There has been and continues to be a healthy debate on whether globalisation is the current avatar of colonisation as devotees of both worship in the temple of self-serving gain. The masters of the latter rode roughshod over the lands of the so-called New World on the wagon of amoral, unbridled capitalism. The adherents of the latter mowing down the pedestrians of the financial markets with the automated scythe of rapacious, inhumane capitalism. <img src="http://guardian.co.tt/files/Prakash Persad.png" alt="logo" class="right"/>
There are many benefits to be derived from globalisation if the system is fair, balanced, equitable and transparent. But this is not the case. The failures of the global organisations to reach meaningful consensus between the developing and developed world on issues that include trade, agricultural subsidies and climate change are carryovers of the legacy of colonialism through which the advanced powers developed at the expense of the present developing world. The developed world's motto of free trade is being answered by the others with the pained cry for fair trade; for the opportunity to develop their industrial capacity without being penalised by being subjected to the same limitations on carbon emissions. Have we really emerged from the era of colonialism or are we still subjected to the same on an even larger scale, albeit in a more sophisticated and subtle manifestation?
A late, erudite professor of a regional tertiary-level institution once remarked that the descendants of those who were subjected to indentureship and slavery are worse off than their forebears, for they have to support themselves while still being economically and politically shackled. This may seem to be a harsh statement but many believe that while the letter of it may not be totally consistent with the reality, the spirit of it is very much alive. The inhabitants of Asia, Africa and the Caribbean didn't invite anyone to become their masters. Rather they were subjugated by those who arrogated upon themselves the "divine" right to "discover" and thereby claim ownership and lordship of the lands and inhabitants, respectively, upon which they stumbled.
Be that as it may, colonialism did result in the process of industrialisation to varying degrees in the colonies. The transfer of technology, however, did not proceed at the same pace. If anything, it occurred at a rate akin to that of a lazy snail's pace. The plantation economies of the Third World have been trying to play catch-up through industrialisation by invitation and some, of late, development by invitation. Of course when the finance is supplied by the industrialised North, the expertise naturally also descends from there.
When, however, the patrimony of the country is being expended in the effort, and more so when it is derived from a fortuitous financial windfall, all efforts must be made to ensure that the returns are maximised. So an effective policy of technology transfer must be rigorously enforced. Thus if a foreign expert is being invited, then there must be a local counterpart so that the expertise is transferred and verifiably so as the poor Third World is shown no mercy with respect to the financial remunerations demanded.
For this to happen the first requirement is that the local counterpart must be suitably qualified in terms of education and genuine commitment to the country's development. Not party hacks nor smooth-talking under-qualified people from the Diaspora who chose not to put their noses to the wheel of national development but to leave and seek self-interest elsewhere and are back for the main purpose of cashing in now. See the common thread? Self-interest! The second necessity is to ensure the foreign experts are indeed technical subject-matter experts and not agents or proxies of the aforementioned avatar. Herein lies the greatest danger to the national interests, for many multinationals have their roots grown from the colonial era. To them business is but the stepping stone to political and economic control.
The East India Company, incorporated in 1600 to do business with India, assumed political control of vast areas of the subcontinent and plundered it in a manner which only the colonial masters, multinationals and bankers could and can do. The race should not be to developed nation status but rather to develop our people and institutions to have sustainable people-centred development so that when we actually qualify for developed nation status we can sustain it. This takes time but the result would be worth it. To try to, unnaturally and unreasonably, hasten the process may very well lead us into the meta-colonialisation trap from which escape is both difficult and costly. Prakash Persad is the director of Swaha Inc
THOUGHTS
There are many benefits to be derived from globalisation if the system is fair, balanced, equitable and transparent.
Have we really emerged from the era of colonialism or are we still subjected to the same on an even larger scale, albeit in a more sophisticated and subtle manifestation?