Although Western imperialism was on the decline in the late 18th century, Europe and the United States continued to enlarge their spheres of influence through technology and industry provided by the Industrial Revolution. The rush for resource-rich land affected tiny parcels of land, like the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific, and huge regions across continents, like Northern Africa and the Middle East. In both cases, political changes were implemented by Western forces that would forever change the course of history for the conquered and divided territories. While the political and economic forces within the context of each political development seemed, at the time, to validate Western political action, the disregard for cultural identity would yield long term effects that proved, in some cases, insurmountable. There are instances where the effects of imperialism on culture can be thwarted, even reversed. In Hawaii a resurgence of Hawaiian language and music led to political support of a unique people and their heritage. Unfortunately, in the case of the perpetual instability of the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, these long term effects have serious implications for the global community today. Hawaii remains an example for colonial powers of imperialism that does not compromise cultural identity, something that was largely ignored in the colonialism of the Ottoman Empire and led the region to radicalization and terrorism.
The beautiful Hawaiian Islands, said to be first discovered by Captain James Cook in 1778, were and remain strategically vital territory for any country hoping to be considered a world power. It is an excellent territory for ship refueling as they travel from the United States to the Asia. The Hawaiian Historical society writes,
Through the 19th century, Hawaii continued as a fledging kingdom, maintaining its sovereignty despite designs by the British, Russians, French and Americans to win control of the islands. Hawaii’s monarchs successfully played American and British interests off each other, depending on one than the other for military support
This status quo, however, would not remain for Hawaii. In 1843, years before the overthrow, a British commander named George Paulet attempted to annex the kingdom to the British Crown. Hawaiian sovereignty was restored only five months later, followed by a declaration by France and England that the Islands would be considered “an independent state, and never to take possession, neither directly under the title of protectorate, nor under any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are composed” (Morgan Report). The United States, although invited to sign the document, declined. Ultimately, Manifest Destiny compelled the United States to pull the Hawaiian Islands into its sphere of influence, with intentions to annex the territory when the opportunity presented itself. The United States succeeded when the Hawaiian monarchy, under leadership of Queen Liliuokalani, was overthrown supposedly in retaliation for the Queen’s attempt to nullify the Constitution of 1887, which significantly decreased monarchial power. On January 17, 1893, a Provisional Government was established and Liliuokalani was put under house arrest. Four years later Hawaii would be annexed to the United States and the 50th state of the union in 1959.
The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire was a slower and less direct process than the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. After the Tanzimat Reforms, established by Ottoman Sultan Mahmud II in 1839, threatened to centralize Ottoman power over the various minority groups of the Empire, European countries were able to take advantage of Ottoman dissatisfaction and increase its influence. Their goal, however, was a weak not a collapsed Ottoman Empire. Domestic political turmoil would erupt throughout these years, culminating in the rise to power of the Young Turks in 1908, followed by a serious of disasters, including the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars and the Armenian genocide and uprisings. Finally, the Ottoman Empire dug its own grave when they allied with Germany in World War I, assuming the military might of Germany would remain the safest shield from Russia. The Allies claimed victory in 1918 and one of the first things discussed in peace treaty talks was the status of the crumbling Empire and the importance for European countries, particularly Britain and France to protect their interests in the region. Thus, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned completely by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, which divided the Middle East between Britain and France based on the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Four zones were drafted, two under direct French or British control, the other two under French or British influence. These zoning decisions were solidified by the ratification of the mandate boundaries by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922.
The effect of the United States, Britain and France exercising their power on Hawaii and the Middle East had not only political and economic implications but more importantly, cultural implications on the colonized peoples. The long term effects of cultural imperialism, when the weaker state adopts the language, manners and lifestyle of the stronger state, has undermined the Hawaiian and Arab minorities. In the hundred plus years since the Hawaiian overthrow and Ottoman partition, evidence of the cultural impact of the West has manifested itself. The lesson we learn from such case studies is that cultural identity, a set of characteristics inherent in certain societies and cultures that individuals within those cultures choose to identify with, are essential to the survival of a people. Colonized people struggle to survive when cultural imperialism forces a loss of cultural identity.
