Neo-imperialism and the masks of globalization
America’s Vice President, JD Vance’s remarks at the recent American Dynamism Summit expose a harsh reality that many in the so-called Global South—particularly Nigeria—have long understood but rarely had articulated in the corridors of Western power: globalisation, in its current form, has been a mechanism of exploitation masquerading as progress. His critique of American industry’s addiction to cheap labour and the fallacy that manufacturing and design could be separated speaks to a broader reality that extends beyond the United States.
For countries like Nigeria, this perspective offers an opportunity for critical introspection, revealing the ways in which globalisation has entrenched economic dependence, stagnated domestic industrial growth, and perpetuated a modern form of imperialism disguised as economic liberty.
For decades, Nigeria has been sold the dream of global integration: an open market, foreign investments, and the promise of economic mobility. In reality, this model has often translated into an asymmetric relationship where multinational corporations extract resources and cheap labour (recall the ongoing Japa wave) while offering little in terms of technological transfer or sustainable development. The logic Vance outlines—that manufacturing nations inevitably climb the value chain—should serve as a warning to Nigeria. While Western nations once believed they could offshore labour while retaining intellectual dominance, China’s ascent proves otherwise. Similarly, we must recognise that remaining an exporter of raw materials and a consumer of finished goods ensures perpetual economic subjugation.
Our continued reliance on crude oil exemplifies the trap of resource dependency within the global economic structure. The wealth rarely trickles down to ordinary Nigerians. Meanwhile, manufacturing—an industry that could create jobs and stimulate innovation—remains stunted due to systemic underinvestment, infrastructural decay, and an education system that does not align with industrial needs.
The global economic order continues to function on a principle of disguised imperialism—where the West dictates terms under the guise of market liberalisation. Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank in the 1980s forced Nigeria to deregulate, privatise, and cut social spending, leaving a legacy of weakened industries and public institutions. Today, foreign direct investments (FDIs) and international partnerships are hailed as the keys to progress, yet they often come with predatory conditions that prioritise corporate profit over national development.
Moreover, the ideological rhetoric of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ that underpins Western economic interventions continues to mask this control. Nigeria’s fintech revolution, for example, has been hailed as a beacon of African innovation, yet the dominant players remain backed by Western venture capital, effectively placing control of the financial infrastructure in foreign hands. The same is true for agriculture, where multinational agribusinesses patent seeds and control supply chains, reducing Nigeria’s food sovereignty.
If there is one lesson Nigeria must take from Vance’s critique of globalisation, it is that economic sovereignty cannot be outsourced. Participating in the global market is inevitable, but it must be done on terms that prioritise national interests.
Nigeria must reject the idea that free markets alone will drive development. Instead, it should adopt a strong industrial policy that protects nascent industries, incentivises local production, and ensures foreign companies engage in meaningful technology transfer. Just as Vance acknowledges that manufacturing nations eventually master innovation, Nigeria must invest in education systems that align with industrial and technological needs. Rather than churning out graduates for an already saturated labour market, curricula must be reoriented towards skills that drive self-sufficiency in manufacturing and technology.
We must also take a cue from historical development models where nations that successfully industrialised did so through measured protectionist policies. Tariffs on imported goods that can be produced locally, incentives for domestic production, and a crackdown on smuggling are essential to protecting the economy. Likewise, Nigeria must build domestic financing mechanisms that reduce dependency on foreign capital. A reliance on Western venture capital or international loans places Nigeria in a cycle of dependency where economic decisions are dictated externally. Indigenous innovation hubs, government-backed funding, and intra-African investments must be strengthened.
Vance’s ultimate argument—that American industry must reclaim its manufacturing base—mirrors what we must do. The global economy will not spare those who fail to build resilience. If Nigeria remains content with exporting raw materials and importing technology, it will continue to languish at the mercy of more industrialised nations.
Western nations are waking up to the failures of their own globalisation models and taking corrective action to regain lost ground. Nigeria must do the same—except, in our case, the stakes are even higher. Economic dependency breeds political subjugation. If Nigeria is to be truly independent, it must reimagine its place in the global order—not as a passive participant, but as an active architect of its own future.
