Then asking for BRICS membership is a richer ask. China is economic powerhouse, Russia is military powerhouse and India is diplomatic powerhouse. BRICS has 3 main pillars, none of which someone asking for a membership can casually hate. Latvia has a better chance with NATO.
I’m not sure what you are talking about. They are literally not asking to join BRICS. And Latvia is part of NATO.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Argentina, Ethiopia are joining BRICS and Europe wants have diplomatic relations with them like everyone else and Latvia’s PM said that other countries that doesn’t have colonial past should lead the conversation (and then he used France’s colonial past as an example) .
All the countries you mention either overcame or have no hatred for the pillar countries I mentioned. Latvia is very much a part of NATO’s colonisation strategies against Russia today. Saudi sided with China, seeing USA has no economic future and stability.
So going by that logic, countries that were colonised before by western powers would’ve done the same thing if they had the same resources? Not that I don’t agree with that, I’m just trying to figure out what you mean
So, these days states forgo colonies only because they lack the resources? Does this apply to e. g. slavery as well? I don’t like this line of thought.
Mostly because all land is claimed by some country or another, and the current occupants could raise enough of an international stink that people come to their defense.
One might argue that what Russia is doing in Ukraine and Georgia is the modern equivalent of colonialism.
I mean the British had a huge role in ending slavery, not because it was the right thing to do but because other countries were doing it better and so it was better to invest in stopping others than doing it themselves
The US and USSR similarly ended most colonialism because they were the most powerful nations in the world and yet couldn’t compete in that field
As countries become powerful, they seek to destroy whatever the previous symbol of power was and replace it with whatever they’re good at until the next newly powerful country comes along
Yes pretty much really using the right definitions, however there’s different types of colonialism - the type where you make your own cities and push out the natives (eg Australia, most of the Americas) is gone, as is the type where you find a (nearly?) uninhabited area/island and use it to expand your influence in the area (eg. Mauritius and Singapore with 0 and 150 population at colonisation respectively) leaving only the type where you take over and control the administration of the existing population, eg in India, most of Africa, the USSR in Central Asia (among other places) and in neocolonialism
It’s also hard to group them all together as “evil colonialism” too though as the 1st and 3rd are of course pretty evil, there’s not a whole lot wrong with the 2nd
Historical sticklers could also note that Latvia had a brief past as a colonial power. The Duchy of Courland, an antecedent to Latvia, held territory on the island of Tobago in the Caribbean and on the Gambia River in West Africa in the mid-1600s.
There are a few obvious wrinkles in his plans. Poland, for example, is probably the most significant European country without a past as a colonial power in Africa, Asia or South America but politicians from around the world will not be blind to some of Warsaw’s latest pronouncements on migration. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki recently said he wants to hold a referendum asking citizens whether they support the arrival of “thousands of illegal migrants coming from the Middle East and Africa.”
So which European country that isn’t racist and doesn’t have a colonial past?
Ireland doesn’t have a colonial past, except in the being colonised sense. While no country is completely without racism, Ireland doesn’t have any racist policies or prime ministers calling for referenda on immigration. Fairly small population though.
Add comment