The book's first section covers the early history of Islam and shows how the supposed past tradition that the fundamentalists appeal to never existed. Islamic civilisations were relatively advanced in philosophy, science, medicine and literature.
slam was tolerant to other religions,
as well as to sceptics and heretics
within its own ranks - a marked contrast to the barbarism of the Christian crusaders, with their penchant for rape and butchery. Even in relation to women, 'early Islam... was incapable of imposing universal oppression women. It was resisted from above and below' (p.6l).
When the book reaches the 1 9th and 20th century, the history of Islam is placed alongside the history of Imperialism, first British and then American. There is an excellent chapter entitled A short course in American Imperialism'.
The two histories, of course are dissect. We are reminded, for example how after the First World War in Afghanistan, a regime preparing to introduce universal adult suffrage, a modern constitution, including abolition of the veil was overthrown by tribal warriors organPiers Mostyn reviews From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International Intervention" by David Chandler (Pluto) In the 19th century Britain raced against other imperial powers to carve up the continent of Africa. All sorts of high moral claims were made to justify this Christianity played a significant role. And Britain argued it was would stop slavery whereas other imperial powers wouldn't. Colonialism was therefore defended as liberation.
These justifications were soon forgotten as the true dynamic of imperialism became apparent - based on the needs of capital and the strategic military interests of the nations defending it.
Tony Blair recently referred to Africa being a scar on the conscience of the world, indicating that the West is no longer able to talk away its historical responsibility. But this statement was made precisely to claim that this time it's different and the West's motivation for new military adventures is now truly unselfish.
David Chandler's book is a critical analysis of the contemporary justification of the new Western military interventionism in terms of a new ideology based on human rights. Intervention
He argues that NGOs and charities have changed their orientation in the last two decades. They have abandoned an apolitical and neutral approach in favour of explicit interventionism. The change was typified by the Live Aid period in the 1980s. People wondered whether there was any point in pouring in money to alleviate famine if this didn't challenge the undertying social and economic causes.
The new discourse emphasised an over-riding need to protect human rights through direct political, economic, social and cultural intervention irrespective of the consequences for local self-determination or democracy.
With the ending of the cold war and a new world order the West sought to maintain and stabilise its global control. This new ideology has been co-opted to justify a developing military interventionism beginning in Somalia and running through Kosovo to Afghanistan.
What might previously have been described as an invasion or illegal intervention into the affairs of other countries has accordingly been redefined as lawful through the application of the new overarching philosophy.
Internationally, this has involved the junking of a consensus behind the sanctity of national sovereignty. Domestically democracy has been undermined authoritarianism increased.
So far so good. But the analysis is flawed. Chandler underestimates the interventionism of previous eras. He fails to adequately explain the dynamic behind the new interventionism, rejecting an anti-imperialist analysis
His approach appears to be defeatist completely ignoring the massive antiglobalisation and anti-war movements of recent years.
And, in his correct exposure of the new imperialist discourse, he lumps all human rights activism together with Bush and Blair. Much of it has a contradictory or progressive character even if imperialism uses it as cover
Throwing the baby out with the bath water, Chandler fails to recognise that many of the individuals involved are critics of war and capitalism or open to such arguments. The very forces that need to be engaged in the arguments are written off before it starts
This is nonetheless a significant critical analysis on an issue that is overdue for debate on the left.
page 11 of the scan
Trade union news