Crimea Vote, a trend that may alter the world map

[zen]

Arrivederci Rome: Venice Votes On Independence Referendum

Residents of the northern Italian region of Veneto – Venice being its main city – are voting this week on whether to secede from Italy and create their own independent and sovereign republic. The Veneto is the former heartland of the powerful maritime Republic of Venice, the economic and trading power that lasted from the 7th to the 18th century. Today it’s Italy’s richest region, thanks to the wealth created by yearlong tourism and a strong industrial base.

The European empire building led to consolidation of territories, but appears as if, in future, fragmentation (in some cases annexation) could be a new geopolitical trend. The world map could change. Other region in Europe that may want independence could be Catalonia (Barcelona) in Spain. I don't know if a referendum was held in Spain and if yes, the result. On the other hand, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic's case has been going on since decades, but hardly seems to get any attention. There have been referendums in the past and I know at least one case where the province voted against independence. It will be interesting to see how things go in Italy. PS an excellent documentary on geopolitics in Western Sahara: 22sIJG5oIQg&noredirect=1

[surajmal]

Scottish Referendum is coming up.If Scots go solo, Ireland will surely follow suit. Partition of UK in the near future, perhaps?:woot:

[zen]

Scottish Referendum is coming up.If Scots go solo' date=' Ireland will surely follow suit. Partition of UK in the near future, perhaps?:woot:[/quote'] Divide and rule strategy - what goes around, comes around

[hhunaeh]

In case of crimea, the vote was just a formality which everyone knew was going one way. The deed was done once russia sent in troops. So what happened before the vote was more important than the referendum itself in determining the altered borders.

[KhanSaab]

This has already been done in several countries, take slovakia and czech rep or quebec in canada. Didnt start a trend back then why would it do so now?

[zen]

This has already been done in several countries' date=' take slovakia and czech rep or quebec in canada. Didnt start a trend back then why would it do so now?[/quote'] Talking about the former Czechoslovakia, it was formed by breaking away from the Austria (iirc). The fall of communism led to redrawing of the world map including the unification of Germany. Because of the fall of communism, people actually expected to see changes in the world map. Even the C.C.C.P ceased to exist. That was 20th century geopolitics. Now in the 21st century, the world is far more connected than at any point in our history. Access to information is easier,, and people have various means to express their ideas, which can be validated quickly. Additionally, movements like the Arab Spring talk about the power of the people. People, in general, are becoming more tolerant to the idea of new borders if a genuine case exist. It is possible that many people may not have been comfortable with the boundaries that came in to existence because of actions of the colonial powers, World Wars and Communism. What happened in Crimea may open up that kind of discussion. As I said, there has to be a genuine case for such discussions. When I talk about it as a "possible" trend, I don't imply things to change overnight though.

[Muloghonto]

Boundaries have always changed over a lifetime in human history, somewhere on this planet. Even through an unprecedented period of 'bipolar' world power balance ( the Cold war), national boundaries have changed de jure and de facto. (Eg: Independence related border changes for European powers in Africa over the 60s and 70s, Vietnam, etc). In the last 20 years, we have had massive re-drawing of world borders in Europe and to a lesser extent, in Asia & Africa. Crimea is not a trend setter, its just the most high profile case of the last 20+ years but ultimately, an incident that has been a fundamental feature of every single human generation for the last 250-300 generations.

[Pakistan]

Scottish Referendum is coming up.If Scots go solo' date=' [b']Ireland will surely follow suit. Partition of UK in the near future, perhaps?:woot:

Ireland is independent country.

[hhunaeh]

Ireland is independent country.

northern ireland is part of UK isn't it?

[Tiger80]

If you look at Europe and Africa you will be really surprised that how Indians are living in one country.despite no similarity between several states India is still one on the other hand in Europe just because they speak different language or have their different sulture they want independence

[Crookbond]

If you look at Europe and Africa you will be really surprised that how Indians are living in one country.despite no similarity between several states India is still one on the other hand in Europe just because they speak different language or have their different sulture they want independence

Practically, there's little difference.

