The administration of George H.W. Bush issued a new national security policy and defense budget in reaction to the collapse of the global enemy.  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.  Disciplined intellectuals understood that it would have been improper to collapse in ridicule, so they maintained a proper silence.

The U.S., the new programs insisted, must maintain its “defense industrial base.” The phrase is a euphemism, referring to high-tech industry generally, which relies heavily on extensive state intervention for research and development, often under Pentagon cover, in what economists continue to call the U.S. “free-market economy.”

One of the most interesting provisions of the new plans had to do with the Middle East.  There, it was declared, Washington must maintain intervention forces targeting a crucial region where the major problems “could not have been laid at the Kremlin’s door.”  Contrary to 50 years of deceit, it was quietly conceded that the main concern was not the Russians, but rather what is called “radical nationalism,” meaning independent nationalism not under U.S. control.

Another source of evidence is the declassified historical record.  It contains revealing accounts of the actual motives of state policy.  The story is rich and complex, but a few persistent themes play a dominant role.  One was articulated clearly at a western hemispheric conference called by the U.S. in Mexico in February 1945 where Washington imposed “An Economic Charter of the Americas” designed to eliminate economic nationalism “in all its forms.” There was one unspoken condition.  Economic nationalism would be fine for the U.S. whose economy relies heavily on massive state intervention.

The elimination of economic nationalism for others stood in sharp conflict with the Latin American stand of that moment, which State Department officials described as “the philosophy of the New Nationalism [that] embraces policies designed to bring about a broader distribution of wealth and to raise the standard of living of the masses.” As U.S. policy analysts added, “Latin Americans are convinced that the first beneficiaries of the development of a country’s resources should be the people of that country.”

That, of course, will not do.  Washington understands that the “first beneficiaries” should be U.S. investors, while Latin America fulfills its service function.  It should not, as both the Truman and Eisenhower administrations would make clear, undergo “excessive industrial development” that might infringe on U.S. interests.  Thus Brazil could produce low-quality steel that U.S. corporations did not want to bother with, but it would be “excessive,” were it to compete with U.S. firms.

Similar concerns resonate throughout the post-World War II period.  The global system that was to be dominated by the U.S. was threatened by what internal documents call “radical and nationalistic regimes” that respond to popular pressures for independent development.  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.  In the case of Iran, a major concern was the potential impact of Iranian independence on Egypt, then in turmoil over British colonial practice.  In Guatemala, apart from the crime of the new democracy in empowering the peasant majority and infringing on possessions of the United Fruit Company — already offensive enough — Washington’s concern was labor unrest and popular mobilization in neighboring U.S.-backed dictatorships.

Contrary to what the kindergarten version of history will have you believe, US foreign policy over the last 60 years hasn't been dominated by some starry eyed concern for spreading human rights and democracy. In most cases the protection of US interests has been at the expense of both. Chomsky expands on his familiar themes of US "security" being overwhelmingly about the active suppression of independent economic development. 

Quote:


The most intense efforts against democracy movements by the US has been in South and Central America...

Quote:

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 7:31am:


None of them. That's the point. Can you name one? Niether can I. All we can name is what is the least worst opion. At current, it's western democracy, and let's face it, that isn't all that great of an option either.

But it beats the poo out of the alternatives.

Also, thank you for failing to address my actual post points, which was "This isn't new at all, it isn't something that happened in the last sixty years, and it's something EVERY nation does".

Winston Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 10:57am:


Did I say "sorry" in any of that, buddy (The big clue is I'm ot a smacking Canadian)? No, I did not. I'm not apologizing for a goddamn thing, asshole.  I'm stating the way things are and have been for far longer than your presumptuous ass has been sucking air on my planet. I am not apologetic in the least, boy. How about you try adding something useful to the thread, like a counter-argument to my claim that all nations always act in their self interests first.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 7:31am:


Thats not an argument FD, its not even a relevant point here.

You're saying we're lucky, it could be a lot worse. I'm saying it could be a lot better. You are looking for reasons not to take a critical view of the status quo.