Thankfully, cultural imperialism is not irreversible. The resurgence of Hawaiian culture in Hawaii which took place during Hawaii’s statehood is a testament to the perseverance of cultural identity. Immediately following the overthrow in 1893, policies and programs were implemented by the Provisional Government that sought to curb uprising by the Hawaiian population. Native speakers were targeted in the classroom, forbidden from speaking their native tongue and punished for disobedience. Because Hawaiian language was at the heart of the culture, important forms of art and expression such as the hula, Hawaiian music and chant were compromised and replaced by a stereotypical image of Hawaiian culture based primarily on the image created by the tourism industry. In the 1970s, Hawaiian music, language, dance and culture saw a surge in popularity and exposure. This period of time, known as the Hawaiian Renaissance, is characterized by its marked divergence from the artificially created Hawaiian culture following the overthrow. At the peak of Hawaiian culture’s revival in 1983, a few Hawaiian educators formed an immersion program, boosting the number of children who spoke fluent Hawaiian from 50 in 1983 to 2,000 today. In addition to language, music played a major role in encouraging engagement in Hawaiian culture. The Renaissance made a political impact and revived movements for Hawaiian sovereignty and recognition. All of this culminated in the Apology Resolution of 1993, a joint resolution from the United States congress apologizing for the role of the United States in the overthrow of Liliuokalani.
There are three interdependent factors that limited the permanence of cultural imperialism in Hawaii. First, the maintenance of culturally authentic political boundaries facilitated a cohesive and identifiable culture. The Hawaiian ethnicity and its Protestant history defined a target group who could generate specific grievances to the colonizing power. This allows for the second factor, the creation of political mechanisms that foster the cultural identity. The most significant political body is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) added to the Hawaii State Constitution in 1978 during a Constitutional convention of the same year. This semiautonomous government bureau allows its trustees, usually of Hawaiian descent and voted on by the people of Hawaii, to invest ceded lands originally belonging to the Kingdom of Hawaii and collect revenue for state-sponsored Hawaiian programs. Private companies like the Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate similarly use landholdings as investment to raise funds for programs, in this case for three major Hawaiian-preference sch0ols spanning from pre to high school. These programs highlight “two-way assimilation,” where the colonial power and the native history not only coexisted but were influenced by one another. Without this phenomenon, the colonizing government would be less inclined to support the nurture of cultural identity. Finally, political mechanisms facilitate a broader political movement that allows for not only regaining cultural identity but also advancing cultural identity through the colonial power. Native Hawaiians achieved this with the Apology Resolution in 1993 and may achieve even greater federal recognition if the Akaka Bill, currently pending in the U.S. Senate, is passed.
When examining the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent colonization of the region, it is clear that neither of these critical factors materialized. The division of the Ottoman Empire and necessity on the part of Britain and France to reconstruct new borders catapulted the Middle East into a more tumultuous situation that the Hawaiian Islands were ever in. Within the vast territory of the Empire was a multitude of cultures and religious sects that lived peacefully. The Ottoman Turk culture is the closest to a unitary culture the Empire got, and even this influence did not halt the flourishing of other cultures and religious sects within the Empire. Nonetheless, the Empire drew its power from its ability to govern multicultural and multi-religious citizens through culturally sensitive empirical policies. This multiculturalism was ruptured in the aftermath of World War I. From the four mandates previously mentioned, modern day Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine/ Israel and Jordan were formed. These permanent boundaries were not drawn with the population’s discretion in mind; rather, they were drawn for British and French convenience. Major cultural groups were divided by the arbitrary borders, setting the stage for the internal opposition within these nations and backlash against the Western colonial powers.
The lack of politically sensitive borders significantly hinders the possibility of political bodies that foster cultural awareness as evidenced in the nations of the Middle East. Although political independence from Western colonialism has been established in the Middle East, the disruption in cultural function and awareness continues to destabilize the region. Because of the poorly drawn borders, nationalism within these artificial states was a slow process. Cultural identity was never cultivated within these states in the same way as it was in Hawaii. The closest the region came to unity is the Pan Arab movement, a secular call for Arab nationalism, which reached a high point with the leadership and rhetoric of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. The biggest gain of the region through the Pan Arab movement was its encouragement of independence for colonial rule. In the face of opposition, Britain was forced to grant Iraqi independence in 1921. British Mandate Palestine would become the state of Israel in 1948. Syria and Lebanon were both only granted independence from French rule in 1943 as the power after German occupation and a recommendation by revered General Charles de Gaulle to recognize independence for the sake of French survival. The Pan Arab movement, however, failed to create any substantial international recognition or concessions, and radicalized into the Islamist movement visible in the violence and terrorism that has overtaken the Middle East. For a political mechanism like OHA in Hawaii to establish in the Middle East, there must be a noticeable cultural force unified enough to create a disturbance and clear enough to outline attainable goals. The radicalization of the Pan Arab movement guarantees this movement will not yield a meaningful political body in which to support the movement. Secular governments are reluctant to support a political group fueled by religious motives and Western powers are all but reluctant to generalize any political group as a radicalized religious movement engaging in terrorist behavior.
Without the culturally authentic borders and political bodies that uphold cultural identity, federal recognition of cultural identity or colonial apology are unattainable. In the Middle East, borders do no reflect a nation’s cultural composition and no political autonomy of cultural sects within that state. The Palestinian Authority is an internationally recognized political mechanism that fosters cultural identity and has gained support by its former colonial power, Britain, in gaining monetary and political support for its people. But the Palestinian Authority only has jurisdictions over parts of Israel and lacks a legitimate state. The Kurds have a distinct cultural identity but neither a political government nor a state. Instead they are spread out amongst the territories of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. These states are in turmoil because of poor Western foreign policies that failed to establish the means for cultural identity to flourish. Not surprisingly, violence not only consumes the region but has spread to the West, the instigators of the turmoil on the eyes of the many frustrated Arabs. In the Hawaii model, the island’s borders incorporated one cultural identity that successfully united and gained political recognition. Granted the Hawaiian Renaissance also saw a rise in popularity of the radical sovereign movement, whose followers believe Hawaii should be restored to a constitutional monarchy, U.S. efforts such as the 1993 Apology Resolution and the Akaka Bill, a level of contentment and even patriotism towards the United States is not in the least bit far fetched in Hawaii. In Syria or Palestine, however, British and French patriotism is absurd.
Iraq is a prime example of Western failure in foreign policy. Its Western-drawn borders incorporate feuding Sunni, Shiite and Kurds. Only under stringent and murderous regimes, such as the Baath Party’s rule from 1968 through 2003, did these minorities feign cooperative living within the state. The Baath Party’s secular-style of ruling made it perfect for Pan Arab leadership. However the military defeat of the Arab nations in the Six Days War brought the Pan Arab movement down and left the region destabilized. Once the United States invaded and occupied Iraq and put the new democratic Iraqi government in power, the three dissident groups turned to violence against each other and the coalition troops. Separatist movements amongst all three minorities have emerged after years of suppression and have radicalized around extreme Islamic causes. Unlike the people of Hawaii, violence is the main venue of frustration and opposition in Iraq. Only in the wake of such violence and disruption has the West discussed a three-state solution, where Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would be granted their own political authority over territories consisting of one religious or ethnic sect. This realization by the West has come way too late and may cause more problems than it solves.
The mitigated disaster that Iraq has become highlights the faults of U.S. foreign policy in addressing cultural concerns as well as military, economic and political concerns. Through the example set by Britain and France in the colonization of the Middle East, the U.S. must realize that the lack of cultural awareness of the weak state by the strong state is a costly flaw that opens the door to great unrest, radicalization and eventually global threats to security and stability. Policy makers should, instead, look at the positives brought about by the Hawaiian Renaissance. By encouraging the blossoming of Hawaiian culture and language, satisfaction with the United States and overall acceptance of the overthrow (indeed the Islands were to be colonized by one Western power or another, thankfully it was the United States which remains today a dominant world power) is a realistic goal. U.S. foreign policy must aim to create a similar attitude in Iraq as well as other countries in the Middle East, even if it means admitting wrong and encouraging minority groups to embrace their cultural and religious differences. Only then can we hope to see a stabilized Middle East and overall greater sense of security and stability in the global theatre.
No comments:
Post a Comment