Colonising the Globe

JAVED JAMIL says that globalisation is a clever move by colonialist powers to perpetuate their hold over the developing and poor countries that are tying to break the fetters of slavery they suffered in the past.

Written by


Published on

JAVED JAMIL says that globalisation is a clever move by colonialist powers to perpetuate their hold over the developing and poor countries that are tying to break the fetters of slavery they suffered in the past.

Economic fundamentalism, as an ideology, has not only been embraced by the big business, it has also worked its way up­wards. The governments of certain countries, predominantly the same countries which were the cradles of economic fundamentalism, have specialised the art of furthering their economic interests through all possible means. Since the ancient times, mili­tary power has been the chief, and perhaps, the only factor in the claim to supremacy in the world. This continued till the World War II. But the human and material cost of the World War II assumed horrible proportions. The western countries and their allies were the major participants in the War. It was also they who had to bear most of the suffering. With the end of the War, the world saw the emergence of new powers and new equations. America and Russia soon donned the mantle of Super Powers.
The western lobby, led by the USA, and supported among others by Britain, France, West Germany and Japan, realised that they could not afford major military confrontations any longer. They understood that the military capabilities of the two major contenders, and their allies, real and potential, had reached a stage where it was impossible, in case another military confrontation ensued, to foresee a clear winner. Their military ammunition was so huge and so destructive that any full-fledged war would herald doom for the whole of mankind. The realisation had dawned on the western block that, in order to reign supreme, what was required was not the military but the economic supremacy. It does not mean that they were no longer interested in building their military strength. But they now conspired to use their supremacy as a military power for supporting their expansionist strategies in the field of economics.
The west dreamt of becoming the undisputed king of the world, but without having any responsibility. To rule over the world without having to actually administer it necessitated manoeuvring of international policies, popularisation of certain values and masterminding of the scientific and medical researches with certain specific aims. The big powers, though there was no love lost between them, had no alternative but to unite at least for the time being and for specific purposes to dictate terms to rest of the world. This was to be done at various levels.
At the political level, it was decided to set up an organisation of countries, promptly named the United Nations Organisation, now known as the United Nations. Every country of the world would be brought under its umbrella. The declared aim was to ensure that the catastrophe of the two World Wars would not be allowed to recur; whenever a dispute arose between any of the member countries, the UN would intervene in order to prevent them from using force against each other; it would leave no stone unturned in diluting the hostilities and bringing them to the negotiating table.
The ostensible purpose was of course admirable; and it undoubtedly played a significant role in the later years in bringing peace in certain regions of the world. But the big powers would not allow the United Nations to be totally independent, for if it dispensed Solomon’s justice it would be creating tedious problems for them. How could they tolerate the smaller nations, on account of their combined numerical strength, insulting them? It was, there­fore, resolved that the nations with big military strength be bestowed upon with the power of Veto. They would also become permanent members of the most important wing of the UN, the Security Council. The countries originally endued with the Veto power were the United Stated, Britain, France, and Soviet Union. After several years, China, which had earlier not joined the UN, was also persuaded to be its member, in return of the acceptance of its demand to be given the status of a big power. Consequently only 5 of about 180 nations became more equal among equals. The matters continue to be raised at the UN platforms. But a resolution can be adopted only if it is acceptable to the big five. The same people who boast themselves to be the champions of democracy have found ways to flaunt democratic norms themselves.
With the right to Veto having been usurped by ‘the big five’, nothing can happen in the UN, unless it has their sanction. By creating the UN they have succeeded in distributing the world among themselves – not through military interventions, but courtesy the extraordinary powers showered upon them by the assembly of nations. Yet, whenever the situation warrants, each of ‘the big five’ does not fail in exercising the “military option”. If the issue is at all raised in the UN any resolution against the interests of that country is promptly vetoed. Little wonder then that the veto power has been used umpteen times; every time it has been used, it has invariably given to a small nation a crushing blow. What a travesty of justice that it is the will of the big powers and not the truth that prevails! Yet each of ‘the big five’ claims itself to be the only champion of justice and peace. The lions are periodically hungry that makes them go on the hunting spree; as soon as their stomachs are full, they become peace-loving ani­mals.
Till the 1980s, the intense rivalry, remembered by history as ‘cold war’ between the US and the USSR, had both positive and negative impact. The positive contribution of the cold war was that it estab­lished a sort of equilibrium in the world. The American and Soviet allies were beware of one another, and were often reluctant to make expansionist moves. The world had become divided into two blocks. If a country belonging to one block invaded a country belonging to the other block or tried to unduly influence it the other side would immediately spring into action. Resolutions of condemnation, breaking of diplomatic relations and threats, overt and covert, of different kinds would follow. The matter would be repeatedly raised on the various forums of the United Nations, though more often than not it would end in a veto. Yet by raising the issue at different platforms and also by intensive propagan­da through the media, each block would try to paint the other in the darkest possible colours. This would sometimes help as it happened in Afghanistan, from where Russia had to withdraw its troops ultimately.
The negative impact of ‘the cold war’ was that the world, virtually, got divided into two blocks. On paper, there were many non-aligned nations, but in practice, each one of them too supported and was supported by the US or the USSR. The two superpowers had made rest of the world a playground for their games; all other countries were being used as mere pawns. They would often back the two nations engaged in hostilities only to increase their own influence or to increase sales of their arms.
The economic crisis in the Soviet Union, which made communism unpopu­lar among the masses, compelled Gorbachev to give up hostility towards the US; he had no option left except to extend a hand of friendship towards its biggest foe. The people in the USSR had started feeling asphyxiated under the communist umbrella that provided little freedom for them. There were no incentives for working. The revolutionary fervour had faded long ago. The lead­ership was no more in a position to enthuse them into action. Gor­bachev had realised that the controlled economy was no longer expected to deliver the goods. He knew that the US and its allies fully understood his predicaments and would hardly hesitate to fish in troubled waters. He therefore gave a call to end the cold war. His call was promptly heeded. The US and its allies behaved as if they had forgotten all the past acrimonies, and were now interested only in restructuring the USSR economy. Little however did Gorbachev realise that even in friendship the US and its allies would not mind using every possible opportunity for their own ulterior motives.
For the western block it was a moment of jubilation; for the time had come when the enemy number one of their economic ideology, communism, could be buried, if possible for ever. Initially, they heaped encomia on Gorbachev for having initiated glasnost and perestroika. But soon they realised that his policy was not to abandon communism but to bring certain reforms, and once the Soviet economy stabi­lised he or those who follow him could rejuvenate their cam­paign against capitalism and against the western expansionist designs with renewed vigour. The west therefore soon became disinterested in the continuation of Gorbachev as leader of the Soviet Union. They were in quest of a better alternative; and in Yeltsin, they found an ideal replacement. Boris Yeltsin’s faith in the western economic system was quite well established. The US and its allies knew that with the arrival of Yeltsin on the scene communism would easily be sentenced to death. And as soon as Yeltsin assumed power, he was quick to strike at every re­maining sign of the communist past.
The US had thus achieved the most crucial victory. The erstwhile Soviet Union was no more a single country; it had disintegrated into several, small, autonomous states. Russia that had, for about half a century, been the biggest custodian of socialism had taken a U turn towards capitalism. There was little opposition left for the expansion of western economic fundamentalism. China, despite preserving its socialistic credentials, had already started “opening” its market. The rise of “Islamic fundamental­ist” forces in the west Asia was a cause of concern; but still it was within manageable proportions; they were not in strong enough position to challenge the hegemony of US. The combined assault by the US and its thirty allies on Iraq had sounded a clear warning that the US would tolerate no “nonsense” activities. Thus the time was now ripe for the globalisation of the world.
The US and its allies had now their eyes on the markets in all the countries of the world. The “fruits” of globalisation – read Americanisation – were now the talking-point at all the international forums, even before they were visible anywhere. Free market economy became the order of the day. The technological advancement had now brought the satellite TV into every home, even in the underdeveloped coun­tries. And through those TV channels commenced the most devastat­ing attack on the socioeconomic system and culture of the coun­tries that had, till then, been making conscious efforts to pre­serve their own roots. But anything that is not consistent with the demands of market would not be permitted to persist. The invasion of the “obscurantist” cultures and forces still continues; it is facing hardly any resistance worth mentioning, and one territory after the other is being captured and ransacked by the invaders.
The UN is not the only organisation at the international level that has been used as an instrument by the west, led by the US, for colonising the whole world. An international body was set up in almost every field; and invariably these bodies understood and propagated only those ideologies that suited the western economic interests. International Monetary Fund and World Bank have always been “guiding” the “underdeveloped” nations to achieve high rate of “development”. And, in the guise of guidance and by providing monetary assistance, that is always for those projects which are expected, in the long term, to help the economic fundamentalists, these organisations have been blackmailing those countries to toe their policies.
The third world countries have been success­fully lured into a debt trap; once a country falls in the trap, it has no option but to follow their dictates. GATT and other such agreements and treaties have ensured that whatever little the west gives to the developing nations, would have to return huge profits for it. The globalisation has guaranteed that all the business activities occurring anywhere in the world would garner a substantial share for the western industrialists. By continuously popularising the new technologies as indispensable for modernisa­tion and development, they have made sure that the goods continue to flow from the developed to the developing nations, and the money keeps transferring from the developing nations to the developed.
Scientific organisations like the WHO are being misused to make the world believe that whatever is designed by the western experts is the best possible option. The Amnesty and other human rights organisations are busy in convincing the world that only the west cares for the genuine rights of men, women and children. The World Population Fund, the UNESCO and the WHO – all are hell bent on de­stroying the social and family values. The NGOs are being funded to speak the language they want them to speak. Thus every possible effort is being made to present the west, particularly Ameri­ca, as the role model for the rest of the world. Almost all the world organisations are dominated by the western countries and these are being used by them to adopt such policies, programmes and plans as give them the biggest possible share in the booty.
The colonisation or neo-colonisation of the globe is thus com­plete. And for this neo-colonisation, the west did not want to use any military equipment nor had to sacrifice the lives of its citi­zens. But the events of post 9/11 have reminded the west that without the overwhelming display of power the rest of the world cannot be forced to abject surrender. Whatever little has remained, given the present state of somnolence, will be achieved within the next few years, unless, of course, a catastrophe or war brings so much devastation that the somnolence evaporates.