Occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Iran and Syria is the only solution to end the curse of “terrorism”. Occupation as an effective tool worked in the past and today’s “civilized states” have to resort to this course. This is what is suggested by Paul Johnson, in his article 21st-Century Piracy – The answer to terrorism? Colonialism, Wall Street Journal of October 6, 2001. He is the author of “Modern Times” and The Birth of the Modern” books to mention the few.
“The West has no alternative but to wage war against states that habitually aid terrorists. President Bush warns that the war may be long, but he has not, perhaps, yet grasped that this may entail long-term political obligation for America — and possibly its European allies as well. For the nearest historical parallel — the war against piracy in the 19th century — was an important element in the expansion of colonialism. It could be that a new form of colony, the Western-administered former terrorist state, is only just over the horizon.
“American and its allies may find themselves, temporarily at least, not just occupying with troops but administer obdurate terrorist states. These may eventually include not only Afghanistan, but Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Iran and Syria. Democratic regimes willing to abide by international law will be implanted where possible, but a Western political presence seems unavoidable in some cases.
“I suspect the best medium-term solution will be to revive the old League of Nations Mandate System, which served well as a “respectable” form of colonialism between the wars. Syria and Iraq were once highly successful mandates. Sudan, Libya and Iran have likewise been placed under special regimes by international treaty. Countries that cannot live at peace with their neighbors and that wage covert wars against the international community cannot expect total independence. With all the permanent members of the Security Council now backing, in varying degrees, the America-led initiative, it should not be difficult to devise a new form of United Nations mandate that places terrorist states under responsible supervision.”
Mr. Johnson gives so many examples of military expeditions, occupation and silencing by force any resistance of the exploited nations by force by Great Britain, France and America – called the West. He feels no qualms in glorifying the kick-backs which came as a result of this high-handedness. He tells the Western elite what their ancestor did in the past to subdue the “outlaws” and “roughs” of the past under the Roman Law. He quotes American marines march against the Bey of Tripoli in 1805 and the operation of 1815 against the three Barbary States. He reminds the British pounding of Algiers in 1816 ” to what was then the fiercest naval bombardment in history — 38,667 rounds of cannon balls, 960 large-caliber shells and hundreds of rockets.” In this context, he notes the French occupation of Algiers in 1830 and occupation of Tunisia and Morocco under the label of “protectorate”. Italy followed the footprints of France and occupied Tripoli.
Britain went its own way in 19th century according to the article. ” …. Britain has learned from experience that “covenants without swords” were useless, and that the sheiks would stick to their treaty obligations only if “enforcement bases” were set up. Hence Britain found itself becoming a major power in the Middle East, with a colony and base in Aden, other bases up and down the gulf, and a network of treaties and protectorate with local rulers, whose heirs were educated at the British School of Princes in India.”
The author concludes that all these actions were taken to end the “piracy”.
The same pattern with some variation was replicated in South Asia and the Far East and in China by Great Britain, France and the United States.
The author did not tell about the horrifying phenomenon of the 20th century. By the end of World War II, countries from Afghanistan to Yemen became the part of “formal” and “informal” part of the empires of the occupying powers called the colonial power. Some countries were under direct occupation (formal) and some were in the “influence zone” (informal) of the occupying powers.
In the post World War II era, the world was divided into two. One was called the “Free World”, ruled by the occupying powers of Great Britain and France under the leadership of the United States. This era is called the “neo-colonialism.”
The Soviet Union, an ally of Great Britain, France and the United States, were shut down in one part of the Europe. An “Iron curtain” fell on that part of the world but with the consent of the master of the “Free World”. It was the reoccupation of the world among the victorious of the World War II. One was under the “iron curtain” and the other was under the “silken curtain”.
After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the distribution of the world again took place. This time the looser was the Soviet Union whose leadership surrender without war. The “liberated” Communist block is now ruled by the American corporations through the “democratically elected governments.“
Coming back to the scenario painted by Mr. Johnson, the only question which comes to the mind is this. Is it possible to physically occupy another country in the 21st century or in “America‘s New War.” The answer is yes. Note the occupation of Bosnia, Kosovo, and partial occupation of Iraq in the 1990s. Include the failed attempt by the U.S. leadership to occupy Somalia in the “name of doing God’s jobs.”
Second question is, Is a country under occupation or in turmoil can be dismember in the 21st century? The answer is again yes. Note the dismemberment of Indonesia by slicing away East Timor. Note the fueling of war in Sudan with the ultimate goal to dismember it. Note the “defecto division” of Iraq into three “entities,” with a conspiracy to divide it into a “Sunni Iraq”, Shiite Iraq” and the “Kurd Iraq”.
How fits this scenario to the devastated Afghanistan? Hundred percent. How? Anti-Muslim forces needs only one party to echo the slogan of independence. And that voice is already there. Wish the word “self-determination” is not uttered in its historical context by the foreign minister of Northern Alliance. “Sipping tea in an elegant garden here just 50 miles from Kabul, the foreign minister of the rebel North Alliance makes a soothing claim for the future government it hopes to be part of. In it, he said, the people of Afghanistan will have the right of self-determination.” In New Glare, Question Dog Afghan Rebels, The New York Times, October 7, 2001.
Self-determination is either demanded by the occupied nations or by a segment of society for severing from the other part of a country. It is hoped that the Afghan leadership will limit itself for a political solution of the present impasse short of dismemberment of Afghanistan.