|
Yes,
the British Empire created many conflicts for local peoples around the world. To
those already mentioned, we can add Cyprus, Kenya, and India/Pakistan/Kashmir,
and co-responsibility for Lebanon and Syria and Jordan.
Much
as this record angers me, I would like to point out a couple of realities that
mitigate a bit the British role:
1.
These spots often already had their problems. Cyprus already had ethnic Greek
and Turkish populations and tensions between the two even before Britain grabbed
the place. Palestine was already being targeted by the World Zionist
Organization before Britain seized the place. So we should not suggest
that had it not been for Britain everything would have been fine in those
areas.
2.
There is no doubt that the British handled their responsibilities as conquerors
and occupiers badly. By colonial administrative design they elevated minority
groups to administer their colonies, thus creating a situation in which
minorities got to lord it over the majority. Thus when the British left their
colonies, often pushed out by the very conflicts that they had themselves
exacerbated or created, they left behind situations that were rife with tensions
and ready to explode.
It is clear that hundreds of thousands of people have
died as a result of this political impact of British colonial
rule.
3. But it is also clear that the British did not do
this by design. They were often themselves aware of the growing troubles in
their possessions, and sought as best they could courses of action that would
resolve the conflicts or at least minimize the carnage. That they failed so
egregiously offers an important lesson to other imperial powers, such as,
now, the US.
It is not likely that the US will do any better than
the British did. We will in fact probably to worse, as we do not have the very
fine foreign affairs institutions that the British had. For example, there is no
US equivalent to St. Anthony's House, which did such good work on understanding
the Middle East, or to today's terrorism center at St. Andrews, which is one of
two or three world-class terrorism study groups, none of which are in the
US.
The British colonial experience should provide a
warning lesson to the US's imperialists, but unfortunately, like it would seem
all imperialist, ours seem blind to reality and prone to deep
self-delusion.
So the US history over the next 50 years will probably
include the creation of disasters on a par with those of imperial Britain. There
will be one difference though. British imperialism was seen as a successful
example of the international norm at the time In many ways, there was patience
with Britain and a certain degree of sympathy for its imperial presence. US
imperialism, coming late in the game, is seen by the rest of the world as a
dangerous, egotistic thing. The world has learned of the dangers of
colonialism; the US, unfortunately for everyone, including US citizens, has
yet to do so.
Best regards,
Lawry
-----Original Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon, October 06, 2003 3:15 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] A much wider
war is possible
Keith,
as indeed the English did
in the case of the Welsh and the Scots -- until some minimal common
culture arises.
[how truly common!]
The irony is that these English are the same ones who gave us the
Israel/Palestine problem and current-
day Iraqi. I am for giving the Shi'a a shot.
Bill
Sensibly put. Sadaam is beginning
to look more and more like a pragmatist and less like a monster under this
scenario.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:24
AM
Subject: [Futurework] A much wider
war is possible
It would have been interesting to have been a
fly on the wall in Bush's office last week when news came through that the
northern oil pipeline from Iraq to Turkey was blown up for the fifth time.
After all, the revenue from it was supposed to pay for Iraq's
reconstruction and compensate the Americans for their humanitarian gesture
in destroying Saddam (?).
But, sadly for Bush's plans, all this was
not to be. Saddam's nasty Baathist types and other supporters have been in
destructive mode, and now the Americans (via their control of Soma, the
Iraqi oil authority) are having to consider pumping the oil southwards and
out through the Gulf.
But you can be sure that they are going to
have even worse problems in the south before very long. Even though this
is further away from Saddam's home terrority around Tikrit, the south is
overwhelmingly Shia territory. So far, the Shias have been quiet because
they've been relieved that the Baa'thists and the Sunni Moslems have been
taken off their backs. But they have their own extremist clerics, too, and
they've already organised their own militia which appears in full public
view, Kalashnikovs and all, on religious occasions -- much to the
consternation of the occupation troops. The Americans ordered them
to disband and give up their arms by 13 September but this deadline was
quietly ignored. The Americans dare not enforce their command -- they know
that they're only in Iraq on sufference.
What the Shias are waiting
for -- so far, quite patiently -- is a Constitution that is going to
guarantee that the Baathist types and the Sunni Muslims are going to be
off their backs forever and that their 60% majority of the population will
be consolidated without any possibility of reversion to former servitude.
They will be demanding at least that some of the most important portfolios
are put under their belt -- such as the Defence Ministry (just as happens,
in fact, in the case of the Wahhabi-controlled Saudi Arabia). If they
don't get complete assurance about their continued survivability -- then
we can expect trouble. To satisfy the United Nations, the Americans have
promised the new Constitution within six months.
And blowing up oil
pipelines in the south will be the least of it. There could quite easily
be an insurrection that could be wider and much more complex than even the
Americans could control. Immediately to the east of Iraq's Shia territory
is, of course, Shia-controlled Iran, and immediately to the south is
Kuwait, the Shia majority in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and
Shia-dominated Bahrein. All this region could be in turmoil in the next
few months unless the Americans can produce a Constitution that will have
miraculous features to suit the Shias. There is little hope of this, I
suggest.
So what should the evolutionary economist say to all this?
He would say: "Pay attention to what anthropologists and evolutionary
psychologists would say". Were they to be asked, they would say that it is
impossible to associate such different cultures as the Kurds, the Sunni
Muslims and the Shia Muslims all together in one nation-state unless you
oppress them mightily, and even then continue oppression for at least two
or three generations -- as indeed the English did in the case of the Welsh
and the Scots -- until some minimal common culture arises. The
evolutionary scientist would say: "Give each of them their own territory,
help them all with hospitals and schools and whatever other
specialisations they might need and then leave them alone." Then and
only then the Americans might have a chance of being able to secure future
oil supplies from what-is-now-Iraq after voluntary negotiations with
whichever culture happens to have the oilfields in their territory.
Keith Hudson
<<<<
IRAQ MAY RE-ROUTE OIL VIA
SOUTH TO BOOST EXPORTS
Javier Blas and Dan Robertsw
Iraq is
preparing to increase oil exports by re-routing supplies around sabotaged
pipelines, according to European oil executives who met Iraqi officials in
London last week.
Private talks held at a London hotel left western
buyers of Iraqi crude more confident that exports would soon recover
closer to prewar levels. But the plan to divert oil from the Kirkuk field,
in northern Iraq, through a strategic pipeline to the south confirms fears
that the damage inflicted on the pipeline to Turkey is greater than
previously admitted. It also helps explain the surprise decision taken by
Opec oil ministers last month to cut production quotas, partly due to
worries that rising Iraqi production would force international prices
down.
Iraq increased production to an average of 1.45m barrels per
day (b/d) last month -- up 500,000 b/d from August, but well below pre-war
production of 2.8m b/d.
"It's hard to estimate exact production
because they are pumping some excess oil back into the ground, but it
would be quite significant if they reversed the flow of this strategic
pipeline," said Leo Drollas, an analyst with the Centre for Global Energy
Studies. "The September figures are in line with the recovery pattern, but
if they want to go to 1.8m b/d from the south, they would have to bring
oil down from the north."
Sabotage has badly hit the supply of oil
from the Kirkuk region, which before the war accounted for for close to 50
per cent of Iraqi exports.
Yesterday Reuters quoted oil ministry
sources in Baghdad warning that alternatives to the pipeline running to
Turkey would not be operational for 6-12 months.
Nevertheless, oil
executives meeting officials in London said Iraq was confident about
increasing export volumes by using new routes. The message was "back to
business as usual", said one oil executive.
"They [Iraqi officials]
look more relaxed," said another oil executive, who met Mohammed
al-Jibouri, the head of Somo, the marketing arm of the Iraqi oil ministry.
"But privately they acknowledge serious problems with Kirkuk
oil."
A pipeline to the south could enable exports either through
Saudi Arabia or Iraq's Gulf ports. A more remote option, the Iraqi
officials told companies, would be to use the Iraq-Syria pipeline, a move
that would be unattractive to a US administration putting pressure on
Damascus over its support for militant Palestinian groups and alleged
possession of weapons of mass destruction.
The London meeting is
believed to be the first round of discussions among Iraqi oil officials
and western oil companies outside the Middle East since the war began in
March.
Previously, Somo officials have met oil company
representatives in Dubai, Kuwait City and Baghdad.
Among the oil
companies at the London meeting were ChevronTexaco, Total, Repsol YPF,
Cepsa and Vitol. Oil industry insiders say the event shows a growing
confidence in Baghdad about oil exports.
>>>>
Financial
Times -- 6 October 2003
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.handlo.com>,
<www.property-portraits.co.uk>
|
