• Humanity should get rid of the colonial system’s heritage

United Russia plans to hold several important international events in Vladivostok in mid-June. Some of these events are part of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship programme. All the events will continue the tradition of public and political cooperation, seeking to build a polycentric and just world order by pursuing genuine democratisation of global governance.

These joint efforts are becoming increasingly relevant, if not vitally important, in today’s world. They are a logical consequence of humanity’s evolution. 

More and more countries on the planet are expressing their desire to live in a global community free from the legacy of the colonial system. They want to build a world based on the principles of inclusive multilateralism, sovereign equality, peaceful coexistence, and mutual respect between countries with different political and social systems. The upcoming events will mark another important step towards achieving this goal.

I would like to elaborate on several key topics that, I am confident, will be extensively discussed during these events.

Neocolonialism: Old threats in a new era

In February, a forum was held in Moscow for supporters of the fight against modern neocolonialist practices. This forum, called ‘For the Freedom of Nations,’ was organised by United Russia. Around 200 representatives from more than 50 countries took part in the event, whose main outcome was the establishment of a global anti-neocolonial movement which will fight to eradicate modern practices of exploitation and hegemonism.

The meeting starkly demonstrated the urgent need to drastically intensify cooperation among all progressive forces against neocolonialism, which hinders many countries from embarking on a path of steady and just development. Neocolonialism is a longstanding and complex problem that requires a special approach and, most importantly, collaborative efforts to resolve.

Neocolonialism has long been a challenge in human history. The term was firmly established in the mid-20th century to describe the strategies employed by former colonial powers to contain the development of younger nations that had recently gained formal independence. These strategies were implemented in order to compensate for the metropoles’ own losses caused by decolonisation.

There is brazen interference in the affairs of independent states, which, unfortunately, still continues in various forms. Despite humanity’s persistent efforts to eradicate neocolonialism, the Western world vehemently resists it.

It aims to transition from isolated and national to global neocolonialism – a system of unequal economic and political relations imposed by Western countries on the rest of the world, a system that rests upon their military power, Western capital, international financial organisations, and multinational corporations (Anatoly Gorelov. ‘From the Colonial System to Global Neocolonialism’. 2014. No.2, p. 60). 

The former colonial powers persist in exploiting dependent countries, enhancing their own comfort through the humiliation and oppression of others – albeit employing more sophisticated tools and methods. This is not a new phenomenon; consuetudo est altera natura, or ‘habit is second nature’.

I will cite just a few figures that eloquently describe the political component of neocolonialism. According to experts (American experts, for all their bias), between 1946 and 2000, the US interfered in elections in other countries more than 80 times. Since 1945, there have been more than 50 attempted coups and military interventions (Dov H. Levin. ‘Partisan electoral interventions by the great powers: Introducing the PEIG Dataset’. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 2019, Vol. 36(1), pp. 88-106; William Blum. ‘Overthrowing other people’s governments: The Master List’). 

Sanctions as a power tool

One of the primary tools that the neo-metropolises are using to accomplish their goals are unilateral sanctions that run contrary to international law. Of the 174 cases of restrictive measures applied in the 20th century, the US was responsible for 109; in 80 cases, it sought to change the policies of undesirable states (Haufbacher G., Shott J., Elliott K., Oegg B. ‘Economic Sanctions Reconsidered,’ Third Edition. Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2009, p. 248). 

In fact, America has become a global sanctions neo-metropolis. In its activities, Washington makes extensive use not only of primary sanctions but also secondary sanctions (based on the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction), seeking to undermine third countries’ foreign, trade, and economic policies, thereby openly violating their sovereignty.

Below are a few examples of the consequences of these illegal restrictive measures. 

As of October 2023, the total damage to the Cuban economy from the embargo imposed in 1960 amounted to $ 159.8 billion. 

During the period of unilateral US restrictions against Iran in 1984-2000, the average annual cost of those sanctions was $ 80 million (‘Sanctions related to Iran/The White House official press release’. Fact sheet. 31 July 2012). Between 2006 and 2012, during the period of multilateral sanctions, the annual toll on Iran was $ 5.7 billion (O.V. Komshukova. ‘Sanctions against Iran: Goals and Consequences’. Economic and Social Problems of Russia. Social Factors of Economic Growth, Moscow, INION RAN, 2016, No. 2-11). 

Over the seven years since the first sanctions were imposed on Venezuela in 2015, they have caused losses of $ 642 billion to the Latin American country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as President Nicolás Maduro said in his annual address to the nation in January (Maduro called US sanctions economic genocide, RIA Novosti, 15 January 2024).

By doing this, the US blatantly disregarded the 1927 judgment by the Permanent Court of International Justice, which highlighted the importance of respecting the sovereignty of other states in the legal context and pointed out that “the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that, failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary, it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State” (Permanent Court of International Justice. The Case of S.S. Lotus (France vs. Turkey). Judgment. Publication of the Permanent Court of International Justice, pp. 18-19). 

Similarly, the US acted contrary to the 1965 United Nations (UN) General Assembly Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States, the 1970 UN General Assembly Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, and Resolution 27/21 of the UN Human Rights Council, dated 26 September 2014, which says that unilateral coercive measures and legislation are contrary to international law, international humanitarian law, and the UN Charter.

Washington’s attempts to find a justification for its aggressive and illegal actions in the broad interpretation of the territorial principle do not stand up to scrutiny. (When hearing the case of the Republic of Nicaragua vs. the United States of America, the UN International Court of Justice clearly demonstrated that it was against the broad interpretation of actions that constitute a threat to national security. During the interpretation of the term “essential foundations of security,” it was established that US claims about Nicaragua’s alleged attempts to overthrow the governments of neighbouring states that went on for two years were not sufficient to incur the exception since the US had not proved that Nicaragua’s policy constituted a threat to the “essential security interests”).

In this context, Judge Jeffrey Meyer (a judge of the US District Court for the District of Connecticut, a Senior Counsel to the Independent Inquiry for the UN Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq in 2004-2005, a Professor of Law at Quinnipiac University School of Law, and a Visiting Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School) pointed out that “the US itself is prone to exaggerated claims that secondary sanctions measures can be justified by the protective or effects jurisdictional principles, even when these measures aim to redress… conduct that occurs in distant lands and that has no real prospect of jeopardising the safety of or causing any substantial effect in the US” (J.A. Meyer. ‘Second Thoughts on Secondary Sanctions’. University of Pennsylvania. Journal of International Law. Vol. 30. Iss.3., p. 909).

In fact, this can be described as attempts to destroy entire countries or as quasi-genocide. Nevertheless, the masterminds of these sanctions have not been called to account.

Domination and exploitation

Western countries have not only been obsessed with the idea of political control over the rest of the world but also with domination on the international stage. 

In the second half of the 20th century, Latin American and European economists, such as Raul Prebisch (Argentina), Theotonio dos Santos and Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil), Andre Frank (Germany), and Gunnar Myrdal (Sweden), shaped the dependency theory, which proved that there is a direct connection between the underdevelopment of Third World countries and the prosperity of advanced capitalist countries. Their works showed convincingly that the exploitation of underdeveloped nations by advanced nations was a major obstacle on humanity’s path towards progress (Baran, Paul A. ‘The Political Economy of Growth’. Moscow, 1960, p. 53). 

According to calculations, the West drained over $ 62 trillion worth of raw materials from the Global South countries between 1960 and 2018 (J. Hickel, D. Sullivan, H. Zoomkawala. ‘Plunder in the Post-Colonial Era: Quantifying Drain from the Global South Through Unequal Exchange, 1960-2018’. New Political Economy, 26(6), pp. 1,030-1,047).

There is another example from our present-day reality. I am referring to Charles de Gaulle’s foreign policy, which consisted of ensuring France’s national independence and greatness. “My aim, then, was to disengage France, not from the Atlantic Alliance, which I intended to maintain by way of ultimate precaution, but from the integration realised by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) under American command; to establish relations with each of the States of the Eastern bloc, first and foremost Russia, with the object of bringing about a detente followed by understanding and cooperation… to do likewise, when the time was ripe, with China; and finally, to provide France with a nuclear capability such that no one could attack us without running the risk of frightful injury” (Charles de Gaulle. ‘Memoires d’espoir Le Renouveau 1958-1962’. P., 1970, p. 284). 

This included France’s famous move to withdraw from NATO’s military command in 1966. France would have never achieved this goal without access to the free resources it received from the French-speaking African countries.

France succeeded in achieving the desired outcome by imposing a monetary and financial framework on its former African colonies, making them fully dependent on the Fifth Republic, which assumed the role of a neo-metropole. They did it by issuing the Franc of the Financial Community of Africa (CFA Franc) as an element of the neocolonial monetary system for controlling African economic policies. 

France has been using the euro for over 20 years now. However, it remains a dominant power in the franc zone, since there are still 14 countries in West Africa using the CFA Franc, which is pegged to the European currency. African researchers argue that this currency deprives their countries of the ability to use their domestic currencies and financial assets for their own development without facing external restrictions. It is also an obstacle to their economic and monetary sovereignty. 

It is for this reason that the present-day neo-Napoleon from the Élysée Palace constantly emphasises his adherence to Charles de Gaulle’s ideas and views perpetrating this neocolonial monetary bondage as a vital necessity (Pascal Boniface. ‘Why the Legacy of De Gaulle and Mitterrand Still Matters for the French Public Opinion,’ Valdai, 15 March 2021). This is the only way he can succeed. This means that Paris will seek to retain its foothold of Africa’s currency market for as long as possible.

Debt neocolonialism

In order to preserve its geopolitical presence in various parts of the world, the West relies on so-called debt neocolonialism. One of the masterminds of Pan-Africanism and a prominent Government leader of Burkina Faso, Thomas Sankara warned about this danger back in 1987, when he said: “Debt is neocolonialism, in which colonisers evolved into technical facilitators... which amounts to an astute effort to conquer Africa (‘Discours de Thomas Sankara sur la dette,’ 29 July 1987. Youtube). How can we talk about genuine freedom for a country if it lacks economic independence and is doomed to be guided by its lenders in the decision-making process?

The neocolonial powers are using financial institutions under their control and extensively exploiting the difficult socioeconomic situations in many countries of the Global South to induce them to borrow at interest rates that are higher than those offered to the so-called golden billion countries. 

According to the UN Global Crisis Response Group on Food, Energy, and Finance, countries in Asia and Oceania borrow at an average rate of 6.5%; Latin America and the Caribbean at 7.7%, and Africa at 11.6%. At the same time, borrowing costs for Germany are as low as 1.5%, and for the US, 3.1% (‘A world of debt’. UN Global Crisis Response Group. July 2023. p. 10).

But perhaps the most eloquent fact that brings the problem into focus is that 45 countries spend more on servicing external debt than on healthcare (ibid.). In other words, many nations have to sacrifice decent living standards for their citizens and even their future to satisfy the appetites of ruthless usurers.

Neocolonialists are also eagerly profiting from humanitarian assistance projects, taking the last piece of bread from poor countries without even a twinge of conscience. Take, for example, the situation with the distribution of Ukrainian grain under the Black Sea Initiative, which was proposed to help food-deprived states in Africa and Asia. As a result, the poorest states received only about 3% of the total stock of 32.8 million tonnes (Foreign Ministry statement on the Istanbul agreements. 17 July 2023).

Ideological colonialisation

Unfortunately, neocolonial powers are not going to stop there. They now seek to control not only the wallets and health but also the mindset of the inhabitants of the rest of the world. It appears that they have not kept their hands off the moral codes and rules of conduct society had been honing for centuries. 

Even most religions have been tarnished and perverted. Washington and its satellites are making considerable efforts to revise the fundamentals of Christianity and Islam to suit their own interests, and then relentlessly spread them around the world presented as some modernised religious teachings. That is, they are making full use of neocolonial practices to attract millions of people to their newfangled perverted cults. The main goal they are trying to achieve is to sever the links between generations, where religious traditions are important to maintain continuity.

Ideological colonialisation in its various forms and aspects poses a serious danger. Pope Francis believes that it brings economic aid under the same umbrella while imposing alien ways of thinking on other cultures, which paves the way for confrontation. 

The Pontiff was right in saying that “subjugating peoples by force or through cultural and political penetration is to be considered a crime”. He went on to call for an end to neocolonial practices and their manifestations in the forms of racism and social segregation as soon as possible (‘Pope: Modern neocolonialism is a crime and a threat to peace,’ Vatican News, 1 April 2023).

Neocolonial thinking will always prevail over truth in the minds of Western leaders. This is the axiom we must realise. In fact, there are multiple examples in this regard. Today, there is a serious debate in the Netherlands on whether to withdraw the official apology by the kingdom’s Government regarding the Dutch war crimes against Indonesians during their 1945-1949 Independence War. Human rights are only for the chosen ones, it seems, while others are left with efforts to whitewash the violent past of the Dutch East Indies.

Great Britain continues to play an active role in spreading neocolonial practices. It spent several centuries extracting resources from its numerous overseas colonies. Today, London is intent on benefiting from what amounts to delayed-action mines it laid during that time. In particular, this includes imposing its legal system on so many countries and forcing them to use its judicial mechanisms by treating almost all disputes around the world as falling under its jurisdiction. 

They have been justifying their efforts to penetrate other judicial systems by falsely asserting the universal nature of UK law, as well as by talking about the impartiality and professionalism of British lawyers and barristers. Of course, nothing can be further from the truth. Therefore, we must invest more time to make this British neocolonialism a thing of the past by improving the performance of national judiciaries and creating independent international courts.

Friendly neocolonialism

Neo-metropolitan powers have also been targeting certain countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa with their disruptive efforts in order to control their natural wealth, including critical minerals. They focus on gaining unrestricted access to lithium, graphite, nickel, cobalt, and rare earth deposits they need for transitioning to a low-carbon economy. While pretending to care about the environment and climate change, they are basically pushing the narrative of a green/eco-friendly neocolonialism that primarily benefits the collective West. 

Wealthy countries are forcing countries across the Global South to act in a hasty and uncalculated manner in order to preserve their environment, while completely disregarding centuries-old customs and traditions in agriculture, water use, and minerals extraction. Our partners have openly sided with what they call “regulatory imperialism” which, in fact, amounts to neocolonialism, including regarding the destruction of forests and other major challenges (Gayatri Suroyo. ‘Indonesia accuses EU of “regulatory imperialism” with deforestation law,’ Reuters, 8 June 2023).

To preserve its ‘elitist’ (or, if we call things what they are, parasitic) existence, the self-proclaimed ‘golden billion’ will stop at nothing, including artificially-induced economic crises. It continues to stall the provision of loans through global development institutions and to support pro-Western opposition parties. While doing this, the West is painstakingly imitating a mutually respectful dialogue, trying to create a favourable international environment for itself. 

In particular, this is how the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation initiative, launched by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in September 2023, was presented to the public. The initiative is made to drag as many countries on Africa’s western coast into it as possible. With this sort of pseudo-democratic format, Washington and its satellites are trying to reinforce their noticeably compromised influence, pull the countries on the content into the global Western agenda, and damage our links with our African partners. 

The so-called Mattei Plan, presented after the Italy-Africa summit earlier this year, pursues the same goal. Ironically, the project of exchanging African natural resources for Italian loans with a total investment of € 5.5 billion, that looks so ambitious (at least on paper), is a typical example of ‘friendly neocolonialism,’ when pumping cheap resources for European industrial production is embellished with various PR campaigns (Fadhel Kaboub, ‘Is Italy’s $ 6 bln plan for Africa just PR-friendly neocolonialism?’ African Arguments, 2 February 2024). As the European Union (EU) members’ national economies continue to sink, there will be even more such shameless attempts at ‘blinged-up colonialism’.

The neometropoles are not forgetting about the IT industry, of course, especially since this industry largely determines the trajectory of human development at this stage. The neocolonisers are not trying to achieve anything new: their goal is to expand the digital gap between themselves and the rest of the world, to create conditions for their IT corporations to strengthen as monopolies. 

They want to silence anybody whose views oppose pro-Western beliefs. People like Raul Castro and Ali Khamenei have already become victims of censorship. I myself had to face discrimination when Twitter (now X) restricted one of my posts in 2023. Allegedly, accounts were blocked in response to “violating platform policy”. 

However, American Senator Lindsey Graham (on the Russian list of terrorists and extremists) used his page on Facebook (owned by Meta, recognised as an extremist organisation and banned in Russia) to call for getting to and destroying the Iranian oil processing industry but did not attract nearly as much interest from the ‘morality police’ at Meta. I cannot explain this paradox by anything other than double neocolonial standards.

(Part II will be published next week)

(The writer is the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation and Chairman of the United Russia Party)

(Source: Rossiyskaya Gazeta)