Project British Monarchy

LISTENING : WEEK 11. Listen to people organising a group project and answer the questions to practise and improve your listening skills. Choose the correct answer. This practice is taken from the British Council

MYTH The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine. FACT Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration “in the ‘interests of the present population’ and the ‘absorptive capacity’ of the country.”1 The influx of Jewish settlers was said to force the Arab fellahin (native peasants) from their land. This was when less than a million people lived in an area that now supports more than nine million. The British limited the absorptive capacity of Palestine when, in 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine—some thirty-five thousand square miles—to create a new Arab entity, Transjordan. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia (which are both now Saudi Arabia) going to the Saud family, Churchill rewarded Sharif Hussein’s son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey by installing him as Transjordan’s emir. The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine. By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews. This contradicted Article 6 of the Mandate which stated that “the Administration of Palestine…shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency…close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.”2 Ultimately, the British admitted that the argument about the country’s absorptive capacity was specious. The Peel Commission said, “The heavy immigration in the years 1933–36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews.”3 MYTH The British allowed Jews to flood Palestine while Arab immigration was tightly controlled. FACT The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British restricted Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country’s “absorptive capacity.” During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease, and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 83,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated. In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washington’s imposition of restrictive quotas.5 The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936.6 The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within ten years and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95% of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal. Jewish Immigration to Palestine7 1919 1,806 1931 4,075 1920 8,223 1932 12,533 1921 8,294 1933 37,337 1922 8,685 1934 45,267 1923 8,175 1935 66,472 1924 13,892 1936 29,595 1925 34,386 1937 10,629 1926 13,855 1938 14,675 1927 3,034 1939 31,195 1928 2,178 1940 10,643 1929 5,249 1941 4,592 1930 4,944 By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan, and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants.8 The British governor of the Sinai from 1922 to 1936 observed, “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”9 The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is…due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”10 MYTH The British changed their policy to allow Holocaust survivors to settle in Palestine. FACT The gates of Palestine remained closed for the duration of the war, stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, many of whom became victims of Hitler’s “Final Solution.” After the war, the British refused to allow the survivors of the Nazi nightmare to find sanctuary in Palestine. On June 6, 1946, President Truman urged the British government to relieve the suffering of the Jews confined to displaced persons camps in Europe by immediately accepting 100,000 Jewish immigrants. Britain’s foreign minister Ernest Bevin replied sarcastically that the United States wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine “because they did not want too many of them in New York.”11 Some Jews reached Palestine, many smuggled in on dilapidated ships organized by the Haganah. Between August 1945 and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, sixty-five “illegal” immigrant ships, carrying 69,878 people, arrived from European shores. In August 1946, however, the British began to intern those they caught in camps on Cyprus. Approximately 50,000 people were detained in the camps, and 28,000 remained imprisoned when Israel declared independence.12 MYTH As the Jewish population grew, the plight of the Palestinian Arabs worsened. FACT In July 1921, Hasan Shukri, the mayor of Haifa and president of the Muslim National Associations, sent a telegram to the British government in reaction to a delegation of Palestinians that went to London to try to stop the implementation of the Balfour Declaration. Shukri wrote: We are certain that without Jewish immigration and financial assistance there will be no future development of our country as may be judged from the fact that the towns inhabited in part by Jews such as Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, and Tiberias are making steady progress while Nablus, Acre, and Nazareth where no Jews reside are steadily declining.13 The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II, while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000.14 The permanent Arab population increased by 120% between 1922 and 1947.15 This rapid growth of the Arab population was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states—constituting 37% of the total immigration to pre-state Israel—by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible.16 The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945, and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.17 The Arab population increased the most in cities where large Jewish populations had created new economic opportunities. From 1922–1947, the non-Jewish population increased by 290% in Haifa, 131% in Jerusalem, and 158% in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42% in Nablus, 78% in Jenin, and 37% in Bethlehem.18 MYTH Jews stole Arab land. FACT Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. From the beginning of World War I, however, part of Palestine’s land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus, and Beirut. About 80% of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads, and Bedouins.19 Jews went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap, and—most important—without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as “the most important asset of the native population.” He insisted that “under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them.” Instead, he advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. “Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement,” Ben-Gurion added, “should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.”20 Jews only began to purchase cultivated land after buying all the uncultivated territory. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.21 When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed, “They [the Jews] paid high prices for the land and, in addition, they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay.”22 In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness for the British government and offered new plots to any Arabs who had been “dispossessed.” British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80% were ruled invalid by the government’s legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the government land offer.23 In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by local Palestinian leaders who were later joined by Arab volunteers led by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al-Qawuqji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.24 The Peel Commission’s report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that “much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.”25 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was “due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living, and ample employment opportunities.26 It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original). —Transjordan’s king Abdullah27 Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938 (which began in April 1936 with the murder of two Jews by Arabs and the subsequent murder of two Arab workers by members of the Jewish underground28), the British high commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.29 The Jews paid exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre.”30 By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 were acquired from the mandatory government, 30,000 were bought from various churches, and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73% of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin.31 Many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, and the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, and s sold land to the Jews. As’ad el-Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews.32 MYTH The British helped the Palestinians to live peacefully with the Jews. FACT In 1921, Haj Amin el-Husseini first began to organize fedayeen (“one who sacrifices himself”) to terrorize Jews. El-Husseini hoped to duplicate the success of Kemal Atatürk in Turkey by driving the Jews out of Palestine just as Kemal had driven the invading Greeks from his country.33 Arab radicals gained influence because the British administration was unwilling to take effective action against them until they began a revolt against British rule. Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, former head of British military intelligence in Cairo, and later chief political officer for Palestine and Syria, wrote in his diary that British officials “incline towards the exclusion of Zionism in Palestine.” The British encouraged the Palestinians to attack the Jews. According to Meinertzhagen, Col. Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor (financial adviser to the military administration in Palestine 1919–23) met with el-Husseini in 1920, a few days before Easter, and told him that “he had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world…that Zionism was unpopular not only with the Palestine administration but in Whitehall.” He added that “if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, both General [Louis] Bols [chief administrator in Palestine, 1919–20] and General [Edmund] Allenby [commander of the Egyptian force, 1917–19, then high commissioner of Egypt] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home. Waters-Taylor explained that freedom could only be attained through violence.”34 El-Husseini took the colonel’s advice and instigated a riot. The British withdrew their troops and the Jewish police from Jerusalem, allowing the Arab mob to attack Jews and loot their shops. Because of el-Husseini’s overt role in instigating the pogrom, the British decided to arrest him. He escaped, however, and was sentenced to ten years in absentia. A year later, some British Arabists convinced High Commissioner Herbert Samuel to pardon el-Husseini and to appoint him Mufti (a cleric in charge of Jerusalem’s Islamic holy places). By contrast, Vladimir Jabotinsky and several followers, who had formed a Jewish defense organization during the unrest, were sentenced to 15 years. They