August 1990 will go down into History as the date of birth of the era of "post-colonialism." This is due to the fact that the populations of the South have become fully aware of the deceitful process of "decolonization" - a development which greatly worries the North in view of the radical changes which it will entail. Fear of "destabilization" explains the strengthening of a natural alliance between the false decolonizers and the rulers of the not yet truly "decolonized" countries. An alliance which prompts and "preemptive" actions.
The U.S.A. and its old as well as new allies from Europe and the West in general, have recently deployed forces, in the Gulf region, on a scale unprecedented in the history of mankind. The size of these forces and the power of their arms exceeds by far those which were in operation during the Vietnam war. They can not even be compared to those used during the War of 1939-1945, and there can be no comparison with World War II, because of the technological sophistication of the newly developed weapons.
This is taking place at a moment when the world has come under the orders of a new hegemonic power which has emerged as a result of the unipolarization of the international system which followed the disintegration of the Soviet empire. One country has thus emerged as the sole and unchallenged policeman of the planet. The second world power has thus accepted, for the sake of survival, to hold on only to such nominal and formal symbols of power acceptable to the United States.
The deployment of forces was compounded with psychological warfare of unprecedented magnitude, along with a most revealing hysterical campaign by the media of the West - even Goering would appear like a shaky novice if he saw the new masters of the art of communication and information at work. Researchers in the Third World should urgently investigate and probe this new material which is so indispensable for understanding future trends and developments in North-South relations.
What justifies such unprecedented actions ? Is it just to rescue a country of barely 600,000 citizens (with less than 100.000 of the "first class" category - those allowed to vote)? A member State of the United Nations whose "sovereignty" was violated by a more powerful neighbour the might of which was outrageously exaggerated in a deliberate attempt to create a warscare? Or is it in defense of those "democratic" principles which the West advocates within its own boundaries while it derides them elsewhere? Who is going to be fooled and for how long? The answer is obvious for those who bother to read the West's official statements and its press reports.
International law has been violated in a blatant and unquestionable way, just as it was repeatedly violated in the past. Previous violations including those by Israel were strongly condemned by the international community, but the condemnations fell short of concrete measures. Therefore, one is inclined to wonder about the rationale behind such a strong response, which is obviously out of proportion with the transgression which prompted it.
The events going on in the Middle East are not the concern of Arabs only. They are the expression of a longstanding defense strategy designed to oppose any attempt to modify the status quo. There should be no doubt in one's mind, that the Arabs are but the first guinea pigs for an experiment designed to perpetuate the military, political and economic domination of the Western world as well as the hegemony of its judeo-christian values.
There is fear of "destabilization" and of any attempt to challenge the prevalent order in the Middle East and elsewhere. There are Western interests at stake and the surest way of protecting them is through the hegemony of Pax Americana. Beyond all the diplomatic niceties and notwithstanding a semblance measure of independence, Western countries have no alternative but to attune their position to the U.S. stand.
Unless one keeps in mind the overall evolution of the North-South balance of power as well as the impact of History and the stakes involved in the future, one cannot make a sound analysis of the events underway in the Gulf region. Those who are seriously involved with future and strategic studies can hardly be surprised by these developments which a mere translation of some of the scenarios which have been in the making during the last decade if not more.
The Gulf crisis has overshadowed the protest marches by democratic forces throughout Africa where the Pope has just given his blessing to a basilica, under the protection of a sizeable police force. A police, which only one day before, had to quell a street demonstration calling for the respect of civil liberties. The building of this basilica in a Muslim-dominated city of the Ivory Coast where the total catholic population does not exceed 700,000, has cost over 200 million dollars - more than the total annual income of 300,000 inhabitants of the country. Funding was from the "pocket-money" of a Head of State who embodies the kind of "stability" highly appreciated by the West. The ceremony was attended by distinguished guests, including the Foreign Minister of South Africa.
The Gulf crisis has made it possible for the West to divert attention
from the military dictatorships in such countries as Pakistan and Nyaumar
(Burma formerly) where every attempt is made to prevent the citizens from
expressing their political choice through the ballot box. It has come to
rescue of several shaky governments in the Third World who were on the
verge of total collapse. Governments who have institutionalized corruption
and used every possible deterrent to deny democracy to hundreds of millions
of citizens whose sole fault is to voice their yearning for freedom, tolerance
and the rule of law.
The North-South Rupture
Since the early 1980s, the North-South dialogue seemed to be heading for a total collapse because the North has consistently refused to introduce the slightest structural adjustment to a clearly unfair international system. Any system which is not eventually reformed or transformed is bound to break down. The only scenario which one can foresee in such a situation is the one of conflict.
