Reclaiming Identity: The Politics of Country Name Changes
The Language of Nations: Why Countries Are Rewriting Their Names
TL;DR:
Symbolic and Strategic – Name changes are profound statements reflecting cultural, political, or historical shifts rather than simple administrative updates.
Reclaiming Identity – Many post-colonial nations rename themselves to restore indigenous identities, e.g., Swaziland became Eswatini (2018) to reflect its native language.
Political Motivations – Governments often use renaming to assert new political ideologies or legitimacy, such as Burma to Myanmar (1989), which faced international controversy.
Linguistic and Cultural Revival – Names are altered for linguistic accuracy or cultural authenticity, as in Turkey’s transition to Türkiye (2021) to align with native pronunciation.
Economic & Branding Factors – Countries may change names for better global recognition, tourism appeal, or to avoid confusion, e.g., Czech Republic to Czechia (2016).
Legal and Diplomatic Complexities – Official name changes require legislative approval, diplomatic recognition, and international database updates (e.g., UN, passports, treaties).
International & Domestic Reactions – Some name changes face domestic pushback or international resistance, especially when linked to political disputes (e.g., Macedonia to North Macedonia in 2019).
Geopolitical Implications – Renaming can spark diplomatic tensions or historical grievances, requiring extensive negotiations (e.g., Zaire reverting to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1997).
Future Trends – More countries might consider renaming to align with cultural nationalism, decolonization efforts, or international branding strategies.
Changing a country’s name is rarely just about nomenclature—it reflects deeper struggles over identity, sovereignty, and global positioning.
And now for the Deep Dive…
Introduction
The act of changing a country's name is not merely an administrative update but often serves as a profound statement of cultural, political, or historical transformation. One compelling instance in history was when Persia officially became Iran in 1935, signaling a move towards cultural nationalism and distancing from the Western perception of the country. This name change was not just about identity but also about redefining international relations and self-image on a global stage. Countries change their names for numerous reasons, including the desire to reclaim pre-colonial identities, reflect a shift in political ideology, or to better align with their native language and pronunciation, thereby enhancing national pride and recognition on the world stage. The significance of such changes lies in how they can fundamentally alter perceptions, both domestically and internationally, about a nation's culture, governance, and place in the global community.
Delving into the specifics, the transition from Swaziland to Eswatini in 2018 was rooted in a cultural and linguistic revival. King Mswati III declared the change to reflect the original name of the country in the siSwati language, emphasizing cultural identity and sovereignty post-independence from British rule. This move was part of a broader trend where countries aim to shed colonial names for ones that resonate with indigenous identities. Similarly, the Republic of Turkey's push to be recognized as Türkiye in 2021 was motivated by linguistic accuracy, aiming to differentiate the country from the bird named "turkey" in English and to promote a more authentic representation of the nation's name in global discourse. These changes necessitate a comprehensive overhaul of diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations, including updates in international treaties, agreements, and even digital infrastructures like domain names and international databases.
The process of officially changing a country's name involves not only national legislative action but also international recognition and adaptation. For instance, when the country of Burma became Myanmar in 1989, it faced significant international debate regarding the legitimacy of the change due to the political context under which it occurred, with some countries refusing to recognize the new name as an act of political protest against the ruling military junta. The transition requires diplomatic negotiations, updates in international bodies like the United Nations, and practical adjustments in everything from travel documents to global trade agreements. Such changes can also provoke domestic discussions or disputes about national identity, history, and the direction of the country's future. The name change thus becomes a lens through which one can examine the intricate interplay of politics, culture, and international relations.
Historical Context
The historical context of country name changes spans millennia, reflecting shifts in power, culture, and identity. One of the earliest recorded instances is the transition from Persia to Iran in 1935, initiated by Reza Shah Pahlavi to signify a break from the Western perception of the country and to emphasize the nation's Aryan roots amid rising nationalistic sentiments. Another notable example includes the shift from Ceylon to Sri Lanka in 1972, marking the country's embrace of its Sinhalese identity after gaining independence from British rule. These name changes are not merely cosmetic. They often accompany significant socio-political transformations, aiming to erase colonial legacies or to assert a new national narrative. The renaming reflects a nation's journey towards self-definition, often aligning with broader movements of decolonization and cultural reclamation.
