Gmarthews said:
In what way will:
It could just as easily go the other way, couldn't it?
I don't believe it could "just as easily", that would imply that the issue(s) hang in the balance, whereas the reality is that fracture along ethno-nationalistic lines is a matter of
fact in the Balkans.
It may be that, at some time in the future, there may be more reasons for (re-)federation than against, but at present the scales weigh distinctly in favour of further fracture, however badly such fracture serves all those peoples "on the ground".
Is a separate language an acceptable reason to be independent?
To which I could answer "would a shared language be seen as an acceptable reason to unite"?, but instead I'll say that, for some peoples, it has been.
When is it acceptable for one set of people to be independent, and another to be controlled as part of a bigger culture?
That would depend on the culture, as I'm sure you know, unless you're one of those people who believes in universal democratisation.
Surely the more localisation the better as this empowers the people, thus any move towards independence should be supported by those in favour of freedom and self determination.
"Surely"? Why?
It's an entirely a question of what advantages can be drawn from either situation, whether the benefits of centralisation outweigh those of localism.
No one here seems keen to describe exactly when some people should be allowed self determination and others should not. Is this because they don't know how to phrase it?
I suspect it's because there isn't a
rational answer, especially not of the "one size fits all" type you appear to expect. Individual cases have individual merits, and in some of those cases an enforced maintenance of a union provides better long-term benefits to the peoples within that union than secession/fracture would. I'm sure that my answer will be deemed undemocratic and oppressive, and I'd actually agree with that. Nonetheless, fracture along ethno-cultural lines, especially in the exclusionary mode that has been deployed in some Balkan locations (as well as in North and Sub-Sharan Africa, in India and in Afghanistan, etc) is dangerous, not just in the present, where people may be harmed through "ethnic cleansing", but harmful to the future too, where peoples find themselves unable and unwilling to unite for common cause even when it may be in their best interests.
There seems to be a strange movement of opinion here against democracy. Surely this should be at the base of any international action/law?
Why?
Why should "democracy" take precedence over "justice", over utility, over any solution whose benefits outweigh those of democracy?
As far as history goes I fail to see why any action in the past should prevent one person from voting now.
Hmm, but you've shown a blindness to the forces of history before, haven't you? Suffice to say that people aren't robots. They don't function according to logical programs, but are impelled by other drives as well, by emotion, by memory, by history.
I would even go so far to say that having a vote should be a global right of all citizens, but maybe that kind of talk is too naive for here
A vote for what purpose though; so that liberals can feel smug that "everyone has a vote"? A vote is meaningless without being set in a context.
