Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Even with an addition I don't think there will be a 51st state. I think future demographics in the Dakotas may force a merger (why were they two separate states anyway?) after a strong push by PR, USVI, or Guam (most likely PR) for full statehood.

There could be other alternatives: California splitting in half (either politically or geologically), a massive earthquake along the New Madrid fault which would reroute the Mississippi and redraw Midwestern maps, or a significant terrorist strike resulting in large scale and enduring environmental damage which would force depopulation (think Chernobyl).

More fancifully, the conservative province of Alberta (resource rich) could secede from Canada (perhaps motivated by a successful separatist movement in Quebec) and approach the USA for annexation.

Who knows, it could happen! Great thought exercise BTW.

The Castro brothers finally shuffle off this mortal coil and the U.S. promptly responds by repealing the Helms-Burton act and sends in either a de jure system admin (assuming the Thompson or Clinton administration has one ready to roll by then) and/or a defacto system admin made up of 1st and 2nd generation Cuban Americans looking to reconnect with their loved ones and invest in what is certain to be the most undervalued real estate in the western hemisphere (and hey, greed works, so there will be no shortage of non-Cuban Americans who will rush to invest as well). The Cuban-Americans living in Cuba during rebuilding will always consider themselves as much Americans as Cubans. And they’ll keep close to their friends and relatives in America. They’ll also continue to vote (absentee ballot) and continue to control enough votes in southern Florida to swing a presidential election, which is why the U.S. government will become more and more interested in supporting their efforts in Cuba (also to protect what will by now be massive investment from U.S. banks and other businesses). Within a decade or two there will be a large group of young people who are U.S. citizens (the children of Cuban-Americans) but who have spent their entire lives in Cuba. And to them it will be only natural that Cuba will formally join the union. And once America has one Spanish speaking state its only a matter of time before Panama wants to get some of that connectivity too (a more likely candidate than Puerto Rico; because everyone in Puerto Rico is already a U.S. citizen, they have less to gain from formal statehood than Panama, a true seam state that desperately wants to join the core).

"Thompson Administration"

Tommy or Fred ?

Likeliest scenarios ?

DC Statehood if Democrats control the pressidency and Congress with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Not a good idea for a number of reasons but a likelier one than most.

Quebec secession discorporates Canada; we pick up some of the western provinces, others go their own way, Nova Scotia becomes the Hong Kong of NAFTA .

This one's easy. Congress goes a bit wacky and makes D.C. the 51st state.

PR, USVI, or Guam are most likely.

Marianas maybe, following some kind of horrific human rights abuse or a factory fire burning up a bunch of textile workers.

Is there a constitutional process for merging or splitting states? I'm pretty sure it would require an unlikely amendment. Slightly more likely is DC, but zenpundit is right about the Republicans blocking any such move.

Puerto Rico holds one of its periodic votes on statehood, and it barely passes. Kicks off massive debate in the US that makes the latest immigration kerfuffle look like a light breeze (which is what is is, really). PR may or may not get added as a state (Best argument against? Having to change all the flags would be extremely irritating) but just the fact that the issue exists again(no one thinks about it today) will move the debate in favor of expansion in the long run. If PR does get added it definately opens up the question for other prospective parties like western Canada, post Castro Cuba, and the Pacific territories.

F.Y.I. There are two Dakotas becuase the Republicans wanted to be assured of a large majority in the Senate in the post Reconstruction era, so they split the territory to get 4 votes instead of just 2.

Oh man... Kurdistan as the 52nd or 53rd state? Can you imagine what that would do to the Middle East? That's worth a whole separate thought exercise.

As for 51, DC is probably the most likely, for better or worse. Although I suppose an alternate scenario would be to have Maryland and Virginia absorb most of what is now DC, and reduce the federal district to the Mall, White House, Capitol and Supreme Court.

Beyond that, I'll throw my lot with Brent's Cuba scenario, but only so far as it unfolds along the de facto SysAdmin.

I'd vote for Puerto Rico as the most likeliest next state. But what if Mexico completely goes the other way and comes apart in the next 20 years due to crime, corruption, drug gangs, and civil conflict? Guess who gets to take ownership?

Collapse aside, by the last quarter of this century Mexico might be in some kind of union with America, maybe not a state though. There are many economic and demographic reasons that could spur this.

As long as the US is a 50-50 nation politically, the most plausible scenario is adding #51 and #52 at the same time for balance. If Repubs totally collapse then DC statehood is possible ...

Let's see, the most likely scenario is Quebec secedes, dissolving Canada. The US absorbs Alberta and BC in one fell swoop, Repubs get Alberta and Dems get BC. Canada is reduced to Ontario, the Atlantic Provinces, and the Big Empty.

Cuba, post-Castro. Puerto Rico, of course.

Mexico descends into drug-gang lawlessness and collapses economically. Tijuana becomes major security threat in the chaos. In exchange for a bailout, we get Baja California, north and south. We reestablish order in the Tijuanian North, and build a new Disney in the South.

They enter as two states. Baja North, dominated by populous Tijuana and Mexicali is a big city Dem state. Baja South goes Republican and becomes the next Arizona. Empty and inviting, a new retirement home for the boomers, with tax laws to suit them.

I think Brent has it nailed--Cuba will be the 51st state. That island is just a couple of funerals from busting out of a 40+ year funk. Once the Fidelistas are gone, the connectivity between South Florida and Cuba will multiply ferociously. And given that Florida is almost always a POTUS election swing state, it's likely that presidential politics may give this more impetus than it would otherwise have.

Alberta, British Columbia, and Manitoba are also possibilities.

I don't think there will be a 51st state. William Tecumseh Sherman was asked why we did not conquer Canada when we had the chance, after the Civil War. He said, correctly, we already have the best parts of the continent and we don't want the rest.

The arguments made at the time we conquered Cuba, PR and the Phillipines against further states with large populations, are still sound. The North American Union, as the USA used to be referred to, with its outposts in Alaska and Hawaii, is a geographic unit and is complete as it is.

Still, if you have to pick one scenario that adds a 51st state, I would say it is the division of Texas into two or more states.

The joint resolution admitting Texas into the Union expressly allows it to split into five states.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html

So, Texas is the only place that has a pre-agreed deal to get new states into the Union. That, to mind, makes this scenario the only one with any likelihood of getting further states into the union.

It would also be the Ultimate gerrymander. The GOP could probably divide the state so that the ten senators were likely to go 8/2 GOP/Donk.

There is no way are the rest of the country going to give DC, Guam, PR or the VI two senators. Never happen.

Alberta seceding from Canada is possible, but independence is more likely than statehood. Still, that is a small non-zero probability.

Down the road -- a post-Castro Cuba would be possible as probably two states. But that is generations down the road (50 years minimum?). Cuban major league baseball teams are, however, probably inevitable post-Castro, which will be good. Far, far down the road (a century?), possibly the Phillipines could be admitted as several states, assuming English language becomes pervasive and it achieves economic success.

Of course, the prospect of an Anglosphere Network Commonwealth, eventually including India, may eliminate the need to add further states. All the relevant communities can get all they need in terms of law, trade and security cooperation, without formal union.

Alberta would be my guess. Ever been to Calgary? The populace is so in contempt of the national government. Much more emotional than our own 'Sagebruch Rebellion' of the late 70s/early 80s.

Albertans have a enormously optimistic veiw of the future. The only thing they see standing in their way is Ottawa.

I see two scenarios, both based in the NW.

*British Columbia via their leaving Canada.
*The creation of a 51st state through the bifurcation of Washington. Eastern Washington is like a different planet compared to the Tacoma/Seattle side of the mountains and they hate the amount of tax money and resources that the Westside consumes.

PR get statehood but separatist groups become active and violent.

