Prof. Dr. Mohammed Kareem Al-Saadi

Following the events of September 11, 2001, and the emergence of immediate pretexts manifested in the concept of terrorism and its linkage to specific countries—preceded by the United States reaching the shores of the Arabian Gulf via the Iraqi intervention in Kuwait and direct control over the destinies of the peoples in this region—this intervention established America as the primary actor in the Middle East and its surroundings. By directly imposing its hegemony over the region, it created a concept complementary to old colonialism, represented by the traditional colonization (France and Britain) and their division of the Middle East according to the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

However, the United States, with its new vision that sidelined its allies from competing over this geographical space, established a new reality in the region. It began implementing its most critical plans: controlling the political sphere and economic resources, including oil reserves. This planning was accompanied by the formulation of intellectual reference frameworks designed by several American politicians, alongside a group of thinkers who drew the map of the “New Middle East.” This project relied on inducing a radical shift in the nature of conflict in the region; following the Sykes-Picot Agreement, it shifted from a conflict over borders to a conflict within borders, in accordance with new American ideas.

What do we mean by the shift of conflict from the outside to the inside? And how are these new American ideas formulated in the process of geopolitical changes, particularly in the Arab region and the world at large?

The shift of conflict from the outside to the inside is, in essence, an American game and a process complementary to what occurred in the past century. The past was based on division and sowing the seeds of border disputes between countries. This old British policy, which adopted the principle of (divide and rule), has been regenerated within American thought, but according to a vision complementary to old colonialism. America embraced this vision and caused the conflict to shift, altering the scene into another form; the slogan “divide and rule” was no longer sufficient to produce solutions aligned with American applications in the Arab region. Rather, the transition had to advance to other stages of conflict, which are far more destructive to consciousness in the Arab world.

The American administration worked to counter any transformation in the consciousness of the people of the Middle East. This was evident in their rejection of many previous discourses and perceptions that aimed to keep conflicts outside the borders and away from the core issues, all to preserve regimes subordinate to the global system. It also emerged through protests against the principle of rulers exploiting power to remain in office, even at the expense of the survival of their failing regimes in this region.

Therefore, new American ideas began to take effect, and with them, the process of change in Middle Eastern thought commenced, aiming to topple presidential chairs and the specific dependencies of some neighboring countries directly intervening in this control through their loyal entities that control money and prestige in the Arab region.

Consequently, it was imperative for the American administration to redirect its methods and its new mode of intervention by creating new means to ignite the new form of conflict. This conflict was designed to fall within a specific American conception involving two main aspects:

First: Implementing its new plans without being the direct initiator of this implementation, as occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, making the targeted countries themselves provide the justifications for intervention and international mobilization through institutions like the UN Security Council.

Second: Shifting the conflict from the outside to the inside to legitimize its plans in the region, allowing every entity based on sectarian, regional, or ethnic identity to play its role in this conflict. The intent here is to grant these religious, ethnic, and racial factions justifications to manifest their presence in this region.

This is the neo-colonial framework, and this is the modern colonial power that America is paving the way for in order to practice its politics and apply its ideas in the region. In this context, it possesses numerous means to achieve this new colonial framework, as America owns ready-to-implement theories according to its vision, backed by theorists capable of producing new colonial perspectives that suit its objectives.

In the field of neo-colonial theories, America moves through three phased steps aimed at shaping a new colonial consciousness in the Arab region. These theories include:

The First Colonial Theory: (The Theory of Cultural Elites)

This theory is not new; it was previously applied in India by British colonialism through selecting rulers for India who contributed to producing a new image of the country that aligned with British perceptions. In turn, America worked to apply this theory in Iraq, where it overthrew a dictatorial regime it had supported in many previous situations. After its overthrow, it proceeded to establish a new system of governance through its godfather in the Governing Council, Paul Bremer.

Paul Bremer produced a system of governance in Iraq based on a council that divided the country into fragments, portraying to the world that America came to ensure all Iraqi sects participate in governance. Thus, America appeared before the world as the sponsor of democracy in Iraq. However, what was actually happening was the implementation of a malicious plan aimed at the future partition of Iraq.

In this context, America succeeded in portraying the internal conflicts that later erupted in Iraq as though it were not directly responsible for them, whereas, in reality, it was the one that planted the seeds of division through this council. Over time, this division snowballed, growing into a major obstacle hindering the resurgence of Iraq and its people. Furthermore, this method was exploited as a pretext to plunder Iraq’s wealth under the slogan of “wealth distribution,” which served as a cover to loot these riches via its influential and hidden figures who contributed to managing the transitional process in Iraq.

Despite the resistance of loyal patriots against this American policy, Iraq would have become even more fractured if not for their efforts. Based on this first theory, America indeed began executing its neo-colonial blueprint, shifting the conflict from the outside (between Iraq and its neighbors) to the inside (between the people of the same nation).

The Second Colonial Theory: (The Domino Theory)

This theory constitutes the second stage that paved the way for generalizing the idea of shifting conflict from the outside to the inside, which America also supported under the banner of democracy and implemented through various methods:

Direct military intervention: As occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Indirect military intervention: As seen in Libya.

Support through other means and pressures: Exerted on rulers installed by it, rather than by the will of their peoples, as happened in Tunisia and Egypt.

These strategies forced the Arab reality to confront new forms of conflict—namely, internal conflict between the people of the same nation. The features of this shift from external to internal conflict began to appear first in Lebanon, then in Iraq, and subsequently in Libya, Yemen, and Syria. This internal conflict rendered these countries partitionable, transforming them from states of geographical and demographic diversity—with coexisting sects, nationalities, ethnicities, and religions—into warring factions under various banners.

Consequently, conflict was no longer external (between states) or over borders (as it was under old colonialism), such as the conflict between Morocco and Algeria over the Western Sahara, the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait, or the conflict between Syria and Lebanon. Instead, conflict in neo-colonialism became internal within these countries, or between the people of the same nation. This second theory paved the way for the third theory within the framework of neo-colonial applications.

The Third Colonial Theory: (The Theory of Creative Chaos and the New Middle East)

Some researchers believe that the terms “Creative Chaos” and the “New Middle East” express two different orientations, but in reality, they represent a single advanced stage in neo-colonial thought. They are two sides of the same coin and complementary parts of the third stage of American neo-colonial thought, which began after the retreat of traditional colonialism.

This third theory is based on the following:

Internal conflict by generating creative chaos within the states themselves to weaken what remains of them.

Subsequently forming new formulas for governing these states that are susceptible to continuous demolition according to the vision of “creative chaos.”

Redrawing a new map according to pre-prepared methods under various Western principles, wrapped in a framework bearing different designations, such as minority rights, human rights, freedom of expression, and other matters that are not applied in Western countries except under strict laws that grant authorities the right to torture, exile, and treason against anyone who violates their political and moral doctrines.

We are witnessing the applications of this third theory in the late twentieth century and the beginnings of the new century. These neo-colonial trends are set to culminate in the third decade of this century to reach the new colonial map of American visions in the Arab region, especially in the Middle East.

As for the most prominent figures who wrote on American applications according to the neo-colonial vision, this perspective was articulated in two important books: The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington, and The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama.

In the first book, Huntington discusses the American vision of the “Other” with its diverse civilizations, defining which civilizations are friendly and which are hostile. He categorizes Japanese, Hindu, African, and non-American Western civilizations as friendly to the American colonial project, while Western-Islamic civilization—followed by Chinese civilization—is deemed hostile to American colonialism.

What concerns us in this book is the Islamic civilization to which the majority of the population of the Middle East belongs. The prevailing theme in neo-colonial Western thought is making the Middle East proceed according to the three aforementioned theories, moving from one state to another—that is, from the nature of conflict outside borders to the nature of conflict within the borders of each state.

This thought, supported by several thinkers like Samuel Huntington, positions Islamic civilization at the center of the clash with this colonial vision. Huntington rationalizes that most conflicts occurring with the Islamic side are civilizational wars; as seen in the Chechen war, the Eastern European wars in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Kosovo, as well as what happens with Islamic groups in East Asia, Afghanistan, and Africa with Boko Haram, and the Al-Shabaab group in Somalia. It is also evident in the Arab-Islamic conflict with the usurping entity of occupied Palestine, and other conflicts between groups belonging to Islam and other religions and nationalities. He considers this an ongoing civilizational clash and conflict throughout history between Western civilization and Islamic civilization, starting from the eras preceding the Crusades, passing through these wars which lasted for nearly five centuries, and continuing into the present time represented by Middle Eastern conflicts.

Huntington calls for an issue that is highly critical in his view: the control over technological knowledge manifested in communication and media tools. He outlines a set of factors that the West must control, including dominance over global communication media, in addition to controlling global markets across various fields, including technical communication and the military manufacturing accompanying these new technologies that have become a hallmark of the modern era. He also advocates for making the Middle East subject to this control under American colonialism and its requirements for subjugating the Other.

As for the second book, by the thinker Francis Fukuyama, who wrote his thesis in the field of American colonialism, he posits that the American mind holds sovereignty over the other world that lies outside American civilization, including the Islamic world, and specifically the Arab world situated within the Middle East. Fukuyama believes that this American sovereignty must extend its influence over the world, including the citizens of the Middle East, through concepts he presented in his book: the end of history and the last man.

Fukuyama perceives that Arabs fall into a circle of backwardness, particularly regarding the following two issues:

First: Their backwardness relative to the cognitive superiority possessed by the West under the leadership of America, which is destined to rule the world—provided that the human being in the world outside America is capable of rising with this knowledge and connecting with it by attaining what qualifies them to do so. Consequently, the Arab needs to stir the stagnation in his region and emerge from the circle of stagnant cultural slumber. Fukuyama points out that the most prominent feature of breaking out of this cultural stagnation was the divergent thought brought by Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden; Fukuyama believed that this thought was the most suited to activate the region and extract it from the sphere of stagnation.

Despite the existence of a paradox in this vision—Fukuyama’s view of Osama bin Laden—which lies in two seemingly contradictory perceptions in America, namely:

Creating the Al-Qaeda organization project, whose purpose was to confront the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as was declared at the time.

What was officially declared in America later, stating that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization that must be eliminated by any means necessary, along with its allies from the Taliban movement.

Based on these two different perceptions, we see the difference and divergence between the declared and the hidden in America. Therefore, Fukuyama welcomed this organization through the ideas of its leader, Bin Laden, as it fell within the ideas of activating stagnation in the Middle East and reaching American knowledge. However, this astonishment we expressed earlier began to reveal itself within the blueprints of neo-American colonialism in the alleged and deceptive confrontations with terrorism—by handing over the regions where America planned to establish these extremist groups that distort the image of Islam. This is evident in handing over the reins of affairs to these groups, as seen in handing over Afghanistan to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban movement, and in the second plot occurring in the Middle East with movements that emerged from the mantle of ISIS, which originated in Iraq under American eyes and supervision, according to the planned neo-colonial principle. This is manifested in Fukuyamian thought: that Islamic extremism is the best catalyst to activate the stagnant element in the Middle East.

Second: The principle of activating the Other to reach the conception of the “Last Man” and the “End of History” is based on the question of the relationship that Fukuyama adopted from the previous ideas of two Western philosophers: Hegel and Hobbes. This relationship, known as the master-slave dialectic, was consolidated by old colonialism and adopted by neo-colonialism. Fukuyama mentions this vision in his book The End of History, stating:

“The master is in a sense more human than the slave, because he voluntarily risked his life to transcend his biological nature toward a non-biological end, which is to be recognized. By risking his life, he proves that he is free. The slave, on the contrary, according to Hobbes’s view, relinquishes this humanity out of fear of violent death. For this reason, he remains an animal, a victim of need and fear, unable to transcend his biological or natural determination. However, the slave’s loss of freedom—that is, his defective humanity—places the master in an embarrassment: for the latter wishes to be recognized by another being who, like him, possesses a distinct value and dignity. Instead, he is recognized by the slave, whose humanity remained incomplete because he relinquished it out of his natural fear of death. The master’s value is therefore recognized by a person who is not fully human.”(1)

From this equation, we presented in our previous book titled The Ontological Dialectic and the Formation of Meaning / Lived Reality, Ideas, Digitization of Consciousness a six-point clarification to elucidate what Fukuyama intended by this relationship and this equation between the master and the slave, as follows:

The master is the Last Man, and anyone else never reaches this formula; rather, he remains an “Other” human being. Consequently, we, the people of the Middle East, do not reach this status no matter what new methods and theoretical or practical cognitive tools we provide to adapt to this new perception; rather, we remain in the rank of slaves. This is the first rule in neo-colonial thought represented by Fukuyama.

In the second point of American colonial thought, we find that what the master does toward others is a voluntary action in which he transcends his biological nature toward a biological purpose based on risking his life to prove he is free. An example of this is the claim America portrays in its wars, asserting that it fights for the freedom of oppressed peoples; the freedom of the master is considered a blessing to the slave, and this risk is based on sacrificing for the sake of keeping the slave alive. Thanks to the master/America, we remain alive, because of him we live, and because of him we enjoy breathing air. He is the master who protects us and ventures with all his military and non-military power so that we remain alive from a hypothetical enemy we know nothing about and do not know when he will appear. The important thing is to remain in the context of gratitude to the protective master who sacrifices for our survival—but not in a dignified life as we conceive it. Dignity and pride belong to him alone, and we only have survival on the surface of this planet, where he is the master, the ruler, the powerful, and the controller of everything, including our very existence in the Arab region in general, and the Middle East in particular.

According to this American colonial equation, we are required to relinquish our humanity, our demands for a dignified life, and our ability to manufacture a new life for ourselves. The reason for this relinquishment of the most critical characteristic found on this planet—humanity, which distinguishes us from other creatures—is to keep the master ruling, while we remain alive thanks to the American master. The fear of death, which is also in the hands of the American master, makes us continue to exist and owe him gratitude. This gratitude is a blessing, a favor, and a gift from a free human being, a leader of this world, and its Last Man, who sees that history has reached its end regarding cognitive, scientific, and technical development. The fear of death is the secret behind the survival of the American master and the extent of his control over us. As long as there are other slaves besides us, he can abandon us and offer us to death as victims in his wars and adventures; when he loses his slaves in other regions of the world outside his control, he returns to us to domesticate us once more. Therefore, staying alive requires submission to the master and his great ideas at the end of history and his ideal, sole human being: the white American master.

The idea of neo-American colonialism lies in relinquishing humanity for the sake of staying alive, which transforms us, according to its perception, toward animalistic proximity—as per the description of the slave in the excerpt taken from The End of History. This animalism, which is the attribute of the slave, results from the fear that makes us victims of the need for the American master, unable to transcend our biological or natural determination as Hobbes sees it—a perception upon which Fukuyama relies in his conception of those who lie outside his history and his preferred human being.

The concept of the slave’s humanity in American colonialism is based on the idea that slaves are those whose humanity is incomplete, and this deficiency brings them closer to animalism, the cause of which is the slave’s loss of freedom. By losing freedom, his humanity remains incomplete, and here the American master is able to control; the latter wishes to be recognized by another being who, like him, possesses a distinct value and dignity, but this being, who possesses the same properties, does not exist. Instead, he is recognized by the slave, whose humanity remained incomplete because he relinquished it out of his natural fear of death. The master’s value is thus recognized by a person who is not fully human. Hence, this equation will continue as long as the stronger party continues its control, power, and superiority, and the slave can never find a path to freedom.

This new colonial equation is established according to the perception of the existence of a producing party and a consuming party. However, whenever this slave—who is the weaker party—wants to change the equation, life is stripped from him; everything the slave owns of objects, wealth, and other things belongs to his American master, including his life, existence, and humanity. There must be in this equation a master capable of distributing the method of living, life, and dignity according to what he wants. Since the slave accepts this position and is satisfied with it, he will remain in the category of the weakest, the enslaved, and the colonized(2).

Footnotes

(1) Fukuyama, Francis: The End of History and the Last Man, translated by Dr. Fouad Shahin et al., Beirut: Center for National Growth, 1993, p. 189, p. 190.

(2) See: Prof. Dr. Mohammed Kareem Al-Saadi: The Ontological Dialectic and the Formation of Meaning: Lived Reality, Ideas, Digitization of Consciousness, Amman: Dar Safaa for Publishing and Distribution, 2023, p. 125, p. 128.