Do you think that human rights rhetoric has lost some of its ideological power following the global

wave of cynicism regarding the official justifications for the invasion and occupation of Iraq? What
are the prospects for the language of human rights as a rallying point for future military ventures?

The first observation is that military interventions are not due to human rights rhetoric but to the
decision, by the leaders of the countries that have the power and the means to intervene, to do so.
Given the way the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been going, I do not expect the US to launch
new wars in the near future, except possibly with Iran. But the human rights rhetoric will continue
as a way to demonize countries whose governments are too independent from the West, like Russia,
Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China etc. It will not necessarily lead to wars, but maintain a climate of
hostility and distrust.

Is there an alternative vision of human rights you would endorse?

I don't think I have an alternative vision of human rights. I completely agree that the principles of
the Universal Declaration are desirable goals. But only if one includes the social and economic
rights that are parts of the Declaration. Where I do not necessarily agree with the mainstream
interpretation of the Declaration is that the latter tends to ignore the socio-economic rights or to
consider that they will follow in the long run if one respects the individual and political rights,
which are then taken as « absolutes ».

But, first of all, if respect for individual and political rights leads, through the action of the « free
market », to enormous disparities of wealth, I do not see how one can justify that situation as
desirable. This is in essence, the critique of the liberal vision of human rights made by Marx and
other socialists in the 19th century. Compare, for example, Cuba and the rest of Latin America. In
Cuba, political rights are limited (although not very much, compared to many other historical
situations), while now there are formal democracies in most of the rest of Latin America, but with
massive « violations of human rights » of the socio-economic type. How does one decide which
situation is preferable?

As for the idea that, in the long run, socio-economic rights will follow if the other ones are
respected, I see no evidence for that. People sometimes argue that this is shown by the history of the
West, but quite the opposite is true. The West built its prosperity through massive violation of
human rights, precisely of the individual and political type, by suppression of the right to vote for
workers, women and minorities, open dictatorships (in many parts of Europe), colonial conquests,
elimination of indigeneous people, etc. Our development was certainly far more brutal than the one
of China now, for example. Yet, our humantarian imperialists can't stop lecturing China over human
rights violations.

Do you think that an attack on Iran is likely? Are there any other countries or regimes that are
likely to be targeted as Afghanistan and Iraq were in the near future?

I don't like to make predictions, particularly concerning wars, because I don't believe that there are
« laws of history » when it comes to war and peace. I don't believe the US military wants to engage
itself in another military adventure in the near future, nor do the more sane parts of the US ruling
circles (and that, probably, includes Obama). However, there is one country that won't stop being
hysterical about Iran and that is Israel. Given the strength of its lobbies in the West, pressure on Iran
is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Iran, however, has the desire and the means to resist
this pressure (and that is quite independent of who is in charge there, because the issue is one of
national independence, which everybody in Iran supports).
So we are likely to be « stuck » for a long time in an absurd situation: the Zionists in the West,
helped by a cohort of human rights, feminist or secularist activists will continue to scream at Iran's
threat, but with no effect on Iran's policy (which will of course allow the screaming to continue).

The only reasonable solution would be to accept the fact that, if Israel possesses nuclear weapons,
as they do, and uses them the maintain its unchallenged superiority in the Middle East, other
countries in that region will try to obtain such weapons. As in the case of the Cold War, the only
way out would be detente, but that presupposes the acceptance of some sort of rights for the
Palestinians and that is unthinkable.

What responsibility, if any, do human rights organisations bear for the creation of a human rights
discourse that serves to legitimise 'humanitarian intervention'?

I think they bear a lot of responsibility. Of course, some organizations are worse than others:
Human Rights Watch, for example, follows quite closely the policies of the State Department.
History is always written in the critical mode: look at the horrors of colonialism! Or of Stalinism!
But, at the time when those « horrors » were happening, a large number of intelligent, honest and
well-meaning people supported them.

I conjecture that, when the history of our time will be written in the critical mode in the future,
people will be amazed at the self-righteousness, the one-sidedness and the sheer blindness of the
contemporary Western human rights discourse. They will be baffled by the near unamimous silence
over the casualties of the embargo against Iraq, the hesitations in the opposition to the wars against
that country, the long indifference to the national aspirations of the Palestinians, the lack of
reactions to the hysteria over Iran, the enthusiasm for the Kosovo war, which was the war to start all
wars (of the humanitarian type) and the blind eye turned on the massive killings in Eastern Congo,
largely due to foreign interventions in that country by Rwanda and Uganda.

They will also realize that the main problem of our time is development in the South, that
development is not easy nor painless, and that it presupposes national sovereignty and
independence, which is precisely what the human rights movement ignores and often opposes.

Let us not forget that Stalinism was justified by appeals to socialist ideals, and colonialism by the
« civilizing mission» and the « white man's burden ». The present day imperialism, although much
weaker than before, is justified by the human rights rhetoric.

It was not always like that. When Amnesty International was founded, it was regarded in the West
as too friendly towards revolutionaries. But after the end of the Vietnam war, Carter shifted the US
rhetoric towards « human rights », which then became a main
ideological weapon against communism; then, with the growth of the human rights organizations,
and their need for funding, they became increasingly respectable and mainstream.

You champion international law as a useful defense against imperial aggression. However, isn't it
the case that within the current U.N. system, activism by the Security Council or its members i.e. the
U.S./U.K. subversion of the sanctions regime against Iraq (1991-2003), is sufficient to sabotage
attempts to foster any kind of international rule of law?

Yes and no. What I support is the UN Charter and the equal sovereignty of all nations upon which it
is founded. I also believe that the votes of the General Assembly, even though they have no force,
are much more representative of world opinion than those of the Security Council, which is indeed
corrupted by the right of veto of the Great Powers. I still think that the UN system, however
imperfect it may be, represents a major advance over the situation that existed before WW2. For
one thing, it allows some sort of discussions between different nations, which, on the whole, is
rather a factor in favour of peace. Who knows what could have happened during the Cold War
without such exchanges?

Besides, many UN agencies do useful work. The UN system also acknowledges that there is such a
thing as international law, which, on paper at least, is a limitation of the exercise of force by the
powerful. After all, everybody could see that the war against Iraq was illegal-without international
law, such an idea could not even be formulated. Parenthetically, the Kosovo war was also illegal,
although very few people in the West admitted it.

The basic defect of the UN system is that it does not have any police to enforce its decisions, at
least when they run against the demands of powerful states, such as the US or Israel. And the effect
of the veto is that, very often, no decision is taken against those countries. Still, there are a number
of UN resolutions that the Palestinians can invoke; but of course, it remains just that: a piece a
paper that one can wave.

What I would prefer is that the UN be rebuilt from scratch, starting with the movement of the non
aligned countries, which regroups already the vast majority of the world population, and to which
the Western countries could apply and join under the condition that they strictly follow the rules:
respect for the equal sovereignty of all nations and non interference in the internal affairs of other
countries.

Given that it reflects the same unequal distribution of power as many other spheres of life wouldn't
it be counterproductive to adhere too closely to international law? Why should activists bind
themselves to a legalistic way of thinking that justifies undemocratic arrangements, such as the
power of the Security Council?

I do not argue for a legalistic approach. Back in 1991, I was oppposed to the Iraq war, although it
was legal in a very narrow sense, having been approved by the Security Council. The legal basis
was narrow, because part of the Council was simply bribed: the then dying Soviet Union received
lots of money from Saudi Arabia in order to support the war, and there were other pressures that
would be unthinkable in an ordinary court of justice in a democratic country. Besides, the lack of
genuine negociations and the peculiar situation of that part of the world, where the West insists that
Israel can occupy Arab lands if it so desires, but that Koweit has to be independent, because it is a
pro-Western oil producing state, were enough reasons to oppose that war.

But one has to distinguish between the principle upon which the UN was founded and its practice.
My attitude here is similar to the one I have with respect to what is sometimes called class justice.
Because of huge biases in the administration of justice, some leftists tend to reject the whole notion
of « bourgeois law ». I think this is a mistake; there are many positive aspects in the principles of
our system of law, which represent genuine progresses over previous systems. The same thing is
true with international law and the UN.