Colonial influence has been a predominant factor in the historical naming of countries, particularly during the era of European imperialism. Colonizers often imposed names that were either simplifications or complete fabrications based on their language or the misinterpretation of local names, thereby erasing or overshadowing indigenous identities. For instance, the name "Rhodesia" was bestowed upon the region now known as Zimbabwe to honor Cecil Rhodes, a British colonialist, completely disregarding the indigenous Shona and Ndebele names. Post-colonial independence movements frequently led to the reclamation or creation of new names that honor local languages, heroes, or historical figures, symbolizing a reclaiming of sovereignty and identity. This was evident when Upper Volta became Burkina Faso in 1984 under Thomas Sankara's leadership, aiming to forge a new national identity free from French colonial influence. The renaming often serves as both a political statement and a cultural assertion, with implications for national unity, international recognition, and the rewriting of history from a post-colonial perspective.
The process of renaming countries post-colonialism involves complex political, cultural, and administrative actions. It requires not just national legislative approval but also international recognition, which can be contentious or slow due to geopolitical tensions or historical grievances. For instance, the transition from Burma to Myanmar in 1989 was controversial due to the political context, with some nations refusing to adopt the new name in protest against the ruling military junta's legitimacy. This underscores the delicate balance between asserting national identity and navigating international relations. Moreover, practical aspects such as updating maps, legal documents, and international treaties pose significant logistical challenges. The renaming can also spark internal debates about cultural identity, as seen with India's name change discussions, where names like 'Bharat' are considered to reflect ancient heritage more accurately. These name changes are thus windows into the broader narratives of decolonization, identity politics, and the quest for national self-determination in a global context.
Political Reasons for Name Changes
Political motives often underpin the decision to alter a country's name, serving as a potent symbol of national identity and sovereignty. The renaming of Burma to Myanmar in 1989 epitomizes this shift, where the military government sought to erase the colonial legacy and assert a new national identity rooted in its pre-colonial heritage. This change was not merely about a name; it was a strategic move to align with the junta's ideology of "The Burmese Way to Socialism," distancing from Western influences and the democratic movements associated with the name "Burma." The name change was met with mixed international responses, with some nations and organizations, like the United States and the UN, continuing to use "Burma" in protest against the regime until recent years, indicating how name changes can become entangled in global politics and human rights discourses.
The example of Zaire reverting to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1997 highlights how political realignments can also prompt name changes. Originally named Zaire by Mobutu Sese Seko during his "Authenticity" campaign in 1971 to rid the nation of colonial names and symbols, the reversion to Congo was part of Laurent-Désiré Kabila's effort to undo Mobutu's legacy after seizing power. This shift was not just a return to a historical name but symbolized a political overhaul, aiming to disconnect from Mobutu's authoritarian rule and to reconnect with the broader Congolese identity and history pre-Mobutu. The name change also reflected an ideological pivot back towards broader Pan-Africanist sentiments and away from the personal cult of Mobutu. Such changes often coincide with new political visions or the desire to reshape national narratives to fit new governance structures or ideological directions.
These name changes carry significant administrative, cultural, and diplomatic implications. Administratively, they require the overhaul of national and international documentation, from passports and currency to treaties and international memberships. Culturally, they can either unite or divide populations, depending on how the change is perceived in terms of ethnic or regional identities within the nation. Diplomatically, the recognition of a new name can be a contentious issue, sometimes used as leverage in international relations or as a sign of solidarity or protest against internal policies. The process of getting a new name recognized globally can take years, involving negotiations at international forums like the United Nations. Thus, while the act of renaming might seem straightforward, it's a deeply embedded political strategy that reflects broader goals concerning national identity, sovereignty, and the global positioning of a country.
Cultural and Linguistic Reasons
Cultural revival plays a significant role in the decision to rename countries, with the aim to reclaim and emphasize indigenous origins and cultural identities. The transformation of Swaziland to Eswatini in 2018 is a prime example of this motivation. King Mswati III declared this change during the 50th anniversary of the country's independence from Britain, opting for the traditional name "Eswatini," which means "land of the Swazis" in the siSwati language. This renaming was not just about a linguistic update but a profound cultural statement intended to reconnect the nation with its pre-colonial roots and to assert a distinct cultural identity on the global stage. It reflects a broader movement where nations seek to reclaim narratives and symbols from their history that were overshadowed or altered during colonial times, fostering a sense of pride and unity among its people.
The shift from Turkey to Türkiye in 2021 underscores the linguistic and pronunciation motives behind country name changes. This was primarily driven by the desire to align the country's international name with its pronunciation and spelling in the Turkish language, moving away from "Turkey," which many felt was too closely associated with the English word for the bird. The use of "Türkiye" more accurately reflects the phonetics in Turkish, where the "ü" (a vowel not found in English) and the "ğ" (a silent letter affecting pronunciation) are crucial for correct pronunciation. This change was also part of a broader branding effort to enhance Turkey's global image, aiming for cultural authenticity and to avoid confusion in international contexts. It required significant diplomatic efforts, including communications with international organizations and updates in global databases, showcasing how even a small change in spelling can have wide-reaching implications for identity and international perception.
These name changes, while rooted in cultural and linguistic motives, require meticulous planning and execution. They involve not only legal and administrative adjustments but also a broad campaign to educate both the national populace and the international community about the new identity. For instance, the transition to Eswatini involved updating all national symbols, from the constitution to currency, alongside international recognitions in bodies like the UN, which necessitates formal notifications and approvals. The case of Türkiye saw the government engaging with major tech companies like Google to ensure correct usage in digital spaces, highlighting the intersection of culture, language, and modern technology in the process of redefining a nation's name. These changes are more than mere nomenclature; they are acts of cultural reclamation and linguistic precision, aiming to consolidate national identity while navigating the complexities of global recognition and communication.
Economic and Marketing Motives
Economic and marketing motives can significantly influence a country's decision to change its name, focusing on aspects like branding and shaping international perception. One of the key economic drivers for such changes is the potential to boost tourism, trade, and international relations through a more appealing or distinctive national identity. For instance, when Turkey officially adopted "Türkiye" in 2021, it was partly an effort to enhance its branding on the global stage. This rebranding aimed to separate the country's identity from the common English word for the bird "turkey," hoping to attract more tourism by emphasizing cultural authenticity and reducing linguistic confusion. The change was accompanied by a comprehensive marketing strategy that included new logos, slogans, and even diplomatic efforts to ensure correct usage in international contexts, demonstrating how a name change can be leveraged for economic gain by enhancing a country's image and marketability.
Avoiding confusion is another crucial economic rationale behind name changes, particularly when a country shares its name with other entities or when its current name does not clearly reflect its cultural or geographic identity. This was a significant factor in the renaming of Czechia from the Czech Republic in 2016. The name "Czech Republic" was often confused with Slovakia or mistaken for being part of Russia due to historical associations. By adopting "Czechia," the country sought to simplify its name for international use, particularly in sports, travel, and commerce where short, distinct names are advantageous. This change aimed at reducing confusion in international markets, which could lead to more efficient branding, marketing, and ultimately, economic benefits through clearer national identity. The process included updating the ISO country codes, domain names, and engaging in international campaigns to promote the new name, illustrating the technical and strategic considerations involved in such transitions.
The implementation of these name changes for economic and marketing purposes involves a complex interplay of national policy, international diplomacy, and marketing strategies. Countries must navigate the bureaucratic process of changing names in international databases, updating all forms of national and international documentation, and ensuring that the new name is recognized by influential bodies like the United Nations or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Moreover, there is a need for extensive public relations and marketing campaigns to re-educate both domestic and international audiences about the new name. This includes leveraging digital platforms, international media, and cultural diplomacy to reshape perceptions. The economic implications extend beyond immediate branding to long-term effects on trade agreements, tourism sectors, and even the digital economy where domain names and search engine optimizations play a role. These name changes, therefore, are not just about identity but are strategic moves in the global marketplace, aiming to enhance a country's economic position through clearer, more marketable national branding.
Case Studies
The case of Eswatini, which was formerly known as Swaziland, provides a clear example of a country changing its name for reasons deeply rooted in cultural identity and post-colonial reclamation. The name change was officially announced by King Mswati III in 2018 to mark the 50th anniversary of independence from British rule. The shift to "Eswatini" (meaning "land of the Swazis" in siSwati) aimed to disconnect from the colonial name "Swaziland," which had been confused internationally with Switzerland and was seen as not reflecting the indigenous identity. The process involved royal proclamations, legislative changes, and international notifications, including to the United Nations to update all official documents and databases. The impact was multifaceted. Domestically, it was largely embraced as a symbol of cultural revival, but internationally, it required extensive re-education and adaptation, affecting everything from travel and trade documents to digital platforms and international treaties. The change also served to strengthen national identity, although the practical implications included significant administrative costs and efforts to realign global perceptions and policies.
