|
Ladonia, Wazooland, Nobinobi, Riesenguthland-Ellermark, Rübezahlia, Kugel-Mugel, Misurate, Isonomia, Wogastisburg-Schlämpenbüttel, Kingdom of Talossa... are these the fairylands of childhood memory? Kingdoms of despotic power, where only fantasy limits your actions? These names are just a selection of a vast number of small nations and model states which have appeared over the last 30 years.
The emergence of such states has increased apace with the advent of the World Wide Web. The Internet is also the main source of information about them. Reading the history of these miniature states, kingdoms and micronations, you are usually reminded of a fairytale world. In fact, many of these projects are variations of fantasy role-playing games which take place in invented kingdoms or cybertopias. An example is the Society for Creative Anachronism: it is dedicated to life set in the Middle Ages in a vast imaginary empire. But if you leave the world of role-playing games behind and enter the big boys’ playground, you will find a number of rather amazing and very divergent versions of the theme of »how to build your own state«. This is evidently uncertain terrain. If you delve further, you will not only encounter utopian thinkers, creative legislators and dreamers, but also a bunch of neo-nazis, racists, shady businessmen, weapon freaks and tax evaders.
Some of the projects clearly play with the provocative aspects of subverting the existing state order. I myself was shocked when I learned, for example, about the plans of the World Power Organisation: it seeks to co-ordinate military, economical and political operations to disrupt and destroy as much of the existing state system as possible in order to built a new sovereign state in Latin America with neo-nazi ideology. Erwin S. Strauss, the notorious promoter of New Country projects (as he calls them) is the author of How to Start Your Own Country. Completely serious, he suggests that anyone interested in creating a sovereign state can only achieve their goal by acquiring weapons of mass destruction and by having the will to use them. He further proposes to install them in major US cities, to be able to play the military muscle in case it is needed.
In his book, Strauss provides an ample list of New Country projects of the 60s and 70s. In his view, the basic inspiration for these projects derives from the writings of Ayn Rand, especially from her novel Atlas Shrugged, in which a group of key people retreat from the world to a secret enclave, wait for the collapse of society and then return to rebuild on the ruins. The underlying ideology of most of these New Country projects is based on libertarian ideas mingled with the biologically deterministic assumptions widespread in the 60s and 70s. These notions upheld territorial behaviour, private property, aggression and selfishness as perpetrated by humans and they promulgated a Darwinistic approach to society. (Strauss draws on this ideology in the introduction to his book. He argues that a community of apes will split up if it becomes too large, but humans have forgot to obey the same biological law. The wish to secede is seen as natural.)
So anyone who wishes to get involved in any form of state-building has to be aware of such unpleasant company. But should this be reason enough to discredit the idea of micronational projects altogether? I (still) have a rather optimistic view of activities which aim to achieve more than fulfil the selfish interests of an individual or a minor group. I am interested in projects which are reminders that nationality and state are rather mental and social-historical constructs, which should be in constant flux and which can be created and re-created. I want to support attempts to build model states which incorporate visionary ambitions for how a state could look several decades from now. It is clearly the interplay of everyday politics with an utopian vision – the former failing so often to inspire the latter in us – which fascinates me most about such model states.
Inevitably, the question of where these states are located arises. What territory do they claim control of? A look in a school atlas will bring no further answers. These states are not marked on any map of the world. Most of them exist in the realm of the Internet and are organised by means of electronic communication. Though some of them do possess territory (albeit very little) or lay claim to an area of land, none of these states are recognized by the United Nations or any other comparable body. But what makes them interesting is the very fact that they claim independence and the right to international recognition despite the obvious refusal to give it to them. They are constructions which straddle the divide between a state which really exists and a pure fantasy, a utopia. The phenomenon of micronations and model states can be viewed as something between being a joke and a serious vision of the future. »To become a citizen of a state which does not have a territory – this would make it possible to develop allegiances which would transcend borders and linguistic barriers. It would be rather original, carrying hope for humanity« writes Frédéric Lasserre, a researcher associated with the faculty of strategic and diplomatic studies at the University of Quebec and Montreal.
