The US foreign policy is shaped based on the interests of the few in power at a terrible cost to the world population, says Noam Chomsky.
Orwellian UK BANNED Press TV: In an article published on tomdispatch.com on Tuesday, the veteran US intellectual slammed Washington’s so-called security concerns, a great deal of which have been justified for the public by “the Russian threat” in the 20th century.
Chomsky noted that the US continued its interventionist policies “much as before,” even when the excuse disappeared with the fall of the Soviet Union back in 1989, questioning Washington’s real motives in establishing “security”.
“It was pretty much the same as before, although with new pretexts. It was, it turned out, necessary to maintain a military establishment almost as great as the rest of the world combined and far more advanced in technological sophistication — but not for defense against the now-nonexistent Soviet Union. Rather, the excuse now was the growing ‘technological sophistication’ of Third World powers,” Chomsky wrote.
At the time, the US maintained “intervention forces targeting a crucial region [the Middle East] where the major problems ‘could not have been laid at the Kremlin’s door.’”
Elsewhere, Chomsky argued that Washington’s primary concern has been maintaining “the security of state power from the population,” rather than security “in the normal sense.”
“A striking current illustration is the radical attack on the Constitution by the Obama administration’s massive surveillance program. It is, of course, justified by ‘national security.’”
He wrote that protecting the security of state power is so critical for the US government that “there is even congressional legislation authorizing the president to use armed force to ‘rescue’ any American brought to The Hague for trial — the ‘Netherlands Invasion Act,’ as it is sometimes called in Europe.”
The renowned American academician also referred to the US suppression of “popular pressures for independent development” in other countries throughout the post-World War II period.
"That was the concern that motivated the overthrow of the parliamentary governments of Iran and Guatemala in 1953 and 1954, as well as numerous others,” he wrote.
“The way to deal with such a threat is to destroy the virus and to inoculate those who might be infected, typically by imposing murderous national security states,” Chomsky said ironically.
In the Middle East, the US has controlled the “virus” by supporting extremism and terrorism in opposition to nationalism, he said.
“Take two prominent current examples, global warming and nuclear weapons. As any literate person is doubtless aware, these are dire threats to the security of the population. Turning to state policy, we find that it is committed to accelerating each of those threats — in the interests of the primary concerns, protection of state power and of the concentrated private power that largely determines state policy.”
Source
Chomsky noted that the US continued its interventionist policies “much as before,” even when the excuse disappeared with the fall of the Soviet Union back in 1989, questioning Washington’s real motives in establishing “security”.
“It was pretty much the same as before, although with new pretexts. It was, it turned out, necessary to maintain a military establishment almost as great as the rest of the world combined and far more advanced in technological sophistication — but not for defense against the now-nonexistent Soviet Union. Rather, the excuse now was the growing ‘technological sophistication’ of Third World powers,” Chomsky wrote.
At the time, the US maintained “intervention forces targeting a crucial region [the Middle East] where the major problems ‘could not have been laid at the Kremlin’s door.’”
Elsewhere, Chomsky argued that Washington’s primary concern has been maintaining “the security of state power from the population,” rather than security “in the normal sense.”
“A striking current illustration is the radical attack on the Constitution by the Obama administration’s massive surveillance program. It is, of course, justified by ‘national security.’”
He wrote that protecting the security of state power is so critical for the US government that “there is even congressional legislation authorizing the president to use armed force to ‘rescue’ any American brought to The Hague for trial — the ‘Netherlands Invasion Act,’ as it is sometimes called in Europe.”
The renowned American academician also referred to the US suppression of “popular pressures for independent development” in other countries throughout the post-World War II period.
"That was the concern that motivated the overthrow of the parliamentary governments of Iran and Guatemala in 1953 and 1954, as well as numerous others,” he wrote.
“Literally not a day has passed since 1953 when the US has not been torturing the people of Iran.”The US intellectual and political activist denounced Washington’s crackdown on “independent nationalism not under US control”, which former National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger referred to as a “virus” that might “spread contagion.”
“The way to deal with such a threat is to destroy the virus and to inoculate those who might be infected, typically by imposing murderous national security states,” Chomsky said ironically.
In the Middle East, the US has controlled the “virus” by supporting extremism and terrorism in opposition to nationalism, he said.
“It is worth remembering that the US, like England before it,” has supported extremism in the region, Chomsky said, noting, “Saudi Arabia, of course, is… a missionary state, expending huge sums to establish its Wahhabi-Salafi doctrines beyond its borders.”Meanwhile, there exist serious threats to the security of the world population, which remain “a marginal concern” of the US policy makers, Chomsky concluded.
“Take two prominent current examples, global warming and nuclear weapons. As any literate person is doubtless aware, these are dire threats to the security of the population. Turning to state policy, we find that it is committed to accelerating each of those threats — in the interests of the primary concerns, protection of state power and of the concentrated private power that largely determines state policy.”
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment