| Home Page
About Page
Contact Page
Favorite Links
|
Current chat
Typically we say that the Former Soviet Republics and Territories are independent and gained this independence in 1991 - in general (there are some exceptions to this) – but my main point is that this is misleading when we use this word - what we mean by independence is that they can exercise their own will and are not directly under the influence of outside forces. But this could not be the case. These states are anything but independent and actually the scope for independent decisions is quite small. For example, each state is heavily influenced by the conditions in their neighboring states. If one state offers higher interest rates on debt, people will switch their investments. If one state does not protect its borders, it can raise the risk in other close states. If one state pollutes, the effects can spillover. Probably the most important issue surrounds trade and infrastructure - the states trade with each other for the vast majority of their goods and services and thus they are linked - their highways, roads, and infrastructure, culture etc. are also linked. It thus makes little sense to speak about these nations as if they can simply decide to be together on some issues and not on others - they are more linked than seperate - it is probably more accurate to call these states the Commonwealth of interdependent states and then figure out in which ways these states are indepedent rather than the reverse.
as for the interdependence of the NIS, you're right, but aren't European countries becoming increasingly interdependent, haven't they lost some of their sovereignty as well? The NI States' situation seems to be a part of a larger context.
Difficult question - aren't the European countries becoming increasingly interdependent - in some sense yes, in some sense no. They are realizing that they are interdependent and in some areas efficiency can be enhanced by admitting it - like with borders, currency, etc. But the links have already existed. In some other ways, Europe has always been connected and the borders have been changed, redrawn, etc. In some sense, the formality is just catching up with the reality.
That's right about European countries, but isn't it similar in Asia, the simultaneous processes of integration and fragmentation, the constant changes of borders, the cultural/religious/even linguistic links?
there is a difference between what we would like to think and believe and what is actually happening. I think that the Asian States like talking about independence as if they can choose in which ways to cooperate etc. The fact is that this chat about separate countries that are completely cut off from each other except when they agree to meet and join is artificial. It is false - it is what presidents would like to think - but scientifically - false. I would argue that they are largely all together - and the fragmentation is largely an illusion - most of the areas where they agree to act together are already linked - they are just enhancing it. There is only one people, one country, one reality - we all share it, but somehow we view it differently
That's a very good point! Though i'd be more careful about fragmentation - isn't there lots of it (mostly ethnic) that sometimes even resulting in serious conflicts like civil war in Tajikistan?
Oh, I see a debate forming. I will take the easy route out of that question.
Yes, in some sense, ethnic conflict is fragmentation and yes, this is true.
In a logical sense though I would have to say no. Since we both likely agree with the conflict side, I will try my best to defend the illogical position
that these are conflicts and ethnically based conflicts at that.
There is no such thing as a Tajik, or an Uzbek, or a Russian or a Canadian.
Ethnicity is nearly impossible to define or defend. It is based on a separation from other humans that people THINK exists. It does not really exist though. For example, what do we mean by saying that someone is a Russian - do we mean by blood? This could not be the case since the slavic population is derived over a long period of time from a combination of other so called ethnicities. And besides this, a person who is born slavic or to a
slavic family does not have to behave like a slavic person - they are free, like all humans, to develop in their own way and within certain limits.
To take another example, people label me a Canadian. But I cannot be a Canadian by birth since Canada is not something that naturally exists - humans drew the border that separates Canada from America and it is pure coincidence that I was born on one side of a human created border than a different side. Besides this, I learned the culture by living in it, but I have also lived in other cultures and certainly I have changed and adapted as needed. So I am now some combination of different experiences.
Everybody is a combination of different things and it is nearly impossible to distinguish one race or ethnicity from another. A person can be born black to white parents and vice versa - it is very dodgy to state that people fit into nice ethnic categories. It is more the case that the ethnicity is defined by people to separate themselves from a group that naturally is one.
Okay, there is my logical argument. I do not think that I am any different,
fundamentally or ethnically, from an African.
Ok, let's call it not ethnic fragmentation (as I also happen to think that all people are just the same - although some people might argue that this belief we share with you is just another illusion), we can call it mental fragmentation then. But arguing about different names won't change the situation - beliefs are REAL. If a Palestinian boy is willing to get killed for his beliefs and his mother is willing to have him killed - call it wrong, call it illusion, but it is still a very real thing. The two of us believe that basically there's no difference between a Tajik and an Uzbek, but sometimes those two start making a lot of very real fuss around the differences we believe do not exist.
And who is to judge that we two good guys believe in the right thing while those two Asian guys got it all wrong? How can we be absolutely sure that our belief is not another illusion, but a fact? And even when we know, that some belief is wrong, it does not change anything for the believer. Here is the example I've found in The Wizards' First Rule: would you be more afraid of a 200-pound man who is going to steal your pen, or of a 100-pond woman who wrongly believes that you've kidnapped her only child? Same about ethnic differences - we might as well think they do not exist, but they are very real, even if it is only beliefs/illusions that make them real.
|
|
|
About the Webmaster
Lenina Str. 51, office 464
Faculty of International Relations
Yekaterinburg, 620083
Russia
My Email address is:
My URL:
http://ir-theory.freeservers.com
My Addresses:
pobedash@yahoo.com |
|
