# Reluctance to create new countries outside Europe **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 18, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954 "2016-10-18T16:28:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/21 "2016-10-19T12:13:18Z")
> [@WilyQuixote](#): > > However, recognition by other states is an essential element of statehood and a rather important one at that. Without that recognition, you’re not a state; you’re essentially a province with a great deal of autonomy. > > On an unrelated note, I’m surprised no-one has mentioned Taiwan in this thread. Taiwan is a great example of how formal recognition is not essential to real functional statehood (and how failure to recognize such just gets increasingly silly). Even some Taiwanese still share in the fiction that they are a province, yet everybody functionally treats Taiwan as an independent state in every way, except language and protocol. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/22 "2016-10-19T12:13:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **even sven** : > > The nation will be united by common ideals and a shared history, and people can work together toward a brighter future. But what if they don’t have common ideals and a shared history? Most places with foreign-drawn borders don’t. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/23 "2016-10-19T12:13:28Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > And then, one day, likely after a great deal of blood has been spilled, people will decide to grow up and the nation will grow into a multi-ethnic modern state (well, that or the state eventually fails or becomes reliant on someone else to survive) The nation will be united by common ideals and a shared history, and people can work together toward a brighter future. That depends on there existing an interest or desire to be “united by common ideals and shared history” . That does build great nations but is damn rare in any continent. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/24 "2016-10-19T12:25:58Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > The Kurds are the example I know the most about. There are Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iraq and if they had their way, would prefer a single “Kurdistan” including parts of all three existing nations. The Turkish and Syrian Kurds are known terrorists and mostly enemies of the US (because we’re allies with Turkey), but the Iraqi Kurds have consistently been better US allies than the rest of Iraq (going back even pre-war). None of the Kurds are enemies of the US. [Turkish actions against Kurds in the former Syria are seen by the US as undesirable fighting between two allies.](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c45243e49271467cafe24747e966f82a/turkey-warns-more-strikes-if-syrian-kurds-dont-retreat) ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/25 "2016-10-19T12:47:01Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > That depends on there existing an interest or desire to be “united by common ideals and shared history” . That does build great nations but is damn rare in any continent. It’d be nice if there were an easier-to-achieve alternative. But the only real alternative is states bound together by ethnicity, and in modern times that’s been a recipe for atrocity. Maybe in some make-believe world where equally sized homogenous ethnic communities lived on neatly divided plots of land that each had a port, a road and an oil well, it would work. But in reality ethnicity is a complex, shifting landscape and there is no way (short of ethnic cleansing) to unstir the melting pot of modern cities and villages. And there is no way to neatly divide the randomly distributed resources of the earth in a way that won’t cause grievances and conflicts. Trying to make things fair for every ethnic group doesn’t work. It’s like trying to get a sister and brother to stop fighting by drawing a line in the center of the room-- it may seem like an elegant solution, but in reality it just gives them something new to argue over. The only way to get the kids to stop fighting is to instill a sense of being a family. People have to decide to work together. You can always find a reason to fight if you are looking for it. Every country has dozens of potential fracture points between ethnicity, language, religion, race, etc. And countries have historically been happy to outright make up fracture points if they are looking for a fight. Likewise, countries can come together despite any number of fracture points. The existence of fracture points doesn’t define how united a nation is, unless you want them too. It’s unfortunate that the drawing of colonial borders tore apart the nations existing in the area at the time, and disrupted the growth of emerging nations. But we can’t rewind the clock and no amount of redrawing is going to fix that. The only option is to move forward and try to unite. ---
