Throughout the world there are many countries fully sovereign and
in charge of their own fates,
with its people representing a single ethnic group and voting
on their future as they see fit.
However, not every country in the world corresponds to a
single nationality.
Many countries include within their borders 2 or even more
ethnic groups.
Sometimes, I argue, most times that's fine.
They all get along and exist side by side united
as a multi ethnic nation,
if that's even a real term that we can use.
But I think so. But in some cases that doesn't
happen and a nation exists,
is essentially controlled by one group and the other or
others that exist within it,
or either repressed or at least stopped from achieving their
own sovereignty and establishing their own desired country.
That's what this video is about,
Countries that maybe should exist but don't,
starting with the two on the thumbnail of first Balochistan.
The region of Balochistan is split between three countries,
Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, although most of it is within
southern Pakistan as we can see in the pink area
on this map,
and it includes the areas inhabited by the ethnic Baloch
people,
ethnically distinct from their neighbours and having their own language,
Balochi. The region has historically been characterized by a nomadic
lifestyle,
tribal societies, and geopolitical significance due to its strategic location.
During the colonial era, parts of Balochistan fell under British
and Persian control.
At the time of the partition of British India in
1947, the issue of Balochistan status first arose.
They were given the option to join Pakistan or India
or to remain independent.
The Khan of Kalat, the then ruler of Balochistan,
opted for independence. However, they were still forcibly integrated into
Pakistan in
1948 and this led to resentment among some Baloch leaders
and people and ignited a series of conflicts and insurgencies
over the next decades with people demanding independence OR at
least increased autonomy. Pakistan has so far been able to
stop these movements,
but it's uncertain if the Baloch people will remain without
independence for much longer.
One could also make the argument that should Balochistan achieve
independence,
so should the four other ethnic groups shown on this
map,
the Pushtun, the Punjab and the Sindh.
A little to the east,
we have another example. Uyghuristan,
the region commonly referred to as E Turkestan,
also known as Uyguristan, is an area in Central Asia
that is home to the Uyghuru ethnic group and various
other Turkish Muslim minorities.
The Uyghurs, who have their own distinct language and culture,
reside in what is now the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region
of China and have faced terrible persecution and forced assimilation
by the Chinese government.
Historically, the aerials part of various Central Asian empires,
including the Mongol and Turkish cognates,
which did have independence, but in the 18th century,
the Qing Dynasty of China formerly incorporated Xinjiang into its
empire,
and it has remained Chinese ever since.
In the 1930s and 19,
there were brief periods of de facto independence for East
Turkestan,
but these were short lived.
In 1949, the People's Republic of China was established and
Xinjiang became an autonomous region within the Chinese state,
although its autonomy is mostly in name only.
They are closer in ethnicity and culture slash identity to
their western neighbors,
the Central Asia Istans. In fact,
Turkestan itself exists on their border,
from which the potential country name of East Turkestan comes
from.
More and more independence movement have been created aiming for
independence from China,
but none have been successful.
The historical independence of this region,
the cultural and ethnic difference of their people and the
wish of self determination I think are enough reasons for
a new country to be created.
But this isn't just an Asia problem all the way
in North America.
We have for instance, Quebec.
Now recent polling data shows that
32% of Quebecers believe that Quebec has enough sovereignty and
should remain a part of Canada,
but 28% thought that they should separate and 30%
say they believe that Quebec does need greater sovereignty or
autonomy but should remain a part of Canada.
Essentially, the region is fairly divided between those that want
independence,
unionists, and those in the middle that want a little
of both.
However, I believe there's a real case to be made
for the independence of Quebec.
After all, their culture is tremendously unique and different from
that of Canada.
Quebec was colonized by the French in the 16th century.
Even today, French is the main language of the region,
causing Canada to be a dual language country and their
flag flies the French Fleur de lis symbols as well
as the French colours.
The British defeated the French in the Seven Years War
and this led to the annexation of Quebec by the
British and the Quebec Act of
1774, which allowed the French speaking population to retain their
language,
legal system and religious practices despite becoming a part of
the Canada Colony.
So their differences were established very early on.
Quebec held two referendums on sovereignty.
The 1st in 1980 saw the majority vote against it
with
60% choosing to remain a part of Canada.
The 2nd referendum in 1995 was much closer with
50.6 voting to stay in Canada and
49.4 supporting independence. The narrow margin highlighted the deep divisions
within the province.
If held again today, it's not impossible that independence would
win.
In considering their differences, I would argue it would make
sense for them to be their own country.
Moving to Africa, we have 3 great examples,
most of which are consequences of poor territorial reorganization after
the end of European colonies.
First, Ogoni land. The Ogonis are a people in what
is today's southern Nigeria,
the number in the 2 million,
and live in 1000 square kilometer region which they call
Ogoni land.
Despite being a part of Nigeria today,
they're only so due to British colonialism and their history
and identity is quite different.
They survived the period of the slave trade in relative
isolation.
