What do you think?
Rate this book
Imperialismo humanitario: el uso de los derechos humanos para ven der la guerra
Since the end of the Cold War, the idea of human rights has been made into a justification for intervention by the world's leading economic and military powersabove all, the United Statesin countries that are vulnerable to their attacks. The criteria for such intervention have become more arbitrary and self-serving, and their form more destructive, from Yugoslavia to Afghanistan to Iraq. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the large parts of the left was often complicit in this ideology of interventiondiscovering new "Hitlers" as the need arose, and denouncing antiwar arguments as appeasement on the model of Munich in 1938.
Jean Bricmont's Humanitarian Imperialism is both a historical account of this development and a powerful political and moral critique. It seeks to restore the critique of imperialism to its rightful place in the defense of human rights. It describes the leading role of the United States in initiating military and other interventions, but also on the obvious support given to it by European powers and NATO. It outlines an alternative approach to the question of human rights, based on the genuine recognition of the equal rights of people in poor and wealthy countries.
Timely, topical, and rigorously argued, Jean Bricmont's book establishes a firm basis for resistance to global war with no end in sight.
Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 2006
11 people are currently reading
907 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
December 17, 2010
This is a clearly written, and well researched and documented, book. It should be required reading for all so-called "liberals" and "progressives" in the West, especially the U.S. (but also Canada, UK, France, and Germany).
Jean Bricmont discusses and criticizes the arguments people have used for "humanitarian war". Importantly, he exposes the hypocrisy, naivete, and disingenuousness of people who make such arguments. He shows that, especially in recent years, in the run-up to (and during) the wars in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, supposed concern for human rights and democracy has been exploited to build support for war and occupation--including support from people and organizations who would otherwise be against such things. Such professed concerns have also been exploited by Hitler and Stalin, but these were dismissed as obvious propaganda. Almost all wars have had disastrous consequences for many people. Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein may be gone, and some things have improved, but millions of people are either dead or suffering as a result of these wars and occupations.
He shows that in such conflicts, the West (especially the U.S.) is rarely interested in democracy or justice or human rights or social and economic equality, and concerns for these ideals are belatedly asserted to reduce opposition for what could be described as colonial (in the 20th century) or imperialistic actions. He argues (fairly convincingly) that the U.S. has neither the right, the duty, nor the ability to establish "democracy" in other countries. Many people, especially in the U.S., think that we have all the answers, and we just need to send in the troops to solve major problems that have been festering for decades, if not longer. Many people seem to want to undermine international law, or they support "international" law if it is dominated by the U.S.
I agree with many of the things Bricmont writes, but if he wants to reach "liberal" Americans, he needs to change his tone a bit. I think he underestimates the extent to which Americans are more conservative, neoliberal, jingoistic, and arrogant and (I think it's fair to say) narcissistic than their West European counterparts, with whom he's more familiar. The problem is, many people are not willing, or at least not used to, understanding the perspectives of others. Another shortcoming, but a minor one, is that some of his quotations are too long and are not sufficiently integrated with the rest of the text.
In any case, this book is definitely worth reading. It might not change people's minds, but I hope it will at least encourage people to question their assumptions and to question the motives of advocates of war. "Liberals" and "progressives" have allowed the political and economic elite to frame the debates to their own advantage, and this must change.
Jean Bricmont discusses and criticizes the arguments people have used for "humanitarian war". Importantly, he exposes the hypocrisy, naivete, and disingenuousness of people who make such arguments. He shows that, especially in recent years, in the run-up to (and during) the wars in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, supposed concern for human rights and democracy has been exploited to build support for war and occupation--including support from people and organizations who would otherwise be against such things. Such professed concerns have also been exploited by Hitler and Stalin, but these were dismissed as obvious propaganda. Almost all wars have had disastrous consequences for many people. Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein may be gone, and some things have improved, but millions of people are either dead or suffering as a result of these wars and occupations.
He shows that in such conflicts, the West (especially the U.S.) is rarely interested in democracy or justice or human rights or social and economic equality, and concerns for these ideals are belatedly asserted to reduce opposition for what could be described as colonial (in the 20th century) or imperialistic actions. He argues (fairly convincingly) that the U.S. has neither the right, the duty, nor the ability to establish "democracy" in other countries. Many people, especially in the U.S., think that we have all the answers, and we just need to send in the troops to solve major problems that have been festering for decades, if not longer. Many people seem to want to undermine international law, or they support "international" law if it is dominated by the U.S.
I agree with many of the things Bricmont writes, but if he wants to reach "liberal" Americans, he needs to change his tone a bit. I think he underestimates the extent to which Americans are more conservative, neoliberal, jingoistic, and arrogant and (I think it's fair to say) narcissistic than their West European counterparts, with whom he's more familiar. The problem is, many people are not willing, or at least not used to, understanding the perspectives of others. Another shortcoming, but a minor one, is that some of his quotations are too long and are not sufficiently integrated with the rest of the text.
In any case, this book is definitely worth reading. It might not change people's minds, but I hope it will at least encourage people to question their assumptions and to question the motives of advocates of war. "Liberals" and "progressives" have allowed the political and economic elite to frame the debates to their own advantage, and this must change.
May 3, 2008
This book argues that though there may be barbarism occurring in the third world, military interventions do more harm than good and in fact often only increase the barbarism. Further, it argues that apologists for humanitarian intervention are often little more than 'useful idiots' of the imperialists who use humanitarian intervention as an excuse to dominate and exploit third world countries. This book does a great job of analyzing the arguments in favor of humanitarian intervention, of exposing the fallacies, lies and hypocrisy that often accompany those arguments, and illustrating how neo-colonial imperialism works, how it defeats insurgencies, and ultimately how it controls third world countries. This book is deep, thoughtful and well-reasoned. It will be especially eye-opening to the typically clueless American who thinks America is only a well-intentioned altruistic force for good in the world.
February 19, 2019
Should be required reading - especially for liberals who sugar coat U.S. imperialist interventions with a "human rights" concern facade - be it Iraq, Libya, Syria...or now Venezuela. Such a thin veneer and yet it works repeatedly. Bricmont gives a nice, concise history of where the term originated, how it has been used and how in the end humanitarian intervention unites liberal Dems with right-wing neo-cons like Dick Cheney or Elliott Abrams. Not particularly difficult to see through all this; must assume, that in the end, those people who buy into it, know what they are doing - be it the New York Times - that never saw a U.S. military intervention it support, Amy Goodman and the folks at Democracy Now! that support the U.S. orchestration of the Syrian jihadists (when there is no Syrian democratic opposition), or the current hysteria over the big, bad Vladimir Putin..
January 25, 2014
I am oozing with glee at the fact I can now destroy shitty little Leftists who believe in liberating others I just.... just read it. No questions.
September 7, 2013
According to Richard Falk, a lawyer and specialist on international law, "Intervention is like the Mississippi River; it flows North to South. Terms like "humanitarian intervention" and "the responsibility to protect" are now ineradicable parts of the Western discourse on policy toward the global south, establishing a new norm in international affairs. This book is a necessary left-wing counter to the increasingly accepted justifications the supposed need for invasion and occupation to defend human rights. Their view is that the U.S. system of capitalist democracy is the model to
which all other nations should conform; Bricmont's point that it is important to those in power to confine public debate with the narrow limits of whether tactics are effective--should we use Tomahawk missiles launched from ships or Hellfire missile fired from drones--and not to challenge the aims and strategies of the armed intervention itself.
Particularly germane just now with the debate on dropping high explosives on Syria in retaliation for the use of poison gas by the Assad regime in rebel controlled territory which looks to be a tough sell in Congress, among the American people and internationally.
Ably translated by Diane Johnstone who knows a quite a bit about the subject herself.
which all other nations should conform; Bricmont's point that it is important to those in power to confine public debate with the narrow limits of whether tactics are effective--should we use Tomahawk missiles launched from ships or Hellfire missile fired from drones--and not to challenge the aims and strategies of the armed intervention itself.
Particularly germane just now with the debate on dropping high explosives on Syria in retaliation for the use of poison gas by the Assad regime in rebel controlled territory which looks to be a tough sell in Congress, among the American people and internationally.
Ably translated by Diane Johnstone who knows a quite a bit about the subject herself.
February 11, 2010
Jean Bricmont writes about interventionism in other countries on behalf of defending human rights. He argues that the West (European Empires first, the US then) switched from bringing progress to defending human rights in order to pursue its domination over other countries. The main cases are the Belgian colony of Congo, and the US war in Iraq.
He gives hints for the antiwar movement when confronted to such question as "You're against the war in Afghanistan, so you want all women to wear burkas!?" Bricmont also studies the dubious content of contemporary left and green parties, international NGOs, etc. in relation to the wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
He gives hints for the antiwar movement when confronted to such question as "You're against the war in Afghanistan, so you want all women to wear burkas!?" Bricmont also studies the dubious content of contemporary left and green parties, international NGOs, etc. in relation to the wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
July 2, 2025
den är antiimperialistisk (=anti-USA), antikapitalistisk, antikolonial, ja på alla sätt anti-höger helt enkelt. men också oerhört vänsterkritisk! väcker så många frågor jag aldrig varit ens i närheten av att fundera över. tycker alla borde läsa! (sen som alla såna här böcker hade den kunnat vara ett tunt häfte istället och fått lika mycket sagt, men ändå väldigt många meningar som var spot on och fick mig att sitta och nicka för mig själv)
January 21, 2021
The preamble to this book, in the author’s words, is the need for a coherent and cogent argument, especially on the left, against international interventions on humanitarian grounds. This book was released in 2006 when the abject failure and destitution in Iraq as a result of the US-led illegal invasion and occupation was crystal clear for the whole world to see.
On the one hand, there is the notion of “humanitarian imperialism” which argues that “we” (read The West) have the right and even the duty to interfere elsewhere on the basis of protecting certain “universal values” such as human rights and democracy. On the other hand, there is cultural relativism - “the idea that there is no such thing as a moral position having universal value and in whose name one can objectively judge other societies and cultures (or our own)”. The author wants to sketch out a third position rejecting intervention while accepting that the objectives which interventions claim to pursue and implement are desirable.
While I recognize that 15 years is not a long time, I do find it sort of amusing that this book might as well have been written yesterday. It is also horrifying the extent to which Iraq has been wiped clean from all our collective memories to the point that we have allowed disasters such as Yemen, Libya, and Syria to take place with impunity on the same tepid R2P principles and human rights values. And some “leftist”/progressive persons and organizations still have the galls to proclaim that they are against “both sides”.
What is this third position, what does it entail and what is it built on?
According to the author, a good place to start would be recognizing that the staunch proponents of humanitarian-based interventions further a particular representation of the Second World War justifying interventions in the Third World “in the name of the defense of democracy and human rights or against the “new Hitlers”. It is in the use of nonintervention in situations where it might have been justified (Rwanda) to galvanize public opinion in favor of interventions that do take place in very different circumstances. It is also in the realization that
In my view, the book still leaves much to be desired in explaining this supposed third position that is somehow different from just plain anti-interventionism. But there are interesting and valuable perspectives in this book in service of anti-interventionist thought and practice.
Such as, what about the “neither-nor” group? The author argues, more or less, that it is ineffective virtue-signaling:
What infuriates me with online political discourse is the rhetoric and hurling of accusations of “supporting” this or that - China’s alleged genocide in Xinjiang is very popular these days; Russian “interference” hysteria, etc. For me, as individuals, it is a fruitless, unproductive and useless exercise to be fangirling over international matters in such a manner. The author likens this behavior as akin to “supporters of football teams”. The author argues for the need to draw the difference between active and passive support. Most of us are not in the position to provide active support, and whatever symbolic passive “support” we are giving by not having the “proper” thought, attitude, sentiment or belief is immaterial and inconsequential. Instead, join an anti or pro (if you are in the other camp) war/interventionist movement dedicated to building power (or to maintaining power) to be in a position to make meaningful change (or keep things as they are).
On the one hand, there is the notion of “humanitarian imperialism” which argues that “we” (read The West) have the right and even the duty to interfere elsewhere on the basis of protecting certain “universal values” such as human rights and democracy. On the other hand, there is cultural relativism - “the idea that there is no such thing as a moral position having universal value and in whose name one can objectively judge other societies and cultures (or our own)”. The author wants to sketch out a third position rejecting intervention while accepting that the objectives which interventions claim to pursue and implement are desirable.
While I recognize that 15 years is not a long time, I do find it sort of amusing that this book might as well have been written yesterday. It is also horrifying the extent to which Iraq has been wiped clean from all our collective memories to the point that we have allowed disasters such as Yemen, Libya, and Syria to take place with impunity on the same tepid R2P principles and human rights values. And some “leftist”/progressive persons and organizations still have the galls to proclaim that they are against “both sides”.
What is this third position, what does it entail and what is it built on?
According to the author, a good place to start would be recognizing that the staunch proponents of humanitarian-based interventions further a particular representation of the Second World War justifying interventions in the Third World “in the name of the defense of democracy and human rights or against the “new Hitlers”. It is in the use of nonintervention in situations where it might have been justified (Rwanda) to galvanize public opinion in favor of interventions that do take place in very different circumstances. It is also in the realization that
the interest of all imperialisms—and even Ignatieff admits that imperial powers pursue their own interests—is to prevent rather than to foster nation-building. This is why, for better or more often for worse, imperialism has always attacked the real nation-builders, men like Abdel-Krim in Morocco, Joshua Nkomo, Castro, Lumumba, Gandhi, Bose, Ben Bella and other Algerian revolutionaries, Janio Quadros of Brazil, Nasser, Sukarno in Indonesia, Arbenz of Guatemala, Mossadegh and Khomeini of Iran, Mao and Zhou Enlai. All imperialisms must oppose the building of free nations as opposed to tame, subject “democracies” like our staunch allies, the Marshall Islands. So real nation-building, even where it is possible, is nothing America would ever want to sponsor.
In my view, the book still leaves much to be desired in explaining this supposed third position that is somehow different from just plain anti-interventionism. But there are interesting and valuable perspectives in this book in service of anti-interventionist thought and practice.
Such as, what about the “neither-nor” group? The author argues, more or less, that it is ineffective virtue-signaling:
“This tendency is often accompanied by adoption of an irritating moral posturing: neither this nor that, but no concrete alternative in the real world. Obviously, doing nothing that could have any impact on reality carries no risk, and there is no need to worry about being accused of supporting Stalin or Pol Pot. But, at that point, why continue to claim to be engaged in political action? This attitude of effortless moral purity is typical of a philosophical or religious aversion to the real world, which is the exact opposite of politics.and built on the notions of false equivalencies especially when there is clearly one aggressor and one disproportionately powerful force.
What infuriates me with online political discourse is the rhetoric and hurling of accusations of “supporting” this or that - China’s alleged genocide in Xinjiang is very popular these days; Russian “interference” hysteria, etc. For me, as individuals, it is a fruitless, unproductive and useless exercise to be fangirling over international matters in such a manner. The author likens this behavior as akin to “supporters of football teams”. The author argues for the need to draw the difference between active and passive support. Most of us are not in the position to provide active support, and whatever symbolic passive “support” we are giving by not having the “proper” thought, attitude, sentiment or belief is immaterial and inconsequential. Instead, join an anti or pro (if you are in the other camp) war/interventionist movement dedicated to building power (or to maintaining power) to be in a position to make meaningful change (or keep things as they are).
October 9, 2024
Quick & informative with good historical analysis. Could’ve used a little more/better structure though, but an interesting read overall.
November 27, 2021
I read this a year ago and it has been the most important book I've read as an anti-war volunteer. It has helped me formulate my worldview around geopolitics and my position in the world as a taxpaying American citizen.
Bricmont details the inherent oxymorons of "humanitarian" interventions and how westerners have unwittingly supported imperialism. The very term "human rights", while often thought of as politically neutral term, has been politicized.
Important points
- The revisionism around WWII and constant invoking of Nazi Germany to justify geopolitical aggression
- Political use of German ethnic minorities in WWII
- The case of Cuba vs the rest of Latin America, material rights like healthcare vs "democracy"
- Imperialist history of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
- Shortcomings of western humanitarian activism's petitions and "calls for action"
Bricmont details the inherent oxymorons of "humanitarian" interventions and how westerners have unwittingly supported imperialism. The very term "human rights", while often thought of as politically neutral term, has been politicized.
Important points
- The revisionism around WWII and constant invoking of Nazi Germany to justify geopolitical aggression
- Political use of German ethnic minorities in WWII
- The case of Cuba vs the rest of Latin America, material rights like healthcare vs "democracy"
- Imperialist history of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
- Shortcomings of western humanitarian activism's petitions and "calls for action"
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 31, 2017
A short, clear, practical analysis of arguments for and against humanitarian interventions. Bricmont cleverly uses primary sources and statistics to back up his points without relying wholly on them. Unsurprisingly the book is heavily focused on the Iraq War, but its arguments are universal and applicable to Libya, Syria, etc. Readable and relevant.
January 7, 2014
A _must_ read for any serious adult.
August 9, 2016
Those writers who claim, that well, at least in our system you are free, are made more guilty by that privilege.
September 8, 2019
Bricmont's premise is obviously true: western intervention sold on the premise of "humanitarianism" is merely imperialism as a wolf in sheep's clothing. On the other hand, cultural relativism, the idea that there is no right or wrong morality, is not completely true either. The goal of the book is to develop a more nuanced, third position.
