January 26, 2022

DCTRS

Damascus Center for Theoretical and Civil Rights Studies

Dictatorship production in the 21st century

After more than three centuries From an intellectual and militant time against authoritarian and absolute rule, the word dictatorship no longer appeals to the public or the private. Even the “positive” meaning of the dictatorship of the proletariat that Marxism has tried to commercialize has no luster. Dictatorship has become in the global collective consciousness a miserable and sordid form of controlling the relationship between the ruler and the ruled, whatever the motives and justifications. The failure of the two most important totalitarian experiences of the twentieth century (fascism and Stalinism) had the distinction between dictatorship and human dignity. Consequently, no party or trend can market it implicitly or publicly, even if the desire for control is implanted in the folds of many political and ideological cultures.

There is no doubt that the fall of the Soviet Union, and the end of the bipolar international situation, provided a new objective ground for the exercise of hegemony by the United States. This was manifested in more than one unilateral decision and position that imposes health or force on others. However, in the forms of civil resistance at the global level, and the aspiration of other major powers to play a role in mapping the human existence, what in the last century has limited this delinquency. But the events of September 11, 2001 were the biggest and most important opportunity, since the end of World War II, to act and act. This is within a logic that is based on the compulsion of the other to voluntary or compassionate sympathy with a country that suffered a “narcissistic wound”, and therefore he is entitled to what is not entitled to others, not only because he is the strongest but also because he was attacked.

On September 20, 2001, the US President made a speech in which he outlined the policy of the new American administration to confront the danger his country is exposed to. This word carried clarity, which determines the nature of the American administration and the relationship between its political options and issues of democracy and freedoms inside and outside its borders.

The US president announced that moral relativity, and what he called the consecration of “American values”, would be abandoned in favor of national security and “the safety of its citizens”. He provided a definition of terrorism that confined him to political oppression fueled by Islamic ideology. And this is in a clear marginalization of all the explanations that link violence to economic reasons or due to the nature of the world order and the disparity between peoples and countries. It also defends situations that produce more competition and more freedom for the market. In this speech, the US President put forward a new concept called “The Right to Prevention.” Just as preventive medicine is the best for dealing with epidemics and diseases among people, preventive wars are the most appropriate form of combating terrorism and protecting the American nation. Perhaps the fourth point concerns us here on more than one side. He also focused on defining the relationship with countries based on their stance on terrorism and the war against it. Likewise, it should not recognize any country that supports terrorism, or even not create a Palestinian state if the latter were to become a “haven for terrorism.” New Governor Norman Podhoretz reminds all of this, and he goes even further when he talks about a “fourth world war” that requires the abolition of all the rainbow spaces between allies and enemies of the United States (Coomintry Magazine / Commentary / September 2004).

These theses embodied the neo-conservative perceptions of the world and the domination of it. She could not express herself without a major event like the 9/11 tragedy. We do not secretly state that such theses tick the desires of many European politicians who know that a culture of fear is a universal given. Also, democracy is not the real estate for all the diseases of the world, and it is possible to achieve quick and important gains in the ranks of the public, because security is the magic veil that is able to cover all the rulings ’faults, even in the ancient countries with their democratic institutions. The first countries to announce their full readiness to cooperate were those who considered political security as an approach to governance and the handover of power to heresy, that is, those that flood our region. It can be said that the official collusion at the global level, which did not have the audacity to criticize or confront what became known as the “war on terror”, participated in the crime of reproducing new forms of dictatorship in the twenty-first century. Cross-border forms the most important features:

1- The negative relativity of the content of the concept of the rule of law, the primacy of the defense of national security over respect for the constitution, international laws and charters of human rights, and the globalization of the state of emergency. So that the “war on terror institutions” no longer bound by the law of habeas corpus habeas corpus , which dates back fonder of 1628, is no longer the right to the integrity of the soul and body , the pride of Western civilization. Secret detention, torture, and transfer over the borders returned to the northern countries, and defrauding the hard core of the basic rights of people became justified by several European governments (British, Spanish and Italian, on the eve of the aggression against Iraq, for example).

2- Moving from international humanitarian law and human rights treaties to a new gel state based on parallel systems that include: the military and civil courts, bilateral security agreements and precautionary measures. So, after five years, and according to estimates by Amnesty International and the Arab Human Rights Committee, nearly 70,000 people have been arrested by the American administration for different times without a fair trial. More than half of them did not face any judicial accountability, even in an exceptional sense, and 14,000 of them are still in Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, and secret prisons.

3- So it sent its forces where the American administration wanted, and opened their lands to secret prisons. It also created security companies, often overseen by security officers, who were forced by the fall of the Berlin Walls for early retirement. Companies capable of feeding American wars with what they need at the human and logistical levels (there are more than fifty thousand mercenaries in Iraq for these companies who do all kinds of what are known in wars as dirty work).

