OUR EMPIRE; ITS NATURE AND MAINTENANCE.
The system which delivers high "living standards" to us in rich countries is an imperial system; i.e., it involves massive injustice, exploitation and brutal repression. Following is an attempt to explain the nature of our empire and the things that done to keep it in place.
Who gets most world wealth.
The basic facts with which we must begin are to do with the distribution of the world's wealth and resource consumption.
Only a few people are getting most of the world's resource wealth. The one billion who live in rich countries are getting about 80% of resources produced, such as oil. Our per capita resource consumption is about 15-20 times the average for the poorest half of the world's people. Most Third World people are so seriously deprived of resources that large numbers are extremely poor and malnourished. For example the average energy consumption per person in a rich country is about 85 times as great as it is in Bangladesh. In other words, we in rich countries are getting far more than our fair share of the available resource wealth. We take most of the available resources like oil and these are therefore not available for many who as a result suffer hunger and hardship.
Even more important, much of the productive capacity of the Third World, its land, forests, fisheries, factories and labour, are mostly geared to the production of things to export to rich countries, not of things the people need. This is the crucial fault in conventional development theory and practice; Third World people have around them the resources and the labour necessary to produce for themselves the basic things they need for a satisfactory quality of life, but these resources are not being applied to those purposes. Instead they are going into producing to enrich the already rich few, especially the corporations who own the plantations, and the people who shop in rich world supermarkets.
Thus the crucial point about "development" is to do with options foregone. It is easy to imagine forms of development that are far more likely to meet the needs of people, their society and their ecosystems, but these are prohibited by conventional/capitalist development. Needs would be most effectively met if people were able to apply their locally available resources of land, forest, fisheries, labour, skill and capital to the production for themselves of many of the basic items they need such as food and shelter. This is precisely what normal conventional/capitalist development prevents, because it ensures that the available resources and the productive capacity are only drawn into the most profitable ventures, which means mostly into producing relatively luxurious items for export to richer people.
Note it is not a matter of us the rich giving the poor Third World more of our wealth. Much of the wealth we assume to be ours has been taken from them in the first place ( for example, fish caught off the coast of poor countries becomes cat food in our supermarkets.) So achieving global economic justice is not possible unless we in rich countries stop taking resource wealth from the poor.
'. . . the high standard of living in the West is owing partly to the extraction of a surplus in the form of cheap labour in the least developed countries.' p. 251. 'Our standard of living in the West depends in part on our exploitation of cheap labour and resources in the least developed countries....' p. 325
W. Murdoch, The Poverty of Nations, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.
How do we take the wealth?
These unjust distributions and the inappropriate development are primarily due to the market mechanism. In the present economy production, distribution and especially development are not determined by reference to the needs of humans, societies and ecosystems. They are determined mostly by market forces. The inevitable result is that the rich get almost all of the valuable resources (because they can pay most for them) and that almost all of the development that takes place is development of whatever rich people want (because that is most profitable, i.e., will return most on invested capital.) It is in other words a capitalist economic system and such a system ensures that the few who own most of the capital (most is now owned by about 1% of the world’s people) will only invest it in ventures that are most likely to maximise profits, and therefore in ventures which produce for those people with most "effective demand", i.e., rich people. No other forms of development are undertaken, hence much of the productive capacity of Tuvalu or Haiti lies idle because people with capital can make more money investing somewhere else.
More importantly, no other forms of development are conceivable. The dominant ideology has ensured that "development" cannot be thought of in any other way than as investing capital in order to increase the capacity to produce for sale in the market. (Trainer, 2000). Thus the possibility that development might be seen predominantly as improving the quality of life, security, the environment and social cohesion, or that these things might be achievable only if the goal of increasing the GDP is rejected, almost never occurs in the development literature, let alone in development practice. Development can only be thought of in terms of movement along the single dimension to greater levels of business turnover, sales, consumption, exporting , investing and GDP.
Thus conventional development is only the kind of development that results when what is developed is left to be determined by whatever will most enrich those few with capital competing in a market situation. The inevitable result is development in the interests of the rich, i.e., those with the capital to invest and those with most purchasing power. The global economy now works well for perhaps less than 10% of the world’s people, i.e., the upper 40% of the people in rich counties, plus the tiny Third World elites.
Conventional development is, in other words, a form of plunder. It takes most of the world’s wealth, especially its productive capacity and allocates it to the rich few, and it takes much of this from billions of people who are so seriously deprived that 1200 million people are malnourished and tens of thousands die every day. Again the core point is that there are far better options; it is possible to imagine other forms of development in which the resources and the productive capacity of Third World people are fully devoted to production by the people of the things they most urgently need.
Structural Adjustment Packages
Since the 1970s the most powerful mechanism determining the plunder of the Third World has been the World Bank's Structural Adjustment Packages. When a heavily indebted Third World country faces an impossible repayment situation the World Bank undertakes renegotiation of deadlines and provision of new loans — on condition that the country accepts a package of structural changes. These centre on opening the economy to market forces and foreign investment, increasing exports, devaluing the currency, privatising, and cutting state spending and subsidies.
The rationale seems to make some sense in conventional economic terms since the objective appears to be to reduce debt and increase income. However there is extensive documentation that the strategy does not achieve its conventional economic goals (and this is even shown in the World Bank’s own studies. See note 1 for documentation.)
But this is a minor consideration. As Chussudowsky explains, SAPs dismantle the economy and enable the transnational corporations and banks to come in buy up the most lucrative bits at very low prices. For example Chussodovsky describes the sale of the USSR’s biggest aero engine factory for $300,000. (Chussodovsky, 1997.) Meanwhile deregulation increases the access to the economy for the corporations and the devaluation makes the country's exports to us cheaper and its imports from us dearer, and the new loans saddle it with even higher repayments to our banks. Of course debtors must cut their spending, so governments slash welfare and assistance to the poor. The process is a bonanza for rich world corporations and banks and supermarket shoppers, while it further impoverishes the poor and raises their death rates. There is a vast literature on the catastrophically impoverishing effects of SAPs in the Third World and on the ways they enrich the already rich. (See note 2.)
