Is the Solution Expanding the War?
On Wednesday, at a press conference for its new report on Libya, Human Rights Watch commented that, "Washington in particular, but also European governments, should be more critical of Libya's human rights record and not be silent because they are a partner in this international campaign (on terror)."
In essence, the group accused the U.S. of, on the one hand, turning a blind eye to human rights violations committed by allies in the War on Terror while, on the other hand, using the rights violations of its enemies (Hussein's Iraq or the Taliban) as part of its justification for intervention. If the goal of the war is to eliminate all the illegitimate forms of global violence that undermine peace and security, shouldn't Libya be held to account alongside Iraq? But HRW's worry about double standards is deeply troubling. Treating allies the same as enemies amounts to an invitation to expand the war indefinitely. Wherever violence and coercion exist, American police power and intervention should thereby follow. Clearly, this isn't what HRW is after. But by calling on the U.S. to stick to the principle, it's justifying aggressive human rights promotion. HRW may argue that such promotion should not be pursued by the military, but isn’t that ultimately a debate over tactics? The fact remains that decrying American double standards can easily be coopted into justifying new fronts in the War on Terror. And, if consistency devolves into global war in the name of human rights, how is the cry of hypocrisy really a critique at all?
In essence, the group accused the U.S. of, on the one hand, turning a blind eye to human rights violations committed by allies in the War on Terror while, on the other hand, using the rights violations of its enemies (Hussein's Iraq or the Taliban) as part of its justification for intervention. If the goal of the war is to eliminate all the illegitimate forms of global violence that undermine peace and security, shouldn't Libya be held to account alongside Iraq? But HRW's worry about double standards is deeply troubling. Treating allies the same as enemies amounts to an invitation to expand the war indefinitely. Wherever violence and coercion exist, American police power and intervention should thereby follow. Clearly, this isn't what HRW is after. But by calling on the U.S. to stick to the principle, it's justifying aggressive human rights promotion. HRW may argue that such promotion should not be pursued by the military, but isn’t that ultimately a debate over tactics? The fact remains that decrying American double standards can easily be coopted into justifying new fronts in the War on Terror. And, if consistency devolves into global war in the name of human rights, how is the cry of hypocrisy really a critique at all?
2 Comments:
Mightn't you say, as well, that by reminding us of Washington's hypocrisy HRW is removing at least one argument the former uses in support of its foreign adventures?
But it is just a matter of tactics, because whatever the ‘international community’ (the powerful one) thinks has an extremely clear impact in the third world. You have said before that “Democratization by intervention, state-building or nation-building are a series of contradictions in terms” (1/19/2006) which might be right for the US but is plain mistaken in most of the southern hemisphere, both historically and today. Why do you think there is a democratic boom in, say, Latin America? Because of the maturity of its democratic institutions? Or maybe because starving people finally found a way to feed themselves with democracy? Although it might not be the only factor, pressure from the international community (whatever their reason) has made very difficult for wanna-be dictators, especially the military ones, to just seize power by force, as usual. Granted, the new democracies are weak at best, but I guess it is easy to do some state-building and serious democratization through the new spaces created by the new situation.
Post a Comment
<< Home