Saturday, July 19, 2014

WHAT IS NEO--COLONIALISM ?

WHAT   IS  NEO--COLONIASISM / NEO--IMPERIALISM ?


"Neocolonial" redirects here. For the architectural style, see Colonial Revival architecture.
"Economic imperialism" redirects here. For expansion of the applications of economic analysis, see Economics imperialism.
This article is about the geopolitical practice. For the computer game, see Neocolonialism (game).
Neocolonialism (also Neo-colonialism or Neo-imperialism) is the geopolitical practice of using capitalism, business globalization, and cultural imperialism to influence a country, in lieu of either direct military control or indirect political control, i.e. imperialism and hegemony.[1] The term neo-colonialism was coined by Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah, to describe the socio-economic and political control that can be exercised economically, linguistically, and culturally, whereby promotion of the culture of the neo-colonist country facilitates the cultural assimilation of the colonised people and thus opens the national economy to the multinational corporations of the neo-colonial country.
In post-colonial studies, the term neo-colonialism describes the domination-praxis (social, economic, cultural) of countries from the developed world in the respective internal affairs of the countries of the developing world; that, despite the decolonisation that occurred in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), the (former) colonial powers continue to apply existing and past international economic arrangements with their former colony countries, and so maintain colonial control. A neo-colonialism critique can include de facto colonialism (imperialist or hegemonic), and an economic critique of the disproportionate involvement of modern capitalist business in the economy of a developing country, whereby multinational corporations continue to exploit the natural resources of the former colony; that such economic control is inherently neo-colonial, and thus is akin to the imperial and hegemonic varieties of colonialism practiced by the United States and the empires of Great Britain, France, and other European countries, from the 16th to the 20th centuries.[2] The ideology and praxis of neo-colonialism are discussed in the works of Jean-Paul Sartre (Colonialism and Neo-colonialism, 1964)[3] and Noam Chomsky (The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, 1979).[4]

The term

Origins

Kwame Nkrumah (pictured on a Soviet postage stamp) is a Ghanaian politician who coined the term "Neo-colonialism."
The political science term "neo-colonialism" became popular usage in reference to the continued European economic and cultural control of African countries that had been decolonized in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45). Kwame Nkrumah, president of Ghana (1960–66), is believed to have coined the term "neo-colonialism," which appeared in 1963 preamble of the Organization of African States Charter and was the title of his 1965 book Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism (1965).[5][6] As a political scientist, Nkrumah theoretically developed and extended, to the post–War 20th century, the socio-economic and political arguments presented by Lenin in the pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), about 19th-century imperialism as the logical extension of geopolitical power to meet the financial investment needs of the political economy of capitalism.[7] In Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism, Kwame Nkrumah writes:
In place of colonialism, as the main instrument of imperialism, we have today neo-colonialism . . . [which] like colonialism, is an attempt to export the social conflicts of the capitalist countries. . . .
The result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment, under neo-colonialism, increases, rather than decreases, the gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world. The struggle against neo-colonialism is not aimed at excluding the capital of the developed world from operating in less developed countries. It is aimed at preventing the financial power of the developed countries being used in such a way as to impoverish the less developed.[8]

The non-aligned world

"Neo-colonialism" became the standard term, describing a type of foreign intervention, because of its practical and historical application to the internal affairs (economic, social, political) of the countries of the Pan-Africanist movement and because of its like usage in the Bandung Conference (Asian–African Conference, 1955), from which derived the Non-Aligned Movement (1961). The formal definition of neo-colonialism was established by the All-African Peoples' Conference (AAPC) and published in the Resolution on Neo-colonialism of the organisation. At the Tunis conference (1960) and at the Cairo conference (1961), the AAPC specifically identified as neo-colonial behaviour, the actions of the French Community of independent states, which was organised by France.[9]
Throughout the decades of the Cold War, the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of Solidarity with the People of Asia, Africa and Latin America defined neo-colonialism as the primary, collective enemy of the economies and cultures of their respective countries. Moreover, neo-colonialism was integrated to the national-liberation ideologies of Marxist guerrilla armies. During the 1970s, in the Portuguese African colonies of Mozambique and Angola, upon assuming government power, the Liberation Front of Mozambique (FRELIMO, Frente de Libertação de Moçambique) and the People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola — Labour Party (MPLA, Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola — Partido do Trabalho), respectively, established policies to counter neo-colonial agreements with the (former) colonist country.

Françafrique

The representative example of European neo-colonialism is Françafrique, the "French Africa" constituted by the continued close relationships between France and its former African country colonies. In 1955, the initial usage of the "French Africa" term, by President Félix Houphouët-Boigny, of Côte d'Ivoire, denoted positive social, cultural, and economic Franco–African relations. It was later applied by critics of neo-colonialism to describe an imbalanced international relation. The term Françafrique is derived from the essay La Françafrique, le plus long scandale de la République (French Africa: The Longest Scandal of the Republic, 1998), by François-Xavier Verschave, which critically analysed French neo-colonial policies towards the countries of Africa.[10] Moreover, Main basse sur le Cameroun, autopsie d'une décolonisation (Cruel Hand on Cameroon: Autopsy of a Decolonization, 1972), by Mongo Beti, is a critical history of contemporary Cameroon that reported the continued dependence — economic, social, cultural — of decolonised African nations and countries upon Metropolitan France, whose dependence was actively continued by the post-independence, national political élites of the given countries.
The politician Jacques Foccart, the principal advisor for African matters to the French presidents Charles de Gaulle (1958–69) and Georges Pompidou (1969–1974), was the principal proponent of neo-colonial Françafrique.[11] The French Africa works of Verschave and Beti reported a forty-year, post-independence relationship with the former colonial peoples of France, which feature colonial garrisons in situ and monopolies by French multinational corporations, usually for the exploitation of mineral resources. The African leaders with close ties to France — especially during the Russo–American Cold War (1945–91) — it has been argued acted more as agents of French business and geopolitical interests, than as the national leaders of sovereign states,. Cited examples are Omar Bongo (Gabon), Félix Houphouët-Boigny (Côte d'Ivoire), Gnassingbé Eyadéma (Togo), Denis Sassou-Nguesso (Republic of the Congo), Idriss Déby (Chad), and Hamani Diori (Niger).
Francophonie
The French Community (1958–95) and the seventy-five-country Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (International Francophone Organisation) have been criticized as agents of French neo-colonial African influence, especially by means of promoting the French language; however, in 1966, the Algerian intellectual Kateb Yacine said:
La Francophonie is a neo-colonial political machine, which only perpetuates our alienation, but the usage of the French language does not mean that one is an agent of a foreign power; and I write in French to tell the French that I am not French.
— Kateb Yacine biography, Arabesques[12][13]

Belgian Congo

After a hastened decolonization process of the Belgian Congo, Belgium continued to control, through the Société Générale de Belgique, an estimate of 70% of the Congolese economy following the decolonization process. The most contested part was in the province of Katanga where the Union Minière du Haut Katanga, part of the Société, had control over the mineral- and resource-rich province. After a failed attempt to nationalize the mining industry in the 1960s, it was reopened to foreign investment.

Neo-colonial economic dominance

Neo-colonialism: U.S. President Harry Truman and Mohammad Mosaddeq, the Iranian Prime Minister in 1951. Two years later, the Persian nationalisation of the petroleum of Iran was halted with Operation Ajax, a British–American coup d' état, which deposed P.M. Mossadeq on 19 August 1953, and reinstated the deposed, absolute monarchy of the Pahlavi family.
In 1961, regarding the economic mechanism of neo-colonial control, in the speech Cuba: Historical Exception or Vanguard in the Anti-colonial Struggle?, the Cuban revolutionary Ché Guevara said:
We, politely referred to as "underdeveloped", in truth, are colonial, semi-colonial or dependent countries. We are countries whose economies have been distorted by imperialism, which has abnormally developed those branches of industry or agriculture needed to complement its complex economy. "Underdevelopment", or distorted development, brings a dangerous specialization in raw materials, inherent in which is the threat of hunger for all our peoples. We, the "underdeveloped", are also those with the single crop, the single product, the single market. A single product whose uncertain sale depends on a single market imposing and fixing conditions. That is the great formula for imperialist economic domination.
— Ché Guevara, 9 April 1961.[14]

Dependency theory

Main article: Dependency theory
Dependency theory is the theoretic basis of economic neo-colonialism, which proposes that the global economic system comprises wealthy countries at the center, and poor countries at the periphery. Economic neo-colonialism extracts the human and the natural resources of a peripheral (poor) country to flow to the economies of the wealthy countries at the center of the global economic system; hence, the poverty of the peripheral countries is the result of how they are integrated in the global economic system. Dependency theory derives from the Marxist analysis of economic inequalities within the world's system of economies, thus, the under-development of the Global South is a direct result of the development in the Global North; the theories of the semi-colony from the late 19th century.[15] The Marxist perspective of the Theory of Colonial Dependency is contrasted with the capitalist economics of the free market, which propose that such poverty is a development stage in the poor country's progress towards full, economic integration to the global economic system. Proponents of Dependency Theory, such as Venezuelan historian Federico Brito Figueroa, who has investigated the socio-economic bases of neo-colonial dependency, have influenced the thinking of the former President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez.

