Countries Should Buy and Sell National Land

 

The premise is in the title. Countries should buy and sell national territory more often. For example, Russia famously sold pictured above Alaska to the United States in 19th century. It is sometimes criticised in modern times as Americans later found a lot of natural resources in the area. However, at a time of the purchase the transfer was beneficial as Russia could get something for a piece of land it did not know what to do with and the US could get more frontier to explore.

That is not the unique example either. Earlier that that in 17th and 18th century trading national territory was common. Every peace treaty diplomat will trade more land than stockbrokers will buy and sell shares on a stock market. Selling an unprofitable colony was Tuesday. Sure, it was mostly done with colonial sparsely inhabitant land, but the point stands. Seeling land was normal.

Somehow from that we went to a 20th century notion that land is sacred patrimony of this or that people, must be defended to the last drop of blood and so on. Even politicians of nations in questions, who should be able to know better, often stick to the same stubborn refusal to even consider it.

Thanks to that we are stuck with unmovable borders and extreme nationalists who claim that their nation's rightful and sacred patrimony extends into some of their neighbors, causing animosity between them.

It would not be half bad if these borders were at least half decent, but they are not. Depend on where you look, current borders raise uncomfortable question of "who on earth thought it make sense to draw border here". Yet no matter how ridiculous these borders are, there are always those who will defend them to the last drop of blood. Talking about buying or selling territory just gets dismissed out of hand. Trump's attempt to buy Greenland shows us just that. 

It leads to a situation where the only way to move borders is the war. However, it does not have to be this way. Leaders of nations could sit together and agree to a deal that will work for both sides. They could either trade land in one place for equivalent piece elsewhere or sell it for money or other valuables, like technology, even shares in valuable companies. With that the geographic obstacles with turn into business opportunities for prosperity and development. This will allow humanity to reach even greater potential and solve many geopolitical problems that plague our world.

There are plenty of historical examples of how trading land led towards better outcomes for both parties. Dutch could not make any profit on their colony of New Amsterdam and agreed to swap if for sugar producing Surinam with the British. For British New Amsterdam was valuable because it allowed them to connect their northern and southern colonies together, sparing colonials the trouble of sailing around it. Nowadays it is called New York and is one of the richest and largest cities in the world. No one would have guessed that mere 200 years ago Dutch wanted to abandon the settlement and do nothing with the area. That is one of the examples of how trading land benefitted both sides.

Thus, modern countries should start trading land too. That is much better than keep staring at each other menacingly and white countless comments on internet on how Kosovo is Serbia or Albania. I myself wrote several articles on how many borders in former USSR make no sense and should be changed. There are many other places that can benefit from that such as Balkans. Old pointless borders can give way for a new development and prosperity.

Rules of International Land Trade

To make it beneficial for all sides of the issue we should lay some groundwork rules to make sure trade is fair and does not impinge on the selling party and its citizens rights and interests in significant ways.

Every ethnicity is entitled for a country they can call their own. Such country should have at least reasonable amount of land space per person of said ethnicity to accommodate them all within their borders.

Nevertheless, they can only claim the areas they actually inhabit and use. Greenlanders, whose total population is less than average rural town, cannot call the entire huge island as their own, but they are entitled to the part of it that they currently inhabit. 

No country should completely disappear from the map of the world. Saying that country should disappear from the map of the world in its entirety puts both government of the country as well as it people into corner and leaves them no choice but to fight back. Good example is current Russian war in Ukraine. That is counterproductive. Instead, certain parts of the country can and should be traded.

An adequate compensation has to be paid for the land traded. It can be paid in land, money, company stock, commodities such as oil, gold or diamonds. The selling party has ultimate choice of compensation they wish to receive for the land they sell.

If population of the area is significant, the people should be given a vote on whether they want to change the country they live in or not.

Residents of the traded area in question should further be offered a choice of whether to keep their original citizenship or switch citizenship to that of the purchasing nation.

Finally, residents should be given enough time to sell their property and relocate to the remaining area of their nation. If number of residents wishing to move is significant, a dedicated relocation program should be organised by nations who trade lands.

To facilitate the above, a transitional period of at least 1 year should be arranged between completing of sale and actual transfer of sovereignty between nations. That will give residents enough time to move if they so wish.

A nation selling land should not be deprived of access to sea and ability to use it for shipping and such.

International community should be given an opportunity to assess the deal and voice their objections if they have any. The final deal may be adjusted or even outright blocked based on these objections.

Fundamentally decision to trade or not will rest with the two trading nations in question, but neighboring countries as well as nations with vested interest in the deal should have input in final decision as it affects them to a certain extend.

An impartial mediation by the UN or other international body can be arranged if the trade is essential for the global security and prosperity. 

 

Lands that Should be Traded

Lands that will leave both parties better off if they change hands are many. For example, I wrote many times that Ukraine should sell some lands to Russia as it will benefit both nations, Russia with its surplus money can brag about expanding and Ukraine can get richer by selling off unprofitable parts of the country.

To begin with parts of Ukraine that are part of Don River basin should be sold to Russia or divested to an independent Don Basin Nation, if both Russia and Ukraine could agree on creation of such nation. These areas are largely pro-Russian in political orientation. Their vested interest almost always conflicts with the rest of Ukraine as they depend on Russian Don River for shipping. Generally, their region is far too connected to Russian cities across the border, while largely disconnected from the rest of Ukraine. 

Actual border can be Vorskla-Dnipro line as river borders are defensible. Alternatively, they can go with the river basins. Most rivers in the area ultimately flow either into Dnipro or into Don, making it possible to map a gorge that divides the two river systems. Such a gorge also makes for a natural border as it's the most elevated part of the area.

Russia too has lands that are more of a trouble for everyone involved, including Russia itself. For example, Kaliningrad Oblast. Disconnected from mainland Russia and completely surrounded by Poland and Lithuania, the oblast is hard to supply as all land transportation has to go through Lithuanian territory, making life of residents and logisticians alike much harder.

For Poland and Lithuania this land is also a thorn in the side. To being with Russia hosts lots of weapons in the area and these make almost every country that border Baltic Sea nervous. There is another issue and that is shortness of the border between Poland and Lithuania, the so-called Suwalki Gap. While there is no direct border between Kaliningrad Oblast and Russia friendly Belarus, the distance between these areas is too small, putting it at risk in the event of war. Because of that all three of the Baltic nations could easily be cut of and surrounded in mere hours.

It will make life much easier for everyone is Russia will transfer sovereignty of this area to someone else, but Russia will not do so. Aside from usual stubbornness, Russia has one reason to keep control of the area. Kaliningrad is the only Russia port on the Baltic Sea that does not freezes in winter, Russia's other port, St. Petersburg is only usable in summer as Finland's Gulf freezes in winter, making Kaliningrad the only possible shipping destination.

However, the problem could be solved if Russia acquires another port in the Baltic Sea that does not freezes in winter. Certain areas in northeastern Latvia (Livonia) will be perfect for such purpose. Unlike Kaliningrad, these areas can be connected to Russia directly, sparing everyone the trouble of having to deal with heavy Russian railway traffic through Lithuania. Population of these areas are very low, making impact on locals very low, if locals choose to relocate to other parts of Latvia, it could easily be arranged.

Finally, such transfer could solve Latvia's non-citizens problem. During Soviet times many people from the rest of USSR have moved into what is now Latvia. These people did not spoke local Latvian language and did not bother to learn it as knowledge of Russian was enough for life in USSR. That have changed after independence as Latvian became sole official language of the country. The Russophone migrant population did not like that change and resisted either learning Latvian or moving out to somewhere in Russia. On their side Latvians refused to grant these migrants Latvian citizenship, insisting that only those who were citizen of pre-WWII Latvia and their descendants are entitled to citizenship. Ever since the Latvian society is divided into citizens and non-citizens: Latvians and so-called Latvian Russians. Some of these do assimilate and eventually acquire Latvian citizenship by naturalisation but there are significant number of those who do not. They continue to be a constant problem in the country. Russia could purchase areas with significant Latvian Russian population, solving the problem of these people. 

Since Latvia is not interested in Kaliningrad oblast and will not be able to administer it, a multilateral deal has to be arranged. EU can buy Kaliningrad off Russia while selling them parts of Latvian Livonia instead. Russia can then move some or all people of Kaliningrad to settle the Livonia instead, though some might opt to stay. Livonia will become part of Russia and Kaliningrad can become first EU territory, directly administered by the union. Latvia can be compensated by the EU with more EU funds for

Finally, there is Belarus. Belarus dictator, Lukashenka long have been a thorn in EU side. Geographically Belarus also located very inconveniently, protruding far too deep west and putting EU in danger. Belarus's geographic position could easily facilitate a deadly Russian or Chinese invasion into EU while at the same time giving Russia no real security from an invasion from the west.

Belarussian people chaff under the oppression of Lukashenka and want him gone, but he has Russian support and Russian riot police to help him stay in power. It's a truly sad state of affairs.

Geographically two major eastern European rives: Dnipro and Daugava get very close to each other in eastern Belarus. Together these rivers can create a solid and easily defensible frontier that will prevent the war between EU and Russia. The problem is that Belarus is Russian ally, giving Russia a huge bridgehead on the western side of these rivers. On the other hand, Ukraine goes much further east of Dnipro, creating a large bridgehead for potential invasion into Russia.

Solution to this problem can be in giving Russia much of east bank Ukraine. The problem there is that in northeastern oblasts there is strong anti-Russian sentiment, making it near impossible for Russia to rule there. Thus, this has to be limited to areas Russia can control, such as Kharkiv (Don basin I mentioned above). The rest of east bank should stay with Ukraine, but heavy offensive weapons should be limited to west bank only.

In exchange Russia should abandon Lukashenka and let EU replace him with democratic pro-EU government. Some border adjustments between Belarus and Russia to make borders align with the two rivers is also in order.

These three adjustments will straighten the border between EU and Russia and by extension between Western world and Eurasia. New borders, resulting from these changes will be much more defendable that current one. This will allow both sides to feel much safer knowing that a new war is unlikely and even if it happens, defenders will have a clear advantage.