were released a few months later.35 Samuel met with el-Husseini on April 11, 1921, and was assured “that the influences of his family and himself would be devoted to tranquility.” Three weeks later, riots in Jaffa and elsewhere left forty-three Jews dead.36 El-Husseini consolidated his power and took control of all Muslim religious funds in Palestine. He used his authority to gain control over the mosques, the schools, and the courts. No Arab could reach an influential position without being loyal to the Mufti. His power was so absolute that “no Muslim in Palestine could be born or die without being beholden to Haj Amin.”37 The Mufti’s henchmen also ensured he would have no opposition by systematically killing Palestinians who discussed cooperation with the Jews from rival clans. As the spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, el-Husseini did not ask that Britain grant them independence. On the contrary, in a letter to Churchill in 1921, he demanded that Palestine be reunited with Syria and Transjordan.38 The Arabs found rioting an effective political tool because of the lax British response toward violence against Jews. In handling each riot, the British prevented Jews from protecting themselves but made little effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking them. After each outbreak, a British commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the violence. The conclusion was always the same: The Arabs feared being displaced by the Jews. To stop the rioting, the commissions would recommend that restrictions be placed on Jewish immigration. Thus, the Arabs learned they could always stop the influx of Jews by staging riots. This cycle began after a series of riots in May 1921. After failing to protect the Jewish community from Arab mobs, the British appointed the Haycraft Commission to investigate the cause of the violence. Although the panel concluded the Arabs had been the aggressors, it rationalized the cause of the attack: “The fundamental cause of the riots was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy.”39 One consequence of the violence was the institution of a temporary ban on Jewish immigration. The Arab fear of being “displaced” or “dominated” was an excuse for their attacks on Jewish settlers. Note, too, that these riots were not inspired by nationalistic fervor—nationalists would have rebelled against their British overlords—they were motivated by economics, the radical Islamic views of the Mufti, and misunderstanding. In 1929, Arab provocateurs convinced the masses that the Jews had designs on the Temple Mount (a tactic still used today to incite violence). A Jewish religious observance at the Western Wall, which forms a part of the Temple Mount, served as a pretext for rioting by Arabs against Jews, which spilled out of Jerusalem into other villages and towns, including Safed and Hebron. Again, the British administration made no effort to prevent the violence, and, after it began, the British did nothing to protect the Jewish population. After six days of mayhem, the British finally brought troops in to quell the disturbance. By this time, most of Hebron’s Jews had fled or been killed. In all, 133 Jews were killed and 399 wounded in the pogroms.40 After the riots, the British ordered an investigation, resulting in the Passfield White Paper. It said the “immigration, land purchase and settlement policies of the Zionist Organization were already or were likely to become, prejudicial to Arab interests. It understood the mandatory government’s obligation to the non-Jewish community to mean that Palestine’s resources must be primarily reserved for the growing Arab economy.”41 This meant it was necessary to restrict Jewish immigration and land purchases. MYTH The Mufti was not a Nazi collaborator. FACT In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop, and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world. The Mufti sent Hitler fifteen drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. He also asked the Axis powers to “accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the interest of the Arabs, and by the same method that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”42 In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti’s requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches.” He added, “The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely…the Jews.” Hitler told the Mufti he opposed the creation of a Jewish state and that Germany’s objective was destroying the Jewish element in the Arab sphere.43 In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting twenty thousand Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut where he died in 1974. MYTH The bombing of the King David Hotel was part of a deliberate terror campaign against civilians. FACT British troops seized the Jewish Agency compound on June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. At about the same time, more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine were arrested. A week later, news of a massacre of 40 Jews in a pogrom in Poland reminded the Jews of Palestine how Britain’s restrictive immigration policy had condemned thousands to death. In response to the British provocations, and a desire to demonstrate that the Jews’ spirit could not be broken, the United Resistance Movement planned to bomb the King David Hotel, which housed the British military command and the Criminal Investigation Division in addition to hotel guests. The Haganah pulled out of the plot and left it up to the Irgun. Irgun leader Menachem Begin stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties and the plan was to warn the British so they would evacuate the building before it was blown up. Three telephone calls were placed on July 22, 1946, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated. The call to the hotel was received and ignored. Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying, “We don’t take orders from the Jews.”44 As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews. Few people in the main part of the hotel were injured.45 For decades, the British denied they had been warned. In 1979, however, a member of the British Parliament provided the testimony of a British officer who heard other officers in the King David Hotel bar joking about a Zionist threat to the headquarters. The officer who overheard the conversation immediately left the hotel and survived.46 In contrast to Arab attacks against Jews, which Arab leaders hailed as heroic actions, the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing of the King David.47 1 Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World, (NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1970), p. 172

Write question 2. Early British Actions in the Colonies In 1760, near the end of the Seven Years’ War, a new British king, George III, began his reign. During his 59-year rule, he resisted revolutionary and Napoleonic France. However, George appointed advisors to manage his more distant foreign affairs in North America. These advisors knew very little about the day-to-day lives of colonists and were soon taking actions that enraged many of them. The Proclamation of 1763 The British government faced many problems after the Seven Years’ War. One was how to protect colonists and their land claims as they pushed westward into areas settled by Indigenous groups. In his Proclamation of 1763, George III said to simply draw a line down the crest of the Appalachian Mountains and order colonists not to settle past the boundary. To colonists whose fortunes were founded on Indigenous land, the king’s order suggested tyranny, or the unjust use of government power. They argued that White colonists had already claimed most of the land east of the Appalachians and that farmers had to move west to find land. Besides, colonists and land investors had already crossed the mountains into Indigenous territory. The British government ignored colonists’ arguments. To control the frontier, it sent an additional 7,500 soldiers to the colonies. The Proclamation of 1763 would later be cited as a grievance in the Declaration of Independence. The Stamp Act The British government had other problems besides stopping colonists from encroaching on Indigenous land. Another dilemma was how to pay off the large debt from the Seven Years’ War. The solution seemed obvious to Prime Minister George Grenville, the leader of the British government. People in Great Britain were already paying taxes on everything from windows to salt. In contrast, American colonists were among the most lightly taxed people in the British Empire. It was time, said Grenville, for them to pay their fair share of the cost of Britain protecting colonists and their interests. In 1765, Grenville proposed a new act, or law, called the Stamp Act, which required colonists to buy a stamp for every piece of paper they used. Newspapers, wills, licenses, and even playing cards had to be printed on stamped paper. Again, the colonists sensed tyranny. One newspaper, The Pennsylvania Journal, said that as soon as “this shocking Act was known, it filled all British America from one End to the other, with Astonishment and Grief.” It was not just the idea of higher taxes that upset the colonists. They were willing to pay taxes passed by their own assemblies, in which their representatives could vote on them. However, because the colonists had no representatives in Parliament, they saw the Stamp Act as a violation of their rights as British subjects. For this reason, they argued Parliament had no right to tax them. “No taxation without representation!” they declared. Loyalists simply refused to buy stamps, while other colonists protested the Stamp Act by sending messages to Parliament. Patriots took more aggressive action. Protesters calling themselves the Sons of Liberty organized in 1765 and began attacking tax collectors’ homes. In Connecticut, they even started to bury one tax collector alive. Only when he heard dirt being shoveled onto his coffin did the terrified tax collector agree to resign from his post. After months of protest, Parliament repealed, or canceled, the Stamp Act. Colonists greeted the news with great celebration. Church bells rang, bands played, and everyone hoped the troubles with Great Britain were over. The Quartering Act As anger over the Stamp Act began to fade, Parliament passed another controversial law in 1765. The Quartering Act ordered colonial assemblies to provide British troops with quarters, or housing. The colonists were also told to furnish the soldiers with “candles, firing, bedding, cooking utensils, salt, vinegar, and . . . beer or cider.” Providing these things for British soldiers cost money. New Jersey protested that the new law was “as much an Act for laying taxes” on the colonists as the Stamp Act. New Yorkers asked why they should pay to keep troops in their colony during peacetime. In 1767, the New York assembly decided not to approve any funds for supplies for the British troops, forcing them to remain on their ships. In retaliation, the British government suspended New York’s assembly until it agreed to obey the Quartering Act. Once again, tempers began to rise on both sides of the Atlantic.

Economy of Southeast Asia Even prior to the penetration of European interests, Southeast Asia was a critical part of the world trading system. A wide range of commodities originated in the region, but especially important were such spices as pepper, ginger, cloves, and nutmeg. The spice trade initially was developed by Indian and Arab merchants, but it also brought Europeans to the region. First the Portuguese, then the Dutch, and finally the British and French became involved in this enterprise in various countries. The penetration of European commercial interests gradually evolved into annexation of territories, as traders lobbied for an extension of control to protect and expand their activities. As a result, the Dutch moved into Indonesia, the British into Malaya, and the French into Indochina. Europe’s interest and activity in the region was further enhanced by the opening of the Suez Canal, the development of telegraphic communications, the adoption of steam shipping, and the prospects for trade with China. In the case of Malaya, the gradual diffusion of British administration provided systems of law and order and of taxation and allowed for the gradual development of infrastructure, principally reliable transport systems. This environment attracted Chinese immigrants, and the growth of the tin mining industry soon followed. Later rubber plantations were established, which brought about still further immigration. Similar developments took place in Burma (Myanmar), Vietnam, and Indonesia. In Siam (Thailand) during the second half of the 19th century, a rapid expansion of Western enterprise occurred, though not by colonization. Both British and American firms began trading in the region. The impact of the Western activity was essentially to remove trade from what had been a Chinese monopoly and to emphasize the export of a single commodity, rice. Established indigenous textile and sugar-processing industries were replaced by imports, and the economy slowly became dependent on rice exports. The Philippines gradually developed a plantation farming system under Spanish and later American influence, although rice, sugar, and tobacco continued to be produced by small-scale growers and processed by Chinese enterprises until the mid-19th century. The incorporation of Southeast Asia into the world economy had a major impact on the distribution of the region’s economic development, and it created more uneven patterns of population growth and economic activity. It also brought about a stronger sense of class distinction and resulted in a larger discrepancy between the wealthy and poor. The worldwide economic depression of the 1930s severely affected the commercialized areas most dependent on the world economy. Unemployment rose, and the period produced the seeds of political change and activism that culminated in the independence of most of the region’s countries after World War II. Since the 1950s the economic development strategies of virtually all the capitalist Southeast Asian states have emphasized urban industrialization, while agricultural development generally has been viewed as subsidiary to industrial growth. These strategies have met with mixed success. Indeed, the trading pattern of the region by and large has continued to be one of producing and exporting raw materials and importing manufactured goods. Only Singapore has reached an advanced level of industrialization, in the process becoming one of the world’s great centers of industry and commerce. There is great disparity in development rates within the region, especially between the member and nonmember countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Those belonging to this grouping—Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand—generally have experienced significant economic development since the mid-1960s; the exception has been the Philippines, the economy of which has grown at a much slower rate. Development has been extremely slow or nonexistent in the non-ASEAN countries of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam, and these are among the poorest nations in the world.

Multiple choice quiz on this reading: By 1900, the United States had claimed its place as a world power through the Spanish-American War. As the new century began, the country governed subject territories in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, the Wake Islands, and the Philippines. U.S. troops also occupied Cuba. U.S. businesses reached beyond the country's borders. During the first decade of the new century, the Coca-Cola Company, Quaker Oats, AT&T, the Standard Oil Company, Du Pont, General Electric, and Ford Motor Company seized the opportunity for international sales. After finding international markets, they built factories abroad, taking advantage of lower labor costs in foreign countries. Then they asked for U.S. protection of their investments and interests. Foreign countries invested heavily in Central America. U.S. investors focused on banana plantations and mining, as well as railroads, with little money in government bonds. By 1913, U.S. investments in Central America totaled about $93 million. British investment in Central America peaked at about $115 million in 1913. About $75 million of that total represented railroad holdings, mostly in Costa Rica and Guatemala. The other $40 million was in government bonds, which were worth little or nothing. The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine From its earliest days, the United States claimed a special interest in the Western Hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine, issued in 1823, warned European powers to keep their hands off Latin America. In 1902, Britain, Germany, and Italy mounted a naval blockade of Venezuela. They wanted to force the government to repay its debts. All the countries involved eventually agreed to settle the matter by arbitration. The United States stood back and did nothing, but U.S. citizens were clearly uneasy with the appearance of European military forces in "their" hemisphere. In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt issued a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, saying that the United States would act as a police officer to keep order in the region. He intended both to keep European military forces out of the hemisphere and to protect U.S. and European investors, exerting whatever pressure or control on Latin American governments that might be necessary to these ends. In 1905, the Dominican Republic owed $40 million in debts to European lenders. In order to prevent the European nations from using military force to collect their debts, Roosevelt used U.S. power. The United States basically took over collection of Dominican customs taxes, declared that $20 million of the debt was unjustified, and began repayment of the rest. Building a Canal The United States needed a canal through Central America, in order to save shipping time and costs. Colombia had the best location for a canal, and the United States negotiated a deal. It would pay Colombia $10 million for a three-mile-wide strip of land and would make annual rental payments of $250,000 yearly, beginning in 1912. Colombia's Senate turned down the deal, and Roosevelt exploded in rage, calling its members "foolish and homicidal corruptionists." Roosevelt considered seizing the land for the canal by military force but soon found an easier way. The province of Panama seceded from Colombia. A U.S. gunship stood off shore, protecting the Panamanian rebels. They formed a new republic under the protection of the United States. The new country of Panama and the United States agreed on a canal treaty within days. The new treaty had similar terms except that the Canal Zone would be five miles wide, instead of three, and the United States would guarantee and maintain the independence of Panama. Revolutions While Roosevelt welcomed the revolution that separated Panama from Colombia, he opposed most other revolutionary activity. So did his successors in office, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson. The U.S. presidents sent troops to put down revolutions in Nicaragua and Haiti, using U.S. military forces to set up new governments in those countries and maintaining military occupations for years. U.S. military interventions were frequent throughout the hemisphere. Dollar Diplomacy President Taft preferred using "dollar diplomacy" to control Latin American countries. In Honduras, for example, U.S.-based banana companies virtually ran the government. Taft supported expanded U.S. investment in South and Central American countries, the Caribbean, and the Far East. He ordered Secretary of State Philander Chase Knox to protect U.S. investments, sending in military troops if necessary. On the World Stage As a world power, the United States did not limit its involvement to the Western Hemisphere. In 1905, President Roosevelt brought Russia and Japan to the negotiating table to end their war over control of Korea and Manchuria. Roosevelt agreed to Japanese annexation of Korea in return for Japan giving up any claim to China, Hawaii, and the Philippines. Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize for settling this dispute. In 1906, Roosevelt's negotiating powers were tested again. This time, he mediated a dispute between the Alliance powers—Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy—with the Entente—France, Russia, and Britain—over control of Morocco. The United States backed France and ended the dispute. No longer an upstart, the United States had taken its place as a world power alongside its former colonial ruler.

Honduras is a Central American nation bordered by Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The Caribbean Sea forms its northern coastline. The Pacific Ocean borders a small southern strip of land. Almanaque Nombre oficial: República de Honduras Área total: 112.090 km2 Población: 9.038.741 Ciudad capital: Tegucigalpa Moneda: lempira Lenguas: español, dialectos amerindios Early History Explorer Christopher Columbus came to Honduras in 1502 on his fourth trip to the New World. As was the case in North America, Honduras, in Central America, had been home to many native indigenous groups including the Sumu and Lenca. Some estimates suggest an indigenous population of up to 2,000,000 before the Europeans arrived. Among these indigenous groups were the Maya. Their civilization spread from the Yucatán area of Mexico to Honduras’ ancient city of Copán. Spain’s conquest of Honduras began in 1525, but it was not easy. It took until 1539 to fully conquer it. There were conflicts with the native population, who were forced into labor. Many died from disease and abuse. Others were enslaved and sent to the Caribbean islands. In addition, there were pirate