Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   3 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Imperialism and "dictators'

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 7/23/12

- Advertisement -

Imperialism and "dictators'

By Tim Anderson

In its drive for a "new middle east' the great power is moving against every single independent state in the oil-rich region. One by one they are being set up for destruction.

Strategic control is pursued through two linked Pentagon doctrines: "broad spectrum dominance', a military, economic and ideological subjugation; and the globalist "destroying disconnectedness'.

In its ideological war imperialism tries to legitimise itself with human rights claims: the protection of civilian populations and women; its targets are "dictatorships'.

But given that the imperial power is the grand dictator -- unaccountable, brutal and overwhelming -- who or what are these other "dictatorships'?

Anyone with a little history would recall that the empire itself, not that long ago, actually set up or backed a large number of subordinate military dictatorships: for example in South Korea, pre-revolutionary Cuba, Iran, Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Haiti, Uruguay, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Egypt. They can't be referring to these.

So who or what are these new "dictatorships'?

- Advertisement -

They are the independent, or semi-independent, post-colonial states, almost always with civil and elected governments, which have simply managed to achieve and maintain some political will outside imperial grand strategy.

In the imperial cultures, even amongst critical thinkers, it is not well understood that post-colonial peoples need strong and independent states, along with widespread popular participation to defend them. These states are indispensable for building achievements in participation, education, health and social security, and in defending those achievements.

The imperial powers have never tried to reshape the post-colonial peoples "in their own image'. That would be to create competitors. Great power prefers weak, divided, ethnically fractious groups with little independent will. In that way their resources, markets and populations are more easily dominated.

Without discounting the many problems of post-colonial states, we can safely assume that imperialism is far happier with a divided Balkans, a fractious Iraq, coup-ridden Latin American states, tribally-torn Libya and a fragmented Syria. If Washington could "balkanise' or at least isolate Russia and China it would be happier still.

With divided countries the great power has its way; but the dreams of wider cooperation, pan-Arabism, pan-Africanism and a united Latin America are crushed. Further, nothing substantial in social capacity can be built in the absence of strong political will and in the presence of great power intervention.

- Advertisement -

In the imperial cultures, liberals, syndicalists and anarchists poorly recognise this need for strong post-colonial states. They tend to see all states through the lens of their own: tightly locked into the imperial network of corporate subsidy, privatisation and war; states "captured' by the ambitions of giant corporations.

However post-colonial states can be rather different. It required significant independent political will, for example, back in the 1950s, for the Arbenz government of Guatemala to undertake agrarian reform and for the Mossadegh government of Iran to nationalise oil. Similarly, the Allende government in Chile (1970-73) required substantial independent strength and popular support to carry out its agrarian reform and nationalisations. Yet neither these governments nor their states were sufficiently strong to survive imperial reaction and intervention.

More recently, the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia have embarked on significant social democratic reforms which break with the imperial model. They have all been branded "dictatorships', for their defiance of the neoliberal order. The word "dictatorship' now signals an imperial-backed campaign of delegitimation and subversion.

Next Page  1  |  2


Tim Anderson is an academic and social activist based in Sydney, Australia

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Syria: how the violence began, in Daraa

The Libyan Tragedy: lessons for the western left

Al Jazeera's attacks on Syria: some background

In Defence of the Syrian Arab Army

Syria's "false flag' terrorism, Houla and the United Nations

Hugo Chávez, Venezuela and the Corporate Media


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

the word dictator has become a loaded gun... by Tim Anderson on Monday, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:53:01 PM
Superb.And long overdue.... by Rick Rozoff on Monday, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:17:11 PM
I cannot but agree with you more. However, the EU ... by K V Ramani on Wednesday, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:05:54 PM