• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Countries Which Don't Exist (Self-Declared; Unrecognised; Etc.)

Taiwan

Country profile: Taiwan

Taiwan is the island which has for all practical purposes been independent for half a century but which China regards as a renegade province that must be re-united with the mainland.

Legally, most nations - and the UN - acknowledge the position of the Chinese government that Taiwan is a province of China, and as a result Taiwan has formal diplomatic relations with only 25 countries and no seat at the UN.

OVERVIEW

China insists that no state can have formal ties with both mainland China and Taiwan. But despite its diplomatic isolation, Taiwan has become one of Asia's big traders.

The Chinese nationalist government of President Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan ahead of the advance of Communists under Mao Zedong in 1949. The government-in-exile established Taipei as its capital and for decades hoped to reclaim control over the mainland.

The leadership of mainland China has reserved the right to use force to bring Taiwan under its control, and has missiles aimed at the island. The military threat is partly offset by the United States' cooperation with Taipei, and by the military capacity of Taiwan itself - one of the world's big arms purchasers.

Taiwan is considered to have achieved an economic miracle, becoming one of the world's top producers of computer technology. In the early 1990s it made the transition from an authoritarian one-party state to a democracy.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/w ... 285915.stm

Published: 2004/12/11 13:01:33 GMT

© BBC MMV

sauce
Click to expand...

Further Link - www.unpo.org
 
Trans-Dniester

Regions and territories: Trans-Dniester

The separatist region of Trans-Dniester - a narrow strip of land between the Dniester river and the Ukrainian border - proclaimed independence from Moldova in 1990.

The international community does not recognise its self-declared statehood, and the territory, which remains in a tense stand-off with Moldova, is often portrayed as a hotbed of crime.

OVERVIEW

In the post World War II carve-up of the region, Moscow created Moldova's forerunner, the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, from two disparate elements: the mainly Russian-speaking Dniester region, formerly an autonomous part of Ukraine, and the neighbouring region of Bessarabia, which had been part of Romania from 1918-1940.

But in the Soviet Union's dying days, alarm grew in the Dniester region over growing Moldovan nationalism and the possible reunification of Moldova with Romania. A 1989 law which made Moldovan an official language added to the tension, and Trans-Dniester proclaimed its secession on 2 September 1990.

The breakaway territory's paramilitary forces took over Moldovan public institutions in the area in 1991. Fighting intensified, culminating in a battle on the right bank of the Dniester in June 1992. Up to 700 people were killed in the conflict.

A ceasefire was signed in July 1992, and a 10-km demilitarised security zone was established. The settlement was enforced by the Russian 14th Army forces already stationed in Trans-Dniester.

Russian presence

The ongoing presence of Russian troops has been a stumbling block in peace talks, and the West has expressed concern about the huge Soviet-era arsenal in the territory. A pull-out began in 2001 but was halted in late 2003 when Trans-dniester blocked the despatch of weapons.

Long-running talks supervised by the OSCE, Russia and Ukraine have yet to yield a political solution. In 2004 a Russian-brokered plan, which would have made the presence of Russian troops permanent, sparked mass protests in Moldova and was shelved.

The two sides are also at odds over language. Though dominated by Russian-speakers, around 40% of the population in Trans-Dniester have Moldovan - which is virtually identical to Romanian - as a first language.

In 2004 the Trans-dniester authorities forced some schools to close, ostensibly for using the Latin alphabet to teach Moldovan. The dispute sparked tit-for-tat measures, including economic sanctions and a rail blockade.

Trans-Dniester contains most of Moldova's industrial infrastructure, but its economic potential is limited by its international isolation. It has its own currency, constitution, parliament, flag and anthem. One of the last bastions of Soviet-style rhetoric, the territory has nonethless privatised some of its industrial enterprises.

Trans-Dniester is plagued by corruption, organised crime and smuggling. It has been accused of conducting illegal arms sales and of money laundering. Poverty is widespread.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/w ... 641826.stm

Published: 2004/09/14 09:51:16 GMT

© BBC MMV

sauce
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, W.J.

This is one of my favorite subjects. I'll try to post some links about other semi-autonomous states I know of that have a seperatist movement if I get a chance. You might want to look up Arunachel Pradesh, Nagaland (India) and Xinjiang Autonomous Repuplic (home of the Uyghurs and other minorities in China), as well as the Shan State of Myanmar (Burma) if you haven't already. East Timor recently won indpendence from Indonesia, I believe.

Edit: Spelling of "Uyghurs"
 
A bid OT, but at university there was a pretty active socialist/marxist contingent that had committees for solidarity with every set of freedom fighters on the planet.

One week someone slipped an article into the Student Union newspaper about freedom fighters against a brutal dictator in an obscure corner of Africa.

Rumour had it that some of the more politically active members of the Student Union called a meeting to form a solidarity committee, before realising that the country was entirely fictional... :)
 
Would Luvania (link here) be counted?

Almost one in ten Brits thinks that a country called Luvania will be joining the EU this weekend, according to a survey carried out by telecoms outfit One.Tel.

The company invited punters to correctly identify the 10 new member states, and added the fictional nation as a bit of a jape. Eight per cent of the 2,500 who took part picked the sun-kissed republic of Luvania.

One.Tel spokeswoman Carol Barnes said: "People aren't generally aware. They're more involved in their day-to-day lives rather than the bigger picture of what is going on in the EU."

Which can be taken to read either: "They don't give a tinker's cuss about the EU", or "They're thick". Or both.

Still, at least we have not yet read a Daily Mail leader about a flood of one-legged, dole-scrounging Luvanian gypsies amassing at the border ready to descend on Britain in an orgy of benefit stripping. Yet. ®
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Not fictional as such, but it's hard to beat Fyrom as a national name. Fyrom, is the official UN-sanctioned name for Macedonia, and it means Former Yugoslavian Republic Of Macedonia. Greece, which has a province or state within it called Macedonia, raised a stink about the new Macedonia being so-named, claiming it would lead to unrest within the Greek Macedonia and possibly a movement to break away from Greece and join the new republic. The UN gave in and Fyrom (usually spelled all in caps, to be accurate) maintains an uneasy existence with a suspicious and unhappy Greece watching its every move.
 
Mr. R.I.N.G. said:
Would Prester John's mysterious country be applicable here?

http://www.saradouglass.com/prestjohn.html
Click to expand...

Primarily, I'm after the kind of places that Bannik posted (there's a famous oilrig off the the British coast which declared independence whose name escapes me for the moment...) but as I'm prepared to admit theoretical and philosophical nations, I don't see any harm in mentioning mythical ones like Prester John's - or, indeed Shangri-La, etc. ;)
 
Ajaria

Regions and territories: Ajaria

A mountainous semi-autonomous region of Georgia, Ajaria is situated on the Black Sea coast on Georgia's southwestern border with Turkey.

Its narrow band of coastal lowland has a lush sub-tropical climate while high in the mountains there can be snow for six months of the year.

History

The people of Ajaria are ethnically Georgian and the region also has a substantial Russian-speaking population. Under Ottoman rule from the 17th until the 19th century Islam predominated. The word Ajarian came to mean a Georgian Muslim.

In 1878 Ajaria was annexed by Russia and, following the Bolshevik revolution, incorporated into Georgia as an autonomous republic within the USSR. Under Stalin, Islam, like Christianity, was ruthlessly repressed. Nowadays about half the population professes the Islamic faith.

Unlike the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Ajaria has been spared major violence and ethnic unrest since Georgia became independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The region was led between 1991 and May 2004 by Aslan Abashidze under whose tight control it enjoyed political stability and relative economic prosperity. Election results gave him at least 90% of the vote every time and he ruled in what many observers described as an autocratic style.

Aslan Abashidze ousted

After Eduard Shevardnadze was overthrown as Georgian president and the results of the November 2003 elections were annulled, a state of emergency was declared in Ajaria. Its leadership refused to recognise the full authority of Mikhail Saakashvili as Georgian president.

In May 2004, Mr Abashidze claimed that Georgian forces were preparing to invade. His forces blew up bridges connecting the region with the rest of Georgia. Mr Saakashvili ordered the Ajarian leader to comply with the Georgian constitution and start disarming or face removal.

Large numbers of demonstrators took to the streets of Batumi. In an echo of events in Tbilisi the previous autumn, Mr Abashidze resigned.

Mr Abashidze had close ties with Russia. The Russians maintain a military base in the region - a source of great tension with Georgia. Following the departure of Eduard Shevardnadze, this tension rose still further when Russia eased entry visa regulations for residents of Ajaria.

Developments continue to unfold under Moscow's watchful eye.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/w ... 520322.stm

Published: 2005/01/30 12:42:34 GMT

© BBC MMV

sauce
Click to expand...
 
Whistling Jack said:
Mr. R.I.N.G. said:
Would Prester John's mysterious country be applicable here?

http://www.saradouglass.com/prestjohn.html
Click to expand...

Primarily, I'm after the kind of places that Bannik posted (there's a famous oilrig off the the British coast which declared independence whose name escapes me for the moment...)
Click to expand...

Could be Sealand which is on an old WWII fort.

The Principality of Sealand is a micronation that claims to be an independent sovereign principality. It is not recognized by any member of the United Nations. If it ever were, it would be by far the smallest country on earth. It has a population that rarely exceeds five, and an inhabitable area of some 550 m².

Sealand occupies a structure that was created when a purpose-built World War II-era Royal Navy barge was towed to a position above Rough Sands sandbar in the North Sea and had its hold intentionally flooded. It is sited six miles (10 km) off the coast of Suffolk, England, at 51°53'40"N, 1°28'57"E, and has been occupied since 1967 by the family of Paddy Roy Bates and their associates.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia on Sealand

*Bother. Min got in while I was writing this*
 
Chechnya

Regions and territories: Chechnya

The southern Russian Republic of Chechnya is surrounded on nearly all sides by Russian territory but also shares with neighbouring Georgia a remote border high in the Caucasus mountains.

Rich in oil, its economy and infrastructure are now in ruins after years of war between local separatists and Russian forces, combined with armed banditry and organised crime.

KEY DATES

1991 USSR collapses, Dzhokhar Dudayev elected president, declares independence

1994 Russia sends forces to crush independence movement

1996 Khasavyurt accords bring ceasefire but not independence

1997 Aslan Maskhadov elected president

1999 Russia blames Chechnya for wave of bombings, sends troops back

2003 Referendum approves new constitution giving Chechnya more autonomy but enshrining its position within Russian Federation. Akhmad Kadyrov elected president

2004 President Kadyrov killed in bomb blast. Kremlin-backed Alu Alkhanov elected to succeed him.

The late summer of the same year saw several explosions in Russia in which hundreds died. The Russian authorities did not hesitate to blame the Chechens.

