The author expresses frustration with the overuse and misuse of the term ”colonialism,” particularly by intellectuals who seem to see it everywhere. The author acknowledges the horrific suffering caused by genuine colonialism and its inherent racism, but argues that the term has become diluted through its misapplication to contemporary situations. The specific example used is the reaction to a visit by French and German foreign ministers to Syria after the fall of Bashar al-Assad. A Syrian-Swedish journalist criticized the visit for focusing on minority rights, interpreting this as a continuation of colonial attitudes and condescending advice. The author finds this interpretation absurd.
The author questions how Europe’s actions towards Syria can be construed as colonialist. Europe accepted over a million Syrian refugees, providing them with safety and opportunity while their homeland was ravaged by war. This act of humanitarianism, the author argues, is the antithesis of colonialism. While acknowledging that more could have been done to aid Syrians, the author emphasizes the logic of concern for Syria’s future given its recent violent history, devastated infrastructure, and the Islamist composition of its transitional government.
The author rejects the idea that expressing concern for Syria or engaging with various factions within the country constitutes colonialism. It’s not condescending, the author argues, but rather a responsible approach given the precarious situation. Furthermore, the author highlights the importance of engaging with minority groups, emphasizing that such dialogue is not colonial but rather essential for ensuring a just and representative future for Syria. The author underscores the contrast between the genuine support offered by Europe and the accusation of colonial interference, suggesting that the latter accusation trivializes the historical suffering inflicted by actual colonialism.
The author further dismantles the accusations of European ”passivity” and ”hypocrisy” by pointing to concrete actions: accepting over a million refugees, providing substantial financial aid, and expressing public support for the diverse Syrian population. The author argues that these actions demonstrate genuine concern and a commitment to assisting Syria in its transition. Framing such support as ”colonialism” not only misrepresents the situation, but also disrespects the very concept of colonialism and the profound harm it has historically inflicted.
The author contends that prioritizing democracy and human rights in Syria is not an act of colonial imposition, but rather a fundamental principle that should be upheld globally. To ignore Syria’s fate, the author asserts, would be true contempt. The author implies that accusations of colonialism in this context serve to deflect attention from the real challenges facing Syria, including the need to establish a stable and inclusive government that respects the rights of all its citizens.
The author concludes by implicitly advocating for a more nuanced and accurate understanding of colonialism, urging caution against its casual application to situations that do not fit the historical definition. The author emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between genuine colonialism and legitimate international engagement aimed at promoting peace, stability, and human rights. By conflating the two, the author argues, we risk undermining the significance of historical injustices and failing to address the complex challenges of contemporary international relations.
