Alternative History
Register
Advertisement

I have to say, Smog, I really can't buy this one. These little states have been fighting for decades, and only just, under pressure, agreed to a peace agreement in 2009.

Add to that, that the WAU and LoN are much more so supporting the Free Port at Monrovia.

Lordganon 00:27, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

The WAU has been sponsoring reunification talks since early last year I believe. The two communist groups I believe wanted nothing to do with it, and Monrovia was part of the talks. I'm guessing the terms weren't what they wanted, hence not joining.Oerwinde 07:15, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

My bad, 2010

"April 6, 2010: West African Union delegates begin Liberian negotiations in Monrovia: [1] [2] MONROVIA - West African Union delegates and representatives of the various Liberian factions began reunification talks in Monrovia today. No agreement is expected for some time, but the representative turnout is already being hailed as a major victory, with nearly every splinter faction sending representatives."

Oerwinde 07:17, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Which means some dates are off in the article. Negotiations didn't begin until 2010, not 2008.Oerwinde 07:19, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Still, the thought of any real reunification.... really this is far too soon. The WAU can say what it wants, but such a thing really just isn't something likely to work for a while. Lordganon 10:52, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

I will change the date from 2008 to 2010, with the assistance of the WAU it is possible, after all it is in the WAU's best interest to have stable nations within its borders, Liberia collapsed due to the governent in Monrovia policies to other tribes, which led to an all out tribal war. Which I can see may cause some problems for the federation.

I will do some research on tribal boundaries and some modification of size/shape/make up of the Federation may take place.--Smoggy80 15:14, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

I agree its probably too soon. At the time of the talks it wasn't even really any sort of independent states, just groups claiming territory. 6 months later forming a new nation is a little too fast. Maybe as of the end of 2011 a treaty is signed establishing the independent states themselves, with the idea of a federation between the two most similar groups forming by mid to late 2012, with others falling in line later. Monrovia should be part of the initial federation IMO as well.Oerwinde 18:40, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Yank about Monrovia, he's not interested in joining as he believes Monrovia is strong enough on its own.--Smoggy80 18:05, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Which is complete crap. Its one city. Yank just doesn't like to give up sovereignty no matter how little sense it makes. Like Athabasca not rejoining Canada because they figure they're better off on their own. A bunch of farms with a little bit of oil in the frozen north.Oerwinde 18:28, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Monrovia is not only one city it has

FederationofLiberia

a decent section of the coast, on the map its the green section. Plus it can expand to the north and along the coast, so it could get bigger--Smoggy80 18:31, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Yank, here. Monrovia, given its status, is better off staying out. Heck, as has been noted before, its international position, and status as a member of the compact, more or less means it can't join this without violating it. Joining such a group would also be a major hit to its economy, I imagine. Not that I don't agree with Oer's sentiment, overall, just that it's not applicable in this case. Lordganon 00:14, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

With how heavily Monrovia has been involved in Liberian politics, it doesn't make sense for this to exist without it. They called for League and WAU aid, they hosted peace talks, they hosted reunification talks. They're the most stable and effective entity in former Liberia, no state that comes about from reunification talks in Liberia is going to exist without Monrovia because they instigated it all.Oerwinde 09:11, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Monrovia doesn't really have much power outside its own borders, which have expanded since 2009 and the LoN peace deal, the waring factions areas are shown on the map as Pink between Monrovia and Lofa. As for WAU involvement both Guinea and the Ivory Coast have been assisting the new nations on their respective borders.

Plus who's to say that the leaders of the Federation nations don't get on with the leadership in Monrovia? They might see President Weah expansionist policies as hostile or even imperial (ie possibly wanting Monrovia to rule over all of former Liberia)--Smoggy80 18:30, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that Monrovia was the one that asked the League of Nations and WAU for aid in Liberia. Monrovia hosted the peace talks between the warring factions that resulted in the peace deal. Monrovia hosted the reunification talks with the independent states. Not having Monrovia is like PEI, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and BC entering confederation but excluding Ontario and Quebec even though they were the ones who brought up the idea and brought everyone to the table.Oerwinde 19:07, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

No, it was the LoN and WAU that instigated the efforts. Not Monrovia.

They, as the strongest element of the former nation, are the logical place for the outside powers to hold peace talks with the warring factions. More or less, Monrovia merely hosted them.

Any call for aid in the area was to secure their borders. And, given their membership in the compact, they got it fairly fast.

Given it's position in the former nation, it is the logical spot to hold any talks. But assuming that it would actually join such talks.... that's not right, simply put.

