Neocolonialism

Institute of Business Management International Relations
Table of Contents
Neocolonialism............................................................................................................................................4
Quotes about Neo-Colonialism...................................................................................................................5
Origins of the term: charges against former colonial powers......................................................................6
Pan-African and Nonaligned movements....................................................................................................6
Paternalistic neocolonialism........................................................................................................................7
Françafrique................................................................................................................................................7
Francophone...............................................................................................................................................8
Belgian Congo..............................................................................................................................................8
United Kingdom...........................................................................................................................................9
Neocolonialism as economic dominance....................................................................................................9
Dependency theory...................................................................................................................................10
The Cold War.............................................................................................................................................10
Multinational corporations........................................................................................................................11
Defense of investment..............................................................................................................................11
International financial institutions.............................................................................................................12
Neocolonialism allegations against the IMF..............................................................................................12
Alternatives to IMF Influence....................................................................................................................13
Sino-African relations................................................................................................................................13
South Korea's land acquisitions.................................................................................................................14
Other approaches to the concept of neocolonialism............................................................................15
Cultural theory..........................................................................................................................................15
Post colonialism theory.............................................................................................................................16
Critical theory............................................................................................................................................16
Conservation and Neocolonialism.............................................................................................................16
The mechanisms of neo-colonialism.........................................................................................................17
The myth of Neo-colonialism.....................................................................................................................29
Colonialism bred political crisis.................................................................................................................29
Real or false Independence.......................................................................................................................32
Integration into global market...................................................................................................................34
The idea of progress..................................................................................................................................35
1|Page Neo-colonialism
Modernization requires internal changes..................................................................................................36

China’s Neo-colonialism............................................................................................................................38
Counting on China.....................................................................................................................................39
Worrying trends........................................................................................................................................40
Neocolonialism
Neocolonialism is a term used by post-colonial critics of developed countries'
involvement in the developing world. Writings within the theoretical framework of
neocolonialism argue that existing or past international economic arrangements created
by former colonial powers were or are used to maintain control of their former colonies
and dependencies after the colonial independence movements of the post-World War II
period. The term neocolonialism can combine a critique of current actual colonialism
(where some states continue administrating foreign territories and their populations in
violation of United Nations resolutions[1]) and a critique of the involvement of modern
capitalist businesses in nations which were former colonies. Critics adherent to
neocolonialism contend that multinational corporations continue to exploit the resources
of post-colonial states, and that this economic control inherent to neocolonialism is akin
to the classical, European colonialism practiced from the 16th to the 20th centuries. In
broader usage, neocolonialism may simply refer to the involvement of powerful countries
in the affairs of less powerful countries; this is especially relevant in modern Latin
America. In this sense, neocolonialism implies a form of contemporary, economic
imperialism: that powerful nations behave like colonial powers of imperialism, and that
this behavior is likened to colonialism in a post-colonial world.
Neocolonialism can be defined as the continuation of the economic model of colonialism

after a colonized territory has achieved formal political independence. This concept was
applied most commonly to Africa in the latter half of the twentieth century. European
countries had colonized most of the continent in the late nineteenth century, instituting a
system of economic exploitation in which African raw materials, particularly cash crops
and minerals, were expropriated and exported to the sole benefit of the colonizing power.
The idea of neocolonialism, however, suggests that when European powers granted
nominal political independence to colonies in the decades after World War II, they
continued to control the economies of the new African countries.
The concept of neocolonialism has several theoretical influences. First and foremost, it
owes much to Marxist thinking. Writing in the late nineteenth century, Karl Marx argued
that capitalism represented a stage in the socioeconomic development of humanity. He
believed that, ultimately and inevitably, the capitalist system in industrially developed
countries would be overthrown by a revolution of the working class; this would result in
the establishment of socialist utopias. In 1916, Vladimir Lenin modified this thesis,
claiming that the rapid expansion of European imperialism around the world in the last
decade of the nineteenth century had marked the highest stage of capitalism. Presumably,
then, the end of imperialism (which Lenin believed would be the result of World War I)
would mark the beginning of the end of capitalism. However, neither imperialism nor
capitalism came to an end after the war or in future years. European empires persisted
well into the 1960s.
With the granting of independence to colonies, a theory of modernization took hold. This
suggested that independent countries would begin to develop very rapidly, politically and
economically, and would resemble "modern" Western countries. It soon became clear,
however, that this was not happening. Postcolonial theorists now sought answers for the
continued underdevelopment of African countries and found a second influence in
dependency theory.
Dependency theory first gained prominence as a way to explain the underdevelopment of

Latin American economies in the 1960s. It proclaims that underdevelopment persisted
because highly developed countries dominated underdeveloped economies by paying low
prices for agricultural products and flooding those economies with cheap manufactured
goods. This resulted in a perpetually negative balance of payments that prevented
underdeveloped countries from ever becoming competitive in the global marketplace.
Economic theorists of postcolonial Africa, such as Walter Rodney and Samir Amin,
combined the Marxist-Leninist concept of colonialism as a stage of capitalism with the
concept of underdevelopment to create the concept of neocolonialism, which Kwame
Nkrumah called "the last stage of imperialism."
According to Rodney and Amin, European countries, and increasingly the United States,
dominated the economies of African countries through neocolonialism in several ways.
After independence, the main revenue base for African countries continued to be the
export of raw materials; this resulted in the underdevelopment of African economies,
while Western industries thrived. A good example of this process is the West African
cocoa industry in the 1960s: during this time, production increased rapidly in many
African countries; overproduction, however, led to a reduction in the selling price of
cocoa worldwide. Neocolonial theorists therefore proclaimed that economies based on
the production of cash crops such as cocoa could not hope to develop, because the world
system imposes a veritable ceiling on the revenue that can be accrued from their
production. Likewise, the extraction and export of minerals could not serve to develop an
African economy, because minerals taken from African soil by Western-owned
corporations were shipped to Europe or America, where they were turned into
manufactured goods, which were then resold to African consumers at value-added prices.
A second method of neocolonialism, according to the theory's adherents, was foreign aid.
The inability of their economies to develop after independence soon led many African
countries to enlist this aid. Believers in the effects of neocolonialism feel that accepting
loans from Europe or America proved the link between independent African governments
and the exploitative forces of former colonizers. They note as evidence that most foreign
aid has been given in the form of loans, bearing high rates of interest; repayment of these
loans contributed to the underdevelopment of African economies because the collection

of interest ultimately impoverished African peoples.
The forces of neocolonialism did not comprise former colonial powers alone, however.
Theorists also saw the United States as an increasingly dominant purveyor of
neocolonialism in Africa. As the Cold War reached its highest tensions at roughly the
same time that most African countries achieved independence, many theorists believed
that the increasing levels of American aid and intervention in the affairs of independent
African states were designed to keep African countries within the capitalist camp and
prevent them from aligning with the Soviet Union.
Quotes about Neo-Colonialism

"History has shown that where the Great Powers cannot colonize, they balkanize. This is what
they did to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and this is what they have done and are doing in
Africa. If we allow ourselves to be Balkanized, we shall be re-colonized and be picked off one
after the other...."
"By far the greatest wrong which the departing colonialists inflicted on us, and which we now
continue to inflict on ourselves in our present state of disunity, was to leave us divided into
economically unviable States which bear no possibility of real development...."
"Common territory, language and culture may in fact be present in a nation, but the existence of
a nation does not necessarily imply the presence of all three. Common territory and language
alone may form the basis of a nation. Similarly, common territory plus common culture may be
the basis. In some cases, only one of the three applies. A state may exist on a multi-national
basis. The community of economic life is the major feature within a nation, and it is the economy
which holds together the people living in a territory. It is on this basis that the new Africans
recognize themselves as potentially one nation, whose domination is the entire African
continent." Class Struggle in Africa"
Origins of the term: charges against former

colonial powers
"As long as imperialism exists it will, by definition, exert its domination over other
countries. Today that domination is called neocolonialism."The term neocolonialism first
saw widespread use, particularly in reference to Africa, soon after the process of
decolonization which followed a struggle by many national independence movements in
the colonies following World War II. Upon gaining independence, some national leaders
and opposition groups argued that their countries were being subjected to a new form of
colonialism, waged by the former colonial powers and other developed nations. Kama
Nkrumah, who in 1957 became leader of newly independent Ghana, was one of the most
notable figures to use the term. A classical definition of neocolonialism is given in his
Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism (1965). The work is self-defined as an
extension of Lenin's Imperialism, the Last Stage of Capitalism (1916), in which Lenin
argues that 19th century imperialism is predicated upon the needs of the capitalist system.
[4]
Nkrumah argues that "In place of colonialism as the main instrument of imperialism
we have today neo-colonialism. [...] Neo-colonialism, like colonialism, is an attempt to
export the social conflicts of the capitalist countries." He continues:
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.
Pan-African and Nonaligned movements

Initially the term was popularized largely through the activities of scholars and leaders
from the newly independent states of Africa and the Pan-Africans movement. Many of
these leaders came together with those of other post colonial states at the Bandung
Conference of 1955, leading to the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement. The All-
African Peoples' Conference (AAPC) meetings of the late 1950s and early 1960s spread
this critique of neocolonialism. Their Tunis conference of 1960 and Cairo conference of
1961 specified their opposition to what they labeled neocolonialism, singling out the
French Community of independent states organized by the former colonial power. In its
four pages Resolution on Neocolonialism is cited as a landmark for having presented a
collectively arrived at definition of neocolonialism and a description of its main features.
Throughout the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement, as well as organizations like the
Organization of Solidarity with the People of Asia, Africa and Latin America defined
neocolonialism as a primary collective enemy of these independent states.
Denunciations of neocolonialism also became popular with some national independence

movements while they were still waging anti-colonial armed struggle. During the 1970s,
in the Portuguese colonies of Mozambique and Angola for example, the Marxist
movements FRELIMO and MPLA, which were to eventually assume power upon those
nations' independence, denounced neocolonialism as well as colonialism.
Paternalistic neocolonialism
The term paternalistic neocolonialism involves the belief held by a neo-colonial power
that their colonial subjects benefit from their occupation. Critics of neocolonialism,
arguing that this is both exploitive and racist, contend this is merely a justification for
continued political hegemony and economic exploitation of past colonies, and that such
justifications are the modern reformulation of the Civilizing mission concepts of the 19th
century.
Françafrique
Foreign mercenaries, like these United States and British veterans training anti-
insurgency troops in Sierra Leone, are often accused of being instruments of neocolonial
powers. French government minister Jacques Oxcart was alleged to have used
mercenaries like Bob Denary to maintain friendly governments or overthrow unfriendly
governments in France's former colonies.
The classic example used to define modern neocolonialism is Françafrique: a term that
refers to the continuing close relationship between France and some leaders of its former
African colonies. It was first used by president of the Côte d'Ivoire Félix Houphouët-
Boigny, who appears to have used it in a positive sense, to refer to good relations
between France and Africa, but it was subsequently borrowed by critics of this close (and
they would say) unbalanced relationship. Jacques Foccart, who from 1960 was chief of
staff for African matters for President Charles de Gaulle (1958–69) and then Georges
Pompidou (1969–1974), is claimed to be the leading exponent of Françafrique. The term
was coined by François-Xavier Verschave as the title of his criticism of French policies
in Africa: La Françafrique, The longest Scandal of the Republic.
In 1972, Mongo Beta, a writer in exile from Cameroon published Main base sure le
Cameroun, autopsied dune decolonization ('Cruel hand on Cameroon, autopsy of a
decolonization'), a critical history of recent Cameroon, which asserted that Cameroon and
other colonies remained under French control in all but name, and that the post-
independence political elites had actively fostered this continued dependence.
Verschave, Beti and others point to a forty year post independence relationship with
nations of the former African colonies, whereby French troops maintain forces on the
ground (often used by friendly African leaders to quell revolts) and French corporations
maintain monopolies on foreign investment (usually in the form of extraction of natural
resources). French troops in Africa were (and it is argued, still are) often involved in coup
d'états resulting in a regime acting in the interests of France but against its country's own
interests.
Those leaders closest to France (particularly during the Cold War) are presented in this
critique as agents of continued French control in Africa. Those most often mentioned are
the recently deceased Omar Bongo, former president of Gabon, Félix Houphouët-Boigny,
former president of Côte d'Ivoire, Gnassingbé Eyadéma, former president of Togo, Denis
Sassou-Nguesso, of the Republic of the Congo, Idriss Déby, president of Chad, and
Hamani Diori former president of Niger.
Francophone
The French Community and the later Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie are
defined by critics as agents of French neocolonial influence, especially in Africa. While
the main thrust of this claim is that the Francophonie organisation is a front for French
dominance of post-colonial nations, the relation with the French language is often more
complex. Algerian intellectual Kateb Yacine wrote in 1966 that
Francophonie is a neocolonial political machine, which only perpetuates our

alienation, but the usage of 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.
Belgian Congo
After a hastened decolonization process of the Belgian Congo, Belgium continued to
control, through The Société Générale de Belgium, roughly 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.
United Kingdom
Critics of British relations with its former African colonies point out that the United
Kingdom viewed itself as a "civilizing force" bringing "progress" and modernization to
its colonies. This mindset, they argue, has enabled continued military and economic
dominance in some of its former colonies, and has been seen again following British
intervention in Sierra Leone.[11]
Neocolonialism as economic dominance

United States President Harry S. Truman greets Mohammad Mosaddeq, Prime Minister
of Iran, 1951. Mosaddeq, who had begun nationalizing US and British owned oil
companies in Iran, was removed from power on August 19, 1953, in a coup d'état,
supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments and led by General Fazlollah
Zahedi .
US President Jimmy Carter and Lt. Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo tour Lagos, Nigeria. April,
1978. Obasanjo had come to power in a coup three years earlier, and as oil rich state,
courted both sides in the Cold War.
"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."
— Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary, 1961
In broader usage the charge of Neocolonialism has been leveled at powerful countries
and transnational economic institutions who involve themselves in the affairs of less
powerful countries. In this sense, 'Neocolonialism implies a form of contemporary,
economic Imperialism: that powerful nations behave 'like colonial powers, and that this
behavior is 'likened to' colonialism in a post-colonial world.
In lieu of direct military-political control, neocolonialist powers are said to employ

financial, and trade policies to dominate less powerful countries. Those who subscribe to
the concept maintain this amount to a 'de facto' control over less powerful nations ('see
Wallenstein’s World Systems Theory').
Both previous colonizing states and other powerful economic states maintain a
continuing presence in the economies of former colonies, especially where it concerns
raw materials. Stronger nations are thus charged with interfering in the governance and
economics of weaker nations to maintain the flow of such material, at prices and under
conditions which unduly benefit developed nations and trans-national corporations.
Dependency theory
The concept of economic neocolonialism was given a theoretical basis, in part, through
the work of Dependency theory. This body of social science theories, both from
developed and developing nations, is predicated on the notion that there is a center of
wealthy states and a periphery of poor, underdeveloped states. Resources are extracted
from the periphery and flow towards the states at the center in order to sustain their
economic growth and wealth. A central concept is that the poverty of the countries in the
periphery is the result of the manner of their integration of the "world system", a view to
be contrasted with that of free market economists, who argue that such states are
progressing on a path to full integration. This theory is based on the Marxist analysis of
inequalities within the world system, dependency argues that underdevelopment of the
Global South is a direct result of the development in the Global North. Neocolonialism
originates from the Latin concept of letting one rule for the success of all
The basis of much of this Marxist theory is in theories of the "semi-colony", which date
back to the late 19th century.
Proponents of such theories include Federico Brito Figueroa a Venezuelan historian who
has written widely on the socioeconomic underpinnings of both colonialism and
neocolonialism. Brito's works and theories strongly influenced the thinking of current
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
The Cold War

In the late 20th century conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, the
charge of Neocolonialism was often aimed at Western -- and less often, Soviet
involvement in the affairs of developing nations. Proxy Wars, many in former colonized
nations, were funded by both sides throughout this period. Cuba, the Soviet bloc, Egypt
under Nasser, as well as some governments of newly independent African states, charged
the United States with supporting regimes which they felt did not represent the will of
their peoples, and by means both covert and overt, toppling governments which rejected
the United States. The Tri continental Conference, chaired by Moroccan politician Mehdi
Ben Barka was one such organization. Roughly designated as part of the Third World
movement, it supported revolutionary anti-colonial action in various states, provoking the
anger of the United States and France. Ben Barka himself led what was called the
Commission on Neocolonialism of the organization, which focused both on the
involvement of former colonial powers in post colonial states, but also contended that the
United States, as leader of the capitalist world, with the primary Neocolonialist power.
Much speculation remains about Ben Barka disappearance in 1965. The Tri continental
Conference was succeeded organization such as Cuba's OSPAAAL (Spanish for
10 | P a g e Neo-colonialism
"Organization for Solidarity with the People of Africa, Asia and Latin America"). Such
organizations, feeding into what became the Non-aligned Movement of the 1960s and
70s used Neocolonialism, in much the same way as Marxist dependency theory
intellectuals did, to encompass all capitalist nations, and most especially the United
States. This usage remains popular on the political left today, most especially in Latin
America.
Multinational corporations
Critics of neocolonialism 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 neo colonies. 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. 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. 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.
Defense of investment
Proponents of ties which critics have labeled neocolonial argue that, while the First
World does profit from cheap labor and raw materials in underdeveloped nations,
ultimately, it does serve as a positive modernizing force for development in the Third
World.
International financial institutions

Critics of neocolonialism portray the choice to grant or to refuse granting loans
(particularly those financing otherwise unplayable Third World debt), especially by
international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and
the World Bank (WB), as a decisive form of control. They argue that in order to qualify
for these loans, and other forms of economic aid, weaker nations are forced to take
certain steps favorable to the financial interests of the IMF and World Bank but
detrimental to their own economies. These structural adjustments have the effect of
increasing rather than alleviating poverty within the nation. Some critics [emphasize that
neocolonialism allows certain cartels of states, such as the World Bank, to control and
exploit usually lesser developed countries (LDCs) by fostering debt. In effect, third world
governments give concessions and monopolies to foreign corporations in return for
consolidation of power and monetary bribes. In most cases, much of the money loaned to
these LDCs is returned to the favored foreign corporations. Thus, these foreign loans are
in effect subsidies to corporations of the loaning states. This collusion is sometimes
referred to as the corporatocracy. Organizations accused of participating in neo-
imperialism include the World Bank, World Trade Organization and Group of Eight, and
the World Economic Forum. Various "first world" states, notably the United States, are
said to be involved, as described in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John
Perkins.
Neocolonialism allegations against the IMF

Those who argue that neocolonialism historically supplemented (and later supplanted)
colonialism, point to the fact that Africa today pays more money every year in debt
service payments to the IMF and World Bank than it receives in loans from them, thereby
often depriving the inhabitants of those countries from actual necessities. This
dependency allows the IMF and World Bank to impose Structural Adjustment Plans upon
these nations. Adjustments largely consisting of privatization programs which result in
deteriorating health, education, an inability to develop infrastructure, and in general,
lower living standards.
They also point to recent statements made by United Nations Secretary-General's Special
Economic Adviser, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who heatedly demanded that the entire
African debt (approximately $200 billion) be forgiven outright and recommended that
African nations simply stop paying if the World Bank and IMF do not reciprocate:
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, control of AIDS and other
needs.' (Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia
University and Special Economic Advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan).
Critics of the IMF have conducted studies as to the effects of its policy which demands
currency devaluations. They pose the argument that the IMF requires these devaluations
as a condition for refinancing loans, while simultaneously insisting that the loan be repaid
in dollars or other First World currencies against which the underdeveloped country's
currency had been devalued. This, they say, increases the respective debt by the same
percentage of the currency being devalued, therefore amounting to a scheme for keeping
Third World nations in perpetual indebtedness, impoverishment and neocolonial
dependence.
Alternatives to IMF Influence

Due to its large cash reserves, the Chinese government has begun playing a significant
role as counter-weight to IMF influence. Its often lax lending requirements have led some
countries, such as Angola in 2006, to eschew all previously planned IMF loans.
Sino-African relations
In recent years, the People's Republic of China has built increasingly stronger ties with
African nations. China is currently Africa's second largest trading partner, after the
United States. As of August 2007, there were an estimated 750,000 Chinese nationals
working or living for extended periods in different African countries. China is picking up
natural resources — oil, precious minerals — to feed its expanding economy and new
markets for its burgeoning enterprises. In 2006, two-way trade had increased to $50
billion.
Not all dealings have involved direct monetary exchanges. In 2007, the governments of
China and Congo-Kinshasa entered into an agreement whereby Chinese state-owned
firms would provide various services (infrastructure projects) in exchange for access to
an equivalent amount of materials extracted from Congolese copper mines.
Human rights advocates and opponents of the Sudanese government portray China's role
in providing weapons and aircraft as a cynical attempt to obtain petroleum and natural
gas just as colonial powers once supplied African chieftains with the military means to
maintain control as they extracted natural resources. 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.
South Korea's land acquisitions

Rich governments and powerful multinationals from South Korea are rapidly buying up
the rights to millions of hectares of agricultural land in developing countries in an effort
to secure its own long-term food supplies. The fact that South Korea is no longer
"importing" food and resources that is being cultivated overseas implies that these lands
are effectively Korean. This amounts to agricultural imperialism, a new form of
neocolonialism. South Korea's largely mountainous land area of just over 100,000 square
kilometer houses a population of nearly 50 million, yet the country's highly industrialized
trillion dollar economy was almost as large as the economy of the entire African
continent in 2007. Hence, the South Korean government is now using its massive
financial resources to purchase cheap land overseas for energy and food, in order to fuel
one of the world's fastest growing advanced economies.
South Korea's RG Energy Resources Asset Management CEO Park Yong-so 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."The head of the Food and Agriculture Organization (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
befouls. 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.]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.
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 Joelle 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 tones of feed in the first year for South Korea. South Korean
multinationals and provincial governments have also purchased land in Sulawesi,
Indonesia, Cambodia and Burgan, 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.
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,
yet there are already pile-ups of mountains of rice purchased by the government to keep
rice prices stable.[36]
Other approaches to the concept of neocolonialism
Although the concept of neocolonialism was originally developed within a Marxist

theoretical framework and is generally employed by the political left, the term
Neocolonialism is also used within other theoretical frameworks.
Cultural theory
One variant of neocolonialism 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.
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 colonized may over time
equate the colonizers’ 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 Neocolonialism.
Post colonialism theory

Post colonialism is a set of theories in philosophy, film, political sciences and literature
that deal with the cultural legacy of colonial rule. Post colonialism deals with cultural
identity in colonized societies, referencing neocolonialism as the background for

contemporary dilemmas of developing a national identity after colonial rule: the ways in
which writers articulate and celebrate that identity (often reclaiming it from and
maintaining strong connections with the colonizer); the ways in which the knowledge of
the colonized (subordinated) people has been generated and used to serve the colonizer's
interests; and the ways in which the colonizer's literature has justified colonialism via
images of the colonized as a perpetually inferior people, society and culture.
Theories of postcolonial studies include Subaltern Studies (specifically its postcolonial

manifestations), Frantz Fanon's " psychopathology of colonization", and filmmakers of
the Latin American Third Cinema (such as Tomas Gutiérrez Alea of Cuba or Kidlat
Tahimik of the Philippines).
Critical theory
While critiques of Post colonialism/neocolonialism theory is widely practiced in Literary
theory, International Relations theory also has defined Post colonialism as a field of
study. While the lasting effects of cultural colonialism is of central interest in cultural
critiques of neocolonialism, their intellectual antecedents are economic theories of
neocolonialism: Marxist Dependency theory and mainstream criticism of capitalist Neo-
liberalism. Critical international relations theory frequently references neocolonialism
from Marxist positions as well as post positivist positions, including postmodernist,
postcolonial and feminist approaches, which differ from both realism and liberalism in
their epistemological and ontological premises.
Conservation and Neocolonialism

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.
The mechanisms of neo-colonialism
IN order to halt foreign interference in the affairs of developing countries

it is necessary to study, understand, expose and actively combat neo-
colonialism in whatever guise it may appear. For the methods of neo-
colonialists are subtle and varied. They operate not only in the economic
field, but also in the political, religious, ideological and cultural spheres.
Faced with the militant peoples of the ex-colonial territories in Asia, Africa, the
Caribbean and Latin America, imperialism simply switches tactics. Without a qualm it
dispenses with its flags, and even with certain of its more hated expatriate officials. This
means, so it claims, that it is ‘giving’ independence to its former subjects, to be followed
by ‘aid’ for their development. Under cover of such phrases, however, it devises
innumerable ways to accomplish objectives formerly achieved by naked colonialism. It is
this sum total of these modern attempts to perpetuate colonialism while at the same time
talking about ‘freedom’, which has come to be known as neo-colonialism.
Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its
power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards Europe, and then with
more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted
to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the
Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all
around the world.
Who really rules in such places as Great Britain, West Germany, Japan, Spain, Portugal
or Italy? If General de Gaulle is ‘defecting’ from U.S. monopoly control, what
interpretation can be placed on his ‘experiments’ in the Sahara desert, his paratroopers in
Gabon, or his trips to Cambodia and Latin America?
Lurking behind such questions are the extended tentacles of the Wall Street octopus. And
its suction cups and muscular strength are provided by a phenomenon dubbed ‘The
Invisible Government’, arising from Wall Street’s connection with the Pentagon and
various intelligence services. I quote:
‘The Invisible Government ... is a loose amorphous grouping

of individuals and agencies drawn from many parts of the
visible government. It is not limited to the Central
Intelligence Agency, although the CIA is at its heart. Nor is it
confined to the nine other agencies which comprise what is
known as the intelligence community: the National Security
Council, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National
Security Agency, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence and
Research, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal

Bureau of Investigation.
‘The Invisible Government includes also many other units

and agencies, as well as individuals, that appear outwardly
to be a normal part of the conventional government. It even
encompasses business firms and institutions that are
seemingly private.
‘To an extent that is only beginning to be perceived, this

shadow government is shaping the lives of 190,000,000
Americans. An informed citizen might come to suspect that
the foreign policy of the United States often works publicly in
one direction and secretly through the Invisible Government
in just the opposite direction.
‘This Invisible Government is a relatively new institution. It

came into being as a result of two related factors: the rise of
the United States after World War II to a position of pre-
eminent world power and the challenge to that power by
Soviet Communism...
‘By 1964 the intelligence network had grown into a massive

hidden apparatus, secretly employing about 200,000 persons
and spending billions of dollars a year. [The Invisible
Government, David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, Random
House, New York, 1964.]
Here, from the very citadel of neo-colonialism, is a description of the apparatus which
now directs all other Western intelligence set-ups either by persuasion or by force.
Results were achieved in Algeria during the April 1961 plot of anti-de Gaulle generals; as
also in Guatemala, Iraq, Iran, Suez and the famous U-2 spy intrusion of Soviet air space
which wrecked the approaching Summit, then in West Germany and again in East
Germany in the riots of 1953, in Hungary’s abortive crisis of 1959, Poland’s of
September 1956, and in Korea, Burma, Formosa, Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam;
they are evident in the trouble in Congo (Leopoldville) which began with Lumumba’s
murder, and continues till now; in events in Cuba, Turkey, Cyprus, Greece, and in other
places too numerous to catalogue completely.
And with what aim have these innumerable incidents occurred? The general objective has
been mentioned: to achieve colonialism in fact while preaching independence.
On the economic front, a strong factor favoring Western monopolies and acting against
the developing world is inter-national capital’s control of the world market, as well as of
the prices of commodities bought and sold there. From 1951 to 1961, without taking oil
into consideration, the general level of prices for primary products fell by 33.l per cent,
while prices of manufactured goods rose 3.5 per cent (within which, machinery and
equipment prices rose 31.3 per cent). In that same decade this caused a loss to the Asian,
African and Latin American countries, using 1951 prices as a basis, of some $41,400
million. In the same period, while the volume of exports from these countries rose, their
earnings in foreign exchange from such exports decreased.
Another technique of neo-colonialism is the use of high rates of interest. Figures from the
World Bank for 1962 showed that seventy-one Asian, African and Latin American
countries owed foreign debts of some $27,000 million, on which they paid in interest and
service charges some $5,000 million. Since then, such foreign debts have been estimated
as more than £30,000 million in these areas. In 1961, the interest rates on almost three-
quarters of the loans offered by the major imperialist powers amounted to more than five
per cent, in some cases up to seven or eight per cent, while the call-in periods of such
loans have been burdensomely short.
While capital worth $30,000 million was exported to some fifty-six developing countries
between 1956 and 1962, ‘it is estimated that interest and profit alone extracted on this
sum from the debtor countries amounted to more than £15,000 million. This method of
penetration by economic aid recently soared into prominence when a number of countries
began rejecting it. Ceylon, Indonesia and Cambodia are among those who turned it down.
Such ‘aid’ is estimated on the annual average to have amounted to $2,600 million
between 1951 and 1955; $4,007 million between 1956 and 1959, and $6,000 million
between 1960 and 1962. But the average sums taken out of the aided countries by such
donors in a sample year, 1961, are estimated to amount to $5,000 million in profits,
$1,000 million in interest, and $5,800 million from non-equivalent exchange, or a total of
$11,800 million extracted against $6,000 million put in. Thus, ‘aid’ turns out to be
another means of exploitation, a modern method of capital export under a more cosmetic
name.
Still another neo-colonialist trap on the economic front has come to be known as
‘multilateral aid’ through international organizations: the International Monetary Fund,
the Inter-national Bank for Reconstruction and Development (known as the World Bank),
the International Finance Corporation and the International Development Association are
examples, all, significantly, having U.S. capital as their major backing. These agencies
have the habit of forcing would-be borrowers to submit to various offensive conditions,
such as supplying information about their economies, submitting their policy and plans to
review by the World Bank and accepting agency supervision of their use of loans. As for
the alleged development, between 1960 and mid-1963 the International Development
Association promised a total of $500 million to applicants, out of which only $70 million
were actually received.
In more recent years, as pointed out by Monitor in The Times, 1 July 1965, there has been
a substantial increase in communist technical and economic aid activities in developing
countries. During 1964 the total amount of assistance offered was approximately £600
million. This was almost a third of the total communist aid given during the previous
decade. The Middle East received about 40 per cent of the total, Asia 36 per cent, Africa
22 per cent and Latin America the rest.
Increased Chinese activity was responsible to some extent for the larger amount of aid
offered in 1964, though China contributed only a quarter of the total aid committed; the
Soviet Union provided a half, and the East European countries a quarter.
Although aid from socialist countries still falls far short of that offered from the west, it is
often more impressive, since it is swift and flexible, and interest rates on communist
loans are only about two per cent compared with five to six per cent charged on loans
from western countries.
Nor is the whole story of ‘aid’ contained in figures, for there are conditions which hedge
it around: the conclusion of commerce and navigation treaties; agreements for economic
co-operation; the right to meddle in internal finances, including currency and foreign
exchange, to lower trade barriers in favor of the donor country’s goods and capital; to
protect the interests of private investments; determination of how the funds are to be
used; forcing the recipient to set up counterpart funds; to supply raw materials to the
donor; and use of such funds a majority of it, in fact to buy goods from the donor nation.
These conditions apply to industry, commerce, agriculture, shipping and insurance, apart
from others which are political and military.
So-called ‘invisible trade’ furnishes the Western monopolies with yet another means of
economic penetration. Over 90 per cent of world ocean shipping is controlled by me
imperialist countries. They control shipping rates and, between 1951 and 1961, they
increased them some five times in a total rise of about 60 per cent, the upward trend
continuing. Thus, net annual freight expenses incurred by Asia, Africa and Latin America
amount to no less than an estimated $1,600 million. This is over and above all other
profits and interest payments. As for insurance payments, in 1961 alone these amounted
to an unfavorable balance in Asia, Africa and Latin America of some additional $370
million.
Having waded through all this, however, we have begun to understand only the basic
methods of neo-colonialism. The full extent of its inventiveness is far from exhausted.
In the labor field, for example, imperialism operates through labor arms like the Social
Democratic parties of Europe led by the British Labor Party, and through such
instruments as the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), now
apparently being superseded by the New York Africa-American Labor Centre (AALC)
under AFL-CIO chief George Meany and the well-known CIA man in labor’s top
echelons, Irving Brown.
In 1945, out of the euphoria of anti-fascist victory, the World Federation of Trade Unions
(WFTU) had been formed, including all world labor except the U.S. American Federation
of Labor (AFL). By 1949, however, led by the British Trade Union Congress (TUC), a
number of pro-imperialist labor bodies in the West broke away from the WFTU over the
issue of anti-colonialist liberation, and set up the ICFTU.
For ten years it continued under British TUC leadership. Its record in Africa, Asia and
Latin America could gratify only the big international monopolies which were extracting
super-profits from those areas.
In 1959, at Brussels, the United States AFL-CIO union centre fought for and won control
of the ICFTU Executive Board. From then on a flood of typewriters, mimeograph
machines, cars, supplies, buildings, salaries and, so it is still averred, outright bribes for
labor leaders in various parts of the developing world rapidly linked ICFTU in the minds
of the rank and file with the CIA. To such an extent did its prestige suffer under these
American bosses that, in 1964, the AFL-CIO brains felt it necessary to establish a fresh
outfit? They set up the AALC in New York right across the river from the United
Nations.
‘As a steadfast champion of national independence,

democracy and social justice’, unblushingly stated the April
1965 Bulletin put out by this Centre, ‘the AFL-CIO will
strengthen its efforts to assist the advancement of the
economic conditions of the African peoples. Toward this end,
steps have been taken to expand assistance to the African
free trade unions by organizing the African-American Labor

Centre. Such assistance will help African labor play a vital
role in the economic and democratic up building of their
countries.'
The March issue of this Bulletin, however, gave the game away: ‘In mobilizing capital
resources for investment in Workers Education, Vocational Training, Co-operatives,
Health Clinics and Housing, the Centre will work with both private and public
institutions. It will also encourage labor-management co-operation to expand American
capital investment in the African nations.’ The italics are mine. Could anything be
plainer?
Following a pattern previously set by the ICFTU, it has already started classes: one for
drivers and mechanics in Nigeria, one in tailoring in Kenya. Labor scholarships are being
offered to Africans who want to study trade unionism in of all places-Austria, ostensibly
by the Austrian unions. Elsewhere, labor, organized into political parties of which the
British Labor Party is a leading and typical example, has shown a similar aptitude for
encouraging ‘Labor-management co-operation to expand . . . capital investment in
African nations.'
But as the struggle sharpens, even these measures of neo-colonialism are proving too
mild. So Africa, Asia and Latin America have begun to experience a round of coups
d'etat or would-be coups, together with a series of political assassinations which have
destroyed in their political primes some of the newly emerging nation’s best leaders. To
ensure success in these endeavors, the imperialists have made widespread and wily use of
ideological and cultural weapons in the form of intrigues, man oeuvres and slander
campaigns.
Some of these methods used by neo-colonialists to slip past our guard must now be
examined. The first is retention by the departing colonialists of various kinds of
privileges which infringe on our sovereignty: that of setting up military bases or
stationing troops in former colonies and the supplying of ‘advisers’ of one sort or
another. Sometimes a number of ‘rights’ are demanded: land concessions, prospecting
rights for minerals and/or oil; the ‘right’ to collect customs, to carry out administration, to
issue paper money; to be exempt from customs duties and/or taxes for expatriate
enterprises; and, above all, the ‘right’ to provide ‘aid’. Also demanded and granted are
privileges in the cultural field; that Western information services are exclusive; and that
those from socialist countries are excluded.
Even the cinema stories of fabulous Hollywood are loaded. One has only to listen to the
cheers of an African audience as Hollywood’s heroes slaughter red Indians or Asiatic to
understand the effectiveness of this weapon. For, in the developing continents, where the
colonialist heritage has left a vast majority still illiterate, even the smallest child gets the
message contained in the blood and thunder stories emanating from California. And
along with murder and the Wild West goes an incessant barrage of anti-socialist
propaganda, in which the trade union man, the revolutionary, or the man of dark skin is
generally cast as the villain, while the policeman, the gum-shoe, the Federal agent — in a
word, the CIA — type spy is ever the hero. Here, truly, is the ideological under-belly of
those political murders which so often use local people as their instruments.
While Hollywood takes care of fiction, the enormous monopoly press, together with the
outflow of slick, clever, expensive magazines, attends to what it chooses to call ‘news.
Within separate countries, one or two news agencies control the news handouts, so that a
deadly uniformity is achieved, regardless of the number of separate newspapers or
magazines; while internationally, the financial preponderance of the United States is felt
more and more through its foreign correspondents and offices abroad, as well as through
its influence over inter-national capitalist journalism. Under this guise, a flood of anti-
liberation propaganda emanates from the capital cities of the West, directed against
China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Algeria, Ghana and all countries which hack out their own
independent path to freedom. Prejudice is rife. For example, wherever there is armed
struggle against the forces of reaction, the nationalists are referred to as rebels, terrorists,
or frequently ‘communist terrorists'!
Perhaps one of the most insidious methods of the neo-colonialists is evangelism.

Following the liberation movement there has been a veritable riptide of religious sects,
the overwhelming majority of them American. Typical of these are Jehovah’s Witnesses
who recently created trouble in certain developing countries by busily teaching their
citizens not to salute the new national flags. ‘Religion’ was too thin to smother the outcry
that arose against this activity, and a temporary lull followed. But the number of
evangelists continues to grow.
Yet even evangelism and the cinema are only two twigs on a much bigger tree. Dating
from the end of 1961, the U.S. has actively developed a huge ideological plan for
invading the so-called Third World, utilizing all its facilities from press and radio to
Peace Corps.
During 1962 and 1963 a number of international conferences to this end were held in
several places, such as Nicosia in Cyprus, San Jose in Costa Rica, and Lagos in Nigeria.
Participants included the CIA, the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), and the Pentagon,
the International Development Agency, the Peace Corps and others. Programmers were
drawn up which included the systematic use of U.S. citizens abroad in virtual intelligence
activities and propaganda work. Methods of recruiting political agents and of forcing
‘alliances’ with the U.S.A. were worked out. At the centre of its programmers lay the
demand for an absolute U.S. monopoly in the field of propaganda, as well as for
counteracting any independent efforts by developing states in the realm of information.
The United States sought, and still seeks, with considerable success, to co-ordinate on the
basis of its own strategy the propaganda activities of all Western countries. In October
1961, a conference of NATO countries was held in Rome to discuss problems of
psychological warfare. It appealed for the organization of combined ideological
operations in Afro-Asian countries by all participants.
In May and June 1962 a seminar was convened by the U.S. in Vienna on ideological
warfare. It adopted a secret decision to engage in a propaganda offensive against the
developing countries along lines laid down by the U.S.A. It was agreed that NATO
propaganda agencies would, in practice if not in the public eye, keep in close contact with
U.S. Embassies in their respective countries.
Among instruments of such Western psychological warfare are numbered the intelligence
agencies of Western countries headed by those of the United States ‘Invisible
Government’. But most significant among them all are Moral Re-Armament QARA), the
Peace Corps and the United States Information Agency (USIA).
Moral Re-Armament is an organization founded in 1938 by the American, Frank

Buchman. In the last days before the Second World War, it advocated the appeasement of
Hitler, often extolling Himmler, the Gestapo chief. In Africa, MRA incursions began at
the end of World War II. Against the big anti-colonial upsurge that followed victory in
1945, MRA spent millions advocating collaboration between the forces oppressing the
African peoples and those same peoples. It is not without significance that Moose
Thumbed and Joseph Kasavubu of Congo (Leopoldville) are both MRA supporters.
George Seldes, in his book One Thousand Americans, characterized MRA as a fascist
organization ‘subsidized by . . . Fascists, and with a long record of collaboration with
Fascists the world over. . . .’ This description is supported by the active participation in
MRA of people like General Carpenter, former commander of NATO land forces, and
General Ho Ying-chin, one of Chiang Kai-shek’s top generals. To cap this, several
newspapers, some of them in the Western; world, have claimed that MRA is actually
subsidized by the CIA.
When MRA’s influence began to fail, some new instrument to cover the ideological arena
was desired. It came in the establishment of the American Peace Corps in 1961 by
President John Kennedy, with Sergeant Shriver, Jr., his brother-in-law, in charge. Shriver,
a millionaire who made his pile in land speculation in Chicago, was also known as the
friend, confidant and co-worker of the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Allen Dulles. These two had worked together in both the Office of Strategic Services,
U.S. war-time intelligence agency, and in the CIA.
Shriver’s record makes a mockery of President Kennedy’s alleged instruction to Shriver

to ‘keep the CIA out of the Peace Corps’. So does the fact that, although the Peace Corps
is advertised as a voluntary organization, all its members are carefully screened by the
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Since its creation in 1961, members of the Peace Corps have been exposed and expelled
from many African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries for acts of subversion or
prejudice. Indonesia, Tanzania, the Philippines, and even pro-West countries like Turkey
and Iran, have complained of its activities.
However, perhaps the chief executor of U.S. psychological warfare is the United States
Information Agency (USIA). Even for the wealthiest nation on earth, the U.S. lavishes an
unusual amount of men, materials and money on this vehicle for its neo-colonial aims.
The USIA is staffed by some 12,000 persons to the tune of more than $130 million a
year. It has more than seventy editorial staffs working on publications abroad. Of its
network comprising 110 radio stations, 60 are outside the U.S. Programmers are
broadcast for Africa by American stations in Morocco, Eritrea, Liberia, Crete, and
Barcelona, Spain, as well as from off-shore stations on American ships. In Africa alone,
the USIA transmits about thirty territorial and national radio programmers whose content
glorifies the U.S. while attempting to discredit countries with an independent foreign
policy.
The USIA boasts more than 120 branches in about 100 countries, 50 of which are in
Africa alone. It has 250 centers in foreign countries, each of which is usually associated
with a library. It employs about 200 cinemas and 8,000 projectors which draw upon its
nearly 300 film libraries.
This agency is directed by a central body which operates in the name of the U.S.
President, planning and coordinating its activities in close touch with the Pentagon, CIA
and other Cold War agencies, including even armed forces intelligence centers.
In developing countries, the USIA actively tries to prevent expansion of national media
of information so as itself to capture the market-place of ideas. It spends huge sums for
publication and distribution of about sixty newspapers and magazines in Africa, Asia and
Latin America.
The American government backs the USIA through direct pressures on developing
nations. To ensure its agency a complete monopoly in propaganda, for instance, many
agreements for economic co-operation offered by the U.S. include a demand that
Americans be granted preferential rights to disseminate information. At the same time, in
trying to close the new nations to other sources of information, it employs other
pressures. For instance, after agreeing to set up USIA information centers in their
countries, both Togo and Congo (Leopoldville) originally hoped to follow a non-aligned
path and permit Russian information centers as a balance. But Washington threatened to
stop all aid, thereby forcing these two countries to renounce their plan.
Unbiased studies of the USIA by such authorities as Dr R. Holt of Princeton University,

Retired Colonel R. Van de Veldt, former intelligence agents Mural Dyer, Wilson Wizard
and others, have all called attention to the close ties between this agency and U.S.
Intelligence. For example, Deputy Director Donald M. Wilson was a political intelligence
agent in the U.S. Army. Assistant Director for Europe, Joseph Philips, was a successful
espionage agent in several Eastern European countries.
Some USIA duties further expose its nature as a top intelligence arm of the U.S.
imperialists. In the first place, it is expected to analyze the situation in each country,
making recommendations to its Embassy, thereby to its Government, about changes that
can tip the local balance in U.S. favor. Secondly, it organizes networks of monitors for
radio broadcasts and telephone conversations, while recruiting informers from
government offices. It also hires people to distribute U.S. propaganda. Thirdly, it collects
secret information with special reference to defense and economy, as a means of
eliminating its international military and economic competitors. Fourthly, it buys its way
into local publications to influence their policies, of which Latin America furnishes
numerous examples. It has been active in bribing public figures, for example in Kenya
and Tunisia. Finally, it finances, directs and often supplies with arms all anti-neutralist
forces in the developing countries, witness Thumbed in Congo (Leopoldville) and Pak
Hung Jib in South Korea. In a word, with virtually unlimited finances, there seem no
bounds to its inventiveness in subversion.
One of the most recent developments in neo-colonialist strategy is the suggested

establishment of a Businessmen Corps which will, like the Peace Corps, act in
developing countries. In an article on ‘U.S. Intelligence and the Monopolies’ in
International Affairs (Moscow, January 1965), V. Chernyavsky writes: ‘There can hardly
be any doubt that this Corps is a new U.S. intelligence organisation created on the
initiative of the American monopolies to use Big Business for espionage. It is by no
means unusual for U.S. Intelligence to set up its own business firms which are merely
thinly disguised espionage centers. For example, according to Chernyavsky, the C.I.A.
has set up a firm in Taiwan known as Western Enterprises Inc. Under this cover it sends
spies and saboteurs to South China. The New Asia Trading Company, a CIA firm in
India, has also helped to camouflage U.S. intelligence agents operating in South-east
Asia.
Such is the catalogue of neo-colonialism’s activities and methods in our time. Upon
reading it, the faint-hearted might come to feel that they must give up in despair before
such an array of apparent power and seemingly inexhaustible resources.
Fortunately, however, history furnishes innumerable proofs of one of its own major laws;
that the budding future is always stronger than the withering past. This has been amply
demonstrated during every major revolution throughout history.
The American Revolution of 1776 struggled through to victory over a tangle of

inefficiency, mismanagement, corruption, outright subversion and counter-revolution the
like of which has been repeated to some degree in every subsequent revolution to date.
The Russian Revolution during the period of Intervention, 1917 to 1922, appeared to be
dying on its feet. The Chinese Revolution at one time was forced to pull out of its
existing bases, lock stock and barrel, and make the unprecedented Long March; yet it
triumphed. Imperialist white mercenaries who dropped so confidently out of the skies on
Stanleyville after a plane trip from Ascension Island thought that their job would be
‘duck soup’. Yet, till now, the nationalist forces of Congo (Leopoldville) continue to fight
their way forward. They do not talk of if they will win, but only of when.
Asia provides a further example of the strength of a people’s will to determine their own
future. In South Vietnam ‘special warfare’ is being fought to hold back the tide of
revolutionary change. ‘Special warfare’ is a concept of General Maxwell Taylor and a
military extension of the creed of John Foster Dulles: let Asians fight Asians. Briefly, the
technique is for the foreign power to supply the money, aircraft, military equipment of all
kinds, and the strategic and tactical command from a General Staff down to officer
‘advisers’, while the troops of the puppet government bear the brunt of the fighting. Yet
in spite of bombing raids and the immense build-up of foreign strength in the area, the
people of both North and South Vietnam are proving to be unconquerable.
In other parts of Asia, in Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, and now the Philippines, Thailand
and Burma, the peoples of ex-colonial countries have stood firm and are winning battles
against the allegedly superior imperialist enemy. In Latin America, despite ‘final’
punitive expeditions, the growing armed insurrections in Colombia, Venezuala and other
countries continue to consolidate gains.
In Africa, we in Ghana have withstood all efforts by imperialism and its agents; Tanzania
has nipped subversive plots in the bud, as have Brazzaville, Uganda and Kenya. The
struggle rages back and forth. The surging popular forces may still be hampered by
colonialist legacies, but nonetheless they advance inexorably.
All these examples prove beyond doubt that neo-colonialism is not a sign of
imperialism’s strength but rather of its last hideous gasp. It testifies to its inability to rule
any longer by old methods. Independence is a luxury it can no longer afford to permit its
subject peoples, so that even what it claims to have ‘given’ it now seeks to take away.
This means that neo-colonialism can and will be defeated. How can this be done?
Thus far, all the methods of neo-colonialists have pointed in one direction, the ancient,
accepted one of all minorities ruling classes throughout history — divide and rule.
Quite obviously, therefore, unity is the first requisite for destroying neo-colonialism.
Primary and basic is the need for an all-union government on the much divided continent
of Africa. Along with that, a strengthening of the Afro-Asian Solidarity Organization and
the spirit of Bandung is already under way. To it, we must seek the adherence on an
increasingly formal basis of our Latin American brothers.
Furthermore, all these libratory forces have, on all major issues and at every possible
instance, the support of the growing socialist sector of the world.
Finally, we must encourage and utilize to the full those still all too few yet growing
instances of support for liberation and anti-colonialism inside the imperialist world itself.
To carry out such a political programmed, we must all back it with national plans
designed to strengthen ourselves as independent nations. An external condition for such
independent development is neutrality or political non-alignment. This has been
expressed in two conferences of Non-Aligned Nations during the recent past, the last of
which, in Cairo in 1964, clearly and inevitably showed itself at one with the rising forces
of liberation and human dignity.
And the preconditions for all this, to which lip service is often paid but activity seldom
directed, is to develop ideological clarity among the anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, pro-
liberation masses of our continents. They and they alone, make, maintain or break
revolutions.
With the utmost speed, neo-colonialism must be analyzed in clear and simple terms for
the full mass understanding by the surging organizations of the African peoples. The All-
African Trade Union Federation (AATUF) has already made a start in this direction,
while the Pan-African Youth Movement, the women, journalists, farmers and others are
not far behind. BOlstered with ideological clarity, these oorganizationsclosely linked with
the ruling parties where libratory forces are in power, will prove that neo-colonialism is
the symptom of imperialism’s weakness and that it is defeatable. For, when all is said and
done, it is the so-called little man, the bent-backed, exploited, malnourished, blood-
covered fighter for independence who decides. And he invariably decides for freedom.
The myth of Neo-colonialism

More than three decades after most African nations became independent; there is no
consensus on the legacy of colonialism. With most African countries still only tottering
on their feet and many close to collapse, some people ask whether the problem is due to
Africa's colonial experience or inherent adequacies of the African? For apologists of
colonialism the answer is simple. Whatever may have been the shortcomings of colonial
rule, the overall effect was positive for Africa. Sure, the colonial powers exploited
Africa’s natural resources but on the balance, colonialism reduced the economic gap
between Africa and the West, the apologists argue. Colonialism laid the seeds of the
intellectual and material development in Africans. It brought enlightenment where there
was ignorance. It suppressed slavery and other barbaric practices such as pagan worship
and cannibalism. Formal education and modern medicine were brought to people who
had limited understanding or control of their physical environment. The introduction of
modern communications, exportable agricultural crops and some new industries provided
a foundation for economic development. Africans received new and more efficient forms
of political and economic organization. Warring communities were united into modern
nation-states with greater opportunity of survival in a competitive world than the
numerous mini entities that existed before. Africa is in political and economic turmoil
today, defenders of imperialism say, because it failed to take advantage of its inheritance
from colonial rule. It was, they summaries, Africa’s inadequacies that made colonization
necessary and the outcome of post-independence self-rule suggest that the withdrawal by
the colonial powers was premature.
Critics of colonialism dismiss such arguments as racists. They maintain that colonial rule
left Africans poorer than they were before it began. Not only were African labor and
resources super-exploited, the continent’s capacity to develop was undermined. Guyanese
historian Walter Rodney in his book ‘How Europe Underdeveloped Africa’ contends that
under colonialism "the only thing that developed was dependency and
underdevelopment." As far as Rodney and other critics were concerned "The only
positive development in colonialism was when it ended." Under imperial rule African
economies were structured to be permanently dependent on Western nations. They were
consigned the role of producers of primary products for processing in the West. The
terms of trade in the western controlled international market discriminated against
African nations who are unable to earn enough to develop their economies.
Colonialism bred political crisis

In disrupting pre-colonial political systems that worked for Africans and imposing alien
models, colonialism laid the seeds of political crisis, say its critics. By redrawing of the
map of Africa, throwing diverse people together without consideration for established
borders, ethnic conflicts were created that are now destabilizing the continent. The new
nation-states were artificial and many were too small to be viable. Less than a third of the
countries in Africa have populations of more than 10 million. Nigeria, the major
exception to this, was imbued with ingredients for its self-destruction. Western multi-
party democracy imposed by colonial powers polarized African societies. "It was the
introduction of party politics by colonial administration that set off the fire of ethnic
conflicts in Nigeria," wrote one Itodo Ojobo in the New Nigerian newspaper in 1986.
It is difficult to give an objective balance sheet on colonialism. Those who contend that it
made no positive impact are as dogmatic as those who present it as the salvation of
Africa. What is unequivocal is that it was an imposition of alien rule. Whatever may have
been its pluses and minuses, colonialism was a dictatorial regime that denied peoples’
right of self determination. It brought death, pain and humiliation to millions of its
victims. The notion that colonialism was a civilizing mission is a myth - the system was
propelled by Europe’s economic and political self- interest. However, to meet their
economic and administrative needs colonial powers built some infrastructure, like
railway to carry export commodities, and they educated a few Africans to help them run
the colonies. But nowhere in Africa were positive contributions made to any substantial
extent. Countries like Nigeria and Ghana, which were among the better endowed
colonies, were left with only a few rail lines, rudimentary infrastructure and a few
thousand graduates. This was better than others. For instance, the Portuguese left their
colonies with very little. At independence in 1975, Mozambique had only three dozen
graduates.
If the legacies of the different colonial powers were rated by Africans today, the powers
that bequeathed the greatest amount of western culture to its colonies would likely score
most votes. Only reactionary aristocrats in northern Nigeria would today thank the British
for keeping out western education in their region. It is clear to most northerners that they
were placed at a disadvantage to the south by the educational gap between the two
regions. When Flemish missionaries in the Belgium Congo learnt African languages to
teach local children in their mother tongues, the children did not thank them. Young
Congolese protested repeatedly and demanded to learn French because this was the way
to gain access to the wider world.
It is impossible to say what would have been the shape of contemporary African history
had colonial rule never taken place. Some Western historians have argued that most less
developed regions of the world, particularly Africa, lacked the social and economic
organization to transform themselves into modern states able to develop into advanced
economies. "If they had not become European possessions the majority would probably
have remained very much as they were," wrote Cambridge historian D.K. Field house.
African nationalists dismiss this claim. "It is not true that Africa couldn’t have developed
without colonialism. If it were true, then there is something wrong with the rest of world
which developed without it," the late Nigerian politician Moshood Abiola told a
conference in 1991. Africans point out that Japan, China and parts of Southeast Asia were
never colonized, yet they are today major world economies. These countries, however,
had certain attributes in the nineteenth century that enabled them to adapt more easily to
modernization than might have traditional African societies in the same period. The
Asian nations had more educated labor force and were technologically more advanced.
Most importantly, their ruling classes were more ideologically committed to social
progress and economic development.
It is, of course, a presumption that modernization is desirable. The fact that western
society is more complex than traditional African society does not necessarily mean that it
is better. Complexity does not equal human progress. Pre-colonial African societies were
materially less developed than societies in other regions of the world, but they were no
less balanced and self-contained than any elsewhere. Africans were no less happy or felt
less accomplished than Europeans or Japanese. Who is to say whether people living in
agrarian societies are less developed as human beings than inhabitants of industrialized
ones?
However, had Africa not been colonized, the likelihood is that its elites would still have
wanted to consume the products and services of western industrial nations. It is unlikely
that African chiefs and traders would have been content with the simplicity of communal
life to shut off their communities from Western advances. If during the slave trade, rulers
and traders happily waged wars and sold fellow humans to buy beads, guns and second-
hand hats, one can only imagine what they would have done if faced with offers of cars,
televisions, MacDonald’s etc. Undoubtedly, without colonization African societies would
still have sought industrialization and western type modernization, as have peoples in
virtually every other region in the world.
As there is no basis to assume that Africans would have independently developed

electricity, the motor engine and other products of advanced technologies, it is fair to
suppose that if Africa had not been colonized it would today still have to grapple with
problems of economic development. Africa would have needed to import western
technology and therefore would have had to export something to pay for it. Like other
pre-industrial societies, African nations would invariably have had to trade minerals and
agricultural commodities for western manufactures. So Africa’s position in the
international economy, particularly as a producer of primary products for industrialized
countries, should not be blamed solely on colonialism. It is largely a function of unequal
development.
Real or false Independence

Many African nationalists and critics of colonialism see the independence gained from
the withdrawing colonial powers as only partial liberation. Some call it ‘false
independence’. Full or real freedom, they believe, will come with economic
independence. African nations are said to be currently in a phase of neo-colonialism - a
new form of imperial rule stage managed by the colonial powers to give the colonized the
illusion of freedom. At the 1961 All-African People’s Conference held in Cairo neo-
colonialism was defined as "the survival of the colonial system in spite of the formal
recognition of political independence in emerging countries which become the victims of
an indirect and subtle form of domination by political, economic, social, military or
technical means."
The implication is that western powers still control African nations whose rulers are
either willing puppets or involuntary subordinate of these powers. The main economic
theories supporting the neo-colonialism concept come from the dependency school
developed in the late 1950s by Marxist economists who initially focused on Latin
America. According to them poor countries are satellites of developed nations because
their economies were structured to serve international capitalism. The natural resources
of the satellites are exploited for use in the centre. The means of production are owned by
foreign corporations who employ various means to transfer profits out of the country
rather than invest them in the local economy. So what these countries experience is the
‘development of underdevelopment’. The unequal relations between developed and
underdeveloped countries make economic progress impossible for the latter until they
break economic links with international capitalism. Only by becoming socialist can they
hope to develop their economies. Some theorists went further to postulate that revolution
in dependent countries would not be enough because of the structure of world capitalism
made any national development impossible. Only the ending of capitalism at the centre
would permit underdeveloped nations to achieve development. As desirable as it would
be for African nations and indeed the world to become socialist, the experiences of
former Third World nations that have transformed into advanced economies, made the
generalisations of the dependency school less credible in the 1990s.
However, there is still the tendency to view post-fifteenth century African history solely
in terms of the continent’s subjugation by western nations. History is discerned as a plot;
a cut and dry conspiracy by white nations to keep black peoples subordinated. Grey areas
are overlooked. African involvement in the making of their own societies is discounted in
favor of a view that focuses on outsiders as the active element.
Blaming all of Africa’s problems on colonialism and the machination of neo-colonialists

strikes a cord with many educated Africans angry at the west because of its historical
humiliation and exploitation of their continent. Western-bashing also plays on the guilt of
white liberals who are happy to bear the burden of the historic sins of their ruling classes.
Some right wing whites, still regretting the end of the Empire, may be flattered by it
because it acknowledges the all-embracing supremacy of the white man.
Simple clear cut ‘them and us’ explanations of complex developments are rarely helpful.
Focusing on imperialism has drawn attention away from internal forces that are crucial to
the understanding of the African condition and which, unlike external demons, can be
changed ordinary Africans. At every Organization of African Unity summit African
leaders and ministers who have looted their nations’ coffers are applauded for speeches
that mix cries against regional marginalization and criticism of the IMF with insincere
pleas for African unity and calls for debt forgiveness. Not so long ago these reactionary
leaders only had to spice their speeches with some anti-imperialist rhetoric to be
acclaimed at home and abroad as defenders of their people. It took little effort for
reactionary leaders to sell themselves to their own people and to liberals in the West as
representatives for the oppressed. There was an expectation that leaders from the Third
World would by the fact that they were from the oppressed be radical in their vision for
their people and indeed the world. It was somewhat similar to the popular perception of
the Black Nationalist movement in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s. As long as black
nationalists verbally attacked whites, they qualified as militants. It did not seem to matter
that some of these so-called black radicals were reactionary in relation to other social
groups, including abusing black women. A few were down right crooks who exploited
poor blacks and for whom politics was merely an opportunity for individual gain.
The fatalistic view that Africa is caught in a neo-colonial straitjacket has hampered the
growth of popular political movements for social and economic change in the continent.
The message often implied by people who stress external causes of underdevelopment is
that nations must endure poverty until there is a revolution that pulls them out of the
international capitalist orbit. If African nations are trapped in underdevelopment, there
appears to be little point in seeking internal change. This pessimism perhaps helps to
explain why few political movements in Africa campaign for fundamental social and
economic transformation. Opposition and pro-democracy groups tend to limit themselves
to condemning state corruption and human rights abuses.
At independence former colonies became free nations, able to chart for themselves
whatever course they had the ability and determination to follow. They could have, as
some did, nationalize foreign owned corporations. They could have stopped primary
commodity exports and ended imports from the West. Of course, such radical policies
would have consequences. But these were more likely to have involved the elite losing
the benefits of foreign aid than Western powers sending in gunboats to kill ordinary
Africans. If Cuba, only a few kilometers from the capitalist mega-power, the U.S., could
pursue an independent economic agenda and survive, there is no reason why African
nations could not have done the same. They did not because it was not in the interest of
their rulers to do so and not because they were shackled by neo-colonialism.
Integration into global market