The transition from Turkey to Türkiye is a more recent and illustrative case study in how linguistic precision and national branding can drive a name change. Announced in 2021, the change to "Türkiye" was motivated by several factors, including a desire to reflect the correct pronunciation in Turkish, which uses characters like 'ü' and 'ğ' that are absent in English, leading to mispronunciations or conflations with the bird named "turkey." President Recep Tayyip Erdogan emphasized that "Türkiye" better represents the culture, civilization, and values of the Turkish nation. The process involved diplomatic communications with international bodies like the United Nations and tech giants for digital updates, ensuring that "Türkiye" would be recognized in all formal and informal international contexts. The practical implications included updating all branding, from national logos to tourism campaigns, and required a concerted effort to educate global audiences. While the name change was largely symbolic, aiming to enhance national pride and international image, it also had tangible effects on trade, tourism, and international relations, as it necessitated changes in how the country is referred to in global media, databases, and legal documents.
Both case studies underscore the complexities involved in country name changes, highlighting the blend of cultural, political, and economic motives. For Eswatini, the change was a bold statement of independence and cultural identity, with the impact felt both in national pride and international recognition. For Türkiye, the change was part of a broader branding strategy, aiming to align the country's international image with its domestic identity, showcasing the importance of linguistic authenticity in global communications. These changes impact not only the national psyche but also require significant resources and diplomatic effort for international acceptance. They affect trade agreements, tourism branding, digital identification, and even the everyday lives of citizens through updated passports and other identity documents. The long-term success of such name changes often hinges on consistent international use, educational efforts, and the political stability or cultural resonance of the new name within and beyond the country's borders.
Public and International Reaction
The domestic reception to a country's name change can range from celebration to resistance, reflecting the diverse views within a nation's populace. In Eswatini, formerly Swaziland, the change was largely celebrated as a move towards cultural sovereignty and identity, with King Mswati III's declaration seen as a significant step in reclaiming the nation's pre-colonial heritage. However, not all name changes are met with universal approval. Some citizens might view the change as unnecessary or costly, particularly if it involves significant administrative or economic burdens. For instance, when Turkey announced the shift to Türkiye, there was a mixed reaction. While many saw it as a positive move towards cultural authenticity and national pride, others questioned the practicality and the financial implications of such a change, especially during economic downturns. The domestic debate often revolves around the symbolism of the new name versus the logistical and financial costs associated with its implementation across all levels of society.
On the international stage, the adaptation to a new country name involves a complex process of global recognition and adjustment. The transition from Swaziland to Eswatini required updates in international databases, maps, travel documents, and diplomatic protocols. While the United Nations and other international bodies swiftly recognized the new name, it took time for global media, educational materials, and even casual international discourse to catch up. This adaptation period can lead to confusion or continued use of the old name due to habit or lack of awareness. Similarly, Turkey's transition to Türkiye faced challenges in international recognition. Although the United Nations agreed to the change almost immediately, there was a lag in how quickly foreign media, international businesses, and even social platforms like Google Maps updated their references. This situation underscores the logistical and sometimes political hurdles in ensuring that a new name is universally adopted, particularly when it involves changes to ISO country codes, domain names, or international treaties.
The process of global adaptation also involves diplomatic negotiations and can become a point of contention or leverage in international relations. For instance, the recognition of new names like "Myanmar" for Burma was politically charged, with some countries using non-recognition as a form of protest against the ruling regime. This aspect of name changes highlights how they are embedded in broader geopolitical narratives. Additionally, there are practical challenges such as translating the new name into different languages, ensuring correct pronunciation in international settings, and updating all forms of international documentation from passports to trade agreements. Media adaptation is particularly complex; news organizations must update their style guides, and there might be resistance or confusion in coverage due to the inertia of established naming conventions. Ultimately, while the name change might solidify a country's identity and potentially enhance its international image, the journey towards full global recognition is fraught with challenges, requiring patience, strategic communication, and sometimes, political will from both the changing nation and the international community.
Challenges and Controversies
The legal and administrative challenges associated with changing a country's name are extensive and multifaceted. Altering a nation's name involves a cascade of updates across all official documents, from passports and identity cards to national currency and legal statutes. For example, when Swaziland became Eswatini in 2018, the government had to revise thousands of documents, including laws, treaties, and international agreements. This process requires not only domestic legislative action but also international cooperation to update databases like those maintained by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for travel documents, or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for country codes. The administrative burden extends to updating maps; cartographic agencies worldwide need to redraw and distribute new map editions, which involves coordination with educational institutions, publishers, and digital mapping services. The cost and time involved in these changes can be significant, often leading to debates about resource allocation, especially in countries facing economic constraints.
The controversy over names, particularly when they are tied to historical, cultural, or territorial claims, can lead to international disputes. The naming of the Republic of Macedonia as "North Macedonia" in 2019 after the Prespa Agreement with Greece highlights the complexities involved. The original name "Macedonia" was seen by Greece as an appropriation of its own historical and cultural identity, leading to a decades-long dispute that affected Macedonia's international relations, including its NATO and EU accession processes. The new name was intended to differentiate the country from the Greek region of Macedonia, but it was not without domestic backlash in both countries. In North Macedonia, some nationalists saw the name change as a loss of cultural identity, while in Greece, there were protests against what was perceived as a concession. This case illustrates how name changes can become flashpoints for nationalist sentiments, potentially leading to diplomatic tensions or even conflicts if not managed through careful negotiation and international mediation.
These controversies often involve not just bilateral relations but can affect broader regional dynamics or international organizations. Names can evoke deep-seated historical grievances or aspirations, as seen with the Macedonian naming dispute, where historical narratives and cultural claims were at the forefront of the debate. The legal implications extend to international law, requiring amendments to treaties and agreements, which might also involve revisiting historical documents or agreements for accuracy or to reflect new political realities. Moreover, the process of changing a name can be weaponized in international politics, with countries or groups using it as leverage in negotiations or to highlight political points. The international community, including bodies like the United Nations, must navigate these waters carefully, balancing respect for national sovereignty with the need for regional stability and historical sensitivity. This delicate balance underscores the broader implications of what might seem like a simple act of renaming, revealing the deep connections between identity, history, and geopolitics.
Conclusion
The decision to change a country's name is often rooted in a complex interplay of cultural, political, and economic motivations. Countries might opt for a name change to reclaim indigenous identities, erase colonial legacies, or to reflect significant political shifts, as seen in the cases of Eswatini and North Macedonia. These alterations are not merely symbolic. They require extensive administrative updates, from legal documents and treaties to international databases, showcasing the logistical challenge involved. Economically, a new name can be part of a branding strategy aimed at enhancing tourism, trade, and international perception, with examples like Türkiye highlighting how linguistic precision can be leveraged for global branding. Additionally, name changes can serve to resolve international disputes or clarify national identities that might have been confused or contested historically.
Looking forward, there might be a trend towards more countries considering name changes as global dynamics evolve. With increasing nationalism and cultural revival movements, nations might seek to further assert their cultural identities, especially post-colonial states still bearing names from their colonial pasts. Advances in digital technology also mean that the process of changing names could become more streamlined, with updates to digital records, domain names, and social media platforms becoming faster, thus reducing some of the traditional barriers to name changes. However, this trend could also lead to new challenges, such as the potential for increased nationalist tensions or disputes over historical claims, especially if the renaming is perceived as an attempt to rewrite history or assert territorial claims. As global interconnectedness grows, the implications of such changes will increasingly involve not just bilateral relations but also how these countries interact within international frameworks like the United Nations or the European Union.
The fluidity of national identity as reflected through names underscores the dynamic nature of culture and politics. Names are more than labels. They encapsulate a nation's history, aspirations, and sometimes its conflicts. They can become pivotal in shaping international narratives, affecting everything from diplomatic relations to cultural exchanges. The significance of these changes in global politics and culture lies in how they challenge established perceptions, demand international recognition, and sometimes force a reevaluation of historical narratives or geopolitical alignments. Ultimately, while a country's name change might seem like a mere administrative adjustment, it is a profound statement of identity, sovereignty, and the ongoing narrative of nationhood in an ever-evolving global landscape. This fluidity suggests that the names of nations are not set in stone but are part of an ongoing dialogue between past, present, and future identities.
