February 15, 2012
Tomgram: Noam Chomsky, Imperial Hegemony and Its Discontents
[ Note for TomDispatch Readers: Noam
Chomsky’s latest TomDispatch post ends today, but TomDispatch, of
course, goes on. In the coming weeks, expect new posts from Andrew
Bacevich, Rebecca Solnit, Michael Klare, Nick Turse, Karen J. Greenberg,
and other TomDispatch regulars as well as surprising new authors.
Though this site works on the cheap, it unfortunately does take money as
well as all the usual effort to keep things going. So consider this my
small way of reminding you that your contributions to the site really
do make a difference, that they help bring Chomsky and others to you -- a
list of authors that I honestly believe any magazine would love to have
-- three times a week with original, often unexpected views of how our
American world actually works. Just consider, for instance, that
TomDispatch has not only
focused regularly on the government campaign against whistleblowers, including
Bradley Manning, but that this site is probably the only one to have a whistleblower, Peter Van Buren,
writing about whistleblowers!
Many thanks to those of you who have already contributed in 2012!
Your generosity astounds me. If others of you care to do so, please
visit the TomDispatch donate page by
clicking here. (My new book,
The United States of Fear,
remains available, autographed and personalized, to anyone who
contributes $75 or more.) Remember as well that, if you are an
Amazon.com customer and visit that site via a TomDispatch book link like
this one to buy anything whatsoever, we get a modest cut of your purchase price at no extra cost to you. Tom]
On Tuesday, Part 1 of Noam Chomsky’s piece on American decline,
“‘Losing’ the World” was posted at this site. It can be read by
clicking here. Now, Part 2 begins. When you’re done, you might check out Chomsky's earlier TomDispatch piece, “
Who Owns the World?”
which could be considered a companion to this one. (To catch Timothy
MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Chomsky offers an
anatomy of American defeat in the Greater Middle East, click
here, or download it to your iPod
here.) Tom
The Imperial Way
American Decline in Perspective, Part 2
By
Noam Chomsky
In the years of conscious, self-inflicted decline at home, “losses”
continued to mount elsewhere. In the past decade, for the first time in
500 years, South America has taken successful steps to free itself from
western domination, another serious loss. The region has moved towards
integration, and has begun to address some of the terrible internal
problems of societies ruled by mostly Europeanized elites, tiny islands
of extreme wealth in a sea of misery. They have also rid themselves of
all U.S. military bases and of IMF controls. A newly formed
organization, CELAC, includes all countries of the hemisphere apart from
the U.S. and Canada. If it actually functions, that would be another
step in American decline, in this case in what has always been regarded
as “the backyard.”
Even more serious would be the loss of the MENA countries -- Middle
East/North Africa -- which have been regarded by planners since the
1940s as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the
greatest material prizes in world history.” Control of MENA energy
reserves would yield “substantial control of the world,” in the words of
the influential Roosevelt advisor A.A. Berle.
To be sure, if the projections of a century of U.S. energy independence based on
North American energy resources
turn out to be realistic, the significance of controlling MENA would
decline somewhat, though probably not by much: the main concern has
always been control more than access. However, the likely consequences
to the planet’s equilibrium are so ominous that discussion may be
largely an academic exercise.
The Arab Spring, another development of historic importance, might
portend at least a partial “loss” of MENA. The US and its allies have
tried hard to prevent that outcome -- so far, with considerable
success. Their policy towards the popular uprisings has kept closely to
the standard guidelines: support the forces
most amenable to U.S. influence and control.
Favored dictators are supported as long as they can maintain control
(as in the major oil states). When that is no longer possible, then
discard them and try to restore the old regime as fully as possible (as
in Tunisia and Egypt). The general pattern is familiar: Somoza, Marcos,
Duvalier, Mobutu, Suharto, and many others. In one case, Libya, the
three traditional imperial powers intervened by force to participate in a
rebellion to overthrow a mercurial and unreliable dictator, opening the
way, it is expected, to more efficient control over Libya’s rich
resources (oil primarily, but also water, of particular interest to
French corporations), to a possible base for the U.S. Africa Command (so
far
restricted to Germany), and to the reversal of growing Chinese penetration. As far as policy goes, there have been few surprises.
Click here to read more of this dispatch.
|
