Given that territorial disputes and separatism are great interests of mine, I took note of yesterday’s news that a new state will be created in India. It is important to note though that, “The process of forming the state of Telangana will be initiated” and thus while likely, there is no guarantee.

India announced on Thursday that it planned to create the country’s 29th state, after a hunger strike by a regional leader and escalating protests from supporters. Home Minister P. Chidambaram said the government would begin work to found the separate state of Telangana, which will be carved out of Andhra Pradesh in the southeast. [...]

Since the partition of British-ruled India in 1947, various separatist and state movements have raged across the vast nation. Three new states were created in 2000, when Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh were divided to give rise to Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand.

Although a precedent by no means, it may still take years to actually come into being and around 60 state legislaters that day turned in resignations in protest. By today, that number is up to around 130.

Background

After Indian independence in 1947, events not unlike today’s played out. In an effort to gain an independent state, and protect the interests of the Telugu people of Madras State, Amarajeevi Potti Sreeramulu fasted until death. Public outcry and civil unrest after his death forced the government to announce the formation of a new state for Telugu speaking people. Andhra attained statehood on 1 October 1953, with Kurnool as its capital.

And yet, three years later, on 1 November 1956, the Andhra State merged with the Telangana region of Hyderabad State to form the state of Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad, the former capital of the Hyderabad State, was made the capital of the new state Andhra Pradesh.

Just over a year ago, in November 2008, the Nava Telangana Party declared the region’s statehood. Thus, today’s announcement is no surprise given the regions 60+ years of unrest and seeking autonomy/independence.

Questions

1) Will this new state be economically viable? How will it earn revenue with a smaller, poorer tax base?

2) Will a new smaller state with a more homogenous population and thus government actually be able to govern more effectively?

3) Will this further propel the Hyderabad region upwards as it no longer has the anchor of poorer regions dragging it down?

4) How will this affect the balance of power between the individual states? And how will it affect the balance between political parties? Andhra Pradesh will lose voting power nationally with the creation of a new state and the new Telangana is far more likely to gravitate left than right. What does this mean for the major politically parties like the INC and BJP?

5) How will this affect the endless other separatist groups (violent and nonviolent) and ethnic minorities agitating for more autonomy? Will this make India more or less stable?

6) What will the long term effects be of this new states success or failure?

Final Comments
Although it is unlikely this issue will receive much more international attention, it will be of interest to India watchers and especially those interested in devolution, separatism and related issues. Newly independent states such as Kosovo are often the most studied while developments such as this inside functioning states and that are legally sanctioned receive less attention. I’ll try to keep an eye on this and would always appreciate further comments from readers who may have more to add.

Building on one of my favorite subjects, devolution, the decline of the state and the proliferation of microstates, I’ve put together a map of the future of Europe in 2020. It is purely speculative and in no way a firm prediction, but rather a sketch of the possibilities and list of the most likely cases. It is by no means exhaustive and you’ll notice seemingly obvious states such as Wales, Sicily, Crete and others are not listed. This is in part because I will argue that two local conditions are necessary for a viable movement and successful independence.

First, the state must be well off economically and able to hold it’s own, i.e. it must have more to gain than lose. Hence, states like Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria are the two richest in Germany, essentially subsidizing the rest would have more motivation than the poor underdeveloped east German states which feed off the rest. The second condition is that the region must have a well developed and unique identity which comes in the form of a strong dialect or different language, history of independence or autonomy and other characteristics that go into defining a culture. Thus, Bavaria (which is actually what most people think about when they think of Germany) is both rich and has a long cultural past and different identity. It has its own dialect, a history of independence and a host of other unique traits including traditional song, dance, clothes etc that other regions lack.

Given that Europe already has a number of microstates – Andorra, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City – and growing list of independence movements (Scotland, Flanders, Catalonia, North Italy, Bavaria), I find the map a reasonably accurate picture of what Europe would look like should this trend continue. Click on the picture below for a full size version of the map.

Effects in Europe

Even if only a few of these microstates were to be born, it could have serious consequences regionally, transatlantically and globally. In Europe, it would suddenly create a host of rich and poor states, which their previous host states balanced out. Northern Germany will get poorer and the two southern states stay very rich for example. Over time, the lack of wealth transfer from southern to northern Germany, or from northern to southern Italy will likely create less developed and poorer states within Europe no longer able to stay afloat. As an Italian friend once joked, without the north, southern Italy would turn into a Catholic Pakistan. As reader DJ noted, now more than ever, regions of today’s states are trying to maximize the economic benefits of globalization while minimizing the social costs, leading to richer regions breaking from poorer ones.

So what will independence look like? It won’t have the same meaning that we think of today. At the local level, these newly minted states will enjoy previously unparalleled independence, flexibility and likely prosperity. However, at the same time, they will be subservient to the European Union on international matters such as defense, some foreign policy, trade agreements, transportation and environmental issues. Also and perhaps most importantly, a credible Europe wide defense would have to exist to make the creation of new states viable.

Conclusion

Naturally, this is an exercise in conjecture and the implications of such events would be far reaching indeed. For example, what would become of US bases in Germany and Italy? And to take the trend even further, could we one day see old school “Greek” leagues of states, perhaps a constellation of conservative states and more liberal ones (or rather rich vs poor), or Germanic vs Romance? Only time will tell.

From tribes to city states to states, humans have always sought security, and used familial ties (constantly redefined) as the links to achieve that. Similarly, humans have an innate need to differentiate themselves whether by family, race, region, culture, religion etc. Globalization is confronting people with more and more differences (other countries, cultures, civilizations, religions and more) at an unparalleled pace. This is leading to individuals worldwide to redefine their identity and their loyalty creating both upward and downward trends. This recent telegraph article on an independence party for Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium, has a quote by a party spokesman on exactly this trend:

“The EU makes it possible for countries such as this one to split up. We believe we are experiencing both globalisation and localisation. Some problems are global, like defence or the environment, and these need to be dealt with by the EU. But at the same time democracy needs to be closer to the people, and that is why we are a regionalist party. The two trends go hand in hand.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself. More on this topic within the next week or so.

I blogged about Scotland previously here and here. Thus, I couldn’t help but notice this BBC article:

An opinion poll commissioned by BBC Scotland has shown a clear majority (58%) of Scots want a referendum on independence next year. The poll also suggests support for the Union outstrips that for independence from the UK. However, the poll found the percentage of people saying they support independence varies widely depending on how the question is phrased. The Scottish Government wants to hold a referendum on the issue in 2010.

The nation-state has been the dominant form of organization for several centuries now, most able to provide public goods and above all security for the people. However, the hierarchical organizational structure coupled with the devolution of power – primarily through technology – is seeing states combine into larger entities (think EU) and regions move towards more autonomy and even independence. The trend is clear, ‘stock’ in the nation state is down and the people are moving away from it in both directions, up and down.

Sidenote: Good related article on Catalonia here. Hat tip to Chief Wiggum.

Oh ye of little faith! Microstates are coming. In the Balkans, you could write it off as Yugoslav leftovers. In Spain, perhaps some legacy of the Spanish Civil War. Today it’s Scotland. And the trend is becoming clearer by the day. The only question is who’s next!

IJ pointed out the following. Looks like I missed this, good thing our readers have a sharp eye!

A Bill To

Provide for electors in Scotland to petition the House of Commons for a referendum on whether Scotland should withdraw from the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:””?

There may be a lot of welcoming parties at the United Nations soon. The middle men are being cut out. The real question here is, who gets the North Sea oil? May be a helpful precedent for Iraq actually!

NOTE: More excellent commentary on microstates and devolution here, at Cynical Nerd.

Yesterday it was strength in numbers. Today it’s efficiency alone. It seems Montenegro may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. Readers will surely have read by now that Catalonia has opted for yet more autonomy within Spain.

Catalans, Spaniards and Europeans all have reason to be proud of Sunday’s democratic decision to expand the powers of self-government available to the citizens of Catalonia. The Catalans wanted it. The Spanish parliament mandated it as constitutionally lawful. And the European Union provides a framework – part architecture, part shock-absorbers – that should make such exercises perfectly ordinary.

Indeed, as the Financial Times note, the key here is the European Union, a framework within which such moves aren’t as potentially violent as they otherwise would be. In most other regions, this would be one or two steps short of war. In the past, regions with (often) shared linguistic, cultural and historical ties banded together to become states, to better throw their weight around. Of course, others were unified by force like Germany but as politics and government evolved, the world moved towards central governments. Today, with the breakup of empires, decolonization, the spread of technology and globalization, centralization has peaked and we’re headed towards more devolution or a reconfiguring of states, as Daniel Nexon at the Duck puts it.

However, despite his reservations, this is indeed more than just a reconfiguration because it’s occuring for many of the same reasons as neo-medievalism and global guerillas. In the case of Catalonia, the supply side of government so to say, has changed. Today, smaller regions are increasingly able to provide all the necessary services and functions of a state. Does Atlanta need Washington or does Istanbul need Ankara? The answer today is more often than not, no, or not much longer. With an airport and a few roads and phone lines, regions are increasingly directly connected to the rest of the world. On top of that, within Europe, with a supranational economic and security structure and national governments which are continuing to cede sovereignty to the EU, national goverments are becoming unnecessary middle men. And middle men get cut:

In Europe’s case, pressure is being exerted on the central government from both above and below.
This can be seen as the beginning of a correction in the market of government services. The demand is simply following the supply elsewhere. As Lexinton Green of Chicago Boyz noted in my post on the coming micro-states:

I would think the EU government would like to see all the existing European states disintegrate into regional units, or smaller. Then there would be nothing left to challenge it. Less cynically, it makes sense to be a breakaway state in Europe, under EU supervision. No one is going to come in and massacre you, probably.

Call it what you will, but the trend is real. However, don’t take this to be all doom and gloom. In fact, this will indeed be positive as long as it happens within some overarching economic and security framework. In fact, even fellow empire enthusiast Niall Ferguson has changed his tune on union between Scotland and England.

“I now find myself feeling that independence would be preferable to this halfway house we have at the moment. Ireland and some of the east European countries like Estonia are showing that small countries which embrace economic liberalism can thrive.”Â?

John Robb chimes in as well:

A recurring theme of global guerrillas is that smaller organizations are often better suited for success (more agile, responsive, and cohesive) within the fluid/chaotic environment spawned by globalization’s new rule set—as with all ubiquitous platforms, this new global rule set is minimalist (that’s all we can agree on). The same is true for economic “white” competition at the nation-state level.

However, as this process plays out peacefully in the Core and most likely to the Core’s overall benefit, the same process is occuring in the Gap under the opposite conditions. Instead of moving towards smaller more efficient units under a larger economic and security umbrella, the trend is moving forward in regions which have just lost one. Russia’s near-abroad is the most obvious example. An Abkhazia or Nagorno-Karbagh in Spain wouldn’t make people think twice. But in the chaotic Gap, it’s a recipe for violence.

As for the rest of Europe, this tidbit from Italy piqued my interest:

Success in the Catalonian referendum for independence signals the direction for the whole of Europe, claimed the President of the Lombardy Region, Roberto Formigoni, commenting on the Catalans’ vote in support of the referendum, whilst at the Assolombarda meeting “Not everything in the referendum is good – Formigoni observed – matters have been put together that have nothing to do with independence, and if I’d had to vote I’d certainly have had problems. Even with a policy that I don’t agree with, it’s pretty clear that the direction of Europe has been flagged up, and it is that of recognising that the regions have more power to make decisions. It’s exactly the road that Italy has taken up and I hope that on Sunday this will be confirmed. Our referendum is better formulated that the one in Catalonia, because it talks about real devolution”.

Anyone know more?

The effects of Montenegro’s recent independence and Kosovo’s predicted independence are already rippling far beyond the Balkans. If Montenegro, a geographically small country of some 600,000 people, can achieve independence, why too shouldn’t others such as South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karbagh or Transdniestria? Podogorica’s precedent may have indeed set a dangerous precedent for oppressed minorities everywhere. A recent CS Monitor article began looking at a coming wave of micro-states, all formerly part of the Soviet Union. This post will build on that theme.

The Caucasus, home of good food, wine, beautiful mountains and once the Golden Fleece, is also home to a handful of frozen ethnic conflicts. However, they are beginning to thaw. We’re about to witness the second round of the post-Soviet circus. Most readers are already familiar with the breakup of the USSR. Internal republics opted out of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics instantly outdating a map we’d used for decades. Some were large, some were small and uknown. Others had vast natural resources and some only environmental destruction thanks to Moscow. Satellite states made out the best, most having already joined the EU and NATO. But inside many of the newly independent states were yet more, this time being autonomous areas. The example, currently most famous, is Kosovo which was an autonomous province within Serbia. We are all well aware of what followed not long after Serbia revoked that status. Despite international focus on Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East, the Caucasus is now in danger of being the next disaster zone. The future conflicts will be Abkhazia and S. Ossetia in Georgia and Nagorno-Karbagh in Armenia/Azerbaijan.

The questions arising from Montenegro’s successful referendum are threatening the stability of a number of areas. Transdniestria has already decided to hold one and other breakaway region won’t wait long to follow. Kosovars are left scratching their heads wondering why their neighbors are allowed to hold a referendum but they aren’t.

Thus, events in Montenegro have created a system-perturbation which has governments and international bodies asking how to continue. A new rule-set is needed for dealing with self-determination and territorial integrity, two often conflicting principles which are often presented as complimentary. What would a new international rule-set for independence look like? Let’s start with Montenegro. The first rule is that some guarantor power is needed. The EU established the guidelines and set the numbers for Montenegro’s independence to be officially recognized. Next come the details. To realistically become one’s own state, a wide range of conditions must be present to ensure viability, security and stability.

Independence from A to Z

1) Find a guarantor power
2) Win a clean and fair referendum overseen by said power
3) Be of a certain geographica size
4) Have a minimum number of citizens
5) Able to effectively assume state functions
6) Settle all border disputes and conflicts with neighbors peacefully
7) Possess enough financial and/or natural resources to survive

The problem comes in defining the above criteria in detail. Exactly how many citizens are necessary? Montenegro has 600,000 while Andorra has only 67,000; Lichtenstein only 34,000; and San Marino only 28,000. Enough examples of functioning micro-states already exist, yet they are already integrated into the European Union which is another situation entirely. How much land does one need for a country? A tiny island like Malta? A small hill like San Marino? A corner of an island like East Timor? And let’s not forget Singapore, scarcely more than a city.

As for finances, consider Kosovo:

According to a World Bank study released in 2005, some 15% of Kosovo’s population live in extreme poverty [ie live on 0.93 euro per day]. Only half of the province’s households are connected to a central water system, and just 28% to a sewerage system. The rate of unemployment is around 65%.

Despite independence being a foregone conclusion, how viable does that really sound? Even when Kosovar independence comes and is hailed in the news, international troops will still be in it for the long haul. At this point, with Kosovo already unofficially separate from Serbia, the most important changes won’t come from the ballot box.

Robert Kaplan has said democracy is best when it comes last because in order to have a real functioning democracy, functioning institutions and a solid middle class are necessary. Many of the same conditions are necessary for independence. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov said last week tat “The resolution on Kosovo will create a precedent in international law that will later be applied to other frozen conflicts.” He’s right, the question is whether other aspiring states and their neighbors will follow that precedent or not.