Globalisation Is a Euphamism for Neo-Colonialism

Globalisation is a euphemism for neo-colonialism. Discuss. Globalisation is a complex and multifaceted issue (Bayliss 2008252). However, this essay will on the unbalance between western powers and the maturation world and consequential exploitation, which, rather than being condemned as neo-colonialism, is justify as globalization. The end of colonial rule did not mark the end of the trend of sparing control and exploitation of the developing world (Manzo 2009267).The cultural, political and economic effects of globalization upon the developing world resemble that of neo-colonial power an inconsistency that is defended by the bounty of neo-liberalism and egalitarianism of the free market. This essay will focus on the cultural and political international dominance of the west and economic partiality of globalised institutions, referring to IR theories of globalisation defending it as skilful (Bayliss 2008248, Pasha 2009330) and condemning it as capitalist imperialism.Colonialis m describes a period of expansion and exploitation by European powers spanning the 15th to twentieth Century, the political control, physical occupation, and domination of people and their land (Crawford 2002131). Between 1946 and 1976 European powers granted independence to all their colonies. However, Horvath writing in 1972 argues that neo-colonialism swiftly followed its predecessor (Horvath 197246).Neo-colonialism implies that whilst post-colonial states achieve nominal s everywhereeignty within the international trunk, they remain dependent upon western powers and are subsequently politically controlled, culturally conditioned and economically exploited (Nkrumah 1968x-xii). States with the outward-bound trappings of international sovereignty but in reality have their economic system and thus its political policy directed from outside. (Nkrumah 1968xi)globalization can be defined as the expansion of worldwide interconnectedness where states integrate and supranational instit utions are formed. Whilst stronger states control their involvement, weaker states are forced to integrate, being influenced rather than influencing (Bayliss 2008255). Neo-liberalism argues integration is beneficial (Bayliss 2008249, Sorenson 199710) globalization will restructure the world economy without the need for interventionist policies creating equality within a competitive free market (Hirst 1999134).World-system theory however, describes monopoly capitalism where luxuriant core states exploit peripheral poorer states, essentially an international class system (Bayliss 2008147, Wallerstein 1989). Realist thought, would argue that powerful states simply use the globalised system for their own benefit (Waltz 1979). Globalization could therefore be seen as an instrument for imperialism kick upstairsing strong capitalist states (Bayliss 2008153) essentially a euphemism for neo-colonialism. Democracy is promoted through globalization base upon neoliberal ideals of humanities remedy to libertarian happiness (Morgenthau 1960100).The political weight of Western thought, and the professed moral legitimacy of its international promotion highlights a neo-colonial dominance (Nkrumah 1968ix), The Western world believes international co-operation can however safely occur between liberal democratic states (Owen 199496). Separate peace (Doyle 19861151), co-operation solely between liberal democracies, can be seen through EU ingress criteria (Europa 2010Copenh daysn Criteria) and ENP policy (DeBardeleben 200821) and IMF and World Bank loan policy (Cogan 2009211). Imposing Western political principles using economic incentive.Here, humanitarian upkeep is a gift of neo-colonialism unknown capital used for the exploitation rather than the development of the third world (Nkrumah 1968x) For Western powers force is often a necessary option against illiberal states (Hoffman 199531) Owen 199497). US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has been motivated by the desire to spread democracy and ensure security (Owen 1994125-127). This power administration contradicts equality of neo-liberal co-operation in globalization suggesting political homogeneity imposed by an imperialist force.Realists argue that states espouse humanitarian motives as a pretext to cover the pursuit of national self-interest (Franck and Rodley 1973). Nato selectivity of reply in Kosovo (1999) failing to act in Sudan (Bayliss 2008527) and the illegitimate intervention of France in Rwanda (1994) expose a flawed international justice, where Western powers act without restraint. In 2005 the UN choose the responsibility to protect, giving itself legitimate right act upon human rights breaches. This is one of many examples of nternational institutions imposing Western political and moral ethics justified by an international responsibility (Morgan 197233-34) a practice widely accepted in Western public opinion (Reisman 1985279-80). Globalization is essentially creating an interna tional passing power that transcends state borders possessing hegemony on moral and political principles with a self-legitimised right to enforce them. Defenders of globalization suggest the international community is one of shared and defended set.However, these values are presented by the West, who misuse this influence to intervene without justification. Globalization has allowed for an increased flow of culture and traditions internationally. However, this flow has not been evenhanded, media dominance of Western powers dwarfing smaller states. The progress nature of US media and sheer weight of capital has dod Media Imperialism (Sklair 2002167) where the developed world is flooded by broadcasting promoting Western products, creating an externally dictated popular culture.The signification is a developed world dominated by Western products e. g. Coco cola the best selling drink in the world (Coca Cola 2010). under(a) the theory of neo-colonialism, neo-colonial states are ob liged to purchase manufactured products from imperial powers to the deficit of local products (Nkrumah 1968ix). The culture and products of powerful societies are not imposed upon weak societies by force or occupation (Crawford 2002131, Sklair 2002168) but underhandedly via an internationally dominant media limited to Anglo-American interests (Lee 198082).Whilst globalization arguably encourages multiculturalism (Bayliss 2008423), a disparate International system has created a dominant culture within the global community (Kymlicka 1991182) that exploits its status to the demise of the developing world (Golding and Harris 1997). Colonialism saw a moral arrogance with missionaries striving to create a replica of ones own country upon the natives (Emerson 196913-14) a noble purpose of saving the wretched. (Horvath 197246) Colonial powers occupied weaker states, imposing culture, religion and values based upon a superiority of power, policing and governing without legitimacy (Crawford 002131-133). Similarly neo-colonialism operates in political, religious, ideological and cultural spheres where the powerful transform the other into oneself (Toje 200883) based on moral conceit. Globalisation has revealed complaisance to Western democracy and culture, whether it has been received or enforced is the issue of debate. Globalisation as interconnectedness (Bayliss 2008252) economically the integration of national economies into global markets (Todaro 2000713) is driven by economic growth.The creation of the international free market intended to have a beneficial effect on developing countries (Hirst 1999134) shifting power aside from developed countries to the rest of the world (Martin 199712). However, free market competitor creates losers, often the most vulnerable feminized states (Peterson 2009287). Whilst globalisation did not create inequality, the solution for development was flawed, merely worsening the imbalance (Peterson 2009287) arguably, colonialism crea ting inequality, neo-colonialism maintaining it (Horvath 197246).Realists believe states only benefit at other states expense (Art, Waltz 198867-68) suggesting neo-liberal ideas of development would harm the developed nations. Whilst international economic institutions such(prenominal) as the WTO, IMF and World Bank are intended to maintain free trade and assist developing countries, they have often been accused actually maintaining inequality (Peterson 2009291) for the benefit of elites (Gray 1998, Greider 1997). A free market is intended to be free, impartial and competitive (Bayliss 2008249). However, the rules of world trade are created, and therefore weighted in favor of rich countries.For example, trade-related aspects of international policy rights require international patent protection favour firms based in the Western World who hold 90% of patents forcing pricy products on the developed world who cannot produced their own low cost versions, the worst example being that of patented medicine (Watkins 200278). The double standards of the free market are also apparent in trade tariffs (Anderson 2006147-159). no(prenominal)thern governments promote free trade and use the IMF and World Bank to impose import liberalization on poor states (Romano 20041012).Yet they refuse to open their own markets, south-north export trade tariffs cost developing countries $10 billion annually, twice the amount they receive from humanitarian aid (Watkins 200279). International economic institutions are essentially governed by Western powers the World bank presidential post dominated by American citizens since its creation, not based on votes but informal agreements between the US and European stakeholders (Cogan 2009209) Since the outset the US has shown dominance (Gowa 1983) creating the Bretton Woods system in 1944 and causing its breakdown, in 1971 (Bayliss 2008245).The competition of the free market, handicapped against the third world by dishonest steward of internati onal economic institutions has allowed for economic hegemony post-colonial states remaining dependant upon their former masters (Young 200145). redness theories fit alarmingly with criticisms of globalization, World System Theory and Dependency Theory showing resources flowing from periphery of poor, underdeveloped states to a core of wealthy states (Bayliss 2008147). miserable states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are forced into the globalised world system (Blomstrom 19848-45).Lenins work Imperialism, The Highest stage of Capitalism shows a capitalist monopoly, essentially neo-colonial periphery at the bottom of a tiered international system, a system Marxists would argue is essentially globalisation (Bayliss 2008157). However, unlike colonialism globalization has arguably empowered ideas above states, giving the defenders of neo-colonial states a louder voice. Social Constructivism argues that globalisation is far deeper than interaction between states (Snyder 200460).Whilst colonialism remained acceptable for centuries, the exploitation and imbalance of the current world system does not go unnoticed, numerous NGOs pressuring government institutions and operating independently as aid organizations. Globalisation has created an imbalanced world system retaining no.th-South divides that emerged during Colonialism (Horvath 197246). Whilst neo-liberal free markets aimed to resolve the inequalities, Realism argues flaws and bias within the current international system were retained and created as to ensure the Western powers remained economically powerful over the developing world (Emerson 196915).Emerson claims it would be a turning point in history for global systems not to bring forth a newborn imperialism and new colonialism (Emerson 196916). The cultural and moral dominance of Western powers and active promotion of values, for the benefit of the developing world however, is a far more malevolent sign that globalization i s a euphemism for neo-colonialism (Nkrumah 1968xi). Bibliography Articles J. Cogan (2009) Representation and Power in International Organization The Operational Constitution and Its Critics The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 03, No. 2, pp. 209-263 R. Emerson (1969) Colonialism, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 3-16 J. Horvath (1972) A Definition of Colonialism Current Anthropology, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 45-57 J. M. Owen, (1994) How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace, International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Autumn, 1994). pp. 87-125. D. Roman, R. Sandbrook (2004) Globalisation, extremism and violence in poor countries Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 1007-1030. K. Watkins (2002) Is the WTO Legit? Foreign Policy, No. 132, pp. 78-79 J.Snyder (2004) One World, Rival Theories Foreign Policy, No. 145, pp. 62-62. Books J. Art and K. Waltz (ed. ) (1988) The use of force London University press of America. N. Crawford (2002) Argument and Change in W orld Politics, Cambridge Cambridge University Press J. DeBardeleben (2008) The boundaries of EU Enlargement, Basingstoke Palgrave MacMillan P. Hirst, G. Thompson (1999) Globalization question, Cambridge Polity Press S. Hoffman (1987) Janus and Minerva Essays in the Theory and Practice of International Politics, Boulder Westview Press. W.Greider (1997) One World Ready or Not The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism, New York Simon and Schuster J. Gray (1998) False Dawn The Delusions of Global Capitalism. London Granta Books J. Gowa (1983) Closing the Cold Window, New York Cornell University Press W. Kymlicka (1991) Liberalism residential area and Culture, Oxford Clarendon Press K. Nkrumah (1965) Neo-colonialism the last stage of imperialism, London Nelson C. Lee (1980) Media Imperialism Reconsidered The Homogenizing of Television Culture California Sage L. Sklair (2002) Globalization, Capitalism and its alternatives, New York Oxford University Press M.Todaro (2000) Economic Development , Harlow Addison Wesley Longman A. Toje (2008) America, The EU and strategical Culture London Routledge R. Young (2001) Post-colonialism An Historical Introduction Book Chapters K. Manzo (2009) Do colonialism and slavery belong to the past (ed. ) J. Edkins, M. Zehfuss, Global Politics and new introduction, London Routledge, pp. 244-271. V. Peterson (2009) How is the world create economically? (ed. ) J. Edkins, M. Zehfuss, Global Politics and new introduction, London Routledge, pp. 271-294. M. Pasha (2009) How can we end poverty (ed. J. Edkins, M. Zehfuss, Global Politics and new introduction, London Routledge, pp. 320-344 K. Anderson (2006) Subsidies and Trade Barriers (ed. ) Bjorn Lomborg How to pass off $50 to Make the World a Better Place, Cambridge Cambridge University Press, pp. 147-159. A. Bellamy, N. Wheeler (2008) Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics (ed. ) John Baylis, Steve Smith, Patricia Owens The Globalization of world politics New York Oxford university pres s. pp. 522-538. S. Hobden, R. Wyn Jones (2008) Marxist theories of International Relations (ed. John Baylis, Steve Smith, Patricia Owens The Globalization of world politics New York Oxford university press. pp. 142-157. N. Woods (2008) International political economy in an age of globalization (ed. ) John Baylis, Steve Smith, Patricia Owens The Globalization of world politics New York Oxford university press. pp. 244-258 Websites Coco-Cola Company, http//www. coca-cola. com/index. jsp Europa, Copenhagen Criteria, http//europa. eu/scadplus/glossary/accession_criteria_copenhague_en. htm Europa, ENP policy, http//ec. europa. eu/world/enp/policy_en. htm