebel faction on US soil.


And what exactly was the attitude of Lincoln towards the South's rebels?

Lincoln too was restoring law and order.

[Sarmatian]

I certainly wouldn't go that far. Don't let the fact that they're white blind you to reality.

While I'm sure the chinks wouldn't mind seeing us break up, I'm unaware of any prominent figure in the Chinese government saying so publicly, unlike Russia.

Could you please name an example of such Russian government figure.

[riverman]

I think it depends on the country. A country that is basically one nationality, such as the U.S.A., should for logical reasons, (although argued by some), retain it's borders, and there is a use for a Federal government. On the other hand, countries, nations that are built through merely accomadating other ethnicities, who oppose each other should of course have the right to separate themselves from a quasi-nationhood.

[Joe McCarthy]

Could you please name an example of such Russian government figure.

Igor Panarin and Vladimir Zhironovsky, both of whom are Russian expansionists and envision Russia reclaiming Alaska after a US breakup.

[Sarmatian]

I think it depends on the country. A country that is basically one nationality, such as the U.S.A., should for logical reasons, (although argued by some), retain it's borders, and there is a use for a Federal government. On the other hand, countries, nations that are built through merely accomadating other ethnicities, who oppose each other should of course have the right to separate themselves from a quasi-nationhood.

According to your logic most of European countries (Ex- British Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Spanish Empire, Russian Empire, French Empire) are built on quasi-nations which in fact are multi-ethnic societies and have to be split into ethnically homogenous mini-states. So lets everyone follow the Yugoslavian example...:rolleyes:

[riverman]

^ Don't forget germany, a sort of quasi-country built from various states. Why do you think there is so much variance in looks, (and Religion) there. :rolleyes:

[Sarmatian]

Igor Panarin and Vladimir Zhironovsky, both of whom are Russian expansionists and envision Russia reclaiming Alaska after a US breakup.

The selected part means nobody in Russia planning any aggressive actions against US.

I hope you realize Zhirinovskiy is nothing but big mouthed clown and puppet of current Russia's leaders. Nobody taking seriously his fuss regarding Russia's foreign policy.

Regarding Panarin one should note that he does not proposing any aggression against USA. Being just an analyst he have a theory that US shall fall apart and Russia shall not miss an opportunity to get a piece of it when world powers will feast on US remains. Its nothing but a theory, you can call it crazy but who knows what will happens tomorrow? :rolleyes:

[Sarmatian]

^ Don't forget germany, a sort of quasi-country built from various states. Why do you think there is so much variance in looks, (and Religion) there. :rolleyes:

Hmmm... I think you missed some history classes.

Ex-Holy Roman Empire = modern Germany.

Anyway are you serious about all that? :eek: You must be insane to think it is right to split European countries into mini-states.

[Joe McCarthy]

The selected part means nobody in Russia planning any aggressive actions against US.


Well, I didn't mention aggression, but now that you mention it, for Russia to reclaim Alaska would almost certainly require military aggression as Alaskans would never vote to join Russia. Presumably annexation would occur during a time when the US is in turmoil and imploding, but then Zhironovsky and Panarin aren't very specific to my knowledge.


I hope you realize Zhirinovskiy is nothing but big mouthed clown and puppet of current Russia's leaders. Nobody taking seriously his fuss regarding Russia's foreign policy.


Zhironovsky is certainly a nutcase, but nonetheless a prominent Russian politician, and being a radical screwball has unfortunately not been a disqualifying factor in Russian politics over the last 95 years.


Regarding Panarin one should note that he does not proposing any aggression against USA. Being just an analyst he have a theory that US shall fall apart and Russia shall not miss an opportunity to get the a piece of it when world powers will feast on US remains. Its nothing but a theory, you can call it crazy but who knows what will happens tomorrow?

I don't disagree with any of this. But then I was only noting that prominent Russians are in fact talking about the US breaking up.

[Edelmann]

And what exactly was the attitude of Lincoln towards the South's rebels?

Quite forgiving, actually, compared to the Radical Republicans.

[Joe McCarthy]

Quite forgiving, actually, compared to the Radical Republicans.

Lincoln was actually one of the few men in the whole sordid mess that had any sense. Dixie fire-eaters only further compounded the secession screwup by shooting him.

[riverman]

Hmmm... I think you missed some history classes.

Ex-Holy Roman Empire = modern Germany.

Anyway are you serious about all that? :eek: You must be insane to think it is right to split European countries into mini-states.

Sure, it depends on your definition of "countries"...First you use the term "empire", now it's gone to countries. BTW, I stated clearly that it depends on the situation. For instance do you think it's right if Germany claimed Switzerland, and wanted to incorporate it into a "Greater Germany"? I don't. :rolleyes:

[Romanion]

Getting the French involved in North America could have untold consequences. Just look what they've done to Canada.

It was the english that conqured Quebec not the othr way around.

[Joe McCarthy]

It was the english that conqured Quebec not the othr way around.

Which only happened because England settled North America competently. France's role was both to not settle it well enough to ensure they controlled it yet to settle it just enough to ensure there'd be turmoil after the English took it over.

[Zephyr]

Which only happened because England settled North America competently. France's role was both to not settle it well enough to ensure they controlled it yet to settle it just enough to ensure there'd be turmoil after the English took it over.

Quebec looks a well settled nice place.

[Comte Arnau]

This question has no meaning in the New World except for Quebec.

As the matter a fact it's even opposite. Colombia and Venezuela are different countries based on nothing. Mere political games. Colonial countries who split, did it because of political factions, not ethnic consciousness.

Look at how the USA states divide. Some are just squares.

In the Old World, Wales is a nation, Catalunya is a nation, Brittany is a nation, not just arbitrary drawings resulting from bureaucracy.

Exactly, I totally agree.


According to your logic most of European countries (Ex- British Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Spanish Empire, Russian Empire, French Empire) are built on quasi-nations which in fact are multi-ethnic societies and have to be split into ethnically homogenous mini-states. So lets everyone follow the Yugoslavian example...:rolleyes:

Not every ethnic nation is at the same level in terms of political will of becoming an independent country. Some are already happy with a bit of self-determination within the country, some are simply too small in number. Others not only have a large number of members, a powerful culture and a thriving economy, but also a long strong tradition of political will for self-determination, backed by ethnic, historical, political and socio-economical reasons. So not allowing these to even have a referendum on self-determination because it is forbidden by law, is not really what I'd call a clear example of western democracy...

[Osweo]

Unable to vote.

A balance is obviously required. We can't set up states that are like scatterings of islands WITHIN another state. I am broadly on the side of self determination, but a degree of pragmatism has to be exercised within this.

What do you do HERE, for instance?
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg220/scaled.php?server=220&filename=dubkeytt2.jpg&res=medium

[Comte Arnau]

What do you do HERE, for instance?
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg220/scaled.php?server=220&filename=dubkeytt2.jpg&res=medium

USSR, Union of Siberian Self-determined Republics. :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Siberian_flag.svg/125px-Siberian_flag.svg.png

[Osweo]

USSR, Union of Siberian Self-determined Republics. :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Siberian_flag.svg/125px-Siberian_flag.svg.png
Eto sovsem V YEVROPE, Tovarisch Arnavtsov! :p

[Sarmatian]

Sure, it depends on your definition of "countries"...First you use the term "empire", now it's gone to countries. BTW, I stated clearly that it depends on the situation. For instance do you think it's right if Germany claimed Switzerland, and wanted to incorporate it into a "Greater Germany"? I don't. :rolleyes:

You didn't get it. Modern countries like Germany, France, Spain, Britain, Russia are all former empires thus originally are multi-ethnic states established by force. For example strictly speaking there is no such ethnicity as Germans, there are Bavarians, Saxons, Sorbs etc. So do you think it would be proper to separate them all and give lets say Sorbs their own country?

[Comte Arnau]

You didn't get it. Modern countries like Germany, France, Spain, Britain, Russia are all former empires thus originally are multi-ethnic states established by force. For example strictly speaking there is no such ethnicity as Germans, there are Bavarians, Saxons, Sorbs etc. So do you think it would be proper to separate them all and give lets say Sorbs their own country?

If a majority of Sorbs strongly supported an independent Sorabia, yes, why not? Why do some people prefer to keep a neverending ethnic tension in a sort of macho imperialism?

[Zephyr]

If a majority of Sorbs strongly supported an independent Sorabia, yes, why not? Why do some people prefer to keep a neverending ethnic tension in a sort of macho imperialism?

Well, not macho imperialism, I don't know if such exists but I get your idea :D Let's say, people are upbrought with pride in their country, they look at the map and rejoice. People always prefer a bigger car than a small car. No one likes to move from a big house to a smaller.

Size still matters. I know that even today many Russians can't accept the fact that they lost 6 million km². They can not even bargain 4 small islands that legally belong to Japan. A loss is a loss for any dominant nation.

[Padre Organtino]

Despite my ingraned Georgian Russophobia I have to note that Japs don't really have a solid claim upon those island. They have attacked USSR and lost WWII. Kurils are not theirs.

[Comte Arnau]

Despite my ingraned Russian Russophobia I have to note that Japs don't really have a solid claim upon those island. They have attacked USSR and lost WWII. Kurils are not theirs.

Do you think that they belong more to a European Slavic ethnicity? ;)

Ainu power!! :p

[Padre Organtino]

Do you think that they belong more to a European Slavic ethnicity? ;)

Ainu power!! :p

If anything Russians treated locals much better than Japanese that have exterminated Ainu.