Part B – Essays on National & International issues
The Masks of New Imperialism.
(2003)
As it pretended to be Globalization and economic
liberalization came as the binger of new hopes and prospects forth- whole world.
The World Trade Organization is tire most potent weapon to this cause. Tall
claims and widest possible promises were made to the weaker unions when the WTO
saw its inception. The basic principles of WTO are trade without discrimination,
free trade, transparency, economic equality among the nations etc. All these
hopes were on belied all, the organization started functioning. Its principles
looked better only-in -words than deeds. The failure of Doha Agenda which saw
few promises/prospects for the developing and under developed -nations failed to
fructify. Do we need more testimonials to say that WTO has given birth to a
clash with neo-imperialism?
Hang Kong and Macau may have been last of the few territories
of the old imperialistic regimes i.e.: the Europeans. With the end of World War
II, the conquerors began retreat, as a result, many nations became freed and a
new-world order governed by trade, emerged. When, one of the last nations was
getting freedom, from imperialistic forces, a new, form of neo-imperialism force
was burgeoning as “Old bottle, new wine”. The name of the new colonial force is
globalization. Globalization with its inception has taken many forms, the latest
being the World Trade Organization (WTO), diecentral commander of globalization.
Trade and economy are its weapons-The old imperialistic forces prevailed,
expanded and captured otter nations utilizing their links, Similarly, the new
force too adopted the old theory in the name of trade and economies, these
nations have established themselves as the rulers of the new world. The old
forces relied on dire cheat conflicts to defeat and capture, but the new forces
use other means like trade sanctions, blockage of Buds and otter aids in the
name of democracy and development using these facts they are compelling We
weaker nations to comply to their demands like-exporting oils, minerals, raw
natural products etc.
By means of unequal conditions of economic exchange Neo
imperialism refers to the dominance of some nations over others. In other words,
neo-imperialism exists to when one nation is dependent upon another because tile
weaker nation is unable to survive economically in the modern world without the
aid of the stronger nation. Unlike other methods of imperialism Neo imperialism
is not founded upon the direct imposition of political power by one society upon
another-Instead, neo-imperialism use the power of money in the modern world as a
way for richer countries to keep poorer countries front stepping outside Fill,
roles that richer countries have defined for them.
At the hands of a few developed nations WTO is increasingly
becoming a tool to regulate the trade among the member nations and to control
the world economies. The developed nations before the inception of the WTO had
tried to convince the developing nations with the argument that in the present
era, increased economic cooperation and mutual exchanges are inevitable for the
growth of the world economy. it became very evident by the functioning of tire
WTO ministerial conferences that the, organization was brought to subserve the
petty and partisan interests of the developed world than to clear the road
blocks in the global economic development- In the name of liberalization even
the production in countries like India are guided by the Multi-national
Companies (MNCs) under the control of developed nations. Even tire media, the
fourth pillar of the India democracy is increasingly coming under the control of
these MNCs. When the developing countries tried to raise die issues of cheap
labour and low profits, the developed world gave fatal punch by raising tire
environmental issues to be detriment of the developing countries during Seattle
Summit- Thereafter considering overall functioning of the WTO it is clear that
the organization has become one of line most potent weapon of the developed
nations and the MNCs to control the economics and even the politics of the
developing nations including India.
For import of technology, loans and economic assistance the
developing and the underdeveloped countries are tied with developed countries.
Even the national security of sumo of the nations are under the control of the
developed world but the latter in tire guise of the same have taken control over
the economics of the former throughout multinational companies and investment.
Thus the developing world have got trapped in the web of loans and interests as
Indians saw during the British period there is inadequacy if not tire absence of
cooperation among the developing countries. Though die regional groupings have
emerged, there are either disagreements among the members or they are incapable
of following an independent path. For some or the other reasons they are
compelled to toe the lines of the developed world. Starting from ASEAN, SCO,
SAARC, NAM, IBSA to BRIC, all are in some or the other way influenced by the
USA, die only super power and the most imperialistic power in the world at
present Their inactivity or underperformance, if not impotence, have made them
dependent on the developed world.
