Neo-Colonialism Note PDF

Neo-Colonialism A venture into neo-colonial experiences cannot be divorced from the goals of European imperialism and the study of the colonial state in Africa. This is because Neo-colonialism is prevalent in Africa unlike other continents and it can be described as an advanced stage of colonialism...

Neo-Colonialism A venture into neo-colonial experiences cannot be divorced from the goals of European imperialism and the study of the colonial state in Africa. This is because Neo-colonialism is prevalent in Africa unlike other continents and it can be described as an advanced stage of colonialism because it exist in forms of the cultural, educational, industrial and technological subjugation of a former colonial territory and the further economic domination of the independent state by the former colonizer in the absence of an institutionalised political structure and direct military presence for the physical control and direction of the state ideology and economy by a superior power or former colonizer over her former and liberated colonies. Neo-colonialism is constituted by the evolution and perpetuation of a process whereby the existence of international diplomacy and protocols of state relations through an entrenched constitutional government and emerging political leadership at independence provides for a market structure cum capital and investment of the new state and the agenda for national development working in favour of the former colonizer. This is enhanced through continuous tying to the apron strings of the former colonizer in determining the current and future roles and relationship of the former colony, in world politics and economy. It was advanced that the existence of neo-colonialism is accurately evident and seen from the stages of national development at the points where former colonial masters continues to influence or define ‘culture area and serves as the exclusive positive reference group for the new nation. In identifying neo-colonial tendencies, it is obvious to assert that the options left for the new state that gained independence from her colonizer in veering out or venturing to other scales of relation is limited. This is due to the traditions and culture embedded in their existing relationship and confines as former colony arising from the language barriers, lack of expertise and technological transfer, existing industrial and trade complexes and contending ideas to transform the society and engage in the agenda for national development with the pressures of finding a path for national survival and growth guided by international forces and partners. Neo-colonialism therefore perpetuate an imbalance in relationship between a former coloniser and her liberated colonies by providing a superstructure with irresistible economic relations and potentials to further exploit and extract the economic resources of the latter largely through provision of capital, accumulation of profit and expansion of her home economy from the exploitative gains under the guise of running through a global competitive market.9 However, neo- colonialism was foisted on Africa, but could not exist without existing transferred structures, internal collaborators and partners whose responsibility is to enjoy the benefits and privileges of power and positions of trust in exchange for a perpetual relationship that does not guarantee the capacity to develop and progress outside a determined and negotiated process. Definition of Neo-Colonialism The concept of neo-colonialism was developed to describe the phenomenon where the attainment of political independence by the African States was not accompanied by economic independence. In other words, it is being applied to describe a situation where the acquisition of juridical independence has not succeeded in eliminating colonial exploitation. In one of his earliest books, written in 1945, but not published until 1962, Kwame Nkrumah (1962:1) identified three doctrines of colonialism as the doctrine of exploitation, the doctrine of trusteeship or partnership, and the doctrine of assimilation. But with neo- colonialism, the essence of these doctrines was retained in a subtle, but even more effective form. In an earlier book, Nkrumah (1963:173) set the stage for a more profound and incisive definition of neo-colonialism. In his 1963 publication, Nkrumah attributed the creation of pawn or client states”, who are independent in the name”, to the covert subtleties and manoeuvres of neo-colonial forces. Also, in his 1965 publication, which drew the anger of the State Department in the United States, (Nkrumah, 1973:311) and which many believed led to his fall in 1966, Nkrumah was more profound and penetrating in his description and exposition of neo- colonial intrigues and manoeuvres in Africa. He described neo- colonialism “as the last stage of imperialism,” Nkrumah wrote: “The essence of neo-colonialism is that the state which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has the outward trappings of sovereignty. In reality, its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside”. (Nkrumah, 1965) Under direct colonialism, where the institution of the colonial powers could be easily identified, colonialists were compelled to justify their rule, like Lord Lugard did, in his Dual Mandate (Lugard, 1922). But with neo-colonialism the picture is different. As Nkrumah explained “neo- colonialism is also the worst form of imperialism. For those who practice it, it means power without responsibility and for those who suffer from, it, it means exploitation without redress” (Nkrumah, 1965). From the writings of other scholars such as Frantz Fanon, Samir Amir, and Julius Nyerere the evils and intrigues of neo-colonialism were revealed. In the early 1960s, in the aftermath of African independence, Frantz Fanon in the “Wretched of the Earth” warned of the dangers posed to true African independence, the un-liberated condition of the African States, whose economies were still dominated by the former colonizers. (Fanon, 1968). Julius Nyerere, also bemoaned the absence of such things as a national economy in the African States, and described the neo-colonial status of African States, as reflected in the “various economic activities… owned by people outside its jurisdiction, which are directed at external needs, and which are run in the interests of external economic powers (Nyerere 1978:338). A Nigerian scholar Iweriebor (1997:30) in his conceptualisation, argues that neo-colonialism is not simply economic control and exploitation, but a comprehensive phenomenon, whose objective is to fashion subordinate peripheral capitalist societies in the thirdworld”. Origins of Neo-Colonialism In his short, but scholarly work on neo-colonialism, Iweriebor (1997:3) identified four stages in African transition to a neo-colonial status. During these stages which, according to him, spanned a period of five centuries, Africa was subjected to both open exploitation and subsequently, underdevelopment of her economies. Iweriebor’s classifications are, perhaps a summary of Water Rodney’s How Europe underdeveloped Africa, or Basil Davidson’s book, with the title: The Black Man’s Burden – Africa and the Curse of the Nation-state. The first epoch of African encounter with the Europeans was the period of the slave trade from the 15th Century to the early 19th century, when the slave trade was abolished, to pursue what was called ‘legitimate trade’. During this period Africans were parceled and shipped to Europe and North America to provide cheap labour. The “surplus value” produced as a result of this massive exploitation contributed significantly to the industrialisation of Western. The period of mercantile trade or imperialism from the early to late 19th century constitutes the second era of exploitation. This epoch inaugurated in Africa the operations of British Companies like the British South African Company, British East African Company and the united African Company as well as companies of other colonial powers, like France, Portugal and Spain. (Iweriebor 1997:4). But, because Western imperialism considered the exercise of sovereignty by Africa as exemplified in several treaties of friendship, signed with African traditional rulers objectionable, they pressurised their home countries to colonise Africa. This was the antecedent to the scramble for, and the eventual partition of Africa in Berlin in 1885; which set the stage for the third epoch. The era of colonial domination was that of direct political domination, economic exploitation and cultural imperialism. When it suited the Europeans, this colonial subjugation of Africa by superior firepower was justified on the altruistic ground of “civilising mission”. In other instances, it was based on the myth of racial superiority. The tenor of this era was the forceful conversion of African land and resources, as well as African rulers as colonial agents, under ordinances issued in the name of the Crown. But the more enduring consequences of the colonial era were the establishment of the structure, and institutions to foster African economic and ideological dependence on the West. This was achieved through the development of export crops tied to external vagaries, commerce “base” tied to Western outlets and “investment” in extractive industries. Colonialism also created a bourgeois class which Nkrumah (1970:10) called “African bourgeoisie,” and described them as a “class which thrived under colonialism”, and benefiting still “under post-independence, neo-colonial period”. This class-political, economic and intellectual – have been mentally and psychologically subjugated that it could only conceive its society from Europe prisms, and apply models and tools provided by Western Imperialism. This class, ironically, also include some of the nationalists who championed the anti-colonial struggle but were yet to wean themselves from the imperialist grip. This class in Iweriebor’s words: “represented African rejection of colonialism, but as a class, it did not reject the Western Colonial model. The colonial-era inexorably, set the stage for the fourth epoch, the neo- colonial stage, which is the focus of this unit. The root of neo-colonialism in Africa therefore has both internal and external dimensions. The ideologically backward and reformist nationalist leadership that succeeded the colonial powers and pursued economic and political interests against the common interests of the people, constitutes the internal dimension. The external dimension is represented by Western “neo- imperialism” represented by t h e Western Capitalist States which offer various tempting financial, educational, and advisory aids to the new African States” (Iweriebor, 1997:5). Features of a Neo-Colonial State A neo-colonial is a client or pawn state, which enjoys nominal independence, but lack the essential attributes of a sovereign state. In other words, a neo-colonial state is a n independent name but is bereft of the power to pursue independent action that will result in self-reliant development. According to Nkrumah, because it was no longer possible to reverse the momentum generated by anti-colonial nationalism, “old fashioned colonialism” was everywhere on the retreat. To safeguard and preserve their economic interest, the imperialists took a retreat and resorted to a neo-colonial arrangement, as a tactical expedient. In a neo-colonial state, the power exercising control is often the former colonial power as it is in most Francophone African countries. The only exception was Guinea, under Sekou Toure, with a single dissenting No Vote to a proposal for a French Community at the 28th September 1958 referendum, organised at the instance of General de Gaulle. For this courageous decision, Guinea was made to suffer reprisals. It is also possible for another country, apart from the mother country to maintain a neo-colonial relation with another. A case in point is South Vietnam, which was colonised by France but maintained a neo-colonial relation with the U.S.A. Also, Congo, a former colony of Belgium, whose economy in the 60s was controlled by a consortium of foreign financial interests, is another variant of a neo-colonial relationship (Nkrumah 1965:10). A neo-colonial state is also, usually, faced with internal contradictions. According to Nkrumah, to make it attractive to the citizens of such states, it must be shown to be capable of improving their standard of living. But this can only be achieved at the expense of neo-colonial interest, which is to keep African countries, economically subjected. A state in the grip of neo-colonialism is also not a master of its destiny and this constitutes a threat to world peace. In the Cold War era, the two super- powers employed neo-colonial states as pawns or proxies to fight their limited wars. The crisis, which engulfed Congo on the attainment of independence, was a manifestation of neo- colonialism. Being the final and perhaps, the most dangerous stage in capitalist development, neo-colonial powers are never sensitive to the interests of the people of a neo-colonial state. Indeed, the authority to govern is not from the people, but the metropolitan power. It can even come from multi-national corporations, which dominate economies of African countries, because of their pervasive, and often, negative mode of operations. The pervasive impact of these new global actors which operate across national frontiers has been illustrated by Joseph Nye (2000:8) thus: presently at least 12 transnational corporations have annual sales that are larger than the gross national product (GNP) of more than half of the states in the world. The turnover of companies such as Shell, IBM, or General Motors is larger than the GDP of countries such as Hungary, Ecuador or the Democratic Republic of Congo. Neo- colonialism is not an exclusively African phenomenon. Rather, it has been an established practice in other parts of the world, especially in Asia and Latin America. Lenin (1917), inquired whether imperialism is in its “Last stage”, or in the words of Nkrumah (1964) in its’ highest stage” in the era of neo- colonialism. It is based on exploitation, fragmentation and penetration. This was further elaborated by Galtung in his structural theory of imperialism. The process includes an uneven trade pattern or flow of an asymmetric or unfair trade relations, and protective tariffs. The second component of dominance is fragmentation. The picture here is that of coordinated and united rich counties versus a disorganised and dis-united periphery. Also, while the centre countries establish links in different directions, the poor countries concentrate their activities to the centre. For example, this was achieved in the early years of independence, by given African countries associate membership of bodies like the European community, which amounted to de facto second-class membership.