As a guest of the French television programme "les Dossiers de l'écran" (June 24 1980), I emphasized that we were engaged in a decade of ruptures, conflicts and contradictions in which the cultural factor was going to play a major role. My argument was that the development models imported from the North were a total failure and that the North-South dialogue had come to a deadlock, while the gap between the poor and the rich was still widening.
In a presentation I made at the First North-South panel at Rome in May 1978, I argued that the North had so far done little to understand, let alone speak, the language of the South. We have to accord a high priority to the role of value systems if we want to understand the fact that the actual crisis between the North and the South is a crisis of the whole international system. Any viable solution implies a redefinition of the objectives, functions and structures of the international system so as to facilitate a more equitable redistribution of power and resources on a more realistic basis and a greater mutual respect of socio-cultural values.
Before making any attempt to understand the Gulf war, one must first address the North-South problematique which involves basically five issues :
* The cultural communication crisis resulting from an ethnocentric attitude which prevents the North from grasping or accommodating other value systems than its own. In short, it is the cultural arrogance of the North;
* The refusal by the North to admit the need for a more equitable and morally acceptable redistribution of the world's power and resources so as to put an end to the current situation where 20% of the world population exploit 80% of the material wealth produced on earth and strive hard to keep the status quo worldwide;
* The development models which were applied by Third World countries, and which all failed as they were based on blind imitation and kept up through so-called "assistance" whose adverse effects contributed to widening the gap between the poor and the rich within the same country and between nations. It is these models and that kind of assistance from the North that have kept in power, corrupt and authoritarian leaders who are socially and culturally alienated from their people. This what has kept under-development thriving;
* The failure of Governments in the South to give any serious consideration to the issues of democracy, human rights, human resource development and scientific research, as essential components of any development policy; and
* The connivance, whether deliberate or unintentional, of those members of the Third World intelligentsia who were lured back to the fold by power holders at home or worldwide, as well as those who remain passive because of self-imposed censorship or lack of courage.
For years now, men and women alike in the Third World have been fighting
and denouncing the inherent injustice of the international system as well
as the lack of democracy in their respective countries. Meanwhile, the
major powers have been doing their utmost to maintain the status quo and
keep governments in power against the will of their people in the South.
Northern Imperialism
The countries of the North have, since the early 1970s, broken the one
member-one vote principle which is one of the basic rules of democracy
at the United Nations through an abuse of the concept of "consensus" which
became a kind of hidden veto. They have always opposed the establishment
of a New International Economic Order adopted by the General Assembly.
They have not take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with UN resolutions
concerning Palestine, Apartheid and Decolonization. Furthermore, the United
States resorts to financial blackmail by refusing to settle its mandatory
share in the Organization's budget. Having recourse to the "power of the
purse", the American government regularly threatens to withdraw from international
organizations (as it did from ILO and more recently from UNESCO) unless
the international community yields to its demands.
What are the countries that actually started the process of State terrorism? What are the governments that repeatedly violated international law? They are the ones which carried out the military coup d'Etat that toppled the Mossadegh Government in 1953. The ones that hijacked Ahmed Ben Bella's airplane on 23 October 1956; the ones that landed their troops in the Suez Canal two weeks later; the ones which have been occupying Arab territories for years; the ones which have invaded Latin American countries; the ones which have bombed residences of a Head of State; the ones which have raided research centers, staged commando operations outside their national boundaries; the ones which have orchestrated the abduction or physical elimination of scholars and politicians from the South; and the ones which have used their veto power to oppose the will of the entire world community. Some of these governments proudly argue that the law of their land ignores any limitation arising from international law.
Today, those very governments are hailing "the new world order" and boasting about the efficiency of the very organizations they were disparaging not so long ago.
Ours is a world where collective memory is kept alive when it relates to the West and is stifled when it concerns the "rest" of Humanity. The West can afford to forget and overcome its bad conscience with respect to centuries of colonization, exploitation and brutality which were inflicted on entire populations as part of the white man's "civilizing mission." The South must cultivate historical amnesia and "accept realistically" the world as it is without any grudges. It must also refrain from any initiative which might affect the sacred "life style" of the West. It is not supposed to make any attempt to curb the deterioration of the terms of trade or to remove from power those corrupt rulers who have no respect for human rights and civil liberties.
What gives the right to the West to give lessons to the rest of the world on how to behave? How can it be trusted when it advocates such notions as international solidarity and human dignity? Through the duplicity of the West and with the connivance of Third World Governments, the rule of neocolonialism was able to thrive in the South for 30 years. More recently the American Government, with the understanding and support of its faithful allies from Europe, took one step further to usher the South in an era of "post-colonialism."
