secession and Armenia

I keep promising to make these blog entries shorter, but like a drunk I return to my old habits. Short entries just take so much longer to write! Anyway, the New York Times this morning has headlines about Gaza and Iraq, so let's talk about the benefits of secession. Why am I talking about armenia? Because this was written some time ago, and then Armenia seemed a perfect example of a nation that would not benefit from allowing secession. Or would it?

Is secession suicide for weak countries?
A strong nation can allow secession, because the new child states have a good reason to cooperate. But what about a weak nation? The seceding states may hate the old nation and become allies with its enemies. Then what? Let’s look at the example of Armenia.

Armenia is a small, landlocked country with few natural resources. It is in conflict with its neighbour Azerbaijan over the small Armenian area of Nagorno-Karabakh (within Azerbaijan). It is in conflict with its neighbour Turkey over the desire for Turkey to apologise over alleged genocide (from Ottoman times). It is unable to stand up to Russia because it is financially weak. The major powers (nearby Russia and distant America) have more interest in oil-rich Azerbaijan. America likes Karabakh, so Armenia gets some credit for supporting it, but America likes Azerbaijan’s oil even more. Azerbaijan is likely to get stronger, and Armenia is likely to have very little power. How would secession help here?

The ideal solution: everyone has land rent
The problems arise from the desire to grab oil and land. Global land rent would make this fair, so there is no advantage in gaining it by force. But what if nobody else adopted land rent, and this led to desires for secession? What if Armenia did it alone? Would Armenia just break up and be absorbed by its stronger neighbours?

Secession is safe
Land rent based secession contains its own safeguards. If Armenia was the only country to adopt secession, there would be great potential costs in secession. The seceding states would be liable for these costs, and could be treated as criminals if they did not pay. So succession could only happen slowly and cautiously. However, if other countries had already adopted secession, the costs would be lower because there would be instant allies to help, and they would be allies because the advantages (see next point) are greater.

Secession brings wealth
The main reason for land rent is to create wealth (see the main web site). It allows the most efficient possible use of resources, the greatest possible rewards for entrepreneurs, and the removal of fear because everyone has a fair chance. This wealth alone would give Armenia greater choices, and give it a stronger position when trading with Russia.

Secession would improve relations Azerbaijan
Secession would solve the problem of Karabakh. America would still be a friend, because Karabakh would have even greater freedom. Azerbaijan would be a greater ally, because Karabakh would have to absorb any refugees that had previously been driven out. (The refugee problem is a major reason for Azerbaijan’s opposition – when Karabakh declared independence, it drove out many of the non-Armenians.) Karabakh could not complain because if it wants secession, it cannot deny secession to others.

Secession would improve relations with Turkey
The Armenian government cannot become friends with Turkey because of pressure from nationalistic factions in Armenia. secession would solve this problem. The Armenian government could adopt a friendlier stance, and if the nationalists didn’t like it they could secede.

Conclusion: secession makes things better
None of these things would be easy, but they are definitely better than the alternative. At present, Armenia has little future. land rent, even if it led to secession, secession would give it a better future.