War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Book

This is a clearly written, and well researched and documented, book. It should be required reading for all so-called "liberals" and "progressives" in the West, especially the U.S. (but also Canada, UK, France, and Germany).

Jean Bricmont discusses and criticizes the arguments people have used for "humanitarian war". Importantly, he exposes the hypocrisy, naivete, and disingenuousness of people who make such arguments. He shows that, especially in recent years, in the run-up to (and during) the wars in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, supposed concern for human rights and democracy has been exploited to build support for war and occupation--including support from people and organizations who would otherwise be against such things. Such professed concerns have also been exploited by Hitler and Stalin, but these were dismissed as obvious propaganda. Almost all wars have had disastrous consequences for many people. Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein may be gone, and some things have improved, but millions of people are either dead or suffering as a result of these wars and occupations.

He shows that in such conflicts, the West (especially the U.S.) is rarely interested in democracy or justice or human rights or social and economic equality, and concerns for these ideals are belatedly asserted to reduce opposition for what could be described as colonial (in the 20th century) or imperialistic actions. He argues (fairly convincingly) that the U.S. has neither the right, the duty, nor the ability to establish "democracy" in other countries. Many people, especially in the U.S., think that we have all the answers, and we just need to send in the troops to solve major problems that have been festering for decades, if not longer. Many people seem to want to undermine international law, or they support "international" law if it is dominated by the U.S.

I agree with many of the things Bricmont writes, but if he wants to reach "liberal" Americans, he needs to change his tone a bit. I think he underestimates the extent to which Americans are more conservative, neoliberal, jingoistic, and arrogant and (I think it's fair to say) narcissistic than their West European counterparts, with whom he's more familiar. The problem is, many people are not willing, or at least not used to, understanding the perspectives of others. Another shortcoming, but a minor one, is that some of his quotations are too long and are not sufficiently integrated with the rest of the text.

In any case, this book is definitely worth reading. It might not change people's minds, but I hope it will at least encourage people to question their assumptions and to question the motives of advocates of war. "Liberals" and "progressives" have allowed the political and economic elite to frame the debates to their own advantage, and this must change.