Friday, April 1, 2011

Modern Imperialism

Does imperialism exist today? Most people think not. The dismantling of the European empires was the major story of the mid 20th century. Starting from 1947, country after country gained independence. Some were voluntarily relinquished, the prime example being India which got partitioned into two states. Others gained independence after major battles. Prime examples here were Algeria, Malaya, Indonesia and Kenya. What was startling about the process was the sheer speed with which these empires were dismantled. A major reason for this was that after World War II, Europe was essentially bankrupt both financially and resource wise. A second major reason was US pressure. Americans have traditionally been hostile to formal empires. At the end of the Second World War, they were by far the dominant power and hence in a position to "persuade" Europeans to relinquish their overseas territories.

So a happy ending right? Imperialism got successfully dismantled. The former colonies were now finally free to follow their own particular developments free from oversight of Imperial overlords who considered that they knew better than the natives. Not quite. Formal imperialism did get dismantled at an astonishing pace. However, the framework of imperialism was not dismantled. The new states found themselves enmeshed in a web of treaties and agreements that preserved the old global power structures. These had originally evolved to meet the needs of the imperial overlords. They continued to serve the same purpose from a distance. New financial structures also evolved which further enmeshed the new countries in an endless cycle of debt. At the same time, offshore banking arose from small beginnings to the massive structure that it is today. Debt and offshore banking served to suck much needed capital out of the new states into the economies of the developed world. The old ways in which the colonies had served as providers of raw materials while being buyers of finished manufactures continued largely unabated.

All of the above served to dampen the development of the new states. Some countries did develop, most notably the Far Eastern ones. However, they could do so within the framework established by the West. Their development was not smooth. It was marked by repression and a savage suppression of local aspirations. Most of them suffered for long periods of time under dictatorships which were only too ready to the bidding of the former masters.

Even now, the basic relationship between the developed and the developing (the new politically correct terms for the former conquerors and conquered) is an unequal one. Conditions have been imposed on the latter that the former did not have to face. These conditions are designed to protect the interests of Western bankers and investors. The interests of the local populations are of secondary concern at best. The aim at all times is to maintain the unimpeded flow of raw materials to the industries of the West. The primary consideration at all times has been the perpetual chase of ever increasing profitability. This chase has now started to shift industry away from the developed countries to the developing ones. The irony is that the structures that were designed to perpetuate the advantages and interests of the developed countries are slowly starting to work in favor of the developing ones.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments: