BHL looks with both eyes
Bernard-Henri Lévy spells out the perverse and tragic effect of three great ideas.
[W]e are here facing a sort of perverse effect of three great modern ideas. A sort of paradoxical and counter-effect of three great ideas, which are: anti-racism, anti-colonialism, and the fight against imperialism, three great ideas—among the best which have been produced in the 20th century…[Y]ou have a huge part of the population in America and in Europe, who believe, as a sort of Pavlovian reflex, that these sort of murders, these sort of genocides, can only be committed by ugly, stupid, white men…[W]hen a country of the third world which was colonized (as was Sudan), commits such bloodbaths, commits such crimes, to stop this, to try to prevent this, to intervene in order to make it stop, could be an act of colonialism. And in America and in France, you have a lot of people [of] the Left, to which I belong, [who believe that] we cannot interfere in the internal affairs of Sudan. Let’s be careful not to impose under the flag of human rights the old rule of Western superiority.
Let’s be careful not to say or do anything under the flag of human rights, or women’s rights either, especially when they seem to be in tension with that one religion whose name it is Forbidden to Utter unless something conciliatory or affectionate or admiring follows immediately. Let’s be so careful that we find ourselves with nothing left except our exquisite caution.
There are many reasons to be skeptical of “calls to intervene in Darfur.” Such calls often ignore the history of the region, fail to explain who and how such interventions would occur, the effectiveness of past “international” interventions, and whether or not the firestorm of violence in the region might be worse than the current horrors. Plus..there is oil in that there desert,
Meanwhile Sudan and China …
Human Rights Watch says
“China’s need for oil reserves for its growing domestic economy has caused its government to pursue investments in many countries of marginal stability and democracy, but its greatest oil success abroad has been in Sudan.”
There are no op-eds or Comment is Free critiques of China in this respect. They would be colonialist / imperialistic too, no doubt. Has BH-L says, only white western thugs can do this sh1t to brown people.
Nick:
It’s interesting to observe the number of demonstrations at the local US embassy protesting that country’s foreign policy. China’s is far worse and yet there are no demos there.
Another angle on Zimbabwe: it’s hard to avoid thinking there’s some anti-white racism among the AU leaders. If Mugabe were white and were doing only one-tenth of what he’s up to now, the denunciations and calls for action would come from the AU in a torrent.
Huh?, I knew BHL is in competition with the rest of the French left in a bid to become the leftest left of the left but all of this is such a simplification! I to start to sympathize for Fabius here.
If BHL says that intervention in Sudan, or Zimbabwe is politically incorrect, & that therefore it is not on the table – he is lying. Intervention is not on the table because: there is no friggin’ way to make it work. If BHL says that we’re in Europe afraid to talk about black-on-black violence – he is wrong. Everybody talks about it & the incapacity in that continent to govern themselves – it may be that the salons of BHL are exception to this rule.
Rare to see so much black/white comment in one place: boycott the Olympics, and Sudan will be free! (because I am left, & not afraid to call the communists in China bastards – heh, heh). Damn him, & his lot, they were implicated in years, decennia of French governments that did not put a cent into Africa, & now China should use their standards in trying to cooperate with Africa. Bollocks!
It’s nothing else than the missionaries strategy adapted to a ‘pluralist’ left, status quo – just what Africans need.
JoB
I don’t think it’s either / or. Intervention by ‘us’ in either country is impossible to prosecute for a number of pervectly reasons. Sanctions aren’t though. There are prominent elements of the left who have an utterly laissez-faire attitude towards the suffering in these countries, based on little more than bone-headed dogma. I would love it if the African Union did something about Zim or Sudan. I would also be impressed if the reaving anti-US protesters actually cocked a snoop at the Chinese record, as per Human Rights Watch, who, unless they have secretly morphed into a neocon stooge outfit, normally hit the nail on the head, un-dogmatically, when it comes to HR.
Pars pro toto, Nick.
Prominent elements in the left are not the left. In fact the elements you are referring to are not even prominent.
Raving anti-US protesters are not what is mainstream in the West. Raving anti-Chinese protesters are with no incling of taking into account the standard of living increase & myopic interest only in decapitation.
So China provides funds to Africa with little questions asked – how could that be worse than not providing funds with little questions asked? Ah yes – Congo should be honoured to continue to work with Belgium because we’re ‘genuinely’ interested in the civil society whilst China is only interested in getting an economic activity going! & yes – build a school, don’t worry how children get there: infrastructure is much too dirty business for Human Rights defenders.
JoB,
With you on the BHL comments. Particularly the boycott te Beijing Olympics and Sudan will be free! one..
And Nick,
There have been plenty of protests regarding China’s human rights record. Plenty. And recently.
Are you against China’s HR record or is it just a shot at the Anti-US protesters?
Guys, I really, really, am no neocon, but China ? Benign income streams ? For Africa ? Please…
JoB, I don’t know what you’re asking or demanding here:
“Raving anti-Chinese protesters are with no incling of taking into account the standard of living increase & myopic interest only in decapitation.”
China is serving China’s best selfish interests in the developing world. It’s really only an observation borne of human rights disasters, both past and predicting those to come.
Best wishes to you both, but I think we have some defenitions to sort out here. If it’s any use, I f@cking hate the US’ retarded and dimwitted overseas policy since about, say, Eisenhower. Ok?
With you on that, Nick.
What concerns me is when issues that require real, complex and difficult solutions instead become some sort of scoring match in being more ‘right-on’ than what are, in BHLs case, your contemporaries.
There are no protests outside the Chinese embassy in my country. There are many outside the US embassy.
“So China provides funds to Africa with little questions ” Rubbish. China uses its Security Council veto to protect Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma, to name but the three current examples. That’s what this is about. These coutries’ governments are in violation of the basic standards of human rights they committed to honour when they became members of the UN. China’s protection of them in the name of “sovereignity” is a disgrace.
Of course, ONE [and only one] of the reasons people historically choose to protest outside US embassies is that the USA has a free[-ish] media and adversarial political debate, into which the evidence of protest elsewhere might intrude. China, at the present moment, does not.
I do find it rather alarming that someone, anyone, could remark that a concern about ‘decapitation’ [which I presume is meant literally] could be described as ‘myopic’. Balancing human rights off against economic development is only one small step up from saying ‘yes, but at least the trains run on time.’
Dave, Paul, Nick,
I guess DFG brought my point home but I still believe you react as a real bunch of pufta’s here – which is all the more disturbing since you seem to claim some form of political incorrectness.
China does it in self-interest: that is a whole lot better as not doing it, our traditional Western way of doing it.
China uses its veto to…: China didn’t do anything of the sort for the reason, simple & well published, that it didn’t have to – the US & South Africa did all the conniving – the former because they do not want this UN to do anything as a matter of principle, the latter because they have a raving lunatic as boss & an almost demented folk hero that wants to be so damned popular with so many, that he rarely has any specific idea.
China’s protection in the name of sovereignty is a disgrace: no, it’s not except if you really believe the idea of sovereignty is a disgrace which it is not unless you are hell bent into simplifying the world to suit your point of view. You haven’t been reading up on your Rawls lately I guess.
Decapitation as myopic: I’m sorry to be hurting your feelings here, but whether one decapitates or poisons is hardly of major consequence so China doesn’t take a very special position in this regard. Being all against the death penalty, in all cases & all guises, I however fully stand by what I said. If you have China with 1.5B people, & every year a couple of 100M are out of poverty & with means to have an idea of their own – & at the same time the average decapitation rate is not going up … hell, good on ya. I am all for increasing the pressure, but not for being so myopic to isolate this China, for woes that are not unknown to us, with as inevitable end result: less Human Rights (& probably more jobs in a happy, funky, self-conceited West).
BHL & the whole French left started the decline of the international left, they should be tarred & feathered, & sent a-riding towards the sunset.
DFG
It can descend into that sort of thing I agree, and I’ve tried over the last 2 years to try and understand things from a less hawkish perspective. To be honest Conor Foley of tht Guardian has written some of the best stuff I’ve read about Darfur; it frequently pisses off the Hitchens fraternity, but I find it hard to fault. Complex situations indeed.
JoB
You lost me with the puftas thing. I stopped reading then, but I’m sure it was fascinating.
Nick, you are right – that was out of order.
JoB
OK, I’ll get back later, there’s stuff to unpack there, but I’m busy now ’til late this afternoon. Best wishes.
Ok, I will condescend to take the less insulting points seriously. What does ‘out of poverty’ mean? Does it mean ‘into comfortable prosperity’, or does it mean ‘forced to move to a city and find a crap job because your village was flooded/ desertified/ posioned by industrial effluent’? Even assuming for the sake of argument that we might lean towards the former, is that sustainable under the current economic model? Is the policy being conducted wisely and humanely, or brutally and corruptly? Why is ‘out of poverty’ such a great place to be if it ALSO can mean dislocation, exploitation, industrial disease, continued censorship [and as we have seen alarmingly lately, and perhaps as a deliberate distraction from the foregoing] the cultivation of aggressively chip-on-shoulder nationalism?
And I still reject the notion, which as far as I can tell you are putting forward through some misplaced macho-realist trip, that bringing people ‘out of poverty’ can ever be a reason not to criticise the use of execution as an arm of state power.
Dave addresses the abhorent issues well, JoB, and it was indeed a pretty insulting and condescending post of yours. I can critique America on a range of domestic and foreign policies, some of which I find extremely counter-productive and frankly, inhumane. Their activities in the ME in the last five years have lost so much credibility and goodwill accross the globe it’s not true, and we’ve (UK) just followed in the slipstream, to my deepest regret. The amount of poor black Americans in American jails is a pretty awful indicator of how their economic model fails their masses too. But what pisses me off is the most vehement critics, who cannot – will not – criticise China, Iran, Russia, or other deeply problematic regimes in terms of human rights without serious concessions, or even asserting that they’re blameless, or worse, merely the result of US hegemony.
As if China has no malign power over its citizens, or malign influence abroad. As if it’s just somehow protecting its sovereignty. No, the principle of Universal Human Rights has gone out of the window with certain vocal critics. The Guardian for instance is often a platform for writers such as Seumas Milne, Soumaya Ghanoushi, Martin Jacques, Madeleine Bunting, who excuse the inexcusable through what appears a confusion of subaltern studies, relativism, and good old hatred of all things white and western. It’s just denial at its most tedious, based on bone-headed and dated dogma. I think that’s where I find common ground with BHL. I don’t doubt their sincerity, I doubt their judgement implicitly. Where I might agree with you is the extent to which such thinkers, thank heaven, have any influence over foreign policy issues.
Condescending or not I never said there was no reason to criticize China. I did not criticize the US either (I did make a criticism of France & the French left that’s quite true).
Why is out of poverty a great place? It is quite clear why it is. In poverty it is impossible to start having opinions, & no opinions, no subject matter for HR at all (it’s clear I’m talking about an abject poverty not just a decision that opts out of richness).
My point was on BHLs oversimplification so if you descend to my macho trip (I’m not about to apologize for making clear what I find to be true, I guess I’m not that kind of leftie) take Rawls’ view – it is not because there are states that are far less than ideal, that we should force them into idealhood. First let us get their citizens to be able to speak, whatever drama you put on it China (and the peoples which get funds from China) are whilst hugely problematic on the up (& yes, plse invade North Korea, Sudan, Somalia & Zimbabwe if you know you have a way to bring a solution rather than a high-falutin’ desire on their behalf!)
Sorry, your last para has moved outside my window of comprehension. I think there may be some rather simplistic correlation in there between prosperity, freedom of speech and human rights, to which I would respond in one word, Singapore. I would also bring up some historical examples of situations in which movement into ‘prosperity’ resulted in considerable losses for the bulk of the population – both in their ability to lead life as they desired, and in actual lives. But the trouble with historical examples is that everyone assumes that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and are just throwing Hitler and Stalin around for fun.
“Why is ‘out of poverty’ such a great place to be if it ALSO…etc”
While one’s economic position should not be the sole metric for the state of a human’s life (and I don’t think JoB is suggesting it is), it is a significant indicator of improvement, particularly in a place like the PRC. I don’t want to speak for JoB, but I do believe there is a hierachy of human needs. Food and shelter are at the top. This in no way excuses the authoritarian practices of the PRC, but at it does provide some perspective. Where do you go from there? Ahhh. I will snap my brain some other time.
Nick, Thanks for the tip on C Foley.
“China does it in self-interest: that is a whole lot better as not doing it, our traditional Western way of doing it.
“
Do not understand this, what does “as” mean?
Any country can trade with any other without having to defend it’s governments illegal behaviour at the UN security council in flagrant violation of the spirit of the UN’s very reason for existence.
Sovereignity: It’s not countries’ sovereignity that its government is concerned with, but rather its own freedom to oppress its own people. The sovereignity argument is just a convenient fig leaf.
Dave, at least 2 of them stayed within your window ;-) As a matter of fact, I have been to Singapore (not lately), & you´re absolutely right: propserity is not a sufficient condition for decency BUT I did not say that, I said it is a necessary condition.
Paul, “as” was meant to mean “than”, I guess, thanks for the lesson.
It´s all good & well to talk about the spirit of the UN. That does not change the fact that the letter of the UN has been very clear & it is not only China (not even primarily China) which makes sure not one iota is changed to letter of the UN as it stands.
Sovereignty is not a fig leaf – really do read Rawls! Sovereignty essentially is a way to defend one´s citizens from other people´s preconceptions on ‘what to do’. Obviously it is abused, but so are knifes & I don´t think you would go & say that knifes are fig leafs for murder.
Good review article, just out:
http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=f48d8fb7-6db3-4279-98a4-0be7964e5909
Basically confirms all my suspicions. Whether you think that’s just because the authors all share my prejudices is, really, up to you.
Thanks Dave.
Dave,
Read the review, haven’t read any of the books reviewed, though.
Having living in Beijing in the mid-90’s, I have little interest in going back. I don’t think the place I lived in, or even the street, exists…
The problem is examining a country’s infrastructure and political development through the distorting prism of the Olympics, (or any other business interest, for that matter).
JoB:
1) I just did not understand what you were saying, that’s all there is to my first point.
I wonder though what part of China’s interest is served by supporting the actions of the governments of Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma.
2) I wasn’t attacking sovereignity, just the Chinese regime’s misuse of it to protect criminals. (It doesn’t concern itself with the sovereignity of Tibet, for example.)
“Essentially is a way to defend one´s citizens from other people´s preconceptions on ‘what to do’.” As I pointed out, Burma, Zimbabwe and Sudan as members of the UN have agreed to abide by certain standards of behaviour. There are therefore no “other people” whose preconceptions are problematical.
Your error is to fail to distinguish between the ruling regimes and the peoples of those countries. These regimes are not protecting their citizens, they’re oppressing them.
Your knife analogy does not make sense. A knife can not be a figleaf for murder. That’s nonsensical. However the state sovereignity argument in relation to these countries is being used by the Chinese regime hide its real aim, to permit it to continue to mistreat its own people without outsiders being able to do anything about it, no matter how bad the oppression.
So who decides when the level of oppression justifies intervention?
Paul,
1. on what evidence do you think China is supporting these regimes more than, say, the West supports Saudi Arabia? I am unhappy that I feel the need here to reiterate that “I don’t condone & so on & so forth” but it is simply not simple enough to state what you state. It also is far too simple to selectively quote rogue states & forget about others then isolate one state supporting the former then call for boycotts to that state.
(PS: I’m not prepared to go on quoting war here but – on what evidence do you state China is supporting Zimbabwe and Sudan more than other states?)
2. yeah, yeah, you weren’t – it is all a big melting pot for you isn’t it: it isn’t because some say Tibet should be sovereign that it is (if so there is a host of new sovereign peoples, by your definition & that’s just too simple).
As to what governments agree to when in the UN, I am no expert but I do know it is too conveniently simple to split the spirit & the letter of the UN. As said, the letter includes veto rights for US, China & Russia which de facto blocks – not only China’s veto, you know, and in quite some cases not China’s veto at all – UN sanctioned action. If you are at all serious about what you say you should start moving to change UN letter instead of just bitchin’ ’bout China – which is decidedly a safer/simpler type of position to hold.
I do not fail to distinguish but it is not such an easy act to perform: who’s the judge on whether a regime does not represent its people? You? I? OB? The non-Guardian Media? The left? Bush? I ask you again: read Rawls, there is a list of external signs against which it is possible to “illegalize” a regime – fortunately that list is not such that one can illegalize China’s regime.
It really is a repugnant remark you are making about China’s government. You’re accusing them of personally & in fullest of conscience mistreat their citizens. Bah! Nevermind I use strong language now & then, at least I do not go imputing bad intentions (proceeding to convictions) w/o evidence.
Job China is hardly a close call,its goverment in no way represents the people and if they are not mistreating their citizens I am a Scotsman. Nick the reason American jails are filled with young black men has far more to do with the insane war on drugs than the economic model surely? The economic model might leave some young black kids behind but it is stupid drug laws and crazy sentences that fill the jails.
JoB:
1)
“1. on what evidence do you think China is supporting these regimes more than, say, the West supports Saudi Arabia? “
etc
What has this to do with anything? Defend China’s activities on their own merits.
2) Tibet: presumably you’ve heard of imperialism and how bad it is. The Chinese in particular will tell you all about how those nasty foreigners mistreated them, especially the British/French/Americans etc in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and then its nadir with the Japanese invasions.
Well, in Tibet the Chinese play of role of the nasty foreigners. They invaded it in the 1950s, in violation against international law which forbids agressive wars to conquer territory.
They did the same thing to India in the early 1960s. But they were outside the UN and defended by the USSR.
3) The bits of the UN I was referring to are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Whether a country meets those standards is, sadly, often all to easy to judge, as in Sudan, Burma and Zimbabwe.
As Nick S quoted above:
‘Human Rights Watch says
“China’s need for oil reserves for its growing domestic economy has caused its government to pursue investments in many countries of marginal stability and democracy, but its greatest oil success abroad has been in Sudan.”
‘
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6323017.stm
‘Chinese President Hu Jintao has agreed on a series of economic deals in Sudan, which China has protected from UN sanctions over the Darfur conflict….
Xinhua, China’s state-owned news agency, quoted Mr Hu as saying: “Any solution [in Darfur] needs to respect the sovereignty of Sudan and be based on dialogue.’
4)
“You’re accusing them of personally & in fullest of conscience mistreat their citizens. Bah! Nevermind I use strong language now & then, at least I do not go imputing bad intentions (proceeding to convictions) w/o evidence.”
You cannot be serious. If you are so ignorant about the Chinese government then debate is impossible.
Paul, I guess debate is impossible then given you can read minds & I can’t.
1. you cannot hold anybody to absolute standards w/o procedures against which they will be tested, so come up with a procedure that isolates China, on this specific issue
2. at least I’m not the only one to be condescending here ;-) As you know, in all separation struggles there is some historical claim. Again – forget about history & absolute statements, what is the procedure isolating Tibetan issue? You might wonder why no serious people or government, nor even Mr. Lama, have a claim for independence if you are so sure about your case.
3. Yeah, yeah, so what’s the procedure to enforce this? Would it happen to be something to do with veto rights & the defense of these veto rights (maybe it is informative to check what country’s opposing reform of Security Council the most)
10/10 for trying Paul. Window of comprehension indeed.
Nick, so who decides what the window of comprehension is? China is bad because, we say China is bad because we have the quotes to back it up, & the “spirit” of a charter.
Tell me: on what basis do you or Paul – or, Richard – contend that China is not a ‘decent consultation hierarchy’ as is defined by Rawls (which has provided as far as I know the only attempt to get a reasoned justification for intervention to date)? If you have that basis (& not just your feelings in the matter, based on the fact you feel your assessment is equivalent to a courts’ decision) where do you find a reasoned strategy to deal with the matter in such a way as to get China progressing faster than it is now to such a decent consultation hierarchy (assuming you agree it is not enough to desire improvement to justify specific action when action in general would be justifiable)?
Ok, enough of this shit. *I* decide. OK ? I couldn’t *comprehend* much of your posts, because your English is odd. And, to make matters worse, your stylised aggression is, while attempting to be purely tactical and bullying, is actually just distracting and slows comprehension to a virtual halt at times. Gibberish at worst.
So, here’s how it is: China is often bad. One of the baddest I’d say, but sure: it needs to reform at its own pace. Who with a brain says anything else could happen, realistcally ? Maybe in twenty or thirty years when they’re making all our medium quality wine as well as hydrogen cars, and they don’t behead people and section their dissidents under mental health laws, and we’ve stopped getting screwed by the house of Saud and f@cking with the middle east, then we’ll all be satisfied with our progress, but I still doubt countries like Zimbabwe or Darfur or Burma will feel much better about things frankly because the evidence is that any major power – Western, Indian or Chinese – exploiting those regions is not going to be good for the people who live there. They’ll come second, as per fucking usual. That’s all I’ve been saying, or so I thought.
China. Does. Bad. Shit. Too. Some. Ex-Communist. Party. Pricks. Still. Can’t. Deal. With. It. They. Should.
It’s vile shit that your beloved Chinese government does, at home and abroad, not as bad as the Yanks have been, worse in some respects. I reserve the right to criticse. But you are an apologist for the Red Star mafia. Fine. Bully for you. Makes you look a bit of a myopic, bastard to be frank.
I then wonder if you will even understand what I’m saying properly, like the bit where I have never once advocated invading anywhere, yet you threw that at me, or when I say that everyone in the big boys club seems to be up to not much good, you just assert I’ve got it in for Beijing. And I would safely bet you’ll just shout back at me I haven’t read Rawls. Again.
OK pal, that’s me done, protocol suggests you have the last word. Make it a good one, at least, not *poofter*.
I may be out of course.
Nick, sorry you feel like that. I have never said China was holy – I actually did say they weren´t. I did not intend to criticize the US. I did indicate it when I was also replying to Paul.
I did not shout, & certainly not about Rawls. His work happens to be relevant here.
Nick, nope, no hard feelings at all. I started this debate on a bad day, that probably stuck to the rest of what was put here by me. Another time better. I wish you a truely magnificent week-end & that your best man may be victorious in both 1st stages of the Tour de France!
Bad ? Two separate road accidents on the way to work, abysmal traffic, two hours late for work, took two very abusive phone calls from a senior finance manager for a problem someone else, in a different department, on a different CONTINENT caused. No apology from the creep either. Got home and had an in depth chat with my girlfriend about why maybe I could move out soon. On the whole, better I logged on here than go to the post office then. I’d have been arrested for queue-rage or something. Still, feeling a lot better now (ahem)
Tour de France ? Don’t really follow it, but anything’s better than the tennis I guess. Bon weekend, y bon chance a vous aussi.
Thats nice guys if only world leaders could settle their diferences in a civilised manner like that, we wouldnt have any more wars and poverty,racism and famine would be a thing of the past.
Who says Nick & I aren´t world leaders?
Nobody, and furthermore, I say you are.
I hope things improve, Nick.
Wow I am in the company of true greatness! could you guys do something about petrol prices and of course other stuff like global poverty.
Thanks OB.
(And, JoB I take it back about tennis – that was some final.)
Richard, watch it, plumbers have been under very close scrutiny since Nixon you know – you’re on my list…