The end of World War II brought with it the end of colonization from Africa through the Middle East and on to India and Southeast Asia. These newly founded nations, from Morocco to the Philippines, shared little in common at independence except their histories as vassal states.
However, after they gained their freedom, nearly all have shared the fact that few have reached their economic potential in the past 70 years.
While it would seem preposterous to think that there was some sort of conspiracy from the West to keep the “Third-World” countries firmly in the Third World, it is interesting to look at an historical perspective.
Thirty years after the war, many of these nations were still struggling to find a successful political and economic path to follow. Like a young adult moving out from the parents’ house, bad decisions came with self-determination. What seemed like good ideas at the time, in hindsight were big mistakes.
President Manuel L. Quezon’s statement—made long before independence—that “I prefer a government run like hell by Filipinos to a government run like heaven by Americans” was the call for nationalism that echoed throughout the world. And that idea became a self-fulfilling prophecy around the globe.
While nations—like people—must take responsibility for personal choices and actions, there is an historical thread that cannot be discounted.
In the 1970s and 1980s many countries, like the Philippines, took on massive debt that did not achieve the promised leap to prosperity for all. All that easy money created massive government corruption that created problems, which, in some places, exist until today.
In the 1990s nations that had weathered the debt storm better than most were encouraged and helped to open up their financial sector to Western banks and private-sector loans from those banks. Those generous loans—at interest rates far below domestic levels—created currency exchange-rate problems that eventually brought down the economies of Thailand and South Korea, triggering the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.
Ten years later, those same disastrous lending practices that were pushed on the Third World hit home in the West, bringing with them the global debt crisis and recession. Countries like the Philippines all suffered, but only briefly. However, the Western response to its own problem—central banks reducing interest rates and “money printing”—has created an uneven playing field for investment capital in favor of the First World. Western economic policies have exported trade wars, artificial prices for commodities like oil and foodstuff, and increased geopolitical tensions.
Why are the less-developed countries of Southeast Asia caught in the struggle for regional dominance between the two bullies of China and the United States? Why are the less-wealthy Eastern European nations literally the buffer zone between the saber rattling between “Rich Europe” and Russia?
What can countries like the Philippines do to be stronger? The answer is nothing, of course. The logical solution would be for smaller nations to band together. But as the Asean has illustrated, it is almost impossible to trust the neighbor that supposedly has your back. There are too many national interests that are in conflict with regional interests.
The reality is that as we move into the second decade of the 21st century, the inequality of power between the “have” and “have-less” nations will grow larger. A country and its leaders need to be aware of this and be ready to respond. As in the lifeboat from the sinking ship, ultimately it will come down to “it’s every man for himself”.