Can nations be part of nations?

January 9, 2009 5:26 AM

If a totally autonomous country where to want to be integrated into another, would this be possible and would it be allowed?

Supposing a relatively poor but useful country (e.g. with a large population, natural resources, good weather, etc) were to hold a democratic referendum whereby its population agreed that they would not mind being integrated directly into a larger, more successful country.

Supposing then this country, which is geographically disparate from the country they want to integrate into host country with the intent of integration.

1. How likely is it that host country would accept? What factors would influence this?

I imagine if, for example, a country in central Africa wanted to become part of the UK there would be problems of disparate cultures, some people having problems with race, general development disparities but on the other hand the UK gains this large tract of land and people and natural resources that are now permanently part of the country.

2. How would the international community react to this? Would it be allowed? Would it be a practical or idealistic problem for the world at large?


These questions are all in research for a short fiction story I'm writing but I can't seem to find clear answers anywhere on what would happen if this was to occur. (I realize in practice its almost impossible, which is why it's fiction)

posted by gadha to Grab Bag (25 answers total)

East Germany was an autonomous country and unificated with West Germany in 1990. Not geograpically disparate and no good weather, but you could study some of the effects of such a process...
posted by kolophon at 5:40 AM on January 9, 2009

As I'm reading your question, I'm thinking, "this is a fun premise for a work of fiction." Because the answer to your question is not something most people would know, I would look at it as an opportunity to speculate and invent the particulars for your own story. A lot of the actual answers are situation-dependent anyway.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 5:44 AM on January 9, 2009

And if I remember correctly, there was a pacific island-state (or was it carribean?) which voted to become British territory again some years ago. It was declined, but I don't remember more than that. This could be another ask-me question, I guess.
posted by kolophon at 5:45 AM on January 9, 2009

The United States of America annexed the Republic of Texas in 1848. It does seem strange that two completely different countries would unify or that one would annex the other, but that's what fiction is for.

In history though, aside from colonization, which generally wasn't voted on nor voluntary, these sort of things tend to be due to cultural affinity, or geographic proximity.
posted by explosion at 5:48 AM on January 9, 2009

There was talk of the Cayman Islands and Iceland joining Canada not too long ago.
posted by downing street memo at 5:51 AM on January 9, 2009

Look at Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Alaska. All used to be independent or claimed by other nations.

I imagine the UK would consider letting another nation join the British Commonwealth, where the countries would be linked economically, but would retain a unique culture and gov't.
posted by wrnealis at 5:54 AM on January 9, 2009

FWIW, its the Turks and Caicos Islands that are periodically floated as a candidate for "joining" Canada, although such proposals mostly originate from individual politicians rather than from the government itself.
posted by onshi at 6:15 AM on January 9, 2009

If the country has national sovereignty, it seems that the country has the power to give it up.
posted by Pants! at 6:26 AM on January 9, 2009

Speaking of which, you might look into the way that Newfoundland, which was a separate country from 1907 to 1934, became a province of Canada in 1949 after a 15-year interlude during which it reverted to British colonial status due to financial difficulties arising from First World War debt.
posted by onshi at 6:27 AM on January 9, 2009

(oh, and I massively oversimplified in the above post, please don't call me out on the inaccuracies Me(new)Fi(es).
posted by onshi at 6:29 AM on January 9, 2009

The most likely event, if the "host" country was to accept the "joining" country, would not for that joining country be completely integrated into the host, but would be given some kind of territorial status. In which case, the host country would weigh the economic, military, and social benefits of aligning with the joining country.
posted by Atreides at 7:00 AM on January 9, 2009

It might be interesting or more likely if the joining country had something to offer the host country (oil? military base? money/taxes?); I get the impression that usually, poorer countries/states are interested in joining larger richer countries, and the larger richer countries worry that the would-be-joiners will mainly be a drain on resources.
posted by amtho at 7:11 AM on January 9, 2009

Since you're going to have to fill in the fictional details yourself, you might want to consider how this decision could actually come about in the government of the to-be-absorbed country. As much as I'd like to believe that politicians are completely altruistic and only trying to do the best thing for their constituents, it's hard for me to imagine that the people in power would vote to give up their power to the leaders of another country. I suppose the former president and congress (for instance, or whoever the relevant government leaders were) might be granted some kind of role in governing the new territory/state/whatever, but it's still tough to imagine them giving up their super-important titles for less important ones.
posted by vytae at 7:51 AM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]

As onshi pointed out, your hypothetical premise has a past historical precedent: Newfoundland joining Canada in 1949. Almost to a T.
posted by mcwetboy at 8:18 AM on January 9, 2009

If you're interested in the issues arising from having a non-contiguous country, you might read into the history of East Pakistan, as well as the Bangladesh Liberation War, which might interest you because it represents the opposite process - a non-contiguous part of a country which broke off into an autonomous country.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 8:21 AM on January 9, 2009

2. How would the international community react to this?

This is entirely dependent on the situation. If Haiti wanted to join Canada I don't think anyone is going to care. If Israel wanted to join the U.S. things would be very different.

