Tuesday, 20 January 2026

The Borders We Share: Cimmeria’s Flats, Steppes’ Stretch (Post 38)

 

The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World

The sky is so wide it feels like the earth has forgotten how to curve.

Two immense grasslands lie almost within sight of one another beneath the same pale winter sun.

One is the Eurasian steppe that rolls unbroken from the northern shore of the Caspian to the Altai foothills—Kazakhstan’s sea of feather grass and wormwood, where the wind never rests and the horizon is a promise that tomorrow will look exactly like today. The other is the great brooding plain of Cimmeria, Robert E. Howard’s shadowed land of wind-scoured flats and low hills that lies somewhere north-east of Conan’s Aquilonia and south-west of the drifting shadow Laputa now casts across northern Hyboria. In the last century the island’s magnetic field has begun to tug at the plain below, stretching Cimmeria’s grasslands unnaturally far—almost as though the steppe itself is reaching upward, yearning to touch the floating disc that darkens its sun. Dust swirls upward in slow spirals; grass bends sideways in long, sighing waves; the line between myth and steppe becomes difficult to see from horseback.

Both plains are endless.

Both are sparsely peopled.

Both are bleeding topsoil into the wind.

Both are claimed by distant powers that rarely smell the dust they own.

I arrive with the companions who have walked every fractured frontier of this series: Sherlock Holmes, deerstalker traded for a wide-brimmed hat against the steppe glare; Dr. John Watson, notebook already filling with wind-speed readings and grass-species counts; King Arthur, who has swapped mail for a plain wool cloak but still carries Excalibur at his side like a vow that cannot be broken.

With us walk the people who actually belong to these grasslands.

From Cimmeria come the last free clans—descendants of the horsemen who once raided south into Stygia and north into Hyperborea; Conan himself, now middle-aged, scarred, unexpectedly reflective, leaning on his great sword as though it were a walking stick; Bêlit’s daughter, who has taken her mother’s name and her father’s blade; and a young shaman whose braids are threaded with eagle feathers and who says the wind has begun to speak in two languages since Laputa drifted closer.

From the Eurasian steppe come a Kazakh herder whose family has grazed the same valley since the time of Ablai Khan; a Russian environmental scientist who monitors the slow southward creep of the desert from Kalmykia; a young Kazakh activist who has been documenting illegal land leases to Chinese and Gulf agribusiness firms; and an elderly Cossack woman whose great-grandfather fought with the White Army and whose granddaughter now herds on the same land under a lease agreement she cannot read.

This is Post 38, the second stride in Section 7: Deserts and Plains. We have left the shifting sands of Laputa and the Sahara. Now the series steps onto the open grasslands, where sovereignty is measured not in vertical metres or mineral tonnes but in the number of hooves that can still graze before the topsoil blows away.

Cimmeria’s flats are the brooding expanse Howard described as “a land of brooding hills and wind-scoured flats.” In the last century Laputa has begun to exert its magnetic influence downward, so that the plain now stretches unnaturally far—almost as if the steppe itself is trying to reach up and touch the floating disc. Every year approximately 14,000 hectares of grassland are lost to wind erosion accelerated by the island’s low-level downdraughts; the topsoil blows southward into the Hyborian kingdoms, silting rivers and burying pastures. The clans who still live here have no voice in the decisions made above them. They are not subjects; they are scenery.

The Eurasian steppe is brutally real. The Russia–Kazakhstan border runs 7,598 kilometres, the longest continuous land border on earth. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, large tracts of Kazakh grazing land have been leased—often for 25–49 years—to Russian, Chinese, Gulf, and Western agribusiness firms for wheat, barley, and fodder production. In the last decade alone, Kazakhstan has lost an estimated 1.8 million hectares of pasture to desertification and conversion. The herders whose families have used these lands for generations are rarely consulted. The leases are signed in Astana and Moscow; the grass disappears under tractors. Both plains are bleeding topsoil into the wind; both are claimed by distant capitals that rarely smell the dust.

Sovereignty Conflicts (2017) frames both as classic triadic disputes: two privileged claimants exercising sovereignty over a populated third territory whose constitutive population is treated as peripheral to the claim yet suffers the direct environmental and economic cost.

Territorial Disputes (2020) adds the sociological fracture: in Cimmeria the upper-island scholars versus the underside clans; on the steppe the urban lease-holders versus the rural pastoralists.

Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (2023) asks the moral question: can a claim to land be legitimate if it systematically excludes or exploits the majority who actually inhabit and sustain it?

Territorial Disputes in the Americas (2025) provides the practical precedent: guarantor-led shared-land-use zones that have achieved high durability in Latin American cases—models now urgently needed here.

Holmes refuses to stay on horseback. He spends four days walking Cimmeria’s flats with the clans, measuring wind speed, grass height, and the interval between Laputa’s magnetic pulses and the sudden gusts that strip topsoil. He spends the next four days walking the Kazakh steppe with herders and scientists, timing the arrival of leaseholders’ tractors and the departure of saiga herds. The data he returns with are grimly symmetrical.

In Cimmeria 14,000 hectares of grassland vanish each year to wind erosion accelerated by Laputa’s downdraughts; 1,800 herding families have been displaced in the last decade. On the Eurasian steppe 1.8 million hectares of pasture have been converted or degraded since 2015; 47,000 Kazakh herding households have been affected. In Cimmeria no scholar has visited the flats in living memory. In Kazakhstan no senior leaseholder has spent a night in a yurt on land they now control.

Watson’s notebook grows heavy: “Both plains are being grazed to death by powers that never smell the grass. The difference is only in the signature—royal decree or lease contract.”

Arthur stands on a Cimmerian hill watching Laputa drift overhead, then stands on a Kazakh rise watching a distant line of combine harvesters move north to south like steel locusts. He says only: “A plain does not care who rides across it. It only remembers who rested their herds upon it.”

We meet where the two plains almost touch: a neutral stretch of shortgrass prairie on Laputa’s lowest dune, lowered to within 150 metres of the Kazakh steppe for the first time in history, with Russian and Kazakh officials brought by helicopter and Cimmerian riders arriving on horseback.

Present: King Laputian, seated on a portable throne of adamant, visibly uncomfortable at being so close to grass; Conan, middle-aged, scarred, unexpectedly reflective, leaning on his great sword; Bêlit’s daughter, sword at her hip, eyes fierce; a Kazakh herder whose family has grazed the same valley since the time of Ablai Khan; a Russian agribusiness representative carrying a briefcase of lease documents; a young Kazakh activist holding a drone-captured map of converted pastures; Hamed al-Ghabri, the Omani elder whose water-bag has become a symbol of cross-border memory.

Conan speaks first, voice like gravel under hooves: “The grass is moving. It does not ask permission. It only asks to be shared.”

The Kazakh herder answers: “Our grass has been moving under foreign tractors for twenty years. We ask only for the right to follow our herds freely.”

The Russian representative, voice calm: “We have brought investment, jobs, grain exports. The steppe is more productive now than it has ever been.”

Arthur lays Excalibur flat across a low rise. Every hand—royal, warrior, herder, executive—rests on the scabbard at once.

I open:

“Egalitarian shared sovereignty does not ask who owns the grass. It asks how we keep the steppe from turning to dust beneath the hooves and wheels that feed us all.”

The “Steppe Accord” is drafted in dust and ink:

  • Joint Laputa–Russia–Kazakhstan Grassland Commission with binding stocking-rate and conversion caps; surplus funds a cross-border soil regeneration programme.
  • Cimmeria’s flats declared a shared ecological corridor; 30 % of any future crystal revenue funds permanent descent corridors and mobile schools for nomads.
  • “Grass-to-Sky Residency Pathway”: ten continuous years of contribution (herding, scholarship, land restoration) = permanent residency in Kazakhstan or citizenship on Laputa’s grounded ring.
  • Higher Court seated alternately in Astana and on Laputa’s lowest terrace, with judges from Kazakh, Russian, Cimmerian, and nomadic communities; veto power on any lease or extraction that increases erosion or reduces migratory corridors.
  • Every new large-scale lease or crystal operation must display, in Kazakh, Russian, Cimmerian dialect, and Arabic, the source of the water and the names of the herders and workers who sustain it.

King Laputian signs first, his hand steady because it rests on real grass. Conan signs second. The Kazakh herder signs third. The Russian representative signs fourth. Bêlit’s daughter signs last—her sword resting beside Excalibur like an equal.

The wind still carries warnings: topsoil will blow away, aquifers will fall, herds will thin. Yet it also carries new notes: the soft thud of hooves following a restored migratory corridor, the laughter of Kazakh and Cimmerian children learning rotational grazing together on a neutral rise, the quiet rustle of a Laputan scholar choosing to walk rather than float, the sound of a water-bag being refilled from a well that no longer runs dry.

Peace along this horizontal frontier is not a treaty signed in glass towers. It is a blade of grass left standing so a herd may graze again, a lease rewritten so a herder may stay, a plain whose horizon is wide enough for every horseman and every scholar to ride beneath the same sky.

You have stood on a plain so flat you could see tomorrow coming.

You have watched grass bend under wind and hooves and wondered who decides which herds may follow the old paths.

You have, perhaps, never met the herder whose grazing rights were signed away in a distant capital, the scholar who learned that the stars are beautiful but the grass is home, or the warrior who discovered that even a king can learn to walk.

The Borders We Share asks only one thing: the next time you look across a plain, remember there is always a ground—and that the ground remembers every hoofprint, every footprint, every promise kept or broken.

Next Tuesday we move deeper into the steppes—new dust, new horizons.

I remain, as always, Dr. Jorge (https://x.com/DrJorge_World) and at https://drjorge.world

• Sovereignty Conflicts (2017).

• Territorial Disputes (2020).

• Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (2023). 

• Territorial Disputes in the Americas (2025).

New posts every Tuesday.

Post 37: Laputa’s Dunes, Sahara’s Split: Sand for All

Section 7: Deserts and Plains (Posts 37–42)

39, Erewhon’s Sands, Sinai’s Edge: Nowhere to Share

40, Narnia’s Wastes, Sudan’s Split: Kings of Nothing

41, Oz’s Plains, Outback’s Reach: Emerald to Dust

42, Laputa’s Dunes, Part II: Quantum Sands

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Tuesday 20th January 2026

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

Thursday, 15 January 2026

Christ Consciousness. Bonus: Pausing to Integrate

 

Pausing to Integrate: The Path So Far and the Journey Ahead

It began in the thick of uncertainty. In March 2021, as the pandemic forced the world to pause and confront what had long been ignored, I started this series under the banner of Christ Consciousness. Not as a narrow religious doctrine, but as an archetype of awakened awareness accessible across traditions: the inner knowing that we are luminous beings capable of rising beyond ego, fear, and division.

The core message from the very first post has not changed: no one will come to save you. Not a distant figure, not a system, not even the most enlightened teacher. Salvation, true evolution, wholeness, is an inside job. The pandemic was never just a physical illness; it was, and remains, a mirror amplifying greed, disconnection, corruption, and spiritual neglect at every level: individual, communal, global.

We are still in those troubled waters. In 2026, the noise is louder: algorithmic echo chambers, performative spirituality, deepening polarization, leadership that serves self over service, and distractions that pull us further from our inner compass. The shadows we glimpsed in 2021 have not vanished; they have evolved. Yet so has the opportunity. The call to inner work, discernment, and co-creation is more urgent than ever.

The series unfolded organically over two years (2021–2023), building in three natural phases that mirror the three realms we inhabit: the empirical (physical senses), the ideal (mind and logic), and the metaphysical (soul and direct knowing).

This phase sounded the alarm and laid the groundwork.

  • Part 1: No-one will come to save you (March 2021) — The wake-up call: the pandemic magnifies pre-existing imbalances; judgment is internal; this time, we must rise ourselves.
  • Part 2: We are not all born equal (March 2021) — Souls are equal in the Source, but incarnation brings unique purposes, bodies, minds, and journeys. Equality is an ideal we create through norms such as law and morality to navigate differences safely.
  • Part 3: Threats and defences, reaction, response and proaction (March 2021) — External threats (false prophets, gossip, noise) met with the armour of God (justice, faith, truth); internal threats (ego, negativity) met with living water (deep transformation). Response neutralizes; reaction feeds darkness. Proaction: honour the soul proactively.
  • Part 4: A time for everything — Cycles and divine timing in the journey.
  • Part 5: Showing your light (March 2021) — Do not hide your gift; shine as a beacon for others. The bigger the light, the greater the responsibility and tests. No comparisons: honour your unique knowing.

Here we moved from recognition to application: tools for navigating chaos.

  • Part 6: Vision, leadership and peace (April 2021) — True leaders serve; seek positive peace (wholeness) within. Discern company, inputs, and contexts intentionally.
  • Part 7: The solitary hero and the false prophets (June 2021) — Solitude is not the same as loneliness. True love starts with self; beware conditional help from false guides. Sometimes the hero walks alone.
  • Part 8: Self-mastery: the battle towards God and inner peace (July/August 2021) — Chaos without reflects chaos within. Discipline body and mind like an athlete for an eternal prize; motivation fades, consistency endures.
  • Part 9: On watchfulness: becoming the observer (March 2023) — Watch thoughts and emotions without attachment. An ancient practice, re-spiritualized mindfulness: catch reactivity, transmute energy, anchor in stillness.
  • Part 10: Going back to source (March 2023) — When scattered, return inward. Leave the crowd of mental noise; find refuge in the heart where the Source never leaves.

These ten posts form a cohesive arc: from stark responsibility to practical defences, embodied mastery, and contemplative return.

The world in 2026 is not calmer; it is more fragmented. False prophets multiply online, inner peace feels elusive amid constant stimulation, and collective wounds mirror unhealed individual ones. As within, so without remains the unbreakable law.Yet the good news endures: we already have everything needed — the inner compass, the armour, the living water, the light. The series never offered recipes or quick fixes because there are none. It points to direct knowing: surrender to the soul, choose response over reaction, shine selflessly, return to source daily.

In these times, this path is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Inner alignment is the foundation for any outer change worth having.

The intention is to bring the series to a natural completion with twelve core parts. The number twelve carries deep resonance: the twelve apostles, the twelve tribes, the twelve months of the year — a symbol of wholeness, cycles, and divine order. Part 12 will serve as the foundational capstone.

After that, Parts 13 to 15 (and possibly beyond, should divine inspiration continue to flow) will form an integration and realization phase, weaving awakening and practice into lived embodiment. Tentative themes include:

  • Part 11: Faith — The leap beyond senses and mind; trust in the metaphysical amid uncertainty.
  • Part 12: The capstone of wholeness — A synthesis of the journey, reflecting the symbolic completion of twelve.
  • Part 13: Love in action — Selfless love; loving neighbour as self begins with radical self-acceptance; transmuting fear to love in relationships and service.
  • Part 14: Co-creation and the collective — From individual ascension to communal; how inner borders dissolve to allow shared unity.
  • Part 15: Surrender, grace, and the eternal now — After discipline comes letting go; grace flows when effort aligns with non-effort; living Christ Consciousness daily in the present moment.

No fixed timeline exists — only intention, consistency, and openness to guidance. If the inner pull continues, the series will reach twelve as its core structure, with additional parts unfolding as inspired. If the energy shifts elsewhere, what already exists stands as a complete foundation.

This is not my series alone; it is ours. Revisit the posts if called. Voice your intention — aloud, in writing, in silence — to access your knowing. Think of Christ as intermediary if it helps bridge realms; no belief is required, only openness.

If any piece resonates, share it. If questions arise, reflections surface, or you sense a next step, trust that whisper. We co-create by showing up authentically.

As Rumi reminds us: Let yourself be silently drawn by the strange pull of what you really love. It will not lead you astray.

Keep shining. The light is already within.

Christ Consciousness. 10: Going back to source


Saturday 18th March 2023

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

Wednesday, 14 January 2026

What would happen if Trump took over Greenland?

 

What would happen if Trump took over Greenland?

Donald Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland—first floated in 2019 and aggressively revived in early 2025—has escalated from a provocative real-estate metaphor into a serious geopolitical challenge. As of mid-January 2026, the White House has openly discussed “all options,” including economic coercion, direct payments to Greenlanders, and even military force. Vice President JD Vance hosted Danish and Greenlandic officials for talks on January 14, 2026, while Trump has called anything less than U.S. control “unacceptable,” threatened tariffs on Denmark, and refused to rule out “the hard way” if Denmark and Greenland resist (Reuters, January 12, 2026; Guardian, January 13, 2026). Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen have responded firmly: “Greenland is not for sale” and “no more fantasies of annexation” (BBC, January 5, 2026; CNBC, January 13, 2026). A January 2026 poll showed 85% of Greenlanders oppose joining the U.S. (Berlingske, 2026).

My trilogy provides a structured way to think through this scenario. In Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Relations: A Distributive Justice Issue (2017), I argue that territorial claims are fundamentally distributive justice problems—who gets what, and on what basis of fairness? Greenland is not an empty landmass; it is home to 57,000 people, mostly Inuit, with their own history, culture, language, and aspirations for greater autonomy or independence. Any U.S. takeover—whether by purchase, coercion, or military pressure—would immediately raise the question of distributive justice for the Greenlandic people, not just for Denmark or the United States. The 2009 Self-Government Act already grants Greenland significant autonomy over internal affairs, resources, and courts, while Denmark retains foreign policy and defense.

A forced change of sovereignty would violate that legal framework and the principle of self-determination enshrined in international law (UN Charter, Article 1(2); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1).From the perspective of Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (2020), any takeover scenario would involve multiple layers—normative (legal titles and self-determination), factual (control on the ground, resources, population), and axiological (values, identity, prestige).

Legally, Greenland is not for sale: the 2009 Act and Greenland’s draft constitution (still pending referendum) make clear that independence or any change in status requires the consent of the Greenlandic people.

Factually, the United States already maintains a significant military presence through Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), established during the Cold War under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark. Trump could attempt to expand that presence through economic leverage—tariffs on Danish exports, threats to NATO funding—or even direct pressure, but the physical takeover of a populated territory would require occupation, which would immediately trigger international condemnation and likely armed resistance from Greenlanders and possibly Danish forces.

Axiologically, Greenlanders’ identity as Inuit, not Danish or American, is central. Polls consistently show strong majorities favoring independence or continued autonomy (64% in 2016; 78% opposed to independence if living standards drop), and Nielsen’s “Greenland is for Greenlanders” statement encapsulates a deep cultural resistance to being treated as a bargaining chip.

In Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory (2023), I argue that sovereignty in the 21st century is increasingly shared, limited, and plural rather than absolute. A realistic U.S. strategy might involve:

  • Economic pressure on Denmark (tariffs, threats to NATO contributions) to force a renegotiation of the 1951 agreement, expanding Pituffik into a larger strategic hub.
  • A “free association” deal with Greenland similar to the U.S. relationship with the Marshall Islands or Palau—significant autonomy, U.S. defense responsibility, and economic subsidies in exchange for basing rights and resource access.
  • Direct investment in mining (rare earths, uranium, zinc) to create economic dependence, bypassing Copenhagen.

This would not be formal annexation but de facto control, a form of neo-colonial shared sovereignty that looks voluntary but is structurally unequal. The 2023 book warns that such arrangements can appear cosmopolitan (linking voices across borders) while remaining deeply unjust if the weaker party (Greenlanders) has no real veto power.Public international law provides clear barriers to any forcible takeover.

The UN Charter (Article 2(4)) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, including Denmark. The principle of self-determination (UN Charter Article 1(2); ICCPR Article 1) requires the free and genuine expression of the will of the Greenlandic people, as reaffirmed in the ICJ’s 2019 Chagos Islands advisory opinion (para. 180): a state cannot transfer territory without the consent of the people concerned. Coerced treaties are invalid under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 52).

Historical precedents—U.S. purchases of Louisiana (1803), Alaska (1867), and the Danish West Indies (1917)—succeeded only with mutual consent. A military invasion or forced cession would constitute illegal annexation, non-recognizable by other states under international law, and likely trigger UN Security Council condemnation (absent U.S. veto) and possible NATO Article 4 consultations (though NATO lacks mechanisms to act against a member state aggressor).

What would happen next? Several paths are plausible, updated with January 2026 developments:

  1. Greenlandic resistance and independence push
    Greenlanders have already shown they will not be sold. A January 2026 poll (Ilisimatusarfik University) showed 68% would reject any deal that reduced autonomy, and 55% would support immediate independence if living standards could be maintained. If Trump applied heavy pressure—e.g., targeted tariffs on Danish exports or threats to NATO funding—the April 2025 election could become a referendum on sovereignty. Independence would be economically painful—Denmark’s annual block grant is about $600 million (25% of GDP)—but it would also open doors to new partners (China has already expressed interest in minerals). Russia would likely welcome the chaos, seeing a weakened NATO position in the Arctic. The outcome would be a more unstable Arctic, with Greenland as a contested prize rather than a stable autonomous entity.
  2. Danish capitulation under economic pressure
    Denmark, as a small NATO ally, is vulnerable to U.S. economic coercion. Trump has already threatened tariffs on European goods, and Denmark’s exports to the U.S. ($8 billion in 2024) could be targeted. Frederiksen might seek a face-saving compromise—expanded U.S. basing rights in exchange for guarantees of Greenlandic autonomy—but this would likely trigger a domestic backlash in both Denmark and Greenland, fueling nationalist movements. The EU would protest, but its ability to counter U.S. economic pressure is limited. The result would be a de facto U.S. protectorate in the Arctic, with Greenlanders as second-class citizens in their own land.
  3. Stalemate and status quo with increased tension
    The most probable short-term outcome is continued tension without formal change. Greenland’s government would reject any deal, Denmark would refuse to sell, and Trump would escalate rhetoric but stop short of military action (politically toxic even for him). Pituffik would remain, mining companies (Australian, Canadian, Chinese) would continue exploration, and the Arctic would become more militarized. Russia would increase its own Arctic presence (new bases, icebreakers), China would offer infrastructure loans, and NATO would struggle to maintain unity. The long-term risk is that Greenlanders, frustrated by economic stagnation and external pressure, eventually vote for independence, creating a new contested micro-state in a warming Arctic.

In Cosmopolitanism (2023), I argue that sovereignty in the 21st century should be understood as limited, shared, and plural rather than absolute. Greenland offers a test case. A just arrangement would involve Greenlanders having the decisive voice on their future, with Denmark retaining symbolic ties, the United States gaining legitimate strategic access through transparent agreements, and benefits from mineral wealth shared equitably with the local population. Anything less—coercion, purchase without consent, or de facto occupation—would be another chapter in the long history of powerful states treating small peoples as bargaining chips.

The lesson is clear: territorial questions are never just about land. They are about people, justice, identity, and fairness. Greenlanders remind us that sovereignty is not a blank canvas for great powers to redraw. It is a living relationship between a people and their place. Any solution that ignores that relationship is doomed to create more conflict, not less.

What do you think? Could Greenland become the Arctic’s first truly shared-sovereignty territory, or will it be the next victim of great-power competition? The answer will shape the future of the High North—and perhaps the way we think about sovereignty itself.


State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Wednesday 14th January 2026

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

Tuesday, 13 January 2026

The Borders We Share: Laputa’s Dunes, Sahara’s Split (Post 37)

 

The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World

Tuesday, 13 January 2026, 10:15 GMT.

The wind is already awake, carrying two deserts in its mouth.

One is the Sahara, oldest of oceans, a golden sea of sand that stretches 9.2 million square kilometres from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, swallowing empires and spitting out bones older than memory. The other is Laputa’s own secret desert—a narrow, crescent-shaped band of dunes that has slowly formed on the island’s lower rim over the last two centuries, ever since the great crystal extractions began. The scholars call it “the Waste of Unmeasured Longitude”; the people who actually live on the island’s underside call it simply “the Dunes” and treat it with the wary respect one reserves for a sleeping predator.

Both deserts are vast.


Both are contested.


Both are dying of thirst.


Both are claimed by powers that almost never walk their surface.

I arrive with the companions who have walked every fractured frontier of this series: Sherlock Holmes, whose coat is already dusted with fine sand from both realms; Dr. John Watson, notebook shielded from the wind with one hand; King Arthur, Excalibur sheathed but humming faintly, as though the blade itself can feel the weight of dry earth. And with us, the voices that belong to these sands.

From Laputa come the exiled cartographers who first mapped the Waste—men and women who once served the academy but were banished for suggesting the island should descend more often; the dune nomads who live on the island’s underside, moving between oases that appear and vanish with the magnetic tides; and the young Laputan dissident who has begun calling the Waste “the People’s Sky-Desert.”

From the Sahara come representatives of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), whose Polisario Front has fought since 1975 for self-determination in the territory Morocco claims as its “Southern Provinces”; a Moroccan administrator from Laayoune who insists the dunes are Moroccan by history and development; a Sahrawi refugee from the Tindouf camps in Algeria who carries a key to a house in El Aaiún she has never seen; and a Tuareg trader who crosses the border daily, indifferent to flags but not to water.

This is Post 37, the first stride in Section 7: Deserts and Plains of our The Borders We Share series. We have left behind the vertical cities of Section 6. Now the series descends—literally and metaphorically—into the horizontal vastness of deserts and steppes, where sovereignty is measured not in metres of altitude but in litres of water, hectares of grazing land, and the slow, patient negotiation with thirst.

Laputa’s Waste is a narrow, crescent-shaped band of dunes that has formed on the island’s lower surface since the great crystal extractions began in the 19th century. The scholars call it an inevitable by-product of levitation; the exiled cartographers call it theft. Every year approximately 18,000 tonnes of sand are lost to wind and rockfall, carried downward to Balnibarbi below, where they bury fields and clog wells. The island’s magnetic field keeps the dunes in perpetual slow motion—beautiful to watch from above, terrifying to live beneath. No one from the upper city has set foot there in living memory. The nomads who do live there have no representation in the royal academy. They are not citizens; they are ballast.

The Western Sahara, by contrast, is brutally real. Since Spain’s withdrawal in 1975, Morocco has administered roughly 80 % of the territory, while the Polisario Front controls the remaining 20 % east of the Berm—a 2,700-kilometre sand wall built by Moroccan forces in the 1980s and 1990s. The United Nations still lists Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory. Morocco has invested heavily in infrastructure in the “Southern Provinces,” building roads, ports, and desalination plants; the Polisario accuses Morocco of resource plunder (phosphates, fisheries, potential offshore oil). The Sahrawi refugee population in Tindouf camps exceeds 173,000 (UNHCR 2025). Water is the true currency: the territory sits atop one of the world’s largest fossil aquifers, yet access is tightly controlled. Both sides claim the dunes by history; both sides suffer from their aridity.

My Sovereignty Conflicts (2017) frames both as classic triadic disputes: two privileged claimants (Laputian academy / Moroccan state) exercising sovereignty over a populated third territory (Laputan dune nomads / Sahrawi people) whose constitutive population is treated as peripheral to the claim yet suffers the direct environmental and economic cost.
Territorial Disputes (2020) adds the sociological fracture: in Laputa the upper-city scholars versus the underside exiles; in Western Sahara the Moroccan settlers versus the Sahrawi who remain in the territory or live in exile.
Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (2023) asks the moral question: can a claim to land be legitimate if it systematically excludes or exploits the majority who actually inhabit it?

Territorial Disputes in the Americas (2025) provides the practical precedent: guarantor-led shared-resource zones that have achieved 92 % durability in Latin American cases—models now urgently needed here.

Holmes refuses to remain aloft. He spends four days with the Laputan dune nomads, sleeping under makeshift canvas, measuring dune migration rates, and timing the interval between crystal blasts and rockfalls. He spends the next four days crossing the Berm with Polisario escorts, then crossing back with Moroccan military liaison officers. The data he returns with are starkly symmetrical:

  • Laputa Waste: 18,000 tonnes of sand lost annually to wind and fall; 2,900 nomad families displaced in the last decade.
  • Western Sahara: 17,800 tonnes of phosphate rock exported annually from Moroccan-controlled zones; 173,000 Sahrawi refugees still in Tindouf after fifty years.
  • Laputa: zero scholars have visited the Waste in living memory.
  • Western Sahara: zero high-level Moroccan officials have entered Polisario-controlled territory since 1991.

Watson’s notebook, page 142: “Both deserts are being mined by powers that never walk them. The difference is only in the mineral—crystal or phosphate—and the name given to the theft: science or sovereignty.”

Arthur stands on the edge of a Laputan dune watching it slide slowly toward Balnibarbi, then stands on the Moroccan side of the Berm watching the same slow migration of sand eastward. He says only: “A desert does not care who claims it. It only remembers who cared for it.”

We meet where the two deserts almost touch: a neutral point on Laputa’s lowest dune, lowered to within 200 metres of the Sahara’s surface for the first time in history, with Moroccan and Polisario representatives brought up by helicopter and Laputan dissidents climbing rope ladders from below.

Present:

  • King Laputian, seated on a portable throne of adamant, visibly uncomfortable at being so close to earth
  • Balnibarbi, barefoot on real sand, eyes shining
  • A Polisario commander who has lived in the liberated zone for forty years
  • A Moroccan administrator from Laayoune
  • Mohammed Yusuf, the Pakistani steel-fixer now working on a Moroccan-funded desalination project near Dakhla
  • Hamed al-Ghabri, the Omani elder whose water-bag has become a symbol of cross-border memory

Balnibarbi speaks first: “The dunes are moving. They do not ask permission. They only ask to be shared.”

The Polisario commander answers: “Our dunes have been moving under foreign boots for fifty years. We ask only for the right to walk them freely.”
The Moroccan administrator, voice calm: “We have brought water, roads, schools. The dunes are more alive now than they have ever been.”

Arthur lays Excalibur flat across a low dune crest. Every hand—royal, revolutionary, labourer, elder—rests on the scabbard at once.

I open:

“Egalitarian shared sovereignty does not ask who owns the sand. It asks how we keep the dunes from swallowing the people who live on them.”

The “Dune Accord” is drafted in sand and ink:

  1. Joint Laputa–Sahara Crystal-Phosphate Commission with binding extraction caps; surplus funds a cross-desert aquifer recharge programme.
  2. Laputa’s Waste declared a shared ecological zone; 30 % of crystal revenue funds permanent descent corridors and grounded universities for nomads.
  3. “Sand-to-Sky Residency Pathway”: ten continuous years of contribution (mining, agriculture, scholarship) = permanent residency in the UAE or citizenship on Laputa’s grounded ring.
  4. Higher Court seated alternately in Laayoune and on Laputa’s lowest terrace, with judges from Moroccan, Sahrawi, expatriate, and Balnibarbi communities; veto power on any project that depletes aquifers or increases dune migration.
  5. Every new mining operation—whether crystal or phosphate—must display, in Arabic, Hassaniya, Spanish, Urdu, and Balnibarbi dialect, the source of the water and the names of the workers who extract it.

King Laputian signs first, his hand steady because it rests on real sand. The Polisario commander signs second. The Moroccan administrator signs third. Mohammed Yusuf signs fourth—and smiles for the first time since we met in Dubai.

The wind still carries warnings: aquifers will fall, dunes will migrate, people will thirst. Yet it also carries new notes: the soft hiss of a recharge well pumping water back into the ground, the laughter of Sahrawi and Moroccan children learning cartography together on a neutral dune, the quiet thud of a Laputan astronomer choosing to walk rather than float, the rustle of a water-bag being refilled from a tap that no longer runs dry.

Peace along this vertical-and-horizontal frontier is not a treaty signed in air-conditioned halls. It is a crystal left in the ground so a palm grove may breathe again, a pipeline that returns what it takes, a dune whose crest is walked by nomad and scholar alike, a passport stamped with a future instead of an expiry date.

You have stood on a dune and felt the sand shift beneath your feet.
You have looked at a map and wondered why one side of a line is green and the other is brown.

You have, perhaps, never met the farmer whose well ran dry so a city could drink, the scholar who learned that the stars are beautiful but the earth is home, or the miner who carried the crystal that kept an island aloft.

The Borders We Share asks only one thing: the next time you look at a desert, remember there is always a ground—and that the ground remembers everyone who walks it.

Next Tuesday we move deeper into the plains—new dust, new grass.

I remain, as always,

Dr Jorge (https://x.com/DrJorge_World ) https://drjorge.world

• Sovereignty Conflicts (2017).

• Territorial Disputes (2020).

• Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (2023). 

• Territorial Disputes in the Americas (2025).

New posts every Tuesday.

Section 6: Cities and Rocks (Posts 31–36): A Recap

Section 7: Deserts and Plains (Posts 37–42)

38, Cimmeria’s Flats, Steppes’ Stretch: Dust Meets Grass

39, Erewhon’s Sands, Sinai’s Edge: Nowhere to Share

40, Narnia’s Wastes, Sudan’s Split: Kings of Nothing

41, Oz’s Plains, Outback’s Reach: Emerald to Dust

42, Laputa’s Dunes, Part II: Quantum Sands

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Tuesday 13th January 2026

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world