Sources:
Al Jazeera. (2016, November 3). Why Burma became Myanmar. Retrieved from www.aljazeera.com/features/2016/11/3/why-burma-became-myanmar
Al Jazeera. (2018, June 17). Greece and Macedonia reach historic deal on name dispute. Retrieved from www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/6/17/greece-and-macedonia-reach-historic-deal-on-name-dispute
Al Jazeera. (2022, January 14). Why Turkey wants to be known as Türkiye. Retrieved from www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/14/why-turkey-wants-to-be-known-as-turkiye
Al Jazeera. (2023, June 15). Why countries change their names. Retrieved from www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/15/why-countries-change-their-names
BBC News. (1997, May 17). Zaire becomes Congo. Retrieved from news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/89526.stm
BBC News. (2016, October 1). Czech Republic to be known as 'Czechia'. Retrieved from www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37528386
BBC News. (2018, April 19). Swaziland changes its name to the Kingdom of Eswatini. Retrieved from www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-43819574
Britannica. (n.d.). Congo, Democratic Republic of the - History. Retrieved from www.britannica.com/place/Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo/History
Britannica. (n.d.). Iran - History. Retrieved from www.britannica.com/place/Iran/History
CNN. (2012, January 13). Myanmar or Burma? It's complicated. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/world/asia/myanmar-burma-name/index.html
CNN. (2019, January 11). North Macedonia becomes official with parliament vote. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2019/01/11/europe/north-macedonia-name-change-intl/index.html
CNN. (2021, December 3). Why Turkey wants to change its name to Türkiye. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/world/turkey-name-change-turkiye-intl/index.html
Euractiv. (2016, April 15). Czech Republic wants shorter name – Czechia. Retrieved from www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/czech-republic-wants-shorter-name-czechia/
Foreign Policy. (2011, November 18). The Zaire-Congo saga. Retrieved from foreignpolicy.com/2011/11/18/the-zaire-congo-saga/
France 24. (2023, July 8). From Rhodesia to Zimbabwe: A colonial legacy renamed. Retrieved from www.france24.com/en/africa/20230708-from-rhodesia-to-zimbabwe-a-colonial-legacy-renamed
The Guardian. (2018, April 19). Swaziland changes name to Eswatini, ending link to colonial past. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/19/swaziland-name-change-king-mswati-iii-eswatini
Myanmar Times. (2016, November 28). Why Burma became Myanmar. Retrieved from www.mmtimes.com/national-news/23902-why-burma-became-myanmar.html
The New York Times. (2018, June 17). Greece and Macedonia announce deal to end name dispute. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/world/europe/greece-macedonia-name-dispute.html
Reuters. (2016, April 24). Myanmar, Burma: Why the different names for a country? Retrieved from www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-burma-name-explainer-idUSKCN0XL02T
Reuters. (2019, February 12). Macedonia officially renamed North Macedonia. Retrieved from www.reuters.com/article/us-macedonia-greece-name-idUSKCN1Q113R
Reuters. (2021, December 2). Turkey officially changes its name to Türkiye. Retrieved from www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkey-officially-changes-its-name-turkiye-2021-12-02/
The Conversation. (2016, April 26). Why the Czech Republic wants to be called Czechia. Retrieved from theconversation.com/why-the-czech-republic-wants-to-be-called-czechia-58258
The Conversation. (2020, February 10). Why countries change names: The case of Burkina Faso. Retrieved from theconversation.com/why-countries-change-names-the-case-of-burkina-faso-131139
The Conversation. (2021, September 16). Why countries change their names: The case of Congo. Retrieved from theconversation.com/why-countries-change-their-names-the-case-of-congo-167804
UN News. (2018, June 27). UN welcomes Myanmar's transition from military to civilian rule. Retrieved from news.un.org/en/story/2018/06/1013352
United Nations. (n.d.). Eswatini: Background. Retrieved from www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/least-developed-country-category/eswatini.html
United Nations. (n.d.). Sri Lanka: Background. Retrieved from www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/least-developed-country-category/sri-lanka.html
Voice of America. (2021, December 5). Turkey becomes Türkiye in new branding push. Retrieved from www.voanews.com/a/turkey-becomes-turkiye-in-new-branding-push-/6340550.html
Washington Post. (2018, April 19). Swaziland changes its name to Eswatini, shedding colonial past. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/swaziland-changes-its-name-to-eswatini-shedding-colonial-past/2018/04/19/55d2d37e-4373-11e8-bba2-0976a82b05a2_story.html
World Economic Forum. (2022, January 17). How Turkey is rebranding itself as Türkiye. Retrieved from www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/turkey-turkiye-rebranding/
World Politics Review. (2019, February 13). North Macedonia’s Name Change: A Win for Diplomacy, But Challenges Remain. Retrieved from www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/27524/north-macedonia-s-name-change-a-win-for-diplomacy-but-challenges-remain