With little improvement in the federal political situation in Iraq, there has been much speculation of whether or not Iraq would dissolve into 3 separate countries, roughly along the lines of its sectarian populations: Kurds in the North, Sunnis in the center, and Shiites in the South. To many, this seems like a natural solution to the problem, after all the three new "countries" would basically be successors to the old Ottoman provinces of Basra (Shiite), Mosul (Kurd), and Baghdad (Sunni*). In general, post-Colonial era politics of the 20th and 21st century have repeatedly led to the creation of new states along ethnic, sectarian, or religious lines. What is rarely discussed, however, is whether or not this creates more problems than it solves? In essence, are more and more countries a good thing?
Today, in 2007, the generally agreed upon number of countries is 194 (192 UN Member states, plus Vatican City, and Taiwan). In stark contrast to this, in 1900 there were only 57 countries, as large empires carved up most of the world's smaller "countries" amongst themselves. Between 1860 and 1895, about 80 countries were wiped off the map. Most of these were due to Italian and German unifications, as well as European imperial movements which eliminated most of the African and Asian kingdoms and khanates.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, large countries are again splitting into smaller and smaller ones. The 20th-century trend toward more countries began with Cuban independence (following American military action) in 1898; Australia, Panama, Norway and Albania followed in the next decade. Since then, about 130 more countries have emerged from the breakup of European colonial empires including the breakup of tsarist Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire after World War I. Decolonization in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and the Pacific between 1945 and 1980 created many more countries; and the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia led to the current number, with the world's newest country being East Timor.
What remains unclear, however, is whether additional countries lead to a more peaceful, or more conflicted planet? To be sure, nationalist movements across the globe have been pressing for smaller and smaller territories to be recognized as sovereign. It is certainly no longer fashionable to be ruled from a far away capitol.
Remember the Yugoslavian conflicts of the 1990's? Where there was one country, there are now 6: Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Even this number is unsatisfactory to many. The Kosovar Albanians would like independence from Serbia. Srpska (Banja Luka) is talking about "Republic." Even Bosnia and Herzegovina are considering breaking up their federation. In fact, whenever there is talk about creating new countries, it is inevitable that one group or another will believe that their cause is worthy of yet further subdivision. Unfortunately, these subdivisions rarely fall neatly along current geo-political lines. They usually follow much more messy historical or ethno-population lines leaving dangerous grievances.
The Kurds believe that their "Kurdish homeland" includes parts of modern Syria and Turkey. Armenians believe that Armenia should include territory from Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. The Chechens want a separate Muslim homeland distinct from Russia. Many Tibetans would like to regain independence from China. India has been on the verge of ethnic breakup many times since its independence. Indeed both Pakistan and Bangladesh broke off from the India that Queen Victoria knew. And then there are the Palestinians (a term that historically refers to very different populations), some of whom believe in a homeland subdivided from Israel, others believe their homeland consists of all of Israel, and yet others who believe that parts of Jordan and Egypt are also rightfully Palestinian Arab. Nationalist movements are by no means limited to central Asia or the Middle East: Basques have been fighting for an ethnic homeland in modern Spain. Some Corsicans have been fighting the French for years. Others would like to separate Northern and Southern Italy. There is even a movement called "Hawai'i Independent and Sovereign" that would like to see secession from the United States.
As many nationalist movements have been successful at creating new countries out of the old orders, the trend is clearly towards more "countries." The problems begin when some of these countries begin to exercise their new found sovereignty against the interests of global stability, and often directed at their former rulers. This is especially true in an age of nuclear proliferation when countries like Iran and North Korea are showing the world that it is possible to gain disproportionate world attention (and resources) through what they would call sovereign exercise of rights, but others would call nuclear blackmail.
It is unclear what (if any) the correlation of "sovereign proliferation" to armed conflict is. After all, 16th and 17th century Feudalism led to many wars, as did 18th and 19th century Empire. The bloodiest wars of all, the World Wars of the 20th century, were fought between mostly Colonial powers. Despite wars being fought between Empires, these powers were quite good at suppressing conflict within their territories (though their methods were often brutal). As smaller countries have emerged from this old order, it has become increasingly necessary for the world as a whole to "police" or suppress conflict within and between territories that do not have the capacity to do so themselves, or where government has failed or broken down. Witness the genocidal killings in Darfur where Muslim North Sudanese have been systematically exterminating ethnic Blacks in the South and East. The conflict in Afghanistan, where NATO is attempting to keep the peace, is another example where years of war have eroded the power of any central government to maintain order.
The United Nations defines Peacekeeping as "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace." In fact, the UN overseas most of the world's peacekeeping missions with 17 active deployments. The UN is certainly not the only peacekeeping organization with NATO, the Economic Community of West African States, the European Union, and especially the United States all performing at least some peacekeeping duties. With more and more conflict zones throughout the world, the need for peacekeeping troops has only increased and the dangers they face are on the rise. It is clear that more and more of these "Global policeman" are necessary to keep order. The UN, lacking its own troops, has shown an inability to meet the increasing demand, and conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq have shown the limitations of organizations such as NATO's, or countries such as the United States', ability to reduce or end conflict adequately.
The emergence of so many newly sovereign countries is severely straining the International community's ability to maintain order and suppress conflict. As these functions were previously undertaken by Imperial or Colonial rulers, they have increasingly handed them off to inter-governmental bodies such as the United Nations and NATO. These inter-governmental bodies necessarily lack the sovereign mandate to act decisively to end or prevent conflict and necessarily rely on squabbling member-states, with often conflicting interests, before any mandate can be agreed upon. The delays this lack of consensus necessarily produce allow dangerous conflicts like Darfur and Iranian and N. Korean nuclear proliferation to go unchallenged until they sufficiently threaten other sovereign powers -- a condition likely to lead towards war.
In short, we are trying to solve localized problems by creating newly sovereign countries without having built sufficient International mechanisms to solve the disputes this will necessarily create.
Most assume, for instance, that the creation of a Palestinian state will solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of the last half century, however, how many have really answered the question of what will be done the day after this new state is created and it continues to seek armed conflict with Israel? Will Israel be justified in declaring war and reoccupying the territories, and if so what then has been accomplished? As Rudolph Giuliani wrote in the October 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs, "It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism. Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel."
If Iraq does dissolve into three new sovereign states, what will the International community do if Turkey takes over the Kurdish North, or if Iran takes over the Shiite South? The Syrians were content to do just that in Lebanon for 20 years, with the International community doing very little. The recognition of new sovereignty has been a political and diplomatic game of one-upmanship for more than a century. Perhaps before we recognize the 195th country, we should first take a long hard look at how the current 194 are going to police themselves. This process should begin with reforming the UN, which is an entirely different discussion.
------------------------------------
* During late Ottoman times, the province of Baghdad was actually heavily Jewish. According to the French vice-consul to Baghdad in 1904, Jews numbered 40,000 of 160,000 residents. By 1921, the British population figures for the city of Baghdad were 202,200 inhabitants, of which 80,000 were Jewish, 12,000 Christian, 8,000 Kurds, 800 Persians (Shi’ia), and 101,400 Arab and Turkish Muslims (Sunni). In 1952, practically the entire Jewish population of Iraq was exiled with the vast majority emigrating (forcibly) to Israel with the bulk of their lands and properties confiscated.