Are you telling me that some countries still have colonies? Shame!

Links: A. Territories Under the Jurisdiction of Other Countries.
           B. Where on the Globe are the Remaining Colonies?


Were you aware that two cities on the north Mediterranean coast of Morocco are actually part of Spain?  Ceuta and Melilla are leftover remnants of the days when Europe almost went to war over Morocco just prior to the first World War.  I highly recommend visiting these cities, which truly are neither Spanish or Moroccan, but an exotic, spice-filled hybrid of both.  And since you are going to be in the neighborhood, why not take a little tour of Morocco itself?  You won't be sorry.  Historically, Morocco existed as part of the French colonial empire, and the stories of Ceuta and Melilla, and of Spanish General Francisco Franco and his northern-Morocco based army of Falangists crossing the Straits of Gibraltar to begin the Spanish Civil War, are fascinating on their own.  In the early 1960's, when two million Frenchmen called Algeria home, many people don't realize that somewhere between two-hundred and three-hundred thousand French citizens were living in Morocco.  Does France have any colonies left in Africa?  Does anyone have any African colonies still on the books, so to speak? And Asia, are any European nations still getting free rubber and petroleum from the Far East?  I love maps and Geography, with History coming a close second, so I was able to make a close guess before examining the two links that I have provided.  For the sake of keeping this post simple and fun, lets follow the established definition of "colony", and let's start right at home, with the United States.

With consideration to populated areas only (the United States has research facilities at various small island clusters, including Palmyra Atoll, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef and Midway, Wake, Baker, Jarvis and Howland Islands), the United States administers the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territory of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands, and the Territory of Guam.  When I was in High School and originally discovered that the United States administered so many far-flung areas around the world, I was amazed.  And to think that the U.S. overseas empire once included Cuba, Haiti, and the Philippines!  Most of the territories listed above were Pacific Ocean nation-states that had been occupied by the Japanese and liberated by the U.S. during World War Two.  Over the decades, the relationships have occasionally been contentious, but as of 2015, everyone seems to be satisfied, at least for the moment.  The U.S. taxpayer dishes out quite a bit to keep these naturally unbalanced (fish, bird shit, and more fish) economies afloat, but these communities have and continue to provide the United States with a number of invaluable benefits, for research and military purposes.  The United States conducted weapons testing near some of these areas, and an elaborate effort has been underway for some time to clean up the mess that was created.  The one wild-card in the mix is Puerto Rico, which on occasion has flirted with both becoming the fifty-first state and also with becoming an independent nation.  Something to note: with the exception of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, all of the overseas U.S. possessions are in the Pacific Ocean.

Canada has no colonies, unless you consider the Province of Nunavut to be an occupied nation, as many of the indigenous peoples do.  We can pass over Mexico and South and Central America, as Ecuador's claim on the Galapagos Islands and Chile's on Easter Island are considered directly connected to the mainland.  Very few European nations continue to administer foreign lands.  Portugal, once one of the world's greatest colonial powers, now counts the Azores as its last remaining foreign dependency (it is considered an autonomous region of Portugal and its inhabitants are Portuguese citizens).  Spain has cast off all of its former possessions, as has Italy, Belgium and Germany.  The Netherlands continue to administer the Caribbean Islands of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, an arrangement totally acceptable (and beneficial) to the local population.  I find Denmark to be a fascinating country.  This relatively small, Baltic state has authority over the North Sea-located Faroe Islands (a very modern European population of roughly fifty-thousand, that collects revenue from fishing), and also Greenland, or Kaalallit Nunaat, which is jointly administered by both Copenhagen and Nuuk.  Denmark has been both deliberate and patient with the slow integration of the native peoples into self-government.  In fact, it appears as if the native population (a small Danish minority exists) are finding the current arrangement to be most beneficial. 

The United Kingdom and France appear to have more overseas "dependencies" than anyone else. The U.K. continues to effect some authority over the Caribbean communities of the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Montserrat, and the Turks and Caicos.  All of these states have self-rule, with an appointed British governor to represent the best interests of the English Queen (Elizabeth II, not Elton John).  The British occupy two distant regions that have been the cause of some controversy: the Falklands Islands and Gibraltar.  For a century, the British administered the Falklands, without a word of complaint from Argentina, the nearest country as-the-crow-flies.  The Falklands aren't the most hospitable islands, as the climate is cold and blustery, and the land won't grow much of use. But the Falklands are located in a bit of a strategic location.  In the 1980's, in an effort to encourage a wave of national pride, a military junta in charge of the Argentinian government invaded the Falklands, changing the name to Las Malvinas. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister at the time, so suffice to say that the Falklands were back in British control within six-months to a year.  The issue still rankles some Argentineans, although I don't see the argument.  I find the continued British presence in Northern Ireland to be much more debatable, but much more complicated for this post.  The British also continue to occupy Gibraltar, which is part of mainland Spain (as Ulster is part of mainland Ireland).  The Spanish have made countless requests for the return of Gibraltar, and on occasion have implemented temporary blockades.  But Gibraltar has proven to be a priceless possession over the centuries, especially during the two World Wars, and the British have no intention of giving it up.  The Channel Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, and Isle of Man may all be closer to mainland France than the U.K., but they are thoroughly British, to the point that the French would never consider asking for them back.

