Human rights and democracy discourse replaced older imperial justifications for war

Evidence

Jean Bricmont argues in his book Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell Wars that the “ideology of our times, at least when it comes to legitimizing war, is no longer Christianity, nor Kipling’s ‘white man’s burden’ or the ‘civilizing mission’ of the French Republic, but is a certain discourse on human rights and democracy, mixed in with a particular representation of the Second World War. This discourse justifies Western interventions in the Third World in the name of the defense of democracy and human rights or against the ‘new Hitlers.’” While Bricmont may be too hasty in dismissing the uses of the “white man’s burden” logic, given the revival of Orientalism in the post-9/11 era (as discussed in chapter 3), he is correct to point to democracy and human rights as the key rationales for war. These liberal arguments, however, aren’t only the tools of liberal imperialists—they are part of the neocons’ arsenal as well. After all, the Bush administration used women’s rights as justification for the 2001 war on Afghanistan and named “democracy-building” a goal in Iraq. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 403

Categorization

• XREF: Directly answers reader’s question of which myths — the human-rights/democracy myth replaces white man’s burden. — connects to: Moral philosophy is now being deployed to facilitate war; Responsibility-to-Protect discourse shifted sovereignty from nations to individuals; Feminist rhetoric can function as a tool of imperial and nationalist agendas (+11 more)

Broader Connections

• Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric ideologically legitimized both foreign wars and domestic attacks #corroborates (0.60) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 421