No, he's just honest. Ideas and sentiments like his, in favor of colonialism and imperialism, were once quite common* among Western socialists and communists, which led to the rejection of Marxism by many in the South -- who might have turned to it had Western leftists unequivocally rejected colonialism and imperialism -- at least till the vast wave of anti-colonial struggles in the mid-20th century, which also changed the minds of many Western socialists and communists (the change that some of today's leftists think of as merely a romantic "Third Worldism" to be avoided). Since then, though, the tide has turned again. The USSR is no more, China and Viet Nam have gone capitalist, Western socialists and communists have become social democrats (if they hadn't become social democrats before that), and more and more, even on the Left, have come to accept imperialism or (when they do not go as far) to decide that post-colonial governments in the South are no better than colonial empires.
* <http://marxsite.com/businbabyloninter.htm>
Looking at Bush in Babylon
An interview with Tariq Ali:
>From the Solidarity magazine Against the Current
. . . Michel Aflaq, the Christian Syrian who basically took
the initiative to form the Ba'ath Party, had been in France
in the 1930s during the days of the Popular Front, and was
quite shocked by Communist behavior inside the Popular Front.
Aflaq asked himself the question -- he had admired the French
Communist Party, but when they came into government in 1936
in France, how come they weren't letting the colonies free?
Syria was then occupied by France. He said, why is this popular
Socialist-Communist government in France not giving independence
to French colonies in Vietnam, in the Middle East, in Algeria?
That led Aflaq to the basic conclusion that when it came down to it,
the French Communists were caving into French national chauvinism
and French imperial interests. He said, never will I join this party.
So when he went back to Syria, he set up the Ba'ath, which means
'renaissance,' as a secular socialist party. That was the origins of
the Ba'ath.
> and is simply saying that the
> relevant countries are better off today than if they
> had never been colonized, which may or may not be true
> and is impossible to verify.
I'd say to the peoples of the East: You really miss nothing by failing to get colonized. If you find some beautiful things that you want from the West, such as Impressionist paintings, you know what to do: save money and buy them, just as the ruling class of Japan have. Colonizers don't bring their masterpieces to colonies with their guns -- they leave them at home -- and they take your masterpieces to their home . . . and generally forget to pay for them. -- Yoshie