Quebec splits from Canada over oil revenue and finds out that the non-French in northern Quebec split from them taking all the hydro power with them. Quebec becomes an economic basket case.

Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island (PEI) split from western Canada and apply for statehood. Nova Scotia is admitted (240 or so years late, they should have been the 14th colony) and New Brunswick and PEI have to join together and enter as one.

Central and Western Canada do just fine, thank you very much.

Guam applies but it just never happens and the UN keeps them on the list for de-colonization.

Mexico is a crap shoot with the northern provinces pushing for admission and the central and southern against.

I'm with Tom on the 51st state breaking the seal, so to speak, of new statehood. Fifty is just such a nice, round number, but I think the time has come.

As to who it will be, I think Puerto Rico is the obvious choice, as well as some of the smaller Caribbean/Pacific islands. The economic and broader connectivity benefits of being a state (federal subsidies, jobs, lock-tight military bonds, the diplomatic clout of a small population leveraged by the US "brand," as it were) are just too enticing to pass up. Cuba fits in this category, as well, but may take a bit longer.

What's more interesting to me isn't what territories might be the next states, but rather what the future trends in statehood are. And I see these as twofold: the first, a decreased concern with the distance factor from CONUS (the two newest states, of course, being the first two OCONUS), and the second, the rise of a new kind of "rump" state which consists primarily of a single metropolis with a largely rural, largely (politically and economically) disconnected rump attached.

For the former issue, while I agree that Kurdistan and Taiwan are a bit too farfetched, I wouldn't be surprised if sometime in this century we see states incorporated that are not North American. Pacific island territories are the most obvious example, but with the "shrinking" of the world through communications and transport technology, I wouldn't be shocked at a South American US state, or even a Eurasian one. Again, the US "brand" is just too enticing to pass up.

For the latter, I think places like Nevada (with Las Vegas and then everything else), New York (with NYC and then everything else), and, further out, Alaska (with Anchorage as a rising PacRim port) are going to be a major issue in the dynamics of statehood and how we think of states as entities. I think it's an interesting question, but a bit far off Tom's original prompt.

Historically states have been added when a particular geographic region had a large "critical mass" of incoming population from the existing states wanting to implement that rule set locally. Of the 50 states only 5 were independent "states" before joining the United States so on that basis an existing independent state joining up is historically unlikely. It could be one of the existing territories, but I would imagine some influx of population from the current states would need to happen first to change the equilibrium.

On the other hand, if this theory was correct a change in circumstances in Cuba resulting in a large number of current U.S. residents relocating might also result in a new state (as noted by a previous poster). Which I agree could have the effect down the line of tipping the balance in Puerto Rico, other Caribbean islands and currently independent states in Central America. Or a combination of retiring "boomers" relocating for financial reasons and immigrants who have prospered in the United States simultaneously relocating to some region of Mexico could have the same result. Unlikely as it may seem I'd put the Philippines on the list of possibilities in a similar scenario. Most explicitly (that I can remember) the context for this is described in PNM pages 209-213.

An interesting idea to consider is that these outcomes would be simultaneous with the trend of the current 50 United States becoming demographically more Hispanic creating even stronger cultural connections to those places. Which makes those places becoming new states even more likely. It wouldn't surprise me if the bill creating the 51st state is signed by an Hispanic President.

Lex: i disagree. it's not as much about access to the 'best parts' anymore as access to more people.

not sure how likely it is, but my favorite is still to peel a couple of Mexican states off. in order: Baja and Baja Sur, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon.

http://www.milebymile.com/kmimages/mexico_map_500.gif

Sean, we can get the best people without making poor, Spanish-speaking provinces and countries into states and giving them two senators in Washington. I don't see that ever happening.

The USA is done adding states. Hawaii and Alaska were outliers. We rejected the incorporation of very different cultural communities after the Spanish American War. We decided that we could not incorporate them as states, so we had to set them on the course of independence. Dealing with these communities as "other countries" is the best way to go. PR is an anamoly that won't be repeated or extended. I do not see the USA giving it two senators.

