conkermaniac

This has been bugging me for a long time. I'm normally all for self-determination, but if all these countries that want to become independent do become independent, won't that only put more of a burden on the developed world to fund and develop these nations? I'm not talking about places like Taiwan here -- countries that have demonstrated the ability to be able to sustain itself in the global economy. I am talking about poverty-stricken regions, many of them based largely upon a subsistence economy, such as Tibet, Xinjiang, Western Sahara, Kurdistan, Somaliland, Aceh, Kosovo, Chechnya, etc. Now, instead of the governments of larger countries like China, Russia, and Morocco financing their economies, the rest of the world will be responsible for their well-being. What are your opinions on this?

Vorkosigan

It's problem. And the answer, as Taiwan, China, Korea, Japan and the rest of Asia shows, is preferential access to advance country markets, and export-led development.

Vorkosigan

ohwilleke

Kurdisan and Kosovo have both demonstrated an ability to form their own working civil administrations without outside help and despite risk of military peril from the legitimate governments of the regions.

Why Russia is stupid enough to want to hold onto Chechnya I'll never know. The place causes them untold suffering that isn't worth the trouble and is quite capable of managing itself.

Aceh, as an oil rich kingdom and one of the more developed parts of Indonesia, would not need international aid, although Indonesia might without its oil wealth.

Xinjiang, Western Sahara and Somaliland probably are incapable of running themselves.

Would Tibet be poor? Yes. Could it even be restored after huge Chinese colonization efforts, hard to say. But, a free Tibet is the right thing to do. China baldly invaded it, not so long ago, and it has an identity of its own.

As Northern Ireland and Basque Spain show, the costs of not letting a region have independence can be very high.

conkermaniac

Even so, that does not necessarily mean that they can manage their economies well enough to sustain themselves without international aid. The main issue here is economics, not politics.

Would Tibet's independence be the morally right thing to do? Certainly. But China's rule over Tibet has been a mixed blessing. While they've certainly done a bit to help develop the infrastructure, they haven't exactly been the most benevolent dictators.

Again, I have no doubt that freeing Tibet is morally right and that they can get a government up and running. However, I don't see any economic future for a country that has few readily accessible natural resources, is based largely on a subsistence economy, and relies mostly on tourism. Tibet's natural resources are a lot like Alaska's oil supply, IMO. There's tons of it, but most of it is inaccessible or else very costly to obtain. Couple that with an archaic Tibetan religious view that mining would bring out "demons of the earth", and you've got a potentially rich country that is dirt poor.

Yes, no doubt about that.