The Ideology of Humanitarian Imperialism
Interview with distinguished Belgian Scholar Jean Bricmont
Interview with distinguished Belgian Scholar Jean Bricmont. Interview with Àngel Ferrero for the Spanish newspaper,
Publico.
English Translation courtesy of Counterpunch.
Àngel Ferrero: It has been 10 years since Humanitarian Imperialism appeared in Spanish. What made you write the book?
It started as a reaction to the attitude of the Left during the 1999
Kosovo war, which was largely accepted on humanitarian grounds and to
the rather weak opposition of the peace movement before the 2003
invasion of Iraq: for example, many “pacifists” have accepted the policy
of sanctions at the time of the 1991 first Gulf war and even after it,
and were favorable to inspections in the run-up to the war, without
realizing that this was just a maneuver to prepare the public to accept
the war (this became even public knowledge through later leaks, like the
Downing Street memos).
It seemed to me that the ideology of humanitarian intervention had
totally destroyed, on the left, any notion of respect for international
law, as well as any critical attitude with respect to the media.
Àngel Ferrero: What do you think it has changed in this last 10 years?
A lot of things have changed, although, I am afraid, not because of
my book. It is rather reality that has asserted itself, first with the
chaos in Iraq, then in Libya and now in Syria and Ukraine, leading to
the refugee crisis and a near state of war with Russia, which would not
be a “cakewalk”.
The humanitarian imperialists are still busy pushing us towards more
wars, but there is now a substantial fraction of public opinion that is
against such policies; that fraction is probably more important on the
right than on the left.
Àngel Ferrero: The role of the intellectuals in legitimizing Western interventions and interferences is heavily criticized, as well as their symbolic actions (signing public letters or manifestos). Why?
The problem with “intellectuals” is that they love to pretend that
they are critics of power, while in reality legitimizing it. For
example, they will complain that Western governments do not do enough to
promote “our values” (through interventions and subversions) which of
course reinforces the notion that “our side” or “our governments” mean
well, a highly dubious notion, as I try to explain in my book.
Those intellectuals are sometimes criticized, but by whom? In
general, by marginal figures I think. They still dominate the media and
the intellectual sphere.
Àngel Ferrero: Another of the preoccupations of your book
is the degradation of the public discourse. Do you think that the
situation worsened? How do you assess the impact of social media?
The public discourse goes from bad to worse, at least in France. This
is related to the constant censorship, either through lawsuits or
through campaigns of demonization, of politically incorrect speech,
which includes all the questioning of the dominant discourse about the
crimes of our enemies and the justifications for wars.
The social media is the only alternative left to “dissidents”, with
the drawback that there, anything goes, including the wildest fantasies.
Àngel Ferrero: Some commentators point that Russia is now
using their own version of the “human rights’ ideology” to justify
their intervention in Crimea or the air campaign in Syria against the
Islamic State. Is it fair?
I don’t think that Russia even claims to intervene on humanitarian
grounds. In the case of Crimea, it bases itself on the right of
self-determination of a people which is basically Russian, has been
attached to Ukraine in an arbitrary fashion in 1954 (at a time when it
did not matter too much, since Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union) and
had every reason to be afraid of a fanatically anti-Russian government
in Kiev.
For Syria, they respond to the request for help of the government of
that country in order to fight foreign supported “terrorists”. I don’t
see why it is less legitimate than the intervention of France in Mali
(also requested by the government of that country) or of the more recent
intervention of the U.S. in Iraq, against ISIS.
Of course, those Russian moves may prove to be unwise and maybe
debatable from a “pacifist” point of view. But the fundamental question
is: who started the total dismantling of the international order based
on the U.N. Charter and the premise of equal sovereignty of all nations?
The answer, obviously, is the U.S. and its “allies” (in the old days,
one used to say “lackeys”). Russia is only responding to that disorder
and does so in rather legalistic ways.
Àngel Ferrero: Let’s stay in Syria. Several
European politicians demand a military intervention in Syria and Libya
to restore the order and stop the influx of refugees to the European
Union. What do you think of this crisis and the solutions proposed by
the EU?
They do not know how to solve the problem that they have created. By
demanding the departure of Assad as a precondition to solving the Syrian
crisis and by supporting so-called moderate rebels (the label moderate
meaning in practice that they had been chosen by “us”), they prevented
any possible solution in Syria. Indeed, a political solution should be
based on diplomacy and the latter presupposes a realistic assessment of
forces. In the case of Syria, realism means accepting the fact that
Assad has the control of an army and has foreign allies, Iran and
Russia. Ignoring this is just a way to deny reality, and to refuse to
give diplomacy a chance.
Then came the refugee crisis: this was probably not expected, but
occurred at a time when European citizens are increasingly hostile to
immigration and to the “European construction”. Most European
governments face what they call “populist movements”, i.e. movements
that demand more sovereignty for their own countries. The flux of
refugees could not come at a worst moment, from the European
governments’ point of view.
So, they try to fix the problem as they can: having peripheral
countries like Hungary build walls (that they denounce in public but are
probably happy about in private), reinstall border controls, pay Turkey
to keep the refugees etc.
There are of course also calls to intervene in Syria to solve the
problem “at the source”. But what can they do now? More support for the
rebels, trough a no-fly zone for example, and running the risk of a
direct confrontation with the Russians? Help the Syrian army fight the
rebels, as the Russian do? But that would mean reversing years of
anti-Assad propaganda and policies.
In summary, they are hoisted by the own petard, which is always an unpleasant situation.
Àngel Ferrero: Why do you think that the Greens and the new left are so adamant in defending the humanitarian interventions?
Ultimately, one has to do a class analysis of the “new left”. While
the old left was based on the working class and their leaders often came
from that class, the new left is almost entirely dominated by
petit-bourgeois intellectuals. Those intellectuals are neither the
“bourgeoisie”, in the sense of the owners of the means of production not
are they exploited by the latter.
Their social function is to provide an ideology that can serve as a
lofty justification for an economic system and a set of international
relations that are based ultimately on brute force. The human rights
ideology is perfect from that point of view. It is sufficiently
“idealistic” and impossible to put consistently into practice (if one
had to wage war against every “violator of human rights”, one would
quickly be at war with the entire world, including ourselves) to allow
those defenders the opportunity to look critical of the governments
(they don’t intervene enough). But, by deflecting attention from the
real relations of forces in the world, the human rights ideology offers
also to those who hold real power a moral justification for their
actions. So, the petit-bourgeois intellectuals of the “new left” can
both serve power and pretend to be subversive. What more can you ask
from an ideology?
Àngel Ferrero: In the conclusions of your book you
recommend a sort of pedagogy for the Western audience, so they accept
the end of the Western hegemony and the emergence of a new order in the
international relations. How can we contribute to this?
As I said above, it is reality that forces the Western audience to
change. It was always a pure folly to think that human rights would be
fostered by endless wars, but now we see the consequences of that folly
with our own eyes. There should be a radical reorientation of the left’s
priorities in international affairs: far from trying to fix problems in
other countries through illegal interventions, it should demand strict
respect of international law on the part of Western governments,
peaceful cooperation with other countries, in particular Russia, Iran
and China, and the dismantling of aggressive military alliances such as
NATO.
Àngel Ferrero: I would like to ask you about the other book that made you known to the general public, Fashionable Nonsense.
This book, co-written with Alan Sokal, is a critique to postmodernism.
What is the influence of postmodernism amongst scholars and the public
opinion today? It fades away or is it still alive and kicking?
It is difficult for me to answer that question, because it would
require a sociological study that I do not have the means to undertake.
But I should say that postmodernism, like the turn towards humanitarian
interventions, is another way that the left has self-destructed itself,
although this aspect has had less dramatic consequences than the wars
and the damage was limited to “elite” intellectual circles.
But if the left wants to create a more just society, it has to have a
notion of justice; if it adopts a relativist attitude with respect to
ethics, how can it justify its goals? And if it has to denounce the
illusions and mystifications of the dominant discourse, it better rely
on a notion of truth that is not purely a “social construction”.
Postmodernism has largely contributed to the destruction of reason,
objectivity and ethics on the left and that leads to its suicide.
This interview was conducted by Àngel Ferrero for the Spanish newspaper, Publico.
