22 November 2011 - territory dispute
< yesterday --
tomorrow >
When two nations have a territorial dispute, why do we ask them
to solve it by negotiation? Territory is emotional, so neither
side ever makes a serious offer and the dispute can’t stop.
Well, negotiation beats fighting, but surely there should be a
formal mechanism. I propose that every claimant to territory
controlled by another must deposit the territory’s selling
price with the United Nations, or else the claim will not be
acknowledged by other nations. If negotiations have not
succeeded after fifteen years, all claimants lose their
deposits and the UN renders the territory unusable by seeding
it from the air with strontium-90.
clue:
One side has possession and one or more other sides have
claims, so any imposed solution has to be enforceable over the
objections of the possessor. But any agreed solution has to
leave no claims behind, and why would a nation give up a
claim that costs nothing to make?
give me a clue so sweet and true