• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[Lunds University] 
On:
29 May 2009 
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 907215266] 
Publisher
Routledge 
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Contemporary Asia
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t776095547
Separatism and Empire Building in the Twenty-first Century
James Petras
aa
Department of Sociology, University of Binghamton, NY, USAOnline Publication Date: 01 February 2009
To cite this Article
Petras, James(2009)'Separatism and Empire Building in the Twenty-first Century',Journal of ContemporaryAsia,39:1,116 — 126
To link to this Article: DOI:
10.1080/00472330802506857
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00472330802506857
Full terms and conditions of use:http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfThis article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 
COMMENTARY
Separatism and Empire Building in theTwenty-first Century
JAMES PETRAS
Department of Sociology, University of Binghamton, NY, USA
Throughout modern imperial history, ‘‘divide and conquer’’ has been the essentialingredient in allowing relatively small and resource-poor European countries toconquer nations vastly larger in size and populations and richer in natural resources.It is said that for every British officer in India, there were 50 Sikhs, Gurkhas,Muslims and Hindus in the British Colonial Army. The European conquest of Africaand Asia was directed by white officers, fought by black, brown and yellow soldiersso that white capital could exploit coloured workers and peasants. Regional, ethnic,religious, clan, tribal, community, village and other differences were politicised andexploited, allowing imperial armies to conquer warring peoples. In recent decades,the US empire builders have become the grand masters of ‘‘divide and conquer’’strategies throughout the world. By the 1970s, the CIA made a turn from promotingthe dubious virtues of capitalism and democracy, to linking up with, financing anddirecting, religious, ethnic and regional elites against national regimes, independentor hostile to US world empire building.The key to US military empire building follows two principles: direct militaryinvasions and fomenting separatist movements, which can lead to militaryconfrontation.Twenty-first century empire building has seen the extended practice of bothprinciples in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, China (Tibet), Bolivia, Ecuador,Venezuela, Somalia, Sudan, Burma and Palestine. In any country in which the USAcannot secure a stable client regime, it resorts to financing and promoting separatistorganisations and leaders using ethnic, religious and regional pretexts.Consistent with traditional empire-building principles, Washington supportsseparatists only in countries that refuse to submit to imperial domination andopposes separatists who resist the empire and its allies. In other words, imperial
Correspondence Address:
James Petras, Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology, Department of Sociology, University of Binghamton, NY, USA. Email: jpetras@binghamton.edu
Journal of Contemporary AsiaVol. 39, No. 1, February 2009, pp. 116–126
ISSN 0047-2336 Print/1752-7554 Online/09/010116-11
Ó
2009
Journal of Contemporary Asia
DOI: 10.1080/00472330802506857
 D o w nl o ad ed  B y : [ L u nd s  U ni v e r si t y]  A t : 13 :18 29  M a y 2009
 
ideologues are neither ‘‘hypocrites’’ nor resort to ‘‘double standards’’ (as they areaccused by liberal critics) – they publicly uphold the ‘‘Empire first’’ principle as theirdefining criterion for evaluating separatist movements and granting or denyingsupport. In contrast, many seemingly progressive critics of empire make universalstatements in favour of the ‘‘right to self-determination’’ and even extend it to themost rancid, reactionary, imperial-sponsored ‘‘separatist groups’’ with catastrophicresults. Independent nations and their people, who oppose US-backed separatists,are bombed to oblivion and charged with ‘‘war crimes.’’ People, who oppose theseparatists and who reside in the ‘‘new state,’’ are killed or driven into exile. The‘‘liberated people’’ suffer from the tyranny and impoverishment induced by the US-backed separatists and many are forced to emigrate to other countries for economicsurvival.Few if any of the progressive critics of the USSR and supporters of the separatistrepublics have ever publicly expressed second thoughts, let alone engaged in self-critical reflections, even in the face of decades-long socio-economic and politicalcatastrophes in the secessionist states. Yet, it was and is the case that these self-sameprogressives today continue to preach high moral principles to those who questionand reject some separatist movements because they originate and grow out of effortsto extend the US empire.Washington’s success in co-opting so-called progressive liberals in support of separatist movements soon to be new imperial clients in recent decades is long andthe consequences for human rights are ugly.Most European and US progressives supported the following:1. US-backed Bosnian fundamentalists, Croatian neo-fascists and Kosova-Albanian terrorists, leading to ethnic cleansing and the conversion of theironce-sovereign states into US military bases, client regimes and economic basketcases – totally destroying the multinational Yugoslavian welfare state.2. The US-funded and armed overseas Afghan Islamic fundamentalists whodestroyed a secular, reformist, gender-equal Afghan regime, carrying out vastanti-feudal campaigns involving both men and women, a comprehensiveagrarian reform and constructing extensive health and educational programmes.As a result of US-Islamic tribal military successes, millions were killed, displacedand dispossessed and fanatical medieval anti-communist tribal warlordsdestroyed the unity of the country.3. The US invasion destroyed Iraq’s modern, secular, nationalist state andadvanced socio-economic system. During the occupation, US backing of rivalreligious, tribal, clan and ethnic separatist movements and regimes led to theexpulsion of over 90% of its modern scientific and professional class and thekilling of over one million Iraqis, all in the name of ousting a repressive regimeand above all in destroying a state opposed to Israeli oppression of Palestinians.Clearly, US military intervention promotes separatism as a means of establishing aregional ‘‘base of support.’’ Separatism facilitates setting up a minority puppetregime and works to counter neighbouring countries opposed to the depredations of empire. In the case of Iraq, US-backed Kurdish separatism preceded the imperialcampaign to isolate an adversary, and create international coalitions to pressure and
Separatism and Empire Building
117
 D o w nl o ad ed  B y : [ L u nd s  U ni v e r si t y]  A t : 13 :18 29  M a y 2009
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...