Today I would like to share with you a random sort of idea that springs of my interest in imaginary nations and the deceptive nature of maps [1].  This idea is a modest proposal for a quirky sort of series I’d like to see on some cable network, though it’s hard to imagine what sort of network would show it (National Geographic, perhaps, or a more internationalist news minded source like CNN).

The Premise:

The premise of the show would be as follows.  One insatiably curious world traveler with a yen for studying frozen conflicts around the world and unconventional locales, studying their history, their economy, their culture, their geography (including historical sites and natural scenery), and explores the reasons why they are not recognized as independent.  This would include interviews with ordinary people from both the breakaway area, its supporters, and the nation that claims to rule.  It would also include discussions with international diplomats and members of international organizations (UN, EU, NATO, AU) and the regions’ strategic importance.

Each of the regions discussed would probably demand several episodes.  Some of the episodes would be talking to politicians and diplomats about the de facto nation’s dealings and interaction with other nations.  Some of them would be visiting sites around the country, some of them would be enjoying the local culture and its habits, and getting to know the ordinary people of the area.  Some of them might be more informational in nature, discussing the history of the area and the development of its separate culture from the nation to which it belongs in the eyes of the outside world.

The Roster:

There is no shortage of nations around the world that exist in fact but do not exist in law.  Nor is there any shortage of areas where separatist pressures are heavy and where separation of some kind seems inevitable [2].  Therefore a short paragraph on this sizable roster is in order:

Taiwan is perhaps the most obvious example of a de facto state in the world that does not deserve its status but has one because of the ridiculous and arbitrary nature of geopolitics.  As most nations are far more concerned with the illusion of free and fair trade with China than about the reality of China’s nonexistent rule over Taiwan, combined with absolutely stupid ideas about “one China” that are holdovers from the Cold War, Taiwan’s prospects for international recognition are dim.  But that does not mean it’s cause is not just [3].

Somaliland is an example of a worthwhile and legitimate de facto state that this blog discusses often, and so little repetition of what has already been discussed needs to be mentioned.  Nonetheless, like Taiwan, it appears that geopolitical reasons (including the desire to preserve the fiction of Somali unity as well as a putative rival for domination over the Horn of Africa region with Ethiopia) heavily influences the lack of recognition for what would obviously be a worthwhile nation in the international community, and a rare example of a functioning democracy in Africa.

Western Sahara is a de facto state that has been around for a long time whose putatitve imperial master (Morocco) shows no intention of allowing for a free and fair separation, despite the control of substantial portions of the area by separatist groups, trouble that is combined with a Moroccan-Algerian rivalry of such an extent that it appears unlikely to be resolved, given that it is a crisis that is over 30 year old already with no current progress towards resolution.

Northern Cyprus is a nation whose Muslim-Greek Christian divide goes back to the Byzantine Empire period, and which has existed as a de facto state my entire life, and yet it is one whose status appears to be bound up with European geopolitical illusions of unity.  The circumstances of the separation of Northern Cyprus from the Greek-dominated part to the south mean that a successful reunion appears very unlikely.  And yet far too people are unwilling to lose face by recognizing the division of the island that a solution appears unlikely as well.

The Nagorno-Karabagh Republic, which has been carved out of Azerbaijani territory by Armenians, is one of the many de facto states that exist in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, which all deserve to be discussed here because of the similarity of their historical situations.  Here we have an exclave of Armenia denied union with Armenia in part because of the desire of Russia (and the rest of the world) for Azerbaijani oil.  Georgia has two Russian-supported de facto states in its claimed territory, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and as Georgia has been supported by the west and the two breakaway states by Russia (which led to a humiliating defeat of Georgia by Russian troops not too long ago), and another situation that appears unlikely to be solved.  Even tiny Moldova has one such state, the Trans-Dnister Republic, inhabited of non-Romanian inhabitants of that doubtful nation (which itself might eventually join with Romania).  Russia itself has a large number of such states itself, which makes its meddling with other nations a bad precedent that could be used against them, ranging from the terrorist haven of Chechnya to the civilized and historically notable area of Kazan.  The graveyard of nations that was the Soviet Union left a lot of very unfinished business in its entire domain.

Kurdistan is a favorite de facto nation of mine, a nation whose existence (despite being very justified on cultural grounds) would be considered as an instant threat to the well-being of Turkey, Iran, and Syria, as well as a sign of the collapse of a unified Iraq.  Even Turkish friends of mine who are cosmopolitan and Western have a deep-seated fear and hatred of the Kurds.  The fact that the Kurdish state would have substantial reserves of both oil and water would make it geopolitically important despite its landlocked status.  Small wonder no one wants this state to exist except the Kurds themselves and a few wacky people who live nowhere near the region.

A few separatist movements are a little too “hot” right now to visit, but might become a bit more settled in the near future and allow for visits without being at the risk of mortal peril, ranging from the current civil war in the Cote d’Ivoire to the permanent trouble in Yemen (South Yemen is a classic example of a worthwhile de facto regime), to the Palestianian Territories (which themselves may split between Gaza and the West Bank), and also the difficulties with Libya’s current civil war that may lead to the breakup of Libya between either two (Cyrenaica) or three (Fezzan, which would be a Berber-Tuareg republic) states.  The longstanding hotspots in Kashmir and Tibet would also be de facto regimes that would be hard to visit due to current problems.

Some of the areas of interest do not actually contain de facto states (yet), but at least a couple of them are very close to being so.  Belgium is breaking up along the lines of Flanders and Wallonia [3], and though Flanders would be strong enough to be a small but independent state, the economic disaster that is Wallonia would appear to require union with France and substantial subsidization, something the French may be willing to do only because it would increase their glorie.  Additionally, Tanzania has sought to defuse its clear separatist problem in Zanzibar by adopting a system of dual-sovereignty that might end up being unworkable.  Also, New Caledonia [6] and Nevis [7] also remain island states locked in a permanent state of tension within their nations (France and St. Kitts & Nevis) with the potential to soon be independent nations of their own through plebiscite, the same thing of which could be said about Bougainville Island [8].

Some other areas with current autonomous or federalist status, such as Ninavut and Quebec in Canada, or the Basque Republic and Catalonia in Spain, or Brittany and Corsica in France, also have longstanding separatist movements, as do Scotland and Wales in the United Kingdom.  Some of these situations are in a cool state but could easily flare up as they periodically have before.  Other longstanding separatist movements like the Biafran Republic in Nigeria and Rio Grande Del Sur in Brazil.  Asia has a host of worthy stateless nations who deserve their independence, ranging from the Baluchi of Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to the Karen and Kachin of Burma and Thailand, and so on.

Conclusion:

Suffice it to say, from an examination of the material above, that there are enough de facto nations and worthy unrepresented peoples of the world and longstanding secession crises (and I haven’t even talked about neo-Confederates in the United States) that a show could run on these states and peoples indefinitely.  Their existence reveals that our international order is far more fragile than we believe it to be, far more temporary, and far less just.  Given what we have seen in the last few months, it is a truth we could all stand to know a little better, so at least we may pay attention to the fault lines that exist within our nations and those of others, and be prepared to deal with them when they become active conflicts.

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/when-maps-lie/

[2] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/libya-ira-and-the-perils-of-partition/

[3] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/somaliland-update-one-good-turn-deserves-another/

[4] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/who-needs-government-anyway-belgium-doesnt/

[5] http://www.unpo.org/article/11898

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumea_Accord

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevis_independence_referendum,_1998

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bougainville_Island