The prime legacy of colonialism was the integration of colonies into the international
capitalist economy. The main force keeping economies in the global system and
sustaining imperialism is the market itself. For people with the means to pay the market is
a very seductive place, offering everything and anything. It enables African elites to
consume products of western civilization without having to go through the difficult and
long-term process of building the productive base of their societies. It is far easier to shop
in the global market than try to build industries yourself.
When considering the economic conditions of people in the world it is useful to think of
them as belonging to different layers in the global pyramid. At the bottom are the
absolute poor, the majority of humanity who are too impoverished to participate fully in
the economic, cultural and political life of their society. At the apex of the pyramid is a
tiny minority of super-rich. In between are layers of people of varying degrees of wealth
and access to local markets and the global economy. The richest fifth of the world’s
population consumes more than eighty per cent of global wealth. Most Africans are in the
bottom fifth, consuming less than 1.5 per cent of global wealth. There are a few African
elites among the top fifth and many more are scrambling to get there.
The wealth pyramid is a better way of considering income distribution than seeing it
strictly in national terms. For instance, to say that Nigeria is poor because its GDP per
capita income is less than $300 per annum says nothing about the affluence of the
country's rich minority that feed off its resources to maintain its position high on the
global pyramid.
Africa’s poor gained little or nothing from colonialism. But its elites bloomed as a result
of it. They were given a ladder to climb the global pyramid. African millionaires, who
today live on the upper layers of the pyramid with bank accounts in Western capitals,
certainly owe their fortune to colonialism. Without opportunities created by the linking of
Africa to the western world, it is unlikely that indigenous ruling classes would have
catapulted themselves from pre-capitalist levels of wealth to modern bourgeoisie
affluence. So the answer to the often posed question, ‘did Africans benefit from
colonialism’ is, the elites definitely gained while the poor majority did not.
Having tasted life as consumers in the international market, African elites became ardent
believers in the global economy. Imperial powers no longer needed to administer their
colonies, at least not for reasons of economics. Local ruling classes would out of their
own volition keep their nations in the market and direct the bulk of their national
resources and capital to the west.
The strength of the global market is its attractiveness to classes of men and women who
have the wealth to participate in it. For the wealthy, the market offers the means to realize
all material dreams. For those who aspire to become rich, it is the "open sesame". The
market is an alluring, even corrupting force that requires strong ideological or moral
commitment to resist. It was its appeal that eventually subverted socialist regimes in the
former Eastern Bloc and is now transforming China. Much of the trouble in Africa today
stems from a scramble to climb the global pyramid.
The idea of progress

The most subversive act of colonialism was to introduce into the minds of Africans and
peoples of other pre-capitalist societies the idea that material progress and prosperity
were possible for the masses of people. Ordinary people in pre-colonial times assumed
that their material conditions were fixed. A good harvest may provide a few more yams
to eat but the idea that living conditions could be fundamentally altered was alien. The
prospect that rather than trek miles to fetch water, running water could be piped into
homes was unknown. With colonialism came the idea of progress - that humanity is
capable of improving its condition of existence - today can be better than yesterday and
tomorrow better than today. After or even before people’s basic needs are met, there is an
endless world of consumer products and services for self-satisfaction. Africans learnt that
they live in a world that offers a variety of experiences that were beyond their wildest
dreams. Like people elsewhere in the world, they want what the West has.
More than anything else, it has been peoples’ desire for material improvement and wealth
that has given western civilization its overwhelming strength. Its main power has not
come from its armies or colonial administrators or even its multi-national corporation
bosses. It is the simple fact that most people in the world believe in material progress and
desire most of the things the West has to offer. Coca cola sells in 200 countries and the
brand is recognized by the majority of humanity not because it was physically forced
upon the world but because through the power of advertising people have taken the drink
as a symbol of progress and modernization and of course many people like the sugary
elixir.
It was the allure of modernity, with its promise of greater material self-fulfillment that
subverted African societies during colonialism. It was not the handful of European troops
sent to conquer and maintain colonial order that was irresistible, but the power western
materialism. Subjugated Africans may not have liked the arrogance of the colonizers, but
they wanted the civilization that the Europeans had to offer.
Virtually every nation in the world, whether colonized or not, has had to deal with
western hegemony. Antonio Gramsci defined hegemony as an order in which a certain
way of life and thought is dominant and one concept of reality prevails throughout
society. The dominant ideology permeates every facet of human existence - taste,
morality, and customs, religious and political principles. Since the nineteenth century the
West has defined human development and set the pace of change which others have
followed. The West has not imposed its will on the world by force but by the sheer
attractiveness of its civilization and the belief in the desirability of material progress and
prosperity. It is able get people in other nations to desire what it desires and thereby
manipulates their aspirations. This is the bedrock of imperialism. It is what enables it to
control and use the resources of underdeveloped nations in a manner advantageous to the
developed nations and at the expense of the economies of underdeveloped countries.
The dilemma facing Africans is how to deal with the overwhelming presence and power
of western civilization. If the desire of Africans for modern facilities - electricity, pipe
borne water, cars, modern medicine, television etc., is legitimate, then we should accept
the position of 19th century evolutionists that western civilization is of a higher material
order to African civilization. It is able to meet the new aspirations of Africans, which
traditional society cannot. Putting aside for a moment the physical unpleasantness of
colonialism, it can be argue that its failing was not to have sufficiently transformed
African society and laid solid foundations for modernization. It introduced the idea of
material progress, but did not give people the tools to build the new civilization that
would enable them to realize their new dreams. Africans came through the colonial
experience full of desire for modernity but without the wherewithal to create the coveted
civilization. Besides the shortage of skills and infrastructure, Africans lacked an
appreciation of the total and complex nature of the transformation from simple agrarian
society to modern technological civilization. Having blamed Africa's material
backwardness on colonialism, independence African thinkers and leaders believed that
the removal of the external force would automatically result in modern development.
There was little understanding that modernization required radical internal changes.
Modernization requires internal changes

The 19th century German philosopher Karl Marx thought imperialism could play a
progressive role by creating in underdeveloped countries the basis for a similar process of
industrialization that took place in the West. He thought that colonial powers should
destroy primitive pre-capitalist cultures and lay the material foundation for modern
western society. For Marx all societies were destined to be like Europe. "The country that
is more developed industrially only shows to the less developed, the image of its own
future," he wrote. Some African nationalists accuse Marx of ethnocentrism. These
nationalists do not understand that modernization is as much a cultural phenomenon as a
technological achievement. Marx was correct - it is impossible for a pre-industrial culture
to create and sustain an industrial civilization.
The idea that societies head in the same general direction seems proven by the
development of the global economy. Nations that have made economic progress have
irrespective of ideology, undergone similar processes. Development has involved capital
accumulation, industrialization, the transformation of productive forces through machine
technology and the introduction of factory systems of production. It entailed
urbanization, the rationalization of thought and changes in social beliefs and institutions,
including family life. Investment in physical and human capital has been indispensable.
In all developed countries, the economy was given primacy in the political system.
Perhaps most importantly, development has been underpinned by certain values,
including efficiency, hard work, precision, honesty, punctuality, thrift, obligation to one’s
duty and wealth creation. All modernization involved a move away from traditionalism
There have been differences in the methods of organization adopted by modernizing

nations. Under socialism, the means of production were state-owned and emphasis placed
on ideology in the mobilization of workers as against private ownership and wage labor
under capitalism. Nevertheless, both socialists and capitalists followed the same
fundamental steps to economic development. "Development" said the American
economist J.K. Galbraith "is the faithful imitation of the developed."
African nationalists find this basic idea difficult to accept. Despite the failure of African
Socialism there remains a belief among some African thinkers and writers that there is an
African way to development that is different from the European path. No one has been
able to describe this African way in any detail. However, the search for an African model
continues. Some liberal western writers have supported the notion that Africa is a special
case and not subject to the laws that govern societies in other regions of the world. British
economist Michael Barratt Brown in his book ‘Africa’s Choices’ said his old friend Basil
Davidson had in his book ‘The Black Man’s Burden: Africa and the Curse of the Nation-
State’ given him a clue to the explanation of Africa’s development problem. "African
society was different and apparently immune to economic rationality which is the basic
assumption of European political economy," said Brown. I am not sure how Davidson
shows Africa’s immunity from economic rationality. In his book Davidson argued that
Africa’s crisis is due to it being forced by colonialism to abandon its traditional systems
and values for unsuitable western institutions. Brown also quotes several African writers
who believe that an African way to development exists. They included Hassan Zonal of
Morocco who wrote "The African model exists and is alive but it is not a model of
economic rationality."
I do not know how economic non-rationality can possibly result in development, which
occurs in the material world and not the spiritual domain. Development is not abstract art,
where any combination of brush strokes and colors can pass as a completed picture. What
we have seen in Africa is a tragedy in which intellectual opposition to the West has
prevented African thinkers from developing a coherent ideology for change. Ironically, in
its penchant to criticize colonialism and defend the integrity of traditional African
society, African political and economic thought has been trapped by its own myths.
The search for an alternative model continues, but it is unlikely that one will be found. It
is an uncomfortable truth that if the objective is to improve the material conditions of the
people, then most of the institutions and values introduced into Africa during colonialism
are more conducive to modernization than are many traditional ones. Modern institutions
and principles such as representative democracy, judiciary, banking, factories, provide
more effective means for meeting the new desires of Africans than what existed in pre-
colonial societies. Every society, whether capitalist or socialist, that has developed has
used the same set of institutions. What differentiate modern societies are the ethics and
rules applied in the operation of the institutions. Leaving aside variances in ideology and
cultural style, there is a single modern civilization in the world. The same features of this
civilization exist in every nation that has modernized. Similarly, values that are venerated
in modern nations are alike. They include efficiency, innovation, inquisitiveness and
time-keeping. Even social customs are similar. For instance, monogamy, women’s rights,
individual freedom are the accepted standard in most societies.
Nineteenth century evolutionists may have been correct. Nations have evolved to share
the same civilization. In the move to the new way of life modern nations left behind pre-
industrial institutions, customs and beliefs. So where does this leave us in terms of
evaluating the impact of colonialism? European powers had no right to exploit Africans
and impose their culture on other people. But having been drawn into a more advanced
civilization Africans and other non-westerners have to master the new civilization to
strengthen them and benefit from the advantages.
China’s Neo-colonialism
On 1 January 2010, the China-Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Free
Trade Area went into effect. Touted as the world’s biggest Free Trade Area, CAFTA is
billed as having 1.7 billion consumers, with a combined gross domestic product of $5.93
trillion and total trade of $1.3 trillion.
Under the agreement, trade between China and six Asean countries (Brunei, Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand) has become duty-free for more than
7,000 products. By 2015, the newer Asean countries (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and
Burma) will join the zero-tariff arrangement.
The propaganda mills, especially in Beijing, have been trumpeting this new free trade
deal as ‘bringing mutual benefits’ to China and Asean. A positive spin on CAFTA has
also come from President of Philippines, Gloria Arroyo, who hailed the emergence of a
‘formidable regional grouping’ that would rival the US and the European Union.
The reality, however, is that most of the advantages will probably flow to China. At first
glance, it seems like the bilateral relationship has been positive. After all, demand from a
Chinese economy growing at a breakneck pace was a key factor in Southeast Asian
growth beginning around 2003, after a period of low growth following the 1997/1998
Asian financial crisis.
Counting on China
During the current international recession, Asean governments are counting on China,
who’s GDP in the fourth quarter of 2009 rose 10.7 per cent, to pull them out of the
doldrums.
Yet the picture is more complex than that of a Chinese locomotive pulling the rest of East
Asia along with it on a fast track to economic nirvana.
Low wages, many in Southeast Asia fear, have encouraged local and foreign
manufacturers to phase out their operations in relatively high-wage Southeast Asia and
move them to China. There appears to be some support for this. China’s devaluation of
the Yuan in 1994 had the effect of diverting some foreign direct investment (FDI) away
from Southeast Asia.
For Chinese officials, the benefits to China of free trade with Asean are clear. The aim of
the strategy, according to Chinese economist Angang Hu, is to more fully integrate China
into the global economy as the ‘center of the world’s manufacturing industry.’
The trend of Asean losing ground to China accelerated after the 1997 crisis. In 2000, FDI
in Asean shrank to 10 per cent of all investment in developing Asia, down from 30 per
cent in the mid-1990s. The decline continued in the rest of the decade, with the UN
World Investment Report attributing the trend partly to ‘increased competition from
China’.
Trade has been another, perhaps greater, area of concern. Massive smuggling of goods
from China has disrupted practically all Asean economies. For instance, with some 70-80
per cent of shops selling smuggled Chinese shoes, the Vietnamese shoe industry has
suffered badly.
Now there are fears that CAFTA will simply legalize smuggling and worsen the already
negative effects of Chinese imports on Asean industry and agriculture.
A central part of the plan was to open up Asean markets to Chinese manufactured
products. In light of growing popularity of protectionist sentiments in the US and
European Union, Southeast Asia, which absorbs only around 8 per cent of China’s
exports, is seen as having tremendous potential to absorb more Chinese goods. China’s
trade strategy is described by Hu as a ‘half-open model’ that is ‘open or free trade on the
export side and protectionism on the import side’.
Worrying trends
Despite brave words from Arroyo and other Asean leaders, it is much less clear how their
countries will benefit from the Asean-China relationship.
Certainly, the benefits will not come in labor-intensive manufacturing, where China
enjoys an unbeatable edge by the constant downward pressure on wages exerted by
migrants from a seemingly inexhaustible rural work force that makes an average of $285
a year. Certainly not in high tech, since even the US and Japan are scared of China’s
remarkable ability to move very quickly into high-tech industries even as it consolidates
its edge in labor-intensive production.
All modern empires have had limits to their spheres of influence and have faced rivals
with the capacity and the will to displace them. Now, in the case of the most recent
empire-the United States-these two characteristics have disappeared. The United States
presently has no rival in its domination of the international system. It is indeed the first
global empire, and for better or for worse, the fate of the rest of the international system
depends largely on its character and evolution.
The United States already has a long history as an imperial power. Yet, for most U.S.
citizens, the rest of the world has scant importance. At the same time, U.S. citizens are
aware that their country was the victor in the Cold War and that, for the time being, no
other nation represents a serious military threat. A recent Gallup poll shows that the four
major problems that concern most Americans have nothing to do with foreign policy, as
was indeed the case from the Second World War until the fall of the Berlin Wall. The
four problems that dominate the U.S. agenda today are: family values and ethics, criminal
violence, education, and controlling privately owned weapons (The New York Times,
Aug. 1, 1999). Although the lack of interest in the rest of the world is a long-standing
American trait, the feeling of complete national security is relatively new.
The size of the United States, first of all, and its wealth make it almost inevitable that for
most of its citizens the world boils down to their turf-in other words, their country or
region. Isolationism has long existed in U.S. society, although the imperial impulse
usually has won out over those who want nothing to do with other countries. For
example, President Woodrow Wilson pushed the country at the last minute, and very
successfully, into the First World War against the wishes of the majority.
For a time, Soviet studies in the United States absorbed a great deal of attention,
resources, and talent. Today, however, the CIA and other specialists in international
security and espionage receive most of their funding for protecting industrial secrets or
pursuing the pirates who hurt Nike, Calvin Klein, and hundreds of other firms. The
remaining political spies have lowered their guard so much that when the CIA planned
the American bombing of Belgrade, it did not realize that one of the targets it chose was
not a facility of the Serbian government but rather the Chinese embassy.
The new twist in the international system is the absence of challenges to American
hegemony. The great empires of the modern era always faced powerful rivals that forced
them to invest huge amounts of material and human resources in preserving their areas of
dominance and their economic advantages. This mounting expenditure on armies,
administrators, colonial wars, and wars between empires ultimately caused the demise of
each of these historic empires. The exception to the rule is the United States, which is in
the unusual position of dominating the international system without having to respond, in
practice, to anyone except itself. In this regard, the United States is the last remaining
sovereign nation. Not even a great nation like China can claim Taiwan, because
Washington will intervene.
Since the United States does not have a military rival, it no longer has to spend a
substantial portion of its surpluses on an arms race. Washington today has a budget
surplus. Consequently, the political battle between Congress and the president is over
how to allocate those billions of dollars that no longer have to be earmarked for the
military. Should they be given back in the form of tax cuts for the wealthy, as the right
would like, or should they be invested in the Social Security system for the less wealthy,
as the president proposes?
That president can impose his will today by using force in both the Balkans and in Iraq,
almost without incurring U.S. casualties. By virtue of its enormous technological
superiority in air warfare, a bomber can leave its base in the United States, drop its bombs
on Serbia, and return home safe and sound in a little more than 30 hours, in time for its
crew to sleep in their own beds.
The only rivals that the United States has today are in the economic realm: Europe and
Japan. Although Russia has many atomic weapons, it can hardly pay its army and has no
surplus to invest in new military technology. Today, only China shows the will to begin
to narrow the military technological gap with the United States. Only China is the great
potential rival of the United States.
The relative lack of interest of the American people in the world around them has a real
basis: They are their own principal market. And this enormous domestic market
continues to ride a wave of prosperity and expansion that has few precedents.
One result of U.S. political and economic leadership at the end of the millennium is a
society of superfluous consumption that is reaching levels that seem not only immoral but
absurd as well. For example, young engineers and the managers of high-tech companies
in California are so fond of BMWs that importers cannot fill all the orders. In Palo Alto, a
not particularly impressive home that went on the market a few months ago for $2
million was sold within a week for $3 million, because buyers abounded. On Tiburon
peninsula, no one finds it absurd that there is a store that specializes in gifts for dogs and
cats. Bill Gates, the creator of Microsoft, is expanding his fortune at such a pace that by
the time the size of his holdings is published in the annual list in Forbes Magazine, it is
already obsolete. The concentration of income inside the United States is striking, but it
pales in comparison with the concentration worldwide to which the economic system
headed by the United States has given rise. Estimates are today that the wealthiest 20
percent of the world's population accounts for 86 percent of income, while the poorest 20
percent must make do with just 1 percent.
In short, political democracy and the rule of law are the dominant values in the global
empire of the United States, and there is no point in denying this great contribution to
global civilization. But the other side of the system presided over by the United States is
the brutally unfair distribution of wealth in this world: The very few have increasingly
more, but all too many have very little and will have proportionately even less in the
future, because for now there is nothing to stop this dynamic of fundamental injustice.

Neocolonialism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neocolonialism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Institute of Business Management International Relations

Modernization requires internal changes..................................................................................................36

Neocolonialism can be defined as the continuation of the economic model of colonialism

Dependency theory first gained prominence as a way to explain the underdevelopment of

loans contributed to the underdevelopment of African economies because the collection

Quotes about Neo-Colonialism

Origins of the term: charges against former

Pan-African and Nonaligned movements

Denunciations of neocolonialism also became popular with some national independence

Francophonie is a neocolonial political machine, which only perpetuates our

Neocolonialism as economic dominance

"We, politely referred to as 'underdeveloped', in truth are colonial, semi-colonial or

— Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary, 1961

In lieu of direct military-political control, neocolonialist powers are said to employ

The Cold War

International financial institutions

Neocolonialism allegations against the IMF

Alternatives to IMF Influence

South Korea's land acquisitions

In 2009, Hyundai Heavy Industries acquired a majority stake in a company cultivating

Other approaches to the concept of neocolonialism

Although the concept of neocolonialism was originally developed within a Marxist

Post colonialism theory

identity in colonized societies, referencing neocolonialism as the background for

Theories of postcolonial studies include Subaltern Studies (specifically its postcolonial

Conservation and Neocolonialism

The mechanisms of neo-colonialism

IN order to halt foreign interference in the affairs of developing countries

‘The Invisible Government ... is a loose amorphous grouping

Research, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal

‘The Invisible Government includes also many other units

‘To an extent that is only beginning to be perceived, this

‘This Invisible Government is a relatively new institution. It

‘By 1964 the intelligence network had grown into a massive

‘As a steadfast champion of national independence,

free trade unions by organizing the African-American Labor

Perhaps one of the most insidious methods of the neo-colonialists is evangelism.

Moral Re-Armament is an organization founded in 1938 by the American, Frank

Shriver’s record makes a mockery of President Kennedy’s alleged instruction to Shriver

Unbiased studies of the USIA by such authorities as Dr R. Holt of Princeton University,

One of the most recent developments in neo-colonialist strategy is the suggested

The American Revolution of 1776 struggled through to victory over a tangle of

The myth of Neo-colonialism

Colonialism bred political crisis

As there is no basis to assume that Africans would have independently developed

Real or false Independence

Blaming all of Africa’s problems on colonialism and the machination of neo-colonialists

Integration into global market

The idea of progress

Modernization requires internal changes

There have been differences in the methods of organization adopted by modernizing

You might also like