Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or, Nepal can be friendly to both, and join China's "One road and One belt" plan....You dont need to lose your sovereignty to gain prosperity.
That is a difficult path to tread between two rival peer nations though. Afghanistan was much more successful than most nations at this, and in the end they were still invaded by one of the parties they had been playing for decades.
Newfoundland and Texas are just lands that a bunch of Europeans went for the land grab on. So politically, they had a reason to 'join forces'.
If you talked to the natives of Texas or Newfoundland (the native americans), I don't recall any mention anywhere that they were on board for that.
Newfoundland had its independence and took on crippling debt in WWI. It begged Britain to make it a colony again which Britain only did out of guilt and because they knew Newfoundland would ask for American annexation next if Britain turned them down. In the end Newfoundland was forced into becoming part of Canada as part of decolonization even though they'd rejected becoming part of Canada when the Dominion of Canada was formed. This happened in the 20th Century long after any "land grab" in this area.
Texas in the end asked to be annexed by the U.S., but if they had turned it down Britain had twisted Mexico's arm into agreeing to leave Texas alone provided Texas stopped flirting with Americam annexation. All four of the nations involved in this were European cultures, and Texas put firm limits on any possible growth it could have as part of the U.S. The more land grabbing course would have been to stay independent as even as a poor independent nation Texas had already expanded its border once since independence at Mexico's expense.
Newfoundland had its independence and took on crippling debt in WWI. It begged Britain to make it a colony again which Britain only did out of guilt and because they knew Newfoundland would ask for American annexation next if Britain turned them down. In the end Newfoundland was forced into becoming part of Canada as part of decolonization even though they'd rejected becoming part of Canada when the Dominion of Canada was formed. This happened in the 20th Century long after any "land grab" in this area.
Texas in the end asked to be annexed by the U.S., but if they had turned it down Britain had twisted Mexico's arm into agreeing to leave Texas alone provided Texas stopped flirting with Americam annexation. All four of the nations involved in this were European cultures, and Texas put firm limits on any possible growth it could have as part of the U.S. The more land grabbing course would have been to stay independent as even as a poor independent nation Texas had already expanded its border once since independence at Mexico's expense.
I think the main difference between Nepal (millenniums of many of the same people, unique culture, etc.) and Texas/Newfoundland (europeans trying to displace a culture already in existance there) is quite a bit different.
I mean, NEPAL & the NEPALESE would have NOTHING to gain by becoming China or India. First thing you'd see is the same as Tibet, where the Chinese would try to destroy all of their culture, and try to replace Nepal people with yet more Han Chinese people. Then you'd have the Chinese trying to place Mandarin in there as the only language, more persecutions, etc. The Dhali Lhama and Tibetans having to flee Nepal next, etc.
Well, that's just for starters.
Texas, it was basically just a bunch of white Europeans trying to claim lands, possibly start a nation, but ultimately decided not to do it on their own. They are just drastically drastically different situations from destroying a culture of a few millenniums vs the North American one which was the destroyer of the previous culture.
First of all, Condolences to everyone who lost lives organist members in the recent earthquake.
Despite Nepal escaping colonialism, its economy fails to grow and remains as Asia's 2nd poorest country behind Afghanistan. Even India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh all have higher GDP per capita. The main purpose of Nepal is really to serve as a buffer between china and India. It's also well known for having most of tallest peaks in Himalayas situated in the country.
I think that the long term solution that will be most beneficial to the country is to split in half, with half being admitted to China and the other joining India. This will leave a satisfying solution to the long term economic problems. But the Nepalese gov must be able to persuade its two powerful nations to annex it as there is less incentive for the 2 Asian powers to annex due to Nepal being poorer than either of them. I doubt the eu and the U.S. will have adverse comments if everyone is satisfied.
Or, Nepal can be friendly to both, and join China's "One road and One belt" plan....You dont need to lose your sovereignty to gain prosperity.
I don't think it is gonna happen, but I don't buy your logic either. If a country can't bring its citizens out of poverty and give them a decent and respectful life, there is zero point in having that sovereignty.
I don't know about India, but I think China would have zero interest in annexing Nepal. It has enough of its ethnic conflicts already at home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
