« Department of provisional Bayesian update | Main | Comparing Recessions »
When have countries refused to take back land?
Matt Yglesias writes that the Jordanians don't want the West Bank back, at least not in anything resembling its current state. The Palestinians would be regarded as destabilizing by the Jordanian government. How many historical examples can you find of countries refusing to take back territory that was once, in some form or another, theirs? Spain probably wouldn't take back Ecuador but the offer will not come because the Ecuadorean government values the land. So when is the political shadow value of land negative for both governments? (Of course it's not negative for the Palestinians.) The West Bank aside, I can't think of examples where there is both a possible offer and a refusal to take the land back.
Could Puerto Rico be an example? Maybe the U.S. would gladly "give it back" (that is debatable, however) but it seems that Puerto Rican voters don't want full, unencumbered title.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 11, 2009 at 07:51 PM in History | Permalink
Comments
Julian Simon would have said that the value of land is probably lower today, relative to the value of human and physical capital, than it has been in all of history. Even moderately productive countries are better off refusing an offer to govern over new land, choosing instead to trade for the products of that land.
Posted by: Ian at Jan 11, 2009 8:21:43 PM
Every now and again, a proposal for Canada to annex the Turks and Caicos Islands gets floated. I'm given to understand that the people of the Turks and Caicos are generally favourable to the idea, but Canadians only seem interested during the months of January and February.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon at Jan 11, 2009 8:22:58 PM
It probably happens more than you think if you stretch it a bit and include wartime negotiations where one party does not take as much as it could. After the Soviet-Polish war in 1921, the nationalistic right wing in Poland forced the government to accept less land from the Soviets than was offered in the original treaty (in particular they insisted that Soviets keep Minsk). They didn't want more Ukrainians and Belarussians in their vision of 'Poland for Poles'.
Posted by: notsneaky at Jan 11, 2009 8:30:12 PM
Jordan was given to the Hashemites, a clan originating from the arabian peninsula, yet its subjects are mostly Bedouins and arabs of palestinian origin.
With that, Jordan has had its own experiences with terrorism (i.e. black september) and the seventies were a period of internal bloodshed and upheaval within the kingdom. Jordan is allready a poor country with few natural resources. If they picked up the west bank, maybe they might have a bit more arable land, but what also comes with that is scores of poor people who would rather call themselves Palestinians than Jordanians. It is a situation that the jordanians would rather not deal with.
Plus, if the Jordanians took control of the west bank and egypt control of Gaza, which was the situaiton prior to 1967, it would void the entire concept of Palestinian nationalism.
Who knows what the final outcome will be if there is ever a peaceful one, but I do believe that it will require Egypt and Jordan to be equal parties at the negotiating table.
Posted by: Mark at Jan 11, 2009 8:33:56 PM
Two of the islands of the Comoros (Anjouan and Moheli) tried to secede from that country and rejoin France in 1997, but got turned down...
Posted by: alex at Jan 11, 2009 8:37:58 PM
This is a bizarre way to frame the question. The West Bank is not a land without a people.
There are millions of humans in the West Bank and they can't be "owned" by humans in another country, at least not morally or legally, nor can the people simply be expelled or killed. If you agree to take the land, then you also accept the people, and presumably you would be obligated to make them equal citizens with political power. Thus, I suspect that many countries would oppose merging with a group of people who have a different sense of nationality. Would U.S. citizens vote "yes" on merging with Mexico, or Brazil? Does the E.U. accept all applicants? Some groups even spin-off, with their land, after they've been together for years. Ask the Czechs and Slovaks, or many other independence movements among peoples with varying tribal allegiances.
Viewed from a cold economic perspective, the implications of the human capital and associated human claims on resources dwarf the economic benefits and costs of land (especially desert land with minimal mineral wealth). Perhaps thinking in terms of "land" made economic (if not moral) sense a century or millenium ago. But in the 21st century it's painfully misguided.
Posted by: a student of economics at Jan 11, 2009 8:48:31 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moosylvania
Moosylvania is a fictional island between the U.S. and Canada. It lies in the middle of Veronica Lake, that appeared in the television series collectively referred to as Rocky and Bullwinkle. Its governor is Bullwinkle J. Moose. The U.S. claims that it is a Canadian province, and Canada claims it is a U.S. state.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Jan 11, 2009 9:12:06 PM
I believe Kowloon Walled City might qualify. It was originally a Chinese enclave within Hong Kong that was abandoned by China after World War II and turned into a lawless slum. The UK claimed it was China's responsibility while China didn't want anything to do with it and tried to get the Hong Kong government to take responsibility. I believe HK ultimately did take some responsibility by enforcing murder and rape laws and the like but never considered it part of its legal territory.
Posted by: Ricardo at Jan 11, 2009 9:36:13 PM
There is/was a joke that West Germans wanted to have "their" wall back (and even build it a bit higher than before). This, of course, never was official policy, but every joke comes from a true place ...
Posted by: student at Jan 11, 2009 9:44:07 PM
I think that for the United States the best example would be that of Washington, D.C. Every couple of years someone in Congress proposes that Washington be given back to Maryland. So far, Maryland hasn't shown any interest in taking it. It would cost Maryland far more to govern it than they'd get back in tax revenue so it would be a net loss for the state.
Posted by: Matt at Jan 11, 2009 10:00:16 PM
Tyler, altho' King Abdullah I - the friend of T.E. Lawrence - at one time proclaimed that all Palestinians were welcome in Transjordan/Jordan and should come settle there, the fact that he was assassinated by a Palestinian in 1951 has caused his descendants to adopt a certain mixed attitude towards them.
Posted by: StreetWalker at Jan 11, 2009 10:01:47 PM
The land has positive value, the Palestinians large and
negative value - observe the devastating trouble they
caused in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt - all of
which had major troubles with Palestinians, even though
they were willing to massacre Palestinians in huge
numbers to put an end to the troubles.
Why is it so? Well, shaking people down with threats of
terrorism is an ancient and extremely lucrative Arab
tradition dating back to the days of the prophet.
Q: Who is financing terrorism?
A: For the most part, white male taxpayers in Europe
and the US. The Palestinians receive curiously large
amounts of aid, amounts so large as to suggest the
donors are hoping the Palestinians will attack someone
else.
And when they attacked Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon,
and Israel, they were attacking someone else.
Posted by: James A. Donald at Jan 11, 2009 10:21:41 PM
The Netherlands have made it abundantly clear to the Flemings (Dutch-speaking Belgians) that they have no intention of taking them back should they secede, as expected, from federal Belgium its French and German-speaking provinces (the Catholic Belgians had seceded in 1830 from the Calvinist Dutch due to religious persecution from the latter). France hasn't taken an official position, but is not encouraging either.
"Debates" between supporters of Israel and Palestine are usually sterile, so I won't go there. It is interesting to note, however, that Hashim, the Arab patriarch who is the ancestor of the Hashemite dynasty in power in Jordan (and the great-grandfather of the prophet Muhammad for that matter), is buried in Gaza.
Posted by: Fazal Majid at Jan 11, 2009 11:07:44 PM
Fazal's Dutch-Flemish example is by far the most clear-cut factual parallel, but the reasons are very differnt from the Jordanian-Palestinian case. The reasons are not really ethnic because Jordan, like most middle-eastern countries, does not correspond to an ethnic group. It's really an example of a nation defined by loyalty to a monarchy; to find such an example in Europe you have to go back to Austria-Hungary.
Posted by: David Wright at Jan 11, 2009 11:52:01 PM
In the 2004 presidential election in the Philippines, a candidate named Elly Pamatong got a lot of headlines with a proposal to have the U.S. take back the Philippines and make it the 51st state. She ended up getting disqualified, dismaying some Filipinos who thought it was about time the idea was taken seriously, given the endemic corruption in their nation and its failure to achieve the economic success of many of its neighbors.
But would the U.S. have wanted the Philippines as a state? Doubtful. Doubtful. Giving the thousands of Islamic terrorists and bin Laden sympathizers in the southern islands the free run of the U.S. would have freaked out the Pentagon.
Posted by: Chris at Jan 11, 2009 11:55:47 PM
Quebec regularly has refereda in which they decide not to succeed from Canada. My canadian friends assure me that were the referenda held in the rest of the country, the result would be a resounding YES!
Posted by: doctorpat at Jan 12, 2009 12:39:37 AM
I recall Lee Kwan Yew (former PM of Singapore) talking about how worried he was that Singapore got kicked out of the Malayan Federation (more or less current day Malaysia) back in the 60s/70s. Singapore's doing just fine.
Posted by: TTL at Jan 12, 2009 12:44:37 AM
There are a few British colonies around with populations in the several thousand category that the UK Govt would be quite keen to get rid of but where the locals consistently reject the idea although I'm not sure this qualifies. I have heard although have never seen it confirmed that in the early 1970s when the Irish Government was not doing enough to keep the IRA under control, one of the threats successfully used by the British Government to get them back in line was to hand Ulster over to the Irish. No Irish Government could reject such an offer obviously but they were pretty alert to the problems a million angry protestants could cause them let alone the cost of the Ulster social security system. It is a matter of record that Irish Government support for the IRA peaked at about that period and Ango-Irish cooperation improved markedly.
Posted by: iolanthe at Jan 12, 2009 1:03:43 AM
Re doctorpat's point: Then the rest of Canada should secede. The only thing they wouldn't get to do is call it Canada. But they could call it Canada 2.0. They could even have a bit of ironical fun and call it la deuxieme republique (or monarchie, depending on the amount of accuracy, layers of irony, and democracy they want to go for).
Posted by: jb at Jan 12, 2009 1:43:43 AM
France didn't want New France back at the conclusion of the French-Indian War/Seven Years' War, opting to take a small Caribbean island over the Europe-sized colony of ~70,000.
From my observations, I'd also agree with Doctorpat's post. Opinion polls on the matter are also occasionally released that support these views, and the French are constantly surprised to find that the majority of ROC wouldn't mind seeing them go, the exception being Atlantic Canadians and Anglo-Montrealers, for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Shaun at Jan 12, 2009 1:52:32 AM
Re Canada and Quebec, I have heard similar sentiments to the effect that the only reason Scotland is still part of the UK is that the English don't get to vote on the subject.
Posted by: iolanthe at Jan 12, 2009 2:33:34 AM
The Finnish government probably would not want reclaim the lost half of the Carelia region from Russia. The Soviet Union impoverished the area during the 60 years that followed WWII, and thus getting it back would bring Finns more harm than good. In fact, Boris Yeltsin's goverment actually tried to sell the area to Finland in 1991, but Finns said no.
Posted by: Pauli Alin at Jan 12, 2009 4:54:41 AM
After the coup to which felled Salazar in Portugal in 1974 the new leftist administration in Lisbon were keen to dispose of overseas possessions and thus offered Macau back to the Chinese. The offer however was refused by the Chinese who were dealing the death throes of the Cultural Revolution and the rise of the Gang of Four. It was thought that the return of Macau could introduce more instability and would act (at least in the short term) as a bad influence on the 'purity' of the rest of China. Macau was finally returned in 1999 on the basis of 'one country, two systems' that had lead to Hong Kong's return in 1997.
Thus, China's pronoucements at the time of ending 150 years of colonial domination rang somewhat hollow, as they had been offered one of the concessions back earlier and refused it.
Posted by: Lafcadio Hearn at Jan 12, 2009 6:40:19 AM
My understanding is that many people in Moldova were interested in joining Romania after the end of the Soviet Union (it shows how bad off you are when joining Romania is seen as a big step up!) but that Romania put a stop to the movement by saying it had no interest in the idea. (The fact that Russia has long been promoting a separatist movement in Moldova might be part of the problem, though.)
Posted by: Matt at Jan 12, 2009 7:30:52 AM
I wonder if at some level S Korea feels about N Korea this way...
Posted by: Affe at Jan 12, 2009 7:52:44 AM
