HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The
Hyper-Imperialist Paradigm
Part
4 of four-part series
by
B.J. Sabri
Read
Part Three of this series
When
Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet State, described “imperialism” as “the
highest stage of capitalism”, he did not expect that his Communist model would
succumb, in the end to that same capitalism he coherently refuted; and that his
revolutionary Russia would re-join the imperialist club as if history did not
occur. However, the analytical descriptive conclusion that Lenin gave to
imperialism is never outdated in its contextual theorization or praxis; it only
needs an update, as economic factors alone are no longer sufficient to drive
the imperialist enterprise forward. The updated version should read
“Hyper-imperialism is the highest stage of supremacist ideology of capitalistic
globalization, biblical zeal, and Zionism.” Further, hyper-imperialism, albeit global in nature, is mostly American in its
practical procedures and way of implementation, and Zionist in its ideological
outlook and justificatory platform.
For
globalization and pertinent supremacist ideology to succeed, the epicenter of
world financial powers and banking institutions (the US controls most of them)
must be able to decide on nations’ limits of sovereignty, amount of debt and
interest rate, their economic models, their relations with international
financial capital, and the trend of their socio-economic development. The union
between the forces of globalization, military concerns, and builders of
expansive hyper-imperialist ideology is a fundamental tool to create, direct,
distribute, and to coalesce all rationales required for the acceptance of the
hyper-imperialist enterprise.
For
biblical zeal to succeed, the arms of globalization must be strong, weaponized,
and capable to extend a predetermined theological pattern along the econo-ideological
pattern that, in this case, functions as a protector, facilitator, and
promoter. According to this askew view, an expansionist power can impose, as a
byproduct, its theological pattern as well. The ideological premise behind this
un-original assumption (evangelization during the mercantilist era followed the
same line of thinking) is that a superior military power is, by pretended
inevitability, also a depository of superior theological power. Example of
this: Billy Graham announced his readiness to commence the evangelization of
Iraq! Aside from this, other extremist American biblical factions with Zionist
inclination want to see the history of the Middle East as chapters from
biblical mythology and metaphysical divination that their time is upon us.
For
Zionism to succeed the ideological premises are more complex. The most
important among these is that a movement that chose history as a legitimizing
alibi negates history! In the geographical context (the Middle East) where the
West implanted Zionism, negation of history is not feasible without erasing
forces and societies that oppose its illegitimate establishment. To annul its
sense of regional isolation and historical incongruity, Zionism, in collusion
with the West, opted for military confrontation as a means to create forced
acceptance, thus assert its identity and existence. However, since negation of
history in an actual living context is materially impossible, Israel, if it does
not repudiate Zionism, will be in perpetual wars with others, and its triumphs
are only transient in nature and durability. Ending Zionism is not equal to
ending Israel. Israel’s most logical historical choice is to abolish its
anti-historical ideology thus allowing the region to live in peace. (During the
Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, European papers published a caricature of
Menachem Begin, pounding on his desk and exclaiming, “now that we convinced
them that we exist, we have to convince them that they do not exist!”)
In
its international context, Zionism depends on two elements: 1) relentless
falsification of Middle East and world histories, and 2) control on political
nerve centers of world power to influence their reaction to it. Once the Middle
East is subdued, Zionism will no longer confine itself to its regional sphere.
From this perspective, the functional existence of Israel is not a separate
sub-field from the specific context of western colonialism or imperialism and
their long-term objectives. It is the main field. As the rise of Israel in the Middle East is the product of huge
Western investment, the connubiality between Zionism and Western imperialism’s
objectives was a response to a future strategic necessity by the West for an
ally to counter the rise of Arab nationalism that owns oil but fights for
emancipation from Western domination.
Again,
in historical context, the emergence of Israel as a regional superpower and as
an undeclared world nuclear power, together with its control of US foreign
policy has produced a contract. While the US is required to fight all Israel’s
adversaries, Israel is required to pave the way for the US imperialistic
expansion in the region. (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times once reported
that should Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel ask Senator Joseph Lieberman to jump,
the latter would reply how high.)
Consequently,
with the effective demilitarization of Egypt consequent to its peace with
Israel, the military occupation of the Arabic peninsula, the occupation of
Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel has become de facto the sole military, political
and economic arbiter of the Middle East. How is it possible that a country that
is 8,500 square miles, has no natural resources, and with a population of five
million people, mostly immigrants, become a military superpower? How is it
possible that Israel became a nuclear power in the first place? The answer is
simple. The rise of Israel is due to free western money, free western
technology, free American military hardware, free ammunitions, loan guaranties,
indemnifications, blackmail for reparations, and miscellaneous. Israel,
therefore, is a pure western, in particular American, econo-military
enterprise; which after it attained enough colonialist-imperialistic maturity
is now on the move to build its own Zionist empire.
To
illustrate the Zionist-American collusion for war against Iraq, a valid example
is the following passage from a report (Clear Break: A New Strategy for Secure
the Realm. July 8, 1996) prepared for Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel by a group
of American Zionists lead by two of the architects of the last aggression
against Iraq, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith (When Netanyahu addressed a joint
session of the US Congress on July 10, 1996, he based his speech on Perle’s
report):
“… Israel can shape its strategic
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing,
and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein
from power in Iraq—an important Israeli objective in its own right—as a means
of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of
the Hashemites in Iraq.” [6]
The
US and the West have had a long experience in executing military occupation
projects; indeed, all of what an occupation needs to continue, are planning, military
helicopters, and the will to kill in case of a anti-colonial revolt. In the
Iraqi example, the US is executing its “democratic” hyper-colonialist project
along the following directions: 1) Legitimizing US occupation; 2) Control of
oil and economic mechanisms; 3) Interim authority and American control; and 4)
Fuzzy Americo-cracy [Iraqi democracy project].
After
the US devastation of Iraq, the killing of thousands of civilians, and the
immense damage inflicted on the psychological sanity of the Iraqis, who will
etch America’s premeditated hyper-terrorism on their permanent collective
memory, what will the US do to make its occupation an accepted fact?
A
question: what were the legitimate means that the colonists and the government
of the United States used to force the Native Nations out of their ancestral
lands and confine them in large concentration camps called reservations?
Answer: none; except force, specifically lethal force. The violent enforcer of
the transfer is not concerned with legitimacy or ethical considerations, but
rather with establishing precedents that can take a life of their own. In the
colonialist code of conduct, ethical considerations are for the weak to
observe; stronger nations follow a different path. How could this happen? The
answer is simple: superior military force that fears no retaliation, but can
easily afford a modest loss or damage, can impose any solution. How is the US
applying this simple finding in Iraq?
After
the aggression, as Iraq is lying in ruin and near social collapse, and as
operation “Iraqi Freedom” changed to operation “Iraqi Occupation”, the US
turned its attention to implement the hyper-imperialist agenda. Consequent to
this, the US/UK moved quickly to introduce other foreign troops, declared they
are occupying powers, and through an unparalleled imperialistic bargain
obtained the UNSC recognition of accomplished facts. How could it be possible that the world acknowledge such a
conquest? Very easy, the world is composed of five mafia-like council members:
one is a hyper-imperialist mastodon that rules everything; the second is a
spent imperialist power still pretending greatness, the other three are pure
nothingness pretending importance.
Australian
prime minister John Howard touched the nadir of the imperialist legalistic
theorizations when he declared that it is now redundant to discuss the
illegality of the war against Iraq, as the war happened! If this is the case, then
if A were to kill B, it is therefore redundant to call it murder thus sending A
to trial because the event happened! In real history time-lines, if what Howard
opined is historical criterion, then Britain and France should not have
declared war against Germany, after Hitler occupied Austria, Czechoslovakia,
and Poland! Since the occupation happened, it was, hence, useless to discuss
its legality. Was Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait legal because it happened?
Consequently, why should the world accept Iraq’s occupation because it
happened? Colin Powel joins the foray by declaring in Rumsfeldian lingo “what
passed is in the past”.
The
epitome of legitimizing the US open-ended occupation and Iraq’s subtle
conversion to a colony cannot find more confirmation than in resolution 1483.
With its implicit declaration that the US and the UK are in effect occupying
powers, and with a limited advisory role given to the UN, none of the 24
articles of the resolution specifies the nature, duration, function, and
perspectives of the occupation. In short, the US is not putting its occupation
of Iraq up for discussion. Despite the uninspiring language of resolution 1483
used to describe the possible future of an Iraq under US control, there is not
even a faint mention of its oil wealth and all strategic implications
associated with it. The only thing that the hyper-imperialist are concerned
with is the export and sale of oil under prevailing international market
practices (Articles # 18 and 20).
Hyper-imperialism
is extremely astute, although it always pretends meekness. Let me explain, to
perpetuate its stranglehold on Iraq, the US, who entered Baghdad without a
fight, and who cannot prove that Iraq has WMD, continues to play the game of
Iraq’s threat. A paragraph in the preamble reads “[T]he situation in Iraq,
although improved, continues to constitute a threat to international peace and
security”. If this is the case, Iraq’s threat, even after the US reduced it to
a shadow of itself, is like Einstein’s universe: endless and expanding! Do
Germany, France, China, and Russia believe in the US/UK propagandistic trash?
