For hundreds of years, ethnic minorities have been using self-determination movements to fragment or secede from their homelands and claim independent statehood. While some instances of secession have proven beneficial to the seceding state, the majority of recent and current self-determination movements have severely damaged the likelihood of democratic development in non-democratic nations. The US government should not support the demands of ethnic minorities abroad for self-determination and statehood because fragmentation rarely enhances democratic development, it strains economic success, and it promotes unhealthy cultural homogenization.
The recent assumption has been that breaking large states into smaller individual states will assist in creating more responsive, democratic governments; this assumption is flawed. The trend in fragmentation resulting from self-determination movements has been for large, undemocratic empires to break into smaller, tyrannical, local governments. This trend is evident in the undemocratic regimes that have taken over in many of the former Soviet states. Another example of failure to create responsive governments and peace through fragmentation is the creation of separate black territories in South Africa. These separate territories created little positive development and caused much human suffering. The goal of self-determinist minded sects should be to have a voice and fair representation in their national governments. Rather than separating from the larger community, measures should be taken to ensure government responsiveness to all people in its territories.
Self-determination movements are started largely as a result of an ethnic minority or subgroup, many times in a basically democratic state, feeling as though they are under-represented or isolated from the larger national community as a whole. In the United States during the 1960s, African Americans realized that the creation of a separate black state within the US would not suit their needs; rather they needed better representation and more responsiveness in their national government. Rarely do fragmented states have the ability to provide for their needs like a larger state could. Because fragmentation is detrimental to the development of responsive, democratic governments, the United States should refrain from supporting self-determination movements for independent statehood abroad from ethnic minorities.
The economic consequences of fragmentation provide reason against secession. Fragmenting nations will likely become severely disadvantaged economically after splitting into smaller states. In a perfect world, it would stand to reason that with free trade, national borders would not create economic problems; yet, in the existing, imperfect world, national borders do have economic implications. CitizensÂ’ tendency to buy domestic products is a small, insignificant example while the creation of industrial policies that are intended to give a competitive advantage to domestic producers is a more pertinent example. The implications of fragmentation extend past the economy and into environmental issues as well. Fragmented states are not capable of dealing with large, border-crossing environmental issues. Deep-rooted countries also face environmental issues which can only be dealt with by creating international organizations; an increase in the number of fragmented states makes creating international communities much more difficult.
Problems are realized when groups of small, autonomous countries try to create compatible economies. Because autonomous governments seek to affect many economic fundamentals within their countries, shared economic policy and goals are necessary. Creating compatible policies is extremely difficult when many autonomous governments are involved. Large, multiethnic states are much more adept to handle large, more efficient economies. Economists have stressed the beneficial efficiency of large-scale economies. United States support of self-determination abroad would have harmful effects on its own economy as well as on the global economy.
Self-determination once served an important and beneficial role in promoting justice through self-government; its usefulness and legitimacy are compromised by the hostility and devastation it now causes. Self-determinists seek the preservation and protection of their cultures and traditions. Separation into autonomous, homogenous states is not the answer to their culture crisis. Meanwhile, total assimilation within the larger national community is not the solution either. Ethnic groups seeking fragmentation should be able to flourish and contribute to the cultural mixture. These groups should seek to preserve their ethnic identity while still upholding the common, shared values that are embedded in their national identities. National community and democracy will function with the existence of multiple ethnic identities.
National unity need not compromise ethnic minority values; the United States continues to thrive despite its growing ethnic diversity. Facets of ethnic identity such as language should not pose problems to the national community. Some people argue that one national language will better serve to produce national unity, yet, in countries such as Belgium, Switzerland, and increasingly in the United States, multiple languages exist and the governments are still able to be responsive and sustain unity. While promoting the use of a common language may bolster national unity by aiding communication and community building, subgroups and minorities should not be discouraged from using and maintaining their own languages.
Because fragmentation by self-determinists is detrimental to democracy, the economy, and national culture, the United States should not support the demands for independent statehood abroad from ethnic minorities. Historically, self-determination movements occurred because of denial of responsive, democratic governments to minorities; today, their functions are not as clear and self-determinist movements are likely to cause much more harm than good.
