Hudson Institute Fellow Zineb Riboua Labels Ilhan Omar a 'Third-Worldist'

Washington D.C. – Zineb Riboua, a research fellow at the Hudson Institute, recently characterized Congresswoman Ilhan Omar as a "Third-Worldist" in a public statement. Riboua's critique, shared via social media, suggests that Omar's worldview attributes internal issues like corruption and structural dysfunction in certain nations solely to external factors, thereby undermining a nuanced understanding of global challenges. This commentary highlights a growing ideological debate within foreign policy discourse.

"Ilhan Omar is a good example of a Third-Worldist. To acknowledge internal causes (corruption, fraud, structural dysfunction) would undermine the worldview’s core moral hierarchy (innocent oppressed vs evil country). So she doesn’t," Riboua stated.

Riboua, whose work focuses on great power competition and Middle East security, defines "Third-Worldism" as a postcolonial moral project that recasts politics as a global uprising against Western hegemony. She argues that this ideology often prioritizes an "innocent oppressed vs. evil country" narrative, making it difficult to acknowledge internal issues within developing nations. This perspective, according to Riboua, serves as a moral creed rather than a practical policy platform.

Congresswoman Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, has frequently been a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy, particularly concerning the Middle East and Africa. She has challenged Israeli policies, advocated for Palestinian human rights, and questioned U.S. military interventions and aid to certain countries, often drawing both support and controversy. Omar's past statements, such as those regarding the influence of pro-Israel lobbies or her calls for accountability for actions by various global actors, have sparked significant debate.

The accusation of "Third-Worldism" against Omar by Riboua underscores a broader ideological divide on how to interpret and address global conflicts and development. Riboua's analysis suggests that this framework, which emerged from anti-colonial movements, can lead to an oversimplification of complex geopolitical realities by focusing on a binary of oppressor and oppressed. This perspective is particularly relevant in ongoing discussions about international relations and the role of Western nations.