Kicking Bad States Out

[Darth Raptor]

In the thread on Polish racism, a European citizen expressed his disgust on Poland being a part of the EU. Among US liberals, you'll often hear sentiments along the lines of "we should have let them secede". I've heard about as many Canadians wanting to eject Quebec as I have Quebecois wanting to secede from Canada. I imagine that people in other large, conglomerate nations like China and Russia say similar things. While these opinions may not always be completely serious, I do wonder if it's a good idea or not.

Obviously, whether or not it's politically expedient depends on the specific case. You'd have to evaluate the country's contribution to the economy, the strategic importance of its location and other factors. That's not what I'm asking and that's why this isn't in N&P. To me, this is an ethical dilemma and I can kind of see both sides to the issue. Let's take a hypothetical, generic, federal republic. For the most part, this country is prosperous, industrialized, well-educated, and socially progressive. However, some parts are lagging behind the whole. What's worse, these poor, ignorant and underdeveloped states have large populations and wield considerable influence within the federal government. Since you want what's best for the most amount of people, what do you do?

If you cut off the bad states like a cancer, things will be even worse for the citizens of those states. At first glance, keeping them in seems like the ethical thing to do. The good states will act as a moderating influence on the bad ones, lessening the shitiness of those states and keeping the country's overall shitiness evenly distributed.

I see two problems with this though. The first is that it weakens the whole nation's ability to do good on a larger scale. Take the UN, for example: One can argue that the organization is too inclusive for its own good. By granting positions of authority to hostile nations that are open enemies of other affiliates, its abilty to prevent wars (the entire purpose of the UN) is compromised. Likewise, our hypothetical federation can't intervene in foreign crises if it's bogged down with an incredibly polarized political process.

Secondly, at what point does the risk to the nation as a whole become unacceptable? If the undesirable members are outbreeding the rest and disrupting the balance, they may take control at and have their way regardless. Instead of a tiny, forgettable shithole country you now have a huge one with all the economic and military power of its predecessor. And now the sane citizens of that country are suffering for their attempt to improve their neighbors' lives.

[wolveraptor]

You'd have to evaluate something like this on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the "cancerous" section of the country promotes race-based slavery, and its population is growing while still retaining their cultural conservatism, then secession is justifiable. The rest of the nation would "secede" from the relatively small, idiotic section of the country. In reality, it would be more akin to kicking them out, but you'd call it secession.

[K. A. Pital]

Chechnya.

What are the problems with such places?

1) Racism, religious intolerance, ethnic cleansing.
2) If left alone, they would attack your territories (which is what happened in 1999).
3) If left alone, they would en masse move drugs overborder, immigrate and form organized crime groups, especially in the capital

Do I think such places should be "left alone"? No in fact I don't.

Look how, for example, Russia's influence has transformed some of the Central Asian republics. They used to be religious shitholes full of corruption, racism and bigotry. They're still religious, bigoted and corrupt - but a lot less than they used to be.

Progressive secularization is what I support.

[Spyder]

Chechnya.

What are the problems with such places?

1) Racism, religious intolerance, ethnic cleansing.
2) If left alone, they would attack your territories (which is what happened in 1999).
3) If left alone, they would en masse move drugs overborder, immigrate and form organized crime groups, especially in the capital

Do I think such places should be "left alone"? No in fact I don't.

Look how, for example, Russia's influence has transformed some of the Central Asian republics. They used to be religious shitholes full of corruption, racism and bigotry. They're still religious, bigoted and corrupt - but a lot less than they used to be.

Progressive secularization is what I support.

You could put the bulk of your military in the part of your country you don't like, then kick it out.

"We decided it looks better on the books to make you guys a satellite state."

[The Grim Squeaker]

Chechnya.

What are the problems with such places?

1) Racism, religious intolerance, ethnic cleansing.
2) If left alone, they would attack your territories (which is what happened in 1999).
3) If left alone, they would en masse move drugs overborder, immigrate and form organized crime groups, especially in the capital

Do I think such places should be "left alone"? No in fact I don't.

Look how, for example, Russia's influence has transformed some of the Central Asian republics. They used to be religious shitholes full of corruption, racism and bigotry. They're still religious, bigoted and corrupt - but a lot less than they used to be.

Progressive secularization is what I support.

You could put the bulk of your military in the part of your country you don't like, then kick it out.

"We decided it looks better on the books to make you guys a satellite state."

In which case you end up with a massive drain on your resources that barely enhances your own security.
Ask the USSR (Or Stas) How that worked out for them (Baring Finland).

[Netko]

You'd have to evaluate something like this on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the "cancerous" section of the country promotes race-based slavery, and its population is growing while still retaining their cultural conservatism, then secession is justifiable. The rest of the nation would "secede" from the relatively small, idiotic section of the country. In reality, it would be more akin to kicking them out, but you'd call it secession.

Bad idea as far as international law goes. Or at least a headache inducing one for all the other countries, depending on how important you are.
This is because the non-seceding part gets to keep the legal identity of the original country - seat at the UN, various international organizations and so on. And there are also possibly complications with various treaties (they have to be reaffirmed to apply to the seceding part), foreign asset distribution of the country (embassies and so on primarily), debt of third parties and debt to third parties distribution, etc. etc. You don't want to give the shithole states an extra card with them having the original countries legal identity.

[wolveraptor]

Bad idea as far as international law goes. Or at least a headache inducing one for all the other countries, depending on how important you are.
This is because the non-seceding part gets to keep the legal identity of the original country - seat at the UN, various international organizations and so on. And there are also possibly complications with various treaties (they have to be reaffirmed to apply to the seceding part), foreign asset distribution of the country (embassies and so on primarily), debt of third parties and debt to third parties distribution, etc. etc. You don't want to give the shithole states an extra card with them having the original countries legal identity.

I realize that, but surely the other nations would realize in which nation the real power resided. For example, if 95% of Randomia secedes from 5% of it, the 5% will keep the name of Randomia (as you said), but most nations would be aware that the bulk of former Randomia now exists under the name Otheria. Hell, it would be a great way to shove off your international debt onto a part of your country you hate. Man, that would be a dick move, considering that that part of the country is likely lacking in industry (especially if you're seceding from it due to its backward views). You'd probably have to transfer the debt. You could also force the transfer of your embassies and armies, unless by some freakish luck it happens that the part of the country you wish to leave behind also contributes all or most of the manpower of your armed forces.

[Darth Raptor]

The People's Republic of China inherited the Republic of China's seat on the UN Security Council (despite the latter still existing on Taiwan). Likewise, the Russian Federation is considered the successor state to the Soviet Union. Granted, those were revolutions and not directly analogous, but the international community will be able to differentiate between the legal and practical definitions of nationhood.

[The_Last_Rebel]

Let's cut Florida loose!

[R. U. Serious]

I see two problems with this though. The first is that it weakens the whole nation's ability to do good on a larger scale. Take the UN, for example: One can argue that the organization is too inclusive for its own good. By granting positions of authority to hostile nations that are open enemies of other affiliates, its abilty to prevent wars (the entire purpose of the UN) is compromised. Likewise, our hypothetical federation can't intervene in foreign crises if it's bogged down with an incredibly polarized political process.

Are your "hostile nations that are open enemies of other affiliates" kind of like an "axis of evil", where you define certain countries as inherently evil, until they completely surrender and adapt to the "other affiliates" wishes?
Or are you honestly suggesting that the UN should only consist of countries that get along well with one another, and if two parties don't, then throw one out, so the rest can bully the lone bystander into submission?

Secondly, at what point does the risk to the nation as a whole become unacceptable? If the undesirable members are outbreeding the rest and disrupting the balance, they may take control at and have their way regardless.

What kind of racist, deranged thinking is that? The undesirability is a trait that is passed on by "breeding"? They will all think alike and take control? Familiar with the term xenohobia?
I think the issue that lies beneath is what constitutes a nation, how do you integrate minority positions/cultures, how do you prevent a cultural seggregation etc. these are all issues which are generally important for any country, regardless of that specific situation you described.

[Darth Yoshi]

What kind of racist, deranged thinking is that? The undesirability is a trait that is passed on by "breeding"? They will all think alike and take control? Familiar with the term xenohobia?
I think the issue that lies beneath is what constitutes a nation, how do you integrate minority positions/cultures, how do you prevent a cultural seggregation etc. these are all issues which are generally important for any country, regardless of that specific situation you described.

Don't be an idiot. He's saying that more children will be raised in an undesirable environment, and thus grow up to have to perpetuate those undesirable traits.

[Darth Raptor]

Are your "hostile nations that are open enemies of other affiliates" kind of like an "axis of evil", where you define certain countries as inherently evil, until they completely surrender and adapt to the "other affiliates" wishes?

No. "Hostile" means just that. They're prone to attacking countries for reasons other than self-defense. That's against the UN charter and against one of the main functions of the UN itself- preventing war. Why should states like that be running the UN?

Or are you honestly suggesting that the UN should only consist of countries that get along well with one another, and if two parties don't, then throw one out, so the rest can bully the lone bystander into submission?

All countries should be represented. That's another main function of the United Nations. But it should not be run by belligerents. Those countries should not be in any special position of authority. Furthermore, the UN example was, shockgasphorror, an EXAMPLE. This is about proactive, utilitarian ethics. If you want a country or an alliance of countries to be productive about making the world a better place, that goal is not served by having regions or members with the capacity to make policy in direct opposition to those goals.

What kind of racist, deranged thinking is that? The undesirability is a trait that is passed on by "breeding"? They will all think alike and take control? Familiar with the term xenohobia?I think the issue that lies beneath is what constitutes a nation, how do you integrate minority positions/cultures, how do you prevent a cultural seggregation etc. these are all issues which are generally important for any country, regardless of that specific situation you described.

Christ, you're stupid. The intelligence and tolerance of individuals are traits shaped by their upbringing. And if the authority of any given region is predicated upon its population (a common accurance in federations), they will have MORE AUTHORITY if their populations are growing to surpass those of other regions. And if they have considerable autonomy within their own borders, the supra-state organization will have problems educating them. Take your righteous indignation and shove it up your ass. I'm not proposing solutions, I'm identifying problems.