In the article "Rich World, Poor World" by Moore, the argument is made that rich countries are partially to blame for underdevelopment in weak states. During class the question was "Is this intentional?" Do rich states intentionally try to keep weak states from developing much like the majority of the Global North? My quick answer was yes. The United States makes decisions to improve its economic or international power despite the consequences of leaving yet another country in political, economic or social turmoil.
A perfect example of this is interventionism. Interventionism was a tactic used by the United States backed with the intention of protecting themselves. Maybe even to be considered a national security issue in many cases, but the US intentionally is greedy and intentionally destroys countries to keep its riches. This perpetuates underdevelopment and poverty in weak states.
One example of this is Nicaragua. The United States intervened in the Civil War in Nicaragua using the execution of two americans as en excuse to send 400 marines. The United States did not support Zelaya due to his intentions of creating a counter canal to the Panama canal in Nicaragua. The United States was not truly affected by the Civil War in Nicaragua but they intervened because of views on the government in place. Is this reason enough? Nicaragua's economy has declined dramatically due to the United States constant intervention after this instance. The United States intentionally destroyed the economy by participating in the Civil War and creating a rule that was only favorable to the United States, not the citizens of Nicaragua. In my opinion the United States intentionally keeps weak states, weak.
Emilia, I think, because of some of our overlapping academic background, we have many of the same opinions about this issue. Clearly Nicaragua is far from the only case where the U.S. government infiltrated a foreign government to secure its own economic interests. I suppose what I could add here is that you use a historical example, when this issue is completely relevant today. The United States' role in organizations such at the IMF, the World Bank and the United Nations allow the U.S. to continue making decisions that keep "weak states" poor while bettering Western corporations. A classic example of this that you know I'm working on is the privatization of water in developing cities, such as Lagos, Nigeria, funding by the World Bank, which then establishes contracts with large Western organizations, such as Veolia. Most of the West knows that private water has terrible consequences, so Western water corporations pick up new markets in the more vulnerable developing cities. This destroys democratically controlled water systems and puts money right into the French economy. I suppose my point is, primarily that the West continues to engage in the actions you indicate, but under the facade of international organizations intended to "improve" the world and that the United States, while a major actor, is not the only actor taking advantage of weak states for its economic interests. Great post. Call 'em out girl. :)
ReplyDelete