Chomski: The Grand Area
Mohamad Hamzeh
URL: http://www.worldmedia.com/archive/sam/sam-1-3.html
During World War II, study groups of the State Department and Council on
Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what
they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of
the American economy.
The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the
Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the
incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing
into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the
rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were
implemented, as opportunities allowed.
Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The
industrial countries were to be guided by the "great workshops," Germany and
Japan, who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (and now would be
working under US supervision).
The Third World was to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw
materials and a market" for the industrial capitalist societies, as a 1949
State Department memo put it. It was to be "exploited" (in Kennan's words)
for the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. (The references are to Southeast
Asia and Africa, but the points are general.)
Kennan even suggested that Europe might get a psychological lift from the
project of "exploiting" Africa. Naturally, no one suggested that Africa
should exploit Europe for its reconstruction, perhaps also improving its
state of mind. These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who
apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this.
The Vietnam War emerged from the need to ensure this service role.
Vietnamese nationalists didn't want to accept it, so they had to be smashed.
The threat wasn't that they were going to conquer anyone, but that they
might set a dangerous example of national independence that would inspire
other nations in the region.
The US government had two major roles to play. The first was to secure the
far-flung domains of the Grand Area. That required a very intimidating
posture, to ensure that no one interferes with this task -- which is one
reason why there's been such a drive for nuclear weapons.
The government's second role was to organize a public subsidy for
high-technology industry. For various reasons, the method adopted has been
military spending, in large part.
Free trade is fine for economics departments and newspaper editorials, but
nobody in the corporate world or the government takes the doctrines
seriously. The parts of the US economy that are able to compete
internationally are primarily the state-subsidized ones: capital-intensive
agriculture (agribusiness, as it's called), high-tech industry,
pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, etc.
The same is true of other industrial societies. The US government has the
public pay for research and development and provides, largely through the
military, a state-guaranteed market for waste production. If something is
marketable, the private sector takes it over. That system of public subsidy
and private profit is what is called free enterprise.
Fad
of opposition. Everyone knows chomski is the biggest extremist around. His
narrow-minded rhetoric and one-way finger pointing does the peace process
little good. His approach is useful in some ways, but it is considerably
more detrimental - his is not a solutions based approach. I can't stand him
actually. The article below leads its readers to believe that there was an
American capitalist blueprint developed which consciously and wilfully
subordinated the interests of 3rd world countries and others like them to
serve a specific economic function. That's simply not true at all; such a
utilitarian approach leaves many gaps in the political side of the coin.
The 'Grand Area' really refers to the unstable countries who, during the
Cold War, posed a strategic threat to the better part of the Western world,
not only to America. It goes far deeper than Chomski would lead his readers
to believe. Chomski would blame the Americans for armageddon if he could.
Mohamad Hamzeh wrote in message <900442182.377268@michelob>...
Mohamad Hamzeh
Fad wrote in message <6olu1l$oh6$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>I thought your Chomski postings could use some diluting from a faint voice
>of opposition. Everyone knows chomski is the biggest extremist around.
Mr. Fad, you opinion of Chomsky is only valid in the context of your own
convictions. The fact remains that Chomsky is a Professor Emiritus (sp?) at
MIT, one of Americas most respected educational institutions. He has a very
large following and is one of the most demanded and respected speaker in the
USA and arround the world.
>His
>narrow-minded rhetoric and one-way finger pointing does the peace process
>little good. His approach is useful in some ways, but it is considerably
>more detrimental - his is not a solutions based approach.
Only an equitable peace can be lasting. Anything else is an illusion of a
peace. Chomsky (a jew, BTW.) only points out the inequities of the Oslo
accords. Solutions are preferentials, and I'm sure you have your own
preferences.
>The article below leads its readers to believe that there was an
>American capitalist blueprint developed which consciously and wilfully
>subordinated the interests of 3rd world countries and others like them to
>serve a specific economic function.
All of Chomsky's work, references, reconstruction of events, and citing of
historic facts revolve around confirming this. The objective reader would be
more interested in evidence which rebutes Chomsky's work not the
unsubstantiated rediculing of his hypothesis.
>That's simply not true at all; such a
>utilitarian approach leaves many gaps in the political side of the coin.
In all of Chomsky's work that I read, the stochastic variations are clearly
acknowledged. What he talks about are persistent trends in America's foreign
policy, and he gives a very, very convincing argument and very credible
references and sources of information.
>The 'Grand Area' really refers to the unstable countries who, during the
>Cold War, posed a strategic threat to the better part of the Western
world,
>not only to America.
There is always the the Good Guy vs. the Bad Guy image. It is very well
understood. What you should attempt to understand is "the threat of the good
example" and "the fifth freedom" principle.
TahaK
Allow me to make a correction. The name of this fellow is Noam Chomsky, not
Chomski.
>Everyone knows chomski is the biggest extremist around.
