What makes this ideal as opposed to the four constituent states being separate?
1.breaks sykes pecot borders
2.hopefully kills king Abdullah II the tomato salesmanLarger countries have more influence at an international stage.
This is why the Arabs originally petitioned for a unified, independent state after WWII - but were betrayed by the British.
This is well the same reason for the talks of an East African Federation, and turning the Alliance of Sahel States into a single sovereign state as well, right? What are the benefits or potential drawbacks of actually unifying different countries into a single state, as opposed to forming closely-integrated alliances?
A unified state has the following characteristics:
- Single currency and market
- Single passport
- Single military
- Single fiscal and monetary policy.
For countries in a similar developmental stage, becoming a single country country can allow the country to become a bigger player in geopolitics and world markets.
Their firms can combine more easily to form larger units and have access to expanded internal markets. Having a single military under a single command structure can also avoid the NATO pitfall of different members moving in differing directions, or contributing minimally.
The downside of forming a unified state is the danger of creating an EU. The richer members leech upon the poorer ones.
Even though its true, you the respective countries had time to develop their own culture & identity and simply labeling it Syria would certainly ruffle feathers
Tbf, your Greater Syria is missing the area around former Antiocheia.
Its very reminiscent of fascist states and entities such as the Greater German Reich and Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It also sounds incredibly chauvinist and nationalistic, because if we're honest, what does adding "greater" to the front of the name even accomplish?
