ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY AND NIGERIA’S FOREIGN POLICY SINCE 1999
Nigeria’s foreign policy has been Afrocentric and non-aligned within the framework of a hostile international environment. This stance has often affected its foreign relations and its economic diplomacy. However, Nigeria’s foreign policy over the years has demonstrated continuity rather than change as the fundamental principles behind Nigeria’s foreign policy have remained unchanged. This study therefore aims to assess Nigeria’s external economic relations during the Obasanjo Administration and the role of economic diplomacy. This research reveals that the Obasanjo Administration’s foreign policy was heavy on economic diplomacy and its contributions to Nigeria’s foreign policy in the 21st Century are admirable. The administration’s economic policies and diplomacy contributed to an improvement in Nigeria’s economy and the reinstatement of the country as a credible member of the comity of nations.
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
The primary focus of any state is to engage other actors in the international system so that it can attain a relatively favourable position. Therefore, the state as a national unit conceives of its own set of national purposes, which it seeks to advance with respect to the international environment. These various purposes constitute the national interest.1 In order to pursue its national interest, a state articulates a foreign policy. The foreign policy of a state often determines, to a great extent, its identity in the international system. The making of foreign policy is therefore not to be taken lightly and must be articulated carefully in the interest of the nation–state.
One of the major priorities of public policy, being a discipline for the formulation of policies for the public interest, is to further economic interests of the state. An important means of furthering this interest is economic diplomacy. Although, economic diplomacy is mainly a consular function, it is a very important component of foreign relations for many states. Therefore, most nation–states articulate their economic aspirations in their foreign policy. Consequently, states engage each other in order to achieve economic goals either through cooperation, whereby they form economic blocs or bilateral relations, or by the defence of their economic advantages over other states through sanctions, domestic policies or even the use of force.2
The importance of economic diplomacy for states in Sub–Saharan Africa (SSA) is especially relevant because of the peculiarities that make the region economically backward. These peculiarities include balance of payment imbalances and shortfalls in export receipts due
to mono–cultural economies. Other peculiarities include faulty exchange rate regimes and structural defects in the economy that encourages dependence on royalties from Multinational Corporations (MNCs) rather than production. In order to address these economic problems, many states of the region have resorted to internal economic reforms. Nevertheless, since some of these economic problems stem from an imperfect international economic order, it becomes important that these states constructively engage the international community in order to achieve success in their domestic economic reforms.
Nigeria, being a Sub-Saharan country is beset with the same peculiarities that make countries in the region poor. As such, it has often tried to find solutions to its economic problems through various programmes. Many of these programmes have failed in the past in spite of efforts to solicit the assistance of the international community through economic diplomacy. Nonetheless, economic diplomacy has experienced a rebirth in Nigeria’s foreign relations since the inception of democracy in 1999 and this warrants further study.
Statement of the Problem and Scope of the Research
The advent of democracy in Nigeria in 1999 ushered in a new era of expectations for the people. Obviously, the most urgent demand of the populace was for the new government to address the economic problems of the country. According to the Olusegun Obasanjo government, the country had inherited an economy characterized by declining capacity utilization in the industrial/manufacturing sector, poor infrastructural facilities, large budget deficit, rising level of unemployment and inflation. Furthermore, there was a preponderance of import dependence, reliance on a single commodity (crude oil), weak industrial base, low level of agricultural production, a weak private sector, high external debt overhang, inefficient public utilities and low quality of social services.3 In this vein, the government began to institute a
series of economic reform programmes designed to turn Nigeria’s economy around. As part of these reforms, the need to reduce Nigeria’s heavy debt burden, attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and recover looted funds by previous administrations were imperative. Therefore, economic diplomacy became a necessity for the success of these reforms.
In spite of significant successes, Nigeria’s economic diplomacy faces some significant challenges. The level of FDI is still not adequate and still concentrated in the petroleum sector of the economy. Also, capital flight, money laundering, advance fee fraud and dumping of cheap goods from Asia are still worrying problems. In addition, Nigeria assumes the onerous task of being a prime mover in the integrative process in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Sub-region and the African Union (AU). However, the vagaries of the international system remain a burning issue and a constraint on Nigeria’s success in pursuing its interest. Therefore, the need to formulate a consistent and coherent foreign policy cannot be overemphasized. This research examines the role of economic diplomacy in Nigeria’s foreign policy during the Olusegun Obasanjo Administration. It will cover the period from May 1999 to May 2007.
Objectives of the Research
The objectives of this research are as follows:
- Assess the fundamental principles of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy up to 1999 and the trajectory it has taken since 1999.
- Examine the factors that have informed Economic Diplomacy in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy thrust since 1999.
- Review the Strategies employed in achieving Nigeria’s Foreign Policy goals since 1999.
- Determine the success or otherwise of these Strategies.
Rationale of the Study
Nigeria’s foreign policy has always attracted considerable scholarly attention, especially among Nigeria’s academia, government officials and the press, leading to the existence of a great deal of literature on the subject. Even though economic diplomacy is not new in Nigeria’s foreign relations, the focus of such works have often been on the Ibrahim Babangida Administration and its official position on economic diplomacy as the cornerstone of Nigeria’s foreign policy.
Bearing this in mind, the role of economic diplomacy in shaping Nigeria’s foreign relations since the inception of democracy in 1999 has not been sufficiently covered and there is room for study of that period. Since the Olusegun Obasanjo Administration has completed its tenure, it will not be out of place to begin to assess Nigeria’s foreign relations during this period. Consequently, this study seeks to contribute to the debate that is sure to arise on this subject in the future.
Economic diplomacy was the cornerstone of the Obasanjo Administration’s foreign policy from 1999 to 2007.
This research is guided by the theory of liberalism, which advocates constitutional/representative government and market economies, free of government interference. Liberalism also advocates free trade among nations. Western political systems have been shaped by liberal ideas and values so much that they are classified as liberal democracies. These systems are constitutional in the sense that they seek to limit government power and
safeguard civil liberties, and representative, in that political office is gained through competitive elections. Liberalism has become, in effect the dominant ideology of the industrialized West. Some political thinkers have even argued that there is a necessary and inevitable link between liberalism and capitalism.4 It is noteworthy that other regions of the world, including Africa, are tending towards liberal democracy.
One of the earliest proponents of liberalism was John Locke, a seventeenth century Englishman. Locke’s philosophy was based on the dual tenets of intellectual and economic liberty. He also developed the idea of natural rights, a forerunner of the modern concept of human rights. Another proponent of liberalism was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a Frenchman, who mooted the idea of the social contract. Rousseau argues that man is born free and he alone knows what is in his best interest. Essentially, liberalism advocates the need for the people to determine the direction of their political and economic destinies.5
Historical developments in the past two centuries have influenced liberalism and necessitated the review of some of its tenets. While early liberals had wanted a laissez-faire attitude to governance, the modern liberals have come to believe that government should be responsible for providing welfare services like healthcare, education, housing and pensions, as well as managing the economy. This has led to the evolving of two strains of liberalism, classical liberalism and modern liberalism. However, there still remains an underlying unity at the heart of liberal thought, which is a fundamental commitment to individual freedom and to principles of individualism.6
Economic liberalism, a subset of liberalism, developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries through the work of political economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo. In his work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith drew heavily upon liberal and
rationalist assumptions about human nature. He thereby made a contribution to the debate about the desirable role of government in civil society. Smith wrote at a time when government placed wide ranging restrictions on economic activity. Then mercantilism had encouraged governments to intervene in economic life in an attempt to encourage the export of goods and restrict imports. Smith’s economic works attacked mercantilism and argued that the economy worked best when left alone by government.7 However, critics of economic liberalism point to the fact that those who do not have capital, but who rather sell their labour, are usually the losers in a laissez-faire economy. They also posit that opportunities tend to remain within certain quarters in such economies.8 In the international arena, critics of economic liberalism claim that it merely reflects the interests of whichever country is dominant in the world economy. It is rather a policy whereby weaker countries are encouraged to open their markets to the goods of stronger countries.9
In some recent theories of development, the neoclassical counter revolutionaries draw heavily on the ideas behind economic liberalism. They argue that the reason why many Third World countries are underdeveloped is because of the heavy hand of the state in economic activities. They also cite a high level of corruption, inefficiency and lack of economic incentives in such states. Therefore, rather than an increase in aid or the restructuring of the international economic system, the neoclassical counter revolutionaries advocate free market economies and free trade as a panacea for the poverty in most Third World countries.
The policies of the Obasanjo Administration were largely liberal and were possible within the context of a democratic government. The administration advocated the deregulation of the economy so that government could concentrate on addressing issues of human development and provision of infrastructure. The government also advocated for free trade and a just
economic world order. However, the structure of the Nigerian state, which retains several characteristics of mercantilism and unitary governance, were challenges to the achievement of a free market economy.
The literature review covers works of various scholars in the field of Nigeria’s foreign policy. In his book, Issues in International Relations and Nigeria’s Foreign Policy, Rufa’i Ahmed Alkali analyses Nigeria’s place in the international system. He begins his work by dwelling on the different perspectives in international relations and the immutable dynamics of the international system and how these affect African states. Alkali analyses the factors that contributed to Africa’s integration into the international system. He identified three phases that Africa passed through in the process of its evolution and incorporation into the international capitalist system, a system that was to and still is, shaping the nature and direction of African economies and politics. This also had direct implications on the emergent African States and their role in international politics.10 These phases, he identified as the era of the Slave Trade, the Scramble for Africa and the era of Neo-colonialism.
Alkali came to some important conclusions in his work. Firstly, Nigeria’s geostrategic position gives it a special position and status as a leading African nation. But Nigeria’s unique position also exposes it to the challenges of leadership and opens it to the dangers of the machinations of external and internal forces. Secondly, there has been continuity in Nigeria’s foreign policy since independence despite the various changes of government in the country. Additionally, Nigeria’s unique opportunities to play decisive roles in both African and global politics will be challenged by the awesome powers of the Western nations who would still like to keep Africa as a trading post of global capitalism. Finally, South Africa will likely continue to
remain the major challenge to Nigeria, both regionally and globally.11 However, Alkali did not explain why the South East Asian countries have managed to break free from their own neo- colonial relationships with the Western Nations.
In the book New Horizons for Nigeria in World Affairs, edited by U. Joy Ogwu, Nigeria’s foreign policy was deliberated upon in its various dimensions. In the introduction to the book, Ogwu asserted that the setting within which foreign policy formulation and implementation takes place can be viewed along three main realms: the psychological, the domestic, and the external. The psychological realm denotes the mental processes of the decision-makers and all the subjective factors that, in one way or the other, inform the conception of foreign policy issues. The domestic realm encompasses the world, and its array of actors, factors, variables and forces, that are outside the mind of the decision-makers but are within the territorial bounds of a nation- state. The external realm is the international system within which foreign policy is directed; and it is significantly unpredictable. Thus, the understanding of foreign policy formulation and implementation requires an appreciation of the dynamic interaction of these three realms.12
In the above mentioned work, L Adele Jinadu traced the philosophical underpinnings of Nigeria’s foreign policy to its colonial background and the contemporary international system. According to him, these interrelated factors provide the philosophical foundations for the development of Nigeria’s foreign policy. It was, therefore, in the context of the decolonization process as a global political phenomenon that self-determination and self-government came to provide the core foundational, conceptual and philosophical building blocks of Nigeria’s foreign policy.13 Also, Jinadu observes that Nigeria’s foreign policy since independence has exhibited continuity in its principal objectives. He added that whatever difference there is or has been, is,
by and large, a matter of style, emphasis, personality, institutional reform, and historical circumstances within and outside Nigeria.14
In the same work, Jide Osuntokun traced the historical background to the development of Nigeria’s foreign policy from independence. He outlines the factors that have determined Nigeria’s foreign policy and comes to the same conclusion as Jinadu that it has demonstrated more continuity than change.15 Osuntokun also emphasised the role of domestic politics in the way that Nigeria behaves in the international system. According to him, as a federation of contending political perspectives, consensual position on foreign policy was the rule rather than the exception.16
The collection of essays, The Economic Diplomacy of the Nigerian State, edited by U. Joy Ogwu and Adebayo Olukoshi outlined the origins and dimensions of economic diplomacy in the development of Nigeria’s foreign policy. The work, which became imperative in the wake of the Babangida Administration’s institution of economic diplomacy as the cornerstone of Nigeria’s foreign policy, asks the question whether economic diplomacy is actually new in Nigeria’s foreign relations or it has always been a part of it. It also explores the reasons for the new emphasis on economic diplomacy by the Babangida Administration. In the introductory chapter, the editors mooted the idea that both the contexts of domestic economic crisis and structural adjustment and a rapidly changing international politico-economic environment have acted to shape the Babangida Administration’s decision to adopt economic diplomacy as an object of foreign policy action in the expectation that it would be an effective external complement to internal economic reforms.17
In the same work, Agbaje contends that several Third World countries have placed emphasis on economic diplomacy in recent times for pragmatic reasons of economic crisis and
its attendant socio-political consequences. He submits that this move is an endorsement of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)/ World Bank hegemonic system, in which economic diplomacy is seen by Third World countries as necessary in the external arena to the successful pursuit of the economic regime of structural adjustment internally.18 Agbaje then identifies the implications of economic diplomacy as a continued participation in the global system, rather than a withdrawal from it. The concept thus suggests a belief in the possibility of Third World leaderships applying traditional instruments of policy to secure economic concessions from the international environment.19
Asobie asserts that since 1960, successive Nigerian governments have demonstrated an appreciation of the linkage between the country’s foreign policy and her economic circumstances. The way in which this linkage was conceived and the policies deriving therefrom, however, differed, though not necessarily from regime to regime.20 He then concluded that the so-called “new” economic diplomacy of the Babangida Administration was not “new” but was a return of Nigeria’s pre-civil war foreign policy of cultivating a special relationship with the Western capitalist powers. He concluded that this policy did not serve Nigeria’s national interest but rather deviated from and undermined it. Finally, Asobie observed that the Babangida Administration’s policy of economic diplomacy did not serve to accelerate the inflow of FDI into Nigeria.21
Omoweh’s contribution to the above mentioned collection centres around economic diplomacy in Nigeria’s post-adjustment economy with emphasis on the Obasanjo Administration up to year 2000. He contends that although the Abacha regime officially abrogated the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), its policy of “guided deregulation” was a continuation of SAP by other means.22 Therefore, like its predecessor, the Abacha administration also adopted economic
diplomacy as its main policy instrument for achieving the goals of the new economic reform.23 In assessing the Obasanjo Administration’s economic diplomacy, which centres more on redeeming Nigeria’s image abroad, Omoweh posits that the question is whether the process of image-making should not first start at home before moving it abroad. Therefore, there is the contention that the root cause of the economic crisis facing Nigeria is centred on the nature of the state itself, its politics and model of extracting surplus. And until this problem is decisively dealt with, the economic diplomacy of the Obasanjo Administration will do very little to attract FDI and reverse the country’s underdevelopment.24
Clarification of Key Concepts National Interest
The national interest, often referred to by the French term raison d’état, is a country's goals and ambitions whether economic, military, or cultural. The notion is an important one in international relations where pursuit of the national interest is the foundation of the realist school. The national interest of a state is multi-faceted. Primary is the state's survival and security. Also important is the pursuit of wealth and economic growth and power. Many states, especially in modern times, regard the preservation of the nation's culture as of great importance.25 Accordingly, Professor Paul Seabury describes the national interest as an ideal set of purposes which a nation seeks to realize in the conduct of its foreign relations. In a second sense, the national interest may refer to those purposes which the nation through its leadership, appears to pursue persistently through time.26
Foreign policy is a set of political goals that guide how a state will interact with other actors in the international system. It is the policy vehicle through which a state seeks to protect or
further its national interest abroad. Foreign policy comprises many elements and it varies in form and focus. Therefore, foreign policy could be defined as a strategy with which institutionally designated decision-makers seek to manipulate the international environment in order to achieve certain national objectives.27 Foreign policy is designed to help protect a country's national interest, national security, ideological goals and economic prosperity. This can occur as a result of peaceful cooperation with other nations or through exploitation.28
Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace- making, trade, war, economics and culture. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national governments.29
Democracy is a form of government either carried out directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy). Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of democracy, there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes; equality and freedom. These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power. Freedom is secured by legitimized rights and liberties, which are generally protected by a constitution. There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.30
Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production, is privately owned. Labor, goods and capital are traded in markets while and profits are distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries. There is no consensus on the definition of capitalism, nor how it should be used as an analytical category. Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. However, there is little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism. Economists usually put emphasis on the market mechanism, degree of government control over markets (laissez faire), and property rights, while most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor, and class. There is a general agreement that capitalism encourages economic growth. The extent to which different markets are "free", as well as the rules determining what may and may not be private property, is a matter of politics and policy as many states have what are termed "mixed economies."31
A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud. This is the contemporary use of the terminology used by economists. A free market requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies. It is the opposite of a controlled market, where the government regulates prices or how property is used. The theory holds that within the ideal free market, property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property rights without the use of
physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor are they coerced by a third party (such as by government). Free markets contrast sharply with controlled markets or regulated markets, in which governments directly or indirectly regulate prices or supplies, which according to free market theory causes markets to be less efficient. Where government intervention exists, the market is a mixed economy.32
Colonialism is a policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies. The term took on a more specific meaning as a political – economic phenomenon whereby various European nations explored, conquered, settled, and exploited large areas of the world. The purposes of colonialism included economic exploitation of the colony’s natural resources, creation of new markets for the colonizer, and extension of the colonizer’s way of life beyond its national borders. In the years 1500 – 1900, Europe colonized all of North and South America, Australia, most of Africa and much of Asia by sending settlers to populate the land or by taking control of governments.33
Neocolonialism exists when a state is politically independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty, but in reality, its economic system and its political policy is directed from outside. The methods of this direction can take various forms. However, neocolonialist control is often exercised through economic or monetary means. Where neocolonialism exists, the power exercising control is often the state that formerly ruled the territory in question, although this is not always the case.34 In broader usage, neocolonialism may simply refer to the involvement of powerful countries in the affairs of less powerful countries.35
Sources of Data
The data for this research is derived from secondary sources. These include books, unpublished documents, journals, conference proceedings, official reports and Internet sources. These materials were obtained from both public and private libraries.
Arrangement of Chapters
The work is presented in four chapters. Chapter One introduces and presents the research design. Chapter Two entails an overview of Nigeria’s foreign policy and the principles of its foreign relations. Chapter Three analyses the role of economic diplomacy in Nigeria’s foreign policy since 1999. Finally, Chapter Four comprises summary, conclusion and recommendations.
1. Bluwey, Gilbert K., Understanding International Relations (Accra: Yamens Press Ltd, Publishers, 2002), p. 23.
2. Akindele, R. A., The Formulation and Implementation of Nigeria’s External Economic Policy: Institutional Structure and Processes. NSIA Conference, NIIA, Lagos, 4 – 7 November 1990.
3. Federal Executive Council, “Nigerian Economic Policy 1999-2003,” Abuja, 1999, quoted in Osita Agbu, “Globalization and Nigeria’s Economy,” Nigerian Journal of International Affairs, Volume 32, Number 1(2006): p. 40.
4. Haywood, Andrew, Political Ideologies: An Introduction, (London: Macmillan Education Ltd, 1992), 17.
http//enwikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism, 1 March 2007.
6. Haywood, Andrew ., op. cit., p. 18.
7. Ibid, p. 36.
8. http//wikianswers.com/Q/The_differences_between_the_criticisms_of_conservatism_and_liberalism, 1 March 2007
9. Haywood, Andrew., op.cit., p.39.
10. Rufa’i Ahmed Alkali, Issues in International Relations and Nigeria’s Foreign Policy, 2nd ed. (Kaduna: Northpoint Publishers, 2003), p. 62.
11. Ibid., p. 265.
12. Ogwu, U. Joy, “Introduction: An Overview,” in New Horizons for Nigeria in World Affairs, ed. U. Joy Ogwu (Lagos: NIIA, 2005), p. 6.
13. Jinadu, L. Adele, “The Philosophical Foundations and Fundamental Principles of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy,” in New Horizons for Nigeria in World Affairs, ed. U. Joy Ogwu (Lagos: NIIA, 2005), p. 24.
14. Otubanjo, A.O. “Introduction: Phases and Changes in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy,” in Nigeria since Independence: The First 25 Years, Vol. X, International Relations, eds. A.B. Akinyemi, S.O. Agbi and
A.O. Otubanjo(Ibadan: Heinemann, 1989), p. 23.
15. Osuntokun, Jide, “Historical Background Survey of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy,” in New Horizons for Nigeria in World Affairs, ed. U. Joy Ogwu (Lagos: NIIA, 2005), p. 29.
16. Ibid., p. 34.
17. Ugwu, U. Joy and Adebayo Olukoshi, “Nigeria’s Economic Diplomacy: Some Contending Issues,” in The Economic Diplomacy of the Nigerian State, Revised ed. Ed. U. Joy Ogwu and Adebayo Olukoshi (Lagos: NIIA, 2002), p. 15.
18. Agbaje, Adigun, “Critical Conceptual Issues in Third World Economic Diplomacy,” in The Economic Diplomacy of the Nigerian State, Revised ed. Ed. U. Joy Ogwu and Adebayo Olukoshi(Lagos: NIIA, 2002), p. 30.
19. Ibid., p. 34.
20. Asobie, H. Assisi., “Nigeria: Economic Diplomacy and National Interest – An Analysis of the Politics of Nigeria’s External Economic Relations,” in The Economic Diplomacy of the Nigerian State, Revised ed. Ed. U. Joy Ogwu and Adebayo Olukoshi (Lagos: NIIA, 2002), p. 53.
21. Ibid., p. 108.
22. Omoweh, Daniel A., “Economic Diplomacy and the Post-Adjustment Nigerian Economy: A Postscript,” in The Economic Diplomacy of the Nigerian State, Revised ed. Ed. U. Joy Ogwu and Adebayo Olukoshi (Lagos: NIIA, 2002), p. 215.
23. Ibid, p. 211.
24. Ibid, p. 217.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_interest, 1 March 2007.
26. Seabury, P. “Power, Freedom and Diplomacy: The Foreign Policy of the United States of America” (New York: Random House, 1963): 102, quoted in Gilbert K. Bluwey, Understanding International Relations (Accra: Yamens Press Ltd, Publishers, 2002), p. 23.
27. Chibundu, Victor N., Foreign Policy: With Particular Reference to Nigeria (1961 – 2002), (Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd, 2004), p. 1.
28. http//enwikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy, 1 March 2007.
29. http//enwikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy, 1 March 2007.
30. http//enwikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy, 1 March 2007.
31. http//enwikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism, 26 February 2010.
32. http//enwikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market, 26 February 2010.
33. http//www.answerscom/topic/colonialism, 21 April 2010.
34. Kwame Nkrumah, Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism, (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1965), ix – x.
35. http//enwikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism, 26 February 2010..