A "To be, or not to be" of Network State Diplomacy
A "To be, or not to be" of Network State Diplomacy
An initial rabbit hole exploration into the future network state system's potential for peaceful co-existence with the current nation state system.
Bird's Eye View & Introduction
This is essay 4 of 4 essays for 1729 Writers Cohort #2. 1729 Writers is a group that writes to build on ideas related to Balaji Srinivasan’s new book The Network State, which can be ordered here. This post is purely academic in nature, and it does not constitute any formal political, scientific, legal, financial, social, religious, or ethical advocacy. For earlier posts and musings, please visit whatifwhatif.substack.com.
Through a series of no-punches-withheld discussions, Balaji Srinivasan's The Network State explores how we have arrived at the world of 2022, where we may be headed next, and what we can do to create new futures characterized by the concepts of network unions, network archipelagos, and network states (these concepts are also explained more here). Through what Balaji calls “cloud first, land last," the road from startup societies to network states hopes to give many an alternative paradigm out of seemingly domestic or international impasse and zero-sum competitions.
Inspired by Balaji's book and discussions within the 1729 community, this essay will try to initially explore (though not in an exhaustive manner) the network state's potential for future peaceful co-existence with the existing nation state system. Specifically, it will explore a thesis that, as a precondition for productive and peaceful co-existence, the future network state system should be treated as complete parallel and non-equivalent to the current nation state system and its diplomacy. Although this seems obvious and self-explanatory at first glance, it has more intricate implications.
Rose Island Case
On February 13, 1969, Italian naval vessels surrounded a platform 11 kilometers from the Adriatic Coast and opened fire with explosives. This was arguably the only time the post-World War II Italian state had engaged in active invasion against another "state”. The resulting casualty: the death of a dog (who was allegedly forgotten on the platform) and the cessation of the Republic of Rose Island.
The Republic of Rose Island (known as Repubblica Esperantista dell'Isola delle Rose officially in Italian) was a startup nation founded by Giorgio Rosa, an Italian engineer, on the Adriatic Coast through crowdfunding territory in the form of a platform structure in the sea. Those who are interested in this piece of history are welcome to watch the 2020 film Rose Island (available on Netflix). In short, the Italian government was not amused by Giorgio Rosa's experiment at startup nation building and its potential affront to Italian sovereignty. Suffice to say that Republic of Rose Island never made it to full recognition by the European Union and the United Nations.
Republic of Rose Island (Source: Public Domain)
Humor and comedy aside, the story of Republic of Rose Island, which attracted hundreds of tourists in its heyday, illustrates the difficulty of startup nations to achieve formal recognition from existing nation states. In the Rose Island case, Italy at first dismissed it as a “cheap tourist attraction,” but then quickly took steps to stamp out the nascent "republic”.
Network state are inherently different from micro-nations like the Republic of Rose Island. Instead of land first and community later, a network state in theory begins as a startup online society and grows to become a network archipelago before trying to seek diplomatic recognition. In the Network State, Balaji had summarized the network state with the following one-sentence definition:
"A network state is a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states."
Yet, one could argue that the last step — diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states — could be somewhat tricky. Let's dive into a hypothetical case example.
Japan-Brazil Diplomacy Dilemma
In the book The Network State, Japan is often referenced as a base case, so let's go with Japan here as well. Suppose there is a large network archipelago of some sort, call it A, of which there are many in the network who are physically located in Japan (Japanese citizens or residents) and own property there (and that property gets reflected on some kind of network state dashboard). Suppose that Brazil, which has many in the Japanese diaspora, graciously establishes diplomatic relations with the new Network State A whose many members reside in Japan. What would this mean for the diplomatic relationship between Brazil and Japan, and the relationship with respect to the Japanese citizens/residents who are also Network State A's citizens?
Here are the facts:
Japan does not recognize or allow dual citizenship.
Under the laws of Japan, ownership of land and buildings is separately indicated. So a person can own a physical condo/property but not necessarily own the land that it sits on top of. (There are also other countries in which even physical ownership of land is not technically fully allowed).
Article 2 of the UN charter requires member states to respect the sovereignty of other members.
So, would Japan see Brazil's diplomatic recognition of Network State A as an act of aggression and violation of its fundamental sovereignty? Given Japan's citizenship limits, would the Japanese citizens who are part of the network state be forced to choose one citizenship or the other?
In this hypothetical case, the state of Japan may respond with one of the following:
Japan does not recognize Network State A and tries to outlaw it within its borders, declares Brazil a hostile party violating its sovereignty, files a complaint with United Nations, and prepares for further hostilities. Japanese citizens are given the ultimatum of losing their Japanese IDs and facing other penalties should they opt in to Network State A.
Japan does not recognize Network State A and chooses to ignore Brazil's diplomatic recognition of A (or deem it illegitimate). After all, one cannot legitimately recognize something that “does not exist.” Japanese citizens are only considered Japanese by the Japanese state, because one cannot be a citizen of something that “does not exist.”
Both scenarios are less than ideal and examples of state power trying to limit or shave off network power: the former leads to significant violence, while the latter leads to significant neglect and ambiguity. This is just the +1 case. With numerous existing nation states asserting sovereignty, the +N case would potentially be even more violent and ambiguous. Although network states may adopt various degrees of decentralized defense mechanisms so that nation state governments are ineffective in killing the entire network, the resulting violence, suspicion, and fear-mongering could still wreck havoc on certain network members who do not have the tech savvy. Not all network state members may be savvy with zero-knowledge proofs from the get-go, which is analogous to the fact that not all crypto users may be savvy with private hardware wallet usage. A network state may be able to weather and defend against nation state violence, but the resulting frictions may still have ripple effects and slow its adoption. What possible workarounds out there exist to allow for more peaceful co-existence of a network state system with the existing nation state system?
