GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF

UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD

INTRODUCTION

There are two contending opinions on the issue of globalization. There are some
observers who believe that globalization has brought rapid prosperity to the
underdeveloped countries while others argue that globalization serves the needs of the
metropolitan countries at the expense of the peripheral countries. This paper posits that
globalization is economic terrorism. Using a dependency theory to analyze the
asymmetric relationships between the developed and the underdeveloped countries, the
writer applies some economic indicators to highlight the widening gap between the two
worlds. In doing so, it is argued that the socio-economic and political structures of the
peripheral countries are subordinated via globalization to foster the economic interest (the
superstructure) of the metropolitan countries. Although several studies have been done on
the issue of globalization, there has been no systematic study done to link the activities of
both the governmental and nongovernmental organizations in terms of their impact in the
international political economy. This holistic approach is an attempt to fill that vacuum.
Drawing from the experience of Nigeria and some other underdeveloped countries in
enhancing our understanding of how globalization accelerates the underdevelopment of
the periphery, the roles played by the multinational corporations, Western media
technology, the lone superpower, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary
Bank/World Bank, are subjected to the test of empirical reality and logical plausibility.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Globalization (a homogenization of global economic, social and political order) is not

synonymous with internationalization (a collaboration of nationstates in their pursuit of
mutual interests). It is argued in this paper that the ideal of a universal civilization is a
recipe for unending conflicts in the world. It is time to resolve the contradiction between
the need to foster multiculturalism and diversity on the one hand and the promotion of
globalization on the other hand.

To fully understand the system of globalization, there is the need to revisit dependency
theory. Dependency theory evolved in Latin America during the 1960s and later it found
favor in some writings about Africa and Asia. Since both orthodox as well as the radical
writers have assimilated dependency into their interpretation of development and
underdevelopment, resulting in considerable confusion, effort is made here to distinguish
the nature of dependency that the underdeveloped countries are subjected to from what
the orthodox scholars may claim. Contemporary perspectives of dependency reveal the
contrasting forms of dominance and dependence among the nations of the capitalist
world. A Brazilian social scientist, Theotonio Dos Santos, lucidly affirms that:

By dependence we mean a situation in which the economy of certain countries is

conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy to which the former
is subjected. The relation of interdependence between two or more economies, and
between these and world trade, assumes the forms of dependence when some countries
(the dominant ones) can do this only as a reflection of that expansion, which can have ...a
negative effect on their immediate development.1

In other words, because of the unequal political, military, and economic relationships
between a dependent economy and the dominant external economy, the structure of the
former is shaped as much or more by the requirements of the external economy as by its
own domestic needs. The domestic political economy is not only shaped by the
interaction with a more powerful external economy, but is also shaped by the process.
Indeed, the economies of the dependence would be impossible to maintain without the
existence and the support of the external factors. A Chilean economist, Osvaldo Sunkel,
captures this perspective:

Foreign factors are seen not as external but as intrinsic to the system, with manifold and
sometimes hidden or subtle political, financial, economic, technical and cultural effects
inside the underdeveloped country... Thus, the concept of "dependencia" links the
postwar evolution of capitalism internationally to the discriminatory nature of the local
process of development, as we know it. Access to the means and benefits of development
is selective rather than spreading them. The process tends to ensure self-reinforcing
accumulation of the privilege for special groups as well as the continued existence of a
marginal class.2

Another fundamental concern of the dependency theory revolves around the notion that
the underdeveloped countries are referred to, by many, as "developing" countries as if to
say their development is evolutionary. The now developed (center) countries have never
had the same historical experience compared to that of the impoverished countries of the
world. Whereas the underdeveloped countries have experienced the phenomena of
slavery and colonialism, it is not the case with the developed countries. The argument is
that historical situations of dependency have conditioned contemporary
underdevelopment in Africa, Asia and Latin America.3 Thus, underdevelopment is not an
original state as some apologists would have us believe.

During the colonial era, Africa, Latin America and Asia as well as other colonized
territories in the world became oriented to the export of primary products (principally
agricultural), under the control of metropolitan capital, and constituted as markets for
imported manufactures from the same metropolitan countries. Foreign capital came in to
construct social overheads - transportation facilities and utilities that would enhance the
exploitation of the people and their natural resources, and for the maintenance of law and
order. With their economic and military power, Europe (later joined by the United States)
successfully controlled the underdeveloped countries for their material benefits. Today,
governments of the underdeveloped countries and their entrepreneurs have no control
over international markets for primary products, the prices of which fluctuate and quite
often are manipulated by the rich and powerful nations. Such fluctuations almost always
result in unfavorable terms of trade in relation to imports.4
Dependency relations have also shaped the social structure of underdevelopment. When
the imperialist powers could no longer hold on to power in the formerly colonized
territories [due to armed struggle] they were forced to surrender power. The imperialists,
in some cases, made sure that they left the reins of power in "good hands" They handed
power over to their internal collaborators. They did not hesitate to create and finance
political parties in opposition to real nationalist ones; and they also rigged elections and
used various other means to make sure that they handed over to those who would
continue with the colonial policies in the nominally independent countries.5 Thus, a
crucial problem of underdevelopment is that in this process of dependency there is a
convergence of interest between the local or internal bourgeois and the external capitalist
oligarchies. The internal compradors greatly benefit from their dependency situation and
they are unlikely to sever such a lucrative relationship unless they are forced to do so. In
the postindependence era these national bourgeois or compradors have strengthened their
relationship with their international allies. Their investments are geared towards exports
and activities complementary to foreign industrial capital. They have connived with
foreign interests to rob their countries of the needed foreign exchange and have been
involved in all sorts of unpatriotic activities that fail to aid economic development in their
countries.6 The point is that the underdeveloped countries have played a definite role in
the international economy, but their internal development has been severely curtailed or
"conditioned" by the needs of the dominant economies within the world capitalist system.

In the underdeveloped countries, foreign factors of production such as capital and

technology have become the main determinants of economic progress and socio-political
life. While the same world market promoted the expansion of development in Europe and
America, it has a tendency to limit development in the dependent countries. This
historical dependency has been the rooted problem of the underdevelopment in the
peripheral world. Some observers believe that the further the penetration of capitalism in
the name of a new and respectable lexicon "globalization", the more underdeveloped the
peripheral world. As Ira Katznelson, et al., have lamented:

Dependency means, then, that the development alternatives open to the dependent nation
are defined and limited by its integration into and functions within the world market. This
limitation of alternatives differs from limitations in the dominant nations in so far as the
functioning of the basic decisions in the world market....are determined by the dominant
nations. Thus the dependent nations must make choices in a situation in which they do
not set the terms or parameters of choice.7

The international system or world market upon which the underdeveloped countries
depend implies a structure that is characterized by institutions, classes, and power
arrangements. The dynamic process within the structure involves domination by one
group -- marking a relationship of unequal development. At the core of this power
relations within the international system are the multinational corporations -- the agents
that foster the economic exploitation of the underdeveloped countries.

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS
There has been no greater challenge to nation-states' sovereignty in the later half of the
20th century than the threat of multinational corporations (MNCs). Defenders of MNCs
contend that they are the 'engine of development'. They argue that MNCs create jobs,
transfer technology, reduce inflation, and make war unthinkable. But a body of evidence
suggests that MNCs, whose goal is the maximization of profits, are not philanthropic
institutions and they serve the interest of no one but themselves. The profound hypocrisy
and inherent barbarism of MNCs' globalization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning
from their homes, where they assume some respectable forms, to the underdeveloped
countries where they go uninhibited. The corporations undermine not only their parent
countries where they are headquartered but they cause more injuries to the periphery.
MNCs unbridled operations in the underdeveloped countries cause environmental
degradation, poorer nutrition and health standards, and undermine the sovereignty of host
countries. Let us provide some examples.

The early 1980s' efforts of the Nestle Corporation and other international distributors of
powdered dry baby formula to market their product to the underdeveloped countries
provide a good case. Using sophisticated advertising techniques, the Nestle argued that
dry baby formula was as good or even better than mothers' milk in providing the
nutritional needs of infants and marketed the formula as the "modern1 way to care for an
infant to the African and other peripheral countries. But the corporations failed to
consider the quality of water supplies in the underdeveloped countries which are often
undrinkable without purification. By mixing formula with water as is required, mothers in
those areas exposed their babies to a number of diseases that they otherwise would have
avoided by raising the infants on mothers' milk. In fact, another grave danger to infants
occurred when, in efforts to economize, mothers put too little formula into each measure
of water. Consequently, widespread malnutrition among infants resulted. Only after
extensive worldwide publicity campaign, including efforts at the United Nations, did the
MNCs reduce their baby formula marketing efforts in the underdeveloped countries.8

Another leading example of the political influence of MNCs on how the corporations
undermine the sovereignty of a nation-state occurred between 1970 and 1973 in Chile
when, an American corporation, ITT (International Telegraph and Telecommunications),
in conjunction with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assisted in the overthrow
of the government of Salvador Allende. ITT's major investment in Chile during the early
197Os was Chiltelco, a telephone subsidiary valued at $153 million. The government
under the leadership of Allende, a Marxist, duly elected by the people of Chile, decided
to nationalize the company without compensation. ITT was infuriated and colluded with
the ClA-sponsored military coup that led to the overthrown of Allende on October
11,1973.9 Further example of the political mechanisms of corporate rule occurred in
Nigeria. This is one country that was designed by corporations for corporations and they
simply disregard the people who live there. In 1937, a well-known monstrous
multinational corporation called the Shell Petroleum (shortened for Shell) emerged on the
scene. Owned jointly by the Dutch and the British, Shell by 1956 had discovered crude
oil in commercial quantities in the central part of the Niger Delta. By 1958, large
quantities of oil had been produced in Boma oil field where the Ogoni people live; the
same happened in Andoni, Urhobo, Itsekiri, and so on. It was not until 1967 that the cruel
hands of the multinational corporations became apparent. There is a misconception about
the Nigerian civil war by most people in Europe and America that the war was caused by
ethnic rivalry, but that was not simply the case. While ethnicity was a contributing factor,
the onus of the problem was external. It was an oil war, engineered by the multinational
corporations in particular Shell Petroleum.10 The Igbo of Eastern Nigeria cried out
against persecution by another ethnic group, Hausa-Fulani in the Northern Nigeria in
1966/1967. However, the Igbo thought that they could survive because of the numerous
oil reserves in parts of their territory and decided to secede. But secession would have
meant that the oil that was then under the control of Shell would probably have moved
away from the British control, particularly since the corporation was uncertain about the
intentions of the defunct secessionist Biafran leader, then Colonel Chukwuemeka
Odumegwu Ojukwu. So, Shell moved swiftly to advise the British government never to
back secession. The secessionist government's subsequent actions led to a civil war in
which over one million innocent lives were lost between 1967 and 1970.11

Also, the oil multinational corporations including Shell, Mobil, Exxon, AGIP, Chevron,
Texaco, etc., in Nigeria have fashioned a new vision called Vision 2010.12 This Vision
was first sold to the late military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha, who in an attempt
to shore up legitimacy, was a lackey of the MNCs. The Vision was designed to apply the
coercive military power against any opposition to the exploration and drilling of oil
without regard to the health of the local inhabitants who are marginalized and endangered
by the ecological degradation. The corporations had reportedly been heavily involved in
the importation of weapons and arms for protection of their interest against the incursion
of the indigenes of the Niger Delta whose land had been devastated by the oil exploration
and drilling under the concessions provided by the government. The oil corporations
retained their own police force, and through their immense economic clout they
plundered a lot of places and displaced the people. In the late 198Os, the Ogoni land was
turned into a killing field rather than a drilling field. The Ogoni people, including the
international known human rights activist, Ken Saro Wiwa, who spoke against the
environmental degradation caused by the drilling of the oil as well as lack of
compensation to the indigenes of the oil-rich areas, were killed for resisting the continued
destruction of their land. In a move reminiscent of the mercantilist era, the MNCs seek
for protection from their governments in their quest for capitalist hegemony. Such is the
case of Nigeria, an oil-rich country. The United States and Nigeria have entered a
military defense pact called "Operation Focus Relief designed to protect American
geopolitical and economic interests as well as safeguard the new democratic dispensation
in Nigeria. The "Operation Focus Relief is therefore aimed to ensure the uninterruption in
the flow of the country's oil to the industrialized world. In a recent address to the
Association for Good Governance and Productive Leadership in Benin City, Nigeria,
Professor Festus Iyayi captures this perspective:

Nigerians like to boast that their country has the biggest (and) strongest army in Africa.
But today, there is a feeling in informed circles that this army may have suffered a defeat
without going to war. Even top serving Nigerian generals are getting to grips with this
idea. The government of President Olusegun Obasanjo has entered a military pact with
the United States of America. Code-named "Operation Focus Relief, the agreement
grants concessions to the United States Army to engage in activities that no foreign army
has undertaken in Nigeria since the country became independent in 1960. Information
made available to CRYSTAL Magazine by the Untied States Embassy in Abuja,
describes "Operation Focus Relief as a historic and unprecedented bilateral agreement
between the U. S. and Nigeria. CRYSTAL gathered that the American soldiers currently
stationed at NlCON Hilton and Sheraton hotels are also engaged in espionage activities
on Nigeria's military capabilities.13

In another article, Laolu Akande has confirmed the above findings by indicating that the
United States may have been developing a clear definitive military blue print for the
protection of its citizens and those of its prime ally, Great Britain, and their oil
investments in Nigeria in case there is the need to do so, if and when the security of the
oil producing Niger Delta is once again threatened. A workshop, under the auspices of
the Army War College in Carlisle in the State of Pennsylvania, U.S. A., designed
exclusively forthe U.S. citizens included the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria as well as
personnel from the U.S. State Department, CIA and other military intelligence,
representatives of oil companies that operate in Nigeria and other civilian experts. A
topnotch U.S. consultancy firm, Cohen and Woods, organized the workshop for the
Defense Department. Henry Cohen was a U.S. secretary during the presidency of George
Bush, Sr., and James Wood is a retired Pentagon policy chief for Africa. They both own
and run the firm.14 The handover of Nigeria's military institution to the Americans is
unprecedented especially when viewed against Nigeria's past. It should be noted that the
massive protests in 1963 to the proposed Anglo-Nigeria Defense Pact under Balewa and
the horrendous Nigeria's civil war that the country fought with imported arms and
political support did not involve any defense pact with any foreign power. There are two
compelling explanations why President Obasanjo has entered such an agreement? One
theory is that the present government under the new democratic dispensation in Nigeria
was uncertain about the intention of the military given the history of Nigeria's military
coups to forestall democracy. Another theory may relate to America's desire to see a
balance of power in the region. By balance of power, we mean the notion that the United
States did not want to see the country become more powerful than its neighboring West
African states to ensure the political stability of the region. In any case, the objective is
clear: the local elite as an appendage to the exploitation of the oppressed in Nigeria is
allied with global capitalism under the tutelage of MNCs for the protection of their oil
investments in the country.

Some apologists for globalization contend that MNCs are so angelic that they would be
willing to transfer technology to their host countries (mostly the underdeveloped
countries). One of the most noted examples of this myth involved the Indian government
and the Coca-Cola Corporation. The Indian government demanded that if Coca-Cola
wished to continue operating its subsidiary in India, it had to provide India with the
composition of the closely guarded secret formula for the cola syrup that Coca-Cola used
in its most famous product. Coca-Cola declined and ended its Indian operations.15
Common sense dictates that technology is never willingly transferred but is either stolen
or self-acquired. What would have happened if Coca-Cola had shared the secret formula
with India? The government of India would have then established a similar corporation to
compete with Coca-Cola. That would have undermined the goal of Coca-Cola of
accentuating monopoly so that it can achieve the bottom line, i.e., maximization of profit.
More importantly, the relationships between the MNCs and the underdeveloped countries
are usually asymmetric. The underdeveloped countries want to have joint ventures and
thus attain equal partnerships, but the corporations such as the Coca-Cola in India
preferred the host countries to play a subordinate role, or even no role at all.

WESTERN MEDIA TECHNOLOGY

Another factor to the resentment of globalization is the role played by the Western media,
one of the agents of political socialization. Many "information-poor" states consider the
problem of global information imbalance as not simply one of technology but of cultural
autonomy. The media/information technology namely the newspapers, television and
radio stations as well as the internet or world wide web are thoroughly dominated by the
U.S. and Europe, and they are used to assimilate the people in the peripheral countries
into a homogenized economic, social, and political world order. Led by the United States,
the world's richest countries have acted on the assumption that people everywhere want
to live as they do. As a result, they have failed to recognize the deadly mixture of
emotions - cultural resentment, a sense of injustice and a genuine rejection of Western
modernity. The ideal of a universal civilization or monoculture is a recipe for unending
conflicts and it is time for it to be halted. The unease about global sameness, and the
political and cultural consequences of international communication, reaches deeply. In
some of the states in the underdeveloped countries where "Western values" are
unwelcome invaders, governing elites and custodians of national culture ponder how -
and if - they can make territorial boundaries more impregnable. States in which political
change along 'Western' lines is feared show particular anxiety about foreign-media
intrusion, lest they catalyze local democracy movements and human rights activism
thereby causing political instability.16 But it is not just conservative regimes, eager to
secure their own longevity, that fear the cultural consequences of globalization. In fact,
ordinary citizens, too, consider themselves victims of cultural imperialism or as some
observers call it 'Americanization'. For example, a few years ago this writer traveled to
his country of origin, Nigeria. One day, while relaxing on a cool evening,17 he decided to
play one of his favorite records by an intentionally known Nigerian artist, Sunny Ade.
His sister who came by with two of her friends was ashamed to see her brother playing a
local record, though of international acclaim. She could not hide her feelings. She
approached her unsuspecting brother and expressed her dismay that after many years in
the United States he still was not Americanized. She wondered why he did not bring
some modern records from the U.S. The point is that the preference of goods from the
United States and other metropolitan countries by, perhaps, a large number of people in
the peripheral world leads to the acceptance of Western values and ultimately the
endorsement of the very ideological foundations of capitalist democracy. And that is the
end sought by the developed countries and the Western media that play the missionary
role for their governments and the multinational corporations. While globalization has
some audience in the periphery, it is generally unwelcome by many people around the
world. Jay Dubashi summarizes the sentiment of the many opponents of globalization:
We simply do not wish to go the way of the United States. What is good for them is not
necessarily good for us. We have our own way of doing things, our own culture, our own
way of life, which we think is appropriate for us. We simply cannot afford the American
way of life and have no intention of imitating it blindly. And we resent it being imposed
on us.18

Let us examine another example to demonstrate that advocates of globalization, in their

belief in a universal civilization, have failed to realize that what produces a desired result
in one political setting may be totally inappropriate in another environment. The Chinese
government has been thoroughly condemned for its one child policy, viewed in the
United States and other Western 'democracies' as a gross violation of human rights and
thus a tyranny of the 'totalitarian' regime. However, from the perspective of the Chinese
government, without such a policy to control population explosion, the social
consequences of allowing the more than 1.2 billion people to have as many children as
they please would be unmanageable. Why then would anyone not be sensitive to the
concerns of the Chinese government? The answer is that only people of ill-will are likely
to see anything wrong with a government that is trying to deal with the problem of
overpopulation.

Yet, despite worldwide pervasiveness of globalization, local and international resistance

manifests itself. Some American products often fail to find receptive markets in some
parts of the world. In Latin America, for example, Brazil and Mexico serve as a major
regional provider of television soap operas. The Indian firm industry similarly enjoys an
expansive market beyond India's boundaries in the vast diasporic Indian community
worldwide.19 Even though both Brazilian soaps and 'Bollywood' films may owe
something to the modes of American popular culture, they remain distinctive rather than
merely derivative. What we observe, then, is a process of'creolization', whereby cultures
exposed to powerful outside influences are not simply swept away but include
appropriate certain 'foreign' elements, transmitting them in ways which mesh or blend
with local traditions and preferences.20 After all, 'pure' cultures rooted in one particular
geography are as mythical a conception just as pure races undiluted by miscegenation.21
Therefore, throughout history, cultures, along with people, have constantly diffused and
re-fused in new settings and forms. Despite the diffusion of cultures, there are still
discernible cultural differences among peoples of different nations. A country's cultural
heritage reflects its history, faith, and value system. The poorer the country, the more the
people cling to their cultural heritage. In less-wealthy nations, cultural treasures are part
of the citizens' identity. When people's dignity is shattered we have to help them to
restore their faith and values. We can assist them in achieving stability and security by
honoring their traditions and identity. And that is consistent with internationalization and
multiculturalism rather than the pursuit of globalization or homogenization.

In highlighting the profit-driven logic of media globalization, Herman and McChesney

have assailed the global media with this gloomy prognosis:

The stress on consumption as the primary end of life, and individual freedom to choose
(especially among good) as the fundamental desired social condition....strengthens
materialistic values, weakens sympathetic feelings towards others and tends to diminish
the spirit of community and the strength of communal ties.22

The global media define the scope of international political discourse, channeling world
attention in certain directions and determining -- in ways that are essentially supportive of
the existing socioeconomic structure -- what is political reality. The notion that the
United States is endowed with a free press is a fallacy. The control that the multinational
corporations exert over the American and European media leaves the public and the
world with a press that is far from "free" by any definition of the word. The primary
function of the media is not to keep anybody informed, but like any business, to make
profit for their owners, a goal seldom coinciding with the need for a vigilant, democratic
press. The owners of the press determine who has something to say, which facts, which
version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the world at large. Thus, as agents of the
globalization or neoliberal order, global media are complacent about inequalities in
wealth distribution among nations and are hostile to organized labor and other
oppositional forces.

THE WORLD BANK/IMF (THE BRETTON WOODS TWIN SISTERS)

Formally named the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations' associated
agencies, were created in 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference. Formed originally to
provide long-term loans for the post-World War II reconstruction of Europe, the World
Bank has become one of the primary international institutions that provides long-term
loans to the underdeveloped countries. The IMF was established for the purpose of
supporting international monetary stability as well as establishing stable exchange rates
among nation-states. The IMF was to do this by establishing exchange rates between
currencies under a fixed exchange rate system. It had at its disposal a fund of gold and
currencies that it could use to credit accounts of countries that experienced chronic
balance of payments deficits. Although fixed exchange rate system was eventually
replaced by a floating system by former President Richard Nixon (unilaterally) to the
advantage of the U.S., the IMF still uses its funds to credit the accounts of countries with
chronic balance of payment problems. The developed countries fund both the two
financial institutions. They operate on a weighted voting system, providing the most
votes to the countries that contribute the most funds. The presidency of the World Bank
has always been an American and the presidency of the IMF has always been a European.

That background serves as a backdrop to our understanding of why the underdeveloped

countries distrust these institutions. The peripheral countries play no role in the
institutions except as dependent recipients of repayable loans with outrageous interest
rates. There is little surprise therefore that both the World Bank and the IMF have caused
unbearable hardships on people around the world. The IMF regularly imposes austerity
measures including structural adjustments on borrowers. Even a neoliberalist and
Columbia University Economist, Jeffrey Sachs, who had helped Russia dismantle its
state-run economy, called the IMF the "Typhoid Mary of emerging markets, spreading
recessions in country after country."23 When the Asian financial crisis erupted in 1997,
the IMF imposed higher interest rates to supposedly shore up investor confidence in local
currencies, cuts in government spending to reduce deficits, and privatization of state-
owned enterprises.24 Similar measures were imposed on Mexico and other Latin
American countries to overcome a serious debt crisis in the 198Os.25 Thus, the IMF does
not just hand out loans on demand but requires the recipient governments to institute
policy changes to improve its economy. In that way, the IMF can be rest-assured that the
loan will be repaid. But the stringent spending cuts and high interest rates have driven
troubled economies into further difficulties because businesses could no longer afford to
borrow money, factories shut down and workers lost their jobs. Moreover, many of these
peripheral countries already have weak social programs. So, the austerity measures have
further exacerbated the falling standards of living. As shown in Table I - Regional
Breakdown of Poverty in Developing Countries -- there is a widening economic gap
between the developed and the underdeveloped countries in terms of the number of
people living in poverty. In the study conducted by the World Bank, the number of
people living on less than $1 per day in 1990, as the Table I indicates, was much lower in
the developed countries than the underdeveloped countries. In East Asia and Pacific, it
was 452,000,000; in South Asia, it was 495,000,000; in Latin America and the
Caribbean, it was 74,000,000; and in Sub-Saharan Africa, it was 242,000,000. But in
Europe and Central Asia it was only 7,000,000. Similarly, the Table I shows the same
trend in the World Bank's study of the number of people living on less than $2 per day in
1990. In East Asia and Pacific, it was 1,084,000,000; in South Asia, it was 976,000,000;
in Latin America and the Caribbean, it was 167,000,000; and in Sub-Saharan Africa, it
was 388,000,000. Also, according to Table I, the projected number of people living on
less than $2 per day in 2015 will decline in each region except in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The projected number is 597,000,000. The continued population explosion and economic
stagnation as well as lack of industrial base may have combined to forecast the gloomy
picture of the region.

Some of the crises in Africa threaten its peoples' traditional resiliency. The facts are grim.
In material terms, the average African is poorer today than at independence, and it is
predicted that poverty will only increase in the immediate future. The continent is faced
with myriad of problems including the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (A.I.D.
pandemic), foreign debt, mismanagement of resources, and armed conflicts. Even nature
is not so kind to Africa. Drought conditions in recent decades have led to food shortages
across the continent. According to Table II -Measuring Misery, a Human Development
Report of 2002 published by the United Nations Development Program - nearly all the
African countries are among the least underdeveloped countries of the world. With the
exception of Seychelles (ranked 47), Libya (ranked 64), and Mauritius (ranked 67), the
ranking of African states among world nations is from 100 to 173.

Therefore, nowhere are impacts of the IMF/World Bank machinations felt more intensely
than Africa. As Festus Iyayi laments: "The fact (is) that the economy of Nigeria is not
owned by Nigerians; that World Bank and IMF officials are in control of our national
politics and economy; that we are indebted to external creditors to the tune of over $32
billion when, indeed, other nations should be indebted to us."26 As a consequence of the
IMF/World Bank austerity measures that have been imposed on Nigeria in the late
198Os, the country, like many other Asian and Latin American countries, is steadily
retrogressing; or simply put, Nigeria has all of the trappings of 'the development of
underdevelopment'. The 2002 World Development report succinctly unravels the puzzle
on Nigeria. The report provides information on the quality of life and the level of poverty
in 174 countries in the world. According to the report, in 1998, Nigeria ranked 23rd
poorest country in the world out of the 174 nations. Between 1980 and 1998, gross
domestic GDP per capita in Nigeria declined from $314 in 1980 down to $258 in 1990
and to $256 in 1998. The average annual rate of change in GDP during the period was a
negative 0.7 percent. The life expectancy at birth in 1998 was 51.5 years for females and
48.7 years for males. That means the life expectancy of the people of Nigeria at birth was
only 50.1 years. Indeed, the report further revealed that 33.3 percent of the Nigerian
population in 1998 was not expected to survive to age 40. Again, whereas, the poorest 20
percent of population had access to 4.4 percent of the national income, the richest 20
percent consumed 55.7 percent of the national income. In addition, 70.2 percent of the
Nigerian population earned less than $ 1.0 a day between 1987 and 1998, indicating that
at least 43 percent of the copulation lived below the poverty line.27 In the midst of the
abundant data that show the declining economic development, the IMF and World Bank
are now demanding the repayment of their loans while the Nigerian government is
requesting for a debt relief.

Indeed, under the rubric of globalization championed by the IMF/World Bank, many
other African countries besides Nigeria have been going through unprecedented
economic distress. Table III - Development Indicators for Selected African Countries and
the United States, 1992-1993 - illustrates the enormity of the problem.

The inference from the data is that life in contemporary Africa is a matter of survival.
While the income per capita as an economic indicator of the growth of a nation-state is
debatable because it does not show the complete development outlook, suffice it to say
that great disparity exists between African countries and the United States. The continent
displays a great diversity in lifestyles and jobs. Approximately 70 percent of Africans live
in rural areas and work in agriculture. Yet, the World Bank/IMF lending activities are not
targeted at the grassroots where the peasants can be part of the development plans.
Instead, development plans are usually urban-centered and the peasants are marginalized.
Even a large number of the other roughly 30 percent of the African population who reside
in the cities or urban areas have chronic problem of joblessness. A small number of the
people in the cities make a very good living, but others barely make enough money to
keep them from starving. The unemployed and the unemployable usually resort to social
vices such as prostitution, drug abuse, begging, stealing, and similar activities. Indeed,
large African cities are populated with beggars many of whom are children.

The African conditions as well as the Asian and the Latin American predicaments are the
direct result of the policies of the IMF/World Bank. Globalization is not just a vague
concept like liberty or equality. It is actually a well-planned program with an agenda for
action. This agenda is known as "Washington Consensus,"28 an idea conceived by the
United States government in close collaboration with the IMF/World Bank. It stands for
ten policies, detailed in the Consensus document. They are (a) free trade; (b) freely
flowing FCI; (c) fiscal disciplines meaning smaller budget deficits; (d) cuts in subsidies;
(e) tax reforms; (f) competitive exchange rates; (g) liberalized financial systems; (h)
privatization; (i) deregulation; and (j) property rights.29

There is little doubt that the agenda had been carefully designed to serve the needs of the
rich nations at the expense of the poor. The developed countries have surplus capital.
When the American capitalists started to accumulate surplus capital around 1980 or so,
globalization like mercantilism, was envisioned. But it did not take off. It needed time for
maturity considering the presence of the Cold War. However, following the collapse of
communism in the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc and the fashioning of
privatization and democratization in those countries, the capitalists declared victory (see
the works of Francis Fukuyama 1989 and 1992 - The End of History) and embarked on a
mission to unify the world into one economic, political, and social entity. Thus,
globalization designed to homogenize the world into a monoculture earnestly began in
1990. Its first test was Iraq. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990 presented an
opportunity for the United States to test its victory in the aftermath of the Cold War. The
invocation of collective security and the use of military force against Iraq marked the first
time the United Nations applied the collective security in its charter other than in 1950 in
Korea (note that the former USSR, a permanent member with veto power, was not
present in the Security Council to cast a vote).

Indeed, the Bretton Woods twin sisters have failed woefully to alleviate poverty in the
world. They have failed because they were never designed to serve the interest of anyone
but their shareholders. Instead of promoting economic growth, the IMF and the World
Bank have institutionalized economic stagnation in the underdeveloped countries. They
are irrelevant to the central goal of eliminating global poverty. Driven by the interests of
key political and economic institutions in the Group of Seven (G-7) countries, in
particular the United States, the IMF and the World Bank are more concerned about the
internal imperative of capitalist expansionism or empire building for capital
accumulation. In terms of achieving positive development impact, a Meltzer Report in
April 2000 indicates that the World Bank's own evaluation of its projects shows an
outstanding 55-60 percent failure rate. The failure rate is particularly high in the poorest
countries, where it ranges from 65 percent to 70 percent.30 These are the very countries
that are supposed to be the main targets of the Bank's anti-poverty approach. The report
states that the rhetoric about focusing on poverty alleviation is contradicted by the reality
that 70 percent of the Bank's non-aid lending is concentrated in 11 countries, while the
Bank's 145 other member countries are left to divide the remaining 30 percent. Moreover,
the report concludes that: "80 percent of World Bank resources have gone, not to poor
countries with poor credit ratings and investment ratings, but to countries that could have
raised the money in international private capital markets owing to their having investment
grade or high yield ratings."31

Furthermore, the World Bank in its quest for capital accumulation lends money to that
states noted for atrocities including gross violations of human rights. This has been
observed: "In Fiscal Year 2001 alone, the World Bank extended capital commitments
totaling $17.3 billion...., in many cases to states that have been the venues for atrocities
and abuses committed by either the government or other groups."32 It is important to
note that a government engaged in or facilitating atrocities will have less incentive to
adhere to international legal norms if it continues to receive funds from the World Bank
or the IMF without any consideration of the atrocities or the impunity of those
responsible. The issue is not whether the Bretton Woods Twin Sisters should
automatically cease all activities in a country at the first sign of humanitarian law
violations. The power of the purse is not even used by the institutions as one of the
loudest voices, one that can be applied to complement the efforts by the United Nations,
some concerned states, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to protect civilians
and prevent violations of international humanitarian law. Diplomatic pressure will lose its
muscle when matched with "reverse" economic incentives to the states that undermine
the gross violations of human rights.

THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) created the
World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 to oversee and implement the reductions in
tariff and other non-tariff barriers that it negotiated. The WTO provides procedures for
negotiating more tariff reductions and ruling on disputes arising over trade. Indeed, the
WTO superseded GATT in all of its functions, and is now the world's organization for
supposedly global trade enhancement. In 2000, it had over 140 members that included
states from the peripheral countries. Its major body is a Ministerial Conference that meets
at least once every two years to discuss and resolve trade policy issues. The WTO also
has a General Council that oversees its operations, dispute settlement efforts, and other
decisions. The General Council concentrates its activities in three areas: trade in goods,
trade in services, and trade-related aspects of intellectual property protection.

With this backdrop, let us highlight the influence of the WTO on the underdeveloped
countries not simply by examining its policy as preached but the reality of the policy as
practiced. Although, the WTO proclaims to be the champion of facilitating or enhancing
international trade by removing the trade barriers, on the contrary, it is a tool of
multinational corporations that assault national sovereignty and cause environmental
degradation. The protests or demonstrations and riots that greeted the WTO's 1999
ministerial conference in Seattle are a vivid reminder that, to paraphrase the late Reggae
Superstar Bob Marley, "You can fool some people sometimes but you cannot fool them
all the time". An increasing number of American working class has become aware of the
shenanigans of the WTO. Supposedly an agent of free trade, the WTO's most important
agreements promoted monopoly for U.S. firms: the Trade Related Intellectual Property
Rights Agreement consolidated the hold over high tech innovations by U. S. corporations
like Intel and Microsoft, while the Agreement on Agriculture institutionalized a system of
monopolistic competition for third-country markets between agribusiness interests of the
United States and the European Union.33 The motives for the introduction of the trade-
related intellectual property rights were: to enable their firms to capture more profits
through monopolistic higher prices and through royalties and the sale of technology
products; and to put in place stiff barriers preventing the technological development of
potential new rivals from the peripheral countries. This confirms our theoretical
assumption that transfer of technology is a myth rather than a reality. There is no wonder
why American Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the world. A man who is believed
to be worth over $70 billion, a figure comparable to nearly all the yearly gross national
products of African countries combined. While he may be legally challenged at home for
monopolistic tendency or for his alleged Anti-Trust Act violations, he is certain to accrue
enormous royalties from his international business deals. As one observer aptly argues:

When the Asian financial crisis engulfed countries that had been seen by many in the
U.S. business and political elites as America's most formidable competitors, Washington
did not try to save the Asian economies by promoting expansionary policies. Instead, it
used IMF to dismantle the structures of state-assisted Asian capitalism that had been
regarded as formidable barriers to the entry of goods and investments from U.S.
transnational [corporations] that had been clamoring vociferously for years to get their
piece of the "Asian Miracle." It was less the belief in spreading the alleged benefits of
free trade than maximizing geo-economic and geo-strategic advantage that lay behind
U.S. support for the policies of the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO.34

The WTO serves the interests of the United States and its European junior partners. As
Chalmers Johnson has posited: "A good case can be made that Washington's
opportunistic behavior during the Asian financial crisis reflected the fact that "having
defeated the fascists and the communists, the United States now sought to defeat its last
remaining rivals for global dominance; the nations of East Asia that had used the
conditions of the Cold War to enrich themselves."35 Under the disguise of free trade, the
U.S. government uses the WTO to protect the market for its multinational corporations.
Just as it was the United States' threat in the 1950s to leave GATT if it was not allowed to
maintain protective mechanisms for milk and other agricultural products that led to
agricultural trade's exemption from the GATT's rules, it was the U. S. pressure that
brought the agriculture into the GATT-WTO system in 1995. The reason for
Washington's change of mind was articulated quite candidly by the then Agriculture
secretary John Block at the start of the Uruguay Round negotiations in 1986: "The idea
that the [underdeveloped] countries should feed themselves is an anachronism from a
bygone era. They could better ensure their food security by relying on U.S. agricultural
products, which are available, in most cases at much lower cost."36 Predictably, it is not
the concern of the metropolitan countries to assist the peripheral countries to become
self-reliant. Political realists would remind us that each nation must seek for self-
protection and self-reliance. The underdeveloped countries cannot expect the developed
countries that had enslaved and colonized them to be a part of their solutions but rather
the marginalized countries should view the now advanced, industrialized nation-states as
an appendage to their problems.

The underdeveloped countries were expecting that the Uruguay Round would bring some
desirable benefits; instead, there have often been many disappointments. The following
are some examples of the potential benefits of the Uruguay Round that have not
materialized:
* A lowering of northern countries' industrial tariffs may benefit those southern countries
with a manufacturing export capacity. Even then, the reduction of average industrial
tariffs in developed countries has only been from 6.3 percent to 3.8 percent, which means
that an imported product costing $100 before duty could enter after duty at $104 instead
of the previous $106, which is not a significant reduction. And "tariff peaks" (or higher-
than-average import duties) remain for many products that [underdeveloped] countries
export. For instance the U.S. tariff for orange juice is 31 percent.

* The phase-out of the multi-fiber arrangement (which has allowed northern developed
countries to place quotas on imports of textiles, clothing, and footwear) was supposed to
be the aspect of the Uruguay Round to most immediately benefit the [underdeveloped]
countries, or at least the countries that export these products. So far, however, these
underdeveloped countries have not seen tangible benefits. This is because developed
countries 'end-loaded' their implementation schedules so that most of the products they
buy from the [underdeveloped] countries will only be liberalized at the end of the ten-
year phase-out period. There is also a fear that non-tariff barriers will be used to continue
to block the underdeveloped countries' products when the phase-out of tariffs is
completed.

* The Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) was supposed to result in the reduction of

agricultural subsidies in the North, and this was expected to improve the market access of
those underdeveloped countries that export agricultural products. As it turned out,
however, the agreement allowed the developed countries to maintain most of the high
subsidies that existed prior to the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. For example, they
are obliged to reduce domestic subsidies by only 20 percent. In contrast, most
[underdeveloped] countries had no or little domestic or export subsidies. They are now
barred by the AOA from having them or raising them in the future."

It is clearly obvious that the underdeveloped countries are barred from raising subsidies
to support their farmers because the multinational corporations, using the WTO as its
tool, want the peripheral countries to depend on export of food from the developed
countries, primarily from the United States. Without government subsidies, small farmers
cannot compete with the transnational corporations. And eventually, agricultural
liberalization will contribute to world food prices being skyrocketed and the beneficiaries
would be multinational corporations.

THE LONE SUPERPOWER

A great many people had hoped that the post-Cold War era would offer us new
opportunities for peace and security in the world. Unfortunately, the end of the Cold War
(around 1989) marked the beginning of an unprecedented and intense series of
international conflicts. Some people thought that the competition during the bipolar era
(the period of high tensions between the former USSR and the USA) that had a profound,
and often violent, impact on many other societies was the root cause of the violence.
Others believed that the balance of power had been replaced by collective security. In
actuality, the collective security that was exercised by the United Nations against Iraq has
vanished. Its replacement is a lone superpower - the United States of America! In
building an empire around the world, the MNCs need the protection of their parent
countries in order to control the host nations (mostly the underdeveloped countries)
because without such protection their investments would be in peril. There are some
apologists who have failed to understand the dynamic of global capitalism. As a
consequence of the Untied States' claim of having conquered the fascists and communists
of the world, the U.S. government now believes that it must create a favorable political
climate in the international arena so that its MNCs as well as the MNCs of its European
junior partners can penetrate to every comer of the globe, even the most remote territory.
In doing so, the government is readily willing to repress any resistance or challenge to its
lone superpower status. In the study of American foreign policy, Gabriel Kolko has
concluded that:

Foreign policy decision-makers are in reality a highly mobile sector of the American
corporate structure, a group of men who frequently assume and define high level policy
tasks in government, rather than routinely administer it, and then return to business. The
conclusion is that a small number of men fill the large majority of key foreign policy
posts.38

From the days of "manifest destiny," the empire of the United States has been well
supplied with such a creed. America's imperial creed since World War II has been "world
responsibility". A former Treasurer and later Chairman of Standard oil of New Jersey,
Leo D. Welch, once affirmed America's position: "American private enterprise is
confronted with this choice: it may strike out and save its position all over the world, or
sit by and witness its own funeral. We must set the pace and assume the responsibility of
the majority stockholder in this corporation known to the world.. .Nor is this for a given
term of office. This is a permanent responsibility."39 The developed countries are unified
to a great extent in political affairs under the leadership of the United States. They are
united politically by the fact that they face a common enemy at home and abroad; at
home such as the riots in Seattle against the WTO and other protests across the country,
and abroad such as the frequent attacks against the interests of the global corporations
around the world.

The widespread military bases and the accompanying complex of expenditures at home
and abroad, protecting present and potential sources of raw materials safe-guarding
foreign markets and foreign investments, preserving spheres of influence such as the state
of Israel - the "U.S. deputy peace-keeper", and maintaining the structure of world
capitalist markets serve many purposes of special interest to the MNCs. In the words of
former President Woodrow Wilson: "Suppose you go to Washington and try to get at
your government. You will find that while you are politely listened to, the men really
consulted are the men who have the big stake - the big bankers, the big manufacturers,
and the big masters of commerce...the masters of the government of the United States."40
This is why American diplomacy in the world cannot be viewed in isolation. It is part of a
well-orchestrated global strategy aimed at safeguarding its interests and that of its
European junior partners. In defending its interest, the U.S., the lone superpower, has
become undoubtedly the international police force with the power to make, enforce, and
adjudicate law. The United Nations is almost irrelevant or obsolete. In fact, it is now a
tool of the United States for the implementation of American foreign policy. Take, for
example, the case of Iraq. The sanctions against Iraq for its flagrant violation of
international law by invading and annexing Kuwait were justifiably imposed. However,
many countries including France, Russia and China shared the belief that it was time to
lift the sanctions. But the United States, seconded by Britain, adamantly disagreed.
Instead, the United States led a coalition-of-the-willing in an unprecedented unilateral,
preemptive invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in March 2003 without
the approval of the United Nations. Iraq, one of the so-called "axis of evil" as President
Bush, Jr., referred to Iraq as well as North Korea and Iran in the 2002 State of the Union
address, is now illegally occupied by the U.S.-led coalition-of-the-willing. The U.S. on-
going military involvement in Nigeria cited earlier in this paper as well as in Colombia,
Philippines, Afghanistan, and elsewhere under the disguise of fighting terrorism is all
designed to protect the U.S. global economic interest.

CONCLUSION

This paper has argued that the MNCs, the Western media technology, the WTO, the
IMF/World Bank, and the lone superpower - the United States of America - in the
process of globalization are jointly responsible for the development of underdevelopment
of the peripheral countries. What then is the answer? The world would be a lot better off
without the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. We realize that we live in
aninterdependent economic world and hence we do not prescribe an autarky as a solution
to the problems of the underdeveloped countries. No country can realistically survive on
its own without the collaboration and cooperation with others. But a genuine free trade
must be mutually beneficial if it is to be sustainable. The imposition of globalization via
homogenization of economic, social and political order is a recipe for unending conflicts.
The world must foster internationalization by encouraging increasing collaboration of
nation-states based on multiculturalism and diversity. Instead of an outright global
economic integration, we endorse a regional integration such as the European Union, the
North American Free Trade Agreement, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the
African Union, the proposed common currency in West African countries etc.
International relations ought to be based on mutual interest and respect. There ought to be
reciprocity. An international arena based on the survival of the fittest cannot guarantee
peace and security. It is tantamount to the choice between slavery and freedom. And
Patrick Henry, one of the United States of America's founding fathers, gave us the answer
to that question many years ago: "Give me liberty or give me death." Finally, the United
States must be pressured both at home and abroad to abandon its unilateral global policy
and pursue multilateral decision-making via the United Nations. But we find insufficient
evidence to establish a more optimistic prognosis for that to happen. For the 'wretched of
the earth', poverty-stricken, exploited and oppressed working class people in America and
those around the world, a luta continua!

NOTES
1. Theotonio Dos Santos, "The Structure of Dependence," American Economie Review:
Papers and Proceedings, IX, 2, No. 2 (May 1970). p. 231.

2. Osvaldo Sunkel, "Big Business" and "Oependencia" Foreign Affairs (April 1972). Pp.
517-531.

3. Daniel Offiong, Imperialism and Dependency (Enugu, Nigeria: Fourth Dimension

Publishing Co. Ltd., 1980). p. 74.

4. Offiong, Imperialism and Dependency, pp. 74-75.

5. Ibid

6. Ira Katznelson, et al., eds., The Politics and Society Reader (New York: David McKay
Co., 1974). pp. 175-176.

7. Katznelson, et al., eds., The Politics and Society Reader, pp. 175-176.

8. Daniel S. Papp. Contemporary International Relations: Framework for Understanding,

5th edition (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1977). p. 107.

9. Ibid., pp. 96-97.

10. Sarah Anderson, (ed.) Views From the South: The Effects of Globalization and the
WTO on Third World Countries (Chicago, IL: Food First Books, 2000). pp. 159-162.

11. Ibid., p. 62.

12. Ibid.

13. Festus Iyayi, "Leadership and the Failed Nigeria Nation-State," Paper Delivered to
the Association for Good Governance and Productive Leadership in Edo State at Saidi
Centre, Benin City, Nigeria. (see Guardian, December 26,
2001htt:ngrguardiannews.com/appointments/ap843 612. html)

14. Laolu Akande, "U.S. Plans Possible Military Intervention in Niger Delta," Guardian,
December 16, 2001.

15. Papp, Contemporary International Relations..., pp. 95-96.

16. Guardian, January 27, 2000.

17. This occurred during the writer's visit to Nigeria in December 1989.

18. Jay Dubashi, "Globalization Is Economic Terrorism," Smachar, October 10,2001

(htt://features.samachar.com/081001-fpj.html)
19. J. Sinclair, et al., New Patters in Global Television Peripheral Vision (Oxford: Oxford
university Press, 1996).

20. U. Hennerz, Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places (London, England:

Routledge, 1996).

21. D. Morley and K. Robins, Spaces of Identity: Global Media, Electronic Landscapes
and Cultural Boundaries (London, England: Rougledge, 1995).

22. E. Herman and R. McChesney, The Global media: The New Missionaries of Global
Capitalism (London, England: Cassell, 1997).

23. Jeffrey D. Sachs, "With Friends Like IMF..." The Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 6,
1998.

24. Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Global Issues (Washington, DC: Congressional

Quarterly Press, 2001). p. 77.

25. Ibid.

26. Iyayi, "Leadership and Failed Nigeria Naion-State," pp. 2-13.

27. Ibid., p. 77.

28. Jay Dubashi, "Globalization Is Economic Terrorism," Samachar, October 10,2001.

29. Ibid.

30. Cited in the work of Walden Bello, (ed.), The Future in the Balance: Essays on
Globalization and Resistance (Oakland, CA: Food First Books, 2001). p. 63.

31. Ibid.

32. Laurie R. Blank, The Role of International Financial Institutions in International

Humanitarian Law (Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace, 2002). pp. 15-16.

33. Bello, (ed.), The Future in the Balance..., p. xii.

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid., p. 37.

36. Quoted in "Cakes and Caviar: The Dunkel Draft and Third World Agriculture," The
Ecologisl, Volume 23, no. 6 (November December 1993). p. 220.

37. Sarah Anderson, Views from the South ...,pp. 22-23.

38. Kema Irogbe, The Roots of the U. S. Foreign Policy Toward Apartheid South Africa,
1969-1985 (Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1997). pp. 26-27.

39. Irogbe, The Roots of United States Foreign Policy Toward Apartheid South Africa,
1969-1985, p. 28.

40. Ibid., p. 29.

By Kema Irogbe*

* Professor of Political Science at Claflin University, Orangeburg, South Carolina. His

areas of specialization are African politics, international relations, and public
administration. He is the recipient of a number of awards including fellowships at
Harvard and MIT. He has published articles in International Third World Studies Journal
and Review, Race and Democracy, The A lexis de Tocqueville Tour: Exploring
Democracy in America, and has authored a book: The Roots of United States Foreign
Policy Toward Apartheid South Africa, 1969-1985. He is currently working on a naner:
"Food Insecurity in Sub-Saharan Africa: Causes and Prosoects".

Copyright Association of Third World Studies, Inc. Spring 2005

Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved
Irogbe, Kema "GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD". Journal of Third World Studies.
FindArticles.com. 02 Feb, 2009.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200504/ai_n13642807