The Complaining About Colonialism

When it comes to popular trends in values, opinions and perceptions, there is no doubt that old school colonialism or imperialism is one of the most widely condemned. It can be condemned with ease and enthusiasm because bashing the colonial empires of yesterday is about as fashionable these days as bashing Nazis, climate change skeptics, the United States or people who think the Bible is true. It’s fun and almost everyone does it. On a global level, bemoaning colonialism is something that all of the “cool kids” are doing. As regular readers are no doubt aware, I refuse to join this trend no matter how fashionable it may be. There were certainly many negative and shameful aspects of colonialism/imperialism but there were also positive aspects as well. However, anti-colonialism has become its own industry these days and, quite often, former colonial powers themselves are the biggest supporters of it. Some do it because they seem to enjoy wallowing in guilt and self-flagellation while others do it because they just want to be popular and deny their own colonialist history entirely. Colonialism/imperialism is today often seen as equivalent to racism, even as being irreversibly entwined. This, I think, is wrong and misleading but it highlights just how far removed from reality the modern, popular perception of colonialism/imperialism has become. Why should we care? Because the most prominent and successful colonial powers were monarchies or were republics who inherited colonial empires from their monarchial predecessors.

Combining imperialism and racism has become so common today that it is usually taken for granted. However, just a moment of dispassionate thought will reveal how ridiculous it is. First of all, the argument itself is racist because it is always directed at the colonialism/imperialism of Western Europe and (later) the United States. As if Western European Caucasians and their offspring are singularly capable of this evil while all others have only ever been their hapless victims. This, of course, is blatantly untrue. For one thing, the European colonial empires of recent times were very seldom established the way the popular imagination thinks they were, which is to say, evil White men with guns conquering primitive peoples of different colored skins and taking control of their land. Which is not to say that such things never happened but it was certainly not ‘standard operating procedure’. The British, for example, never “conquered” India nor did little Belgium ever “conquer” the whole of central Africa. Many of these colonial enterprises come down to a simple question; are international agreements valid? Countries make choices, sometimes they make bad choices and sometimes they are forced by circumstances to choose between the least of two bad options. This is something that has happened to all peoples all throughout the course of history. Yet, not all are viewed the same today.

Merriam-Webster defines “colonialism” as “control by one country over another area and its people”. Obviously, by that definition, colonialism is something which almost everyone has engaged in at some point or another. Why does it seem that guilt and blame only seem to be focused in one general direction? At one time, almost the whole of Asia and half of Europe was controlled by the Mongols. Everyone seems to have gotten over that. In southern Africa, the Zulus under King Shaka were quite the colonial power as were the Aztecs in pre-Columbian Mexico. European history is filled to bursting with examples and yet Europe always seems to be held as the instigator of colonialism rather than being subject to it. For a very long time Greece was controlled by Turkey, most of Poland was controlled by Russia, for about 800 years most of Spain was under the control of foreign powers. Somehow though, no one expects modern-day Spain to be demanding reparations from modern-day Morocco. Does Russia send foreign aid to Finland, consumed by guilt over the years of Russian control over the Finns? European peoples have often been the colonial subjects of other European peoples and even non-European peoples such as the Moorish rule over Spain, the Turkish rule over the Balkans or Mongol rule over Russia. Europeans never had a monopoly on colonialism.

Sometimes, the efforts to blame current problems on the legacy of European colonialism reach farcical proportions. One good example today is Libya, where the former Kaddafi regime was particularly adept at extorting money from Italy based on fashionable anti-colonialism. If there were problems in Libya due to the legacy of colonialism, should the Italians really be held to blame? After all, Italian rule over Libya lasted a mere 32 years whereas Turkish rule over Libya lasted 360 years! Who reasonably would have had the larger impact on the region? Libya is also one of a number of examples of colonial powers being falsely accused of conquering countries which are countries today but were not so at the time. Similar cases can be seen in Italian rule over Libya, American rule over the Philippines or Japanese rule over Taiwan. Each were a case when one country went to war with another country and was ceded territory in the peace settlement after which local rebel forces had to be subdued. Was this right or legitimate? Again, that would, I suppose, depend on if you think any international agreements hold validity. It would certainly be a chaotic world if they did not. Countries make agreements and have to abide by them or face the consequences, which could be economic, military or simply being shunned because no one trusts you to keep your word. Sometimes, they are obliged to make “unequal” agreements but such is the way of the world and constantly crying over it is very tiresome. It has happened to virtually everyone at some point.

Perhaps one of the most infuriating things about empire-bashing, for me at least, when the perpetrator is a republican is how much rank hypocrisy is on display. For example, today Red China is very fond of bashing old style imperialism while ruling over Tibet, Manchuria, parts of old Mongolia and hoping for more. They influence the governments and exploit the resources of numerous African countries, have bought up land and influence in Latin America and have taken control of a huge chunk of Iran. All oil in that part of the country belongs to China, they police it, they decide who gets in or out and the Chinese have said that any attack on Iran (or at least that part -they were probably intentionally vague on that point) would be considered an attack on Chinese territory. They are an “empire” in all but name. Playing in a rather different ballpark, we have the United States, which has also often been quick to criticize colonialism while flirting with being a colonial power but usually being something that is not quite colonialism but often seems worse. The United States tends to refrain from ruling other peoples but reserves the right to smack them around if they do something Washington DC doesn’t like. Why not just rule the place themselves? Because they’re not “colonialists” of course, that’s un-American! Whatever one chooses to call this, it certainly has not been a beneficial policy, least of all for the U.S. itself. However, having to play pretend to keep up the anti-colonialism charade is common to a number of countries around the world.

One of the most active but least effective monarchies engaged in this today is Japan. On the one hand, there is the self-hating leftist crowd in Japan that is quick to confess to any crime, apologize for anything and condemn all that has gone before them. They and their kind are a major reason why so many formerly great powers are slowly disappearing. However, then there is the always entertaining radical-right in Japan. It is rather hard to take any of these people too seriously because they constantly seem to be trying to persuade someone of something but are unsure of exactly what or of even who they are struggling to convince. Many have attached themselves to the anti-colonialism trend, claiming that Japan was the champion of anti-colonialism, the liberator of East Asia from colonial rule and the harbinger of freedom and independence for the Far East. To do this they must, of course, deny that the Empire of Japan was ever a colonial power which, naturally, no one with any sense and access to a history book is ever going to believe. Whether they actually believe such nonsense themselves is anybody’s guess, it may simply be part of their on-going effort to convince the world that they were right in World War II and everyone else was wrong by portraying Japan as the enemy of colonialism, something which is very popular today. They did the same thing in the Cold War when (more sensibly) anti-communism was much more popular by claiming that the Japanese war effort was all about fighting communism (they were anti-Red before anti-Red was “cool”). That having fallen out of fashion, they are more likely these days to highlight Japanese forces who actually joined communist terrorist groups to fight French or Dutch or some other colonial power after the war was over. Hating “whitey” is just as popular in Japan as Western Europe.

Trying to deny that Japan was a colonial power is, of course, absurd and none of their arguments hold up for an instant. For example, some will claim that Korea was not *really* a colony of Japan because it was annexed to Japan as part of the empire, just like Honshu or Hokkaido. However, they cite Hawaii as an example of American colonialism even though Hawaii was annexed as well and became a state in the Union. France made Algeria a part of metropolitan France, just as French Guiana is today and no one would consider that this erases their status as colonial subjects, past or present. Were that true, Britain would today be a greater empire than the United States and I doubt anyone looking at a map would buy that argument. As mentioned before, Japan also claimed to be “liberating” the Philippines from American colonial rule which is rather at odds with the fact that Japan came to control Taiwan in exactly the same way that the United States came to control the Philippines. If the one is legitimate, the other must be as well. However, for those who do accept the reality that Japan was a colonial power there is also the argument that it was simply the only one which was humane and benevolent while all others were cruel and oppressive and thus deserving of being destroyed. This is popular with those who like having their egos massaged but of course it discourages monarchist solidarity in a big way. Sadly, it is far from uncommon.

Not a few monarchies have fallen prey to this unhelpful way of thinking and one of the most prominent is the biggest colonial power of all: Great Britain. The mentality that, “all empires are bad, except our own” is one that has done considerable damage to the monarchist cause around the world. The area where this caused the earliest and biggest spread of republicanism was in Latin America with the Spanish colonial empire being the loser. Being quick to uphold the British Empire as benevolent, the Spanish empire was portrayed in the British press as harsh, backward and repressive. Britain supported the independence movements in Latin America that led to the birth of a whole crop of new republics, mostly out of a commercial desire to end the Spanish monopoly on trade with South America and gain a foothold for British business interests. This anti-Spanish empire mentality lasted to the very end when Great Britain, virtually alone among the European powers, supported the United States in the Spanish-American War. The result has not been good for the monarchist cause nor even for the cause of Britain. The United States quickly became the biggest business partner for Latin American countries and one of them in particular continues to bedevil British territorial sovereignty in the Falkland Islands. Spain, it should not be forgotten, did itself no favors with almost constant internal unrest in the homeland making holding on to the empire nearly impossible but British attitudes and actions certainly didn’t help and aided in the demise of the Spanish empire.

The antagonistic attitude toward the German Empire was also not ultimately helpful either. Germany had, under Kaiser Wilhelm II, become the third leading colonial power in the world but World War I saw it all brought to ruin. In the aftermath, Britain reached its peak in imperial size but it also planted the seeds for the ruination of the British Empire as well. Now, before anyone starts to get any anti-British ideas about all of this, the British attitude was certainly understandable even if it was not beneficial. The British really were pretty darn good at the colonial empire game and if you were going to live in a colony, you had a much better chance of living well in a British colony or former colony than in any other. Looking at modern Taiwan and South Korea, one could say much the same about Japan (though few would care to as they are certainly not fair to their fellow colonial powers). The lists of the top economic powers by GDP invariably include the United States, the United Kingdom, India, Canada and Australia all of which were formerly part of the British Empire. No other colonial empire is so well represented. Smaller holdings such as Hong Kong and Singapore also have records of immense success on every level. That’s all true and it’s all great and it is something that the British and their former colonies can be proud of. Being proud of achievements, however, does not necessitate tearing down others in comparison! It also tends to make people look ridiculous when countries like Australia (because I’ve noticed they’re very good at it) bash Britain all the time. Look around you Aussies, you came out of the empire pretty well off.

Part of the reason why I long for more pan-monarchist solidarity on this front (aside from it being a good idea in an of itself) is that most of the anti-colonial sentiment today comes from a very common and dangerous foe. In the past there may have been other reasons (often rivalry) but today it is predominately due to Marxist thinking, part of their whole egalitarian, progressive, everything-in-the-past-was-bad mentality that furthers their cause of wanting to tear down any vestiges of tradition and try something “new”. A number of monarchies have actually been destroyed by this. A perfect example is the Empire of Ethiopia (“Take Two”). Emperor Haile Selassie was an outspoken advocate of ending European colonialism in Africa (even while he extended Ethiopian colonial rule over Eritrea) but failed to grasp that these movements were predominately backed by communist forces. In the end, European colonialism did collapse in Africa, often replaced by communist dictatorships and Ethiopia itself fell victim to communist revolutionary forces that destroyed the monarchy and brought poverty and starvation. And anyone who thinks that the end of “traditional” colonialism in Africa has meant the end of African people being ruled or exploited by foreign powers is fooling themselves. In some ways it is worse now than in the past since, when colonialism was overt, the colonial power had to maintain law and order and keep people safe. Today, as long as the mines are productive, few people seem to care if Africans are displaced by civil wars or wiped out in genocides.

That is one reason why I cannot bring myself to join the ‘condemn all colonialism’ crowd. There was certainly much in the old system that was bad, at times even horrific but I see nothing wrong and even much potential for benefit if people today would drop old prejudices and make new agreements openly and honestly. If a country requires protection or some sort of assistance, I see nothing wrong with coming to an agreement with another country to provide these things in exchange for something else, like an exclusive trade deal or use of some territory or something. However, my primary point here is that monarchists should really know better than to be “shooting inside the tent” on this subject and that everyone who likes to moan and groan and claim perpetual victim status for being a former colony should get over it and stop the pity party. You used to be ruled by someone else? Sorry, that doesn’t make you special. It’s happened to everybody and your people probably did it to some other people at some point so let’s all act like big boys and girls and stop trying to cash-in on past misfortunes. Is that too much to ask?

Viet Nam De Quoc: Opportunity Lost

During World War II, French Indochina was occupied by Japan with the permission of the Vichy-based government of the "State of France". So it was that the Japanese entered Viet Nam without opposition and with virtually no trouble with the French colonial forces already present. In fact, the French in Indochina were the only foreigners not placed in internment by the Japanese throughout the war. Japan allowed their administration to remain intact while they made use of bases in Vietnam for their further conquest of Southeast Asia and extracted resources, which were already stretched to the limit by decades of French exploitation.

This, in itself, was a lost opportunity for both Japan and Vietnam. For some time, the Vietnamese, like most all other Asians, had admired Japan for her stunning victory over the Russians, her wealth and prosperity as well as her determination to beat the Western powers at their own game and prove that the Europeans could not only be rivaled by Asians, but defeated by them. The Meiji Restoration had kept the basic forms of Japanese society in place while also allowing massive innovation that put them on an equal footing with Western powers. There were many in Vietnam who wished that the Nguyen Emperor would have taken the same course of action for their country.

Throughout the colonial period, Japan had been seen, correctly or incorrectly, as a friend of the Asian people living under European rule. They were a particular source of haven if not outright support for the anti-French nationalists Pham Boi Chau and Marquis Cuong De. For some time there was considerable support for Phan Boi Chau's movement to overthrow the French administration, depose the Nguyen emperors who collaborated with them and enthrone Cuong De as Emperor of a modernized Vietnam, but still one based on the traditional principles Phan Boi Chau and the other mandarins were familiar with. Even after Phan Boi Chau began to follow the example of Sun Yat-Sen's Chinese republican movement, Prince Cuong De, working mostly from Japan, still had considerable support among nationalist-monarchist groups such as the Dai Viet party, the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai sects as well as the future President of Viet Nam, the mandarin Ngo Dinh Diem.

Many Vietnamese were then extremely disillusioned when Japan marched into Vietnam and chose to work alongside their French occupiers rather than liberating their "brother Asians" from foreign domination. Although some, hoping for the best, collaborated with the Japanese, many became disgusted by Japanese actions and joined the ranks of the American-backed Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh Hoi, a Communist-ruled nationalist group under the leadership of "Nguyen Ai Quoc", later best known as President Ho Chi Minh. However, when the war began to turn against Japan, they were motivated to take action toward creating a client state in Indochina, as they had done in Manchuria and parts of China and Mongolia as well as Burma.

In March, 1945, when the Japanese launched a coup against the French administration, the reigning Emperor, Bao Dai, who had been totally sidelined by the French, had no idea what had happened until his car was stopped by Japanese soldiers on his way back to the capital. Prior to this, the Japanese had had little to do with him, Cuong De was seen as "their man" and Bao Dai had been allowed only a nominal role in national affairs by the French. Japan now presented Emperor Bao Dai with the opportunity to be rid of the French, declare independence, and join Japan's "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", an eloquent term for those nations under Japanese control.

Actually, Bao Dai had little choice in the matter. The Japanese were obviously in control of the country, and Cuong De, who had at least some following as a nationalist leader, was standing by to assume the throne if he refused. Despite what some have written, Bao Dai was under no illusions as to what this offer of independence meant. However, it was easy enough to see that Japan was on the brink of defeat and the Emperor decided that even the word "independence" was too good to pass up. He agreed and on March 11, 1945 issued a royal ordinance declaring their complete independence from France, the abolition of all treaties signed with them, and the formation of the "Viet Nam De Quoc" or the Empire of Vietnam. This came before Ho Chi Minh's declaration of independence and provided the basic symbolism later adopted by the republican regime in South Vietnam.

Although Ngo Dinh Diem was first suggested, it was the scholar Tran Trong Kim who became the first Prime Minister of the Vietnamese Empire. Japan approved of him, he was a nationalist and had written extensively on the principles of Confucius and his books on the subject were standard reading in Vietnamese schools. For a time there was a flurry of activity: a national flag and national anthem were adopted. Streets were renamed for Vietnamese heroes and Nguyen Emperors while French names were dropped. Vietnamese became the official language of government again and efforts were made to gain foreign recognition and encourage public support for the new government. Vietnam finally had a native regime that was independent, in name even if not yet in fact, if only the people would rally to it.

Unfortunately for everyone, the colonial history and the presence of the Japanese, proved too much for people to look past. The VietMinh, rather than acknowledge the declaration of independence by the Emperor and joining with the new government, chose instead to ignore and finally subvert it. The public was swayed by the fact that Japanese exploitation, combined with a famine, brought a horrible starvation crisis to north Vietnam, which the Tran Trong Kim administration was powerless to act against. Instead, it was the VietMinh who came in with hunger relief and so won over a huge number of people in the north, the core supporters for the Communist revolution. There was also the problem of the continued separation of the south, the lack of an effective infrastructure and disunity within the ranks of Bao Dai's government. The presence of a few Japanese officials, and the lack of a ministry of defense in the new government, gave the Communists ample propaganda ammunition to label the Kim government as collaborators and to encourage people to continue to resist the new empire and back the VietMinh.

In fact, some of Bao Dai's own officials resigned from office to join the VietMinh, especially when it became so obvious that the Japanese were on their way out and the Communists had the only major force on the ground since the French surrender. At a rally for support of the Empire of Vietnam in Hanoi, the VietMinh launched a pre-arranged take-over of the event, hauled down the imperial flag and replaced it with the red and began singing the Communist anthem. In short order, the major cities rose up with the VietMinh and ultimately Emperor Bao Dai was obliged to abdicate. Tran Trong Kim had resigned earlier and went to the Japanese for protection. The era of the Nguyen Dynasty was declared to be at an end and a second declaration of independence was issued, this time by Ho Chi Minh, for the "Democratic Republic of Vietnam".

It is important to understand what a great opportunity for Vietnam was lost when groups such as the VietMinh, who could not see past the Japanese, failed to unite in solidarity around the Viet Nam De Quoc. Japan was clearly defeated and the time clearly at hand to seize the day and secure independence if only all nationalist parties could have overcome their differences and worked together. Bao Dai called for international recognition, but none was forthcoming. Invitations were made for unity with all independence parties, but few chose to cooperate. The ruling clique within the VietMinh had made it clear that they wanted absolute power, not shared with anyone, and they would settle for nothing less. If cooler, more moderate heads within the VietMinh could have prevailed, and all sides come together to support the new government and work for the future, what immense pain, suffering and death could have been avoided in the future.

In Memory of Emperador Maximiliano

It was on this day in 1867 that HIM Emperor Maximilian of Mexico was executed by firing squad alongside his loyal generals Miguel Miramon and Tomas Mejia on the Hill of the Bells in Queretaro, Mexico. It was the end of what had been a grand adventure and romantic dream to bring enlightened monarchy to the chaotic country south of the Rio Grande and to forge a Catholic Latin Empire in the New World. Archduke Maximilian von Hapsburg had been plucked from his castle in Italy and invited to become Emperor of a restored Mexican monarchy and the good natured younger brother of Kaiser Franz Joseph who was known for keeping his head in the clouds was determined, along with his Belgian bride Carlota, to show the world what they could do. They were young, idealistic and full of hope for the future. They would be the start of a new era in monarchy, raising up a poor country in the New World to its true potential.

