Dos leitores

ENFIM, ALGUEM DÁ NOME AOS BÚFALOS!

Aos amigos do Blog Malai Azul

Encontrei esta preciosidade no Korea Times, mas deve ter saído em vários jornais.
Atenção onde o autor quer chegar. Ele começa analisando o Imério Otomano, passa pelo Congo Belga, Palau, Japão, dá uma voltinha pelo Iraque e a Somália para finalmente revelar:

Would not Australian administration be preferable to anarchy in East Timor?

Voila enfin que c´est dit! Enfim, alguém dá claramente o nome aos búfalos! ( Ou seria aos Kangurus?)
Não se trata mais nem de "neo-colonialismo" mas de "protetorado" australiano, como nos bons e velhos tempos da colonização.
Nós aprendemos também que os vizinhos regionais são culturalmente mais próximos. Quem já viu um país e um povo mais parecido com a Austrália que o Timor e os timorenses? Somos nós que erramos de país esses anos todos...

Quem sabe quem é esse Brendan Howe? Ele ainda é pago para ser professor de "Relações Internacionais"!

Pronho que ele ganhe o que no Brasil seria o "Troféu Cara de Pau do Ano". Em madeira australiana, please. Not sandalo :-))

Rosely

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200606/kt2006062017574854060.htm


Failed States and Mandates

By Brendan Howe

Following their defeat in the First World War (1914-1918), the former colonies of Germany and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) were handed over to the victors. However, although these territories were not considered to be sufficiently developed economically, politically or socially to gain immediate independence, they were also not to continue as colonies (at least in theory), subject to the whims and exploitation of the colonial powers. Rather, the newly formed League of Nations, founded after the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 which formally ended the ``Great War,¡¯¡¯ entrusted these territories to the victorious powers in the form of ``Mandates¡¯¡¯ in accordance with Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant. This new status entitled the peoples of these entities to protection from the colonial powers and made the new rulers answerable for their treatment in annual reports to the world body.

This was the first instance under international law where the rulers were to be held directly accountable for the treatment of those they ruled, and marked the beginning of an international humanitarian legal tradition under which human rights are often seen as being rights held by individuals against states, rather than being embodied within states. Although treatment of citizens within mandated territories varied according to location and administrator, there can be little doubt that on the whole it was better than that meted out to the citizens of regular colonies, of which Belgium¡¯s exploitation of the Congo was only the most visible and horrific example. Mandates generally experienced greater concern for education, development, and local governance by the colonial powers than the same powers were likely to demonstrate towards other territories under their sway.

One example of the paternal concern exercised by colonial powers towards their League of Nations¡¯ Mandates is that carried out by Japan (not generally known for its benevolent imperial administration elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region) towards the Mandate of the Pacific Islands. On a recent trip to Palau this author uncovered not only a lack of hostility towards Japanese rule, but also glowing first-hand testimonials to its benefits, including good treatment, good working conditions, improved education, and non-discriminatory high wages. These are backed by official statistics, which show a 93% enrollment of students in schools, a growth in exports from less than 5,000,000 Japanese Yen in 1922 to more than 45,000,000 in 1938, appointment of local chiefs as Mayors and Mayor-Generals, and the introduction of a land tenure system _ still in use today _ to resolve property disputes.

After the Second World War, and with the demise of the League of Nations, Mandates became United Nations Trust Territories, often administered by the same colonial powers, (although Japan was stripped of its overseas possessions and some former British Dominions, such as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa found themselves administering nearby territories) but with a new imperative _ the administering powers now had a duty not only to run the territories in the interests of the indigenous peoples (under the supervision of the UN Trusteeship Council), but also to prepare them for independence and majority rule. So successful was this process that with the independence of Palau, the last of the Territories for which it was responsible, the Council suspended operations in 1994. It now exists in limbo and although some have proposed to make it responsible for the global commons of the oceans, the atmosphere, outer space and Antarctica, others, including the current secretary General, Kofi Annan favor its complete elimination.

However, Annan¡¯s predecessor, Boutros Boutros Ghali appeared to favor an increased role by the UN in the domestic affairs of states that had failed or become ungovernable. It is not too great a leap to envisage the return of some form of UN Mandate for territories that face a collapse of domestic governing authority, displaced populations or gross violations of human rights, or when developments within the failed state pose a threat to international peace and stability. Indeed, there would appear to be much to recommend such a state of affairs, especially given the alternatives. Failed states do not miraculously heal themselves. Rather, they pose a continuing, and often increasing threat to their neighbors and their own people. If the UN, with the legitimacy that comes with being the embodiment of world opinion does not act, then states with the greatest interest in, or who feel most threatened by the failed state may well act. In doing so, the rights and wellbeing of the citizens of the failed state are not likely to be highest on their list of priorities.

As with previous mandates and trusteeships, actual administration of these territories could be handled by neighboring countries, under UN supervision. Would not Australian administration be preferable to anarchy in East Timor? Alternatively, regional organizations seen as more culturally attune to local interests could play the administrative role, but again under UN supervision. Imagine Iraq being administered by the Arab League under UN auspices rather than the motley ``Coalition of the Willing.¡¯¡¯ Likewise, would not Somalia benefit from African Union administration under the UN? It seems to me that in these countries a UN mandate could scarcely do a worse job in protecting the innocent and promoting the wellbeing of the citizens than the current state of affairs, especially if the rules of the old Trusteeship Council were followed with regard to eventual independence and majority rule. At the very least, careful thought should be given to whether the Council is truly redundant.

The writer is assistant professor at the Ewha Graduate School for International Studies.

06-20-2006 17:57