Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BOOK REVIEW | Freedom's Battle: The Origins Of Humanitarian Interven

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BOOK REVIEW | Freedom's Battle: The Origins Of Humanitarian Interven

    BOOK REVIEW | FREEDOM'S BATTLE: THE ORIGINS OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION
    By Dylan Hales

    Charleston City Paper
    September 24, 2008
    SC

    When Things Fall Apart: Gary Bass makes a convincing case for forceful
    humanitarianism

    Freedom's Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention By Gary
    J. Bass Random House, 528 pages, $35

    The post-9/11 world of American politics is a tricky one to navigate.

    Conservative realists and non-interventionists make up a block of
    foreign policy thinkers who find themselves uncomfortably aligned with
    reflexive pacifists and anti-imperialists of the American hard left.

    Their opponents are neoconservatives, neoliberals, and other
    believers in "global democratic revolution," carried out by a
    "benevolent hegemon." Constitution Party presidential candidate
    Chuck Baldwin described this political landscape as "globalists
    versus anti-globalists," and though the battle lines are clear to
    those engaged in ideological warfare, mainstream commentators remain
    unconvinced.

    Historian Gary Bass is not one of those commentators.

    In his new book Freedom's Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian
    Intervention, Bass relies on several interesting historical examples
    to trace the rationale for using might to make right, and introduces a
    nuanced view more honest than what one finds from the average observer
    of global politics.

    In the process, the reader is exposed to grizzly details of massacres,
    the origins of modern international diplomacy, and the beginnings of
    the "celebrity cause" cult that fuels things like the "Free Tibet"
    movement today.

    Unlike most books interested in promoting human rights by force of
    arms, Bass focuses on the actions of Western nations and not the
    philosophies of phony intellectuals from beltway think tanks.

    In doing so, Bass suggests these actions were necessary evils that laid
    the groundwork for similar actions in the Balkans and elsewhere. That
    Bass reveals the roots of this "humanitarian" ideology (rightfully
    pointing to its origins in revolutionary France) is something he
    should be given credit for. His honesty is rare in pro-interventionist
    quarters. That he relies less on appeals to emotion than appeals to
    good neighborliness is an equally strong selling point.

    Another strength of the book is Bass' willingness to admit the history
    of humanitarianism has not always been paved with good intentions. In
    fact, the considerations of Realpolitick have been the established
    norm for those driving the policy bus. Those who wish to go another
    route quickly lose their seat. History's deviations have largely and
    not surprisingly led to failure after failure.

    An important question Bass' book omits is whether these sorts of
    "benevolent" military actions can succeed without support from the
    civilian population at home.

    Bass theorizes that mass media and communication technologies have
    made real-world brutalities more tangible to Westerners, who naturally
    sympathize with the plight of their underdeveloped brethren.

    Though this is a central tenet of liberalism, it doesn't wash with
    the American character, as even a casual observer of history knows:
    Americans tend to be suspicious of foreign wars, and wars with no
    connection to the national interest do not sit well with Main Street.

    By pointing out cases of abuse by the Ottoman Empire and ending
    with an account of the Armenian genocide, which was overseen by the
    Ottomans, Freedom's Battle risks being seen as another in a long
    line of anti-Islam broadsides, aiming to prove the inherent Muslim
    interest in re-instituting a Caliphate from Mecca to Malaysia.

    In fact, however, Freedom's Battle is an even-handed treatment of
    the great Islamic Empire from a proponent of muscular internationalism.

    Again, Bass deserves credit.

    Critics may be tempted to lump Bass in with the neoconservatives and
    neoliberals, but he is a different breed. A hybrid of sorts of Benjamin
    Disraelli and William Gladstone (both of whom are major players in
    the book), Bass is as much a realist as he is a neo-anything.

    The difference is this: Bass sees multilateral arrangements as
    absolute necessities for humanitarian interventions to succeed. Bass
    also treats the arguments about a "new imperialism" seriously, and is
    at least sympathetic to the "balance of power" considerations favored
    by Realpolitik conservatives like Henry Kissinger.

    Still Bass is an unabashed man of the center.

    He leans toward an internationalism that is different in degree from
    that of the neos, but not large enough to be a difference in kind. In
    a war of ideas that pits the center against a tentative left-right
    alliance, Bass is with the center.

    And yet, as Yeats wrote, "the center cannot hold."

    From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Working...
X