Why can Southern Sudan secede but the Northwest Republic can't? This is the question we must ask ourselves. Why, when the evidence is so clear, our arguments so passionate and heartfelt, with truth and justice on our side, can't we get any support for a secession of our own? Why is it only Kosovo, East Timor, and Southern Sudan who get to be free? It is a bitter feeling to watch Tajikistan, Montenegro, Slovakia, and Eritrea gain their independence while the United States is considered 'one nation' and 'indivisible.' Our divisions are celebrated as some sort of enriching salad bowl. Divisions elsewhere around the world are considered legitimate causes for permanent territorial separation. What's the difference?
Unfortunately, there's a lot of differences:
Southern Sudan successfully waged war against Northern Sudan for decades. It managed through force of arms and not being conquered to force Northern Sudan to the bargaining table. A peace was brokered in 2005 that gave Southern Sudan the right to secede in 2011. There's no way Northern Sudan would have offered these terms out of the generosity of their hearts before the civil war began. From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War
Despite that record, the IGAD initiative promulgated the 1994 Declaration of Principles (DOP) that aimed to identify the essential elements necessary to a just and comprehensive peace settlement; i.e., the relationship between religion and the state, power-sharing, wealth-sharing, and the right of self-determination for the south. The Sudanese Government did not sign the DOP until 1997 after major battle field losses to the SPLA.
A full peace agreement guaranteeing the right to secession was only won in 2005:
Peace talks between the southern rebels and the government made substantial progress in 2003 and early 2004, although skirmishes in parts of the south continued. A Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed on 9 January 2005 in Nairobi. The terms of the peace treaty are as follows[12]
As Covington pointed out, freedom is won through the sword. This isn't always true, Slovakia was allowed to secede peacefully, as was Latvia after the fall of the Soviet Union, but more often than not only civil war can bring the ruling powers to the negotiating table. This was true for Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Eritrea, and Southern Sudan. Only violence gave South Ossetia its freedom from Georgia, though most of that came from Russia. Commonly these civil wars are fought with the aid of various foreign sympathizers. For instance, Bosnia, Kosovo and Croatia were given the aid of NATO to defeat Serbia. In Southern Sudan's case, Uganda, Ethiopia, and others came to their aid. It's hard to think of any nation successfully winning its independence through civil war without foreign support. The most important example ought to be our own -- the Revolutionary War was not settled amicably with the British through peaceful protests. It was a long and bloody war where we, alongside foreign help, managed to militarily defeat our ruling government in order to force them to the negotiating table. If not for our military successes, Britain would have never allowed us to go free. Our freedom was the direct result of our willingness to do violence to our oppressors.
Almost by definition, secession always stems from the 'ruled' and not the 'ruling' party. This is because it's unlikely that the people in power would see anything wrong with their state of affairs or wish to change the status quo. This creates a quandary though. Many countries cannot win their freedom without violence. The only reason they would need freedom is because they lack power within the current state structure. If they lack power, they cannot possibly win a war against those who do have power. Therefore the very impetus for their desire to separate is also the reason why that desire can't be met.
There are ways to get around this paradox however. For one thing, if your people care more passionately about the issue than your enemies, you can possibly win a war of attrition even while losing every battle. For another, if you are logistically isolated enough from your rulers, they might find that their advantage evaporates by having to fight on your home soil, instead of wherever their distant power base is located. Last and most importantly, the weaker side of a civil war can always ask for help from foreign powers to defeat the stronger side. A successful violent revolutionary war therefore comes from passion, home field advantage, and/or foreign support. If these forces are not yet aligned, there is no point even starting a revolutionary war. It's doomed to failure from the start.
Why, for instance, did the South lose in the American Civil War? They were the weaker side, as evidenced by the fact that they felt the need to secede in the first place. They had less of everything. Because the elections reflected this basic conundrum that the South was not as big as the rest of the United States, and that the South could no longer democratically protect their right to slavery because they were too weak to form a ruling power in the government, they resorted to violence to protect their right to slavery instead. The South was only lukewarm about this attempted secession. Several of the states didn't join the Confederacy until the North had already taken up arms. Of those, portions of each state still favored the Union. The entirety of West Virginia broke off from Virginia and joined the Union. The North was equally lukewarm about the war effort, not wanting to go to war just for the sake of abolitionists, a small minority in the North. But when two lukewarm sides go to war with each other, it's unlikely the weaker side will prevail.
The South did have some home field advantage, but this was only marginal, since it was easy to transport troops and supplies anywhere in the United States via railroads, rivers, and the coasts. Furthermore, the South commonly attacked into the North, fighting at places like Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, which completely invalidated any home field advantage they might have had.
Lastly, the South did not gain any foreign support in the war. Because the world felt the South's stance on slavery was immoral and retrograde, they collectively turned their backs on the South's bid for independence. Even though the livelihood of many Britons came from textiles woven from Southern cotton, they made no protest over the Northern blockade and swallowed all of that financial pain as a sacrifice to God and the cause of righteousness.
