Neocolonialism - Effective Globalization or Sanctioned Ravagry - Essay Example

NEOCOLONIALISM EFFECTIVE GLOBALIZATION OR SANCTIONED RAVAGRY The term neocolonialism was coined to describe international economic strategies and procedures that seem similar to the traditional colonialism of the 1800s. Basically, a first world government attempts to indirectly control smaller, weaker nations through economic and financial means instead of contolling them through the military or political mechanisms. This indirect means of control employ financial and trade policies which some people call de facto control over the less powerful nation (Neoclassicism, 2006). While the premise promises jobs and economic industry for the weaker nation, the stronger nation often prospers at the weaker nations expense. As a result, some guidance needs to be provided to the weaker nations in order for them to ultimately gain economic independence as well as political independence. One of the theories involving neocolonialsim is called the Dependency Theory. This theory discusses the relationship between less economically developed countries (LEDC's) and more economically developed countries (MEDC's). The theory maintains that the LEDC's are in the underdeveloped situation that they are in because they rely too heavily on the MEDC's. The LEDC's will remain LEDC's because any surplus production will be absorbed by the MEDC's multinational corporations leaving no profit for the LEDC's. Yet, the MEDC's are also dependent (Dependency Theory, 2003). Without the LEDC's, they would not be able to prosper to the level that they do economically. This neocolonialism is the source of multiple frustrations for several smaller nations. One example of this opposition comes from the Pacific Islands Association of Non-Government Organizations (PIANGO). They cite the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which declares that indigenous peoples (who are usually members of these LEDCs) have the "right to self-determination and political independence (Blaisdell, 1998). As the dependency theory explains, these nations remain dependent on the more developed nations to the extent that they cannot ever exert their own economic independence. PIANGO offers the following nations as examples of neocolonialism: The Republic of Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. They are the continued victims of US economic dependence and exploitation which keeps these countries at Third World status (Blaisdell, 1998) Similar tensions surround Jamaica, Brazil and Southeast China, to name a few. Although the MEDC's pat themselves on the back for bringing industry and paying jobs to poverty-stricken areas, the damage to the country and to the people themselves has been compared to the physical cruelties of Cortez as he ravaged Mexico for gold in the 16th century. The difference is that this type of attack is not condemned like physical, military invasions by world nations and leaders. In fact, it is often allowed by the LEDC's government, ignored by journalists and kept from the broader public. (Ayres, 2004). Indeed, the companies do hire uneducated indigenous people to work these sometimes dangerous jobs; they cannot quit because they are dependent on the income. Some companies have even been accused of paying bribes to some village leaders to publicly support the industry in spite of possible problems with the health or environment as a result (Koenig, 2004). Koenig, in World Watch, details an example in Romania. Heap-leach gold mining is a modern form of mining which makes use of literally millions of gallons of cyanide poured onto piles of ore. The cyanide helps to extract the gold. In Romania, at an Australian-owned min, a dam broke and polluted the Tisza River with 22 million gallons of the toxic substance. It has been six years since what environmentalists are calling the worst catastrophe since Chernobyl, but this mining process is still on the rise (Koenig, 2004). Of course, many international researchers place the United States at the top of the neocolonial lists. Koenig cites a trial in a small town in Ecuador in which the Chevron-Texaco company is being sued for dumping toxic waste in the Ecuadorian Amazon. This dumping destroyed the homelands of thousands of people and caused excessively high rates of cancer and miscarriages in people and the pollution of many types of plants. By operating in Ecuador, the Texaco Company could bypass industry standards concerning the disposal of toxic waste (an expensive and time-consuming process) and simply dump 4.3 million gallons into the Amazon River. In doing this, they saved about 4.5 billion dollars. When they left, the company failed to clean up its sites and left the 6.14 billion dollar burden for that to Ecuador (Koenig, 2004) Everyone seems to be watching this trial because it will set a precedent for how accountable a company can be to the LEDC's it may damage or destroy. Many consider it a type of "globalization on trial" (Koenig, 2004). In the face of this conflict, retired foreign affairs official Ann-Marie Slaughter asks two important questions that should be considered before entering this debate: 1) Is it possible to separate legitimate and necessary humanitarian intervention from democracy promotion at the point of a gun and 2) In an age of overwhelming American power, is it possible to separate U.S. democracy promotion from neo-imperialism or neo-colonialism (Slaughter, 2006). These questions are interesting. Ultimately Slaughter places her opinion in the middles of the two extremes: "there is an intermediate position that is neither liberal internationalist (much less neo-colonialist) nor realist, but that integrates important elements of both; that is based on American interests just as much as on American ideals; that privileges prevention and non-military approaches to state-building over military means but that is not afraid to use force if necessary; that looks to other countries not only to share burdens but in the belief that multiple voices and sources of intelligence are more likely to produce a sound decision in fundamental matters of war and peace; and that recognizes the impossibility of retreating to an "off-shore" anything in a world as inter-connected as globalization has made us." She is basically calling for the companies to recognize both American and global ideals in decision-making and to share the burdens of economically disadvantaged countries because, ultimately, globalization makes the world one nation. Companies and nations need to become more responsible in dealing with underdeveloped nations. The line between encouragement and dependence seems to be rather small. It is important the end goal would be to not only make a profit, but to allow the LEDC's to reach a point where they can become economically independent as well. References Ayres, Ed. (2004) The hidden shame of the global industrial economy: where do the raw materials to build our paneled offices, airplanes, and cell phones come from World Watch 19 (1) January 1, pp. 20-29 Blaisdell, Kekuni, M.D. (1998). PIANGO Indigenous Rights Working Group. Presented to United Nations Decolonization Committee regional seminar, Nadi, Figi, 16- 18 June. Dependency Theory- Definition and History. (2003) UK Learning. [online] Available from http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/619.html retrieved 16 May 2006 Koenig, Kevin. (2004). Modern Conquistadors Plunder On. World Watch [online] Available from http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2003/12/18/ January/ February, retrieved 16 May 2006 Neocolonialism. (2006) Wikipedia. [online] March, Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism retrieved 16 May 2006 Slaughter, Ann-Marie. (2006). Democrat Foreign Policy, Take 2: Neocolonists vs. sensible realists America Abroad: Notes on Foreign Affairs [online] Available from http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/16/6590/19319 retrieved 16 May 2006 Read More