Of course not; but inter-imperialist solidarity, ethical hypocrisy, and
congenital pusillanimity make those countries an auxiliary force for a dicast
dedicated to the execution of its imperialist agenda.
With
its 200 billion barrels of probable reserves, of which 112 billion barrels are
proven reserves, Iraq is the flashiest colonialist prize in the entire history
of humanity. The nature of the hyper-imperialist expedition came immediately to
the foreground, the moment when the US began the re-structuring of the Iraqi
oil industry, even before the Iraqis had the chance to bury their dead. Indeed,
by setting up an American-style oil corporation to replace the Iraqi National
Petroleum Company, by appointing an American to chair it, one Iraqi vice-chairman,
by choosing 15 non-Iraqi international advisors, and where all decisions on
policy is made by this board, oil emerges as the single most important thing in
the hyper-imperialist equation of war against Iraq. [7]
However,
the most ambitious design of the colonialist-imperialist project is the Israeli
connection to oil. Even before Iraq has a “transitional” government, before it
has a representative government, before it decides its own fate, Iraq is
required to recognize Israel and supply oil to it. It is obvious that a freely
elected Iraqi government will definitely reject such a proposal under the
current conditions of the Middle East, but an American imposed government may
agree. The story of the war and occupation of Iraq, Israel, oil, and oil
pipelines is one un-extricable yarn that one can deduce without indulging in
too much analysis. The symbiotic linkage between the US hyper-imperialists,
American Zionists, and Israel, where the US is acting as a subaltern entity
necessary to implement Israel’s agenda is beyond refutation, and any diligent
cross-examination can confirm this conclusion.
Ed Vuillamy reports on the Observer, April
12, 2003, “Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq
to Israel are being studied between Washington, Tel Aviv, and potential future government
figures in Baghdad”. He continues “…Now, its resurrection [pipeline] would
transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new
US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria, and solving Israel’s energy crisis at a
stroke”. He further adds “...The pipeline would cut Israel’s energy bill
drastically by more than 25 percent” And finally he reports that “…One former
CIA official said: “It has been a long dream of a powerful section of the
people now driving this administration and the war in Iraq to safeguard
Israel’s energy supply”. (Emphasis added) [8]
There
is an adage in business management positing: “Any activity that extends beyond
the time required to accomplish it is a liability”. By leaving an open-ended military
presence, US War Secretary Rumsfeld reinforces two notions: 1) American
occupation indeed is permanent for now, and 2) Iraqis or others cannot do
anything about it. Consequently, the only valid way to expel the Americans from
a national territory of a state is war against its emerging colonialist
structures.
Rumsfeld,
assures Iraqis that “Iraq belongs to them” and promised that US troops would
not stay “one day longer” than was needed to establish a democratic
government”. Rumsfeld in just a few words told the whole gospel of the
hyper-imperialist theology. If Iraq
belongs to Iraqis, then what is the US doing there? It is interesting to see
how the Israeli hand is working in American occupied Iraq. L. Paul Bremer, a
supporter of Israel and the current US ruler of Iraq is now talking about an
“Iraq Authority” instead of provisional government; does this remind you of the
concept of “Palestinian Authority” designed by Israel for the
Palestinians?
Fuzzy
Iraqi democracy project: Americo-cracy or democracy?
Hyper-imperialism,
colonialism, and democracy projects for nations under military occupation are
incompatible as freedom vs. slavery, contradictory as peace vs. war, and
immiscible as fire vs. water. Only arrogant hyper-imperialists will attempt to
mix them together. Further, in the US language of imperialism, the democracy
alibi has been always a synonym with interventionist policies. For example,
during the entire dictatorial rule of the Somoza dynasty (Garcia, Luis, and
Anastasio) in Nicaragua (1937 – 1974), the US never spoke of democracy for
Nicaraguans; when the Sandinistas took power, the cry for democracy
erupted. Because talking about
democracy is not the purpose of this writing, because democracy is not a
separate issue of humanistic development of societies, and because no state is
entitled to use the democracy idea as an interventionist alibi, I shall limit
myself to a few polemic paragraphs about the US definition of democracy in
relation to Iraq.
We
do not have to go to Plato, Athens, Aristotle, and Alexis de Tocqueville to
understand democracy. Because demo is people, and cracy is power;
then where do you really find a country where the people rule? Is the notion of
democracy an exclusive American heritage?
Is the American model so seriously and intensely democratic, that the US
wants to export it to Iraq in exchange for its oil reserves? Is the fate of
democracy in the world a serious concern for the United States? To uncover
contradictions in the discussion of the democracy principle, the following
question is in order: although the US has achieved many positive results in the
exercise of democracy on domestic levels only, what kind of a democracy is it
anyway?
The
most salient features of the American democracy are: 1) Affluent corporations
buy the politicians through donations. 2) Two identical parties exclude all competitions.
3) A half to two thirds of its voters lost interest in voting. 4) Popular vote
does not count, thus leaving the undemocratic Electoral College to decide the
outcome of vote. 5) Voters are not enlightened on issues. 6) People do not
frame the issues. 7) Television frames the issues and directs the taste but not
the reasoning of voters. 8) Voters’ role ends immediately after they voted. 9)
The whole election contest is reduced to two presidential debates where
contenders memorize their lines, and where moderators ask pre-agreed questions.
10) Voters have no checks and balances on foreign policy issues or even
domestic issues, unless it is on a micro-level (town level). 11) Only rich
people or people supported by the rich can run for the presidency. 12) Party
bosses in control of the electoral process select candidates, and the voters
have the right to select one of them.
Based
on the preceding paragraph, I would like to propose a polemical question: which
is better, a dictatorial democracy, or democratic dictatorship? In debating the
democracy principle, the absurdity of this proposition is no less absurd than
the following gem of US political thinkers. Kenneth Arrow, an American
economist, has pushed the notion of freedom of choice in the US democracy to a
comatose end when he theorized that more than two choices would produce a
stalemate in voters! Arrow’s postulation cannot survive a critical examination:
if the reasonable choice is C, but you ask the voters to choose only between A
and B, which are not reasonable, then although C is the right choice, it is not
among the choices offered! The discussions on American democracy becomes more
intriguing and tortuous when political scientists postulate “constructive
apathy” which holds that activism by the people subverts and destabilize
democracy, thus only the elites can discern democracy requirements! What
happened to participatory democracy!
Further,
are voting and the freedom to vote democracy? The answer is no, as voting is
only one part of the democracy ideal. In addition, a Hobson’s choice democracy like
the current US, is a system where the contenders offer very similar choices,
and you have the freedom to choose between them. This is how US ideologues
define democracy and how they want the Iraqis to understand it: the freedom to
vote on agents paid and chosen by Washington, thus sanctioning American
occupation, directly or by proxy of its Iraqi agents. After the design of
Iraq’s future according to US will is completed, the US will declare that the
“Iraqi people have spoken.” A true Iraqi democracy will expel the US out of
Iraq immediately; therefore, it is doubtful that the US would allow an Iraqi
democracy to take root. In the meanwhile, imperialists and Zionists will toy
with idea of democracy expecting the Iraqis to buy its superficial meaning!
Now,
which democracy model is the US preparing for Iraq: direct, representative,
Swiss, Danish, Islamic, tribal, Arabic, utopian, Martian, dollarcracy,
Musharaffist, Afghani, Lilliputian, Haitian, Romanian, Russian, or Iraqi
Americo-cracy (US-imposed democracy model)?
At
this stage, hyper-imperialism is winning. History, however, is much more
complicated than one passing episode. Despite all their weapons, all the cities
they destroyed and will destroy, and all the innocent people they murdered and
will murder, hyper-imperialists will loose the battle in the intricate
possibilities of history.
While
history is the sum of objective human dilemmas, where the primordial necessity
is physical survival and continuity, hyper-imperialists like to think of it as
a subjective game of poker. History, instead, is a game of a different
nature where two symbolic forces dominate. The first force is the game of chess,
where the number of variants starting at the sixth move is so staggering that
outcomes are open to surprises never expected before. Can hyper-imperialists
foresee what forces of history are waiting at the beginning of the moves after
the sixth? The second is a game of logic: sorites paradox, where the
predicate is the imperialistic conquest of nations: after they conquer one
country, after they conquer two countries, after they conquer three countries,
where are they going to draw the line? Resolution: Hyper-imperialism as a
unidirectional force of history will not draw any line; other multidirectional
forces of history will.
In
the end, on the rimless boundaries of humanity, colonialistic hyper-imperialism
and free progress have no dialectical affinity or functional
interchangeability. They are neither cognate in historical finality nor connate
in their existential rationality; and in the ongoing conflict between
imperialistic slavery and human emancipation, they are two separate,
antagonistic, and centrifugal forces that are not apt for coexistence,
conciliation, cohabitation, or pacification.
B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American
peace-activist. Email: bjsabri@yahoo.com
Read
Part Three of this series
[6] Source, www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
Source, www.westernMassachusettsIMC:NewsWire/337
[7] Source, www.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,2763,943951,00.htm1
[8] Source, www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,940109,00.html