It has been seen that globalisation and economic liberalisation have brought new hopes and prospects in the whole world. The World Trade Organisation is one of the most important organisations committed to this cause. Big claims, assurances and promises were given to the weaker unions when the WTO got started. Among the basic principles of WTO are trade involving no discrimination, free trade, transparency, economic equality among the countries. All these hopes were put down once the organisation started functioning. Its principles seemed better only on paper but not on real ground. The failure of Doha Agenda which witnessed only some promises/ prospects for the developing and under developed countries failed to fructify. All these instances indicate that WTO has given birth to a clash with neo-imperialism.
Perhaps Hang Kong and Macau are among the last few territories of the old imperialistic regimes i.e.: the Europeans. By the end of World War II, the conquerors began retreat, resulting in many nations becoming free and emergence of a new-world order governed by trade. When one of the last countries was achieving freedom from imperialistic forces, a new form of neo-imperialism force was blooming as ‘Old bottle, new wine’. The name given to the new colonial force is globalisation. Globalisation since its beginning has taken different forms, the most recent being the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which is described as decentral commander of globalisation. Trade and economy are its two important weapons. The old imperialistic forces prevailed, expanded and conquered other nations utilising their links. Likewise, the new force also followed the old theory in the name of trade and economies, these countries have established themselves as the rulers of the new world. The old forces believed in the cheat conflicts to defeat and capture, but the new forces believed in other means such as trade sanctions, blockage of Buds and other assistance in the name of democracy and development. Thus, weaker nations are forced to comply with their demands like exporting oils, minerals, raw natural products and so on.
Through unequal conditions of economic exchange, Neo imperialism means supremacy of some countries over others. In other words, existence of neo-imperialism is observed when one nation is dependent on other nation because weaker nation is not in a position to survive economically in the modern world without the help of the powerful countries. Unlike other forms of imperialism, Neo imperialism is not established based on the direct imposition of political power by one society upon another, instead, neo-imperialism makes use of the money power in the modern world as a method for developed countries to keep poorer countries front stepping outside Fill, roles that the developed countries have designed for themselves.
Due to a few developed nations, WTO is more or less becoming a tool to keep a watch on the trade among the member countries and control the economies of the world. The developed countries before the inception of the WTO had made an effort to convince the developing countries with the argument that in the present era, enhanced economic cooperation and mutual exchanges are very necessary for the success of the world economy. It became very obvious by the functioning of the WTO ministerial conferences that the organisation was brought to satisfy the narrow-minded and biased interests of the developed world instead of removing the road blocks in the economic development of the world. In the name of liberalisation, even the productions in countries like India get guided by the Multinational Companies (MNCs) that are under the regulations of developed countries. Even the media, the fourth pillar of the India democracy is more and more getting controlled by these MNCs. When the developing countries made efforts to raise the issues of cheap labour and low profits, the developed world came to give fatal punch by raising environmental issues to be detriment of the developing countries during Seattle Summit. After that considering overall functioning of the WTO, it becomes clear that the organisation has become one of line most powerful weapon of the developed countries and the MNCs to keep a control on the economics including the politics of the developing countries like India.
For import of technology, loans and economic cooperation, the developing and the underdeveloped countries have been tied with developed countries. Even the national security of some of the countries is controlled by the developed world but the latter in the guise of the same have controlled the economics of the former throughout multinational companies and investment. Thus, the developing world got trapped in the web of loans and interests as Indians experienced during the British period. Today, there is a lack of cooperation among the developing countries. Though there is an emergence of regional groupings, there are either disagreements among the members or they are incapable of taking an independent path. For some reasons, they are forced to toe the lines of the developed world. Be it ASEAN or SCO or SAARC or NAM or IBSA or BRIC, all in some way or the other have got influenced by the USA. Their inactivity or underperformance, if not impotence, has made them dependent on the developed world.
Hong Kong summit of the WTO in 2005 showed some hopes for the developing countries at the cost of sonic compromises on the Singapore issues. The developed countries at least in principle expressed approval to cut down and, remove the trade distorting subsidies in agriculture and trade assistance. However, during the operationalisation of Doha Development Agenda, the developed world could not do enough to lose their control by facilitating the developing countries.
The last decade showed increased attempt by the developed countries to overlook the interests of the developing countries. The interests of the two groups havocked at cross purpose. Developing countries, by the consolidation of the NAM and G-20, have given a good challenge to the monopoly of the USA, Britain, France, Australia etc. at the WTO. The no negotiating approach of the US led to the failure of Cancun round and the Singapore round. Developing countries have at least started using their courage to fight so as to protect their own interest. Now, they do not seem to be in a mood to bow down under ruthless exploitation nor are they ready to succumb to the unjustified and irrational US pressure. G20 countries have clearly conveyed that till the implementation of Doha promises, they would not move ahead to any event. Thus, in other words, WTO has become a forum of clash of interests between the developed and the developing world.
For their progress and growth, the developed world desires to utilise WTO as an effective instrument. This however doesn’t seem to be possible. Such an unjust process can no longer continue for long. No one can deny that it is possible to be isolated from WTO but the success of the organisation will be at stake if all the nations do not be compassionate enough towards each other’s concerns. Among the priorities of the developing countries, elimination of hunger, poverty, unemployment, economic and social disparity and increase of capital are important. The priority of the developed countries is to ensure their economic progress by monopolising the world trade. Rich nations like the US often use the forum of WTO to expand neo-imperialism while the weaker nations are still making an attempt to get out of the vicious circle of exploitation.
Thus, the hope of the developing countries since the inception of the WTO has clearly turned into a gloomy reality. It is the complete selfishness of the developed world that has led to the clash between the two which has been on the increase of and on. Perhaps such a clash was foreseen by the former UN Secretary General when he warned that if the WTO failed to accommodate the interests of the developing nations they would question the whole effort of creating WTO and will thus lead to end the whole process. It is however hard to even imagine that the rich nations would be willing to work against their own interests to follow the basic principles of WTO. So, the developing and under developing nations needs to come together and muster up courage to overcome the hegemony of the developed world.
The conclusion could be evident through the words of the great economist Bhagawati, ‘It is useful to remember that interdependence is a non-native attractive and soothing word, but when actions are unequal it also leads to dependence mid hence to possibilities of perverse policies; interventions and aggressively imposed coordination policies with outcomes that liana the social good acid the welfare of (lie dependent nations while advancing the interest of the powerful nations.’
Besides, old terrorism has been showing the new mask with which imperialism demonises the governments that it desires to conquer. Recall that George W. Bush, after his people were bombed by terrorism clearly linked to Saudi Arabia, the country having largest oil reserves in the Middle East, already regulated by the United States, resolved to attack Iraq without finding any link to it, in order to regulate the third-largest reserves also: those in second place belong to Iran, which the U.S. also has in its sights.
During the meeting at the Capitol on November 17, 2010, the radicals of the Republican Party made all effort to connect Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador–which also happen to be oil-exporting countries–with the Islamic terrorism supposed to be promoted by Iran. They started mentioning that these governments are hostile to the U.S., and declared them anti-American and they are moving closer to Iran, becoming ‘friends of our enemies,’ and thus, they are already a threat involving weapons of mass destruction.
The settlers who established their colonies in America did so not only for religious freedom, but also for govern themselves in their own way so as to develop and protect their interests. Afterwards, they made a declaration for the independence from England with a purpose to avoid paying taxes without representation, and that’s how the United States came into being. Leaving the rhetoric, no one can see the concept of freedom for the people. It was completely missing from the real motives for independence, and thus a country continued to be a slave country and in which millions of Indians were exterminated to make possible its expansion.
It cannot be denied that the country’s laws were aimed to ensure the protection of the economic interests to which everything else was subordinated. That is the reason why conservatives always have supported the status quo, which, nonetheless, because of its brutality, could not be openly supported, and thus, compelling them to act as though they were clinging to the past only to maintain their ‘traditional family values.’ In fact, every change and evolution in thinking were always a threat to their original advantages with which they founded the country.
That is the possible explanation for why the humanisation of US society had to be fought for, and that it costs a stream of blood. The emancipation of the slaves, for example, got inspired by change, which was strongly opposed by the defenders of the status quo with a Civil War that left 618,000 dead and 412,000 wounded. But, with the victory of the north, the struggle did not get completed, because the new union continued to be an oligarchic society, as unjust as it was averse to the principle of humanity. A huge and long struggle was done to end racial segregation, and achieve human rights, public education, breakup of the monopolies, abolition of child labour, a minimum wage, rights of women, and so on. The conservatives were all opposed to these basic rights for human beings although they are now reckoned by the world as the most admirable part of our country: the human part that has united us as a people and impacted the rest world.
The nation is in fact powerful, and the conservatives boast of defending their supremacy, but in doing so they delete mentioning the enormous human cost. The history of North American power is, therefore, one of expansion with the extermination of the Indians, of agricultural prosperity with slavery, of industrial progress with the exploitation of labour, of wars waged with an aim to expand our power abroad while people with progressive thinking fought for human rights at home, and, most recently, of wasting trillions in wars against ‘terrorism’ abroad when the country’s economy is getting shattered.
It’s a more like irrational reality that can be understood only by taking note of the fact that the US is the result of two ideological currents with opposing objectives. Global supremacy is without a doubt the Republican objective, and its foreign policy is, logically, the irritant in the relations with the rest world. North American imperialism along with its corresponding anti-imperialism are consequently no more than the globalisation of the internal conflicts of North American reality. The Republicans call themselves patriots because they are able to defend the original postulates of the republic, as wrong as those may have been. They quote quite often from the Bible to justify their ‘traditionalism,’ while defending the interests of the rich who identify so much with money; and they are so few in relation to the people that they represent in reality the individualism and greed that generates poverty for the many. They put blame on the Democrats of being anti-American, socialists, communists, and, therefore, traitors to the ‘capitalist’ homeland founded by their ancestors. Abroad, they also accuse progressives of being anti-American in order to show them as ‘a danger to national security, and terrorists by association.’ Terrorism can have nothing to do with anti-imperialism as the former is a crime against humanity that caused deaths around the world long before it was used by Islamist extremists against the US. They, too, surely have their own reasons to fight against empires, but unlike the anti-imperialists, they do not do it with the use of vote power in a democracy.
Under no circumstances, terrorism is justifiable, and, therefore, should be removed from the face of the earth just like imperialism. But, till that happens, humanity cannot allow itself to get confused by the religious radicals of both extremes. Anti-imperialism is as legitimate as it is democratic, and represents, further, the internationalisation of the noblest progressive North American ideals: the right to life, liberty, dignity, health, social justice, and, of course, family. That is our connection with others and therefore with the flow of life. The Republicans happen to be so disconnected from that life that they found the shortcut of attributing it to God, with whom they presume to have a direct connection.
The difference between the anti-imperialists and the imperialists, accordingly, gets reduced to the difference between progressives and conservatives: the old dilemma of ‘to be or not to be’… part of humanity.