4 ms·

Paraguay official resigns after signing agreement with fictional country

47 points by impish9208 3y ago

gattr 3y ago
Let's not forget about San Escobar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Escobar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Escobar Unofficial map: https://joemonster.org/p/1595265/size/oryg/san_escobar_map_Jarek_Kubicki https://joemonster.org/p/1595265/size/oryg/san_escobar_map_J...
sn00tz00t 3y ago
I recall a lot of micronations seeking to have their country mentioned in writing by any official, with some beseeching the Queen or other foreign affairs ministries. Apparently a polite mention in a letter is enough in their interpretation to qualify as an actual nation. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-10/meet-the-micro-nations-of-australia/8252020 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-10/meet-the-micro-nation...
- Semaphor 3y ago
  Well, are they completely wrong? Being a country is mostly about how many (and partially which) other countries agree that you are indeed a country.
  - LAC-Tech 3y ago
    I go by a de-facto interpretation. That way a country isn't defined by people wanting or not wanting to accept reality, but rather by facts on the ground.
    - Semaphor 3y ago
      Yes, amount of other countries who agree is facts on the ground.
      - LAC-Tech 3y ago
        Those aren't facts on the ground, they're legal fictions for another country. Have you been to an un-recognised country before? I have. It's just... a country. Currencies, police, military, border security. Those are the facts on the ground. What their neighbours think are not.
        zamadatix 3y ago
        Both are just as real interpretations. If a gang were to run a city it doesn't mean they start issuing passports that do anything or get to apply to vote on things in the UN. Just because you don't recognize the neighboring group doesn't mean they can't wage war against you or take control of what happens in the region. For most contexts I'd agree being recognized by other countries is the most common interpretation between the two angles. That doesn't mean it's the only valid interpretation.
        calamari4065 3y ago
        What happens when one country decides their claim extends into another's land? What if that land is populated by that country's culture? What about if they're of the other culture? Who, exactly, gets to determine who controls that land? Should we just have full on wars and kill thousands or millions of people for every single border conflict? Or do we rely on legal fictions and group consensus to define rules on who gets to claim what? Facts on the ground are I've claimed part of your country's territory as my own country. Your borders are a legal fiction. Facts on the ground are you went on vacation, I broke into your house and now I live there. Your deed is a legal fiction. If group consensus recognizes my claim over yours, my claim becomes valid and yours is not. I get the benefit of protection of the law. You, personally, can try to take it from me, but the police will recognize my claim and not yours. If you claim part of my territory and group consensus rejects your claim, my armies and my allies' will enforce the legal fiction that is my borders and remove you from my territory. Have you considered why these countries want legal recognition? If the law is fiction and facts on the ground matter more, why care about recognition?
        TeaBrain 3y ago
verisimi 3y ago
Oh dear - shame on the official... ... but which countries aren't fictional? Is there really such a thing a country? Its just an idea. I'm not even joking - countries are a fiction, a social construct - there is no basis for these except as accepted ideas in peoples minds. Like 'Scrooge' or 'government' or 'Jesus' or any number of other things - these are just ideas without a basis in my reality. Do birds or dogs recognise such things?
- krapp 3y ago
  Try telling the police, a judge or tax collector that the country you live in is merely a fiction with no basis in your reality. I'm sure they will duly vanish in a puff of logic. Models and abstractions can certainly be very real.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    I'm sure I would get a bad response! Same as if I went to a very religious area, and disputed the existence of their god. Just cos a bunch of people believe this or that bit of nonsense, perhaps almost everyone, doesn't make it real.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - LAC-Tech 3y ago
    I feel like you missed the point of GP. There's been many situations in history where enough people stopped believing in their country and suddenly the shared fiction was no more. East German police, judges and tax collectors had a lot of power until all of a sudden - they didn't.
    - peteradio 3y ago
      Well I wouldn't suggest to stop believing in Christmas or heaven forbid Santa Claus surely Krampus will beat you with sticks!
e1g 3y ago
It’s tempting to think “corrupt LATAM officials”, but the article mentions that Newark, NJ fell for exactly the same ruse just months ago, for no apparent gain https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/16/newark-officials-duped-kailasa-nithyananda https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/16/newark-offic...
- Solvency 3y ago
  Except I can buy shady passports from officials in Paraguay. Not Newark.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hiatus 3y ago
  Is this a joke? New Jersey is known for corrupt politicians. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/08/bob-menendez-new-jersey-political-corruption-history https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/08/bob-menendez... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam
  - calamari4065 3y ago
    Honestly at this point is there anywhere in the US that isn't known for corrupt politicians?
- Tommstein 3y ago
  I wouldn't use Newark as a shining example of . . . anything.
shwaj 3y ago
Who else is disappointed that the fictional country isn’t Uqbar?
- tlb 3y ago
  I was hoping for the Undersea Republic of Atlantis. Which will probably surface some day.
louison11 3y ago
Seems like they asked this Paraguay official to support their UN application to be recognized as a sovereign nation. So how is it that he didn’t know it was a fictional country? That’s kind of the point that if a country seeks sovereignty, it isn’t yet recognized as one. I don’t understand the logic of the article.
- atticora 3y ago
  [flagged]
- 15457345234 3y ago
  There's a huge difference between 'fictional' and 'non-recognised' Somaliland isn't a country but it exists and has the basic shape of a sovereign state. This 'country' mentioned in the article is just nothing. Literally nonexistent.
OldGuyInTheClub 3y ago
The Onion, 25 February 1998: "U.S. Ambassador To Bulungi Suspected Of Making Country Up" https://www.theonion.com/u-s-ambassador-to-bulungi-suspected-of-making-country-1819564610 https://www.theonion.com/u-s-ambassador-to-bulungi-suspected...

47 points by impish9208 3y ago

Let's not forget about San Escobar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Escobar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Escobar Unofficial map: https://joemonster.org/p/1595265/size/oryg/san_escobar_map_Jarek_Kubicki https://joemonster.org/p/1595265/size/oryg/san_escobar_map_J...

sn00tz00t 3y ago

I recall a lot of micronations seeking to have their country mentioned in writing by any official, with some beseeching the Queen or other foreign affairs ministries. Apparently a polite mention in a letter is enough in their interpretation to qualify as an actual nation. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-10/meet-the-micro-nations-of-australia/8252020 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-10/meet-the-micro-nation...

Semaphor 3y ago
Well, are they completely wrong? Being a country is mostly about how many (and partially which) other countries agree that you are indeed a country.
- LAC-Tech 3y ago
  I go by a de-facto interpretation. That way a country isn't defined by people wanting or not wanting to accept reality, but rather by facts on the ground.
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    Yes, amount of other countries who agree is facts on the ground.
    - LAC-Tech 3y ago
      Those aren't facts on the ground, they're legal fictions for another country. Have you been to an un-recognised country before? I have. It's just... a country. Currencies, police, military, border security. Those are the facts on the ground. What their neighbours think are not.
      - zamadatix 3y ago
        Both are just as real interpretations. If a gang were to run a city it doesn't mean they start issuing passports that do anything or get to apply to vote on things in the UN. Just because you don't recognize the neighboring group doesn't mean they can't wage war against you or take control of what happens in the region. For most contexts I'd agree being recognized by other countries is the most common interpretation between the two angles. That doesn't mean it's the only valid interpretation.
      - calamari4065 3y ago
        What happens when one country decides their claim extends into another's land? What if that land is populated by that country's culture? What about if they're of the other culture? Who, exactly, gets to determine who controls that land? Should we just have full on wars and kill thousands or millions of people for every single border conflict? Or do we rely on legal fictions and group consensus to define rules on who gets to claim what? Facts on the ground are I've claimed part of your country's territory as my own country. Your borders are a legal fiction. Facts on the ground are you went on vacation, I broke into your house and now I live there. Your deed is a legal fiction. If group consensus recognizes my claim over yours, my claim becomes valid and yours is not. I get the benefit of protection of the law. You, personally, can try to take it from me, but the police will recognize my claim and not yours. If you claim part of my territory and group consensus rejects your claim, my armies and my allies' will enforce the legal fiction that is my borders and remove you from my territory. Have you considered why these countries want legal recognition? If the law is fiction and facts on the ground matter more, why care about recognition?
        TeaBrain 3y ago

verisimi 3y ago

Oh dear - shame on the official... ... but which countries aren't fictional? Is there really such a thing a country? Its just an idea. I'm not even joking - countries are a fiction, a social construct - there is no basis for these except as accepted ideas in peoples minds. Like 'Scrooge' or 'government' or 'Jesus' or any number of other things - these are just ideas without a basis in my reality. Do birds or dogs recognise such things?

krapp 3y ago
Try telling the police, a judge or tax collector that the country you live in is merely a fiction with no basis in your reality. I'm sure they will duly vanish in a puff of logic. Models and abstractions can certainly be very real.
- verisimi 3y ago
  I'm sure I would get a bad response! Same as if I went to a very religious area, and disputed the existence of their god. Just cos a bunch of people believe this or that bit of nonsense, perhaps almost everyone, doesn't make it real.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- LAC-Tech 3y ago
  I feel like you missed the point of GP. There's been many situations in history where enough people stopped believing in their country and suddenly the shared fiction was no more. East German police, judges and tax collectors had a lot of power until all of a sudden - they didn't.
  - peteradio 3y ago
    Well I wouldn't suggest to stop believing in Christmas or heaven forbid Santa Claus surely Krampus will beat you with sticks!

e1g 3y ago

It’s tempting to think “corrupt LATAM officials”, but the article mentions that Newark, NJ fell for exactly the same ruse just months ago, for no apparent gain https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/16/newark-officials-duped-kailasa-nithyananda https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/16/newark-offic...

Solvency 3y ago
Except I can buy shady passports from officials in Paraguay. Not Newark.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hiatus 3y ago
Is this a joke? New Jersey is known for corrupt politicians. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/08/bob-menendez-new-jersey-political-corruption-history https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/08/bob-menendez... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam
- calamari4065 3y ago
  Honestly at this point is there anywhere in the US that isn't known for corrupt politicians?
Tommstein 3y ago
I wouldn't use Newark as a shining example of . . . anything.

shwaj 3y ago

Who else is disappointed that the fictional country isn’t Uqbar?

tlb 3y ago
I was hoping for the Undersea Republic of Atlantis. Which will probably surface some day.

louison11 3y ago

Seems like they asked this Paraguay official to support their UN application to be recognized as a sovereign nation. So how is it that he didn’t know it was a fictional country? That’s kind of the point that if a country seeks sovereignty, it isn’t yet recognized as one. I don’t understand the logic of the article.

atticora 3y ago
[flagged]
15457345234 3y ago
There's a huge difference between 'fictional' and 'non-recognised' Somaliland isn't a country but it exists and has the basic shape of a sovereign state. This 'country' mentioned in the article is just nothing. Literally nonexistent.

OldGuyInTheClub 3y ago

The Onion, 25 February 1998: "U.S. Ambassador To Bulungi Suspected Of Making Country Up" https://www.theonion.com/u-s-ambassador-to-bulungi-suspected-of-making-country-1819564610 https://www.theonion.com/u-s-ambassador-to-bulungi-suspected...