Decolonial discourse gained prominence with the contraction of modern Western colonial powers and the liberation of those parts of the world from the oppressive, and often genocidal, colonial rule. Strangely enough, some scholars in the West seem to have discovered the idea of “decoloniality” only recently. Even more interestingly, it is not uncommon to find “decolonization” being applied in a typically colonial manner, where the missionary zeal of the Enlightened “(de)colonizers” turns into new forms of colonization.

Much of the liberal political establishment in the US and the EU, with their priestly class, preach about “decolonization,” normally coupled with a well-known commitment to “democracy” and “human rights,” all considered to be specifically “Western values.” What can possibly be wrong with this? What’s wrong is that under the rhetoric of “democracy,” non- (and often anti-) democratic policies are advanced, under the label of the affirmation of “human rights” gross violations of human rights take place, and under the pretext of “decolonization,” new forms of (neo)colonization are at work. Let’s take a recent example related to the foreign policies of the US and the EU.

On April 18, 2024, the US Embassy in Bosnia and Herzegovina published the following statement on “X”: “The United States has for over 30 years worked on behalf of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we have consistently and vigorously pressed political leaders to adopt the reforms required to advance the country’s NATO and EU aspirations.” At the same time, the Embassy claims, “We are here to promote, protect, and defend America’s interests. We have been quite clear about what they are: We support the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and multiethnic character of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we support its integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions. These are goals we share with the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” (https://twitter.com/USEmbassySJJ/status/1780893155337912593)

The statement also points out that “it is quite clear to anyone paying attention to events in BiH who is the cause of BiH’s current political crisis and who is exacerbating tensions in the country,” and since it is “quite clear,” the Embassy still feels the urge to spell it out for the innocent readers of its posts: “It is not the international community. It is local political leaders, particularly Mr. Dodik, who is devoting a lot of time and energy to deflecting blame onto others for his own failings.”

Such a statement from an embassy would seem very strange in any country with some degree of sovereignty (recall that the Embassy claims to be committed to the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina). It would be difficult to imagine that diplomatic relations between the home country and the host country could continue unharmed, given such a degree of meddling in the internal affairs of the host country. Not in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In fact, public statements by the US Embassy in Sarajevo, and the Ambassador’s regular comments on the current political situation within the country, taking sides in internal political debates, instructing, threatening, and condemning democratically elected political leaders (whatever one thinks of their policies and businesses), have been completely normalized.

Particulalry interesting is that the US Embassy in Sarajevo stresses it is there to “promote America’s interests” (!?), while, at the same time, claiming it “has for over 30 years worked on behalf of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” This assertion implies that somehow the interests of the US and the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina are necessarily harmonious, and naturally linked, and that the US charged itself with acting “on behalf of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina” (since the people of B&H have never given the US such prerogatives). 

This is a clear manifestation of a colonial, imperial mentality. The message is explicit: “We,” the Empire, have our interests, but these are not merely particular interests; they are, by definition, universal. Moreover, “we” are there to promote “your” interests. If there is any conflict between “our” political and business interests, “our” policies, “our” ideology, and the interests, policies, or ideologies of the natives — too bad for the natives! This only proves that the natives are on the “wrong side of history,” and the Empire and its vassals will make sure to teach them some “civilization” (a process that has historically led to many genocides). The natives, from the imperial perspective, often lack the capacity to even understand what is in their best interest, so the imperial master needs to take that heavy burden upon its (already overburden) shoulders. 

To promote their interests in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the US and its European vassals have had two powerful instruments. One is political – the office of the “High Representative”; the other is military – the NATO alliance.

The current “High Representative” is appointed by the US-controlled “Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council,” without any democratic legitimacy. Over the years, both the “Steering Board” and the “Peace Implementation Council,” have ceased to have the support by the UN Security Council. The “High Representative” acts on behalf of the Empire, as a colonial governor. Over many decades, various “High Representatives” have performed a tragic-comic spectacle, in which they talk about the “rule of law” and “democracy,” while (using the “Bonn Powers”) they act as the Sovereign, who is above the law, or democratic principles. The imperial “High Representative” decides on the “exception,” in accordance to the will of those on whose behalf they act. The current “High Representative,” Christian Schmidt, answers to the masters residing in Washington DC and Berlin.

Germany, itself a US vassal state since WWII, has been trying, sometimes desperately, to reclaim its status as a pre-eminent European power, and to carve out at least a semi-independent foreign policy space (mostly unsuccessfully). One of the playgrounds where Germany has flexed its muscles for more than one hundred years is the territory of former Yugoslavia. With a significant role in the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and a bloodthirsty support for the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, Germany aspires to play an important role in Bosnia and Herzegovina through its politician, the current “High Representative.” Mr. Schmidt does not seem to feel at least a little uncomfortable in his role as the colonial governor in a country and the region where there are still people remembering the enormous atrocities committed by the German occupiers and their local allies in WWII.

From the “high” position of a colonial governor, Schmidt treats the local population as savages, who need to be taught some good old Western civilization, together with democracy and the rule of law – precisely what he, and his office, lack. Democracy and the rule of law are, in fact, the mortal enemies of the colonial governor and his imperial masters. If there were the rule of law, based on democratic legitimacy and democratic decision-making, Mr. Schmidt would not be in the position he currently occupies (and neither would he enjoy the spectacular salary he is receiving, which is, I suppose, meant to compensate for the pains of living among the natives). 

Once we put aside the rhetoric and look at the actions of Western colonial rule in places like Bosnia and Herzegovina, we see that the real “Western values” are about the unlimited power of the Empire, about contempt for democracy and the rule of law, and, above all, about the ultimate disregard for the local people, their interests and their culture, manifested in their treatment as as inferiors, who should stay obedient, with their heads down, when the colonial master speaks.

We are thus in a bizarre situation — those who are often the most vocal about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, who predict Russia’s further expansion, and who are first to criticize the lack of democracy in Russia and other places, are the very same who support anti-democratic procedures and institutions, who endorse radically anti-democratic policies, and get easily irritated if their interests are not promoted in their colonies to the greatest extent possible.

This is why the “collective (political) West” has lost credibility in the eyes of many, both within the Western hemisphere and (to a much greater extent), outside of it. This is why claims from Western governments about promoting human rights and democracy are often perceived as a bad, or even a sick joke. Such hypocrisy has a disastrous effect on authentically democratic movements, making the work of those really fight for freedom, democracy, and human rights incredibly difficult.

What we are left with is the only meaningful theory of today’s international relations, which Noam Chomsky once termed the “mafia principle” — you do not disobey the Godfather. The Godfather sets the party line, and everybody is expected to follow it. The “herd of independent minds” (as Harold Rosenberg called mainstream intellectuals) will certainly provide the necessary rhetoric as a way of justifying and normalizing such profoundly disturbed (and disturbing) discourse.

---