From the fourth to the third and back
Colonialism is traditionally associated with the status of a “Third World” country, a former colony that broke free in the 1960s and later from the metropolitan power of London, Paris or Amsterdam. Such countries possess their own weak institutions and lack capacity to provide a decent standard of living for their citizens, largely as a consequence of their colonial past. At the same time, they have representation in the UN and regional organizations, coin their own money, issue passports and, as a rule, are able to send their teams to the Olympic Games. However, belonging to the socio-economic “Third World” became synonymous with underdevelopment only relatively recently: it used to refer to states that proudly did not join the struggle between the “capitalist” and “socialist” blocs led by the US and the USSR.
Nevertheless, Third World countries that once refused to engage in geopolitical struggles are increasingly confronted with internecine conflicts, largely stemming from their colonial history and/or requiring the intervention of First and Second World countries to resolve them. Typically, these disagreements drag them into an even greater de facto neo-colonial dependence on major and regional players. The Swiss secret of peace and stability obviously does not work in the global South and East.
The lack of independent capacity to control violence in their own territory necessitates onerous loans for “development”, the deployment of foreign military bases, and the involvement of international efforts to control international organized crime (mainly drug and human trafficking).
However, in one way or another, the inglorious fate of hundreds of such countries can be envied by those who are even less talked about – the so-called “Fourth World” peoples. These are ethnic groups left without a state in an era of unprecedented growth in the number of UN member states. It would seem that they have nothing to hope for, since the world has already been divided and redivided. And this is what soothes the “Third World” countries, which are sure that they may not have everything that will protect them as a state today and tomorrow: the ability to make independent decisions, sustainable development, control over violence in their own territory, even parts of this territory, but they will always have the flag at the UN headquarters and, of course, their own treasury serving a narrow circle of those in power.
New states, new chains
In a broader sense, contemporary colonialism is everything that hampers development and forces one to remain a third world country, still does not protect one from sliding into the fourth. It is also less overt and gives the colonized the illusion of control, although it no longer needs to be hidden. It is more “legitimate” than ever, since it is purely the choice of “aboriginals” who are not ready to take charge of their own well-being. As a rule, the colonizers, who, like before, are confident of their own cultural superiority, do not make a mistake by creating conditions for the colony to meet only the lowest steps of Maslow’s pyramid.
Of course, there are some important differences, too. Within the liberal world order, colonialism has taken on more explicit dimensions and has become multilateral, with colonies now having multiple masters, including multinational corporations. International institutions serve the interests of the most developed nations, their creators, while the rest settle for “humanitarian support”. In addition, the new colonialism has replaced glass beads with hard currency in reliable, not colonial, banks. To increase these assets, the comprador bourgeoisie needs to stay in power, and then the metropolis can repay them with political support in return for further enrichment from draining non-renewable resources.
The most important of these resources are people whose lives are paid for by negligent nations that do not invest in their own security.
Security is not only the army the development of which is also authorized by the colonial masters. It is also education and genuine fight against corruption preventing countless casualties from earthquakes, fires and floods, as well as car accidents. It is the development of healthcare which otherwise can kill as many people and their future generations as wars. Brain drain, permanent casualties, epidemics and hereditary diseases are the natural consequence of the lack of such long-term investments. The comprador bourgeoisie is not interested in them because it prioritizes the future of its children in the first world countries where it stores the very money to be invested.
There is not even a crafty counsel in this. As a rule, such authorities and people do not know or do not remember that an independent state is not built based on the inertial colonial logic. The distinctive feature of such thinking is its myopia. Economic neocolonialism ensures the inflow of money in exchange for raw materials. As a rule, this money is accompanied by foreign managers making local population cheap labor and forcing it to emigrate. Longer-term outflux is ensured by debt traps set by large infrastructure investors (states and international organizations like the IMF), as a result of which a country that has received a tangible amount of money “here and now” effectively falls into a vicious circle of dependence and finds itself under direct external management virtually “once and for all”, especially if this money goes in pockets rather than being invested in development.
Reducing debt load is unnecessary in a country where the comprador bourgeoisie does not even plan for retirement. Sri Lanka and Ecuador are the latest victims of such an opportunistic borrowing policy, which not only forces them to hand over the country piecemeal to direct external management, but also renders them incapable of even getting international aid without the lender’s (in this case China’s) approval to restructure the debt. Nor do these “intermediaries” see the need to seek favorable terms for such loans and greater flexibility in their implementation. The deplorable results of economic liberalization in developing countries, including the reduction of state funding for health care and education, are widely known, but who can care more about the independence of a colony than the colony itself?
Everywhere and nowhere: the invisible webs of colonialism
Neocolonialism is also ruthless against those who ignore environmental issues. Only colonies allow unsustainable extraction of natural resources from their territories and the pollution of their air and water bodies. This directly leads to health crises, devastated areas of the country, loss of their cultural heritage, and missed opportunities for future development. Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Indonesia are among the many global landfills with insufficient resources for environmentally friendly garbage disposal and recycling. In the best colonial tradition, they are also blamed for failing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Contemporary colonialism increasingly directly targets culture to erase identity and impose total control.
Unlike the inhabitants of a colony, metropolises play the long game and reduce their costs by investing in the formation of new “aboriginal” mindsets rather than opting for cheaper ways to impose their agenda here and now.
It is possible to implement this scenario without even controlling educational and memory policies. Incompetence and lack of incentive of the ruling class leads to the same outcome, especially if the majority of the ethnic group lives abroad and is simply subjected to linguistic assimilation in the absence of counterforce from the “state”. Such a colony will soon forget its historical toponyms, the distinctive features of own culture, and history in general, so that it will not even resist alternative interpretations of its history, the theft of its heritage, and the occupation of territories that remember its strength.
Of course, in the modern world, in addition to people, finances and territories, other currencies have emerged – data and attention. Once again, the “third world” is characterized by a complete lack of initiative in protecting its citizens. Without adopting the practices of developed countries to regulate the activities of tech corporations and eliminate the digital divide, colonial authorities make their subjects vulnerable no longer to individual slave owners, but to people in all parts of the planet. Moreover, countries that abandon building their own data centers and related infrastructure put their digital way of connecting to the world at risk.
The Internet becomes an instrument of unmediated control of the masses, and colonial inhabitants not only fall victims of fraud and foreign surveillance, but also consume content and propaganda harmful to the mental health of the colonizers. The result is learned helplessness, refusal to struggle for independence, and, together with failed educational and ideological policy, a lack of understanding of its necessity. However, a similar outcome can be achieved by filling the digital segment with entertainment content and fake news, thus “disconnecting” people from real problems. Online polarization is another deplorable and controllable manifestation of contemporary colonialism, paralyzing the consolidation of “natives” around state issues.
To some, this vision of modern colonialism may seem victim-blaming, and partly rightly so, since blaming only oneself or only others are two extreme childish positions. This is why mature nations do not end up in a colony status. We should explore how colonialism manifests in the Third Republic and the reasons why we won’t be able to afford the luxury of being a part of the “Third World” for a long time in the articles to follow.
