Decolonization:
Beginning the Shift
The decolonization process, which was the beginning
stage of imperial transition from colonialism to globalization, varied
depending on the colonized state, the value of the colonized state,
government/economic/political/social structures, and the culminating point of
independence. The imperial transition
from colonialism to globalization redefined the characteristics of imperialism
from economic exploitation by nation-states to economic exploitation by capital
private sector entities, corporate states, which utilize the military and political
strengths of nation-states specifically through the consolidated international
authority of International Government Organizations (IGOs). It was no historical coincidence that the
post WWII Bretton Woods Conference coincided the epoch of post colonialism. At the same time, not every capitalist plan that
was developed for post-colonial states worked out in the best short-term
interests of the global market due to the sporadic nature of stability in
post-colonial states.
Burma
Not every post-colonial state has been a beacon of
stability for international capital investment and exploitation. Burma, known today as Myanmar, like many
other post-colonial properties after national independence, has suffered from
domestic political fractioning caused by the political void left by colonialism
since its independence in 1948. The
decade leading into Burmese independence saw the world conflict, World War II,
spill across its borders, which can be briefly analyzed in the British
government statement of 1945: “The Japanese invasion and the long interval of
enemy occupation and active warfare in her territories, during which she has
suffered grave damage not only in the form of material destruction but in a
shattering of the foundations of her economic and social life” [1]. While the British government termed their
military reacquisition of Burma as liberation, both Britain and Japan were
foreign occupiers battling over a strategic colonial chess piece on the
international stage. The destructive economic
results of war resulted in the opening invitation for the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development (known today as the World Bank).
The
international private sector, especially the Bretton Woods conference members,
considered the new independent Burma as a major prospect in 1948 for future
economic exploitation and profiting. By
1954, the World Bank was making preparations for Burmese membership and the
World Bank issued their first funding allotments to the Burmese government on
May 4, 1956. [2] Britain attempted to do in Burma what had been
attempted in the majority of British post-colonial possessions, and “from 1948
to 1958, the country was a parliamentary democracy based on a U.K.-inspired
constitution”, a government structure that has been historically very
capitalism friendly [3].
The
main problems for foreign capitalist globalizing entities concerning Burma
emerged in the early phases of the Cold War and stemmed from a post-colonial
political power vacuum, and the domestic splintering in Burma lead to a 1962
military coup and the establishment of a socialist government under General Ne
Win “who abolishes the federal system and inaugurates "the Burmese Way to
Socialism" - nationalising the economy, forming a single-party state with
the Socialist Programme Party as the sole political party, and banning
independent newspapers” [4]. This was
problematic for the international so-called free market because socialist
governments tend to lean toward isolation and collective national economic
resources, rather than international economic trade (of natural resources) and
the accumulation of individual private capital.
In
1987, during the last years of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet
Union, Burma saw heavy currency devaluation which destabilized the domestic
state in the form of anti-government riots (more than likely funded from
foreign entities interested in seeing Burma return to a more capital-friendly
form of government, similar to events in Syria today), and in 1990 Democratic
elections were held and the “Opposition National League for Democracy (NLD)”
won a “landslide victory in general election” [5]. At this juncture across the post-Cold War
international stage, the World Bank again attempted to pull Burma back into the
global free market, as was the trend during this period as capital
globalization began to spread eastward in efforts to pull post-Soviet satellite
states into the global free market (in order to exploit their natural
resources). The World Bank’s second
funding efforts in Burma were also a default failure that resulted in a twenty-five
year break between the Bank and the state.
Myanmar
Burma,
now Myanmar, has only recently began to recover from the domestic political
void and power splintering originally caused by colonialism, and the people of
Burma have suffered for the lack of “economic correlations and international
isolation” that has “led to economic stagnation, despite a short-lived effort
towards economic liberalisation in the late 1980s” [6] . Myanmar, which is “is a poor country in spite
of its vast natural resources”, never transformed into the economic machine
expected by international capitalist entities, but could eventually, still
become used for mass foreign economic exploitation [7]. After all, Burma/Myanmar is still ‘virgin’
territory for globalization as “industrialization is still in an embryonic
stage and agriculture retains a pivotal role in Burma/Myanmar’s economy,
accounting for nearly 60% of the country’s GDP” [8]
The
World Bank “is set to re-engage with Burma 25 years after freezing its lending,
but the Southeast Asian country must first repay several hundred million
dollars in outstanding arrears” and while there is concern by international
investors concerning “continued violence in many of Burma’s border areas –
notably Kachin state”, Myanmar may still reach its destiny of having its
natural resources depleted and exploited by foreign capitalist corporations; a
post-colonial destiny that may have only been delayed by post-colonial domestic
factors on an international chess board.
Notes
1. Modern History Sourcebook: British
Government Statement: Policy in Burma, May 1945, Fordham University,
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/1945-burma-ukpolicy.asp
2. World Bank Historical Chronology:
1950-1959, World Bank,
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/EXTARCHIVES/0,,contentMDK:20035658~menuPK:56315~pagePK:36726~piPK:437378~theSitePK:29506,00.html
3. Lex Rieffel, The Myanmar Economy:
Tough Choices, Brookings Institute, September 2012,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/09/myanmar-economy-rieffel
4. BBC News, Burma Profile: Chronology
of Events, March 21, 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12992883
5. BBC News, Burma Profile: Chronology
of Events, March 21, 2013,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12992883
6. The EC-Burma/Myanmar Strategy Paper
2007-2013, European Union,
http://eeas.europa.eu/myanmar/csp/07_13_en.pdf
7. The EC-Burma/Myanmar Strategy Paper
2007-2013, European Union,
http://eeas.europa.eu/myanmar/csp/07_13_en.pdf
8. The EC-Burma/Myanmar Strategy Paper
2007-2013, European Union,
http://eeas.europa.eu/myanmar/csp/07_13_en.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment