... commitment to the rights of secession actually go. Would he be in favor of 100,000 people of similar ethnic and religious backgrounds announcing they're settling in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan or some desolate stretch of prairie in Wyoming to establish their sovereign republic? Would he concur with partition of Quebec from Canada? I do hate to Godwinize threads but has anyone else felt that the Russian actions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia smack of Hitler's insistence on protecting Sudeten Germans?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Hey, us Japanese were only freeing Asia from the yokes of Western imperialism.

(Us being Japanese seeing as the country my mother was born in had their asses kicked by the Japanese after they freed us from the yokes of Chinese imperialism.)

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

You're one of us now. Scary thought, I know, but true nonetheless.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Absolutely, I support the right of 100,000 like-minded people in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to secede from the US and to create their own country if they so desire - provided only that they are willing to assume responsibility for their share of the ridiculously large American national debt.  You can't just walk out on your debts.  And yes, I absolutely support the right of the population of Quebec to secede from Canada if they so desire (with a similar fiscal requirement; Canada also has a substantial national debt, although nothing like that of the US).

I also agree with you that the Russian invasion of South Ossetia is similar in many respects to the invasion of the Sudetenland by the Third Reich, and I strenuously object to what Russia has done, which is much worse than what Georgia has done.  Nonetheless, my proposal of permitting regional groups to secede would have avoided all the violence, and in the end, how much does it really matter whether South Ossetia is part of Georgia or part of Russia?  (Especially if it can remain friendly with both countries.)  How many people have to die to determine which country gets to possess that region?  Just imagine if the Sudeten Germans could have simply voted to alter their national affiliation.  Perhaps WW II could have been avoided.  Wouldn't that have been a good thing?  Although by the time WW II began, the world was already a mess; what the world really needed was to avoid WW I, which laid the groundwork for all the insanity which has followed, even up to the current conflicts such as the war in Iraq - a nation which was only created because of the fall of the Ottoman Empire as a result of WW I.  But I digress.

I support the right of 100,000 like-minded people in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to secede from the US and to create their own country if they so desire...

I take it, then, that you want the 14th Amendment to be repealed? Or do you think a portion of voters in the Upper Peninsula should be able to nullify the constitutional rights of the minority?

Your comment is reasonably relevant and I am going to relent on my previous decision to refrain from replying to any of your comments, although I am also not going to enter into the kind of endless debates that you & I have had previously.

The 14th amendment requires that all states must give equal protection under the law to all citizens within their jurisdiction.  What I am suggesting is that states, or sections of states, could be allowed to secede and form independent nations or political units of whatever name; if that were to happen, then the citizens of that newly formed nation would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the state to which they previously belonged, and therefore, the 14th amendment (along with the rest of the US constitution) would not be applicable.  However, the newly created state would probably want to join the UN and in that case, the UN charter would be applicable.  I also anticipate (in my original comment in this discussion) that newly seceded states would be likely to join in new political and economic alliances in the manner of the European Union, and thus, would also incur other treaty obligations.  

One of the problems of democracy as a system is that there is no guarantee that the majority will act in what we might consider to be an enlightened manner.  I am certainly in favor of the protection of the rights of minorities (and I personally belong to at least three different minority groups) but it is always possible for the majority to abuse minorities if they are determined to do so.  We can write guarantees of minority rights (such as the 14th amendment) into the law, but the majority can always revise or revoke such laws if they want to.  And unpopular laws tend to be violated and are often not well enforced.  The law can only do so much.  Hence, the best protection is an educated public which understands the value of minority rights.

My radical proposal on secession could result in some repressive states which abuse the privilege of nationhood.  But I still think that on the whole, by avoiding all the civil wars that disputes about secession have already caused and would otherwise continue to cause, the world is better off.  And international alliances such as the European Union, which many nations want to join, can still offer incentives for more responsible government.  I think that international standards of democracy will tend to form, regardless of the political fragmentation caused by many seceding regions.  Although, to some extent what I propose is a huge experiment whose results cannot be fully known in advance.  Still, the principle is essentially democratic.  Let any given population make their own decisions about which country they belong to.  It seems reasonable to me.  And it gives people so much less reason to go to war.

The 14th amendment requires that all states must give equal protection under the law to all citizens within their jurisdiction

No, the Equal Protection Clause is only part of the 14th Amendment. The first clause says,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The bit I was referring to is, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." I am a US citizen - if the state in which I live suddenly secedes from the US, how will my rights as a US citizen be protected?

If a given region (such as South Ossetia, to use the currently relevant example) secedes from some larger state (such as Georgia) and that secession is accepted by the international community, then everybody living within that new state will undergo a change of citizenship, losing their previous citizenship and gaining a citizenship in the newly created state.  That's how it would work.  Think back to the American Revolution, for example.  Residents of what used to be the 13 colonies were previously British citizens, and as a result of the revolution - and regardless of whether they personally supported or participated in that revolution - they became American citizens instead, and ceased to be British citizens (although Britain continued to dispute that outcome until after the War of 1812 when the issue was finally settled).

Again, this could be an example of the tyranny of the majority.  Maybe you voted against secession and you prefer to remain a US citizen.  But if the majority of voters in your region votes to secede, then they will take you with them, unless you move away.  Again, during the American Revolutionary War, many loyal British citizens moved to Canada in order to avoid losing their valued British citizenship (collectively these people were known as the United Empire Loyalists).  

Democracy is an imperfect system.  Sometimes the majority does things that we as individuals do not like,  But that's the way it works.  Democracy, for all its flaws, is still the best system that we have.

Okay, so your answer is "you think a portion of voters in the Upper Peninsula should be able to nullify the constitutional rights of the minority."

Take your idea to it's logical (though admittedly extreme) conclusion: if a state can vote to secede from the nation, or a portion of a state, then why not a county or city or borough or neighborhood or block? What you are calling democracy is really anarchy.

I actually did address this point in my original comment.  I suggested that there should be a minimum requirement of 50,000 people in order to form any new political unit.  Obviously, if we take things to the ultimate extreme, so that even a single person could declare himself or herself to be an independent nation of one, we would indeed have political anarchy.  I also pointed out in my original comment that although the possible proliferation of many new, small nations might seem to make global politics more chaotic, that would not necessarily be the case, because these new smaller nations would find it advantageous to join political alliances such as the European Union (or other, similar alliances) which would be able to perform many of the same functions that were previously performed by the larger nations from which the new, smaller nations seceded.

And yes, a majority (whether a majority of the population of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, or of the United States of America, or of any other actual or hypothetical political entity) can, in a democratic system, nullify the constitutional rights of a minority - if necessary, by altering the constitution which has guaranteed those rights.  The whole concept of democracy, in which the majority rules, has always presented an inherent danger to minorities, who do not rule (which is not to say that undemocratic systems work any better; they usually are even worse).  It is an inescapable imperfection in the democratic system of government.  We can only work toward having a sufficiently enlightened majority that they will choose to respect the rights of minorities, because they will understand that minorities deserve to have rights.  This is an ongoing struggle in any democratic nation, large of small, new or old.

My suggestion of allowing regions to vote to secede from nations to which they belong does not create a new peril for minorities that doesn't already exist.  Why, for example, is it that in the current United States, with its 14th amendment that guarantees equal treatment under the law for everybody, we still have unequal treatment of the homosexual minority?  In Canada, it was decided by the Provincial supreme courts, and later confirmed by the federal supreme court and eventually by Parliament, that equal treatment necessarily means that same-sex couples have the same right to marry that opposite-sex couples have.  It's a very logical decision which protects minority rights.  Yet in the US, which in theory guarantees equal treatment of minorities due to the 14th amendment, there are only a few states in which same-couples can legally marry, and there is no support on the federal level for same-sex marriage, there is hostility if anything.

You seem to assume that if some piece of the US, such as the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, were to secede from the US, that the rights of minorities would not be respected in this new political entity (let's call it DRUM, for the Democratic Republic of Upper Michigan).  For all we know, minority rights would be even better respected in the DRUM than they presently are in the US.  There is nothing about secession which inherently leads to the abuse of minorities.  Indeed, secession is often motivated by the desire of a minority to form its own country where it will become the majority.  For example, that is the motive behind the creation of Israel in 1948; Jews had been persecuted all over the world as a despised minority, and they concluded that they had better form their own country where they would be a majority (although this was not exactly the same process as secession, it was more of a revolution in an existing country).  

You may point out that Jews, in asserting their own rights, wound up violating those of Palestinians (an argument I have already had at excessive length, and which I am not about to have again) but that is not the point, the point is that the creation of new countries can be a means by which minorities seek to protect their rights.  Indeed, in the case under discussion, of South Ossetia, the desire to secede is undoubtely motivated by the belief by ethnic Russians living in South Ossetia that their rights are not adequately respected by the majority of Georgians.

Respect for the rights of minorities will be an issue in any nation, large or small.  Whether we should permit regions such as either South Ossetia, or the purely hypothetical nation of DRUM to secede, is a separate issue from that of minority rights.  Naturally, it would be my hope that the rights of minorities would be respected in South Ossetia (if their secession succeeds, as it appears that it will, given massive Russian backing) or in the DRUM or in any other seceding entity.  And it is my hope that the rights of minorities will also be respected in existing nations such as the US, which needs to do better.  But that really is a separate issue.  

Although I suppose the issues could be linked if you really wanted to link them.  How about this:  we create a new UN treaty which sets out the conditions under which any section of an existing country can secede from the country to which it belongs, and we stipulate that any such seceding entity must have a constitution in which the rights of minorities are protected, along with the stipulation of a minimum population of 50,000 (if you think that some larger number would work better, I would at least be interested in your reasoning) and any other requirements which may be appropriate.  That would seem to address your concerns.

 

Would you propose that 50% + 1 would be the necessary number to vote for secession, or would you want a higher majority?

Personally I feel that a 50% +1 majority should be sufficient for secession.  If we believe in democracy, then the majority rules.  Why should a minority of the population be allowed to prevent the majority - however slender that majority may be - from having the kind of nationality or political affiliation that it wants?

Secession is a very serious step, which has profound consequences and not inconsiderable costs in terms of the resulting re-organization that would be needed, and therefore it should not be entered into lightly.  But we must expect that when and if a given region has a vote on the issue of secession, the voters will be aware of the serious consequences of secession, and if they vote in favor, it is because they think that secession is worth the cost.  

Why should a minority of the population be allowed to prevent the majority - however slender that majority may be - from having the kind of nationality or political affiliation that it wants?

They can always immigrate...

Of course, they can always immigrate (or emigrate, as the case may be).  For example, rather than going to war with Georgia, the ethnically Russian population of South Ossetia could have emigrated to Russia.  That would have been a very neat solution.  But people do not like to give up what they have, particularly when it comes to their homes, farms, territory, and so forth.  Emigration can be a costly strategy.  Still, sometimes it is the way to go.  And in theory, you don't have to lose anything, if you can sell what you have at a reasonable price, and then use the money to buy equivalent property in your new location.  Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that easily.  But it should, in a saner world.

I do consider the American Civil War to be a special case, morally speaking, because slavery was intolerable and had to be ended at any cost (although the cost turned out to be extremely high).  But if slavery could have been ended by other means, and the South still wanted to secede, they should have been allowed to do so, in my opinion.  The union which was entered into on a voluntary basis, logically could be withdrawn from on a similar basis.  There is nothing in the constitution which says otherwise.

It brings up an interesting question of what could/would a modern progressive democracy do if a portion of its population in an area like Hawaii peaceably decided to leave. It's especially appropriate given the reaction already existing against Bush in places like New Hampshire where libertarians have targeted as possibly moving to en masse in an attempt to gain control of a state.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

To paraphrase General DeGaulle, vive le Hawaii libre!

...it's worth more than a shrug

How much more? If the US had shrugged when Kosovo declared independence (not to mention when the sovereign democracy of Serbia was dealing with an internal terrorist group a few years back) then I think we might not be discussing Georgia today.

    But then again, you and I (hopefully!) don't have access to a ton of info that makes a lot of difference. Was this campaign calculated to take place during the Olympics, in order to dodge media attention? That would indicate a well planned campaign, rather than a simple reaction. How badly did the Georgians act-- or is it all Russian propaganda? Is this just some saber rattling to tell the Georgians to butt out, or part of a larger effort by Putin to bring that republic back into the fold? If it's the latter, then "stability" is an unlikely result for the next 5-10 years, and a little action now might prevent the need for a whole lot of action later.
    There's also the more general foreign policy framework to consider: if Russia is entitled to act this way with its neighbors (in its "security sphere", if you will), then why not Iran? If the answer to that question is simply, "because one is stronger than the other", then why shouldn't Iran go ahead with a nuclear weapons program? (To mention just one implication.) As of now, the administration appears to want to be consistent-- the US has a right to have a say in just about everyone's affairs, and border security is no excuse for aggression. And then there's the question of European re-militarization, and the continued strong presence of the US over there, and so on . . .
    I don't have any answers, but it seemed to me that if stability was the goal, some kind of US action (military or not) was not necessarily off the table.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Is this just some saber rattling to tell the Georgians to butt out, or part of a larger effort by Putin to bring that republic back into the fold? If it's the latter, then "stability" is an unlikely result for the next 5-10 years, and a little action now might prevent the need for a whole lot of action later

Yeah, remind me again why we've needed to expand NATO. Is it because the US really needed the 2,000 Georgian troops in Iraq?

This action by Russia has been a long time coming. They've been sending warning signals for years.

...why shouldn't Iran go ahead with a nuclear weapons program?

Because Israel will bloody their nose if they do. (I mean, really, what sort of language do you think a theocracy will understand?)

...it seemed to me that if stability was the goal, some kind of US action (military or not) was not necessarily off the table

What I am suggesting is that US action (military and otherwise, such as the expansion of NATO) should have been off the table years ago. I know that most Americans have forgotten (or never noticed) that the US has been sticking their thumb in Russia's eye, repeatedly, ever since the end of the Soviet Union, but I bet the average Russian hasn't forgotten.

I bet the average Russian hasn't forgotten.

No bet.  It doesn't make the news here, but Russia genuinely feels as though they are being encircled by allies of the U.S. and NATO.  With early warning radar installations in Poland and Czech Republic, the admission of the Baltic states to NATO, U.S. Navy presence in the Black Sea courtesy of Bulgaria, NATO trying to operate in Afghanistan, it's not difficult to see why.  

Russia is flush with cash right now.  The Russian Air Force no longer has to sell rides in their MiG-29s to rich westerners to pay the bills.  They can finally put enough Su-33s on the Kuznetsov, and buy all the other toys their armed forces need to stay current.  

 

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

One of those ruined a day of fishing for me when I was a kid there. I was fishing in Pearl Harbor when one of those yellowjackets landed on my face. Then it crawled in one side of my glasses, across the bridge of my nose, and out the other side of my glasses. The legs feel like pins, but I guess I must have stood still enough for it to not sting me.

I don't recall taking any of my fishing gear with me when the yellowjacket flew off and I booked for home.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson