Posted by: Nathan M. | February 23, 2009

An Unfortunate Truth

The Tamil Tigers have once again asked to be given a sovereign state of their own. They have had enough of Sri Lanka, and want their own state that they can rule over. How very…well…western of them, wouldn’t you say? Of course, the UN never even really considered the request, since the Tamil Tigers represent a type of people that the UN cannot abide-they are not civilized since they are not white, nor do they have any semblance of Christianity, and they are surely not fighting for the promotion of democracy and, perhaps more importantly, capitalism.

I am not necessarily advocating the provision of land and sovereignty to the Tamil Tigers here, I only wish to reveal an unfortunate truth-there is very little justice involved in the decisions around who is sovereign and who is not. I am a supporter of Israel’s gained sovereignty, I believe that it was within God’s plan for them. However, it creates an interesting dynamic in the politics of sovereignty, because it begs the question: “who has the right to sovereignty, and who doesn’t”, and more importantly: “why?”. This is an important question to ask because it impacts literally all nations, Canada more than most. We have a province that does not want to be a province-do they have the right to leave our country and become a sovereign nation? Why not? Some might claim that it is unconstitutional, but the fact is that it isn’t really, and even if the constitution can be stretched that far, is a province that leaves a natSRILANKA/ion still under the constitution? Who decides how far an agreement must be carried, and who enforces it?

Even beyond this, in most countries there is not a specific constitution that directs the operation of succession. In fact, Canada is the only country that has legislation that deals with the issue of a province leaving-and this legislation is not in the constitution (the clarity act). In cases such as Sri Lanka, there is no real document to refer to. Why can’t the Tamil Tigers be independent? Generally, the west rejects this idea because it is not in the west’s interest to have many different nations influencing the UN and acting independently. To be plain-it is easier to deal with one nation with one interest, then five with five competing interests. To extend this to the economy, it is easier to deal with an economy that is unified-once you access it, you’re in. But just because it is more convenient for the West to limit sovereignty to less nations, this doesn’t mean that this is somehow just and right. Again, I am not making any definite judgements on this, because I honestly don’t know, but the scary thing is I’m not sure if anyone really knows.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: