David,
I'll throw this back at you to start. Many European nations had hubristic policies that justified their colonization of much of the developing world, and then they withdrew for a combination of reasons. What is Europe's current approach to developing nations? What are the lessons for the U.S.?
Can the USA learn from Europe?
I will try to give a reply, mainly from my armchair in the UK, sorry Great Britain.Originally Posted by Bill Moore
Many factors led to several European nations seeking and gaining colonies around the world. For a long period private companies drove this, notably the East India Company in India, which finally IIRC lost its power with the Indian Mutiny (as we know it) in 1854. There was a rival French-owned company before the French Revolution.
Sometimes nations cited a 'noble cause', such as ending slavery (I shall ignore how they facilitated the transatlantic trade), religion and more.
Until the period before 1914 I doubt there was any public mandate. Nationalism, being at the "high table" and dreams led to obscure places being colonised, such as South West Africa (now Namibia).
Even strategic places became colonies in effect. Such as Egypt, with the Suez Canal; in theory it remained an Ottoman vassal IIRC, but was perenially bankrupt and was violently absorbed as a 'self-governing' territory into the British Empire.
After 1945 steadily most European states dispensed with their colonies. The British fought wars in many, sometimes not against nationalism, e.g. Malaysia; others fought harder and longer in places they regarded as home territories - not colonies - such as France in Algeria and Portugal in Africa.
This history and the manner of leaving was the biggest factor in how post-colonial relatiosn evolved. As KingJaja has posted France had ways of keeping its former African colonies connected to France (a currency and soldiers). I doubt if Dutch relations with Indonesia are enduring.
A good number of ex-colonies, India is a very good example, decided that links to their former colonial master could be dispensed with. The Non-Aligned Movement (which was not that non-aligned) was seen as an alternative, plus good if limited relations with the Soviet bloc and China.
Tanzania maintained relations with the UK, but was a loud critic for example over Rhodesia (1965-1980) and found other European nations were unquestioning sources of aid till the 1990's.
Citing Bill (due to my length):Europe, especially as the EU gained momentum alongside increasing trade flows within the EU, in effect largely turned inward. Yes there were frequent summits, diplomacy meandered along, sometimes military might was deployed - for short periods, some trade, a lot of aid, holidays in the sun (in a few places) and growing immigration. It is remarkable how many of the rich and powerful, plus those in opposition, frequent some cities in Europe - not that governments talk to them much (Islamists from Tunisia are cited as an example).What is Europe's current approach to developing nations? What are the lessons for the U.S.?
OK, Europe's approach is a mix of national and EU priorities. As a number of EU members were never colonisers that helps; the Irish gain being a former colony in their easy access.
Firn no doubt knows far more, but many ex-colonies have very little non-natural resources to trade with us. Oil and gas is the exception, which affected the UK's stance on Biafra's attempt to secede from Nigeria (France covertly took a different stance).
Aid I think remains large, although in the UK three times more is provided via charities & NGOs. Remittances, no idea. I suspect many former immigrants keep their money here.
Very few colonies are significant to national security. Terrorism is often cited, although rarely impacting back here. India has a major internal issue, but rarely impacts here. The ex-colonies in the Sahel are large and thinly populated.
Lessons? That will have to wait a BBQ awaits.
davidbfpo
Bill,
I don't talk glibly. I understand Nigeria. It's not only Muslims that bear the brunt of Boko Haram - Christians in the North do.The U.S. supporting Muslims in Nigeria I suspect is a perception issue on your part because U.S. diplomats are probably pushing for the government of Nigeria to ensure the government takes care of all its citizens and not discriminate against a particular group, because it will undermine their security in the long run.
It is one thing for US diplomats to genuinely press for human rights and another thing for them to openly advocate for a Muslim Northern president in private gatherings in Abuja and imply that in their public utterances.
This is no different from British policy in Nigeria - which was initiated by Lord Lugard in the 1910s - and hasn't changed ever since.
Nigeria has had a long history of grievances - starting from the Biafran war in the 1960s, to the Niger Delta. US diplomats never advocated handing over political power to a particular section of society as a solution to these problems - as they are advocating right now.
Anyone who knows Nigeria will know that US diplomats are merely following the lead of the British - i.e. British preferences on who should govern Nigeria.
Nigeria is a complex topic, which cannot be dealt with in one post.
Davidbfo,
US policy is Africa is to follow the lead of the ex-colonial power (e.g Congo with the Belgians who had Lumumba killed, Francophone Africa presently) or just stay neutral (e.g. Biafra and the British).Firn no doubt knows far more, but many ex-colonies have very little non-natural resources to trade with us. Oil and gas is the exception, which affected the UK's stance on Biafra's attempt to secede from Nigeria (France covertly took a different stance).
