Apologists for
Britain’s colonial past invariably point to what they see as the ‘good’
outcomes of imperial conquest for the conquered, usually expressed in terms of
systems of government, the rule of law, Christianity, cricket, and the English
language. Whether these are actually ‘good’ things or not depends on
perspective; the assumption that they are is itself a product of the
imperialist mindset, revolving as it does around some concept of cultural
superiority. Leaving that aside and assuming, for the sake of argument, that
these are indeed good things, none of them actually formed any part of the
original intention of conquest. That was always about access to resources, and
the opportunity to use the power of the imperial state to extract wealth which could be accumulated by individuals,
and much of which was repatriated to the shores of the imperial power. That
wealth, taken by force from the conquered peoples, was the basis of the great
wealth of the cities of the imperial powers, including, of course, Britain. In
return, the natives got Shakespeare, a bargain for which they should,
apparently, be eternally grateful.
Sometimes, people
confuse imperialism with colonialism; but not every country added to the empire
was actually heavily colonised. Some were, of course – the territories
currently known as the USA being one of them. From a British point of view, the
other territories most heavily colonised were places such as Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand. They’re not known as the ‘white commonwealth’ without reason. The
USA (a former colony in the true sense of the word) and its constitution were
founded on a number of ideas, one of which was the rejection of colonialism and
imperialism, and the idea of ‘freedom’ (a word which has many different
meanings). Watching that former colony lapse into its own form of imperialism
ought to be surprising but is somehow not.
The methods are
different in the twenty-first century; although Trump hasn’t ruled out direct
military conquest, he has a clear preference for economic domination, even if
his grasp of economics leaves more than a little to be desired. But his
motivation – control of resources, and the transfer of wealth from other
countries to the US – is a direct match for the motivation which led to the empires
of the past. And blatantly so. Having got Ukraine to agree to allow half of its
mineral wealth to be expropriated on the basis of a lie that aid provided was a
loan rather than a gift, he has done as all bullies do when the bullied bow
down before them. His conclusion from the willingness of Ukraine to give up 50%
is that he didn’t ask for enough, so he’s doubled his demand. He now wants control
of all of it. Along with a veto on Ukrainian policy.
His motivation for
taking Greenland, although presented in terms of ‘security’ is much the same.
He wants access to its resources, and his promise that Greenlanders will become
rich if they allow it is as valid as his promise that US citizens would become
richer by electing him; it’s a promise which is only ever intended to apply to
a tiny minority. Yesterday, Putin declared
that he thinks Trump is serious about taking Greenland, but thinks that it's what he
described as “an issue that concerns two states and has nothing to do with
us”. It’s an open invitation to Trump to view Russia’s intentions in
relation to Ukraine in the same terms. The two presidents are clearly thinking along similar lines. And the opinions of others count for nothing, with either of
them.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment