Welcome to Gaia! ::

I ranted this out at some other forum, but it could start a good discussion here. Begin rant:

What was previously called "third world countries" can now better be called "client states". They are the "less developed countries", but I suggest that we refer to them as client states because it is their more proper usage in modern hegemonic imperialism.

We learned all about imperialism in history class. Mother country takes over colony and exploits their resources to the parent state's profit. The stipulation of British rule was that colonies were entitled to protection from natives and European countries, but the colonies were only allowed to trade with the parent country. It was an effective monopoly of England over all of their colonies. Not only did it guarantee a vast array of resources, but also because they were the only purchasers so they could set the price. Colonies were paid very little for their goods, which understandably pissed off the sugar plantation owners. That elite group consisted of people such as Thomas Jefferson, who was able to gain significant wealth by smuggling sugar to the Spanish colonies in latin America. Realizing the economic benefits of independence, the founding fathers sought to gain independence.

Fast-forward 200 years to the 1940's, and classic imperialism began to lose it's style. Colonies throughout Africa were given autonomy, though they were deemed countries based on how Europe had carved up the borders and not on the existing tensions or cohesion among native groups. The sudden withdrawal of all European support caused the African infrastructure to completely collapse. Latin American countries experienced the same fate. Latin American countries were able to reorganize themselves and regain stability, but Africa remains in shambles to this day. Rampant poverty has caused the population explosion (having more children to support the family), which has lead to the AIDS epidemic, and total lack of public services in crowded/polluted/disease ridden cities. In terms of resources, Africa is a stunningly rich continent. It has oil, vast farmlands, and a wealth of minerals such as gold and diamond. So why aren't the individual countries wealthy after more than fifty years of independence?

Okay, it's 1940 again. Africa is bankrupt. In order to build up an infrastructure, they were given massive loans. But these loans had certain obligatory terms. Utilities such as water or electricity could not be locally run. Every public service or business had to be outsourced to private firms. The loans required full free-marketization. Tariffs on imports were not allowed. Unions were given no civil protection. Tax rates for companies had to be low, but tax rates on the population was nigh unlimited. No minimum wages. And due to the speed of the interest accumulation, it became impossible for the client state to pay the initial loan. That's what's still in effect to this day.

Who is the sinister banker behind these loans? A group known as the World Bank and their counterpart the World Trade Organization. These groups are run by incredibly rich investors, and have no governmental oversight or regulatory body in the world. They literally exist outside the sovereign laws of nations. Of course, the investors are all incredibly wealthy Americans and Europeans. This is the new imperialism. It allows elites acting through corporations to rob client states blind. The WTO makes the rules, and the World Bank ensures incredible profits from returns on investments. And the investors will never be found culpable. If Curry Chemical in India has a nasty spill, it's the company's CEO who gets in trouble. Maybe his company's stock will take a plunge and he'll be fired. But so long as the country continues to tax it's populace the World Bank investor gets a return on his money. He's not affiliated with the offending business, and he's not involved in the internal politics of the local government.

Classical imperialism was much less efficient, because it had to provide a government, protection, and local services to the colony. Now the administering of the client state is self-run, which costs nothing for the parent state to maintain. Third World, Underdeveloped, all of those words are just fog machines. The purpose of those states is to profit the parent state, and I suggest we call a spade a spade and call an underdeveloped country a client state.

End rant.

So, uh, modern day imperialism. Discuss?

i have to agree, though i havent had much research in international economics as of the modern situation, but i have definatley found that the western world is becoming far less interested in the internal affairs of our, as you say, client states, unless those affairs suddenly have the potential to disrupt their wealthbase within that country.

this is exemplified in the movie Syriana (though fictional no less relivant) if you have not seen it i suggest you do. im not sure if it is syria, but a middle eastern country suddenly has the potential under a certain leader to gain its independance from these international (mostly american) investors and finaly build its own stable economy without western money. this upsets the investors and they employ the US military and have this leader assasinated.

the same situation (and possbly even more consequential) happened in real life with the coup in Iran that placed the american backed Sha in power. the belevolent king or Emir of iran at the time was seeking complete political, economic, and tecnological freedom for iran from the western economic influences. the west said "no this will disrupt our resource flow from iran". then staged a coup and placed the pro-western Sha of Iran in power, this sha turned out to be a dictator and terribly violent against the Iranian people. the people of iran got desperate and the radical Iatola Comane (spelling is incorrect i appologise) exploited this despiration and took power with an even stronger anti-wester/anti-american intrest than the pre-sha King. Now we are in deep s**t because we created a monster that we cant control, economicly or militarily.

while on the other side Damfur exists in a constant violence, and the west has no interest because it dose not effect african-western trade beyond the borders outlying where the genocides are happening.

in africa again we can remember the blood diamond wars in south africa. where western diamond companies (DuBears) basicly funded a military rebellion against the african miners, whom simply desired better working conditions and wages.

I quote Hotel Rowanda "you arent even black, you are worse than black, you are african." no one gives a s**t about africa.

International imperialism is worse than it was in the days of America's revolution.