Third WorldQuarterly, Vol22, No 1, pp 51 – 63, 2001 Internalcolonisation, development andenvironment PETER CALVERT ABSTRACT ‘Internal colonisation’is apoorlyde ned term, butno other phrase so accurately captures the full natureof the complexinteractions involved.Here the term ‘internal colonisation’is usedin abroadbut quite specic sense, to designatethe process bywhich, on the pretext of ‘development’, large parts of manySouthern states are still in effect beingcolonised by their ownruling elite. Theprocess parallels in all importantrespects external colonisationand is in essence the sameprocess, differentiated onlyby its geographicallocation. Just as towns formeda key link in colonisation,the use of political powerto bring aboutenclosure andencourage the growthof settlements gives the elite the ability to developboth town and countryside. The urbanisation of the country- side andthe expansionof towns are therefore eachspecial cases of the desire to control landand use its capacityto generatewealth. The accelerated growth of urbansettlements in the Southhas, however, serious implications for the environment.Thus the conceptof internal colonisationhelps explainthe distinc- tive natureof environmentalpolitics in the South. Theterm ‘internal colonisation’is notnew, but it has neverbeen particularly well dened and as aresult bothit andthe related term ‘internal colonialism’ havegained at least fourrather different meanings. 1 Theearliest sense referredto physical conquestwithin, not across, political boundaries.‘ Internal colonialism’was usedin this wayby Lenin in 1896to describe the Tsarist autocracy’s creation byforce of the Russian Empireas an internal market forcapital centredin St Petersburgand Moscow. 2 In a similar sense the NordicInstitute ofAsian Studies used‘ internal colonisation’in 1996 to refer to the physical conquestof the non-Hanpeoples in Chinaby the governmentof the People’s Republic. 3 Bothbefore and since, however,states haveadopted the policyof colonisation of‘ unoccupied’lands within their ownnational territory. Byits advocatesthis has beencalled ‘development’but it toohas beentermed ‘internal colonisation’. As in Brazil in the 1960sand1970 s, sucha policycan serve adualpurpose as amethodof avoiding calls foreffective reformof land ownership. The relationship ofthis idea to the colonial contextwas madeclear byAdolf Hitler, whenin 1925he dismissed ‘internal colonisation’as asolution forwhat he saw as the approachingMalthusian crisis ofthe Reich,which had lost its overseas colonies as aresult ofthe Great War. 4 Instead hedemanded Lebensraum, ‘living Peter Calvert is inthe Department of Politics, University ofSouthampton, Southampton S017 IBJ, UK. ISSN0143-6597 print; 1360-2241 online/ 01/010051-13 Ó 2001 ThirdWorld Quarterly DOI: 10.1080/01436590020022574 51 PETER CALVERT space,’in whichthe Germanpeople could create anewexternal empire by establishing dominanceover their neighboursin Eastern Europe.Since landthat is ofany use to supporthuman li fe is veryrarely genuinelyunoccupied, this usageof ten implies the subjection ofethnic minorities to adominantculture. The notionof ‘ internal colonialism’as the dominanceof one race overanother appearsin adifferent contextwhen Stokely Carmichael andCharles VHamilton, writing in 1967,use it to describe the situation ofblack people in the USA,and evenmore recently in descriptions ofthe subjection ofminorities in Africa, notablyin Rwandaand Burundi. 5 Athird set ofmeanings derives fromthe dependencythesis anddescribes the wayin which,within asingle set ofpolitical institutions anda unitarymarket, aperipherycould be subjected to aninferior economicstaus byadominantcore. Inthis sense it was usedby the USwriter Michael Hechterin 1975when in his Internal Colonialism hesoughtto arguethat, in the division oflabour within the UK,Scotland (and Wales andIreland) had been denied full industrial develop- ment andbeen largely conned to the productionof food and raw materials. 6 AlthoughHechter himsel flater modied this thesis, it has beencomprehensively disproved:in fact Scotlandtook the lead in industrial developmentin the 18th centuryand engineering and shipbuilding placed the Central Lowlandsat the ‘core’and not the ‘periphery’in the 19thcentury. 7 However,the thesis had alreadybeen adopted by some Scots Nationalists as anargumentfor separatism. Inrecent years aninteresting variant ofthe dependencythesis has emergedas ecologists havebegun to use the term to refer to the ‘enclosure’of the commons bythe rulingelites ofThird World states. 8 Underthe heading‘ Fromcolonialism to colonialism’, TheEcologist has notedhow in IndiaNehru and his successors hadrejected the Gandhiandream of agrarian self-suf ciency. They set outto industrialise Indiaby export-orientedgrowth, and other new states in the course oftime soughtto dothe same: Aprocessof internal colonization, as devastating to the commons as anything that hadgone before it, was thusset in motion. Using the slogans of ‘ nation-building’ and‘ development’to justify their actions, Third World governments have employed thefull panoply of powers established under colonial rule to further dismantle (sic) thecommons. Millions have lost their homelands— or the land they made their home—to make way for dams,industrial plants, mines, military security zones, wastedumps, plantations, tourist resorts, motorways, urban redevelopment and otherschemes designed to transform the South into an appendage of the North. 9 But ofcourse the rulingelites whotake the decisions haveno intention of convertingtheir countries into ‘anappendage of the North’. Intheir eyes theyare simply makinguse ofthe powerthe international market affordsto consolidate their ownposition as anurbanised elite rulinga countrystill, after 50years of independence,largely rural.It is in this last sense that the term ‘internal colonisation’is usedhere, to designate the process bywhichlarge parts ofmany Southernstates (andof the countrysidein some Northernones) are still in effect beingcolonised by their ownruling elite; whetherfor political oreconomic reasons doesnot matter, since the twoare in fact inseparable. 10 This is notjust ametaphorical usage,to beavoided because of the obviousrisk that it will 52 INTERNAL COLONISATION , DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT detract fromthe uniquenessof the colonial experience. 11 It is a colonial experience,though in anew(or revived) guise, and it is sucha useful term that its valuedeserves to bemuchmore widely recognised. The fact is that noother phraseso accurately captures the full natureof the complexinteractions involved. Why‘ internal’? Because,despite the widespreadtendency among environ- mentalists to blame the forces ofinternational capitalism forall that happensin Southernstates, theycould not act there at all if it werenot for the active co-operationof the indigenouselites. Thedependency theorists fully realised this. ‘Aneconomicclass orgrouptries to establish throughthe political process asystem ofsocial relations that permits it to impose onthe entire society asocial formof production akin to its owninterests; orat least it tries to establish alliances orto controlthe othergroups or classes in orderto developan economicorder consistent with its interests andobjectives’ . 12 Thesame pro- cesses ofindustrialisation, urbanisationand environmental degradation, more- over,took place in the formerUSSR and Eastern Europe,despite the fact that at the time theywere not part ofthe worldcapitalist order. Andwhy ‘ colonisation’? Thereare three keyreasons. It is the argumentof this paperthat: a) internal colonisation parallels in all important respects external colonizationand that in fact theyare in essence the same process,differentiated onlyby their geographicallocation (the ‘bluewater’ fallacy); b)the key instrument ofcolonisation was the townor city andinternal colonisation is foundedon the relationship betweendevelopment and urbanisation; andc) we needthe term in orderbetter to understandenvironmental politics in boththe advancedindustrialised countries ( AICs) andthe South.Let us lookat eachof these in turn. Internal colonisation as colonisation Internal colonisation parallels in all important respects external colonisation, characterised as it is bysettlement; extensionof political control; relations of superordination/subordination;implied oractual use ofcoercion. Althoughthe term ‘colonisation’actually derives fromthe Latin colonus, meaning‘ afarmer’, classical colonies werein fact daughtersettlements ofa self-governingcity state. Whenthey became cities themselves, theyexpected to gaintheir independenceand in the earlier stages ofthe process,they generally did so. Inthe modernage of colonialism, the notionof ultimate self-government seldom survived.Indeed, in large parts ofthe worlduntil after the SecondWorld Warit was assumed that the tutelage andhence superordination of the colonial powerwould be maintained indenitely. Onlysparingly was actual coercion used,since the keyto effective colonisation was still the city. The‘ NewLaws’ of15 42laid downrules forthe layoutand government of cities whichformed the basis forthe expansionand consolidation of the SpanishEmpire. Later, the African portcities suchas Dakar,Lagos, Cape Town and Durban and the Asian portcities ofBombay, Calcutta, Singaporeand Saigon, among others, were to formthe essential bridgeheadf romwhich the inuence of the imperial powers 53 PETER CALVERT couldbe projected inland. By the 19thcentury these hadbecome showcases of modernity,to beadmired, envied and emulated. Ininternal