Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

THINKING ALOUD: National borders and international disputes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • THINKING ALOUD: National borders and international disputes

    Daily Times, Pakistan
    July 7 2005


    THINKING ALOUD: National borders and international disputes - Razi
    Azmi

    Few Pakistanis know that Gwadar, the country's up-coming port, which
    is regarded as a strategic and economic asset by the government,
    belonged to the Sultan of Oman until 1958. It was purchased by the
    Pakistani government for Rs 90 million

    `What is mine is mine, what is yours in mine too'. Nowhere does this
    seem more true than in the case of international borders. The list of
    countries with territorial claims on a neighbouring state is long.
    Often, border disputes have led to skirmishes, even full-scale wars
    and conquests.

    Historically, the spoils of war belong to the victor. The worst
    recent example of this is the territorial settlement imposed by the
    victorious Anglo-French alliance on a defeated Germany after the
    First World War. She was deprived of 13 percent of her territory
    (40,000 square kilometres), home to seven million people.

    Following the German defeat and Soviet victory in the Second World
    War, Russia annexed Eastern Prussia from Germany, besides regaining
    Western Ukraine from Poland. Being on the winning side, Poland was
    duly compensated by being moved approximately 120 kilometres further
    west into what had been Germany.

    In 1939, as tension was building towards the Second World War, the
    Soviet Union invaded little Finland to its north. The Finns put up a
    stiff resistance, but lost one-tenth of their territory for good.

    Two of the worst examples of territorial aggrandisement in modern
    times are the occupation of Mexican territory by the United States
    and of Bolivian territory by her neighbours.

    The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican War
    (1846-1848) awarded all lands north of the Rio Grande to the United
    States. By the terms of the treaty, Mexico ceded to the United States
    two-fifths of its territory and received an indemnity of $15 million.

    Bolivia lost great slices of territory to three neighbouring
    countries. Several thousand square kilometres of land, 315 kilometres
    of coastline and its outlet to the Pacific Ocean were taken by Chile
    after the War of the Pacific (1879-1884). In 1903, a piece of
    Bolivia's Acre Province, rich in rubber, was ceded to Brazil. And in
    1938, after losing the Chaco War of 1932-1935 to Paraguay, Bolivia
    lost 160,000 square kilometres of territory. Today's Bolivia is a
    land-locked country, a mere three-fifths of its original size.

    Hoping to take advantage of the disarray in Iran after the Islamic
    revolution in 1979, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan
    province in 1980 and renamed it Arabistan, only to be thrown back
    after an eight year-long war. Two years later, to salvage his pride
    and wipe off his debts in one stroke, Saddam occupied his
    defenceless, oil-rich neighbour, Kuwait, declaring it Iraq's 27th
    province. That venture, too, proved to be a bloody and costly fiasco.

    India and China went to war in 1962 after Indian border patrols
    discovered that her `brotherly' neighbour (`Hindi-Chinee bhai bhai')
    had quietly taken possession of thousands of square kilometres of
    territory in the remote Aksai Chin area of Kashmir. India lost the
    war and some pride too. China continues to be in de facto possession
    of 20 percent of Kashmir. This includes over 8,000 square kilometres
    ceded to China in 1963 by Pakistan, which wisely took advantage of
    the Indo-Chinese conflict to seal its alliance with that country by
    donating a piece of strategic real estate.

    Both India and Pakistan do not accept the Line of Control in Kashmir
    as a permanent border between them. India regards the Chinese
    presence in Aksai Chin as illegal and China does not recognise the
    border along the McMahon Line with India's northeast. Afghanistan
    disputes the Durand Line with Pakistan. The two countries fought
    border skirmishes in the early 1960s.

    China and Russia clashed over a disputed border on the Ussuri river
    in 1969. Libya disputes its borders with all its neighbours and had
    occupied Chadian territory for many years. Armenia has seized about
    10 percent of Azerbaijani territory (Nagorno-Karabakh) inhabited by
    ethnic Armenians.

    In 1976, Morocco conspired with Mauritania to divide and annex the
    Western Sahara as soon as Spain granted it independence. Three years
    later, when Mauritania withdrew its forces because of guerrilla
    warfare led by the Polisario Front, Morocco helped itself to the rest
    of the Western Sahara. Thus, the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic
    has the distinction of being the world's only stillborn country.

    Cambodia, on the other hand, has the distinction of shrinking in
    peacetime. According to reports coming from there, all three of
    Cambodia's neighbours, but particularly Vietnam, are slowly creeping
    into Cambodian territory, having moved the border at some points by
    as much as 15 kilometres.

    The former `Father King', Norodom Sihanouk, has commented that the
    stone border markers with Vietnam had legs and kept walking deeper
    into Cambodian territory. In late March this year Sihanouk sent an
    open letter to the governments of Vietnam, Laos and Thailand accusing
    them of `nibbling away' at Cambodian territory.

    Nations, national borders, passports and visas are relatively recent
    concepts. For example, until the middle of the 19th century, Germany
    was a conglomeration of dozens of states and principalities. British
    India included hundreds of princely states of various sizes with
    their own rulers, spread over two-fifths of the subcontinent. Kashmir
    and Hyderabad were the largest and best-known of them. Pakistan
    inherited a number of princely states, namely Kalat, Bahawalpur,
    Swat, Hunza and Chitral.

    They were vestiges of a bygone era when there were neither nations
    nor countries as we now know them. Land belonged not to nations or
    people but to rulers. Territories were bought and sold and could even
    be given as a gift. Principalities merged as a result of matrimonial
    alliances. The states of Monaco, San Marino and Leichtenstein in
    Europe survive from that era.

    Russia sold Alaska to the United States in 1867 for $7 million. The
    purchase was approved by the US Senate by just one vote because, at
    the time, many Americans regarded it as a bad deal. Few Pakistanis
    know that Gwadar, the country's up-coming second port, which is
    regarded as a strategic and economic asset by the government,
    belonged to the Sultan of Oman until 1958. It was purchased by the
    Pakistani government for Rs 90 million.

    Colonisation by European countries created empires where kings,
    rulers, princes, potentates and chiefs once held sway over pre-modern
    societies. Countries and nations as we now know them emerged as a
    result of decolonisation. It is worth pointing out that the United
    Nations, which now has 191 member-states, had just 51 at the time of
    its founding in 1945.

    Is it possible in the current era of nationalism - with its dogma of
    `every inch of the motherland is sacred' - even to imagine such deals
    as Gwadar or Alaska? Leave alone selling land for money, even the
    hint of ceding land for peace, friendship and security has the
    potential for toppling governments.

    Jewish extremists in Israel are violently opposed to the full return
    of Gaza to the Palestinians even by a government that has served
    their interests very well. Any mutually-acceptable, realistic deal on
    Kashmir by India and Pakistan is sure to be denounced as a sell-out
    by virtually all opposition parties in both countries. Such is the
    nature of populist politics that this will happen regardless of which
    parties are in power and which in opposition.

    But, then, successive governments in the two countries have only
    themselves to blame for raising national expectations to levels that
    now prevent them from achieving a realistic solution to a territorial
    dispute.
Working...
X