Product Description

A devastating analysis of America's political actions (as opposed to its rhetoric) before, during and after the Cold War. Using secret National Security Council planning documents and taking post-war Europe and Central America as paradigms, the author examines America's aggressive colonialist policy. It draws alarming connections between its repression of information inside the U S and its aggressive empire-building abroad.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #115535 in Books
• Published on: 1998-01-03
• Original language: English
• Binding: Hardcover
• 464 pages

Review
" 'Offers a revelatory portrait of the US empire of the 1980s and '90s, an ugly side of America largely kept hidden from the public by a complacent media' - Publishers Weekly. 'Shows how large the gap is between the realities of today's world and the picture of it that is presented to the American public' - Observer"

From the Publisher
‘This book…ought to be required reading in schools and newsrooms for it cuts through the often subtle propaganda about our times and tells us much about the new world order which, as Chomsky points out, is the old Cold War by another name’ John Pilger

About the Author
Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston.A member of the American Academy of Science, he has published widely in both linguistics and current affairs.His previous books include At War with Asia, American Power and the New Mandarins, For Reasons of State, Peace in the Middle East?, Towards a New Cold War, Fateful Triangle: The U.S., Israel and the Palestinians, Pirates and Emperors, The Culture of Terrorism, Manufacturing Consent (with E. S. Herman), and Necessary Illusions.

Customer Reviews

Stunning account of US interference in struggling states
Chomsky manages to continually surprise us with the horrors rich nations inflict on poorer nations. He graphically describes US interference in countries struggling for social and economic change. I read this while living in Nicaragua and came to understand why the US insists on maintaining its control on rich-in-resources countries. Chomsky uncoveres the paranoia of US governments and their cruel role in the destruction of weaker victims. It is a hard book to deal with, but is one of the easier ones to read. I definitely recommend it to anyone interested in US foreign policy, its motives and reasoning. It covers many areas of the world where the US actively set out to undermine social democratic movements, governments or people.

Exposes US government policy.
Chomsky's analysis suggests that the aim of US government policy over the last century has been two-fold. Firstly, it has been to create a global/domestic framework most favourable to the materialisation of local elite and business interests irrespective of the stark ethical costs involved. This translates into active oppression of independent nationalism all over the world and shocking campaigns of state-sponsored international terror. Secondly, in order to do this successfully, the government must manufacture sufficient domestic consent by legitimising these awful actions in the name of humanism, protection from evil dictators and other such 'just causes'. Whilst the hypocrisy clearly stinks, in portraying the US as a clandestine fascist state Chomsky threatens to undermine his credibility. However, by backing up his findings with detailed documentation and analysis it is hard not to take him seriously and conclude that the corridors of power are indeed nowhere near as benign as the ideals that we carry. My only criticism of this book is the sometimes repetitive nature of some of the key arguments. Chomsky has a tendency of going over old ground, perhaps with the aim of focusing attention on his core themes, but with the end result of diluting their impact. Nonetheless, this is a trivial point and shouldn't detract from peering into what is a truly insightful and at times disturbing window into the reality of US foreign policy.

A devastating analysis of American foreign policy.
In this book, Noam Chomsky meticulously details how the Cold War was essentially the creation of the USA to cloak its own global ambitions: - to become, in effect, the first truly world power.

America represented the USSR as the 'Evil Empire' as a justification of its own expansionist policies. America would ostensibly help free people everywhere to resist the tyranny of communism. The reality, ofcourse, was different. The Soviet Union was a second rate power, whose military capabilities were exaggerated out of all proportion by US politicians (and presidents) to boost arms production and to justify American expansion. In 1952, the Soviet Union offered to withdraw from Germany so long as Germany remained non-aligned. This was spurned by America who wanted to create the impression of a Soviet threat.

The Soviet threat was supposed to have tentacles world wide, supporting dissent and revolution in otherwise peaceful countries, such as Vietnam and Cuba. In fact, although the USSR did offer help, it was of a limited kind. Revolutions were usually nationalist in flavour, including Cuba and Vietnam.

America resisted these nationalist revolutions because they were a threat to US business interests. The USA wanted unlimited access to cheap primary markets in the Third World. In order to achieve this, foreign governments who put nationalist concerns first by diverting resources away from the rich and towards the alleviation of poverty - as Cuba had successfully done - meant that less resources were available to America. This is why both Cuba and Nicaragua fell victim to the USA: They showed a model of development that threatened US interests. This was also the reason of the Vietnam War, where even though America had little economic interest, Vietnam may have acted as a model for countries where America did have an economic interest. An independent Vietnam might have spread nationalism throughout South East Asia, leading Japan to accommodate a mainland Communist Bloc and thus become the industrial heartland of a New World order from which America might be excluded. It was because of such a possibility that the Pacific War had been fought. (An ironic factor is that America has secured free markets in South East Asia, which benefited Japan without Japan having to contribute to the Vietnam War, which cost America dearly.)

With the collapse of the USSR, the USA now has free licence to interfere in any part of the world without having to worry about the reaction of an opposing superpower - Bush's 'New World Order.' But the US still has to worry about domestic reaction. The spectra of communism was essential for justifying military intervention. You cannot tell your own people that you are going to invade a country simply to protect US investment. Therefore reasons have to be invented and consent manufactured.

If anyone wishes to know what is meant by the New World Order, the Gulf War illuminates things clearly. When a nation interferes with Western interests - the all-important oil supplies in this case - America steps in to restore the status quo and very often behind the fig-lead of the United Nations.

While the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was undoubtedly wrong, it surely was no more wrong than Iraq's attempted invasion of Iran, or Israel's invasion of the Lebanon (not to mention the conquered occupied territories gained in 1967) or America's invasion of Panama, or its support of the Contras and the illegal embargo of Nicaragua, all roundly condemned by the UN, but made invalid by America's UN vote.

Saddam Hussein was demonised as a new Hitler, ready to take over the whole of the Middle East by conquest. The facts belie this. He could not even win against Iran after a ten year effort, an effort that almost bankrupted Iraq. (When Kuwait undercut Iraqi oil prices, it severely jeopardised Iraq's attempt to recover from that war, and was responsible for Iraq's invasion.)

If Bush's (both Senior and Junior) New World Order means anything, it means America's right to flex its muscles internationally without having to worry about the Soviet Union, now a spent force. It means America can now impose its will on what it deems recalcitrant. Diplomacy now means the delivery of ultimatums - in this case the ultimatum of Iraq to withdrew from Kuwait. The PLO's suggestion that talks between Iraq and Kuwait on borders and oil policy (the cause of the war, after all) and the right of the Kuwaiti people to choose their own government was dismissed out of hand by Bush and barely reported by the (ever complacent and compliant) media.

America prefers, on the whole, democracy - except where democracy may overthrow the business elite with a radical left government that may threaten American business interest.

After World War II, America was committed to creating a liberal-capitalist order that would allow uninterrupted economic penetration (free trade) by which it was assumed America would benefit. To achieve this, America was prepared to challenge communism - actually nationalism by another name-head on. Examples of this are the creation of a West German state; wars against Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, and Nicaragua; supporting death-squad dictatorships in Latin America, and multi-million dollar CIA covert operations around the world.

Covert operations by US administrations are a common tool and are used regularly. They are kept secret from the people but not the media or the Congress, who already know of their existence. A good example is the Reagan Administration's attempt to supply the Contras despite having signed the Central American Peace Accord that barred the signatories from doing just that. Soon afterwards the Bush administration and congressional liberals committed themselves to openly aiding the Contras, and which caused Daniel Ortega to say that it "reaffirms (USA) policy that the strong may do whatever they wish." Reagan's idea was to keep the pressure on Nicaragua, to target health centres and schools, and then to make sure that resources needed to maintain these welfare programmes would be diverted to defence spending and thereby undermining Sandanista support.

Noam Chomsky said that "Democratic forms can be tolerated, even admired, if only for propaganda purposes. But this stance can be adopted only when the distribution of effective power ensures that meaningful participation of the 'popular classes' has been barred. When they organise and threaten the control of the political system by the business-land-owning elite and the military, strong measures must by taken, with tactical variations depending on the ranking of the target population on the scale of importance. At the lowest level, in the Third World, virtually no holds are barred."

A good example of this is to see how differently Nicaragua and Guatemala are treated. In Nicaragua, the Sandanistas diverted resources from the landowners and towards the poor. America responded by covert terrorism and an economic blockade. But to the brutality in Guatemala (death squads, disappearances, etc.), America was mute.

Chomsky presents a devastating analysis of America's foreign policy. He is sure to upset and anger a lot of people, but his argument that America is an imperial power is a cogent one.