Mr Putin sent the army back to subdue the republic by force in a second brutal campaign which, despite Russian claims of victory, has yet to reach a conclusion.

Western criticism of Russian tactics and human rights violations in Chechnya was all but silenced following the 11 September attacks on the US. Russia has since portrayed the Chechens as part of the global terror network and uses this to vindicate its methods.

The Kremlin called a controversial referendum in March 2003 which approved a new constitution giving Chechnya more autonomy but stipulating that it remained firmly a part of Russia. Moscow ruled out participation by the armed opposition and there were widespread concerns that the republic was still far too unstable to ensure that the outcome of such a referendum would have genuine validity.

t remains to be seen whether or not Russia's hopes that it will lead to a peaceful resolution are to be realised. These hopes were very badly dented by the assassination in May 2004 of Akhmad Kadyrov, who was elected Chechen president with very strong backing from the Kremlin some months after the referendum.

In February 2005, Mr Maskhadov declared a cease-fire and urged the Kremlin to agree to peace talks. There was no formal response from Moscow but the official Chechen leadership dismissed the move and demanded that Mr Maskhadov give himself up.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/w ... 565049.stm

Published: 2005/02/08 10:35:09 GMT

© BBC MMV

sauce
Click to expand...

Further Link: www.unpo.org
 
Timble said:
Could be Sealand which is on an old WWII fort.

The Principality of Sealand is a micronation that claims to be an independent sovereign principality. It is not recognized by any member of the United Nations. If it ever were, it would be by far the smallest country on earth. It has a population that rarely exceeds five, and an inhabitable area of some 550 m².

Sealand occupies a structure that was created when a purpose-built World War II-era Royal Navy barge was towed to a position above Rough Sands sandbar in the North Sea and had its hold intentionally flooded. It is sited six miles (10 km) off the coast of Suffolk, England, at 51°53'40"N, 1°28'57"E, and has been occupied since 1967 by the family of Paddy Roy Bates and their associates.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia on Sealand

*Bother. Min got in while I was writing this*
Click to expand...

That's the one, Timble! :D
 
Kosovo

Regions and territories: Kosovo

Kosovo, a landlocked province within the union of Serbia and Montenegro, has been the backdrop to a centuries-old and often-strained relationship between its Serb and ethnic Albanian inhabitants.

The province is administered by the UN, having endured a conflict in the late 1990s which was fuelled by ethnic division and repression. Sovereignty rests with Belgrade. Reconciliation between the majority ethnic Albanians, most of whom seek independence, and the Serb minority remains elusive.

History

Slavic and Albanian peoples have co-existed in Kosovo since the 8th century. The region was the centre of the Serbian empire until the mid-14th century, and Serbians regard Kosovo as the birthplace of their state.

Over the centuries, as the ethnic balance shifted in favour of Albanians, Kosovo came to represent a Serbian golden age, embodied in epic poetry.

Serbia's defeat at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 ushered in centuries of rule under the Muslim Ottoman Empire. Serbia regained control of Kosovo in 1913, and the province was incorporated into the Yugoslav federation.

Path to autonomy

Serbs and ethnic Albanians vied for control in the region throughout the 20th century. In the 1960s the suppression of Albanian national identity in Kosovo gave way to a more tolerant line from Belgrade. Ethnic Albanians gained a foothold in the Kosovan, and Yugoslav, administrations.

The 1974 Yugoslav constitution laid down Kosovo's status as an autonomous province, and pressure for independence mounted in the 1980s after the death of Yugoslav President Tito.

But resentment over Kosovan influence within the Yugoslav federation was harnessed by the future leader, Slobodan Milosevic. On becoming Yugoslav president in 1989, he proceeded to strip Kosovo of its autonomy.

A passive resistance movement in the 1990s failed to secure independence or to restore autonomy, although ethnic Albanian leaders declared unilateral independence in 1991.

In the mid-1990s an ethnic Albanian guerrilla movement, the Kosovo Liberation Army, stepped up its attacks on Serb targets. The attacks precipitated a major, and brutal, Yugoslav military crackdown.

War

Slobodan Milosevic's rejection of an internationally-brokered deal to end the crisis, and the persecution of Kosovo Albanians, led to the start of Nato air strikes against targets in Kosovo and Serbia in March 1999.

Meanwhile, a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Kosovo Albanians was initiated by Serbian forces. Hundreds of thousands of refugees fled to Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. Thousands of people died in the conflict.

Serbian forces were driven out in the summer of 1999 and the UN took over the administration of the province.

There have been signs of impatience on the part of the ethnic Albanian community over the length of time it is taking to decide on Kosovo's future status. Clashes between Albanians and ethnic Serbs in March 2004 left 19 people dead.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/w ... 524092.stm

Published: 2004/12/02 16:05:10 GMT

© BBC MMV

sauce
Click to expand...

Further Link - www.unpo.org
 
Western Sahara

Regions and territories: Western Sahara

A mainly desert territory in north-west Africa, Western Sahara is the subject of a long-running dispute between Morocco and the Algerian-backed Polisario Front.

The territory is phosphate-rich and believed to have offshore oil deposits. Most of it has been under Moroccan control since 1976.

OVERVIEW

Western Sahara fell under Spanish rule in 1884, becoming a Spanish province in 1934. Nationalism emerged in the 1960s, as nomadic Saharans, or Saharawis, settled in the region.

