TOWARDS A NEW WORLD ORDER: AFRICA’S RELATIONS WITH
DEVELOPED WORLD IN THE POST COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
By
Olufemi P. Adelusi (Ph.D)
ABSTRACT
The chapter
looks at the ‘new world’ from the point of view of Africa’s relationship with
the developed world. ‘Developed world’
here refers to the advanced, industrialised countries of North America and
Europe, as well as Japan.
The chapter
examines the origins of the present world order and using the dependency
paradigm, attempts to deduce its implications for Africa – Developed world
relations: How will the ‘new world
order’ affect Africa’s position especially economic position – relative to the
developed world?
The chapter
attempts to answer this question by showing clearly, that Africa’s continued
dependence on the developed world has worsened its conditions of
underdevelopment.
Based on
preceding analysis, the chapter concludes that Africa’s condition of dependence
and underdevelopment will get worse under the new dispensation unless the
continent is willing and able to pursue a course of collective self-reliance.
1.
INTRODUCTION: THE ORIGIN
OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
In 1985, given what he called
“socio-economic stagnation, loss of momentum and
Inertia”
(Novesty Press Agency, 1987). in Soviet Society as reasons, Soviet Leader,
Mikhail Gorbachev, introduced the twin policies of Glasnost (Openness) and
Perestroika (Economic Reconstruction).
Glasnost provided for political reforms including freedom of expression
and dissent, while Perestroika provided for economic reforms through the
introduction of commodification and other principles of free market
economy. The economy was decentralized
and private ownership of some firms was allowed.
The introduction of Glasnost and Perestroika in the
Soviet Union led to reform movements in Eastern Europe especially in 1989. It inspired peace moves, multi-party
political systems and liberalisation of political institutions worldwide. More significantly, it led to the demise or
weakening of communist parties especially in Eastern Europe; where Communist Parties
either disappeared (as in the former German Democratic Republic) or changed
names and forms (as in the other countries of Eastern Europe) and became
Swedish type Social Democratic Parties.
By October 1989, Communism had collapsed in Eastern Europe.
This seemingly abrupt Soviet Switch from a
Marxist-Leninist posture to ideas hitherto unthinkable in official (Soviet)
circles unleashed demands for further liberalisation of Soviet Institutions,
(led to) nationalist … uprisings within the country, (led to) the automatic
collapse of the Warsaw military bloc, the reunification of the former German
Democratic Republic and Federal Republic of Germany, and (led to) the
re-organisation of the Communist trading bloc to adapt to ideas of hard
currency trade based on Western models. (Sunday New Nigerian (Kaduna),1991)
The introduction of Glasnost and Perestroika was in
effect, an admission of the failure of Socialism. It marked the end of the cold war and
perhaps, of ideology also. The subsequent
triumph of democratic politics and market economics along with the enormous
economic problems of the Soviet Union, have led to the ‘enfeeblement’, relative
to the U.S.A. with the result that the U.S.A. has emerged as the dominant power
in the world today. “For the first time
in over half a century, no single great power, or coalition of powers, poses a
‘clear and present danger’ to the national security of the United States. The end of the cold war has left America in
the …. Position of being without an obvious major adversary”. (GADIS, John.
Lewis 1991:102)
This fact was perfectly illustrated in the
recent gulf crisis during which United States mobilised and international war
machinery against Iraq which had invaded and annexed Kuwait. It was the first time in history that the
United Nations Security Council, with the consent of the Soviet Union,
authorised the use of force against a member country. America’s preponderance in the world today
means that it now exercises effective control of the United Nations.
One may ask: why did the
U.S.A. (and the West) triumph over the Soviet bloc in the cold war? The answer is that the superior technology of
the ‘West’; its dominant media; its well established colonial and post colonial
era contacts around the world; its well orchestrated claim to represent a
better model of individual freedom and human liberty; as well as the rise of
Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union, all combined to ensure the victory of
the ‘West’. It has been suggested that
for this victory to come about, there must have been sufficient ‘spadework’
done over the years to set up the right atmosphere for it to materialise. It has been suggested that that background
‘spadework’ done over the years to set up the National Security Council
Document 68 (NSC-68) as blue print. The
NSC-68 document it a top secret document produced in April 1950 by American
experts, and classified until 1975 when the then US Secretary of State, Henry
Kissinger de-classified it. The document
provides for a policy of containment of communism through the build up of
American Political, Economic, and Military strength. It provides for specific overt and covert
operations by US agencies – notably the CIA – to shore up the ‘West’ and undermine
the Soviet bloc.
As one analyst has noted:
The US National
Security Council document NSC-68 is a highly significant example of the
Kind of specific long term Western planning
that has eventually created the kind of political, economic, and cultural
climate conducive to the role played by the figure of Gorbachev. (Sunday
New Nigerian (Kaduna). 1991:5)
One may ask the pertinent
question; what, exactly, is this ‘New World Order’? The United States President, George Bush,
defined it as one in which “the principles of Justice and Fair play protect the
weak against the strong, a world in which freedom and respect for human rights
find a home among all nations” (US Department of State 1991:162)
The Soviet
President, Gorbachev, also defined it as a World order marked by a renewed
global co-operation and an end to the arms race. (Busset Bruce and Sutterlin.
James S. Foreign Affairs. Spring.
1991:69)
Thus, “the new world order
envisioned by Presidents Bush and Gorbachev would be founded on the rule of law
and on the principle of collective security” (Ibid)
II.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF
ANALYSIS.
The theoretical framework of analysis adopted for this
paper is the dependency theory.The dependency theory arose in the 1960’s out of
the experience of Latin American. (ORWA D.K. Longman Group, 1985:12)
As a result of
the increasing underdevelopment of the Latin American and other third world
countries and their increasing dependence on the industrialized countries,
modernisation theory – which had been popular for long – came under sever
criticism and was radically challenged by the dependency and underdevelopment
theories of development. Dos Santos has
defined dependency as “a situation in which the economies of certain
countries are conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy
to which the former is subjected”
(SANTOS DOS The American Economic Review 1970:231)
While the condition of underdevelopment of a country
means that “there are inadequate social and economic structural changes to give
the economy a balanced, integrated and self-sustaining growth in the Gross
Domestic Product”. (Ojo, Olatunde J.1985:53)
Early analysts who applied this theory to explain,
‘the condition of underdevelopment’ of the Latin American, ‘the ‘Third World’
countries include (Stein S.J.& Stein, B.H. 1970), (Cockcroft, James D.
Frank A.G. And Johnson, A.G. 1972) (Chilcote, Ronald 1974),(Bath Richard And
James D. D.) But the best known of the early applications of this theory is the
work of Andre Gunder Frank titled ‘Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin
America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil’ (Andre Gunder Frank,
1969). Later, this early version (which
can be characterised as economic) – especially as found in A. G. Frank’s
writings – came under criticism and led to the rise of a Cultural/Ideological
version of the theory. This version gained popularity in the late
1970’s when dependency analysis became widely used as a tool in analysing all
‘third world’ countries’ relations with the advanced industrialized countries
of Europe and North America.
Of recent, in addition to foreign economic and
political factors, emphasis was also placed on internal, domestic structures
and factors which sustain dependency and underdevelopment. Thus, the economic, the political and the
cultural were all brought in to analyse the dynamics of the relationship
between the underdeveloped and developed countries. Prominent analysts within this school include
Walter Rodney (Rodney, Walter 1974), Colin Ley ( Ley, Colin 1975), Claude Ake
(Claude Ake,) and Smith Tony (Smith, Tony 1979).
From the perspective of the dependency school,
underdevelopment is a function of the incorporation of the ‘third-World’
countries into the world capitalist system.
