Colonies 
When the lies about the death of Salvatore Giuliano became literally huge, the famous Thomas Beson said it all with the equally famous expression "What is certain is only that it is dead." Paraphrasing this term with specific reference to "bold" analytical reading tumbler from newspapers, news, court scholars, intellectuals living room, "diehard anti-imperialists," North Africa for the current chaos, one could say for sure that a full, c ' is that only 90% of those who commented on this subject does not know what he's talking minimally. As always happens in human affairs, what happens in this rooted in the past, but the wretched and pervasive tendency to snub the History makes everything to be ignored, and that reality is analyzed only with the myopic lens of ideology. But leaving aside this misery is coming to the point, it is wise first, then return that sealed the triumph of colonialism. The reasons why the world powers to engage in colonial adventures do not fit into a monolithic design, but many are not only directly related to the ideologies and lines of thought that shook the Western societies in the nineteenth century. The footprint of a certain kind of enlightened colonialism became clear when they were pulled into play grounds "Humanist" as the literacy of the "barbarians", the economist when his motives were strictly anchored to the hoarding of vast mineral resources in Africa and Asia, the missionary when he proposed to extend Christianity to the entire globe, the most markedly imperialist when it came to satisfy the appetites of power in strong mutual antagonism. The foundation of the Enlightenment colonialism was indeed privileged Woodrow Wilson's idealism, that it was suggested, with his "Fourteen Points", to create an international community (the "League of Nations") that does not count more colonies but "mandates" of the colonial powers which act as "guardians" until it had completed the process of "education" of indigenous peoples. The truth is unknown to the whitewashed tombs, which the hypocritical veil thrown by Wilson on the reality that nothing else was used to conceal a very different context, in which the victorious powers after World War - Britain in the first place - they were reckless as hyenas on the ruins of the defeated countries (think of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire). The brutal and arbitrary division into areas of influence, however, produced a fiercely nationalist sentiments within the colonies, played by famous people - such as Gandhi and Ho Chi Minh - and less famous - like Nehru and Lumumba - who also benefited from the slow but steady attrition of power Imperial and their mutual rivalry to score their winning shots. Imperial powers such as Japan animated anti-Western feelings in the colonies of Burma and the Philippines, and Italy Mussolini shook hands with Bourguiba as revolutionary anti-French and anti-British as the Indian Chandra Bose. The Second World War significantly altered the scenario, severely undermining the integrity of the colonial empires, that winning is losing. Italy took the trouble soon from Libya and the Horn of Africa, France lost credibility in the eyes of the colonies by paying the diversity of visions and intestine show that there was disunited, Britain was forced to acknowledge the triumph of Gandhi while United States For their part, took off their stakes from the Philippines. In the determination of the havoc played a rather important too that the wave of "renaissance" of the colonies had juxtaposed a symmetrical flower, in the heart of all Western nations, movements strongly sympathetic with the cause of independence fought by the revolutionaries of the colonies . However, the real crux of the question is the attitude taken by the United States, which claimed to extend the hypocrites Wilsonian principles even in the colonies. This attitude was motivated by the desire to stand up to American leadership of the Western bloc country - also seen the wickedness of a Europe unable to care for herself - and anything but minor fear of the Soviet Union. In essence, it was necessary to support the pro-independence factions inside the camps to prevent the Soviet Union was the first to do so, and you win the hearts of rebellious fringes as Lenin had done at the conference in Baku in 1920, when he cunningly decided to convene the representatives of the "oppressed peoples". Shortly after the ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Secretary of State Dean Acheson openly supported independence movements from the colonies, inviting their "colleagues" in Europe to stop the anachronistic colonial policy and to recognize its subject the right to self-determination. Britain and France, very reluctant to follow these "tips" they turned a deaf ear and came to join forces, together with Israel, to give a sound lesson of the uncontrolled Egyptian Colonel Jamal Nasser, who had the audacity to nationalize the Suez Canal in order to reduce the separatist ambitions of the colonies and realign once throughout the entire area of \u200b\u200bNorth African axle London - Paris. In the days between October and November 1956, the Anglo-led coalition military operation in the port, but made a spectacular own goal internationally, as the UN condemned the attack, the Commonwealth countries expressed their opposition and open ' Soviet Union threatened heavy retaliation. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Dwight U.S. Eisenhower, who had not taken well, chose to go the hard way, by providing that the Treasury sells pounds a New York Stock Exchange. Within a few days, the U.S. was able to buy more international prestige at the expense of the Soviet Union agreed to suppress the riots in Budapest, Israel had set the balance of power with the hostile surrounding Arab countries, France had found to deal with the Algerian National Front refreshed after the success of the line held by extremist Nasser and Britain was left to pick up the pieces of the empire it was. In a few short years, all the great European powers dismisero their imperial robes. Too fast. Like "colonized" was the imperative of the late nineteenth century, "decolonization" had become one half of the twentieth century. If the work of colonization was implemented step by step forced for three decades at the turn of the century to decolonization took place more abruptly. And earned for Africa in particular, where the dismissal of France, Great Britain, Germany, Spain and Portugal produced a brand new nations, like Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Cameroon, Mali, Mozambique, Angola, Cape Verde, Uganda, Madagascar, Somalia, just to mention some disorderly. E 'sufficient to lay eyes for a moment on a map to understand that the problem of borders was not even addressed by the "decolonization", which was limited to shoulder to shrug this responsibility squarely on the shoulders of fresh independence. Ethnic and cultural differences were not taken into account minimum, which reflects the total lack of willingness to enter into serious negotiations on the establishment of real boundaries. Military and businessmen of every stripe - often baked by schools and universities in Europe and America - were the first to take advantage of this opportunity to settle which of these new nations built sailors along the lines of European governments in the absence of any kind of tradition and infrastructure comparable to them. Picturesque and often grotesque characters - from Amin to Bokassa, Mobutu from Kenyatta - came into being, often to "acclaim" which will redden the die-hard democratic universalists our own, to the supreme guide in dealing with countries such as private companies, buying up power and wealth to be transferred into safe Swiss bank accounts or some island in the Pacific and surrounded by members of their clan or tribe, giving them everything that normally do not deny or deprive followers. The problems are not addressed in the diplomacy of the European powers were resolved in other well-known place, and equally well-known methods, directly from the people. Fratricidal conflicts and civil wars of secession or burst in the blink of an eye, Hutu against Tutsi, Nigeria against Biafra, Katanga against Congo and so on. The list is endless. What conclusions to draw from this? That the decolonization made that way was probably worse than colonialism itself, which the colonial powers did not understand or would not understand the wickedness inherent in so suddenly get rid of regions which had held captive for decades by claiming that they assume the same structures of modern nation states. Affrancatasi penny from the brutal colonial rule exerted by Western powers, Africa is not instantly become a secondary battleground of the Cold War before, and competition among competitive power now. Since then, there has been no war, conflict or coup d'etat that has not crept into the hand of some foreign government or economic powers, with all well-known "special" in terms of corruption, arms trafficking and organ boundary. That's it. Pretending that nations or economic powers Prefer moral rectitude to protect their interests is to go against the story, and fight against the windmills. Each block, it makes no difference politically or economically, is pursuing its own interests appropriate to the context and the context of Africa is composed mainly of nations that continue to be treated as exclusive properties of their rulers. The sad account and durability, and is still valid today, as elite intellectuals continue to question his face demurely in front of the "cruelty" the "brutality" of Gaddafi who, after all, did for his country much more than the number of his "colleagues" well-revered in any way and for very different reasons by the Western powers who say they are so concerned about the safety Libyans. The very fact that, faced with the intolerable and unusual arrogance displayed by the most serious thing Obama has given the Maroni (text: "The Americans would do well to give himself to calm down. We are here, Europe is here, then it is better that we do it. ") in the absolute silence of Italy and, more generally, all European countries (or almost) is very eloquent on the current state degeneration of the Old Continent, which presents roughly, just the same symptoms Africa; formally de-colonized (not by much, in fact ...), controlled effectively and without the minimum requirements to walk on their own feet.
