Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

*Must See*Video-Patrick Bond-BRICS Imperialism, Sub-Imperialism Finance

Expand Messages
  • Cort Greene
    Patrick Bond on the BRICS Summit in Durban http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3oZ36kPuKo ... Patrick Bond Bankrupt Africa: Imperialism, Sub-Imperialism and the
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Patrick Bond on the BRICS Summit in Durban


      Patrick Bond
      Bankrupt Africa: Imperialism, Sub-Imperialism
      and the Politics of Finance



      BRICS Now the New "Imperialists" in Africa

      [image: shutterstock_70525186]<http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/files/2013/03/shutterstock_70525186.jpg>

      Here's one job Americans should be overjoyed to outsource: global
      imperialist overlord. Historically, the US has shouldered the burden of
      this charge, making the big investments in foreign mines, energy supplies,
      and transport networks necessary to keep the liberal global economic system
      healthy and growing. Needless to say, Uncle Sam ruffled many a local
      feather in the places where he made these investments. But now America can
      sit back a bit: The BRICS are increasingly taking the flak.

      *Reuters *reports<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/26/us-brics-africa-idUSBRE92P0FU20130326>
      the growing resistance in Africa to the power and influence of the BRICS,
      which are now collectively the continent's biggest trading partner and
      investor. By 2015, trade will climb above $500 billion, with Chinese trade
      making up the majority.

      The BRICS portray themselves as a benign trading bloc simply trying to help
      themselves and their neighbors grow economically. They are finding that
      line to be as easy to sell in Africa as it was when the US was the main one
      selling it:

      Warning Africa was opening itself up to "a new form of imperialism",
      Nigerian central bank governor Lamido Sanusi accused China, now the world's
      No. 2 economy <http://www.reuters.com/finance/economy?lc=int_mb_1001>, of
      worsening Africa's deindustrialization and underdevelopment.

      "China takes our primary goods and sells us manufactured ones. This was
      also the essence of colonialism," Sanusi wrote in a March 11 opinion column
      in the Financial Times.

      "Africa must recognize that China - like the U.S.,
      Britain, Brazil <http://www.reuters.com/places/brazil?lc=int_mb_1001> and
      the rest - is in Africa not for African interests but its own," Sanusi

      As countries like China build up their industrial capacity, they inherit
      all the headaches involved in managing global resource extraction networks
      that once fell to the US.

      Some in the commentariat want to see this as another proof of American
      decline. Far from it. This is excellent news all
      the United States. The BRICS take on more responsibilities as well as a
      greater stake in the preserving and protecting the liberal global economy;
      meanwhile we continue to enjoy the benefits of that system while spending
      less to maintain it. That frees us up to focus on modernizing our domestic
      economy for the post-industrial 21st century.

      The future looks bright for the Stars and the Stripes; instead of taking
      the flak ourselves we can sympathize with the struggles of poor countries
      everywhere against the imperialist domination of their unsympathetic BRIC



      BRICS: 'Anti-imperialist' or 'sub-imperialist'?

      *South African President Jacob Zuma and friend.*

      [See also "*South Africa: brics-from-below! <http://links.org.au/node/3260>*"
      For more on *BRICS click HERE* <http://links.org.au/taxonomy/term/768>. For
      more articles by*Patrick Bond, click

      By *Patrick Bond*

      March 20, 2013 - *Links International Journal of Socialist
      Renewal*<http://links.org.au/node/3265> --
      "We reaffirm the character of the ANC as a disciplined force of the left, a
      multi-class mass movement and an internationalist movement with an
      anti-imperialist outlook" -- so said Jacob Zuma, orating to his masses at
      the year's largest African National Congress celebration, in Durban on
      January 12, 2013.[1] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn1>

      Eleven days later, Zuma spoke to the World Economic Forum's imperialists in
      a small, luxurious conference room in Davos, Switzerland: "We are
      presenting a South Africa that is open for business and which is open to
      provide entry into the African
      continent."[2]<http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn2> (As
      a carrot, Zuma specifically mentioned the $440 billion in economic
      infrastructure investment planned in coming years, while back at home,
      above-inflation price increases were hitting those low-income consumers of
      electricity, water and sanitation lucky not to have been disconnected for

      South African officials often talk anti-imperialist but walk
      sub-imperialist. In 1965, Ruy Mauro Marini first defined the term using his
      own Brazilian case: "It is not a question of passively accepting North
      American power (although the actual correlation of forces often leads to
      that result), but rather of collaborating actively with imperialist
      expansion, assuming in this expansion *the position of a key

      Nearly half a century later, such insights appear prescient, in the wake of
      the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) as an
      active alliance. By 2013 these five key nations encircling the traditional
      Triad (the US, European Union and Japan) were decisive collaborators with

      They advanced the cause of neoliberalism by reaffirming its global
      institutional power structures and driving over-productive and
      over-consumptive maldevelopment, and they colluded in destruction of not
      just the world environment - through prolific contributions to climate
      change - but in the sabotage of any potentially workable global-scale
      ecological regulation (favouring instead deepened commodification through
      emissions trading).

      The BRICS agenda of relegitimising neoliberalism not only reinforces North
      American power, of course. In each case, the BRICS countries' control of
      their hinterlands for the sake of regional capitalist hegemony was another
      impressive feature of sub-imperialism, especially in South Africa's case.
      As Brazilian scholar Oliver Stuenkel remarked in 2012, "None of the BRICS
      members enjoys meaningful support from its neighbours, and none has a
      mandate to represent its respective region. Quite to the contrary, their
      neighbours' suspicion of BRICS projects of regional hegemony is remarkably
      similar for all members."[4] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn4>

      Much of the long-standing (apartheid-era) critique of South African
      sub-imperialism still applies, but what is new is that thanks to financial
      deregulation associated with the country's "elite transition" from racial
      to class apartheid during the 1990s, what were formerly Johannesburg and
      Cape Town-based regional corporate powers - Anglo American Corporation,
      DeBeers, Gencor (later BHP Billiton), Old Mutual and Liberty Life
      insurance, SA Breweries (later merged with Miller), Investec bank, Didata
      IT, Mondi paper, etc. - escaped.

      These firms' financial headquarters are now in London, New York and
      Melbourne, and the outflows of profits, dividends and interest are the main
      reason South Africa was ranked the "riskiest" among 17 emerging markets by *The
      Economist *in early 2009, requiring vast new foreign debt obligations to
      cover the hard currency required to facilitate the vast capital flight.
      South Africa cannot, thus, be described as "imperialist" - it is simply
      retaining far little of the surplus.

      Aside from lubricating world neoliberalism, hastening world
      eco-destruction, and serving as coordinator of hinterland looting, what are
      the other features of sub-imperialism that must be assessed, in a context
      of Washington's ongoing hegemony? If a "new imperialism" entails - as the
      City University of New York's renowned Marxist scholar David
      Harvey[5]<http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn5> suggests
      - much greater recourse to "accumulation by dispossession" and hence the
      appropriation of "non-capitalist" aspects of life and environment by
      capitalism, then South Africa and the other BRICS offer some of the most
      extreme sites of new sub-imperialism in the world today.

      The older generation of arguments about South Africa's "articulations of
      modes of production" - i.e., migrant male workers from Bantustans providing
      "cheap labour" thanks to black rural women's unpaid reproduction of
      children, sick workers and retirees generally without state support - seems
      to apply even more these days, when it comes to notorious Chinese pass-laws
      or the expansion of the South African migrancy model much deeper into the
      region in the wake of apartheid (notwithstanding tragic xenophobic
      reactions from the local working class).

      First, to make the case that sub-imperialism lubricates global
      neoliberalism in these various ways, and that within BRICS South Africa
      joins the other "deputy sheriffs" to keep regional law and order (e.g. in
      the Central African Republic, at the time of writing in early 2013),
      requires dispensing with naïve accounts of foreign policy that remain
      popular in the international relations field.

      Some scholars argue that South Africa's role is neither anti-imperialist
      nor sub-imperialist - that as a "middle power", Pretoria attempts to
      constructively "lead" Africa while acting in the continent's interests
      (Maxi Schoeman),[6] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn6> through "building
      strategic partnerships ... in a constant effort to win over the confidence of
      fellow African states, and to convince the world community of its regional
      power status" (Chris Landsberg),[7] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn7> thus
      seeking "non-hegemonic cooperation" with other African countries (John
      Daniel et al.).[8] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn8>

      But these thinkers are missing an opportunity to interrogate the power
      relations with the critical sensibility that these times demand, not least
      because super-exploitative extractive industries based upon migrant labour,
      without regard to community degradation and ecological damage (e.g. the
      well-known Marikana platinum mine so profitable to Lonmin until 2012),
      continue to be the primary form of BRICS countries' engagement with Africa.

      Occasionally this agenda leads directly to war, a fetish about which is
      also a common distraction among scholars attempting to elucidate
      imperial-subimperial power relations. In the recent era, the main military
      conflicts associated with Washington-centred imperialism have been in the
      Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa, and so Israel, Turkey and Saudi
      Arabia are often cited as the West's sub-imperial allies.

      But it was not long ago - from the 1960s through late 1980s - that Southern
      Africa was the site of numerous wars featuring anti-colonial liberation
      struggles and Cold War rivalries, with apartheid South Africa a strong and
      comforting deputy to Washington.

      Over two subsequent decades in this region, however, we have witnessed
      mainly state-civil tensions associated with conflict-resource battles (e.g.
      in the Great Lakes region where southern Africa meets central Africa and
      where millions have been killed by minerals-oriented warlords),
      neoliberalism (e.g. South Africa and Zambia), an occasional coup (e.g.
      Madagascar), dictatorial rule (e.g. Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Malawi) or in
      many cases, a combination.

      The civil wars engineered by apartheid and the CIA in Mozambique and Angola
      had ceased by 1991 and 2001, respectively, with millions dead but with both
      Lusophone countries subsequently recording high GDP growth rates albeit
      with extreme inequality.

      Across Southern Africa, because imperial and sub-imperial interests have
      both mainly focused upon resource extraction, a variety of
      cross-fertilising intra-corporate relationships emerged, symbolised by the
      way Lonmin (formerly Lonrho, named by British Prime Minister Edward Heath
      as the "unacceptable face of capitalism" in 1973) "benefited" in mid-2012
      from leading ANC politician Cyril Ramphosa's substantial shareholding and
      connections to Pretoria's security apparatus, when strike breaking was
      deemed necessary at the Marikana platinum mine.

      South African, US, European, Australian and Canadian firms have been joined
      by major firms from China, India and Brazil in the region. Their work has
      mainly built upon colonial infrastructural foundations - road, rail,
      pipeline and port expansion - for the sake of minerals, petroleum and gas
      extraction. BRICS appears entirely consistent with facilitating this
      activity, especially through the proposed BRICS Bank.

      Might this conflict of interests result in armed conflict as a result of
      Washington's more coercive role in this continent? The Pentagon's Africa
      Command (Africom) has prepared for an increasing presence across the Sahel
      (e.g. Mali at the time of writing) out to the Horn of Africa (the US has a
      substantial base in Djibouti), in order to attack al Qaeda affiliates and
      assure future oil flows and a grip on other resources. Since taking office
      in 2009, US President Barack Obama has maintained tight alliances with
      tyrannical African elites, contradicting his own talk-left pro-democracy
      rhetoric within a well-received 2009 speech in Ghana.

      According to Sherwood Ross, one reason is that among 28 countries "that
      held prisoners in behalf of the US based on published data", are a dozen
      from Africa: Algeria, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya, Libya,
      Mauritania, Morocco, Somalia, South Africa and
      Zambia.[9]<http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn9> In
      Gambia, for example, President Yahya Jammeh's acquiescence to the CIA's
      need for a rendition site for US torture victims may explain Obama's blind
      eye towards his dictatorship. Likewise, the US role in Egypt - another
      rendition-torture hotspot - in propping up the Mubarak regime until the
      final days spoke volumes about the persistence of strong-man geopolitics,
      trumping the "strong institutions" that Obama had

      With fewer direct military conflicts in Africa but more subtle forms of
      imperial control, and with "Africa Rising" rhetoric abundant since the
      early 2000's commodity price boom, the continent and specifically the
      Southern African region appear as attractive sites for investment, in no
      small measure because of South Africa's "gateway" function, with
      Johannesburg as a regional branch-plant base for a variety of multinational

      Throughout this period, there was a restrained yet increasingly important
      Washington geopolitical agenda for Africa, which US President George W.
      Bush's first Secretary of State, Colin Powell, described cogently in a
      document, *Rising US Stakes in Africa:*

