“Humanitarian Imperialism” by Jean Bricmont, 2006
This book was written during the invasion of Iraq, so it is infused by Bricmont's contact with pro-war 'humanitarianism' on what he calls 'the Left.' It is never clear what 'left' he's talking about, mostly in France, but he seems to include almost everyone – Communists, Trotskyists, Social Democrats, Greens, anarchists, etc. He does not name names of course, or use quotes, though he quotes many others. At any rate his analysis takes apart various excuses that 'some' leftists, neo-conservatives and democrats use to justify invasions and war by 'the West.' He does not address invasions by others – except Afghanistan by the USSR. This is a pretty tired topic for most leftists, but bear with me. His lodestone seems to be Bertrand Russell and the 1948 U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Bricmont names 3 issues leftists promote: 1) social control of production; 2) for peace and against imperialism and colonialism; 3) “for the defense of democracy, of the rights of the individual, of gender equality, of minorities and the environment.” In his discussion of anti-war activism, he only concentrates on #2, which is not a full-blooded approach. His key point is listing the rationales by various actors to justify various 'humanitarian' wars, as well as ineffective opposition tactics. He includes the interventions or non-interventions in Yugoslavia; Croatia, Bosnia, Iraq I and II; the Afghanistan invasions; Vietnam, Algeria, Rwanda, the Congo and more. WWII is only touched on, though it provides a high profile excuse for alleging every enemy is a new Hitler. This is the 'anti-fascism' rationale according to him, but it should perfected as an 'anti-Hitler' logic, as fascism is still a concern.
According to him Bricmont's essential logic is ethics, not class politics. As someone once remarked there are 'their ethics and ours.” He leans heavily on international law, as if there exists some real enforcement mechanism and these international laws are not just words and occasional courts. International law's reach is impossible in a basic nation-state structure, though it can certainly be used in an argument. Like so many reformists, he ultimately ignores this structural question.
Bricmont recognizes that many right-wing isolationist or realpolitik types oppose international involvement, so they sound like leftists – but for completely different reasons. He himself says one of his main principles is to 'get out of other people's business' – which could also be a certain Republican line. At the same time he understands the enemy is imperialism itself. He does not call it 'empire' or 'colonialism,' as those are past usages. The anti-colonial struggles of the 20th Century seem to him key, not social revolutions. He comes out against cultural relativism as a form of passive support for exploitation and oppression, realizing there are universal values that transcend borders. But certainly bombs will not bring those values into being! Oddly he promotes dictatorships as the best or most practical defense against imperialism, or the logical result. As if there are no actors with their own agendas. He opposes pacifism as a flawed ideology against war. His main focus is not on imperialist hypocrisy but the consequences of imperialist adventures, both the failures and the 'successes' in what some have called 'the American holocaust.' Essentially every intervention and coup by the U.S. or Europe was against progressive forces within those countries.
Power needs an ideology. Here are the rationales for 'humanitarian' violence peddled to the public, according to Bricmont:
State-directed development is labeled 'communism' or dictatorship.
The military, invasions, cordon and threats against the USSR and 'communism' actually damaged those societies in their ability to move towards socialism.
Hiding or justifying “widespread indifference to criminal policies” on the domestic front.
Labeling enemies terrorists or communists when they aren't.
“Human rights” logic is used to justify military or political violations of others' human rights.
Torture is denounced, yet torture grows out of occupations and coups.
There is a double-discourse. For intellectuals it is about the 'duty to intervene.' For the public it is about terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and other fears.
Using rhetoric that divides social and economic rights from political rights.
Or - White-man's burden; enlightened versus barbaric; civilization versus backwardness; liberalism versus fascism; protecting minorities; protecting women; save the Jews; Utopian internationalism versus regressive nationalism.
Foreign aid as humanitarian.
Democracy can be exported.
Cost of war is low.
Intervention will work.
Guilt about world misery. The need to 'do something.'
Bricmont hinges real opposition to wars, invasions and coups on international law, an anti-imperialist perspective, and ultimately an unnamed 'mass movement' of some kind. He opposes leftists who support reactionaries that oppose imperialism, though only one example is given. Support in this case is mainly 'verbal' as the Left has little ability to materially affect anti-imperialist struggles. He never mentions left or labor formations with international reach. He argues against public 'neither/nor' slogans like “Neither Milosovic Nor NATO.” However comparing them to 'The NLF Will Win' seems to elide the point about the class character of the NLF. Class, again, is not on his menu.
In the end, Bricmont admits he does “not have a satisfactory answer” on how to oppose imperialism. He recommends a country “mind its own business.” He does not endorse peace plans, and claims conservatives are the ones who mourn American deaths, budget deficits and other materiel impacts of war, not the 'idealist' left. He also points to efforts by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that ignore the issue of the wars themselves as an example of the failure of 'rights' claims.
This book is a mixture, a grab-bag of good ideas and weak ones. After reading it, I'm still not sure what 'Left' he's mainly talking about. At least in the U.S. it seems to miss the mark except perhaps among certain liberal-leftists or plain liberals. He's clearly not a through-going Marxist either. He calls the Bolsheviks 'dictators' without an explanation. He thinks the Soviet entry into Afghanistan was illegal, though they were invited in by the government at the time to combat jihadism backed by the CIA. He seems part of a small current of post-leftist and mild anti-imperialists who have abandoned the goal of socialism and are content to oppose war as an event not prompted by the material needs of the capitalist system.
Prior blog reviews on this subject, use blog search box, upper left, to investigate our 17 year archive, using these terms: “Long Revolution of the Global South”(Amin); “Capitalism in the 21st Century” (M Roberts); “Modern Rhinoceroses,” “Strange Bedfellows,” “Vietnam,” “Iraq,” “Afghanistan,” “Yugoslavia – Peace, War and Dissolution” (Chomsky); “Musings of the Professors.” “Fashionable Nonsense”(Bricmont-Sokal); “Welcome to the Desert of Post-Socialism.”
And I bought it at May Day Books!
Red Frog / October 19, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment