
The land that no country wants (2016) - kawera
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/03/welcome-to-the-land-that-no-country-wants-bir-tawil
======
bjourne
> On Egyptian maps, Bir Tawil is shown as belonging to Sudan. On Sudanese
> maps, it appears as part of Egypt. In practice, Bir Tawil is widely believed
> to have the legal status of terra nullius – “nobody’s land” – and there is
> nothing else quite like it on the planet.

This is wrong and the article later corrects itself:

> Their ties to the area may be based on traditional rather than written
> claims – but Bir Tawil is not any more a “no man’s land” than the territory
> once known as British East Africa, where terra nullius was repeatedly
> invoked in the early 20th century by both chartered companies and the
> British government that supported them to justify the appropriation of
> territory from indigenous people.

The fascinating thing is that the idea that Bir Tawil is, or ever was, terra
nullius comes from atriciously bad Wikipedia pages on the subject (in the past
even the West Bank was listed as terra nullius!). It likley was those that
lead Jeremiah Heaton to think he could claim it by planting a flag there.
Because you cannot find any scholarly sources claiming that Bir Tawil is terra
nullius. So what must have happened is that one or more Wikipedians, with no
legal training, must have found terra nullius described in some source and
then started to give terra nullius designations to pieces of land that they
thought fit.

Along comes a lot of clueless journalists and repeats Wikipedia's erroneous
claims. Wikipedians in turn find these articles and inserts them as references
into the articles and the circle is complete.

And fwiw, the literal translation of terra nullius isn't "nobody's land" it's
"empty land". Ownership of land is orthogonal to whether it is inhabited.
Examples of terra nullius would be Antarctica or tiny remote islands that
sometimes pops up in the Atlantic far from any country's coast. Bir Tawil
does't fit the bill because it is inhabited. Which state has sovereignty is
unclear but we do know it is either Egypt or Sudan. There is no room for a
third party to make any claims.

~~~
jmkni
I've often wondered if you could use the process described above to create an
historical event that never happened.

Create the Wikipedia page(s), some journalists write about it, then add those
articles as references. I wonder if people might even say they remember it
happening.

~~~
namdnay
If the model worked well, any source reputable enough to be cited enough in
Wikipedia would fact check it and drop it. But I'm not sure that would work
today, apart from the most reputable newspapers

------
thomasfl
A few years ago Norwegians officials tried to give Finland a mountain as a
gift to celebrate Finlands 100 years as a free nation. Norway’s constitution
states the kingdom of Norway is "indivisible and inalienable", so they had to
give it up.

[https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-
entertainment/films/news/...](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-
entertainment/films/news/norway-finland-mountain-gift-present-border-birthday-
anniversary-bj-rn-geirr-harsson-k-fjord-a7541941.html)

~~~
mongol
Too bad. Otherwise they could have traded some equal sized land back, like
Finland and Sweden did with Märket.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rket)

------
kebman
"Every reputable travel agent we approached turned us down point-blank, citing
the prevalence of bandit attacks in the desert. Thankfully, we were able to
locate a disreputable travel agent." For some reason this story reminds me of
Mos Eisley...

------
ggm
Belgium and it's northern neighbour swap land as the delta shifts. I believe
last time the Netherlands donated some land.

There is an island on the France Spain or Spain Portugal border which takes
turn about. Easier than fighting.

Enclaves are a thing. Maastricht and Liege have a couple nearby I believe. Too
hard to tidy up. Partially alienated land is in some jurisdictions forbidden
to be given up in law. The attempt to donate a mountain in skandi counties hit
a constitutional barrier because the leaders are pledged to indivisible
boundaries.

~~~
lb1lf
Norway trades a wee bit of land with Russia, too - a couple of banks in the
Pasvik and Grense Jakobselv rivers are traded back and forth as the currents
shift them from one side to the other of the centerline, the bilateral
agreement governing this calls for the border to be reviewed every 25 years.

One amusing tidbit I remember is that even as the border is to follow the
centerline of the rivers, no country is to gain or lose territory when the
border is reviewed - so there's still some room for arbitration; the net size
of both countries is to be unchanged.

One of the officials involved in the Norwegian delegation claimed that Norway
was the only country ever to have been ceded part of Russian territory in
modern times, though I expect this to be one for the newspapers - presumably
other states with a river border with Russia have similar agreements.

~~~
bushin
China got half of Bolshoy Ussuriysky island and Tarabarov island on Amur river
in 2004.

------
atlasunshrugged
I do think there's something to be said about trying new experiments for
nation states with different operating models. There's obviously been mixed
reactions and outcomes with places like Liberland and Seasteads (not to
mention the micronations) but I'm hopeful that a small country like
Estonia/Lithuania/Singapore/Rwanda that wants to be internationally
competitive will innovate heavily in governance, economic models, etc.

------
olodus
Haven't read the whole article yet, but if I can put one unnecessary and
unimportant opinion from the whole thing out there, I don't really like the
flag Jeremia Heaton chose for his new country. I mean, it isn't terrible. I
have seen worse but common man, you had the rare chance to create a new flag
and you went with something that kinda has a seal in the middle of it (fourth
principle of flag design). I mean it isn't the worst seal on a flag out there
but at the same time the crown will surely not be destinct from a couple of
hundred meters away even.

------
zainhoda
If the article is too long to read, watch this video instead:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5iJSXaVvao](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5iJSXaVvao)

~~~
omarhaneef
Still too long. Do you have a summary in a tweet somewhere?

~~~
signa11
Veni, vidi, verti, cessi :o)

------
orpheline
I blame Disney for an unrealistic princess fantasy.

------
29athrowaway
It's disputed territory, but one thing is clear: that guy does not belong
there and has no legitimate claim to that place whatsoever.

------
Areading314
> an American dad claimed a tiny parcel of African land to make his daughter a
> princess.

Can I just point out that this would be a fantastic plot for a movie or a
novel? Could throw a lot of interesting themes into this

~~~
weinzierl
From the article:

> Jeremiah Heaton, beyond the “kingdom for a princess” schmaltz and the
> forthcoming Disney adaptation (he has sold film rights to his story for an
> undisclosed fee) [..]

I'm not sure if this was meant seriously though.

------
wruza
Tl;dr: there are two versions of land borders in that region, and the land
which _is_ valuable. Bir Tawil is a flip side of this coin. If one country
claims it, they auto-lose the other side.

~~~
dmurray
This seems quite naive as geopolitics go. One imagines China or the US, for
example, would have no qualms about claiming both. "We assert Egyptian
sovereignty over Hala'ib based on the treaty of 1899, and Egyptian sovereignty
over Bir Tawil based on the inalienable historic right of the Adabda people to
live under Egyptian rule."

Maybe it works better if you can afford to build a settlement there, like in
Palestine, or an airstrip like in the South China Sea.

------
ptah
> “Are white people still allowed to do this kind of stuff?” good question

~~~
barking
Are Chinese people white 'cos if so then maybe? Xinjiang, Tibet, South China
Sea.

~~~
ptah
they have had claims on all of those for a few centuries now, they didn't all
of a sudden travel across oceans and continents to proclaim it theirs

~~~
barking
It's OK to claim an adjacent territory, bring in settlers, oppress the
natives, etc, just not OK to cross water to do so. is that your position?
Hardly?

~~~
ptah
no i never said that. i merely observed that a question in the article is
legitimate. not sure how i got dragged into addressing whataboutism in this
subthread but ok

------
bawana
do citizens of Bir Tawil have to pay taxes? Why hasnt google bought it? Can
multinational corporations set up banks there and avoid taxes altogether?

------
rmason
If there's water there then there is value. Be a great place to plant
greenhouses, grow flowers and with an airstrip fly them into the heart of
Europe.

But it would take quite a bit of capital and without formal recognition and a
security force then it's a pipe dream. A pleasant one, but still a pipe dream.

~~~
dotancohen
Actually, there is no water. Nor soil. Nor vegetation which would depend on
the other two.

~~~
londons_explore
Drill deep enough, and you might find water.

You might also be able to buy water from somewhere.

Solar farms don't need water either...

Lack of security force might not be an issue - being stateless means no taxes,
so your business can probably afford to just hire it's own security against
bandits. Get a reputation for shooting bandits on sight, and they won't come
close.

I think the biggest risk is that if you actually manage to build a city there,
both of your neighbours might decide to claim your land as theirs unless you
have an army to threaten them with, or UN protection, both of which might be
hard to get.

~~~
jsjohnst
> Get a reputation for shooting bandits on sight, and they won't come close.

On what basis do you make that claim?

Probable reality will show they’ll just come with more armed bandits than you
have security forces, assuming the value warrants it.

------
beobab
This kind of thing is why I am looking forward to "No Man's Sky" VR release
tomorrow.

No-one is likely to complain when I colonize a planet far off the beaten track
where the highest form of life is a small feline creature with tentacles.

~~~
swarnie_
Are people actually still playing One Mans Lie? I'd assumed everyone charge
backed it on day one....

~~~
barking
The company has actually redeemed its reputation by continuosly releasing
updates, afaik. Not fair to malign them like that.

~~~
swarnie_
If I bought a broken car then the dealership spent the next two years slowly
fixing it to match the sales pitch initially sold I'd still be pissed off.

Why do people allow game publishers to get away with the crap...

~~~
TheBranca18
I'm not really following your analogy. A video game isn't a car, a car is a
means of transportation that depending on your situation, is a requirement in
order to get goods and retain employment. A video game is a hobby for most
people, it's like watching movies or television. I'd say it'd be more similar
to how people reacted to Lost's final seasons rather than a broken car.

One can separate the launch of the game, where clearly there was a lot of
confusion and misleading information, from the events since. They have issued
free updates for years. They received death threats and other harassment as
well. I'm not saying you have to like the game, but I'm just confused as to
what they're getting with.

