While I agree that sovereignty can protect difference, as is said in Horizons, I don’t think that it always does well, or that it is the only thing that can. It is true that if there is a group of people that are different from most of the population, they may be more protected by becoming a sovereign nation. However, that is often not the best solution. A sovereign nation that is in some noticeable way “different” than other surrounding nations can be subject to being treated as inferior within the international system. Being sovereign from other nations makes that group have even less in common with the others than they would if they were not sovereign; therefore, they are more likely to be treated as different in a negative way. It could lead to situations such as the Europeans conquering the Americas: they had very little, if anything, in common, and saw them as inferior because of it.
On the other side is the argument that if they are not sovereign, they would be discriminated against in their own nation, leading to a worse life in general. They would not have proper rights, even though they would be in an unthreatened nation. The extent of their loss or rights would depend on how advanced the nation is, how used to difference they are, and how different the others are. The problems that would result in that group not becoming sovereign would not necessarily be worse than the problems that would result if they did.