Neo-colonialism and colonial mindset
Latin America has been under the influence of either the United States or Russia. More currently, while the United States and Russia have had (and still do) different degrees of interference in domestic and regional legal and political agendas of other states in the continent, there are other sovereign states such as China and India with a strong direct and indirect presence and ascendancy. That is because, after the end of the Soviet Union era and the emergence of new central agents such as China and India, there is an evident shift to a multipolar world. Therein, it is not surprising that these states have a direct and indirect involvement in territorial disputes in the continent.
Different forms of domination: colonialism, neo-colonialism and colonial mindset
The author has explained elsewhere that, in principle, domination means the ability or capacity somebody has to exercise power arbitrarily for their own benefit over others, regardless of the consequences for the others. Conversely, non-domination implies the ability or capacity for someone’s affairs not to be arbitrary interfered with by someone else.[1] Applied to territorial disputes, when an agent such as a sovereign state dominates another agent, there is arbitrary power. On the contrary, when an agent willingly accepts limitations another agent imposes, there is non-domination.
Obviously, in the specific case of sovereign states, they may even enter into commitments and limit factually and normatively their own sovereignty. Domination, however, implies a particular kind of limitation (an axiological choice) that results in arbitrary power over someone else—e.g. another state, pseudo-states, and failed states, communities. The distinction between domination and non-domination, arbitrary and non-arbitrary is more clearly understood when the multidimensional analysis is applied.[2] For instance, a linear horizontal dimensional view encompasses the understandings in public international law of sovereign equality of the states. For example, according to art. 2.1 of the United Nations Charter, sovereign equality is a core principle. This indicates that sovereign states ought to treat each other on an equal standing or equal footing basis. However, a linear vertical dimensional view acknowledges that in fact central, strong or advantaged states may do as they wish with their weaker or least advantaged peers—e.g. realpolitik views.
Colonialism as a form of domination implies the control by agents such as states, communities and individuals over other states, communities and individuals, their territories and behaviors. Historically, in the times of colonial empires, several cases in the Americas showed states such as France, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom claimed to have absolute sovereignty, yet only recognized the sovereignty of selected peers while at the same time considered other entities as non-sovereigns, and therefore, did as they wished with their territories and populations.
More currently, states like the United States, Russia, China and India have direct and indirect involvement in legal and political issues pertaining other American peers, including territorial disputes. Whether these practices involve neo-colonialism or colonial mindset, in all cases, they have to do with a form of domination.
Neo-colonialism, a kind of adapted colonialism, includes different means of domination such as political, financial, military and technical. This form of domination implies that an agent such as sovereign state is directly and/or indirectly controlled and/or influenced from outside.
In turn, a more subtle and often ignored form of domination, colonial mindset or colonial syndrome, refers to psychologically embedded preconceptions of agents such as individuals and communities conditioned by colonial and/or neo-colonial norms and/or facts as well as the actual and/or potential exert of psychological oppression upon formerly colonial agents like individuals and/or communities. This subtle form of domination, colonial mindset, can be better comprehended when explored by means of nonlinear dimensional understandings such as self-referred or regressive.[3]
NOTE:
This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. There will be new posts every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
PREVIOUS POST:
NEXT POST:
Americans versus Americans
AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):
State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)
AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:
Wednesday 18th December 2024
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World
[1] Jorge E. Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020), Chapter 3.
[2] For unidimensional and multidimensional approaches see Jorge E. Núñez, Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty, International Law and Politics: A Theory (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023), Chapter 6.
[3] For linear and nonlinear dimensional approaches see Jorge E. Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020), Chapter 6.
No comments:
Post a Comment