Destroying Nations: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Destroying Nations » Destroying Nations

Destroying Nations

Page: 1 2

Destroying Nations

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 03/08/09 - 10:26 PM: Subject: Destroying Nations	#1
I was recently gathering a list of countries with English names which are very different from their native names, like calling Deutschland "Germany" or Nippon "Japan" or Bharat "India" or Shqiperia "Albania", etc, when I saw a small notice saying, "this list includes countries officially recognized by 119 or more nations". Recalling previous discussions about "how to create your own country", the key feat is in getting a sufficient number of other countries to officially recognize that country. So, my evil plan of the week is to see whether it is possible to make countries "go away" by simply ignoring their claims to their own territories. With enough consensus, perhaps throwing out ambassadors and embassies, redrawing maps and atlases, updating textbooks, you could simply write a country away. They would probably have to break treaties and drive them out of membership from trade organizations. The territory they once inhabited would be open for claim of anyone who is living there, who can gain recognition, or partitioning. All without violent resistance or international protections. I even thought it might be good for some of the economies falling to the economic crisis. What happens to the debts of a nation which no longer exists? Bonds and other instruments would no longer have any value, so they wouldn't be payable, and the citizens would not be taxed. It would be like changing your identity, to get out of debt, but without the authority to challenge the change in identity. The ability to resist would rely on a nations military strength alone. I'm not thinking of any particular country. I know there are some people who are quite passionate about a free Tibet, ("Bod", from my list), or the existence of Israel, (where state recognition seems to be an extremely sensitive issue -- I have read many instances of official complaints over listing Jerusalem as the capital or not drawing the borders correctly on maps). It might even be an interesting tool for anarchists. Starting a movement, (showing a real advantage), by wishing away all the nations of the world, or creating a single worldwide government.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

jacobvardy
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 35

Posted 03/09/09 - 07:13 PM:	#2
swstephe wrote: I even thought it might be good for some of the economies falling to the economic crisis. What happens to the debts of a nation which no longer exists? Bonds and other instruments would no longer have any value, so they wouldn't be payable, and the citizens would not be taxed. It would be like changing your identity, to get out of debt, but without the authority to challenge the change in identity. The ability to resist would rely on a nations military strength alone. Its actually been tried. There is a concept of Odiuos Debt ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odious_debt )in international politics. However its generally only something that militarilly strong nations can get away with. When China tried to renounce the reparations for the Opium Wars the UK and France just invaded again. Same with Germany and the Versailles debts. France just siezed Rheinland territorry and started extorting taxes.
Without techne there is no humanity, But no techne is worth my humanity. - Hakim Bey, Temporary Autonomous Zone

Distorted Void
Truth Seeker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 06, 2006

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 277

Posted 03/09/09 - 10:09 PM:	#3
swstephe wrote: So, my evil plan of the week is to see whether it is possible to make countries "go away" by simply ignoring their claims to their own territories. With enough consensus, perhaps throwing out ambassadors and embassies, redrawing maps and atlases, updating textbooks, you could simply write a country away. They would probably have to break treaties and drive them out of membership from trade organizations. The territory they once inhabited would be open for claim of anyone who is living there, who can gain recognition, or partitioning. All without violent resistance or international protections. I would think the nation of people who lived there would try and fight their way back to recognition. At least some of them would. The people of that erased nation would start to notice the lack of resources and security that would be escalating by the non-response of other nations. I would assume that would provoke small bands of insurgents to resist this re-mapping and try and overtly speak out to countries journalists and press, as well as doing violent acts to express their distaste for such doings. I would think that also this would create a more extremist type nation in that in order to reclaim their recognition would side with other extremist organizations to get more power to regain resources and then rebuild their recognition. Thats my two cents on it.
Doubt grows with knowledge.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 03/09/09 - 11:38 PM:	#4
If Hawaii cedes from the union and restores their Monarchy, (something seriously proposed by some groups after Clinton declare the acquisition of Hawaii illegal) ... would Hawaii be held accountable for its share of the $7 trillion public debt held by the United States? I think East Timor broke away from Indonesia's debt, (then ended up with its own enormous debt), but they don't have to pay taxes. People are resisting official recognition all around the world right now. Official recognition has some important value, but I'm shifting it from a political tool, to a democratic system where world opinion can force re-mapping. I don't think the majority of Tibet would mind being declared an independent nation by the rest of the world -- and it could be held as "true" even if China's armies are currently occupying that area. However, it completely changes the international dynamics. Foreign armies couldn't officially invade China, (as it is a sovereign state not threatening other nations), but by re-mapping, foreign armies could invade Tibet and help it defend itself from China. The same might be proposed for the situation in Pakistan, where some territories are already held by insurgents, but any approach to those territories would be considered a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 03/10/09 - 12:23 AM:	#5
swstephe wrote: Official recognition has some important value, but I'm shifting it from a political tool, to a democratic system where world opinion can force re-mapping. I don't think the majority of Tibet would mind being declared an independent nation by the rest of the world -- and it could be held as "true" even if China's armies are currently occupying that area. Not quite. If Tibet territory is owned by China, no amount of global opinion can bypass that and declare Tibet an independent state or nation. Allowing a region to be independent is more than an issue of democratic ideals: it means letting go of that chunk of territory and relinquishing ownership.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 03/10/09 - 10:47 PM:	#6
Any country who has ever declared its independence was owned by someone. America was owned by England when it declared independence. It immediately sought official recognition, (Treaty of the Alliance), so it could establish embassies and request military and financial aid to help it resist the government. During the first Gulf War, Iraq asserted that it "owned" the land occupied by Kuwait. It's invasion was considered an act of re-asserting its national sovereignty. America would have involved itself in defending a foreign occupation according to Iraqi law of the time. It was international consensus that it was Kuwait who owned the land. There has been a lot of re-thinking about the right of secession since the break-up of the Soviet Union. Many people determine that a nation's sovereignty is justified by consent of the people, so why should refusal of consent deny a national sovereignty? Every movement through history has been the result of some group of people asserting their right to no longer consent to an authority. I read that the Lakota Nation has declared all treaties with the United States to be "broken", started printing up its own passports and offering citizenship to anyone in their 5-state area who renounces American citizenship. If the United States government recognized their claim, they would be a fully independent nation. If America refuses to recognize their right to self-determination, but every other country in the world accepts it, then it would allow foreign countries to help the Lakota defend their rights, since from an international perspective, the Lakota Nation would be real and the US claim would be an occupation, just like Iraq's claim.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 03/10/09 - 11:53 PM:	#7
Yes, I think there's a difference between the opinion of the world being the justification for an independence and an agreement of a country to allow its region to become an independent state. The case has always been the latter. Besides, it is a long and arduous process to get to the point where, say, citizens of the U.S. can renounce their citizenship and become Lakota citizens. Try getting your visa bearing that citizenship. Let's see what the European customs says.

PontificatingChauncy
Student (aren't we all?)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2007

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 265

Posted 03/11/09 - 06:17 AM:	#8
The problem though, is a renounced nation deciding to kill some people (the US army does not take kindly to being called illegitimate) until they agree that yes, that country is real.
The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao. That thing is a chauncy

SilentAugust
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 11, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 03/11/09 - 08:15 AM:	#9
There's also the small problem that this would only be feasible with nations weak enough to not be able to fight back against the re-mapping. If Europe decided, say, England no longer existed, I doubt England would just sit back and say "Oh, okay, we can't do anything anymore." If every single nation decided that they were up for grabs and all economies tried not to trade with them, anyone with half a brain in England would grab a gun or a cool thingy to trade and start furiously asserting their authority over everything else, demanding they be recognized. There's no way we can get world opinion to actually agree on something that drastic, either, at least, not unanimously. Only nations actually involved enough in the world market to care would even go through with a plan like that.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 03/12/09 - 04:23 AM:	#10
Caldwell wrote: Yes, I think there's a difference between the opinion of the world being the justification for an independence and an agreement of a country to allow its region to become an independent state. The case has always been the latter. Besides, it is a long and arduous process to get to the point where, say, citizens of the U.S. can renounce their citizenship and become Lakota citizens. Try getting your visa bearing that citizenship. Let's see what the European customs says. Why "long and arduous"? When the Soviet Union fell, new nations and recognition was popping up nearly every month. Renouncing citizenship is very easy for US Citizens. It is actually faster and cheaper than trying to get a lost passport replaced. The first problem is to avoid getting thrown out of whereever you are when you are no longer have a valid travel document. If the Republic of Lakotah doesn't throw you out and recognizes your citizenship, you are as good as a citizen, even if nobody recognizes your country. The problem you describe is that of crossing borders. Since only about 1/4 of Americans even have a passport, (and probably a lot less in the area claimed by the Lakotah), that's not much of an inconvenience. Also, a visa doesn't bear any proof of citizenship. It is simply permission to travel in a country. There are millions of people who don't have any citizenship at all. Many are still able to travel with official travel documents, not passports, (the tiny country where I live has a sizable portion of the population who are officially stateless). Even without passports or travel agencies, whether you can cross a border is up to the official at the border. I did another thread on the "World Passport" guys. They use a passport which declares them "World Citizen". They got some countries to accept it. The founder also has an interesting list of the quality and conditions of jails around the world. I consider their example to be a worst case, especially since they are apparently trying this without bribes, (which has much better worldwide recognition).
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.