Note that given the membership of Zanzibar in the Safe Harbor Compact, their membership in this would be near-impossible, as would membership for the other states in the area - they are just too... dictatorial and chaotic. Lordganon 07:56, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why the Safe Harbor Compact would prevent Zanzibar's membership. Burundi certainly wouldn't be invited to join, Rwanda no longer exists, and the less radical Ugandan states, most likely Buganda but maybe others, could join. Caeruleus 11:39, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
The Safe Harbor Compact more or less promises a free and neutral port in exchange for some aid. Inclusion in anything of this sort means that it is no longer free and neutral.
The Ugandan states are considered, even Buganada - which is probably the best of the lot, but when comparing moldy pieces of fruit, there's only so much difference - to be what amounts to dictatorships, and usually very harsh ones.
Lordganon 14:17, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Being in the EAC wouldn't prevent Zanzibar from remaining a Safe Harbor. The Safe Harbor Compact provides a port for other countries' naval vessels. Nothing about the EAC would prevent it from continuing to do that. Zanzibar could continue to admit whatever vessels it wishes. As of 2011, the EAC largely deals with economic integration and the establishment of common institutions anyway. Military integration is limited, not that it would interfere with the Compact anyway. Caeruleus 18:15, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
It also guarantees a "neutral" port. It's not neutral any longer if it holds membership in anything like this.
And that's ignoring the unstable government there anyways.
Lordganon 22:42, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
You're taking the idea of a neutral port too far. A neutral port is a port that allows ships from all countries, regardless of their diplomatic relations. It doesn't mean the country that hosts the port is neutral.
The instability of the Zanzibar government can be dealt with and membership in the EAC would probably help stabilize the country. Caeruleus 23:21, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
No. You're missing the point entirely, as usual. If a "neutral port" - note that it is the entire country not a single port that is the question here, which you've neglected to notice - joins an economic organization like you're writing here, it is no longer neutral.
How on earth would that help? It's an internal political issue, that this would make worse.
Lordganon 02:33, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
A neutral port nation has no obligation to remain politically neutral. It just allows open passage for all through ships their country regardless of their relations with the host country or other countries that may use its port. Membership in the EAC would not prevent Zanzibar from maintianing a safe harbor for foreign ships. Zanizbar's Safe Harbor Compact is also primarily directed at combating piracy in the region, which is an effort that joining the EAC would only strengthen. Nothing written about the Safe Harbor Compact implies that Zanzibar itself is so neutral that it wouldn't join the EAC.
Aid, energy, and a political alternative to the Safe Harbor Compact would give Zanzibar's government more flexibility and would better address some of the underlying economic issues in the country. Joint operation of borders through the customs union would also enable Zanzibar to better handle refugees and the deluge of foreigners entering the country. Caeruleus 03:34, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Considering the extent of the compact and what it allows, it does mean they need to be neutral. Have you even looked at what countries are involved with the compact? Sure doesn't seem like it to me. Joining this organization would violate the SHC and mean that all aid gets cut off. Simple.
Economic issues? The troubles on Zanzibar are anti-foreigner in nature, nothing more - a very common reaction everywhere. Refugees have ceased in any real number, and any joint border operation - also violating the SHC, big-time - would not help that at all, especially with the foreigners.
Lordganon 06:32, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
The EAC is an economic union. It doesn't hold relations directly with other states. All of Zanzibar's current relations would be unaffected by its membership in the EAC. Also, none of the countries in the EAC have adverse relations with any nations that use Zanzibar as a safe harbor anyway. The EAC does not comprise the SHC in any fashion. Caeruleus 06:57, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
To quote this article, it is an organization: "that seeks to achieve further economic, and ultimately political, integration in the region." Violates it.
And as you say, an economic union. In other words, economic favoritism. Which violates the compact.
Not only that, but it is a foreign thing. They already have riots and a massive civil divide over foreigners. This would make it umpteen times worse.
It compromises it in every way, shape, and form.
Lordganon 07:33, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
The SHC has nothing to do with economic matters, including trade and customs, between Zanzibar and other states. It's an military access-for-aid agreement between Zanzibar and whatever nations wish to use its ports.
Zanzibar used to be part of the same nation as Tanganyika and they are a fellow East African nation. East Africans wouldn't be considered foreigners to Zanzibarians, nor would there be any significant immigration to Zanzibar as a result of their membership in the EAC. The foreigners who caused the riots were Indian refugees, Australians, South Americans, and a handful of Europeans. The riots weren't a general xenophobic reaction to all foreigners. It was a specific reaction to the foreigners who were using Zanzibar through the SHC and was partially a manifestation of popular disapproval of the Compact. Caeruleus 07:50, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
No. That is not all it is. You fail to grasp that simple concept. Actually read things, please.
Actually, they would be considered foreign. Not only is Zanzibar entirely different culturally from the mainland, it's also had two decades to gain its own identity. Not that you've ever gotten that concept. Nor is the identity of the "foreigners" gone into at all. The reaction to the mainlanders would be virtually the same.
Lordganon 10:23, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
I find it highly unlikely, even impossible, that the entire mainland would go along with this. That makes absolutely no sense.
You forgot to remove the corner of Kenya as well.
Lordganon 05:53, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Tanganyikan nations have had fairly decent relations with each other for the past few years and Tanganyika's economic might would generally be enough of a influence to force less willing nations into it. PanAfricanism is still a significant ideology for many of the elites. I'll go into a bit more, but it's plausible that they would all join. I may space out when they all joined though. Caeruleus 06:17, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
It's not possible, and quite frankly, will need to be fixed in that article before graduation too. The idea that nation-states that revolted from another would all have good relations with its remnant is, quite frankly, ludicrous and ignores their identities entirely. Lordganon 06:27, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Not really. The Republic of Tanganyika renounced their claims to the other states and pubically rejected any efforts to reconquer them. Ruvuma always remained warm to the idea of reunification, or at least close cooperation with other Tanganyikan states. Kagera needs outside help to deal with the refugees and raids from Burundi and Rwanda, so they have no choice really. Uhehe and Maasailand are more rebellious and I'll be adding more about them later. The remaining states are primarily interested in the economic benefits. First and formost, this is an economic organization. Any political integration will come much later and will has its own issues. Tanganyika controls all the ports and primary trade routes into the interior, which means the other states have to cooperate with it on some level if they wish to have any access to wider markets. The elite in the area are also heavily influenced by PanAfricanism, which, like in OTL, would lead to the formation of international organizations that aren't necessary popular. Caeruleus 06:41, September 10, 2011 (UTC)