Customer Reviews

Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The adoption of the humanitarian war rationale has had a particularly damaging effect on what remains of the Left in Western countries; one of the basic tenets for Leftists should have been to oppose imperial wars, and it has been disconcerting to witness the adoption of the human rights lingo to either co-cheerlead wars, accept portions of the rationale for war or simply to demonstrate unreflective muddled thinking. Jean Bricmont's book, Humanitarian Imperialism, is a clearly written guide through this moral maze, an unmasking of tendentious interpretation of history, and an antidote to the principal malaise afflicting our times: hypocrisy. It is an important contribution to help the Left to assess critically history, and to break through an intellectual logjam surrounding the so-called humanitarian wars.

Recovering from the popular trauma of Vietnam has been agonizing for the nation's imperial managers. Running a global empire requires seizing opportunity when it arises, as well as strafing the unruly when they threaten to break ranks. But all that got a lot harder once the bloody realities of southeast Asia gave intervention a bad name. Still, there's considerable truth in the old saying, "Where there's a will, there's a way", and there's definitely a "will" in Washington-- an imperial will. But after Vietnam, the "way" took some time to crystallize. Enter the concept "humanitarian intervention", a phrase bound to engage the heart of every well-meaning liberal. What better reason to intervene in another country's internal affairs, than to do so under the cover of aiding human rights. No more need for an Ollie North running covert intervention from the White House basement, or being thwarted by a restive anti-war Congress. Now even liberals and anti-globalists can climb on board the interventionist train. And many did, riding all the way to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq before the wheels fell off in Baghdad.

Bricmont's succinct little volume is about as timely as timely gets. In a 150-plus pages, we're reminded why the US cannot be trusted to conduct any post-WWII intervention, "humantarian" or otherwise. Just as importantly, Bricmont points out how counter-productive these intercessions prove in advancing ordinary standards of human rights. Much of the material here is likely familiar to students of US foreign policy. Still, discussing the track record within the context of humanitarian assumptions serves a very timely purpose, and should be required reading for all who want to climb aboard that meretricious train.

Several miscellaneous points: Situating the left's present predicament remains a key requirement for moving beyond our present benighted stage. The Preface presents a provocative set of 20th-century comparisons as signposts, e.g., anti-imperialism, not socialism, characterizes that century's trajectory, thus placing the Third World's evolutionary advances in a clearer light. Also aiding the text are the author's well-placed efforts at dealing honestly with the Soviet experience. There's little of the reflex anti-Sovietism that characterizes much of current left opinion. In fact, it's hard to see how the left can revive without an honest eye-level reckoning with 70 years of "socialism under siege". Lastly, the book deals with the issue of interventionism within the present era of US dominance. It's not a work of theory. There may be scattered references to certain conditions justjfying foreign intervention, but Bricmont's not trying to arrive at general criteria. Put succinctly, we have a better idea of what does not justify foreign intervention, than we have of what does.

Anyway, Bricmont's is a highly topical work, deserving of much greater attention than what it's currently getting on this site.

In this brilliant book, French scientist Jean Bricmont exposes the liberal lie of humanitarian imperialism, showing that imperialism is never humanitarian.

Throughout the last century, the USA and its allies, principally Britain, constantly attacked progressive forces, upholding by force the unjust world order under which we live, attacking workers seeking justice and national sovereignty. The USA is the organ-grinder, Britain the monkey.

The key example is the Soviet Union, which was always forced to defend itself against aggression. As Bricmont notes, defending the Soviet Union, "The leftist discourse on the Soviet Union, especially on the part of Trotskyists, anarchists, and a majority of contemporary communists, usually fails to recognize that aspect of things in its eagerness to denounce Stalinism. But insofar as a large part of Stalinism can be considered a reaction to external attacks and threats (imagine again a regular series of September 11 attacks on the United States), the denunciation amounts to a defense of imperialism that is all the more pernicious for adopting a revolutionary pose."

Bricmont defends workers' nationalism, pointing out, "the `nationalism' of a people that wants to protect advantages gained in decades of struggle for progress is not comparable to the nationalism of a great power that takes the form of military intervention at the other end of the earth. Moreover, if it is true that national sovereignty does not necessarily bring democracy, there can be no democracy without it." Nations that lose sovereignty lose their democracy.

When peoples defend their national sovereignty against an aggressor, they are upholding international law. But for Britain to follow the USA into endless wars would militarise our foreign and domestic policies, destroy civil liberties and waste billions on the military, with no end to terrorism.

If Britain instead practised non-intervention and peaceful cooperation, and respected other nations' rights to self-determination and national sovereignty, we would free billions of pounds to invest in our industries and services.

The author tears into the hypocritical assumptions that underlie the various aggressions undertaken in recent decades under the guise of human rights. He shows that selective application of humanitarian principles is only the latest version of Western imperialism. Bricmont is, if anything, harsher in his judgment of the Left than of the traditional Right, believing that it has allowed the misuse of traditionally liberal-left values in the service of actions decidedly opposed to them.

Karl H. Hiller
Spring Valley, NY

This original book argues that the neo-colonialist west uses human rights as an excuse to dominate the planet. If it were to stop there and present a reasonable discussion about the way in which wars were `sold' regarding human rights violations that may have no existed or if it had debated whether or not it is logical to wage war in order to have `peace' in a sense waging war to prevent human rights violations, then this would have been an important read. However the downside is the constant ranting against the United States and blaming the U.S for all the ills of the world.

This book argues that every single evil in the world is somehow the fault of the U.S. Stalin's terror resulted from the American intervention in the Soviet East in 1918. Hitler's terror resulted from the treaty of Versallies. All Islamist terror is because of American involvement with Israel. The author argues that in the West the ideals of Human Rights have replaced the `white mans burden' and are used to carve up the third world and play the third world against itself. The author argues that every single human rights violation the west finds in fact results from the original meddling of the west. Were any of this line of reasoning true, that all evil in the world results from a chan of events that began with the U.S, then the book is hard pressed to answer why genocides and human rights violations existed before 1780, before the U.S was created. If every human rights violation and genocide, such as that in Rwanda and Cambodia, is the fault of the West then how does the book explain why genocides existed long before the birth of the west, before say 400 B.C? Tribes were exterminated in 1,000 B.C, and there was no west.

The great failure of this book is that it has so many hypocrisies and contradictions. It blames the U.S for bankrolling subversive elements, for instance in Afghanistan in 1979 and thus provoking the Soviet invasion. But this excuse doesn't work when it involved Soviet bankrolling of subversive elements in Latin America. That bankrolling is not allowed to `provoke' U.S involvement and when it did the author condemns that involvement. Thus there is a double-standard and that is unacceptable. It always says there is a chain reaction, thus the U.S support of Saudi and Israel leads to 9/11 but the book doesn't allow for the fact that the U.S may also respond as part of a chain, where Pearl Harbor or 9/11 leads the U.S to react.

The only important contribution of this book is arguing against the Reporters Without Borders ideology of Bernard Kuchner and arguing against Human Rights as a litmus test for intervention. But if the author truly believed this why does he condemn Israel for Human Rights violations and condemn American support for Israel? The U.S was involved in Bosnia and Kosovo under false pretenses and the violations were lies. True. The rest of the read is false.

Seth J. Frantzman