Colonization and the division of the world

INTRODUCTION

Colonization refers to the transformation of a territory into a colony, which is then subjected to the control of a metropolis (i.e., the colonizing country). Colonialism refers to policies aimed at building colonial empires, making colonialism a specific form of imperialism. The term "colonialism" quickly gained a negative connotation among those opposed to it, who became known as anti-colonialists. The inhabitants of colonies are referred to as indigenous or native peoples, while those who settle from the colonizing country are called colonists.

There are two main periods of European expansion across the world:

1. The first European colonial empires resulted from the great discoveries of the 15th century, leading to the circumnavigation of the globe. This period saw the completion of the exploration of Africa's coasts, increased contact with the Orient, and the discovery and exploration of the Americas. This led to the formation of the Spanish and Portuguese maritime empires, as well as later possessions by the British and French (North America, spice trade outposts, etc.). The exploitation system in these colonies is primarily known as the triangular trade.

2. By the mid-19th century, only remnants of these earlier colonial domains remained. However, European powers, particularly France, England, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany, embarked on a large-scale policy of colonial expansion, forming vast empires (notably the French and British empires, which together covered a third of the globe).

European domination took different forms depending on the nature and degree of control they exerted over territories, such as annexation (direct colonization), protectorates (indirect rule through local authorities), dominions (settler colonies), and spheres of influence (e.g., in China, where Europeans shared strategic and economic interests without direct political control).

I. The Colonial Expansion of Major Powers

1. Reasons for Colonial Expansion After the 1880s

1.1 Economic Reasons:

By 1880, the global economic landscape had changed, and competition between industrialized nations intensified. Colonies were seen as outlets for surplus production, sources of raw materials, and investment opportunities. Colonial practices were tied to the principle of mercantilism, where a nation's power was measured by its stockpile of wealth, particularly gold and silver. Every state sought to monopolize colonial trade for its own benefit or that of privileged companies. While specific mercantilisms developed depending on each country's situation, the basic reasoning remained the same: wealth consisted of precious metals to be hoarded, either by direct access or through trade. The ultimate goal was to acquire colonies that served as supply sources or markets for goods.

1.2 Political and Military Reasons:

The political and military dynamics had shifted following the Franco-Prussian War, where France was defeated and Germany emerged as a strong power. To regain prestige, France pursued new colonial ventures, but Germany also sought to establish its presence. Meanwhile, Britain aimed to maintain its dominance. This led to a race for colonies.

1.3 Demographic Reasons:

Europe was the first continent to experience demographic transition, with its population more than doubling between 1880 and 1900 (from 200 million to 460 million). Much of this growth was due to declining mortality rates (thanks to better hygiene, medicine, and nutrition). Many Europeans emigrated—an estimated 40 million people left Europe between 1800 and 1914. Most of these migrants were from the lower social classes, with two-thirds being poor farmers who hoped for a better life abroad. This emigration was often organized by agencies and encouraged until 1920. Success stories of returning emigrants often inspired others to leave, even though many faced harsh and disappointing realities.

1.4 Humanitarian Reasons:

Europeans, who dominated demographically and economically, increasingly believed in the superiority of their culture and civilization. They felt a "duty" to civilize those they considered "barbarians" by spreading peace and prosperity. This mindset was expressed with moral conviction, as in Rudyard Kipling’s notion of the "White Man’s Burden." These beliefs fueled the competitive scramble among powers like Britain, France, Germany, and others. The Berlin Conference of 1884-85 was held to establish zones of influence, although tensions persisted (such as the 1898 Fashoda incident in Sudan between French and British forces). The arbitrary borders drawn during this period, particularly in Africa, still have consequences today, as they often ignored the realities of existing African kingdoms and ethnic groups.

