Juliet's Lament: An Argument for Partition

Below is paper I wrote examining the methods by which a multi-ethnic democratic state can reconcile different identities during after ethnic conflict arises.  My complete collection of grad school notes and paper can be found here.

Juliet's Lament: An Argument for Partition

          Were the terms state and nation always synonymous there might be far fewer 

incidences of intrastate ethnic conflict. International conflict, of course, would still flourish but 

it would not stem from ethnic heterogeneity within a state. This observation is offered to 

demonstrate the myriad challenges of state governance. With few exceptions, most states 

contain multiple ethnic identities that compete for power and control. A state’s primary duty 

remains the maintenance of its sovereignty (its stateness) through the governance of its territory. 

When ethnic conflict arises, this governance comes down to choices—of reconciling lines on a 

map to accommodate realities on the ground, or reconciling the identities of the population on 

the ground to the arbitrary lines on a map. Poor choices in this process have caused millions of 

deaths—sometimes intentionally but often as an after effect of well-intentioned state responses. 

In examining the reconciling of a state’s options, one must ask how a state can best respond to 

problematic ethnic populations? Is there an ideal best response? Does it address the origins of 

the conflict? In this essay I argue that democratic multi-ethnic states must balance the 

requirement for their own self-preservation with the needs and rights of its people. Ideally, the 

most comprehensive and widely employable balance for a state can be found in partition. This 

method addresses the primordialist origin of ethnic conflict. Ethnic bonds are not something that 

can be easily broken through assimilation or integration. Respecting the innate nature of ethnic 

affiliation produces an approach that seeks to preserve ethnic identity. This approach must be a 

holistic one—while it must originate within the sovereign state—it then requires cooperation 

(not intervention) by the international community in ensuring that refugee relocation does not 

turn into ethnic cleansing, nor is it perceived as indiscriminate expulsion. I begin the essay by 

distinguishing between nationalism, nations, and states, as well as between partition and 

secession. Then I describe that which is never a viable option—genocide—highlighting 

preconditions that a state must avoid to guard against it. Next, I provide a brief analysis of 

common criticisms of partition. Finally, I address the advantage of partition as well as the 

supplementary responses necessary once a state makes the decision to make a fresh cut.