Are there any lessons to be learnt? If there are, of those lessons what not to do can only be applied to the Now and the Foreseeable Future. Britain is not currently an empire, nor will it be in the anticipated time ahead.
There are two major empires in the Now - the American, which is rapidly receding, and the Chinese, which is expeditiously expanding.
Since Shashi Tharoor is currently the Chairman of Committee on External Affairs, he will know what the current Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, publicly thinks this of China:
- Human Rights Violations: severe human rights abuses by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), particularly against the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, reports of forced abortions, sterilisations, and birth control measures, suggesting these actions amount to demographic genocide.
- Suppression in Tibet: China's oppressive policies in Tibet since its annexation in 1951, including bans on the Tibetan flag and anthem, and the imprisonment and torture of peaceful protesters; claims that approximately 1.2 million Tibetans have died under Chinese rule.
- Erosion of Autonomy in Hong Kong and Threats to Taiwan: China's actions in undermining Hong Kong's autonomy and its aggressive posture towards Taiwan, including threats of war.
- COVID-19 Pandemic Response: accuses China of covering up the initial outbreak of COVID-19 and acting irresponsibly during the early stages of the pandemic, contributing to its global spread.
- Unfair Trade Practices: China's trade policies are unfair and manipulative, suggesting that the global community has overlooked these issues in pursuit of cheap consumer goods.
- China's Methods of Expansion: economic leverage with its vast manufacturing capabilities and control over global supply chains give it significant economic power; political influence often lead to increased dependency; and military assertiveness of China's (the world's largest) military build-up in regions like the South China Sea demonstrate its intention to expand territorial claims and influence.
It's important to have an open and uncensored debate about the history of the British Empire, and that is only possible where there is freedom of speech. What are the chances that Prof Kehinde Andrews of Birmingham City University would have been re-educated long ago were he in China and commenting on the Chinese Empire, that he would have suffered the same fate as Uighur Muslims, and that he wouldn't have had any children, let alone the four he has now?
Lipton, there’s a great book by Acemoglu and Robinson called ‘Why Nations Fail’ (2012). They compare countries that have ‘inclusive’ political systems (rule of law, pluralistic structures, property rights, good education etc) with nations who have ‘extractive’ systems (monarchies, oligarchies, corrupt legal apparatus, sketchy property rights etc.).
As you have highlighted, there are important comparative legacy effects when comparing British rule with other empires that fit with Acemoglu and Robinson’s thesis. This, combined with the British ending the salve trade, is too often forgotten in the one-sided critiques of our history.
It is a complicated legacy, and despite my vigorous support of free speech on this issue, I still revert to my previous position of weighing the pros and cons, and concluding the moral failings of real old-school colonialism of countries outweigh some pros. The pros might be eventual technology gains, such as roads, common law, science, and (ironically) weapons that discourage future invasions and in effect put the welcome deathnail in future colonialism after all the countries of the world became somewhat armed. The cons of colonialism were that it was sometimes the most militarized miniority of the invading country that did the colonization, and they often behaved much worse than the typical culture of those living out their lives domestically in the UK. So although the UK had developed a dignity culture after the Enlightenment, and even though they had developed good common-law, and even though they had developed a relatively high-trust culture in which commerce can thrive, the irony is that some colonizers were undignified, lawless, and low-trust.
Nevertheless, in some colonies, eventually common-law, high-trust that facilitates commerce growth, and dignity-culture did take hold (e.g., Australia, USA, Canada, New Zealand), and in those cases things have somewhat worked out. Again, I am not claiming the militarized first invaders were lawful, high-trust, and dignified, but UK culture domestically had developed a roughly working culture in these areas.
Real colonization was unpleasant, and I like most are decolonalists when it comes to countries. Nevertheless, it is the new unfalsifiable postcolonial theory thats extends the concept of decolonization to topics and subjects in universities that I most object to. For example, it is almost stupid to try to use the terminology "decolonize the curriculum", because there is no real invasion in a university subject, and a curriculum is not an invaded country.
Interesting article. It would be fascinating to look at China's Belt and Road agreements with various nations particularly resource heavy 3rd world countries. what are the conditions; what access does this grant them to resources; what is their influence on govt. decisions. What benefits and what are they giving for these funds and assistance?
Well-written piece, @nigelbiggar
Are there any lessons to be learnt? If there are, of those lessons what not to do can only be applied to the Now and the Foreseeable Future. Britain is not currently an empire, nor will it be in the anticipated time ahead.
There are two major empires in the Now - the American, which is rapidly receding, and the Chinese, which is expeditiously expanding.
Since Shashi Tharoor is currently the Chairman of Committee on External Affairs, he will know what the current Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, publicly thinks this of China:
- Human Rights Violations: severe human rights abuses by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), particularly against the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, reports of forced abortions, sterilisations, and birth control measures, suggesting these actions amount to demographic genocide.
- Suppression in Tibet: China's oppressive policies in Tibet since its annexation in 1951, including bans on the Tibetan flag and anthem, and the imprisonment and torture of peaceful protesters; claims that approximately 1.2 million Tibetans have died under Chinese rule.
- Erosion of Autonomy in Hong Kong and Threats to Taiwan: China's actions in undermining Hong Kong's autonomy and its aggressive posture towards Taiwan, including threats of war.
- COVID-19 Pandemic Response: accuses China of covering up the initial outbreak of COVID-19 and acting irresponsibly during the early stages of the pandemic, contributing to its global spread.
- Unfair Trade Practices: China's trade policies are unfair and manipulative, suggesting that the global community has overlooked these issues in pursuit of cheap consumer goods.
- China's Methods of Expansion: economic leverage with its vast manufacturing capabilities and control over global supply chains give it significant economic power; political influence often lead to increased dependency; and military assertiveness of China's (the world's largest) military build-up in regions like the South China Sea demonstrate its intention to expand territorial claims and influence.
It's important to have an open and uncensored debate about the history of the British Empire, and that is only possible where there is freedom of speech. What are the chances that Prof Kehinde Andrews of Birmingham City University would have been re-educated long ago were he in China and commenting on the Chinese Empire, that he would have suffered the same fate as Uighur Muslims, and that he wouldn't have had any children, let alone the four he has now?
Lipton, there’s a great book by Acemoglu and Robinson called ‘Why Nations Fail’ (2012). They compare countries that have ‘inclusive’ political systems (rule of law, pluralistic structures, property rights, good education etc) with nations who have ‘extractive’ systems (monarchies, oligarchies, corrupt legal apparatus, sketchy property rights etc.).
As you have highlighted, there are important comparative legacy effects when comparing British rule with other empires that fit with Acemoglu and Robinson’s thesis. This, combined with the British ending the salve trade, is too often forgotten in the one-sided critiques of our history.
It is a complicated legacy, and despite my vigorous support of free speech on this issue, I still revert to my previous position of weighing the pros and cons, and concluding the moral failings of real old-school colonialism of countries outweigh some pros. The pros might be eventual technology gains, such as roads, common law, science, and (ironically) weapons that discourage future invasions and in effect put the welcome deathnail in future colonialism after all the countries of the world became somewhat armed. The cons of colonialism were that it was sometimes the most militarized miniority of the invading country that did the colonization, and they often behaved much worse than the typical culture of those living out their lives domestically in the UK. So although the UK had developed a dignity culture after the Enlightenment, and even though they had developed good common-law, and even though they had developed a relatively high-trust culture in which commerce can thrive, the irony is that some colonizers were undignified, lawless, and low-trust.
Nevertheless, in some colonies, eventually common-law, high-trust that facilitates commerce growth, and dignity-culture did take hold (e.g., Australia, USA, Canada, New Zealand), and in those cases things have somewhat worked out. Again, I am not claiming the militarized first invaders were lawful, high-trust, and dignified, but UK culture domestically had developed a roughly working culture in these areas.
Real colonization was unpleasant, and I like most are decolonalists when it comes to countries. Nevertheless, it is the new unfalsifiable postcolonial theory thats extends the concept of decolonization to topics and subjects in universities that I most object to. For example, it is almost stupid to try to use the terminology "decolonize the curriculum", because there is no real invasion in a university subject, and a curriculum is not an invaded country.
Interesting article. It would be fascinating to look at China's Belt and Road agreements with various nations particularly resource heavy 3rd world countries. what are the conditions; what access does this grant them to resources; what is their influence on govt. decisions. What benefits and what are they giving for these funds and assistance?