What Is a Nation: the Micronationalist Challenge to Traditional Concepts of the Nation-State
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
WHAT IS A NATION: THE MICRONATIONALIST CHALLENGE TO TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF THE NATION-STATE A Thesis by Bennie Lee Ferguson Master of Arts, Wichita State University, 2009 Submitted to the Department of History and the faculty of the Graduate School of Wichita State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts May 2009 © Copyright 2009 by Bennie Lee Ferguson All Rights Reserved WHAT IS A NATION: THE MICRONATIONALIST CHALLENGE TO TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF THE NATION-STATE The following faculty members have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content, and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts with a major in History. _____________________________________ George Dehner, Committee Chair _____________________________________ Jay Price, Committee Member _____________________________________ Deborah Gordon, Committee Member iii DEDICATION To my son, David Lee Ferguson, my father, Basil Lee Ferguson, my mother, Alberta Zongker, my good friend Michael Cummans, and His Excellency President Kevin Baugh of the Republic of Molossia iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my gratitude to several members of the faculty of Wichita State University, including Dr. John Dreifort, Dr. Anthony Gythiel, and Dr. Craig Miner. I would also like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Jay Price, Dr. Deborah Gordon, and especially my thesis chair, Dr. George Dehner, for their guidance and counsel, not only in regard to this project, but throughout my academic career at this university. Additionally, I would like to express my appreciation to His Excellency President Kevin Baugh of the Republic of Molossia, President Eli Avivi of the State of Akhzivland, Jean-Philippe Arnotte of the Principality of Seborga, Bo Register, Marquess of Mobile of the Dominion of British West Florida, and Administrator Jason Alexander of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom for their invaluable assistance in regard to providing access to primary sources in connection with this my micropatrological research. My thanks, as well, to fellow student Mary Macklin for her technical assistance in completing this thesis. v ABSTRACT While primarily concerned with questions of legitimacy, particularly in regard to issues such as sovereignty, recognition, and autonomy as they relate to diminutive nationalistic entities (otherwise known as “micronations”), this work also seeks to resolve definitional concerns associated with the concept of “nationalism”in general. In an attempt to simultaneously realize these objectives, the “micronationalist”phenomenon has been examined in light of academic and legal research, particularly in connection with traditional international law. Research for this project entailed consultation of a variety of secondary scholarly sources, including books, journals, and “online”material. Primary sources included direct personal communication with the heads of state of various “micronationalist”entities. The governments of these states also provided material concerning political, cultural, sociological, military, and economic developments associated with their nations. Where “micronations”specifically are concerned, the motivations of those who establish them are found to be divergent in the extreme. Also, even though “micronationalism”is often associated with the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, such states have existed since antiquity. Their relationships with larger, more powerful, traditional nations have typically been characterized by disputes over the aforementioned issues of sovereignty, recognition, and autonomy. It was concluded that “nationalism”itself (or, more specifically, “nationhood”)is at best an ambiguous and nebulous term. There is an absence of consensus within both the legal and academic communities regarding this issue, as well as among the governments of traditional nations, leading to the current proliferation of “micronationalist”states. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. MICRONATIONALISM AND CONCEPTS OF NATIONALITY WITHIN THE ACADEMICCOMMUNITY .............. ............................... 1 II. MICRONATIONALISM AND CONCEPTS OF NATIONALITY WITHIN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY . ............................................ 29 III. NORTH AMERICAN MICRONATIONS FROM THE NINETEENTH THROUGH THE TWENTY-FIRSTCENTURIES....................................... 49 IV. SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICAN MICRONATIONS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY............................................................72 V. NINETEENTH AND PRE-NINETEENTH CENTURY ASIAN AND EUROPEAN MICRONATIONS.....................................................105 VI. MICRONATIONS OF THE TWENTIETH AND TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES AND THE FUTURE OF THE MOVEMENT . .... ............138 VII. REFERENCES . ....................................................176 vii CHAPTER ONE MICRONATIONALISM AND CONCEPTS OF NATIONALITY WITHIN THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY What is a nation? Is it a geographic region? Is it the people who inhabit that region? Is a nation a legitimate entity only if it is formally recognized by other nations? The sixth edition of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “nation”as, “.. a community of people composed of one or more nationalities with its own territory and government.”1 The micronationalist phenomenon challenges traditional notions of nationality and statehood. This phenomenon is associated with certain facets of nation-state theories formulated in the nineteenth century, during which some of the first micronations were founded. These include the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia (1860-1862),2 the Indian Stream Republic (1828-1835),3 the Republic of Madawaska (1842),4 and New Australia (1893).5 What, then, is a micronation? The term was first used in the closing decades of the twentieth century in reference to the proliferative state-like entities which were being founded during that era, most of which were unrecognized by traditional nations. It is now also used to refer to earlier small nation-states such as those mentioned above. Some of these micronations claim sovereignty over actual geographic territory. Others, however, are mere Internet or paper creations and some are simply concepts. 1 Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 6th ed., Springfield Massachusetts: Merriam Webster, (2004), s.v. “nation.” 2 François LePot, El Rey de Araucaniá y Patagonia (Buenos Aires: Corregidor, 1995), 38-41. 3Daniel Doan, Indian Stream Republic: Settling a New England Frontier, 1785-1842 (London: University Press of New England, 1997), 120. 4 Thomas Le Duc, “The Maine Frontier and The Northeastern Boundary Controversy American Historical Review Vol. 53, No. 1 (October 1947): 31. 5Harold Livermore, “New Australia”Hispanic American Historical Review Vol. 30, No. 3 (August 1950): 290. 1 Those modern micronations which are actually located in a specific geographic region and claim citizenry usually share three common characteristics: 1. They often aspire to recognition by larger traditional nations, a goal which is seldom achieved. Notable exceptions include the Principality of Seborga in northern Italy, which enjoys full recognition from San Marino and limited recognition from the Italian government,6 and the Principality of Sealand off the east coast of England, which was tacitly recognized in the 1970s by the West German government when it was compelled to negotiate the release of one of its citizens through diplomatic channels.7 2. The territory over which they claim sovereignty is usually very small. The Kingdom of Talossa, for instance, began in the bedroom of its monarch in 1979.8 The Hutt River Province Principality, on the other hand, ranks as one of the world’slargest micronations with approximately 75 square kilometers of land and over 20,000 citizens worldwide.9 3. Many issue their own currency, passports, postage stamps, and other government instruments. Other trappings of nationhood, such as flags and nationals anthems, are also common. Modern micronationalists commonly appeal to certain tenets of international law which seem to vindicate the declarative theory of statehood and the validity of a state’sexistence in the absence of recognition. As a practical matter, however, established international law is notoriously ambiguous concerning the definition of nationhood. 6 John Ryan, George Dunford, Simon Sellars, and Simon Hall, Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations (Hong Kong: Lonely Planet, 2006), 55. 7 Ibid., 11. 8 Stephen Mihm, “Utopian Rulers, and Spoofs, Stake Out Territory Online”New York Times 25 May 2000, sec. G: 7. 9 Ryan et al., Micronations, 22. 2 Indeed, international law itself is a somewhat nebulous concept. In his book, How to Start Your Own Country, micronationalist Erwin S. Strauss writes, “.. it is misleading to speak of ‘international law.’Might essentially makes whatever right there can be said to be in this arena . In practice, this means a new nation must be powerful enough to force another nation to recognize it . or . sufficiently subservient to such a nation to make it advantageous for that nation to recognize it . .”The recognition of the United States by Britain following the Revolutionary War is an example of the former. The relationship between the South African apartheid regime and the “nations”of Transkei, Venda, and Bophutswana is an example of the latter.10 As the nineteenth-century micronations mentioned earlier often serve as prototypes for modern micronations, it is instructive to examine their histories and development.