“The international community—which includes many multi-tribal, ethnic, racial, or sectarian states—frowns on solutions that formally or implicitly break up states. Many have their own minorities that might be encouraged to break away. Thus, arguments are used that it’s a form of apartheid or that boundaries cannot be drawn exactly and will always leave some unfortunate souls on the other side of the line. In South Africa, apartheid was forced separation using armed might of a minority against a majority. In Iraq and Libya, such decentralized governance would have to be voluntary and would reflect existing ethno-sectarian or tribal areas, respectively.”
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=4700
Related posts:
Surrendering U.S. Citizenship Over New Banking Regulation?
Zoning’s Racist Roots Still Bear Fruit
11 Good Things for Liberty in 2013
You’re a Criminal in a Mass Surveillance World – How to Not Get Caught
Detlev Schlichter: The triumph of politics
Bitcoin Is Not Surging, 'Going Ballistic' Or 'Going On An Astronomical Tear'
The Land of the Blind: The Illusion of Freedom in America
"Free Trade Has Destroyed American Manufacturing": False.
Two Chess Moves Away from Capital Controls
Political Savvy of Osama Bin Laden vs. US Foreign Policy Establishment
Bill Bonner: Repeat After Me - Economics Is NOT a Science
The Myth of Journalistic Objectivity
How Can the U.S. be at War with Al-Qaeda and Support It?
The Unbearable Truth About Infrastructure and Urban Sprawl
Has The CIA's Phoenix Program Been Resurrected In Syria?