My favorite is that Quebec leaves Canada ...

and then the rest of Canada joins the US in response ... that gives us either 9 or 12 new states depending on how we do the territories ... or is that too fantastic?

If that's so then same start but instead we just pick up the 4 provinces that no longer have a land link to Canada ... though if we'd let Prince Edward Island be a state or not I don't know ...

You don't get 51, you get 52: a perfect house of cards. Most likely is USVI + PR. USVI gets floor votes in House, adds seats in the senate. PR loses commonweath status, keeps US passports (in spanish) -- pushes current immigration debate on how to put up fences around islands, TSA gets tons more jobs.

Alternative: The two commonwealths (PR + N. Marianna Islands) vote for statehood.

In my mind the most plausible scenario for a 51st state or at least something that approaches Puerto Rico like status will be one of the more stable Caribbean countries.

With potentially two driving forces - both economic. One is the effect of the new passport laws on tourism. Second is the reality that sugar cane ethanol as a fuel source.

I also think the third scenario is Cuba becoming a US governed trust (like Guam or Siapan) after Castro dies, government falls a part and the Marines in Gitmo save the day. Followed by a massive movement of ex-Cuban expats who will seek to make it as easy as possible to go back and forth.

The Mexico scenario is also interesting but I only see that happening if the drug based violence really accelerates at the border requiring US intervention. Somehow, I just don't think that's likely.

Quick comment on the above entries.

I don't see any existing states splitting in twain. West Virginia / Virginia was an exception caused by the extraordinary nature of the Civil War. Eastern and Western Washington may have a similar split but .. many states do as well.

And heck if distance doesn't matter why not go really far out and posit a future lunar colony petitioning for statehood?

* Distance doesn't matter - travel time is only three days here to there. That is closer than Georgia and Maine used to be, back in the day.

* If they are viable enough to apply for statehood there will be an economy - and it might be a vigorous one. Tourism, mining, farming.

* It would be a more viable state that D.C. All D.C. has for an economy is .. government. That's just sad.

Comments by Lirelou and others on a Coming Anarchy thread leads me to the following scenario.
One or more congressmen realize that the status quo is producing a stealth subsidy for business concerns in one or more of the territories-- a subsidy that doesn't help many people other than those concerns. For any of a variety of reasons (fiscal conservatism, outrage at exploitation, perceived political advantage, racism for/against those peoples), this fact is brought to the attention of Congress as a whole.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that Congress doesn't ignore it or find a way to fix it by milder means. It, and the President, force those territories into an ultimatum: vote for statehood or vote for independence.
One or more of said territories votes for the former. We get our 51st state, and maybe then some.

Think about the Senate before you think any states would combine or split. Why would North/South Dakota gice up 2 Senate seats? Ain't gonna happen. Why would the other states llet Washington go up to 4 seats? Ain't happening either. This is the same reason there will never be a change to the electoral college. Small states matter now. They will never give that up.

If Quebec bolted we probably would end up with the Atlantic provences having the same status as PR. Doubt they could become sates for a long time. I'd take Alberta in as a state immediately. Too much oil sands up there not to...

This is one issue I never even considered until I read Tom's books. Now it seems inevitable; it's just a matter of time. As of July 10, 2006, the US has gone for the longest period of time without adding any new states. (The previous longest was almost 47 years between New Mexico and Alaska.)

Brent's post-Castro Cuba scenario sounds the most plausible to me. But, as other people have pointed out, it probably wouldn't be politically feasible to just add just one at a time. They'll probably have to be admitted in pairs—one "red" state plus one "blue" state.

JBA gave the best explanation why existing states wouldn't split. Many states have large political divides between the urban and rural areas. Splitting may appeal to some people but there would never be enough political support.