[zen]

Boundaries have always changed over a lifetime in human history, somewhere on this planet. Even through an unprecedented period of 'bipolar' world power balance ( the Cold war), national boundaries have changed de jure and de facto. (Eg: Independence related border changes for European powers in Africa over the 60s and 70s, Vietnam, etc). In the last 20 years, we have had massive re-drawing of world borders in Europe and to a lesser extent, in Asia & Africa. Crimea is not a trend setter, its just the most high profile case of the last 20+ years but ultimately, an incident that has been a fundamental feature of every single human generation for the last 250-300 generations.

In a broader sense true. However, from time to time, despite the presence of similar events in our long history, there are events that can give hope or make people ask if that's possible in a given period For example, we have had great or horrible leaders throughout our history, but from time to time, we would have someone who would serve as a catalyst to some kind of a change for a particular generation

[Crookbond]

Rett, Do you believe India can better function like the EU? In any case, we have a 2-tier state/federal structure. Currently, there's too much whinging from the states about the centre. May be states can prosper better with the split structure? The centre should still exist but merely to protect sovereign interests and foreign policy.

[Muloghonto]

Rett' date=' Do you believe India can better function like the EU? In any case, we have a 2-tier state/federal structure. Currently, there's too much whinging from the states about the centre. May be states can prosper better with the split structure? The centre should still exist but merely to protect sovereign interests and foreign policy.[/quote'] You are, IMO, in the right track but i think you are confusing the EU system and a federal structure ( in your last line). The EU is predominantly a trade and security union. They do not have any power (though a lot of influence exists) in sovereign matters. They may end up in the federal US or provincial Canada levels but are clearly not a sovereign entity in its own right. IMO, India could benefit significantly from a federal structure akin to the US or even Canada. The idea is simple: The central government has decisive say over military, foreign policy, ultimate citizen's common rights control, execution of central government's land related issues and ofcourse, legal matters involving the state & the individual. The provincial/state government has total control over civic law, aka, the 'lifestyle differences'. Ie, they get to deciede what goods they will tax & how, property laws, state-controlled government institutions ( for eg., the city bus services, rural bus services, state level universities, etc). This is the ideal long term scenario for India but the problem with this is, India is a still developing country and experiencing asymetric development zonally. Further individual state control, while might be better for the long term health of the states concerned, it might be extremely divisive to the national entity that is India, simply because, a hugely widening gap encompassing various zonal parameters will make 'countries within countries' scenario and economically imposed restrictons on travel or employment, which would ultimately lead to a fragmentation of India. It is important to have a financial common denominator and some sort of symetrical wealth distribution through the regions before autonomy is discussed, otherwise financial disparities will force the nation apart.

[zen]

Rett' date=' Do you believe India can better function like the EU? In any case, we have a 2-tier state/federal structure. Currently, there's too much whinging from the states about the centre. May be states can prosper better with the split structure? The centre should still exist but merely to protect sovereign interests and foreign policy.[/quote'] That is a great question, but a complex one. A lot has changed in India since its independence. Notably the population which is now over 1B. It is crazy to imagine for how long can Ind be sustainable in supporting such a population growth. Esp. when the current infrastructure is lacking. There appears to be a need to better manage Ind's resources for it to prosper. So how will a split structure help? I think the answer to this question lies in the objective evaluation by defining 3 to 5 major criteria such as Economic benefits, Security (Military, and Law & Order), Environment, etc. And then rating different systems based on these criteria. Some points to consider: Leadership: One factor that would potentially affect prosperity is leadership. Say Jharkhand functions as a separate country (except for key functions like the military, central bank, etc.) and the coal mafia come to power. On the other hand, someone like Modi can take states like Gujarat to a new level. Based on what we get to see in politics today, does Ind have enough leaders to drive each state to better prosperity? Another question is why should states that want to do well be held back? Law and Order: This would again be a major point. We have so many people who are untouchable by law. Don't know if a split structure would make them even more powerful and untouchable in their respective states. Though can't imagine how worse the situation can get than how it is at present. Natural Resources: With each state having total control over its natural resources, how would some of the other states fare esp. if the prices are not competitive? May be the states import duty free from other countries? Currency: I know EU has common currency. But one of the reasons why countries like Greece suffered is because it became less competitive by joining EU. It no longer had control over the currency. In a split structure would states be allowed to have their own currency? It would be interesting to have Gujarati Rupee, Marathi Rupee and Rajasthani Rupee. To drive growth and investment, Rajasthan may devalue its currency. Interesting notion. So yeah, if a few technicalities / issues are addressed and a few enhanced, the split structure might work. But again, Ind can always tinker the system to meet its needs, it doesn't have to copy and paste a system like it did during its independence.

[Crookbond]

Let me talk about one point "Natural Resources". There should be intra-trade between states. Lets say one state is a cotton-producing state while the other is a good coal-producer. These two states should be encouraged to indulge in trade such that the cotton producing state gets coal while the coal producing one gets cotton. Each state should finds its own USP and make it their own. Trade is obviously free movement and you don't require passports to move between states. By this token, if we have 4-5 model states to show how they have achieved the other ones will follow suit. In the current scenario, each state just sits back on their behind and blames the centre for every thing which is wrong with them. The money comes from the centre so they are happy to do that as well. What say?

[Precambrian]

That is a great question, but a complex one. A lot has changed in India since its independence. Notably the population which is now over 1B. It is crazy to imagine for how long can Ind be sustainable in supporting such a population growth. Esp. when the current infrastructure is lacking. There appears to be a need to better manage Ind's resources for it to prosper. So how will a split structure help? I think the answer to this question lies in the objective evaluation by defining 3 to 5 major criteria such as Economic benefits, Security (Military, and Law & Order), Environment, etc. And then rating different systems based on these criteria. Some points to consider: Leadership: One factor that would potentially affect prosperity is leadership. Say Jharkhand functions as a separate country (except for key functions like the military, central bank, etc.) and the coal mafia come to power. On the other hand, someone like Modi can take states like Gujarat to a new level. Based on what we get to see in politics today, does Ind have enough leaders to drive each state to better prosperity? Another question is why should states that want to do well be held back? Law and Order: This would again be a major point. We have so many people who are untouchable by law. Don't know if a split structure would make them even more powerful and untouchable in their respective states. Though can't imagine how worse the situation can get than how it is at present. Natural Resources: With each state having total control over its natural resources, how would some of the other states fare esp. if the prices are not competitive? May be the states import duty free from other countries? Currency: I know EU has common currency. But one of the reasons why countries like Greece suffered is because it became less competitive by joining EU. It no longer had control over the currency. In a split structure would states be allowed to have their own currency? It would be interesting to have Gujarati Rupee, Marathi Rupee and Rajasthani Rupee. To drive growth and investment, Rajasthan may devalue its currency. Interesting notion. So yeah, if a few technicalities / issues are addressed and a few enhanced, the split structure might work. But again, Ind can always tinker the system to meet its needs, it doesn't have to copy and paste a system like it did during its independence.

Very insightful post. Thanks. Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[zen]

Let me talk about one point "Natural Resources". There should be intra-trade between states. Lets say one state is a cotton-producing state while the other is a good coal-producer. These two states should be encouraged to indulge in trade such that the cotton producing state gets coal while the coal producing one gets cotton. Each state should finds its own USP and make it their own. Trade is obviously free movement and you don't require passports to move between states. By this token' date=' if we have 4-5 model states to show how they have achieved the other ones will follow suit. In the current scenario, each state just sits back on their behind and blames the centre for every thing which is wrong with them. The money comes from the centre so they are happy to do that as well. What say?[/quote'] Agree. There can be workable solutions. To implement a EU type of system, Ind will need to analyze and sort out / enhance a few factors. One must remember that in case of EU, the countries that joined the union already function as nations. They created a common ground on a few key issues to drive prosperity in the region. While in Ind case, there is no such (similar) structure in place for the states. Fragmenting, I guess, is a more difficult process. But things can be sorted out through proper analysis of the issues and creating mutually beneficial workable solutions.