The Cold War

Main article: Cold War
During the mid-to-late 20th century, in the course of the Cold War (1945–91) ideological conflict between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., each country and its satellite states accused each other of practising neo-colonialism in their imperial and hegemonic pursuits.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] The geopolitical conditions that defined the Russo–American Cold War led to proxy war, fought by client states in the decolonised countries; Cuba, the Warsaw Pact bloc, Egypt under the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser (1956–70), et al. accused the U.S. of sponsoring anti-democratic governments whose régimes did not represent the interests of the majority of the populace, and of deposing Third-World elected governments (African, Asian, Latin American) who did not subscribe to the geopolitical interests of the U.S., as defined by the East–West Cold War.
In the 1960s, under the leadership of Chairman Mehdi Ben Barka, the Cuban Tricontinental Conference (Organization of Solidarity with the People of Asia, Africa and Latin America) recognised and supported the validity of revolutionary anti-colonialism as a means for colonised peoples of the Third World to achieve their self-determination, which policy angered the U.S. and France. Moreover, Chairman Barka headed the Commission on Neo-colonialism, which dealt with the work to resolve the neo-colonial involvement of colonial powers in decolonised counties; and said that the U.S., as the leading capitalist country of the world, was, in practise, the principal neo-colonialist political actor.

Multinational corporations

Main article: Multinational corporation
Critics of neo-colonialism also argue that investment by multinational corporations enriches few in underdeveloped countries, and causes humanitarian, environmental and ecological devastation to the populations which inhabit the neocolonies whose "development" and economy is now dependent on foreign markets and large scale trade agreements. This, it is argued, results in unsustainable development and perpetual underdevelopment; a dependency which cultivates those countries as reservoirs of cheap labor and raw materials, while restricting their access to advanced production techniques to develop their own economies. In some countries, privatization of national resources, while initially leading to immediate large scale influx of investment capital, is often followed by dramatic increases in the rate of unemployment, poverty, and a decline in per-capita income.[23] This is particularly true in the West African nations of Guinea-Bissau, Senegal, and Mauritania where fishing has historically been central to the local economy. Beginning in 1979, the European Union began brokering fishing rights contracts off the coast of West Africa. This continues to this day. Commercial unsustainable over-fishing from foreign corporations has played a significant role in the large-scale unemployment and migration of people across the region.[24] This stands in direct opposition to United Nations Treaty on the Seas which recognizes the importance of fishing to local communities and insists that government fishing agreements with foreign companies should be targeted at surplus stocks only.[25]

The International Monetary Fund

Main article: Criticism of debt
To alleviate some of the effects of neo-colonialism, the American economist Jeffrey Sachs recommended that the entire African debt (ca. 200 billion U.S. dollars) be dismissed, and recommended that African nations not repay the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF):[26]
The time has come to end this charade. The debts are unaffordable. If they won't cancel the debts, I would suggest obstruction; you do it, yourselves. Africa should say: "Thank you very much, but we need this money to meet the needs of children who are dying, right now, so, we will put the debt-servicing payments into urgent social investment in health, education, drinking water, the control of AIDS, and other needs".

Sino–African relations

Exotic animals such as the giraffe, caught and sold by Somali merchants, were very popular commodities in Ming Dynasty China.
Main article: Sino-African relations
Historically, China and Somalia had a strong trading tie.[citation needed] In recent years, the People's Republic of China has built increasingly stronger ties with African nations.[27][28] China is currently Africa's largest trading partner.[29][30] As of August 2007, there were an estimated 750,000 Chinese nationals working or living for extended periods in different African countries.[31][32] China is picking up natural resources — petroleum and minerals — to fuel the Chinese economy and to finance international business enterprises.[33][34] In 2006, two-way trade had increased to $50 billion.[35]
Not all dealings have involved direct monetary exchanges. In 2007, the governments of China and Democratic Republic of the Congo entered into an agreement whereby Chinese state-owned firms would provide various services (infrastructure projects) in exchange for an equivalent amount of copper ore extracted from Congolese copper mines.[36]
According to China's critics, China has offered Sudan support threatening to use its veto on the U.N. Security Council to protect Khartoum from sanctions and has been able to water down every resolution on Darfur in order to protect its interests in Sudan.[37]

South Korea's land acquisitions

To ensure a reliable, long-term supply of food stuffs, the South Korean government and powerful Korean multinational corporations from have bought the exploitation rights to millions of hectares of agricultural land in under-developed countries of the Third World.[38]
South Korea's RG Energy Resources Asset Management CEO Park Yong-soo stressed that "the nation does not produce a single drop of crude oil and other key industrial minerals. To power economic growth and support people's livelihoods, we cannot emphasize too much that securing natural resources in foreign countries is a must for our future survival."[39] The head of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Jacques Diouf, has warned that the controversial rise in land deals could create a form of "neo-colonialism", with poor states producing food for the rich at the expense of their own hungry people.
In 2008, the South Korean multinational Daewoo Logistics secured 1.3 million hectares of farmland in Madagascar, half the size of Belgium, to grow maize and crops for biofuels. Roughly half of the country's arable land, as well as rainforests of rich and unique biodiversity, were to be converted into palm and corn monocultures, producing food for export from a country where a third of the population and 50 percent of children under 5 are malnourished, using workers imported from South Africa instead of locals. Those living on the land were never consulted or informed, despite being dependent on the land for food and income. The controversial deal played a major part in prolonged anti-government protests on the island that resulted in over a hundred deaths.[38] Shortly after the Madagascar deal, Tanzania announced that South Korea was in talks to develop 100,000 hectares for food production and processing for 700 to 800 billion won. Scheduled to be completed in 2010, it will be the largest single piece of agricultural infrastructure South Korea has ever built overseas.[38]
In 2009, Hyundai Heavy Industries acquired a majority stake in a company cultivating 10,000 hectares of farmland in the Russian Far East and a wealthy South Korean provincial government secured 95,000 hectares of farmland in Oriental Mindoro, central Philippines, to grow corn. The South Jeolla province became the first provincial government to benefit from a newly created central government fund to develop farmland overseas, receiving a cheap loan of $1.9 million for the Mindoro project. The feedstock is expected to produce 10,000 tonnes of feed in the first year for South Korea.[40] South Korean multinationals and provincial governments have also purchased land in Sulawesi, Indonesia, Cambodia and Bulgan, Mongolia. The South Korean government itself announced its intention to invest 30 billion won in land in Paraguay and Uruguay. Discussions with Laos, Myanmar and Senegal are also currently underway.[38]
The South Korean government's strategy is quickly yielding results and despite predicting that farmland is shrinking on the country, the government announced in August 2009 that South Korea would enjoy a 10% increase in rice production in 2009, the first since 2005, and the government has begun purchasing large quantities of rice to keep prices stable.[38]

Other approaches

Although the concept of neo-colonialism was originally developed within a Marxist theoretical framework and is generally employed by the political left, the term "neo-colonialism" is also used within other theoretical frameworks.

Cultural theory

One variant of neo-colonialism theory critiques the existence of cultural colonialism, the desire of wealthy nations to control other nations' values and perceptions through cultural means, such as media, language, education and religion, ultimately for economic reasons.
Main article: Colonial mentality
One element of this is a critique of "Colonial Mentality" which writers have traced well beyond the legacy of 19th century colonial empires. These critics argue that people, once subject to colonial or imperial rule, latch onto physical and cultural differences between the foreigners and themselves, leading some to associate power and success with the foreigners' ways. This eventually leads to the foreigners' ways being regarded as the better way and being held in a higher esteem than previous indigenous ways. In much the same fashion, and with the same reasoning of better-ness, the colonised may over time equate the colonisers' race or ethnicity itself as being responsible for their superiority. Cultural rejections of colonialism, such as the Negritude movement, or simply the embracing of seemingly authentic local culture are then seen in a post colonial world as a necessary part of the struggle against domination. By the same reasoning, importation or continuation of cultural mores or elements from former colonial powers may be regarded as a form of neo-colonialism.

Post-colonialism theory

Main article: Postcolonialism
Post-colonialism theories in philosophy, film, political science, and post-colonial literature deal with the cultural legacy of colonial rule; that is, the cultural identity of the colonised peoples, in which neo-colonialism is the background for the contemporary dilemmas of developing a national identity after colonial rule. Post-colonialism studies how writers articulate, present, and celebrate their post-colonial national identity, which often first must be reclaimed from the coloniser, whilst maintaining strong connections with the colonialist country; how knowledge of the sub-ordinated (colonised) people was generated, and applied against the colonised people in service to the cultural and economic interests of the colonial country; and how colonialist literature justified colonialism by misrepresenting the colonised people as an inferior race whose society, culture, and economy must be managed for them. Post-colonial studies comprehend Subaltern Studies of "history from below"; post-colonial manifestations of people outside the hegemony; the psychopathology of colonization (by Frantz Fanon); and the cinema of film makers such as the Cuban Third Cinema, e.g. Tomás Gutiérrez Alea, and the Filipino Kidlat Tahimik.

Critical theory

While critiques of postcolonialism/neo-colonialism are widely practiced in literary theory, also international relations theory has defined "postcolonialism" as a field of study. While the lasting effects of cultural colonialism are of central interest in cultural critiques of neo-colonialism, their intellectual antecedents are economic theories of neo-colonialism: Marxist dependency theory and mainstream criticism of capitalist neoliberalism. Critical international relations theory frequently references neo-colonialism from Marxist positions as well as postpositivist positions, including postmodernist, postcolonial and feminist approaches, which differ from both realism and liberalism in their epistemological and ontological premises.

Conservation and neo-colonialism

There have been other critiques that the modern conservation movement, as taken up by international organizations such as the World Wide Fund for Nature, has inadvertently set up a neocolonialist relationship with underdeveloped nations.[41]

