For the sake of argument, I'd prefer to focus on the international community's response to this rather than the plausibility. Let's just assume a country like, say Nigeria found a pretext to invade Benin, Cameroun and Togo. Nigeria either outrightly annexes its conquests or holds rigged referendums on union. Would the West just have to accept the fait accompli?
What Would be the International Reaction to an African Nation Invading and Annexing its Neighbours?
- Thread starter Emperor Palpatine
- Start date
Nigeria would probably be sanctioned and forbidden from invading anymore countries or NATO would declare war. Same goes for any countries, unless Morocco annexes Western Sahara. Then again, it would probably lead to a war with Algeria if Morocco did decide to annex Western Sahara.
Let's complicate the picture slightly. Nigeria has a great power patron in Russia which vetoes any UN Security Council Resolution on the matter. I'm a bit curious about why you think a NATO invasion would come about here when NATO hasn't intervened in Syria in spite of all that's gone on? Africa is really a backwater as far as America is concerned, it's not really linked to the global economy and one of the countries I've listed for invasion are major military or trade partners of any Western country.
Insider
Banned
It really depends on trade terms with USA, EU and China. Delays and unrest wouldn't be seen lightly. Would they go to war? No. Would the Powers agree on fait accompli? No either. Most likely they would file the grievances and complains and if said Nigeria starts to really endanger interests of Great Powers, they would open these files, arm dissidents and intervene on the behalf of the wronged. That happened when outburst of violence threatened Suez Canal and Libyan oil in 2011-12.
Syria is a real example what could go wrong in multipolar world. Instead of having one faction of rebels going against old government, we have a dozen factions of rebels going against themselves and two factions within the old government.
Or I don't understand tiny bit of modern politics.
Syria is a real example what could go wrong in multipolar world. Instead of having one faction of rebels going against old government, we have a dozen factions of rebels going against themselves and two factions within the old government.
Or I don't understand tiny bit of modern politics.
Well, technically Syria is in a civil war, so a NATO intervention then would be much more complicated. An outright invasion from Nigeria wouldn't be met so lightly, just look what happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait. And the international world has been heavily concerned about certain events in Africa, like the Rwandan genocide and the South Sudan crisis. No matter in which manner it is conducted, Nigeria won't be able to conduct any invasions without serious consequences.
Well, Morocco and Western Sahara gives an example. We let them get away with it whilst not accepting it on a de jure basis and largely ignore it
Christopher Hitchens, who in his later years never met a neo-con war proposal he didn't like, once tried to argue that choleric Zimbabweans fleeing South Africa constituted a form of germ warfare, so maybe("Huh, huh, please, can we?") South Africa would be justified in invading Zimbabwe and toppling Mugabe.
link
Dubious as that logic was, I suspect that if South Africa did find some reason to invade and occupy Zimbabwe, the West would publically shrug it off as none of our business, while privately snickering at whatever bloody end awaited Dr. Bob. And the international peace activists who were so vocal about opposing the Iraq invasion would be AWOL on this one, not wanting to be seen as denigrating the Rainbow Nation.
link
Dubious as that logic was, I suspect that if South Africa did find some reason to invade and occupy Zimbabwe, the West would publically shrug it off as none of our business, while privately snickering at whatever bloody end awaited Dr. Bob. And the international peace activists who were so vocal about opposing the Iraq invasion would be AWOL on this one, not wanting to be seen as denigrating the Rainbow Nation.
Considering some of these powers are in the historical French influence sphere, I see the possibility for France to throw its chief enforcer in the region (Chad) with "covered" French support at Nigeria.
Deleted member 94680
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Nigeria
Opening line of the article: The petroleum industry in Nigeria is the largest on the African continent.
So basically, the West would find a really good reason to get involved I'd imagine.
Do the military and whatever passes for a political establishment in Zimbabwe have a clear post-Mugabe plan given his age?
A country like Nigeria is a lot easier to undermine and destabilise from afar than a country like Putin's Russia or North Korea. That would be the first response. If that didn't work, and the sanctions they'd no doubt oppose failed to end the regime in Nigeria, and Nigeria still proceeded on a belligerant path, then I think a Western-sponsered invasion from Nigeria's neighbours would be in the cards. Probably led by France in some way or another, knowing their policies historic and current toward Africa. It would be no mystery where these West/Central African countries suddenly got all the new equipment from.
They pretend they do but I suspect not. Last time I heard ZANU-PF couldn't decide if they wanted Grace Mugabe (with her resume approaching North Korean-tiers of bullshit) or one of the other functionaries of the party to succeed. But personally, I'd nominate Bob Mugabe for "most likely centenarian world leader", alongside the Queen of England.
They pretend they do but I suspect not. Last time I heard ZANU-PF couldn't decide if they wanted Grace Mugabe (with her resume approaching North Korean-tiers of bullshit) or one of the other functionaries of the party to succeed. But personally, I'd nominate Bob Mugabe for "most likely centenarian world leader", alongside the Queen of England.
GarethC
Donor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouadi_Doum_air_raid
France shut him down, basically.
Nigeria vs Cameroon, Togo, & Benin is not quite the same, though.
Nigeria has tight links to Shell oil. If Nigeria kicks out Shell and engages with Rozneft while invading Cameroon, then expect a swift and overt French military response (particularly with the Presidential election upcoming) with hard diplomatic campaigning by the Elysée Palace to prevent the Admiral Kuznetsov group from obtaining any logistical support anywhere between Cape Town and Jan Mayen Land. The French aim will be to defeat the Nigerian incursion, possibly with the backing of the rest of the African Union, but probably not to enter Nigeria or achieve régime change - though the possibility of breaking the state up to reestablish the ill-fated Biafran Republic or something similar might be a possibility, to prevent a resurgance of foreign adventurism in Lagos.
Given the Nigerian order of battle, I would expect such a French expedition to be successful. Nigerian forces have had problems with morale, equipment, mobility, communications, and C3I in facing off against Boko Haram, an irregular light-infantry insurgency entirely lacking in armour and air power. Against a first-world mechanised opposition with significant artillery support and air supremacy, while operating outside Nigeria proper, I would expect a very poor outcome for the Nigerian force. France has recently deployed forces to Mali to combat Islamic insurgents there - this is pretty much meat-and-potatoes stuff for the staff courses at St. Cyr.
I would have thought that previous US administrations (both Bush and Obama) would have at least funded an AU mission to oppose Nigeria and to "peacekeep" (a.k.a. dissuade any Lagos regime from deciding to try again) in the attacked countries, but I don't know if Trump would support that measure. There would be pressure from some Republican party figures and large donors - maybe starting with Cheney - anxious to ensure that money from Nigerian oil flows to those US firms and not to Elf or Rozneft, though bear in mind that it's not simple nationalism - Glencore holds a stake in Rozneft, and there is some unsubstantiated speculation that Trump himself may do so as well, which might shape a US response if POTUS allowed such a conflict of interest to affect his decision-making. There is always the possibility that a sufficiently opportunist Washington might see the possibility of conquering Nigeria similiar to 2003 in Iraq, only restricting its occupation to the oil-producing coastal region and allowing the rump of the country to remain embroiled with Boko Haram, although that woulld be quite the hardship for the bulk of the Nigerian population - but also that a sufficiently Russophile Trump might ask Putin to do the same thing.
China has in the last couple of decades had significant engagement with large civil engineering projects in Africa, and if the US, France, and the AU do nothing, will probably look at some form of intervention here - most likely would be the provision of equipment and cadre to one side or the other in exchange for future basing rights and a continuing presence in the country, as it is a long way away and China hasn't really tried to build up its forces to support that kind of power projection.
As I recall, there was general approval, or at least no overt hostility, from the West when Tanzania invaded Uganda in '79 to oust idi Amin. Granted, that didn't lead to an annexation, but it did see Uganda ruled for a few years by a leader of Tanzania's choosing, one who was not exactly up to the lofty moral standards often extolled by Julius Nyerere.