Having completed my series on Britain’s Overseas Territories I was struck by how, even in the ‘post-colonial’ modern world, colonialism is still an important feature of international relations. Critically modern day colonialism also exists, not only as a legacy of the British Empire and as a British phenomenon, but as part of the politics of many modern day states, both in Europe and beyond.
Territories round the world that can be considered 21st century colonies:
|
Britain |
France |
Netherlands |
|
Akrotiri & Dhekelia |
French Guiana |
Aruba |
|
Anguilla |
Guadeloupe |
Curacao |
|
Bermuda |
Martinique |
Sint Maarten |
|
British Antarctic Territory |
Reunion |
Caribbean Netherlands (Bonaire, Sint Eustatius & Saba) |
|
Mayotte |
||
|
British Indian Ocean Territory |
French Polynesia |
|
|
St Barthelemy |
||
|
British Virgin Islands |
St Martin |
Spain |
|
Cayman Islands |
St Pierre & Miquelon |
Cueta |
|
Falkland Islands |
Wallis & Fortuna |
Melilla |
|
Gibraltar |
New Caledonia |
|
|
Montserrat |
USA |
|
|
Pitcairn Islands |
Denmark |
US Virgin Islands |
|
St Helena, Ascension & Tristan da Cunha |
Greenland |
Guam |
|
Faroe Islands |
Puerto Rico |
|
|
South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands |
American Samoa |
|
|
Northern Mariana Islands |
||
|
Turks & Caicos Islands |
But should colonialism, even its modern form (which is not seen as imperialist) continue to exists? Is it a harmless political structure, a political benefit to these overseas territories or a repressive system of international governance?
Within modern political discourse the greatest argument is for an end to colonialism and there are many calls for these overseas territories to become independent states. They want to end the dominance of European and American powers over the political structures of land that often is geographical far away from central political authority.
The roots of the argument against colonialism stem from a belief that states deserve national sovereignty, i.e. the ability to determine their own affairs and dictate their own political futures. This sovereignty may be determined along ethnic, religious or cultural lines or may derive from a shared history within a certain community, but what is constant is that the people of the nation must be allowed to control the political, economic and social affairs of the nation state they belong to.
The desire for national sovereignty has been a very common factor in the development of the modern political system, with nations across the world supporting nationalist, anti-colonial regimes in the pursuit of independence. Solely within the history of the British Empire, many famous 20th century individuals, praised the world over, dedicated their lives to fighting colonialism . These included Gandhi (who helped achieve India’s independence from Britain) and General Nasser (the first leader of an independent Egypt). These figures have achieved global political status and this is largely because of the desire to achieve a colonial free society. It has become a common tradition to criticise Western colonialism and the interpretations of the world system that colonialism has created.
Writers, such as Edward Said, in his book Orientalism, were quick to argue that the way the world system is understood is a legacy of colonialism and that this has twisted our understanding of global politics. This understanding failed to recognise the interests and traditions of local cultures and as a result created a colonial and even post-colonial system where, as Edward Said argues, the West has created an image of the Middle East, Asia and Africa as something ‘other’, something mystical, but often uncivilised. Thus politics has been skewed by this image and it has greatly affected political interactions in the modern world.
The opposition to colonialism is a well funded argument as, for most nations who experienced colonialism, their experience of political domination was not a positive one. Many were subjugated to oppressive political structures that contained inherent elements of racism and segregation. Some, such as the Belgian Congo, were even famed for the stories of great violence at the hands of the colonial masters. Others simply rejected the notion that a foreign power could dictate the political affairs of their nation state.
This anti-imperialist, anti-colonial rhetoric has not ended with the end of the Age of Empire. Within many of the territories still controlled by a colonial power there is a section of the community calling for independence, seeking separation from the Western nations who control them. In territories, such as Bermuda, there have been reviews of the political status of this island territory, with some politicians and officials calling for independence and separation from the UK.
However within other territories the rhetoric doesn’t focus on independence but rather ‘repatriation’. In the Falkland Islands much of the international political discussion in focused on whether or not to ‘return’ the territory back to Argentina and it is the same in Gibraltar, where the focus is on whether or not the territory should return to be part of Spain. Spain and Argentina both maintain that by removing Britain as the colonial power in the respective territories they are readdressing the balance of political affairs in the region; returning territory they see as historically theirs.
However for some looking at the situation they do not see repatriation as freedom from colonialism. These territories have developed a separate identity, a separate culture, even a separate language and therefore any repatriation would likely involve the imposition of a new political or cultural tradition on the territory. Rupert Emerson, in his article Colonialism, argues that a condition of colonialism is that there “should be a significant disparity in power between those who govern and those on whom alien rule is imposed” (Emerson, R., Colonialism, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1969, 4). With a distinct culture and identity and a history that is so disparate from the new power, territories are clearly going to be at a power disadvantage once they are assimilated into the wider country.
With questions on both sides of the debate it is key to ask whether any change to the political situation should occur. The debate for removing colonialism is well established in modern political discourse but yet after over 100 years of decolonialisation we still have colonies.
One of the motivations for the maintenance of colonies is that colonialism, in the modern world, acts as a benefit for these territories. Their special economic status, access to self-determination with regional politics and links, no matter how distant, to leading world nations has all proved to be a benefit to the colonies. Within the Caribbean some of the territories, such as Puerto Rico, have benefited politically from its involvement and connections to the USA, whilst others, including Bermuda, Sint Maarten and Saint Martin (both territories share the same island) and the Cayman Islands, have some of the highest standards of living in the world.
Whilst these are territories that have benefited from their status as colonies, others in the modern world are dependent on the home country (metropolis) for financial aid and help maintaining their economies. St Helena and the Pitcairn Islands, both British territories, are examples of colonies that rely nearly entirely on this ‘metropolis’. They both rely on British foreign developmental aid to function economically and if they were to become independent the security, both political and economic, offered by the colonial power, would go.
Ultimately arguments over whether colonialism in the 21st century is right or wrong are meaningless without context. When nation states debate the political status of territories, such as Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands they quote theoretical and ideological views on colonialism. They quote history, to highlight the excesses of colonialism in the past but fundamentally fail to listen to the desires of the people living in these territories.
If a nation dislikes the rule of a foreign power and decided to push for independence then we can argue that colonialism, in that context, is wrong. This is certainly the position of the British government, who have stated repeatedly that they will respect the wishes of the populations of their overseas territories. They have offered populations, such as that in the Falklands, the opportunity to express their views on national sovereignty and whether they desire it. If the answer received is that they want to change their political status, Britain has pledged to listen and support this.
However ‘repatriation’ to another nation is not the end to colonialism, as it is often portrayed as in the world media. By assimiliating a territory that has a separate political and cultural identity into a wider national framework it is simply establishing the end of geographic colonialism and the start of social colonialism as a new political system, culture etc is imposed on this newly integrated part of society. Repatriation can only work if the territory shares the same culture of the new nation, and the same desire to be united.
But with colonialism existing even into the 21st century it is clear that these territories do not necessarily seek decolonialisation and instead are proud to remain a part of the colonial power. If that is the wish of the people, to remain a colony, then this was be supported as ardently as call for an end to colonialism are. It must be accepted that although national sovereignty is important, individual and community sovereignty is also important and through this colonialism may exist well into the 21st century.
See Also:
An interesting read.
King Leopold’s private ravaging of the Congo certainly was one of the largest and most destructive episodes of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Adam Hochschild’s very readable “King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed,Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa” describes how millions died in a 20 year period, and how a campaign against Leopold’s barbarity grew in Western Europe and North America.
On a more contemporary note I have long held a great deal of sympathy for the unfortunate Chagos Islanders, whose former home is now known as the British (or shouild that be American?) Indian Ocean Territory, from which they were banished to make way for what is now an American military base. Their continued plight somewhat contradicts the British government’s stated policy of self determination, and represents a considerable stain on Britain’s reputation. The recent attempts to designate the area as a marine reserve had little or nothing to do with the preservation of wildlife, and everything to do with stopping the return of the islanders to their homes, as was explicitly stated in papers that became public following the wikileaks releases. One of the few forums the Chagossians have to maintain their identity is their football team, who recently played an “international” match against “Sealand” (some fort in the North Sea) at the hotbed of global soccer that is Godalming Town FC !
It’s interesting how, when the military are involved, the way the British and other governments interacts with the issue of territory changes dramatically. The historic depopulation of the territory has never been righted and I believe the role of the British and American military is critical as to why. Maybe in the future it can change but whilst the territory remain a military zone this is unlikely.
Your article rounds off a nicely balanced review of a modern anachronsim, but isn’t there a deeper issue which we has never been properly addressed – tribalism? It is the proverbial elephant in the room – a critcal element of our psyche and our identity that no one seems to want to acknowledge, let alone think about seriously. From the Scottish independence movement, to the battles over “first people’s” rights in Canada and Australia and the burgeoning civil wars in Burma, Zaire and Syria, we are witnessing conflicts that are ascribed to culture, religion or economic but which actually entirely tribal.
One of the reasons I suspect this has never been properly addressed is that the imperial powers of times gone by simply flattened any tribal opposition (All three of the great European colonisers – Portugal, Spain and Britain, as well as the later USA offered bounties for the heads or scalps of indiginous people) and then responded to any opposition with deliberate and ruthless suppression.
In doing so, they were hardly being original – witness the atrocities/genocides committed by Roman, Arabian and Indian expansionists in the centuries before and after Christ, Mohamed and Asoka. Warfare was generally unashamedly tribalistic and genocide a common policy. So, it should come as no surprise that, once the imperial tribes had been kicked out, old tribal divisions reasserted themselves with tragic results. This is what happened in Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe and India in the 20th Century. It is what is now happening in South Africa and many North African nations under the guise of the Arab Spring.
The qustion we have to ask is whether it really has to be that way? Or is there some way of making tribal identity a matter of pride and appreciation, rather than assertion and fear?
Thank you for taking the time to comment. You’re point is very interesting. I think tribalism has been incorporated into the wider framework of modern day ethnic and cultural divisions within modern day politics; largely because the tribal structures that once existed have been replaced by nation states and ethnic groups. But I agree that it is an overlooked aspect of society. I think this is partly because of colonialism with the emphasis on Western expansion being on imposing state structure and ‘civilisation’.
Tribalism is still very much a part of African and Middle Eastern culture (it is tribalism that is at the root of the Sunni/Shi’ite split) and it has often been seen who the conflicts between rival tribes or families in this region have created wider national or regional conflict. But even aspects of European politics have been determined by tribal divisions. Arguably the differences in Scottish and English identity stem from the divides between Anglo-Saxon (English) and Gaelic (Scottish) cultures.
I believe, like ethnic differences, tribal divides can be celebrated and promoted but it requires a change in modern politics to recognise this aspect of society.
Very well written post and you pose a very interesting question. Should colonialism exist in the 21 century? What is colonialism? I am going to argue that there is no such thing as colonialism in the 21 century. Its a very vague term. If you define colonialism as the acquisition of new territories than it does’t really happen much. Or, is colonialism the continued occupation of a territory acquired hundreds of years ago? With the territories you mentioned above are they colonies or province like special administrative areas whose citizens have the same political and legal rights as those of the mother country. The people living there see themselves as part and parcel of the mother country. For example, people in St Pierre & Miquelon, French Overseas territory of the coast of Canada see themselves just as French as someone living in Paris. They don’t see themselves as “colonies” oppressed and treated as second class citizens by France. Is it colonialism if the people living in the territory accept being an equal part of the mother country especially if they derive great benefit from the mother country?
Some would consider Puerto Rico a “colony” of the US because its citizens don’t have many of the same rights as those on the mainland. This is not a issue of colonialism, Its a domestic civil rights issue on par with the rights that women and minorities finally gained in the 20th century to make them equal to those of men and whites. Its not a question of the colonized being treated unfairly by the colonizer but a question of making sure all people living under the reach of the US government have the same rights. In the case of Peurto Rico becoming the 51 state is just a vehicle to achieve those rights.
If factions within a territory push for independence, you would think that its a case of colonies seeking independence. However, in many cases this should not not considered colonialism. If St Pierre & Miquelon decided to declare independence, it would be the same as if the Basque regions of France and Spain declared independence. You wouldn’t consider provinces in Basque country as “colonies” neither should you consider a country’s territory overseas.
Defining a territory as a colony based on distance to the capital, history, or ethic make up is irrelevant. For example from Moscow to the city of Vladivostok is over 9,000km while the distance from France to St Pierre & Miquelon is only 4,000km. Many countries have many different ethnic and religious groups with varying histories. Thats what make countries diverse and unique. We live is a world growing smaller due to technology and globalization. Its getting easier for people living in territories flung around the world to feel like they are part of one nation. When does a territory transition from a “colony” to being a full part of a state?
Thank you for taking to the time to comment. You’ve gone straight to the question that inspired me to write this post. When we look at overseas territories in the 21st century can we call it colonialism? I would define colonialism as the continued occupation of territories, but with that in mind there is an argument that territories make the leap from colony to part of the mother country. This is clearly the case in the former colonies/now territories of France and the Netherlands, both of which have been granted the status of territories within the wider framework of ‘France’ or the ‘Netherlands’. These territories are included within their national governments and have the right to vote and participate in national politics. To the observer this must suggest that these are no longer colonies, but provinces/counties/departments existed much further from the centre of national power.
But I’ve learnt that it’s all about perception. Because the world is so much ‘smaller’ in the modern age and because there is a far greater recognition of the mixed nature of modern society, distance from the mother country and variations in culture, as you have rightly stated, are irrelevant. But equally all attempts to reconcile the mother country with former colonies is equally irrelevant if the people of that territory or others perceive it as colonialism. We might argue that whilst Britain sees Gibraltar or the Falklands as parts of the British state, as Spain and Argentina both claim them as examples of modern day colonialism that we have to consider that some form of colonialism does exist (certainly this is supported by the UN who have a decolonialisation council).
Personally I believe that the ‘colonial’ era has ended as there are few corners of the world left without occupants therefore any subsequent form of ownership would simply be territorial land grab. Equally I believe much of the colonialism that we see in the modern world can be reconciled with state development as these territories are brought into a wider national framework. But where integration with the mother country, as to an extent is seen in the British territories, is far weaker, then I believe there can exist a modern understanding of colonialism.
Thank you again for commenting and I hope you continue to enjoy my articles.