Resisting the fervour of a la carte nationalism

Europe may soon acquire a new independent country, for the first shots in the battle over the independence of Scotland have been fired: With little more than a year before a referendum on this subject, the autonomous Scottish government has just published its blueprint for breaking up a centuries-old union with England.

At 667 pages, the Scottish plan unveiled last week was praised by its authors as "the most comprehensive" ever written, "not just for Scotland but for any prospective independent country".

Yet it was also decidedly odd. For, while asserting Scotland's right to "break free", it also told the Scots that they will keep the British monarch as their head of state, the pound sterling as a currency, and even the British passport as their travel document.

And the moment Scotland becomes independent, it will join the European Union, an organisation whose explicit purpose is to abolish the nation state.

A destabilising trend

NO EXPLANATION was provided for this curious approach and none was expected, since Scotland's independence blueprint is part of a growing trend among separatist movements worldwide: the pretence that the break-up of existing states is a painless, almost fun exercise which costs nothing.

This is a dangerous illusion which, if not confronted head-on, can turn into one of the world's most destabilising geopolitical trends.

Any discussion about the merits of creating a new independent state usually ends up with arguments about its optimum size and "viability". But that is largely irrelevant, for it is good governance, ingenuity, proper education and sheer determination which decide whether a country flourishes or flounders, as Singapore amply illustrates.

The same applies to Europe. Luxembourg, a landlocked country with no raw materials and only 530,000 inhabitants, is among Europe's richest nations.

Small countries can also be trailblazers: San Marino, a tiny European republic with a population of only 32,000 but an uninterrupted independent existence of over 1,700 years, led the world in providing equal voting rights to women. So, size is most emphatically not a critical consideration.

Nor should one regard existing states as immutable, as though preserved in aspic. Countries change their composition and borders more frequently than assumed and, if existing arrangements do not work, it is usually better to abandon them as quickly as possible in order to avoid bloodshed.

That is what happened with most of the hare-brained ideas for "federations" invented by colonial officials in London as the British empire began unravelling during the 1950s, and what should have been done with Yugoslavia, a multinational state which should have been encouraged to break up well before it erupted into a vicious civil war during the 1990s.

The same also applies to East Timor, whose forceful incorporation into Indonesia proved to be a disaster not only for the East Timorese, but also for most Indonesians. Just as with irretrievably broken marriages, separation is sometimes the best option.

Affluent but dissatisfied

THE problem is that many of today's demands for independence - and all those emanating from Europe - do not come from people suffering from either colonial oppression or ethnic or economic discrimination, but from those who have never had it so good.

After the residents of London and south-east England, the Scots are Britain's wealthiest, and remain over-represented in both government and Parliament. The Dutch speakers of Belgium are doing better than the French speakers, and so are the Catalans in Spain, or the ethnic Hungarians of Slovakia and Romania.

One reason for this curious link between increased prosperity and a growing dissatisfaction with the state which provided it is that nationalism is not based on reason but on emotions.

Nationalism also does not preclude any political ideology - Scottish nationalists are left-wing, while their Belgian counterparts are right-wing - nor does it offer a clear prescription on what needs to be done.

At its very basic, nationalism entails a promise of a better future based on nothing more than the invocation of a glorious past. So, if an ethnic group does badly, nationalists can plausibly claim that it would do better if it were independent.

But, if a group thrives, nationalists can argue that it could do even better on its own.

Furthermore, establishing a brand-new country is now far easier.

During the era of decolonisation half a century ago, a newly independent nation had to train a ruling elite and bureaucracy, establish a currency, negotiate treaties, build up armed forces and maintain an expensive network of embassies.

A la carte nationalism

TODAY, however, a newly established state can become a member of international institutions and, at a stroke, benefit from free trade agreements negotiated by others. It could outsource the delivery of most services to multinational corporations and provide diplomatic services online.

More importantly, instead of establishing a national currency and then spending decades trying to gain economic credibility as most of the countries did, separatists today claim that they can simply use other people's currencies: the British pound in the case of Scotland, or the euro in the case of all other European nationalists.

And, instead of having national armies, today's nationalists simply piggyback on the security provided by others: Scotland's leaders propose to keep just a few army regiments, preferably those wearing those nice, colourful kilts which are so loved by tourists.

Just about the only economically significant measure which Scottish nationalists unveiled last week was the promise that, once their country becomes independent, child allowances for young families will be increased.

So, the creation of a new state is now predicated on nothing more than an improvement in welfare benefits.

This is a la carte nationalism, akin to sitting in a restaurant, picking up menu items and then asking others to foot the bill.

A good argument can be made that none of this matters: According to all opinion polls, a majority of Scots will reject the independence option in next year's referendum, and the same applies to all other European nationalist movements.

Still, this separatist phenomenon can produce very pernicious results. Because nationalists never take "no" for an answer, failure in one independence referendum will quickly be followed by demands to hold another one.

So, big European nations such as Britain, Spain or even Italy could be paralysed by decades of separatist disputes, just as Canada was when its French-speaking province of Quebec demanded independence.

The disintegration of a number of European states will also encourage separatist movements in Asia or Africa, where the results could be deadly wars. And it could also create a whole host of small states which will discover that they are far more vulnerable than they initially thought.

In short, it is a dangerous trend which must be resisted.

And resisting it is eminently feasible. Central governments in countries such as Britain or Spain should have the courage to argue that precisely the same elements which make the creation of independent states easier also reduce the relevance of the concept of independence in the first place.

What is the point, for instance, of wresting powers from London in order to surrender them immediately thereafter to another super-national authority such as the European Union?

International organisations such as the EU or the United Nations can also break their current silence on such matters and adopt a clear position on the legal status of breakaway regions by pointing out that none of them can expect automatic membership: They will have to earn their right to apply and hope that they can be admitted.

People in Scotland or Catalonia have a right to make informed decisions.

None of these will prevent separatist fervour.

Nor should it negate long-established and internationally acknowledged demands for independence from people such as the Palestinians.

But these efforts should make it clear that the decision to break up an existing state is not some romantic, self-indulgent hobby as it is increasingly portrayed in Europe; instead it is a fateful leap into the unknown, and one which carries very serious consequences.

Jonathan.eyal@gmail.com

Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.