See also

References

  1. Sartre, Jean-Paul (2001-03-27). Colonialism and neo-colonialism. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-19146-3.
  2. United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 1514 and 1541
  3. Sartre, Jean-Paul (2001-03-27). Colonialism and neo-colonialism. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-19146-3.
  4. Chomsky, Noam; Edward S. Herman (1979-07-01). The Washington connection and Third World fascism. Black Rose Books Ltd. p. 42ff. ISBN 978-0-919618-88-6.
  5. Tondini, Matteo (2010). Statebuilding and Justice Reform: Post-Conflict Reconstruction in Afghanistan. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis. p. 108. ISBN 9780203865781.
  6. Arnold, Guy (2010). The A to Z of the Non-Aligned Movement and Third World. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. p. 199. ISBN 9781461672319.
  7. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. transcribed from Lenin's Selected Works, Progress Publishers, 1963, Moscow, Volume 1, pp. 667–766.
  8. From the Introduction. Kwame Nkrumah. Neo-Colonialism, The Last Stage of Imperialism. First Published: Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., London (1965). Published in the USA by International Publishers Co., Inc., (1966);
  9. Wallerstein, p. 52: 'It attempted the one serious, collectively agreed-upon definition of neo-colonialism, the key concept in the armory of the revolutionary core of the movement for African unity'; and William D. Graf's review of Neo-colonialism and African Politics: a Survey of the Impact of Neo-colonialism on African Political Behaviour (1980, Yolamu R. Barongo, in the Canadian Journal of African Studies, p. 601: 'The term, itself, originated in Africa, probably with Nkrumah, and received collective recognition at the 1961 All-African People's Conference.'
  10. François-Xavier Verschave. La Françafrique, le plus long scandale de la République. Paris (ISBN 2234049482).
  11. Kaye Whiteman, "The Man Who Ran Françafrique — French Politician Jacques Foccart's Role in France's Colonization of Africa Under the Leadership of Charles de Gaulle", obituary in The National Interest, Fall 1997.
  12. http://www.afrique-du-nord.com/article.php3?id_article=1877 (Quote by Kateb Yacine in French)
  13. http://www.arabesques-editions.com/fr/biographies/kateb-yacine1974605.html?page=0%2C1 (Quote by Kateb Yacine in French)
  14. "Cuba: Historical exception or vanguard in the anticolonial struggle?" speech by Che Guevara on 9 April 1961
  15. Ernest Mandel, "Semicolonial Countries and Semi-Industrialised Dependent Countries", New International (New York), No.5, pp.149-175
  16. Anuradha M. Chenoy. "Soviet New Thinking on National Liberation Movements: Continuity and Change", Soviet Foreign Policy in Transition pp. 145–162. Roger E. Kanet, Deborah Nutter Miner, Tamara J. Resler, International Committee for Soviet and East European Studies. Cambridge University Press, (1992) ISBN 0-521-41365-6; See pp. 149–150 for the Soviet Bloc academic definitions of "Neo-colonialism".
  17. Rosemary Radford Ruether. Christianity and Social Systems: Historical Constructions and Ethical Challenges. Rowman & Littlefield, (2008) ISBN 0-7425-4643-8 p. 138: "Neo-colonialism means that European powers and the United States no longer rule dependent territories, directly through their occupying troops and imperial bureaucracy. Rather, they control the area's resources indirectly, through business corporations and the financial lending institutions they dominate. . . ."
  18. Yumna Siddiqi. Anxieties of Empire and the Fiction of Intrigue. Columbia University Press, (2007) ISBN 0-231-13808-3, pp. 123–124 provides the standard definition of "Neo-colonialism" specific to the US and European colonialism.
  19. Thomas R. Shannon. An Introduction to the World-system Perspective. Second Edition. Westview Press, (1996) ISBN 0-8133-2452-1 pp. 94–95, wherein "Neo-colonialism" is defined as a capitalist phenomenon.
  20. William H. Blanchard. Neo-colonialism American Style, 1960-2000. Greenwood Publishing Group, (1996) ISBN 0-313-30013-5 pp. 3-12, defines "Neo-colonialism" in page 7.
  21. Hugh Seton-Watson. Nations and States: an Enquiry into the Origins of Nations and the Politics of Nationalism. Taylor & Francis, (1977) ISBN 0-416-76810-5. Provides the history of the word "neo-colonialism" as an anti-capitalist term (pp. 339–339) also applicable to the U.S.S.R. (p. 322).
  22. Edward M. Bennett. "Colonialism and Neo-colonialism" (pp. 285–291) in Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy. Alexander DeConde, Richard Dean Burns, Fredrik Logevall eds. Second Edition. Simon and Schuster, (2002) ISBN 0-684-80657-6. Clarifies that neo-colonialism is a practice of the colonial powers, that "the Soviets practiced imperialism, not colonialism".
  23. "World Bank, IMF Threw Colombia Into Tailspin" The Baltimore Sun, April 4, 2002
  24. "Europe Takes Africa's Fish, and Boatloads of Migrants Follow" The New York Times, January 14, 2008
  25. United Nations 2007
  26. "Africa 'should not pay its debts'". BBC News. 6 July 2004. Retrieved 23 November 2013.
  27. Military backs China's Africa adventure, Asia Times
  28. Mbeki warns on China-Africa ties
  29. http://english.cntv.cn/program/bizasia/20101015/101588.shtml
  30. http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Company%20Industry/-/539550/850122/-/t43ipjz/-/index.html
  31. Chinese flocking in numbers to a new frontier: Africa
  32. Chinese imperialism in Africa
  33. China, Africa, and Oil
  34. Is China Africa's new imperialist power?
  35. "Is China the new colonial power in Africa?" Taipei Times, November 1, 2006
  36. China's Quest for Resources - A ravenous dragon The Economist, March 13, 2008
  37. "The Increasing Importance of African Oil". Power and Interest News Report. 2007-03-20.
  38. http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2009/12/123_56697.html
  39. http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/07/123_48943.html
  40. http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/07/113_48556.html
  41. In a manner consistent with Immanuel Wallerstein's World Systems Theory (Wallerstein, 1974) and Andre Gunder Frank's Dependency Theory (Frank, 1975).

Further reading

  • Opoku Agyeman. Nkrumah's Ghana and East Africa: Pan-Africanism and African interstate relations (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1992).
  • Ankerl, Guy (2000). Global communication without universal civilization. INU societal research. Vol.1: Coexisting contemporary civilizations : Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. Geneva: INU Press. ISBN 2-88155-004-5.
  • Bill Ashcroft (ed., et al.) The post-colonial studies reader (Routledge, London, 1995).
  • Yolamu R Barongo. neo-colonialism and African politics: A survey of the impact of neo-colonialism on African political behavior (Vantage Press, NY, 1980).
  • Mongo Beti, Main basse sur le Cameroun. Autopsie d'une décolonisation (1972), new edition La Découverte, Paris 2003 [A classical critique of neo-colonialism. Raymond Marcellin, the French Minister of the Interior at the time, tried to prohibit the book. It could only be published after fierce legal battles.]
  • Frédéric Turpin. De Gaulle, Pompidou et l'Afrique (1958-1974): décoloniser et coopérer (Les Indes savantes, Paris, 2010. [Grounded on Foccart's previously inaccessibles archives]
  • Kum-Kum Bhavnani. (ed., et al.) Feminist futures: Re-imagining women, culture and development (Zed Books, NY, 2003). See: Ming-yan Lai's "Of Rural Mothers, Urban Whores and Working Daughters: Women and the Critique of Neocolonial Development in Taiwan's Nativist Literature," pp. 209–225.
  • David Birmingham. The decolonization of Africa (Ohio University Press, 1995).
  • Charles Cantalupo(ed.). The world of Ngugi wa Thiong'o (Africa World Press, 1995).
  • Laura Chrisman and Benita Parry (ed.) Postcolonial theory and criticism (English Association, Cambridge, 2000).
  • Renato Constantino. Neocolonial identity and counter-consciousness: Essays on cultural decolonization (Merlin Press, London, 1978).
  • George A. W. Conway. A responsible complicity: Neo/colonial power-knowledge and the work of Foucault, Said, Spivak (University of Western Ontario Press, 1996).
  • Julia V. Emberley. Thresholds of difference: feminist critique, native women's writings, postcolonial theory (University of Toronto Press, 1993).
  • Nikolai Aleksandrovich Ermolov. Trojan horse of neo-colonialism: U.S. policy of training specialists for developing countries (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1966).
  • Thomas Gladwin. Slaves of the white myth: The psychology of neo-colonialism (Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1980).
  • Lewis Gordon. Her Majesty's Other Children: Sketches of Racism from a Neocolonial Age (Rowman & Littlefield, 1997).
  • Ankie M. M. Hoogvelt. Globalization and the postcolonial world: The new political economy of development (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001).
  • J. M. Hobson, The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
  • M. B. Hooker. Legal pluralism; an introduction to colonial and neo-colonial laws (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975).
  • E.M. Kramer (ed.) The emerging monoculture: assimilation and the "model minority" (Praeger, Westport, Conn., 2003). See: Archana J. Bhatt's "Asian Indians and the Model Minority Narrative: A Neocolonial System," pp. 203–221.
  • Geir Lundestad (ed.) The fall of great powers: Peace, stability, and legitimacy (Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, 1994).
  • Jean-Paul Sartre. 'Colonialism and neo-colonialism. Translated by Steve Brewer, Azzedine Haddour, Terry McWilliams Republished in the 2001 edition by Routledge France. ISBN 0-415-19145-9.
  • Stuart J. Seborer. U.S. neo-colonialism in Africa (International Publishers, NY, 1974).
  • D. Simon. Cities, capital and development: African cities in the world economy (Halstead, NY, 1992).
  • Phillip Singer(ed.) Traditional healing, new science or new colonialism": (essays in critique of medical anthropology) (Conch Magazine, Owerri, 1977).
  • Jean Suret-Canale. Essays on African history: From the slave trade to neo-colonialism (Hurst, London 1988).
  • Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o. Barrel of a pen: Resistance to repression in neo-colonial Kenya (Africa Research & Publications Project, 1983).
  • Carlos Alzugaray Treto. El ocaso de un régimen neocolonial: Estados Unidos y la dictadura de Batista durante 1958,(The twilight of a neocolonial regime: The United States and Batista during 1958), in Temas: Cultura, Ideología y Sociedad, No.16-17, October 1998/March 1999, pp. 29–41 (La Habana: Ministry of Culture).
  • United Nations (2007). Reports of International Arbitral Awards. XXVII. United Nations Publication. p. 188. ISBN 978-92-1-033098-5.
  • Richard Werbner (ed.) Postcolonial identities in Africa (Zed Books, NJ, 1996).

