The peoples of Western Europe had risen from one world of relative poverty and had learnt how to take the wealth from the Americas and transfer it to their own countries. This was slavery and latterly until 1920, indentureship. A whole set up of banks, shipping companies, and insurance companies had arisen to make these transfers possible. From the 1750s the European invaders turned their attention to Asia and systematically began the colonisation process anew. At the same time, as they attempted to colonise and extract the wealth of Asia, the colonising countries began the process we now recognise as industrialisation alongside the rapid growth of cities. The surplus resources extracted through colonisation were used to finance the growth of new industries.

The four nations of Afghanistan, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Libya under Colonel Gaddafi, and Syria under Bassar al AsThe four nations of Afghanistan, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Libya under Colonel Gaddafi, and Syria under Bassar al Assad, were all in their own way attempting to develop their societies by the year 2000. All four had their faults; but all four nations were ‘progressing' on the criterion of development - in popular education, development of infrastructure and industries. As everyone knows, all four were overtly invaded by different variations of the US-led military machine, often alongside proxy forces.

In this blog, I have chosen to explore the examples of Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo to show why countries rich in mineral resources still maintain high levels of people in deep poverty. Nigeria is important as an example as she has been pumping oil for decades. Out of the payments received by the Nigerian State, a new ruling class has arisen that are hugely wealthy. While the Democratic Republic of Congo is the example of my argument. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a huge territory in terms of size. She is blessed with every imaginable commodity. Yet, the Democratic Republic of Congo is one of the poorest countries on our planet.

Recent international humanitarian groups have publicly defined Israeli/Palestinians as a form of apartheid. The consequences have been consistent: war and permanent conflict. Israel's survival as an independent state has been due to the support they have received from the USA. Israel has become the largest per head recipient of financial aid in the world. Israel has a nuclear arsenal and armed forces unlike any other nation in the region.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the western world was stunned. Their hyperbole of criticism and their lack of access to Soviet economic statistics left the Western countries unprepared for what to do next. The USA was prepared to celebrate; their Cold War had been successful, and they moved their best economists to Moscow to advise. From having no access and very limited knowledge, suddenly the situation was reversed. Their imperial ambitions soared.

The key to understanding the Americans and world power after 1945 is that maintaining her competitive advantage has always been her key political concern. That has meant creating and then maintaining key alliances with a select number of nation-states like Israel and the old colonial nations of Europe, Japan, and to a lesser degree South Korea. All the others were nations that needed to be dominated.

The present-day Ukrainian example could not be a better example: The struggle to obtain and then hold onto World Power became the dominant theme of every struggle around the world after 1945. No local struggle however small could be understood after 1945 without an understanding of the dynamics of the global power play. The struggle first manifested itself in the Cold War, from 1948 to 1989. The USSR was seen as an enemy of the USA, throughout this period. The USA organised itself to oppose any move of any state to become Socialist. Past blogs have given many examples. By the 1980s, no means was too horrific for the USA (for a time even torture became normal policy).

Conclusions arising from China’s Global infrastructure on the world stage are still difficult to assess. Do Chinese world policies create a new form of Imperialism as part of the anti-China rhetoric suggests?

That the USA resents the rise of China as a contender for world power is obvious. China is different as a contender state when compared to Germany before 1914 and the USSR after 1945. It is worth our time to consider these large questions?

Chinese foreign policy in the period from 1949 to 2000 was largely defensive and determined to maintain the revolution. Only after the Chinese treasury was replete with US dollars, and after they began to accommodate American and other western global companies, could they begin to develop a global policy. This was part of the story; the other vital aspect was the lesson they learned from the Soviet collapse in 1991.