II. Imperialism and the Division of the World Among Major Powers

The colonial possessions of the major powers, measured in millions of square kilometers and millions of inhabitants, are as follows:

By the early 20th century, the division of the world was effectively complete. From 1876 to 1914, the colonial possessions of the six largest powers grew significantly, from 40 to 65 million square kilometers—an increase of 25 million square kilometers, larger than the metropolitan territories themselves. The uneven expansion among countries like France, Germany, and Japan reflected their varying capacities to acquire colonies. Financial capital played a significant role in subordinating politically independent states, with semi-colonies like Persia, China, and Turkey showing the transitory nature of such relationships.

Modern capitalism, dominated by monopolistic entities, sought control over raw materials and production processes. As capitalism advanced, competition for resources and colonies intensified, driven by fears of being left behind in the global race for control. Capital export also benefited from colonial conquests, where monopolies could suppress competition and secure contracts more easily. Thus, the struggle for colonies was not only about resources but also about economic and geopolitical dominance.

Alongside the colonial possessions of the great powers, we have placed the smaller colonies of the small states, which, one could say, might be the next target of a possible and probable "new partition" of colonies. Most of these small states only retain their colonies due to conflicting interests, frictions, etc., among the great powers, which prevent them from agreeing on how to divide the spoils. As for the "semi-colonial" states, they offer us examples of transitional forms that can be found in all areas of nature and society. Financial capital is such a powerful, decisive factor in all economic and international relations that it can subjugate, and indeed does subjugate, even states that enjoy complete political independence. We will see some examples shortly. But it is evident that what provides financial capital with the greatest "advantages" is a type of submission that leads to the loss of political independence for the countries and peoples involved. The semi-colonial countries are typical in this regard, as a "middle" solution. It is understandable that the struggle over these semi-subjugated countries would intensify particularly during the age of financial capital, especially when the rest of the world has already been divided up.

Colonial policy and imperialism existed even before the contemporary phase of capitalism, and even before capitalism itself. Rome, based on slavery, pursued a colonial policy and practiced imperialism. But "general" arguments about imperialism, which neglect or push into the background the essential differences in economic and social formations, inevitably degenerate into empty banalities or boastful comparisons, such as the one between "Great Rome and Great Britain." Even the colonial policy of financial capital.

What characterizes the current phase of capitalism is the dominance of monopolistic groups formed by the largest entrepreneurs. These monopolies are particularly strong when they monopolize all sources of raw materials in their hands alone. We have seen how international capitalist groups strive with great zeal to deprive their rivals of any possibility of competition, to monopolize, for example, deposits of iron or oil, etc. Only the possession of colonies gives the monopoly complete guarantees of success against all the uncertainties of the struggle with rivals, even if these rivals resort to defending themselves through state-imposed monopolies. The more developed capitalism becomes, the more pronounced is the shortage of raw materials, the more intense the competition and the pursuit of sources of raw materials around the world, and the more brutal the struggle for the possession of colonies becomes.

Naturally, bourgeois reformists, and especially today's Kautskyists, try to downplay the significance of these facts by saying that "one could" acquire raw materials on the free market without a "costly and dangerous" colonial policy, and that "one could" greatly increase the supply of raw materials simply by improving agricultural conditions in general. But these statements amount to an apology for imperialism, an idealization of it, because they overlook the essential feature of contemporary capitalism: monopolies. The free market is increasingly becoming a thing of the past; monopolistic unions and trusts restrict it day by day. And the "simple" improvement of agricultural conditions boils down to improving the situation of the masses, raising wages, and reducing profits. But where, other than in the imagination of the smooth-talking reformists, do trusts exist that are capable of caring about the situation of the masses rather than thinking of conquering colonies?

