Should Alaska secede from the United States?
In the 1860s, Russia sold Alaska to the United States, and since then, it has been a part of the Untied States of America. Geographically, it isn't linked to the mainland, but the US government has done much to integrate Alaska with the rest of the continent and create a sense of belonging among the people who live there.
Looking at the people who live in Alaska, we see an interesting confluence of Russian and American influence combining to create a new definition for the state's culture. Much of the population remains Christian Orthodox, including the Natives who live there. The names of places and settlements, such as Vassilov, the hamlet that Sarah Palin was once a mayor of, symbolize the influence of the world's largest country. This groundwork can lay the foundation for a sentiment to arise at one point in the future, where they may wish to become a part of Russia's territory once more, or even desire an independent state for themselves.
With that in mind, however, the creation of a distinct nation is not sufficient to legitimize the creation of a state. In other words, Alaska should not secede from the United States, lest it create a trend by that action and the US comes to stand for the Untied States. The functions of a state, in the modern world, are many and varied: from providing healthcare, a social system, defence, taxation and currency mechanisms, constitute only a limited array of those functions. Accountability of government, foreign and domestic policies on many different issues are also matters that require the attention of a new state.
Surveying Alaska's current state, from economics, to population and potential for statehood, I can assert that it is not ready to declare independence and secession from the union. For one, the economy of the state is not diversified enough. Its chief export is oil, and the main customer is the United States. While an oil-based economy is highly profitable, it is also very unpredictable. The case in point is the Middle East. While countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran rake in billions from the sale of their own oil resources, a sudden collapse in the price of this commodity can be detrimental to the economies of those countries. Such is the case now, where the price of oil is hovering between 30 and 40 dollars a barrel, whereas in July of 2008 it streaked to a high of almost 150 dollars. The budgets of petroleum-exporting states are based around a forecast of the price of a barrel of oil for the coming fiscal year, and should that amount fall below the expectations a shortfall in revenue can be expected.
Alaska does not have a diversified economy, which is detrimental to its economic health. There is no sizable manufacturing base, and the infrastructure to make tourism a sizable portion of Alaska's GDP is absent. Furthermore, as part of the US, Alaska has ready access to markets that might otherwise be blocked off or restricted, if the inherent political antagonism between both sides intensifies as a result of the secession. Consequently, other trade blocks, such as the EU, China or Russia, might not be as readily accommodating by placing conditions which the new state would have to meet.
As part of its policy to state government, a portion of the yearly state revenue is used for transfers of money from the federal to the state level. These funds form a significant part of the annual budget of states, and should Alaska secede, this source of income will be severed. Aside from the oil and gas, seafood forms a small fraction of the exports. The budget currently is mainly financed through the aforementioned government subsidies and oil and gas revenues. The disappearance of one will open a deficit, and immediately impact the quality of the social services offered by the state.
A sovereign state also needs the ability to defend itself against potential aggressors. Military capabilities are a direct reflection of the economic health of the country and if secession incurs economic sanctions on part of the United States and third countries, Alaska would be hard pressed to fund a capable military force.
A final issue that will become prominent in the foreseeable future is the shift towards greener sources of energy. Presently, Alaska relies on expensive diesel fuel for its electricity and transportation needs, but it has vast potential to develop alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, and ocean waves. Independence would cut valuable funds from the budget, and along with the inability to afford to run the current energy supply system, a transition to renewable energy sources will be immeasurably more difficult.
From a social standpoint, the political consequences of declaring independence are too uncertain. Will the current political model survive? Would the government collapse and be replaced by an authoritarian regime? Might the state, perhaps, collapse under public pressure? The complications that would follow secession from the United States would certainly create unrest, and as an extreme possibility, civil war, if different factions start vying for power.
In conclusion, the idea of Alaska declaring independence from the US is not a viable idea. The economic and political risks are much too great to attempt such a move. Alaska's economy would almost certainly collapse, as its main trading partner is the US, and the political antagonism may put in place economic sanctions that could be echoed by other parts of the world. Further, the political regime might collapse, creating a power vacuum that leaves an uncertain future. All in all, it is a much better idea for Alaska to stay within the union.