International Capital developed a Centre-Periphery relationship
between the
metropole (the industrialized, capitalist countries)
and its periphery (the underdeveloped, dependent countries) and its periphery
(the exploitative in that surplus is expropriated from the Periphery and
appropriated to the Centre.
Dependency
theory argues that the penetration of the ‘third-world’ countries by
international capital is the cause rather than the cure of their backwardness
and underdevelopment. The condition of
underdevelopment in which a dependent country exists is such that “the dominant
economies of the industrialized capitalist States expand and maintain
self-sustaining growth while the dependent economies of the non-industrial
countries can only expand and grow as a reflection of the former” ( Orwa D.K.:2). It is this phenomenon that is characterised
as neo-colonialism (or economic colonialism).
There are substantial disagreements within the
dependency school as well as significant differences of emphasis, modifications
and refinements of interpreted positions (Ojo, Olatunde J.:57). However, the following may be regarded as the
tenets of the theory and on which there is general agreement:
(a) African States, indeed all
underdeveloped States are dependent on the capitalist world for technology,
capital, finance and monetary systems, and for trade. This is because the capitalist world has a
virtual monopoly over the ‘means of production’.
(b) Dependence and Monopoly
mean control and exploitation.
(c) This dependency
relationship is the product of the incorporation of Africa and underdeveloped
countries into the capitalist system.
(d) Incorporation resulted,
under the aegis of imperialism and colonialism, in the disarticulation of
transport as roads and railways were built not for the integration of the
colonial country’s economy, but to facilitate exportation of raw materials to
the capitalist core – Europe – and to bring manufactures to the Capitalist
periphery – Africa – and other colonial territories (Ibid:57-58).
III.
THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND
AFRICA –DEVELOPED WORLD RELATIONS.
As has already been noted,
Africa’s relations with the developed world up till the advent of the new world
order, have been marked by economic dependence on those countries. The advent of a new world order with the United
States of America as the dominant power has brought in its wake, far reaching
political, economic and strategic changes in the world. Given Africa’s condition of dependence and
underdevelopment, attempts are made to examine the effects of these changes on
her.
The global changes of these past six
years, especially on the economic front, has left the world with capitalism and
free market economy as the dominant mode of production. The Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe,
formerly centrally planned economies, are now moving towards market economy and
are opening their markets to foreign investments. The implication for Africa of the above could
be seen in the likely transfer of a good portion of the financial aid (grants,
loans and financial investment) formerly coming from the US, the Western
European countries, and Japan to the countries of the Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union towards rebuilding their battered economies on a capitalist mode.
In this regard, the US, in
the month of June of 1991, made
available to the Soviet Union, a further sum of $1500 million in farm credits.
(Forbes. (New York), 1991:39) The
countries of Western Europe have also extended similar credits to the Soviet
Union and as British Prime Minister was quoted as saying recently, “the G-7
leaders are determined to work together to promote the integration of the
Soviet Union into the World Economy” (The Democrat. (Kaduna) :1). The British Prime Minister, John Major, as
the chairman of the group of ‘the world’s seven most industrialized countries’
(G-7), has the duty of monitoring Soviet progress towards a market
economy. The group recently decided at
its July meeting in London that no further monetary aid will be given to the
Soviet Union until its progress towards a full-fledged market economy is
ascertained. In the meantime, the
group’s aid package to the Soviet Union Includes granting her an associate
status with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank; and
offering her financial advice. United
States President, George Bush, has also tabled before congress, a motion to
grant the Soviet Union most favoured Nation (MFN) trading status.
In another development,
the countries of Western Europe are preparing for a full Union in December
1992. Arrangements are underway to
provide for associate membership for the countries of Eastern Europe, in the
first instance; and later, for full membership.
European integration means a breakdown of all frontion coupled with
complete liberalization and deregulation of trade: there will now be free
movement of goods and persons and this is expected to increase European
competitiveness in the world market. ‘It
will also mean a division of the world into three strong economic zones and
three weaker ones. The strong ones are:
North America (comprising the US, Canada, and Mexico) a United Europe (probably
including Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union – what is left of it), and the
Western Pacific (Comprising Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and Asian
newly industrialising countries like Singapore, Indonesia, Taiwan, Hong Kong,
South Korea, Thailand). The weaker ones
are: Africa; the near and Middle East; Latin and Central America. Within the weaker bloc, Africa is the most
underdeveloped segment.
“Integration (also) means
that transnational actors like multinational corporations … can have a powerful
influence on what happens to national States” (Gaddis, John Lewis:103) but they
have always had. (Offiong, Daniel 1980) The important point is that this
influence will now increase simply because of the strengthening of
International Capitalism as a consequence of the United States” ‘Cold War’
triumph.
What possibly could the
African countries do about their condition of underdevelopment in general? The answer, undoubtedly, lies in
self-reliance. Collective Self-Reliance. ‘Self-reliance is defined as a deliberate
process or strategy for ending dependences and promoting development” (Ojo.
Olatunde J :61). In this regard, the
signing in June 1991, of an African Economic Community (AEC) Treaty at Abuja,
Nigeria is a welcome development.
However, “experience… has taught that the signing of a Treaty is no more
than a political declaration of intent to pursue the objective enshrined in the
Treaty. The signing of a Treaty of an
AEC must be recognised as only the first in a series of practical steps that
Africa must take to recover lost ground” (The Guardian (Lagos) 1991:11).
Africa must now follow the
example of Europe and proceed to put together a working unit comprising experts
who will lay the institutional foundations for a United Africa. African countries must jointly chart a path
of self-reliance by harnessing and building on local technological
know-how. In this new world order, with
the drive towards regional integration blocs, Africa must not only integrate,
but must also seek to partake actively (economically) in the wider
international community. The increasing
interdependence amongst Nations and regions of the world cannot be overlooked. The advocacy for self-reliance need not be
interpreted to mean same for autarchy.
Africa can continue to seek financial assistance from External Sources.
The character and form of
these External Sources of financial assistance have, however, changed. Initially, Africa countries preferred
multilateral to bilateral aid because more stringent conditionalities were
imposed under the latter; the situation is less favourable with the Developed
World controlled multilateral agencies like the IMF and the World Bank. With the emergence of a ‘new world order’ and
battered Soviet and Eastern European economics to be rebuilt with Western aid,
this African plight cannot but be worsened.
In recognition of their
condition, African and other underdeveloped countries have, for years, been
addressing the problem employing four broad strategies: Through bilateral dialogue between countries
of the ‘third world’ and developed world; through conference diplomacy between
them; through trade Union diplomacy for instance, as carried on by economic
cartels like OPEC; and through increased South – South co-operation as
advocated by the group of 77 forum.
Dialogue has proven rather
ineffective, as the countries of the developed world do not seem to be prepared
to offer genuine concessions to African countries.
With regards to conference
diplomacy, it is at such conference – the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Developments (UNCTAD), that the call for a New International Economic Order
(NIEO) emerged. Through the NIEO,
African and other underdeveloped countries are seeking the following: a restructuring
of international trade with a view to shifting the terms of trade in favour of
the ‘third world’ countries; to promote processing and manufacturing in these
countries and to secure a guaranteed market for, at least, some of their
products; and most importantly, the transference of real resources to the
‘third world’ through indexing, technical assistance and technological transfer
(Ley, Colin :214).
The strategy of economic
cartels was carried out notably through the activities of OPEC. This cartel has initially adopted open
confrontation in dealing with the developed world. It has done this by imposing sanctions
through withholding and increasing the price of its petroleum. For instance it employed this method in 1973
in protest against Western support of Israel during the Arab – Israeli
war. A repeat of similar strategy is
doomed to a failure in the emerging “new world order”. The Soviet Union with its 60% share of world
petroleum reserves is fast coming to terms with ‘the capitalist dominated
economy’. The long-term effect of this
development is what an analyst has described thus “helping the Russians help
themselves should also dampen OPEC’s ability to raise world oil prices”
(Forbes.1991:35). Coupled with the
Soviet phenomenon is the likely increasing influence of the US in the gulf
region with particular reference to the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaitian petroleum
production and sales strategies. This
development is easily traceable to US role in reverting the Iraqi annexation of
Kuwait by her military leadership of a coalition force in March 1991.
One other major initiative
by the ‘third world’ to overcome its underdevelopment is the group of ’77 (the
group consisting of countries of the South.
That is developing countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia). This group seeks to encourage South-South
co-operation. With advent of Regional
integrative groupings, it has become imperative for African countries to now
seek co-operation with other countries of the South and thus pursue further the
aspirations and realistic objectives of the African Economic Community.
What are the likely
Political implications of the ‘New World Order’ for Africa?. The ‘capitulation’ of the Soviet Union and
world communism has inevitably led to the triumph of democratic politics and to
the institution of liberal democratic principles in Eastern Europe. The end of the ‘cold war’, it seems drew the
curtains on totalitarian regimes, be they communist or capitalist. Political competition under the new
dispensation so far appears to be along ‘integration/fragmentation’ lines.
In Eastern European
countries, racial or ethnic forces of fragmentation are battling against forces
of integration. Yugoslavia is a case in
point, where three of its constituent republics; Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia,
declared their independence on the 26th June, 1991 and since then,
have been fighting Federal forces. The
erstwhile Socialist Republics of Czechoslovakia was on the 17th
November 1989, renamed ‘Czech and Slovak Federal Republic’ to assuage ethnic
tensions between the Czechs and the Slovaks.
In the Soviet Union, the Baltic Republics – Lithuania, Estonia and
Latvia – have declared their independence and had been allowed to become so by
the central authorities. This turn of
event was hastened by the failed coup d’etat of the conservatives in the Soviet
communist party to unseat President Gorbachev on the 19th August
1991. The same event prompted other
Soviet Republics to declare themselves independent. The USSR’s Supreme legislative body
eventually legally ratified these positions.
(The Guardian. (London). 1991:1) It went further by creating a
confederal system with three structures namely; The State Council, The Council
of Representatives and Inter-Republican Economic Council. Though it was reported that eleven of the
fifteen Republics took part in the discussions leading to the creation of those
structures, only nine did sign the document. (Ibid:1)
In Western Europe, long
standing nationalist conflicts still survive.
In the United Kingdom, the Irish republican Army (IRA) in Northern
Ireland is still fighting the British government for her independence from Britain
and for union with Republic of Ireland.
In Spain, the Basques separatists are still fighting for their
independence.
In Canada, of recent, the
Quebec Province separatists only barely failed to achieve their goaled when
they lost in a provincial referendum to decide whether the province should
declare independence from Canada or not.
The anticipated positive
global peaceful dividends from the advent of a ‘New World Order’ seem to have
influence on the course of political development in African continent. The emergence of the US as the world’s
dominant power has meant that it’s cherished values of democratic pluralism and
liberalism have come to the fore and become dominant worldwide. The decisive factor that has led to political
changed in Africa is the weakening of the Soviet Union relatively to the
US. This situation has left enough room
for the most dominant power to bring about the changes that she desires
unchallenged and to encourage the installation of governments and regimes
sympathetic to its cause. A particular
case for mention is that of Ethiopia, with the cessation on the part of USSR
(and its allies, Yemen and Cuba) in financing and militarily supporting the
Marxist government of Mengistu Haile Mariam thereby enabling a US backed
coalition of rebel group – Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front,
EPRDF, led by Melesse Zenawi – to overthrow it in June 1991.
Following a New York
accord between the US, Angola, South Africa and Cuba on 22nd
December, 1988, The Cuban troops stationed in Angola to help withstand the
activities of the US backed UNITA rebels against the MPLA government, withdrew
from the country in July 1991; thus preparing the way for free multi-party,
Portuguese supervised elections to be held later in the year. This has been the main demand of UNITA for
long time and which the Soviet and Cuban backed, Marxist Angolan government had
consistently refused to acquiesce to.
This initial arrangement, however, failed. It took another agreement between both the
Angola government and UNITA but brokered by the US and hosted by Portugal early
in 1991 before certainty as to periodisation of elections and cease fire
arrangements were possible. The above
example presents us another manifestation of at the dominance of the US in the
world today.
In another vein, the world
witnessed the fall of the nineteen year old Republic of Benin’s Marxist regime
of President Mathieu Karekou in April 1991.
Due to overwhelming pressure from Western backed pro-democracy agitators,
he was forced to recognize opposition political parties and permit democratic
election in which he was defeated by Marcel Soglo, a non Marxist. All over Africa, in recent time,
pro-democracy agitations have intensified in Mali, Niger, Madagascar, Ghana,
the Cameroon, Togo, Zaire, Zambia and Kenya.
The call everywhere is for a new charter of Political and Economic
arrangements sanctioned only by a sovereign constituted ‘National
Conference’. While sit tight leaders in
Kenya, Cameroon, Zaire, Zambia are, the first two were still adamant on
democratic change from one party system, others have reluctantly bowed to the
agitations for the desired change. Senegal, operating a nominal democracy
eventually recognized their strong opposition parties by incorporating them in
a coalition government in advance of the 1993 plebiscite.
The ‘New World Order’ in
the offing has had the effect of spurring democratic changes in Africa. This could
be considered a welcome development to the extent that it will encourage
governments of African countries to be accountable to their citizenry or be
voted out of office. The bane of
progress in African countries has been the existence of totalitarian and
dictatorial rulers not leaders.
The advent of ‘New World
Order’ raises an important question for the African (as well as other
developing) countries: what is the future of the policy and politics of
non-alignment and the non-aligned movement?
Most African countries had, through the non-aligned movement,
dissociated themselves from the cold war ranging between the US and the
USSR. They had used the non-aligned
movement as an instrument to avoid
taking sides. With the end of the
cold war, around the world have shown alignment with Democratic and Human Right
Values by all Nations.
A positive development of
the above findings is that, much hope is placed on a likely release of trapped
funds in Arms procurement by oppressive or suppressive regimes, the great and
supper powers for African (and other developing) countries for socio-economic
development. It was estimated in 1988,
that just four percent of the global military budget would buy $28,000 million
worth of goods and services in the less developed countries (PEARSON Frederick
and ROCHESTER, J. Martin 1988:359).
In Africa, the end of
several armed conflicts in Angola, Ethiopia, etc – as a direct result of the
‘New World Order’, will ease bloated defence spending on the grounds of
‘ensuring internal security’. Most of
African countries have much to ponder on, in the advice of a former, American
Secretary of State and former President of the World Bank, Robert NcNamara that
“in a modernising society, security is not in military hardware although it may
involve it…, security is development and without development there can be no
security” (ARLINGHAUS, Bruce 1991:5).
IV.
CONCLUSION.
This chapter has examined
how the emergence of a ‘New World Order’ will affect Africa’s position in the
global order of things.
From the analysis of
Africa’s relations with the developed world, it is clear that it has continued
to be underdeveloped because it is dependent on the developed world for capital
and technological know-how. This chapter
has shown how these have had deleterious effects on the economics of African
countries, distorting and disarticulating them.
However, the political and
military consequences of the ‘New World Order’ for Africa have been on the
positive side. Politically, democratic
tradition with its guarantees of individual freedom and liberty is in process
of gaining ground. Militarily; the armed
conflicts which had ravaged the continent for long and impeded its
socio-economic development, are ceasing.
The most important likely impact of the ‘New World Order’ as shown in
this chapter, is in the economic sphere.
It is obvious that Africa’s economic dependence on the developed
countries and its state of underdevelopment immediately put it at a
disadvantaged position under this new dispensation. Nevertheless, the continent need not resign
itself to fate. The situation can be
improved upon by following a path of self-reliance through a common front like
the initiative that culminated in the
signing of the African Economic Community Treaty in June 1991 in Abuja,
Nigeria.
The seriousness attached
to pursuing such and seeing to the realisation of the project of collective
self reliance could be expected to increase with the demise of sit tight,
democratically irresponsible dominant classes in leadership positions in
individual African countries in very near future being heralded by a decisive
democratic inclined ‘New World Order’ of all Nations.
FOOT NOTES
Novesty Press Agency.( 1987), Special Bulletin. 29th January,:2.
Sunday
New Nigerian (Kaduna)( 1991). May 5,
GADIS, John.
Lewis (1991), “Towards the post cold-war World” in Foreign Affairs.
Spring .Vol. 70. No.2:102.
US
Department of State. Dispatch(1991) . Vol. 2, No.10, March
11,:162
Busset Bruce and Sutterlin, James S. (1991), “The UN in a new world
Order” in Foreign
Affairs. Spring..
Vol.70, No.2:69.
Orwa, D.K.( 1985), “Theories of
International Relations” in O. J. Ojo, D. K. Orwa, and C.M.B Utete (eds), African
International Relations. (Lagos: Longman Group,) :12
Dos Santos, (1970), Theotonio “The
Structure of Dependence” in The American
Economic Review. LX.:231
Ojo, Olatunde J.( 1985), “Africa and the Global Economy” in O. J. OJO,
D. K. ORWA and C. M. B. UTETE (eds), African
International Relations. (Lagos: Longman Group.) :53
Stein
S.J. and Stein, B.H.( 1970), The
Colonial Heritage of Latin America: Essays on Economic Dependence in
Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press.)
Cockcroft, James D., Frank A.G. and Johnson, D.L.( 1972), Dependence and Underdevelopment: Latin
America’s Political Economy. (Garden City, N. Y. Anchor,
Chilcote, Ronald (1974), “Dependency theory: A Reassesment” in Latin American Perspective,
1(1).
Bath Richard and James D. D.( 1976),
“Dependency Analysis of Latin America: Some Criticisms, Some Suggestions”. In Latin
America Research Review, XI (3).
Andre Gunder Frank, (1969),
Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical Studies of Chile
and Brazil. (New York: Monthly Review,).
Rodney, Walter (1974), How Europe Underdeveloped Africa.
(Washington D. C. Howard University Press.).
Ley, Colin Underdevelopment in Kenya: The Political Economy of Neo
Colonialism, 1964-1971 (Berkeley; University of California Press 1975).
Ake,C(1975), Social Science as Imperialism: The theory of Political Development. (Ibadan:
Oxford University Press.
Smith, Tony (1979), “The Underdevelopment
of Literature: The Case of Dependency Theory” in World Politics, XXX1(2)..
Forbes. (1991) (New York), June 24,:39
The Democrat. (Kaduna) July 19, 1991:1
OFFIONG, Daniel 1980 IMPERIALISM and
Dependency (Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers.).
OJO. Olatunde J. Op. cit. :61.
The Guardian (Lagos) (1991), May 30,:11.
Forbes. (1991), (New York), July 8,:35.
The Guardian(1991). (London). September 3,:1.
Pearson Frederick and Rochester, J. Martin,
(1988), International Relations: The Global Condition in the late 20th
Century. (New York: Random House.) p.359.
Arlinghaus, Bruce quoted in Olufemi Adelusi,(
1991), ‘U.S.A and Iraq’s Policies in the
Gulf: An
Examination of the Twin Concepts of Defence and Foreign Policies in the
External Behaviour of States’ Seminar
Series. February 28,:5.
No comments:
Post a Comment