Partitioning of India - Creation of Pakistan in 1947

The creation of Pakistan is a direct result of the long history, and withdrawal, of British imperial colonialism in India. The ideologies concerning creating such a state were divided between those who “sympathized with the idea of a distinct Muslim identity and the need to protect and preserve it” and “those who either stood for a united India or did not see the need for a separate state for Muslims” [1] Another very important international event occurring at this period in history which shared similarities to, and added international support to the creation of a Pakistani-Muslim state, was the partitioning of Palestine and the creation of the modern nation-state of Israel.

While Pakistan was established as a religious state, based on a Muslim population, the creation of the nation-state of Israel was a state created for an ethnic group with a religion attached to it. Both partitions and state creations caused violence and displacement. Interesting enough, “Pakistan celebrated its independence on 14 August and India on 15 August 1947” [2].

One of the strongest individual proponents of the two-state solution was Muhammad Ali Jinnah, known in Muslim circles as Quaid-e-Azam or ‘great leader’, who “organized the campaign that compelled both the British and the Indian National Congress to concede to the demand for the state of Pakistan” [3]. After the partitioning and independence, after the British withdrawal, of India and Pakistan there was a wave of bloody violence which “was accompanied by the largest mass migration in human history of some 10 million. As many as one million civilians died in the accompanying riots and local-level fighting, particularly in the western region of Punjab which was cut in two by the border” [4].

One of the largest issues was the problem of heavy populations of Muslims left outside of the newly created Pakistani state borders after the partition. Many more Muslim people “were left behind in India than were incorporated into the new state of Pakistan - a state created in two halves, one in the east (formerly East Bengal, now Bangladesh) and the other 1,700 kilometres away on the western side of the subcontinent” [5]. The exact numbers of casualties caused by the mass violence that erupted in the aftermath of the partitions are debatable, but “Estimates range from around 200,000 to one-and-a-half million” with “at least 13 million refugees, out of which 10 million from Punjab alone, comprising four and half million non-Muslims and five and half million Muslims” [6]. The history books also show a great amount of rape and violence against woman during this time period: “Approximately 75,000 women have been raped and/or abducted across the two sides of the new border, placing them as the first victims of the Partition Massacres” [7].

While the history of Pakistan is one of the bloodiest examples, the emergence of violence in the political vacuum left by British colonial withdrawal was not a single phenomenon during the 20th century as Imperialism shifted from colonialism to globalization.

[1] Abdullah Adnan, “Pakistan: Creation and Genesis,” Muslim World 96, no. 2 (2006): 201.

[2] Crispen Bates, “”The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies”, BBC, March 3, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml

[3] Abdullah Adnan, “Pakistan: Creation and Genesis,” Muslim World 96, no. 2 (2006): 204.

[4] Crispen Bates, “”The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies”, BBC, March 3, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml

[5] Crispen Bates, “”The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies”, BBC, March 3, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml

[6] Lionel Baixas, Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, Chronological Index: Thematic Chronology of Mass Violence in Pakistan, 1947-200, Accessed on June 4, 2013 from http://www.massviolence.org/Thematic-Chronology-of-Mass-Violence-in-Pakistan-1947-2007

[7] Lionel Baixas, Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, Chronological Index: Thematic Chronology of Mass Violence in Pakistan, 1947-200, Accessed on June 4, 2013 from http://www.massviolence.org/Thematic-Chronology-of-Mass-Violence-in-Pakistan-1947-2007

Propaganda and Patriotism: "Imperialism is Freedom!"

How are the views within nation-state populations shaped, especially consisting of an uneducated mass of working class people or a mass of people unfamiliar with history and current events around the globe? The history of propaganda in the form of inorganic popular culture has influenced the way domestic citizens (the masses) view imperialism. Many Americans make a solid comparison between the propaganda of the British Empire and the United States today. The main difference between the two forms of imperialism and how it has been consumed and digested by the people are distinguished by two technological stages of the two empires. During the zenith of the British Empire, the majority of propaganda was ingested through newspapers, theater, and literature (granted that beginning in the 20th century radio and screen began to appear). Of course, in the modern United States today, inorganic popular culture (to include inorganic patriotism and politically biased news reports) can be mass produced by the elite owners of capital and broadcast over thousands of cable television channels, radio stations, and the internet. A conscious person must be able to identify who is mass producing propaganda and what interests lay behind their mass production of propaganda. One must be able to research the corporation owners and alliances that are mass producing their popular culture (propaganda), mass producing their patriotism, and basically shaping their fears and hatreds. During the age of colonialism, and especially in today’s capitalist globalization structure, it would be hard to argue the point that the elite groups, who possess the most capital, produce the inorganic popular culture.

The examples are quite numerous, but I will post two examples, and follow it with a question.

Early Propaganda Networking: Zionism in the Ottoman Empire

During the early infiltration of Zionism into Palestine under the Ottoman Empire and the beginning waves of Zionist land purchases, which used inflowing capital not only to buy mass land but to import agricultural technology, we can note an early attempt to regulate the press by wealthy Zionists: “The formation of a press network aimed on one hand at the Ottoman intelligentsia and at middle officials, and on the other at different social strata of the Jewish community, was one of the first objectives of local Zionist activity. By the purchase of already existing periodicals or by the creation of new newspapers, an important press complex was organized. It was a question not only of making Zionist positions known, but also to neutralize those who were apt to thwart Zionism – Moslems as well as Jews.” [1]

World War II:

The Emergence of the 4th Arm

As technology advanced, so did the dissemination of visual and audio propaganda. What seemed to work well for Britain in World War I, was increased with new broadcasting technologies in World War II: “During the Second World War propaganda constituted an essential instrument of 'political' or 'psychological' warfare – the first term preferred in British usage, the second in American. Having tested it in the Great War with considerable success, the British government proclaimed this form of waging war in 1939-45 to be its 'fourth' or 'fifth fighting arm” [2]

Anyone can jump on Google today and type in ‘Hitler’ and select images in order to see some of the historical Western propaganda during World War II. You can also find propaganda, conscious and subconscious, concerning slavery and racial segregation in the United States during this time period.

I'm Glad the United States Doesn't Use Propaganda:

The previous two examples, and there are many others that can also be made since the inception of imperialism and increase of technology capable of mass-creating and mass-disseminating propaganda, bring is to the point of considering today’s United States. How do media outlets such as Fox News and CNN produce domestic propaganda that consciously or subconsciously promote patriotism, xenophobia, and the support of imperialism? Who owns these corporations and what are their economic, political, social, ethnic or religious affiliations? How do words such as ‘terrorist’ or ‘radical’, words that are constantly repeated used during heavily rotated reports, impact viewer consciousness? Are these news corporations selective about the news reports they cover? The pro-Israeli position of American media is certainly worth consideration. When a stray rocket is fired into Israel, the story gets hourly rotational coverage on the American news networks while illegal settlement activity on the part of Israel, house demolitions, or Palestinian civilian death counts are barely mentioned on these networks.

[1] Benbassa, Esther. “Zionism in the Ottoman Empire at the End of the 19th and the Beginning of the 20th Century” Studies in Zionism 11, no. 2 (1990): 134 http://www.estherbenbassa.net/SCANS/ZIONISM.PDF

[2] Stefanidis, Ioannes D. “The Fourth Arm” History Today 62, no. 9 (2012): 28-34

Liberal Policies of the Ottoman Empire Concerning Immigration and Foreign Land Purchaching

The greatest weakness of the Ottoman Empire, a weakness that greatly deteriorated the overall structural integrity of the empire, can be found in the liberal policies surrounding immigration and foreign infiltration. In the West, Islamic states are often portrayed as hardline dictatorships or caliphates by Zionist media sources which succeed in subconsciously influencing uneducated minds with the impression that all Islamic states and empires have operated throughout history in this manner. The Ottoman Empire was quite the opposite and actually contributed, through liberal foreign and immigration policies, to self-imposed interior sovereign fragmenting. Let’s look at some of these policies.

The first policy which began to open the door for foreign infiltration was the mistake of granting “European states privileges that permitted their agents to trade within Ottoman lands under the protection of legal immunity” [1]. Keep in mind that during the 17th and 18th century that the European states, especially the British empire, were making great advancements in technology, especially military technology, and economic leaps through colonial imperialism. The early stages of Capitalism were also a growing, and expanding, element on the international stage during this period. Treaties such as the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699 and the Treaty of Kuchuk Kanarji in 1774, treaties aimed at commercial interests, allowed a flow of European Christian and Jewish immigrants, protected by foreign European states, into the Ottoman Empire which increased the amount of “dhimmis” communities afforded citizen rights through payment of taxation.

Another contributing entity that weakened the structure of Ottoman consolidated sovereignty came in the form of Muhammad Ali Pasha, viceroy of Egypt during the first half of the 19th century, and his son, Ibrahim Pasha, who governed Syrian territories and Palestine. These leaders, especially Ibrahim, “encouraged European trade and the influx of Christian missionaries” and “granted Christians and Jews effective political and religious equality with Muslims” [2]. In addition, Ottoman land reforms during this period, and during the reign of Ibrahim’s son Ismail, eased restrictions on foreign land purchases and absentee landowners. These liberal trade policies and land reforms were the beginning of Zionist infiltration and mass land purchasing within Palestine.

The land grab in Palestine, made possible by foreign capital and a combination of liberal Ottoman policies listed above, was eventually identified as a serious issue and the overall Ottoman policy was amended to reflect that “Jewish immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout the Ottoman Empire, excluding Palestine”[3]. This policy was often circumvented as Jewish immigrants, supported by international capital which could buy the corruption of local authorities and administrators, “entered the area as tourists or pilgrims; once there, they acquired the protection of foreign consuls as the European powers were eager to protect their own rights under capitulations laws”[4].

1. Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israel Conflict, 7th ed. (Boston-New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010), 13.

2. Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israel Conflict, 7th ed. (Boston-New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010), 17.

3. Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israel Conflict, 7th ed. (Boston-New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010), 36.

4. Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israel Conflict, 7th ed. (Boston-New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010), 36.

Britain in Palestine: The Exploitation of the British Empire (or the Pimping of a Pimp)

            Problematic trends exist across the modern international globe in the majority of geographic places touched by British imperialism.  In many post-colonial territories, such as Burma and Jamaica, political power voids left behind by the evacuation of colonialism unleashed domestic political struggles and instability which have never been recovered from.  In other post-colonial territories, such as Pakistan carved from Indian borders or Kuwait carved from Iraqi territory, border conflicts were left behind in the aftermath.  Even in the United States remnants of the British imperial-economic system of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which was a colonial system before the creation of the United States, has left serious economic and social issues behind.  While British imperialism has impacted, and to an extent exploited, a majority of the globe, there is no other geographic region touched by the British Empire that has resulted in such uniquely negative fallout or has had such an unsettling impact on the modern international stage as the territory briefly named Palestine.

Before Palestine

            In the aftermath of World War I, the newly established and soon to fail, League of Nations split the remnants of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East into entities referred to as mandate territories.  These post-war League of Nation mandates in the Middle East were split between Britain and France, with “Syria and Lebanon, awarded to France; Iraq, awarded to Britain; and a new entity called Palestine, which was also placed under British control”[1].  In the calm after distribution, Britain “found itself in charge of a radically and religious divided province” with the worst physical ethnic clashes and political developments to come [2].

            The ethnically driven political movement of Zionism, which would eventually wield enough influence on British and United Nation leaders to achieve the creation of the modern nation-state of Israel, was not a creation or byproduct of World War II.  The Zionist movement originated during the waning decades of the Ottoman Empire prior to World War I and held several regional goals, such as encouraging Jewish immigration and the easing of restrictions on Jewish land purchasing under the Ottoman Empire, with the ultimate objective of establishing an ethnically Jewish state.  Contrary to popular misconceptions, Jews in the Ottoman Empire were allowed to buy land and immigrant into Ottoman territories.  This style of liberal Ottoman governance allowed “waves of Jewish immigration during the last decades of 19^th century” and saw mass land purchasing which resulted in “restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine” being implemented in “1882, and limitations on acquisition of land by Jews went into effect in 1892” [3].  Between the years of 1882 and 1908 alone, twenty-six Jewish colonies were created in what would become British Palestine, and Jewish population numbers in the territory grew from about 20,000 to 80,000.

            Between the time of implementation of restrictions on Jewish land purchasing and Jewish immigrants who “were well-financed and had means to buy up large areas of land for their settlements” entering the Ottoman Empire until the beginning of World War I, the Zionist network worked diligently with local leaders in various individual communities, Jew and non-Jew alike, throughout the Ottoman Empire [4].  Zionist leaders utilized tactics such as “the formation of a press network” through the “purchase of already existing periodicals or by the creation of new newspapers” and the “infiltration of community institutions”, along with economic-political tactics that would also be practiced during British possession of Palestine and later on within the United States during the decades that followed the creation of the modern nation-state of Israel [4A].

British Possession of Palestine

            The British Empire remained unbiased to the regional ethnic issues of Zionism and Arab displacement prior to and after World War I mainly due to “the vitally important oil trade which existed between Britain and the Arab states and the close relationships built during Britain’s Empire-building and its role as a Great power” [5].   After the assumption of British responsibility for Palestine, all previous Ottoman restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchasing were no longer a hindrance to the Zionist goal of an ethnic Jewish state, and by 1933 there were 200,000 Jews in Palestine and ethnic tensions had begun increasing to incendiary potential [6].  In an attempt to keep a balance of stability in the protectorate of Palestine, Britain was forced to impose similar Jewish immigration restrictions in 1930, and illegal immigration continued to be a major issue that Britain was forced to deal with in the aftermath of the decision.  The decision was not a favorable one among the Yishuv, the Jewish population in Palestine, who were already establishing nationalist armed militias.

            The 1917 Balfour Declaration, a “declaration prepared by Zionists with Lord Balfour’s approval”, was a sign of the ethnic displacement to come as it basically recommended that “Palestine should be reconstructed as the national home of the Jewish people” and had no real “stipulations regarding Palestine’s majority non-Jewish inhabitants” [7].  During the period of British authority in Palestine, Zionist tactics among the growing Yishuv in Palestine, as well as the Jewish population in Britain, worked toward achieving political goals in similar systematic fashion as they did under Ottoman rule, only now they had the ears and were filling the pockets of Christian parliamentary leaders in Britain instead of the Muslims of the Ottoman Empire.

            As the splintering and state alliance-making, which would ultimately result in the failure of the League of Nations, became evident and the reemergence of Germany as a threatening economic and military power rivaling the British hegemony became a reality, Jewish persecution increased under the nationalist government of Hitler.  Jewish immigration numbers increased drastically during the years leading into World War II and the rapidly changing demographics of Palestine sparked the Arab Revolt of 1936 through 1939 when “Arab leaders overcame their rivalries and joined forces to protest Zionist advances” [8].  The consolidated Arab leadership during the Arab Revolts sought three demands from their British protectorate: “cessation of Jewish immigration, an end to all further land sales to the Jews, and the establishment of an Arab national government” [9].  The lopsided death toll at the end of the three year period referred to in history books as the Arab Revolt shows that “a total of 415 Jewish deaths were recorded during the whole 1936-1939” period and “the toll on the Arabs was estimated to be roughly 5,000 dead, 15,000 wounded, and 5,600 imprisoned” [10].  The numbers clearly illustrate which side of the conflict was in political and economic control within the British protectorate system, and the importance of international economic support for arming Jewish extremist military groups in Palestine, such as the Irgun, which conducted terrorist attacks against the British government structure in Palestine and the Palestinian population. 

            In the face of a possible Second World War, losing control of a crucially positioned territorial possession to ethnical conflagrations and the outbreak of physical violence was not what Britain needed or wanted.  The Peel Commission, a Royal Commission on Palestine, was dispatched to Palestine and in 1937 reported that the situation between the Zionists and the native Arabs had reached the point of no return and that the issues in Palestine could no longer be reconciled, recommending that “the only hope of a cure lies in a surgical operation” [11].  The Peel Commission report from 1937 clearly showed that the British government would support partition.

Christian Zionism and Representative Democracy

            The ideology of Christian Zionism centers on the belief that supports “Jewish people to return to their homeland on scriptural grounds”, which can be argued as an irrational basis for international political decision-making since the authorship of biblical scriptures remains unverified [12].  The Restoration Movement, which referred to the establishment of a Jewish homeland, was the origin of Christian Zionism in organized format and ideology, and came into official existence during the 18th and 19th centuries with the emergence of British “theologians, writers and politicians” such as Thomas Newton, the Bishop of Bristol, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, George Gawler (1796-1869), Edward Cazalet (1827-1883), Lawrence Oliphant (1829-1888), and William H. Hechler (1845-1931), Chaplain of the British Embassy in Vienna.  The international Zionist movement, utilizing earlier methods of political propaganda and influence successful under the Ottoman Empire, found the expanded political atmosphere of Palestine under British rule favorable for accomplishing a Jewish state.  Britain was a free market society which allowed the purchasing of newspapers and periodicals which could be used for propaganda dissemination concerning a Jewish state, the government structure was a representative democracy which allowed the buying or influence of individual parliamentary votes, and the majority of the British population was Christian and had been indoctrinated to support the so-called Holy Land and a Jewish return based on Biblical text.  The similarities in composition, and the shared international alliance, between Britain and the emerging power of the United States during and after World War II would eventually secure the establishment of the modern nation-state of Israel which would displace and cut off, in apartheid style manner, an entire native population from the international community.

The Creation of Israel

            In the aftermath of World War II, mistakes that had contributed to a second war and the failure of the League of Nations, such as allowing each member state equal veto power, were corrected in the form of the United Nations Security Council, which gave veto power to only five permanent Security Council members, four of which were predominately Christian populations to include the free market economic and military powers of Britain and the United States.  On November 29, 1947 the “United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181” [13].  The age of individual nation-state colonialism was ending and the first phase of economic globalization born from Bretton Woods was emerging after World War II in the form of the Marshall Plan, while at the same time “Israel and Jordan were both created by the United Nations in 1948 when the UN partitioned the Palestinian Mandate”, the land that Britain had received after World War I through the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire [14].  Just as the lopsided death tolls during the Arab Revolt of 1936 through 1939 reflected, the last days of the British Mandate “witnessed a massacre of 240 Arabs, including women and children, by a Jewish unit at Deir Yassim.  This incident helped trigger a mass exodus of Palestinians and, by 1949, 720,000 refugees had fled either to Gaza or Jordan” [15].  The wretched violence and the spilled Palestinian blood during the last days of the British mandate was an ominous sign of conditions and trends to come.  The withdrawing British Empire attempted to maintain, or at minimum present, a middle road position as the “controlling consideration behind British policy was how to limit the damage to the interests of the British Empire that was bound to result from relinquishing direct control over Palestine” [16].

            After the declaration of Israeli independence on May 14, 1948, a full blown conflict exploded between “Palestinian Arabs attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army composed of volunteers from Palestine” and Jewish forces “composed of the Haganah, the underground militia of the Jewish community in Palestine, and two small irregular groups, the Irgun, and LEHI” [17].  Between the months of May and June in 1948, the surrounding states of Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt, coincidently all previously under British control, came to the aid of the Palestinian onslaught and displacement.  Surprisingly, the infant nation-state of Israel beat the three intervening Arab states back in a display of military might which presented suspicious questions concerning whether military arms and technology had come from the international free market or was the remnant weaponry supplied by the British during World War II.   On May 31, 1948 the Haganah was renamed the Israel Defense Forces and by the time of the 1949 ceasefire, the state of Israel had expanded by 25 percent of the original partitioned territory.

            At the conclusion of war in 1949, the entire landscape of what had been Palestine had been altered.  Described in a 1954 Foreign Affairs article entitled  The Disinherited: Journal of a Palestinian Exile by Don Peretz, “nearly half of the new Jewish immigrants live in homes abandoned by the Arabs. They occupy nearly 400 Arab towns and villages.  The Arabs left over 10,000 shops and stores in Jewish hands. The Israel Custodian of Absentee Property took over more than 4,000,000 dunams of former Arab land, or nearly 60% of the country’s cultivable area. This was nearly two and a half times the total Jewish-owned property at the time the state of Israel was established, and include most of its olive orchards, a large part of its fruit and vegetable cropland and almost half the citrus groves” [18].  By the time that the new nation-state of Israel was secured and fortified, a quarter of a million Palestinian refugees had been forced to “Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank” [19].   A new nation-state, Israel, had been created over an entire existing native population, behind a long-term meticulous Zionist planning process that began prior to World War I under Ottoman rule, and was finalized by the creation of modern Israel and ethnic cleansing committed on a large scale.

            In 1967, a sequel to 1949 occurred as Israel again took a military offensive which was politically termed in modern history books as ‘a pre-emptive strike’.  As a result of the 1967 Israeli military offensive, the nation-state of “Israel gained control over the Sinai peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem” which brought the number of Palestinian refugees to an approximate total of “more than 1.4 million” living “in 58 recognized refugee camps” [20].  The British had failed in their assignment as protectorate for Palestine and the people of Palestine, and as a result of that failure an entire Arab population had been displaced and a new state entity on the international stage would begin taking advantage of a wide spread Zionist political network in funding and protecting the newly established ethnically Jewish state, which would often find itself exempt from international condemnation and law. 

Jewish Immigration to Britain and the United States

During the century preceding the establishment of the modern nation-state of Israel, mass immigration of Jews into Britain and the United States, which mingled with Christian Zionist support, succeeded in the establishment of a deeply entrenched international Zionist political network.  Mass Jewish immigration to the west started in the 1890s and continued “to the present time” resulting “in large increases” in England and the United States, which shifted more in favor of the United States at the beginning of the 20th century, and by 1924 “two million Jews had arrived from Eastern Europe” to the United States [21].  In 2000, it was reported by the New York Times that the Jewish population of the nation-state of Israel would soon outnumber the 5.5 million Jews in America [22].

As the declining British Empire conducted colonial withdraws around the globe and dealt with rebuilding an economically war-torn Europe with the help of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development after World War II, the United States had emerged as a capitalist heavyweight power in the early years of globalization, and would become the lone hegemonic force after the end of the Cold War which would usher in the unfettered freedom of globalization.  The United States was ripe for the Zionist economic and political networking that had made gains under the Ottoman Empire and had successfully pimped the British Empire in order to establish a Jewish state.  The United States was a free market, which made economic networking and the acquisition of media outlets easy enough to purchase, the United States government maintained a representative democracy from its days of British colonialism, which was easy enough to manipulate for votes, and the American empire was predominately Christian in population with growing Evangelist and Christian Zionist movements inspired by national propaganda focused on the atrocities of the Jewish Holocaust in Germany.

The one-way U.S.-Israel alliance that exists today continues to be driven by the same international Zionist network in the form of powerful political lobbyist organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which diligently steered U.S. foreign policy through economic and political influence on Congressional votes to ensure goals such as 3 billion dollars annually in U.S. foreign aid to the nation-state of Israel, which has been paid out each year since 1950, economic sanctions against regional enemies of Israel, and the utilization of the U.S. veto in the United Nations Security Council against all international resolutions condemning Israeli human rights violations on Palestinians in Gaza.  Over 50 years after the establishment of the nation-state of Israel, the Palestinians have still not been allowed statehood and live under apartheid-like military occupation, military checkpoints, and an economically debilitating trade embargo enforced by the Israeli military.

Conclusion

            After conducting two centuries of colonial exploitation around the globe, Britain only had possession of Palestine for three decades.  The British had successfully subdued and exploited a multitude of national movements in colonial territories during British imperial history, but Britain was unprepared to deal with such a subversive, borderless and ethnically nationalistic movement as Zionism upon inheriting Palestine.  Britain’s failure in Palestine resulted in the displacement of an entire geographic human population and the creation of a nation-state that has committed human rights violations and has repeatedly broken international laws during its short 60 year existence, due in part to the dispersed political Zionist network spread throughout the most powerful representative democracies in the West and the Christian Zionist support within those states.  Unlike other post-colonial or post-protectorate states that Britain possessed during colonialism, where post-colonial problems remain domestically debilitating, the British failure in Palestine created massive repercussions not only in the Near East, but on the international stage.     

Notes

1.  Ian Bickerton & Carla Klausner, A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 4th ed. (New York: Prentice Hall, 2001), 43-44.

2.   Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1995), 406.

3.  Esther Benbassa, “Zionism in the Ottoman Empire at the End of the 19th and the Beginning of the 20th Century,” Studies in Zionism 11, no. 2 (1990): 128, http://www.estherbenbassa.net/SCANS/ZIONISM.PDF

4.  Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1995), 407.

4A. Esther Benbassa, “Zionism in the Ottoman Empire at the End of the 19th and the Beginning of the 20th Century,” Studies in Zionism 11, no. 2 (1990): 134, http://www.estherbenbassa.net/SCANS/ZIONISM.PDF

5. Victoria Honeyman, Britain, Palestine, and the Creation of Israel; How Britain Failed to Protect its Protectorate, (University of Leeds School of Politics and International Studies, 2012), 5.

6. Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1995), 407.

7. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmad, The Origins of the Israeli-Palestine Conflict: Settler-Colonialism, Apartheid and Political Zionism, IPRD Briefing, January 5, 2009, http://iprd.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/The%20Origins%20of%20the%20Israel-Palestine%20Conflict%20Settler-Colonialism,%20Apartheid%20and%20Political%20Zionism.pdf

8. The 1936 Riots, Jewish Virtual Library, 2013, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/riots36.html

9. The 1936 Riots, Jewish Virtual Library, 2013, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/riots36.html

10. The 1936 Riots, Jewish Virtual Library, 2013, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/riots36.html

11. Peel Commission Report on Palestine, Public Domain, 1937, Jewish Virtual Library, 1937, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/peel1.html

12. Malcolm Hedding, Christian Zionism 101: Giving Defintion to the Movement, International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, http://int.icej.org/media/christian-zionism-101

13. The Arab-Israeli War of 1948, United States Department of State Office of the Historian, http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/ArabIsraeliWar

14. Endicott, Johnson & Papp, American Foreign Policy: History, Politics and Policy, (New York: Pearson Longman, 2005), 172.

15. Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1995), 563.

16. Avi Shlaim, Britain and the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, Journal of Palestine Studies, http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/diplomacy/Shlaim,%20Britain%20and%20the%20Arab%20Israeli%20War%20of%201948.pdf

17. The Arab-Israeli War of 1948, United States Department of State Office of the Historian, http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/ArabIsraeliWar

18. Don Peretz, “The Disinherited: Journal of a Palestinian Exile,” Foreign Affairs, October 1954, 137-138.

19. The Arab-Israeli War of 1948, United States Department of State Office of the Historian, http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/ArabIsraeliWar

20. Palestine Refugees, United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=86

21. Jewish Immigration to the United States: Immigration of Eastern European Jews, Holocaust Center,  http://www.holocaustcenter.org/kinderTransport/PDFS/Immigration.pdf

22. Gustav Niebuhr, “Israeli Jews To Outnumber Those in U.S.,” New York Times, September 11, 2000, http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/11/us/israeli-jews-to-outnumber-those-in-us.html

Decolonization: Myanmar-Burma

Decolonization: Beginning the Shift

 

            The decolonization process, which was the beginning stage of imperial transition from colonialism to globalization, varied depending on the colonized state, the value of the colonized state, government/economic/political/social structures, and the culminating point of independence.  The imperial transition from colonialism to globalization redefined the characteristics of imperialism from economic exploitation by nation-states to economic exploitation by capital private sector entities, corporate states, which utilize the military and political strengths of nation-states specifically through the consolidated international authority of International Government Organizations (IGOs).  It was no historical coincidence that the post WWII Bretton Woods Conference coincided the epoch of post colonialism.  At the same time, not every capitalist plan that was developed for post-colonial states worked out in the best short-term interests of the global market due to the sporadic nature of stability in post-colonial states.

Burma

            Not every post-colonial state has been a beacon of stability for international capital investment and exploitation.  Burma, known today as Myanmar, like many other post-colonial properties after national independence, has suffered from domestic political fractioning caused by the political void left by colonialism since its independence in 1948.  The decade leading into Burmese independence saw the world conflict, World War II, spill across its borders, which can be briefly analyzed in the British government statement of 1945: “The Japanese invasion and the long interval of enemy occupation and active warfare in her territories, during which she has suffered grave damage not only in the form of material destruction but in a shattering of the foundations of her economic and social life” [1].  While the British government termed their military reacquisition of Burma as liberation, both Britain and Japan were foreign occupiers battling over a strategic colonial chess piece on the international stage.  The destructive economic results of war resulted in the opening invitation for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (known today as the World Bank). 

The international private sector, especially the Bretton Woods conference members, considered the new independent Burma as a major prospect in 1948 for future economic exploitation and profiting.  By 1954, the World Bank was making preparations for Burmese membership and the World Bank issued their first funding allotments to the Burmese government on May 4, 1956. [2]   Britain attempted to do in Burma what had been attempted in the majority of British post-colonial possessions, and “from 1948 to 1958, the country was a parliamentary democracy based on a U.K.-inspired constitution”, a government structure that has been historically very capitalism friendly [3].

The main problems for foreign capitalist globalizing entities concerning Burma emerged in the early phases of the Cold War and stemmed from a post-colonial political power vacuum, and the domestic splintering in Burma lead to a 1962 military coup and the establishment of a socialist government under General Ne Win “who abolishes the federal system and inaugurates "the Burmese Way to Socialism" - nationalising the economy, forming a single-party state with the Socialist Programme Party as the sole political party, and banning independent newspapers” [4].  This was problematic for the international so-called free market because socialist governments tend to lean toward isolation and collective national economic resources, rather than international economic trade (of natural resources) and the accumulation of individual private capital.

In 1987, during the last years of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Burma saw heavy currency devaluation which destabilized the domestic state in the form of anti-government riots (more than likely funded from foreign entities interested in seeing Burma return to a more capital-friendly form of government, similar to events in Syria today), and in 1990 Democratic elections were held and the “Opposition National League for Democracy (NLD)” won a “landslide victory in general election” [5].  At this juncture across the post-Cold War international stage, the World Bank again attempted to pull Burma back into the global free market, as was the trend during this period as capital globalization began to spread eastward in efforts to pull post-Soviet satellite states into the global free market (in order to exploit their natural resources).  The World Bank’s second funding efforts in Burma were also a default failure that resulted in a twenty-five year break between the Bank and the state. 

Myanmar

Burma, now Myanmar, has only recently began to recover from the domestic political void and power splintering originally caused by colonialism, and the people of Burma have suffered for the lack of “economic correlations and international isolation” that has “led to economic stagnation, despite a short-lived effort towards economic liberalisation in the late 1980s” [6] .  Myanmar, which is “is a poor country in spite of its vast natural resources”, never transformed into the economic machine expected by international capitalist entities, but could eventually, still become used for mass foreign economic exploitation [7].  After all, Burma/Myanmar is still ‘virgin’ territory for globalization as “industrialization is still in an embryonic stage and agriculture retains a pivotal role in Burma/Myanmar’s economy, accounting for nearly 60% of the country’s GDP” [8]

The World Bank “is set to re-engage with Burma 25 years after freezing its lending, but the Southeast Asian country must first repay several hundred million dollars in outstanding arrears” and while there is concern by international investors concerning “continued violence in many of Burma’s border areas – notably Kachin state”, Myanmar may still reach its destiny of having its natural resources depleted and exploited by foreign capitalist corporations; a post-colonial destiny that may have only been delayed by post-colonial domestic factors on an international chess board.

Notes

1. Modern History Sourcebook: British Government Statement: Policy in Burma, May 1945, Fordham University, http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/1945-burma-ukpolicy.asp   

2. World Bank Historical Chronology: 1950-1959, World Bank, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/EXTARCHIVES/0,,contentMDK:20035658~menuPK:56315~pagePK:36726~piPK:437378~theSitePK:29506,00.html

3. Lex Rieffel, The Myanmar Economy: Tough Choices, Brookings Institute, September 2012, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/09/myanmar-economy-rieffel

4. BBC News, Burma Profile: Chronology of Events, March 21, 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12992883

5. BBC News, Burma Profile: Chronology of Events, March 21, 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12992883

6. The EC-Burma/Myanmar Strategy Paper 2007-2013, European Union,  http://eeas.europa.eu/myanmar/csp/07_13_en.pdf

7. The EC-Burma/Myanmar Strategy Paper 2007-2013, European Union,  http://eeas.europa.eu/myanmar/csp/07_13_en.pdf

8. The EC-Burma/Myanmar Strategy Paper 2007-2013, European Union,  http://eeas.europa.eu/myanmar/csp/07_13_en.pdf

Classism and Racism: Similarties in Britain and the United States

The two nation-states of Britain and the United States are apples from the same tree and share the same social ills concerning classism and racism. Of course, these ills stem from the same shared history before and after the separation caused by the War of Independence, which created the United States. The three main categories which cause racism and classism in both states have origins in capitalism, Christianity and the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The only difference between the two states is a geographical growth factor, caused by the two great European wars, which debilitated European economics during a period when the geographically isolated United States economy was growing by leaps and bounds.

Classism and Capitalism:

The consolidation of wealth, caused by the historical distribution of wealth and the expansion of capitalism, in both states has produced a sharp economic caste in both. In Britain, the wealth gap that creates classism can be seen in the 1994 total wealth distribution as “the least wealthy 87 percent hold only 37 percent of the total, while the least wealthy 96 percent hold on 57 percent of the total” [1]. If we do some quick math, we see that the wealthiest 4 percent hold 43 percent of the total wealth in the British state. The same distinction can be noted in the 2010 U.S. wealth distribution as “the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)” [2].

Developed wealth gaps shared in these two states have developed through a long term consolidation process established through centuries of colonialism, foreign and domestic capitalist exploitation, slavery, and now globalization.

Slavery and Religion:

Just as Britain and the United States share the same economic results, similar historical colonial exploitation patterns, similar economic system structures, the wealth gaps evident in both states also have been impacted by religion, specifically the Judeo-Christian elements, and slavery. Both states still suffer from racism, which stems out of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the importation of African slaves, and the reproduction of domestic slaves after the trans-Atlantic slave trade was abolished by the U.S after 1800 in order to economically damage Britain.

What were the origins of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade? Many people do not realize that the trans-Atlantic slave trade did not originally begin as a race-based enslavement. The Holy Roman Empire and more specifically the Catholic Church started the trans-Atlantic slave trade with Papal Bull Dum Diversas issued by Pope Nicolas V which provided Portugal with a monopoly on the West coast of Africa to enslave all non-Christian heathens in order to provide labor to the Spanish colonies in the Caribbean. Once Britain detached itself from the Holy Roman Empire, more specifically the catholic Church, and had elevated itself to the dominate naval force on the seas as the leading expansionist state in the world, the British had no choice but to continue the economically profitable trans-Atlantic slave trade in human labor to maximize the value of their colonies. As the lucrative value of the North American colonies grew in volume, the British North American colonies became the destination of a higher volume of African slaves.

After the independence and the birth of the United States, which was already reliant on the British economic system of slavery, was created, American Christians began struggling with a moral dilemma of enslaving fellow Christians (as many imported or domestic born African slaves had adopted Christianity either by choice or by force). It was at this point, approximately around the time when trans-Atlantic shipments of Africans were banned in the United States and slaves were reproduced domestically (and born on American soil), that domestic American slavery shifted to race based slavery which could be justified by Christian slave owners through the twisting of biblical passages (such as the curse on Moses’ son Ham). Even after the so-called emancipation, a century of racial segregation followed.

Britain and the United States suffer from the same ills of racism and classism because they share a joint history, similarities in historical international colonial and trans-Atlantic human exploitation, identical economic and government structures (representative democracy – the most easily manipulated form of democracy), and are now joint members in globalization. Oranges do not grow from apple trees.

1. Banks, Dilnot & Low, The Distribution of Wealth in the UK, Institute for Fiscal Studies, September 1994, http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm45.pdf

2. Domhoff, William, Wealth, Income, and Power, University of California at Santa Cruz, February, 2013, http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Jamaica: Debt to GDP Ratio and Reform - By Any Means Necessary

            The nation-state of Jamaica is a state, classified as a developing country only fifty years out of colonialism, on the brink of complete failure.  The peril of this failure stems from a paralyzing debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio, high levels of domestic unemployment reflecting low educational, vocational and technical levels within the domestic workforce to take advantage of foreign invested capital, and domestic instability due to excessive violent crime, corruption and drugs.  Currently Jamaica attributes 55% of the national budget toward debt with “25% spent on public sector wages, this leaves just 20% for roads, schools, hospitals and other ‘critical services’”[1]  Indications of the worsening situation were the recent downgrading of Jamaica’s credit rating “from B- to C” and warning signs that if another IMF deal was not reached that “Jamaica was likely to face ‘rising financing pressures and increased risks for macroeconomic stability’”[2]  The state of Jamaica must initiate stringent domestic reforms to increase growth, develop stability, and improve GDP to debt ratio.

            Jamaican debt to GDP ratio approximately stands at a “current level of over 140 percent of GDP” and Jamaica has been forced to seek another “Extended Credit Facility agreement with the IMF [3].  In order to acquire IMF support, Jamaica will be required to initiate several domestic reforms such as “eliminating discretionary tax waivers, along with securing a contract with public sector workers to achieve a wage-to-GDP ratio of 9 percent by 2015/2016”[4].  In addition to addressing debt issues, Jamaica is currently in the process of instituting a second domestic debt exchange program which aims to “reduce Jamaica’s debt-to-GDP ratio from 140 percent of GDP to 95 percent over the next five years”[5].  The proposed debt exchange, the “country’s second in three years”, is considered “a critical component of both the IMF agreement” that would seek “domestic holders of $860bn worth of high interest government bonds to swap them for lower interest options”[6].

            A possible positive contribution to decreasing debt to GDP ratio is the planning of the “proposed Global Logistics Hub initiative” which could “transform Jamaica into the fourth node or pillar in the global supply and logistics chain alongside Singapore, Dubai and Rotterdam”[7].  Establishing a Jamaican logistics hub would lower unemployment levels through the “training of human capital to fuel the needs of the hub” as “thousands of jobs are expected to be created in areas such as, mechatronics integration of marine engineering, (mechanical, electrical and informatics), various ship board professions such as electromechanical engineering, port operations management, heavy duty equipment operations, logistics and supply chain management” [8].  Jamaica must find economic ways of training the domestic population instead of allowing the importation of trained laborers with specialized technical skills.

            The most destabilizing factors in Jamaica are violent crime, drugs and gang activities, which often derail further capital investment by foreign corporations, and if not addressed by more stringent government methods will eventually infiltrate and debilitate the promising aspect of the Global Logistics Hub in improving debt to GDP ratio, should the hub become reality.  Jamaica currently holds one of the top murder rates in the world, which recorded “1,087 deaths last year – well down from its 2009 peak of 1,683” initiated by “poverty, gang violence and the ubiquity of guns” [9].  In order to stabilize the state, the government of Jamaica must initiate sharp reforms in the creation of gang and drug task forces, the acquisition of police technology, and the building of larger prison systems to remove the elements of community that hinder advancement for the collective population and state.  At the same time, the state must establish programs to raise poverty levels and provide technical skills in order to transform members of the inner city population into productive workers and contributors of Jamaican society.

            To alleviate a national debt that prevents development, inner-city poverty which breeds criminal activity and violence, and high unemployment stemming from a population suffering from a lack of technical vocations and available opportunities, the State of Jamaica must implement staunch domestic reforms to eliminate wasteful government spending and corruption, stabilize inner-city violence, and to provide technical training and education to create a stronger domestic work force which will keep earned capital inside Jamaica.  Under no circumstance, or international liberal complaints, should Jamaica and the Jamaican people allow the Global Logistics Hub proposal to be lost, nor allow gangs, drugs and violence to engulf the hub once it is established.  An implementation of stronger domestic reforms, enforced in the same manner of colonialism if required, is a case of long-term necessity for Jamaica and the Jamaican people.  For the state and people of Jamaica, the options are either state reform ‘by any means necessary’ or further state regression and failure.

Notes

1.  Nick Mann, “Jamaica bids to lower debt costs to secure IMF loan,” Public Finance International, February 13, 2013, http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2013/02/jamaica-bids-to-lower-debt-costs-to-secure-imf-loan/

2. Nick Mann, “Jamaica bids to lower debt costs to secure IMF loan,” Public Finance International, February 13, 2013, http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2013/02/jamaica-bids-to-lower-debt-costs-to-secure-imf-loan/

3. Caribbean Journal, “Jamaica “Finalizing” IMF Agreement, Plans Debt Exchange Offer,” February 11, 2013, http://www.caribjournal.com/2013/02/11/jamaica-finalizing-imf-agreement-plans-debt-exchange-offer/

4. Caribbean Journal, “Jamaica “Finalizing” IMF Agreement, Plans Debt Exchange Offer,” February 11, 2013, http://www.caribjournal.com/2013/02/11/jamaica-finalizing-imf-agreement-plans-debt-exchange-offer/

5. Caribbean Journal, “Jamaica “Finalizing” IMF Agreement, Plans Debt Exchange Offer,” February 11, 2013, http://www.caribjournal.com/2013/02/11/jamaica-finalizing-imf-agreement-plans-debt-exchange-offer/

6. Nick Mann, “Jamaica bids to lower debt costs to secure IMF loan,” Public Finance International, February 13, 2013, http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2013/02/jamaica-bids-to-lower-debt-costs-to-secure-imf-loan/

7. Maritime Executive, “World Bank Offers to Aid Jamaica's Logistics Hub Plans,” March 5, 2013, http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/World-Bank-Offers-to-Aid-Jamaicas-Logistics-Hub-Plans/

8. Maritime Executive, “World Bank Offers to Aid Jamaica's Logistics Hub Plans,” March 5, 2013, http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/World-Bank-Offers-to-Aid-Jamaicas-Logistics-Hub-Plans/

9.  Ross Sheil, “Imani Green murder: how violence plagues Jamaica,” The Guardian, January 13, 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/13/imani-green-murder-violence-jamaica