4- The policy of the open war on terrorism must be composed of writers, researchers, journalists, NGOs and pressure groups that give them mental and moral cover. Therefore, large budgets were allocated for the purchase of the people of the pen, and new rules were set for American aid, including donations from private foundations. As well as to open new media stores directed, and to find facilities for all who promote and participate in the American campaign, and to strike voices against all methods, including the promotion of lies and the transmission of misleading information. While the inspection at the airports has become similar to what is happening at Ben Gurion Airport, and the means of revenge against the “enemy”, correct or hypothetical, what the Hebrew state applies to the occupied Palestinian territories, more than a European newspaper has turned sober to trumpet this policy. This was evident in the first two years with human rights organizations that did not fall into the trap of accepting all the information coming from the American administration, as it was subjected to great media isolation in Europe. The first demonstration against the presence of the Guantanamo prison in front of the UNESCO Paris Palace was not covered by any Western journalist. Major newspapers have also refused to take information from sources known to be serious, such as Frenchman Louis Joinet, head and rapporteur of the team on arbitrary detention at the United Nations, during the events of September. Or Swiss MP Dick Marty and founding figures from Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists, so that we do not talk about Arab symbols living in Europe. In contrast, information provided by on-demand organizations was promoted. The American administration has asked, directly and as it turned out after a while, from Western liberal institutions that are new or in contact with its foreign affairs, to organize counter-mobilization conferences and seminars for everyone who wants to trim their nails or press it. It can be said that the war on terror turned into organized terrorism on the intellectual level first, as the basics of this war became a holy topic that does not differ in its sanctity from the Holocaust. Also, on the judicial level, secondly, as we closely followed through the process of arresting and trying Tayseer Alouni and the kidnapping of Sami Al-Hajj, this is related to a “heretical” TV channel in the era of one speech and mono reading to the scientist and the “mobile” journalist. It can be said that the war on terror turned into organized terrorism on the intellectual level first, as the basics of this war became a holy topic that does not differ in its sanctity from the Holocaust. Also, on the judicial level, secondly, as we closely followed through the process of arresting and trying Tayseer Alouni and the kidnapping of Sami Al-Hajj, this is related to a “heretical” TV channel in the era of one speech and mono reading to the scientist and the “mobile” journalist. It can be said that the war on terror turned into organized terrorism on the intellectual level first, as the basics of this war became a holy topic that does not differ in its sanctity from the Holocaust. Also, on the judicial level, secondly, as we closely followed through the process of arresting and trying Tayseer Alouni and the kidnapping of Sami Al-Hajj, this is related to a “heretical” TV channel in the era of one speech and mono reading to the scientist and the “mobile” journalist. embodied . It is necessary here to recall the reaction of the first Western human rights organizations in the two cases to show the extent of fear of facing American policy. This fear still exists on issues espoused by the US administration and its allies. Otherwise, who are the Western human rights organizations that dare demand, for example, the release of the accused in the Hariri case in the name of the presumption of innocence? Is not the rule   ” who falls in the network without mercy on him ”  applies despite all the reviews and criticisms?    

5- The pro-Israel lobby was mobilized in the war on terror, and this lobby succeeded in scoring many points in favor of the Hebrew state in vile trade-offs with the current administration. It was not surprising that AIPAC moved to support the current policy as the best interests of the Zionist entity. 

6- In the Arab world as well, there are those who have been promoting this speech from local brokers, as there has been a lot of talk that the world has changed and these changes must be understood to stay in power or the choir of contentment. So allegations of obedience and auctions began in practice: The American administration places Saudi charitable organizations on the terrorism list, and the Saudi government announces a government council that replaces all associations working for humanitarian assistance outside the Kingdom. Also, after the bombings in the British capital, an Arab newspaper issued from London did not refrain from writing in the name of its former editor: “We told you to stop them, and today we say you kick them out …” in a speech that even the British far right does not dare resort to. The British government tolerated Islamic extremism. ” Occupation in the discourse of the pro-US Iraqi alliance is considered liberation despite international law and the United Nations. Torture and killings do not even require mercy. Does the people demand denunciation? The unfair trials of Islamic extremist groups in Tunisia and Morocco have not yet stopped any Western liberal. The presence of more than 480 prisoners without trial in Saudi Arabia does not give Ms. Rice any questioning. There is no doubt that the Miss’s meeting with the General Intelligence directors in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan in February 2007 was not to improve the human rights situation in their countries! Does the people demand denunciation? The unfair trials of Islamic extremist groups in Tunisia and Morocco have not yet stopped any Western liberal. The presence of more than 480 prisoners without trial in Saudi Arabia does not give Ms. Rice any questioning. There is no doubt that the Miss’s meeting with the General Intelligence directors in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan in February 2007 was not to improve the human rights situation in their countries! Does the people demand denunciation? The unfair trials of Islamic extremist groups in Tunisia and Morocco have not yet stopped any Western liberal. The presence of more than 480 prisoners without trial in Saudi Arabia does not give Ms. Rice any questioning. There is no doubt that the Miss’s meeting with the General Intelligence directors in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan in February 2007 was not to improve the human rights situation in their countries!

7 – The US administration employed with great pragmatism many of the problems that the European Union faces in its favor, such as the absence of a unified political decision, the crisis of reshaping identities, and the slow but compulsory accession of Eastern European countries. It also did the same with Arab governments that considered their loss of popularity and legitimacy sufficient reason for their political and economic dependence on the United States. This is in the consolidation of international political traditions based on subjugation and dependence, and considering all means permissible to create a “coherent” front, with or without their consent, of the American administration.   

The new dictatorship is no longer like its predecessors. It is a dictatorship over borders, above known norms in international politics and law. So it was not possible to face it successfully in its first months, even by ancient societies and forces with its democratic traditions. It could be said that it took humanity unawares, at least for two years. Where the civil resistances were not organized during them, so as to reduce losses, and lay the foundations of organized confrontations with new and innovative methods.

—————————      

A human rights activist and fighter from Syria