Modern Imperialism

Modern Imperialism

Philip Curtin made some very good arguments about European industrialization and imperialism. In general I agree with most of his theories. However, it seems as though Curtin seems to think that imperialism ended in the mid/late 20th century. He's half correct: European military imperialism has ended. The top nations in the world no longer “colonize” (as Curtin considers this the wrong word) nations and create local governments. He fails to realize that a new form of imperialism has arisen: economic imperialism. Countries have given up their ideas of expansion for the security of their markets. During military imperialism, countries also sought to expand their markets, but used a different method. By imposing sovereignty over another nation they gained control of their markets. That ship has sailed; countries now control markets through investments. The costs of controlling another country have risen too high, it has lost all of its profit. The most powerful states have given up their somewhat obvious military control of other countries for the more subtle economic control of countries.

Military imperialism had become too expensive and culturally impossible to continue. There have been many technological advances since the 19th century. The advanced nations now have planes that fly three times the speed of sound, a bomb that can do massive damage, extremely well trained troops armed with the newest technologies, and a communications system which has become instantaneous. What stops countries like the U.S. from taking over other 3rd world growth oriented countries which do not have economies half as big? I see two reasons: the rise of nationalism/ideas of autonomy in poor countries during the 20th century, and the military problems which lead to economic problems by doing so. Imperialist nations of the past mostly used local governments and local armies to control their colonies, “By the late 1800s, the vast majority of the troops serving in the French, British, German, and Netherlands armies overseas were non-European and the cost of maintaining those armies fell to the local budget.” (Curtin 33) The rising nationalist movement in many countries (Serbia, China, North Korea, Iran...) makes ruling over them much more difficult, “Nationalism, in the sense of opposition to European rule, has been endemic in the colonial world from the late 1800s. Nationalism in the other sense of loyalty to people with shared language and customs can be expected to thrive where different culture are present in the same society.” (Curtin 69) The idea of one's own culture having its own autonomous nation has spread rapidly across the globe. This can be seen when areas like Kosovo, Tibet, Aceh all fight against the powers that rule over them. These countries claim their own individual culture and therefore want autonomy from rule by other cultures. This means that if a developed nation were to take over a country and create a local government, they would constantly face guerrilla wars. Now, if the developed nation decided to take central control of the country instead (maybe the thought process might involve the fact that developed nations now have faster communications and transports then before therefore there may be no need for local rulers), it would be its responsibility to fight that guerrilla war. As seen in Vietnam, an organized army has a lot of trouble fighting against guerrilla tactics, “The military lesson that emerged later in the twentieth century was that an offensive war against people with equal arms requires at least equal arms, but to defeat guerrillas armed with modern weapons requires a force that outnumber the guerrillas many times over.” (Curtin 31). With explosives so easy to make (and probably to purchase) and guns like the AK47 easy to attain, even in the poorest countries, guerrillas can find the firepower necessary to wage a war against a developed nation. This leads me to my second point: these increased military needs for keeping a nation under control also increase the amount of money needed to spend on these wars. Take the Iraq war as an example: the U.S. government has to pay the large fees of keeping its forces in Iraq, maintaining equipment, giving relief to citizens badly effected by the war, reconstruction of the Iraq economy and government, and the financial support for an Iraqi government created by the U.S.... The original 50 billion dollar tab for the operation has been completely blow out of the water. Estimates for how much the war will cost have around 320 billion. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042 601601.html, Jonathan Weisman) Though the U.S. says it may pull out soon, who knows how much money this war will actually cost the U.S. governmet by the end. Aside from the actual money that the U.S. has payed, 1.1 million Iraqis have been displaced since the beginning of the war.(http://www.economist.com/research/articl esBySubject/ displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348966&story_id=9783288) This means that surrounding countries have received a huge influx of refugees. Such large displacement into other countries can cause major economic damage. This can also cause a lot of tension between the refugees and the locals who suffer because of the sudden increase in population. (Tom Laichas, you said this in class) This effects the U.S. and other developed nations in a more round about way. If the developed nations have any sort of trade going with the countries receiving the bulk of the refugees (which I'm guessing they do), the price of goods from that country will rise. It's simple: if more people have entered the country (especially illegally so they don't have to pay taxes) the government has to spend more money. This means their price for goods has to rise in order to help make up for the difference. Here again the developed nations lose money. If a conflict were to develop between the locals (who are fed up with the refugees, and probably might encourage a nationalist movement) and the refugees, again the west would suffer economically: but more on that in the paragraph.

An eternal goal has become accentuated in the last few years: grow economically as much and as fast as possible. The war has switched, developed nations no longer fight with arms but with investments. The new competitive economic drive of countries has created a new dislike for war, “It is in the conflict of opposed forces that science seeks order and equilibrium: perpetual war, according to it, is the sole means of obtaining peace; that war is called competition.” (Marx 33) As stated above, war can be very unprofitable. The exceptions to those rules can only be found in total war (like what World War 2 did to the U.S. economy). The only time the U.S. went to war with a country after World War 2 (Vietnam, Korea...), though they stated a humanitarian reason for doing so, I see a different reason. If countries like South Korea and Vietnam became communist, the U.S. might have issues with trade in a communist country (because of the Soviets at the time). This meant that they were willing to give up some money now for the prospect of trade later. The Marshall Plan also exemplified this. Communist threats started arising in countries like France and Greece, so the U.S. flowed money in to stop them. In Utilitarian terms, losing 1 billion now has utility if you make 5 billion off of it. However, its not just developed nations which do not want war. Countries like China,Vietnam...all have found their place in the world selling good to developed nations (and paving the path for them to become a developed nation). A new slogan for the world has popped up: “Make money; not war!” (Crossette) What does that mean for developed nations? They have now created international organizations under the pretext of stopping future wars (the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization). This also means that these developed nations have found a new way to control less developed nations through economic investments. Multinational Corporations (usually based in a developed nation), once deemed evil by foreign countries, have come to embrace them with open arms. Countries like China, Vietnam, South Korea all sell their goods to developed nations. This makes China completely dependent on 1st world purchases. Take Japan in Singapore as an example: it has changed its slogan from “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” to “The Association of Southeast Asian Nations”. “There are differences, of course [in Singapore]...They wear business suits instead of uniforms. They carry attache cases in stead of guns. Also, they are welcome.” (Beech) A Marxist theory states how the laborer depends more on the capitalist then the capitalist on the worker. The root of this lies in the fact that the capitalist has more money and options if something goes wrong with the workers. If something goes wrong for the capitalists the workers fall much worse. I like to think of this perspective in terms of poor states (the workers) and the rich states (the capitalists). If the world ran out of oil tomorrow the richer nations would have more of a chance to be able to fall on their feet. The richer nations would lose more money, but that would affect them less then it would affect poorer nations. The poorer nations would look to the richer nations for aid aid find nothing. By realist perspective, this huge and sudden gap in power would trigger huge tensions between the rich and poor countries. Then the search for peace could be broken by wars of power.

Works Cited

Beech, Keyes. "Japan Trade Empire Rises in Southeast." Los Angeles Times 13 Dec. 1981. ProQuest.

Crossette, Barbara. "A New Credo: Make Money; Not War." New York Times 24 Aug. 1997. ProQuest.

Curtin, Philip D. The World & the West. New York: Cambridge UP, 2000.

Kristof, Nicholas D. "Curbs Give Way to Welcome for Multinational Companies." New York Times 11 May 1985. ProQuest.

"The Toll of War." The Economist. .