Would it be allowed?

There is no authority that could stop it. As always, being a country largely boils down to sitting on some land and being able to defend it from all comers. It really doesn't matter what flag you do that under.

Would it be a practical or idealistic problem for the world at large?

Once again, it's largely dependent on the situation.
posted by tkolar at 8:29 AM on January 9, 2009

Territories and colonies are the rule in history not the exception. This scenario has played out many times. usually via conquest but not always. The real issue is that its a lot more rare for a country to take on another country and give it all the benefits of the host country. Look at how we treat our territories. We dont give them passports and we dont let them vote.

Lets say Palestine wanted to join Egypt. Egypt would probably balk at the request. Why should they take on a couple million people who are poorer than they are? Why should they provide support, military protection, economic opportunities, etc when Egyptians are already fighting for these things. Lots of countries are hesistant to take on a poorer populace. The west Germans were scared of taking on East Germany as it would hurt their economy, which it did. Some Koreans are hesitant about reinification because suddenly they're going to take on millions of near-starving uneducated serfs. They'll need to clothe them, feed them, employ them, build a whole new north economy, etc.

Giving these countries territorial status, commonwealth, or colonial status solves this problem. They get some token concessions like a few airports, tourism, or access to markets, but they dont get full citizenship. The host country can now do business without any fear of taxes or local uprisings. They can tax the new colonists and enjoy the natural resources of the territory.

I think its impossible to divorce economic benefits from your question. Think of all the poor nations out there who would love to be part of the UK or the US. Why would these countries want them? Unless they have something to offer then its a bad deal for the host country. Its like a mass and unstable emigration of millions of people. The host nation has a lot to lose.
posted by damn dirty ape at 9:03 AM on January 9, 2009

The answer is that it could be easily done if the acquiring country has a history of expanding its sovereign and integral territory. Such countries have well established and straightforward legal precedents for this kind of expansion. The U.S., for example, has acquired land hundreds of times by way of treaty with its prior sovereign possessors. (The treaties have much variety of course -- a voluntary union with Texans, purchases from Russians and French, spoils of war with Mexico, and of course many treaties of varying degrees of coercion with Indian tribes.)

The treaty and thereafter Congress determines the status of the acquired land and its occupants: sometimes citizens without rights for national voting but full rights if they come to the 50 states, sometimes "nationals" with partial rights, for example. Eventual statehood of the acquired territory requires the consent of the occupants and Congress both, with no particular standard for when or whether it may be granted, and no legal right for the acquired territory ever to get statehood on demand.

Countries which in their present constitution have no history of expansion, or which expanded only by means which legally made the acquired territory sovereign but not integral (common for the colonization of the European powers) would have to invent laws for the purpose and that could be very complicated.

I'd also that countries which have very broadly conceived concepts of citizen and resident rights, particularly if their source of law is a constitution or regional treaty (like the EU treaties) which the parliament can't easily waive or modify, would find it hard to structure the acquisition in a way that was politically satisfactory to their incumbent population. 20 years later Germany is still grappling with the integration of East Germany -- next door, same language, same race, long history of being the same country, etc. Hard to imagine that fact pattern if the merger were (say) Italy and Venezuela.
posted by MattD at 9:07 AM on January 9, 2009

Another example is when Eritrea was integrated into Ethiopia. But in reality it was really just Haile Selassie just taking over Eritrea.
posted by charlesv at 9:25 AM on January 9, 2009

Vermont was an independent republic before it joined the United States. As were California (very briefly) and Texas, as noted above.
posted by beagle at 10:18 AM on January 9, 2009

This question that I asked is quite relevant,

Your question is interesting in that it cuts to the heart of what a country is and what countries are looking for in terms of colonies/trade relationships.

The answer to your second question is easy: anything goes. There is (pretty much) no international law that governs these kind of things. Invasions, annexations, colonies, territories, federations, we've seen the lot and unless you really piss off a superpower you can do whatever you want (there was some debate about whether France would 'let' Germany unify).

