``..Although Holmes tries not to overstate his case, he suspects that the humanitarian interventionism of the 1990s -- at one point he speaks of "human rights as imperial ideology" (p. 190) -- may have played at least a small role in the public's acceptance of Bush's intervention in Iraq. If so, it is hard to imagine a better example of the disasters that good intentions can sometimes produce. The result in Iraq, in turn, has more or less silenced calls from the Left for further campaigns of military intervention for humanitarian purposes. The U.S. is conspicuously not participating in the U.N. intervention in the Darfur region of Sudan...'' (Chalmers Johnson, reviewing Stephen Holmes, The Matador's Cape, America's Reckless Response to Terror) See:
http://tomdispatch.com/post/174852/chalmers_johnson_12_books_in_search_of_a_poli cy
--------
Let's go back to the idea that the human rights mantra is an imperialist ideology, or at least that is the way it functions within this particular context. First of all, the UN charter documents and conventions on Human Rights are not imperialists doctrines because the UN is not a state, not an empire and the signatories on those conventions agree to abide by them. However, it is also clearly true that in the hands of US foriegn policy apparatus these same conventions most certainly are the premier propaganda tools for justifying US military and economic expansion, hence imperialist.
Let's go further. When we presume to advocate various domestic polices and programs for other countries and peoples, we are stepping directly into an imperialist mind set. With the possible exception of various outrages, genocide as the best example, in most cases it is really not our place to attempt to determine the historical trajectories of other people's societies. And this goes for Yoshie's pro-active advocacy for Iran as well. It is up to the Iranians to determine their fate. In fact it is their human right to do so. If women, homosexuals, and various ehtnic minorities in Iran suffer difficult lives, well, so be it. They are the ones who must fight their battles.
This kind of reasoning, its justifications, as well as its internal contradictions were worked out in US history about forty years as various US civil rights organizations decided to purge or at least vastly reduce the liberal white students who were attracted to these movements. It really was a matter of taking care of your own business first, and consider what you could do outside these organizations. At first it was a shocking policy (for me, since I was kicked out of C.O.R.E.), but its wisdom showed up later when ranks began to swell with more and more African Americans from far more diverse backgrounds than ever before.
So, IMO, liberals and progressive have to keep in mind that all this talk about what other people should or shouldn't do, is to participate in the imperial project, per se. In fact that is how the right dupes liberals into the apparent self-=contradiction of advocating human rights selectively, when liberals lack the courage of their convictions to fight for what they advocate, i.e. fall prey to the rightwing imperial war project.
In addition, the pro-active advocacy of various Iranian domestic policies, of course directly feeds the rightwing critique of the left and liberals that they are responsibile for covering up human rights abuses, and shielding our enemies from the righteous rath of US military power.
The whole discourse is wrong headed and needs serious re-examination, including the talk of sanctions, boycotts, and so forth. Nonsense. Let's reinterate. Iran has followed the usual development practices that are encouraged and permitted under the usual guidelines of IAEA oversight. The provisions they have not followed are various auxlliary accords on reporting and on site monitoring, in effect bureaucratic technicalities. Let's also remember the Russians and Chinese are providing the technical support for building a nuclear power industry. And finally let's remember that the Russians just signed an agreement with Iran that in effect says, that Russia will support Iran in this joint nuclear power development plan. How can I put this? There is absolutely nothing threatening about what Iran is doing, anywhere, including support for various factions in Iraq. Why shouldn't it be involved? Of course it is. So fucking what? That's what nations who are neighbors do, influence each other any way they can. Americans are getting killed? Really? What are Americans doing in Iraq in the first place? Duh.
My reading of Yoshie differs markedly from most of the rest of the list. I read a profound grief in her needling anger---not at all that unfamiliar to me---it just takes a different form. I always regret listening to the news, and yet I can't stop myself. We in the US are living in an insane asylum. The people in power are out of their fucking minds. And the people who seek power are just as loony-tunes as their enemies.
All this war crap poured on us everyday has infected the list as it wonders in and out of coherence, trying sort the shit from the other shit.