Many developing nations that obtained independence after World War II would have fared better had they chosen integration with their colonial powers.
For most former colonies in the developing world, seeking and obtaining independence after World War II was a wasted historical opportunity.
Please note: I speak of developing nations in the Global South, not New World countries. (Europe and the Mediterranean rim = Old World; the Americas, specifically North America = New World; Africa and distant Asia, as well as other corners of the globe not considered Old World or New World = Global South/Third World).
Independence was objectively a mistake because, overall, it was not advantageous for the developing nations that obtained it; independence did not benefit the average man, woman, or child.
Of course, independence was beneficial to local elites in the newly independent nations. In their exploitation of the common man, local elites do not like to be policed by European masters. Yes, for the likes of Mobutu, Marcos, and Mugabe, the independence of their respective nations worked out just fine.
At least for some time.
But for the average Zairean (Congolese), Filipino, and Zimbabwean, as well as the average Indian, Algerian, and Vietnamese, integration with the colonial motherland would have been far better, if not initially, then certainly in the long run.
The main benefit would have been access to the motherland’s educational infrastructure (in educational institutions as well as character-forming peer pressure).
Had Algeria demanded full integration with France rather than independence in the 1960s, a substantial portion of the current French legislature and government might be in the hands of Arab-French citizens.
The French departments on Algerian soil were constitutionally equal to departments in the French mainland, though average Algerian Arabs had little voice in them, dominated by the French settlers who made up about 10 percent of the population.
Nevertheless, this was a foundation Arabs could have built on. Indeed, one of the options offered by General de Gaulle to the Algerian population was full integration with France.
And, mind you, Mahatma Gandhi started his political career not by demanding independence for India, but by demanding full citizenship rights for Indians in the British Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi).
French overseas territories that did not acquire full independence, such as French Polynesia and New Caledonia, are today far better off than Haiti or Cambodia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_overseas_departments_and_territories)
It is a similar story for Hawaii, which was initially colonized and then annexed by the US.
Yes, the colonial powers exploited the colonies. But the inherent dynamics of Western political culture, with its strong egalitarian and rule-of-law foundations, virtually guaranteed future emancipation. And yes, this was predictable. Even at the height of the colonial era, British state philosophy held that integrating developing nations into the British Empire was beneficial to the colonized countries. Using a term coined by Rudyard Kipling, it was considered the “white man’s burden” to improve the lot of “uncivilized” nations.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5478/
Nowadays, the big prize for any Algerian is to make it to France, and for any Indian to make it to England, and to become a legal resident, if not a citizen, there.
Yes, the colonial powers exploited the colonies. But did independence for the colonies stop the exploitation? No, because the only difference is that now, developing countries can be exploited without the West feeling a moral obligation to return benefits to the general population there (not our responsibility!).
Typically, after developing nations obtained independence, it was sufficient if some generals, not the general population, benefited from the exploitation by Old and New World entrepreneurs. That came much cheaper, so exploitation accelerated.
In many developing countries, the standard of living of the general population has clearly declined since colonial times. I quote the following from an African social scientist:
“There is a disparaging joke that never tires of making the rounds among Africans. This joke suggests that given a truly open, free, fair and fearless referendum, a majority of Africans would vote to bring an end to Independence and bring back colonial rule.”
The fact that in many developing countries, foreign investment has contributed to a European-style skyline is misleading. The skyline is often either not locally owned, or has been paid for by credit received from Old or New World governments and banks.
Credit is an elegant means to handcuff the governments of developing countries. Once these countries have used their initial credit lines (and largely spent them on prestige projects), they are easily blackmailed by the IMF. “Yes, we will restructure your debt, and you can draw emergency funds, but listen, that trade barrier for US corn and EU milk will have to go. And the patents for US music must be honored. And hey, stop gagging the pro-Western opposition, the Christian churches, and the independence movement in this or that corner of your country.”
And if developing governments do not obey the prescribed political regimen?
Nowadays, the sharpest weapons of the West are not swords or words, but trade embargoes. “Hey, developing governments, if you do not want to pay back old credit, then you can kiss goodbye to financial guarantees for the importation of the machinery you need to develop your country. And if that threat does not work, and especially if you do not want to stay in line with our policies on free trade and human rights, we just impose a trade embargo. That means: you will not even have the computers you need for your country’s administration, nor the antibiotics to treat your sick children. Mr. President, you are in government now, but if you cannot ensure basic supplies, your own population will take care that sooner or later, you are out of government (and probably in jail).”
The mechanisms illustrated above result in a typical government/population pattern in countries as far apart as Peru and Pakistan, or Morocco and Malaysia. In the general population, anti-US sentiment is high, and there is either silent satisfaction or outright joy if the US is hit by events such as the 9/11 attacks. However, the local heads of government are typically pro-US, simply because they do not have any other choice if they want to save their own skin.
The development of developing countries brought about by foreign investment often is not as beneficial as it is made out to be. Each Carrefour supermarket puts hundreds or thousands of independent shop owners out of business, and the industrially produced corn and rice from the US, along with the industrially produced milk from the EU, totally undermine the livelihoods of local farmers until a country is no longer self-sufficient even for its basic nutritional needs.
Instead, there is an ever-growing segment of the population that has nothing to offer but manual labor by the hour. The dependence of a country on foreign investment steadily grows, as only foreign investment can create jobs for the growing number of unemployed.
Foreign investment erodes a country’s political independence without giving it the benefit of the responsibility of a colonial power. The more a country’s economy is dominated by foreign investment, the more vulnerable it is to any trade sanction imposed by the US. India, which used to emphasize self-reliance at the cost of its speed of development, was once difficult for the US to blackmail.
India is also large enough to remain independent. It is obvious that the more human society develops, the more segmented its structure becomes. For a viable size of each segment, a developed country needs a larger population base than a developing country.
A country as small as newly independent East Timor, with a population of less than 1 million, will never be able to have its own diverse range of agricultural, industrial, and service sectors as does the US with more than 300 times the population. Actually, contrary to what US diplomats usually stress, a developing world shattered into many small nations is highly advantageous to the US.
Nations the size of Grenada, or even as large as Panama, are easily controlled politically, and they can even be invaded within a day by a handful of US troops for whimsical reasons.
If we hold that the purpose of human reasoning is to justify what is advantageous to us, it is not by accident that the West is silently in support of practically every independence movement that springs to life anywhere in the developing world.
This policy, of course, has been pursued since the time former colonies became independent. And Al-Qaeda is not just a terrorist organization driven by religious hatred for the US, but also a political one with a well-defined program: the reversal of the splitting of the Muslim world into many small nation-states.
http://hnn.us/articles/7378.html
Only large countries, such as China and India today, and as a grand Muslim super-state certainly would be, have the power to resist complete US domination in the long run. Which is why it is a known, albeit unofficial, US policy to fragment countries into smaller units.
One such fragmenting policy was presented, complete with a map, by retired US Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, who is considered an influential think tank contributor.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061116&articleId=3882
One has to be aware that even unofficial US support can lend enormous momentum to regional forces that intend to split away from certain nations (in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey). No matter how you look at it, the proposal sows conflict, which of course makes it easier for the US to control this part of the world. Thus, putting forward this map will benefit the US anyway, even if there is no serious intention to implement the map.