The nation-state initially arose in Western Europe and then spread throughout the world as four conditions came into being:  1) a sizable people that considered itself distinct from other peoples, 2) a sizable territory with which the people historically identified as its homeland, 3) a massive sentiment of affection by the people for its current or past heroic leader(s), and 4) a general patriotic belief that the people as a whole should have self-rule in its own homeland.

        States and empires have existed for thousands of years.  New feudal states came into being with the breakup of Charlemagne's new Roman Empire in 840-43. France has generally been considered the prototype of this new feudal state. As it contended with other feudal states, especially England, heroic figures like Joan of Arc arose in France as its people identified with its homeland.

        When in 1521 the Saxon Elector Frederick provided "state" protection for Luther, a religious revolution began in Western Europe that soon spread to England, Holland and Scotland.  There was a  gradual transition of feudal states into bourgeois states led by the establishment of the evolving new Dutch State in 1581. It soon developed world-wide trade which made it rich despite the insecurity of its territory. During the period of English civil conflict and war of 1640-48, the state system, that had been developing  since the truce between Spain and the Netherlands in 1609, officially came into being with the Treaty of Westphalia. It is that state system and the evolving nation-state idea which has since spread throughout the world.

        The English reconciled opposing internal forces with a new evolving political party system, 1673-97, that enabled them to resolve domestic issues peaceably and emerge as a defensible state that was not only rich but powerful overseas. France, still the leading state and struggling for mastery of Europe, virtually gave up its overseas fight in 1754 with the recall of its competent leader Dupleix, who had been successful against the English in India.

        Subsequent American and French Revolutions and ethno-national resistance to Napoleon's  attempted conquest of Europe set the stage for the emergence of the modern nation-state. At the same time that the United States was emerging as a nation-state, France itself probably emerged as the first nation-state as it resisted conquest at the Battle of Valmy in 1792.  Soon, however, it  succumbed to dictators of the left and the right. Spanish "Iindependistas" arose in force in 1810 along with the new concept of  armed "guerrillas" in a sudden upsurge of Spanish national sentiment.  That action was prompted followed by other peoples of the Western Hemisphere and Europe as new states came into being which in due course became nation-states.

        Some states, notably Russia, Austria and Germany became multinational states seeking to expand contiguously. They were inherently unstable.  Russia settled Vladivostok in 1860 threatening China and Japan. In 1890, immediately after the abolishment of slavery in the West, European diplomats met in Brussels and had the gall to agree that after carving up Africa on paper, they had a moral obligation to send in troops to occupy the lands over which they asserted dominion to prevent the slave trade from rising again!  Japan, meanwhile, who was not a member of that "Western Club", had been stopped by European threats from encroaching on China. The Europeans were apparently then free to divide China among themselves. Japan, however, upset their apple cart of expectations and their racial misconceptions by soundly defeating Russia in 1905 and acquiring Korea as a base for further expansion into Asia.  This led to World War I, the Soviet Revolution of 1917, and general European turmoil with hardly a pause until the Poles defeated in the Soviets outside of Warsaw in 1920 as they attempted to march into Germany in support of the German Revolution which then failed.

    The stage was set for World War II which officially ended with the surrender of Germany and Japan but in reality did not end until the Maoists emerged triumphant over the forces of Chiang Kai-Shek inside China in 1949 and organized for the first time a Chinese nation-state.

    The United States and the Soviet Union, on the periphery of Europe, were then regarded as the dominant world powers replacing Western European Powers which had been dominant since the decline of Ottoman power three centuries earlier.
The United States, however, lost much prestige when its divided counsels decided in 1969 that it either had made a mistake to go to war in Vietnam or that it lacked the will to win. It began a slow draw-dowm of troops committed to the conflict.  Ten years later the Soviets were encouraged to send troops to Afghanistan. By 1989, it was the Soviet Union's turn to not only
lose prestige and control over Eastern Europe, but shortly thereafter to face the collapse of the Soviet Union itself as a supra-national State, thereby giving birth to many new nation-states.

     Since then, expanding populations in South Asia and Africa and declining populations in Europe have profoundly affected power relationships around the world.   Large new states like India, Pakistan and Nigeria have been seeking to organize themselves without due deference to the nation-state ideal—one nation only within one state.  Instead, they are attempting in each case to fit several peoples within one multi-national state.  Such states are inherently unstable and we believe they are likely to fail within the next five or ten years with the breakup of one or more followed by others if the recent timing pattern (1949, 1969, 1989, 2009 ?) holds.  We estimate that the number of independent states with at least one million people each will be over 300 by the year 2029 and will reach a peak of 400 to 500 by the year 2100.  This will represent progress toward a more peaceful world without large-scale wars, even though smaller conflicts are likely to continue.  As national self-determination becomes more universally recognized and all states tend to be essentially nation-states, regional and global organizations could become quite effective in reducing conflicts in the future.

    The data which follows is based on estimates for the current mid-year 2002. All independent states of at least one million persons estimated as of July 1, 2002, are analyzed in terms of self-determination for the dependent territorial nations and peoples within their respect territories.  The additional dependent territorial ethno-national or linguistic groups of at least one million persons within the aforementioned independent states are analyzed, each of which is without an independent state of its own.  There are virtually an equal number of such dependent territorial groups concentrated within some of the more populous independent states. These charts will be revised annually and readers are encouraged to point out errors or inaccuracies that may have occurred in their preparation and to suggest changes for future updates. Better estimates on the populations of dependent territorial groups which are more difficult to determine would be especially appreciated.  Comments and suggestions should be sent to the writer, preferably by e-mail, at the address below.

Send to: Dr. Walt Landry, Executive Director                                   For postal mail: Walt Landry, TNS,Inc.
 Think-tank for National Self-determination                                                               3835 N. 9th St., #201E
 E-mail:  landrywj@erols.com                                                                                   Arlington, VA 22203 USA
         Prepared:  July 2002                                                                                                             Tel:  703-528-3139