There are a few instances where a country voluntary gave away (or sold) part of their land.
USSR sold Alaska to USA
Sikkim (use to be a small country between Nepal and Bhutan) accessed itself to India and became a state of India.
That idea about the Greeks selling a few islands sounds like a good idea - if you found enough in the way of buyers and you didn’t find that the sudden glut of islands on the market depressed value. What was the issue?
Cecil, was the plan to cede the sovereignty over the islands completely or just sell the real estate? I ask because presumably you need to be quite a bit richer to buy and hold an island than you do just to buy one and expect the Greek government to enforce your rights to.
dheerajnagpal: It was Russia and not the USSR that sold Alaska to the U.S.
More interesting are countries that refuse to claim territory that others attempt to give them. Two regions are in this particular state right now: One is Bir Tawil between Egypt and the Sudan. This was created by Britain when they controlled the government of Egypt, and jointly ruled over Sudan with Egypt. The border between Egypt and Sudan use to be a straight line, but the British changed it for better administration. If Egypt claims this tiny triangle or property that falls on the Sudan side of the line, they accept the changes the British made and concede a bigger chunk of land to Sudan.
The other unclaimed territories are between the various states that make up the former Yugoslavia republic. The most famous one is a spit of land that Libertarians have claimed as their new state called Liberland. Like most Libertarian Utopias, no development is taking place as various Libertarian factions argue with each other over the purity of their beliefs.
How about the Panama Canal Zone?
Wikipedia confusingly states in one place that the US had ownership of the territory at one point in time, yet elsewhere describes is as more of a right to operate the canal.
In 1999, was that the transfer of US territory to Panama, or handing over operation of a canal in located in Panama?
The British acquired Hong Kong from China in three parts:
- Hong Kong Island (1846, during the Opium Wars)
- Kowloon (1848, also during the Opium Wars)
- The “New Territories” (1898, by 99-year lease; arguably under pressure, this was one of the reasons for the Boxer Rebellion in 1900).
When the end of the lease (on only the New Territories) approached, in theory the British could have held onto the first two areas. In practice this would have meant either some expensive redevelopment (to rehouse all the New Territories’ residents in a city that was pretty much built out already) or forcing a lot of people to leave.
So Britain offered China the entire colony back instead – on condition it agree to continue their separate system of governance for 50 years, thus relieving Britain of the (felt) obligation to relocate millions of refugees (who didn’t want to find themselves living in Red China) elsewhere in the British Empire.
China went along at least partly because keeping such a deal might persuade Taiwan to be willing to rejoin their country. So far, that hasn’t worked. (I’m not sure how long Taiwan has been separate from China, but between the world wars, Taiwan was a colony of Japan. So it’s been at least a century.)
@UncleFred: The Canal Zone was actual US territory.
But also, Panama itself only became independent due to US intervention. (After the first, privately financed, attempt to build a Panama Canal failed, with thousands of lives lost, the government of Colombia, which then included Panama, ordered the project cancelled. So the US “found” (created) a rebel group which then won independence for Panama with lots of US help. In return, these rebels then gave us a 99-year lease on the Zone, and the Army Corps of Engineers built the canal.)
There’s also Newfoundland, which was an independent Dominion under the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster, but went bankrupt in the Great Depression. They gave up Dominion status and returned to being a British colony, under the Commission of Government from Britain. After WWII, the Newfoundlanders voted to join Canada as the 10th province in 1949, confirming that they had given up their independence.
There have been many, many such examples. One famous one of the 20th century was the Saar/Saarland/Saar Protectorate.
France took over the Saar at the end of WWII and it was pretty much part of France (as it had been during the Napoleonic era). A plebiscite favored re-union with Germany (under Hitler) and France complied.
Almost similarly, France again took control of the Saar after WWII, but less integrated than before. A plebiscite was held to give it a sort of independent status which was rejected. France, trying to make a strong alliance with West Germany, agreed then to allow the Saar to join West Germany.
Throughout all this, France reserved certain rights to the mineral and coal reserves in the region.
In the Middle East, Jordan gave up all claims to lands to the west of the Jordan River. Egypt gave up all claims to the Gaza Strip.
There’s also the case of the bantustans, tiny countries entirely encompassed by South Africa. Basically, apartheid-era South Africa drew up some borders, declared that anything within those borders was not their problem, and called them new countries.
