Globalisation Is a Euphamism for Neo-Colonialism
Globalisation is a euphemism for neo-colonialism. Discuss.
Globalisation is a complex and multifaceted issue (Bayliss 2008:252). However, this essay will on the imbalance between western powers and the developing world and consequential exploitation, which, rather than being condemned as neo-colonialism, is justified as globalisation. The end of colonial rule did not mark the end of the trend of economic control and exploitation of the developing world (Manzo 2009:267). The cultural, political and economic effects of globalisation upon the developing world resemble that of neo-colonial power – an inequality that is defended by the benevolence of neo-liberalism and egalitarianism of the free market. This essay will focus on the cultural and political international dominance of the west and economic partiality of globalised institutions, referring to IR theories of globalisation defending it as beneficial (Bayliss 2008:248, Pasha 2009:330) and condemning it as capitalist imperialism. Colonialism describes a period of expansion and exploitation by European powers spanning the 15th to 20th Century, the ‘political control, physical occupation, and domination of people… and their land’ (Crawford 2002:131). Between 1946 and 1976 European powers granted independence to all their colonies. However, Horvath writing in 1972 argues that neo-colonialism swiftly followed its predecessor (Horvath 1972:46). Neo-colonialism implies that whilst post-colonial states attained nominal sovereignty within the international system, they remain dependent upon western powers and are subsequently politically controlled, culturally conditioned and economically exploited (Nkrumah 1968:x-xii). States with the ‘…outward trappings of international sovereignty’ but in reality have their ‘economic system and thus its political policy… directed from outside.’ (Nkrumah 1968:xi) Globalization can be defined as the expansion of ‘worldwide interconnectedness’; where states integrate and
Globalisation is a complex and multifaceted issue (Bayliss 2008:252). However, this essay will on the imbalance between western powers and the developing world and consequential exploitation, which, rather than being condemned as neo-colonialism, is justified as globalisation. The end of colonial rule did not mark the end of the trend of economic control and exploitation of the developing world (Manzo 2009:267). The cultural, political and economic effects of globalisation upon the developing world resemble that of neo-colonial power – an inequality that is defended by the benevolence of neo-liberalism and egalitarianism of the free market. This essay will focus on the cultural and political international dominance of the west and economic partiality of globalised institutions, referring to IR theories of globalisation defending it as beneficial (Bayliss 2008:248, Pasha 2009:330) and condemning it as capitalist imperialism. Colonialism describes a period of expansion and exploitation by European powers spanning the 15th to 20th Century, the ‘political control, physical occupation, and domination of people… and their land’ (Crawford 2002:131). Between 1946 and 1976 European powers granted independence to all their colonies. However, Horvath writing in 1972 argues that neo-colonialism swiftly followed its predecessor (Horvath 1972:46). Neo-colonialism implies that whilst post-colonial states attained nominal sovereignty within the international system, they remain dependent upon western powers and are subsequently politically controlled, culturally conditioned and economically exploited (Nkrumah 1968:x-xii). States with the ‘…outward trappings of international sovereignty’ but in reality have their ‘economic system and thus its political policy… directed from outside.’ (Nkrumah 1968:xi) Globalization can be defined as the expansion of ‘worldwide interconnectedness’; where states integrate and
Bibliography: R. Emerson (1969) ‘Colonialism’, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 3-16 J J. M. Owen, (1994) ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Autumn, 1994). pp. 87-125. D. Roman, R. Sandbrook (2004) ‘Globalisation, extremism and violence in poor countries’ Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 1007-1030. K. Watkins (2002) ‘Is the WTO Legit?’ Foreign Policy, No. 132, pp. 78-79 J N. Crawford (2002) Argument and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press J P. Hirst, G. Thompson (1999) Globalization question, Cambridge: Polity Press S W. Greider (1997) One World Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism, New York: Simon and Schuster J J. Gowa (1983) Closing the Cold Window, New York: Cornell University Press W K. Nkrumah (1965) Neo-colonialism : the last stage of imperialism, London: Nelson C. Lee (1980) Media Imperialism Reconsidered: The Homogenizing of Television Culture California: Sage L M.Todaro (2000) Economic Development, Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman A R. Young (2001) ‘Post-colonialism: An Historical Introduction ' Book Chapters K. Manzo (2009) ‘Do colonialism and slavery belong to the past’ (ed.) J. Edkins, M. Zehfuss, Global Politics and new introduction, London: Routledge, pp. 244-271. V. Peterson (2009) ‘How is the world organized economically?’ (ed.) J. Edkins, M. Zehfuss, Global Politics and new introduction, London: Routledge, pp. 271-294. M. Pasha (2009) ‘How can we end poverty’ (ed.) J. Edkins, M. Zehfuss, Global Politics and new introduction, London: Routledge, pp. 320-344 K A. Bellamy, N. Wheeler (2008) ‘Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics’ (ed.) John Baylis, Steve Smith, Patricia Owens The Globalization of world politics New York: Oxford university press. pp. 522-538. S N. Woods (2008) ‘International political economy in an age of globalization’ (ed.) John Baylis, Steve Smith, Patricia Owens The Globalization of world politics New York: Oxford university press. pp. 244-258 Websites