Maximilian saw the Mexican Empire rising to become the dominant power in Central America; the linchpin between the United States and the Empire of Brazil which dominated North and South America respectively. As a former Grand Admiral of the Austrian Navy, he also saw Mexico growing in strength to become a full fledged naval power that would rule the Gulf of Mexico. For the time being he needed the help of France, but he proved he was a stooge for no one even though he probably would have been better off if he had been. Yet, the high-minded monarch would not allow anyone to influence him in their own self-interest be it the French or the conservative party in Mexico.Any unbiased observer would have to judge Maximilian as the best ruler Mexico ever had. He was not autocratic, prejudiced, greedy or selfish. He was determined that his monarchy would bring a hereditary stability to a country whose history since independence had been nothing but a long succession of coups, civil wars, feuding elites, rabble-rousing revolutionaries and petty dictators.

Yet, everything in the end depended on the outcome of the Civil War raging north of the border. From the outset the United States was openly hostile to his regime and continued to support the 'government-on-the-run' of the liberal, anti-clerical republican Benito Juarez. The Confederacy was friendly to Maximilian as a potential French ally and offered to recognize the legitimacy of Maximilian's monarchy in return for French recognition of the Confederate States of America. When the Union forces succeeded in crushing the southern Confederacy in 1865 it was the begining of the end for Maximilian and his Mexican Empire.As the USA massively increased their aid to the guerilla forces of Juarez, sending money, supplies, the latest modern weapons and even thousands of "volunteers" to beef up his army they also send a massive military force to the border and ordered the French to leave or face a Yankee invasion. Contrary to their previous agreements the French pulled out just as their forces were on the verge of final victory. Mexicans saw which way the wind was blowing and began to abandon their Emperor and cheer Benito Juarez.

It was at this point that Maximilian displayed his true character and how different he was from the other Mexican leaders who had come before him and who would follow him. Traditionally in Mexico it would have been at that point that Maximilian would have packed up, grabbed all the loot he could carry and taken the first ship back to Europe to live out the rest of his life in luxurious exile. This is what so many Mexican leaders had done before and what others would do after him. Yet, Maximilian refused for his high-born Hapsburg principles would not allow him to abandon his loyalists who would be put to death for his sake nor to abandon his country and his people for whom he had sworn an oath to God at his coronation to serve and protect.Emperor Maximilian left his foreign volunteers behind and led his loyal Mexican troops into a hopeless last stand at the epic siege of Queretaro. Surrounded, outnumbered, out-gunned and out-supplied everyone in Queretaro was impressed by how Maximilian met his most desperate hour. He gave his last bit of money to the poor on the streets, slept on the ground amongst his soldiers, shared their privations and risked his life alongside their own. Finally, the end came through the treachery of a man Maximilian trusted, Colonel Miguel Lopez, known forever after as the Traitor of Queretaro.

Given one last chance to escape by the victorious republican general Maximilian again refused. If his loyal generals were to be shot for his sake he would not abandon them to save his own life. Pleas and appeals came in to Benito Juarez from across the civilized world from presidents and kings and liberals and conservatives alike to spare the life of the noble Maximilian. Juarez would not hear of it. He feared that as long as Maximilian was alive his own power would never be secure, as long as the Emperor lived the flame of monarchy would continue to burn and he was determined to eliminate all resistance to his rule and his vision for a republican Mexico. He gave the order and on June 19, 1867 Emperor Maximilian, General Miguel Miramon and General Tomas Mejia were taken to the Hill of the Bells and executed by firing squad. Maximilian's last words were, "Long live Mexico". The two generals flanking him both died shouting in unison, "Long live the Emperor!" May he rest in peace and may the vision he died for be someday born again in the long suffering land of Mexico.