      - political stabilisation of Sudan (whose oil was craved by Washington);
      - support for Africa's decrepit capital markets, which could allegedly
      "jump start" the Millennium Challenge Account [a new US AID mechanism];
      - more attention to energy, especially the "massive future earnings by
      Nigeria and Angola, among other key West African oil producers";
      - promotion of wildlife conservation;
      - increased "counter-terrorism" efforts, which included "a Muslim
      outreach initiative";
      - expanded peace operations, transferred to tens of thousands of African
      troops thanks to new G8 funding; and
      - more attention to AIDS.

      On all but Sudan, South African co-operation was crucial for the US
      imperial agenda. However, after the US military's humiliating 1993 *Black
      Hawk Down* episode in Somalia, there was insufficient appetite at the
      Pentagon for direct troop deployment in Africa, and as a result, President
      Bill Clinton was compelled to apologise for standing idly by during the
      1994 Rwandan genocide. Instead, as Africa Command head Carter Ham explained
      in 2011, Washington "would eventually need an AfriCom that could undertake
      more traditional military operations ... [although] not conducting operations
      - that's for the Africans to do."[11] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn11>

      Likewise, the US Air University's *Strategic Studies Quarterly *cited a US
      military advisor to the African Union: "We don't want to see our guys going
      in and getting whacked... We want Africans to go
      in."[12]<http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn12> In
      late 2006, for example, when Bush wanted to invade Somalia to rid the
      country of its nascent Islamic Courts government, he called in South
      African President Thabo Mbeki to assist with legitimating the idea, though
      it was ultimately carried out by Meles Zenawi's Ethiopian army three weeks
      later.[13] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn13>

      When in 2011, Obama wanted to invade Libya to rid the country of Muammar
      Gaddafi, South Africa voted affirmatively for NATO bombing within the UN
      Security Council (where it held a temporary seat), in spite of enormous
      opposition within the African Union.

      And in January 2013, Pretoria deployed 400 troops to the Central African
      Republic during a coup attempt because, "We have assets there that need
      protection", according to deputy foreign minister Ebrahim Ebrahim,
      referring to minerals (according to his
      interviewer)[14]<http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn14> or
      to sophisticated weaponry that South Africa gifted the tyrant ruler there, *
      François*ozizé (according to his reply in a debate with me in late

      There was similar reliance by the G8 upon G20, BRICS and even South African
      "deputy sheriff" support on the economic battlefield. At the nadir of the
      2008-09 crisis, for example, the G20 was described by Walden Bello: "It's
      all show. What the show masks is a very deep worry and fear among the
      global elite that it really doesn't know the direction in which the world
      economy is heading and the measures needed to stabilize

      According to Harvey, the G20 asked, simply, "how can we actually
      reconstitute the same sort of capitalism we had and have had over the last
      thirty years in a slightly more regulated, benevolent form, but don't
      challenge the fundamentals?"[16] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn16>

      For foreign policy, the big question raised by Zuma's presidency was
      whether the momentum from Mbeki's expansionist "New Partnership for
      Africa's Development" (Nepad) would be resumed after that project's demise,
      given the former's preoccupations with domestic matters and comparatively
      weak passion for the international stage. Only in 2012 was the answer
      decisively affirmative: Nkozana Dlamini-Zuma's engineered election as
      African Union Commission chairperson.

      By mid-2012, Pretoria's National Development Plan - overseen from within
      the South African presidency and endorsed at the ANC's December 2012
      national conference - provided a variety of mandated changes in policy so
      as to align with South Africa's new BRICS identity and functions. These
      mainly involved pro-business statements for deeper regional economic
      penetration, alongside the exhortation to change "the perception of the
      country as a regional bully, and that South African policy makers tend to
      have a weak grasp of African

      That problem will haunt Pretoria in coming years, because like the
      political carving of African in Berlin in 1884-85, the BRICS 2013 Durban
      summit has as its aim the continent's *economic* carve-up, unburdened - now
      as then - by what would be derided as "Western" concerns about democracy
      and human rights. Also invited were 16 African heads of state to serve as

      Reading between the lines, the Durban BRICS resolutions will:

      - support favoured corporations' extraction and land-grab strategies;
      - worsen Africa's retail-driven deindustrialisation (South Africa's
      Shoprite and Makro - soon to be run by Wal-mart - are already notorious in
      many capital cities for importing even simple products that could be
      supplied locally);
      - revive failed projects such as Nepad; and
      - confirm the financing of both African land grabbing and the extension
      of neo-colonial infrastructure through a new BRICS Bank, in spite of the
      damaging role of the Development Bank of Southern Africa in its immediate
      hinterland, following Washington's

      With this evidence, and more, can we determine whether the BRICS are
      "anti-imperialist" - or instead, "sub-imperialist", doing deputy-sheriff
      duty for global corporations and neoliberal ideologues, while controlling
      their own angry populaces as well as their hinterlands through a more
      formidable security apparatus? The eco-destructive, consumerist-centric,
      over-financialised, climate-frying maldevelopment model throughout the
      BRICS works very well for corporate and parastatal profits, especially for
      Western capital, but is generating repeated crises for the majority of its
      people and for the planet.

      Hence the label sub-imperialist is tempting. During the 1970s, Marini
      argued that Brazil was "the best current manifestation of sub-imperialism",
      for three central reasons:

      "Doesn't the Brazilian expansionist policy in Latin America and Africa
      correspond, beyond the quest for new markets, to an attempt to gain control
      over sources of raw materials - such as ores and gas in Bolivia, oil in
      Ecuador and in the former Portuguese colonies of Africa, the hydroelectric
      potential in Paraguay - and, more cogently still, to prevent potential
      competitors such as Argentina from having access to such resources?

      "Doesn't the export of Brazilian capital, mainly via the state as
      exemplified by Petrobras, stand out as a particular case of capital export
      in the context of what a dependent country like Brazil is able to do?
      Brazil also exports capital through the constant increase of foreign public
      loans and through capital associated to finance groups which operate in
      Paraguay, Bolivia and the former Portuguese colonies in Africa, to mention
      just a few instances.

      "It would be good to keep in mind the accelerated process of monopolization
      (via concentration and centralization of capital) that has occurred in
      Brazil over these past years, as well as the extraordinary development of
      financial capital, mainly from 1968

      Matters subsequently degenerated on all fronts. In addition to these
      criteria - regional economic extraction, "export of capital" (always
      associated with subsequent imperialist politics) and internal corporate
      monopolisation and financialisation - there are two additional roles for
      BRICS regimes if they are genuinely sub-imperialist. One is ensuring
      regional geopolitical "stability": for example, Brasilia's hated army in
      Haiti and Pretoria's deal-making in African hotspots like South Sudan, the
      Great Lakes and the Central African Republic for which $5 billion in
      corruption-riddled arms purchases serve as military back-up.

      The second is advancing the broader agenda of neoliberalism, so as to
      legitimate deepened market access. Evidence includes South Africa's Nepad;
      the attempt by China, Brazil and India to revive the WTO; and Brazil's
      sabotage of the left project within Venezuela's Bank of the South
      initiative. As Eric Toussaint remarked at a World Social Forum panel in
      2009, 'The definition of Brazil as a peripheral imperialist power is not
      dependent on which political party is in power. The word imperialism may
      seem excessive because it is associated with an aggressive military policy.
      But this is a narrow perception of

      A richer framing for contemporary imperialism is, according to agrarian
      scholars Paris Yeros and Sam Moyo, a system "based on the *
      super-exploitation* of domestic labour. It was natural, therefore, that, as
      it grew, it would require external markets for the resolution of its profit
      realisation crisis."[21] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn21>

      This notion, derived from Rosa Luxemburg's thinking a century ago, focuses
      on how capitalism's extra-economic coercive capacities loot mutual aid
      systems and commons facilities, families (women especially), the land, all
      forms of nature, and the shrinking state; Harvey's accumulation by
      dispossession, and in special cases requiring militarist intervention,
      Naomi Klein's *Shock Doctrine*. [22] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn22>

      The forms of BRICS sub-imperialism are diverse, for as Yeros and Moyo
      remark, "Some are driven by private blocs of capital with strong state
      support (Brazil, India); others, like China, include the direct
      participation of state-owned enterprises; while in the case of South
      Africa, it is increasingly difficult to speak of an autonomous domestic
      bourgeoisie, given the extreme degree of de-nationalisation of its economy
      in the post-apartheid period. The degree of participation in the Western
      military project is also different from one case to the next although, one
      might say, there is a 'schizophrenia' to all this, typical of
      sub-imperialism."[23] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftn23>

      All these tendencies warrant opposition from everyone concerned. The
      results are going to be ever easier to observe,

      - the more that BRICS leaders prop up the IMF's pro-austerity financing
      and catalyse a renewed round of World Trade Organisation attacks;
      - the more a new BRICS Bank exacerbates World Bank human, ecological and
      economic messes;
      - the more Africa becomes a battleground for internecine conflicts
      between sub-imperialists intent on rapid minerals and oil extraction (as is
      common in central Africa);
      - the more the hypocrisy associated with BRICS/US sabotage of climate
      negotiations continues or offsetting carbon markets are embraced; and
      - the more that specific companies targeted by victims require unified
      campaigning and boycotts to generate solidaristic counter-pressure, whether
      Brazil's Vale and Petrobras, or South Africa's Anglo or BHP Billiton
      (albeit with London and Melbourne headquarters), or India's Tata or
      Arcelor-Mittal, or Chinese state-owned firms and Russian energy

      In this context, building a bottom-up counter-hegemonic network and then *
      movement* against both imperialism and BRICS sub-imperialism has never
      beenmore important. [24]
      *Notes*[1] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref1>. J Zuma, "ANC January
      8th statement 2013", speech to the African National Congress, Durban,
      January 12, 2013.

      [2] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref2>. J Zuma, "South Africa is open
      for business", speech to the World Economic Forum, Davos, January 23, 2013.

      [3] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref3>. RM Marini, "Brazilian
      interdependence and imperialist integration", *Monthly Review*, 17, 7,
      1965, p. 22. Two preliminary debates can be joined. First, recommending
      Marini's ideas to fellow South Africans, Melanie Samson offers a valid
      critique of earlier analysis: "Although Bond is clear as to who benefits
      from sub-imperialism, he does not explicitly elaborate a theorisation of
      sub-imperialism. As an aside he asserts that, in the earlier imperial
      period analysed by classical theorists, imperial capacity was 'reproduced
      through sub-imperial processes'. He also notes continuities in South
      Africa's sub-imperial project in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the
      apartheid and post-apartheid eras. Despite his careful elaboration of the
      changing nature of imperialism, Bond presents an ahistorical, unchanging
      conceptualisation of sub-imperialism." (M Samson, "(Sub)imperial South
      Africa? Reframing the debate",*Review of African Political Economy*,
      36,119, 2009, p.96.) The rise of BRICS offers an opportunity to correct
      this conceptualisation, although I hold to the standard argument that
      imperialism in Africa is largely exercised through the looting of resources
      and the application of neoliberal socio-economic policies, with South
      Africa mainly lubricating that process; for an earlier version, see P Bond,
      *Looting Africa, *London, Zed Books, 2006.

      Second, "While Pretoria might at times be justifiably accused of
      sub-imperialism and arrogance", writes Ian Taylor, "the incomplete form of
      capitalism in much of southern Africa militates against a too easy
      application of the concept of sub-imperialism within the region... liberal
      regionalism and South African foreign policy are unlikely to enjoy an easy
      ride if and when they confront the non-hegemonic state and its ruling
      classes across the subcontinent." I am not convinced, because
      sub-imperialism follows not only from Marini's definition, but from
      worsening "combined and uneven development" which incorporates and
      amplifies "incomplete" capitalism (via "accumulation by dispossession").
      Moreover, those advocating neoliberalism in the region *did indeed *enjoy
      an easy ride, to the extent widespread imposition of structural adjustment
      programs was accomplished hand-in-glove with local ruling classes. See I
      Taylor, "South African 'imperialism' in a region lacking regionalism", *Third
      World Quarterly*, 32, 7, 2011, pp.1233-1253.

      [4] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref4>. O Stuenkel, "Can the Brics
      Co-operate in the G-20? A View from Brazil", South African Institute for
      International Affairs, Occasional Paper 123, Johannesburg, December 2012.

      [5] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref5>. D Harvey, *The New
      Imperialism, *Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003.

      [6] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref6>. M Schoeman, "South Africa as
      an emerging Middle Power, 1994-2003", in J Daniel, A Habib and R Southall
      (Eds), *State of the Nation: South Africa 2003-04*, Pretoria, HSRC, 2003.

      [7] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref7>. C Landsberg, "South Africa's
      global strategy and status", Johannesburg, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung *New
      powers for global change?* Briefing Paper, February 2006,

      [8] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref8>. J Daniel, V Naidoo and S
      Naidu, "The South Africans have arrived: Post-Apartheid corporate expansion
      into Africa", in J Daniel, A Habib and R Southall (Eds), *State of the
      Nation: South Africa 2003-04*, Pretoria, HSRC, 2003.

      [9] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref9>. S Ross, "Rendition and the
      global war on terrorism: 28 nations have supported the US in the

      detention and torture of 'suspects'", *Global Research*, 1 April, 2010,

      [10] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref10>. P Bond, "Who will get
      'whacked' next in Africa?", *Links International Journal of Socialist
      Renewal,*September 30, 2012, http://links.org.au/node/3043.

      [11] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref11>. AfriCom Public Affairs,
      "Ham discusses AFRICOM mission with African journalists, PAOs at
      symposium", Garmisch, Germany, August 29, 2012,

      [12] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref12>. S Cochran, "*Security
      assistance, surrogate armies, and the pursuit of US interests in
      Sub-Saharan Africa", Strategic **Studies Quarterly,* Spring 2010, 4, 1,

      [13] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref13>. White House Press Office,
      "Press release: Remarks by President Bush and President Mbeki of South
      Africa in photo opportunity", Washington, December 8, 2006. Specifically,
      Mbeki referred to: "the difficult situation in Somalia" - ("Yes, sir", Bush
      intervened) and Mbeki continued, "and the President, together, we are very
      keen that, indeed, something must move there. This was a failed state. It's
      necessary to support the transitional government, to restoring a government
      and to reunify the country, and so on. It's an important thing because the
      problem, one of the big problems is that as it is, it provides a base for
      terrorists, find safe haven there and then can spread out to the rest of
      the continent. It's something that is of shared concern." Within three
      weeks, at Washington's behest, Ethiopia invaded Somalia. (See *Sudan
      Tribune, *December 10, 2010, reporting on WikiLeaks cables:

      [14] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref14>. K Patel, "The world
      according to Dirco (v. Jan 2013)", *Daily Maverick, *January 25, 2013.

      [15] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref15>. W Bello, "U-20: Will the
      global economy resurface?", *Foreign Policy in Focus*, March 31, 2009.

      [16] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref16>. D Harvey, "The G20, the
      financial crisis and neoliberalism", Interview on *Democracy Now!,* New
      York, April 3, 2009.

      [17] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref17>. National Planning
      Commission, *2030, Our future - make it work: National Development
      in the Office of the President, Pretoria, August 2012, Chapter 7.

      [18] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref18>. *CityPress, *"SADC banks on
      own development bank", June 23, 2012,
      and for more on the neo-colonial comparison, see T Ferrando, "Brics and
      land grabbing: Are South-South relationships any different?", unpublished
      paper, Pretoria, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2174455.

      [19] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref19>. R.M. Marini, *Subdesarrollo
      y Revolución*, Mexico City, Siglo XXI Editores, 1974, pp. 1-25, translated
      at http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/bt280210p.html#_edn13 .

      [20] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref20>. O Bonfond, E Toussaint and
      M.T. Gonzales, "Will capitalism absorb the WSF?", *MRzine, *February 28,
      2010, http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/bt280210p.html#_edn13 .

      [21] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref21>. P Yeros and S Moyo,
      "Rethinking the theory of primitive accumulation", paper presented to the
      2nd IIPPE Conference, May 20-22, 2011, Istanbul, Turkey, p.19.

      [22] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref22>. Harvey, *The New
      Imperialism, op cit;* N Klein, *Shock Doctrine, *Toronto, Knopf Canada,

      [23] <http://links.org.au/node/3265#_ftnref23>. *Op cit, *p.20.

      [24]. The objective of a "brics-from-below" counter-summit in

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.