In any case conventionally defined development for the Third World is impossible. A glance at the "limits to growth" literature shows that there are nowhere near enough resources for all people ever to rise to rich world "living standards". (Trainer, 1997.) This point is almost totally ignored in the development literature.
On those rare occasions when a rationale for conventional development is given, the "trickle down" theory is revealed. The fact that the rich are further enriched immediately is justified on the grounds that in the long run the increased wealth is expected to trickle down to lift the living standards of the poor majority. Conventional economists point to the ever rising GDP of Third World countries and rest their case, ignoring the fact that economic growth is a poor indicator of welfare or quality of life ( which has been falling in the richest countries despite growth. Eckersley, 1997), and the fact that in this era of globalisation a rising average often results from a leap in the incomes of the rich along with a fall in those of the poor. It is therefore not surprising that the 1996 Human Development Report concluded that the poorest one-third of the world’s people are actually getting poorer. (United Nations, 1996.)
In addition conventional development, which virtually identifies development with growth, is ecologically suicidal. Even the richest countries are blindly committed to development without end, i.e., to the continual and limitless increase in production for sale and in GDP. Their supreme goal is in other words economic growth. However, over the past 40 years an overwhelmingly convincing limits to growth analysis has accumulated, making it abundantly clear that rich countries are producing is consuming at rates that are grossly unsustainable. The result is rapid depletion and destruction of resources ecosystems and social bonds. (See Trainer 1997.)
Globalisation represents the acceleration and intensification of all of the above, enabled by the elimination of the barriers which previously inhibited the access of corporations and banks to profitable business opportunities. The rules of trade, investment and service provision are being radically altered to remove the capacity of government to preserve and protect the existing jobs, markets, forests, fisheries, water, minerals and public services . It is now becoming illegal for governments to protect their own people from the predatory intent of the corporations. There have already been cases where governments which have tried to block undesirable corporate activity have been charged with "interfering with the freedom of trade" and fined hundreds of millions of dollars. (See note 12.) Globalisation is a stunningly brazen and successful grab by the corporate rich for even more of the world’s wealth. The impacts are most devastating on the Third World majority, whose previously protected access to local resources and markets and state assistance is being eliminated as the business is being taken by the corporations. It is no surprise that global inequality and polarisation are rapidly increasing. There is a vast volume of evidence on the devastation globalisation is bringing to the poor majority of the world’s people. (See note 3.)
The living standards we have in rich countries could not be anywhere near as high as they are if the global economy did not function in these ways. We could not have the resources, the products, the comfort, the health standards or the security from turmoil if we were not getting far more than our fair share of the world’s wealth. It is a zero sum game; if we get the coffee that land cannot grow food for local people. If we get oil to run a ski boat , others get too little to sterilise the contaminated water that kills perhaps 5 million children every year. Because big fishing boats from rich countries are taking fish from the coasts of poor countries, so our pets can have tinned food, those fish are no longer available to the poor people of those regions.
In most cases market forces are sufficient to keep people in the plantations and sweatshops producing mostly for the benefit of others. People have no choice but to accept work for very low wages. Often the rich countries can get poor countries to accept rules that suit the rich simply by virtue of their superior economic power, for instance by threatening to deny access to rich world markets.
However, from time to time people rebel against these conditions and threaten to divert their productive capacity and their local resources to their own benefit. Sometimes they contemplate replacing the coffee trees with corn for themselves. Sometimes they move to nationalise the mines so that most of the earnings can go back to the people, or they attempt to block the export of logs and the destruction of their forests. Sometimes they threaten our access to "our" oilfields.
When things like this happen rich countries do not hesitate to support oppressive regimes willing to keep their countries to economic policies that will benefit local elites and rich countries, or to get rid of governments that threaten not to go along with such policies. Usually the rationale is in terms of the need to help a friendly government to put down a rebellion. Until recently this could always be labelled "communist subversion", thereby eliminating any concerns about the legitimacy of the action. However in Colombia it has recently been labelled as a "war on the drug trade", and in general it can now be labelled as a "war on terrorism". On many occasions governments of rich countries have waged ruthless war to install or get rid of regimes, according to whether or not they would facilitate the access of our corporations and the diversion of their resources and productive capacity to purposes that suited us. (For extensive documentation see Note 13.)
In other words the rich countries have an elaborate and powerful empire which they protect and control mostly via their economic power but also via the supply of military equipment and training to the repressive client regimes they support with money and arms, and often via the use of their own military force. Our living standards could not be as high as they are, and our corporations could not be so profitable, if a great deal of brutal repression was not being used to keep people to the economic policies which enrich us at their expense. As Herman says, there is a "…ruthless imposition of a neo-liberal regime that serves Western transnational corporate interests, along with a willingness to use unlimited force to achieve Western ends. This is genuine imperialism, sometimes using economic coercion alone, sometimes supplementing it with violence." (See Note 4.)
The logic of the situation; Affluence requires an empire, which requires oppression.
Following is a selection of statements which focus on the core situation; i.e., our affluent lifestyles and the prosperity of our corporations could not be as great as they are if we were not able to take much more than our fair share of the wealth of many other countries, and in many instances this requires oppression and brutality.
"To maintain its levels of production and consumption…the US must be assured of getting increasing amounts of the resources of poor countries. …This in turn requires strong support of unpopular and dictatorial regimes which maintain political and police oppression while serving American interests, to the detriment of their own poor majorities. If on the other hand Third World people controlled their own political economies,…they could then use more of their resources themselves…much of the land now used to grow export cash crops…would be used to feed their own hungry people for example."
W. Moyer, 1973 (source not recorded).
"It is in the economic interests of the American corporations who have investments in these countries to maintain this social structure ( whereby poor masses are oppressed and exploited by local elites) It is to keep these elites in power that the United States has …provided them with the necessary military equipment, the finance and training." (Greene, 1980, p. 125.)
"The impoverished and long abused masses of Latin America…will not stay quietly on the farms or in the slums unless they are terribly afraid…the rich get richer only because they have the guns. The rich include a great many US companies and individuals, which is why the United States has provided the guns…." (Chomsky and Herman, 1979, p.3.
"No socialist or communist government giving top priority to the needs of its people would, if it had any choice in the matter, willingly sell natural resources, especially the produce of its soils, at such very low returns to the common people as the typical Third World government does now. '. . . no democratic government could permit its country's resources to be developed on terms favourable to American corporate and government interests." (Katsnelson and Kesselman, 1983, p. 234.)
As we have seen, the essential evil within the present system is to do with the extremely uneven shares of wealth received. For instance, the bulk of the wealth generated by coffee production now goes to plantation owners, transnational corporations, and consumers in rich countries. Coffee pickers often receive less than 1% of the retail value of the coffee they pick. Any genuinely "socialist" or "nationalist" government would drastically redistribute those shares, or convert the land to food production, if it could, meaning that people in rich countries would then get far less coffee etc., or pay much higher prices. Hence we again arrive at the basic conclusion: a more just deal cannot be given to the people in the Third World unless rich countries accept a marked reduction in the share they receive from wealth generated in the Third World.
Any genuinely socialist government would certainly clamp down on the bonanza terms now granted to transnational corporations, such as tax-free periods of up to twenty years, few restrictions on transfers of funds, repressive labour laws, low safety standards, controlled or banned unions, and weak environmental laws. These conditions are among the mechanisms whereby wealth is transferred. When a hungry labourer picks coffee for you at one-twentieth the wage you would expect, you and the coffee corporation are enriched at his expense, and he will not go on picking your coffee unless he is forced to do so by economic circumstances or fear of violence.
'In order to impose the model of development which gives privilege to small minorities, it was necessary to create or maintain a repressive State. The development they wish to impose on the country can only provoke indignation among the people . . . If there were any type of freedom left the cries of protest would be so great that the only solution has been to impose absolute silence.' (Chomsky and Herman, 1979.)
These policies of repression are '. . . designed to keep large numbers in a state of serious deprivation while small upper classes, multinational business interests and elites of military enforcers "develop" these countries without any democratic constraint.' (Herman, 1982.)
'The basic fact is that the United States has organized under its sponsorship and protection a neo-colonial system of client states ruled mainly by terror and serving the interests of a small local and foreign business and military elite.'
'U.S. economic interests in the Third World have dictated a policy of containing revolution, preserving an open door for U.S. investment, and assuring favourable conditions of investment. Reformist efforts to improve the lot of the poor and oppressed, including the encouragement of independent trade unions, are not conducive to a favourable climate of investment.' (Chomsky and Herman, 1979.)
Illustrating the violence and oppression taking place.
Following are some references illustrating the violent and oppressive things that have been done by western states or their "clients" in order to keep in place conventional/capitalist development strategies.( For much evidence see
Much of this evidence indicts the US but this is incidental. The core problem is the powerful acquisitive drive in the Western mentality which fuels the insatiable quest for greater personal wealth and higher "living standards", greater corporate wealth, and a rising GDP. Given this, nations will compete for scarce resources and one will emerge as dominant, and run the empire in its own interests. In our era the dominant power just happens to be the US. The fundamental long term task is not to restrain US behaviour but to deal with the underlying motivation that comes from deep within Western culture and that generates imperialism and related problems, such as ecological destruction and resource depletion.
In the early 1980s approximately 40,000 people were killed by the ruling class in El Salvador, mostly via "death squads" composed of off duty military officers and police. "The regime which presides over these measures would long since have collapsed were it not for the support of the US. US backed loans in 1981 amounted to $523 million. (New Internationalist, 1983.) The US ensures "…the maintenance of a violent and undemocratic regime…which without American intervention would clearly fall within the next three months…" (The Guardian, 1981.) Training by US military "…has directly aided the oligarchy to carry out its terror campaign against peasant and worker masses…" (CISAC, 1981.) "The US has unfailingly supplied the tools of terror and repression to the Salvadoran military, as well as training in their use." (George, 1991, p. 5.) After referring to massacres in l Salvador similar to those in Guatemala Chomsky says "…this is international terrorism, supported or directly organised in Washington with the assistance of its international network of mercenary states," (Chomsky, 1991, p,. 23.)
In Indonesia in 1965 approximately 500,000 "communists" were slaughtered. The US fuelled the climate which led to the bloodbath, supplied names, provided equipment, and above all opted not to take steps to oppose the event it knew was coming. (See note 5.)
"…the US has undeniably launched major terrorist attacks against Cuba…" including attempts to assassinate Castro. CIA trained Cuban exiles bombed a Cuban civilian airliner, killing all 73 aboard…" (Chomsky, 1991, op.cit.,p. 23.) George notes that most of these attacks of terrorism were organised by the Kennedy administration.(George, 1991b, op. cit., p. 24.)
Chomsky says "…the worst single terrorist act of 1985 was a car-bombing in Beirut on March 8 that killed 80 people and wounded 256. According to Woodward the attack "…was arranged by the CIA and its Saudi clients with the assistance of Lebanese intelligence and a British specialist…" (Chomsky, 1991, op. cit., p. 26.) In 1986 the major single terrorist act was the US bombing of Libya." (Chomsky, 1991, op. cit., p. 27.)
US efforts to crush the Sandinista government in Nicaragua constitutes one of the clearest and most disturbing instances of sustained terrorism. The US. helped to install and then to maintain the Somaza dictatorship for 46 years, (the Somoza family ended up with 30% of the country's farmland: Sydney Morning Herald, 17th July, 1979.) As Easterbrook says "…the US launched a war against Nicaragua. That was a terrible war. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was practically destroyed. The Nicaraguans went to the World Court…the World Court ruled in their favour and ordered the United States to stop its 'unlawful use of force ' (that means international terrorism) and pay substantial reparations….the United States responded by dismissing the court with contempt and escalating the attack. (Chomsky reports that a further $100m in military aid was immediately granted. Chomsky, 1991, op. cit, p. 27.) At that point Nicaragua went to the UN Security council which voted a resolution calling on all states to obey international law. …the United States vetoed this resolution. Nicaragua then went to the UN General Assembly, which two years in a row passed a similar resolution with only the United States and Israel opposed." (See note 6.)
The Contras were organised by the CIA to attack the Nicaraguan government. "…the documentation of the murder of civilians as standard operating procedure of the Contras was already massive in 1984." (George, 1991b, op cit., p. 94. See also R. Brody, Contra Terror in Nicaragua, South End, 1998, and Americas Watch Reports.)
Former CIA director Stansfield Turner stated to a House subcommittee that US support for the Contras "…would have to be characterised as terrorism…" (See note 7.)
During the 1980s the US assisted South Africa in the wars it initiated against neighbouring states in its effort to defend apartheit. Gervasi and Wong detail the activities that resulted in 1.5 million war related deaths. (See note 8.).
East Timor provides another of the most disturbing instances of recent Western state behaviour. Rich Western countries did not speak out, let alone condemn, let alone block the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which they recognised as being in their interests. Instead they sold the Indonesians the weapons used to kill some 200,000 East Timorese people. US presidents Ford and Carter supported the takeover. Budiardjo quotes a US State Department official as saying Indonesia is "…a nation we do a lot of business with...we are more or less condoning the incursion into East Timor." (Budiardjo, 1991, p. 200.) Britain "…offered the Indonesian regime continuous and increasing military, financial and diplomatic support." (George, 1991b, op. cit, p. 81.) "It is well established that the Western powers…had already decided to give Indonesia a free hand." (Bundiardjo, op. cit.,1991, p. 200.)
In Iran"…the US installed the Shah as an amenable dictator in 1953, trained his secret services in "methods of interrogation" and lauded him as he ran his regime of torture." (See Herman, note 4.)
In Iraq the United States supported Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s as he carried out his war (with Iran) …and turned a blind eye to his use of chemical weapons…" (Herman, ibid.)
"In Vietnam selected Vietnamese troops were organised into terror squads." (McClintok, 1991, p. 133.) "…indiscriminate killing of civilians was a central part of a 'counter-insurgency war' in which 20,000 civilians were systematically assassinated under the CIA's Operation Phoenix Program…" (Focus on the Global South, 2001.) Pilger says this operation was the model for the later terror carried out in Chile and Nicaragua. (Pilger, op. cit.
In the 1960s Kennedy instituted "counterinsurgency, essentially the development of "special forces" trained in the use of terror to prevent peasants from supporting revolutionary groups. For decades the US School of the Americas has provided this training to large numbers of Laltin American police and military personnel, including many of the regions worst tyrants and torturers. As Monbiot says, "The US has been training terrorists at a camp in Georgia for years - and it's still at it." (Monbiot, 2001.) Training manuals include explicit material on the use of torture and terror. (McClintock, 1991.)"…torture, 'disappearance', mass killings and political imprisonment became the norm in many of the nations most heavily assisted by the United States…" (McClintock, 1991, p. 142.)
From time to time rich countries go beyond assisting repressive regimes and intervene either through clandestine activity or direct invasion to bring down or maintain a Third World government. "Our governments have intervened with troops or undercover agents to maintain friendly governments and unseat hostile ones. Since 1945 the USA intervened on average once every 18 months somewhere in the world. It included Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Lebanon 1958, Thailand 1959, Laos 1959, Cuba 1961, British Guiana 1963, South Vietnam 1964, Brazil 1964, Dominican Republic 1965, Cambodia 1968, Laos 1968, Chilc 1973, Jamaica 1975; British intervention included Egypt 1955, Malaya 1948, Aden 1963, Brunei 1966-1978; French intervention included: French Indo-China 1946, Algeria 1956 and continuously with troops since independence in Senegal, Ivory Coast, Mauretania, Central African Republic, Chad, Zaire 1978.' (New Internationalist, October 1978, p. 5.)
Again, there is an extensive literature documenting these and many other cases. (See note 9.) Herman and Osullivan present a table showing that in recent decades the overwhelming majority of terrorist actions, measured by death tolls, have been carried out by Western states. "State terror has been immense, and the West and it’s clients have been the major agents." (Herman and O.Sullivan, 1991.)
Any serious student of international relations or US foreign policy will be clearly aware of the general scope and significance of the empire which rich countries operate, and of the human rights violations, the violence and injustice this involves. Rich world "living standards", corporate prosperity, comfort and security could not be sustained at anywhere near current levels without this empire, nor without the oppression, violence and military activity that keep in place conventional investment, trade and development policies.
It should therefore be not in the least surprising that several hundred million people more or less hate the rich Western nations. This is the context in which events like those of September 11 must be understood. (For documents relevant to Sept. 11, see a section within Our Empire, COLLECTED DOCUMENTS.) It is surprising that the huge and chronic injustice, plunder, repression and indifference evident in the global economic system has not generated a much greater hostile reaction from the Third World, and more eagerness to hit back with violence. This is partly explained by the fact that it is in the interests of Third World rulers to acquiesce in conventional development strategies.
The US position
Given the foregoing quotes it hardly needs to be added that in the modern era the US by far the greatest practitioner of terrorism in the world. Again space permits no more than a brief selection from the many summary statements to this effect.
"The US has rained death and destruction on more people in more regions of the globe than any other nation in the period since the second world war…it has employed its military forces in other countries over 70 times since 1945, not counting innumerable instances of counter insurgency operations by the CIA." (The Editors, Monthly Review, 2001, p. 3.)
"…the US state has long been using terrorist networks, and carrying out acts of terror itself." ( Deak, 2001.) The US "…is the greatest source of terror on earth." (Pilger, op. cit.)
"There are many terrorist states in the world, but the United States is unusual in that it is officially committed to international terrorism, and on a scale that puts its rivals to shame.".(Chomsky, 1991, p. 15.) "The greatest source of terrorism is the US itself and some of the Latin American countries." (Said, 2001, p. 68.)
"…the US is itself a leading terrorist state." (Chomsky, 2001, p. 16.) "There are many terrorist states, but the United States is unusual in that it is officially committed to international terrorism, and on a scale that puts its rivals to shame. (Chomsky, 1991, p. 15.)
"We are the target of terrorists because in much of the world our government stands for dictatorship, bondage, and human exploitation… We are the target of terrorists because we are hated… And we are hated because our governments have done hateful things….Time after time we have ousted popular leaders who wanted the riches of the land to be shared by the people who worked it…We are hated because our government denies (democracy, freedom, human rights) to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations." (Note 10.)
In 1998 Amnesty International released a report which made it clear that the US was at least as responsible for extreme violation of human rights around the globe as -- including the promotion of torture and terrorism and state violence -- as any government or organisation in the world." (See note 11.)
"From any objective standpoint, Israel and the United States more frequently rely on terrorism, and in forms that inflict far greater quantums of suffering on their victims than do their opponents." (Falk, 1991, p. 108.)
That this situation has been clearly understood for decades by critical students of American Foreign Policy is evident in the following quotes from the late 1970s and early 1980s.
"..the US and its allies have armed the elites of the Third World to the teeth, and saturated them with counterinsurgency weaponry and training… Hideous torture has become standard practice in US client fascist states … Much of the electronic and other torture gear, is US supplied and great numbers of …interrogators are US trained…" (Chomsky and Herman, 1979, p10.)
"Many of the world's most brutal dictatorships "…are in place precisely because they serve US interests in a joint venture with local torturers at the expense of their majorities." (Herman, 1982, p. 15.)
After documenting supply of aid to 23 countries guilty of "human rights abuses", Trosan and Yates say, "Without US help they would be hard pressed to contain the fury of their oppressed citizens and US businesses would find it difficult to flourish.," Whenever their people have rebelled and tried to seize power, thereby threatening foreign investments, the US has on every occasion actively supported government repression and terror, or has promoted coups to overthrow popular governments."(Trosan and Yates, 1980, p. 44.)
'In South America and Africa we continue to prop up the regimes of generals who beat their countrymen with one hand and rob them with the other.' (Anderson, 1980.)
US aid '... has tended to flow disproportionately to Latin American governments which torture their citizens....' (Chomsky, 1986, p. 157.)
After documenting a number of cases of US complicity in torture by Third World countries, Chomsky states, '. . . much of the electronic and other torture gear is U.S. supplied, and great numbers of client state police and military interrogators are U.S. trained.' '. . . the U.S. is the prime sponsor of Third World fascism.' (p. 15) (Chomsky and Herman, 1979.)
'Throughout the 1950s the United States government consistently fought against fundamental social and political change in underdeveloped countries. Under the guise of "protecting the world from communism" the United States has intervened in the internal affairs of at least a score of countries. In some, such as Guatemala and Iran, United States agents actually engineered the overthrow of the legitimate governments and replaced them with regimes more to American liking.' (Hunt and Sherman, 1972,p. 162.)
Klare's book Supplying Repression provides detailed evidence on our supply of weapons and other assistance to some of the most repressive regimes in the world. 'Between 1973 and 1978 the US gave to the ten nations with the worst repression and human rights records $1,133 million in military aid and sold them an additional $18,238 million worth of military equipment.' (p. 28.)
E. S. Herman's book The Real Terror Network (p 29) gives an extensively detailed account of the way in which most terrorism in the world is sponsored by the rich countries, through their assistance to their client regimes in the Third World, i.e., provision of military equipment, training and money. The title of the book is to do with the hypocritical fuss made by governments and the press in the rich countries about the terrorism inflicted by hijackers and guerrilla movements. This is terrorism on an almost trivial scale--- have been stationed abroad at a particular point in time, in a total of three hundred major military bases. The giant Subic Bay naval base in the Philippines was not there to protect American soil; it was there to protect American interests, and yours, i.e., to enable ships to patrol the sea lanes along which our wealth moves, to support client regimes, to move Rapid Deployment Forces into 'trouble spots', to remind 'subversives' what they will be up against should they try to move their country from the free enterprise way. What would happen to your living standards if all those troops were brought home? Many Third World regimes would be swept away in no time if it were not for our support. Some of them would probably be replaced by even worse communist regimes, but some would take land out of coffee and distribute it to the peasants, thus causing coffee prices to rise. Whatever else they are doing, these 450,000 troops are also protecting our high living standards.
The longer view; Imperialism in history.
Let's step back from the current era and reflect briefly on the fact that throughout history humans have shown such a strong tendency to build and exploit empires. In the last 500 years the Portuguese were replaced by the Spanish, then the Dutch were dominant world power. Then the British ran the world for a long time, fighting 72 colonial wars to gain control of their vast empire. World Wars I and II can be seen as attempts by the challenger Germany to push through to world domination. In the process Europe exhausted itself enabling the Americans to emerge as the most powerful nation and to organise the world economy in the way that suited it for the last 50 years. So throughout history some power can usually be seen to have kicked and clawed its way to the top of the heap and then to have ran things in ways that deliver most of the available wealth to itself. (Yet with the coming of globalisation the power and the wealth is becoming located more within a small international corporate class than within any one nation.)
The current imperial system is very strong and stable. It obviously suits the powerful ruling class which is in control of the media and agencies like the World Bank and thus has great capacity to determine how things will be done. It more or less controls governments, through the campaign contributions system whereby corporations give large sums to candidates and are then repaid, and through its capacity to threaten governments with the withdrawal of investments. Especially significant is the general acceptance of conventional economic theory which takes as its top priority maximising business turnover and profits. It is also in the interests of the tiny Third World rich classes to comply with the imperial system which ensures that their people fail to get a fair share of their country's resources. And it is also very much in the interests of ordinary people in rich countries to ignore the fact that their living standards owe much to the resources and labour imported from poor countries.
We cannot expect to achieve a just world order, (nor a peaceful or ecologically sustainable one) until we grow out of this greedy and infantile imperial mentality. If nations continue to insist on clawing their way over each other to ever greater wealth, power and prestige, then we will continue to have an infallible recipe for endless and accelerating domination, conflict and imperialism. The USA just happens to be the current top dog. It is no more contemptible than the rest; if New Zealand or Ireland were able to dominate the world system it would surely do so, given that most people in any country subscribe to the false ideas that drive imperialism especially belief in endlessly rising 'living standards' and GNP. We cannot expect to see an end to imperialism and the domination of nations, nor to international conflict, until we outgrow our mindless obsession with affluence, growth and power and focus on the need to live according to The Simpler Way. (See note 14.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related topics.
Appendix 1: Crushing alternative examples.
