That there continue to be cases where "stronger" peoples lord over those incapable of defending themselves should not come as a surprise. Imperialism is as old as civilization itself. Yet, most of the world's denizens view empires as having vanished with the demise of European colonialism. They view the United States of America as the only possible successor to the imperial domains of yesteryear. This naïve outlook implies that only Westerners have the capacity to impose themselves on their fellow man.
The reduction of the last five hundred years of history to a laughably simplistic tale of Westerners running around the globe robbing and exploiting everyone else stems from two sources. One group consists of contemporary imperialists who use this view as a cover to their own hegemony. Revisionist historians make up the other group. In their quest to challenge colonial-era propaganda that portrayed Europeans as "do-gooders," dedicated to spreading "civilization" to less developed areas of the world (the so-called white man's burden), these scholars ironically created a new narrative that still had Westerners as the protagonists, only now they possessed a far more sinister agenda.
Clearly this vision distorts the cold realities of our past as well as our present. Westerners have never held a monopoly on greed. To suggest otherwise drastically inhibits our ability to understand and analyze the world around us.
Take the international community's treatment of apartheid South Africa. Throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, Pretoria found itself increasingly isolated from the rest of the world, subject to both disinvestment abroad and sanctions. South Africa certainly deserved incurring the disapproval of the world; the policy of apartheid wrought unimaginable suffering on millions of Africans, destroying families and societies while retarding economic development. Sadly, South Africa wasn't the only country on the African continent where the state unfairly distributed wealth and political power.
Apartheid essentially used the central government to concentrate South Africa's resources into the hands of a particular ethnic group, the Afrikaners. This really did not differ from conditions in many other post-colonial African states where members of the dominant tribe enjoyed disproportional access to high ranking positions in the civil service and military as well as economic opportunities. Yet, many of these very same countries positioned themselves at the forefront of the international campaign against apartheid.
One need just observe the internal conditions found in two of Pretoria's most voracious critics, Liberia and Ethiopia, to realize the extent of hypocrisy often exhibited by African opponents to South Africa. A caste system existed in Liberia, where Americo-Liberians, forming approximately two percent of the population, wielded absolute authority. The Krahns who replaced the Americo-Liberians following the 1980 coup proved every bit as exclusive and oppressive, precipitating the outbreak of the Liberian Civil War in 1989. From the 1960s on, Ethiopia suffered numerous outbreaks of revolts by peoples weary of Amharic imperialism. The vicious wars fought to preserve the Amharas' hegemonic position ultimately cost over a million African lives. Despite maintaining ethnic-based regimes every bit as repugnant as Pretoria's, neither Monrovia nor Addis Ababa received any significant amount of condemnation.
Apartheid has thankfully faded into history, but many Africans still find themselves denied political empowerment as a result of their tribal, cultural, or religious affiliation. Their tormentors have little fear of reprisal, since unlike the Afrikaners, they do not fall into the category of "Westerners." This moral inconsistency is found throughout the world.
For much of its history, Israel has found itself depicted by many as a rouge state, destabilizing the Middle East and suppressing "innocent" Palestinians. This visceral hatred stems in large part from the belief that Israelis do not have any business living in Southwest Asia. They are linked to West as interlopers whose presence serves as a reminder of the colonial past. The refusal of the Asian contingent of the UN to accept Israel as a member exemplifies the ostracism faced by the Jewish state.
While Israel has come under a barrage of criticism, its neighbors have managed to escape any intense scrutiny. Compare the hysterical reaction to the Battle of Jenin (which left ten Palestinian civilians dead) with the outcry (or rather lack thereof) to the slaughter of 20,000 citizens of Hama in 1982 by Syrian forces to preserve minority Alawite rule, or the extermination of at least 350,000 Shi'ites and Kurds by Saddam Hussein to maintain Sunni dominance in Iraq. No intellectual talked of "Iraqi Apartheid" during the Baathist years, nor has any organization tried to start up a divestment campaign aimed at Saudi Arabia for its reprehensible treatment of Shi'ites in Eastern Province. That Israel gets painted as a threat to regional peace while these Arab states enjoy a free pass for the brutalization of their subjects should raise eyebrows.
Currently, instances of white imperialism (both actual and perceived) ignite a fury of condemnation, while brown-on-brown and black-on-black colonialism leads only to shrugs of indifference or arguments stressing the sanctity of state sovereignty. This double standard distorts our view of both history and contemporary affairs. Third World leaders who howl about Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the U.S. "occupation" of Iraq or the West's obligations to distribute reparations ought to take a long look in the mirror. After all, there's nothing more wretched than a hypocrite.
Baca can be reached at mwbaca@amherst.edu