wrbones
04-01-03, 10:10 PM
http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news_en.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=03&d=26&a=2
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
The Imperialism of American Leftists
March 26, 2003
Iran va Jahan
Elio Bonazzi
The vocal front that opposes the war against Iraq appears to be motivated by good intentions and compassion. From far left-wing radicals to more moderate liberals the main concern is to prevent another act of "American imperialism" and to favor instead, dialog and a peaceful resolution of international issues by means of diplomacy.
Hollywood, a traditional liberal stronghold, is up in arms and very active in its support of the anti-war campaign; several movie stars have signed a petition against a possible attack on Iraq. The actor Sean Penn went even further, visiting Iraq "to pursue a deeper understanding of this frightening conflict," as he explained to reporters. What he seemingly failed to realize is that what he was going to be shown was what the government of Iraq, who toted him around with pomp and circumstance, wanted him to see and not the real Iraq. In the end, realistically speaking, his trip was not to be, the expedition he intended for it to be.
If we scratch the surface, though, we realize that under the thin coat of shining compassion, the left-wing arguments against the war or against an American intervention in the Middle East at large hide an attitude that could be defined as "cultural imperialism".
Most Middle Easterners, who were forced out of their motherlands and now live in the West, (mainly in Europe and the US) not only welcome an American intervention in the Middle East, they insist on it. These are secular-minded people who could by no means endure the mounting wave of religious fundamentalism that started towards the end of the ‘70s and continued full on and uninterrupted until the terrorist attack of 9/11.
Some of those people lost everything they had and were forced to rebuild their lives elsewhere, starting from scratch, acquiring new professional skills, learning a new language, grappling with different customs and competing in an adverse and antagonistic marketplace. They were displaced, disgraced, discriminated against and no one showed them much compassion. They had it rough, but they survived against all odds in their respective new countries and never lost hope and continued the campaign for their countries' liberation from religious fundamentalism and intolerance.
Middle Easterners who live in exile, as well as those who never left the region [and hope for the betterment of their predicament] can see that it is essential to have American intervention in the Middle East. They realize that having troops in Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein would ignite a chain reaction among the people of the region, which would immediately affect change in Iran at the hands of Iranians themselves and potentially other Islamic countries in the region.
Yet the "compassionate" European and American liberals deem to know better. They never lived in the Middle East; they don't speak Arabic or Farsi, Ordoo or Pashtoo; they are not familiar with traditions and customs or even the history and mentality of the region but they claim to have the magic bullet that would fix all problems. Naturally, that recipe excludes by default any form of American involvement other than ineffective diplomatic pressure, to solve "peacefully and compassionately" the issues of the region. In other words, the anti-war front is saying to the Middle Easterners that they don't know what they, the natives, really want, and that the infinitely superior western wisdom is more equipped to deal with the situation than the simplistic and instinctive will to take revenge on the Islamic fundamentalists who displaced them 3 decades ago.
This attitude is best described as sheer paternalism and condescension, reminiscent of the way employees were treated in large corporations at the end of the 19th century, before the Human Relations School of motivation and management. Back then employees were treated like children, who need strict guidance and an occasional hand bashing when they misbehave. Western liberals have the same attitude towards [at this juncture] Middle Easterners, mechanically applying their way of thinking, their sensibility, and their values to a totally different context, which has it's own values, priorities and ethical principles.
This is the core, the essence of "cultural imperialism"; the very assumption that the values of modern liberalism are global and universally accepted, that the western liberal way of "doing the right thing" is the only way. Those who are oblivious to the Mid-Easterners' cry for help should be reminded that the US with the help of Britain and France have to fix the havoc the wreaked in the region by the calamitous Carter administration [at the masterminding of Mr.'s Ramsey Clark and Gary G. Sick], which only made costly mistakes and promoted the revolution that brought the Islamic fanatics to power in Iran in 1979.
American liberals, who easily indulge in bashing the foreign policy of the Bush administration, must realize that, for once, Americans are not the "bad guys" in the region, at least not according to Middle Easterners themselves. Enemy number one in the list of the Iraqi opposition to Saddam is not America, [which is indeed an ally] but France.
President Chirac's envoy, the young and brilliant diplomat, Pierre Delval, has been sent on several occasions to Baghdad. On one occasion Monsieur Delval, even participated in a four-hour session of the Iraqi government organized to discuss the "American threats" to Iraq [by the way, let's not forget that France has recently stationed 2500 troops in the Ivory Coast; they never sought the permission of anyone in the international community for this deployment; they were just "asked" to "intervene" by the Economic Community of West African States which is by no means a sovereign state. France and other European powers are interested in maintaining the status quo in the Middle East. They can obtain cheap oil and lucrative contracts for their engineering companies that build roads, bridges, dams and ports. In exchange, they artificially keep these ugly regimes alive by giving them an aura of legitimacy in spite of the absolute disregard that those regimes show for Human Rights. For Europeans, the principles of the Age of Enlightenment, the words of Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau only resonate when it's applicable to Western Europeans (we saw how they turned their backs on the Bosnians). When short-term economic gain is at stake, Human Rights be damned.
more
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
The Imperialism of American Leftists
March 26, 2003
Iran va Jahan
Elio Bonazzi
The vocal front that opposes the war against Iraq appears to be motivated by good intentions and compassion. From far left-wing radicals to more moderate liberals the main concern is to prevent another act of "American imperialism" and to favor instead, dialog and a peaceful resolution of international issues by means of diplomacy.
Hollywood, a traditional liberal stronghold, is up in arms and very active in its support of the anti-war campaign; several movie stars have signed a petition against a possible attack on Iraq. The actor Sean Penn went even further, visiting Iraq "to pursue a deeper understanding of this frightening conflict," as he explained to reporters. What he seemingly failed to realize is that what he was going to be shown was what the government of Iraq, who toted him around with pomp and circumstance, wanted him to see and not the real Iraq. In the end, realistically speaking, his trip was not to be, the expedition he intended for it to be.
If we scratch the surface, though, we realize that under the thin coat of shining compassion, the left-wing arguments against the war or against an American intervention in the Middle East at large hide an attitude that could be defined as "cultural imperialism".
Most Middle Easterners, who were forced out of their motherlands and now live in the West, (mainly in Europe and the US) not only welcome an American intervention in the Middle East, they insist on it. These are secular-minded people who could by no means endure the mounting wave of religious fundamentalism that started towards the end of the ‘70s and continued full on and uninterrupted until the terrorist attack of 9/11.
Some of those people lost everything they had and were forced to rebuild their lives elsewhere, starting from scratch, acquiring new professional skills, learning a new language, grappling with different customs and competing in an adverse and antagonistic marketplace. They were displaced, disgraced, discriminated against and no one showed them much compassion. They had it rough, but they survived against all odds in their respective new countries and never lost hope and continued the campaign for their countries' liberation from religious fundamentalism and intolerance.
Middle Easterners who live in exile, as well as those who never left the region [and hope for the betterment of their predicament] can see that it is essential to have American intervention in the Middle East. They realize that having troops in Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein would ignite a chain reaction among the people of the region, which would immediately affect change in Iran at the hands of Iranians themselves and potentially other Islamic countries in the region.
Yet the "compassionate" European and American liberals deem to know better. They never lived in the Middle East; they don't speak Arabic or Farsi, Ordoo or Pashtoo; they are not familiar with traditions and customs or even the history and mentality of the region but they claim to have the magic bullet that would fix all problems. Naturally, that recipe excludes by default any form of American involvement other than ineffective diplomatic pressure, to solve "peacefully and compassionately" the issues of the region. In other words, the anti-war front is saying to the Middle Easterners that they don't know what they, the natives, really want, and that the infinitely superior western wisdom is more equipped to deal with the situation than the simplistic and instinctive will to take revenge on the Islamic fundamentalists who displaced them 3 decades ago.
This attitude is best described as sheer paternalism and condescension, reminiscent of the way employees were treated in large corporations at the end of the 19th century, before the Human Relations School of motivation and management. Back then employees were treated like children, who need strict guidance and an occasional hand bashing when they misbehave. Western liberals have the same attitude towards [at this juncture] Middle Easterners, mechanically applying their way of thinking, their sensibility, and their values to a totally different context, which has it's own values, priorities and ethical principles.
This is the core, the essence of "cultural imperialism"; the very assumption that the values of modern liberalism are global and universally accepted, that the western liberal way of "doing the right thing" is the only way. Those who are oblivious to the Mid-Easterners' cry for help should be reminded that the US with the help of Britain and France have to fix the havoc the wreaked in the region by the calamitous Carter administration [at the masterminding of Mr.'s Ramsey Clark and Gary G. Sick], which only made costly mistakes and promoted the revolution that brought the Islamic fanatics to power in Iran in 1979.
American liberals, who easily indulge in bashing the foreign policy of the Bush administration, must realize that, for once, Americans are not the "bad guys" in the region, at least not according to Middle Easterners themselves. Enemy number one in the list of the Iraqi opposition to Saddam is not America, [which is indeed an ally] but France.
President Chirac's envoy, the young and brilliant diplomat, Pierre Delval, has been sent on several occasions to Baghdad. On one occasion Monsieur Delval, even participated in a four-hour session of the Iraqi government organized to discuss the "American threats" to Iraq [by the way, let's not forget that France has recently stationed 2500 troops in the Ivory Coast; they never sought the permission of anyone in the international community for this deployment; they were just "asked" to "intervene" by the Economic Community of West African States which is by no means a sovereign state. France and other European powers are interested in maintaining the status quo in the Middle East. They can obtain cheap oil and lucrative contracts for their engineering companies that build roads, bridges, dams and ports. In exchange, they artificially keep these ugly regimes alive by giving them an aura of legitimacy in spite of the absolute disregard that those regimes show for Human Rights. For Europeans, the principles of the Age of Enlightenment, the words of Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau only resonate when it's applicable to Western Europeans (we saw how they turned their backs on the Bosnians). When short-term economic gain is at stake, Human Rights be damned.
more