Launching massive campaigns to disrupt, interfere with and undermine domestic affairs of defiant nations is nothing new in the strategy book of Western nations, such as Great Britain or the United States. Imperialism has transformed – no longer does it rely on the physical subjugation of colonies with direct plundering and enslavement, now it is much more sophisticated and disguised as a “humanitarian effort.” The goal of modern imperialism is to enable the import of private capital for the purpose of raping natural resources for bloated profit margins.
The tactics evolved even further in the latter half of the 20th century, and continue to develop in the 21st: using humanitarianism to mask pure imperialism. These were the (secondary) excuses used to justify the occupation of Iraq (after the faux intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction failed to materialize). These are the same hair-brained justifications put forth for military interference in Kosovo and the same tired, repetitive rhetoric we hear for advocating military involvement in Sudan and Zimbabwe. Allegations of crises, “genocide,” and human rights abuses, even if they are substantiated by fact, are nonetheless meaningless slogans perpetrated by people with material interests.
Social-Liberals, compelled by guilt and/or idealism, become the champions of such causes and only assist the further super-exploitative global relationship between oppressor countries (US) and the oppressed world.
Take for instance your average idealist, petty-bourgeouis college student who wants to hand out leaflets about the “human rights abuses” in the DPRK (North Korea) or “genocide” in the Darfur region of Sudan. These people, though admittedly they have little influence, espouse a line that is absolutely full of contradictions. Saying you’re against globalization and war – while at the same time spreading neo-colonialist propaganda charging crimes against humanity and calling for intervention to an independent nation is worse than the most open, strictest adherents to imperialist ideology. Such enablers are little more than tools and agents of global capitalism.
The next level of blame needs to be put on the bourgeois media – which broadcasts and publicizes sensational horror stories of atrocities, famines and other crises that play an undeniable role in shaping public opinion in support of war, intervention, imperialism and occupation. Headline after headline portraying “rogue” states and leaders as demons at the helm, abusing and degrading their populations or mishandling their responsibilities to the point of monumental crises, is nothing more than a means of using mass communications to create a public with no misgivings about their governments and private industry using military intervention, occupation, globalization and investment to re-shape defiant states in the image of a modern-day American colony.
The worst case is when such liberally minded reformist elements worm their way into the executive office and become heads of state or heads of government. Take for instance, Barack Obama, the most sophisticated of the imperialist elite, who uses catchy buzzwords (change, progress, humanity, equality) to promote an agenda with a different mask than his predecessors. The difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush is style, not substance. Barack Obama is worse in that he masks his desire to see a McDonald’s on every corner of the globe with a humanistic idealism.
However – many Americans are duped by these idealistic values because they speak directly to their self-righteousness and guilt complex. However, this can also be attributed to the extremely short-sighted nature of the American electorate – which becomes so disenchanted with one of the mainstream ruling parties that they will just vote for the opposite in the next electoral cycle without ever considering that their might be an alternative, and the system repeats itself like clockwork.
The latest campaign is the destabilization of the African country of Zimbabwe, currently under the administration of President Robert Mugabe and the ZANU-PF. The ruling circles have their reasons for being interested in Zimbabwe – 1) it has extremely fertile land, capable of yielding cheap crops and vast amounts of untapped mineral wealth just waiting to be plucked by British and American investors; and 2) it sets an example of a defiant state that is unwilling to follow American/Western imperialist “democratic” standards for political administration.
The obvious economic returns that would result from re-colonizing Zimbabwe play an insurmountable role in imperialists aims in destabilizing the country, and installing a puppet regime willing and able to bend over backward for Western capital. The second, political basis, for imperialist objectives in Zimbabwe are nothing new – such as been the attitude of the Western imperialist ruling class towards intransigent states such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and others.
However, the general public – who only shares indirectly from the superexploitation of imperialism – need a more compelling reason to believe in the need to use military interventionist tactics in another nation. When it’s simply too obvious that a “rogue” nation’s government doesn’t constitute a national-security threat; they defer to the “humanitarian” angle – know that the young idealists and aging baby-boomers will take a bite from this bait.
Just take a look at headlines regarding Zimbabwe, or even better, President Mugabe and you will see the same rhetorical rubbish that has been used to slander other leaders like Saddam Hussein, Slobadan Milosevic, Kim Jong Il, Aleksandr Lukaschenko et al. Moreoever, they describe the people under the leadership of the aforementioned individuals as oppressed, abused, lacking freedom and other nonsense. This rhetoric is the modern-day war rhetoric that turns a self-righteous, contradictory population into unapologetic supporters of imperialism and global capitalism.