The Skeptic الشكاك

403 Good Causes for Bad Reasons

I’ve had worlds of respect for Anatol Lieven since I read his 2002 comments on the march to war in Iraq. At the time, the entire United States (the loony Left—which was either rushing off to show support for Saddam Hussein or confusing Haiti with Cuba with Iraq—excepted) was singing “America, fuck yeah!” So when, in October 2002, Lieven wrote,

The most surprising thing about the Bush Administration’s plan to invade Iraq is not that it is destructive of international order; or wicked, when we consider the role the US (and Britain) have played, and continue to play, in the Middle East; or opposed by the great majority of the international community; or seemingly contrary to some of the basic needs of the war against terrorism. It is all of these things, but they are of no great concern to the hardline nationalists in the Administration. This group has suffered at least a temporary check as a result of the British insistence on UN involvement, and Saddam Hussein’s agreement to weapons inspections. They are, however, still determined on war – and their power within the Administration and in the US security policy world means that they are very likely to get their way. Even the Washington Post has joined the radical rightist media in supporting war.

The most surprising thing about the push for war is that it is so profoundly reckless. If I had to put money on it, I’d say that the odds on quick success in destroying the Iraqi regime may be as high as 5/1 or more, given US military superiority, the vile nature of Saddam Hussein’s rule, the unreliability of Baghdad’s missiles, and the deep divisions in the Arab world. But at first sight, the longer-term gains for the US look pretty limited, whereas the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. [full article]

I started singing “Anatol Lieven, fuck yeah!”

But I’m not entirely sure what he’s on about with his piece in yesterday’s Financial Times:

Even western observers who criticise human rights groups for naivety or irresponsibility generally give them credit for purity of intentions – and, of course, this noble character is indeed true of many groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. But it is not always true, and western public debate would benefit greatly from a recognition of the moral ambiguities involved in some contemporary human rights advocacy.

What contemporary human rights advocacy, then? Sarkozy’s, apparently:

All the western states used the barbarism of non-western societies as an excuse to conquer them for their own good. The echoes of this tradition can still be heard in President Nicolas Sarkozy’s statements that France has always stood for human rights, while herself never having committed crimes against humanity – a claim that would come as a very considerable surprise to France’s former colonial subjects. Yet amid all this hypocrisy, many westerners, including Christian missionaries, have also worked with sincerity, self-sacrifice and success to end many dreadful abuses.

And American politicians who talk about Darfur and Chechnya:

Today, the problem of mixed motives and agendas is exemplified by the issues of Darfur and Chechnya. Western human rights campaigns on these issues have drawn much of their support from elements – especially in the US – that have not exactly been distinguished by their concern for oppressed Muslim minorities elsewhere in the world, or for the wider interests of the regions concerned. Important sections of both campaigns have been characterised by utter one-sidedness, contempt for study of those regions and an attitude to casualty statistics more characteristic of war propaganda than of responsible advocacy. They also display an indifference towards the practical questions of how to achieve and maintain peace.

As Alex de Waal, Mahmood Mamdani and others have written, it is hard to resist the conclusion that anti-Arab and US imperial agendas are responsible for a considerable part of the focus on Darfur. Far too much US activism seems to be quite uninterested in the real requirements of peace and development in Darfur, Sudan and the region as a whole.

While it is probably true that “far too much US activism seems to be quite uninterested in the real requirement of peace and development in Darfur” (much of the US activism seems to be more interested in colorful bracelets, good guys, bad guys, and easy slogans), I, for one, have found it easy to resist the conclusion that “anti-Arab and US imperial agendas are responsible for a considerable part of the focus on Darfur.”

Does one need to look past the 400,000 dead and the millions left homeless to find a motivation for concern about Darfur? I’m sure the nice people wearing green bracelets aren’t scheming about how to beat China for Sudanese oil, or how to exploit Darfur to lodge the image of Arabs as genocidaires in the popular psyche. Perhaps others are, but I’ve never met them.

When sinister schemers take up good causes, it can tarnish the efforts of the “deeply moral people working on human rights issues” whom Lieven says he knows. While I’m sure some measure of the Bush administration‘s broader rhetoric on human rights in the Middle East is sincere, when Bush talks about human rights, it can play into the perception, still popular in the Middle East, that “talk of human rights is a sugar coating on a bitter, colonial pill” (to quote a guy I met at a downtown cafe last month). I’ve sat through torture trials in which the defense argues the allegations of torture are part of a dark human-rights conspiracy to impose Imperialist/Zionist designs on Egypt and the Middle East and rests its case.

It’s an op-ed worth reading. Next I’d like to hear from Lieven how he thinks his “deeply moral” friends should react when powerful people take up good causes for bad reasons.

1 Comment »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. Had not realized you’d resumed blogging… One of the most interesting thing about Darfur is that, for all the real reasons to intervene (400,000 of them), actually very little has been done aside from grandstanding. For instance creating a no-fly zone like in Iraq in the late 1990s would surely not be that difficult and would not require troops on the ground (but cooperation of nearby countries.) But it’s impossible because it would be expensive and foreign intervention being distinctly unpopular, the pressure to intervene is being reserved for staying in Iraq and potentially dealing with Iran.

   No one in the US, or UN, has taken a serious initiative to intervene massively in Darfur in the three years the conflict has lasted. The efforts of the AU do count for something, but they have limited power to prevent continuing massacres and population displacement. While Darfur may be a popular cause, then, no one has the real political will to do anything about it. I think in the case of Sudan, also no one wants to actually carry out regime change, since no one wants to deal with the consequences of an even weaker government. But a protection umbrella, would that really be too much to ask? Perhaps the key is a certain belligerent world power should not be involved (I call it “America? Fuck no!”) The problem is that the Europeans are pretty much as cowardly as the John Boltons of this world say they are when it comes to human rights and humanitarian issue — and defense spending.

   Comment by issandr — September 1, 2007 #

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

I'm Reading: