It seems the U.S. has a phobia against the creation of new countries. Maybe it's a carryover from the Civil War. Even when the Soviet Union was collapsing, Washington was whining about its breakup.
Now, it's pretty obvious that the creation of multiple new countries from the old Soviet Union was one of the most positive events in recent memory.
So let's consider why new countries are created. Of course, the proper way for new countries to form is because the potential citizens share a common bond or heritage. However, in the real world, it seems the majority of historical new country boundaries ignore the desires of individuals to live in a country that encompasses their common goals, and their creation is usually met with strident opposition.
Some of the world's most vicious and deadly wars have been fought over the attempt to form a new country. Consider the carnage created when Biafra attempted to break away from Nigeria, and the present unrest that plagues the country. Can anyone say the suppression of the Biafran uprising resulted in a better Nigeria?
Why such violent opposition? There is not a legitimate reason to deny like-minded individuals their own country. If we really look back at the historical boundaries which make up dozens of countries around the world, we find that many of the boundaries in existence today were decided by war, or as a result of war where their boundaries were arbitrarily drawn by some government flunky in a back office who didn't have a clue about the desires of the people.
Many of these phony border designs occurred in Africa, but arbitrary borders are by no means relegated to Third World countries. For instance, the British, who portray themselves as the wellspring of civilized society, have been some of the worst offenders by creating phony countries, or letting war decide national boundaries. Yes, we had to win a war with the Brits or we would still be a part of the Commonwealth. Or take Scotland as another good example. The Scots were never consulted or allowed to express their wishes when England conquered them, and now as the Scots finally get to vote next month on whether to have their own country, the Brits are using everything short of war to keep them in the Commonwealth. Yes, the Scots should have their own country, and for that matter, so should Wales.
Spain is another country that should be divided. The residents of Catalonia in the north have for years tried to create a new country by breaking away from Spain, and have expressed an overwhelming desire to be independent. They should be encouraged and allowed to create their own country, which would end the violent uprising that has plagued Spain for years.
An excellent example of positive country-creating is the breakup of Yugoslavia. Yes, Yugoslavia was a perfect example of a phony country. The resultant new countries are light years ahead of what the former Yugoslavia represented. However, while these fledgling countries were struggling--yes, even going to war--to become independent, what did the good old U.S.A. do? Essentially nothing! What a shame!
But now let's consider some of the world's hot spots: Do we need some new countries that aren't formed by bloodshed? You're damned right we do! First, let's consider Libya. I lived in Benghazi for two years, so I do know something about the country. The present country is another phony example of non-Libyan cartography decided by other countries, and the boundaries have nothing to do with the tribal preferences of the Libyan people. Any serious student of North Africa will scoff at the current boundaries of the country. Libya is a perfect candidate to be divided into three countries; the obvious capitals would be Benghazi, Tripoli, and Sabha. Would the countries created be more stable and would the violent conflicts subside? Yes and yes!
Now, let's consider Iraq. That phony country is probably the best candidate to be carved up into new countries. Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias, who have fought each other for centuries, are expected to live in a democracy? Where is this country, Disneyland? Carve up this fake country, and give each faction its own country and solve one of the most deadly hot spots in the world. Actually, the Kurds have already created their new country, Kurdistan. The Sunnis and Shias, instead of fighting a bloody civil war, should do the same thing.
Yes, history will tell you that the people of the world are more satisfied when they live in a country among like-minded people. It should be a policy of the most influential country in the world, the U.S.A., to use its economic persuasion to encourage the formation of new countries by citizens who have the same likes and desires.
Just consider how many small regional wars are being waged because a group of indigenous, like-minded people want self-determination, which translates to having their own country. If our country would use its influence as the world's only major super power to back democratic self-determination, it would go a lot further in the pursuit of peace than trying to arm illegitimate warlords and dictators to subjugate their own people.
------------v------------
Richard Mason of El Dorado is president of Gibraltar Energy Co., and a former president of the Arkansas Wildlife Federation.
Editorial on 08/28/2014