[wvns] Humanitarian Wars & Associated Delusions
Humanitarian Wars and Associated Delusions
By PAUL de ROOIJ
http://www.counterpunch.com/rooij08142007.html
Most inhabitants of Western countries are afflicted by nefarious
delusions about the nature of their societies and government policy;
the public at large is led to believe that their societies are
superior, and their governments' policies are noble and generous. The
illusions have to do with the dissonance between the fabricated image
and the reality of state power, especially when it entails wars waged
against third world countries. Awful wars are waged for crass motives,
yet they are sold on the basis that they are driven by benevolent
intent. Promotion of democracy, freedoms, human rights, women's
rights, and even religious tolerance are some of the purported motives
for current interventions, subversion or wars. Since the 1990s, in the
lead-up to the wars against former Yugoslavia, the primary
justification offered to wage war was that it was necessary to
safeguard human rights or to improve the humanitarian conditions of
the target population. If the blatant hypocrisy wasn't bad enough, the
Left's delusions regarding the stated humanitarian rationale for wars
has had a distinctly deleterious effect on the Left as a movement and
the organized opposition to the depredations of their states. Jean
Bricmont's Humanitarian Imperialism is an extensive analysis of the
"humanitarian war" rationale, and how its twisted arguments should be
countered and its rationale for war rejected. One of the defining
aspects of the Left of yesteryear was an opposition to imperialism and
its consequent wars; Bricmont's important contribution aims to
resurrect the principled opposition to the new imperial wars waged
primarily by the United States and Britain.
Subversion of International Law
Perhaps the most important point addressed in this book is that the
"humanitarian intervention" rationale served as a cynical means to
sideline international law; it is usually presented as one requiring
utmost speed to avert further disaster and therefore there is no time
for formalities such as observing the UN Charter or international law
in general. For at least two decades, the US has been itching to
emasculate the UN even further and to undermine the basis of
international law; the means to obtain this objective has been to
promote "humanitarian wars" or even "humanitarian bombing" (it is
difficult to concoct a nicer oxymoron) [1]. What is disconcerting is
that this Trojan horse wasn't repelled by the principal human rights
organizations, the so-called public intellectuals, or groups on the
Left. The acceptance of the justification for wars has undermined the
anti-war movement and it seems that few are aware of the stark
implications of a debilitated international legal framework, i.e., a
world afflicted with incessant wars and ruled by the law of the
jungle. Those seeking to resist imperial wars or obtain a modicum of
justice ought to defend the principle of international law, and
certainly not allow it to be undermined by disingenuous appeals for war.
Kissing your SUV goodbye
If the US and its allies wage wars on the basis of false
justifications, then the question arises what their real motives are.
Another important section of Bricmont's book analyzes the nature of
state power and the real reasons for wars or interventions. His
analysis suggests that one of the reasons wars are waged is to
guarantee access to raw materials and markets [2]. It is also fair to
say that most western societies owe their economic development very
much to the access to cheap resources, and most interventions seek to
continue to guarantee such access. Even the tiniest/poorest third
world countries are whipped into compliance -- no deviation is
tolerated. If one rejects the notion of wars to guarantee cheap
resources then there are serious implications for our societies; our
economies will have to be weaned from such cheap supplies entailing
costly restructuring. To change our societies so that they are less
destructive to others requires rejecting delusions about our states,
it demands rejecting interventionist wars, and certainly confronting
specious justifications for such wars.
Clearing up arguments
Bricmont provides a lengthy analysis of the pro-war humanitarian
arguments, and, in order to do so, also addresses the ineffective
anti-war arguments used by some on the Left. Maybe it is fair to
suggest that the Left in western countries has sometimes engaged in
less-than-clear thinking. In the past Leftist groups opposed wars
against third world countries as a matter of principle, but beginning
in the late 1990s some succumbed to the humanitarian interventionist
ideology; what is surprising is how effective this ploy has been.
Others reject wars, but do so using weak, confusing or even
contradictory arguments. In countering the pro-war arguments, Bricmont
provides analysis suggesting the strongest counter-arguments, and how
the twisted historical analogies used to sell wars are best dealt with
(e.g., appeasement, or confronting Hitler early on). Bricmont's
analysis of the Second World War analogies -- a favorite with the
human rights crusaders -- should certainly be studied by anyone
opposing wars.
What is missing
While the book deals with pro-war humanitarian arguments, it doesn't
mention that some humanitarian disasters haven't elicited the same
reaction. For human rights crusaders some cases deserve the
intervention imperative, yet others are neglected. While they demand
intervention in Darfur they are mysteriously silent about Congo;
Palestine is perhaps the most neglected issue. Since part of the book
deals with exposing the hypocrisy in the way wars are sold, maybe the
book could have highlighted the cases where the vocal advocates for
war apply a double standard.
The book is perhaps best read in conjunction with Diana Johnstone's
Fools' Crusade (Johnstone is also the translator of Bricmont's book).
While Humanitarian Imperialism deals with the humanitarian war topic
in general, Fools' Crusade deals with a case history of this issue,
i.e., the war against Yugoslavia, a particularly important chapter for
the humanitarian war rationale and the origins of this ideology. Her
book provides a historical background of the way the wars against
Yugoslavia were deliberately and cynically planned. Kirsten Sellars'
The Rise and Rise of Human Rights is another important book providing
additional context. Sellars presents a history of how human rights
have been exploited by the United States and Britain, and it also
provides an unflattering history of the principal human rights
organizations. Human Rights Watch in particular has been a key
organization pushing for humanitarian wars, and a proper appreciation
of such organizations is necessary to counter their influence.
Finally, while Bricmont refers to a few of the principal proponents of
humanitarian wars, the so-called public intellectuals or Liberals,
more of these human rights crusaders need to be taken to task about
their positions [3]. Edward S. Herman and David Peterson have compiled
a list of these operators and it is also worth reading in conjunction
with Bricmont's book [4]. One of the listed crusaders is Bernard
Kouchner, the recently appointed French Foreign Minister, and his
interventionist proclivities may well explain the changing French
policy aligning itself closer to US policy.
Applying the lessons to Darfur
Bricmont's book doesn't deal with Darfur in any great detail, but one
should apply its lessons to this case in rejecting calls for
intervention. There are several reasons for this, and the primary one
is that it has been a stated objective of the neocons to "take out"
Sudan [5], and if this rotten gang bays for intervention, it behooves
one to reconsider joining the chorus. The US has stepped up its
presence in the region by organizing an invasion of Somalia,
establishing a military presence in Chad, arming some Sudanese rebel
groups, etc. The US seeks to undermine Sudan for reasons unrelated to
the humanitarian situation, e.g., denying oil resources to its
competitors. The US has also used the Darfur issue to deflect
attention from its own depredations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Furthermore, several US-based zionist groups have taken up the Darfur
issue for equally cynical ends. Pushing the Darfur issue is viewed
among some of these groups as a means of deflecting attention from
Israel, suggesting that the situation in Darfur is worse and therefore
"why single out Israel". Divestment from companies doing business in
Sudan serves the similar purpose of undermining efforts in the US to
launch a divestment from Israel or boycott campaign. The situation in
Darfur was also exploited after the Israeli war of aggression against
Lebanon in 2006; as soon as the war ended, the media focus shifted
immediately and preponderantly to cover the Darfur situation in order
to deflect attention from a criminal war by US/Israel. There is also
the question of focus as a humanitarian catastrophe of a much higher
magnitude in Congo has barely elicited a peep. Finally, it is also
clear that much of the conflict has to do with population dislocations
due to environmental change, and it is likely that armed interventions
aren't the best solution.
If we reject intervention as Bricmont urges us to do, there is an
issue about what must be done. According to Jonathan Steele,
negotiations among local groups will likely result in accommodation
and conflict resolution [6]. Armed intervention on the other hand
could only make matters worse.
Just like the chickenhawks, but more likely useful fools
The neocon chickenhawks are best known for urging the US military to
go to war while they remained safely ensconced in their think tanks.
The leftists or Liberals who have jumped on the humanitarian war
bandwagon engage in very much the same hypocrisy. When anyone today
prescribes "intervention", they are really only urging the military of
their state to attack other countries, while they themselves are
sitting pretty. Someone else will die for the positions they propound,
and it is certainly a very different attitude compared to those who
joined the International Brigades in Spain -- no chickens then. What
makes matters worse is that the military was really not established to
further humanitarian aims, but is meant to impose the interests of
state power. Recently, the British military was concerned that
"increasing emotional attachment to the outside world" had led the
British public to expect humanitarian interventions [7]. The UK
military sought to shape public attitudes so that military activities
wouldn't be constrained or, let alone, face demands to have the
military be used in legitimate peacekeeping! When the military are
actually used for "humanitarian intervention" this means that the
rationale has been exploited by state power to sell its wars and they
have even managed to get some Lefty or Liberal dupes on board.
Alternatively, if a state doesn't care to intervene in a given
country, it will simply ignore the humanitarian appeals. When the
British government's hypocrisy is exposed, e.g., with the "genocide"
in Darfur, it simply states that it will "consider joining
multilateral action" and, of course, it has been wringing its hands
about what to do [8]. The first indication that a state doesn't want
to use its military for humanitarian ends is when there are references
to "multilateral action"; translation: do nothing or simply provide
token forces subject to stringent "rules of engagement". Anyone
opposed to the imperialist trends of the US and its faithful poodles
should reject calls for direct military intervention in the third
world; there already have been too many interventions.
Tony Judt wrote: "In today's America, neoconservatives generate
brutish policies for which liberals provide the ethical fig leaf.
There is no other difference between them" [9]. His article's apt
title is "Bush's Useful Idiots". When jumping on the same bandwagon as
the neocons, human rights crusaders might consider whether they are
being jerked around.
Conclusion
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.
Paul de Rooij is a writer living in London. He can be reached at
proox @ hotmail.com (NB: all emails with attachments will be
automatically deleted.)
Notes
[1] See Alexander Cockburn, How the US State Dept. Recruited Human
Rights Groups to Cheer On the Bombing Raids: Those Incubator Babies,
Once More?, CounterPunch Newsletter, April 1999.
[2] Of course, there are other reasons too -- some of them irrational,
others to favor Israel, etc. For further discussion see: Jean
Bricmont, The De-Zionization of the American Mind, 12 August 2006.
[3] Public intellectuals are only public or "celebrity" in so far as
they present a serviceable rationale for state power. As soon as their
message deviates from the interests of the state, they are quickly
demoted to the ranks of relegated intellectuals.
[4] Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, Morality's Avenging Angels:
The New Humanitarian Crusaders , Znet, 30 August 2005.
[5] Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander stated on DemocracyNow: "
And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take
out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, *Sudan* and, finishing off, Iran.'" Amy
Goodman interviewed Wesley Clark, Gen. Wesley Clark Weighs
Presidential Bid: "I Think About It Everyday" , 2 March 2007.
[6] Jonathan Steele, Unseen by western hysteria, Darfur edges closer
to peace, 10 August 2007.
[7] Mark Curtis quoted in David Miller (ed.), Tell me lies: Propaganda
and Media distortion in the Attack on Iraq, Pluto Press 2004.
[8] Statement by Mike Gapes MP, member of the Foreign Affairs Select
Committee, Compass Conference, London, 2006.
[9] Tony Judt, "Bush's Useful Idiots", London Review of Books, 21
Sept. 2006.
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment