As it pretended to be Globalization and economic liberalization came as the binger of new hopes and prospects forth- whole world. The World Trade Organization is tire most potent weapon to this cause. Tall claims and widest possible promises were made to the weaker unions when the WTO saw its inception. The basic principles of WTO are trade without discrimination, free trade, transparency, economic equality among the nations etc. All these hopes were on belied all, the organization started functioning. Its principles looked better only-in -words than deeds. The failure of Doha Agenda which saw few promises/prospects for the developing and under developed -nations failed to fructify. Do we need more testimonials to say that WTO has given birth to a clash with neo-imperialism?

Hang Kong and Macau may have been last of the few territories of the old imperialistic regimes i.e.: the Europeans. With the end of World War II, the conquerors began retreat, as a result, many nations became freed and a new-world order governed by trade, emerged. When, one of the last nations was getting freedom, from imperialistic forces, a new, form of neo-imperialism force was burgeoning as “Old bottle, new wine”. The name of the new colonial force is globalization. Globalization with its inception has taken many forms, the latest being the World Trade Organization (WTO), diecentral commander of globalization. Trade and economy are its weapons-The old imperialistic forces prevailed, expanded and captured otter nations utilizing their links, Similarly, the new force too adopted the old theory in the name of trade and economies, these nations have established themselves as the rulers of the new world. The old forces relied on dire cheat conflicts to defeat and capture, but the new forces use other means like trade sanctions, blockage of Buds and otter aids in the name of democracy and development using these facts they are compelling We weaker nations to comply to their demands like-exporting oils, minerals, raw natural products etc.

By means of unequal conditions of economic exchange Neo imperialism refers to the dominance of some nations over others. In other words, neo-imperialism exists to when one nation is dependent upon another because tile weaker nation is unable to survive economically in the modern world without the aid of the stronger nation. Unlike other methods of imperialism Neo imperialism is not founded upon the direct imposition of political power by one society upon another-Instead, neo-imperialism use the power of money in the modern world as a way for richer countries to keep poorer countries front stepping outside Fill, roles that richer countries have defined for them.

At the hands of a few developed nations WTO is increasingly becoming a tool to regulate the trade among the member nations and to control the world economies. The developed nations before the inception of the WTO had tried to convince the developing nations with the argument that in the present era, increased economic cooperation and mutual exchanges are inevitable for the growth of the world economy. it became very evident by the functioning of tire WTO ministerial conferences that the, organization was brought to subserve the petty and partisan interests of the developed world than to clear the road blocks in the global economic development- In the name of liberalization even the production in countries like India are guided by the Multi-national Companies (MNCs) under the control of developed nations. Even tire media, the fourth pillar of the India democracy is increasingly coming under the control of these MNCs. When the developing countries tried to raise die issues of cheap labour and low profits, the developed world gave fatal punch by raising tire environmental issues to be detriment of the developing countries during Seattle Summit- Thereafter considering overall functioning of the WTO it is clear that the organization has become one of line most potent weapon of the developed nations and the MNCs to control the economics and even the politics of the developing nations including India.

For import of technology, loans and economic assistance the developing and the underdeveloped countries are tied with developed countries. Even the national security of sumo of the nations are under the control of the developed world but the latter in tire guise of the same have taken control over the economics of the former throughout multinational companies and investment. Thus the developing world have got trapped in the web of loans and interests as Indians saw during the British period there is inadequacy if not tire absence of cooperation among the developing countries. Though die regional groupings have emerged, there are either disagreements among the members or they are incapable of following an independent path. For some or the other reasons they are compelled to toe the lines of the developed world. Starting from ASEAN, SCO, SAARC, NAM, IBSA to BRIC, all are in some or the other way influenced by the USA, die only super power and the most imperialistic power in the world at present Their inactivity or underperformance, if not impotence, have made them dependent on the developed world.

Hong Kong summit of the WTO in 2005 saw some hopes for the developing world at the cost of sonic compromises on the Singapore issues. The developed world at least in principle agreed to lower down and, eliminate the trade distorting subsidies in agriculture and trade facilitation. However, when things came to the implementation of Doha Development Agenda, the developed world could not dare to lose their control by facilitating the developing countries.

The last decade has witnessed or increased attempt by the developed countries to jeopardize the interest of the developing countries. The interests of the two groups havocked at cross purpose. Developing countries, by consolidating the NAM and having established G-20, have challenged the monopoly of tie LISA, Britain, prance, Australia etc at the WTO. The uncompromising stand of the US led to the failure of Cancun round and the Singapore round Developing countries have now at least mustered up fife courage to fight in order to safeguard their own interest. They are no more ready to be a subject of ruthless exploitation. Nor <to they seem to be ready to succumb to the unjustified and irrational US pressure. G­20 countries have clearly said that unless the Doha promises are implemented they would not move forward to any event Thus it is clear that WTO, has become a forum to, clash of interests of the developed and the developing world

For their progress and growth the developed world intends to confine and utilize WTO instrument. This however is not possible. Such an unjust process cannot continue for long. None can deny that it is possible to be isolated from WTO but its existence will equally be at stake if all the nations will not be compassionate, towards cacti other. Elimination of hunger, poverty, unemployment, economic and social disparity and increase of capital are the priorities of the-developing world. While the priorities of the developed world is to multiply their economic progress by monopolizing the world trade. Rich nations intend to utilize WTO to expand neo-imperialism while the weaker ones are still making; an endeavour to come out of the vicious circle of” exploitation.

Thus what was apprehended by the developing,”, countries al the inception of the WTO has clearly unfolded in the form of a gloomy reality. Utter selfishness of (he developed world has been unveiled consequently the clash between the two has increased tremendously_ “ Possibly such a clash, was apprehended by the former UN Secretary General when he warned that if the WTO failed to accommodate, within its ambit, the interests of the developing nations, the latter would question and thus end the whole process. It is however difficult to even imagine that tine rich nations would go against their own interests to adhere to the basic principles of WTO. Therefore the developing and under developing nations needs to unite and to muster up courage to withstand the hegemony of the developed world.

The final conclusion could be seen in the words of the great economist Bhagawati, “It is useful to remember that interdependence is a nonnative 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.”

On the other hand old terrorism has become the new mask with which imperialism demonizes the governments that it wants to invade. Recall that George W. Bush, after his people were attacked by terrorism clearly linked to Saudi Arabia, the country with the largest oil reserves in the Middle East, already controlled by the United States, decided to attack Iraq without finding any tie to it, in order to control also the third-largest reserves: 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 tried very hard to connect Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador –which are also oil-exporting countries– with the Islamic terrorism supposedly promoted by Iran. They began by saying that the mentioned governments are hostile to the U.S., and therefore anti-American; that they are growing closer to Iran, becoming “friends of our enemies,” and are therefore already a threat involving weapons of mass destruction.

The settlers who established their colonies in America did so not only in search of religious freedom, but also to be able to govern themselves their own way in order to develop and protect their interests. Later they declared independence from England in order to avoid paying taxes without representation, and that’s how the United States was founded. Searching beyond the rhetoric, one can see clearly that the concept of liberty for the people was missing from the real motives for independence, in a country that continued to be a slave country and in which millions of Indians were exterminated to make possible its expansion.

It’s undeniable that the country’s laws were intended to protect the economic interests to which everything else was subordinated. That is why the conservatives always have defended the status quo, which, nonetheless, because of its cruelty, could not be openly defended, forcing them to act as if they were clinging to the past only in order to maintain their “traditional family values.” The truth is that change and every evolution in thinking were always for them a threat to their original advantages with which they founded the country.

That explains why the humanization of U.S. society had to be fought for, and that it cost a river of blood. The emancipation of the slaves, for example, was inspired by change, which was ferociously resisted by the defenders of the status quo with a Civil War that cost 618,000 lives and 412,000 wounded. But the struggle did not end with the victory of the north, because the new union continued to be an oligarchic society, as unjust as it was contrary to every principle of humanity. Much blood was shed to end racial segregation, and to achieve human rights, public education, the breakup of the monopolies, the abolition of child labor, a minimum wage, the rights of women, etc. etc. All of those basic rights for human beings were resisted by the conservatives although they are now recognized by the world as the most admirable part of our country: the human part that has united us as a people and influenced the rest of the world.

The nation is in truth powerful, and the conservatives boast of defending their supremacy, although in doing so they omit mention of 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 prosperity with the exploitation of labor, of wars waged to expand our power abroad while progressives fought for human rights at home, and, most recently, of wasting trillions in wars against “terrorism” abroad while the country falls apart economically.

It’s a largely-irrational reality that can be understood only by taking into account the U.S. is the result of two ideological currents with opposing objectives. Supremacy in the global context is without a doubt the Republican objective, and its foreign policy is, logically, the irritant in the relations with the rest of the world. North American imperialism and its corresponding anti-imperialism are consequently no more than the globalization of the internal conflicts of North American reality. The Republicans call themselves patriots because they defend the original postulates of the republic, as wrong as those may have been. They quote frequently 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 accuse 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 mark them as “a danger to national security, and terrorists by association.” Terrorism, however, has 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 U.S. They, too, surely have their own reasons to fight against empires, but unlike the anti-imperialists they do not do it with the power of the vote in a democracy.

Terrorism is not justifiable under any point of view, and should be eliminated from the face of the earth, the same as imperialism. But, until that happens, humanity cannot allow itself to be confused by the religious radicals of both extremes. Anti-imperialism is as legitimate as it is democratic, and represents, further, the internationalization 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 are so disconnected from that life that they invented the shortcut of attributing it to God, with whom they presume a direct connection.

The difference between the anti-imperialists and the imperialists, accordingly, reduces to the difference between progressives and conservatives: the old dilemma of “to be or not to be”… part of humanity.

Go Back To Main Page