• Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Larger countries have more influence at an international stage.

      This is why the Arabs originally petitioned for a unified, independent state after WWII - but were betrayed by the British.

      • Erika3sis [she/her, xe/xem]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is well the same reason for the talks of an East African Federation, and turning the Alliance of Sahel States into a single sovereign state as well, right? What are the benefits or potential drawbacks of actually unifying different countries into a single state, as opposed to forming closely-integrated alliances?

        • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          A unified state gas the following characteristics:

          1. Single currency and market
          2. Single passport
          3. Single military
          4. Single fiscal and monetary policy.

          For countries in a similar developmental stage, becoming a single country country can allow the country to become a bigger player in geopolitics and world markets.

          Their firms can combine more easily to form larger units and have access to expanded internal markets. Having a single military under a single command structure can also avoid the NATO pitfall of different members moving in differing directions, or contributing minimally.

          The downside of forming a unified state is the danger of creating an EU. The richer members leech upon the poorer ones.