Cooperative Co-Existence
Balaji had proposed a possible solution, in which one existing nation state that is incentivized financially decides to make a deal with a network state and grants it chartered land. Members of the network state may even flock to the existing nation state to aid its development. This would be analogous somewhat to El Salvador recognizing Bitcoin as legal tender and building a Bitcoin City, which has led to thousands of crypto entrepreneurs migrating there.
El Salvador Bitcoin City (Source: Twitter)
Hence, in Balaji's proposal, there would be some cooperative between the existing nation state and the network state. Ideally, the nation state and the network state would already share some fundamental values or members. One could imagine small, developing, and economically strapped countries with nothing to lose like Nauru or Tonga jumping on board and embracing cooperation with network states that are significantly wealthier and more resourceful.
Yet, this "cooperative co-existence" method also arguably has limitations. Recognition happens gradually, if at all. El Salvador's embrace of Bitcoin does not save the cryptocurrency from hostilities in parts of the European Parliament and parts of the US Congress, or from banned, restricted, or heavily regulated status in some of the world's most influential and powerful countries. Similarity, the cooperation of a few small existing nation states probably won't save a network state from potential open hostilities by other nation states, nation state blocs, or powerful bodies within nation states that for whatever reason may feel threats — however imaginary — on their own sovereignty or interests. Again, a network state may be able to weather and defend against nation state violence through decentralized privacy technology, but the struggle for widespread legitimacy could slow it down.
Non-Equivalent Co-Existence
A more comprehensive workaround could be to brand from the get-go that the network state system is a different paradigm and that network states are not equivalents to nation states, nor do they aim to claim nation states’ sovereignty. Balaji had also stressed the idea of creating new frontiers and parallels, so this “new paradigm framing” method arguably aligns with that.
By framing network states as part of a completely new paradigm, one could avoid needlessly bloody violence arising from existing nation states’ insecurities around sovereignty, dominance, and national interests. Politicians and nation state leaders would also have the face saving narratives to not appear weak or indecisive in response to expanding networks. The network state is not branded as an immediate challenger, but rather something all together different. The network state system would develop its own set of protocols, which would be non-equivalent to those in the legacy national state diplomatic system. Without the trappings of national state geopolitics and diplomacy, new network states could then be given the time window to co-exist peacefully, grow, and scale.
One example of relatively peaceful co-existence in modern times would be the dynamic between modern nation states and the Catholic Church. To reference a Balajian framework, both the God and State are Leviathans that command respect and gain followers, but at least in the modern era, God and State don't need to be in each other's crosshairs, nor do they usually conflict over sovereignty. The pope and the church can claim authority over spiritual matters and expand church membership to the hundreds of millions residing in various nation states around the world. God and State are not equivalent, and that non-equivalence allows for overlaps in authority, governance, membership, and voice.
Another example would be Asgardia, the Space Nation founded by Azerbajani businessman Igor Raufovich Ashurbeyli, essentially a startup network that aims to be a network state crowdfunding satellites and territory in space. Asgardia, which has issued a cryptocurrency called SOLAR on the QTUM blockchain, claims that its residencies and eventual citizenships are celestial in nature and thus do not collide with “Earthly” interests and citizenships.
Asgardia Residency (Source: Twitter)
Reflections
As Giorgio Rosa and many other startup nation founders have attested, starting a new state is tough work, and sometimes existential. Network states are different in nature from typical micro-nations and present a far greater promise. With great promise also comes great conviction and zeal — the early Christians, the early 1776ers, and the early Marxists all had that great conviction and zeal to forge ahead. Along the road ahead, nascent projects, communities, and networks that eventually become network states will need the time to nurture, develop, scale, and prosper, so it may be wise not to make quick enemies out of diplomatically sensitive and sovereignty obsessed status quo players.
Networks states will likely be able to weather nation state violence through decentralization technology, but such hostilities could still slow down the curve of progress and adoption. Powerful nation state governments may not be able to completely kill network states, just like how they are unable to completely kill a public ledger, be it Bitcoin or Ethereum, that runs on decentralized nodes around the world. Nevertheless, as with bans or heavy regulation on cryptocurrency, adoption by potential startup community or network state members could still be slowed by legacy administrations and parliaments — there could be less “nodes” signed up due to a combination of psychological fear from and subpar tech understanding by prospective members. Thus, instead of explicitly branding network states as successors to nation states, perhaps founding teams could continue to position them as parallel, non-equivalent entities that could cooperate and co-exist peacefully. After all, there may be room for both nation state and network state systems.
In conclusion, this essay is more of an invitation for open academic discussion and early debate as opposed to an exhaustive examination or dissertation. I admit it's still too early to see the exact combinations of what may happen at later stages of the evolution from startup communities to network states. Many of the concepts proposed in The Network State are innovative, and it is possible that an emerging network state model can give more plurality to human social organization. That said, as with any new proposition in history, be it Christianity, democracy, or the nation state itself, it is through collective early community discussion, debate, and testing that ideas become further refined and adapted — hopefully peacefully — to different contexts.
Disclaimer: This post is purely academic in nature, and it does not constitute any formal political, scientific, legal, financial, social, religious, or ethical advocacy. For earlier posts and musings, please visit whatifwhatif.substack.com.