It is against this backdrop that one should analyze the situation in the Gulf. The conclusion is bound to be a frightful one not only for the Arab region, but for the prospects of international relations worldwide. Accordingly, the real challenge for the Third World lies in grasping this new problematique.
The current situation cannot be analyzed only in the light of time and space factors. This is not a regional problem, nor is it a matter of personal conflict between two leaders. I happen to have personally witnessed and experienced Western colonialism.
I remember the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, the persecution of the Palestinian people, the overthrow of Mossadegh who had the courage to nationalize the oil industry in his country in 1951, the deportation in 1953 of King Mohammed V of Morocco, the landing of Franco-British troops in Suez in 1956, the conspiracy against the Congo in 1960, the sufferings inflicted on the peoples of Indochina, the crimes perpetrated against the people of Algeria, the horrors of Apartheid in South Africa, the savage response by Israeli troops to the Palestinian "Intifada," the repeated assaults on the sovereignty of Latin American countries and the numerous instances of foreign interference in the internal affairs of countries which are trying to enforce democratic policies and reforms.
The nurturing of memory is a creative exercise. It is necessary for anyone who seeks to have any control over one's future. It is not inconsistent with the need for understanding, tolerance and even generosity, but it does not justify self-betrayal or self-effacement. No, I shall certainly not forget, for memory is the enzyme of culture and a vital source of inspiration for the future. The loss of collective memory is largely responsible for the plight of the Third World. On the other hand, some nations have used their collective memory to wage endless wars. Indeed, memory is one of the stick yards used to gauge the credibility of a partner and to assess the impact of History. Inversely, one of the adverse effects of under-development is amnesia which conceals or distorts History. Our past bears the stigma of colonialism, we have no real control over our present, and even our future looks mortgaged.
The crisis besetting the Third world is due primarily to a lack of vision. But vision does not start from scratch; it needs the rehabilitation and support of the past. Throughout my life I have staunchly opposed injustice and all assaults on human dignity. It is certainly not people like me - they are legion -who have helped dictatorships in their quest for power; it is rather the Big Powers who provided them with military and political support to enable them to cling to their position indefinitely. My stance against the current events in the Middle East is but the expression of a human being's concern about the future of mankind and its very survival. If I am expressing my resentment more forcefully than before, it is certainly not out of hero worship or a cult of personalities - attitudes which I despise and abhor.
I have been patiently watching the events over the last six weeks during
which I have never felt such an irrepressible urge to write. I must confess
however that the attitude taken by some Western countries made it easier
for me to come out in defense of ethical and humanitarian principles despite
the risk that I may be perceived as a supporter of a questionable man.
It is certainly not my intention to defend a specific ruler, but I am just
as clearly opposed to this immoral assault on the entire population of
a country - which by a strange coincidence happens to be an Arab country
- and to the violation of the sanctity of the holy places of one billion
Muslims among whom Arabs account for barely 20%. Today, the three holiest
shrines of Islam - which is the first religion in the world - are under
American and Israeli occupation. Whether this occupation be of a political,
military or spiritual nature, it can not but be unacceptable to any Arab
or Muslim who has any self-respect.
The Impotence of the Third World "Elite"
I am astounded and grieved by the impotence and impassiveness of so called "intellectuals", "scholars" and forces of the "opposition" the Third World and, more specifically those in the Arab-Islamic region. Where are the fiery statements of the non-Aligned movement? Where are the defenders of South-South cooperation? Where is the Group of 77? Where are the NGOs of the Third World? Why have they all taken refuge in silence? It is quite natural that the West should behave, as it does, in all impunity. Why should it stop when it knows for certain that the "elite" will, as expected, confine itself to a self-imposed silence? Why should we criticize Western thinkers and artists for supporting the American-Israeli side or, at best, refraining from taking any sides? Saddening though it is, their attitude has the merit of showing, more clearly than ever before, the limited validity of the Western claim to "universality" when matters of justice and human rights are at stake.
The anti-Arab and anti-Islamic feelings aroused by the media as part of psychological warfare have reached a pitch unmatched in the annals of relations between nations. They are the expression of a hostility nurtured and fueled by old complexes related to decolonization, and "de-westernization" as well as to a new historical reality - the revival of Islam.
Opinion polls in Europe and the United States have enlightened us on
the subconscious of the public opinion of the "free world" and of those
who mold it methodically. This disinformation campaign has revealed the
extent of connivance between the mass media and Government in the West.
