Neocolonialism

While Turkey was fighting its War of Independence, British colonies in the Far East were disintegrating. The late 1920s and the 1930s are known as the era of anti-colonialism. Colonial powers were retreating to their own countries, and the colonies were beginning to take the lead in their own governance. Today, we can learn the most valuable information about colonialism not from the works of economists in imperialist countries, but from the valuable works of authors from countries that were once colonized. 

When we take a quick look at the field of economic theory, we see that a chapter has been opened under the heading of "dependency." The famous researcher Andre Gunder Frank and a series of other thinkers and writers have pondered the "center-periphery" thesis. In this view, there are peripherally located economies that surround and feed the developed economies at the center. The relationship is established in such a way that while the center exploits the periphery, it does so without causing the absolute collapse of the periphery, ensuring that the difference in development rates continues to favor the central country. 

In the colonialism approach based on brute force, weapons were used, and this system developed on the exploitation of people and resources. Over time, the transfer of people was replaced solely by resource and trade relations. So much so that Britain tried to solve its current account deficit, which it could not prevent, by driving the people of the Far East into opium addiction. The poll tax, which is occasionally implemented in the modern world, is also a product of Britain's relations with its colonies. 

Regardless of how this process, generally known as imperialism, is carried out, it is certain that as long as capitalism remains on earth, imperialism will not disappear from the world, even if it takes on a modified form. Indeed, in my article last week, I wrote exactly the following: "Netanyahu is running to Trump, Erdoğan is going to Trump. Both Israel and Turkey are seeking a good image, or even advice(!), from Trump. Somehow, both countries, and perhaps many others, are travelers on the same path. The above expressions, which seem ordinary at first glance, are actually nothing more than a complete pathology of the new world order. How could it be otherwise? On one hand, there are independent states, and on the other, there is a United Nations that is thought to have a say in the resolution of international issues, as it was established for this purpose and is assumed to be powerful." But neither national resources nor an organization with international legitimacy like the United Nations comes to mind as a solution-providing authority. The president of a country that is at the most advanced level in terms of economy and weaponry is considered the sole solution-providing power. The current actor of this model is Trump; I do not know who it will be in the future!

The imperialist practice of the past, which relied on the force of arms, is carried out today with polite-looking political messages and economic weapons. Trump's expression, which offends our national pride by pointing to the President of Turkey and saying something like "he knows election fraud best," perhaps constitutes an example of the new colonialism approach that is becoming increasingly crude today. I do not know if this is an exception or the first signs of a crudeness that could rise further! After all, this behavior is an insult that could not even be directed at a state governor by the president of a central country. If we translate the famous American anthropologist Clifford Geertz's "informal logic of real life" approach into Turkish as "the informal position of our nation in realpolitik," it is understood that the target of this crude expression by Trump is not just the president of a country, but the entire society that the president represents.

The political power of a politician representing a nation in international meetings and contacts does not stem from themselves, but from the place of that society in the international arena. In other words, the representative power of an elected politician in international relations is not a primary power, but a derivative power stemming from the society they represent. Therefore, we should perceive the expressions Trump used in welcoming the President, such as "good man," "smart man," or "we get along well," not as expressions directed at a politician in their primary sense, but as expressions directed at the entire society and social institutions with their underlying meanings, and we should focus on why our country can be represented in such a humiliating manner.  

As you know, an important table of indicators is published almost every year under the title of "Human Development Index." The validity of the table in question is vital for both the nation and the international arena. The importance of the table for the nation is that it shows our progress in terms of human values, but the issue goes beyond that; it also shows how countries that are at an advanced level in terms of human values view politics and the characteristics of the political cadres they bring to power. For example, in cases where widespread abuse and misconduct are in question, the resulting table creates different results in countries that are high on the Human Development Index table and different results in backward countries. A nation that keeps a political cadre in power that does not adapt its education standard to contemporary practices and politicizes its legal system for political survival purposes will be in a position where it cannot speak out against the behavior, or even the insult, that its representative is subjected to in the international environment.   

The Trump behavior, which constitutes an interesting example of the new imperialism, constitutes an indicator of the corrupted socio-political fabric of contemporary capitalism, which is progressing in an unbalanced state, both with the general acceptance it receives on the international level and with its being elevated to the point of being a Nobel candidate.