Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War [Paperback]

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.

This is a book for, and about, the left, although it is of interest to anyone concerned about politics and ideology. Professor Jean Bricmont's target in this polemic, is a new caste of 'radical' and liberal thinkers who have misappropriated and misused ideas such as a democracy, freedom and above all, human rights, for the defence and promotion of occidental imperialism. In doing so, they have not only fractured the left, but have also subverted the discourse of its non-imperialist and even anti-imperialist wings. The result is a weakened, (almost non-existent) antiwar movement, and a depoliticized populace which can easily be exploited to finance wars of aggression clothed in humanitarian rhetoric.

Professor Bricmont's account commences with a consideration of the importance of ideology in a democratic state where force is not the main means of social control. He makes the important, (but rarely stated) point that it is easier to deceive the public in a democracy than in a dictatorship, because in the latter, the common man tends to distrust the media. He goes on to provide an overview of the general state of relations between the Third World and the West, with an emphasis on the agonies of imperialism, as well as the difficulties and dangers involved in resisting Western hegemony, (notably for the Soviet Union.)

Subsequent chapters challenge the human rights arguments normally given for war, as well as the weaker antiwar assertions, which, in the professor's view, do more harm than good. The author favours arguments based on international law, (apparently unaware of Bacon's adage relating laws to cobwebs) and those founded on solid anti-imperialist principles.

To his credit, Professor Bricmont goes on to provide a systematic analysis of various techniques employed in human rights propaganda for war, (such as drawing false and misleading parallels with fascism) and diversions, (such as futile peace plans) which keep opponents preoccupied. Taken together, this constitutes a significant exposure of media manipulation methods, which leave the reader much the wiser.

Sadly, 'Humanitarian Imperialism' does not offer more than this. Whilst a piercing and well-founded critique of its subject, it fails to provide a sufficiently strong alternative to the 'imperial socialism' of Washington's 'useful idiots'. Part of the reason for this lies in the Eurocentric perspective of the Western left which has led it to ignore another form of imperialism that is now preying on innocents around the globe: the theological tyranny of Islam. As a result, radicals, socialists and communists - who played such a heroic role in combating capitalist imperialism in the 20th century, have failed to find a voice in challenging the jihadist imperialism of the 21st century. The great beneficiary of this vacuum has been the far right in Europe and North America.

One is left to conclude that this excellent book is nonetheless fighting yesterday's battle. Despite the belligerent rhetoric in Washington, the Iraq fiasco marks the end of humanitarian imperialism for the foreseeable future. Neocon is already a pejorative term, and American power in proving increasingly impotent in the multipolar world - a fact that even the Bush administration is beginning to realize. In contrast, fuelled by demography, fanaticism and abundant oil revenues, an older, more intransigent imperialism is reviving and infiltrating non-Muslim societies around the globe. It remains to be seen whether leftists can avoid becoming the 'useful idiots' of this form of colonialism as well.

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.