Hakimeh Saghaye-Biria, Assistant Professor at Tehran Univ.
One of the most frequent expressions used in describing the crimes committed by the Zionist regime in recent days is the issue of its resorting to the "collective punishment" of civilians in Gaza, aka the genocide of the Gazans. This issue is sensitive because collective punishment is considered a war crime which is prohibited by the treaty in international and non-international armed conflicts, especially Article 33 of the Geneva Convention and Article 6 of the Additional Protocol II. The full support of the United States, England, Canada, Germany, and France for this crime has been met with the negative reaction of the global public opinion.
The question that has formed in the minds of people around the world is: Why are the countries that are the world leaders of liberal democracy not only tolerating this tremendous crime but also managing it? A few questions are raised here. First of all, is it right to say that the problem lies in the dichotomy of liberal values and their practice? Or does liberalism as a theoretical view make these kinds of crimes possible? If so, how is this possible?
The most important flaw of liberalism is that it revolves around "individualism" and therefore "ethics" does not enjoy a central, primary status in it. When we speak about other components of liberalism, such as equality, rationality, rights, private property, and freedom, they are all defined in relation to individualism. Human values, which should be placed beyond individualism as the criteria for human relations in human societies, no longer have a place in liberalism. This equates to the absence of moral rule over society. It is in these kinds of societies that we witness the emergence and internalization of theoretical structures of racism and social Darwinism. In other words, only strong societies have the right to survive and the weak will be eliminated naturally.
Hundreds of years of colonialism by liberal countries might seem to be the most unjustifiable behavior in accordance to the principles of liberalism. But when we take a closer look, we face a phenomenon called liberal imperialism. This theoretical view is a combination of the theory of "stages of historical development" and “liberalism.”
According to the theory of "stages of historical development," all societies naturally go through a developmental process from hunting to herding, to agriculture, to trade, which simultaneously forms a cultural arc from "savagery" to "barbarism" to "civilization." In this theory, just as the sun moves from the east to the west, civilization can always be found in the West in a more complete form. The language of civilization, savagery, and barbarism is prevalent in the works of writers such as John Stuart Mill, who is considered one of the fathers of liberalism. Therefore, this theory is not distinct from the liberal tradition, and, considering that the Scottish Enlightenment figures such as Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith were among its main exponents, it is strongly related to liberalism.
The idea that civilization is the culmination of a historical development process was used to justify imperialism. Even though one of the most important principles of liberalism is based on the fact that all people have the capacity for rationality and sovereignty; however, the theory of the stages of historical development considers this universality to be exclusive to a certain stage of civilization. In other words, humans do not have the capacity to live under liberal conditions (freedom and equal rights) if they are not civilized.
For example, according to John Stuart Mill, savages lack the capacity to govern their societies because of their excessive love for freedom. On the other hand, obedience in barbarian societies among subjects, slaves, and peasants has been so internalized that it has stifled the capacity for rationality in them. It is only the commercial societies that create the material and cultural conditions that enable people to realize their potential for freedom and autonomy.
According to this logic, civilized societies like England act in their favor by governing less developed people. From this perspective, imperialism is not primarily a form of political domination and economic exploitation, but rather a paternalistic practice of a government that exports "civilization" (for example, modernization) to help advance indigenous people. Despotism (a term which John Stuart Mill does not shy away from) is a means for improvement and ultimately "self-government." This theoretical view has been interpreted as "the white man’s burden” — something that was unfortunately accepted by some intellectuals in societies under colonization.
In the same way that with such a system of thought we should consider colonialism as the fruit of liberalism, it should be said that the shameful support of the so-called heads of liberalism of the Zionist regime and the open genocide of the people of Gaza is also the fruit of liberalism. Just as there were no moral or human limitations to suppress anti-colonial uprisings in colonialism, such a deficit can be seen in the Zionist regime's confrontation with the anti-colonial uprising of the settlers of the apartheid Zionist regime, in a way that this illegitimate regime has resorted to collective punishment of the Gazans in the hope of bringing the Resistance to its knees.
Dr. Hakimeh Saghaye-Biria is a professor at Tehran University, Faculty of Islamic Knowledge and Thought. She holds a PhD in American Studies from the University of Tehran, a Master’s degree in Mass Communication from Louisiana State University, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communication from the University of Houston.
(The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Khamenei.ir.)
Comment