[News] Samantha Power and the Weaponization of Human Rights
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Thu Sep 10 13:22:52 EDT 2009
http://www.counterpunch.org/madar09102009.html
September 10, 2009
Care Tactics
Samantha Power and the Weaponization of Human Rights
By CHASE MADAR
American liberals rejoiced at Samantha Powers
appointment to the National Security Council.
After so many dreary Clintonites were stacked
into top State Department positionsDennis Ross,
Richard Holbrooke, Hillary herselfhere was new
blood: a dynamic idealist, an inspiring public
intellectual, a bestselling author of a book
against genocide, a professor at Harvards Carr
Center for Human Rights. And she hasnt even
turned 40. The blogosphere buzzed. Surely
Samantha Power was the paladin, the conscience,
the senior director for multilateral affairs to
bring human rights back into U.S. foreign policy.
Dont count on it. Human rights, a term once
coterminous with freeing prisoners of conscience
and documenting crimes against humanity, has
taken on a broader, more conflicted definition.
It can now mean helping the Marine Corps
formulate counterinsurgency techniques; pounding
the drums for air strikes (of a strictly surgical
nature, of course); lobbying for troop
escalations in various conquered nationsall for noble humanitarian ends.
The intellectual career of Samantha Power is a
richly instructive example of the weaponization
of human rights. She made her name in 2002 with A
Problem From Hell: America and the Age of
Genocide. In this surprise global bestseller, she
argues that when confronted with 20th-century
genocides, the United States sat on the sidelines
as the blood flowed. Look at Bosnia or Rwanda.
Why does the US stand so idly by? she asks.
Powers allows that overall America has made
modest progress in its responses to genocide.
Thats not good enough. We must be bolder in
deploying our armed forces to prevent
human-rights catastrophesto engage in
humanitarian intervention in the patois of our foreign-policy elite.
In nearly 600 pages of text, Power barely
mentions those postwar genocides in which the
U.S. government, far from sitting idle, took a
robust role in the slaughter. Indonesias
genocidal conquest of East Timor, for instance,
expressly green-lighted by President Ford and
Secretary of State Kissinger, who met with
Suharto the night before the invasion was
launched and carried out with American-supplied
weapons. Over the next quarter century, the
Indonesian army saw U.S. military aid and
training rise as it killed between 100,000 and
200,000 East Timorese. (The figures and the
designation of genocide come from a UN-formed
investigative body.) This whole bloody business
gets exactly one sentence in Powers book.
What about the genocide of Mayan peasants in
Guatemalaanother decades-long massacre carried
out with American armaments by a military
dictatorship with tacit U.S. backing, officer
training at Fort Benning, and covert CIA support?
A truth commission sponsored by the Catholic
Church and the UN designated this programmatic
slaughter genocide and set the death toll at
approximately 200,000. But apparently this isnt a problem from hell.
The selective omissions compound. Not a word
about the CIAs role in facilitating the
slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Indonesian
Communists in 1965-66. (Perhaps on legalistic
grounds: Since it was a political group being
massacred, does it not meet the quirky criteria
in the flawed UN Convention on Genocide?) Nothing
about the vital debate as to whether the hundreds
of thousands of Iraqi deaths attributable to
U.S.-led economic sanctions in the 1990s count as
genocide. The book is primarily a vigorous act of
historical cleansing. Its portrait of a
consistent policy of non-intervention in the
face of genocide is fiction. (Those who think
that pointing out Powers deliberate blind spots
about Americas active role in genocide is
nitpicking should remember that every moral
tradition the earth has known, from the
Babylonian Talmud to St. Thomas Aquinas, sees
sins of commission as far worse than sins of omission.)
Powers willful historical ignorance is the
inevitable product of her professional milieu:
the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvards
Kennedy School of Government. One simply cannot
hold down a job at the KSG by pointing out the
active role of the U.S. government in various
postwar genocides. That is the kind of impolitic
whining best left to youthful anarchists like
Andrew Bacevich or Noam Chomsky and, really, one
wouldnt want to offend the retired Guatemalan
colonel down the hall. (The KSG has an abiding
tradition of taking on war criminals as visiting
fellows.) On the other hand, to cast the U.S. as
a passive, benign giant that must assume its
rightful role on the world stage by vanquishing
evilthis is most flattering to American amour
propre and consonant with attitudes in
Washington, even if it doesnt map onto reality.
A country doesnt acquire a vast network of
military bases in dozens of sovereign nations
across the world by standing on the sidelines,
and for the past hundred years the U.S. has, by
any standard, been a hyperactive world presence.
For Samantha Power, the United States can by its
very nature only be a force for virtue abroad. In
this sense, the outlook of Obamas human-rights
advocate is no different from Donald Rumsfelds.
Powers faith in the therapeutic possibilities of
military force was formed by her experience as a
correspondent in the Balkans, whose wars
throughout the 90s she seems to view as the
alpha and omega of ethnic conflict, indeed of all
genocide. For her, NATOs bombing of Belgrade in
1999 was a stunning success that likely saved
hundreds of thousands of lives in Kosovo. Yet
this assertion seems to crumble a little more
each year: estimates of the number of Kosovars
slain by the provinces Serb minority have shrunk
from 100,000 to at most 5,000. And it is far from
clear whether NATOs air strikes prevented more
killing or intensified the bloodshed. Even so, it
is the NATO attack on Belgradeincluding civilian
targets, which Amnesty International has
recently, belatedly, deemed a war crimethat
informs Powers belief that the U.S. military
possesses nearly unlimited capability to save
civilians by means of aerial bombardment, and all
we need is the courage to launch the sorties.
Power has recently admitted, perhaps a little
ruefully, that the Kosovo war helped build
support for the invasion of Iraq by contributing
to the false impression that the US military was
invincible. But no intellectual has worked
harder than Samantha Power to propagate this impression.
A Problem From Hell won a Pulitzer in early 2003.
Americas book reviewers, eager to be team
players, were relieved to be reminded of the
upbeat side of military force during the build-up
to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Surely Saddam
Hussein, who had perpetrated acts of genocide
against the Kurds, needed to be smashed by
military force. Didnt we owe it to the Iraqis to
invade? Hasnt America played spectator for too
long? Power, to her credit, did not support the
war, but she has been mighty careful not to raise
her voice against it. After all, is speaking out
at an antiwar demonstration or joining a peace
group like Code Pink really constructive? It is
certainly no way to get a seat on the National Security Council.
The failed marriage of warfare and humanitarian
work is also the subject of Powers most recent
book, Chasing the Flame, a biography of Sergio
Vieira de Mello, the UN humanitarian worker who
was killed, with 21 others, by a suicide bomber
in Baghdad just months after the U.S. invasion.
Most of the book is a sensitive and rather
gripping account of Vieiras partial successes
and heroic efforts in refugee resettlement in
Thailand, Lebanon, and the Balkans. He eventually
rose to become the UNs high commissioner on
human rightsa position he left when asked by
George W. Bush to lead a UN presence in Iraq.
That the UNs top human-rights official would
rush to help with the clean-up after an American
invasion that contravened international law may
strike some observers as strange. (One can
imagine the puzzlement and outrage if the UNs
high commissioner on human rights had trailed the
Soviets into Afghanistan in 1979 to help build
civil society.) But for Vieira, and for Samantha
Power, there is nothing unseemly about
human-rights professionals serving as adjuncts to
a conquering army, especially when the prestige
of the UNscorned and flouted during the run-up
to the waris on the line. Besides, Vieira had
the personal assurances of the U.S.
administrator, L. Paul Bremera simply charming
American: he even speaks a foreign languagethat
the UN taskforce would have a great deal of sway in how a new Iraq was built.
In June 2003, Vieira arrived in Baghdad and was
surprised to find himself completely powerless.