France has a very complicated, sometimes tragic history involving its colonies.  In most instances (not all), France attempted to introduce the populations of its colonies to France as an ideal to be replicated.  Cities were built in the French pattern (Hanoi, Saigon, Brazzaville, Algiers, Tunis, Abidjan, Damascus), the French language was widely instituted, and French history, literature and art became staples of education.  In most places, the transition was gradual, and the French footprint is still quite visible today.  In fact, a number of potential independent nations have elected to stay part of France, including Guadalupe, Martinique, Reunion, Mayotte, and French Guiana.  During the past fifty years, French occupation of New Caledonia and French Polynesia has at times been contentious.  In both instances, France poured more money into the local economy and legislated expanded home rule.  New Caledonia is a difficult situation because the French who trace their heritage to the mainland constitute almost as large a percentage of the population as the indigenous peoples.  New Caledonia is an undiscovered jewel in the South Pacific, just northeast of New Zealand.  Probably because of distance, it has only become popular with French tourists, even though it is home to arguable the most tropical landscapes and beaches in the Pacific. French Polynesia is occasionally criticized for the urbanization of the capital city Pape'ete on Tahiti.  Well, if you don't care for lots of people in your tropical vacation, then just hop the ferry to Moorea or Bora Bora; you can't lose.  France has always been dedicated to bringing economic success to its foreign dependencies.  French Guiana benefits tremendously from the French Ariane Space Center that is located in Kourou.  When France abandoned its claim to Indochina (Vietnam), the French government relocated a number of Hmong tribesmen to Guiana, where they have thrived.

I consider Bouvet Island, Jan Meyer, and Svalbard to be integral to the geography of Norway, just as I consider Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Keeling, Coral Sea Islands, and a few other small islands to be directly connected to Australia.  New Zealand does administer the Cook Islands, but only as a welcome support for the small indigenous population.  I did not include Gaza or the West Bank in this discussion because it was not appropriate.  For all intents and purposes, Gaza is occupied and administered by Hamas and the West Bank by the Palestinian Authority.  If they would take a little of the foreign donations that end up lining people's pockets (or in the case of Hamas, buying weapons), and focus on infrastructure, job creation and community development, we would all be better off.  But destroying Israel remains the end goal of all endeavors, and until that changes, then Israel will be obliged to treat the West Bank and Gaza as occasional occupied territories.  Jeez how I hate war.

 

Why should the West be concerned with the intentions of the Islamic State in Africa? (Part I)

Links: A. The Islamic State in Africa
           B. So this is the latest version of the Caliphate.....

We've already addressed the presence of the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group in Africa in a number of posts. FYI, I'm one of those bloggers who analyzes statistics, and I'm well-aware, that for my core audience, anything having to do with the continent of Africa is about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit.  Its vital to me that my blog remain relevant; unfortunately, that requires continued efforts to increase my audience, but it also obligates me to discuss all theaters of conflict.  No doubt this includes both North and Sub-Saharan Africa.  North Africa is rather simple to break down, and I usually include it with the Middle East anyway.

Egypt.  This particular piece of Mediterranean-bordered geography is important because Egypt shares a border with Israel, and has a huge, well-equipped and well-trained army.  And in spite of the best efforts of the current government, Egyptian society is inundated with extremists.  The Muslim Brotherhood, which commands a shockingly impressive number of supporters, is lurking around every corner.  Egypt also borders Libya.

Lybia.  When Libya started to crack at the edges, Muammar Gaddafi looked to the West, particularly to the United States, for assistance in creating some level of order.  Gaddafi had recently taken the first step and reached out to the West and the United States.  But the Department of State under Hillary Clinton never seemed prepared for any contingency.  When she accepted the position of Secretary of State, the Department itself was meant to be a vehicle for her star-studded arrival at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in 2016.  A review of foreign affairs during the Clinton tenure at Foggy Bottom makes it clear that the only events, issues or summits that were worth our attention were the ones that allowed Hillary to shine.  It's as if the entire State Department morphed into her make-up closet.  As for developments in the real world, our entire diplomatic posture was reactive.  Again, except for the New Start Treaty, and a handful of other expertly-crafted engagements, the State Department just waited for things to happen, and then looked to the White House for direction.  Gaddafi was left out in the cold, and the opportunity to create something positive for the Libyan people, from the people of the United States, never materialized.  We sat back and watched Gaddafi get butchered, and a flock of nasty extremists move in to fight over what's left of Libya.  The night of the Benghazi incident, the State Department claims that efforts were made to contact the Libyan government.  WHICH ONE?

