[okie01]

"...all of those decisions on borders and new countries, some of them incredibly bone-headed, are still plaguing us today. We are still paying the penalty for European colonialism."

Initially, that was my thought, too.

But, then, I got to thinking. Is the tragic post-colonial history of peoples in Africa and the Middle East simply a function of the way their borders were drawn?

With hindsight, how would one draw them today so that the tribal strife and tyrannical impulse would have been dampened?

I've since concluded that colonialism has precious little to do with the problem.

[beckett]

I agree quite completely that the present troubles around the world cannot all be laid at the feet of European colonialism. If my statement implied as much, it's only because it was inartfully written. Most of them, as you say, are attributable to the failings of human condition in general and to the "tyrannical impulse" that seems to be so pronounced in the developing world.

But some of the difficulties of the present time are directly traceable to the breakup of the British Empire, e.g., as Steyn notes, Churchill's lack of foresight in laying out the specifics of the Balfour Agreement. And there are other examples, most notably, in my view, the herding of the Muslims of the sub-continent into Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The Brits, and others hanging out in the corridors of Versailles, played God. But they lacked His infallibility, I fear. We are still paying the cost of their miscalulations.