The first question is a lot more interesting. Generally countries nowadays are based around ethnic/linguistic groups and/or accidents of history rather than the kind of mutually beneficial relationships you suggest. thus it's unlikely that even if it were in everyone's best interests, that two countries from different cultural backgrounds would unify. There are easy ways to exploit the benefits of labour/natural resources without that kind of political union. Look at the links between Germany and Turkey or China and Africa.

The closet that anyone's come to this kind of grand bargain is the Eastern expansion of the EU. The countries of Western Europe got cheap labour and access to new markets in exchange for providing hefty subsidies and support to Eastern Europe. Everybody wins!
posted by greytape at 12:18 PM on January 9, 2009

I imagine the UK would consider letting another nation join the British Commonwealth, where the countries would be linked economically, but would retain a unique culture and gov't.

Mozambique, despite having no British colonial legacy (Having been a Portuguese colony) decided to join the Commonwealth. I suppse they thought they'd get money and better relations with their formerly British colonies that are all in the Commonwealth.


Hawaii was a separate kingdom, then briefly after the overthrow of Queen Lilioukalani a republic. HTen they "voluntarily" joined the US as a territory. Of course, how voluntary that was to most Hawaiians (as opposed to large Anglo agricultural barons) is contentious.
posted by xetere at 12:45 PM on January 9, 2009

Recent discussions to track down on this that may partially answer your question are where the Maldives and Tuvalu might relocate to when global warning overtakes. You might need to look at a few different articles to find the answers. Here is one from the Guardian about the Maldives considering India, Sri Lanka and Australia as possibilities, and here is one about Tuvalu and what happens if a nation no longer has any land.
posted by AnnaRat at 6:33 PM on January 9, 2009

There's a word for this -- at least some types: irredentism. It has been an important force at times, especially beginning with the 19th century. Note that it almost entirely depends on a definition of state or nation that derives from the Treaty of Westphalia era of international relations. In the late Middle Ages nobody thought anything of the English King ruling much of France by inheritance.

One recent example comes from the former USSR. Belarus has a hankering to reintegrate with Russia, and in 1966 they formed a Commonwealth (now a Union). It's a separate entity from the Commonwealth of Independent States.

This Union has made little concrete progress in a decade, and it generally seems as if Belarus is the only party with any real interest, despite pretty strong cultural and linguistic ties. This addresses your first question. As to the second, there are probably Cold Warriors who would see any real integration as being evidence of Russian "expansionism" and raise alarum accordingly. But the actual Union seems to be little more than some paper amounting to trade agreements, so nobody cares.

Another 20th century example with its own features would be the attempt by Greek Cypriots to seek annexation by Greece and Muslim Cypriots by Turkey. Neither really achieves their aim. This was a case where the locals were trying to be "more Greek/Turkish than the Greeks/Turks".
posted by dhartung at 1:11 AM on January 10, 2009

I have heard that Nauru may eventually be absorbed into Australia (or New Zealand?) as Australian companies have essentially mined all the valuable phosphate off the island, leaving them with money-laundering, refugee-minding and similar activities as their economic activities. Many wealthier Nauruans already send their kids to boarding schools over here, and may even have citizenship already - anecdotally, a factor in the refusal of the political leadership to consider being absorbed by Australia so far (as they can always relocate here anyway when they lose power).

I think problems to solve would be the desire by Australia to avoid any semblance of colonialism, the cost of providing services to the distant territory, the sudden excess of previous leaders (ie; the Nauruan President), and the intricacies of incorporating the new area into the existing political structure - it's far too small to be a state, is it even big enough to be a territory? Could it become part of an existing state or territory? How to give it Senate/House of Representatives/state-level representation without unbalancing existing seats? Also, how many of the Nauruans would want to relocate to the Australian mainland? What would happen to all the foreigners who currently live and work in Nauru? What about companies that have agreements or contracts with the Nauruan government, especially if they don't work under Australian law? Nauru has representatives with positions in various international groups, do they just get withdrawn? They would have to withdraw from any international sporting competitions they compete in. Relationships with other governments may have to be renegotiated. Lots of other issues I haven't thought of, as well.

In your hypothetical, I wanted to point out that 'large population' in the entering territory is not necessarily a positive. Assuming that the standard of services in the country are low, the absorbing country now has to fund welfare, health and education for this population. This could lead to a dramatic shift in racial/religious demographics, such as if Israel were to absorb Palestine. What countries really want is valuable land with no people living there, and in the old days they achieved that by pretending the people weren't there and colonising it as though it were empty.
posted by jacalata at 8:57 PM on January 10, 2009