Do European countries owe a historical debt to their former colonies? Should EU countries, for example, make it even easier for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states to export, trade, and do business with Europe? Should there be faster (and cheaper) visa processing, and lowered requirements for migration and citizenship? In other words, should former colonies be given preferential treatment?
On 18th July 2016, at Palacky University in the Czech Republic, our partners at the Czech Debate Society hosted the 2016 Heart of Europe Debating Tournament. The motion for the grand final of the tournament, between teams from Denmark and Canada, was:
This house believes that all EU states should remove restrictions from their former colonies.
It’s a bit unclear what “remove restrictions” actually means in this context, but it’s common for debate tournaments to deliberately leave propositions vague in order to force the teams to define them themselves. As we shall see, Canada took a very broad view of “restrictions”, whilst Denmark tried to narrow the definition as much as possible.
Team Canada was arguing in favour of the proposition, whilst Team Denmark was against. In their opening statement, Team Canada set out their objectives:
- All European trade and business restrictions should be lifted for former colonies (but former colonies should be allowed to continue trade restrictions against EU exports)
- The EU should abandon all price control policies, including subsidies for European farmers
- Former colonies should be excempt from intellectual property laws (e.g. so they can manufacture generic drugs at low cost)
- All debt owed to Europe should be forgiven
- Resources owned by European companies in former colonies should be given back to those countries and nationalised
- Citizens from former colonies should have full mobility to their former colonising countries in terms of no requirements for visas, and a lower burden for citizenship
That’s quite a shopping list. As justification, Team Canada argued that colonialism isn’t over. According to Team Canada’s logic, European states continue to oppress their former colonies through restrictive trade polices, debt burdens, the IMF, World Bank, etc.
Essentially, Team Canada was trying to define any “restrictions” as a form of neo-colonialism. They believed that removing these restrictions was an ethical and moral obligation for European states, regardless of whether or not it actually improved the situation in former colonies.
Team Denmark did not agree. They argued that removing all trade and migration restrictions for former colonies would not improve life in those countries, and it was important to take this into account. For example, they suggested that removing all trade restrictions would make former colonies more vulnerable to predatory international companies, who would move their operations to those countries as a way to circumvent EU regulations on labour standards, product safety, environmental protection, etc.
They also argued that the EU has an obligation firstly towards its own citizens, because they pay their taxes into the EU budget. Allowing unrestricted migration flows from former colonies would depress wages in Europe, so they argued that the EU should not allow it.
So, who won the debate (according to the judges)? Drumroll……… Team Canada! The proposition was passed in favour of Team Canada by a 5:4 split decision. Of course, you may not be convinced by Team Canada’s arguments, but the judges believed they presented their case in the most convincing manner.
Don’t agree with the judges? You can watch the full debate below, and come to your own conclusion:
Should EU states allow unrestricted migration from former colonies? Do European countries owe a historical debt to developing nations? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
36 comments Post a commentcomment
.
If the intention is to increase migration to the EU, lower living standards & increase unemployment then it is a great idea.
This is an argument that has been given for the UK to exit the EU though, so that it can stop “discriminating” against the citizens of its former colonies…
Bulls**t. When it comes to the English speaking Caribbean youre talking about people who were good subjects to Britain, their history is intertwined with Britain because of slavery, colonialism, WW2 etc., yes they are independent but their language and culture is very much influenced by Britain, also other European countries like Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, France, Denmark etc. had Colonies etc., these people look to the former colonial Mother Countries with respect, interest and even some love, it would be foolish to choose not to have close relations with these people. Sure not every country is ready for visa waiver travel and easy import, export etc. but many of them are ready so why not. These countries only exist because they were touched by European powers, so why act like they have nothing to do with you?
Just recently the EU negotiated and removed travel restrictions on numerous Caribbean and South American Countries, a major argument was the history. For both sides but especially for Europe this is a win win because your Airlines, Hotels, Museums, Restaurants, Stores, Taxis, Public Transport, Shipping companies etc. are sure to benefit. But ofcourse if you feel terrified by seeing a brown or black face walking past you on the London pavement then youl presumably be writing like some here are.
Definitely. The trade between Countries with historical ties would be a win-win for both. Take France and Morocco where this is already happening: PSA Peugeot Citroën is building a car production plant in Kenitra, near Rabat. This will:
1) Boost local economy creating jobs, bringing in know-how
2) Create job opportunities for French engineers willing to boost their career and live in a sunny Country
3) Curb on massive illegal immigration to Europe (people in the African continent will be more keen on finding jobs at home rather than crossing the Mediterranean).
I think your example is slightly offset by the fact it is a former colony and former colonial nation. The question would extend this lowering of restrictions to the entire EU. So in your example of Morocco & France, does Sweden have a historic obligation to Morocco? Does Poland? The UK already turned it’s former colonies into the commonwealth nations, but did not expect the entirety of the EU to honour those historic ties and remover trade restrictions or lower the immigration requirements. So in short, the EU has no former colonies. EU member states do (even then not all) and so it should be a matter dealt with internally by the individual states. It’s not something the EU has any connection to. Furthermore, I’d like to say how atrocious this transference of guilt is to me on ethical grounds. I do not and should not feel guilt about colonialism, slave trading or any crime perpetrated by anyone who is not me. Just the same as I cannot be convicted of a crime committed by my brother, father, grandfather or great great grandfather’s neighbour’s bosses tennis partner. This type of thinking is partly the reason we are unable to truly move forward in the spirit of cooperation!
@Duncan. While I don’t think you are in any way responsible for what happened in the past some of the things you are enjoying today are because of this past. Let me use your example. If one’s parents are drug dealers and through their “business” they manage to provide a good education for their, would that child be responsible for the ruined lives of drug addicts. Of course there will be no direct responsibility inflicted it will be down to the child’s concious. I personally think that I have been give great opportunities in life and I would like to pass it on and give back.
lapsus linguae: … their child.., i have been given..
@David, surely any and all illegally obtained wealth is stripped upon conviction. The drug dealers child would be put into the inadequate care system. Be put through comprehensive schools and so on and so forth. How is that an advantage in life? Besides which, why should you feel guilty for advantages given to you instead of thankful? I’m not suggesting we don’t look to people around the work and want to help them. But my point is valid, guilt cannot be transferrable if you want to avoid grudges. Should we get everyone from former Axis states lined up and let the Jewish community execute them for crimes a different generation committed/were a party to/lived in the same place as people who were guilty of? Would that not also be genocide in itself? No I’m sorry you think it’s ok to feel guilty about stuff you haven’t done but for me it’s a key part of the problem. Do you think the few soldiers who made it out of Japanese war camps will somehow feel better because someone has said sorry now? Does I help those who didn’t make it out, or the widows and orphans of those who died? No of course it doesn’t. Just the same as clinging onto a hatred of an entire group of people based on a past experience committed against you to the point you hate their children, grandchildren and so on and so forth foes not help. The past needs to be gotten over before we can face the future.
Migration barriers are already lower for former colonies in Spain. The issue is since intra-EU migration is free, every Schengen country must live with the decisions of each individual nation. This is a recipe for conflict. One solution would be a unified migration policy, but it would not be a liberal one. Countries less keen on immigration would have considerable sway in setting policy and the current policies of liberal countries like Spain would likely become more conservative, while more conservative countries like Hungary would be dragged into more liberal policies. That could potentially cause conflict as well.
Yes, of course
What you need is fair trade. Not trade for corporation profits. Do not give permission to worker exploitation via trade deals.
Seriously? Historical debt? What about the former colonies in Europe?The Austria-Hungary empire ruled many foreign nations so did the Russian/USSR not to forget the Ottoman. Do you really think that the traditions and cultures can catch up for a single generation to the west world without the freedom the west had while the east had suffered centuries of colonization and internal interference, decades of forced communism and so on?
Let me refrase the questioin: Do Turkey own a debt to Balkans countries due to 500 years of occuopation?
Yes absolutely but they are too arrogant and macho to admit it.
VW made in … africa!
No, 60 years after decolonization, European countries don’t owe a debt to their former colonies. There are much more straightforward solutions: eliminate agricultural subsidies in the EU, tax agricultural exports from non-developing countries to offset their subsidies and open the European market for agricultural market to developing countries. Create a Greencard program for high-skilled citizens from developing countries so that they can earn wages that are commensurate to their productivity, send back remittances and don’t occupy positions that could also be filled by medium-skilled workers. Further invest into secular education and vocational training, especially of girls and women, in developing countries through international cooperation agreements. Make aid fully conditional and evaluate any large-size development projects through randomized controlled trials.
If European leaders want to alienate their public and help extremist parties into power then sure open the floodgates.
Word without borders!
Read Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo to get the answer!
Read Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo to get the answer!
africans are clever enough to live their lives alone in Africa
It is within and between EU MSs so what should it be otherwise for other colonies?
No way.
All countries have equal rights, and only for Euroean member states.
No empires, no colonies anymore.
“Do European countries owe a historical debt to their former colonies?”
I never understood how Europeans with a clear mind could even ask such distorting questions. It should be reasoned rather the other way round.
Just make a thought experiment: Where would any of the so called former colonies stand today in terms of civilization (science, technology, philosophy, medicine) without having ever gotten into contact with the post Rennaisance Europe? Not to speak about the material infrastructure the colonizers left back …
Preferential treatment with respect to trade? Maybe, but not as far as migration is concerned. Instead of fostering migration into Europe the flow should go the other direction. Europeans with proper skills and knowledge should be motivated in significant numbers to migrate to the former colonies and help to build prosperous and compatible economies. Here I particularly think of those Europeans who feel “historical guilty”, but not only.
Unfortunately many of the former colonies are worse off today in their independence than at the time when their colonial masters left in the middle of last century.
The validity of the “historical debt to their former colonies” supposition can also be questioned by comparing countries in Europe who had colonies in greater numbers (Spain, Portugal, France, Britain) with those who had few (Germany, NL) or none (Scandinavia, Switzerland) . The latter are, all told, better off today.
In the long run colonies do not pay off for colonizers. The current hegemon USA seems to be aware of this and also Russia has learned from history (has Brussels?). In the late 1980s Gorbatschov let the Communist Bloc (including the SU) go because to keep it was simply to expensive for Russia.
Colonies do not pay off in the long run and the debts are rather the other way round.
Some well made arguments. But I think the key point for me is still transference of guilt is immoral and unethical. To say former colonies owe a debt to the former colonial power is just as wrong as the other way around. Really where should we draw the line? Life sentences for the children of murderers?
@Duncan
On the face of it, your comments seem reasonable, BUT if one considers that a recent survey reported that it took 300 years for a rich family’s wealth to denude to the point of average family wealth, methinks, ex-colonial powers may need to help their old colonies – but frankly speaking, this is a difficult issue…
@Tarquin, I’m not against helping others. I am only against doing so for the wrong reasons. If your driving force is obligation through misguided guilt then it is wrong. If it is because of a desire to help fellow human beings then it is a good and healthy thing.
No! This will definitely end the European Union. EU will reduce than to 5-6 countries, but at the end the citizens of those 5-6 countries will hung their leaders.
No! This will definitely end the European Union. EU will reduce than to 5-6 countries, but at the end the citizens of those 5-6 countries will hung their leaders.
Can you please explain why you feel we should do this?
All this rubbish we constantly get hammered with about slavery and the creation of it in Europe is getting clammy. Historically, one way or another, we were all slaves. In Britain they were referred to as serfs and today, let me tell you, they still exist. People who get a cottage or a place to live called a tied home, have to work simply for the house they can be thrown out of at any minute.
The Victorians, when all this colonisation we hear about, was going on, the white British, (there was only a handful, quite literally, of black or brown people here) had to work 19 hours a days. Children were up chimneys from cleaning them at the age of eight, doing a full days work just as they were in the mills. I am sick to death of hearing about the colonies and how bad they had it.
As far as I am aware, slave ships went from Africa,with their cargo from where they were born slaves to their chiefs, who sold them on to the white man, who then carted them off to the USA. Southern States mainly. And it was those ships and their master who made the money. The crew on board being enslaved as they were pressed into it without anyone knowing they had even been lifted off the streets.
If anything we owe the colonies, it is they who owe us, it is the true facts of their and our history, Not this pile of bull they get given as a political ploy to bleed the European of the little they have today. Those colonies you spout, only filled the trousers of the wealthy. Not your average working or slaving white guy right here in Europe.
I think these countries you write of as colonies owe us a fortune for what we suffered on board those slave ships and for having to try and lift them into the idea of civilization. Just the fact that they were introduced to trains and engineering would leave them broke at today’s rates.
What idiot white imbecile came up with the idea that we, the tax payer and people of Europe, owe these nations one penny? I would like to confront them with the truth of history not the hogwash they have been trying to sell us for decades now. So, stop it.
We had a barely educated woman on one of our TV news shows a week or so ago, fat as two hogs, and walking around in chains claiming we the white people owe her a large pay back for her ancestry. Here she was with umpteen kids living on full benefits and had been since birth, her mother being fed and clothed since arriving from the West Indies as a sixteen year old who never worked. Th8is chained woman was totally deluded and being praised by the interviewer for her stance. He, obviously, not being historically aware of the facts either.
Unbelievable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA
And if we were looking for reparations we should be lobbying the rich Arab states who enslaved the whites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOPYiG_FOe4
And the slave trade continues today in Africa and the middle east, where it thrives as it always did and does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfV5PIAqkSQ
So lets cut the crap shall we. These States live as they always did. It had noting to do with the Europeans either at the time they exploited the shipping of them to the Americas, both North and South in Brazil and on. They were never enslaved within European boundaries, until today, When the same wealthy African and Arab princes bring their slaves with them to look after their needs whilst in our countries as there are none to be found here. And governments turn a blind eye to it.
And lastly the white serfs of Europe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQNws61f0js
Catherine when did Jamaicans of African descent enslave White British people?
Am I right that it was the Arabs that captured slaves in Africa and sold them to the Brits? But Catherine is right. Arabs specialised in the slave trade and captured and sold many Slavs. The Turks also kept sex slaves in the harems. But that doesn’t make a good story. The white man is more of a pleasure to blame.
@ Duncan
“But I think the key point for me is still transference of guilt is immoral and unethical.”
Basically agree with you but in my understanding it also depends on how “historical debt” is defined and understood.
In public dispute (individual) “guilt” and (financial, material) “debt” are usually mingled to blur reality. Obviously the intention is to gain financial advantages by activating guilt in current Western individuals.
My argument is, that not only historical “transference of guilt” is completely immoral and unethical, as you say, but also that the assertion of material (economic, financial, technological) disadvantages allegedly caused by former colonial regimes from Europe can be seriously challenged by ballancing the historical accounts.
@Catherine Benning
“And if we were looking for reparations we should be lobbying the rich Arab states who enslaved the whites.”
Not to forget the Turks who robbed the children of Central Europe in the 15th c. and beyond to make Janissaries out of them. Brainwashed fierce fighters who then returned to robb and kill the people from whom they originated.
In my opinion questions of “historical guilt and debt” do not lead anywhere meaningful.
The opposite, it can give Europeans the impression that politics has been taken over by a kind of Janissaries who deny them interests and robb identity, and hence people might look for rescue in “populist” parties.
@ Bastian:
How could guilt for past deeds lead to anywhere at all? The ancient perpetrators and sufferers are dead. They cannot feel the pain of any actions now. And why should the innocent be accountable for a different time and viewpoint?
No, this reparations con is to promote the lining of the trousers of those who want to pretend exploitation whilst they are the exploiters and they believe we are ignorant enough to go along with it. Another form of getting Europeans to fund our own demise whilst they laugh their heads off at our gullibility.
Not surprsing as it has been working very successfully so far. Has it not?
No, I don’t think they should be. These countries have different economies and living standards, and some of them may have different cultures that clash with ours (I am referring to violence and crime). People are still unhappy about the Eastern European countries having been allowed, exactly because of economical differences, so giving access to the single market to countries with even worse-off economies would be a step in the wrong direction.
People trying to play the race card when they can’t get what they want is just so banal…So what are you trying to say, that because of your skin colour you should be getting access to all areas? You want to practice positive discrimination? Why would anyone want this for themselves? It’s like saying that you have absolutely nothing else to contribute…
Not all European countries had colonies. Colonialism was exploitative and wrong. But I don’t see why countries that were never involved in it should be made to feel bad about it or compensate the countries exploited.