1
OVER the last few years, English friends have taken to asking me — considering me to be the Oracle of the East — about the so-called String of Pearls. These are ports built and developed by the Chinese around the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. Although most of them are being managed by semi-government agencies for commercial purposes, they can obviously be used in a military role should they be so required.
I laugh whenever I hear this question and remind my Western friends that the Brits were past masters in the strategy of pushing their priests, soldiers, clerks and traders on to shore-based depots that were soon converted into fully fledged naval bases. These were then expanded into British-occupied zones that served as launching pads for colossal land grabs across the world. So why, I ask my nervous friends, was it OK for the Brits to do back then what the Chinese are doing now? And as against the Brits (and other colonial powers) who brought their faith, their manufactured goods and their armies, the Chinese finance development activities in the countries where they operate.
If we look around the world today, we notice that most of the conflicts are the result of ill-marked, contested colonial or Cold War borders. Let’s start with the boundary negotiated to end the Korean War after the Chinese entered the conflict to counter American landings. Today, this is the most heavily militarised zone in the world, with artillery, missiles and troops massed on both sides. Should Trump foolishly take pre-emptive action against Pyongyang, Seoul, the South Korean capital, is within artillery range of the border, and would be flattened even before nuclear strikes entered the equation. This is why the South Korean government appears to be preparing for talks with the North despite strong American reservations.
Our own borders with Afghanistan and India continue to bedevil ties; indeed, we have fought three wars, plus the Kargil stupidity, with India. And no Afghan government has ever accepted the Durand Line imposed by the British in 1893 on a feeble Kabul. This is why the ongoing project to fence the border is so deeply resented by our neighbour. This single act of colonial arrogance has fuelled decades of hostility.
But it is the British collusion with India over Kashmir that has left an even more poisonous legacy. We are all too familiar with this story for me to re-tell it here, but had this wound not been inflicted, the subcontinent would have been a very different place today.
Today’s major battlefields lie to the West, in Syria and Iraq. Both formed part of the Ottoman Empire, and were split up cynically between the British and the French after the First World War saw the end of Turkish rule across the Middle East. When Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was toppled by the Americans, there was no central authority to hold Sunnis and Shias together in an autocratic but secular country. The resulting bloodbath and the rise of terror outfits like the militant Islamic State group are a direct outcome of the American-led invasion of 2003.
Much of Africa was carved up by greedy, brutal colonial powers that killed and enslaved untold thousands of black Africans. The borders — all straight lines and right angles — were drawn up in Brussels. No wonder the Belgians were perhaps the cruelest of the lot.
But before we get complacent about the crimes committed by the white nations in the past, let us not forget that we have done more than our share to add to the death toll and human misery. The Iranians and the Iraqis were locked in a genocidal war for years in which hundreds of thousands were killed.
Indeed, more Muslims have been killed by their fellow believers than by any other country or army. Mosques, schools, and markets have been destroyed by inept Saudi bombing in Yemen, while much of the population is being starved and denied the most basic medicines. For all the talk about the Islamic ummah, there is not much sympathy to spare for the Yemenis when it is the Saudis doing the killing.
Clearly, little can be done to fix what happened in the past. But surely, decades after the end of the colonial era, neighbours can sit down and negotiate an end to their border disputes. The problem is that when it comes to land, nobody is prepared to budge an inch. States don’t mind their citizens dying in pointless wars, but will defend every square foot to the last man.
The recent 70th anniversary of our independence from British rule was accompanied by much mawkish media coverage. TV series and movies highlighted the role of Queen Victoria in the subcontinent. This sentimental campaign projected an image of a peaceful colony where faithful natives catered to their white masters’ every whim.
Echoes of this nostalgia linger on in British expat clusters in many ex-colonies. In Sri Lanka — where I spend much of the winter — I gnash my teeth whenever I hear frequent references to “these people”, and their relaxed approach to work. I am tempted to tell them to go back home if they are so unhappy in this island paradise.
But the attraction of cheap staff, wonderful weather and lovely scenery keeps these foreigners from departing. This form of cultural arrogance makes Westerners question China’s desire to become a global presence: clearly, there is envy at work here that translates into an active US-led policy to isolate China.
Published in Dawn, January 8th, 2018
