[Peace-discuss] Human Rights and wrongs

[Morton K. Brussel]

A different way of looking at things. My criticism would be that one  
should be under no illusions that U.S. aggressions around the world  
had little if anything anything to do with human rights of any kind,  
except the right to exploit.

ZNet | U.S.

Humanitarian Imperialism
Interview with Jean Bricmont By Joaquim Da Fonseca and Michel Collon

by Jean Bricmont ; January 11, 2006
In his new book, Humanitarian Imperialism, Jean Bricmont denounces  
the use of the human rights pretext to justify attacks against  
countries in the South. He is a pacifist and a committed intellectual.

How is it that a professor of theoretical physics has just written a  
book on imperialism?

J.B. I have always been interested in politics, if only passively. I  
really became involved in 1999 during the war against Yugoslavia. The  
humanitarian reasons invoked by the United States left me puzzled. I  
was also shocked by the lack of opposition from the left, even some  
of the extreme left, to this aggression.

I was asked to address conferences in all kinds of circles:  
Protestant churches, Muslim movements, student groups, ATTAC, etc. My  
humanitarian imperialism book is, among other things, a reaction to  
the concerns and proposals put forward by individuals and groups  
encountered during these conferences. The book is also a reaction to  
the attitude of certain political militants claiming to be of the  
left. In the name of human rights they legitimize aggression against  
sovereign countries. Or they moderate their opposition so much that  
it becomes only symbolic.

Human rights is for the rubbish bin, then?

J.B. I defend the aspirations in the Universal Declaration on Human  
Rights of 1948. It contains a collection of economic, social,  
political and individual rights. The problem arises when lack of  
respect, real or presumed, serves to legitimize war, embargoes and  
other sanctions against a country and when human rights becomes the  
pretext for a violent assault on that country. Moreover it often  
happens that only part of the Declaration is cited. When people talk  
of human rights, economic and social rights are often considered  
relatively unimportant compared with individual and political rights.  
Take, for example, the quality of health care in Cuba. This is a  
remarkable development of a socio-economic right. But it is totally  
ignored.

While it is true that Cuba conforms perfectly to the very critical  
description given it by Reporters without Frontiers, this in no way  
reduces the importance of the quality of its health care. When  
speaking of Cuba, if you express reservations about lack of respect  
for political and individual rights you must at least mention the  
importance of economic and social rights from which the Cubans  
benefit. What is more important, the rights of individuals or health  
care? But no-one reasons like this. The right to housing, food,  
existence and health: these are usually ignored by the defenders of  
human rights.

In fact, your book shows that these rights are ignored in the media  
campaigns against Socialist countries, like Cuba or China. You write  
that four million lives could have been saved if India had adopted  
the Chinese path.

J.B. The economists Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen estimate that,  
departing from a similar base, China and India have followed  
different development paths and that the difference between the  
social systems of these two countries results in about 3.9 million  
extra deaths in India every year. In Latin America 285,000 lives  
would be saved each year if Cuban health and food policies were applied.

I am not saying that social and economic performance can justify  
deficiencies in other fields of human rights. But no-one would  
maintain that the contrary is true: respect for individual and  
political rights does not justify flouting social and economic  
rights. Why do the defenders of human rights never say so?

Let us come back to Cuba. Can the lack of individual freedoms be  
justified by effective health care? That can be discussed. If, in  
Cuba, there was a pro-Western regime, it is certain that health care  
would not be so effective. This can be deduced from the state of  
people's health in the "pro-Western" countries of Latin America.  
Hence, in practical terms there is a choice between the different  
types of human rights: what are most important, the social and  
economic ones, or the political and individual ones?

It would of course be best to have both together. The Venezuelan  
president Chávez, for example, is trying to reconcile them. But the  
US interventionist policy makes this reconciliation difficult in the  
Third World. What I would like to emphasize is that it is not for us,  
in the West, who benefit from the two kinds of rights, to lay down  
what choice is to be made. We should rather put our energies into  
enabling the Third World countries to carry out their development  
independently, in the hope that this will eventually help these  
rights to emerge.

Is there not a great difference between how human rights and the duty  
to intervene are perceived according to whether you come from the  
North or the South of the planet?

J.B. In 2002, not long before the war against Iraq, I went to  
Damascus in Syria and Beirut in Lebanon. I met quite a few people. To  
say that they opposed the war against Iraq is putting it mildly. And  
that was the case even at the American University of Beirut. Anti- 
Americanism and fierce opposition against Israel was tremendous.

When I returned to Belgium I saw no evidence of this at all. Take the  
question of the disarmament of Iraq. Certain members of the CNAPD  
(Belgian anti-war coordinating body) told me that this disarmament  
had to be imposed, although not of course by military, but through  
peaceful means. If these proposals were advocated in the Middle East,  
people would immediately reply: "And Israel, why should it not be  
disarmed?"

In Latin America, and in the Arab-Muslim world particularly, the  
perception of international law is totally different from ours here,  
even among the left and the extreme left. The latter do not appear to  
be interested to know what the populations immediately concerned  
think about our interventions.

Why is that? Is it a question of navel-gazing? Or of ethnocentricity?

J.B. During decolonization and the Vietnam War, the left adopted a  
new attitude. It defended an anti-imperialist policy in economic,  
military and social affairs. Since then this attitude has been  
undermined by intervention in the name of human rights. The  
opposition to neo-colonialism has been replaced by the desire to help  
the peoples of the South to fight against their dictatorial,  
inefficient and corrupt governments...Those who support this position  
are not aware of the chasm that separates them from the peoples of  
the Third World, who do not generally accept the intervention of the  
Western governments into their internal affairs.

Of course many of them desire more democratic and more honest  
governments. But why? Because such rulers would manage their natural  
resources more rationally, obtain better prices for their primary  
commodities, protect them from control by the multinationals and even  
build up powerful armies.

When certain people here speak about more democratic governments,  
they do not mean any of these things. Truly democratic governments in  
the South would be more like that of Chávez than that of the current  
Iraqi government.

Is there not a background of colonial ideology in all this?

J.B. Perhaps, but it is presented in a post-colonial language.  
Everyone condemns colonialism. Those who defend the current wars  
insist that humanitarian intervention is "totally different" from  
colonialism. However, one can only remark the continuity in this  
change. Intervention was first legitimized by Christianity, then by a  
civilizing mission - also by anti-Communism. Our claim to superiority  
has always authorized us to commit a series of monstrous actions.

What is the role of the media in propagating this "humanitarian  
imperialism"?

J.B. It is fundamental. In the case of the Yugoslav war, the media  
was used to prepare public opinion for such attacks. As with Iraq,  
the journalists are constantly repeating "all the same, it is a good  
thing that Saddam Hussein has been overthrown." But to what extent is  
it legitimate for the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein? This  
question is never posed in the newspapers. Do the Iraqis consider  
that this intervention benefits them? If this is the case, why do  
more than 80 per cent of them desire the departure of the United  
States? The press criticizes the United States, but its criticism is  
mostly about the methods used during the war and the occupation, not  
about the very principle of intervention.

Would the United States be less likely to make war under a Democratic  
president?

J.B. That largely depends on the way in which the occupation of Iraq  
winds up. There are many voices in the United States that call for  
the withdrawal of the troops and there is a climate of panic in many  
sectors of the society. If, as in Vietnam, the Iraq war concludes  
with a catastrophe, there could be a considerable interlude from such  
policies for a while. If the retreat goes smoothly, if there is not  
too much damage, they could then rapidly go off to war again. But it  
is a widespread illusion that the Democrats are less aggressive and  
that they do not support military interventions.

Why is the reaction to the war by progressive Europeans so weak?

J.B. The ecologists, the Socialist left, the traditional Communist  
parties, the Trotskyites and most of the NGOs have opposed the war  
very feebly. Their positions have been undermined by the ideology of  
humanitarian intervention and all serious references to socialism in  
their programme have been abandoned. Part of this left has  
substituted the struggle for human rights for its initial aims of  
social improvements or revolution.

As it is difficult for these movements to defend the war of the USA  
against Yugoslavia and Iraq, they adopt the rather convenient  
position of "Neither, nor". "Neither Bush nor Saddam": this enables  
them to avoid any criticism. Of course I can understand why Saddam  
Hussein is not liked. But the implications of the "Neither, nor"  
position go well beyond this.

First, it does not recognize the legitimacy of international law. It  
does not distinguish between the aggressors and the aggressed. Just  
to make a comparison: it would have been difficult, during the Second  
World War, to affirm "Neither Hitler, nor Stalin" without being  
considered a collaborator.

Second, this approach underestimates the extent of the damage caused  
by the United States since 1945. Since the end of the Second World  
War, they have been intervening everywhere in the world to support or  
install conservative and reactionary forces, from Guatemala to the  
Congo, from Indonesia to Chile. They have been busy killing the hope  
of the poor for social change everywhere. It is they, and not Saddam  
Hussein, who want to overthrow Hugo Chávez. The Vietnam War was  
nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Even if it is admitted that  
Milosevic and Saddam Hussein have been demonized, putting them in the  
same category as the USA at the world level is, for them, totally  
unjust and false.

Finally, what upsets me most with this "Neither, nor" attitude is the  
position that we assume, by adopting such slogans, towards our own  
responsibility.

When we see policies that don't like in the Third World, we must  
begin by discussing them with the people who live there, and do this  
with organizations that represent large sections of the population,  
not with little groups or isolated individuals. We must try to see if  
their priorities are the same as ours. I hope that the alternative  
world movement will create channels of communication that promote a  
better understanding of the viewpoints of the South. For the time  
being, the Western left tends to stay in its corner, having very  
little influence in its own home base and indirectly playing the game  
of imperialism by demonizing the Arabs, the Russians, the Chinese -  
in the name of democracy and human rights.

What we are mainly responsible for is the imperialism of our own  
countries. Let us start by tackling that - and effectively!

Thanks to Victoria Bawtree for the translation!

Jean Bricmont. Impéralisme humanitaire. Droits de l'Homme, droit  
d'ingérence, droit du plus fort?, Ed. Aden, 2005, 253 pages, 18  
euros. Can be ordered from éditions Aden : http://www.rezolibre.com/ 
librairie/detail.php?article=98

See also (in French) : Biography of Jean Bricmont http:// 
www.michelcollon.info/bio_invites.php?invite=Jean%20Bricmont

Jean Bricmont - Quelques remarques sur la violence, la démocratie et  
l'espoir: http://www.michelcollon.info/articles.php? 
dateaccess=2005-03-16%2017: 32:42&log=invites

Jean Bricmont - Européens, encore un effort si vous voulez vous  
joindre au genre humain! http://www.michelcollon.info/articles.php? 
dateaccess=2003-02-16%2018: 24:22&log=invites

Jean Bricmont and Diana Johnstone - Les deux faces de la politique  
américaine http://www.michelcollon.info/articles.php? 
dateaccess=2001-11-07%2018: 35:48&log=invites

On the war on Iraq and its causes, see also the new book: "Bush, le  
cyclone" : http://www.michelcollon.info/bush_le_cyclone.php
Jean Brcmont UCL-FYMA 2, chemin du cyclotron B-1348 Louvain la Neuve  
Belgium 0032-10-473277(office) 00-32-2-5020141(home) 00-32-478908170  
(portable)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060112/be97f8ba/attachment.html