Group Three.

I have read a lot about the origins of the international communications, and it always ceases to amaze how the Western world’s “information imperialism” evolved over time. One of the topics relevant to this that always catches my interest is the laying the transatlantic cables. The map of the British undersea cables illustrates how they strategically placed these cables, and the progressive intersection between the private sector’s capital investment to serve the government’s global interests. As the article mentioned, “The cables were, in the words of Headrick, ‘an essential part of the new imperialism” (7). This sounds to me dreadfully familiar case to the most recent laying of broadband cable lines all around the continent of Africa…




I briefly discussed in class how, through my internship, I began to change my mind about the role Information and Communication Technologies for Development, and this is part of the reason. Not because technology may help the efficiency and effectiveness of international development missions and field workers, but rather, whose interests they were truly serving. Are they trying to truly improve the socioeconomic conditions and the lives of Africans, or are the private corporations and government leaders (who usually have a huge stake in the country’s telecommunications company) just looking for a new niche market? I may sound like a capitalist cynic, but international communications does play a huge role in international development, especially in who controls the information to those in the "third world". So is the burgeoning of Internet access a new form of Western capitalist imperialism, a form of true betterment for those in need, or a combination? Let me know if you have the answer because I'm still trying to work it out myself.