Imperialism and colonialism implied relationship of dominance on and subjugation of the acquired state/territory. And as such, the sovereignty of the State conquered did not exist independent of the colonial rule. It has been argued that imperialism and colonialism, now, has been substituted by a new phenomenon called ‘neo-colonialism’. Kwame Nkrumah in his book, Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism declared that after imperialism, relations between the developed and post-colonial states manifested in the new form of dependencies. Nkrumah having struggled anti-colonial struggle and being the first president of Ghana was apprehensive of the new form of dependency of the post-colonial states on their erstwhile masters and major powers and their influence on the autonomy, decision making and developmental priorities of the post colonial states. His apprehension was based on the dominance of the former colonial powers and other major powers in the international monetary bodies, world markets, operation of the multinational corporations and a variety of other institutions.
Neo-colonialism has been identified as a ‘subtle form of imperialism … through which industrialized powers control foreign territory by economic domination while respecting the territory’s formal political independence.’132 As such, it represents a relationship between the former colonies and the imperialist powers in which despite political independence of the former, host of factors hampers their independent decision-making about resources, development and industrial progress. Without political domination, the erstwhile imperial powers and capitalist and financial interests in these countries continue to benefit in terms of raw material, cheap labour, market and at times arms supply. In a way, neo-colonialism challenges the traditional concept of state sovereignty, particularly its external sovereignty and internal priorities.
While discussing the relationships between the developed capitalist colonial powers, which he calls ‘metropolis’ and the underdeveloped countries, which he calls ‘periphery’, Andre Gunder Frank has captured the nature of neo-colonialism very succinctly. He says:
political independence and decolonization have not brought with them greater economic independence or accelerated economic development in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The post war years have been a period of ever greater incorporation of the underdeveloped economies into the world wide capitalist-imperialist system, penetrating them more deeply, tying them more firmly, and aggravating the structure of and the amount of underdevelopment still further.133
Most of the post-colonial countries are dependent on their erstwhile imperialist powers/major powers in terms of: (i) Capital and investment, (ii) Technical expertise, (iii) Technology and heavy machinery, (iv) Arms and defence equipments, etc. Due to these dependencies, the post-colonial countries though they have acquired status of nation-states; remain within the ‘sphere of influence’ of former colonial powers.134 Their formal independence has not led to real independence where they can choose their won developmental strategy and decide their national priorities.
Apart from dependencies in terms of factors mentioned above, operation of the multinational corporations, which invariably originate in the erstwhile colonial countries, furthers neo-colonial relations. The effort through the New International Economic Order (NIEO) and the United Nation Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to achieve an equitable international economic order and favourable terms of trade has been replaced by the process of World Trade Organization (WTO). It goes without saying that developing countries are still struggling to gain favourable terms of trade and economic transactions. Other than petroleum prices for which formation of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has, to some extent, ensured favourable terms of trade, no such platform or initiatives exist for other raw materials of trade and commerce.
The above descriptions and analysis suggest that neo-colonialism has largely hampered and restricted universal evolution of the nation-state and distorted its emergence in most parts of Africa, Asia and America. Our exposition of globalization could further develop on this aspect and it is interesting to see whether globalization has any bearing on this relationship. It is widely felt in the developing countries that the operation of the American-European based MNCs, regulation of international economic-financial market and trade and commerce by the IMF–World Bank–WTO trio along with the policy of the major powers on various issues of international concerns like nuclear, human rights, environmental, etc. do not give a favourable condition for the development and progress of the developing countries and severely restrict their sovereign decision-making.
Leave a Reply