attacks and in-fighting among the Spaniards. Phawat/Shutterstock Gold and silver deposits were discovered in Honduras in the 1530s, attracting more settlers. By the mid-16th century, mining was an important industry, mainly in the towns of Gracias and Comayagua. More native labor was needed, taking its toll on the dwindling indigenous population. As a solution, enslaved Africans were introduced in the 1540s. This was well before 1619, when enslaved Africans first arrived in Jamestown in the American colonies. The 17th century was filled with conflicts, primarily between the Spanish and the British. Britain wanted to establish colonies on the Caribbean coast of Honduras. They eventually seized the coast with help from the native Sambo and Miskito peoples. However, Spain later regained control. Independence In the early 1800s in Honduras, resentment toward Spain grew. One reason was that Honduras was subject to more taxes to help pay for conflicts that were happening between Spain and France. Other Spanish colonies were also increasingly resentful toward Spain. In 1776 in North America, the 13 colonies banded together to declare their independence from Britain. Similarly, Honduras joined other Central American provinces. Together, they declared independence from Spain on September 15, 1821. Honduras briefly became a part of Mexico, but in 1823, it became independent from Mexico. It then joined the United Provinces of Central America. This included other former Spanish colonies: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. But the federation did not last, partially due to divisions in political beliefs. In 1838, Honduras declared its independence from the federation. By the early 1900s, the United States had economic interests in Honduras. American fruit corporations like the Standard Fruit Company and United Fruit Company began investing in Honduras to export bananas. To protect American investments, the United States became more involved in Honduras’ political affairs. When Nicaragua appeared to threaten the stability in Honduras, US President Taft sent forces to Honduras to protect American interests. The Great Depression caused economic havoc in the United States and elsewhere. In Honduras, this meant economic problems and political turmoil. During this time, General Tiburcio Carías Andino was elected president, in 1932. He worked to strengthen the military and pay off Honduran debt. Yet he also worked to gather and maintain his own power. He changed the constitution so that he could extend his term in office as president until 1949. His advanced age and pressure from the United States forced him to allow free elections in 1948. General Francisco Morazán In 1823, Honduras joined the United Provinces of Central America. In 1830, Tegucigalpa-born General José Francisco Morazán was elected president of the federation. He remained president until just before the federation disbanded in 1840. aalezk/Shutterstock Morazán favored liberal policies and the reduced power of the church. Morazán was a self-educated man. He recognized the importance of education and the need for schools in Honduras. He believed that girls and boys should have an equal opportunity for education. During his presidency, he tried to make improvements in education. He opened schools that were free to attend. In addition to improving education, he established a system of trial by jury. It was based on the Livingston Code, created in Louisiana. This was a set of reforms to the system of legal punishment. Today, Honduras celebrates the Day of the Honduran Soldier on October 3, Morazán’s birthday. This holiday honors Morazán for his fight for democracy, liberalism, and the nation. Modern Honduras The last half of the 20th century was a political rollercoaster. There were various coups (government takeovers), conflicts, and changing leaders. Starting in 1963, Honduras was primarily led by military governments. This continued for almost 20 years. In 1969, Honduras fought a four-day war with El Salvador. The conflict was over immigration and the shared border. Though the war was brief, the two nations didn’t sign a peace treaty until 1980. With the election of president Roberto Suazo Córdova in 1981, Honduras returned to a civilian government. In the 1980s Honduras was tangled in conflicts of Nicaragua and El Salvador, partly because of the United States. Nicaraguan Contras, who wanted to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, were using US-approved bases in Honduras. The United States was also running training camps in Honduras for Salvadoran forces facing their own civil war. This sparked anti-American protests and a desire to reduce the US presence in Honduras. Over the next few decades, Honduras continued to experience political instability. In 2009, President Manuel Zelaya was removed from power by a military coup. People were upset because he called for a referendum to change the constitution. The international community condemned this coup. As a result, Honduras cut diplomatic ties with several countries. In 2010, the United States recognized President Porfirio Lobo Sosa as a democratically elected leader. He was followed by Juan Orlando Hernández in 2014. However, protests in 2015 called for his resignation over claims of campaign fraud. In 2017, Orlando Hernández was re-elected in a disputed election.

Project

Related quizzes

Related quizzes