Occasionally there are nuggets of truth he brings up, in defining the tendencies of the "left" and the bipartisan nature of war. But where his book utterly fails is having any sort of framework to analyze these tendencies, sowing far more disinformation than making any enlightening contributions.
Despite being half of the book's title, Bricmont refuses to provide a "scientific" definition of imperialism. So, you're writing a book about something you don't even know? He goes bumbling onward to make false and confusing descriptions of socialism, referencing the false dichotomy of "libertarian" and "statist" tendencies, and the idea that communists are just "extreme socialists." If one wishes to write a book, it is a good idea to educate yourself on what things mean.
He goes on with a couple silly quotes from Bertrand Russell (no, not kidding) on some nonsense about how Marxism is somehow inflexible and static. This is a flat out lie.
I could go on (in much the same way Bricmont goes on), but the author spends far more time regurgitating lies about socialism and socialist states than actually formulating a critique about western interventionism.
Oddly, he occasionally brings up points that denouncing communism is hypocritical and people in the west seldomly see their own states as being "totalitarian," even commenting on how people "religiously quote Orwell." This book is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde sequel no one asked for.
I didn't make it far in this book. I had to stop the moment he claimed that colonialism, despite all its violence, brought some "good things" to the third world: technology, medicine, and "democratic ideals" to places it supposedly didn't exist.
Sorry, I thought this book was supposed to be an anti-imperialist critique, not imperialist apologia?
This book may have some value to centrists or liberals who are brand new to the whole "war is bad" thing, but if you're a socialist, throw it in the garbage.
Occasionally there are nuggets of truth he brings up, in defining the tendencies of the "left" and the bipartisan nature of war. But where his book utterly fails is having any sort of framework to analyze these tendencies, sowing far more disinformation than making any enlightening contributions.
Despite being half of the book's title, Bricmont refuses to provide a "scientific" definition of imperialism. So, you're writing a book about something you don't even know? He goes bumbling onward to make false and confusing descriptions of socialism, referencing the false dichotomy of "libertarian" and "statist" tendencies, and the idea that communists are just "extreme socialists." If one wishes to write a book, it is a good idea to educate yourself on what things mean.
He goes on with a couple silly quotes from Bertrand Russell (no, not kidding) on some nonsense about how Marxism is somehow inflexible and static. This is a flat out lie.
I could go on (in much the same way Bricmont goes on), but the author spends far more time regurgitating lies about socialism and socialist states than actually formulating a critique about western interventionism.
Oddly, he occasionally brings up points that denouncing communism is hypocritical and people in the west seldomly see their own states as being "totalitarian," even commenting on how people "religiously quote Orwell." This book is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde sequel no one asked for.
I didn't make it far in this book. I had to stop the moment he claimed that colonialism, despite all its violence, brought some "good things" to the third world: technology, medicine, and "democratic ideals" to places it supposedly didn't exist.
Sorry, I thought this book was supposed to be an anti-imperialist critique, not imperialist apologia?
This book may have some value to centrists or liberals who are brand new to the whole "war is bad" thing, but if you're a socialist, throw it in the garbage.
April 1, 2021
A bit unfocused, a bit rambly, but Bricmont still brings up a number of interesting points and examples. I'd honestly say this works a bit better as a broad introduction to anti-imperialism and the realities which inform it rather than as the treatise its name and description promise. Would recommend to people sympathetic to leftist causes looking to develop more of a perspective on international issues, though one should definitely continue seeking out other material afterwards.
April 25, 2023
Este libro expone la hipocresía que hay en torno a los Derechos Humanos. Los países occidentales, con EEUU a la cabeza, han sido los que más los han fomentado, también han los han aprovechado como excusa para poder intervenir en diferentes países.
September 28, 2025
Excellent deconstruction of western propaganda that pulls us into war after war on the basis of false moralism. Bricmont is clear, grounded, and incisive with his critique, and his point feels incredibly fresh.
April 25, 2019
Esta bien el libro, te ofrece una perspectiva del mundo que nunca nos dan. Eso sí, te dan ganas de odiar a EEUU porque parece que es el villano personificado.
Read
December 16, 2021Excellent book! Everyone -- especially our world leaders, the people who actually start wars -- should read this book, and then put their guns aside.
二零二一年： 第三十九本书
二零二一年： 第三十九本书
February 23, 2022
not bad but doesn't really add anything new to those who are familiar with anti war leftist arguments
February 24, 2022
An interesting read..the aim of this book, as the author states in the preface, is to chart out an alternative discourse within the western left -- A western left that, consciously or unconsciously, almost always ends up doing an endorsement of Western imperialist interventions in the garb of "humanitarianism". The author first establishes the parameters of the discourse by emphasising on the fact that the previous century was not that of "the rise and fall of Nazism" or "the history of Socialism" but that of decolonisation or anti-colonialism.
He further goes on to argue that all the political projects undertaken by the so called "third or second" world in the past century, weather communist or not, were the underdeveloped ex colonies ( under the threat of neo colonialism ) trying to catch up with the west.
Although intended primarily for the western left, the author presents many solid historical arguments for his case against the western intervention of sovereign nations in the name of humanitarianism.
These include, the obvious like, how the west, since the end of the second world war has actively topped the democratically elected goverments in the global South and installed pupet right wing dictatorship's, friendly towards western foreign policy in general and US foreign policy in particular.
The book also talks about how, through various tactics, the western neo colonialists have used humanitarianism as a ground for intervention in the same way their predecessors used Christianity and the communist threat as an excuse for their own inquisitions and Colonial plunders. How through the use of ideology the ruling class limits the discourse of these interventions around "how the war should be waged" rather than the war itself.
The author goes on to debunk many arguments that come from the so called "western left" in defence of these interventions. Overall the author through his rigorous argumentation tries to start an alternative discourse against the so called "humanitarian interventions" within the western left.
What I found most interesting in this book is how the author makes sense of the socialist experiments of the 20th century (he argues that the authoritarian nature of these regimes, in part was a reaction to the constant threat the US posed, as is quite evident from the examples of Allende in Chile or the Sanidistas in Nicaragua, whose democratically elected government were toppled and replaced by unpopular brutal right wing dictatorships )
Another interesting point was, when he argues that a civilisation, whose own wealth is made on the basis of gross human rights violations such as child labour, slavery, colonialism etc have no right to intervene in the affairs of other countries in the name of these same human rights.
Overall this book has its shortcomings. Sometimes it becomes overwhelming when the author trying to cramp in too many ideas, makes the arguments confusing.
At some places the author, in my opinion, is guilty of reductionism of various terms. And his infatuation with Bertrand Russell is also annoying at times.
All in all, a good book for introducing someone to the consequences of Western military intervention. An easy read.
He further goes on to argue that all the political projects undertaken by the so called "third or second" world in the past century, weather communist or not, were the underdeveloped ex colonies ( under the threat of neo colonialism ) trying to catch up with the west.
Although intended primarily for the western left, the author presents many solid historical arguments for his case against the western intervention of sovereign nations in the name of humanitarianism.
These include, the obvious like, how the west, since the end of the second world war has actively topped the democratically elected goverments in the global South and installed pupet right wing dictatorship's, friendly towards western foreign policy in general and US foreign policy in particular.
The book also talks about how, through various tactics, the western neo colonialists have used humanitarianism as a ground for intervention in the same way their predecessors used Christianity and the communist threat as an excuse for their own inquisitions and Colonial plunders. How through the use of ideology the ruling class limits the discourse of these interventions around "how the war should be waged" rather than the war itself.
The author goes on to debunk many arguments that come from the so called "western left" in defence of these interventions. Overall the author through his rigorous argumentation tries to start an alternative discourse against the so called "humanitarian interventions" within the western left.
What I found most interesting in this book is how the author makes sense of the socialist experiments of the 20th century (he argues that the authoritarian nature of these regimes, in part was a reaction to the constant threat the US posed, as is quite evident from the examples of Allende in Chile or the Sanidistas in Nicaragua, whose democratically elected government were toppled and replaced by unpopular brutal right wing dictatorships )
Another interesting point was, when he argues that a civilisation, whose own wealth is made on the basis of gross human rights violations such as child labour, slavery, colonialism etc have no right to intervene in the affairs of other countries in the name of these same human rights.
Overall this book has its shortcomings. Sometimes it becomes overwhelming when the author trying to cramp in too many ideas, makes the arguments confusing.
At some places the author, in my opinion, is guilty of reductionism of various terms. And his infatuation with Bertrand Russell is also annoying at times.
All in all, a good book for introducing someone to the consequences of Western military intervention. An easy read.
February 1, 2014
Serious look at the human rights discourse that dominates the reasoning for one country to intervene in the affairs of another.
June 24, 2023
Imprescindible para comprender la realidad de las relaciones geopolíticas que rigen el planeta en nuestros días. Debería ser lectura obligada en todos los institutos.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews