Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Of course the Russians have over-reacted and have long planned to reassert their control over their Near Abroad - especially in view of their former territories joining NATO and becoming a part of the West's encircling of Russia. But this particular situation would not have arisen if the Georgians had shown the good sense that the Czech Republic had shown when it allowed Slovakia to secede peacefully from Czechoslovakia. Should the Scottish or Welsh Nationalists get a majority in their assemblies and want independence from Britain, I hope we would show similar good sense and let them go in peace and with friendship. Georgia should long ago have allowed its two provinces to depart. So should Serbia have allowed Kossovo to secede. So should the Russians allow the Chechens to leave, and the Chinese the Tibetans. If the Indians had allowed self-determination to the Kashmiris, not only would that have been the right thing to do on its own account, but it would have removed the friction between India and Pakistan, with all the dangers which have led to two wars already. The Spaniards have sensibly given their Catalan and Basque provinces extensive autonomy, and as a result there seems little majority support for complete independence. In Africa also there has been, ever since the Biafran War, a strong argument for allowing concentrated ethnic populations with clear majorities in their regions to form their own states if its people so wish. The British have let their empire go (not always as early as they should have) , and most of these have remained part of the Commonwealth with good relations and strong economic ties with Britain. Many of the former French colonies have retained exceptionally strong relationships with France. Is it really worth holding down discontented and strongly localized ethnic groups by force - even if it did not lead to the involvement of other powers?