Control Is the Way

Has imperialism really disappeared from the world, or is “occupation” its direct continuation? And what does that say about the right of the United States to impose democracy in the Arab world?

Why the Americans? Why the English? Why the French? Why the Belgians? Why the Portuguese? How come all of these, and their predecessors, viewed colonialism as a necessary phenomenon and defined it in terms that perhaps no longer exist today — “empire” and “imperialism”?

The ultimate reason is the lust for profit and power. The English and the French considered Africa an important destination through which to rule, according to the theory, the entire world. Africa constituted an important factor for advancing the aforementioned continental imperialism, with national assets important to both the English and French simultaneously: silver, coal, oil and manpower that ultimately turned into the means for global control. In short: everything that a colonialist-imperialist country should be (or at least had to be).

The United States (in the days of Bush, Jr.) aided in the development of a policy based on a new perspective, one that taught that colonialism was neither worthwhile nor profitable. But the question is asked, has colonialism not altered its form and is it expressed today as a concept that is hard for people to hear — occupation?

Perhaps this comparison is related to the control of the Palestinian population, or the population of the allegedly occupied Kosovo (the government of Belgrade considers it to be an inseparable part of its sovereign land. The Serbian foreign minister, during his visit to Israel, defined the district of Kosovo as the “Jerusalem of Serbia”). And perhaps it relates to the occupied Iraq or the Kurdish region occupied under the occupied Iraq (which is supposed to be called the “Republic of Kurdistan”); or perhaps Lebanon, semi-occupied by the Syrians, Iranians and the entire Arab world; or maybe the regions of South America that are culturally occupied by the Spanish, and the list goes on.

That being the case, we often try to reach conclusions based on false factual claims. Are the Americans the ones who can lead the “empire” of freedom, equality and democracy in the 21st century?

Did the American researchers not perceive Bush Jr.’s government, which had been in power from mid-2001 until about a year ago, to be leading policies that were wrong both in theory and in practice? Was Bush’s government really one that ought to have led the Arab world to freedom and democracy, based on the theory of struggling for release from the “Axis of Evil,” for the freedom and justice of the numerous Arab people? (I am not referring to the Islamic people, rather simply to the Arab people). Is it not more accurate to view the occupation as a direct descendant of the colonialism of the past? True, colonialism was not one-dimensional either and the French, for example, granted the Maghreb countries the option of choosing whether to become an inseparable part of France (and their choice was a slap in the face to the republic of General Charles de Gaulle).

It’s not the difference, it’s the poverty

Let’s return to the subject of America: The United States is following the rigid path of “occupation for the sake of freedom.” Who was or is right? Was it Bush Jr.? Have we not been exposed to a failed attempt to continue in the steps of his father? Bush’s Republican policy failed throughout all of his two terms in the White House. If not for the global terror, there is no doubt that the Democrats would have returned to power back in 2004. Bush’s attempt to release the Arab world from dictatorship failed.

No rational person sees before him the near dismantling of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the establishment of a democratic republic of Jordan, nor the similar process anticipated in Egypt; we do not see the government in Iraq or Afghanistan as capable of lasting. All this — on account of the fact that the societies in those countries were used to living, for generations, under circumstances of dictatorship, discrimination and depression.

In addition, countries that went through democratization are not showing signs of success, as seen in the example of Lebanon (the incessant failure of electing a president, the lack of integration between the government and the people, the presence of guerrilla groups in the parliament). Understanding the American reasoning of the Bush administration regarding global democratization is one big speculation. The Arab countries will not be able to exist as democracies and the United States would not have been able to change that; even President Obama understands the meaning of the situation today.

Obama, in contrast to Bush, understands — though a thousand times differently — the United States’ position in both the Arab and Muslim worlds simultaneously. The American government today understands that it needs to strengthen partnerships and not to continue deteriorating the situation.

In the end, these facts imply that in the 21st century, the conquering force is defined as imperialistic (for example, according to the approach of the pro-Arab president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez). That is — despite the fact that oil and other central points of power are found in the hands of countries in the Arab world and the third world — highly ironic.

Is that the difference between colonialism and modern-day occupation? And maybe the gravity is not in the difference, but in the poverty?