External links

Academic course materials

Categories:
Posted by at No comments:

NATIONALISM----HISTORY FORM FOUR

NATIONALISM

nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.
Nationalism is a modern movement. Throughout history people have been attached to their native soil, to the traditions of their parents, and to established territorial authorities; but it was not until the end of the 18th century that nationalism began to be a generally recognized sentiment molding public and private life and one of the great, if not the greatest, single determining factors of modern history. Because of its dynamic vitality and its all-pervading character, nationalism is often thought to be very old; sometimes it is mistakenly regarded as a permanent factor in political behaviour. Actually, the American and French revolutions may be regarded as its first powerful manifestations. After penetrating the new countries of Latin America it spread in the early 19th century to central Europe and from there, toward the middle of the century, to eastern and southeastern Europe. At the beginning of the 20th century nationalism flowered in the ancient lands of Asia and Africa. Thus the 19th century has been called the age of nationalism in Europe, while the 20th century has witnessed the rise and struggle of powerful national movements throughout Asia and Africa.

Identification of state and people

Nationalism, translated into world politics, implies the identification of the state or nation with the people—or at least the desirability of determining the extent of the state according to ethnographic principles. In the age of nationalism, but only in the age of nationalism, the principle was generally recognized that each nationality should form a state—its state—and that the state should include all members of that nationality. Formerly states, or territories under one administration, were not delineated by nationality. Men did not give their loyalty to the nation-state but to other, different forms of political organization: the city-state, the feudal fief and its lord, the dynastic state, the religious group, or the sect. The nation-state was nonexistent during the greater part of history, and for a very long time it was not even regarded as an ideal. In the first 15 centuries of the Christian Era, the ideal was the universal world-state, not loyalty to any separate political entity. The Roman Empire had set the great example, which survived not only in the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages but also in the concept of the res publica christiana (“Christian republic” or community) and in its later secularized form of a united world civilization.
As political allegiance, before the age of nationalism, was not determined by nationality, so civilization was not thought of as nationally determined. During the Middle Ages civilization was looked upon as determined religiously; for all the different nationalities of Christendom as well as for those of Islām there was but one civilization—Christian or Muslim—and but one language of culture—Latin (or Greek) or Arabic (or Persian). Later, in the periods of the Renaissance and of Classicism, it was the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations that became a universal norm, valid for all peoples and all times. Still later, French civilization was accepted throughout Europe as the valid civilization for educated people of all nationalities. It was only at the end of the 18th century that, for the first time, civilization was considered to be determined by nationality. It was then that the principle was put forward that a man could be educated only in his own mother tongue, not in languages of other civilizations and other times, whether they were classical languages or the literary creations of other peoples who had reached a high degree of civilization.

Cultural nationalism

From the end of the 18th century on, the nationalization of education and public life went hand in hand with the nationalization of states and political loyalties. Poets and scholars began to emphasize cultural nationalism first. They reformed the mother tongue, elevated it to the rank of a literary language, and delved deep into the national past. Thus they prepared the foundations for the political claims for national statehood soon to be raised by the people in whom they had kindled the spirit.
Before the 18th century there had been evidences of national feeling among certain groups at certain periods, especially in times of stress and conflict. The rise of national feeling to major political importance was encouraged by a number of complex developments: the creation of large, centralized states ruled by absolute monarchs who destroyed the old feudal allegiances; the secularization of life and of education, which fostered the vernacular languages and weakened the ties of church and sect; the growth of commerce, which demanded larger territorial units to allow scope for the dynamic spirit of the rising middle classes and their capitalistic enterprise. This large, unified territorial state, with its political and economic centralization, became imbued in the 18th century with a new spirit—an emotional fervour similar to that of religious movements in earlier periods. Under the influence of the new theories of the sovereignty of the people and the rights of man, the people replaced the king as the centre of the nation. No longer was the king the nation or the state; the state had become the people’s state, a national state, a fatherland. State became identified with nation, as civilization became identified with national civilization.
That development ran counter to the conceptions that had dominated political thought for the preceding 2,000 years. Hitherto man had commonly stressed the general and the universal and had regarded unity as the desirable goal. Nationalism stressed the particular and parochial, the differences, and the national individualities. Those tendencies became more pronounced as nationalism developed. Its less attractive characteristics were not at first apparent. In the 17th and 18th centuries the common standards of Western civilization, the regard for the universally human, the faith in reason (one and the same everywhere) as well as in common sense, the survival of Christian and Stoic traditions—all of these were still too strong to allow nationalism to develop fully and to disrupt society. Thus nationalism in its beginning was thought to be compatible with cosmopolitan convictions and with a general love of mankind, especially in western Europe and North America.

European nationalism

English Puritanism and nationalism

The first full manifestation of modern nationalism occurred in 17th-century England, in the Puritan revolution. England had become the leading nation in scientific spirit, in commercial enterprise, in political thought and activity. Swelled by an immense confidence in the new age, the English people felt upon their shoulders the mission of history, a sense that they were at a great turning point from which a new true reformation and a new liberty would start. In the English revolution an optimistic humanism merged with Calvinist ethics; the influence of the Old Testament gave form to the new nationalism by identifying the English people with ancient Israel.
The new message, carried by the new people not only for England but for all mankind, was expressed in the writings of John Milton, in whose famous vision the idea of liberty was seen spreading from Britain, “celebrated for endless ages as a soil most genial to the growth of liberty” to all the corners of the earth.
Surrounded by congregated multitudes, I now imagine that . . . I behold the nations of the earth recovering that liberty which they so long had lost; and that the people of this island are . . . disseminating the blessings of civilization and freedom among cities, kingdoms and nations.
English nationalism then was thus much nearer to its religious matrix than later nationalisms that rose after secularization had made greater progress. The nationalism of the 18th century shared with it, however, its enthusiasm for liberty, its humanitarian character, its emphasis upon the individual and his rights and upon the human community as above all national divisions. The rise of English nationalism coincided with the rise of the English trading middle classes. It found its final expression in John Locke’s political philosophy, and it was in that form that it influenced American and French nationalism in the following century.
American nationalism was a typical product of the 18th century. British settlers in North America were influenced partly by the traditions of the Puritan revolution and the ideas of Locke and partly by the new rational interpretation given to English liberty by contemporary French philosophers. American settlers became a nation engaged in a fight for liberty and individual rights. They based that fight on current political thought, especially as expressed by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. It was a liberal and humanitarian nationalism that regarded America as in the vanguard of mankind on its march to greater liberty, equality, and happiness for all. The ideas of the 18th century found their first political realization in the Declaration of Independence and in the birth of the American nation. Their deep influence was felt in the French Revolution.


French nationalism

Jean-Jacques Rousseau had prepared the soil for the growth of French nationalism by his stress on popular sovereignty and the general cooperation of all in forming the national will, and also by his regard for the common people as the true depository of civilization.
The nationalism of the French Revolution was more than that: it was the triumphant expression of a rational faith in common humanity and liberal progress. The famous slogan “liberty, equality, fraternity” and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were thought valid not only for the French people but for all peoples. Individual liberty, human equality, fraternity of all peoples: these were the common cornerstones of all liberal and democratic nationalism. Under their inspiration new rituals were developed that partly took the place of the old religious feast days, rites, and ceremonies: festivals and flags, music and poetry, national holidays and patriotic sermons. In the most varied forms, nationalism permeated all manifestations of life. As in America, the rise of French nationalism produced a new phenomenon in the art of warfare: the nation in arms. In America and in France, citizen armies, untrained but filled with a new fervour, proved superior to highly trained professional armies that fought without the incentive of nationalism. The revolutionary French nationalism stressed free individual decision in the formation of nations. Nations were constituted by an act of self-determination of their members. The plebiscite became the instrument whereby the will of the nation was expressed. In America as well as in revolutionary France, nationalism meant the adherence to a universal progressive idea, looking toward a common future of freedom and equality, not toward a past characterized by authoritarianism and inequality.

Napoleon’s armies spread the spirit of nationalism throughout Europe and even into the Near East, while at the same time, across the Atlantic, it aroused the Latin Americans. But Napoleon’s yoke of conquest turned the nationalism of the Europeans against France. In Germany the struggle was led by writers and intellectuals, who rejected all the principles upon which the American and the French revolutions had been based as well as the liberal and humanitarian aspects of nationalism.
 

The 1848 revolutionary wave

German nationalism began to stress instinct against reason; the power of historical tradition against rational attempts at progress and a more just order; the historical differences between nations rather than their common aspirations. The French Revolution, liberalism, and equality were regarded as a brief aberration, against which the eternal foundations of societal order would prevail.
Mazzini, Giuseppe [Credit: Courtesy of the Museo del Risorgimento, Milan]That German interpretation was shown to be false by the developments of the 19th century. Liberal nationalism reasserted itself and affected more and more people: the rising middle class and the new proletariat. The revolutionary wave of 1848, the year of “the spring of the peoples,” seemed to realize the hopes of nationalists such as Giuseppe Mazzini, who had devoted his life to the unification of the Italian nation by democratic means and to the brotherhood of all free nations. Though his immediate hopes were disappointed, the 12 years from 1859 to 1871 brought the unification of Italy and Romania, both with the help of Napoleon III, and of Germany; at the same time the 1860s saw great progress in liberalism, even in Russia and Spain. The victorious trend of liberal nationalism, however, was reversed in Germany by ... (200 of 3,754 words)

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)