Why is political fragmentation considered such a bad thing?
So I’m studying the MENA region and we’ve been talking a lot about how the Middle East has strong ethnic identities and doesn’t always identify with their “nationality” (i.e., Kurds will say “I’m Kurdish” before they’ll say “I’m Iraqi”). Of course this is completely understandable, because British colonization led to boundaries/countries that never would have organically existed. But my professor mentioned that from a world superpower standpoint, like from the perspective of the US, it is never a smart decision to promote, support or accept fragmentation (these countries breaking apart — there being a Kurdistan etc). Why is this? I think there’s something I’m missing here. What is the big picture when it comes to fragmentation, like why would it be such a bad thing from a superpower perspective to just let these unnatural territories fragment into their own countries based on ethnic groups?
- FoofaLv 71 year agoBest Answer
These regional disputes tend to cause humanitarian crises that the rest of the world is then forced to manage, see Sudan for another example. But from the standpoint of someone who believes the status quo is good they represent a chipping away at the global order. If every secessionist group on earth were successful we'd have some extra hundreds of nations all vying for the same finite resources...and to people with pensions in the stock market this is frightening because it would undermine the international economy.