Globalisation Is a Euphamism for Neo-Colonialism

globoseisation is a euphemism for neo-colonialism. Discuss. valet(prenominal)isation is a complex and multifaceted ply (Bayliss 2008252). However, this essay will on the imbalance in the midst of western formers and the ontogeny serviceman and consequential victimisation, which, rather than being condemned as neo-colonialism, is justified as globalisation. The end of colonial rule did not mark the end of the inclination of frugal control and exploitation of the evolution adult male (Manzo 2009267).The ethnical, semipolitical and frugal effects of globalisation upon the developing humanity resemble that of neo-colonial power an unlikeness that is defended by the benevolence of neo-liberalism and egalitarianism of the liberal mart. This essay will guidance on the cultural and political orthogonal potential of the west and frugal partiality of globalised institutions, referring to IR theories of globalisation defending it as beneficial (Bayliss 2008248, pacha 2 009330) and condemning it as capitalist imperialism.Colonialism describes a period of expansion and exploitation by European powers spanning the 15th to 20th Century, the political control, physical bank line, and supremacy of people and their land (Crawford 2002131). Between 1946 and 1976 European powers granted independence to every last(predicate) their colonies. However, Horvath writing in 1972 beseechs that neo-colonialism swiftly followed its predecessor (Horvath 197246).Neo-colonialism implies that whilst place-colonial states attained nominal reign within the multinational trunk, they remain dependent upon western powers and ar later on politically controlled, culturally conditioned and economically exploited (Nkrumah 1968x-xii). States with the outward caparison of outside(a) sovereignty precisely in reality have their economic administration and thus its political insurance directed from outside. (Nkrumah 1968xi)globalization can be defined as the expansion o f worldwide interconnectedness where states integrate and supranational institutions 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 hold for interventionist policies creating equality within a competitory slack market (Hirst 1999134). ground-system theory however, describes monopoly capitalism where rich core states exploit peripheral lower states, essentially an outside(a) class system (Bayliss 2008147, Wallerstein 1989). Realist thought, would argue that powerful states merely use the globalised system for their sustain gain (Waltz 1979). Globalization could therefore be seen as an legal instrument for imperialism respecting strong capitalist states (Bayliss 2008153) essentially a euphemism for neo-colonialism. Democ racy is promoted through globalization based upon neoliberal ideals of humanities right to libertarian happiness (Morgenthau 1960100).The political burden of westbound thought, and the professed moral legitimacy of its international promotion highlights a neo-colonial potential (Nkrumah 1968ix), The Western world recollects international co-operation can only safely fare between liberal democratic states (Owen 199496). Separate peace (Doyle 19861151), co-operation solely between liberal democracies, can be seen through EU accession criteria (Europa 2010Copenhagen Criteria) and ENP policy (DeBardeleben 200821) and IMF and World Bank loan policy (Cogan 2009211). Imposing Western political principles using economic incentive.Here, humanitarian aid is a gift of neo-colonialism foreign capital used for the exploitation rather than the phylogenesis of the third world (Nkrumah 1968x) For Western powers force is often a necessary option against intolerant states (Hoffman 199531) Owen 199497). US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has been motivated by the desire to distribute democracy and ensure security (Owen 1994125-127). This power politics contradicts equality of neo-liberal co-operation in globalization suggesting political homogeneity confabulated by an imperialist force.Realists argue that states espouse humanitarian motives as a pretext to cover the hobbyhorse of national self-interest (Franck and Rodley 1973). Nato selectivity of response 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 adopted the responsibility to protect, bountiful itself legitimate right act upon human rights breaches. This is one of many examples of nternational institutions rarefied Western political and moral ethics justified by an international responsibility (Morgan 197233-34) a practice widely accepted i n Western public opinion (Reisman 1985279-80). Globalization is essentially creating an international super power that transcends state borders possessing hegemony on moral and political principles with a self-legitimised right to oblige them. Defenders of globalization suggest the international community is one of shared and defended determine.However, these values are presented by the West, who misuse this influence to intervene without justification. Globalization has allowed for an increase flow of shade and traditions internationally. However, this flow has not been evenhanded, media dominance of Western powers dwarfing little states. The advanced nature of US media and sheer weight of capital has created Media Imperialism (Sklair 2002167) where the substantial world is flooded by broadcasting promoting Western products, creating an externally fixed popular culture.The consequence is a developed world dominated by Western products e. g. Coco cola the best selling drink in the world (Coca Cola 2010). Under the theory of neo-colonialism, neo-colonial states are obliged to corrupt 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 planetary 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 thrift the wretched. (Horvath 197246) Colonial powers occupied weaker states, imposing culture, religion and valu es 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 conformity to Western democracy and culture, whether it has been received or enforced is the leave 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 discontinue market intended to have a beneficial effect on developing countries (Hirst 1999134) shifting power away from developed countries to the rest of the world (Martin 199712). However, free market competition creates losers, often the most vulnerable feminized states (Peterson 2009287). Whilst globalisation did not create inequality, the solution for develop ment was flawed, merely worsening the imbalance (Peterson 2009287) arguably, colonialism creating inequality, neo-colonialism maintaining it (Horvath 197246).Realists believe states only well-being at other states expense (Art, Waltz 198867-68) suggesting neo-liberal ideas of development would harm the developed nations. Whilst international economic institutions such as the WTO, IMF and World Bank are intended to maintain free trade and countenance 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 vindication favour firms based in the Western World who hold 90% of patents forcing expensive products on the developed world who cannot produced their own low equal 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). northern governments promote free trade and use the IMF and World Bank to impose import liberalization on pitiful 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). external 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 international economic institutions has allowed for economic hegemony post-colonial states remaining dependant upon their former masters (Young 200145). loss theories fit alarmingly with criticisms of globalization, World System possible action and Dependency Theory showing resources flowing from periphery of poor, underdeveloped states to a core of stiff states (Bayliss 2008147). Poor 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 detail of Capitalism shows a capitalist monopoly, essentially neo-colonial periphery at the nookie of a tiered international system, a system Marxists would argue is essentially globalisation (Bayliss 2008157). However, unlike colonialism globalization has arguably sceptered ideas above states, giving the defenders of neo-colonial states a louder v oice. 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 North-South divides that emerged during Colonialism (Horvath 197246). Whilst neo-liberal free markets aimed to result the inequalities, Realism argues flaws and bias within the current international system were retain 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 account for global systems not to bring forth a saucy imperialism and new colonialism (Emerson 196916). The cultural and moral dominance of Western powers and active promotion of values, for the be nefit of the developing world however, is a far more malevolent cut that globalization is a euphemism for neo-colonialism (Nkrumah 1968xi). Bibliography Articles J. Cogan (2009) Representation and Power in International presidency 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 republican 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, correspond Theories Foreign Policy, No. 145, pp. 62-62. Books J. Art and K. Waltz (ed. ) (1988) T he use of force capital of the United Kingdom University press of America. N. Crawford (2002) Argument and Change in World Politics, Cambridge Cambridge University wish 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 frenetic Logic of Global Capitalism, New York Simon and Schuster J. Gray (1998) False Dawn The Delusions of Global Capitalism. capital of the United Kingdom Granta Books J. Gowa (1983) Closing the Cold Window, New York Cornell University Press W. Kymlicka (1991) Liberalism Community 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 calcium 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 strategic 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 organized economically? (ed. ) J. Edkins, M. Zehfuss, Global Politics and new introduction, London Routledge, pp. 271-294. M. pacha (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 Spend $50 to Make the World a improve Place, Cambridge Cambridge University Press, pp. 147-159. A. Bellamy, N. Wheeler (2008) Humanitarian Intervention i n World Politics (ed. ) thaumaturgy Baylis, Steve Smith, Patricia Owens The Globalization of world politics New York Oxford university press. pp. 522-538. S. Hobden, R. Wyn Jones (2008) Marxist theories of International dealing (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