Can African Political Unification Make It The Next China?


China was no different from Africa in the 1970s. But simple economic policy changes brought about their transformation. They banned or imposed very high tarriffs on imports and looked inwards. For many years the average Chinese rode a bicycle. They said, ''we will not import cars till we produce our own''. They rejected IMF and World Bank prescriptions etc. The reason China COULD do this without the usual western backlash of sanctions, threats, sabotage etc, was because they are a SINGLE, HUGE, resource-rich country of 1.4 billion people with a SINGLE central govt.

China is what Africa could become in 20 years if it got rid of its nation-states, became one single country with a single central government controlling all its resources. Many don't know this, but the AU charter actually specifies African political unification as the long-term objective of the organisation.

China's population is 1.4 billion, while Africa's is 1.1 billion. Technically, there's no reason Africa cannot be one country. China can pull more weight today because they are a single, impenetrable fortress, housing massive human and natural resources, under a single government's control and direction.

Because Africa is divided into 55 'independent' countries, a nation with no resources like Britain, can impose sanctions on resource-rich Zimbabwe, rather than AFRICA imposing sanctions on Britain, as it could.

Because Africa is divided, its nations compete to get foreign exchange by driving down the prices of their natural resources - copper, gold, diamonds, cocoa, oil etc. African nations are price takers, and not price givers, on the international commodity markets.

A Unified Africa would be Price Givers, not takers. There would be just ONE PRICE for African cocoa. ONE PRICE for palm oil. ONE PRICE for copper. ONE PRICE for iron ore. ONE PRICE for gold. ONE PRICE for diamonds. etc etc.

Today, there is a race to the bottom, in terms of pricing, by the various 'independent' African nations, each desperate to attract international buyers. It should not be that way. We are losing out big time.

In a single African nation, the African government will demand and get high prices for all its commodities on the international market, ensuring a revolution in the living standards of its population, even before industrialisation.

No western country could exploit small, resource-rich areas like Liberia, Sierra Leone etc, or collude with local officials in Congo to cheat the people, if Africa were a single country like China. Or influence elections, like the French did in Ivory Coast.

The indignity of having foreign ''peacekeepers'' on African soil will end immediately a single African nation is established.

Can you imagine western peacekeepers anywhere in China?

Africa as a single country will automatically become a world power, by the sheer virtue of the resources it commands as a country.

Can you imagine the power of a government that controls over half the world's supply of gold and diamonds? Plus healthy percentages of its copper, iron, rubber, timber, coal, and oil? PLUS has a single African currency? I mean, if the African government sneezes, the world will catch a cold.

The African government can DEMAND that all foreign trade involves direct technology transfer, to speed up African industrialisation.. Other countries will say ''Yes sir''. Can they refuse? Impossible.

That is the ONLY WAY Africa will become like China. Political consolidation. Centralisation of African power and authority. It's the way we should be headed if we are serious as a people. We cannot afford to be divided, being a resource-rich region. Political CONSOLIDATION is what gives power to having those resources.

The enormous financial resources that will come under the control of the African government will mean that they will possess a formidable military combining the various national forces from Cape to Cairo, and could pursue heavy research in various scientific endeavours, including nuclear and space research.

The sky would be the limit.

Nice write up.

Rossikki are you the same as person as Rosike who used to post on Nairaland years ago?

It is actually an exciting thought... Sure, there are ethnic and religious differences that characterize the continent at present, but there is no reason we cannot have a group of highly principled ''founding fathers'' similar to Abraham Lincoln and his friends in the US, who establish the new African nation on a set of national principles that will permeate the entire African landscape, and create an identity of ''Out of many, One'', as occurred in the USA, whose founding fathers adopted the concept of Freedom as their founding principle.

Africa can do something similar, devise its own Principle that will eventually tear down the shards of disunity currently afflicting its people, from religion to ethnicity. A program of social engineering, will be developed, in which every African child will imbibe those principles, from nursery. It will make them see themselves as AFRICAN before Igbo, Yoruba, muslim, christian, Swahili, Zulu, Ashanti etc.

Just as in the US today, the average Americans see themselves as AMERICAN FIRST, before anything like Jew, christian, muslim, white, black, Italian, Irish, Mexican etc.

Following

EzeUche:
Rossikki are you the same as person as Rosike who used to post on Nairaland years ago?

Na me my brotha. How far?

Rossikki:


Na me my brotha. How far?

I see some things have not changed!

You are still Pan African and I am still pro Biafra.

EzeUche:


I see some things have not changed!

You are still Pan African and I am still pro Biafra.

Indeed.

You make the unification of China seem as if, they got up one morning, signed a couple of MoUs and became one single country...The Chaos of the Late Ming Dynasty, Ching Dynasty, Japanese Colonization, Mao's Brutal Regime etc all contributed in forming a solid United China where every soul among 1.5Billion Citizens can be ACCOUNTED FOR...Imposing the strict one-child policy and it's efficient implementation bears testament to the administrative abilities of the CCP..

In summary, I'd say, only a Communist Govt can achieve such dramatic unification in Africa within a short time ( Stalin's USSR, Mao's China serve as evidence)..And this would be resisted fiercely by the west e.g Tibet, Taiwan, Xhijiang are western-funded attempts at destabilizing China, while we all saw what happened to the USSR.
The most we can hope for is the Indian Model which clumbered 100s of Nationalities together under democracy and continued to move slowly but sure-footed on the journey to Civilization..This too didn't come cheap, Ethnic and Religious Homogeneity plays a huge role which sees minority tribes brutally surpressed to allow dominant Ethno-Religious (Hindus) Lead...Even the Chinese System is built in the Han, all others must fall in line..


Good thread tho!

What exactly is more important in forming any nation? Peace or Business? The article didn't impress me one bit.

Nice article.
But it's a pipe dream

You forgot to mention that the Han ethnic group constitute more than 80% of China population. In essence, China as big as it is, is more ethnically homogeneous than Nigeria. Let's not even talk about an artificial united Africa entity.

pazienza:
You forgot to mention that the Han ethnic group constitute more than 80% of China population. In essence, China as big as it is, is more ethnically homogeneous than Nigeria. Let's not even talk about an artificial united Africa entity.

Exactly, Ethnic Homoegeneity is integral also..
Where ave you been Oga?

MansaMoussa:


Exactly, Ethnic Homoegeneity is integral also..
Where ave you been Oga?

I have been very much around. Defending my own turf. I had given up on pan Africanism, ever since I learnt that pan Africanists are shameless lot who defend colonial entities, called countries, created by Caucasian powers in Berlin conference of 1886 by teaming up with the Caucasians to do so, and then turn around to chant Pan Africanism thereafter.

pazienza:

I have been very much around. Defending my own turf. I had given up on pan Africanism, ever since I learnt that pan Africanists are shameless lot who defend colonial entities, called countries, created by Caucasian powers in Berlin conference of 1886 by teaming up with the Caucasians to do so, and then turn around to chant Pan Africanism thereafter.

Very true...So long as we continue to define ourselves by the arbitrary borders imposed by the Europeans, then we are not serious about Pan-African. Ironically, Europe itself endured more than 200years of Warfare culminating in WW2 all it an attempt by Nation States to defines themselves, with Maps of Countries changing continually over Centuries until a balance was reached..The fall of the USSR cemented this, while Yugoslavia reminded them again that Countries are created from Within, not Without.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FTvqf2tCmo

MansaMoussa:


Very true...So long as we continue to define ourselves by the arbitrary borders imposed by the Europeans, then we are not serious about Pan-African. Ironically, Europe itself endured more than 200years of Warfare culminating in WW2 all it an attempt by Nation States to defines themselves, with Maps of Countries changing continually over Centuries until a balance was reached..The fall of the USSR cemented this, while Yugoslavia reminded them again that Countries are created from Within, not Without.

Spot on!

To remedy something, you must trace the genesis of its ailment, in medicine, this is called pathogenesis.

The problem of Africa started with the partition of Africa into unstable colonial entities in Berlin conference, for the sole aim of exploitation of the indigenous Africans found in those colonial entities. These colonial entities were created naturally not to be stable, to avoid the people uniting against them, and groups considered least rebellious to colonial powers imperialism were entrusted with power and equipped to keep others in check, it was much similar to how slave camps in the Americas were ran.
This is the pathogenesis of Africa problems.

Any Pan Africanism that doesn't begin with the dissolution of all colonial estates masquerading as countries and the creation of real Nations united by shared ideals and mutually accepted agreements of the constituent ethnic groups and their representatives at a round table discussion, is a joke and a fraud.

Africa can never form a China, but we can have real Nations formed by conglomerate of neighbouring groups that share similar socio -political and traditional ideologies, and thereafter, we can reposition the AU to be as strong as it should be, free from control of imperialists.

We don't need a China, we need strong organic Nations, and an independent aggressively pro African AU to cover our interests.

pazienza:


Spot on!

To remedy something, you must trace the genesis of its ailment, in medicine, this is called pathogenesis.

The problem of Africa started with the partition of Africa into unstable colonial entities in Berlin conference, for the sole aim of exploitation of the indigenous Africans found in those colonial entities. These colonial entities were created naturally not to be stable, to avoid the people uniting against them, and groups considered least rebellious to colonial powers imperialism were entrusted with power and equipped to keep others in check, it was much similar to how slave camps in the Americas were ran.
This is the pathogenesis of Africa problems.

Any Pan Africanism that doesn't begin with the dissolution of all colonial estates masquerading as countries and the creation of real Nations united by shared ideals and mutually accepted agreements of the constituent ethnic groups and their representatives at a round table discussion, is a joke and a fraud.

Africa can never form a China, but we can have real Nations formed by conglomerate of neighbouring groups that share similar socio -political and traditional ideologies, and thereafter, we can reposition the AU to be as strong as it should be, free from control of imperialists.

We don't need a China, we need strong organic Nations, and an independent aggressively pro African AU to cover our interests.

AGRESSIVE IS THE WORD !!!
We have seen how the Arabs reorganized themselves using Islam and Arab Ancestry to rally themselves into a Formidable Race to reckon with.....The Sectarian Divides across the Arab world are not Coincidental. Africa can rise, but She needs a Workable Template that may require ruthless means to implement.

pazienza:


Spot on!

To remedy something, you must trace the genesis of its ailment, in medicine, this is called pathogenesis.

The problem of Africa started with the partition of Africa into unstable colonial entities in the Berlin conference, for the sole aim of exploitation of the indigenous Africans found in those colonial entities.

I disagree Sir. The problem of Africa began long before that. More directly, the problem of Africa just prior to slavery and colonisation, was the fragmentation of the continent into various small, unviable, and easily conquerable states, which made the continent vulnerable to European incursion.

If Africa had been a single empire, or had had say two or three huge empires that covered the entire continent, the slave trade could not have occurred, and neither could colonialism. Nobody enslaved the people of the Mali empire, which, at its peak, covered almost the entire West Africa. Why? Because they were a huge, centralised state, with a powerful army and ruling class.

The Igbos to the south on the other hand, were spilt into tiny, 'independent' chiefdoms, which made them easy pickings for enslavers. Lesson: Consolidation is strength.

Extend that principle to a new Unified Africa, and we are reaching the heights of our possibilities as a people.

Now YOU, are basically advocating a return to that state of fragmentation, which will further make Africa more vulnerable to foreign interests. It will fail, for the same reason it failed the last time.

These colonial entities were created naturally not to be stable, to avoid the people uniting against them, and groups considered least rebellious to colonial powers imperialism were entrusted with power and equipped to keep others in check, it was much similar to how slave camps in the Americas were ran

I agree with getting rid of the nation-states, but only for the purposes of forming a Super African state. This whole idea that the current nation-states are not working because they were 'forced' into being by foreigners, is a seductive idea, but it's really baseless. There's no reason to suppose that African ethnic groups would have developed nations on their own, based on amicable, mutually agreed terms among the ethnicities. Nations simply do not form in that way. So, absent of colonial intervention, we would have remained as we were, ie fragmented and vulnerable.

Africa can never form a China, but we can have real Nations formed by conglomerate of neighbouring groups that share similar socio -political and traditional ideologies, and thereafter, we can reposition the AU to be as strong as it should be, free from control of imperialists.

A mere dream! Tell me. Who and who are those ethnic groups that will mutually agree to form nations? Is it Yoruba and Igbo? Is it Hausa and Tivs? Is it Ashanti and Ewe? There is no reason to suppose that any of these ethnic groups will decide of their own volition to form nation-states. They are ALL competitive, and none regard the other as ''natural allies''. Any unification will in essence be ''forced'' in one way or the other.