A great deal of effort goes into ensuring that alternative non-capitalist approaches to development do not succeed. If any of them were to succeed, they might become examples showing other Third World countries that it was possible and desirable to pursue an appropriate path to development. This explains why even the smallest countries that opt for a non-capitalist path can become the object of intense economic and military violence. If a tiny Nicaragua or Grenada can opt out of the capitalist path to development and succeed through an alternative approach, then this would show larger countries that they could more easily do the same.
'... the tinier and weaker the country, the less endowed it is with resources, the more dangerous it is. If even a marginal and impoverished country can begin to utilize its own limited human and material resources and can undertake programs of development geared to the needs of the domestic population, then others may ask: why not us?' (Chomsky, 1986, p. 72.)
Hence the US has waged war on Nicaragua as intensely as international opinion has permitted. Nicaragua is one of the most pathetically weak and impoverished countries in the world, due primarily to forty years of dictatorship and exploitation at the hands of Somosa, installed by the US and constantly propped up by US aid and arms. US military aid between 1950 and 1975 totalled S25.5 million.
Somoza exemplified brutal rule in the interests of a greedy local elite, while making his country a paradise for foreign investors. At the end of his rule his family owned approximately one-third of the country's arable land. Over 25,000 people were killed '. . . in the 41 year reign of terror aided and abetted by Washington... Against all odds the Sandinistas finally overthrew Somoza. Despite great difficulties and many admitted mistakes they have achieved rapid improvements in the living conditions of most people, putting to shame almost all other countries in the region with the exception of Cuba. The USA has consistently done all it could to destroy the experiment. In the mid-1980s the US was spending millions of dollars in aid to the Contras fighting against the Sandinista government, and direct US invasion seemed imminent. In addition, all possible strategies for economic sabotage were being exercised, such as blocking trade, loans and aid, and attempting to get US allies do these things.
What about the cliam that Nicaragua is a communist country right on America's doorstep? In terms of the proportion of its economy in private hands - over 60% Nicaragua is less socialist or communist than Australia. The Nicaraguan revolution was made by popular resistance, and the communist party was not centrally involved in it. There are few communists within high government circles, but they are far from dominant.' Despite many claims, the USA has not been able to give any impressive evidence that Nicaragua is a base for Russian or Cuban activity, or is supplying arms to guerrillas in other regions such as El Salvador. As Berryman emphasises, '. . . at no point has the Reagan administration furnished convincing public proof for its repeated assertions that Nicaragua has sent massive and continual arms shipments to the Salvadoran rebels.'
Nicaragua's unforgivable error has been to reject development defined in terms of permitting foreign investors, market forces, the profit motive and the obsession with sheer growth to determine what happens, and to insist on some degree of rational control and planning of development in the interests of the majority. The US onslaught is intended to make sure that such an alternative path is not seen to succeed in Nicaragua.
Similarly US efforts against Cuba become understandable. Cuba threatens to show that a non-capitalist approach can solve many problems. This is especially important with respect to the large scale emergence of local organic food production after the collapse of the USSR cut Cuba's access to imported oil; see.) The US has carried out many aggressive actions against Cuba including attempts to assassinate Castro (see ). The US still refuses to let Cuba trade with the US after 30 years, which impacts heavily on the Cuban economy.
Appendix 2. Their terrorism makes sense.
If the foregoing account of the situation is more or less valid it becomes understandable why some Third World rebel groups resort to hijacking, kidnapping and terrorist bombing. It is not surprising that some of them finally try to hit back with apparently indiscriminate violence. Our media always react with horror and disbelief. They regard these acts as outrageously unjustified, indeed unintelligible, and they portray the hijackers and bomb planters as fanatical, irrational monsters.
Are you sure that if you had been hungry and disease ridden all your life, had been obliged to sell one of your children to have sufficient money to save the others from perishing, had cut sugar cane for starvation wages or worked seven days a week for thirteen years in mine dust that killed your father when you yourself were dying from silicosis, that you would not want to hit out? If you knew that your miserable conditions made possible the opulent waste enjoyed by the pampered few who can afford to fly in jumbo jets, and could see that the rich countries devoted millions of dollars every year to maintaining the empire, enriching them and depriving you, are you quite sure that you would not react violently?
Thus terrorism carried out by repressed groups is quite understandable. We cannot be surprised when occasionally people who have been viciously exploited, repressed and terrorised occasionally hit out at us in rage and despair. Yet in my view the use of terror by oppressed groups would seem to be incapable of contributing to what needs to be done. The vast changes necessary in global economic structures will not be possible until we have first achieved widespread change in the world views and values of the people of both rich and poor countries. The only way this can be done would seem to be through decades of patient educational effort, led by the "global alternative Society Movement" (See ). The strategy argued in What Should We Do? Is necessarily non-violent; i.e., it cannot succeed if it involves violence or force. (Indeed it is rejected by the old left for recommending against direct confrontation with capitalism.)
Appendix 3: The Soviet Union's empire.
Throughout history there have been many imperial systems. When a nations becomes big and powerful it often tends to start trying to control and exploit others. Until World War II the British controlled the world. Since then the Americans have been the dominant power, but in this period the Soviet Union has also had an empire, in which it did much the same nasty things that the Western rich nations do in theirs. It dominated the countries of Eastern Europe and invaded when it thought this was necessary to reassert control. More recently it invaded Afghanistan, a Third World country.
However, the Soviet Union's empire seems to have been rather different to ours in purpose and method. Theirs seems to have been primarily for the purpose of security, whereas ours is very much to do with securing wealth. The Soviet Union was far more self-sufficient in resources than the West, and it seems clear that it wass not very interested in siphoning wealth from its empire: '. . . Soviet capital has shown little tendency to expand abroad.25 Indeed in some ways the Soviet Empire was a drain on Soviet wealth. There was a net flow of economic wealth from the Soviet Union to Eastern Europe, Cuba, and the 'internal colonies' (the many national minority groups within the Soviet Union). Cuba was costing the USSR between S4 and $6 million every day. These flows were to countries opposed to the West.
The USSR maintained its empire mainly as a defensive buffer zone of territory between itself and the West. This becomes more understandable in view of Russia's tragic military history. The USSR has been invaded and devastated a number of times; World War II alone cost the Soviet Union twenty million lives. They were therefore very determined to make sure they were not invaded again.
The purpose of this discussion is not to support either but it does seem clear that the West is open to far more serious criticism for imperial activity than the USSR. In the last few decades the West intervened in the Third World about twelve times as often as the USSR, and trained about ten times as many military and police personnel for Third World client regimes. Of the 120 wars that broke out between 1945 and 1976, socialist or communist countries have been involved in only six, but the rich Western countries have been involved in no few than 64.
Appendix 4; The ideological problem.
Most people seem to have no idea of the things discussed in the foregoing passages. Most Americans would be stunned and highly indignant at the suggestion that America is involved in or supports oppression and terrorism. This is a remarkable sociological phenomenon, but is not that surprising in view of the interest the US business class has in not drawing attention to the situation. They own all the media these consistently fail to engage in critical discussion of US foreign policy. Chomsky stresses the great default of the Western press and academics in failing to comment on the repression in which their governments are involved. He documents numerous instances of misinterpretation, or more often distortion and neglect, which have helped to reinforce widespread ignorance and misunderstanding about repression, human rights violations and terrorism in the world.
Appendix4. "But we are only helping to oppose communist subversion".
Whenever the US or another Western country intervenes in the Third World or assists a brutal Third World regime to harass or kill more of its own people, we always say: 'But we are only helping a friendly government to protect itself against communist subversion'. This is the central issue for anyone who wishes to come to terms with violence in the Third World. The conventional position admits that a number of the governments we support are far from satisfactory in their respect for human rights, but argues that we have to support them in order to prevent communist takeover. The Reagan administration has clearly stated on a number of occasions that all the turmoil in Central America is due to subversion by the Russians: as Reagan said, '"The troubles in Central America are a power play by Cuba and the Soviet Union, pure and simple."
However, this whole argument constitutes one of the most easily dismissed myths surrounding US foreign policy. The pressure for revolution in the Third World derives from conditions which cry out for revolution, not from Russian subversion.
Firstly, the historical record shows that communists have been quite unimportant in revolutionary movements in Latin America. In fact they have often been embarrassed at not being given much of a part to play by those who have organised revolutions. As Berryman says, '... the guerilla movements in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador ... were not led by communist parties, i.e., parties linked to Moscow. In fact the existing communist parties in those countries repeatedly denounced the guerilla organisations as "adventurist"." Blasier also documents this point, stressing that communist parties have had only minor roles at best in these movements. He documents how the Cuban revolution was a people's revolt against a regime supported for years by the USA, in which the issue of communism was almost irrelevant. 'Cuban communists and the U.S.S.R. contributed little or nothing ..."49 Castro was in conflict with the local communists and later used their party to his advantage. 50 "The communist parties in Latin America are being forced to come to terms with the reality that such broad, loose, national fronts are leading and winning revolutions almost without them. Blasier adds, 'In Central America, the revolutionary parties are led by non-communists . . . communists in Latin America have never led a revolution." 52
Secondly, despite a great deal of effort the US administration has been spectacularly unable to come up with evidence of Russian assistance to guerrilla movements in Latin America. The most glaring failure has been their clam that Nicaragua has supplied arms in E1 Salvador.
In most cases revolutionary movements (as distinct fro anti-Western governments) have received little or no military assistance from Russia or Cuba.' Mostly they have to arm themselves, usually from captured weapons. The USSR's record of assistance for revolutionary movements is surprisingly uneven. On a number of occasions they have given little or no support, notably to Allende in Chile. Cases such as these seem to reveal the Soviet Union to be about as self-interested as most countries are. Often it has realised that to become entangled in foreign revolutions would be to cause itself more problems than it is worth.
The fact that the USSR sometimes does give arms and other assistance to revolutionary movements is not very significant in this discussion. Such assistance cannot be the cause of the trouble. If you can see that a situation has festered to the stage where a revolutionary movement has struggled into existence and is seeking arms, then you know that there are serious problems of justice and repression which should have been attended to long ago. Sometimes it would be an indisputably good thing if the Russians o
Cubans were providing the arms which are the only hope that revolutionary movements have of liberating themselves from the greedy and blood-thirsty regimes the West is supporting.
Most importantly, revolutions can only be made by oppressed people. Anyone who has the slightest understanding of social movements in general and revolution in particular realises how extremely difficult it is to get a revolution going. It is absurd for the Reagan administration to suggest that Russian or Cuban agents could come into a Central American country and stir up a revolution. It is amazing what oppressed, exploited and brutalised people will continue to endure without attempting to hit back. In much of Latin America people have put up with decades, even centuries, of the most appalling treatment from exploitative and vicious ruling classes, without mounting any significant threat to those regimes. Many attempts to initiate revolution among people who have the most clear-cut reasons for hitting back have failed to win significant support from the oppressed classes. If there is any move whatsoever towards popular rebellion, let alone a successful people's revolution, you can be sure that there has been a long history of enormous suffering at the hands of a brutal and predatory ruling class. As Blasier says: 'American leaders have not understood the fundamental causes of the revolutions . . . Their most serious misperception has been that the U.S.S.R., acting throughout the Communist parties or conspiratorial activities, actually caused social revolution in Latin America.' Chomsky and many others would argue that American leaders understand the situation only too well. The weakness in Blasier's account is its failure to recognise that these and other aspects of US foreign policy are not mistakes, but deliberate and essential elements in the defence of the empire.
It is possible for subversive agents to enter a Third World country and organise a coup without involving the people in general. The USA and the USSR have often been involved in activities of this sort. But this is entirely different from a popular revolt.
The groups making most mileage out of the 'communist threat' are the ruling classes of the Third World, especially in Latin America. At the slightest hint of a call for social justice or change that might impinge upon their interests they immediately cry 'communism'. Dissent of any kind is branded as communist subversion. This has been a marvellous mechanism for destroying challenges to their privileges, especially as it usually guarantees US support. Herman sums the situation up neatly: 'Among Latin American elites, a peasant asking for a higher wage or a priest helping organise a peasant cooperative is a communist. And someone going so far as to suggest land reform or a more equitable tax system is a communist fanatic'. Hence '... peasants trying to improve themselves, priests with the slightest humanistic proclivities, and naturally anyone trying to change the status quo, are communist ... evil, a threat to "security", and must be treated accordingly.' l56
Any Dissent is Communist Subversion
The military juntas adopt a free enterprise - blind growth model. '... Since free enterprise-growth-profits-USA are good, anybody challenging these concepts of their consequences is ipso facto a Communist-subversive-enemy.' Hence '. . . any resistance to business power and privilege in the interests of equity . . . is a National Security and police problem ... From the standpoint of the multinationals and latifundists, this is superb doctrine: reform is equated with subversion. In the words of the Guatemalan Foreign Minister, Toriello, any Latin American government that exerts itself to bring about a truly national program which affects the interests of the powerful foreign companies, in whose hands the wealth and the basic resources in large part repose in Latin America, will be pointed out as Communist . . . and so will be threatened with foreign intervention.' (Chomsky, 1986.)
'Governments cannot export revolution.' (Blasier, 1983, p. 153.)
Note that since the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York the rich countries have an even more useful pretext for putting down dissent, invading, tipping oujt governments etc...i.e., they can now do these things freely under the claim that they are rooting out terrorists. Hence Afghanistan has been invaded with the deaths of thousands of civillians, resulting in the installation of a regime that will enable the west to access the oil of the region, set up military bases etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.
6. (C. G. Easterbrook, "Is there a non-violent response to September 11?', galliher@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu See also Chomsky, "International terrorism; Image and reality", p. 16, and George, "The discipline of terrorology", p. 82-83.)
7. George, 1991b, op. cit., p. 72. For further detail on the Nicaraguan case see D. Melrose, Nicaragua: The Threat of a Good Example, Oxfam, (1985), N. Chomsky, Turning the Tide, South End/Pluto, (1985), P. Kornbluh, Nicaragua;The Price of Intervention, Institute for Policy Studies, (1987), H. Sklar, Washington's War on Nicaragua, South End, (1989).
8. S. Gervaszi and S., Wong, "The Reagan doctrine and the destabilisation of Southern Africa", in A George, Ed., Western State Terrorism, Cambridge, Polity, (1991), pp. 222, 226. See also J. Hanlon, Beggar Your Neighbours; Apartheit Power in South Africa, Islington, London, Catholic Institute for International Relations.
9. See for example the overviews by E. S. Herman, The Real Terror Network, (Southend Press, 1982), W. Blum, The CIA; A Forgotten History, (London, Zed Books, 1986), N. Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, International Terrorism in the Real World, (Claremont Research and Publications, 1986), A. Cockburn, Corruptions of Empire, A George, Ed., Western State Terrorism, (Cambridge, Polity, 1991), N. Chomsky and E. S. Herman, The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, (Sydney, Hale and Iremonger, 1979.)
11. E. C. Collier, Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad 1798 - 1993, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, (Oct. 7., 1993). See Amnesty International, 1998, The United States of America; Rights for All, http://web.amnesty.org
13. For extensive documentation on
14. See The Alternative, Sustainable Society; The Simpler Way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anderson, J.., in The Guardian, 20th Jan, 1980.
G. Blasier, The Giant's Rival, 1983,
Block, F., The Origins of International Economic Disorder, 1977, p. 193.
Budiardjo, C., "Indonesia; Mass extermination and the consolidation of authoritarian power" in A George, Ed., Western State Terrorism, Cambridge, Polity, (1991), 180-212, pp. 200.
Chomsky, N., Turning The Tide, London, Pluto, 1986, p. 157.
Chomsky, N., "International terrorism; Image and reality", ", in A George, Ed., Western State Terrorism, Cambridge, Polity,p. 26.
Chomsky, N., "The US is a leading terrorist state", Monthly Review, 53, 6, (Nov, 2001), p. 16.
Chomsky, N., and E.S. Herman, The Washington Connetion and Third World Fascism, Boston, South End Press, 1979.
CISAC, El Salvador, A Dossier, Sydney, , (1981), p. 32.
M. Chussodovsky, The Globalisation of Poverty, (London, Zed Books, 1997 Deak, E, "Real fight is for control of central Asia's oil", Sydney Morning Herald, (25th Oct., 2001).
Eckersley, R., Perspectives on Progress; Is Life Getting Better?, (Canberra, CSIRO, 1997.)
Focus on the Global South, 3, (Sept. 18), 2001.
George, A, Introduction, in A George, Ed., Western State Terrorism, Cambridge, Polity, (1991).
E. S. Herman, The Real Terror Network, Boston, South End Press, 1982
Herman, E. S. and J. O'Sullivan, "'Terrorism,' as ideology and cultural industry", in A. George, Ed., Western State Terrorism, (Cambridge, Polity, 1991).
E. Hunt and H. Sherman, Economics, 1972.
Falk, R., "The terrorist foundations of recent US foreign policy", in A. George, Ed., Western State Terrorism, (Cambridge, Polity, 1991), p.108.
F. Greene, The Enemy; Notes on Imperialism and Revolution, (New York, Vintage, 1980), p. 125.
Katznelson, I., and M. Kesselman, The Politics of Power , New York, Harcourt Brace, 1983.
M. McClintock, "American doctrine and counterinsurgent state terror", in A George, Ed., Western State Terrorism, Cambridge, Polity, (1991).
G. Monbiot, The Guardian, (Tuesday, October 30, 2001).
New Internationalist, (Feb., 1983), p. 30. See also Sydney Morning Herald, (4th Feb., 1982), p. 4.
Said, E., "What they want is my silence", Third World Resurgence, 131/132; (2001), p. 68.
The editors, "After the attack…the war on terrorism", Monthly Review, 53.6, (Nov., 2001), pp. 1-9.
The Guardian, (8th March, 1981).
Trainer, F. E. (T.), "Why development is impossible", Scandanavian Journal of Development and Area Studies, (Sept-Dec., 1997.)
Trainer, F. E. (T.),"What does development mean; A rejection of the unidimensional conception ", The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 20, 5/6, (2000), pp. 95-114. For this article see, http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D33WhatDsDevMeanRejection.html
Trosan and M. Yates, "Brainwashing under freedom", Monthly Review, (Jan. 1980), p. 44.