Polisario was set up on 10 May 1973 and established itself as the sole representative of the Saharan people. Some 100,000 refugees still live in Polisario's camps in Algeria.

Madrid Agreement

In October 1975 the International Court of Justice rejected territorial claims by Morocco and Mauritania. The court recognised the Saharawis' right to self-determination and Spain agreed to organise a referendum.

But in November 1975, Moroccan King Hassan II ordered a "Green March" of over 300,000 Moroccans into the territory. Spain backed down and negotiated a settlement with Morocco and Mauritania, known as the Madrid Agreement.

Signed on 14 November 1975, the deal partitioned the region. Morocco acquired two-thirds in the north and Mauritania the remaining third. Spain agreed to end colonial rule.

Polisario declared the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) on 27 February 1976 and announced its first government on 4 March.

The current SADR president, Mohamed Abdelaziz, was elected Polisario secretary-general in August 1976.

In August 1978, one month after a coup, a new Mauritanian government signed a peace deal with Polisario and renounced all territorial claims.

Morocco moved to occupy areas allocated to Mauritania. Algeria in turn allowed refugees to settle in its southern town of Tindouf, where Polisario still has its main base.

Polisario led a guerrilla war against Moroccan forces until 1991.

Referendum

In April 1991 the UN established Minurso, the United Nations Mission for a Referendum in Western Sahara. Its brief was to implement a peace plan outlined in a 1990 Security Council resolution. In September 1991 a UN-brokered ceasefire was declared.

KEY DATES

May 1973: Polisario set up

November 1975: "Green March"

February 1976: SADR declared

March 1976: First SADR government set up

August 1978: Mauritania-Polisario deal signed

1976-1991: Guerrilla warfare

April 1991: Minurso established

September 1991: Ceasefire declared

May 1996: UN suspends referendum moves

June 2001: Baker plan

The peace plan provided for a transition period, leading to a referendum in January 1992. Western Saharans would choose between independence and integration with Morocco.

Minurso was to total 1,000 civilian and 1,700 military personnel. Its brief was to monitor the ceasefire, the confinement of warring parties to designated areas and the exchange of prisoners.

While the ceasefire held, the mission was never fully deployed. Nor was the transition period ever completed. A key sticking point was an "identification process", to decide who was eligible to vote.

Identification was to be based on a census carried out by Spain in 1973. Polisario wanted to rule out Moroccans who settled in Western Sahara after the Green March.

In May 1996 the UN suspended the identification process and recalled most Minurso civilian staff. Military personnel stayed to oversee the truce.

Initial attempts to revive the process foundered over Morocco's worries that a referendum would not serve its interests.

Baker plan

Peace returned to the drawing board when UN special envoy James Baker mediated in talks between Polisario and Morocco in London, Lisbon and Houston in 1997, then in London again in 2000.

Agreements were reached on the release of POWs, a code of conduct for a referendum campaign, UN authority during a transition period - but not on voter eligibility. Further talks were held in Berlin and Geneva in 2000, but again ran into trouble.

In a new bid to break the deadlock, James Baker submitted a "Framework Agreement", known as the Third Way, in June 2001.

It provided for autonomy for Saharawis under Moroccan sovereignty, a referendum after a four-year transition period, and voting rights for Moroccan settlers resident in Western Sahara for over a year.

This formula was rejected by Polisario and Algeria. Then in July 2003, the UN adopted a compromise resolution proposing that Western Sahara become a semi-autonomous region of Morocco for a transition period of up to five years.

A referendum would then take place on independence, semi-autonomy or integration with Morocco.

This compromise was seen as addressing Moroccan concerns, in a bid to entice it to agree to a referendum.

Polisario signalled its readiness to accept, but Morocco rejected the plan, citing security concerns. With the UN process deadlocked, envoy James Baker resigned in June 2004.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/w ... 466917.stm

Published: 2004/10/01 14:41:36 GMT

© BBC MMV

sauce
Click to expand...
 
South Moluccas


In 1950, in the first years of Indonesian independence, a group of Christians in the southern Moluccan islands, backed by Moluccan Christian soldiers from the Dutch colonial army, proclaimed the independent Republik Maluku Selatan (or RMS, Republic of the South Moluccas). By the time the Japanese had been defeated, there were sufficient nationalists throughout Indonesia, including Maluku, to rise and oppose the Dutch-sponsored Republic of the United States of Indonesia (RUSI), which was created to counter the threat posed by the nationalist Republic of Indonesia to a continued Dutch presence.

Southern Maluku, and particular Ambon, was hastened into declaring its independence from the Republic of Indonesia when the puppet state of RUSI collapsed. The many Dutch-educated and 'loyalist' Moluccan soldiers and civil servants, who had devoted their lives to running the former Dutch East Indies, could see no future in a Republic dominated by what they perceived as a Muslim majority hostile to them. The South Moluccan Council, backed by the people and making use of their right to withdraw from the Federal state of East Indonesia and of their right of self-determination, on April 25, 1950 proclaimed the Independent and Sovereign Republic of the South Moluccas (RMS).

The Indonesian Army quelled the uprising, though guerilla forces continued to fight for years after. Several RMS leaders escaped to Holland, where they established an RMS "government in exile." While the vast majority of Christians on the Moluccas today do not support independence, the memory of the RMS and its separatist aims still resonates in Indonesia, and Moluccan Christians today are accused by Muslim groups of having independence as their goal. This accusation has been useful in galvanizing Muslims to fight, and the situation has not been aided by the fact that some diaspora Moluccan Christian groups have taken up the RMS banner.
Click to expand...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/south-moluccas.htm

Carole
 
Sorry Min - didn't see you there. The board kept logging out on me yesterday, so it's quite possible your post fell through the gap... ;)

PS: Excellent link, also.
 
Kashmir

Kashmir: The origins of the dispute

By Victoria Schofield, author of Kashmir in Conflict

In August 1947 when the Indian subcontinent became independent from Britain, all the rulers of the 565 princely states, whose lands comprised two-fifths of India and a population 99 million, had to decide which of the two new dominions to join, India or Pakistan.

The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, whose state was situated between the two new countries, could not decide which country to join.

He was Hindu, his population was predominantly Muslim. He therefore did nothing.

Instead he signed a "standstill" agreement with Pakistan in order that services such as trade, travel and communication would be uninterrupted.

India did not sign a similar agreement.

Law and order

In October 1947, Pashtun tribesmen from Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province invaded Kashmir.

There had been persistent reports of communal violence against Muslims in the state and, supported by the Pakistani Government, they were eager to precipitate its accession to Pakistan.

Troubled by the increasing deterioration in law and order and by earlier raids, culminating in the invasion of the tribesmen, the ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, requested armed assistance from India.

The then Governor-General, Lord Mountbatten, believed the developing situation would be less explosive if the state were to accede to India, on the understanding that this would only be temporary prior to "a referendum, plebiscite, election".

According to the terms of the Instrument of Accession, India's jurisdiction was to extend to external affairs, defence and communications.

Troops airlifted

Exactly when Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession has been hotly debated for over 50 years.

Official Indian accounts state that in the early hours of the morning of 26 October, Hari Singh fled from Srinagar, arriving in Jammu later in the day, where he was met by V P Menon, representative of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and signed the Instrument of Accession.

On the morning of 27 October, Indian troops were airlifted into Srinagar.

Recent research, from British sources, has indicated that Hari Singh did not reach Jammu until the evening of 26 October and that, due to poor flying conditions, V P Menon was unable to get to Jammu until the morning of 27 October , by which time Indian troops were already arriving in Srinagar.

In order to support the thesis that the Maharaja acceded before Indian troops landed, Indian sources have now suggested that Hari Singh signed an Instrument of Accession before he left Srinagar but that it was not made public until later.

This was because Hari Singh had not yet agreed to include the Kashmiri leader, Sheikh Abdullah, in his future government. To date no authentic original document has been made available.

Pakistan immediately contested the accession, suggesting that it was fraudulent, that the Maharaja acted under duress and that he had no right to sign an agreement with India when the standstill agreement with Pakistan was still in force.

Pakistanis also argued that because Hari Singh fled from the valley of Kashmir , he was not in control of his state and therefore not in a position to take a decision on behalf of his people.

'Bad faith'

In the context of Pakistan's claim that there is a dispute over the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the accession issue forms a significant aspect of their argument.

By stating that the Instrument of Accession was signed on 26 October, when it clearly was not, Pakistan believes that India has not shown good faith and consequently that this invalidates the Instrument of Accession.

Indians argue, however, that regardless of the discrepancies over timing, the Maharaja did choose to accede to India and he was not under duress.

On the basis of his accession, India claims ownership of the entire state which includes the approximately one-third of the territory currently administered by Pakistan.

In 1949 Maharaja Hari Singh was obliged by the Government of India to leave the state and hand over the government to Sheikh Abdullah.

He died in Bombay in 1962.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/w ... 762146.stm

Published: 2002/01/16 02:05:48 GMT

© BBC MMV
Click to expand...
 
The Republic of Biafra was a short-lived secessionist state in southeastern Nigeria. It existed from May 30, 1967 to January 15, 1970, with the military's Chief of Staff formally announcing capitulation on January 12. The country was named after the Bight of Biafra, the bay of the Atlantic to its south.

It was recognised by a small number of countries during its existence, including South Africa; however that country's support of apartheid discouraged wider recognition by other African nations that might otherwise have been sympathetic to the Biafran cause.

In January 1966, Ibo officers in the Nigerian army attempted a coup, which was bloody and short-lived. In the months of May and September of 1966, Ibo migrants living in northern Nigeria were the targets of mass killings. Most of Nigeria's 8 million Ibo (or Igbo) people live in what was then the Eastern Region of Nigeria, which had as military governor the Ibo Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu. He declared the region an independent state with a capital at Enugu, and his troops began seizing Federal resources such as inbound postal vehicles.

Nigeria responded initially with an economic blockade, and brought military force to bear starting on July 6, 1967. In the ensuing Biafran War, raids were made by Biafran troops west into Nigeria in July and August. Nigerian troops soon recovered however, advancing into Biafra, and forcing the repeated transfer of the Biafran capital from Enugu to Aba and then Umuahia by the end of the year, and to Owerri in 1969.

By 1970, Biafra had been ravaged by war and was in great need of food supplies. Amid economic and military collapse, Ojukwu fled the country and the rest of the republic's territory was re-incorporated into Nigeria. Around a million people are thought to have died in the conflict, mostly through starvation and illness.

Biafra's national anthem used the Finlandia tune by Jean Sibelius.

