129 lines
5.6 KiB
Plaintext
129 lines
5.6 KiB
Plaintext
**************** Review *****************
|
|
TERRORIZING THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
|
|
by Noam Chomsky,
|
|
(AK Press).
|
|
from Workers Solidarity No 36
|
|
|
|
NOAM CHOMSKY is known to many on the left
|
|
as a leading US dissident. Fewer people
|
|
are aware that he is an anarchist. A
|
|
major part of his writings deal with
|
|
American foreign policy and this work is
|
|
of some importance as anarchism is often
|
|
criticised as having no analysis of
|
|
imperialism.
|
|
|
|
Terrorizing the Neighbourhood is based around a speech
|
|
Chomsky made in January of 1990, shortly after the US
|
|
invasion of Panama. It seeks to map out what US foreign
|
|
policy meant in the Cold War and what its probable
|
|
direction will be in future. It also challenges some of
|
|
the established conceptions of what the Cold War meant
|
|
and as such should be read not just as an introduction to
|
|
US foreign policy but also by those on the left who find
|
|
now that their world view collapsed with the collapse of
|
|
the USSR.
|
|
|
|
COLD WAR
|
|
|
|
The general presentation of post-war history from Right
|
|
and Left alike was of a history dominated by clashes
|
|
between two superpowers. In fact the two superpowers
|
|
were never equal. The Soviet Union never approached the
|
|
US in terms of economic or military strength. The Cold
|
|
War was used by the rulers of both countries to maintain
|
|
a concensus at home, a concensus that kept them both in
|
|
power. For the most part the war meant war with its
|
|
satellites for the Soviet Union. For the US it meant war
|
|
on the third world. Both sides used the rhetoric of a
|
|
threat from the other to justify its actions and retain a
|
|
consensus at home in favour of intervention abroad.
|
|
|
|
The power of this consensus is demonstrated in the US by
|
|
the fact that all the factions of the ruling class were
|
|
united behind the 'right' of the US to intervene anywhere
|
|
it liked. From liberals to conservatives this was
|
|
unchallenged, the arguments that occurred were over
|
|
tactics. During the Contra war in Nicaragua the US media
|
|
freely argued over the tactics of pulling Nicaragua into
|
|
line with US interests. Many did not see the Contra war
|
|
as the best option yet the "right" of the US to dictate
|
|
to Nicaragua went for the most part unquestioned.
|
|
|
|
The end of the Cold War meant the end of the all-powerful
|
|
Soviet excuse. Panama was significant because it was the
|
|
first post war US invasion not defended by reference to a
|
|
Soviet 'threat'. Instead the drug war was invented as a
|
|
substitute. Since then a range of "would be Hitler's"
|
|
have been the excuse for US intervention. Perhaps the
|
|
most remarkable thing about these new threats has been
|
|
the willingness of the population to accept them as real.
|
|
The Soviet Union at least had real military power, ICBM's
|
|
and nuclear warheads. The new "threats" to world peace
|
|
seem to have little more than Uzi's and large quantities
|
|
of rusting, outdated Soviet tanks.
|
|
|
|
DISCIPLINING THE THIRD WORLD
|
|
|
|
Chomsky effectively exposes post-war US foreign policy.
|
|
It was not about countering the Soviet Union or even
|
|
halting the spread of "communism". Rather it was about
|
|
destroying any opposition to US interests throughout the
|
|
third world. US interests did not mean what was good for
|
|
people in the US but what was good for the $9 billion
|
|
invested by corporations in Latin America. Nationalist
|
|
governments like those of Nicaragua and Cuba which sought
|
|
to pursue an independent economic line threatened little
|
|
more than the profits of big business. The communists
|
|
the US was supposedly fighting included everything from
|
|
actual Communist parties to nationalists, priests and
|
|
community workers.
|
|
|
|
These are the strengths of Chomsky's pamphlet, its
|
|
analysis of what US policy was about. There is little
|
|
discussion however about the next step, the struggle
|
|
against imperialism of whatever variety. Chomsky ends
|
|
with the hope that the introduction of rival imperialist
|
|
powers in the shape of Japan and Europe will create a
|
|
confusion that the "indigenous popular forces" will be
|
|
able to take advantage of. He sees solidarity movements
|
|
in the imperialist heartlands helping these movements
|
|
through their own efforts and by influencing 'their'
|
|
governments.
|
|
|
|
Imperialism however is part and parcel of 20th century
|
|
capitalism. Its driving force is not so much in the
|
|
planning rooms of government offices but rather the
|
|
boards of thousands of corporations. Ruling classes may
|
|
decide their interests lie in a greater or lesser degree
|
|
of intervention but no long term gains can be made in
|
|
this way. Likewise nationalist regimes pursuing an
|
|
independent economic path will be dependant on whatever
|
|
policy the imperialists are providing at the time.
|
|
Improvements made one year will always be subject to
|
|
being carpet bombed the next.
|
|
|
|
FROM BOSNIA TO BELFAST
|
|
|
|
The defeat of imperialism on a permanent basis will
|
|
require a movement fighting not only in the fields and
|
|
towns of Latin America but also in the cities of the
|
|
United States. It must be a movement of workers,
|
|
controlled by workers. Our role as revolutionaries is
|
|
not only to understand the workings of imperialism but
|
|
also to start laying the foundations of such a movement.
|
|
|
|
This should not be an excuse for inactivity now. Our
|
|
role is to argue for the defeat of the imperialists
|
|
wherever they intervene from northern Ireland to Iraq to
|
|
Yugoslavia. In Ireland we oppose any involvement in UN
|
|
or EC policing operations on behalf of imperialism while
|
|
starting to build a movement north and south with the aim
|
|
of forcing British withdrawal from the north and the
|
|
introduction of an anarchist society based on need and
|
|
not on greed.
|
|
|
|
Andrew Flood
|
|
|
|
|