We don't need a China, we need strong organic Nations, and an independent aggressively pro African AU to cover our interests.

You cannot be ''strong and organic'' if you are vulnerable and competing against one another to drive down prices of your resources to attract foreign buyers. The AU I repeat, has as its ultimate objective, African Unification, and all African nations are signatory to it. So it's just a matter of time. You probably should get used to the idea.

pazienza:


Spot on!

To remedy something, you must trace the genesis of its ailment, in medicine, this is called pathogenesis.

The problem of Africa started with the partition of Africa into unstable colonial entities in Berlin conference, for the sole aim of exploitation of the indigenous Africans found in those colonial entities. These colonial entities were created naturally not to be stable, to avoid the people uniting against them, and groups considered least rebellious to colonial powers imperialism were entrusted with power and equipped to keep others in check, it was much similar to how slave camps in the Americas were ran.
This is the pathogenesis of Africa problems.

Any Pan Africanism that doesn't begin with the dissolution of all colonial estates masquerading as countries and the creation of real Nations united by shared ideals and mutually accepted agreements of the constituent ethnic groups and their representatives at a round table discussion, is a joke and a fraud.

Africa can never form a China, but we can have real Nations formed by conglomerate of neighbouring groups that share similar socio -political and traditional ideologies, and thereafter, we can reposition the AU to be as strong as it should be, free from control of imperialists.

We don't need a China, we need strong organic Nations, and an independent aggressively pro African AU to cover our interests.

Epic!

Sapiosexuality:
What exactly is more important in forming any nation? Peace or Business? The article didn't impress me one bit.

What greater guarantor of peace is there than for all Africa to form a single nation? Where will there be war? Is there any war in China? Are there foreign peacekeepers in China? Or India? No. Because China and India are single, unified political behemoths. If China was split into 55 'independent nations', by now you would have had war in some of those nations, with western peacekeepers stationed in various parts of the region, like happens in Africa. We are weak because we are divided. Europe can afford to be split into various countries. They lack resources, so there is no reason for them to stick together. Africa, as a resource-rich region, can leverage that resource strength by putting it under centralised political control.

Rossikki:


What greater guarantor of peace is there than for all Africa to form a single nation? Where will there be war? Is there any war in China? Are there foreign peacekeepers in China? Or India? No. Because China and India are single, unified political behemoths. If China was split into 55 'independent nations', by now you would have had war in some of those nations, with western peacekeepers stationed in various parts of the region, like happens in Africa. We are weak because we are divided. Europe can afford to be split into various countries. They lack resources, so there is no reason for them to stick together. Africa, as a resource-rich region, can leverage that resource strength by putting it under centralised political control.

What unifies China is their homogeneity. Africa is heterogeneous. How do you unify a heterogeneous people who are unwilling to give away any part of their identity? How do you unify Africa on Religious, Linguistic and Tribal lines? I need real solutions and not a vague statement.

Sapiosexuality:
What unifies China is their homogeneity. Africa is heterogeneous. How do you unify a heterogeneous people who are unwilling to give away any part of their identity? How do you unify Africa on Religious, Linguistic and Tribal lines? I need real solutions and not a vague statement.

All you need is a group of Founding Fathers, granted power by the AU to form a government, and it's done. America was even more heterogenous than Africa. Groups and races from all over the world form the American nation. The founding fathers of the country simply created a Principle, a Philiosophy, which came to override and subjugate all prior ethno-religious parochialisms among the people. It's not rocket science. It's about social engineering.

It's a long-term project of Africanisation whose ultimate, glorious peak we may not witness in our lifetimes, but our grandchildren and their offspring will. The African Nation will look to CRUSH ethnic nationalism and religious divisions within its territory, using Social Engineering methods. It worked elsewhere. It can work in Africa.

Until the AFRICAN stops seeing himself as Igbo, Yoruba, muslim, christian etc, BEFORE AFRICAN, Africa will continue to play second fiddle to the rest of the world. Our ethno-religious separatism and sectarianism are our greatest undoing and vulnerability.

Here's the ultimate proof that I am right: The Western world absolutely detests the idea of African unification, and will do their utmost to prevent it (or at least delay it).

But it's in the AU charter, so it will happen.

Rossikki:


All you need is a group of Founding Fathers, granted power by the AU to form a government, and it's done. America was even more heterogenous than Africa. Groups and races from all over the world form the American nation. The founding fathers of the country simply created a Principle, a Philiosophy, which came to override and subjugate all previous parochialisms among the people. It's not rocket science. Its about social engineering. It's a long-term project of Africanisation whose ultimate, glorious peak we may not witness in our lifetimes, but our grandchildren and their offspring will. The African Nation will look to CRUSH ethnic nationalism and religious bigotry within its territory, using Social Engineering methods. It worked elsewhere. It can work in Africa.

Until the AFRICAN stops seeing himself as Igbo, Yoruba, muslim, christian etc, BEFORE AFRICAN, Africa will continue to play second fiddle to the rest of the world. Our ethno-religious separatism and sectarianism are our biggest undoing and vulnerability.

*sighs*

Same old same old man.
Lofty ideas but ineffective ones.

I believe pazienza's solution is more practical. Let us go back to the round table and willingly set out terms and agreement based on mutual respect not a forced contraption.




What you're suggesting is noble, no doubt. It's very......motivational.


But its just too outlandish.

SirWere:

*sighs*

Same old same old man.
Lofty ideas but ineffective ones.

I believe pazienza's solution is more practical. Let us go back to the round table and willingly set out terms and agreement based on mutual respect not a forced contraption.




What you're suggesting is noble, no doubt. It's very......motivational.


But its just too outlandish.

It's not as 'outlandish' as you think, even though it may seem so now. Ever heard of the African Unification Front (AUF)?

''The AUF was formed in August 1996. The AUF advocates for transformation of Africa into a federation, with the Pan African Parliament as the highest government, overseeing key institutions including a single currency, and one all-African army. The AUF promoted the creation of the African Union in the mid-1990s and continues to advocate for an end to neocolonialism. It has also been active in campaigns against abuses by the diamond industry, weapons traders, and unfair terms of trade in the coffee industry.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Unification_Front

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Africa

So there is solid intellectual backing for the idea.

Lol
Nigeria is on the verge of total disintegration and your talking about a United States of Africa. Pass the weed you have had a enough.

ApexPredator:
Lol
Nigeria is on the verge of total disintegration and your talking about a United States of Africa. Pass the weed you have had a enough.

If it happens, it happens, regardless of what ignorant, brainless people like you are doing in Nigeria.

And WHEN it happens, and you tribalistic idiots start any fracas among yourselves, the African Army will be deployed in your region to deal with you, until you get some sense into your heads.

Rossikki:


All you need is a group of Founding Fathers, granted power by the AU to form a government, and it's done. America was even more heterogenous than Africa. Groups and races from all over the world form the American nation. The founding fathers of the country simply created a Principle, a Philiosophy, which came to override and subjugate all prior ethno-religious parochialisms among the people. It's not rocket science. It's about social engineering.

It's a long-term project of Africanisation whose ultimate, glorious peak we may not witness in our lifetimes, but our grandchildren and their offspring will. The African Nation will look to CRUSH ethnic nationalism and religious divisions within its territory, using Social Engineering methods. It worked elsewhere. It can work in Africa.

Until the AFRICAN stops seeing himself as Igbo, Yoruba, muslim, christian etc, BEFORE AFRICAN, Africa will continue to play second fiddle to the rest of the world. Our ethno-religious separatism and sectarianism are our greatest undoing and vulnerability.

Here's the ultimate proof that I am right: The Western world absolutely detests the idea of African unification, and will do their utmost to prevent it (or at least delay it).

But it's in the AU charter, so it will happen.

Why should anyone stop seeing themselves as Igbo or Yoruba as prerequisite to success? Why must I destroy my identity to be successful? Did Europeans imbibe a single identity to be successful?

Your explanations are insufficient or factual. Take a look at the East. There's an Atheist Communist China with identity unscathed by acculturation and they are successful. There was no need to unite and shed individual identities to achieve that.

What about Qatar and United Arab Emirates. Two middle eastern states that were empty over twenty years ago. They didn't have to merge culturally with other Asian nations to achieve today's prosperity. They simply raised the awareness of their countrymen.

What do these countries have in common? Internal Homogeneity in tribes, culture and religion. In China for example, the Han Chinese that built the powerful Han Dynasty, are more than 90% and largely Buddhists. Alignment of thoughts was never the problem.