The Revolutionary War had the aid of France, the Civil War was fought alone and unaided. If the South had wanted their bid for independence to succeed, they would have had to free all of their slaves first. However, since that would have invalidated any reason for going to war or being independent, the entire Southern position was invalid. The South arrogantly thought that they were such better soldiers that even though the North had more men and more industrial might, somehow the South would just give them a dirty look and the whole Union army would panic and flee. Revolutions on this sort of wishful thinking just lead to a lot of bloodshed and economic devastation. Instead of gaining political power, the South lost even more. What were they thinking? They weren't thinking. They hadn't considered what makes revolutions and secessions successful, and what doesn't. But we don't have to repeat their mistakes, because we have the open book of history to study and consult. We can predict what initial conditions are necessary for a successful revolution, violent or peaceful, to occur, and refuse to act until these preconditions are met. We can be wiser than the South.
Southern Sudan had the passion -- they voted 99% for separation. That kind of support for separation was never seen within the Confederacy. It's certainly not seen in the Northwest states of the United States. Southern Sudan had the logistical isolation -- not even 26 miles of paved roads in the entire region. A poor and incompetent Northern Sudanese opponent with no modern military to call upon. And it had foreign support -- ranging from troops on the ground all the way up to diplomatic support from the United States of America. When a superpower sides with you against a regional bully, the odds of success are pretty high.
But what do you do if you wish for independence from a superpower? Who would give foreign support to an enemy of America? Such a country would have to be insane. No one, for any reason short of survival, would start a war with the United States. The United States has a massive nuclear arsenal and the most powerful military on Earth. No aid whatsoever would be given to 'rebels' within the United States, no matter how righteous our cause. Unfortunately, the whole world doesn't consider our cause righteous. It considers our cause synonymous with Nazism and the Holocaust -- it's probably the most hated, despised cause on Earth. The entire world would be repelled at the idea of an explicitly racialist state emerging in any corner of the United States -- they would probably provide legions of NATO and UN troops to help the legitimate United States government put any such rebellion down.
Southern Sudan successfully fought a war to force Northern Sudan to the negotiating table and allow their territorial separation. But it's mind-boggling how many initial conditions would have to change before a Northwest Volunteer Army could do the same in the United States. The odds of all of these changes occurring are practically zero. First, everyone in the Northwest would have to become passionate adherents to white nationalism. Heck, first, all white nationalists would have to finally agree on what it is they do want and believe, itself an insurmountable task. ::rolls eyes:: Once we have 99% approval ratings, such that people would even be willing to take up arms in support of our beliefs, then we can think about separating from the rest of the country. But how could that ever happen? With a media and public schooling system teaching that white nationalism = Nazism = Holocaust = greatest evil to have ever occurred in human history, how exactly do you garner 99% domestic support for white nationalism in the Northwest Republic?
Most people aren't inquisitive enough to seek out neutral or opposing views on these subjects. It would never even occur to them to ever think that the media and the public schools could be wrong. It takes intelligence and courage to disagree with the prevailing paradigm. Fewer than 99% of Americans are intelligent and courageous. Therefore, large numbers of Americans will never be convinced to become white nationalists, no matter how convincing we make ourselves, and no matter how right and true our arguments objectively are.
To gain foreign support, we would first have to convince them that we are morally in the right. But the whole world is convinced white nationalism = Nazism = Holocaust = the greatest evil in world history. Fewer than 99% of the world's populace is brave enough and intelligent enough to learn the arguments of the other side. Therefore, our arguments cannot reach them either. We will never have domestic passion or foreign allies.
For the same reason, a peaceful secession is equally impossible. Peaceful secessions rely on 'legitimacy.' If your region has 'legitimate grievances' and 'legitimate aims', then the ruling power, if it has any conscience, finds it hard to deprive you of your freedom. Furthermore, the ruling power is pressured by the entire rest of the world to allow the secession to take place. The rest of the world is on the separating region's side and there is a veiled hint that it might mean war if the ruling power doesn't let them peacefully free. These independence drives traditionally come as a result of throwing off ancient imperialism that gained a region through violence instead of domestic consent. It also comes about due to state oppression that is well publicized in the outside world.
For instance, everyone sympathized with East Timor because the Indonesians had just recently slaughtered them in an orgy of lawless violence against helpless innocents. Kosovo gained public sympathy when the Serbs tried to ethnic cleanse them. Southern Sudan has a lot of sympathy because practically all of the civilians who died or were enslaved were Southern. The aggression was entirely one sided and had been from the start. Once you've been officially oppressed, you have a 'legitimate grievance' to present to the world stage. The second part is also important though. If you have an illegitimate aim, like slavery, you lose your bid for independence. Neither the ruling power nor the outside world will allow it. Therefore all independence movements must be based on morally approved principles. For instance, democracy and the rule of law. A region that asks the world to pressure a democracy into giving their region independence so that they can become a dictatorship won't be given much shrift. A region that asks the world community to protect their independence from a dictatorship so that they can set up a democracy, however, is a 'legitimate aim.'
The reason why Palestine has not been given its independence, and the outside world has not pressured Israel into giving Palestine its independence, is because it does not have a 'legitimate aim.' Palestine has a long string of legitimate grievances, like the ethnic cleansing that occurred during 1948, or operation cast lead, but no one is willing to help them because they have no 'legitimate aims.' It's unknown whether Palestine would even become a democracy if given their freedom. The first thing Palestinians want to do when they do gain their freedom is 'drive Israel into the sea.' A state who asks to be allowed to exist so it can immediately invade and kill its neighbors doesn't get much shrift from the world at large. Palestine doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist. Therefore, they lack the 'legitimate aims' to be given the right to exist themselves.
Having a racially pure state is not considered a legitimate aim. Being deprived of a racially pure state is not considered a legitimate grievance. Only a complete change in world opinion equivalent to the world turning upside down would change this equation. If there is going to be a breakaway Republic within the borders of the United States, it will have to be based on legitimate grievances and legitimate aims. Not as viewed by us, the partisans, but as viewed by the average Joe all across the world. They have to be easily visible, easily identifiable grievances, like ethnic cleansing, mass murder, depriving us of our democratic/human rights, or Something. Stuff within the normal range of human experience where, if you were told that was happening elsewhere, people would say "that's horrible!"
Furthermore, the response to these legitimate grievances cannot be, "We need a 4th Reich." In fact, it can't afford to reference race in any way. Race is such a toxic topic, that anyone who openly declares that they are motivated by race cannot have 'legitimate aims.' After being mass murdered, after our democratic rights are taken away, after they have already begun ethnic cleansing us, we could only gain domestic and foreign support for a peaceful separation if we have a completely color-blind 'aim' to create our new state upon. This part is extremely tricky. What we want is a secession of, by, and for whites that serves white interests but never once mentions 'whites' or has any criteria based on race. We must respond with doe-eyed innocence against any accusation that we're secretly motivated by race and say we really care about these objective principles and we're too color-blind to have even noticed that they have any relation to helping white people, this was the first we'd ever heard or thought of such a thing.
These 'objective principles' will have to be those that have overwhelming white support but only middling support from minorities, such that only whites would actually want to secede and form this new nation. Whatever minorities are carried along in this wave are acceptable because A) hey, at least they agree with our principles and B) once we're an independent state, we can set the law any way we want, thus a minority of non-whites would never be allowed to become a majority.
What would these laws look like? The best we could hope for is a populist wing of the Republican party. Something like 'Borders, Culture, Freedom and Individual Responsibility.' People would be expected to be patriotic and not badmouth our populace or our constitution. They would speak the right language, English. They would celebrate Christmas and not Ramadan. There would be little if any welfare, no affirmative action, and fewer impediments to doing business. The state would be tough on crime. The population would be far more white than the previous country they left, because these policies all appeal more to whites than non-whites. As a result, families would be more intact, cities cleaner and safer, individuals wealthier, and communities more homogeneous and thus extrovertly connected than what we are used to today. I think immigration could be kept down through some sort of civic nationalist appeal of only allowing 'assimilable groups' into our country. With standards high enough, few but whites or east asians could qualify, and those that could qualify probably have a good enough life elsewhere that they would see no reason to immigrate here. By default, our country would remain majority white.
This can't happen anytime soon though. First, Republicans would need to lose all political power in their original United States of America. Then, we would need to be severely oppressed to the point that it pinches even the most unaware and apolitical members of our populace, while generating plenty of foreign sympathy abroad. Last, we would need a truly passionate groundswell of support, along the lines of 99%, in a specific region of the United States that says "We aren't gonna take it anymore!" Presumably, a group of states would all declare independence at once, together, using the full authority and legitimacy and organization of the state to offer a credible resistance to the rest of the country, and a credible face to the outside world. A secession along these lines is at least fifty to one hundred years down the line, for the simple reason that Republicans won't lose all political power within the current ruling structure until then.
Therefore, fighting for secession in the United States is a waste of time. There's no point worrying about it or advocating for it until the right preconditions have been met. These preconditions won't occur for nearly a century, if ever. That's beyond our lifespan and even the lifespan of our children. In order to improve the world we live in, the reforms will have to be much less dramatic and they will have to work from within the system -- or beyond it.
Within the system just means voting Republican, hopefully voting 'populist Republican' in the primaries as well so that a more culture oriented Republican and a less 'big business' Republican is doing the reforming.
Beyond the system means making our worries moot through technological change. If you invent cheap space flight, such that we can go populate the Milky Way, it no longer matters what the politics of Earth are. The same for a variety of other inventions.
Beyond the system could also mean being such an influential ideologue that, miraculously, the whole world changes after listening to your voice. Jesus did it, so I won't say it's impossible. But it's even less likely than spaceflight, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Against the system will never work. Waiting for the system to change on its own is no better than a rock's existence. There's no point waiting when we can do all sorts of other good things in the world of today instead. If the desired future comes, it comes. Otherwise, it won't. There's no point living for the sake of hypotheticals. Find something good to do in the world of today, and do that While waiting. That's a lot better than holding our breaths for the ever-immanent 'collapse.'
No comments:
Post a Comment