That Vieira and company believed the UN insignia
would be more than a hood ornament on
Blackwaters Humvees bespeaks not tough-minded
idealism but wishful thinking. Power herself
claims that Kofi Annans main reason for sending
Vieira off to Baghdad was to remind the world of
the UNs relevance by getting a piece of the
action. But for him and his colleagues, this
confusion of means and ends proved deadly, one of
tens of thousands of blood-soaked tragedies that
this war has wrought. The clear lesson is that
humanitarian work is always fatally compromised
if its part of a militarized pacification
campaign: NGO workers wield no real power and
serve mostly as window dressing for the conquering army.
But this isnt the moral that Power draws. She is
still looking for Mr. Good War. Today, her
preferred human-rights adventure is an escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
For the past seven years Afghanistan has been the
right war for American liberals, but this carte
blanche is fast expiring, as more civilians and
soldiers die, as the Taliban resurges, and as the
carnage whirlwinds into Pakistan. The numerous
humanitarian nonprofits in Afghanistan are no
longer backed up by the military; it is they who
are backing the armed forces, having morphed into
helpmeets to a counterinsurgency campaign. This
transformation has, according to one
knowledgeable veteran of such work in
Afghanistan, rendered humanitarian work
unsustainable. But Power, like so many American
liberals, remains committed to success in Afghanistanwhatever that means.
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a
tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not
aberrant. Elite factions of the human-rights
industry were long ago normalized within the
tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign
policy. Sarah Sewell, the recent head of the Carr
Center for Human Rights at Harvard, has written a
slavering introduction to the new Army and Marine
Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual:
human-rights tools can help the U.S. armed forces
run better pacification campaigns in conquered
territory. The Save Darfur campaign, more
organized than any bloc of the peace movement in
the U.S., continues to call for some inchoate
military strike against Sudan (with Powers vocal
support) even though this disasters genocide
status is doubtful and despite an expert
consensus that bombing Khartoum would do less
than nothing for the suffering refugees.
Meanwhile, the influential liberal think tank the
Center for American Progress also appeals to
human rights in its call for troop escalations in
Afghanistanthe better to engage the enemy.
Nor is the imperialist current within the
human-rights industry a purely American
phenomenon: the conquest of Iraq found whooping
proponents in Bernard Kouchner, founder of
Médecins Sans Frontières, now Sarkozys foreign
minister, and Michael Ignatieff, also a former
head of the Harvards Carr Center and poised to
become Canadas next prime minister. Gareth
Evans, Australias former foreign minister and a
grinning soft-peddler of Indonesias massacres in
East Timor, is perhaps the leading intellectual
proponent of the Responsibility to Protect, or
R2P as it is cutely called, an attempt to embed
humanitarian intervention into international law.
Evans, who recently stepped down from leading the
International Crisis Group, laments the Iraq War
chiefly for the way it has soiled the credibility of his pet idea.
To be sure, the human-rights industry is not all
armed missionaries and laptop bombardiers. Human
Rights Watch, for example, is one of few
prestigious institutions in the U.S. to have
criticized Israels assault on Gaza, for which
its Middle East and North Africa division has
endured much bashing not just from right-wing
media but from its own board of directors. That
said, HRWs rebuke was limited to Israels manner
of making war, rather than Israels decision to
launch the attack in the first placethe jus in bello, not the jus ad bellum.
Human-rights organizations can do a splendid job
of exposing and criticizing abuses, but they are
constitutionally incapable of taking stands on
larger political issues. No major human-rights
NGO opposed the invasion of Iraq. With their
legitimacy and funding dependent on a carefully
cultivated perception of neutrality, human-rights
nonprofits will never be any substitute for an
explicitly anti-imperialist political force. In
the meantime, Americas best and brightest will
continue to explore innovative ways for human
rights to serve a thoroughly militarized foreign policy.
Chase Madar is a translator of
<http://www.amazon.com/Cursed-Poets-Green-Integer/dp/1931243158/>Verlaine
and
<http://www.amazon.com/Exterminating-Angel-Green-Integer-Books/dp/1931243360/>Buñuel
and a civil rights lawyer in New York. He can be
reached at <mailto:chasemadar at hotmail.com>chasemadar at hotmail.com
This article originally appeared in
<http://www.amconmag.com/>The American Conservative.
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20090910/bbabdbcd/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list