When most people hear the word “colonization,” they picture empires, armies, and foreign flags planted on occupied land. Colonialism belongs to history, or so we tell ourselves. Yet while the political structures of colonialism have largely disappeared, many of its underlying dynamics have evolved rather than vanished. Today, influence is exercised less through military occupation than through supply chains, multinational corporations, global markets, certification systems, and investment. Resources continue to move from the periphery to the center, but the ships now carry containers instead of imperial banners. The language has changed from conquest to sustainability, from empire to efficiency, and from extraction to development, while the underlying questions of power, control, and access to resources remain remarkably familiar.
These thoughts came to mind while watching the DW documentary Flatpack Forests: IKEA’s Practices in the Carpathian Mountains. The documentary investigates the complex relationship between the global demand for affordable furniture and the management of Romania’s forests, raising important questions about sustainability, corporate responsibility, and the future of one of Europe’s most valuable natural landscapes. Regardless of where one ultimately stands on the specific allegations presented, the documentary succeeds in prompting a much larger conversation. It encourages us to ask what happens when global demand for inexpensive, environmentally friendly products depends upon forests that local communities have lived alongside and depended upon for generations. I highly recommend watching the documentary before reading further, as it provides valuable context for the broader issues discussed here. More importantly, it reminds us that debates about forests are never simply environmental debates. They are also conversations about human security, governance, and the changing nature of global power.
The New Geography of Colonization
Classical colonialism relied upon direct political control. European empires occupied territories because land provided access to timber, minerals, agricultural products, labor, and strategic trade routes. Decisions about these resources were made in distant capitals, while local populations often had little influence over how their own landscapes were transformed. Although formal colonial empires have largely disappeared, globalization has created new mechanisms through which influence is exercised across borders.
Today, military occupation is rarely necessary. Instead, power frequently operates through ownership structures, international investment, global supply chains, financial markets, certification systems, and consumer demand. Decisions affecting forests in Romania, lithium deposits in Chile, cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or palm oil plantations in Indonesia are often shaped by actors located thousands of miles away. No foreign government governs these territories directly, yet local communities may still find themselves with limited influence over the economic forces reshaping their environments. This does not mean that modern globalization is identical to colonialism, but it does suggest that some of the same questions persist: Who controls natural resources? Who benefits from their extraction? And who bears the environmental and social costs?
Romania’s Forests Are More Than Timber
Romania’s Carpathian Mountains contain some of Europe’s last remaining old-growth forests, ecosystems of extraordinary ecological importance that support bears, wolves, lynx, countless endemic species, and vital biodiversity. Their value, however, extends far beyond conservation statistics or commercial timber production. For generations, forests have provided Romanian communities with fuelwood, medicinal plants, mushrooms, berries, grazing areas, and places deeply woven into local traditions and cultural identity. They are landscapes where people and nature have coexisted through relationships built over centuries.
When forests become viewed primarily as economic assets, this relationship begins to change. The forest gradually shifts from being understood as a living ecosystem supporting communities to being treated as inventory measured by production targets, market demand, and financial value. This transformation reflects one of the defining characteristics of contemporary resource extraction. The question is no longer simply how much timber can be harvested, but whether economic calculations adequately account for the ecological resilience, cultural heritage, and long-term well-being that forests sustain.
Human Security Begins Long Before Trees Are Cut
Environmental discussions often focus on biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, or carbon emissions. These are essential concerns, yet they capture only part of the picture. Human security offers a broader perspective by asking how environmental change affects people’s everyday lives, livelihoods, identities, and future opportunities. Rather than asking only whether forests are being protected, human security asks who benefits from resource extraction, who assumes the risks, and whose voices are included when decisions are made.
Large-scale forest exploitation can affect multiple dimensions of human security simultaneously. Economic security may decline when communities become dependent upon industries whose priorities are determined elsewhere. Environmental security weakens as ecosystems become increasingly fragmented and less resilient to climate change. Community security is challenged when traditional livelihoods disappear, and younger generations leave rural areas in search of employment elsewhere. Food security may also be affected as forest ecosystems that support foraging, pollination, hunting, and water regulation become degraded. Finally, political security enters the discussion when local communities have limited influence over decisions driven primarily by national or international market forces. Forests are therefore not isolated environmental assets. They are living systems that sustain human life in ways that often remain invisible until those systems begin to disappear.
Sustainability Is More Complicated Than Labels
Perhaps the greatest paradox highlighted by the documentary is the tension between sustainability as a marketing promise and sustainability as an ecological reality. Consumers increasingly seek environmentally responsible products, and many companies have invested significant resources in certification systems, sustainable sourcing programs, and environmental reporting. These initiatives have undoubtedly improved many industry practices and deserve recognition for the meaningful progress they have achieved.
Certification alone cannot answer every ethical or ecological question. A product may satisfy legal standards while broader patterns of cumulative extraction continue to alter landscapes in ways that local communities experience as loss. Sustainability therefore cannot be evaluated solely through compliance with existing regulations or certification criteria. It must also consider whether ecosystems remain resilient, whether biodiversity is maintained, whether local communities retain meaningful influence over their natural resources, and whether future generations will inherit landscapes capable of supporting both people and nature.
From Empires to Supply Chains
History has not ended. The mechanisms through which power is exercised have evolved. The world’s most influential actors increasingly shape distant places without occupying them, relying instead on investment, logistics, finance, technology, consumer demand, and global production networks. The modern economy does not require colonies in the traditional sense. It requires reliable access to natural resources and efficient systems capable of moving those resources across international markets.
Recognizing this shift changes how we think about responsibility. Consumers become connected to forests they may never visit, corporations become linked to communities they may never fully know, and governments are asked to balance economic development with environmental stewardship. Every purchasing decision participates, however indirectly, in global networks that connect forests, factories, retailers, and households across continents. These connections remind us that environmental governance is increasingly a shared global responsibility rather than a purely national concern.
Rethinking Security
For much of the twentieth century, security studies focused primarily on military threats, territorial defense, and armed conflict. While these concerns remain important, the twenty-first century requires a broader understanding of what makes societies secure. A nation does not become vulnerable only when another army crosses its borders. It can also become vulnerable when the ecosystems that sustain its communities are steadily transformed by economic forces operating beyond local control.
Forests regulate water supplies, stabilize soils, store carbon, preserve biodiversity, and sustain cultural identity. Protecting them is therefore far more than an environmental objective. It is an investment in long-term human security, economic resilience, and social stability. The debate surrounding Romania’s forests should not be reduced to determining whether one company is right or wrong. Instead, it should encourage a broader discussion about the global systems that drive resource extraction, the responsibilities shared by governments, corporations, and consumers, and the kind of relationship we wish to build with the natural world. If colonialism once relied upon military power to secure access to resources, today’s world often relies upon markets and supply chains. Understanding that transformation is essential if we hope to build an economy that values forests not only for what they produce, but for what they make possible: resilient ecosystems, resilient communities, and a more secure future for us all.