Next Independent Country

[Markxxx]

What do you think the next country to achieve independence will be?

I will say East Timor.

[AWB]

Quebec
Macedonia
Texas

[cmkeller]

AWB:

Macedonia is already independent, though it's called "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (I hear that the top-selling musical act there is The Artist Formerly Known As Prince).

Probably you mean Montenegro.

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

[moriah]

Pluto, once it declares itself to be a full-fledged planet.

[AWB]

cmkeller: Probably you mean Montenegro.

Yeah, that's what I meant. sigh

[Mark Mal]

Puerto Rico?

[jayron 32]

East Timor is a good shot, though any of a number of ethnicities in Russia would probably rank up there. There have been no less than a DOZEN different groups of people in Russia, Chechnia being the most prevalent, that have made armed attempts at independence. What seperates them from a place like East Timor is lack of news coverage... We have an unfortunate policy of unquivocally backing the Yeltsin governemnt in all issues, resulting in lack of serious attention to these "independence movements." We have no such policy towards Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Ethiopia, etc. etc. which means that our state department is readily able to accept "break-away" republics as independant states from these countries; but we are diplomatically unable to do so with any part of the Russian territory. Sad, but true.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"No amount of legislation can solve America's problems."
-- Jimmy Carter (1980)

[Markxxx]

I forgot about Montenegro.

[Czarcasm]

Kansas, by request of the other 49.

[Diceman]

Regarding Quebec: Any thoughts on if Canada would break up if Quebec seceeded? I understand that alot of people in the Atlantic provinces wouldn't want to be in a Canada sans The Big Q. OTOH, it has been said that the people in the western provinces are lining up to take the "Canadian" out of "French Canadian". Is this the case, or have I been misinformed?

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

AWB made what I assume was a serious commnet that Texas has a valid succession movement. I personally think the chances of Texas declaring its independance is unlikely, but what if it did? After all, several states (including Texas) tried to leave once before and the Federal position was this wasn't allowed. If Texas (or any other state) were to declare itself independant, would we call up the Army of the Potomac?

[Ike Witt]

I say that Canada should give Quebec the boot. Quebec has always gotten way more than their share of "perks" from the federal government. Quebec just recently took over a job training program from the feds, and they screwed it up beyond belief. Let them try to start their own currency and postal system...they'd be begging to come back in to Canada within 5 years.

[red wings]

I say we get rid of all the moronic, whining
french.

[hansel]

If les pequistes succeed in passing a referendum on sovereignty, they'll start negotiating a different relationship with the federal government.

In other words, nothing will change. Quebec already has a different relationship with the federal government than the other provinces, and they'll try the same negotiating tactics they've used all along to get special, Quebec payoffs. In the last referendum, the official position of the separatist government was that Quebeckers would still use Canadian money, and retain Canadian passports (read citizenship), and maintain a common defense (so the military, such as it is, would still be Canadian) after separation.

In the 1980 referendum, the question was on full sovereignty, and got 40% support. In 1995, the question was on negotiating a new relationship with Canada, and got 49.5%. If they asked whether they should just continue the same posturing, they'd probably win.

As for the rest of Canada, I doubt anyone else would leave. During the last referendum, the rest of Canada was full of warm fuzzies for the maple leaf. Besides, the Atlantic provinces have been made dependent on the federal government since the feds legislated their livelihoods (fishing) into oblivion. And the west just goes on doing it's thing; it's always been basically ignored by Ottawa, and seems pretty happy that way.

Now that King Hassan has died, I would be tempted to bet on Western Sahara. The United Nations has been trying to organize a referendum and encourage talks between Morocco and the Polisario for a while now.

However, King Mohamed VI has declared that he will never give up Western Sahara (or words to that effect.)

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

In Woody Allen's very funny film "What's Up, Tiger Lily?" a minor character identifies himself as the 'leader of a non-existant, but real-sounding country.' He says:" It's hard to be the leader of a new country. Why , we still have the entire population packed up in boxes! But the first open spot on the map, & we're next."

[Markxxx]

I think the Palestine is a nation without a state. Much like the Kurds.
It doesn't solve anything but it makes us all sleep better at night.

[DSYoungEsq]

It all depends on what you define a 'country' to be. Chechnya is, for all intents and purposes, independent of Rossiya, but I don't know if any countries acknowledge its independence officially, such as by exchange of diplomatic personnel. On the other hand, as far as I can remember, the United Nations never accepted the annexation of East Timor into Indonesia.

As for the next area to successfully set-up and independent government recognized by a majority of the world's nations, I suggest looking at Africa. The lines drawn there are mostly arbitrary old colonial divisions, which fail to recognize the reality of tribal divisions.

Now who wants to tackle the issue of whether Palestine is already a separate country? <ducking>

[Jorge]

Macau, if you treat Hong Kong's present status as a "new nation".

Otherwise, Tokelau, bound to be removed from U.N. Trust Territory Status one of these days. (Presently under New Zealand administration)

------------------
"Proverbs for Paranoids, 1: You may never get to touch the Master, but you can tickle his creatures."
- T.Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow.

[Markxxx]

Jorge

I don't understand the Macau reference. Hong Kong isn't a new country it is part of China. Macau will be part of China come this December. Am I missing something?

[Markxxx]

I have also heard that the Atlantic Provinces would like to join the USA. I don't think it'd happen. Unless they joined as one single state their populations are too small. The larger states would keep them out.

I see Canada in trouble if Quebec pulled out as Ontario would be too powerful without Quebec to keep it in its place.

[AWB]

Re: Quebec

I've heard (through rumors in Maine) that if Quebec did become its own country, the citizens of the disconnected Maritime Provinces would like to join the United States.

[jayron 32]

[quote] I've heard (through rumors in Maine) that if Quebec did become its own country, the
citizens of the disconnected Maritime Provinces would like to join the United States.[/quote

Funny, I had heard roughly the same thing years ago, but had chalked it up to wild political speculation. It would be an interesting development, were it so, and lend new light the the status of Puerto Rico (especially if outright statehood is extended to the Maritime Provinces)

------------------
Jason R Remy

"No amount of legislation can solve America's problems."
-- Jimmy Carter (1980)

[labradorian]

At least two, and possible three of the Atlantic provinces have populations greater than that of the least populous state.

[Markxxx]

I hardly see CA with 32 Million or TX with 19 Million agreeing to give equal status to PEI with what like 134,000.

And I also don't see PEI agreeing to come into the USA unless it had state status.

[Shalmaneser]

Re: "AWB made what I assume was a serious commnet that Texas has a valid succession
movement. I personally think the chances of Texas declaring its independance is unlikely, but what if it did? After all, several states (including Texas) tried to leave once before and the Federal position was this wasn't allowed. If Texas (or any other state) were to declare itself independant, would we call up the Army of the Potomac?"

Has not happened yet. If you believe a bunch of lunatics, Texas has already declared its independence. See http://www.texramp.net/~rtxgov/

------------------
Christ, what an imagination I've got...

[Shalmaneser]

Re: "AWB made what I assume was a serious commnet that Texas has a valid succession
movement. I personally think the chances of Texas declaring its independance is unlikely, but what if it did? After all, several states (including Texas) tried to leave once before and the Federal position was this wasn't allowed. If Texas (or any other state) were to declare itself independant, would we call up the Army of the Potomac?"

Has not happened yet. If you believe a bunch of lunatics, Texas has already declared its independence. See http://www.texramp.net/~rtxgov/

------------------
Christ, what an imagination I've got...

[Beruang]

This may belong in a different thread, but the fishing livelihood of the Canadian Maritime provinces was not, to my understanding, "legislated out of existence" so much as the cod fishery was over-exploited and collapsed.

Which version one chooses to accept depends in large part on which "experts" one chooses to believe.

[Jorge]

MarkXXX:

I did say depending on how one sees HK's staus. In certain ways, HK and, soon Macau, might be seen to be "independent" in the way that Guam or the Northern Marianas are. They get status in certain int'l treaties, separately from the US. HK has a similar deal. I wouldn't call it independence, but [again] gotta define terms.

Heck, when you get down to it - mere words aside - HK might be more independent of China than, say, Guam is to the US, or Lesotho is to S.Africa. And Canada is more closely allied to the US than Idaho.

------------------
"Proverbs for Paranoids, 1: You may never get to touch the Master, but you can tickle his creatures."
- T.Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow.

[Markxxx]

By independent I meant Sovereign.

[zionlion]

Given the opportunity, Utah politicians(i.e. Mormons) would be ecstatic at the opportunity to declare themselves an "independent country". If you truly understand the objectives of the LDS Church, then you must understand that their ultimate goals. The don't have 50,000 "salesmen" out there for altruistic motives! Beware the wolf in sheeps clothing. Ask questions and don't swallow that "family values" nonsense! ALL religions, and atheists, and agnostics, and village idiots, to some degree believe in "family values", so ask questions about the Joseph Smith and the foundation of their "Church" Listen to what the Mormon Church members have to say, and give equal time to the so-called "mormon bashers" even though they are inclined to be vitriolic, you must decide for yourself. Once the mormon missionaries have you hooked, they will want ten percent of your gross income to support a corporation that is already filthy rich and and is only interested in propagating Mormonism.

------------------

[tomndebb]

Leaving aside the hysteria, was there a particular reason you chose to interject your LDS conspiracy theories into this thread?

I have neither the intention nor the desire to become Mormon and there are specific LDS doctrines that I do not believe, but I hardly find it necessary to write a scenario whereby Mormons are trying to convert the whole world to their beliefs, simply to have Utah become independent.

------------------
Tom~

[Markxxx]

Texas was given the go ahead to divide itself up into 5 states should it desire. Not to secede. There is still debate over whether or not it applies today.

Given the fact Texans like things big (they are #2 in population and size) it's unlikely that would ever come into play.

Texas has a unique status among the states. When it joined, it had the absolute right to secede, or to split into 2-5 smaller states whenever it chose.

When it subsequently did secede & then rejoined the Union after the Civil War, those rights were never specifically reaffirmed or declared void. Thus Texas has the right (maybe) to secede.


------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

[Mr.Sparkle]

There was a state-to-state poll taken a couple year ago that asked,"What do you consider yourself first, your state (i.e. Californian,Kansan,etc...) or your country(American)?" Guess which state ranked first. But still, being proud of your state is one thing and becoming a nation is another.

[JRDelirious]

The likeliest next "proclaimed" countries would likely be, as someone pointed out, breakaways within Russia that would become de-facto self-ruled fiefdoms within the "recognized" empire.

As we write, we're seeing the E. Timor independence process coming unraveled. Gee, who would've thought the armed factions wouldn't just sit back and take it like good losers . . .

Other likely "official" new countries would be Western Sahara (howzabout a "United Kingdom" with Morocco?) and Montenegro. Maybe soon Kosovo will declare itself de-jure, in addition to de-facto, seceded from Serbia.

A few of the remaining Brit colonies may spin off if the Mother Country asks them to clean up their banking laws or otherwise encroach on their autonomy to comply with EU law.

Quebec's interesting, the project they seem to be proposing now would be what the international community calls a "Free Association" with the rest of Canada (free trade, common citizenship/currency/defence). Come to think of it, south of that border, 9 out of 10 *opponents* of US-statehood in Puerto Rico propose something similar.

Puerto Rico and the other US island territories have some particular characteristics -- compared with the average overseas colony of another power, the US "subjects" are livin' large: free migration, citizenship (xcept for Samoa), tax breaks, plentiful cash transfers, FAA/FDA/EPA/SEC/FDIC regs, etc. However there are some troubles -- the US Congress retains full authority to legislate over them w/o voting representation; the USVI have a free-port status but that hasn't kept them from going flat broke; the Marianas got to control their own inmigration and labor laws but now have a thriving indentured-migrant sweatshop sector; PR... well we can't explain it to ourselves in 30 minutes or less, we're a near-state that consistently refuses to vote for outright statehood and practices cultural nationalism, but less than 4.5% vote for full independence and the last referendum was won by "none of the above". I get the feeling that in PR we would vote for statehood tomorrow if the US allowed and offered an "Asymmetric Federation" with a special tailored status for PR in language, trade, nullification, etc. . Else it may go the F.A. way.


It does look like in some of the de-facto empires such as Indonesia, Russia, etc. a lot of grief would be saved by becoming true federations of sovereign states, but of course that would mean the Javanese/Great Russians/whatever would no longer "rule", and of course we can't have that, can we? ;-)


Four island groups in the Americas (PR, the USVI, Curazao in the Neth. Ant., Bermuda) have recently refused to change status when given the chance to vote. It may be a question of biding their time until EU-like meta-national federations evolve to cover enough of the world so that the question of "going it alone" becomes moot. To small, people-rich but resource-limited territories, a common market, citizenship and defence with a major power is a valuable resource.

[Sam Stone]

The separatist movement in Canada has died down somewhat recently, but expect it to flare up again. Canada has a serious structural problem, and that is our federal government is extremely powerful and attempts to govern over a nation that is very different from coast to coast. This causes continual tension that flares up from time to time and will eventually come to a head unless things change.

Alberta came close to revolt a couple of decades ago when Ottawa introduced the National Energy Program, which was a thinly veiled attempt to rape Alberta of its oil. Our premier actually went on provincial TV and announced that our wells would be shut down and nothing would go east. If you'd have taken a vote on separation then, it would have been mighty close.

Western Canada is not represented well in Canada. During most elections the Prime Minister is announced before the Western Canadian votes are even counted. Yet the West is very wealthy, and politically polarized with Eastern Canada. The west tends to be conservative (Alberta very much so), and the east is Liberal. There is continual tension there that will have to break someday, IMO.

[Markxxx]

Have we had any new independent countries since two years ago when this thread started?

[Ringo]

I think East Timor is having a slow passage through the birth canal, but will arrive.

I don't really remember - when did the Palestinian Authority come into being?

[Ringo]

Interesting - yes, I know why - this thread has more replies than views.

[kniz]

In the northern peninsula Of Michigan there is a lot of sentiment for breaking away. They don't want to be a new country they just don't want to be part of Michigan. They say that the government in Lansing doesn't know that they are there.

[JRDelirious]

Nope, no new recognized countries since mid-99. As pointed out before, E. Timor is still abirthing, existing meanwhile as an international protectorate (I think the bulk of the troops are Aussies and Kiwis).

The latest annual report data I got from the UN GA "4th Committee" (the one dealing with non-independent states) looks like it's not inminent for any of the UN-recognized "non self governing" entities to attain formal independence.

Montenegro had seemed to be going towards separate existence, but after the overthrow of Milosevic the pressure may have been relieved, what with the UN re-admitting What's Left Of Yugoslavia. OTOH the Kosovars seem less and less inclined to a resumption of being an "autonomous region" of Serbia when/if the peacekeeping force goes home

[whitetho]

I'll throw in a couple of predictions about countires which might disappear in the near future:

1. N & S Korea, after unification.
2. The Gambia, unified with Senegal.
3. Belarus, absorbed into Russia.
4. Moldova, absorbed into Romania.

And can anyone tell me why San Marino (which is just 1/3rd the size of the District of Columbia) isn't part of Italy?

[BobT]

San Marino claims it dates back to 300, although it was granted recognition by the major authority of the area (aka The Pope) until 1631.
San Marino and Italy have signed a series of treaties over the years guaranteeing the republic's independence.

I don't think Italy is really bothered that San Marino is independent. It's not as if the San Marinese are going to invade Italy and take over the country. And Italy makes money off San Marino's goods, all of which have to pass through Italian ports in order to be exported.

[JRDelirious]

Senegambia already was attempted back in the 80s, it did not hold -- the goal was be scaled back to a European-style union-of-sovereign-states with a joint central body, and even that eventually broke down after 7 years and was replaced by traditional bilateral economic-military treaties. The new governments in both, once they feel stable enough, may try again

Moldova has been having troubles with the minority communities within itself since independence, plus serious political differences with the Romanian governments, both situations which they seem to want resolved before proceeding to unification.


jrd

[Johanna]

If the world made sense, Moldova would have already joined Romania by now. The only fly in the ointment there is the self-styled Trans-Dniester Republic, a little sliver of territory on the eastern edge of Moldova. It has an ethnic Russian & Ukrainian population. When Moldova became independent, some extremely nationalistic ethnic Russians there raised a big stink and declared themselves a "republic."

Stalin had a way of monkeying with Soviet republic borders, to manipulate the ethnic balance of populations. Look at a map of that tangled knot of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan in the Fergana Valley that makes no sense whatever. Moldova is historically a part of Bessarabia (Romania's eastern province) that was conquered by expansionist Russian Empire. Romania got it back after WWI for a few years but then the Soviets took it over again in 1924. Romania got is back again in WWII but the Soviets took it again in 1945. In 1947 the southern part of Moldavia (access to the Black Sea) was given to Ukraine, and part of Ukraine along the bank of the Dniester, an ethnically Slavic area, went to Moldavia. When the Soviet Union broke up, that area became the rallying place for malcontents who thought Russia should keep on ruling all the republics.

If Moldova were to reunite with Romania, the Trans-Dniester Russians would cause trouble. I don't know why Moldova doesn't just cut them loose and say to hell with them, as the territory originally wasn't part of Moldova to begin with.