Have there been any forcible annexations/conquests lately?

[AK84]

Pakistan forcibly annexed

1. The Princely State of Kalat in 1948

2. Most of the Makran Coast from Oman in the 1950’s. This was done peaceably… Pakistan Government threatened to attack Oman directly if Oman did not agree to a sale as attested by Ayub Khan’s diaries

3. the Princely states of Dir and Bajaur in 1962.

4. Swat and Bahawalpur, independent states under Pakistani suzerainty in 1970.

[Cerowyn]

@Little_Nemo

It was a strange situation. The Treaty of San Francisco did specify that Japan was giving up its claims to Sakhalin and most of the Kuril Islands in favor of the Soviet Union. Japan signed the treaty (along with the United States, the United Kingdom, and various other powers). The Soviet Union disagreed with some of the provisions and ended up refusing to sign.

So there was a bizarre diplomatic situation where the Soviets occupied these islands and a bunch of other countries recognized Soviet ownership of them - but the Soviet Union itself had not agreed to the treaty that recognized its ownership.

Actually, the text of the Treaty makes no mention of the Soviet Union getting control of the territories. According to Wikipedia, that was one of their reasons for not signing.

[Sal_Ammoniac]

@HubZilla

He had said the only reason that worked for Kuwait was that the world needed their (and Saudi’s) oil. That Gambia needed a standing army because the UN wouldn’t liberate them if Senegal decided they wanted a round country.

For what it’s worth, Senegal did at one point want to incorporate the Gambia. They had a kind of confederation (called the Senegambian Confederation, if you can believe) that lasted between 1982 and 1989. Hard to imagine Senegal suddenly wanting to get together again.

[Little_Nemo]

@Cerowyn

Actually, the text of the Treaty makes no mention of the Soviet Union getting control of the territories. According to Wikipedia, that was one of their reasons for not signing.

My mistake then. I didn’t read the actual treaty. I was going from a description of the treaty and its provisions.

[Bookkeeper]

@A.Gwilliam

India annexed Hyderabad in 1950, and also forced a change of sovereignty for the remaining Portuguese (and French?) enclaves within its boundaries in the course of the following ten years or so.

Hyderabad was annexed in 1948, in an invasionthat resulted in several days of hard fighting between the Indian and Hyderabad armies.

[Martini_Enfield]

I believe that, on paper at least, Western Sahara still technically belongs to Spain, despite them pretty clearly saying they don’t want it.

[ctnguy]

A. Gwilliam already mentioned the pseudo-independent homelands in South Africa as an example of a boundary change in Africa. In one case this did lead to a sort of annexation. The four nominally independent homelands were supposed to return to being part of South Africa on 27 April 1994, the date of the first non-racial elections. In three of them this was accepted, but Lucas Mangope, the leader of Bophuthatswana, banned political activity and declared his intent that his “country” remain independent. The Bop police and army went on strike, and Mangope called on, ironically, a right-wing white militia to come in and defend him. To cut a long story short, the situation turned into a huge clusterf**k, and the South African government sent in its army to remove Mangope and install an interim administrator. One could regard that as a South African annexation of an unwilling Bophuthatswana; but of course it was only the Bop government that was opposed to annexation, while the majority of the Bop people were for it.

[anson2995]

@Little_Nemo

Both Koreas took territory that had belonged to the other Korea during the Korean War.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam took over the Republic of Vietnam in 1975.

There was only one Korea, which split during a civil war. Same in Vietnam. Calling either of these an annexation is awfully revisionist.

But in fairness, many other examples of annexation are viewed as aggression by one party but a reunification by the other…

[Kent_Clark]

No territory changed hands, but when mainland China and Taiwan battle over the islands of Matsu and Quemoy in the 1950s-1970s, so many artillery shells were fired that the locals still use the steel to make knives and cleavers.

[ruadh]

@Martini_Enfield

I believe that, on paper at least, Western Sahara still technically belongs to Spain, despite them pretty clearly saying they don’t want it.

What does “on paper” mean in this context? The closest thing to an official register that I’m aware of is the UN’s list of non-self governing territories, which seems to accept Spain’s complete withdrawal.

[Martini_Enfield]

@ruadh

What does “on paper” mean in this context? The closest thing to an official register that I’m aware of is the UN’s list of non-self governing territories, which seems to accept Spain’s complete withdrawal.

The footnote there says “In 1990, the General Assembly reaffirmed that the question of Western Sahara was a question of decolonization which remained to be completed by the people of Western Sahara.” (Bolding mine)

There are, IMHO, a few ways that can be interpreted, with one of them being “The territory hasn’t been formally decolonised, so until the Saharis vote on the matter, it’s still Spanish territory although Spain says it’s not.”

[ruadh]

@Martini_Enfield

The footnote there says “In 1990, the General Assembly reaffirmed that the question of Western Sahara was a question of decolonization which remained to be completed by the people of Western Sahara.” (Bolding mine)

There are, IMHO, a few ways that can be interpreted, with one of them being “The territory hasn’t been formally decolonised, so until the Saharis vote on the matter, it’s still Spanish territory although Spain says it’s not.”

OK, well let’s bold it another way:

the question of Western Sahara was a question of decolonization which remained to be completed by the people of Western Sahara.

In other ways, decolonisation has begun, but part of it is still has to be completed. And the part that is still to be completed is not the part of the former colonial power - which is gone - but the part of the indigenous people.

Territory in international law doesn’t work the way that property ownership does in national law. It’s a question of the dual factors of control and recognition. Neither of those factors exists in this case - Spain clearly doesn’t control Western Sahara, nor does it seem that anybody recognises it as de jure sovereign, least of all Spain itself. So I don’t see how it can really be said that it is still part of its territory.

[Ignatz]

The newly-majority Republicans in the NC legislature are trying to stop them:
http://www.jdnews.com/articles/introduced-88126-raleigh-annexation.html