Excellent. I am pleased to see someone make the effort.
Let's take the examples you cite that I would agree are imperialistic in their tone.
French Indochina after WWII....yes, but Dien Bien Phu was in 1954, Suez was in '56
You asked about recent imperialism, if 50 years ago is quite recent, though yes, it was after Suez.
France's states in Africa...yes, that's why I mentioned Algeria as a cut off.
Algeria wasen't the only one I don't think.
Britain maintaining control of Egypt...I would say Empire Interruptis..and definietly before Suez. That was the whole point of Suez
Alright, howeveer it is in the lifetime of many, all this is ignoring that the major anti-colonial movements began in the middle east a quite a bit earlier, it simply really erupted, for various reasons, in the 20th century.
Britain maintaining control of Inida.....definetely the sunset of Imperialism,,,Indian independence was granted in 1950.
Sure
Guantanamo Bay?...that is a serious stretch. It is a vestige of former US imperialsim (Spanish American War), but we do have a valid lease by treaty and there are no Cubans under American control and it has no economic value
It was a rather forced lease to begin with, the current Cuban government has ordered us off quite a few times and has not cashed any of the checks we send for payment.
The whole point of Imperialism is for the imperialist power to be enriched by it's subserviant state.
that may be a genral, ideal goal, that dosen't mean that any act that does not meet that idea is not imperialism.
Reagan trying to retain control of the Panama Canal?....again, that is stretch.
I beleive William F Buckely put it well.
"Should or shoulden't the Panamese people be allowed to exercise sovreiginity over their own territory"
The Panama Canal was another vestige of Imperialism but the US honored the treaty language and turned the thing over without a fight, a fight which we could have easily won. The handover was a done deal when Reagan took office. Simply grousing about it is not Imperialism
of course, that was clearly the weakest example.
The rest are not imperialistic by any sensible definition.
If Anglo-Iranian Oil was not blatant imperialism the term has no substantive meaning.
Most are the Cold War relics of attempts to thwart Soviet expansionism. You may disagree with them or feel that Third World people were pushed around (which is probably true), but it's still not Imperialism.
Overthrowing a sovreign government and instilling a former Nazi sympathiser, and propping up the authoritarian Shah aghinst the will of the Iranian people isin't imperialism?
Perhapse you can find a way to skate around it, however I think in a colloquial sense, as the anti-colonialist movement in the ME would understand it anyway, it certianly is.
BTW..it just occurred to me that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 70's is perhaps an example as Russia is a partly European power.
As Dostoevsky said, Asians say Russians are Europeans, Europeans say they are asians.
If you want to count Russia/USSR as well then there is quite a bit more, Iran for instance.
According to you, however I beleive, Imperialism must have a distinctly economic goal of exploiting the substanance of the subjected people, in which case Afghanistan was not imperialism, again however, I feel it was in any common sense of the world.
Of course, that doesn't count as they were the good guys, eh?
The USSR?
Hardly
