Onar Åm Posted April 26, 2011 Report Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) It's very simple. I don't trust African dictators. Or any other dictators for that matter. Highly understandable. I don't trust so-called "democracies" in the West either. Even a poor African dictatorship has huge military potential next to what a private group like this could possibly muster. That is ONLY true in, say, the first 10-20 years of the Free State when it is still small. However, it is also in this period that there is the least likelihood of an invasion for two reasons: 1) this is so close in time to the original agreement that it is very likely that it will still be respected, and 2) at this point there is not very much to loot. After about 10-20 years there WILL be something to loot, but by then the Free State will be quite large in both population, economic power and in security forces. 3) the main value in the Free State is the people. There are no natural resources to loot, and buildings and structures can easily be destroyed in case of an invasion. Therefore there is really nothing to gain from invading because an invasion will destroy what they are trying to loot. And said dictatorship could possibly enlist the aid of a _real_ military power. France, for instance, has shown itself quite willing to interfere in Africa, particularly those parts that France used to control. But it wouldn't need to be France. Even a larger African neighbor would be more than "we" could handle. This of course is always a risk, however, my evaluation of the risk given my full knowledge of the situation is that it is quite low. Something I realized after I replied to your last reply--you apparently find it acceptable to live with the _expectation_ that you will be invaded. No, I said that I *now* expect that IF nothing is done to prevent it, invasion is a very real danger. But the whole point of having a strong security force with the capability of withstanding quite heavy invasion is to ensure that an invasion never happens. That is precisely the reason why a significant security force is an absolute requirement for the FSI. We will not budge on this, precisely because a) this dramatically reduces the value of the Free State because investors will worry that their investments are not safe, and b ) this makes us vulnerable to the kind of future invasions that are unacceptable. Therefore either the Free State is allowed to have jurisdictional autonomy and a significant security force or there will be no Free State. It's as simple as that. As long as it's OK for you to cast aspersions on me for questioning your scheme (and ignore the people who have called you on this), I'll go ahead and point out you've provided exactly as much rational reason (i.e., no actual facts, just rhetoric) for me to support this, as Francisco d'Anconia provided for investing in San Sebastian. That is true. I have only presented a general strategy, which can be read here: http://freestateinitiative.org/mission Here I explain the reasons why this is an attractive project for a developing country, and also why it is attractive to potential investors. I have outlined a set of potential sites that we have investigated, and the general kind of region we are looking for is an unpopulated region with no natural resources, typically a coastal desert-area. We want a coastal area because we do not want to be dependent on the host country or neighboring countries for access to the global trade. Even though you cannot evaluate the specific host country you CAN evaluate the strategy. Is the plan of searching for an unpopulated, unproductive region a good one? Is this something that will make it likely that a potential host country will find the proposition attractive? I think it is fair to say that even with no more specific information you can agree that if a poor country ever were to create something like a Free State this would be the most attractive way for it to do it. Now, as far as I can tell the whole project will rest on a single premise: will the Free State be allowed to have its own security forces? If not then there will be no deal, because few investors would trust the project, and it undermines the whole purpose of the project. Since this will be in a completely useless part of the country with zero population and zero natural resources there is nothing to lose in terms of political power for the host country, and it is not like they are losing access to the area. Peaceful citizens of the host country can immigrate freely into the Free State, just like anyone else, if they want to. So the only thing they might want assurances about is that the security forces are not strong enough to actually invade the host country. This is no problem. It is very easy to make a security force that is extremely strong at defense, but with low offense capabilities. Edited April 26, 2011 by Onar Åm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.