Financial capital is not only interested in known sources of raw materials. It is also concerned with potential sources; for nowadays, technology is developing at an incredible speed, and territories that are unusable today could be made usable tomorrow through new methods (for this purpose, a large bank may organize a special expedition of engineers, agronomists, etc.), by investing significant capital. The same goes for the prospecting of mineral resources, new methods of processing and using certain raw materials, etc. Hence, the inevitable tendency of financial capital to expand its economic territory and, indeed, its territorial holdings in general. Just as trusts capitalize their assets by estimating them at two or three times their value, by discounting their "potential" future profits (rather than their current profits), by factoring in the future outcomes of their monopoly, financial capital generally tends to seize as much land as possible, wherever it may be, by whatever means possible, in the hope of discovering sources of raw materials there and out of fear of being left behind in the fierce struggle for the division of the last unclaimed parts of the world or the redivision of already divided parts.

The English capitalists are doing everything they can to develop cotton cultivation in their colony of Egypt, where in 1904, out of 2.3 million hectares of cultivated land, 0.6 million hectares, or more than a quarter, were already devoted to cotton. The Russians are doing the same in their colony of Turkestan. Both are thus able to more easily defeat their foreign competitors, more easily achieve the monopolization of raw material sources, form a more economical and advantageous textile trust, and establish "combined" production that controls all phases of cotton production and processing.

The export of capital also finds its interests served in the conquest of colonies, because on the colonial market (sometimes the only place where it is possible), it is easier to eliminate a competitor through monopoly methods, secure an order, establish the necessary "connections," etc.

1- The Disastrous Consequences of Colonization on Colonized Countries

1-1- The Establishment of the Trade Economy

The impact of colonization varies depending on whether we consider the period before the industrial revolution or during the industrial revolution.

1-1-1- The Impact of Colonization Before the Industrial Revolution

While Africa was largely spared, the New World was exploited early:

• For example, the Potosí silver mines were the driving force of the Atlantic economy from 1570 to 1630. These deposits are now depleted.
• The same applies to the gold mines of Minas Gerais in Brazil.

Colonization also resulted in freezing the social structures of these countries despite early independence. The agrarian structure with latifundia (large estates) and minifundia (small farms) hindered the creation of an internal market and a dynamic agriculture. Ultimately, it was colonization that often introduced private property, benefiting the colonizers and a privileged minority, who became supporters of the colonial regime.

This led to a concentration of land ownership:

• In Latin America, 1.5% of farms control 50% of arable land.
• In Brazil, 50% of landowners own less than 5% of the land.

1-1-2- During the Industrial Revolution

Starting in England at the end of the 18th century, the industrial revolution spread over time and space, inversely proportional to the distance. It is worth noting that it did not impact countries that had a colonial empire at the time, like Portugal and Spain. It also did not originate from the most commercially active cities with colonies, such as Marseille, Bordeaux, or Nantes in France, or Bristol in England.

Industrialization did not reach the colonies; the metropoles reserved the production of manufactured goods for themselves, assigning the colonies the role of supplying raw materials and agricultural products. Colonization was more a consequence of industrial development than the reverse. Nevertheless, the hindrance of third-world industrialization by colonization is a reality. The best example is the impact of British colonization on the destruction of Indian textile craftsmanship. In 1750, it was estimated that the third world produced three-quarters of the world’s industrial output; by 1860, less than a third, and in the first half of the 20th century, around 7%! It is only since the early 1980s that the share of the third world has increased, mainly due to the rise of the Newly Industrialized Countries (NICs).

Reasons for this blockage include:

• The reduction in maritime transport costs at the end of the 19th century, allowing the export of manufactured goods worldwide.
• The increasing complexity of the industrial revolution process, making it difficult to replicate.
• The absence of a strong state (like those that enabled the rapid industrialization of Peter the Great's Russia or Meiji Japan) and the distance from Britain.
• The lack of a sufficient internal market.

This weakness of southern markets was a handicap even for European industries. Even today, export crops like coffee, cocoa, peanuts, palm oil, tea, cotton, rubber, and others are developed on the best lands, often at the expense of food crops.

Similarly, mineral resources (metals, energy sources like coal and oil) are exploited for the world market. All these "primary" activities feed a "secondary" (industrial) sector in the North, which adds much more value since it requires more qualification.

