Guidebook 1.b: "Globalization and the third world: empire byanother name

============================================================================

        A GUIDEBOOK: HOW THE WORLD WORKS AND HOW WE CAN CHANGE IT
        (C) 2000, Richard K. Moore
        http://cyberjournal.org

   Chapter 1:

   How does the world work today, and where is it headed?

        a. Globalization and the West: a covert coup d'etat
        b. Globalization and the third world: empire by another name
        c. Kultur-kampf: enforcing the New World Order
        d. Economic globalization: Robber Barons writ large
        e. Decoding propaganda: matrix vs. reality
        f. Capitalism's growth imperative and societal engineering
        g. Elite rule and the Dark Millennium

   ----------------------------------------------------

   1.b. Globalization and the third world: empire by another name

        "Recommendation P-B23 (July, 1941) stated
        that worldwide financial institutions
        were necessary for the purpose of
        'stabilizing currencies and facilitating
        programs of capital investment for
        constructive undertakings in backward and
        underdeveloped regions.' During the last
        half of 1941 and in the first months of
        1942, the Council developed this idea for
        the integration of the world.... Isaiah
        Bowman first suggested a way to solve the
        problem of maintaining effective control
        over weaker territories while avoiding
        overt imperial conquest. At a Council
        meeting in May 1942, he stated that the
        United States had to exercise the
        strength needed to assure 'security,' and
        at the same time 'avoid conventional
        forms of imperialism.' The way to do
        this, he argued, was to make the exercise
        of that power international in character
        through a United Nations body."
        - Laurence Shoup & William Minter, in
        Holly Sklar's "Trilateralism," writing
        about strategic recommendations developed
        during World War II by the Council on
        Foreign Relations (CFR).

   At the end of World War II, a grand new project of
   world management was launched. The United Nations
   was formed and the Bretton Woods Institutions (IMF
   and World Bank) were set up for the purpose of
   stabilizing currencies and providing investment
   capital. European empires were gradually
   dismantled, and dozens of newly independent nations
   were formed out of the old colonies. The
   establishment of the UN led to hope that world
   peace would be achieved. The new independent
   nations were generally seen as evidence of the
   spread of democracy, and the beginning of a better
   life for all. The third world became known as the
   'underdeveloped world', and 'development' was
   generally embraced as the obvious path to a better
   future.

   But what is 'development'? When Western nations
   industrialized in the 1800s, those were examples of
   development that led to strong national economies,
   effective national infrastructures, and productive
   industrial capacities. It was development aimed at
   nation building. When a transnational corporation
   buys land in Central America and raises cattle
   there to make hamburgers, that is also
   'development.' But instead of nation building in
   Central America, this development extracts large
   profits from local resources while creating very
   little local wealth or long term benefit to the
   local economy. Furthermore, it displaces farmers
   and forces them into poverty, and it destroys
   old-growth rain forests. In addition, repressive
   local regimes are required to enable the extraction
   of maximum profit from the capital investment
   without interference from labor unrest or
   environmental regulations.

   The word 'development', when used rhetorically by
   government officials and the media, implies
   'advancement' and 'betterment' - such as was
   experienced when the U.S. or Japan industrialized.
   But in reality, when a corporation talks about
   undertaking a 'development project', this means
   only that the company is going to invest some
   money, build something, and then extract more
   profit than was invested. When it comes down to it,
   the thing actually being developed is the
   corporation's cash - it is being developed from a
   huge stash into a still bigger stash. There is a
   big difference between nation building and
   corporate wealth accumulation - but both are called
   'development'. The distinction may seem like a
   minor detail of semantics, but the confusion
   enables officials to say one thing and mean the
   opposite.

   The third world remains 'underdeveloped' - after
   fifty years of intensive 'development' - because
   'underdeveloped' refers to the strength of the
   local economy and infrastructure, while 'intensive
   development' refers to the number of corporate
   projects that have been undertaken. In fact
   'development', as it is practiced, is precisely
   what prevents the kind of 'development' that is
   promised by official mythology - and was hoped for
   in the optimism following World War II. That is why
   many third world nations today are demanding a
   'right to development' - and why many of us in the
   West would have a hard time understanding what they
   are talking about.

   America was once on the other side of this coin.
   Before the American Revolution, Britain prohibited
   manufacturing in the colonies, forcing the locals
   to trade their raw resources to Britain for
   finished goods - an exchange that worked
   disproportionately to Britain's benefit. To a large
   extent the Revolution was a struggle for the 'right
   to development', and as soon as independence was
   achieved, intensive nation-building development
   began.

   The actual experience of the third world in the
   postwar era has been one of economic exploitation,
   environmental destruction, civil suppression, and
   continued underdevelopment. The economic
   relationship between the West and the third world
   remained substantially unchanged as colonial
   empires were dismantled. New means of control were
   introduced, such as replacing garrisoned imperial
   troops with local client regimes, and employing
   occasional intervention instead of ongoing colonial
   administration. What looked like democratization
   and the end of imperialism was in practice a
   modernized, more efficient form of imperialism.

   From available planning documents, such as the one
   quoted above from "Trilateralism," it becomes clear
   that this postwar version of imperialism was no
   accident but was rather the result of an
   intentional design. The planners _intended to
   exploit and they _intended to deceive. While
   avoiding the _appearance of "conventional forms of
   imperialism", they sought nonetheless to exercise
   "effective _control over weaker territories". While
   publicly proclaiming an era of international
   cooperation, they all the time intended the UN and
   the Bretton Woods institutions to serve as a
   framework for systematic global exploitation - by
   means of "programs of capital investment for
   constructive undertakings". 'Constructive
   undertakings', like 'development', seems to imply
   'advancement' or 'progress', but all it really
   means is achieving profitable returns from
   corporate investments.

   From a third-world perspective, globalization
   amounts to an acceleration of this postwar
   imperialist program. Free-trade treaties and IMF
   demands tighten the economic screws on the third
   world, squeezing out increased profits by more
   rapidly depleting local resources and impoverishing
   local people. One might wonder how the West expects
   to compel the third world to submit to this program
   of rape and plunder by international capital.

   ----------------------------------------------------

Recommended reading.

Michel Chossudovsky, "The Globalization Of Poverty - Impacts
of IMF and World Bank Reforms", The Third World Network,
Penang, Malaysia, 1997.
    This detailed study by an economics insider shows the
consequences of "reforms" in various parts of the world,
revealing a clear pattern of callous neo-colonialism and
genocide. Definitely red-pill material

Frances Moore Lappé, Joseph Collins, Peter Rosset, "World
Hunger, Twelve Myths", Grove Press, New York, 1986.
    Another red pill. Debunks Malthusian thinking, among other
things. Here's a sample: "During the past twenty-five years
food production has outstripped population growth by 16
Percent. India - which for many of us symbolizes
over-population and poverty--is one of the top third-world
food exporters. If a mere 5.6 percent of India's food
production were re-allocated, hunger would be wiped out in
India."

William Greider, "One World Ready or Not, the Manic Logic of 
Global Capitalism", Simon & Schuster, New York, 1997.
     A tour by a superb journalist showing how the global 
economy operates in various parts of the world. 

"Third World Resurgence", a magazine published monthly by the
Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia,
http://www.twnside.org.sg.
    This magazine deserves widespread circulation. It covers a
wide range of global issues, presents a strong and sensible
third-world perspective, and is a very good source of
real-world news. Martin Kohr is managing editor and a
frequent contributor.

"The New Internationalist", a magazine published monthly by
New Internationalist Publications, Ltd, Oxford, UK,
http://www.newint.org.
    Another good source of real news and commentary, with a global
perspective.

============================================================================