|
Pardon me for any historical inaccuracies but I'm being brief:
Iran - BP: I do believe it was a more multi-national effort, particularly orchestrated by the CIA that had the initial reinstatement of the Shah. This was also after Iran nationalized its oil industry.
United Fruit: I believe in this case, United Fruit already owned significant tracts of land, and it was primarily due to corruption and bribery. The shooting at the protesting civilians was a move by a local general.
Anyways, even in the cases you cite from the 19-20th centuries, the motives are primarily economically driven.
For better or worse for those of us currently living: Imperialism is a game that has been called off. Some countries that didn't get to play are understandably upset about this. Too bad. Unfortunately, Economic Imperialism has become an issue (not the popular definition of U.S. corporate interests, but national interests) -- why? Because China appears to be doing this: Economic transactions meant to accomplish political and strategic means. This isn't China meddling and controlling its own state economy, but making moves that impact the global economy.
Let's put this all in perspective: If for example we say, China should be allowed to buy whatever it wants because it has the cash.. It's a pure economic/business trade. Then we can also say, China's investments into foreign debt are just that, investments - a business transaction, right? So in that train of thought, should the U.S. just be allowed to say: "Oops! We can't pay you back. We're going to do a country-wide restructuring. Bad investment on your part. Ta!" without considering global implications? No. When countries are involved, particularly when motives are outside pure economic matters, implications outside of profit must be considered. To suggest otherwise is foolish.
Reply hazy, ask again later
|