While most of Nigeria was colonized by the British in
1885, British soldiers only arrived in Ogoni by 1901 and
found major resistance to their presence until 1914.
Their integration into the surrounding regions was arguably rushed and
their resources began being exploited.
Due to this, movements have been created demanding their sovereignty.
Flying this flag, a vertical tricolor of blue,
yellow and green with six stars on it,
a flag mainly used by the Mozop,
the movement for the survival of the Ogoni people,
created a fight to the irresponsible exploit
of oil by foreign companies.
Independence for the organis is unlikely,
but I believe arguably justified.
Another example that I even dedicated a full video to
is Amazonia using this really beautiful flag.
Amazonia is the name chosen by those who defend independence
for the province of Southern Cameroon,
which is odd because Southern Cameroon is actually located in
the northwest region of the country.
But anyway, Amazonia's roots are in the historical context of
the Anglophone Francophone divide in Cameroon.
Until 1961, they were British Cameroon,
while the rest of Cameroon existed as French Cameroon.
2 separate colonies. Upon gaining independence,
a referendum was held and the residence of Amazonia did
choose to become a part of Cameroon within a Federal
Republic.
However, over time, the central government,
predominantly influenced by Francophones, gradually expanded its central authority,
diminishing the region's autonomy. A significant portion of the population
who identify as Anglophones harbour resentment towards discrimination and the
Cameroonian government's attempts to remove Anglophone legal,
administrative, educational and cultural institutions.
Between 2016 and 2017, an extensive protest movement was met
by forceful government suppression,
resulting in riots. In 2017,
Amazonian leaders unilaterally declared independence.
This unrest evolved into a guerrilla war and as of
2023, conflicts persist. But it doesn't look good for Amazonia
and in very similar fashion,
Biafra, which I also did a whole video on.
I'll post the links for these in the description if
you're interested.
Biafra is similarly to the Okoni,
A breakaway region of Nigeria,
but this time led by another ethnic group,
the equal. It becomes increasingly clear how many African and
Asian nations hold within them.
Conflicting ethnic groups grouped together in European drawn colonial borders
that then transferred on to independent states.
In Nigeria's case, the northern region of the country has
a Muslim majority,
being primarily made-up of the territory of the indigenous Sokoto
Caliphate.
The southern population is predominantly Christian,
primarily made-up of territory of the indigenous Yoruba and equal
states.
The South is also richer than the north in resources.
The roots of the Biafran movement can be traced to
these differences which led to ethnic,
political and economic tensions felt by the equal people.
Feeling marginalized and exploited, they declared independence in
1967. The Nigerian military fought back,
invaded the region and this led to a three-year long
internal conflict that was devastating and tragic for millions of
civilians.
The civilian suffering eventually led the Biafrans to surrender and
to be once again annexed by Nigeria.
Some desires for independence remain today,
but after the former, a tragic attempt,
it's unlikely they will try again.
And finally, back to Asia,
we have Kurdistan. Kurdistan refers to a region inhabited primarily
by the Kurdish ethnic group,
spanning parts of Turkey, Iran,
Iraq and Syria. The Kurds have a distinct language and
culture.
Most are Sunni Muslim, but some are Shia.
Some are Christian or even Jewish.
And together they have sought autonomy or independence for many
years but have so far failed.
The closest they ever got,
arguably, was in the aftermath of World War One and
the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
With the Treaty of Sevre in 1920,
there were provisions for the establishment of an independent Kurdish
state,
but this was never implemented due to various geopolitical developments,
including the Turkish War of Independence.
Throughout the 20th century, the Kurdish people faced persecution and
challenges in the countries where they resided,
especially in Turkey where the relationship with the Turks is
fairly negative and constantly difficult.
On the other hand, the Kurds in Iraq have experienced
great autonomy with the establishment of the Kurdistan Regional Government,
which is in fact a rare example of governmental stability
within Iraq.
In Syria, their forces organized to fight in the countries
internal conflict and where seemingly one of the most moderate
sides gathering the support of many Western nations.
In Iran there is a Kurdistan province,
but it has no special autonomy as the Iraqi one
does.
Regardless of more or less friendliness and autonomy,
Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria have all historical resisted the
idea of an independent Kurdistan within their borders.
After all, which country would like to lose territory with
the instability of the region altogether?
It's fairly likely they will eventually become the sovereign country
they want to be flying this really cool horizontal tricolor
of red,
white and green with a golden sun in the middle.
So those are some of the countries that in my
view and following this criteria of representing a specific nationality
or ethnic group should exist.
Some have a real possibility at existing,
I would argue Balochistan most of all.
Others have tried to achieve their independence and dramatically failed,
such as Biafra or Amazonia.
But what do you think?
Do you agree these countries should exist on their own
and have sovereignty?
Do you think any of them will actually be able
to?
And which other countries would you add to this list?
Let me know in the comments.
Thanks so much for watching.
Remember to subscribe if you want and I will see
you next time for more general knowledge.