Occasionally people within a country find themselves unable to agree on the rules under which they can all live peaceably. When this happens, a separatist movement is likely to ensue. Often such separatist movements revolve around questions of control over religious practice, language or other cultural questions. Usually, it’s a minority group, often living in a peripheral region of the country that is the offended party ready to break away from the majority group living in the country’s hearth or core region.

Thousands of separatist movements have marked world history, and hundreds of separatist groups are active today.

Even within prosperous Europe, dozens of ethnic groups (nations) would like to break away to establish their own nation-state in Europe alone. In principle, Americans and American foreign policy support the right to self-determination, which is essentially the right of a group of people to control political system of the territory in which they live. Indeed, the United States itself was born of a rebellion by separatists living in a marginalized, peripheral region of the British Empire. American colonists’ rallying cry for self-determination was “no taxation without representation”, a cry one still hears from the District of Columbia as this city is the seat of the Federal Government but is not its own state.

Example 1: The United Kingdom (UK)

For many years, Scotland has debated its inclusion in the United Kingdom, which comprises England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. The desire for Scottish independence from the United Kingdom is driven by several factors. Key among them is a strong sense of national identity and cultural distinctiveness, which many Scots feel is overshadowed by the dominance of England within the UK. Economic considerations also play a significant role; proponents of independence argue that Scotland could better manage its natural resources, such as North Sea oil, and tailor economic policies to better suit its needs if it were independent. Additionally, political differences, particularly over issues like Brexit, have fueled the desire for secession. Many Scots voted to remain in the European Union, and the UK’s decision to leave has intensified calls for independence, as Scots seek to regain the benefits of EU membership. Historical grievances and a desire for greater self-determination further bolster the push for secession, with many feeling that decisions impacting Scotland should be made closer to home, rather than in Westminster. This matter seems resolved as of early July 2024 as the latest election in the UK diminished the seats for the Scottish National Party (SNP) the members of which were the trailblazers for independence.

Civil Wars and Secession Attempts

Separatist movements do not always arise from perceived differences in identity. Just as often the real difference is economic, but those who would lead a group to rebel rarely admit this basic fact. The American Civil War was less a fight over identity as it was over the control over rules governing economics, slavery, and cultural norms. Both sides of the conflict identified as American, but Southerners believed control should be local, and most Northerners believed that some of that local control (regarding slavery for example) should be a matter of national control.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about civil wars and separatist movements is that often those who suffer the most gain the least when fighting breaks out. As was the case in the American Civil War, the vast majority of soldiers from the South owned no slaves, and stood to gain from wage competition in the labor market upon emancipation. It was the elite Southerners that needed slavery. So how is it that people without much to fight for can be convinced to fight?

Some of the answer lies in the ability of people in power to manipulate the opinions of segments of a population effectively. Populist politicians (radio hosts, etc.) often convince people that their individual or their groups’ problems are the results of unfair treatment by another group. Sometimes, these arguments are legitimate and can be supported by fact; other times there is insufficient evidence to justify rebellion or secession.

It is often nearly impossible to determine exactly whose interests a secessionist group represents. Sometimes, secession movements are led by a small political elite that claims the right to represent a larger majority. However, the elite may not be representative of the majority of the people, and their motives may be strictly personal (wealth, power).

This is why the United States’ foreign policy finds questions of self-determination especially perplexing. Our government has yet to find a consistent response to those groups who desire to control their own territory.

In some cases, the US has supported the rights of subnational groups to create a new country. The Clinton administration largely supported the dissolution of Yugoslavia into multiple new countries. In other instances, the US has worked with groups trying to exercise that right. Take, for example, the Kurdish people, an ethnic minority in northern Iraq, eastern Turkey, Syria and northwestern Iran. The Kurds have a separate language, history and identity from the Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians and the Turks with whom they share space. Many Kurdish nationalists argue that there should be a new nation-state called Kurdistan. It would seem the Kurds have a legitimate argument, and there have been several Kurdish insurrections over the years. Each time though, Kurdish rebellions have been met with violence by the governments of Turkey, Iraq and Iran. The US government supported some measure of Kurdish autonomy in Iraq and Iran, but not in Turkey, presumably because that country is a strategic ally of the US.