Thousands celebrate South Sudan's independence in Juba. Photo by Roberto Schmidt, AFP
On Saturday, South Sudan, after a long struggle, became the world's 193rd nation. While the country has a challenging path ahead, it's certainly an improvement after years of struggle against an oppressive regime.
Their break with Sudan also marks the latest in a decades long trend: nations splintering instead of forming.
Parag Khanna, writing in Foreign Policy, hails the trend:
Because of this wave of self-determination culminating in sovereignty, there are today more autonomous political units in the world than at any time since the Middle Ages of a millennium ago. Within a few decades, we could easily have 300 states in the world. Moreover, we are gradually returning to the medieval world of thousands of multilayered communities ranging from the supranational European Union to the magnetic city-states of the Persian Gulf to the indigenous communities of the Inuit of Canada and Greenland.
---
The coming partitions must be performed with a combination of scalpel and ax, soft and hard power. Above all, the world must recognize that these partitions are inevitable. Our reflex is to fear changes on the map out of concern for violence or having to learn the names of new countries. But in an age when any group can acquire the tools of violent resistance, the only alternative to self-determination is perpetual conflict.
Khanna mostly focuses on post-colonial states, admittedly a major part of the trend. In their haste to hack up the world, would-be overlords often drew boundaries with a complete disregard for local factors. So you get Iraq, Sudan, the Congo and plenty of others.
The medieval era ended with momentum moving in the opposite direction: nations encompassed broader identities, then took on colonies to become empires. For awhile, it looked like the whole world would end up under a handful of governments. The zenith — just after World War II — saw a rudimentary international structure in place.
Ironically, even the empires' opponents got in on the act. Communism sought to be the international replacement for nation-states, superseding their own identities into a grander ideology.
Even after it was clear that the UN would never govern the world, the competing power blocs still seemed a trend towards centralization, especially as the European Union started to knit a continent together.
But post-colonial states kept splitting up and the USSR acted like an old-school empire before promptly collapsing like one. It's not confined to the developing world either: the EU doesn't look so hot, nor does Italy.
The issues are probably too big to address in a single post. Besides the colonial fallout, it's harder to expand nations or smash rebellious pieces in today's global environment. It's easier for a place to stay separate (e.g: Taiwan, East Timor) once it breaks with its governors.
Additionally, the massive mixing of cultures made possible by nation-states and a global economy creates a lot of upheaval in identity. What replaces national and familial loyalty is still a huge question, but the fact it is a question at all puts nation-states on weaker ground. Beyond whatever physical borders it has, a nation is first and foremost an identity.
After all, if most people really, really want to preserve a nation, division is far more difficult. But if a region or subculture wants to leave, and most people are ambivalent on the matter of national loyalty, a country will split, sooner or later.
I'm less enthusiastic than Khanna, especially given the context of the EU's troubles. Not all regions are equally developed, and incorporating a variety of areas into nation-states did allow for some bulwark, along with the possibility to marshal greater resources. I can't begrudge people fighting tyrants their desire for independence, but Balkanization isn't all wine and roses either.
South Sudan won't be the last.
I think this is a great trend, particularly in Africa. It's inaccurate to call the old Sudan a "nation state". These are multi-national states for all intents and purposes; just like the failed Austro-Hungarian Empire.
It's better to have a more decentralized order, with smaller states governed by more cohesive identity groups. Africa's major problem is that European colonization divided it into arbitrary states, where resources were fought over by different groups. One group would gain control and oppress the other groups, often culminating in huge atrocities.
Of course, it would be folly to believe that the new order will be perfect, but this trend is definitely a positive one, if you ask me. South Sudan has a much more cohesive identity and is vastly more governable than the Sudanese empire.
Posted by: Jake | July 12, 2011 at 07:10 PM
In South Sudan's case, and plenty of others, it is a good thing.
But I don't think decentralized order is always good, or works in all circumstances. I'm a lot less enthusiastic about Italy possibly splitting, for example, than I am about South Sudan's need to break free from tyrannt.
Posted by: David Forbes | July 13, 2011 at 01:39 AM