Tunisia.  Tunisia is very important.  The people of Tunisia fought and sacrificed to keep their nation from falling into the talons of extremists.  The removal of the ruling family, which had become so corrupt that certain members of the ruling family actually considered the Gross National Product (GNP) of Tunisia to be their own personal ATM account, was absolutely essential.  Since independence from France, the governments of Tunisia have always been at least a little corrupt, but they also exhibited a love of country that allowed for most of the GNP to be used for the good of the state.  Because Tunisia had good roads, nice resorts, and well-maintained historic sites, revenue from tourism continued to support economic growth and job creation. But recently, things had begun to get a bit out of hand.  Tunisia deserves an honest, Democratic government, and their relatively low population removes a major stress faced by many of Tunisia's neighbors.  But one threat that won't go away without a fight, is the presence of Islamic extremists.  Last week they shot up the Bardo Museum in Tunis and killed a bunch of European tourists.  The government of Tunisia, fresh off free and fair elections, needs the support of the United States and the international community now more than ever.

Morocco & Algeria.  At present, both Morocco and Algeria enjoy the security of effective, no-nonsense security forces.  The military in both countries, which traditionally seconds the security forces, are both disciplined, well-equipped, well-trained, and loyal to the government.  Hell, for all practical purposes, the military IS the government in Algeria.  But don't quote me, please.  I'm a huge fan of King Mohammed VI of Morocco.  Like his father, he has a keen sense of politics in the Islamic world, and manages to avoid really pissing off anyone.  Mohammed VI is as progressive as it gets for a Muslim regent, and he considers his inherited position to be a full-time job which he takes with the utmost seriousness. Algeria's economy can rely on oil for the foreseeable future, but Morocco imports $38.7 billion worth or goods every year, and exports only $16.8 billion.  Thank goodness for the relatively low population growth rate and high revenues from tourism.  But the pseudo-fascist government in Algiers and the monarchy in Rabat must look at the same map I have provided (link B).  Both Morocco and Algeria are part of the Caliphate, baby.  Realistically, the armies of either Morocco or Algeria could defeat the IS in a conventional war.  But the trick is, the IS won't limit itself to a conventional war.  The IS will engage in every type of warfare at its disposal.  The tourists will stop coming to the beaches of Morocco after a few well-placed incendiary devices and blown people to pieces.  And the Algerian government will lose its cash cow if the IS can successfully capture or blow up a refinery here and there.  And if this conflict grows to the point of endangering Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, then the IS will have grown into a military force to be feared.

North Africa is very important to the conflict that currently is being waged in Iraq and Syria. The IS is in Egypt, it is in Libya, and it is in Tunisia.  I guarantee you that operatives are in place in Algeria and Morocco, recruiting, reminding poor, jobless young men about the lifestyles of the rich diplomats and generals in Algiers, and the sinful lifestyle of the monarch in Rabat (it has long been suspected, and in fact, discreetly accepted that King Mohammed VI lived a homosexual lifestyle in Europe before the death of his father.  He has since married and fathered and heir, which at this point is all anyone seems to care about).

Click here to continue to Part II of this post. 

Just How Many Muslims Have Immigrated To Europe, Anyway?

Link A. Immigration To France, Wikipedia
         B. Immigration to Germany, Wikipedia
         C. Immigration In Europe From A U.S. Perspective
         D. Islam in Europe, Wikipedia

The issue of Islamic Immigration to Europe is both difficult and complicated.  When I decide to educate myself on a particular subject, my first task is to collect as much information as possible.  With regards to Muslim Immigration, what should be the starting point of my research?  Post World War One, when the dissolution of monarchies in Germany, Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Russia, encouraged people to relocate in search of better opportunities?  Or possibly just after World War Two, when Europe, which had been bled dry of healthy young men, needed immigrants to work in both the fields and in the factories?  Or should we start our conversation in the late 1960's, when Paris was fresh with revolution, and terrorists were beginning to make their presence felt?  Actually, I think it's better to start with the present and work our way back.  A number of prominent European nations have a Muslim population that is eight percent or greater.  The growing number of Muslims in Europe is a relatively new development, something that began in earnest within the last sixty years.  Three times in the last fifteen hundred years, Christian armies were fortunate to defeat much larger and better equipped Muslim forces that were intent on invading the heart of Europe.  For our history lesson today, take note of the Battle of Tours in 732 (against the Moors from Spain), the 1529 Battle of Vienna I (against the Ottoman Empire), and the Battle of Vienna II in 1683 (the Ottoman Empire's last foray this far into Europe).  During the years of Moor control on the Iberian peninsula, and Ottoman administration in the Balkans, no doubt the number of Muslims in Europe increased.  But the Moors were sent packing by Isabella and Ferdinand, and rebellions by Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century all but ended the reality of "Turkey in Europe".  Muslims still exist in the Balkans, but basically only in the Albanian community, which is about as close to secular as you can get (I would guess that a mosque exists for every three houses in Kosovo, but I never saw one in use).

The increase in the number of Muslims in Europe was driven by two factors: economics and post-colonial paternalism.  Whenever Europe was in need of an influx of young men to work in the factories and on the farms, the people of North Africa and the Middle East were happy to oblige (no surprise; European wars had decimated the economies of those areas as well).  North Africans came to work in France, and Turks came to Germany and Scandinavia.  In most instances, they put down roots and had children.  In the 1960's, as France and England (and to lesser and later extent, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal), granted independence to their African colonies.  For numerous reasons, guilt and a sense of paternalism being at the top of the list, Europe opened its doors to citizens of its former colonies.  England was probably more affected by post-colonial immigration from India and Pakistan than Africa, but France welcomed hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from recently independent Algeria, Morocco, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and Guinea.  Belgium was obliged to welcome Congolese.  Later, following the Biafran War, England did open its doors to thousands of displaced Ibo, although white Rhodesians weren't nearly as welcome.  As for the number of Turks in Germany and Scandinavia, I don't really have an explanation.  Historically, Germany has always had close relations with Turkey, which may be part of the answer.  Also, following the Civil Rights marches in the United States and the televised horrors of the Algerian conflict and the Vietnam War, European societies were determined to avoid the appearance of racism.  And the Immigration Statutes written into law during that time are still in effect today.  In less delicate terms, once it was turned on, the faucet was never turned off.  Europe continued to accept immigrants long-past the ability of its economies to comfortably provide jobs and housing.  This fact, along with other socio-economic and cultural issues, is responsible for the high percentage of minorities needing government support to survive.

In 2015, roughly ten percent of the population of France self-identifies as Muslim.  Austria, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are not far behind.  Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo all have a substantial Muslim population because of the historic legacy of the Ottoman Turks, but rarely do you see an observant Muslim community in the Balkans (I understand that recently, a number of really nasty extremists have popped up, who were raised in these areas, so things may be changing).  As of late, politics in western Europe have definitely swung in the direction of anti-immigration, and the events of last week will only increase that statistic.  Sweden, Holland, France, and even Switzerland have taken steps to tighten up their immigration controls.  Given the twenty-five thousand anti-Islamic demonstrators that marched in Leipzig last week, I'm guessing Angela Merkel has something in the works as well.  No doubt, the high percentage of Muslims living in European countries is connected to the rise in extremist activity.  But the increased police presence and the tightening of immigration laws is a knee-jerk reaction to attack the problem at the perceived source.  Why are children of Algerian immigrants, who came to France, assimilated and worked their asses off, sympathetic to Islamic extremism?  Since the symptom is the same in every country, then the problem must be the same as well.  These young men and women have no distraction.  They don't feel as if they belong anywhere, and once the European school systems, which are bedrocked to favor the native population, spit these kids out, they had nowhere to go.  And the media and entertainment industry that our generation has allowed to take over the minds of young people today, tells these kids (and the inner-city youths in the United States as well), that there is something WRONG with working in a fast food joint, or on a farm, and there is something wrong with working for an hourly wage and taking college classes at night.  The television and the MP3 players are constantly reminding these young, impressionable minds, that the life of a gangster is the life to be admired, and that money and sex should come easy.  If it doesn't come easy, then someone is denying you your due, and you are entitled to take it.

Remember the riots in the urban, ethnic communities of France just a few years ago?  Those kids had nothing to do.  Their parents were at work, sometimes holding down two jobs, and unable to battle the message coming from the entertainment industry, and when I say entertainment industry, I point the finger directly back at the United States.  The hip-hop and rap music that glorifies the selling of narcotics for easy money, and killing of rivals and anyone in authority.  And sex?  It is in no way connected to responsibility; it's all about the act, and the sense of domination.  What is occurring in our inner cities in the United States, is replicated in Europe.  We don't have many children of Muslim immigrants (in comparison), but our young people are latching on to a message just as theirs are.  The message they are hearing is that the easy riches come with their ideology.  That women are subservient, and should always be available for sex, and that the Jew has stolen everything from you, including your heritage.  These young people, in the suburbs of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, and Stockholm, are looking for an easy, quick answer and a place to belong as well.  We will give you a gun, which will make you a man, and we will teach you to kill your enemy (who is the reason you can't have that Porsche you want, or those new three-hundred euro sneakers).  Has it been so long since we were at that age?  The mind is much like jello, waiting to be molded into the adult brain it is to become.  You will rarely find a terrorist (at least a dead one) who is over the age of thirty-five.  There is a reason for that.