have you have ever thought about the definition of country?
I picked it up this argument several times during my life and I never came up with an unique conclusion.
But let us proceed in a systematic way.
Therefore let us define the main characteristics of being a country (but they do not need to be satisfied all at the same time).
A geographical area is a country if :
- It has well defined borders
- It is officially recognized
- It has a parliament legislating on it
- It has its own constitution
- It has its own police, army, educational system etc.
- It has its embassies all over the world
- It has its official language (or more official languages)
- It has its own shared history
- It has its own traditions (religious, food, etc.)
On the other hand, we know several other places which, although they respect these definitions, they are not yet officially recognized with this political status.
Let us take some examples: Palestine, Kurdistan, Taiwan, and Chiapas.
All of the them respect condition 1, 3, 4 and 5, which are in my opinion the most characterizing and most complicate to be fulfilled, but...
All of them do no respect condition number 2, which is in the current world the most needed. In fact, this condition basically states that "you legally exist only and only if the others (the powerful nations) allow you to legally exist".
This principle is against any morality!
Let us make a comparison: we take a no official country as Kurdistan and an official country as San Marino. Which of them does better fulfil the country definition?
San Marino occupies a small territory in the north of Italy. The territory is so minuscule, that if you do not know exactly where it is, you can pass through without knowing that you just crossed the borders of one of the richest country in the world.
On the other hand, Kurdistan is approximately as big as 5000 times San Marino, but it seems that it does not deserve the same status.
You can observe that the size is not important to identify a nation. I accept this observation.
But what about the fact that San Marino mainly exists because some rich people needs it in order to carry out their money laundry and Kurdistan must not exist, because it is divided among three countries, which wants to exploit its natural resources as oil and copper?
Before I conclude I would like to remark that there is a huge number of geographical areas like ones mentioned above, which do not have a recognized international status just because some powerful nation needs them in order to exploit their natural resources, while on the other hand very small islands, outlying place in some ocean, officially exist just because of the need of money laundry. Money earned, either in a illegal or illegal way, by the wealthy nations.
Moreover, the population of these areas are usually treated by the media of the nations which are exploiting them or using them as terrorists, bandits and in general criminals.
And seldom, very seldom, they are referred to with their real name: Victims!!!
Please comment it, and please justify your opinion.
All the best!