Colonialism is Not Dead
By Ella Baccouche at Feb 04, 2011
Colonialism is not dead. The policy of western powers subverting Third World governments has taken a disguise under the banner of Globalization. Instead of George, Henry, and Francois directly ruling over a particular population, the colonial powers have installed agents that are members of those groups to do their bidding for them. The relationship is similar to that of a master to his slave. The only difference is that these slaves are getting paid. But, they must follow the master’s orders which invariably include suppressing their indigenous populations. Disenfranchisement, poverty, fear to dissent, disappearance, and police brutality and torture have taken a horrific toll on the lives of these groups. We are now witnessing the ugly consequences of colonial subversion in the Middle East.
We hear the cries of freedom from the Egyptian people. In fact, their cries can be heard throughout the Universe. Their bravery, perseverance, and determination are admirable and make me proud to say that I feel like an Egyptian, too. They are in the belly of a gigantic monster who insists on stealing their resources and keeping them impoverished. Mubarek, the agent of western colonial powers, has been President of Egypt for nearly 30 years. He gave a speech on the 28th of January declaring that he was an Egyptian who wanted to die in Egypt, and could never consider leaving his country. He was apparently trying to appeal to the protestors’ sense of patriotism. It didn’t work. The protestors still want him and his whole regime to step down from power. Again, as in Tunisia, we see the protestors targeting the slave instead of the slave’s masters.
Mubarek is not a patriot. Given the current events, we can see that he has absolutely no interest in the welfare of his people. He has so much blood on his hands. He has betrayed his people by siding with his masters. Obviously, he only listens to his masters, the colonial powers, especially the Washington consensus which includes the White House, CIA, State Department, and the almighty Pentagon. I shiver when I say that word (Pentagon). We do know that the colonial powers can’t afford to lose Egypt to democratic forces. My curiosity as to what Mubarek was told to do was soon satisfied. I recognized immediately the “divide to rule” playbook used by America most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Divide the people into groups; anti-Mubarek, pro-Mubarek, Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Muslims, Muslim Brotherhood, whatever, etc. And then, instigate a fight between them. Why do you think the Pentagon sold the Egyptian government billions of dollars worth of guns, tanks, and other essential munitions? The guns are to suppress the people while they are being economically raped.
The disappearance of the security forces for days only to reappear disguised as the pro-Mubarek supporters was apparently meant to fool the people. They were characterized by the press as symbols of Egyptian patriotism, salvaging the pride and honor of their President and country, and saving the day. These Attila-the-Hun type gangbusters rushed into the crowd of relatively peaceful protestors on horses and camels with whips in their hands. They were, supposedly, the true patriots. They pummeled the protestors with rocks, bricks, water hoses, fire bombs, tear gas (made in the good ole USA) and anything they could get their hands on. Shots were heard. This is in a country where the people are not allowed to own guns. The police and the army have guns. A huge battle ensued between the pro and anti-Mubarek forces. It was reported that three people died and over 600 were injured including women and children. Can these violent criminal acts be interpreted as acts of patriotism? The Egyptian army joined the rest of us watching these horrible surreal events going down and did nothing. Were they ordered to do that? Hmmmm…..?
Obama supposedly spoke to Mubarek and assured the world that America was with the people of Egypt. Obama’s speech was very ambivalent. He said that the transition must begin now. Transition to what was never clear. It is clear from the recent turn of events that he didn’t mean “democracy.” Furthermore, when Obama spoke of America’s support of the “people”, did he mean the millions of Egyptians in all parts of the world clamoring for political change or those so-called patriots, protectors of the Egyptian motherland, Johnny-come-lately pro-Mubarek forces. In any case, it is clear that Mubarek wants those protestors to vacate Talrir Square.
Hilary Clinton remarked that America should not dictate the terms of Egyptian democracy. Seriously now, can Washington refute the words of Michel Chossudovsky? “Dictators don’t dictate orders, they obey orders.” The efforts of suppressing the voices of the people “by any means necessary” by the Ben Ali's and Mubareks of the world support his claims. According to Chossudovsky, the problem is that the people, the subjects of tyranny, are quite unaware of the insidious, subversive, and utterly destructive role of the US in their internal politics. And remember the rule that the military and business interests of the colonizers must not be violated by these popular uprisings. Colonialism is, indeed, in a crisis situation in the Middle East. Let it not live on undisturbed by the cries of the oppressed.
Copyright © 2011 Ella Russell
Michel Chossudovsky, The Protest Movement in Egypt: “Dictators” do not Dictate, They Obey Orders, Global Research e-newsletter, January 29, 2011.