A few diarists here on DailyKos have recently pointed to some gains for Scottish separatists, while the Quebecois independence movement remains a constant possibility. The new states of Serbia and Montenegro were recently created, as Yugoslavia continues disintegrating - the convential wisdom is that Kosovo's independence will continue that process next year. Indeed, the number of independent states in the world has continued to go up since the end of the colonial era. Few states have combined permanently -- two Germanys, Yemens and Vietnams being the only examples I can think of.
Why have the number of states been increasing? Is that a Good Thing? Why have they become less common lately? Is that a Bad Thing? Should the progressive community support increased autonomy or even independence in the general sense?
Historical benefits to larger states
Humanity originally organized into small, self-sufficient tribal-type units. Cities and small self-governed groups came next. These were more efficient because they facilitated cooperation and allowed for a specialization of labor. The increase of efficiency (i.e. specialized farmers growing food to support a town, where specialized traders purchased exotic stuff and specialized craftsmen made neat stuff out of them for prices farmers could afford, thereby giving everybody more than they could have done on their own) allowed populations to grow, which facilitated the rise of ever-larger city-states and eventually, empires.
So that's one function of the modern state: to facilitate cooperation and communication between citizens. In the modern world, an example is corporate law, which streamlines the interactions of businesses (made up of citizens).
The colonial era required states to govern over a vast area. The result was the invention of bureaucracy, which at the time was a novel development that made the very idea of effective governance possible. Bureaucracy allowed for a clear chain-of-command to make decisions, and representatives of various interested parties or departments to press for their respective concerns.
So there's another function of the modern state: to facilitate cooperation across a great distance.
Recent trends in statehood
Let's keep in mind the purposes of the modern state I outlined - communication, cooperation, travel.
Colonial empires sought out far-flung lands and developed a bureaucracy that could exploit their natural resources as efficiently as possible. The industrial revolution accelerated their efforts. In the 20th century, however, communication and travel became much easier due to technological advances.
Given that technology in the 19th and 20th centuries allowed for greater communication and travel - thereby rendering somewhat moot two of the major reasons for the formation of modern states to begin with, it is not surprising that world governance changed shape.
The breakup of colonial empires in the 20th century is responsible for the steady progression of the total number of states. Most of these states emerged by the beginning of the 1980s, and now there are just a few colonies left (note that by "colony", I'm referring simply to an distal area with less than total integration into the greater political unit). A few holdouts remain -- St. Pierre and Miquelon, Greenland, Bermuda, Anguilla, Montserrat, Dutch Antilles, Cayman, Turks and Caicos, Mayotte, Reunion, French Guiana, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, etc...
After the 1980s, the rate of new statehoods slowed immensely, as the colonial empires ceased to exist. The 1990s saw the end of the last "empire", the Soviets (I put "empire" in quotes because it was obviously not the same sort of colonial empire of the others, being Communist, but for our purposes, this isn't a relevant distinction), and the creation of a number of new countries from its ashes. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia also provided some new countries (the former still is). Some former colonial entities split anew in the 90s (e.g. East Timor), but since 2000, the only new countries created were Serbia and Montenegro.
So, is this it?
What is the future of national boundaries? How will changing technology and social order affect the way states organize?
There are really only three ways this can continue: either the number of states grows, lessens or stays the same. Staying the same seems unlikely, if only because it's never happened before for prolonged periods.
So, will countries merge and combine into larger states? Current goings on regarding the European Union, ASEAN and the dreaded North American Union might seem to make larger, regional super-states the logical prediction. I would argue that this is an unlikely development for the simple reason that communication and travel will continue to get easier (and that easier methods of travel and communication will become more common worldwide). The result: just as in the 19th and 20th centuries, more states. Large governments are simply not necessary if local governments can communicate and coordinate efficiently; given this, there will be a relentless drive towards more local government.
Hypothesizing
Where will new countries come from? The developed West? Perhaps. Many Western countries have long-standing regional cultural, social and economic identities. Some of the more likely Western countries to breakup may include Canada, for example, where Quebecois independence could lead to a revival of independentist dreams for the Prairie West or other provinces and territories. Similarly, Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy have long-standing secessionist campaigns. None may seem likely at this point, but I posit that it will take only one success (and my money's on Spain) to blow the lid wide open for Western democracies from Finland to France to dissolve into constituent pieces.
