Southern African States - Annexation

Kosmik

Kosmik

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
31,203
Reaction score
11,642
Location
In the valley
For a couple of weeks now the zim issue has raised it head as a lively discussion at work. One concept which I don't really have an issue with, is the idea of annexation and the common joining of varied countries.

In brief, what if all the southern countries banded together to form a Southern African States. Member nations would be SA, Namibia , Botswana , Zim , Mozam and Lesotho. Each nation would have its own laws similar to European union and America but must conform to a standard agreed upon by all. The other states have the right to enforce policy to prevent one state being mismanaged by a leader.

As I see it, the stabler countries like SA, Namibia and Botswana can attract foreign investment and this could be funneled into bringing the lower countries in line , Zim and Mozam. Mozam is already beginning a decent growth, more clout would help and Bob, he just needs to be retired ( normally or violently , I don't care ).

Opinions , Thoughts ?
 
The same crap will happen like what happens in the EU: the more affluent member states (e.g. SA) will be overflooded by migrants from the f-ed up states (not like it's not happening already anyway).
 
You mean like the African Union? Or Southern Africa Development Community?

Already in place in theory...
 
vespax said:
You mean like the African Union? Or Southern Africa Development Community?

Already in place in theory...
Click to expand...

Not quite the same thing - > Annexation as per Wiki

*Edit* For those too lazy to click :)

Annexation differs from cession and amalgamation, because unlike cession where territory is given or sold through treaty, or amalgamation where both sides are asked if they agree with the merge, annexation is an unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and made legitimate by the recognition of the international community.[1]
 
Last edited:
Usually, it is implied that the territory and population being annexed is the smaller, less peripheral or weaker of the two merging entities. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities. Because of this, more positive terms like political union or reunification are sometimes preferred.
Click to expand...

Like I said... In theory already in place. ;)
 
But , as it shows is not working.... hence I think the military option should come.
 
Military option? Now I am lost as to what you are really talking about.

You would prefer that certain (strong states) invade and govern other (weaker states)?

Now that sounds like colonialism in a way... Let's not go there with this. ;)
 
vespax said:
Military option? Now I am lost as to what you are really talking about.

You would prefer that certain (strong states) invade and govern other (weaker states)?

Now that sounds like colonialism in a way... Let's not go there with this. ;)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't want to encroach on poor BoB's sovereignty.....:p
 
lol, US did it with Iraq and I'm not talking about colonism, big difference.

Although I think the US got it wrong in Iraq, the concept was not a bad one. To go in and remove a tyrant and let the county elect a new leader.

In Zim, the elections have taken place but the will of the people is not prevailing. All I'm saying is assisting the people in enforcing their will. Once done, military is removed and political organizations function once more and Zim can become a proper member of the SADC or other such.
 
The problem would be migration. People would be flooding to SA to find jobs and as there arent enough, crime would go even higher.
 
Too many ethnic tribes too many chiefs. It all sounds good in practice but IMO will never work. Look at the trouble we have with different tribes and chiefs, imagine bringing in other countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X