talk till morning
For the Love of Ideas
‘dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.’ the old lie we must never forget
“my friend, you would not tell with such high zest,
to children ardent, for some desperate glory,
the old lie; dulce et decorum est
pro patria mori.” - dulce et decorum est by wilfred owen, 1917
Since the storming of the Bastille in 1789, revolution against tyranny has been glorified as humanity’s hardship stricken route to freedom. Its benefits are undeniable. Arguably, nation’s transformations from Monarch controlled kingdoms to democratic, free market economies has largely come as a result of hard fought revolutions.
So too have its most notable social movements all across the world. In Western Europe, Protestantism was born from a single monk nailing his 95 objections to his Church on his local one. Roughly 440 years later, his near namesake led a movement crying out against the oppression of black people. China’s 1911 Xinhai (‘metal pig’) Revolution disassembled its last Qing dynasty to be replaced by the Republic of China. (See: The Republic of China). Across the pacific in 1791 Haiti, Jean-Jacques Dessalines led History’s only ever slave revolt that resulted in a country.
'Pro Patria Mori' enscribed in stone in rememberence of those who fought in the First World War
‘dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.’ "it is sweet and proper to die for the fatherland." - odes by horace, 23 bc.
These are but a few seminal examples of where violent revolution has become engulfed by memories of nostalgic glory. But in the case of the formation of nations, is the fight for freedom always such a good thing?
The tendency to associate revolution with glorious change for the better, sets aside the dire price in lives paid for such changes and the frequent hardships that follow. I am not talking about the given vengeance taken on the captors, oppressors, or subjugators. I am talking about the, often, self-administered horrors the revolutionaries subsequently dole out to themselves.
In 1993, Eritrea declared independence from Ethiopia. Since then, President Isaias Afworki’s one party regime has enforced restrictive economic policies and indefinite conscription. He was a leader of the revolution. A fighter for freedom. Now half of his ‘freed’ people are in abject poverty. UN peacekeepers try to moderate the damages of his government’s human rights abuse record as violent tensions between Eritreans and Ethiopians thrive.
2011 saw South Sudan declare independence from Sudan. A state springing forth after Sudan’s 22-year civil war - one of the longest civil wars ever. Over 22 ethnic groups celebrated the forgoing of their former Sudanese bonds. But in the formulation of a new order, came hardships. Hardships taking the form of its own two year long civil war in 2013-2015. Even today, South Sudan’s political instability and fractious ethnic cultures, cause the conflict to continue despite the peace treaty and the recognition of independence.
Both South Sudan and Eritrea are two rare occasions where the world stage, namely the UN, has recognised these regions as autonomous nation states. Do not forget the much longer unrecognised list of ‘wanna-be’ nation states, namely: Taiwan, Tibet, Western Sahara, Kashmir, Abkhazia, Cabinda, Flanders, Basque Country, Quebec, Greenland, Palestine, Bavaria, North Cyprus (and more), and the additions currently in the spotlight Catalonia and Kurdistan.
You may notice the length of the latter list compared to the brevity of the former. So why do nation states so rarely accept partitioned regions as nation states?
The UN outlines four conditions to make a state. A defined territory; a government; a permanent population; and international relations with other states. Defining a territory means the original state agreeing to have a slice of its economy, population, and political sway taken away from it – need I say more? Many regions craving secession will have the semblance of some form of government waiting to spring into action. The question is how capable would that government be of maintaining order in upstarting a nation from scratch without any prior experience? A permanent population seems simple enough. Yet if that state fails, mass migration away from poverty and civil war would render it not such a simple issue.
Trickiest of all these is the fourth one. The danger of treading on international toes and keeping your friends comes into play most of all here. Nowhere is this clearer than the case of Taiwan. Its struggle for independence from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) - since the 1952 San Francisco Treaty (see: The 1952 San Francisco Treaty) triggered the Maoist government to assume sovereignty over it - has gone unheeded by all but 19 of the UN’s 193 countries.
Why is this? Because of the PRC’s power. It does not matter how many of the Republic of China's 24 million People peacefully call for freedom, the PRC quells it with a simple catch-22 posed to the world. That being: ‘If you satisfy condition four by recognising this region as a state and enter into international relations with it, you lose the ability to enter those relations with us.’ An open and shut case for most of the world’s nations.
This political complexity convolutes all struggles for independence across the world. Palestine is still a non-member observer state in the UN, partly due to the international presence of Israel. Even in the less violent struggles like Catalonia, why would European governments risk their mutually beneficial relationship with Spain for the sake of a small minority of its total population?
Chairman Mao's portrait marking the entrance to the Forbidden City
Aside from these complex international courting issues are the simpler ones. Secession can further ostracise ethnic groups, prolonging conflicts. It can expose the inability of a government to maintain unity in its own populace, encouraging further war and rebellion from dissatisfied factions. Such governments may attempt to reclaim that lost strength, as is the case of present day Russia fighting to reannex Ukrainian territories previously relinquished by the USSR.
In this knowledge, how likely do you think it is the above listed regions yearning for independence will satisfy the UN’s four criterions? Equally, how likely do you think it is these regions will bow to international interpretations of their situation and concede their struggle?
Sadly, the answer all too often distills down to war.
It is true to say some of these regions have more than a valid claim to independence. Sometimes fighting for what you believe is necessary. My aim is not to contest the righteousness of individual cases, but to highlight the difficulties that can spring from humanity’s post 18th century love affair with revolution. In some cases, finding righteousness for fighting can be like trying to catch smoke in a vacuum; seemingly difficult but actually impossible.
From chaos must spring order if human societies are to thrive. Wiping the slate clean in a revolting subsection of a country will not avoid a new order having to form. If they get that new order right, visions of a brighter future may eventually become reality. If not, unrest, squalor, civil warfare, and the suffering of the innocent are likely to proceed.
Either way, if a group tries to wipe the slate clean they must remember the ‘sweetness’ of dying for a ‘fatherland’, even one that does not exist yet, is often outweighed by the bitter hardship.
So when we blindly back the underdog and call for people to have their ‘freedom’, let us not forget the 'old lie' we may be uttering.
The Republic of China
The Republic of China (1912–1949) is different to the modern-day People’s Republic of China which was established by Maoist communists in 1949. The communists overthrew the then nationalist government which retreated to Taiwan - now known as, the Republic of China.
The 1952 San Francisco Treaty
The 1952 San Francisco Treaty was a treaty signed by previously axis Japan, whom had surrendered in August 1945, and the Allied Powers. It ended the allied occupation of Japan and ended its position as an imperial power. Crucially, it did not specify who was to assume sovereignty of Taiwan which has since sparked controversy in international law over the autonomous status of the region.