Outside the developed West? What about Latin America and the Caribbean? Seems more unlikely there, as there's not much secessionist activity that I'm aware of. There's a bunch of Caribbean islands that are still part of overseas countries (Puerto Rico, Martinique, Anguilla). Any of them could plausibly become independent, but only Puerto Rico has a significant population, and if any of these did gain independence, it would just be the final death throws of American, Dutch, British and French overseas empires, not a harbinger of future reorderings.
Asia? Well, any major event in China could cause some independence if it leads to major political changes. Many Chinese provinces have independence agitators, but Chinese unity seems to be a major part of most political movements in China. Both the People's Republic and Taiwan are opposed to any independence for any region (Taiwan's government claims control of all of China and is opposed to independence for Taiwan, despite the fact that that's effectively what they have now; there is a major political party in Taiwan that is in favor of declaring Taiwanese independence). So, independence seems unlikely under the current order, but it also seems unlikely that the current order (two nuclear-backed, rival claimants to the Chinese government) is sustainable. So, when something changes... something will change, and that could certainly include at least one or two new countries, like Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang. Outside of China in Asia? Not much secessionist activity that I know of in East Asia.
South and Southeast Asia, however, includes a number of Indonesian and Indian regions with varying degrees of secessionist activity, from active rebellions across a wide swathe of India to a full-fledged government in exile for the Moluccas in Indonesia.
Africa? Most of Africa's in such chaos that it's impossible to predict what will happen in the long run. However, African rebellions seem to not generally include secessionism (they seek to take over the whole country, not just a part of it). Somalia seems to be the only really major exception - its dissolution into at least three countries seems fairly likely by the end of the 21st century (not that I'm an expert on Somalia or anything, but they are de facto independent now).
Russia is, of course, the other big wild card in this area. It's a large state that encompasses many diverse peoples, some of whom have never been happy about Russian control (e.g. Chechnya). While the prospects of independence seem slim, like China, Russia seems unlikely to end the 21st century without significant changes to its government and social order. That could certainly mean the independence of Dagestan, Chechnya or some or all of the Russian Far East.
Other former Soviet states and clients might see some independence, at least in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe (not much secessionism in Central Asia). Kosovo's independence is probably the last of Yugoslavia's breakup, though it could certainly continue, with secessionist movements across the Balkans, none of them major (except Kosovo).
Good Thing?
Is this a Good Thing? If humanity divides into smaller and smaller states, will that result in better, more responsive governments? I think so. Smaller states will allow for more direct representation in the government, and make it more difficult to corrupt a government (because there will be more of them to work on).
Might it also be a Bad Thing? Certainly. Smaller states may be more prone to dictatorship or warmongering, since one has to convince a smaller number of people to not revolt. On the other hand, tyranny will effect fewer people where it does occur, and warmongering will be less effective with small states. Could smaller states accelerate the "race to the bottom" in things like wages, environmental and worker protection? Possibly. States could compete for industries by tailoring their laws. On the other hand, the states where this is currently a problem include large ones like Mexico, India and China, with the exception of tax havens like the Caymans and Turks and Caicos (not independent, but with their own tax law, IIRC).
Maybe the order in which secessionism occurs is important. I would very much not want to be part of the Republic of Maryland if China and Russia are still behemoths. But what if the US, China, Russia and, let's say India and Indonesia, dissolved at the same time. That would seem very positive to me.
Conclusion
I don't really have one. I originally set out to write a pro-secessionist diary because my feeling is that, in general, more smaller states is better. But, I don't think I've made my point very well... Plus, I remain very uncertain about how a shift to more, smaller states could occur as long as the largest ones, like China, Russia and the US, are nuclear powers with strong anti-secessionist governments.
So, please feel free to leave comments. I'd rather just discuss whether it is a good thing to have more smaller states or fewer larger ones, not which particular states should be independent or how to go about achieving it (or not achieving it, if you'd rather have that).