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'?
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
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.
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
1 | 2