It would take awhile to argue the point about the responsibility for the condition of the Third World
Attempting to assign responsibility for anything so complex to a single cause would be absurd. But if the colonies were so thoroughly unprepared for self-government after 200 years of colonial administration, why would you think they would be better prepared after 50 or 100 more? If the occupying powers spent those 50 years preparing for orderly devolution, things might have gone better, but there is no way that they would do that; it would violate the entire rationale of colonialism.
Even in a mercantilist system, it is likely that a country is better off, because the colonial power will commit to development, provide administration and training, and encourage the flow of capital.
There are factors that are more important than any of these, involving the evolution of social infrastructure. Growth and change are necessary in all societies. Growth and change inevitably generate a degree of conflict and instability, as forces opposing change encounter forces promoting it. A healthy society allows these conflicts to emerge and be resolved peacefully. When an occupying power imposes order through physical coercion, the evolutionary process is halted. When the occupying power leaves, the accumulated tension is released, often in an extremely unpleasant way. We needn't speak of blame or responsibility; the point is to observe what happens and learn from it.
Eventually, the situation becomes onerous
We have country A invading country B and administering it entirely for the benefit of country A. I would have to argue that any such situation is fundamentally onerous.
In some instances, as with the French in Indochina, it is perfectly understandable that they got sick of war, and washed their hands of it.
They didn't wash their hands of it, they were driven out. They deserved everything they got; the French track record in Indochina was despicable beyond belief. |
