Tuesday, 27 January 2015

"Limited Sovereignty?" Or "Unlimited Hypocrisy?"

"Limited Sovereignty?" Or "Unlimited Hypocrisy?"

Notes on the first world-dictated socio-political
and economic policies towards developing
and underdeveloped countries

by Kirit Thanarat

It's been decades past since the Philippines and other once colonized nations of the world regained its "struggled" independence. 

Mostly given by their once coloniser rather than really struggled for by the colonised, independence in most third world countries seemed to be almost an hollow phrase to be spoken, to take pride of, rather than a deed to be fulfilled with its full potential; especially that:

1.) Those who promised progress, peace, development yet on the other hand, intimidate and terrorize people by means of nuclear tests, and unscrupulous just to launch their tested weapons in the name of "peace through strength."

2.) Amidst calls for self-sufficiency and Global competitiveness, limiting self-reliance and favoring dependency on developed countries from imports and investments, in spite of having resources enough to develop and assert independence further as a sovereign state. It insist unequal treaties amidst parroting phrases like cooperation and brotherhood amongst nations.

3.) Using "cooperation" and "unity", the creation of "regions" that obviously "districts", "tributaries" for once-colonisers, with policies patterned after the latter particularly those on the economy, defence, foreign relations, and culture. 

4.) Those whom speak "freedom of the press", "speech", "expression", even "Democratic Processes" and "Transparency" yet limiting to those of "development" insisted by modern-day imperialists and its domestic puppets. 

And others that somehow summarises into terms such as "limited sovereignty." "Limited" in a sense that despite being sovereign, the will of the self-determined communities has been curbed by domineering "developed" countries in the name of cooperation, globalisation, and of stability in international relations.

Originally used in referring Brezhnev's controversial doctrine of "socialist unity" in the eastern bloc, limited sovereignty lives in countries, or rather say regions that are deemed puppets of today's imperialists (particularly those of the United States); be it the European Union, Association of South East Asian Nations, organizations like the World Trade Organization, or inter-regional partnerships such as Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation.
These organizations, behind its veneer of cooperation and stability lies a policy that limits popular sovereignty, self-determination, particularly on those once-colonies becoming semi-colonial in character and intensifies the Atlanticist destinies of the United States.

How come it underestimates sovereignty, national patrimony in the name of so-called "international cooperation" and "stability?" In every field, be it political, defence, economic, and even cultural, international interests is attempting to present as relations of "equal collaboration" between developed and developing countries and "aid for development", are in fact relations of economic, political, cultural subjugation of other countries to modern-day imperialists. That, organisations such as ASEAN (for example)'s education programme that includes imposing an academic calendar that actually directly patterns to those of the United States and redescribed as coordination between Southeast Asian nations; there's the WTO, a free trade network that means crippling domestic markets through imports, as well as agreements that obviously benefits the oligarchs benefiting from that said "cooperation".

If men like Brezhnev savagely attack the principle of self-reliance in revolution and in socialist construction, redescribing as a "manifestation of nationalism", which was allegedly in conflict with "proletarian internationalism", neoliberals shared the same thought of  making countries dependent on investment, of radically shifting from production to international finance capital, as well as encouraging to involve in non-productive ones such as tourism. The so-called “aid” which these people claim to give to other countries, is actually given with political strings attached which impair the national independence and sovereignty of the countries receiving it and aims to place them under economic domination, be it the United States, China, Japan, or the European Union.
Worse, the United States, is really trying to maintain power through its tributaries such as stated from above. Integration in a particular region, such as those of ASEAN, is actually a front act to justify the imperialist design of making regions, districts with the United States as its primary customer of their "export material" and "cheap labor" while its tributaries a market for their "imports", "aid", "investment".
With its "complex programme of economic integration”, it stresses strengthening of its control over the economic development of its regions under its "sphere". An obvious continuation of a cherished "manifest destiny", a commitment to neocolonial domination over supposed "independent" countries.

As according to Enver Hoxha, in his address delivered at the 6th congress of the Albanian Worker's Party, said:

“...is the theory of great power chauvinism and expansionism, the theory through which the new Soviet imperialists try to suppress any sovereignty of other peoples and to create for themselves the "sovereign right”, to interfere wherever and whenever they like. By denying others their sovereignty, they are trying to deny to nations and states that which they cherish most – freedom and independence, to deny their national individuality, the indisputable right to self-determination and independent development, the right to equality in international life and to active participation in world relations.

By "limited sovereignty”, they seek to legalize the right of the more powerful to strangle the weak, of the greater to gobble up the small. It is the theory of the justification of imperialist aggression”. 

The late Albanian leader referred his speech about Brezhnev and his "limited sovereignty" over the eastern bloc, that also somehow related to the current situation under globalization and neoliberalism around the world. Globalisation, also a by-product of America's "Manifest destiny" and "Atlanticism" tends to control nations by means of regions, and these regions are acting like districts reminiscent of Suzanne Collins' "Hunger Games" with the developed countries, imperialists per se, as its "Capitol."

There the countries of the so-called "free world", behind its enforced satisfaction over "imports" coming from "developed countries" do not enjoy the right to determine their foreign, as well as domestic policy freely and in a sovereign way, but are compelled to obtain the approval of the neo-colonialists in everything in a form of agreements, treaties, and policies favoring the neo-coloniser (whether it is in a form of cheap labour policies or keeping the subjected agricultural and commercial). In maximum, it lies the transformation of both foreign, as well as domestic policies of these subjected countries into an obedient appendage of the circumstances and zigzags of American, or any other first-world centred foreign policy reminiscent of the Cold War era. It shows an unlimited hypocrisy, for these so-called developed countries, bourgeoisie nations tried to appear benevolent, yet underneath it carries an exploitative nature as the Bourgeois itself as a class.

They would still claim that the subjected country as "independent" but in name. And if developing countries can't assert independence and instead contented in being dictated by its once colonisers, then it is no different from a direct colony simply because that coloniser provides roads, technology, anything that is modern that a supposed independent nation be capable of making its own! Yes, that some favoured an academic calendar that is partially patterned on those from the United States or any other developed country, with alibis such as regional integration or any other similar call, but if one may ask, why not tell them that it also meets the demands for semiskilled workers in so-called developed countries in exchange for "developments"? Being a neocolony, or a semicolony is an independent by name, and its sovereignty limited. Be it under "auspices" of the United States, Socio-Imperialist China, European Union, or Japan. It is not even considered as Internationalism, for it does not cultivate solidarity of peoples regardless of their sugar-coated "message." Of what is solidarity these people on high peddled yet in fact it is more of exploitation and subjugation? It is also a nature of the exploiter to use such "friendly", "neutral" terms to hid its obvious motives.  


After all, today's foreign relations deemphasised ideology and instead trying to appear as non partisan yet on the other hand trying to keep firm in its interests (especially economic). As people nowadays sought China's expansionism as a threat, it is rather more of economic interest using historical claims just like the United States and its so-called "Manifest destiny" and its "Atlanticism."

Yet since so-called "developed countries" insist their Globalisation and the creation of regions over the developing and underdeveloped, may likely to pave way in becoming districts with the developed regions, centered on the United States as its "cities" and the underdeveloped/developing regions as the "countryside." Sorry to use Lin Biao's and Suzzane Colins' if that's the case.

But as for China's threat, it has no relation, or rather say nothing to do with the domestic left and its revolution. But people, with its cold war-esque mindsets may still find it difficult to understand disassociating the domestic left with America's unlikely ally. Remember, it was the United States that made China "modern" thanks to Ronald Regan and Deng Xiaoping.