European Colonialism had a devastating impact on Africa, not to mention the Middle East, South/Central America and the Eurasia region. The tribal conflicts you talk of, from what i know of, have very little relevance with old old conflicts. Most modern day tribal conflicts are as a result of Rebels trying to get their greedy hands on the diamonds and all the other resources the Europeans left behind. But they certainly where not around before the days of colonialism, and if anything, current day boarder disputes between tribes, rebels and the government was because the Europeans didnt define them strongly enough before they took up and left.
On Africa I disagree fully. Almost every conflict in the region has at its core a tribal aspect. Sure they are fighting over resources and land, but when you look at who is on each side, you more than often see tribe vs tribe. Angola, Sudan, Congo, Nigeria, Somalia, and so on. Even the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea is based on tribal issues going back centuries before the Europeans came around. They were fighting back when the Ancient Egyptians ruled the known world.
The Middle East, Cyprus, and Africa are perfect examples of the faults of European colonialism, and the indian boarder dispute with China.
Yes the forced formation of Israel is a European and American idea that screwed up the region I agree.
However the rest I disagree. I have already explained Africa, and concerning the India/China dispute. When India was formed China was in utter chaos and civil war. How exactly could the British "set the border" and not come in conflict with China? They had no one to negotiate with not to mention no GPS
As for Cyprus. Yes the Ottomans invaded the island and lost it to the Brits centuries later. The Brits gave the island independence for only to have the Turks invade yet again. But the island of Cyprus goes back to ancient times as you should know, and has been independent and ruled under the Romans. Point is, it was not the "colonial" powers that divided the island.. it was the Turks with their invasion in 1974. So blaming colonial powers for the ills of Cyprus today is a bit lame. Guess we have to blame the Romans or even god for destroying the first Cyprus kingdom back in the day with a massive tidal wave...
I remember a friend visiting Palestine once and this man showed him property and legal documents dated from the Ottoman era, there another lot that really screwed things up for everybody.
And? Palestine was under Ottoman rule for a long time and before that the Madurks and before that the Crusaders and before that.. you get the picture. How exactly did it "screw" up the region? The area called Palestine/Israel has not been an independent nation for centuries. Do you really expect that those ruling over the area did not have administrative documents? How can it be the fault of the Ottomans that the Israelis refuse to accept such documents? I understand that it could be the fault of the Europeans and US for allowing the formation of Israel, but else I cant see any blame for colonial powers (recent as in within the last 500 years) in that conflict.. it goes back several thousands years after all...
Western colonial expansion began during the 15th century when Spanish and Portuguese explorers conquered "new" lands in the West Indies and the Americas. It continued for over 400 years, and ended with the start of the first World War. By that time western powers such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Portugal and Spain, spurred on by their competitive desire to acquire new lands and resources.
That is how things were done for god sake back then, and had been done for centuries before that. No country on this planet has not at one time or another not acted like a colonial power and grabbed land. Turkey did it, Egypt did it, China did it, USA did it, France did it.. heck even the Danes and the Vikings did it. Until WW2 it was the way to expand ones global reach, and gain imports.
Intractable conflicts are found in many areas that were once colonized or controlled by Western European or Soviet powers such as Africa, the Balkans, and Southeast Asia. Most of these conflicts such as the one in Kashmir, Chechnya, and Cyprus are large and complex, and involve multiple issues ranging from human rights to good governance.
Yes they are complex I agree, but blaming "Western European" countries for Cyprus is kinda bull****. It was not "Western European" nations that invaded the country and split it in two. As for Kashmir. That conflict goes back centuries. Did the British carving up of India and Pakistan help? Nope, but they also did not start the conflict. Again blaming the British for a conflict that pre-dates their colonial India is just lame. As for Chechnya. I pass on that since I know almost nothing of the area. I see it more as a religious conflict than anything else.. but yes the Russians are acting like colonial bastards.. but hey it is Russia.
Imperialist practices and policies, especially those concerning boundaries, ethnic rivalry, the uneven distribution of resources, human-rights violations, and lack of good governance can be found at the heart of protracted problems.
Oh I agree. The way that Europeans handled their colonies did not help. The British were especially arrogant in this area. Not educating the locals, or bringing them into the administration of the territory really screwed things up for the day when independence came. There was simply no technocrats, doctors and so on to run the country once the colonial administration left. On this front I fully agree the Europeans screwed up.
But saying that the Spanish and Portuguese in South America and Central America often left their colonies in pretty good shape. Now this is mostly due to the fact that the "colonists" out numbered the local population many many times over (if there was any local population left).
But again we need to take each case individually. In South America for example, there was very few pre-existing "countries" with borders to use as a template when the Europeans left. Hence we have those borders we have today. Since hence there has been conflict between the new countries in South America, conflicts based on resource and land hogging. How can this be the fault of the Europeans? After all those countries are inhabited by most Europeans..
For this reason, it is vital that those wishing to transform or resolve protracted conflict, acknowledge the past, and take into account the effects past imperialist policies continue to have on today's post-colonial and post-Soviet societies.
Of course and most European countries do this. We have special relationships with our former colonies allowing them special access to our markets and so on. We still provide aid and in many cases ensure democracy as much as possible. The only one that does not live up to its history of meddling in other peoples affairs is the US. I have yet to hear an American apology for putting Pinochett in power or the various CIA sponsored coups in central and south America.
Granted alot of conflicts pre-date the colonialist era, but id say the worst disputes and the majority of disputes are because of the lovely Europeans. So no point being a European Colonialist apologist, because you do not have my sympathies.
Some yes some conflicts but far from all.
