What do you think?
Rate this book
No More War: How the West Violates International Law by Using 'Humanitarian' Intervention to Advance Economic and Strategic Interests
Lost in today’s obsession with the oxymoron known as “humanitarian intervention” is the undeniable truth which the framers of the UN Charter understood so well – that war is the fount of all the worst human rights violations, including genocide, and not its cure.
International Human Rights & The Prohibition of Aggressive War sets out to reclaim the original intent of the Charter founders to end the scourge of war on the heels of the devastation wrought by WWII. The book begins with a short history of the West’s development as built upon the mass plunder of the Global South, genocide and slavery, and challenges the prevailing notion that the West is uniquely poised to enforce human rights through force.
This book also goes through recent “humanitarian interventions” carried out by the Western powers against poorer nations (e.g., in the DRC, Congo, and Iraq) and shows how these have only created greater human rights problems – including genocide – than they purported to stop or prevent.
International Human Rights & The Prohibition of Aggressive War reminds the reader of the key lessons of Nuremberg – that war is the primary scourge of the world, the root of all the evils which international law seeks to prevent and eradicate, and which must be prevented. The reader is then taken through the UN Charter and other human rights instruments and their emphasis on the prevention of aggressive war.
International Human Rights & The Prohibition of Aggressive War sets out to reclaim the original intent of the Charter founders to end the scourge of war on the heels of the devastation wrought by WWII. The book begins with a short history of the West’s development as built upon the mass plunder of the Global South, genocide and slavery, and challenges the prevailing notion that the West is uniquely poised to enforce human rights through force.
This book also goes through recent “humanitarian interventions” carried out by the Western powers against poorer nations (e.g., in the DRC, Congo, and Iraq) and shows how these have only created greater human rights problems – including genocide – than they purported to stop or prevent.
International Human Rights & The Prohibition of Aggressive War reminds the reader of the key lessons of Nuremberg – that war is the primary scourge of the world, the root of all the evils which international law seeks to prevent and eradicate, and which must be prevented. The reader is then taken through the UN Charter and other human rights instruments and their emphasis on the prevention of aggressive war.
296 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2020
24 people are currently reading
329 people want to read
About the author
Dan Kovalik
13 books80 followersTeaches International Law and International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
Read
March 2, 2022The title of this book is so optimistic. Kovalik's main thesis here is a common one. He suggests that interventions done by the West have done much more harm than good. Part of the book focuses on international law and other parts are about particular cases of the West.
I read this book because I wanted clarification on how international law works. We’ve all heard terms like “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity” but it occurred to me that I don’t actually understand what they are or how the international law is meant to stop them. This book didn’t quite answer these questions but it was still an interesting read- like hanging around leftist tiktok but more based.
I don’t think I need to reiterate the reasons why Western interventions can be harmful. Those of us paying attention can see that price in Afghanistan now. When intervening, a state knows how it starts but not how it ends. The lack of deadline on the war on terror exemplifies how easily it can get out of hand. Beyond that, an intervention inherently hurts a state’s self determination and governance. From Vietnam to Iraq, civilians end up paying steep prices for the wars of greater powers. The military industry grows and it comes at the cost of finding other solutions.
Throughout the book, Kovalik bounces through various subjects, from the anti-colonial elements of international law to the impact of conflicts on women. The book is very readable and could be an excellent introduction to leftist/ dovish foreign policy.
All this said, I have various issues and queries which Kovalik doesn’t quite address.
Firstly, Kovalik never fully clarifies what kind of interventions he’s opposed to. I mean, yes, American boots on the ground is clearly an intervention he disagrees with. But are sanctions that bring the country to its knees a wrong intervention? If a country applies intense diplomatic pressure which forces a country to change its route, isn’t that an intervention he’d oppose too?
It seems to me that every kind of interaction between countries is an intervention. Countries are constantly using various tools to pressure each other to act in certain ways. Where does Kovalik draw the line? What is the interaction that he seeks among countries, considering he also mentions that he opposes economic sanctions? (Or, should I say, he opposes sanctions on Cuba but supports sanctioning Israel cause you know, American leftist logic).
