[Martin Khor] Still in pursuit of full independence

The Merdeka (Independence) season is a good time to ponder over what independence means to Malaysia and the other developing countries that are still battling to overcome the disadvantages that the colonial era brought.

The problems of governance in a developing country, 54 years after independence, are still as complex or even more so when compared with the immediate post-colonial days.

In that first phase of independence, the developing countries were preoccupied with domestic battles ― how to install domestic political processes and how to chart new economic strategies to get out of the shadow of colonial influence.

Most countries tried to shake loose from the control of foreign-owned mining and plantation companies, banks and retailers, by boosting their domestic public and private enterprises.

However, they were over-dependent on a few export commodities for a long time.

In the social sphere, there was the monumental battle to provide jobs, build up housing, schools and health systems, besides reducing poverty.

Today, many developing countries like Malaysia have succeeded, to a significant extent, to break the foreign-ownership grip on the economy and to diversify from commodities to resource-based processing, boosting manufacturing and property development.

While some countries remain poor and dependent on foreign aid, other middle-income countries have broken through into the development sphere.

Indeed, countries like Malaysia are now worried about being stuck in the “middle-income trap.”

They are no longer so competitive in the labor-intensive industries like textiles and electronics assembly because lower-wage countries have entered the scene, yet they find it difficult to break through into higher value-added sectors and activities, in order to upgrade their economic status.

While the colonial grip on their economies has loosened, the middle developing countries are now caught in the complex web of global interdependence, in which they have become significant players but are still not able to call the shots, nor equitably participate in decision-making.

The dependence of immediate post-colonialism is now replaced with the interdependence that comes with globalization. In good times, the country soars with the world economy.

But in bad times, the domestic economy is at the mercy of rapidly falling exports and foreign-capital outflows, as the 1998-99 Asian crisis and the 2008-09 “global great recession” showed.

With the United States and Europe caught in a deflationary situation, the next few years will be another great challenge.

Will the middle developing countries sink with the major players, or break free to chart their own course? The answer will probably be in between.

But “decoupling” from the crisis in the rich countries can properly be achieved only if there are vision and action plans, including national economic restructuring and greater regional collaboration.

Intense interdependence is also evident in the physical world, where the environment worldwide is collapsing because the pursuit for economic growth did not take into account resource depletion and pollution.

The science of climate change and the recent radiation from damaged nuclear plants both reveal that emissions in one part of the world affect health and life in other parts.

Global solutions are thus necessary, but negotiations to find them are bogged down by basic issues of North-South equity and the need for balance between the imperative for environmental protection and the immediate needs for development.

International negotiations are also stuck in the area of economics.

The World Trade Organization’s Doha talks have stalled because of the unreasonable demands made by major developed countries on the big developing countries.

Despite the G20 summits, the world is further away today from global solutions to the financial crisis than in 2008-09 when concerted actions were agreed upon to stimulate a recovery.

It appears that the U.S., Europe and Japan, all former colonial countries, are now afraid that their mastery over the global economy is being challenged by China, India and some other developing countries ― ASEAN included.

The middle developing countries like Malaysia are no longer one-sidedly dependent on their former colonial masters.

But in the web of an interdependent and globalized world, they are still in the mode of responding to initiatives and policies of the major developed countries, or to the unfolding situation.

They do not yet have the power or confidence to initiate and coordinate their policies and take the initiative to put forward solutions to global problems.

But they now have the growing capacity to do so, if only they organize themselves better, and find the intellect, skills and methods to move ahead.

Fifty-four years after Merdeka, the world is still an imbalanced one, and Malaysia is building more stepping stones towards full independence.

It must join other developing countries to get a full voice and a fair share in the benefits of the global economy.

In this complex globalized economy, the developing countries’ battle for independence continues.

By Martin Khor 

Martin Khor is executive director of the South Centre, a Geneva-based intergovernmental organization of developing countries, and a columnist for the Star, a Malysian daily. ― Ed.

(The Star/Asia News Network)