**Author:** ![WilyQuixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WilyQuixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WilyQuixote)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/26 "2016-10-19T12:55:05Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Taiwan is a great example of how formal recognition is not essential to real functional statehood (and how failure to recognize such just gets increasingly silly). Even some Taiwanese still share in the fiction that they are a province, yet everybody functionally treats Taiwan as an independent state in every way, except language and protocol. Taiwan is a curious and special case, as the only reason that it is not recognized (as I’m sure you know) is due to the insistence of its huge neighbour (with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and one of the largest economies) that it really is just a renegade province. The rest of the world, at least through official diplomatic channels, pretends this fiction is correct. If the “One China” policy were revoked, I have no doubt that every UN member would formally recognise Taiwan within a year. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/27 "2016-10-19T13:04:39Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > When Iraq was conquered, many people suggested that it be broken up into 3 sort of natural countries: Sunni, Shi’a, and Kurdish. You gotta love the advocates of simple solutions to intractable problems in somebody else’s back yard. Such a patently reprehensible option wasn’t suggested seriously by anybody whose expertise in the Middle East extended much beyond being able to find it on a map. A previous masterclass on the scenario: > [@](#): > > “Yes Prime Minister” Series 1:6 A Victory for Democracy > Explanatory note from Sir Richard Wharton, Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office > “_For your own background information, I believe that we made the real mistake twenty years ago when we gave them their independence. > Of course, with the wind of change and all that, independence was inevitable. But we should have partitioned the island as we did in India and Cyprus and Palestine and Ireland. This was our invariable practice when we gave independence to the colonies, and I cant think why we varied it. It always worked. > It has been argued by some people that the policy of partition always led to Civil War. It certainly did in India and Cyprus and Palestine and Ireland. This was no bad thing for Britain. It kept them busy and instead of fighting us they fought each other. This meant that it was no longer necessary to have a policy about them_.” ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/28 "2016-10-19T13:12:37Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > He said they declared independence from Indonesia. That was wrong. Until Indonesia invaded, they didn’t have a claim on East Timor. And they didn’t invade until an East Timorese state had been created. The acknowledgement by the nations of the world came via independence from Indonesia. The issue of independence from Portugal was moot, since Indonesia was the controlling nation. Since that is the subject of this thread I thought it would apply here. I’m well aware of the history of East Timor and I still think it applies to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/29 "2016-10-19T13:28:08Z")
The Soviet breakup happen 25 years ago, loads of countries outside of Europe were created. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to search throughout history and find more nations created globally in just 30 years as has been from 1986. New nations aren’t minted everyday, ever, nor would that be a stable state of affairs. What a silly premise. ---
**Author:** ![WilyQuixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WilyQuixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WilyQuixote)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/30 "2016-10-19T14:10:58Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > In fact, you’d be hard pressed to search throughout history and find more nations created globally in just 30 years as has been from 1986. How about 1955 - 1985? There was a massive wave of decolonisation in this period resulting a huge number of newly minted nations. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/31 "2016-10-19T14:44:11Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > This could have been gotten around. For instance, they could have created a company to be owned equally by the three countries. The company would own all the oil and its only job would be to pump it and market it. Each country would get an equal share of the profits. Why should Country A have any claim to oil revenue for oil located in Country B? If you’re creating three independent countries, then each one owns its own resources entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/32 "2016-10-19T14:46:36Z")
> [@WilyQuixote](#): > > How about 1955 - 1985? There was a massive wave of decolonisation in this period resulting a huge number of newly minted nations. Yup, that era too. What I’m saying is a bit more perspective is needed. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/33 "2016-10-19T15:11:12Z")
And the break-up of the USSR was arguably part of the decolonisation process. Imperial Russia obtained its empire by going east and south, rather than overseas to Africa and to south and east Asia, as Britain and France had done in the 19th century. The USSR inherited that land empire, and when it broke up, the resulting new nations like Kazakhstan can be seen as part of the general decolonisation process of the latter part of the 20th century. ---
