Terrorism, dictatorship, and the west: the case of South Africa and Russia

By Mesfin Arega

Quote: “Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch”

       President F. D. Roosevelt (about the brutal dictator of Nicaragua)

Fact: When the UN general assembly voted in November 1963 to impose oil embargo on apartheid South Africa, besides the apartheid regime itself, the only countries in the whole world who voted against the resolution were US, UK, France, Spain, and Portugal.  

                                (UN General Assembly Resolution 1899(XVIII), November 13, 1963)

______________________________

For the west in general and for the US, UK, and France troika in particular, dictatorship and terrorism are loosely defined self-serving terms which are applied only on those who oppose the west’s neocolonial domination of the world.  A western stooge can be as tyrannical or terrorist as he wants to be without being frowned upon let alone condemned by the west, for he is, as President Roosevelt correctly said, the west’s “son of a bitch”.  On the contrary, this “son of a bitch” of the west is encouraged (overtly or covertly) and financed (directly or indirectly) to keep serving the west doing what he does best.  An excellent and vivid illustration of the west’s hypocrisy about dictatorship and terrorism is the case of South Africa under the apartheid regime of John Vorster, and Russia under President Putin.

When ANC (African National Congress) freedom fighters cut telephone or power lines of the vicious apartheid regime, for the west they were cowardly terrorists who should be condemned in the strongest terms possible, only because they were fighting a white supremacist regime heavily subsidized by the west.   On the contrary, when Ukrainian saboteurs blow bridges or assassinate journalists, for the west they are brave freedom fighters who should be lauded for their heroism, and helped in all ways possible, only because they are fighting the Russia the west loves to hate, thereby acting as the west’s “sons of a bitch”.

And why does the west hate Russia?  The west hates Russia, not because of its system of government, but only because, when Russia is lead by a nationalist leader like Vladmir Putin, it can refuse to be subservient to the west and the west can do nothing about it.  Had the Russian puppet Boris Yeltsin taken Crimea and Donbass back to Russia, he would no doubt have had the west’s covert blessing (if not outright support), and the narration of the west’s mainstream media would no doubt have been justice done to Russia instead of annexation by Russia.  In all likelihood, Russia under Yeltsin would have been supplied western weapons to wadge war in Ukraine, just as Saudi Arabia is supplied western weapons to wadge war in Yemen.  Being the west’s “son of a bitch”, Yeltsin could have been as “son of a bitch” as he wanted to be and not face the west’s disapproval, let alone wrath.

When the non-western world lead by the permanent security council members Russia and China, and the non-aligned movement lead by India and Ghana moved in full force to apply severe sanctions on apartheid South Africa, the western world lead by Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher vehemently opposed the move, arguing that sanctions would hurt black south Africans much more than whites, as if Regan and Thatcher ever cared for blacks. 

“(Sanctions on apartheid South Africa are) the way of poverty, starvation and destroying the hopes of the very people …whom you wish to help” (Margaret Thatcher)

“(Sanctions on apartheid South Africa would) feed white consciences outside South Africa, not black bellies within it” (John Major, foreign minister under Margaret Thatcher).

On the contrary, when it comes to Russia, these very western countries (again lead by the US, UK, and France) were quick to imposed unprecedented sanctions, arguing that Russians will revolt against President Putin only if they are made to suffer severely under severe sanctions.

When the apartheid regime of South Africa viciously murdered 69 peaceful protesters in Sharpeville and the UN security council resolved to condemn it (Resolution 134, April 1, 1960), France and United Kingdom abstained.  However, when it comes to Russia, these two abstainers are livid that African countries abstained in the UN resolution to condemn Russia.   France’s Macron had the arrogance to call African countries “hypocrites”, only because they did what his own country exactly did several decades ago.

When the UN general assembly voted in November 1963 to impose oil embargo on apartheid South Africa, besides the apartheid regime itself, the only countries in the whole world who voted against the resolution were the UK (the largest investor in apartheid South Africa), US (the second largest investor in apartheid South Africa), France (the third largest investor in apartheid South Africa) as well as Spain and Portugal (who still had colonies in Africa).   Even after 25 years, when the UN general assembly voted on November 20 (1987) for oil embargo on apartheid South Africa, the US, UK, and France troika still voted a resounding NO.

However, when it comes to Russia, these very western countries (especially the US, UK, and France) are threatening cash-strapped African countries with severe consequences should they say no to western sanctions and buy Russian oil, while allowing their own richest companies like Shell to buy Russian oil at bargain prices.  The US ambassador (Linda Thomas-Greenfield) had the arrogance to effectively say that unless African countries strictly adhere to the west’s rule and obediently do what the west tells them to do, they should expect to be spanked, if not whipped.

“We caution (African) countries not to break sanctions … they stand the chance of having actions taken against them.” (Linda Thomas-Greenfield)

The fact is terrorism and dictatorship are loose terms conveniently used by the west to tarnish or attack opponents of the neocolonial domination of the west.  However, this fact should not have been surprising at all, knowing that the west was founded solely on colonialism and slavery and can now live only off neocolonialism and neo-slavery.   What is surprising is why most people in the non-western world readily follow the west’s lead in designating terrorists and dictators.  Herein lies the decisive role of the west’s mainstream media which has unparalleled power in shaping public opinion.

Like in all wars, the greatest causality of the Ukraine war is truth.  However, unlike in most wars, in the Ukraine war, the side killing truth the most is indisputable.  Any casual observer of CNN’s or BBC’s coverage of the Ukraine war will clearly see that the so called western mainstream media is nothing but an agglomeration of fake news outlets for advancing western self-serving agenda.  What makes the CNNs and the BBCs so dangerous is their unequalled mastery of the art of lying and deception through half-truth.

The war in Ukraine is a proxy war of the west by the west for the west.  It has nothing to do with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine or the freedom and democracy of Ukrainians.  Instead, it is a war for total domination of the non-western world by humiliating, if not totally defeating, the principal power opposing that domination (Russia), and then making it an unforgettable example for other wannabe challengers of the west’s neocolonial domination, principally China.

After all, why is the west which played so crucial a role in the secession of Kosovo from Serbia so insistent that Donbass remain part of Ukraine?  Why are white supremacist mercenaries flocking to Ukraine to fight for Zelensky, and why is the west openly supporting and secretly funding them?  Why does England which proudly marched all the way to the south pole to “reclaim” the Falklands vehemently condemn Russia for “annexing” Crimea?  Why is the west, the epitome of imperialism, accusing Russia of imperialist aspirations?

Like its victory over Nazis in the second world war heralded the beginning of the end of the dominance of Nazism, if Russia prevails and defeats western neocolonialists in Ukraine, its victory will herald the beginning of the end of the neocolonial domination of the west.  In this sense, the war in Ukraine is a life and death struggle for the west.  And it is becoming increasingly apparent that the west prefers instant death by nuclear Armageddon trying to defeat Russia than slow, agonizing death by losing its neocolonial hegemony.

If the west defeats Russia in Ukraine, it will also most likely defeat China, using Taiwan to leave China with no other option than attack, just as it used Ukraine to leave Russia with no other option than attack.  The recent visit to Taiwan by high profile US and European politicians is a ploy to attract China to the bait.  However, the country of Sun Tzu is not expected to bite the bait and fall easy prey to the west. If China is forced to attack for its own survival as a genuinely independent country, it should learn from the Ukraine case and attack not for attack’s sake, but with all its military might to win the war quickly and decisively, especially by taking out the enemy’s command and control center by any means necessary.

If the west defeats Russia and China, it will no longer have a serious rival to its neocolonial hegemony and, therefore, its reign through its own self-serving “international order” will be absolute.  Its grip on the non-western world will be even tighter than it was before the onset of the Ukraine war.  Once again, the Sun will not set on the west’s empire of neocolonial domination and the whole non-western world will forever be condemned to toil slavishly to fund the west’s lavish lifestyle.

As the neocolonial hegemony of the west is existential for the west, its demise is equally existential for Africa in particular, and for the non-western world in general.  For Africa to come out of the vicious circle of poverty and chaos, its principal cause, the west’s neocolonial hegemony must be utterly dismantled.  In this respect, the war in Ukraine is a once in a life-time chance for Africa to shatter this devilish hegemony of the west alongside Russia.

One way Africa can do so is to completely ignore the warnings of west and cooperate with Russia and China in all ways mutually beneficial.  The more Africa opposes the west’s domination, the weaker the domination gets, the lighter Africa’s burden for progress.  After all, the Sun is rising in the east and setting in the west, both literally and figuratively, and Africa should be wise enough to tie its future with ascending Russia and China than with descending (declining) west.

Another way Africa can fight the west’s domination is by fighting the propaganda means of this domination.  Africa should impose total ban on every western mainstream media for promoting white supremacism by incessantly portraying Africa as a dark, hopeless continent, good only as a source of raw material and slave labor, always at war with itself, and forever the white man’s burden.

In this respect, the west itself has already set a precedent.  Since CNN and BBC are happy that RT is banned from their respective countries for “promoting Putin’s anti-western agenda”, they should not complain if they are banned from Africa for “promoting the west’s anti-Africa agenda”.  If RT is a mouthpiece of the Russian government, CNN and BBC are more so of their respective anti-Africa governments, albeit cunningly, having no equal in the art of lying and deception.

A third way Africa can ensure the demise of the west’s neocolonial domination is by not using the colonially imposed English and French languages as well as the Latin alphabet.  English and French can be cast out of Africa by promoting few African languages as lingua franca or by using numerous African languages as a basis for Africanto, an African Esperanto.

The west is dominant because English is dominant and vice versa.  New York and London thrive not because they are industrious or innovative but only because they are the financial centers of the world.  And, New York and London are the financial center of the world not because they are better to be so than Shanghai or Moscow but because of the English language.  England’s affluence, if not its very existence, entirely depends on English being the dominant international language, explaining one reason why English politicians and statesmen are the most vocal supporters of Zelensky, who has vowed to replace Russian by English as one of his stated goals.  Without English, the permanently opportunistic Anglo-Saxon cannot divide and conquer the world, and its neocolonial domination will be gone for good.

The war in Ukraine is a God given opportunity for the non-western world to get rid of the ugly, greedy, hypocritical and, above all, arrogant neocolonial domination of the west once and for all.  In particular, Africa, as the worst victim of this neocolonial domination, should seize the golden opportunity Ukraine offered her, take the fight to the neocolonialist backyard, and wadge a life and death struggle against the neocolonialists alongside Russia, not for Russia’s sake but for her own.

Mesfin Arega

mesfin. arega@gmail.com