In a volatile area, trapped between the two occupation hammers and the regressive regime anvil, is it acceptable to ask: “if the life we are living is not the life we have asked for, then what the hell are we holding on to?”
According to the United Nations General Assembly the world currently features (192) sovereign states. Many of them do not possess any basic characteristics of a state beyond a colorful flag and a sleep-inducing national anthem. There has to be something done to end to this chaos and uncontrollable expansion: (it has officially got to a point where every five people who speak with a slightly different accent and share the same great grandfather want to extract 5 squared kilometers, crown a king, and exchange diplomatic relations). Not only partitions of current states should be banned, but also current so-called states should be reevaluated: A simple re-qualification process to separate true countries who contributes to humanity from farms that does not deserve such a designation.
Aside from the Marxist definition of the State, (The state being an instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed masses who will only be liberated through violent revolution and the destruction of the state power apparatus built by the ruling class. (say what!), but that’s a story for a different day), we are at a point where many of these “countries” have been “independent” for a while now (up to sixty years in some cases), and there should be very basic criteria installed which they have to meet to maintain such a status. Otherwise your state-recognition benefits are revoked, and whether you decide to merge, unite, integrate, join a federal or confederal union, get occupied, get under a mandate, get under a protection treaty, fold and go home, or practice your power trip on your own people without any international recognition (a different variation of your current status really) …it is all your choice until you get rehabilitated.
As usual this criteria is better left to a committee of experts at the highest international level, but a few guidelines can be expected: You may lose your state status: If your total area is less than 50% of that of the smallest American state. If your GDP is not at least 5 times that of the smallest American state. If you do not produce (manufacture) anything that benefits humanity besides pedestrian services (and oil). If you cannot provide a steady supply of water, wheat, and fuel to the population. If your judicial system treats crimes such as homicide, corruption and pedophilia lightly. If your definition of democracy is a ballot box (especially if it is intermittent). If the sole decision-making autocratic ruler has been in power for more than 30 years. If your definition of power transfer is heredity…[For more hints and suggestions the committee can just pick up a local daily newspaper. They are usually loaded with signs: “okay…here is another indication that they do not qualify”.]
Well, those who managed to read thus far may have guessed that Abu Shreek is subtly referring to his homeland. (In an attempt to cater to the below average readers, notice this serious attempt Abu Shreek is making to make his nonsense less ambiguous. As for the readers suffering from ADD and reading-disabilities, we offer our sincere apologie).
Honestly, scratch all the above. After all, size does not matter (some may disagree). GDP is overrated anyway (It is still relatively surprising that according to this 2005 list, Jordan trails economic superpowers like Kenya, Yemen and Trinidad and Tobago. Countries like
Let us put it in this simple way: Abu Shreek can confidently say that seven out of the top ten students from his high school and his college class are currently permanent residents of other countries. The other three are just like a very high percentage of the population (from all roots and origins) who are desperately seeking such a chance and “dreaming of the day when they leave forever”. They are willing to choose the retardation and arrogance of the gulf, the bigotry and the estrangement of the west, or a life anywhere from
You want a state, start with a citizen. A citizen that can afford to live a basic life, without having to kiss ass, without being subjected to unending injustice, and without the fear of a short stupid idiot with a thick mustache in a trench coat, watching him through a newspaper (for security purposes) [One wonders if he looks at the computer screen through the same newspaper, simply out of habit]. A citizen living under the law “will go to war” with his county during hardship and tough times, because tough “periods” are much different than systematic enslavement. A country going through some “turbulent” circumstances have its appreciated/appreciating people rallying around it until they emerge out of it together. A (...-entity) in a continuous aimless downspin looks for a replacement population with a better purchasing power.