Were Monrovia to join this, it would cease to be a member of the Compact, as it would no longer be "neutral." And then, it craters economically. It makes absolutely no sense that they would have any desire to join it.

Comparing this to Confederation really has no basis, imo.

Add to all of that that it's quite different from the rest of the former nation.

Lordganon 05:57, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Why would they cease to be a member of the compact? All the safe harbour compact is is it lets foreign military vessels into its ports in exchange for foreign aid. Why would they cease doing that if they are part of a larger nation? As the strongest unit, federation negotiations would be strongly in its favor if the others wanted it to join, which they would. And Monrovia took part in the reunification negotiations. At least when I wrote the news item I meant them to be. I kinda let Liberia go under the radar after I took it over from Mitro. As for how comparing this to Canadian confederation has no basis, why? Its several independent states negotiating entering into a larger federal union for mutual benefit and to combat outside pressure. Aside from not all being British colonies, I don't see how its that different.Oerwinde 11:07, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

As has been written on the three members of the Compact, they are neutral states. Membership in anything like this would, without question, negate that. Thus, they cease to be a member. And, because of that, all of the outside aid dries up.

Oer, you may have meant that, but that is not what it says, anywhere. Heck, even your news posts say that it's the WAU doing things. Really, peace operations in the area have been entirely at the behest of the WAU and LoN.

Monrovia is the logical spot for any such talks to be held. Joining any such Federation weakens them, even.

It's not like Confederation. This Federation involves many third party diplomats negotiating between warring factions, in a neutral location. A closer comparison would be the Accords signed that dealt with the Israelis/Palestinians or former Yugoslavia. Not even close to Confederation.

Lordganon 14:03, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

The safe-harbour compacy actually goes against standard policies of Neutrality as it allows foreign military access to the country. Nothing in the Somaliland or Zanzibar articles leads to the assumption that various militaries would stop using Monrovia as a free port if they were part of a larger nation. It is in Monrovia's best interests to continue allowing that, so they likely wouldn't retract their safe-harbour compact. Any negotiations for federation would likely include this.Oerwinde 16:22, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Let me make this a bit more simple,

  • I, as editor of the Federation of Liberia article, do not want the Free Port of Monrovia to join the Federation of Liberia.
  • Yank, as editor of the Free Port of Monrovia article, does not want Monrovia to join the Federation of Liberia.

I think we can fairly say Monrovia as part of the Federation, not going to happen.--Smoggy80 18:12, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Thats fine, and I'll accept Monrovia not being part due to cultural differences due to Americo-Liberian political domination vs the rest of Liberia being dominated by the indigenous africans, but the safe-harbour compact would not be the reason they don't join, and they should be involved in the federation talks initially before the talks break down. They're too heavily involved in the politics of the area as well as being the former capital of the country for them not to be in the initial plan for the federation.Oerwinde 18:51, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Oer. But, the articles are fairly clear about the neutrality, especially the one on Somaliland. Moreover, the context referring to the Compact - that foreign ships of many nations can operate there - means that is is a necessity. Lordganon 07:54, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'll clarify my statement that the safe harbour compact wouldn't be the reason Monrovia doesn't join the federation. If the rest of the states insist retracting the compact is necessary for unification, then yeah, that would likely cause the Monrovians to decline. My point is that being part of the Federation of Liberia doesn't mean that Monrovia can't be a neutral port. They aren't mutually exclusive. Oerwinde 08:17, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Joining any sort of organization that does not include... well, basically everyone, like the LoN, amounts to giving up neutrality, for they then favor one group over another. Lordganon 08:24, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Its not an organization, its a nation. Unless I misunderstood them uniting. Hence my comparison to Canadian Confederation. Multiple nations uniting in federation into a single decentralised state. Oerwinde 08:31, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

More so, between the two. The article keeps referring to them as remaining separate nations, just under a layer of organization. Lordganon 09:07, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Methinks Smoggy needs to clarify. There may be several paragraphs of argument based on misunderstanding. Edit: FoL was added as possible future WAU member. Seems to point towards being a nation rather than an organization.  Oerwinde 09:11, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

At the moment it is an agreement between the two founding nations, from 1st Jan 2013 it will become one nation, like Canada or Australia - which are a Federation of seperate states, sharing one centralised government. I am basing the development on the Australian model, but it will keep the name 'Federation' --Smoggy80 10:01, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Although after doing some research I may use the Canadian way--Smoggy80 15:56, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement