international law

During the 1990s, quite a few Chomsky books were compilations of previously-published material. He built books out of transcripts of talks, long interviews, and articles from Z magazine. Those books are all very good, but many of them had a scattered feel to them. In "Hegemony or Survival," he returns to the days when he sits at the typewriter and pounds out a new book.

This time, Chomsky sums up over 30 years of research on US foreign policy. He uses the current war in Iraq and the history of our policy toward Cuba as his key cases. That's not to say he leaves out other countries. In fact, this book mentions one country after another in which the US government worked hard to overthrow democracy abroad while covering it up at home. But, by putting emphasis on Cuba and Iraq, Chomsky shows the consistency of US policy --- the methods, the tactics, the justifications, and the effects.

It's the wide range of information that makes the book so convincing. Chomsky doesn't write opinion pieces. He presents you with a flood of facts, fully documented, and allows those facts to convince you. As you read, you'll say "Wow. Is that really true?" and flip to the footnotes. You'll find credible sources every time. You'll shake your head, wondering how you could have missed such important information. At some point, you end up reading with a finger wedged in the footnote section, flipping back and forth and making mental notes to double-check some of those sources later.

If you haven't read Chomsky before, start with one of the better interview books such as "Understanding Power" and "Chronicles of Dissent." Then read this one. If you want to understand "Why do they hate us?" (and why that isn't even the right question to ask), Chomsky has the answers.

In theis book, Chomsky lays out his opinion of American power in the world. His basic premise is that the American government will do anything to protect it's economic interests and it's global power, even if it includes supporting acts that could be considered terrorism. For example, all of the worst war crimes that Saddam Hussein committed were during the time when Iraq was a client state of the United States. Chomsky argues that the definition of terror isn't applied equally to all nations.

For example, consider the case of Emmanuel Constant. Constant was a leader of a paramilitary force in Haiti which was responsible for the deaths of thousands in the early 90's. Haiti has repeatedly requested for the extradition of Constant, so that he can face trial for his crimes. However, the U.S. refuses to do so. Would it be justifiable for Haiti to bomb New York in an attempt to recover Constant and to punish the government that protects him? Most people would say no, but they would support a similar case--the invasion fo Afghanistan to find Bin Ladin. Why the double standard?

ANother point he covers is the atrocities committed by the Israeli government against the Palestinians and by the Turkish government against the Kurds. These campaigns kill thousands and terrify the local populations, but they aren't call terrorism because they are campaigns supported by the American government. If we're going to have a war against terror, shouldn't we be a little more objective?

This book was an excellent read. I recommend this book for those who want to think seriously about America's role in the world.

You don't have to agree with everything Chomsky writes to find value in his work and his arguments. Before you accept any label that's been pinned on him, give his work a chance. His biggest crime just might be paying attention to facts, and questioning the praise we pour on ourselves, and actually caring about things like morality, and hypocrisy, and people.

Chomsky is the antithesis of the kind of intellectual and pundit that corporate media prefers, and he directs much criticism toward this 'establishment'; indeed, he has compared intellectuals and elite opinion-makers to the commisars of Soviet Russia.

This book is a sort of summation of material he has covered extensively before and since in different formats. The book proposes some important questions and considerations about this point in history. America finds itself in a state of unparalleled power in history. How do we use it? What is the cost of the quest for global dominance? The stakes are higher than ever. Terrorism, WMD, nuclear capability--these are things that threaten our existence. Are our current leaders really concerned with ending terrorism? Were they ever? What does the doctine of pre-emptive action mean, especially as applied to Iraq? And how long will people buy the same old stories that don't hold up under scrutiny? Who stands to really gain from global hegemony?

Chomsky reviews recent events like 9/11, world reaction, the National Security Strategy of 2002, announcing a doctrine of pre-emption, and, of course, Iraq, which is being played out as an outstanding example of hypocrisy and blind embrace of power. Once again, he goes through some useful facts about Iraq and America, namely that Saddam was a US client who had to be punished when he stopped following US orders. But of course, we now care so much about the Iraqi people, you know, we liberated them. And we cared so much about them when we supported Saddamn's reign by wrecking the country with sanctions. It's such a sham, you wonder how Bush himself can not crack up when he defends the 'reasons' for the war (WMD, democracy, etc, etc), or how he and most politicians can hide their utter contempt for the man on the street, or for anyone who actually looks at reality.

What is now clear in Chomsky's work is a very self-reflexive element, because Chomsky realizes how his work is viewed through the traditional doctrinal filters. Therefore, much of it seems like very, very bone dry humor, as he exposes the BS of politicians, elites, and ultimately ourselves. We're spreading democracy in Iraq...but are we really spreading democracy? Do we realy care about democracy, or the rights of all people, or freedom for everyone? Running through one case after another, the answer is quite different.

There's a very good reason Chomsky is often dismissed, or simply despised. His work concerns elementary moral questions, intellectual honesty, and general concern for PEOPLE, not institutions, or even states. He's anything but anti-American, if anything, he's very American. He cherishes freedom, and he routinely states that many of our American freedoms are unique and unprecedented. He reminds us that in a democracy, in a real democracy, you don't 'rally to the leader', you don't blindly worship the state. If we believe in freedom, real freedom, then we question power structures and their authority over us, and we reject them if they're not legitimate.

Chomsky is not a 'liberal', he is radical, his criticism is for the entire system and its track record. He does not have a 'master plan', and he would reject anyone who claims to. Notice he's been called everything under the sun: Marxist, Nazi, Stalinist, Communist, anti-American, deranged, etc, etc, etc. His answer? Yeah, you DO have to be deranged to pay attention to things like elementary morality, and to actually have concern for your fellow man. Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to think about current events, to seriously think, and to look outside the very narrow spectrum of debate in this country that is favored by the media and intellectuals.