An impressive panoply of bombastic words and expressions was used for the
occasion : law, justice, international solidarity, national unity and honour
are but a few of the recurrent expressions which the media kept hammering
out in a way which conveyed an unprecedented degree of cultural arrogance
and ethnocentric jingoism. It all sounded like the fascist rhetoric of
the 1930s. Even the French daily "Le Monde", which is usually cautious
and circumspect, yielded to the temptation and joined the club. In an editorial
published on August 7, 1990, it stated bluntly that Iraq had never been
so isolated in the Arab World. Just what "Arab World" was it referring
to, no one seems to know. Never before has information been so instrumental
to the purpose of cheap propaganda, demagogy and war.
The Gulf Crisis is but a Prelude
Events are developing in the Middle East like a preset macabre symphony performed by an orchestra with the U.S.A. as the bandmaster and the United Kingdom and France as the first and second violins. The rest of the orchestra is made up of the new coalition members and the chorus is provided by some Arab countries. After the adagio in the early days of August, the crescendo began with the embargo, then the blockade which is setting the stage for the finale. When that crucial moment comes, the conductor will drop his baton signalling, in all likelihood, the death of thousands of innocent people. In the meantime, he will have paved the way for the Soviet player, bearing in mind the great musical tradition of his country, to introduce a note of harmony. We know that it will not be long before the Soviet Union is called upon to make its contribution, because Mrs. Barbara Bush has just told journalists that the U.S.S.R. should, now, be regarded as a member of the "club of free world nations".
The events in progress in the Middle East are in line with the scenarios worked out by specialists of strategic and future studies ever since the 1970s. The occupation of the Gulf region has been on the agenda for a long time.
The West was anxiously waiting for D-day. The U.S.A. helped speed up the process by exerting the necessary pressure on Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries in order to prevent any arrangement with Iraq and to secure the participation of some Arab troops in the so-called coalition forces. Following the Israeli attack against Arab countries in October 1973, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia had advocated the use of oil as a defensive weapon of the Arabs.
Today, ironically, Saudi Arabia along with the Gulf Emirates are using the oil to cater for the occupation of Arab territories. This shows the difference between the era of neocolonialism where one tried to keep up appearances and the post-colonial era where territories are being occupied openly and where their people are those who must foot the bill.
It has been officially reported that the American Secretary of State received from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Kuwaiti Government in exile, a commitment to contribute 12 billion dollars to the war effort, in addition to all expenses they have incurred over the past few weeks. According to Mr. Baker's estimates, the "Desert Shield" operation will cost 6 billion dollars up to the end of the year.
The Federal Republic of Germany has reached an arrangement with the U.S.S.R. whereby the latter would get 8 billion dollars in compensation for the withdrawal of 350,000 Soviet troops from German territory. This means that three Gulf States are made to pay twice as much just to keep 150,000 American soldiers on their territory. The size of the ransom is three times higher than the total amount of economic aid granted by the U.S.A. to Third World countries in fiscal year 1990. This, too, is a significant aspect of post-colonialism.
Prerequisites to an effective response to post-colonialism include the promotion of democracy and human rights, the struggle against ignorance and corruption, support for scientific research and creative activity, self-confidence and freedom from any form of cultural alienation as well as belief in a supreme justice which makes it everyone's duty to participate in the long and arduous struggle ahead. The fight against this new highly elaborate form of colonialism which we describe as "post-colonialism" is bound to result, by the end of this decade, in the liberation of four fifths of humanity from the yoke of oppression.
Chance has ordained that the military occupation of the Gulf countries should begin on the very day the Chairman of the South Commission, President Niyerere, submitted his report on South-South cooperation.(2) But the media in the West decided that it should be shelved immediately upon publication.
In any case, it is in the Arab World that the level of South-South cooperation is the lowest and the where the inequitable distribution of resources between countries is the most flagrant. Thus, the six member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council account for less than 10% of the total Arab population but for more than 40% of the GNP of the Arab World. Gulf States' assets in the West stand at 700 billion dollars, that is three times the total income of 90% of the Arab populations. The total external debt of the Arab World has reached 230 billion dollars, that is barely one third of the Gulf States' assets abroad.
These figures, which speak for themselves, point to the fact that the lack of South-South cooperation has been encouraged by the North to enable it to continue to exploit the Third World.
When the South will have realized that the North does not wish to make
any effort to understand it, then the North will realize that it has no
alternative but to live in peace with the vast majority of mankind. But
before that happens, the North must get rid of its fears which given birth
to post-colonialism. In the meantime, we, too, should come out of the bush.
12 September, 1990.
2. The challenge to the South. The Report of the South Commission. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.