Globalization: 21st-century imperialism

Iqbal Widastomo, Research Associate, School of Politics, London School of Economics, London

The 20th century was marked by the remarkable process of the gradual reduction of colonial power and control all over the world. Though at the beginning of that century countries such as Great Britain were still reaping the rewards of their colonial possessions, by the century's end those same countries were quite meekly handing back those, essentially illegal, possessions.

Probably the most striking example of this was Britain's return of Hong Kong to China in 1997. The 20th century was, therefore, a remarkable century for democracy, as nations gained their independence and, in theory at least, people were becoming freer and better able to determine their own political futures.

We too in Indonesia benefited from this process of decolonization, as centuries of Dutch presence in and theft from the archipelago came to an end. But we could also be described as the victims of decolonization as the events surrounding East Timor mostly amounted to Indonesia being portrayed exclusively as the villain there, while Portugal's equally if not far more shameful history around the islands that are Indonesia was almost entirely forgotten. Indeed with East Timor's recent membership into the United Nations there was the quite peculiar sight and sound of United Nation's personnel offering thanks to Portugal for its role in East Timorese affairs. This could be read as the United Nations thanking colonial powers for their anti-democratic past.

It is that "anti-democratic" past that has largely created our current world of globalization. Our current global leaders are those that have engaged in a colonial past and continue to exert and seek influence in affairs beyond their borders, which is extremely reminiscent of colonial meddling in other peoples' lands, cultures and political affairs. The United Nations is held up as an organization devoted to world peace and bringing nations together. However, early in this 21st century its role is being questioned by many, many quarters and the notion and danger of this organization becoming little more than a mouthpiece for those former colonial powers has become a real one.

The United Nations seems happy to promote itself on the basis of apparent "success" in handling East Timor's achievement of nation status. But diplomacy and genuinely thoughtful handling of the East Timor problem failed. The manner in which East Timor was offered a choice between independence from, or autonomy within the Republic of Indonesia was foolhardy. Had greater diplomacy and thoughtful understanding been applied, a more cautious and gradual handing over of power could probably have averted much of the violence and death that ensued.

The UN would, then, claim success over East Timor but one has to question at what cost (in human life and destruction of property) has this success come. It may be concluded that the UN has achieved a dubious success in East Timor. But the UN and the new-world order that is emerging as part of our age of globalization are equally dubious and inconsistent in other areas.

The continued suffering of the Palestinian people has not been addressed and resolved in the same way that East Timor has. Although, like the Timorese, the Palestinians can say that they are being controlled and occupied by an unwelcome and unwanted force, they have not benefited from the same support that the Timorese have.

Of course, we cannot accept nor condone the acts of terrorism that Palestinians have engaged in, such as the horrific suicide bombers that seem to endlessly kill and destroy. But we cannot also accept or condone the fact that Israel has been guilty of brutal crackdowns and, in turn, is also an invading force. It is, after all, a common and accepted expression to speak of the "occupied territories", which directly and meaningfully tells us that there is a wrong being committed. The UN and world leaders surely have a far greater challenge and responsibility in the Middle East than they do on half of a tiny island with a small population in Southeast Asia.

Colonialism may be described as having died a death in the 20th century but the kind of imperialism that characterized its height may not have died and may even be seen to be alive and well in recent world events. The world may not want a dictator such as Saddam Hussein, but equally does the world really want the ugly diplomacy of an American president who clearly has very little understanding of the Middle East, Arabic nations and Islamic states?

At present the U.S. is mostly apart from other nations in its desire to go to war with Iraq. America, too, can be noted as an extremely violent nation. It is perhaps one of the greatest anomalies of human history that the nation that would claim to be the most democratic in world history is also the nation that possesses the largest standing military force. It is also the nation that has dropped more bombs causing more death and destruction than any other; and it is the only nation to have used a nuclear attack as an act of war. Democracy under this kind of analysis seems to equate to destruction.

Again the U.S. would defend this action with thoughts of bringing order and upholding democracy, but this is order and democracy as prescribed and controlled by the U.S. and so one must wonder whether this is really democracy at work. It is perhaps imperialism cloaked in the guise of democracy.

There can be little question that the U.S. has an interest in a major factor in the Iraqi equation. Oil is a resource that Iraq enjoys an abundance of and, of course, Saddam Hussein has benefited hugely from this.

Certainly we can and should respect the objective of freeing a nation from dictatorship, a dictatorship that has shown itself to be brutal and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.

But we should also be wary of any ulterior motives that may exist. These could relate to an imperialistic, control-orientated mentality and specifically relate to a desire to exert control of economies, which is, essentially, at the core of existence within globalization. Claims of defending democracy and bringing down dictatorships and "axes of evil" may disguise desires to dictate the world economy.