During early September, various protests arose in the Catalan capital of Barcelona, where citizens expressed their support for a referendum that was to be held on October 1, containing a vote on whether or not the Spanish autonomous community of Catalonia would secede from Spain. However, as the days went on, the protests grew in intensity, and by late September full-scale movements enveloped the capital. After the Spanish government declared the referendum illegal, federal police forces were called in to address the chaos, and the situation intensified. Though the vote was held on October 1 with over 92 percent of Catalans voting for separation, no official action has been taken to enact this by either the Catalan or Spanish national governments. But with all the confusion that surrounds these events, one needs to understand the consequences of both scenarios of whether or not Catalan should receive independence, and which side the United States should support.

Some will make the argument that in accord with the times of the modern Western world, with its largely democratic ideals, that all peoples should have a say in how the course of their lives will be charted, especially with political institutions. If the people of Catalonia, a people distinctly different from many of their other Spanish counterparts, so desire independence from Spain it should be allowed, for the right of self-determination is one long upheld by the Western world in regards to foreign matters within their realm. In keeping with the preservation of the modern nation-state, a geopolitical entity that serves as a cornerstone of our contemporary age, the people of Catalonia have total justification to secede from their parent country so long as a majority of the population desires this outcome. And as Americans, we should be supportive of this movement, for it is no different than our own revolution with England, where we as an oppressed people sought freedom from a tyrannical empire, and revolted to ensure that our will be done. With this, another step can be taken in the direction to abolish the world of the imperial empires that for the last 200 years have been fought to loosen the hold of oppression of foreign powers, and assure the representation of all people as they see fit.

However, like any situation of modern times, it’s complex, and the events of Catalonia are no exception. Though there has been a large amassing of support for the Catalans, one must not forget the many technicalities and issues that present themselves with independence. Economically speaking, Spain is one of the PIIGS of Europe (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain), having the 6th highest debt in percent of GDP of the all European Union member states. In fact, this debt itself has been a large push for Catalan independence. But if Catalonia secedes, the question arises of who the massive debt will fall on. If the debt falls solely on the rest of the Spain, the loss of Spanish revenue and population following secession will be devastating, especially with Catalonia being the richest autonomous community of the country (based on GRP). But if the debt is divided between the two nations, then it begs the question of how it will be divided, and how the EU can ensure Catalonia takes responsibility of it. But that brings up an even more pressing issue of whether or not Catalonia can and will remain an EU member state, and if not how will issues like the debt be addressed. Furthermore, if the United States supports this movement (which according to their philosophy they must), the issue is presented of how the United States must act regarding other conflicts occurring in the world. With respect to the Rohingya, an Islamic ethnic group in Malaysia that since late August has seen mass waves of persecution by Buddhist Burmese military forces, the U.S. would be obliged to support them in the struggles that they are currently facing. If the United States is to support the Catalans in their search for independence, then they are entitled to help the Rohingya in their struggle; for their struggle is a direct threat to the sovereignty of their people, just as the Catalan people face. But because of the Syrian Refugee Crisis, an event that has led to one the largest displacements of humans in history, and all of the political brawling that has stemmed from it, as well as the chaos that Europe has been enveloped with because of its open involvement, a sour taste has been left in the mouths of many Americans about helping refugees. This disdain towards the situation has made American involvement minimal in Malaysia, and makes it extremely difficult to muster support for the cause. Also, in regards to the Kurds, an ethnic group located in the Middle East that the United States has supported with caution for several decades now, the U.S. would have to help with their crisis against the aggressive powers of the Middle East, for their situation is a direct threat of their sovereignty, as well. But in aiding this ethnic group, there lies the continuing complexity of dealing with international relations of our world today. The Kurds are foes of several Middle Eastern nations, particularly Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, both allies of the U.S. In a time where the threat of ISIS is ever looming, the United States has sought all possible cooperation with its Middle Eastern counterparts to aid in destroying the group. So supporting the Kurds any more directly than we have, which according to our American ideals we must, the possibility of losing aid in the crusade against ISIS grows, a risk which the United States is not in a position to gamble. Also, with the Kurds seeking to form a state based on the principles of Marxism, a political ideology the United States has been grappling with to suppress since its implication within the Soviet Union, justification to further support the Kurds continues to diminish.

In the end, whether or not Catalonia should receive its independence and what role the United States should hold in the struggle, if any, remain unclear. But the current state of the situation brings up an interesting question about the role of bureaucratic institutions and policies, in conjunction with the ideals held by Americans. These concepts serve as cornerstones of the American identity, with our government and all of its political functions stemming from the ideals we hold as Americans, and our ideals being directly represented and upheld in our government (as long as it properly functions). Hand in hand, these two entities coexist to ensure the preservation of our nation. But in the many conflicts seen today, where government and ideology clash head to head in terms of whether diplomatic ideology should resemble domestic ideology, one must question which takes more importance: a realist government holding true to domestic ideology while holding separate diplomatic beliefs or a idealist government that sees no distinction between the two, regardless what the consequences. If a properly functioning government faced with the complexity of foreign relations is sacrificed in order to enact domestic ideals as diplomatic ones, it cannot be assured that there will continue to be an institution to protect either set ideals from the tyranny so often found in nations engulfed in chaos. But if ideals, whether domestic or foreign, are sacrificed for a government, then tyranny has already won.