Developing countries political dilemma [Archives:2002/29/Focus]

BY ALI M. A. NASSER
The first country in the modern times got its independence from colonialism was USA and that was in 1776 when the British control over the United States was ended. Beginning from the 50s of last century many countries in the world had achieved their independence from the main metropolises mainly in Europe. During that era many political definitions and concepts had prevailed where that had to accommodate the atmosphere of the cold war prevalent in that time. The non-aligned countries organization, along with other regional and international organizations, gave typical meanings to the concept of national sovereignty. Many independent countries used to show firm competition in adapting the stance of absolute national sovereignty especially in the 60s and 70s of the last century. That had proved natural at that time. Wasnt it the time of Nasser, Nehro, Tito, Singour, Sukarno, Kinyata and many other symbols with their different indications and techniques? All those symbols of sovereignty had passed away except for Castro.
With the advent of the 90s of the last century the eastern pole led by Russia had collapsed and the US-led Western pole remained the sole pole in the world.
Simultaneously, the movement of the scientific and technological revolution had envisaged a great escalation and it is to be natural that the center of great advancement was the West. In this context, developing countries felt the magnitude of the gap between them and the developed world and started to call for and even to compete for cooperation with the West that they used earlier to firmly deprecate cooperation with. Hence, most of the developing countries which exaggerated their independence and sovereignty in the recent past have departed their positions in favor of adopting an opposite concept where those countries reiterated the preponderance of their national interests and gave up their former West- rejecting stances.
But nowadays elements of globalization, democracy, human rights and lately coping with terrorism, have loomed more sharply in the sky of international politics.
Thus more countries had to compete in a adopting the new concepts of contemporary life introduced by the West. The new World order has emerged with new requirements. The World Bank and IMF became the main tools of this new world order dictating their relentless conditionality and hard provisions upon the developing countries. Then these countries have to literally accept and adapt to policies dictated by the World Bank and IMF as well as other Western bodies.
It has become evident that the English saying Might is Right is showing its clear vividness and hence the requirements and conditions of the forceful international powers have to be observed and obeyed by the weak nations regardless of being correct or mistaken.
Regimes and governments have increasingly became keen to survive and exist and hence are to keep pace with short-run targets. This jeopardizes the chances of developing countries to achieve better conditions of life their peoples are dreaming of.
At present many developing countries are showing great eagerness to attract foreign investors from the West to gain not merely the investors of capital but also to attain know-how and modern technology in addition to be able to cope with dramatically high rates of unemployment, inflation and poverty squeezing the existence and life of their developing countries.
But these countries exaggerate in obliging themselves with adopting the values of democracy, human rights, alignment with globalization and coping with terrorism without being able to realize such targets owing to the apparent weakness of these governments and the clear lack of means. These the efforts of development are hampered by the lack of ability to realize the principles which those leaderships stuck to theoretically since the external support of donors is geared to advancement in dealing with such political targets. On the other hand many other developing countries suffered evident desperation in dealing with their problems but their governments and regimes are fearing the anger of USA and the West. Thus these governments pretend adopting theoretical and unreal claims of reforms and remedy without exerting any efforts to set priorities for tackling the problems of the heavy legacy of backwardness.
Regarding adoption of democracy and contemporary political principles, developing countries are to realize that such attitudes are a matter of values which are to grow deep in the very feeling and behavior and consciousness of the concerned peoples and are not simply meanings to be put for speculation and political consumption. Therefore, developing have to show self-candidness and hence have to realize that they are learning the fundamental requirements of such values and knowing that well will take a long time and cost great efforts and sacrifices. Following this fact and springing from this premise is the same prerequisite for the aspired for development of these countries. But deceivers are only to deceive themselves.

——
[archive-e:29-v:2002-y:2002-d:2002-07-15-p:./2002/iss29/focus.htm]