**Author:** ![WilyQuixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WilyQuixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WilyQuixote)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/34 "2016-10-19T15:34:16Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > Hardly an eye was batted over Czechoslovakia becoming Czecho and Slovakia. Czechoslovakia split into two nations bloodlessly and by mutual agreement. The only other example I can think of in the modern nation-state era is Norway and Sweden in 1905. In the rare event that a nation peacefully decides to split into two or more nations (genuine nations, as opposed to pseudo states like apartheid South Africa’s Bantustans) why should the international community object, no matter where they occur? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/35 "2016-10-19T16:37:19Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > So why is this? Is it purely neo-colonialism? Or do they have some other rationale? What is your general opinion of the principle of national self-determination? If you think that as a general rule, it is a reasonable goal that nations (as in groups of people, not necessarily countries) should have the most influence on whether they obtain statehood, then the creation of new countries seems pretty understandable, notwithstanding unique circumstances of each case. If you disagree with that principle, then I can see why you think it is confusing. You seem to be in this camp, as you seem to believe Iraq should have been partitioned against the general opinion of Iraqis as a whole and in violation of the UN Charter concerning threats to the territorial integrity of member states. So what are your thoughts on the principle? ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/36 "2016-10-19T19:36:55Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > The Kurds are the example I know the most about. There are Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iraq and if they had their way, would prefer a single “Kurdistan” including parts of all three existing nations. The Turkish and Syrian Kurds are known terrorists and mostly enemies of the US (because we’re allies with Turkey), but the Iraqi Kurds have consistently been better US allies than the rest of Iraq (going back even pre-war). And Iran; both sides backed Kurds during the Iran-Iraq War from 1980-88. The Iranians armed the Kurds in Iraq and the Iraqis armed the Kurds in Iran. > [@Peremensoe](#): > > None of the Kurds are enemies of the US. [Turkish actions against Kurds in the former Syria are seen by the US as undesirable fighting between two allies.](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c45243e49271467cafe24747e966f82a/turkey-warns-more-strikes-if-syrian-kurds-dont-retreat) [Kurdistan Workers’ Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party): > [@](#): > > **The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization by several states and organizations, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United States,[34]** the United Kingdom,[35][36] the European Union,[37] and Australia.[38] However, the United Nations and countries such as Switzerland, China, India, Russia and Egypt have not designated the PKK as a terrorist organization.[39][40][41][42] They’re the ones in Turkey who have been fighting the Turkish government since 1984, set up sanctuaries in Northern Iraq that the Turks bombed when the country was still under Saddam Hussein but he had limited control over the Kurdish North due to the no-fly zones, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/37 "2016-10-19T20:20:15Z")
I’m acquainted with the PKK. That listing was a sop to the Turks, and never represented genuine enmity between Kurds and the US. [It is even less appropriate now.](https://www.lawfareblog.com/case-delisting-pkk-foreign-terrorist-organization) ---
**Author:** ![quimper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7c8e57/32.png) [@quimper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quimper)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/38 "2016-10-19T20:40:40Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Taiwan is a great example of how formal recognition is not essential to real functional statehood (and how failure to recognize such just gets increasingly silly). Even some Taiwanese still share in the fiction that they are a province, yet everybody functionally treats Taiwan as an independent state in every way, except language and protocol. The KMT got 44% of the popular vote, so it’s a significant portion. It’s harder to determine what percentage of the KMT wouldn’t support independence since that breaks strongly by age. > [@WilyQuixote](#): > > If the “One China” policy were revoked, I have no doubt that every UN member would formally recognise Taiwan within a year. Taiwan’s geopolitical situation is often compared to being ‘between a rock and a hard place’ but it’s more like ‘standing on a landmine afraid to move’. They can’t not claim dominion over China (double negative is deliberate), because that would mean they’re declaring independence, which would be met instantly by the full force of the PLA’s 10,000 ballistic missiles, 7th Fleet be damned. You can’t make this shit up. [QUOTE=China’s foreign ministry] “There is only one China in the world, the mainland and Taiwan both belong to one China and China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity will not brook being broken up. “The results of the Taiwan region election does not change this basic fact and the consensus of the international community.” > **[Taiwan must abandon 'hallucination' of independence, warn Chinese media](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/17/taiwan-must-abandon-hallucination-of-independence-warns-chinese-media?CMP=twt_gu)** > > After Tsai Ing-wen’s election as president, Xinhua warns that any moves towards independence would be ‘poison’ for the future of the island nation [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/39 "2016-10-19T21:16:50Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > I’m acquainted with the PKK. That listing was a sop to the Turks, and never represented genuine enmity between Kurds and the US. [It is even less appropriate now.](https://www.lawfareblog.com/case-delisting-pkk-foreign-terrorist-organization) If you are acquainted with the PKK, calling listing them as a terrorist organization is no more a sop to Turkey than listing the IRA as a terrorist organization was a sop to the UK. There was never any genuine enmity between the US and the Irish in general or the IRA in particular either, but that hardly made the IRA allies of the US or any less terrorists. From your own cite on the case for de-listing the PKK as a terrorist organization: > [@](#): > > The PKK was established in 1974, with roots in Marxist-Leninist ideology. Its founder, Abdullah Ocalan, initiated an armed struggle in 1984 to create a Greater Kurdistan on Kurdish-populated territories in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. In 1997, the PKK was designated an FTO based on its history of violence both against the Turkish military and against Kurds which the group perceived as collaborating with official security structures. At the peak of the armed struggle, in the 1990s, the PKK conducted bombings, suicide attacks, and kidnappings, while the military’s campaign sought to drain the swamp of support for the PKK. To date, around 40,000 people have died as a result of the conflict between the PKK and the Turkish state. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2016, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954/40 "2016-10-19T23:26:15Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > When the Soviet Union broke up, no seemed to have any problem with it now being 15 or so new countries. Hardly an eye was batted over Czechoslovakia becoming Czecho and Slovakia. The only resistance from Yugoslavia’s break up was from the Serbs; western countries actually helped Bosnia and Croatia achieve independence. > > Yet, this tolerance does not extend to countries outside Europe. When Iraq was conquered, many people suggested that it be broken up into 3 sort of natural countries: Sunni, Shi’a, and Kurdish. The PTB dictated outherwise. We probably would have much fewer problems in that area if it had been broken up. Almost certainly no ISIS. > > There’ve been other situations where a breakup seemed the best solution, but Western diplomats strongly disagreed (Somaliland is one and there are others, but I can’t remember what they were). Other than the special case of Singapore being ejected from Malaysia, there only seems to be a few instances (three I can think of) of new countries becoming independent from another outside Europe, not counting colonies becoming independent. And all those were _despite_ the efforts of the West. > > So why is this? Is it purely neo-colonialism? Or do they have some other rationale? I wanted to go back to the thread opening, to sort of reground things a little here, if I could. This opening post question, I think, results from a common oversimplification of the actual area of concern. That is, that as asked, it presumes that breakups of existing states into other smaller entities, is a single kind of event, as well as that there are, or has been, a single unified reason given by observing nations, for why they do or don’t claim to support or oppose the changes. Several posts above have hinted about some of this, kudos to them, but I think it would help to pint the tail directly on the donkey, so to speak. The creation of news states in the modern era, has been attempted for a LOT of different reasons. Many are similar to the creation of the United States itself, in that a solid MAJORITY of the populace was never even asked, much less directly supported the creation of a new state. In addition, each breakup of an existing state into others, has to be appreciated individually, not in the manner of the opening question, as though ALL states are created and accepted for the sake of the same principles. Take the breakup of Yugoslavia. It was not created in the first place, in 1919, because the people living there wanted to unify. It was actually created more as a reward to Serbia, which was the first state European state attacked during world war 1. The reason: to give Serbia a port on the Adriatic. That port, was Trieste, which was at the extreme northern end of what is now Croatia. To do that, the victorious European powers had to give Serbia everything in between. There are usually intersecting, and unrelated reasons why a new state is or isn’t recognized formally by the rest of the world. The political reasons often have nothing at all to do with the new state itself, or with what it’s people want. Often, new states are recognized because the existing nations see benefit to THEMSELVES, in the breakup or weakening of the previous state. That was certainly true in the case of the USSR. Sometimes existing nations oppose recognition of a new state, no matter what the indigenous population might want, either because of an alliance with the previous state, or because recognizing the new state, might open the door to yet another foe nation, gaining influence over the new state, to their detriment. In short, wondering if there is hypocrisy afoot in why some nations are recognized and welcomed and some are not, as the opening post narrowly focuses on, is a red herring. Reality of world politics as well as geography, is much more complicated. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reluctance-to-create-new-countries-outside-europe/768954.md?page=3)