The Indian territories have long been subsumed under the US. The tribes do not have a separate militia but have their own regional organizations. That has been the case, to my knowledge, for over a hundred years! Problems come up now and again, but persons of goodwill are there, prepared to handle them.
When I was in Russia during the construction of its present constitution that ranges over the entire Russian Federation of Independent States (as it was called at that time in the early 1990s), I argued for the possibility that a nation-state could have sub-states within their borders. I again argued for the possibility when eastern Ukraine pledged to Russia, since the area is largely comprised of Russians. Just like the tribes within US overall jurisdiction.
I therefore objected to the treatment a largely Muslim area was treated by President Putin, virtually treating it as a rebellion.
I still contend: there ought be made provision to enable an area to govern itself differently and independently than that advocated by the national government.
In the August 8th issue of the Economist, the issue of both Catalan's independence from Spain and Scotland's independence from Great Britain were cited. But the conditions of that independence were not clearly presented; and I would argue for my interpretation of properly conceived internal independence in these instances, which does not include an external independence--indicated by maintaining an independent militia from the national military.
My proposal for an internal independence would also pertain to the Armenian-Azerbaijan dispute in the current news. Armenians control the rule of law in those pockets of Azerbaijan where they live; but the national government is responsible for these from take over by some hostile or foreign nation.
P.S. Note that Canada embraces the province of Quebec that still retains its French flavor of the Old Country in deed and word.
No comments:
Post a Comment