In UAE what you have are Sunni Muslims with a unique way of worshipping Allah. Qatar is a Shia state and this too helped in mentally aligning them. They all didn't have to mix their identity or shift it.
They simply collected people of like minds within a territory and get to work.

What I see you are looking for is who to dominate. Not peace. Whom to conquer. You don't achieve peace by forcing a unification of diametrically opposing cultural practices. You are more interested in being the world power and ruling over others. Deciding what they do with their lives. To me, that is not what peace means. You are looking for power. The same power that has destroyed this world. I'm looking for peace.

United Nigeria resist any western colonialism.

NIgeria must say no to importation ipob fulani mafia and anybody that threatens nigerinan coexistenc.

Sapiosexuality:
Why should anyone stop seeing themselves as Igbo or Yoruba as prerequisite to success? Why must I destroy my identity to be successful? Did Europeans imbibe a single identity to be successful?

Don't misquote me, please. I never said anyone would ''stop seeing themselves as Yoruba, Igbo'' etc. I said they would be made to see themselves as AFRICANS FIRST, before any other ethnic or religious appellation, through a process of social engineering.

And stop mentioning Europeans. I already stressed the fact that they do not NEED to be united, because they lack natural resources. Their economic success is based on totally different paradigms from ours, and is predicated essentially on the exploitation of resource-rich regions, like Africa. So they've no need to unite. It is AFRICA that needs to unite, for reasons I stated earlier, ie to checkmate THEM. Please read the thread properly before contributing.

In the USA where the Europeans settled - a large, resource-rich region which necessitated a giant state, they DID subsume their national and ethno-religious identities in favour of an AMERICAN identity. That is why today, the average American may have Irish, Mexican, African, or Italian roots, but they regard themselves as Americans first BEFORE any of those appellations. THAT didn't happen by accident. It is a result of strategic planning and vision by the founding fathers of that country. The same can be replicated in Africa.

What about Qatar and United Arab Emirates. Two middle eastern states that were empty over twenty years ago. They didn't have to merge culturally with other Asian nations to achieve today's prosperity. They simply raised the awareness of their countrymen.

Qatar and UAE are completely irrelevant to this debate. The two are tiny states of 2 million+ population, each with larger oil reserves than Nigeria. They could virtually sit down all day, and not lift a finger, and still live like kings.

What do these countries have in common? Internal Homogeneity in tribes, culture and religion.

Whatever Qatarians have in common or not is irrelevant insofar as they have the sort of resources they have, for such a tiny population. Leave them out of this debate.

What I can tell you are looking for is who to dominate. Whom to conquer. You don't achieve peace by forcing a unification of diametrically opposing cultural practices. You are more interested in being the world power and ruling over others. Deciding what they do with their lives. To me, that is not what peace means.

What are you talking about? African unification is about emancipation of the African people, not conquest. Read my earlier posts to understand this thread better.

Rossikki:


Don't misquote me, please. I never said anyone would ''stop seeing themselves as Yoruba, Igbo'' etc. I said they would be made to see themselves as AFRICANS FIRST, before any other ethnic or religious appellation, through a process of social engineering. And stop mentioning Europeans, I already addressed the fact that they do not NEED To be united, because they lack resources. Their economic success is based on totally different paradigms, based essentially on the exploitation of resource rich regions, like Africa. So they've no need to unite. t is AFRICA that needs to unite, for reasons I stated earlier. Please read the read properly before posting.

In the USA where the Europeans settled - a resource-rich region which necessitated a giant state, such as is being proposed for Africa - they DID subsume their national and ethno-religious identities in favour of an AMERICAN identity. That is why today, the average American may have Irish, Mexican, African, or Italian roots, but they regard themselves as Americans first BEFORE any of those appellations. THAT didn't happen by accident. It is a result of strategic planning and vision by the founding fathers of that country.




Qatar and UAE are completely irrelevant to this debate. The two are tiny states of 2 million+ population, each with larger oil reserves than Nigeria. They could virtually sit down all day, and not lift a finger, and still live like kings.



Whatever Qatarians have in common or not is irrelevant insofar as they have the sort of resources they have, for such a tiny p opulation. Leave them out of this debate.




What are you talking about? African unification is about emancipation of the African people, not conquest. Read my earlier posts to understand this thread better.

Okay. I don't have the energy please.