Imperialism: Doctrine of containment

By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australia (14/01/10)

THE inherent rapacity in the ideological design of imperialism makes independent nationalism the primary concern in the formulation of Western foreign policy in general and the US foreign policy in particular.

During the Cold War it was always the alleged threat of the Soviet Union that was brandished, largely as a pretext, though the threat was real insofar as the USSR interfered with US designs by posing a deterrent, and for its own foreign policy goals, supporting targets of US attack.

These days the threats of "extremism", "dictatorships", "terrorism" or "crimes against humanity" are often brandished as a pretext for Western interference and "intervention" in those strategic areas where the primary concern is to defeat independent nationalism. In some cases these threats may be real, but they are never in any sense of the word a threat to US or Western security, or a concern to Western sense of humanity –— much as the victims of such acts may be made to believe that their lives are of concern to Western policy planners. Rather they are threats to the imperial aspiration of world domination.

After World War II, the US engaged in a counterinsurgency campaign in Greece. This was largely motivated by the "danger of the rotten apple" effect of a victory by the peasant and worker — based forces that had fought the Nazis under Communist leadership.

Dean Acheson grimly warned the US Congress that the "rot" in Greece could easily "infect" the Middle East.

David Painter, a US author, later observed that "although Acheson had reference to the oil of the Middle East deleted from the president’s speech... concern over US access to the region’s chief resource played an important role in the ‘revolution’ in US foreign policy".

A CIA study warned of "the possible loss of the petroleum resources of the Middle East" if the revolt in Greece against the rightwing government imposed by the British military forces were not crashed. A Soviet threat was concocted in the routine manner of those days, regardless of the fact that Stalin was at this time adhering to the "spheres of influence" agreement he had reached with Winston Churchill.

The result was that Greece was "pacified" by a bloody campaign of terror and torture that took 160 000 lives, restored the old order, including Nazi collaborators, and opened the country to massive US investment and control, with consequences that persist up to today.

The bloody campaign is recorded in American history as a huge score line for freedom and happiness for the people of Greece — as a major victory for democracy.

Italy was also a primary target of US subversion from the 1940s, and it aroused similar concerns as were in Greece. The threat of a Communist victory in the 1948 elections was taken very seriously by US planners.

The first Memorandum of the then newly formed National Security Council in 1947 secretly called for support for paramilitary operations in Italy along with national mobilisation in the United States "in the event the Communists obtain domination of the Italian government by legal means".

Of course democratic processes are not acceptable in circumstances like this. This is precisely why all election victories for Zanu-PF since the decision to repossess land have been recorded in Western history books as fraudulent and undemocratic. The 2000, 2002, and 2005 elections were all endorsed as free and fair by election observers from Africa and elsewhere, but they were all condemned as fraudulent in the West.

For Italy, the process had to be overturned by violence or other means, unless the proper outcome was assured. It is the same line of thought that says today that a Zanu-PF victory must avoided by economic strangulation or any other means, unless a ‘‘proper’’ outcome of an MDC-T leadership is assured.

George Kennan urged still stronger measures for Italy. The Communist Party had to be outlawed to forestall its election victory.

The banning of Communist parties had already happened in Australia, later in Portugal, Greece, Sweden and other Western countries.

Kennan was overruled on the recognition that this could result in a bloody civil conflict in Italy, and also on the assumption that other means of coercion would suffice, as proved to be the case.

The United States was able to subvert the election by methods similar to those employed in Nicaragua in 1990 and in Zimbabwe in March 2008, including a very credible threat of starvation if people voted the wrong way.

For Zimbabwe, the MDC-T openly threatened voters with more suffering if they "allowed Zanu-PF to win again"; and the leader of the party, Morgan Tsvangirai was on record saying "muchashayisisa" meaning "you will suffer lack for real".

In Italy, yet again the Middle East was a major concern. A 1945 interagency review had observed that "US strategic interests" required control over "the line of communications to the Near East outlets of the Saudi Arabian oil fields" through the Mediterranean. These interests would be threatened if Italy were to fall into the "hands of any great power" — meaning if it were to escape from the hands of the proper great power.

The worry over independent nationalism, coupled with the particular greed for the oil resource in the Middle East led to the CIA coup restoring the Shah in Iran in 1953, overthrowing the conservative parliamentary Mossadegh government. Nasser of Egypt was viewed in similar terms, later Khomeini too, leading the United States to provide Saddam Hussein with decisive support in the Iran-Iraq War.

The tyrant shifted overnight from a favoured friend of the US to a reincarnation of Genghis Khan or Adolf Hitler when he broke the rules in August 1990 by invading Kuwait, a US-British client.

The primary fear is always that nationalist forces not under US influence and control might come to have substantial influence over others. The family dictatorships of the likes of Idi Amin of Uganda, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Congo’s Mobutu Sese Seko, Pervez Musharraf or Venezuela’s Juan Vicente Gomez, in contrast are considered appropriate partners, managing their resources in conformity to basic US interests, and helping the US projects of terror and subversion throughout the less developed world — of course until they disobey the rules as was done by Hussein and Amin, or until they simply become irrelevant to US interests as was the case with Musharraf and Mobutu.

These underlying attitudes of Western elites sometimes get published for public consumption. After the restoration of the Shah and the takeover by the US companies of 40 percent of the British oil concessions, the New York Times commented in an editorial that this was "good news indeed" however costly "to all concerned" – presumably including Iranians in the Shah’s torture chambers, and not only the British companies that lost out.

The New York Times did explain their point very clearly. The editorial went on to say, "The affair may yet be proved worth-while if lessons are learned from it. Underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number, which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism.

It is perhaps too much to hope that Iran’s experience will prevent the rise of Mossadeghs in other countries, but that experience may at least strengthen the hands of more reasonable and more far seeing leaders," with a better grasp of US and Western interests.

Zimbabweans have already paid a heavy price for the actions of their own Mossadegh by the name of Robert Mugabe, and that price claimed lives and dismantled families as the economy was made to "scream" by a ruinous economic sanctions regime; the way Kissinger would put it.

The experience of Zimbabwe certainly strengthened the hands of such ‘‘reasonable and far seeing leaders’’ like Raila Odinga of Kenya and Seretse Khama Ian Khama of Botswana. These have shown a fantastic understanding of the US-led Western alliance’s interests. In fact the West urges all African leaders to emulate Khama and Odinga, alongside Zimbabwe’s own Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai.

These leaders are as democratic as the West would have them come, and whatever they do, say or think; they are just but shining models for the otherwise Dark Continent of Africa.

To join them one needs only to learn the art of respecting Western interests and never to cross the path of imperialism. You do not give claims to your Diamonds Fields to a South African Company teaming up with a Zimbabwean entity, at the expense of a company from Europe; and expect Washington to bless such mischief. Never!

The process of mining those diamonds suddenly becomes anything detestable; anything from "conflict diamonds", "blood diamonds" or "stolen diamonds". That is how it works in the world of imperialism.

You do not take back land from "productive" beneficiaries of the old colonial order and then expect the US and its Western allies to stand by and admire. Imperialism fights back and this is the heavy price that Zimbabwe is paying.

Mossadegh became a devil when the US determined to overthrow him and so has become Robert Mugabe.

Zimbabweans are somewhat sitting on the fence with an inclusive Government that includes members from the country’s three major parties, and a new constitution leading to a fresh election is being drafted.

The foregone conclusion in the West is that this constitution can only be considered good enough if it will bring the MDC-T into power, otherwise it is just as bad as the Communist Party of Italy in the 1940s.

The West has placed a huge financial stake into the constitution making process and they have dispatched ex-employees of Western sponsored NGOs into the various thematic committees spearheading research on the draft constitution.

These are individuals considered to be more reasonable and far seeing, often rewarded handsomely with dubious awards for doing "sterling work" in the "struggle for democracy".

Their mandate is very clear. They have to produce a constitution that will help push Zanu-PF and its leader out of power and that is the ultimate prize.

The needs of the masses and the aspiration of Zimbabwe as a nation are all rhetoric best left for rallies and state of the nation addresses.

But are we that hopeless as a nation to fall for these archaic and old Cold War tactics?

Are we that naive and divided that we will allow the rule of imperial authority for fear of starvation and suffering? Can we not raise among ourselves a leadership that can combat this domination victoriously for the benefit of all?

This writer will call upon progressive Zimbabweans in the Constitution making process to ensure that the country is not sold out to foreign interests and subversion.

That takes only a sizeable number of national cadres that will stand by the revolutionary national interest as based on the foundation laid by the liberation war that brought our independence.

Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death.

l Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@ rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com