UniLang

Let's play global dictator and remake borders as you think they should be.

I'll go first.

1. Falkland Islands returned to Argentina. Gibraltar returned to Spain.

2. The island of Ireland reunited as one country independent from Great Britain.

3. Dravidian speaking South India becomes an independent country.

4. Pakistan is dissolved and everything west of the Indus river goes to Iran and Afghanistan. Every to the east goes to India.

5. Tibet becomes independent with the edges of the Tibetan Plateau as borders. Independence for Xinjiang as well. Taiwan is given to China.

6. Sub-Saharan Africa is completely remade with new borders more closely reflecting pre-modern kingdoms, tribal territories and geographical boundaries.

7. The entire Delmarva Peninsula is given to Delaware.

8. Guantanamo Bay returned to Cuba.

9. North America united in some form.

10. South America united in some form.

11. The island of New Guinea reunited as an independent country.

12. North Africa is integrated into the E.U. (the vast majority of North Africa's population is found in Mediterranean cities that historically orient towards Europe).


The aim of these, um..., adjustments is to help foster long-term geopolitical stability.

Yasna wrote:The aim of these, um..., adjustments is to help foster long-term geopolitical stability.

Ah yes; I do recall from my childhood visits to the Eastern Shore of Maryland the furtive exchanges among adults about the need to prepare for the imminent Delawarian invasion. Thank goodness tensions have relaxed a bit since those unsettled times.

My prescription as world dictator? Plebiscites for everyone what wants 'em. "Geopolitical stability" is just another convenient excuse for perpetuating an unjust status quo.

13. Ceuta and Melilla return to Morocco.

14. Cabinda independent.

15. Taiwan recognized as a country by everyone.

I recommend OP plays some Civ... I don't want to change borders, all I want is nice big ocean, say... somewhere in Northern Eurasia

Marah wrote:13. Ceuta and Melilla return to Morocco.

13b. To... the Kingdom of Fez?

Menton and Roquebrune are given back to Monaco

Savoy becomes independent

Yasna wrote:10. South America united in some form.

As long as it only refers to Spanish-speaking South America, otherwise linguistics would definitely get in the way.

Not necessarily, several countries have different languages and are just fine with it (hello Switzerland, hello Finland)

There are *gasp* actual South American languages that aren't Castilian or Portuguese.

If it had to be a single independent State the only reason I see is neatness. It might look good on a map. (It was the land originally called "America" btw)

Marah wrote:Not necessarily, several countries have different languages and are just fine with it (hello Switzerland, hello Finland)

Moreover, "united in some form" does not mean "a single nation-state". How many "official languages" does the EU have again?

I agree that some kind of union would be a massive improvement--two hundred years after independence several states are still more closely tied to their former imperial masters than to their own neighbours. There's been some recent movement in that direction (Mercosur, CAN, etc.) but it's been rather half-hearted and incomplete.

For some reason, I can’t really see Spanish and Portuguese speakers all happily united in a single country. But then, although the languages have popped up in my mind when thinking of it, they’re just the most obvious surface feature after all – it’s actually the whole culture and history behind them that play the larger role. In many ways, having a South American country sounds a lot like having a single, say, Iberian country. Possible, but highly unlikely, despite geography – and Catalans and Galicians, for instance, might even have a greater say on this out of ‘personal experience’.

I’ve also seen people who claim countries such as Colombia and Venezuela might actually be better grouped with Central American / Caribbean countries instead of their South American neighbours, so the picture’s definitely not as neat as it may look like from outside.

Just as a parallel example, I suppose the USA and Canada might actually have a lot more in common to share in a united form, despite their respective histories. Even Taiwan and China obviously do – and Yasna’s post was very consistent in this regard.

As for South American languages that are neither Spanish nor Portuguese, sure, there are many, many of them, but, with one or two exceptions, they don’t really play any roles in the present geopolitical situation, so none really crossed my mind when picturing a continental country.

But then again, the original point was to play global dictator, and what do dictators even care about this all?

And yes, I did interpret ‘united in some way’ as narrowly as ‘single-nation unions’. That not being the case, there’s lots of room for all sorts of arrangements.

Someone out there might play a bit with maps to match the posts. This would be interesting to see.

1. Falkland Islands returned to Argentina. Gibraltar returned to Spain.

The locals seem to disagree, so let the UK keep them.

2. The island of Ireland reunited as one country independent from Great Britain.

That's going to cause [T]rouble.

3. Dravidian speaking South India becomes an independent country.

Don't see the point of that.

4. Pakistan is dissolved and everything west of the Indus river goes to Iran and Afghanistan. Every to the east goes to India.

This is difficult. I'm tempted to say Pakistan should never have been created. In fact, I don't see why we wouldn't give Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to India while we're at it. But there would be communal riots if we tried anything like that.

5. Tibet becomes independent with the edges of the Tibetan Plateau as borders. Independence for Xinjiang as well. Taiwan is given to China.

Don't think that's feasible. Also, Taiwan should be independent and only think of reunification if/when the PRC democratizes.

6. Sub-Saharan Africa is completely remade with new borders more closely reflecting pre-modern kingdoms, tribal territories and geographical boundaries.

Great idea.

9. North America united in some form.

Terrible idea. The USA is already dominant here - why formalize it?

10. South America united in some form.

That would piss off a lot of people as Brazil would end up dominating any such arrangement. I agree that Spanish-speaking Latin America should be united as a counterweight against Brazil.

12. North Africa is integrated into the E.U. (the vast majority of North Africa's population is found in Mediterranean cities that historically orient towards Europe).

Terrible idea. Those countries think of themselves as Arab, not European, and Europeans are already racist enough against them.

Now, as for my suggestions:

- The map of the entire Arab World badly needs to be redrawn.
- East and west Kurdistan should form an independent nation. Mount Ararat should be returned to Armenia.
- Kashmir should be divided along the LOC.
- Do Malaysia and Indonesia really need to be separate countries? They speak the same language and practice the same religion. Why not combine them?
- Kosovo should become part of Albania.
- Western Sahara should get to decide whether it wants to be independent or part of Morocco.
- Does Moldova really need to exist? Romania should annex it.
- Nagorno-Karabakh should go to Armenia.
- North and South Korea should come up with a long-term plan for reunification.
- Israel should formally annex the West Bank and incorporate it in their country.

The aim of these, um..., adjustments is to help foster long-term geopolitical stability.

Some of them would, some of them wouldn't. IMO a few of them might lead to outright war. But it's fun to speculate.

The locals seem to disagree, so let the UK keep them.

The problem is also how the "locals" originally got there. Gibraltar is a colony. The treaty was signed by a king as a result of a political plot, the king himself wasn't democratically elected AFAIK, so what is this treaty worth anyway? Were the residents in 1704 asked if they wanted to leave Spain?
If a large amount of foreign immigrants arrive at a place, claim it's theirs because democratically they're in a majority, will it become theirs?

Marah wrote:The problem is also how the "locals" originally got there. Gibraltar is a colony. The treaty was signed by a king as a result of a political plot, the king himself wasn't democratically elected AFAIK, so what is this treaty worth anyway? Were the residents in 1704 asked if they wanted to leave Spain?
If a large amount of foreign immigrants arrive at a place, claim it's theirs because democratically they're in a majority, will it become theirs?

Why should we let events from hundreds of years ago take precedence over the wishes of the people living there right now? Despite your use of scare quotes, they were born there and that makes them natives. Find me one country on earth that wasn't a colony of some other one at some point.

mōdgethanc wrote:Why should we let events from hundreds of years ago take precedence over the wishes of the people living there right now?

You can justify colonization with that. I would also be eager to see what their wishes were if Gibraltar wasn't a tax-haven.

Marah wrote:

mōdgethanc wrote:Why should we let events from hundreds of years ago take precedence over the wishes of the people living there right now?

You can justify colonization with that.

I should hope so! I'm really not all that interested in moving back to Germany at this point.

If Spain wants Gibraltar back, then it should have to convince the Gibraltarians it would be in their best interest.

Marah wrote:You can justify colonization with that.

I'm sorry, I'm failing to see how. I'm talking about the wishes of people who already live somewhere and whose ancestors have for hundreds of years, not about people who are settling somewhere new and claiming the land for themselves. (See my thoughts on Israeli settlers elsewhere.) So that's just an appeal to consequences.

Now, I am not interested in continuing this line of debate with you, so I suggest you make a thread about it if you really care. It's clear we're not going to see eye-to-eye on it.

If other people want to debate a moderator could split what we've already started.

modgethanc wrote:I'm sorry, I'm failing to see how. I'm talking about the wishes of people who already live somewhere and whose ancestors have for hundreds of years, not about people who are settling somewhere new and claiming the land for themselves. (See my thoughts on Israeli settlers elsewhere.) So that's just an appeal to consequences.

You could compare it with les pieds-noirs in Algeria. Following that rationale they could have made a claim to certain territories they occupied in a majority.

linguoboy wrote:If Spain wants Gibraltar back, then it should have to convince the Gibraltarians it would be in their best interest.

Hardly possible as long as they don't play by the same rules economically.

I'd restore the Benelux and make one country of the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg

Marah wrote:

linguoboy wrote:If Spain wants Gibraltar back, then it should have to convince the Gibraltarians it would be in their best interest.

Hardly possible as long as they don't play by the same rules economically.

Does Hong Kong "play by the same rules economically" as the rest of China?