Aid Provision as a Path to Recolonization
The division of a country among states for the aid provision presents a threat of recolonization. This argument makes a case, as a member of the Kyrgyz Parliament Akylbek Japarov proposed legislation to divide up Kyrgyzstan’s seven provinces among developed countries for the aid grants. He further announced that the country’s 40 districts can be divided among the 40 embassies that are established in Kyrgyzstan[1]. Moreover, he stated that the provinces and districts can even enact the aiding country’s flag. Some may find this proposal attractive for the reasons of more concentrated aid distribution and see it as an effort to combat corruption in the country, however, such a proposal raises a number of significant concerns regarding state sovereignty.
The threat of recolonization becomes more visible when looking deeper into the hidden agenda of neoliberalism/globalization. The mainstream narrative of globalization is overwhelmingly positive, especially for developing countries. It states that once a country follows the neoliberal policy prescriptions of the Washington Consensus in return for the aid grants, it is automatically on the path to greater economic wealth and an improved social environment, narrowing down the global gap between the rich and the poor[2]. However, this dominant story of globalization is not the full one, as it intentionally omits the “ugly” and uncomfortable part of it — the part, which is told from the perspective of the non-Westerners. It does not mention how the efforts of the global elite to impose control over transnational capital has led to the ever-cheapening labor and worsening working conditions for the people of the third world. Nor it says anything about the first world states manipulating the international law to create non-tariff barriers against the commodities exported from the developing countries[3]. Thus, the neoliberal policies and values that are imposed by the first world as the only true ideals through the aid grants, serve as a tool for the subjugation of the developing countries under the dominance and interests of the North, as they purposefully blind those populations to the controversial truth of neoliberalism. When looking at the full story of globalization and how its processes are manipulated by the first world elite, it can be stated that aid provision is one of the tools for recolonization.
How the transnational elite imposes domination in the 21st century is through the restructuring of the international legal system in a way that serves the interests of the first world, which greatly undermines the sovereignty of the third world countries. The reforms in international law are designed to create an environment where the transnational capital (the first world capital) can flourish[4]. The first world ruling elite achieves this by putting the less developed states in a situation where they “voluntarily” give up their national sovereign economic space to the international institutions that enforce the agenda of the Westerners, such as through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its aid grants. These situations involve the third world states being a party to certain international agreements and organizations, the agenda of which lacks transparency, in a way that it largely excludes them from the negotiations. This is primarily evident in the IMF’s weighted voting system, which excludes its principal users and the majority — the third world countries — from the decision-making process[5]. This leads to the manifestation of a unified global economic space where the sovereign economic powers of the (third world) states are relocated in international institutions, which greatly limits them in their ability to pursue independent and self-reliant development[6]. The sovereign powers of less developed countries in the areas like investment, trade, technological development, and environment are now subject to the regulations imposed by the international law, which in its turn reflects the interests of the first world ruling elite, as capitalism forces them to exponentially expand their venues for exploitation[7].
Furthermore, the most powerful method that the first world ruling elite implements to further its interests and impose domination is through making the third world populations accept their worldview as natural and true. This is primarily achieved through legitimizing the dominant ideas of the North, shaping the mainstream culture, which in turn, is translated into the set of rules and laws, as laws reflect the cultural attitude at a particular time[8]. Why would a Kyrgyz official propose such legislation considering the great threats that are present in it? The domination of the minds of the populations of the Global South is primarily achieved by utilizing the academic institutions of the North. Due to their prestige and power, the third world students, Akylbek Japarov being one of them, tend to study the academic literature of the northern scholars, adopting their beliefs and ideas, which consequently, shapes their perceptions and worldviews of what is right and what is wrong. Tying the issues of the mainstream narrative of globalization and the principle of domination together, it can be stated that the first world ruling elite blinds the third world populations to the ugly side of it, once they adopt the dominant Northern beliefs as their own to ensure that the machine of capitalism is running.
When looking at the structure of the international community through this prism, Lenin’s observation regarding the world being divided between colonies and imperialist countries finds its relevance even today[9]. If neoliberal policies that are embedded into the Washington Consensus framework are as effective as they are claimed to be, then why is Kyrgyzstan after emerging in 1991 with zero debt, and following all the prescriptions of the international financial institutions, finds itself decades later as one of the poorest countries in the world, with its GDP being halved, and in need of debt-forgiveness?[10] Thus, maintaining the view that the Washington Consensus policies are yet to bear fruit after decades of this system being in place, is to replace reality with illusion; it is to deliberately agree to be blinded to the part of globalization that is uncomfortable and that might provoke resistance to the agenda of the first world.
[1] Kaktus.media, “Акылбек Жапаров Предлагает Распределить Области Кыргызстана Между Развитыми Странами,” February 28, 2019, https://kaktus.media/doc/387543_akylbek_japarov_predlagaet_raspredelit_oblasti_kyrgyzstana_mejdy_razvitymi_stranami.html.
[2] Milanovic, Branko. “The Two Faces of Globalization: Against Globalization as We Know It.” World development 31, no. 4 (2003): 667–683.
[3] Chimni. “Third World Approaches to International Law: A Manifesto.” International Community Law Review 8, no. 1 (2006): 3–27.
[4] Ibid., 8.
[5] Ibid., 23.
[6] Ibid., 7.
[7] Ibid., 8.
[8] Ibid., 16.
[9] Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, “VI. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG THE GREAT POWERS,” Marxists Internet Archive, accessed December 15, 2020, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch06.htm.
[10] Julia KOSTENKO, “Kyrgyzstan Included in Top 10 Poorest Countries in the World,” 24.kg (24.kg news agency, July 26, 2018), https://24.kg/english/92015_Kyrgyzstan_included_in_top_10_poorest_countries_in_the_world/.
