McDonalds in Moscow and Coke in China Will Do More to Create a Global Culture Than Military Colonisation Could Ever Do.

McDonalds in Moscow and Coke in China will do more to create a global culture than military colonisation could ever do. The quote by Benjamin Berber implies the powerful effect of globalisation on the geopolitical and cultural aspects of the global environment. In considering the above statement, this work will analyse the extent to which colonisation and imperialism contributed towards a global culture. The analysis is based on East Asian history and geopolitical context. It will also consider the contribution of economics in the same respect, as well as the counter-currents to the idea of globalisation.

Prior to (and arguably some time into) the 20th century, direct military and political intervention was a popular vehicle that carried ideas, beliefs, and religions across national borders. The effect of this can be witnessed by considering any great empire of the past Ð'- the Egyptians, the Macedonians and the Persians, and the Romans just to name a few. It is common knowledge that these empires had great impact on local people under their occupation (Latin that came from the Romans became the basis of languages spoken by half of Europe today).

More recently, during the first half of the 20th century the world was divided between European colonial powers who exercised imperialistic controls over their territories. Colonialism and imperialism go hand in hand together. Imperialism is the projection of power and authority of one state beyond its own borders to appropriate political or economic benefit, while colonialism is the establishment of control by one country over another. Amongst countries in East Asia only a few were not colonised by other countries. For example, Britain, France, Holland, Japan, and America all exercised control over South East Asia to a greater or lesser degree.

As a result, colonialism and imperialism were once useful methods by which to propagate a particular set of beliefs and cultures. However, colonialism and imperialism tended to spawn nationalism and resistance.

The fall of Japan as an imperialistic military power following World War II saw the upsurge of nationalism throughout East Asia. Nationalists like Ho Chi Ming in Vietnam, Lyuh Woon-hyung in Korea, and Sukarno in Indonesia rose to prominence; colonialism and imperialism gave rise to nationalism in all countries of East Asia. Nationalists appealed to a community of local class and culture, a common history, and to a people occupying a particular territory. They drew influence from highlighted distinctiveness of a particular community against that of all others.

At the same time, the colonial powers could no longer rely on their military superiority to crush dissidents. Following the end of World War II, these colonial powers wished to reassert control over the colonies. The British regained control over Malay and Singapore, the Dutch regained control over Indonesia with the help of the British and Americans, and the French tried to reaffirm control over Vietnam. This did not last long; most of the colonies were granted independence by 1960, and the French were literally driven out of Asia with one military defeat after another.

The improvements in technology within developing countries meant that developed countries could no longer exercise the same level of control in their colonial territories as they could previously. Towards their hay-day, colonialism and imperialism in fact, had the opposite effect to creating a global culture; they fostered a sense of nationalistic unity within one country, a sense of belonging to a group distinctive from all others.

Increasingly, foreign powers found it difficult to maintain control through the systematic recourse to coercion. The effects of extended confrontations with nationalism within particular East Asian countries led to the eventual withdrawal of foreign occupying forces and changes to foreign policy practised by the former colonial powers.

The defeat of Japan after World War II saw the United States take effective control over Japanese military and foreign policy decisions with the signing of the Security Treaty in 1951. During the 1960s Japan emerged from the ruins of war as an economic power, developing over the decades to become second only to the United States by the 1990s. It was able to do so through concentrated policy decisions; all resources were devoted to economic development, and the security, defence, and foreign policies were dictated by the United States. The effect of not having to focus any energy on defence allowed Japan to focus entirely on developing a strong and viable economy.

This however, meant that Japan remained anti-communist, but that did not stop it from carrying out of profitable trade with communist countries. One major illustration of this policy was the trade agreement Japan signed with China in 1962 (the Liao-Takasaki Memorandum), whereby Japan became China's largest trading partner.

On the other hand, China's own development of a focused economic policy took marginally longer. By the end of the 1970s China's leaders reached agreement to open China to the rest of the world with the aim of expanding trade, investment, and technological transfer. This resulted in colossal developments in the economy: increased foreign trade and decreased isolationalism in terms of foreign (Western) goods, ideas, and culture. The nationalists of the revolutionary generation had achieved their aims Ð'- they had gained independence. The next generation was more intent on economic growth; what motivated people was the desire for material and social goods.

These economic arrangements between historical military enemies exemplified the gradual preference of economic cooperation (although cooperation is often an arguable point), and a move away from the assertion of power by military means.

It is ironic to point out that having lost the physical presence of rule in East Asia, former colonial powers could still see the economic system which they advocated prevail. This allowed the former powers to sustain hegemonic positions over their past colonial territories through the replacement of a visible presence of rule with the invisible government of corporations, banks, and international organisations that are interconnected to create a universal system.

This new interconnectedness is regulated and enforced by the most powerful actors in the international political arena. This is achieved through the use of international organisations and institutions. Acceptance into the international community is increasingly made conditional upon acceptance of certain models of political and economic practise. The increased mobility of capital generated by the development of world financial markets creates pressures on governments to adopt uniform, market-friendly

...