As the table below indicates, southern countries often depend on a single agricultural or mining product for their exports:

Colonization often imposed currency through taxes, forcing these countries to abandon self-sufficiency and enter an exchange economy. To promote exchanges and tax collection, the colonial state introduced public services like schools, hospitals, and infrastructure such as railways and roads.

1-2- The Myth of Colonies as Sources of Supply for European Productions

The industrial revolution owes nothing to the colonies when it began in Great Britain at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century because Britain did not have a colonial empire at that time.

• A century later, England's trade with the third world represented less than 4% of exchanges.
• Between 1896 and 1900, the colonies accounted for less than 10% of French exports and 8% of imports. In fact, northern countries mostly traded among themselves.

It was only in the 20th century that, for France, colonial trade’s share rose from 13% of total trade in 1913 to 27% in 1933. By then, the colonies absorbed a third of the metropolis's exports and provided it with 23% of its imports. Only after World War II, to counter rising independence movements, did investments conceived as "sovereignty constraints" really take off.

Therefore, while developed countries are important for the third world as markets and sources of supply (especially for food and manufactured products), the third world was not as crucial for developed countries.

1-3- The Myth of Raw Materials as the Pillar of the European Industrial Revolution

While colonization hindered industrialization attempts in colonized countries, there was no plundering of the third world:

• Until the end of World War II, industrialization was built primarily on domestically sourced raw materials, especially iron and coal. In 1953, Western Europe still produced 95% of its energy consumption. Only after the 1950s did the demand for oil require increased imports from the South.
• The "colonial pact" was not as disadvantageous for the colonies. While third-world exports represented a small share of the raw materials used in European industry, for the concerned countries, such exports, particularly of mining products like copper, gold, and tin, provided a significant source of income. The prices they received were not scandalously exploitative! By the late 1950s, the colonial system had almost reversed in favor of overseas countries.

1-4- The Artificial Nature of Borders Explains the Developmental Difficulties of Some Countries

Africa is particularly examined because conflicts in many countries, such as Somalia, Niger, Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Angola, raise questions about the relevance of their borders. Africa's division was indeed made according to Europe's interests:

• From November 15, 1884, to February 26, 1885, the "Berlin Conference" was held in Germany to delineate the spheres of influence of various Western nations. At that time, the future colonial powers had only a vague understanding of the hinterlands beyond the coasts they occupied. They divided Africa along meridians, parallels, and presumed river courses, whose mouths they knew, but rarely the sources or peoples, when they were identified and delimited.
• Proper spheres of influence were established through delimitation agreements between states from 1890 (249 agreements between Britain and France from 1882 to 1908).

When comparing the map of colonized Africa in 1914 with that of modern Africa, the similarity is striking: by then, the current borders were largely determined, with the most significant outcome being the emergence of large linguistic areas, which also became zones of cultural, commercial, and political domination by the colonizing power.

2-   Le Néocolonialisme                                    

To extend European domination in Africa, the powers donned a new "mask": neocolonialism, by establishing a comprador society in each state, installing military bases and creating economic blocs incompatible with the socio-economic development of Africans. Thus, European powers emptied the real content of the notion of independence, making Africans believe that they enjoyed formal political independence, while in fact, neocolonial structures were in place. Africans settled for neocolonialism as a substitute for complete independence of their territories.

In 1967, it was still claimed that, with the black man, Westerners were dealing with a being profoundly different, not only from the white man but also from other human types. Despite differentialist ideologies, Africans tried to unite under Pan-Africanism, but contradictions between African states, border conflicts, conflicts of interest, chauvinism, and xenophobia became significant obstacles. Military coups, civil wars, the roles of political parties and unions, problems with democracy, dictatorships, repression, and the dissolution of opposition parties all have roots in neocolonialism.

2-1- Disastrous Evolution

From the 15th to the 21st century, a series of disasters marked African history. Despite being one of the richest continents in raw materials, Africa is excluded from the World Trade Organization and crumbles under $235 billion in international debt. From 1968 to 1980, during the rise of communism in Africa, the public debt of third-world countries multiplied twelvefold. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development on September 11, 2001, Sub-Saharan Africa remained increasingly impoverished. Twenty-eight million Africans faced severe food shortages in 2001, with the poorest 20% of the African population hit hardest by two decades of slow growth, with incomes dropping by 2% per year. The main causes of the region’s marginalization include reduced public development aid, deteriorating trade terms, rising debt, and ineffective adjustment policies. According to Mr. Ricupero, "African countries face tariff barriers for their exports to industrialized nations and unfair competition due to massive subsidies granted to agricultural producers in advanced countries." On September 18, 2001, UNCTAD reported that capital inflows to Africa in 2000, totaling $9.1 billion, decreased by 13% compared to 1999, reducing Africa's share in global flows to below 1%. To add to the catastrophic economic situation, Africans fight to reclaim their territories, which were previously divided by colonial powers. Some empires, like Mali, were split into several African states: Mali, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau (Portuguese), Guinea-Conakry (French), Equatorial Guinea (Spanish), etc. Armed conflicts frequently erupt along borders rich in diamond deposits, such as in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. The Africa of yesterday is resurfacing. In the 21st century, trade operates as it did in the 15th century, as during medieval Europe. Thousands of people die each year because of economic policies. Since the advent of AIDS, life expectancy in some African countries has dropped by ten to twenty years. According to a report by the Medical Research Council on AIDS in South Africa, released by the "Sunday Times," an AFP dispatch on September 16, 2001, announced: "In the absence of effective measures by 2010, the number of deaths among children aged one to five years will triple, and AIDS-related deaths will be double that of all other causes of mortality. Population growth will cease."

These revelations surprise no one. AIDS treatment in Africa amounts to little or nothing. Researchers flock to Africa, and hundreds of drug or AIDS vaccine trials have been conducted there. Worldwide, millions of HIV-positive individuals are denied their right to mobility, even though travel is sometimes essential for family or professional life. Some countries require "non-infection certificates" for visas and residence permits, or negative serology tests. Europe practices this kind of segregation in Russia, Spain, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Germany. For now, HIV-positive individuals can move freely in France.

3-1 Modern Slavery

In the 21st century, slavery, officially abolished on April 27, 1848, persists in Africa. There are reportedly 200 million slaves today. The victims are still black, but their conditions either evolve or worsen. Once captives during the slave trade, they become slaves under the hands of their new masters. The perpetrators are African and European.

According to figures from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, human trafficking is the third most profitable global activity, after drug and arms trafficking. The European Council of Heads of State is attempting to accelerate the fight against human trafficking. Organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a conference was held on November 17, 2001. The first observation: more than a century and a half after the official abolition of slavery, this practice remains a reality. To traditional slavery and the slave trade, the UN adds child trafficking, child prostitution and pornography, child labor exploitation, female genital mutilation, the use of children in armed conflicts, debt bondage, human trafficking, organ sales, prostitution exploitation, some practices of apartheid and colonial regimes, as well as forced marriage and labor exploitation. In Europe, there are reportedly 250,000 victims.

Globalization, wars, and economic and political conditions explain the persistence of trafficking. However, it would not have reached such proportions without the policies of industrialized countries, which have led to uncontrolled migration flows and increased migrant vulnerability. Fifteen to thirty percent of illegal migrants rely on traffickers, and twenty to forty percent of asylum seekers use the same channels. It is a true crime industry, with profits estimated at between $5 billion and $7 billion per year.

CONCLUSION

Despite the apparent stability of colonial empires from 1914 to 1918, World War I opened cracks in the colonial edifice. The new division of the world took place, with the victors largely benefiting from the spoils of the vanquished, leading to a new wave of exaltation for the colonial idea. However, since the Soviet Revolution, national liberation movements have grown significantly, taking various forms, all aiming to stem the tide of colonized peoples, advocating for unconditional independence.