*Independent Nations Must Move Toward New World
Order:<
http://www.countercurrents.org/print.html#>Jean Bricmont
*
*By Kourosh Ziabari*
04 September, 2012
*Countercurrents.org *
Prof. Jean Bricmont is a renowned Belgian public intellectual, theoretical
physicist, philosopher of
science<
http://www.countercurrents.org/print.html#>and a professor at
the Université catholique de Louvain . A progressive
author, he has cooperated with the leading American thinker Noam Chomsky on
a variety of anti-war causes.
In 2007, he wrote an article in French discussing the possibility of a US
invasion of Iran . One of his famous books is "Fashionable Nonsense:
Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science" which he has co-written with
Alan Sokal. In this book, they talk about a number of issues, including the
allegedly incompetent and pretentious usage of scientific concepts by a
small group of influential philosophers and intellectuals.
Bricmont's articles have appeared on Counterpunch, Monthly Review,
Voltairenet, Z Magazine, Global Research and other print and online
publications.
He has proposed the theory of humanitarian imperialism and is strongly
opposed to the U.S. military expeditions around the world and its
unilateral attitude toward the independent nations. Bricmont believes that
the Non-Aligned Movement countries can move toward establishing a new world
order based on the communal interests of the member states.
What follows is the full text of my interview with Prof. Jean Bricmont to
whom I've talked about a number of issues including the Western powers'
hypocrisy on the human rights issue, America 's wars and military
expeditions around the world, the concept of "humanitarian intervention"
and Israel 's war threats against Iran .
*Dear Jean; in your article, "The Case for a Non-Interventionist Foreign
Policy," you write of the justifications the imperial powers come up with
in order to rationalize their military expeditions around the world. Isn't
a hawkish foreign policy an advantage for the politicians in the Western
world, particularly the United States , to attract the vote and supporting
of the public? Will the American people elect a pacifist President who
openly vows to put an end to all the U.S. wars and refrain from waging new
wars? *
I am not sure that it attracts the votes. In Europe , certainly not. The
most hawkish politicians, Blair and Sarkozy were not popular for a long
time because of their foreign policy. In Germany the public is
systematically in favor of a peaceful foreign policy. As the American
pacifist A. J. Muste remarked, the problem in all wars lies with the victor
– they think violence pays. The defeated, like Germany , and to some extent
the rest of Europe , know that war is not so rosy.
However, I think that, except in times of crisis, like the Vietnam or the
Algerian wars, when they turned badly for the U.S. or France, most people
are not very interested in foreign policy, which is understandable, given
their material problems and given the fact that it looks like being out of
reach of ordinary people.
On the other hand, every U.S. presidential candidate has to make patriotic
statements, “we are the best”, “a light at the top of the hill”, a
“defender of democracy and human rights” and so on. That, of course, is
true in all systems of power, the only thing that varies are the "values"
to which one refers (being a good Christian or Muslim or defending
socialism, etc.).
And, it is true that, in order to get the votes, one must get the support
of the press and of big money. That introduces an enormous bias in favor of
militarism and of support for Israel .
*The imperial powers, as you have indicated in your writings, wage wars,
kill innocent people and plunder the natural resources of weaker countries
under the pretext of bringing democracy to them. So, who should take care
of the principles of international law, territorial integrity and
sovereignty? Attacking other countries at will and killing defenseless
civilians recklessly is a flagrant parade of lawlessness. Is it possible to
bring these powers to their senses and hold them accountable over what they
do? *
I think the evolution of the world goes in that direction; respect for the
principles of international law, territorial integrity and sovereignty. As
I said before, the European populations are rather peaceful, both inside
Europe and with respect to the rest of the world, at least, compared to the
past. Some of their leaders are not peaceful and there is a strong pressure
from an apparently strange alliance in favor of war between human rights
interventionists and neo-conservatives who are influential in the media and
in the intelligentsia, but they are not the only voices and they are rather
unpopular with the general public.
As for the U.S. , they are in a deep crisis, not only economically, but
also diplomatically. They have lost control of Asia long ago, are losing
Latin America and, now, the Middle East . Africa is turning more and more
towards China .
So, the world is becoming multipolar, whether one likes it or not. I see at
least two dangers: that the decline of the U.S. will produce some crazy
reaction, leading to war, or that the collapse of the American empire
creates chaos, a bit like the collapse of the Roman Empire did. It is the
responsibility of the Non-Aligned Movement and the BRICS countries to
insure an orderly transition towards a really new world order.
*What seems hypocritical in the Western powers' attitude toward the concept
of human rights is that they ceaselessly condemn the violation of human
rights in the countries with which they are at odds, but intentionally
remain silent about the same violations in the countries which are allied
with them. For instance, you surely know that how the political prisoners
are mistreated and tortured in Saudi Arabia , Washington 's number one ally
among the Arab countries. So, why don't they protest and condemn these
violations? *
Do you know any power that is not hypocritical? It seems to me that this is
the way power functions in all places and at all times.
For example, in 1815, at the fall of Napoleon, the Tsar of Russia, the
Austrian Emperor and the King of Prussia came together in what they called
their Holy Alliance, claiming to base their rules of conduct "on the
sublime truths contained in the eternal religion of Christ our Savior," as
well as on the principles "of their holy religion, precepts of justice,
charity and peace," and vowed to behave toward their subjects "as a father
toward his children." During the Boer war, the British Prime Minister, Lord
Salisbury, declared that it was "a war for democracy" and that "we seek
neither gold mines nor territory". Bertrand Russell, citing these remarks,
commented that "cynical foreigners" couldn't help noticing that "we
nevertheless obtained both the mines and the territory".
At the height of the Vietnam War, the American historian Arthur Schlesinger
described U.S. policy there as part of "our overall program of
international good will". At the end of that war, a liberal commentator
wrote in the *New York Times *that: "For a quarter of a century, the United
States have tried to do good, to encourage political freedom and promote
social justice in the Third World" .
In that sense, things have not changed. People sometimes think that,
because our system is more democratic, things must have changed. But that
assumes that the public is well informed, which it is not true because of
the many biases in the media, and that it is actively involved in the
formation of foreign policy, which is also not true, except in times of
crisis. The formation of foreign policy is a very elitist and undemocratic
affair.
*Attacking or invading other countries under the pretext of humanitarian
intervention may be legalized and permissible with the unanimity of the
Security Council permanent members. If they all vote in favor a military
strike, then it will happen. But, don't you think that the very fact that
only 5 world countries can make decisions for 193 members of the United
Nations while this considerable majority don't have any say in the
international developments is an insult to all of these nations and their
right of self-determination? *
Of course. You don't need unanimity actually, except for the permanent
members. But now that China and Russia seem to have taken an autonomous
position with respect to the West, it is not clear that new wars will be
legal. I am not happy with the current arrangements at the Security
Council, but I still think that the UN is, on the whole, a good thing; its
Charter provides a defense, in principle, against intervention and a
framework for international order and its existence provides a forum where
different countries can meet, which is better than nothing.
Of course, reforming the UN is a tricky business, since it cannot be done
without the consent of the permanent members of the Security Council, who
are not likely to be very enthusiastic at the prospect of relinquishing
part of their power. What will matter in the end will be the evolution of
the relationship of forces in the world, and that is not going in the
direction of those who think that they now control it.
*Let's talk about some contemporary issues. In your articles, you have
talked of the war in Congo . It was very shocking to me that the Second
Congo War was the deadliest conflict in the African history with some 5
million innocent people dead, but the U.S. mainstream media put a lid on it
because one of the belligerents, the Rwandan army, was a close ally of
Washington. What's your take on that?*
Well, I am not an expert on that part of the world. But I notice that the
Rwandan tragedy of 1994 is often used as an argument for foreign
intervention, which, it is claimed, would have stopped the killings, while
the tragedy in Congo should be taken as an argument against foreign
intervention and for respect of international law, since it was to a large
extent due to the intervention of Rwandan and Ugandan troops in Congo.
Of course, the fact that the latter argument is never made shows, once
more, how the discourse about humanitarian intervention is biased in favor
of the powers that be, who want to attribute to themselves the *right *to
intervene, whenever it suits them.
*Just a few days ago, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon condemned
Iranian leaders for their supposedly "inflammatory and hateful" remarks on
Israel . However, I never remember him condemning the Israeli officials for
their frequent repeating of dangerous war threats against Iran . What's the
reason behind this hypocrisy? *
As you know, the hypocrisy with respect to Israel in the West reaches
staggering proportions and Ban Ki-moon, although he is UN Secretary
General, is very much on "pro-Western" positions. While I myself have
doubts about the wisdom of the Iranian rhetoric about Israel , I think that
the threats of military actions against Iran by Israel are far worse and
should be considered illegal under international law. I also think that the
unilateral sanctions against Iran , taken by the U.S. and its allies,
largely to please Israel , are shameful. And, although the people who claim
to be anti-racist in the West never denounce these policies, I think they
are deeply racist, because they are accepted only because so-called
civilized countries, Israel and its allies, exert this threat and those
sanctions against an "uncivilized" one, Iran.This will be remembered in the
future in the same way that slavery is remembered now.
*There are people like you who oppose the U.S. militarism, its imposture
and hypocrisy in dealing with the human rights and its attempts to devour
the oil-rich Middle East , but unfortunately I *
*should say, you're in the minority. It's the Israeli-administered Congress
and hawkish think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations and
National Endowment for Democracy that run the United States, not the
anti-war, pro-peace progressive thinkers and writers like you. How much
influence do the progressive thinkers and leftist media have over the
policies which are taken in the United States ?*
Well, I think one has to make a difference between support for Israel and
the desire to "devour" oil. The two policies are not the same and are, in
fact, contradictory. As, I think, Mearsheimer and Walt have shown, the
pro-Israel policies of the U.S. are to a large extent driven by the
pro-Israel lobby and do not correspond to or help their economic or
geo-strategic interests. For example, as far as I know, there would be no
problem for our oil companies to drill in Iran , if it weren't for the
sanctions imposed on that country; but the latter are linked to the
hostility to Iran from Israel , not from any desire to control oil.
The second remark is that the anti-war people are not necessarily on the
left. True, there is a big part of the Right that has become
neo-conservative, but there is also a big part of the Left that is
influenced by the ideology of humanitarian intervention. However, there is
also a libertarian Right, Ron Paul for example, that is staunchly anti-war,
and there are some remnants of a pacifist or anti-imperialist Left. Note
that this has always been the case: the pro and anti-imperialist position,
even back in the days of colonialism, do not coincide with the Left-Right
divide, if the latter is understood in socio-economic terms or in "moral"
terms (about gay marriage for example).
Next, it is true that we have very little influence, but that is partly
because we are divided, between an anti-war Left and anti-war Right. I
believe that a majority of the population is opposed to these endless and
costly wars, mostly, in Europe , because of the lesson they drew from WWII,
or from their defeat in the colonial wars, and, in the U.S. , because of
war fatigue after Afghanistan and Iraq .
What we do not have is a consistent anti-war movement; to build the latter
one would have to focus on war itself and unite both sides of the
opposition (Right and Left). But if movements can be built around other
"single issues," like abortion or gay marriage, that put aside all
socio-economic problems and class issues, why not?
Although such a movement does not exist now, its prospects are not totally
hopeless: if the economic crisis deepens, and if the worldwide opposition
to U.S. policies increases, citizens of all political stripes might gather
to try to build alternatives.
*What's your viewpoint regarding the U.S. and its allies' war of sanctions,
embargoes, nuclear assassinations and psychological operation against Iran
? Iran is practically under a multilateral attack by the United States,
Israel and their submissive European cronies. Is there any way for Iran to
get out of the dilemma and resist the pressures? How much do you know Iran
? Have you heard of its culture and civilization, which the mainstream
media never talk about?*
I do not know much about Iran , but I do not think I need to know very much
about that country although I would certainly like to know more, in order
to oppose the policies you mention. I was also opposed to Western
interventions in former Yugoslavia or in Libya .
Some people think there are good and bad interventions. But the main issue
for me is: who intervenes? It is never really the "citizens" or the "civil
society" of the West, or even the European countries on their own, meaning
without U.S. support, it is always the U.S. military, mostly its Air Force.
Now, one may of course defend the idea that international law should be
disregarded and that the defense of human rights should be left to the U.S.
Air Force. But many people who support "good" interventions do not say
that. They usually argue that "we" must do something to "save the victims"
in a particular situation. What this viewpoint forgets is that the "we" who
is supposed to intervene is not the people who actually speak, but the U.S.
military.
Therefore, support for any intervention only strengthens the arbitrary
power of the U.S. , which, of course, uses it as it seems fit, and not, in
general, according to the wishes of those who support "good" interventions.
*And finally, would you please give us an insight of how the corporate
media serve the interests of the imperial powers? How do they work? Is it
morally justifiable to use media propaganda to achieve political and
colonial goals?*
The connection between "corporate media" and war propaganda is complicated,
as is the relationship between capitalism and war. Most people on the Left
think that capitalism needs war or leads to it. But the truth, in my view,
is far more nuanced. American capitalists make fortunes in China and
Vietnam now that there is peace between the U.S. and East Asia ; for
American workers, it is a different matter, of course.
There is no reason whatsoever for oil or other Western companies not to do
business with Iran , and, if there was peace in the region, capitalists
would descend upon it like vultures in order to exploit a cheap and
relatively qualified labor force.
This is not to say that capitalists are nice, nor that they cannot be
individually pro-war, but only that war, in general, is not in their
interests and they are not necessarily the main force pushing for war.
People are driven to war by conflicting ideologies, especially when they
take a fanatical form – for example, when you believe that a certain piece
of land was given to you by God, or that your country has a special
mission, like exporting human rights and democracy, preferably by cruise
missiles and drones.
It is both sad and ironical that an idea that is largely secular and
liberal, the one of human rights, has now been turned into one of the main
means to whip up war hysteria in the West. But that is our present
situation and a most urgent and important task is to change it.
*Kourosh Ziabari* is an Iranian journalist
Received on Wed Sep 05 2012 - 11:48:45 EDT
