A MEANINGFUL REMINDER
In a few of my earlier postings, I made the point that this blog was inspired by this year being the 50th anniversary of John Steinbeck's three month journey around the United States to gain new perspectives on how the country had changed. The trip resulted in his best selling book TRAVELS WITH CHARLEY, his French poodle who made the journey with him. There is something about the 50th anniversary of anything that makes one want to take stock of what happened over the half century that has passed. My first blog on political discussion and two later ones on race and immigration took a look at where we were according to TRAVELS and how we got to where we are on those topics. This 50-years-later approach has a new subject, one not contemplated by Steinbeck.
CNN has picked this month to note the 50th anniversary for 17 African nations freeing themselves from colonialism. The history of colonialism is a long one, but not a pretty one. CNN's report focused on the l884-85 Berlin Conference when Britain, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Germany divided up much of the African continent. "They believed they were bringing civilization to 'savage' people' ", according to Richard Dowden, director of the Royal African Society in Britain.
World War I put an end to Germany as a colonial power. World War II sounded the death knell for all of the European colonialists with the Japanese conquests of British, Dutch, French, and American territories in Asia and the Pacific basin. (It should be noted that President Franklin Roosevelt believed that colonialism should end, a position that put him at odds with Winston Churchill who was determined to restore the empire at the end of the war.) The Japanese victories put an end to the myth of white supremacy over non-whites, a view which was extended to Africa. Ending colonialism did not come easy. For the Philippines it was a peaceful transition to independence in l946. But in places like French Indo-China, British Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies, it took armed conflicts to make the change, even though the European powers could no longer afford their colonial empires.
While colonialism has virtually disappeared, it has a significant hold on memories and has been resurrected as a charge by some against American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. (And some like Presidents Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela have labeled it imperialism.) We are perceived by some important elements in Iraq and Afghanistan as trying to impose a new colonialism through military invasion and under the guise of nation building--featuring democracy. Nation building as a goal, most clearly pronounced by former President George W. Bush as one of the reasons for invading Iraq, has failed and been abandoned as U.S. policy, but it is not easy to shed the charge of colonialism.
In winding down (present and future) our role and commitments in the two countries, we will be leaving behind thousands of American troops to carry out multiple tasks. (Under an agreement between Bush and the Iraqi government, we are to have all troops out by the end of 2011.) Meanwhile, we stress that troops left in Iraq are to have non-combatant roles, but if one of the remaining tasks to be performed is counterterrorism operations, then combat in some form seems likely to occur. And it is not difficult to imagine in our defining who the terrorists are, we could be accused of battling with persons or groups legitimately seeking to throw out a government which we support. And in carrying out the task to train and equip security forces, we may be perceived as propping up a governance structure and particular office holders that are rejected by other segments of the population.
Thus, in noting CNN's commemoration of the end of colonialism in Africa a half century ago, we must consider the issue of colonialism within the newer context of our roles in Iraq and Afghanistan. To view colonialism this way means not how WE see our goals and commitments to pursue these goals (it's certainly not to bring civilization to savage people), but how we are perceived by diverse, important elements in these countries, in the region, and worldwide. I'm not sure that officials in this country forming and implementing our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are good at taking this view. We often having difficulty in accepting that our national interests are not the only interests at stake; other nations have their own interests to be served and those interests may run directly counter to ours. We only have to think about sanctioning Iran for pursuing its nuclear ambitions to see the array of other national interests on that issue. And in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have seen and will continue to see the falling off of troop support from our allies who are feeling the political pressure at home as their body counts increase.
To close on a quote by Robert Burns, "O wad some power the giftie gie us to see oursel's as ithers see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us."
No comments:
Post a Comment