During a session of the House of Commons last Tuesday which debated Tony Blair’s request for Parliament to give its go-ahead for the invasion of Iraq, a statement by one of the MPs caused the hall to go into dead silence for a few seconds, and no one dared object.

“It’s really strange that you want to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, other colleagues present in the House and myself recollect signing a few years ago an agreement to sell such weapons to Iraq, which you now say are weapons of mass destruction and pose a threat to world peace and British interests. Is there some kind of explanation for this?” the MP asked.

The House of Commons discussions remind me of the time in history when Britain ruled the waves and colonized half the world. France, Spain and Portugal as well as Italy, Belgium and Holland all had the inclination toward colonization though the last three were less successful.

Therefore, the urge toward colonization is inherently European and rooted in the economy. War was the only acceptable way to realize economic interests — witness the two world wars both of which were fought for no other reason but economic interest.

After the end of World War II and in the face of the horrors that the people of the world suffered from, peace became the only slogan. With the end of the military-colonization ideology the search was on for an alternative. Thus emerged what we call neocolonialism or economic colonialism. It is the imposition of foreign policy, economy and culture on a nation without the need for military presence all the while acknowledging its independence and sovereignty.

However, the fierce economic competition between the big colonizers and their attempts to create special markets led to the failure of this new policy and to limited regional wars.

In the shadow of this, the United States’ military and economic capabilities grew to an unprecedented level and it too began to need outlets and markets to serve its economy leading it to confront economic powers within world economic groupings.

The American idea of colonization primarily based on force came with the immigrant Europeans and was exemplified in the elimination of the original inhabitants of the New Continent — the so-called “Red Indians” — when unprecedented massacres were committed.

Thus the American-British invasion of Iraq is merely a return to the old-style military colonization after the failure of neocolonization.

The US also aims to lay the foundations of a new world order in which it openly declares its complete control over the world and intolerance for any competitor. It will thus confront world economic groupings such as Asian, European and Chinese communities.

To confirm this theory we should note that the nations that reject war are France, Germany, Russia and China are doing it not in defense of Saddam Hussein. Everyone is in agreement of the necessity of getting rid of this regime. The dispute is over the method.

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein diplomatically retains the balance between the opposing nations and between the US and its follower the UK while the diplomatic solution reduces American hegemony, especially over European policy.

Meanwhile, getting rid of the Saddam regime through military victory for the US confirms Washington’s sole control of the world and its heightened power to face off attacks by competing international economic groupings.

This analysis may be a response to the question we’ve seen repeated since the start of the Iraqi crisis: What is going on in the world?

The United States and Britain want, with the start of the 21st century, to set the clock back to the era of military colonialism through the American military machine’s technological superiority and through British political cunningness, which is capable of turning the truth upside down without regard for international laws and customs.

Colonization happens only through war, and war is driven by economic interests; and in the face of economic interests, all morals and principles collapse, international laws fail and international legitimacy takes a back seat.

Arab News Features 24 March 2003