Hong Kong summit of the WTO in 2005 saw some hopes for the
developing world at the cost of sonic compromises on the Singapore issues. The
developed world at least in principle agreed to lower down and, eliminate the
trade distorting subsidies in agriculture and trade facilitation. However, when
things came to the implementation of Doha Development Agenda, the developed
world could not dare to lose their control by facilitating the developing
countries.
The last decade has witnessed or increased attempt by the
developed countries to jeopardize the interest of the developing countries. The
interests of the two groups havocked at cross purpose. Developing countries, by
consolidating the NAM and having established G-20, have challenged the monopoly
of tie LISA, Britain, prance, Australia etc at the WTO. The uncompromising stand
of the US led to the failure of Cancun round and the Singapore round Developing
countries have now at least mustered up fife courage to fight in order to
safeguard their own interest. They are no more ready to be a subject of ruthless
exploitation. Nor <to they seem to be ready to succumb to the unjustified and
irrational US pressure. G20 countries have clearly said that unless the Doha
promises are implemented they would not move forward to any event Thus it is
clear that WTO, has become a forum to, clash of interests of the developed and
the developing world
For their progress and growth the developed world intends to
confine and utilize WTO instrument. This however is not possible. Such an unjust
process cannot continue for long. None can deny that it is possible to be
isolated from WTO but its existence will equally be at stake if all the nations
will not be compassionate, towards cacti other. Elimination of hunger, poverty,
unemployment, economic and social disparity and increase of capital are the
priorities of the-developing world. While the priorities of the developed world
is to multiply their economic progress by monopolizing the world trade. Rich
nations intend to utilize WTO to expand neo-imperialism while the weaker ones
are still making; an endeavour to come out of the vicious circle of”
exploitation.
Thus what was apprehended by the developing,”, countries al
the inception of the WTO has clearly unfolded in the form of a gloomy reality.
Utter selfishness of (he developed world has been unveiled consequently the
clash between the two has increased tremendously_ “ Possibly such a clash, was
apprehended by the former UN Secretary General when he warned that if the WTO
failed to accommodate, within its ambit, the interests of the developing
nations, the latter would question and thus end the whole process. It is however
difficult to even imagine that tine rich nations would go against their own
interests to adhere to the basic principles of WTO. Therefore the developing and
under developing nations needs to unite and to muster up courage to withstand
the hegemony of the developed world.
The final conclusion could be seen in the words of the great
economist Bhagawati, “It is useful to remember that interdependence is a
nonnative attractive and soothing word, but when actions are unequal it also
leads to dependence mid hence to possibilities of perverse policies;
interventions and aggressively imposed coordination policies with outcomes that
liana the social good acid the welfare of (lie dependent nations while advancing
the interest of the powerful nations.”
On the other hand old terrorism has become the new mask with
which imperialism demonizes the governments that it wants to invade. Recall that
George W. Bush, after his people were attacked by terrorism clearly linked to
Saudi Arabia, the country with the largest oil reserves in the Middle East,
already controlled by the United States, decided to attack Iraq without finding
any tie to it, in order to control also the third-largest reserves: those in
second place belong to Iran, which the U.S. also has in its sights.
During the meeting at the Capitol on November 17, 2010, the
radicals of the Republican Party tried very hard to connect Venezuela, Bolivia,
and Ecuador –which are also oil-exporting countries– with the Islamic terrorism
supposedly promoted by Iran. They began by saying that the mentioned governments
are hostile to the U.S., and therefore anti-American; that they are growing
closer to Iran, becoming “friends of our enemies,” and are therefore already a
threat involving weapons of mass destruction.
The settlers who established their colonies in America did so
not only in search of religious freedom, but also to be able to govern
themselves their own way in order to develop and protect their interests. Later
they declared independence from England in order to avoid paying taxes without
representation, and that’s how the United States was founded. Searching beyond
the rhetoric, one can see clearly that the concept of liberty for the people was
missing from the real motives for independence, in a country that continued to
be a slave country and in which millions of Indians were exterminated to make
possible its expansion.
It’s undeniable that the country’s laws were intended to
protect the economic interests to which everything else was subordinated. That
is why the conservatives always have defended the status quo, which,
nonetheless, because of its cruelty, could not be openly defended, forcing them
to act as if they were clinging to the past only in order to maintain their
“traditional family values.” The truth is that change and every evolution in
thinking were always for them a threat to their original advantages with which
they founded the country.
That explains why the humanization of U.S. society had to be
fought for, and that it cost a river of blood. The emancipation of the slaves,
for example, was inspired by change, which was ferociously resisted by the
defenders of the status quo with a Civil War that cost 618,000 lives and 412,000
wounded. But the struggle did not end with the victory of the north, because the
new union continued to be an oligarchic society, as unjust as it was contrary to
every principle of humanity. Much blood was shed to end racial segregation, and
to achieve human rights, public education, the breakup of the monopolies, the
abolition of child labor, a minimum wage, the rights of women, etc. etc. All of
those basic rights for human beings were resisted by the conservatives although
they are now recognized by the world as the most admirable part of our country:
the human part that has united us as a people and influenced the rest of the
world.
The nation is in truth powerful, and the conservatives boast
of defending their supremacy, although in doing so they omit mention of the
enormous human cost. The history of North American power is therefore one of
expansion with the extermination of the Indians, of agricultural prosperity with
slavery, of industrial prosperity with the exploitation of labor, of wars waged
to expand our power abroad while progressives fought for human rights at home,
and, most recently, of wasting trillions in wars against “terrorism” abroad
while the country falls apart economically.
It’s a largely-irrational reality that can be understood only
by taking into account the U.S. is the result of two ideological currents with
opposing objectives. Supremacy in the global context is without a doubt the
Republican objective, and its foreign policy is, logically, the irritant in the
relations with the rest of the world. North American imperialism and its
corresponding anti-imperialism are consequently no more than the globalization
of the internal conflicts of North American reality. The Republicans call
themselves patriots because they defend the original postulates of the republic,
as wrong as those may have been. They quote frequently from the Bible to justify
their “traditionalism,” while defending the interests of the rich who identify
so much with money; and they are so few in relation to the people that they
represent in reality the individualism and greed that generates poverty for the
many. They accuse the Democrats of being anti-American, socialists, communists,
and therefore traitors to the “capitalist” homeland founded by their ancestors.
Abroad, they also accuse progressives of being anti-American in order to mark
them as “a danger to national security, and terrorists by association.”
Terrorism, however, has nothing to do with anti-imperialism, as the former is a
crime against humanity that caused deaths around the world long before it was
used by Islamist extremists against the U.S. They, too, surely have their own
reasons to fight against empires, but unlike the anti-imperialists they do not
do it with the power of the vote in a democracy.
Terrorism is not justifiable under any point of view, and
should be eliminated from the face of the earth, the same as imperialism. But,
until that happens, humanity cannot allow itself to be confused by the religious
radicals of both extremes. Anti-imperialism is as legitimate as it is
democratic, and represents, further, the internationalization of the noblest
progressive North American ideals: the right to life, liberty, dignity, health,
social justice, and, of course, family. That is our connection with others and
therefore with the flow of life. The Republicans are so disconnected from that
life that they invented the shortcut of attributing it to God, with whom they
presume a direct connection.
The difference between the anti-imperialists and the imperialists,
accordingly, reduces to the difference between progressives and conservatives:
the old dilemma of “to be or not to be”… part of humanity.
Go
Back To Main Page