This conflict inspired musician Jello Biafra in his choice of name.

Nigeria later renamed the Bight of Biafra as the Bight of Bonny.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafra

Carole
 
The Basque nationalist movement had its roots in the early 1876 when the Spanish government revoked the "fueros" or Basque legal systems and juridical identity, which meant then the last remnants of Basque sovereignity. The Fueros were the Basque constitutional system and gave Basque citizens a unique position in Spain with special tax and political status; additionally, Basques didn't have to serve in the Spanish army but had their own system of defense, which in the case of the naval army was traditionally bigger and stronger by itself than that of all the Spanish army. The separatist movement, however, didn't begin to evolve until 20 years into the dictatorship of Francisco Franco, although there were yet debate about it so early as by XVIII siecle, with important works made to counteract the Bourbon court attemts to suppress the Basque Foral system.

Political Spain in 1854, after the first Carlist War. Basque separatists want a fully independent state consisting of the Basque Autonomous community (Álava, Vizcaya and Guipúzcoa), the Autonomous Community of Navarra and the Pyrénées-Atlantiques (Labourd, Basse-Navarre and Soule), for a total of seven territories or traditional Euskal Herria. The Pyrénées-Atlantiques are located in southwestern France and have a common border with two Spanish Basque provinces.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque

Carole
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why independence ?

With the passing of years, we largely showed that our combat is firstly that of our Breton compatriots which fight in their companies for their employment and justice social, which mobilize for development economic of our country with service of all and in respect of our inheritance natural, which fights for the defense of our language and our culture, which militate with the daily newspaper for the right to live decently on their premises, in Brittany. We always indicated our adversaries: the French State centralizer and denier of the People and the capitalist system with its misadventures productivist néo-liberals.

That known as without putting our " Gwenn ha du " in our pocket we were not those which claimed that it is enough to change flag so that the men and the women of Brittany are finally free in the individual and collective plan. And if it is true that we line up in the independence camp, we never located the political debate in Brittany on that only ground.


Independence is legitimate.

If one admit that the Brittany exist as people and nation distinct, it be legitimate that one fight for its sovereignty with the instar some many other people of world which have know preserve their independence during their history or that they have obtain it after a fight of release national. The fact of being Breton should not deprive to us of the rights that the others have or in other words, we are not Bretons but undoubtedly French alive in a geographical space called Brittany.

Moreover, is it necessary to point out that we knew already independence, that one even which was confiscated to us after a military defeat? The centuries will not change anything with this historical truth.


Independence is realistic.

From the economic point of view, it is not contestable by anybody that Brittany has all the assets of a country able to be managed in all independence. Our country is well more than the " pantry " of France. Its size is comparable with that of the Netherlands, of Belgium, of Denmark, of Israel. Its geographical situation with the point of Europe east one of best of the world. Its climate, its maritime frontages, its agricultural potential, are at the same time the allies and the fruits of People whose rooting, dynamism and opening are not any more to show.

Realism is statement " Brittany cannot manage without France " without never saying why. But the lack of realism be well to justify the situation of dependence current which we make believe that we be offset in a State centralize which in more we deprive of fifth of our territory and, therefore, of third of our potential economic! Famous " the Breton problem " does not exist. Only exists a French problem in Brittany.


Independence is possible.

Whereas much at one time considered the access to an unspecified independence, like a dream suitable to occupy the ends of banquets, never the history with put to us this dish so close with the range of the hand. Without speaking about did the Algerian independence of 1962, how much country and people acquire it since the last war and sit since at UNO? More close to us, in Europe, the recent events showed that there was nothing final and that the lead covers of the most totalitarian empires ended up yielding. From the Ukraine in Latvia, from Slovaquie in Slovénie, several tens of " small " nations come during these last years if not of these last months, often against any waiting, to release themselves and to be recognized like populates independent within the International Community. This historical movement which points out another end of century curiously, XIXème century, soon will touch people even closer to us. The Basques who express per tens of thousands, behind streamers claiming self-determination, the Scot which claim independent Scotland in Europe, the Catalans who affirm themselves openly walks from there towards independence, the Corsicans who henceforth put ahead the principle of national sovereignty, without forgetting the Flemings who soon will forget that they had been Belgian once!

The Bretons ones do they may find it beneficial not to seize this historical opportunity which is offered to them?



independence is necessary.

To change of framework institutional in pass of statute of community regional with four department and a super prefect with that of country independent equip of its clean government indicate by the people, be enough not in oneself to modify like by a waving of a magic wand de magic wand the reality socio-economic and cultural of our country, nor the daily newspaper of Breton. The abrogation of the unemployment and the precariousness of employment, the end of the social injustices are not issued more than the economic revival or the cultural alarm clock. Undoubtedly. Remain that it would be more effective to decide on our premises measures to be taken in all the fields than to wait than Paris wants to lend the ear to it well. The principal reason holds in the fact that we do not have the same interests and that they are often contradictory. The emigration of the young people, low wages, all-tourism, the disappearance of our farmers and maintaining our fishermen, as many disasters which are not inescapable. They are the consequence of political choices which serve the interests of the French State and the multinationals.

Independence would enable us to defend to us same the interests of our people in the European and international authorities instead of entrusting them to ministers who serve only the " higher interest " of France. In les field of agriculture and some fishing, one see well how what make our potential economic be sell off on the furnace bridge of the interest common with Brussels and elsewhere, whereas the people which lay out some representative to them defend arrive to draw their pin of play in obtain some mode special or derogatory.

What is true from the economic point of view is true as much within the framework of the fight against unemployment and exclusion social, the defense of our coasts and our natural inheritance, the cultural and linguistic policy. That would have avoided us going to whine for a statute of official language or by the ratification of a European charter!



Independence what it is not.

Independence is not autonomy. This concept, which lost its original direction, is related to a situation of dependence which maintains people under the political domination of a State, which grants certain rights to him intern all while depriving it of essence: freedom. Autonomous Brittany is a lure insofar as France is not historically a community of people which voluntarily agreed to gather as in a federation, but a state resulting from a monarchical system denier of these same people. Autonomy is very often only one stage transitory which falls like a ripe fruit at the time of the functioning of people towards his independence. If it can be good to take, it can of nothing constitute a long-term objective.

Independence is not autarky. Brittany, maritime country, are sufficiently open on the world never not to be tempted to fold up itself on itself. Its prosperity of formerly and its development (unequal) current, it owes them with its exchanges with outside. Independence would enable us to increase these international relations towards the west and the south whereas the current dependence locks up us in economic relations almost only turned towards France and always supervised by Paris.



Independence in Europe of the People.

Independence will confer on Brittany and to our people a political and legal framework recognized at the international level and in very first place on the European plan. Europe that we want is not that of the referendum on the Treaty of Maastricht which was not subjected to us as people, like the Danes or the Irishmen (except North) but as a citizen of a state that we refuse. Europe could be beneficial only insofar as our existence is recognized like populates freely deciding to join, to cooperate and exchange or not with others at the international level.



Independence with the Breton people.

Independence could not be declared by a handle of individuals who would have self-proclaimed leaders of their people without the assent of this last. It is on the contrary the fruit of a massive and major awakening within the whole of our compatriots. It is not an end in itself but a political objective in a project of individual and collective release. It cannot be defined as a preliminary in its real contents in measurement or it is not a group to decide in the place of people. But it is well the vocation of a political movement to make the proposals which seem to him right so that each one is determined with complete freedom.
Click to expand...

http://www.chez.com/emgann/lang/anglais.htm
 
Preparing for Flemish independence







Welcome to this website, entirely dedicated to the independence of Flanders, the northern, Dutch-speaking part of "Belgium", which is drawing near. You will be provided with information concerning the Flemish question. You will learn what Belgium actually is and why we, the Flemish people, would like to secede from that country.



Why do the Flemish want to become independent?

Belgium is an artificial state that forces three different nations to live together: the Flemish (i.e. the Southern Dutchmen), the Walloons (a French-speaking people that has never really belonged to France) and some Germans (whose land was annexed by Belgium after the First World War). Unlike in Switzerland, these nations have not chosen to live together, they were forced to, and as a result they lack a national feeling. Belgium's founding fathers designed their construction to be France's satellite state, and they explicitly stated: "La Belgique sera latine ou elle ne sera pas" ("Belgium will be Latin or it will not be"). Although the majority of Belgians spoke Dutch (or Dutch dialects, a.k.a. "Flemish"), the only official language was French. This was part of a francophone imperialist strategy to wipe out the Flemish culture and replace it with a "Belgian" one. Of course the Flemings resisted to these attempts, and many generations spent their lives trying to improve the situation of the Flemish, who were regarded by the Belgian state as some kind of inferior lifeform (the Francophones arrogantly assumed, and some of them still do, they were members of Europe's highest civilisation). The Flemish have always had to fight and pay high prices to get their rights recognised by a state that despises them.

Today Belgium is no longer a unitary but a semi-federal state. Dutch has been recognised as an official language and the country is divided in 3 Communities (Flemish, French and German-speaking) and 3 Regions (Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia). The Regions have some powers, others still belong to the "federal state" (Belgium as a whole), which often leads to absurd situations. Both Communities and Regions have their own Parliaments and Governments (only Flanders decided to merge them). Since there is no hierarchy between the different Parliaments and Governments, issues that have to be decided on by both the Federal Government and one or more Regional Governments can get totally stuck if the Governments don't share the same point of view or, even worse, if they have to defend opposite interests. In Belgium the most important of those fault lines is the language barrier. Flanders and Wallonia (or francophone Belgium as a whole) disagree on most issues and have to come up with unsatisfactory compromises no one is really happy with. If they can't get their disputes resolved, the issue is usually blocked until Flanders gives in to the francophone blackmailing. The francophones never give in because they have a very egoistic policy of getting what they want, even if they have to paralyse the country for it and waste other people's time and money.

Belgium's critics have described the country as a "contra-federation" (because the Communities work against each other in stead of working together), or as "Absurdistan" (in this country everything seems to be possible, especially if it is something absurd, like in Franz Kafka's books). The critics are right. Belgium has become an extremely inefficient labyrinth, in which the only productive part is Flanders. It is Flanders that generates all of the wealth and accounts for 80% of the export. This is because the Flemish are by nature an industrious, freedom-loving nation, in opposition to the inproductive, socialist-minded Walloons. All of this inefficiency could be resolved in an easy way - by splitting Belgium in half. If only it were as easy as it sounds...
Click to expand...

http://members.lycos.nl/vlaamssiteje/english.htm

Carole
 
Whistling Jack-some of the places you mentioned are on a television programme. I forget both what it's called and what channel although I suspect that it is a repeat on something like UKGold. I think it was the same man that did "Holidays in the Axis of Evil". Sorry to be so vague.
Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossettia were featured there.
It' sad to see people uprooted from their homelands when countries split and seeing them gaze over the border to the place they know and love, knowing that someone else is living in their house. Many of the children in a school in Nagorno-Karabakh never remebered their homeland though.

This is an enlightening subject though-never knew about Taiwan.
 
Hello Cheeky,

I refer you to my opening post, which details the programme you're talking about. I'm glad that you're enjoying the thread (I've certainly changed my viewpoint regarding Kashmir) - I've got a load of stuff from another site today so expect lots more entries over the coming week.
 
Even though I can sympathise with people's nationalistic feelings and requirements, how far down the line can one go with splitting up countries? We could return to the city-state situation of ancient times . . .

Carole
 
Yeah, you could end up with a 'Passport to Pimlico' situation if you're not careful... ;) I've tried to limit the 'nations' I'm posting to those who have either declared independence or those previously independent nations which have been 'annexed' (there's a real shocker coming up...).

There are a lot of indigenous peoples who are asking nothing more than to be recognised as an individual ethnic group but even apparently reasonable requests such as these are ruthlessly silenced - take a look at unpo.org for further information.
 
Kingdom of Enen Kio

Kingdom of Enen Kio

Allegedly off the Marshall Islands lies the Kingdom of Enen Kio. Run by one Robert Moore, the self-appointed “Minister Plenipotentiary” of the Kingdom, this scam listed its address in court documents not in Enen Kio (which doesn’t exist), but at “P.O. Box 8441, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96830”.

What court documents? The Kingdom’s lawsuit against the United States, of course. Seems that this scam jurisdiction brought a suit in its own High Court (chuckle, chuckle) against the United States for “adverse possession” by “King Hermios” of “Northern Ratak Archipelago”, oh and also for $170 million plus interest.

Mr. Moore then filed this judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, seeking to get the U.S. Court to recognize the judgment. The U.S. Court entered a “show cause” order, whereupon Mr. Moore immediately voluntarily withdrew his petition to recognize the judgment, with little ceremony.

So why does the Kingdom exist? To support its modern space port of course. Essentially, the Kingdom copies plans for a spaceport to be built in Hawaii on to its website, and called it a day (that’s all you need to be a major space power isn’t it?).

What to be careful of? This scam (and the Principality of New Utopia which follows) sounds so stupid that you would be amazed if somebody fell for it. Yet, look further into the Kingdom’s website, and you will see how they expect to make money from this scam: By issuing $500 million in (bogus) “Gold Bonds” at $250,000 each with a face value of $500,000 – which amount of course is uncollectable considering that the Kingdom neither exists nor has any significant assets other than its bogus claims to disputed land.

Enen Kio is a complete scam, as the Marshall Islands Newspaper recognized in a story carried December 2, 1994, with Mr. Moore’s face under the heading “Is This Man a Bald-Faced Liar? The AG Thinks So”. The article also stated that the Marshall Islands AG at that time was considering investigating Mr. Moore for fraud.

Hardly a propitious beginning, eh? Check out the Kingdom’s website at http://www.enenkio.org/ EnenKio_web.htm and be sure to go to the documents section and pull up the Marshall Island’s newspaper article so that you can get a good look at Mr. Moore.

sauce
Click to expand...
 
Dominion of Melchizedek

Dominion of Melchizedek

The Granddaddy of all fake nation scams is of course the Dominion of Melchizedek. Started in prison by two convicts in the pokey for land fraud, the Dominion has had an almost magical existence as it shakes off bad publicity after bad publicity to keep selling worthless bank licenses and promoting its “Ecclesiastical Sovereignty”.

Yes, the Dominion has been featured in a variety of magazine and news articles – all bad. The Washington Post has been especially unkind, and we have repeatedly labeled the Dominion a complete scam (which it is). The Dominion was even uniquely featured at the Financial Fraud Convention by John Shockey, formerly with the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency. Shockey had delegates from over 100 nations rolling with laughter as he described the wacky antics of the Dominion’s promoters.

But Shockey also described the scam aspect of the Dominion, which is that it attempts to sell bank licenses and other things, all from the United States. And this is one thing which distinguishes the Dominion as a fraud, instead of the legitimate nation it claims to be.

While depending on the time of day, the Dominion claims Antarctica and a reef in the middle of the Pacific (which the Wall Street Journal characterized as “an underwater seamount”), no operations occur in these areas. Instead, all solicitations for business occur in the United States or some other nation, and business operations are intended to take place there.

Despite the Dominion’s claims that it has been “recognized” by the United States (it hasn’t), and that the U.S. courts have recognized the DOM (they haven’t either), the Dominion has the reputation of being a scam, and various law enforcement agencies have issued warnings specifically directed at the Dominion and its “banks”. Worse, DOM banks are routinely used to perpetrate frauds, such as the recent Caribbean Bank of Commerce scandal, which bank claimed to be operating under a DOM bank license. So, when not directly defrauding people with bogus licenses, the DOM is facilitating fraud by providing entities for use by other criminals.

You can read about the Dominion, including many excerpts from the articles critical of it, at http://www.quatloos.com/groups/melchiz.htm or even if you are not prepared to travel to Antarctica, you can visit the Dominion on the internet at http://www.melchizedek.com

sauce
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top