As far as the number of stars on the flag is concerned, we've already had over 25 different flags by adding stars. We even increased the stripes to 15, until they decided to leave those at 13 and only increase the stars. You can see all our historical flags (including a hypothetical 51 star flag) here.

I'm with Allen and Brent on Cuba as the 51st State with this caveat: DC will receive its statehood via the same pen – especially if there’s a Republican in the Oval Office whenever the Castro brothers drop into the big adios. The nation is simply too divided to add a likely Republican w/o adding a Democratic stronghold at the same time.

Thanks for pushing this idea. You might say it's a pet rock of mine by now.

I think you're right that if you get a 51st then others follow more quickly. Perhaps thinking about it a little more in terms of strategic environment, rather than country by country, would be useful. My library trips taught me that countries often spent a long time (decades) getting to the point where both the country or territory's governments both passed legislation agreeing to statehood at the same time. Given the slow nature of the process on occasion, and the lack of any really in process right now, then I am betting there is likely to be a cluster of new states at once or no new states, nothing in between. The defense umbrella we have right now also is an inhibitor to the statehood process because countries perceive the benefits of our protective umbrella without being a state.

My dark horse vote? South Sudan, who can constitutionally secede in 2011 from Sudan and is stable enough due partially to the first genocide there. All you'd need is a good core of interested people in both the US and South Sudan.

My guess at some other possibilities:
--Latin American states: Your friend at Harvard knows more than me on that. I defer to his expertise.
--Mexico: They've lost territory to us before, and are potentially unstable enough to have another region try to leave, but multiculturalism and the rise of the reconquista meme protect against it. Might be worth watching. Might be interesting to game how we might wind up with, say, Oaxaca (I don't think Baja's going to leave because they've changed some of their government so the Americans will retire there).
--Former satellites: Some Eastern European countries would be interested, but the first one of those countries would have to break a meme. EU is a competitor, and I wrote that paper thinking a country's EU accession would be improved even if they just considered statehood to improve the conditions of accession to the EU.
--Puerto Rico: Friend of mine did a thesis proving that the territory has the best of all worlds politically: American citizenship, billions of dollars in aid, in the defense umbrella, state-level low barriers to trade, and they still get the ability to complain about the Yanquis. Because of the stability of that position I don't expect much change for a while.
--African countries: It's possible that one of the countries--or regions, like South Sudan--might go for that kind of deal. The first barrier to entry would be getting the expat community and leadership interested in the concept.
--Asian countries: I think the language barrier and closeness to China and Russia and India make that more hard than less. Saipan is happy where it is; Fiji's not likely to be a candidate; the 'stans I'd put in the "very hard" category.
--Middle East: I don't see it.
--Canada: They're trending more stable than less but if Quebec goes than maybe the folks in Halifax will decide they want to change. Unlikely.

Anyhow, my two cents. Next question: who's going to make such things happen?

District of Columbia.

Sooner than you think...

Guam? Have anybody read about the recent legislation passed for reparations there from WWII, to be paid, can you believe it, by the US? Thinks outside the box on that, y'all...

As I look at this discussion, I keep thinking about a group of questions. What are the benefits/ negative consequences of each option? Then compare and contrast the results. To me, District of Columbia is the only real choice. The reason is Congressional representation. We should stay within CONUS.

The question is: who wants to be the 51st State? Right now, the only candidate is DC, but I see enormous political obstacles against that. Puerto Rico is the logical candidate for statehood, but Puerto Ricans have no desire to subject themselves to US taxation. However, consider the possibility that someday a Democratic President proposes a shift in the US tax system away from the income tax and towards a consumption-based tax such as VAT (it would likely be a Dem. President who could do this, for Nixon-to-China reasons). Then the disadvantage of being subject to the US tax system would be lessened and statehood might become much more attractive for Puerto Rico. If Puerto Rico voted for statehood and Congress balked, I think there would be a major international hue and cry accusing the US of colonialism, and statehood would be unavoidable.