"Colonial" is among the dirtiest of words for those who aspire to be politically correct. It refers to the exploitation of the weak by the strong, which no right thinking person should tolerate. No matter that colonial power claimed they were protecting and uplifting the weak. No matter that there is a debate as to whether colonial powers profited from their role, or spent more than they reaped. No matter that in several instances the colonial power left behind physical infrastructure and training that helped the newly independent states. Slavery and blatant exploitation in the Belgian Congo, and its lack of preparation for independence set the standard for judging other places.
The former colonies that became the United States were among the best treated. That is not what I learned from Anglophobic teachers in Fall River, but that is the message of recent histories. Such a judgment overlooks slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. The contrast between what I was taught, and what I now read is useful in recognizing the politics involved in judging colonialism.
Britain and France were the colonial big leaguers. Spain lost out by the end of the 19th century; Germany as the result of World War I; Holland ended its play with the Japanese occupation of what became Indonesia; and Portugal petered out along with Britain and France in the 1960s. The Soviet Union claimed to be the primary anti-colonialist, but kept at something that looked like colonialism until its empire collapsed. One can argue if Russia remains a colonial power with respect to areas in the Caucasus, or if the United States has a colonial relationship with Puerto Rico.
Allegations about "neo-colonialism" are also ugly. They concern the influence of powerful states and corporations over the weak. Again, reality is more complex than the image. Poor states have become heavily indebted due to the corruption of native leaders who signed contracts in exchange for large payments into their bank accounts, while buying goods and services that were not worth the price. Much of the responsibility should rest with the corporations making the deals. How much blame should we assign to the home countries of the enterprises, and how much to the countries ruled by corruption?
The nasty images of colonialism and neo-colonialism may have served in recent years to limit their most obvious and harmful manifestations, at least in places where people restrain corruption.
What has taken their place is another form of great power meddling in the affairs of lesser powers. The best term I can think of is "paternalism."
Like colonialism, paternalism is wrapped in lofty sentiments. The patron may work with other powerful countries in behalf of collective good intentions, sometimes through the United Nations. What can be more disinterested?
The United States is the primary paternalist. We can distinguish what might be called "dry paternalism," which operates here, and whose greatest success turned a war-torn Europe into the European Community. "Wet paternalism" comes along with armed force, as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, off and on in Latin America.
It is not easy to assess the balance of benefits and costs of American paternalism in this one small country. The history from 1967 includes military supplies and financial assistance that helped Israel greatly during periods of extreme stress. Political agreements with Egypt in 1974 and 1978-79 came with American inducements and pressure. Some Israelis argue that those agreements were not worth the concessions required. However, peace has held for 30 years on what had been a bloody front for the previous 30 years.
Every American president since George H. W. Bush has tried to broker an agreement between Israel and Palestine. None have induced the Palestinians to be flexible enough for an agreement.
Barack Obama is breathing life into paternalism with his claims of a new beginning. So far he has not done well with North Korea. Commotion in Iran makes it unwise to assess the future of that country. The president's comments about Israel and Palestine have caused their own commotion, and it is too early to predict the results.
The most recent action is a dictate from the State Department that there be no construction in the post-1967 neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
The administration may be aiming high in order to stop construction in Har Homa. This is the newest of the neighborhoods built within the boundaries that Israel declared for Jerusalem soon after the 1967 war. Har Homa has been controversial due to its proximity to the Palestinian city of Bethlehem, and claims that it hinders transportation between the northern and southern areas of the West Bank.
Even a freeze applied only to Har Homa would be a severe challenge for the Israeli government. The Israeli foreign minister has said "leave us alone" almost as clearly as Obama has said that he wants to help us. Words from the State Department apply to neighborhoods that account for more than a third of Jerusalem's Jewish population. Will my Arab neighbors in French Hill be able to renovate their apartments while the Sharkanskys and other Jews are denied the opportunity?
Varda did not respond well when I said that the State Department would not want her to buy new curtains for the dining room.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il