The separation of India and Pakistan comes to mind, along with the issues of Kashmir and the various Indian principalities. A lot depends on how you define things.
But I am surprised no one mentioned Israel giving up Sinai to Egypt in 1993 (including oil wells and the resort town of Sharm El Sheikh http://www.tripadvisor.com/Tourism-g297555-Sharm_El_Sheikh_South_Sinai_Red_Sea_and_Sinai-Vacations.html) and Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005 (who subsequently overthrew their government and established a terrorist regime).
The UK is quite willing to give up Scotland if a majority of Scottish voters want to leave. There was a referendum last year where the Scottish National Party failed to convince a majority that they’d be better off going it alone.
In 1954 the USSR foolishly transferred the Crimean peninsula from the Russian to the Ukrainian SSR. After the breakup of the USSR Russia eventually took it back.
AS for countries voluntarily merging with others - the Republic of Texas.
See Making things normal | The Economist
“After 41 years of dithering, India has agreed to tidy up almost 200 enclaves that lay along their previously indeterminate boundary. Till now its landscape had been riddled with enclaves and counter-enclaves on both sides.”
“The bits to be rationalised include such historical freaks as a “counter-counter-enclave”: a patch of Bangladeshi land surrounded by Indian territory which is in turn ensconced within Bangladesh. In all about 50,000 people were living in these impoverished patches; India and Bangladesh have at last brought them into the benefits of statehood.”
Territory of Papua. Part of Australia since 1902, Given up to the new nation of PNG in 1975.
Suprisingly, no one has referred to the fact that Britain gave up Canada without a fight. Less than 100 years after fighting France over Quebec and less than 90 after fighting a bitter war with the 13 colonies, they voluntarily gave up Canada. Technically, the 1867 Canada act left Britain in formal legal control, but effectively powerless and in 1981, they gave up any formal connection, although Canada still pays formal allegiance to the Queen (but not to Britain, important difference).
I think granting independence is a bit out of scope for the OP; there are plenty of historical examples of that in the past century or so, especially in the case of Britain and France, who gave independence to a bunch of places in the 1950s and 1960s.
The OP’s getting more at things like Sikkim and the Louisiana Purchase, and possibly things like the Republic of Texas being annexed into the US.
Again, this is a questionable edge case. Canadians had been fighting for a long time for responsible government and Mother Britain had steadfastly refused. During that time, the U.S. had been a fairly weak military power with an army mainly dedicated to occupying forts in the west. The U.S. had no real arsenal and a ratty antiquated navy.
Following the Civil War, the U.S. now had a battle hardened and well trained army of hundreds of thousands of troops. It had a large stockpile of munitions, and a navy that was bigger and had more iron clad vessels than the British Navy (true, it was mainly a freshwater navy, but the Great Lakes are freshwater lakes).
Napoleon III immediately realized that a victorious and militarily powerful United States was not to be trifle with. He decide almost immediately to abandon his nephew, the Empire Maximilian I of Mexico to the fate dished out by his previously loyal subjects.
Great Britain also understood that having an unhappy colony bordering a powerful neighbor might not be a very stable situation.
Just two years after the end of the Civil War, Great Britain granted Canada responsible government and the Dominion of Canada was born. Was it entirely voluntary? Well, no one in particular (Cough! America! Cough!) invaded Canada and seized it from Great Britain. But, then the U.S. was a little miffed at the British over a few minor issues …like supplying arms and ships to the Confederacy, so maybe the British decided that if they could make their Canadian brothers happy, the United States wouldn’t have the ability to interfere.
I don’t understand why Britain was so concerned. I mean, it’s not like the U.S. ever tried to invade Canada before.
Britain recognised responsible government to the British North American colonies starting with Nova Scotia and the Province of Canada in 1948. Confederation in 1867 was not a grant of responsible government; all the colonies had it by that point.
India and Bangladesh did a land swap along their border very recently.
Does Scotland and England joining the Union in 1707 count? Both merged to become parts of the United Kingdom…
It’s a difficult case. Scotland and England had already shared a crown for a hundred years, and they remain separate countries with separate legal systems. (From a lawyer’s viewpoint, Scotland has more in common with France than it has with England.) And what about the Republic of Vermont and the Republic of Texas?