If the first wave of micronational projects in the 60s and 70s was based on a highly developed libertarian ideology blended with notions derived from biological determinism, the recent proliferation of such undertakings might have two major causes, both closely linked to each other. The first can be traced to the effects of globalisation. By this, I mean the increasing distance between policy making and the local communities affected by these policies. Decisions which affect the life of people in a particular district are made by people who have no idea what life is like there. (A good example is the funny but significant way in which EU fire safety regulations currently pose a significant threat to the traditional Finnish smoke sauna, beloved by many Finns. By its very nature, this type of sauna cannot comply with EU standards. The Finnish Sauna Association took action and managed to get some of its members elected to the EU parliament. I have not heard about the latest developments in this story, but I fear that the smoke sauna will survive only in open air museums.) Another effect of globalisation might be described as the way in which corporate capitalism has permeated all layers of life in almost every part of the world. This view styles global corporations as bodies which behave like trans-national superpowers that hinder the influence of the traditional nation states.
Looking at the motivation of all the evolving micronations and model states, we can establish a linear order; the extremes at either end are trying to resist one of the aforementioned effects of globalisation. At one end of the spectrum are a number of projects characterised by a small community seeking solutions to problems within its own locality. Here, establishing borders and boundaries is employed as a means to resist power (the small Gallic village of Asterix and Obelix is a good fictional representation of this type of micronations). These undertakings can be seen as a continuation of the New Country projects of the 60s and 70s, but with a shift in their ideological approach. At the other end of the imagined spectrum we will find attempts at creating states operating on transnational levels comparable to global companies – that is, to assert power on the same scale as these companies. Their struggle is to define global civil rights and try to defend them. The transnational state is not based on territorial claims but is rather bound to an electronic infrastructure. It expresses the desire for a new kind of political community detached from territory. Both camps share the belief that the »real existing« nation state has a problem both with dealing with its individual citizens and with transnational corporations.
The second major reason for the latest almost excessive increase in the number of micronational projects can be traced to a rather technological development, i.e. the rapid spread of electronic communication, epitomised by the Internet. The World Wide Web seems to be the perfect medium to build and run a state which is not bound to a geographical location and which can act on a transnational scale. It allows smooth communication between the organisational bodies of the state and between its citizens. It co-ordinates the legislative, judicial, administrative and executive tasks of the state. It is a parliament, an archive, a forum, a newspaper, a propaganda machine... And it is a perfect means of reaching like-minded people.
To avoid any misunderstandings, I would like to point out that I do not regard micronational projects as a threat to the nation state (with only few exceptions), but rather as a playful way to engage people in a political debate from which they might otherwise be excluded. These projects provide a good platform for discussion as they are located at the intersection of some of the more important questions posed by modern society: the future of the nation state, the effects of global corporate capitalism and how both topics are influenced by the spread of electronic telecommunications (and the access to it).
Furthermore, one can see micronations and model states as hybrids which combine literary utopias, utopian communities and a spirit of adventure. In doing so, they interweave many threads of references, derived from everything from Campanella’s »Sonnnenstaat« to notorious Cyrus Reed Teed’s »Hollow Earth« community, from the myth of Atlantis to self-declared emperors like William Lyon Mackenzie and all the Robin Hoods of the world. And this is surely a good source of inspiration for our imagination.
From 29th to 31st of August the first »Summit of Micronations« will take place in Helsinki. What can we expect from this event? All of the essays in this publication contain a good deal of speculation concerning the phenomenon of micronations. I hope that most of it has to be revised after the summit. Are micronations »experiments in international law, politics, diplomacy and governance« as we have claimed? What is the common ground of secessionisti new country projects and transnational model-states? Is the establishment of borders out of step with an era when we should be focussing on developing cultural diversity in a »border-crossing« society? Are micronations a way to boost participatory democracy?
It would be premature to agree on a fixed agenda for the summit at this stage. It is difficult to predict the dynamics of the interactions of the participating micronations. It is nevertheless one goal of the summit to draft a paper with a list of shared objectives of the amorph!03 participants, which could be a base for further collaboration. In the end of august we will see, how long or how short this list will be.
Oliver Kochta
Revised text from the »Journal for North-East Issues«, No.2 / 2003
REFERENCES
Frédéric Lasserre »Les hommes qui voulaient être rois - Principautés et nations sur internet«, Analyses et perspectives, Groupe de recherche en économie et sécurité, No 1, 2000
Erwin S. Strauss »How to start your own country: how you can profit from the coming decline of the nation state«, 2nd edition, Loompanics Unlimited, Port Townsend, 1984
|