In this the best stance to take in a Post-Cold War World, in a World where the presence of China creates facts on the ground, complicating relationships?
I don't know.
Bill,
I live in Africa, I'm really trying to figure out how US is changing the status quo here. You see, there's a world of difference between US rhetoric (which I admit is as intoxicating as fine wine) and reality.If I correctly understand the Chinese approach in Africa it is one of non-interference, which I would think equates to supporting, even reinforcing, the status quo. Do most Africans enjoy the status quo. I realize their are many countries and cultures in Africa, but the problems of corruption and lack of opportunity seem to run through most of the countries. China is pragmatic about its self-interests, I think the U.S. actually has a longer term vision tied to the human condition throughout Africa.
A few nautikal miles from Nigeria is equatorial Guinea - its strong man, Obiang, has been in power sinxe 1979. He's worse than Mugabe - but unlike Mugabe, he has oil, lots of it - and Chevron is very happy with him.
The same applies to Dos Santos of Angola, Museveni of Uganda (apart from periodic outbursts to appease the gay lobby in the States - he's been power since 1985), Kagame in Rwanda, the Algerian generals, Mubarak - then Al Sisi in Egypt. This list is endless.
Consider Paul Biya in Cameroon - he's been on the job since 1982; but since France is happy with him and US must appease France in Francophone Africa - US has to be happy with him.
If you get beyond the sanctimonious bullsh*t from US politicians, diplomats & policy makers - there isn't much difference between US & Chinese conduct in Africa (conduct, not rhetoric).
The important distinction is that China, via trade and infrastructure is creating a lot more economic opportunities, while US is fixated on aid and NGOs - and I know that trade; not aid & NGOs will lead to an African middle class better able to challenge the status quo.
Bill,
A problem I have with many Westerners is they don't seem to understand how multifaceted or how dynamic the China-Africa relationship is. Most point to Chinese treatment of workers in Zambia as the sum total of that relationship. It is not.If I correctly understand the Chinese approach in Africa it is one of non-interference, which I would think equates to supporting, even reinforcing, the status quo. Do most Africans enjoy the status quo. I realize their are many countries and cultures in Africa, but the problems of corruption and lack of opportunity seem to run through most of the countries. China is pragmatic about its self-interests, I think the U.S. actually has a longer term vision tied to the human condition throughout Africa.
This bus was assembled under a collaboration between Chinese and Nigerian business men - had absolutely nothing to do with either the Nigerian or Chinese governments - they are many of such collaborations in Nigeria - and the number is growing.
The average Western diplomat doesn't see Africa beyond stereotypes - talk less, the average Westerner, so the very idea that Africans have agency is novel to the Westerner - but Chinese merely see us as business partners, and that works out quite well in the long run.
Kingjaja,I live in Africa, I'm really trying to figure out how US is changing the status quo here. You see, there's a world of difference between US rhetoric (which I admit is as intoxicating as fine wine) and reality.
Your point is taken, and I can't provide a response that would mean anything other than state that our intentions are often good, but our execution to achieve those intended ends are normally terrible due to poor understanding and being blinded by our own rhetoric.
When you have time I would like you to post more on this topic. When I have time I'll post some articles that state otherwise that you can challenge.A problem I have with many Westerners is they don't seem to understand how multifaceted or how dynamic the China-Africa relationship is. Most point to Chinese treatment of workers in Zambia as the sum total of that relationship. It is not.
I'm not blowing sunshine up your butt, but your insights are very helpful to the SWJ community writ large since they often make us take a step back and reflect on our view of reality, which certainly isn't shared by much of the world, especially the developing world.
It's worked out well in the short to medium run. The long run still hasn't come around.
It's important to recognize that the net capital flow between China and Africa is still inbound: the Chinese are putting more in as investment than they are taking out as ROI. That won't last forever: the Chinese are there for business and they intend to make a profit. As those investments mature the net capital flow will reverse, which is when we'll see how sustainable the relationship really is.
That's particularly true of the deals exchanging today's infrastructure for tomorrow's production. Getting a road in exchange for 20 years of cocoa production seems like a great deal at first: the road gets built and no money goes out. Down the line the cocoa will be going out and no money will be coming in... so who pays the farmers?
It will be very interesting to see how the Chinese respond when an African government unilaterally abrogates a contract with a public or private Chinese entity, or when an African government fails to pay the piper.
It is of course possible that all these things can be worked out and everything will be cozy... or not. Most likely it will work out different ways in different places. It's still way too early to reach conclusions.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks