As the coronavirus became a global pandemic and caused deep tremors, primarily in the U.S., threats directed at China became openly articulated. It appears that the U.S. administration might make China foot the bill for the epidemic through legal action for damages.
Taking over the U.K.’s legacy after World War II, the U.S. used its power to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by globalization. This was an imperialist system developed by the U.K. and France. The first signs of China starting to direct the U.S.-administered system gave rise to Western objections, which was followed by the emergence of the epidemic. The increased number of articles paying their respects to the “farewell of globalization” in Western media is significant. The opinions in Chinese media stating that globalization is suffering reveal the gravity of the process.
As China is likely to establish its dominance over the global system, it is clear the U.S. is extremely worried. Globalization itself is not the issue for the U.S. Challenging statements such as “the rise of Asia” or “Asia Anew” are considered as alternatives to the era that started with the West’s settlement in the American continent. It is safe to say that the process in Turkey, which was described as a “system change,” particularly since the start of the 2000s, is better understood today. The West-based world is collapsing and a new world is being established. Once again, this shows the significance of the independence process of societies that were colonized post-World War II. Despite all negative aspects, the post-colonial era paved the way for specific nationalization.
The perception in Chinese media with respect to alternative supply chains shaking the monocentric global system can be discussed in the context of specific nationalist claims. The imperialist system founded by the U.K. and France was polarizing. Rising nationalism in Europe had played a segregating role within the imperial system between the nation-state and colonial world. It was impossible for Kenyans or Senegalese arriving from the colonies to the U.K. or France to consider either country as their homeland. The U.K. and France’s world of colonies indicated a monocentric order of globalization. This system eventually produced unilateral welfare. Almost all European nations then joined this system which was a product of West European countries. While it was not strange for an Austrian or Polish individual to join a military operation led by France, the strength of the system was in fact based on this diversity. Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” reveals European nations’ participation in the colonial journey in Congo. This was the result of Eurocentric globalization.
Colonialism and imperialism need to be approached within the context of polarizing nationalism. When implemented in other nations, the colonial system, which is built on national elements, contrary to common belief, it is an incomplete process. As its deepest influences impact the mindset, we need to firmly grasp the “polarization” in Turkey. Imperial centers used ostracization to subject people to assimilation and strengthened the imperial system with the mission to “bringing civilization” to certain countries. The ideological groups in Turkey that are loyal to supranational institutions, despite the country’s pro-independence policy, is proof of the deep fractures caused by the ostracization of imperial centers. Yet, all the religious and ethnic groups living in our region consider Anatolia as their homeland. The romantic discourse on the homeland that emerged in the Arab region is based on anti-U.K. and anti-France sentiment. On the other hand, anti-Ottoman sentiment in the Arab region did not turn into an ideological discourse.
Today, we need to discuss the relations being rebuilt in Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Somalia, and Sudan in the context of specific nationalist trends. It is clear that this applies to the Caucasus and the Balkans as well.