As Lenin claimed, imperialism would appear by many as the highest stage of capitalism and the ultimate in social and economic advancement and civilisation. In fact, in present day political discourse, it remains one of the few things universally accepted by all, Global North or Global South, isolated or geo strategically engaged, coloniser or colonised. It is through this that many tensions arise between major settler colonial powers as to their positions of power and ability to effectively negotiate peace and agree on administration of effective security. Equally, on the other hand, as well as effectively severing ties between nations and leading to conflicts arising, alliances equally influential imperial superpowers can also further develop their influence to support internationalist aims, often leading to them becoming increasingly inter reliant on each other to further preserve their security and influence. This can prove to have clear negative consequences with regard to their sovereignty and ability to govern themselves, as well as therefore hindering potential development. It is through an understanding of this that one can effectively draw conclusions as to how internationally motivated a lot of these actions appear, and what ways supposed social development can best be achieved.
One may consider the relationship of the US and the UK in relation to geopolitics and international military operations to better understand this reasoning. While having historically had a strong and powerful empire and major hard power, soon effectively paving the way for their rapidly evolving soft power and cultural influence, the UK is also very much dependent on other nations’ resources to develop. While appearing somewhat isolationist in its approach to trade and communications and aiming to maintain an autarky position through scepticism of trade bloc membership and relations with other European countries so as to greater preserve its own national identity and take full advantage of its individual social infrastructure, from a military standpoint they are heavily reliant on the US’ influence, and a key player in assisting the provision of military aid and direct assistance in times of conflict. It is here that we can clearly see something of a diplomatic internationalist dimension to their operations much akin to the US, yet a clear legacy steeped in national pride and cultural identity. This can be questioned in regard to its positive influence, and the forms of internationalist nationalism that nations take can be clearly observed.
In relation to this, one might regard national pride as a trivial and insignificant measure of development and relate more to the more complex and multifaceted sociopolitical aspects that could influence this when observing these sentiments. However, it is hugely prevalent and plays a significant role in the development of a nation's sovereignty and individual ability to use aspects of their culture and individual ideology to support their global influence and protect them against imperial threat. Settler colonial violence and abuse of power has maintained presence as a significant issue hindering international relations throughout the past century, and in turn being used as a means of further oppression by the imperial and capitalistic superpowers that would be able to directly benefit from it with regard to preserving their global influence.
Equally, it also proves to be important to note that, while not directly being linked with imperial activity, the successful use of soft power and use of culture by the west has proven to have been instrumental in assisting the degradation of national identity and the individual social, cultural and demographic characteristics of the colonised nations. This can thus act as a threat to diversity and result in greater homogeneity of culture globally. This can often be observed when realising the influence of the greater accessibility of Western media, in that this can mean that clear bias towards colonial and imperial centric nations' political perspectives. This could thus potentially foster a rise in pro-imperialist attitudes and the growth of capitalist ideals for these nations affected by globalisation and cultural homogenisation, meaning that attempts by the developing world to establish their own imperial power and superpower status so as to reach the highest stage of capitalist development (linking back on the ideas presented by Lenin in his 1917 theory on imperialism). As a result, it could be seen that international sovereignty, be that through well-established superpower status and global governance, economic self-sufficiency, or through success in nations' creation of cultural capital, would be one of the core means by which to achieve the ultimate in development (or as an effective means by which to avoid potential alternative geopolitical conflict and exploitation of influence that would hinder this).
Ethnic and cultural tensions can continue to arise for these nations as a result of this change with there being a very noticeable sense that indigenous populations would be left unsupported and their culture and environment could become under threat, thus meaning that they would often face barriers to accessing adequate infrastructure, support and employment therefore meaning that their standard of living and quality of life would likely have got considerably worse. This would mean that socioeconomic disparities and already existing equalities would likely continue to become even more apparent than they already are, and could thus put the main means of sovereign influence and autonomy from the westernised world would be reduced, leading to uneven development.
Overall, while one may see the functioning of nations as individual sovereign states to often be a position somewhat dictated by isolationist and individual capitalist motives, thus appearing to present an anti-internationalist sentiment, it is clear that this is not always the case. It can appear that from the perspective of imperially motivated future colonisers as well as the more revolutionary internationalist socialist nations, and those wishing to develop their own specific economic influence to assist their potential international relations, or reduce themselves from existing agreements or alliances that appear to hinder or have a negative influence on their interests. Therefore, it is clear that international sovereignty and ability to maintain one's own economic and political autonomy can prove to be instrumental in further promoting, assisting and acting as an effective indicator of international development.
No comments:
Post a Comment