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. 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. I argue that by using past colonial successes and failures as guides, U.S. foreign policy should mature to include components that address the cultural identity and function of territories that are colonized, occupied or influenced by the United States.
Strategically placed and lusciously alluring islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean just beg to be colonized. 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. HawaiiHistory.org states,
“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. Indeed 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.
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.
The cultural decline and eventual revival of the Hawaiian culture symbolizes the possibility of reestablishing cultural identity and undoing the destruction of cultural imperialism while maintaining vital ties to the colonial power. 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. Thankfully, Hawaiian people were able to carry on the culture. In the 1970s, Hawaiian music, language, dance and culture saw a surge in popularity and exposure. George Kanahele resonates the joy of the Hawaiian people,
“Let me say, first of all, we're not really here to listen to me talk about the Hawaiian Renaissance--we're here to celebrate it. For if anything is worth celebrating, it is that we are still alive, that our culture has survived the onslaughts of change during the past 200 years. Indeed, not only has it survived, it is now thriving.”
To this day, Hawaiians honor musicians such as Gabby Pahinui and the Cazimero Brothers for their contributions to the resurgence of Hawaiian culture. They also made a political impact and have revived movements for Hawaiian sovereignty and recognition. All of this culminated in the Akaka Bill, introduced to Congress in 2000 and that currently is still up for debate in Congress. Thus, cultural imperialism was reversed and the Hawaiian people today have a powerful and proud cultural identity despite the overthrow and subsequent annexation to the United States.
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. 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. Both powers also used the term “mandate” rather than “colony,” hoping to persuade the population that the West was there to ease the transition not to assert political will. As far as cultural imperialism and identity, the British were less guilty of cultural imperialism in either Iraq or Palestine but did subjugate the population and therefore compromised their cultural identity. The French committed cultural imperialism full force, implementing French language and culture to every region they marched into but extended equal citizenship and rights to the people of Syria and Lebanon. Syrian and Lebanese assimilation as well as other former French colonies was successful because the French influence on both countries remains today.
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. 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. Independent Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and even Israel and Palestine have not had sufficiently stable regimes, many times because of the dynamic clash amongst competing minorities. Iraq is a prime example of the complexity of Western-drawn borders that 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. Once the United States invaded and occupied Iraq and put the new democratic Iraqi government in power, the three 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.
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. 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, which calls for federal recognition of indigenous Hawaiian, a level of contentment and even patriotism towards the United States is not in the least bit far fetched in Hawaii. 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.
Without officially announcing her intention to run and with two whole years to go, Senator Clinton's political future is sparkling according to Ohio polls on Quinnipiac. Stephen Mack supports the possibility Clinton's possible landslide victory come 2008 based on these polls. He is particularly poignant in pointing out that, unlike any of her opponents, Senator Clinton carries significant baggage and that the negative public perception of her is factored into the polls. Put this and the numbers together and some are predicting the former First Lady may be heading back to her old home in the White House.
It goes to show that States fluctuate, people change their mind, and seriously...there are TWO more years to go. Sure maybe Clinton has all her cards on the table and many Americans have more or less passed judgement on Senator Clinton as a wife, mother, woman, Senator and potential President. However, Senator Obama and Former Senator Edwards are less pigeonholed. They have enough resources to run campaigns that truly promote their positive qualities and have proven to be talented and charismatic politicians. Who is to say that they cannot affect the polls by selling their positive qualitites (and they both have some wonderful ones) to shed numbers off of Senator Clinton's leading percentages? It's just too early to call a victory.