Near the end, he supports China’s strategy of building infrastructure. As he says, this is building, not destroying. However, it’s clear to everyone that there’s no such thing as a free gift- China is buying loyalty which can later be used, if the need arises. In this sense, isn’t this also an intervention? Or, a strong potential for an intervention? If China owns parts of one’s country, that seems to be an issue for those who worry about state’s self determination.
Secondly, Kovalik never asks if a military intervention can be justified. He never really engages with the countering stance. Can it, according to him, ever be justified? If there’s a dictator that is systematically murdering civilians and other routes of diplomacy, economics, and local work on the ground have failed, would Kovalik support an intervention? If the people of the country are explicitly asking for military interventions?
I’m gonna be such an economist and say that there are very big costs to an intervention but there are also very big costs to not intervening. It is true, however, that people in the West do not pay the costs when they do not intervene. So in a Western perspective, not intervening is the “do no harm first” principle. But in a global perspective, do we not have obligations towards others?
The classic example that comes to mind is Syria. Assad used chemical weapons precisely to prove to the Syrians that no one will help them, according to Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War. And indeed, the Americans did not help but Assad received help from the Iranians.
This leads me to the third issue. Often, even if the West does not intervene, other countries still will. Now, the assumption that the West is inherently better and therefore should be in charge is certainly one that needs to be challenged but Kovalik never really digs into the way that the West is not the only one intervening. Nor does he ask whether, in light of other country’s interventions, the West’s intervention can be understood differently. Foreign intervention certainly play a role in Syria’s failing state status but what would it be like had the United States never intervened but Iran had?
And yes, Western involvement can lead to a destructive escalation. However, the idea of Western intervention can be deterrence. If a country (ahem, Russia) knows that their behavior will lead to a world war, they might second-guess certain behaviors. Is this an obligation that the West have towards the rest of us?
If stronger Western countries cease to intervene militarily, in some ways, they are leaving behind weaker countries who rely on them. These countries are facing adversaries who are stronger than them yet such adversaries don’t attack for the fear of retaliation.
So what's the only solution Kovalik suggests? International governance!
Kovalik is very hopeful about the UN and international law. Admittedly, I share that classic Israeli- Jewish contempt but if we accept that countries must use the UN as the sole source for conflict resolution, what is the justification for the veto powers of the US, UK, China, Russia and France? Really, if we go solely by UN laws, it seems that any country in the world can do whatever it wants, as long as it has the support of a veto power. This is a claim usually used by anti-Israel activists but this seems to be built into the DNA of the UN. If, in order to fight a country, you need UN support but the vast majority of conflicts have the support of one of the global powers, what can the UN actually do?
Now, I don’t know what the answer to all of this is but Kovalik never really questions it. He seems to take it as a given that the UN is the best tool for avoiding interventions and while he explains well why Western interventions are harmful, he doesn’t make the case for why the UN is meant to be a guideline, which flaws does international law have or whether this system is truly effective.
It is strange to present international law as a clear cut rulebook when even reading through the resolutions Kovalik brings, it seems like many elements of international law are contradictory. Personally, I also think it is wishful thinking that the world has drastically changed or that human rights are the motivator of countries.
For example, Kovalik points out that the Western world has misunderstood the Rwandan genocide. The Rwandan genocide is viewed as one sided but apparently, both sides committed massacres. Only the losers were punished. This is part of an argument as to how the USA might have committed a genocide in Vietnam but Kovalik neatly avoids discussing that the fact that the ICC only trialed some of the criminals (the side that lost the war) shows that the ICC is unable to do its job. Or at least, that there’s a crisis here- we do not want to believe that justice is only given to the winners.
Another element that bothered me was that throughout the book, Kovalik is painfully American-centric. For example, he suggests that a rape committed by the FSA in Syria can be blamed on the USA as they funded the FSA. This is baffling because it removes all agency from locals. With this kind of thinking, Russia and Iran are to blame for Assad’s crimes. In fact, the vast majority of crimes committed everywhere can be traced back to the global powers who fund them. This type of thinking presumes that the entire world spins around these countries, that the locals have no sense of accountability or responsibility. Yes, those who fund bear some level responsibility but ultimately, those who commit the crime are responsible.
(In other words, goddammit, Americans and Europeans, stop claiming Israeli crimes, no, you’re not responsible, sit down)
I thought it was striking to see how the Holocaust becomes the scale for other issues. I mean yes, this entire system is deeply based off of WW2 but it seems that context matters and that without context, it is very hard to judge conflicts. What could have been useful during WW2 might not be useful now. It makes me a little uncomfortable, to be honest.
I’ll conclude by reiterating. I think many of the West’s interventions, as Kovalik says, have not been well thought out. Often, it seems like there is a lack of understanding about the people and the politics within that space It appears that there is a lacking exit strategy or at least, very little thought on how a country can rise again after a military intervention. Getting rid of a leader means a vacuum and such things are a problem for everyone.
What I'm Taking With Me
- I’m not going to write about Ukraine, although it’s tempting because I’m definitely not educated enough and it’s so easy to write nonsense without taking the time to learn. I can’t point out Odessa on a map, my Russian is limited to “Great, I don’t speak Russian”, I do not have the skills for this.
- i will say that it’s bizarre to see a war in the west from afar. Like, I’m so used to wars here but suddenly seeing how it looks when it’s not in your region is... shocking. Horrific. Unreal. The wars I’ve experienced have often felt infuriating because they repeat themselves, because we all know how they end. This is scary because we do not.
- Presumably, American allied countries are accepting that the US is not going to intervene as seen in the Afghanistan pullout and now. And this means that we can expect to see more conflict arise as other countries will use this as their opportunity to gain power in that vacuum. Israel will likely continue to strengthen ties with the region, probably moving closer to non-Western countries.
- My controversial opinion is that the West is placing all these sanctions on Russia yet there’s no plan for how to remove them. As always, in conflicts, no one is looking at the future. Sanctions which severely hurt civilian life (such as those on the banks) are going to backfire without a clear exit strategy. These sanctions are likely meant to either encourage Putin to stop the war or to motivate Russians to replace him. Now, if Putin doesn't stop the war and the sanctions remain, this could have endless unforeseen consequences. For example, if Putin is toppled, we have no idea what would replace him, as Russia isn't a democracy, but history implies it would not be positive for anyone. Even if Putin isn't replaced, Russians are feeling humiliated and alienated by the West which will further push the regime to supporting totalitarianism and extremism, likely strengthening ties with more violent actors.
- like other Israelis, I used to think that if things were genuinely bad, like if Iran used a nuke, Israel would get the support of other countries but seeing Ukraine really emphasizes again how much Israelis need to rely on self-sufficiency, especially as we now essentially share a border with Russia.
- Roughly 15% of Israelis are from former USSR. Up until now, Ukrainians have usually been very okay with calling themselves Russian. They call themselves Russian, speak Russian and just generally, take part in the Russian community. As most immigrated here in the 90s, this makes sense. Now, there’s this really fascinating shift in which they are saying, “I’m Ukrainian, not Russian”. And Russians are suddenly expressing themselves politically in a way that also emphasizes the difference. I’m really curious to see if this is a cleavage that will stay, if Israeli Ukrainians will distance themselves from Russia, even when the context in Israel is different.
- At a certain point, Kovalik seems to say that Palestinians are paying for German crimes. This is both stupid and ahistorical. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict predates the Holocaust. Ugh.
- maybe the reason it takes me a million years to catch up on reviews is because my reviews have started to become actual essays.
----------------------
This is unfortunately another well-timed read. Lots to think about, especially as both interventions and lack of them seem to lead to catastrophic endings.
Review to come!
I read this book because I wanted clarification on how international law works. We’ve all heard terms like “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity” but it occurred to me that I don’t actually understand what they are or how the international law is meant to stop them. This book didn’t quite answer these questions but it was still an interesting read- like hanging around leftist tiktok but more based.
I don’t think I need to reiterate the reasons why Western interventions can be harmful. Those of us paying attention can see that price in Afghanistan now. When intervening, a state knows how it starts but not how it ends. The lack of deadline on the war on terror exemplifies how easily it can get out of hand. Beyond that, an intervention inherently hurts a state’s self determination and governance. From Vietnam to Iraq, civilians end up paying steep prices for the wars of greater powers. The military industry grows and it comes at the cost of finding other solutions.
Throughout the book, Kovalik bounces through various subjects, from the anti-colonial elements of international law to the impact of conflicts on women. The book is very readable and could be an excellent introduction to leftist/ dovish foreign policy.
All this said, I have various issues and queries which Kovalik doesn’t quite address.
Firstly, Kovalik never fully clarifies what kind of interventions he’s opposed to. I mean, yes, American boots on the ground is clearly an intervention he disagrees with. But are sanctions that bring the country to its knees a wrong intervention? If a country applies intense diplomatic pressure which forces a country to change its route, isn’t that an intervention he’d oppose too?
It seems to me that every kind of interaction between countries is an intervention. Countries are constantly using various tools to pressure each other to act in certain ways. Where does Kovalik draw the line? What is the interaction that he seeks among countries, considering he also mentions that he opposes economic sanctions? (Or, should I say, he opposes sanctions on Cuba but supports sanctioning Israel cause you know, American leftist logic).
Near the end, he supports China’s strategy of building infrastructure. As he says, this is building, not destroying. However, it’s clear to everyone that there’s no such thing as a free gift- China is buying loyalty which can later be used, if the need arises. In this sense, isn’t this also an intervention? Or, a strong potential for an intervention? If China owns parts of one’s country, that seems to be an issue for those who worry about state’s self determination.
Secondly, Kovalik never asks if a military intervention can be justified. He never really engages with the countering stance. Can it, according to him, ever be justified? If there’s a dictator that is systematically murdering civilians and other routes of diplomacy, economics, and local work on the ground have failed, would Kovalik support an intervention? If the people of the country are explicitly asking for military interventions?
I’m gonna be such an economist and say that there are very big costs to an intervention but there are also very big costs to not intervening. It is true, however, that people in the West do not pay the costs when they do not intervene. So in a Western perspective, not intervening is the “do no harm first” principle. But in a global perspective, do we not have obligations towards others?
The classic example that comes to mind is Syria. Assad used chemical weapons precisely to prove to the Syrians that no one will help them, according to Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War. And indeed, the Americans did not help but Assad received help from the Iranians.
This leads me to the third issue. Often, even if the West does not intervene, other countries still will. Now, the assumption that the West is inherently better and therefore should be in charge is certainly one that needs to be challenged but Kovalik never really digs into the way that the West is not the only one intervening. Nor does he ask whether, in light of other country’s interventions, the West’s intervention can be understood differently. Foreign intervention certainly play a role in Syria’s failing state status but what would it be like had the United States never intervened but Iran had?
And yes, Western involvement can lead to a destructive escalation. However, the idea of Western intervention can be deterrence. If a country (ahem, Russia) knows that their behavior will lead to a world war, they might second-guess certain behaviors. Is this an obligation that the West have towards the rest of us?
If stronger Western countries cease to intervene militarily, in some ways, they are leaving behind weaker countries who rely on them. These countries are facing adversaries who are stronger than them yet such adversaries don’t attack for the fear of retaliation.
So what's the only solution Kovalik suggests? International governance!
Kovalik is very hopeful about the UN and international law. Admittedly, I share that classic Israeli- Jewish contempt but if we accept that countries must use the UN as the sole source for conflict resolution, what is the justification for the veto powers of the US, UK, China, Russia and France? Really, if we go solely by UN laws, it seems that any country in the world can do whatever it wants, as long as it has the support of a veto power. This is a claim usually used by anti-Israel activists but this seems to be built into the DNA of the UN. If, in order to fight a country, you need UN support but the vast majority of conflicts have the support of one of the global powers, what can the UN actually do?
Now, I don’t know what the answer to all of this is but Kovalik never really questions it. He seems to take it as a given that the UN is the best tool for avoiding interventions and while he explains well why Western interventions are harmful, he doesn’t make the case for why the UN is meant to be a guideline, which flaws does international law have or whether this system is truly effective.
It is strange to present international law as a clear cut rulebook when even reading through the resolutions Kovalik brings, it seems like many elements of international law are contradictory. Personally, I also think it is wishful thinking that the world has drastically changed or that human rights are the motivator of countries.
For example, Kovalik points out that the Western world has misunderstood the Rwandan genocide. The Rwandan genocide is viewed as one sided but apparently, both sides committed massacres. Only the losers were punished. This is part of an argument as to how the USA might have committed a genocide in Vietnam but Kovalik neatly avoids discussing that the fact that the ICC only trialed some of the criminals (the side that lost the war) shows that the ICC is unable to do its job. Or at least, that there’s a crisis here- we do not want to believe that justice is only given to the winners.
Another element that bothered me was that throughout the book, Kovalik is painfully American-centric. For example, he suggests that a rape committed by the FSA in Syria can be blamed on the USA as they funded the FSA. This is baffling because it removes all agency from locals. With this kind of thinking, Russia and Iran are to blame for Assad’s crimes. In fact, the vast majority of crimes committed everywhere can be traced back to the global powers who fund them. This type of thinking presumes that the entire world spins around these countries, that the locals have no sense of accountability or responsibility. Yes, those who fund bear some level responsibility but ultimately, those who commit the crime are responsible.
(In other words, goddammit, Americans and Europeans, stop claiming Israeli crimes, no, you’re not responsible, sit down)
I thought it was striking to see how the Holocaust becomes the scale for other issues. I mean yes, this entire system is deeply based off of WW2 but it seems that context matters and that without context, it is very hard to judge conflicts. What could have been useful during WW2 might not be useful now. It makes me a little uncomfortable, to be honest.
I’ll conclude by reiterating. I think many of the West’s interventions, as Kovalik says, have not been well thought out. Often, it seems like there is a lack of understanding about the people and the politics within that space It appears that there is a lacking exit strategy or at least, very little thought on how a country can rise again after a military intervention. Getting rid of a leader means a vacuum and such things are a problem for everyone.
What I'm Taking With Me
- I’m not going to write about Ukraine, although it’s tempting because I’m definitely not educated enough and it’s so easy to write nonsense without taking the time to learn. I can’t point out Odessa on a map, my Russian is limited to “Great, I don’t speak Russian”, I do not have the skills for this.
- i will say that it’s bizarre to see a war in the west from afar. Like, I’m so used to wars here but suddenly seeing how it looks when it’s not in your region is... shocking. Horrific. Unreal. The wars I’ve experienced have often felt infuriating because they repeat themselves, because we all know how they end. This is scary because we do not.
- Presumably, American allied countries are accepting that the US is not going to intervene as seen in the Afghanistan pullout and now. And this means that we can expect to see more conflict arise as other countries will use this as their opportunity to gain power in that vacuum. Israel will likely continue to strengthen ties with the region, probably moving closer to non-Western countries.
- My controversial opinion is that the West is placing all these sanctions on Russia yet there’s no plan for how to remove them. As always, in conflicts, no one is looking at the future. Sanctions which severely hurt civilian life (such as those on the banks) are going to backfire without a clear exit strategy. These sanctions are likely meant to either encourage Putin to stop the war or to motivate Russians to replace him. Now, if Putin doesn't stop the war and the sanctions remain, this could have endless unforeseen consequences. For example, if Putin is toppled, we have no idea what would replace him, as Russia isn't a democracy, but history implies it would not be positive for anyone. Even if Putin isn't replaced, Russians are feeling humiliated and alienated by the West which will further push the regime to supporting totalitarianism and extremism, likely strengthening ties with more violent actors.
- like other Israelis, I used to think that if things were genuinely bad, like if Iran used a nuke, Israel would get the support of other countries but seeing Ukraine really emphasizes again how much Israelis need to rely on self-sufficiency, especially as we now essentially share a border with Russia.
- Roughly 15% of Israelis are from former USSR. Up until now, Ukrainians have usually been very okay with calling themselves Russian. They call themselves Russian, speak Russian and just generally, take part in the Russian community. As most immigrated here in the 90s, this makes sense. Now, there’s this really fascinating shift in which they are saying, “I’m Ukrainian, not Russian”. And Russians are suddenly expressing themselves politically in a way that also emphasizes the difference. I’m really curious to see if this is a cleavage that will stay, if Israeli Ukrainians will distance themselves from Russia, even when the context in Israel is different.
- At a certain point, Kovalik seems to say that Palestinians are paying for German crimes. This is both stupid and ahistorical. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict predates the Holocaust. Ugh.
- maybe the reason it takes me a million years to catch up on reviews is because my reviews have started to become actual essays.
----------------------
This is unfortunately another well-timed read. Lots to think about, especially as both interventions and lack of them seem to lead to catastrophic endings.
Review to come!
December 22, 2019
I’m from America and I’m here to help
The United States expands its empire with two excuses for war. One is to ”spread democracy” and the other is for “humanitarian intervention”. Both are bogus. No More War is all about humanitarian interventionism. In every case since World War II, the receiving country would have been far better off if the USA had not intervened at all.
Dan Kovalik is a lawyer and academic who specializes in criticizing the American empire. In this book, he lays out a highly organized and very lawyerly argument against humanitarian interventionism in general, and the American abuse of it in particular. It is yet another wakeup call that the USA is not the good guys coming to anyone’s rescue and they all lived happily ever after. Quite the opposite. He shows clearly and definitively that wherever and whenever the US intervenes, it leaves chaos, poverty and human misery like the victim country had never experienced before.
There is no shortage of examples to choose from. Kovalik has selected Vietnam, Libya, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Rwanda for starters. Additional hypocrisy comes from the international court of justice, which absolves Americans of any abuses, while focusing on African leaders, who have accomplished far less damage. Meanwhile, the USA refuses to recognize the International Criminal Court, because it knows full well it is the apotheosis of international crime against humanity. Given the chance, the court could spend eternity convicting Americans.
Kovalik says humanitarian interventionism is “the fantastic doctrine to which the West – and especially the U.S. – forcibly spreads disaster and chaos throughout the world in the name of human rights and freedom.” It is the pat excuse for invading another country – to stop some human disaster from taking place or spreading. In every case, however, Kovalik shows that the US action either made the situation far worse, or even created the situation itself – where none existed before. Either way, the sole beneficiary is US business, which gets to rebuild the country at huge profits. Often, that is the main purpose of the invasion.
The typical American approach is to bomb the host country back into the middle ages, so that everything has to be rebuilt. Churches, hospitals, schools – everything must go. Nor is there any thought of sparing the locals, all of whom are considered the enemy (rather than the innocent victims the US has come to save – think Gooks in Vietnam, Hadjis in Iraq). Few if any prosecutions ever take place, because the US military claims the acts are never intentional and therefore never war crimes. This, even though generals like Westmoreland in Vietnam congratulate soldiers for their slaughters of women and children as a job well done.
In several cases, notably Libya and Rwanda, the US actually prevented or forced a halt to UN peacekeeping, causing civil war and genocide. Libya is now a totally anarchic, chaotic ruin, not even a country any more, which was precisely the goal, once the UN presence was removed. Taking a page from the Saudi strategy, this medieval wreck is no threat to anyone any more. The Saudis, backed by hundreds of billions in US arms, are now performing the same play in Yemen. With the same results.
After supporting three generations of Somoza dictatorships in Nicaragua, the US could not bear to see a popularly elected government in place. It proceeded to destroy the economy and make the country unmanageable, as it remains today.
In the 1994 Rwanda genocide, Bill Clinton convinced the UN to pull peacekeepers out, ensuring genocide. Then the US claimed it tried to help. The country would have been better off if US had never intervened. Clearly the same goes for Iraq.
In Afghanistan, women, which the US claims to want to help, have become so abused they commit suicide in record numbers. Having financed the mujahedeen in the 1970s, the US paved the way for total chaos in Afghanistan, so that even the mighty US forces cannot gain control. It is a warlord-driven medieval farce and the opiate breadbasket of the world.
The book suffers from a lot of niggling over definitions in treaties. Kovalik shows that what the USA commits is precisely what the Nuremburg War Crime Trials defined as their mission to prosecute. Works against Nazis, but not against Americans. The various charters and agreements of the United Nations specifically forbid what the USA routinely does, but it is never taken to task over it. Kovalik quotes someone in the know that the US and NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was a direct (successful) attempt to bypass the UN Security Council and its rules over the one-sided invasion of another member country. It thus neutered both the UN and NATO in one ugly go that killed millions. The Security Council, which is charged with authorizing humanitarian interventions, has never done so. It’s all been American or American-led invasions, wreaking havoc, killing millions of locals, and devastating the victim country. To spend so much time “proving” the USA is breaking those UN dream rules is pointless. Rather, it is a given.
One character who seems to turn up in every conflict is Samantha Power, State Department official, advisor, and UN Ambassador, whose hypocrisy seems to know no bounds. Kovalik exposes her lies and perversions of the truth time and again in different conflicts. How such a person maintains any sort of credibility and is continually invited to give her expert opinion is a travesty of justice. But then, Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace prize. If it weren’t so horrific, it would be laughable.
David Wineberg
The United States expands its empire with two excuses for war. One is to ”spread democracy” and the other is for “humanitarian intervention”. Both are bogus. No More War is all about humanitarian interventionism. In every case since World War II, the receiving country would have been far better off if the USA had not intervened at all.
Dan Kovalik is a lawyer and academic who specializes in criticizing the American empire. In this book, he lays out a highly organized and very lawyerly argument against humanitarian interventionism in general, and the American abuse of it in particular. It is yet another wakeup call that the USA is not the good guys coming to anyone’s rescue and they all lived happily ever after. Quite the opposite. He shows clearly and definitively that wherever and whenever the US intervenes, it leaves chaos, poverty and human misery like the victim country had never experienced before.
There is no shortage of examples to choose from. Kovalik has selected Vietnam, Libya, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Rwanda for starters. Additional hypocrisy comes from the international court of justice, which absolves Americans of any abuses, while focusing on African leaders, who have accomplished far less damage. Meanwhile, the USA refuses to recognize the International Criminal Court, because it knows full well it is the apotheosis of international crime against humanity. Given the chance, the court could spend eternity convicting Americans.
Kovalik says humanitarian interventionism is “the fantastic doctrine to which the West – and especially the U.S. – forcibly spreads disaster and chaos throughout the world in the name of human rights and freedom.” It is the pat excuse for invading another country – to stop some human disaster from taking place or spreading. In every case, however, Kovalik shows that the US action either made the situation far worse, or even created the situation itself – where none existed before. Either way, the sole beneficiary is US business, which gets to rebuild the country at huge profits. Often, that is the main purpose of the invasion.
The typical American approach is to bomb the host country back into the middle ages, so that everything has to be rebuilt. Churches, hospitals, schools – everything must go. Nor is there any thought of sparing the locals, all of whom are considered the enemy (rather than the innocent victims the US has come to save – think Gooks in Vietnam, Hadjis in Iraq). Few if any prosecutions ever take place, because the US military claims the acts are never intentional and therefore never war crimes. This, even though generals like Westmoreland in Vietnam congratulate soldiers for their slaughters of women and children as a job well done.
In several cases, notably Libya and Rwanda, the US actually prevented or forced a halt to UN peacekeeping, causing civil war and genocide. Libya is now a totally anarchic, chaotic ruin, not even a country any more, which was precisely the goal, once the UN presence was removed. Taking a page from the Saudi strategy, this medieval wreck is no threat to anyone any more. The Saudis, backed by hundreds of billions in US arms, are now performing the same play in Yemen. With the same results.
After supporting three generations of Somoza dictatorships in Nicaragua, the US could not bear to see a popularly elected government in place. It proceeded to destroy the economy and make the country unmanageable, as it remains today.
In the 1994 Rwanda genocide, Bill Clinton convinced the UN to pull peacekeepers out, ensuring genocide. Then the US claimed it tried to help. The country would have been better off if US had never intervened. Clearly the same goes for Iraq.
In Afghanistan, women, which the US claims to want to help, have become so abused they commit suicide in record numbers. Having financed the mujahedeen in the 1970s, the US paved the way for total chaos in Afghanistan, so that even the mighty US forces cannot gain control. It is a warlord-driven medieval farce and the opiate breadbasket of the world.
The book suffers from a lot of niggling over definitions in treaties. Kovalik shows that what the USA commits is precisely what the Nuremburg War Crime Trials defined as their mission to prosecute. Works against Nazis, but not against Americans. The various charters and agreements of the United Nations specifically forbid what the USA routinely does, but it is never taken to task over it. Kovalik quotes someone in the know that the US and NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was a direct (successful) attempt to bypass the UN Security Council and its rules over the one-sided invasion of another member country. It thus neutered both the UN and NATO in one ugly go that killed millions. The Security Council, which is charged with authorizing humanitarian interventions, has never done so. It’s all been American or American-led invasions, wreaking havoc, killing millions of locals, and devastating the victim country. To spend so much time “proving” the USA is breaking those UN dream rules is pointless. Rather, it is a given.
One character who seems to turn up in every conflict is Samantha Power, State Department official, advisor, and UN Ambassador, whose hypocrisy seems to know no bounds. Kovalik exposes her lies and perversions of the truth time and again in different conflicts. How such a person maintains any sort of credibility and is continually invited to give her expert opinion is a travesty of justice. But then, Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace prize. If it weren’t so horrific, it would be laughable.
David Wineberg
May 6, 2020
The latest book by Dan Kovalik, Pittsburgh-based lawyer and peace activist, is a highly readable introduction to international law and a powerful plea for global peace.
Kovalik introduces the reader to the UN Charter (the principal instrument of international law since its signing in 1945), pointing out that it lays down a number of important precepts regarding humanity’s need for peace, for equality, and for freedom from oppression.
Prevention of war is at the core of the UN Charter - states are to resolve disputes by peaceful means if these are available. An armed attack on one state by another can only be considered legal if the attack has been approved by the UN Security Council (having exhausted all non-violent paths), or if it is carried out in urgent self-defence against an armed attack, or if the invading party has been granted consent by the leader of the host state.
As such, Kovalik demonstrates convincingly that almost every war waged by the US and its allies in the post-WW2 period - including against Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Vietnam - has been illegal under international law. Therefore the instigators of these wars must be considered war criminals, and it’s entirely reasonable to demand that they be prosecuted as such.
Kovalik’s book is a valuable contribution to the global struggle for peace and liberation, and deserves to be widely read.
Kovalik introduces the reader to the UN Charter (the principal instrument of international law since its signing in 1945), pointing out that it lays down a number of important precepts regarding humanity’s need for peace, for equality, and for freedom from oppression.
Prevention of war is at the core of the UN Charter - states are to resolve disputes by peaceful means if these are available. An armed attack on one state by another can only be considered legal if the attack has been approved by the UN Security Council (having exhausted all non-violent paths), or if it is carried out in urgent self-defence against an armed attack, or if the invading party has been granted consent by the leader of the host state.
As such, Kovalik demonstrates convincingly that almost every war waged by the US and its allies in the post-WW2 period - including against Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Vietnam - has been illegal under international law. Therefore the instigators of these wars must be considered war criminals, and it’s entirely reasonable to demand that they be prosecuted as such.
Kovalik’s book is a valuable contribution to the global struggle for peace and liberation, and deserves to be widely read.
May 7, 2021
Extremely informative on the wars in recent times, waged by the West against 'the enemy'. Dan Kovalik is researched, and understands the ridiculousness of waging war/invasions in the name of peace.
September 12, 2025
A very good learning tool to International Law, I found this very enlightening and helpful. This book also brings out the US policing. As some on here have brought it up. There are conflicting opinions on whether to intervene or not and how it should be done. If a man on the street is calling for help from you, do you walk away on the idea that if the rescue cripples him, he could sue you? We are humans first. We are darned if we do and darned if we don't. Everyone the US is against is not always a victim of some plot. There are grey areas and dire circumstances, and that is why interviews from all the victims should be done, especially when fear of telling the truth is no longer the factor.
December 20, 2021
This is a thought provoking account which provides an important but different perspective on Western interventionism. Kovalik is scathing in his criticism of the US and its allies and, for me, sometimes too much so. His argumentation is undoubtedly persuasive but too often I found that he treats the reader as ignorant, verging on stupid.
September 13, 2025
Great information from the author on the laws of the world. I liked that he put the Charter in as a guide too. Well written.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews