Dear Editor,
Reference is made to editorial, “The New Imperialism” (Jan 11)[1], explaining American planned control, management, and sale of Venezuela’s oil, characterizing it as “having the hallmarks of a raw form of imperialism” without a clear definition or explanation (of imperialism or new imperialism) for the novice or simple minded reader. There are different descriptions and explanations of new imperialism. Unless one has studied imperialism, a course in international politics at some universities in USA, one wouldn’t know the subject matter. The editorial did state that (Venezuela) “main economic asset is being administered in the interests of another country” — suggesting that it is the new imperialism to which it references.
After colonization, imperialism took other forms such as control over resources and their exploitation by multinationals of the former empire. Scholarship refers to this behaviour as “new imperialism”. Some scholars call it neo-colonialism. China acquires resources through loans in Africa, Latin America, Guyana, Sri Lanka, etc. African nationalists call it a new form of imperialism. Then there is the might makes right mechanism to control or access resources — using threats and or brute force; the latter does not succeed for long as it often leads to rebellion, civil war, destruction of a nation as in the Middle East. New imperialism also refers to economic dominance, using whatever means, over a weak country.
Your usage of the term seems to refer to a powerful nation, using military and or economic dominance to control the resources of another nation — manage, sell, and direct how the revenues should be used. That has happened post-independence in several nations. The concept of ‘dependency’ is also described as a form of imperialism or new imperialism. Some scholars also refer to that behaviour as neo-imperialism.