A recent media article described a meeting of Russia’s Duma (Parliament) where a senior minister lectured those present (Not too many) that the West’s accusation of Crimea being described as ‘annexation’, could be compared to the annexation of East Germany by West Germany. He went on to explain that 97% of the Crimean people were permitted to vote on becoming a satellite state of Russia ... something not awarded to East Germany.
Please bear in mind that I am just a bystander of this story.
This made me study the word ‘annexation’ together with the word ‘colonization’. Basically, to annex, means to add to one’s own territory by appropriation, but comprises brutal words such as; seizure, occupation, invasion, conquest, and takeover. Whereas, to colonize, means to send a group of settlers and establish political control over an area.
Thus, this becomes, literally, an interesting debate. I would argue that the Crimean scenario is truly an annexation based on the use of various sections of the Russian military, and the absence of an agreement of the vote by the Ukraine government. One could also say (Perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that most of the pro-Russian Crimeans were, originally, Soviet (Russian) colonizers. Having said that, sadly, it is a fait accompli.
It is too early to describe the situation in eastern Ukraine but, certainly, there is an attempt at annexation taking place, by Russia. I feel that, in fact, Mr. Putin was testing the strength of Ukraine’s national will and, in that, failed miserably. The king is alone with his bishop and pawns while, although the opposite side may have lost a castle, they still have their king, queen, and a few additional knights.
Perhaps, in summary, regarding word definitions; it seems that annexation describes a brutal action of seizure and conquest, whereas, colonization (although unpleasant) describes necessary occupation and control.
Finally, this asks if Tibet and Mongolia have been annexed or colonized by China, and is is it too extreme to describe Guantanamo (Cuba) as an annexation.
I am sure that there are a few other examples. Please click Comments below if you agree ... or not.
Postscript - I half-expected someone to comment about the British colonization of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, and they are worthy of discussion here.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, in answer to the Chinese and American examples given above, I would say that Inner Mongolia is the result of a relatively peaceful colonization, while Tibet was, and remains, a brutal annexation because of the forced settlement of Han Chinese. I regard Guantanamo (Cuba) as colonization because the presence of the US on Cuban soil is an objectionable and painful embarrassment for Cubans, to the point of victimization ... especially as the US shows no sign of departing.
Gibraltar has had very little occupation by the Spanish and was ceded to Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, following the War of the Spanish Succession. Successive referendums in recent times indicate a strong will of the people to remain British. In a referendum held in 2002, Gibraltarians rejected by an overwhelming majority (98%), a proposal of shared sovereignty.
The Falkland Islands were, virtually, uninhabited before a period of successive French, Spanish and British limited occupations in 1771. Argentine has never inhabited the islands. The settlement of Irish and Scottish sheep farmers around 1764, and the strategic location for the increasing shipping for Antarctic exploration caused the permanent settlement in the first half of the 20th century. Argentine continues to exert sovereignty over the islands which, like Gibraltar, is strongly opposed by the Falklanders, and feelings are running very high at this moment.
Thus, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands can be described as British colonies.
I'm surprised Bernie that you try to disguise British imperialism as merely colonization. That is ridiculous, Britain colonized many places including Canada to extract resources and make a profit. Australia may have had another purpose but look at what the English merchants did trading opium from India to China hence destroying the Middle Kingdom. However, that is nothing compared to what the Americans did to the Philippines in 1899 when they killed as many of the natives as they could find in the forest. Putin may be an 'a hole' but he isn't going to receive enlightenment from France and Germany, ie Napoleon and Hitler. Give me a break Bernie.
ReplyDeleteJohn; your use of the word "imperialism" in place of colonization may be justified in an historic sense, but I'm referring to situations that still exist in this century, and one would hardly describe Canada as a country under imperialism.
DeleteIt is also unfair to single out Britain as your example (Not the first time) when other countries were equally exerting their powers overseas. The genocidal invasions by Spain, France, and Portugal in South America can not be relegated to the back page.
One must place these occupations in a historical perspective. There isn't one country that can proudly hold its head up high. And to say that Britain "destroyed" the Middle Kingdom is quite a stretch when compared to the tens of millions of Chines killed by Mao Tse-tung.
I'm not an expert of the Philippines, except to say that I've been there. The army of the Philippines helped America against the Spanish during the Spanish-American war in 1988 believing that America would give them back their country which was a little naive of them and, thus, the Filipinos fought back. I am curious about your use of the word "natives". Just a few years ago, I met some primitive natives in the hills, dressed in loin cloths and carrying spears, whose only occupation seemed to obtain money from tourists to take photos. I am puzzled as to why the Americans would wish to kill them.
Finally, we must very seriously hope that someone will stop and, possibly, reverse Putin's annexation of any more independent countries. Until then, I should give you a break and suggest that we agree to differ.
I agree Bernie. We each have points of view that are not wholly inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteThanks John; I appreciate your double negative. ;)
Delete