Neo-Colonialism as a possibility?

[Menydh]

I've just seen Thore Hund\'s map picture which is a proposal for a solution to the problem of what to do with the massive numbers of immigrants in Europe. Many of them no longer belong to any place, to any particular country, either because they are the xth generation in Europe or even because they are a mix of non-Europeans with Europeans.. And so it is a reality that even in the event of a nationalist sweep throughout Europe, no countries would take them up.

A few days ago I read on a newspaper that the offers of money to their countries' of origin to repatriate Black Africans is not working well either. The reason being that for such countries the money that those emigrés send or will send home as workers in Europe is more substantious.

Thus, the problem keeps growing bigger while the possible solutions keep getting narrower.

Apart from these thoughts, there is the never ending problem of poverty in their countries. Even if they were repatriated in an instance, their ever growing populations will always pose a danger as it is evident that they are unable to develope by themselves.

One of the problems derived from it is the environment. Since they can't produce a sustainable economy of their own and their numbers keep growing without any control whatsoever (except famine and war), the impact on the environment can be unpredictable as they apply the traditional African farming techniques of waste land. Which the consequent effects to themselves and to the rest of the world.

While Neo-Colonialism is a far fetched proposal at this right moment of time, just because Preservationism in Europe --not just ethnic-- is by far the highest priority, I believe that it is an interesting theoretical proposal for Africa and perhaps other world regions.

While it can be said that old Colonialism brought some prosperity to some of those countries, it should be also said that the prosperity only reached to a servile tiny minority and what was built was geared towards the explotation of those countries by their colonial masters.

Post-Colonialism was then forced by the U.S. to weaken competition, and as it is often argued it was done according to the artificial borders set by the colonialist countries and not according to any natural ethnic realities. It is arguable that it could have been achieved under those terms. Once it had been realized, the explotation by the old colonial masters was substituted by the exploitation by the U.S. multinationals.

In contrast, the Neo-Colonialist proposal that I make should have as a goal to provide an effective management of those countries where the ultimate benefitiary of such management would be the native peoples. In an effort to bring a Pax Europaea under the control of a joint consortium of European countries and under the supervision of independent watchdogs.

Should this be even considered? If yes, under which terms? If not, why not?

[-v-g-]

I think this would be good only for Africa, I think they got their independence 50 years too early and with fake fronteers.

Some east asian countries like Japan, South Korea, Singapur and Taiwan "China" are already pretty much first world countries, and the rest like Communist China, south east asian tigers, even Vietnam seem to advance fast.

South America I think has serious problems but they can take care of themselves, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, have many poor people, but also a large educated middle and high classes, even Peru and Bolivia have been doing better in the past decade.

Mexico, Central America and the Caribe (without Cuba) are too close to the USA and already pseudo colonies.
I dont blame them, It seems impossible to me to resist the influence of a Colossus like the USA if it is your neighbour, unless you go authoritarian isolationist like Cuba.

The arab world would never accept colonialism again.

[Errigal]

Here is an article from a major Canadian newspaper which takes the opposite view of African immigration to Spain. I find it appalling. This is free-market globalism at its' worst.

What Canada needs now: a million poor Africans


Tuesday, June 20, 2006 on Page A2 DOUG SAUNDERS



LONDON -- Here's what we need to do: Make it a little more difficult for educated, well-off people to get into Canada. And make it much, much easier for unskilled, poor people, especially from sub-Saharan Africa, to immigrate in great numbers, and soon.
That may not sound like the obvious solution to Canada's problems, to put it mildly.
A million poor Africans? Yes. A million poor Africans. Almost anyone who has studied the realities of modern immigration and economics understands that this is exactly what countries like Canada need. It would solve our country's immediate economic problems. It would provide a remedy for the future economic and demographic troubles that threaten Canada's current wave of prosperity.
And it would vastly improve the worst-off corners of the world, and eliminate threats to our security and global prosperity, in ways that no level of foreign-aid spending or peacekeeping could accomplish.
aPs="boxR"; var boxRAC = fnTdo('a'+'ai',300,250,ai,'j',nc);
This became vividly evident when I visited Madrid two weeks ago, and discovered the truth about Spain's immigration crisis. The country's southern border, and its island outposts, are being overrun by tens of thousands of people from Africa's western coast. This flood of illegal immigration is seen as a Europe-wide problem, and Spain has made dramatic and expensive gestures toward deporting the Africans and securing its border.
But two important developments have received less attention. The first is that almost all of the Africans, most of whom are dumped onto the streets of Madrid, have found jobs.
Even though they don't speak Spanish (French and English are the key languages of sub-Saharan Africa), the demand for hard-working wage labourers in the Spanish economy is huge. Official immigration attracts doctors and programmers, who are needed, but there is an even bigger need for the less-educated. Much of Europe has deep shortages of people with muscles and basic trade skills.
And, second, it now turns out that none of the African countries want their citizens back. Senegal took one planeload of deportees, and refused any more. There have been no other takers: Spain is stuck with its Africans.
The reason for this is well understood: For countries such as Senegal, those illegal emigrants are the largest source of national income, by far. The money they send home to their families, through Western Union transfers or envelopes full of cash, far exceeds resource-industry income or foreign aid. In Kenya, one of Africa's better-off states, those remittances last year put $464-billion (U.S.) into the economy, dwarfing the total foreign-aid contributions of $50.4-billion. In the poor states of the western sub-Saharan region, the effect is even more dramatic.
This has led many well-informed people in Spain, including government officials who would rather not say so publicly, to come to a conclusion: It's better to let the Africans come. In fact, the best thing to do may be to bring them over.
I visited Rickard Sandell, a well-regarded demographer at Madrid's Royal Elcano Institute. Fifteen years ago, when he emigrated from Sweden, he was the most exotic immigrant on the streets of Madrid. Now, he spends half his time issuing warnings about the African influx: It's going to get worse, he repeatedly tells the Spanish media.
But the conclusion he draws from this took me by surprise: To stop it, he says, Europe needs to attract more Africans.
"One way of easing the pressure on Europe's borders in the future is to put in place mechanisms that allow for more instead of less legal immigration from [Africa] than is currently the case," he says.
Increased immigration, he adds, improves not only the lives of immigrants, but also the lives "of those left behind, either directly -- through remittances -- or through increased interaction between the countries of origin and destination in just about any social and economic dimension."
The immigrants send money that helps to develop their home economies -- especially if we're also spending foreign-aid money helping them get free high-school educations, which are the most important ingredient in making this money build a lasting economy.
Then, the immigrants or their children get advanced educations in their new home, move back and help their countries grow. This is exactly what turned India into the economic miracle it has recently become. Sub-Saharan Africa could be next, if we want it to.
What does this have to do with Canada? Everything. Our immigration system is devoted almost exclusively to attracting the educated and affluent, and weeding out those who aren't. This weeding-out, and the resultant deportations for those who don't make the grade, costs a fortune. Yet many of those we're deporting as "illegal" are exactly whom the economy needs.
Canada is experiencing a huge shortage of trade and unskilled labour. In Alberta last year, 20 per cent of manufacturers, up from 12 per cent the year before, "reported that shortages of unskilled labour were hampering production," Statistics Canada said last month. British Columbia's shortages are almost as serious.
In the hotel industry, 32 per cent of hoteliers across Canada reported shortages of unskilled labour, and conditions are the same in dozens of other industries that rely on plain old hard work.
One Statscan analyst called it "the revenge of the old economy" -- we need brains, but we also need plenty of brawn, and we aren't getting it.
Meanwhile, our master's degree-holding, high-skilled immigrants are working as taxi drivers. Half the food-bank users in Toronto are university-educated immigrants. They are depriving their home countries of much-needed talent -- the majority of Africa's nursing graduates end up taking jobs in the wealthy West, at the very moment when Africa most needs nurses.
If we made it a bit tougher for them to get in, and instead took in a lot more people with basic educations and skills, Canada would be seeing full employment among immigrants, and would end its labour shortages. In the longer run, the demographic crisis would be eased: They would have more children than native-born Canadians do, reducing our risk of poverty-inducing depopulation.
For some Canadians these days, immigration equals terrorism. This idea would help take care of that problem too. If we had a targeted program aimed at African workers, we could eliminate much of our expensive immigration infrastructure. Proof of education and wealth would not be needed. It would put an end to what we now call illegal immigration, as well as much of the distinction between refugee and immigrant: If a poor worker can get in legally, why would he bother filing a false refugee claim?
The whole system could be aimed at weeding out baddies (yes, even using security certificates, if that's what's needed), rather than turning back people who happen to be just what Canada needs.
It would make Canada's contribution to international economic development the largest in the world. And not just by doing an India to Africa. With people flying back and forth, delivering money and skills to their homes and labour and future entrepreneurship to Canada, low airfares would suddenly deliver a global social benefit to counterbalance the environmental loss. And the region most affected by global warming might gain the resources it needs to adjust.
The cultural benefits don't need to be argued: Even our Alberta Conservatives now speak enthusiastically in favour of Canada's polyglot diversity.
And even if you just plain don't like immigrants, there may be a bright side: In the long run, by improving the quality of life in Africa, it might make some people happier to stay home.

[Errigal]

My only fear is that the large number of French speaking Maghrebiens will be heading my way. I was out shopping in Quebec this afternoon and I would say the ethnic mix is the same as rural Ireland or France and I would like it to stay that way. Perhaps the surplus Arabs of Europe could go to South America; there are already quite a few Syrians and Lebanese in Paraguay and Argentina.

It is worth mentioning that General Colin Powell is a good example of successful non-white immigration. His parents were mulattos from Jamaica who benefited from the education system of that country to raise a son with ambition and a comfort with “white” institutions. I have read that Gen. Powell has paid to have genealogical research into his Scottish heritage. So he is not exactly Malcolm X.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../12/wcol12.xml

[Susi]

I like your article, Mynnyd.

In regards to the Canadian press: Mostly crap, I only bother to read the newspaper just to laugh at the ridiculous columns.

Canada is too welcoming to immigrants. They spent 385 million dollars (CAD) on attracting them last year. I think I'd rather have that spent on healthcare or education or something more useful. Maybe making Canadian women want to have babies, rather than let the immigrant women do that for them too.

[Theobald]

Good article, Mynydd.

Well, let's examine what can be done in the different world regions. European neo-colonialism would be interesting in :

- South America : ex-Spanish colonies, now American colonies. It would be strategically interesting that Spain reactivates her influence in these lands. From an economic point of view, France and Germany could also do this but only Spain has cultural and politic ties with South America.
De Gaulle wanted to extend European influence in South America ("Marchemos la mano en la mano!"). CIA tried to kill him for this. Just to show you how this region is important to American eyes.

- SubSaharan Africa : French natural sphere of influence and ex-colonies. There France already practises neo-colonialism although Americans are trying to replace us. French African policy shall be more active to keep the USA out of Africa. Anyway they cannot develope by themselves and therefore will never become a powerful area such as Eastern Asia. Africa cannot live without a master.

- Central Asia (ex-USSR Republics, Afghanistan) : Russian periphery and natural sphere of influence. Strategically speaking a very important area (raw materials, oil, gas, ...) where Americans and Chinese should not even set a foot.

European neo-colonialism would be practically impossible in :

- Eastern Asia : Chinese natural sphere of influence. China being one of the best counterweights to American influence in the world and the best in this region in particular. In my opinion a nationalist Europe should still support a remilitarized Japan as a counterweight to Chinese power - particularly to protect Russian eastern borders. I do not think that China gave up imperialist tendancies and views on Siberia with communism.

- Southern Asia : Indian natural sphere of influence. And India is going to become an economic, politic and military giant.

- Middle-Eastern Arabo-Muslim world (from Egypt to Iran/Pakistan and Turkey to Sudan) : As -vg- said it, they would never accept colonialism again. And it would not be interesting for us to try to force them into this. Indeed once all Muslims in Europe will be back in their countries, an Arabo-Muslim world with a strong leader (Baathist Irak could have played this role, that's why Bush family destroyed it - currently Iran is the best candidate to me, but Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Turkey have the geostrategical capacities to do it) could be the best ally of a nationalist Europe against America. Indeed if we throw Americans out of Europe, they'll still keep military in Turkey, Irak, ... i.e the South-Eastern borders of Europe. The destruction of Israel is also an important step to the final destruction of the so-called Pax Americana.

I am still wondering about one region, North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lybia). They can be a serious threat to Western Europe. Just read this. They should not be allowed to be totally independent.
On one hand these countries belong to the Arabo-Muslim world.
On the other hand European countries such as Spain, Italy and especially France have a strong economic, politic and cultural influence there. In the whole Maghreb almost everyone speaks French, in Tunisia 75% of trade is either French or Italian, ... An hybrid system should be considered for this area.
Any opinion?

[Menydh]

This is a good analysis.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Well, let's examine what can be done in the different world regions. European neo-colonialism would be interesting in :

- South America : ex-Spanish colonies, now American colonies. It would be strategically interesting that Spain reactivates her influence in these lands. From an economic point of view, France and Germany could also do this but only Spain has cultural and politic ties with South America.
De Gaulle wanted to extend European influence in South America ("Marchemos la mano en la mano!"). CIA tried to kill him for this. Just to show you how this region is important to American eyes.

Ever since it started to be more difficult for the US because of internatonal pressure to organize revolts and to push corrupt governments and military regimes, left-populism is spreading through the region. These movements are very hostile to America for obvious reasons. Castro, Chávez, Evo Morales. Even Lula.

Spain maintains close links with South American countries and is a member of some organisations there, together with Portugal. Moreover, Spanish companies have made of South America its main target for investments in various key fields, including communications and petrol.

The US have lost the grip in South America. They still have some power in Central America, though not as much as they used to have.

With appropriate policies, a strong Europe could help remove the US from the region for good.

I suspect that one reason why the US has not been more hostile to Spain after Zapatero's anti-US moves is because they are aware of the weigh of Spain in the region, which they need badly.

- SubSaharan Africa : French natural sphere of influence and ex-colonies. There France already practises neo-colonialism although Americans are trying to replace us. French African policy shall be more active to keep the USA out of Africa. Anyway they cannot develope by themselves and therefore will never become a powerful area such as Eastern Asia. Africa cannot live without a master.

The problem with Sub-Saharan Africa is that they sell themselves to the best bidder. So it is a matter of playing it well. Also, true that France still has an enormous influence in Africa and as far as I know it has an excellent geostrategical network there, long used to counter the interests of other countries.

- Central Asia (ex-USSR Republics, Afghanistan) : Russian periphery and natural sphere of influence. Strategically speaking a very important area (raw materials, oil, gas, ...) where Americans and Chinese should not even set a foot.

Central Asia is not only important for its natural resources. It is also important as a "marche" of protection against China.

I'm using here "marche" as it was intended in the Kingdom of the Franks. Territories which are under the suzerainty of Russia, in this case, and which serve as an area of separation and protection.

There is no doubt that, in spite of the fall of the Soviets, Russia is still strong there.

Also, I wonder what's the strength of Turkey there, but I wouldn't be surprised if the role of Turkey was increased in the future as a server of American interests.

European neo-colonialism would be practically impossible in :

- Eastern Asia : Chinese natural sphere of influence. China being one of the best counterweights to American influence in the world and the best in this region in particular. In my opinion a nationalist Europe should still support a remilitarized Japan as a counterweight to Chinese power - particularly to protect Russian eastern borders. I do not think that China gave up imperialist tendancies and views on Siberia with communism.

Right. China should be watched closely.

- Southern Asia : Indian natural sphere of influence. And India is going to become an economic, politic and military giant.

India is troubled in its area with Islam and will continue troubled in the future.

- Middle-Eastern Arabo-Muslim world (from Egypt to Iran/Pakistan and Turkey to Sudan) : As -vg- said it, they would never accept colonialism again. And it would not be interesting for us to try to force them into this. Indeed once all Muslims in Europe will be back in their countries, an Arabo-Muslim world with a strong leader (Baathist Irak could have played this role, that's why Bush family destroyed it - currently Iran is the best candidate to me, but Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Turkey have the geostrategical capacities to do it) could be the best ally of a nationalist Europe against America. Indeed if we throw Americans out of Europe, they'll still keep military in Turkey, Irak, ... i.e the South-Eastern borders of Europe. The destruction of Israel is also an important step to the final destruction of the so-called Pax Americana.

Killing off the Baath party regime of Saddam has been the most severe blow to future stability. Baath is nationalist, something that is not allowed by Islam. There is still the Baath party in Syria, but Syria is not as strong as Iraq was. Hopefully the wheel will turn in Iraq. The question is if it will be Baath supporters of Saddam or pro-Iranian Shi'ite Islamists.

In any case, the Middle East, Islam and Israel require a separate analysis in more detail.

I am still wondering about one region, North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lybia). They can be a serious threat to Western Europe. Just read this. They should not be allowed to be totally independent.
On one hand these countries belong to the Arabo-Muslim world.
On the other hand European countries such as Spain, Italy and especially France have a strong economic, politic and cultural influence there. In the whole Maghreb almost everyone speaks French, in Tunisia 75% of trade is either French or Italian, ... An hybrid system should be considered for this area.
Any opinion?

The US have been messing up with that region too. In 1975, while General Franco was dying, the US supported the invasion of the Spanish Western Sahara by Moroccans.

Western Sahara would have been an excellent strategic point to keep them at bay. That would still be possible if Europe supported the independence of the Saharawi people and offered them protectionism.