Under pressure from nationalist and socialist anti-imperialist movements and regimes, colonial structured empires gave way to new so-called nationalist regimes, some of which restructured their economies, diversifying their productive systems and trading partners. In some cases they imposed protective barriers to promote industrialization. Their goal was to retain or restore the “colonial division of labor” – primary production exchanged for finished goods. However, by the last third of the 20th century, industrial driven empire building began a process of adaptation, “jumping over tariff walls”, investing in elementary forms of ‘production’ and in labor intensive consumer products. Imperial manufacturers contracted assembly plants organized around light consumer goods including textiles, shoes, and electronics.
By the early 1990’s a basic shift in the nature of imperial power took place. This led to a profound divergence between past and present imperialist policies and among established and emerging expansionist regimes. Modern industrial-driven empire building (MIE) is built around securing raw materials, exploiting cheap labor and increasing market shares. This is accomplished by collaborating with pliant rulers, offering them economic aid and political recognition on terms surpassing those of their imperial competitors.
Historically, economic imperialism (EI) resorted to military intervention to overthrow anti-imperialist regimes and secure collaborator political clients. Subsequently, the economic imperialism frequently established military bases and training and advisory missions to repress resistance movements and to secure a local military officialdom responsive to the imperial power. The purpose was to secure economic resources and an obedient labor force, in order to maximize economic returns.
In this ‘traditional’ path to economic empire building the military was subordinated to maximizing economic exploitation. Imperial power sought to preserve the post colonial state apparatus and professional cadre but to harness them to the new imperial economic order. The economic imperial sought to preserve the elite to maintain law and order as the basic foundation for restructuring the economy. The goal was to secure policies to suit the economic needs of the private corporations and banks of the imperial system. The prime tactic of the imperial institutions was to designate western educated professionals to design policies which maximized private earning. The policies of the imperial institutions included the privatization of all strategic economic sectors and the demolition of all protective measures -opening markets- favoring local producers. The policies also included the implementation of regressive taxes on local consumers, workers and enterprises while it continued lowering or eliminating taxes and controls over imperial firms; and the elimination of protective labor legislation and outlawing of independent class organizations.
In its heyday western economic imperialism led to the massive transfer of profits, interest, royalties and ill begotten wealth of the native elite from the post-colonial countries to the imperial centers. As befits post-colonial imperialism the cost of administrating these imperial dependencies was borne by the local workers, farmers and employees.
While contemporary and historic economic imperialism have many similarities, there are a few crucial differences.
This is exactly what has transpired over the past twenty years, especially with regard to US empire building. The dual processes of military intervention and economic exploitation which characterized traditional Western imperialism gradually shifted toward a dominant highly militarized variant of imperialism. Economic interests, both in terms of economic costs and benefits and global market shares were sacrificed in the pursuit of military domination. The then US President, Bush senior, perceived the demise of the former Soviet Union as a ‘historic opportunity’ to unilaterally impose a uni-polar world. According to this new doctrine the US should reign supreme globally and regionally. Projections of US military power would now operate unhindered by any nuclear deterrence. However, the Bush senior was deeply embedded in the US petroleum industry. Hence the first Iraq war 1990-91 pursued weakening of Saddam in Iraq. The conversion from economic to militarist imperialism was largely the result of the pervasive and ‘deep’ influence of policymakers of Zionist persuasion.
Tags:
کوئی تبصرے نہیں:
ایک تبصرہ شائع کریں