Fad,
I don't care to defend the guy for I know little about him. But I can tell you
that a statement that starts with "Everyone knows" cannot be a true statement,
but a mere generalization.
>His approach is useful in some ways, but it is considerably
>more detrimental - his is not a solutions based approach. I can't stand him
>actually.
Chomsky said: "The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power, and if
I didn't betray it I'd be ashamed of myself."
Can you stand that?
>The article below leads its readers to believe that there was an
>American capitalist blueprint developed which consciously and wilfully
>subordinated the interests of 3rd world countries and others like them to
>serve a specific economic function. That's simply not true at all;
I do not think it is untrue. I have studied some of Latin American history,
and I have concluded with certainty that the government of the U.S. has done
exactly what the article claims. There are history books, taught in American
colleges that have documented this stuff.
Sometimes the truth is so unbelievable, we are not willing to confront it.
Did you know that the developed countries make up only 20% of the world
population but use 80% of its resources?
Have you any idea how many millions around the world starve to death so that
the average American can live at the current living standards?
Did you know that the U.S. has used gunboat diplomacy over the last 150 years
to control, subdue and exploit the resources and labor of Latin American
countries while keeping their people largely poor and uneducated?
Mohamad and I, as I am sure, are not against democracy or the American people.
We simply see the injustice committed by U.S. and we know that the American
people are not made aware of the truth; they are brain-washed by the controlled
media. In fact, the media in the U.S. has very little coverage of world
events; and when the U.S. goes out on a gunboat diplomacy mission, the media
backs it up with propaganda.
In the case of Panama, massacres were commited by U.S. troops. There were many
mass graves; and tremendous destruction, all of which in poor neighborhood. In
the U.S. it was all announced like a short field trip; just a few died. There
was a film documentary on this aired about a month ago. It was chilling to the
bone, and unbelievable.
Why are there so many wars in the ME? Why are there so many divisions? Could
it just be the spontaneous course of hisoty? I say not. I say the "Divide and
Conquer" policy is at work. Whenever there is conflict, there is always a
hidden third party who is fueling that conflict.
There is a lot of truth in these reports. The American people need to open
their eyes to what their government is doing to back the multi-national
corporation who are driving this whole thing. They are an evil interest
groups. They buy politicians like they buy a pack of cigarettes. And in the
U.S. there is legalized corruption; they call it political contribution and
there are over 3000 political action committees (PACs) who specialize and
paying these contributions. 90% of these contributions come from corporations.
Money is power. Power corrupts, and absulote power corrupts absolutely.
The only saving grace is that we still have our freedom of speech in the U.S.
This is the only weapon we have left to stop this insanity. If it is taken
away from us, it will be over.
Taha
Fad
>Guys,
>Fad,
>
>I don't care to defend the guy for I know little about him. But I can tell
you
>that a statement that starts with "Everyone knows" cannot be a true
statement,
>but a mere generalization.
True enough, but I was speaking more to the fact that his articles were
being posted continuously on the newsgroup without any oppostion. I was
alerting other readers who are unfamiliar with Chomsky to watch out for his
rhetoric. He may have a large following but the majority of the educated
world sees him as an educational extremist (oops - was that another
generalization?!). That is if you reside anywhere on the political spectrum
other than the Left. There is a very fine line that separates educators
from instigators - I think Chomsky belongs to the second genre of
intellects.
>>His approach is useful in some ways, but it is considerably
>>more detrimental - his is not a solutions based approach. I can't stand
him
>>actually.
>
>Chomsky said: "The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power, and
if
>I didn't betray it I'd be ashamed of myself."
>Can you stand that?
Certainly the intellectual tradition can be viewed as one of 'servility' to
power. I don't disagree; in fact, every democracy runs the risk of being
de-legitimized by its educators and by the educated. The difference here
is that Chomsky questions not only the means from which governments,
educational insitutions etc. draw their legitimacy, but he criticizes the
entire philosophy on which those institutions are based. And he does so
from an American-centric viewpoint. What 'power' is he speaking of anyway?
The power of educational institutions? The US government? We all know
politics is a relationship about power, but what bothers me about Chomsky's
approach in understanding this relationship is that he endorses an academic
STYLE that betrays the intellectual tradition. That he is an MIT
professor emeritus and has a large following says little to me about his
academic worth. Why wouldn't the US government want their greatest enemy
advising them and pay him generously to do so?
>>The article below leads its readers to believe that there was an
>>American capitalist blueprint developed which consciously and wilfully
>>subordinated the interests of 3rd world countries and others like them to
>>serve a specific economic function. That's simply not true at all;
>I do not think it is untrue. I have studied some of Latin American
history,
>and I have concluded with certainty that the government of the U.S. has
done
>exactly what the article claims. There are history books, taught in
American
>colleges that have documented this stuff.
Please, point me to these books if they are written by anyone other than
Chomsky. There was no 'blue-print' for capitalism. It was not the 'US
government' who did what you are speaking about in Latin America, rather it
was a handful of money-wielding barrons who exploited those countries for
their resources and lobbied successfully for some elements of the US
government to support them. No elements of opposition came from EITHER
side. I have also studied latin american history and my conclusions are
quite different from yours. Chomsky takes any and all complex issues and
simplifies them to American imperialism.
>Sometimes the truth is so unbelievable, we are not willing to confront it.
Truth!!!! Who's truth? Chomsky's?? If his is the truth then I wish us all
luck in his world order.
>Did you know that the developed countries make up only 20% of the world
>population but use 80% of its resources?
Of course - this is the whole purpose of politics and the reason I study it-
to address this inequality and ameliorate it. Not just to point fingers at
the United States and lead people to believe that they comprise that entire
80 percent!
>Have you any idea how many millions around the world starve to death so
that
>the average American can live at the current living standards?
There you go finger pointing again. There are parts of the developed and
developing world that consume more than do the Americans (China for
example). The point is, the greater part of the world is consuming at the
expense of the other part. This needs to be addressed in sustainable
development policies, in the policies and practices of the world bank, the
IMF, and in the general approach governments take to addressing 3rd world
disparities.
>Did you know that the U.S. has used gunboat diplomacy over the last 150
years
>to control, subdue and exploit the resources and labor of Latin American
>countries while keeping their people largely poor and uneducated?
Talk about generalizations. It's not fair to take Chile and Mexico and
apply that to the whole of Latin America, nor to the conduct of Americans in
their foreign policy as a whole.
>Mohamad and I, as I am sure, are not against democracy or the American
people.
>We simply see the injustice committed by U.S. and we know that the American
>people are not made aware of the truth; they are brain-washed by the
controlled
>media. In fact, the media in the U.S. has very little coverage of world
>events; and when the U.S. goes out on a gunboat diplomacy mission, the
media
>backs it up with propaganda.
I think you're giving the (American) media more credit than it deserves.
Correct me if I'm being presumptuous, but I'm sure you think the American
media is 'brainwashing' Americans because it is owned primarily by Jewish
people. If I am correct, I disagree with such a statement. There is plenty
of room for diluting CNN and other news sources; besides, the majority of
people to whom you are referring don't watch the news and don't care about
Amerian foreign policy. The target audience is normally educated,
middle-class Americans who are just as capable of determining whether or not
they are being brainwashed. Moreover, just as I have attempted to dilute
the attempt to brainwash lay-people with Chomsky, there is plenty of space
in the American media for opposition and counter-opposition. CNN and
America are not synonymous. However, might I draw your attention to the
ridiculous media-government relationship in Lebanon. LBC used to be the
best source for everything Lebanese and it epitomized the return of Lebanon.
Now it is subordinated to Future TV (Syrian) as is the whole of Lebanese
media.
>In the case of Panama, massacres were commited by U.S. troops. There were
many
>mass graves; and tremendous destruction, all of which in poor neighborhood.
In
>the U.S. it was all announced like a short field trip; just a few died.
There
>was a film documentary on this aired about a month ago. It was chilling to
the
>bone, and unbelievable.
Sure, I'm not denying these things every happened. Are we going to blame
east timor on the americans too? How about arab nationalism? Oh, I see
you're getting to that in the paragraph below.
>Why are there so many wars in the ME? Why are there so many divisions?
Could
>it just be the spontaneous course of hisoty? I say not. I say the "Divide
and
>Conquer" policy is at work. Whenever there is conflict, there is always a
>hidden third party who is fueling that conflict.
That's right and you've just hit the nail on the head. Who are the first,
second, and third parties? Do you think the Arabs have sat idly by as
American imperialism passed them by? You're right, there was nothing
spontaneous about American imperialism because the Arabs helped in the
process. I can't stand (yes, can't stand) one side of the coin arguments.
They leave out an entire element of the picture that can mean the difference
between brain-washing a lay-person or educating them just the same. Let me
offer you an example of what I am referring to. Recall that during the
slave trade (late 19th century) fellow Africans exploited their own for
pesonal gain? And for arguments sake, how would you characterize the whole
episode with Lawrence of Arabia (the non-romanticized version)? I am NOT
drawing parallels here, nor am I condoning the slave trade, I'm just trying
to point out that there always exist two sides to a story that we should
never ignore.
>There is a lot of truth in these reports. The American people need to open
>their eyes to what their government is doing to back the multi-national
>corporation who are driving this whole thing. They are an evil interest
>groups. They buy politicians like they buy a pack of cigarettes. And in
the
>U.S. there is legalized corruption; they call it political contribution and
>there are over 3000 political action committees (PACs) who specialize and
>paying these contributions. 90% of these contributions come from
corporations.
I was wondering when you were going to get to the MNC's. First of all, the
US system of governance is far different than it is in Canada or Western
Europe. Lobbyists have a great deal more say in US politics than do
lobbyists in other parts of the western world, namely in parliamentary
democracies. If you want to get into the whole issue of PAC's, then we
would have to address why those same corporations don't pay taxes to the
extent that they should, and why they are given such incentives. Jobs,
jobs, jobs, stimulating the economy, and yes, unfortunately, attempting to
further their platforms. We have to ask ourselves whether the central
paradox of the MNC is negotiable (can they create jobs while protecting the
environment, observing human rights, and protecting the interests of weaker
segments of the population), or whether we will continue to point fingers at
them and seek their eradication. I think compromise is more appealing, and
this is the direction policy makers should be taking.
>Money is power. Power corrupts, and absulote power corrupts absolutely.
That is one air-tight formula!! Really, is there no room for anything other
than 'absolute' where money and power are concerned? Perhaps your formula
would hold true in parts of the Arab world, but less so in democratic countr
ies.
>The only saving grace is that we still have our freedom of speech in the
U.S.
>This is the only weapon we have left to stop this insanity. If it is taken
>away from us, it will be over.
You also have freedom of action. Freedom of speech means nothing without
freedom of action. If the arab world wants to ameliorate its position, then
its OWN governments need to remove their own Absolute power and allow
freedom of association to take place. Look at Lebanon, who would have
thought that its citizens would be less free after the war than they were
before it!
In friendship,
Fadia
Fad
Mohamad Hamzeh wrote in message <900646740.339369@michelob>...
>
Mr. Mohamad,
Please also see my reply to TahaK.
>Only an equitable peace can be lasting. Anything else is an illusion of a
>peace. Chomsky (a jew, BTW.) only points out the inequities of the Oslo
>accords. Solutions are preferentials, and I'm sure you have your own
>preferences.
I don't know anyone whose preference it wouldn't be to have an equitable
peace. The bottom line is you like Chomsky and I don't. We both like
equitable peace. It doesn't matter that Chomsky is jewish; he could be
purple with antenna's coming out of his head for all I care. His words are
jarring to the peace process and they do nothing to address the inequalities
that we're talking about.
>All of Chomsky's work, references, reconstruction of events, and citing of
>historic facts revolve around confirming this. The objective reader would
be
>more interested in evidence which rebutes Chomsky's work not the
>unsubstantiated rediculing of his hypothesis.
Trust me, my aversion to his hypothesis is more than substantiated. In your
own words, your opposition to the opposition is valid only in the 'context
of your own convictions'. What you mean to say, I'm sure, is that we are
confronting a difference of opinion where Chomsky is concerned. Opinion and
fact, however, are two different things. Chomsky may be citing from facts,
but he is not addressing anything factual from an non-American viewpoint.
Hence my 'other side of the coin' thesis.
>In all of Chomsky's work that I read, the stochastic variations are clearly
>acknowledged. What he talks about are persistent trends in America's
foreign
>policy, and he gives a very, very convincing argument and very credible
>references and sources of information.
>
>>The 'Grand Area' really refers to the unstable countries who, during the
>>Cold War, posed a strategic threat to the better part of the Western
>world, not only to America.
>
>There is always the the Good Guy vs. the Bad Guy image. It is very well
>understood. What you should attempt to understand is "the threat of the
good
>example" and "the fifth freedom" principle.
Chomsky instigates more than any academic I know, the good guy-bad guy
image. I'd like you to elaborate on this idea of the good example and the
fifth freedom (I'm not sure what the latter referes to). Really how
infectious is Americanism? Are we giving it too much credit? You're
bringing in a whole discussion here on traditionalism and modernism (perhaps
even post-modernism) and I think we are approaching the same issue from
different philosophical viewpoints. I prefer to work within the existing
paradigm whereas you seemingly do not. Right?
In friendship,
Fadia
Mohamad Hamzeh
Fad wrote in message <6onp3n$s0p$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>
>Mohamad Hamzeh wrote in message <900646740.339369@michelob>...
>>
>Mr. Mohamad,
>Please also see my reply to TahaK.
Ms. Fadia,
Your hand of friendship is welcomed, appreciated and reciprocated. I'll
reply to the interesting points you raised shortly.
Mohamad Hamzeh
>peace. The bottom line is you like Chomsky and I don't. We both like
words are
>jarring to the peace process and they do nothing to address the
inequalities
>that we're talking about.
It would be interesting to read your elaboration on Chomsky's work hindering
an equitable peace process. Knowledge is a catalyst of equity. Chomsky, as
far as I can tell, is educating the masses about the inequities of the Oslo
peace accords, the plight of the Palestinians and, in general, the
neo-colonialist foreign policy of the United States. There a lot of people
out there, still, believing that Israel is a sheep amongst wolves. There are
people out there still believing that the USA is God's gift to humanity and,
whatever the USA does must be the right thing.
> [ ... ] Opinion and
>fact, however, are two different things. Chomsky may be citing from facts,
>but he is not addressing anything factual from an non-American viewpoint.
>Hence my 'other side of the coin' thesis.
Facts, and spins of thereof, are constructors of opinions. The spin on the
fact itself is a reflection of an opinion. Therefore, IMHO, facts and
opinions, while being two different things, are not always separable
*particularly* when presented to the trusting by the skilled. Having said
this, I think that most of Chosmky's work entails addressing issues from a
non-American point of view (a refreshing change for the rest of us).
However, I believe you are eluding to real competitive threats to the USA. I
doubt there is a single intellectual out there who is not aware of the games
of global competition and the roles of governments in the same. I believe
this explains why Chomsky is an anarchist :).
>Chomsky instigates more than any academic I know, the good guy-bad guy
>image.
I think what he does is clarifing the role of the media in "packaging the
facts" to the population such that the US government and its instruments are
perceived as the knights of freedom and democracy slaying the dragons of
tyranny and injustice. IMO, his work is invaluable in providing an objective
moral datum or a sanity check for the educated segment in the US and
elsewhere. Great civilizations often produce great scholars; IMO, Chomsky is
one of those.
>I'd like you to elaborate on this idea of the good example and the
>fifth freedom (I'm not sure what the latter referes to).
I have posted an article to soc.culture.lebanon recently about the threat of
the good example (aka the bad apple theory). the article can be found at:
URL
The Fifth Freedom refers to "guaranteeing the freedom to rob and exploit" in
Chomsky's words. I have not seen an article treating this on the web so I
quote from Chomsky's "On Power and Ideology" (Black Rose Books, ISBN
0-921689-04-7):
--- Begin Quote ---
From Lecture 1:
At the other extreme we find doves, such as George Kennan, who headed the
State Department Staff until 1950, when he was removed ... for being
regarded not sufficiently tough-minded... Kennan's views were expressed in
Policy Planning Study (PPS) 23 [Top Secret Document] of Feb 1948:
"...we have about 50% of the worlds wealth, but only 6.3% of its population
... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and
resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of
relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity
without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have
to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming ... We need not deceive
ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and
world-benefaction... We should cease to talk about vague and - for the Far
East - unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living
standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to
have to deal with straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by
idealistic slogans, the better..."
Thus, in a briefing for Latin American ambassadors in 1950, Kennan observes
that a major concern of American foreign policy must be "The protection of
our raw materials" - in fact, more broadly, the material and human resources
that are "our" by right... Kennan we on to explai the means that we must use
against our enemies who fall to the hearsy that threatens our resources in
their land [the hearsy that the goverment of a country is responsible only
for the well being of its people]:
"The final answer might be an unpleasant one, but ... we should not hesitate
before police repression by the local government. This is not shameful since
the Communists are essentially traitors... It is better to have a strong
regime in power than a liberal government if it is indulgent and relaxed ...
"
--- End Quote ---
>Really how
>infectious is Americanism?
I'm not sure what you mean by infectious. America does not wish to create a
World in its image for that is detrimental to America's dominant position
and interests. America exploits the world for its benefit. American products
saturate the world market. The US GDP constitutes ~25% of the world economy.
The USA consumes ~50% of the World's energy. America's business, military
and political influence is everywhere. Yet, America's population is less ~5%
of the World population! The USA is not a *Country*. It is an *Empire* with
some curious notion of democracy (democracy here refers to a system of
governance in which elite elements based in the business community control
the state by virtue of their dominance of the private society, while the
population observes quietly; a system of elite decision and public
ratification).
>Are we giving it too much credit? You're
>bringing in a whole discussion here on traditionalism and modernism
(perhaps
>even post-modernism) and I think we are approaching the same issue from
>different philosophical viewpoints. I prefer to work within the existing
>paradigm whereas you seemingly do not. Right?
I offer my regrets for not being able to keep pace with your knowledge on
this subject. I am not a political scientist and my knowledge of modern
philosophy is limited to some readings in Betrand Russel. As such, the above
is not very clear to me. I would appreciate your elaborating for my benefit.
Regards,
Mohamad.
Fad
>... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and
resentment.....
Regarding the rest of the Kennan quote, I think it is unfair to take Kennan
and apply him to the whole of American foreign policy; especially given the
brief period in which his ridiculous thoughts were being endorsed as policy.
I don't think his views were entirely representative of US foreign policy.
>I offer my regrets for not being able to keep pace with your knowledge on
>this subject. I am not a political scientist and my knowledge of modern
>philosophy is limited to some readings in Betrand Russel. As such, the
above
>is not very clear to me. I would appreciate your elaborating for my
benefit.
According to some, traditionalism, modernism, and postmodernism in many ways
characterize the current state of the world order. Some regard the
ideological rift between the west and Islam as a manifestation of the
tension between traditionalism and modernism. I am still struggling with
the idea of postmodernism myself. The best example I can think of to
explain postmodernism, traditionalism, and modernism is the region of the
EU. Right now, the EU is immersed in a transitory phase - moving from
nationally oriented polities to a regional superstructure. In the process,
pockets of traditionalism have emerged in an attempt to counter the
modernizing effects of regional integration. The outcome of this struggle,
it is said, will be a postmodern political entity.
Vaclav Havel states succinctly the implications of these ideological
constructs: "There are good reasons for suggesting that the modern age has
ended. Many things indicate that we are going through a transitional
period, when it seems that something else is painfully being born. It is as
if something were crumbling, decaying and exhausting itself, while something
else, still indistinct, were arising from the rubble...Today, this state of
mind, or of the human world, is called post-modernism. For me a symbol of
that state is a Bedouin mounted on a camel and clad in traditional robes
under which he is wearing jeans,with a transistor radio in his hands, and an
ad for Coca-Cola on the camel's back." (Vaclav Havel, Remarks at
Independence Hall, Philadelphia, 4 July 1994; quoted from Vaclav Havel, "The
new measure of man", The New York Times, 8 July 1994, p. 15A).
>Regards,
>Fadia
>
mha...@my-dejanews.com
"Fad" <fa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mohamad Hamzeh wrote in message <6orqnf$a6$1...@news10.ispnews.com>...
>
>
> Regarding the rest of the Kennan quote, I think it is unfair to take Kennan
> and apply him to the whole of American foreign policy; especially given the
> brief period in which his ridiculous thoughts were being endorsed as policy.
> I don't think his views were entirely representative of US foreign policy.
Hi Fadia,
Your reply appeared only yesterday in my news reader, so my apologies for the
late reply. To carry on, anyway, I would like to bring to your attention that
Kennan's comments appeared in a Top Secret document (i.e., could not be made
public immediately). The public can only speculate upon what goes on behind
the closed doors of contemporary American strategic planning. Nevertheless,
the rational observer does not need such documents; one needs only look at
*persistent* trends in the US foreign policy. For instance, the role of the
US in:
1. Post WWII Europe and Japan,
2. Korea,
3. The Suez Canal conflict (1956),
4. Vietnam,
5. Latin America at large (please give Guatemala and Panama some emphasis),
6. The Arab-Israeli conflict,
8. The Iraq-Iran war,
9. The Gulf war,
etc..
In short, the US foreign policy, past and present, appears to follow a trend
consistent with the principles explained by Kennan (i.e., Kennan did not
propose these guidelines, they were de-facto policy in place already), and
which [the trend] is also consistent with what Chomsky calls the "Fifth
Freedom" and "Bad Apple Theory".
If you add to this argument that this is the "rational" approach to take for
a superpower interested in maintaining its dominant position, then you would
have all of the elements necessary for conviction; a motif, a plan, a weapon,
and supporting evidence.
> According to some, traditionalism, modernism, and postmodernism in many ways
> characterize the current state of the world order. Some regard the
> ideological rift between the west and Islam as a manifestation of the
> tension between traditionalism and modernism. [ ... ]
Thanks for the explanation and the reference. Now I can answer the question
you initially raised (I quote from your previous post):
You're bringing in a whole discussion here on traditionalism
and modernism (perhaps even post-modernism) and I think we
are approaching the same issue from different philosophical
viewpoints. I prefer to work within the existing
paradigm whereas you seemingly do not. Right?
I, personally, believe that most concepts, philosophical, political,
"scientific", or otherwise are merely models used to simplify reality for
human analysis and comprehension. Therefore, while such models (e.g.,
traditionalism, modernism, etc.) are useful for those experts investigating
an issue, they very poorly represent the continuous, highly variable, and
dynamic state of the world.
With this introduction, I would say NO, I am not approaching this issue from a
traditional point of view. I am more interested in the *application* of
knowledge than knowledge itself or its classification. As such, and in the
interest of objective thought (I have my limitations :), I find it more
appropriate to free my mind from the distractions of rigid definitions, to the
best of my ability. In fact, I was very pleased to read some of your own posts
touching on the vague notion of identity. When people take this attitude, it
opens up an entire world of rational, civilized, thought provoking, and
productive discussions. Unfortunately, it is also, I found, very confusing to
many people (my personal experience includes my being called: religious
fanatic, islamists, atheist!, arabist, hypocrite, patriot! idiot, scholar!,
criminal, humanist!, etc.).
Therefore, on the application of knowledge, there is little point arguing
that human civilization has always been propelled by conflict; a continuous
flux of powers locked in mortal competition (mostly driven by economics). A
person's own preference and actions are often influenced by which group
he/she associates with. And, a person's aspirations are often towards
improving the well being of his own "circle" of definition; this certainly
applies to me and is the domain in which I prefer to apply knowledge. I put
quotes on the word circle because, to me, it is not a circle at all but
rather a hyper-spheroidal (if one can immagine what that is) region of
interest most intense at the center where I am located with my wife, kids and
family, and fading [the interest that is] radially outwards to include the
Tasmanian Devils in Australia. I believe this model also applies, perhaps
subconsciously, to others.
What a lunatic you might say :), so let me put some of this fuzzy logic in
concrete terms:
When I say I am proud of my nationality and my country, and would like to
distance myself from the ineptness and chaos of Arab politics, I am a patriot.
When I say I am an Arab proud of my heritage, feel close to my fellow Arabs
and their concerns, feel that we share a common destiny, and advocate closer
ties with others sharing my concerns to create a critical mass, I am an
arabist.
When I say that the oppression and exclusion of Islamists from political
participation is wrong, I am an islamist.
When I advocate a secular system of governance, or when I criticize the
Talibans, I am an atheist.
When I object to the roll-up of freedoms in Lebanon, or when I aspire for the
day Syria can leave Lebanon, I am a "Phalangist".
When I suggest that the Syrian presence in Lebanon is now necessary to help
the country maintain its stability and stand on its feet, I am a traitor and
a puppet.
When I support the Lebanese resistance in South Lebanon, or when I support
Iran in its struggle to break free from US hegemony, I am a Hizbollah (see,
but I'm not even Shiite :).
But when I call for amnesty and protection for the frustrated SLA membership,
or when I applaud the current reforms in Iran, I am a humanist and a
modernist.
When I say rock mining and incinerators are necessary utilities for
development, I am an irresponsible anti-environmentalist.
But when I am called upon to clean up the mess, I am a professional
environmental engineer!
I think you got the gist of it :)
Regards,
Mohamad.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
TahaK
been extremely busy for the last few days.
I want to respond to several points in your Fri, Jul 17, 1998 post having
message ID <6onnqe$pka$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>.
>I was
>alerting other readers who are unfamiliar with Chomsky to watch out for his
>rhetoric. He may have a large following but the majority of the educated
>world sees him as an educational extremist (oops - was that another
>generalization?!).
Fadia, one cannot base his opinion on that of the majority of the educated
world. One must think for himself; I look at the facts and form an opinion,
not look at at the polls then go with the majority. I choose to judge any
matter based on my personal understanding of it.
I find it unfair to ask people to look at the polls - for frankly who cares
what the majority thinks; what matters is what you as an individual think :-)
> but what bothers me about Chomsky's
>approach in understanding this relationship is that he endorses an academic
>STYLE that betrays the intellectual tradition.
So he dares to be different. Why should we enforce conservative values to his
ideas?
>>I do not think it is untrue. I have studied some of Latin American
>history,
>>and I have concluded with certainty that the government of the U.S. has
>done
>>exactly what the article claims. There are history books, taught in
>American
>>colleges that have documented this stuff.
>
>
>Please, point me to these books if they are written by anyone other than
>Chomsky.
Try "A History of Latin America, Vol 2", 1996, by Benjamin Keen.
>There was no 'blue-print' for capitalism. It was not the 'US
>government' who did what you are speaking about in Latin America, rather it
>was a handful of money-wielding barrons who exploited those countries for
>their resources and lobbied successfully for some elements of the US
>government to support them.
The money-wielding barrons undoubtedly include American corporations ranging
from fruit growing to oil mining, and even senators who had stocks in some of
these corporations; they took advantage of the mon-agricultural and
mono-mineral economies in Latin America. They also include bankers with great
wealth, who extended loans to Latin American countries and imposed harsh
conditions that led to lower minimum wage (There is a great example of this
from the mid-eighties in Mexico - it's in the book I referenced above).
But the government of the US has actively pursued the "protection" of these
special interests. The CIA has had a hand in the launching or supression of
virtually every revolt and every coup that shifted the balance of power in
favor of American business in Latin America. Check out the book.
>No elements of opposition came from EITHER
>side.
Maybe there was no elemet of opposition on the American side for the American
government was all for it, and the American people are kept in the dark. But
there has been plenty of opposition from the Latin American countries. The US
however has continually sponsored Latin leaders who worked for US interest
regardless of whether they were democratic or dictatorial.
> Chomsky takes any and all complex issues and
>simplifies them to American imperialism.
I am sorry Fadia, but American imperialism does exist. When it comes to
foreign policy, the US government does not seem so accountable to the American
public; most of what they do is done secretly any way and it is justified with
"National Security" - most Americans don't question this.
>>Did you know that the developed countries make up only 20% of the world
>>population but use 80% of its resources?
>
>Of course - this is the whole purpose of politics and the reason I study it-
>to address this inequality and ameliorate it. Not just to point fingers at
>the United States and lead people to believe that they comprise that entire
>80 percent!
Certainly not, but the US is the world leader; Don't forget that the US already
kicked the butts of the colonial English and Spanish long ago; and has since
been the #1 imperialist power in the world.
Again, I am not anti-American. I respect the political values of the American
people and I find nothing more equitable than the American constitution and
nothing more beautiful than the Declaration of Independence. But when it comes
to foreign policy, these things don't apply; what does apply is greed, deceit,
force and gunboat diplomacy.
>>Have you any idea how many millions around the world starve to death so
>that
>>the average American can live at the current living standards?
>
>There you go finger pointing again.
I am not poinint fingers. I am not saying the Americans are causing the
starvation. I am merely making a statement of economics because if you take
the extra resources wasted by Americans you can feed the hungry of the world.
>There are parts of the developed and
>developing world that consume more than do the Americans (China for
>example).
China should be consuming more than the US. China's population is about 5
times that of the US. But the US most certainly consumes more resouces than
China. And I am not talking just food. I am talking food, raw materials,
petroleum, etc.
>The point is, the greater part of the world is consuming at the
>expense of the other part. This needs to be addressed in sustainable
>development policies
Agreed, but the US is doing little about this within the US. They only promote
sustainable development among third world countries.
>in the policies and practices of the world bank, the
>IMF,
Here you mention two entities I have only suspicion for. The World Bank is
responsible for the deforestation of large areas of the rain forest i Brazil.
Over the year it has extended loans to companies who are actively destroying
the forest knowing that they are doing so. The World Bank is responsible for
many disasters that result from unethical corporation industrializing a country
while destroying its eco systems (India is a prime example). You see all they
care about is the return on their investment.
As for the IMF, they are in my opinion a great evil. In 1986, Mexico's
national debt reached $100 billion. Mexico was granted a $3.9 billion loan by
the IMF. Here is a quote from the book "A History of Latin America" that I
have cited above:
"The IMF loan was, of course, subject to the usual conditions: Mexico must
accept certain austerity measures - reduction of subsidies, restraints on wage
increases, and other economies that were bound to hit Mexico's poor the
hardest.
"The drain of billions of dollars to service the foreign debt, coupled with the
plunge of oil prices ad the effects of the IMF-imposed austerity program, had
disastrous economic consequences for Mexico. Many businesses, unable to obtain
loans from state banks, had to close their doors. High unemploymet ad
inflation (for the first 9 months of 1986 the inflation rate stood at about 104
percent) sharply reduced purchasing power and forced many industries to shut
down or cut production, resulting in more unemployement."
Of course it is true that the leaders in Mexico are themselves corrupt, and
have a great blame to bear, but the IMF capitalizes on this corruption. Note
that recently the IMF moved in on Indonesia with a loan with some harsh
conditions as well. I wait to see what happens next to Indonesia - I don't
think it will be a pretty picture.
>>Did you know that the U.S. has used gunboat diplomacy over the last 150
>years
>>to control, subdue and exploit the resources and labor of Latin American
>>countries while keeping their people largely poor and uneducated?
>
>
>Talk about generalizations. It's not fair to take Chile and Mexico and
>apply that to the whole of Latin America, nor to the conduct of Americans in
>their foreign policy as a whole.
Oh no, it is not just Mexico and Chile - believe me. Look up the history of
the following countries and their relations with the US:
1. Panama: The Panama Canal. Bush sent an invasion force that destroyed the
Panamian army. Panama was due to take full control of the canal by the year
2000 (?), but now there is an excuse to prevent them from doing so since -
guess what? - they don't have an army to protect it.
2. Cuba: The Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba. Also the US-sponsored dictators
prior to Fidel Castro.
3. Haiti: Invasion by US in the 30's and appointment of a dictator for life,
Duvalier.
4. Guatemala: President Arbenz wanted to expropriate US banana plantations and
land reform. CIA worked against him.
5. Nicaragua.
The list goes on and on. There is not a single Latin American country that has
not been influenced badly by American foreign policy.
>Correct me if I'm being presumptuous, but I'm sure you think the American
>media is 'brainwashing' Americans because it is owned primarily by Jewish
>people.
I do not know how you've come to this presumption. Look, the concern of jewish
organizations in the US is that of jewish interests.
The news media does more brain-washing than you think, and it is not to my
knowledge controlled by Jews.
>There is plenty
>of room for diluting CNN and other news sources; besides, the majority of
>people to whom you are referring don't watch the news and don't care about
>Amerian foreign policy
The majority of the people do watch the news, but American foreign policy is
not discussed much in the news. It is only referred to in terms of promoting
democracy to other countries, and fighting tyrants like Saddam. The American
public are pinned to the TV set every day and they watch the news about crime,
theft, floods, fires, etc. 90% of the news is bad news and it is inwardly,
i.e., looks only at what is hapenning to Americans. They cover very little of
good news although there is much of it every day and they only show you the
disasters and wars that occur in other countries. For instance they rarely
menton Lebanon uless something really bad happens there. To the Americans,
then Lebanon is but a place of trouble. If this is not brain-washing then I
don't know what is.
>The target audience is normally educated,
>middle-class Americans who are just as capable of determining whether or not
>they are being brainwashed.
No way. The educated, middle-class Americans are more brain-washed than the
rest because they watch and read more news. Most are convinced of the "good"
role their government plays in policing the world, keeping the tyrants out and
spreadg democracy, when the truth is as I have laid out above.
>there is plenty of space
>in the American media for opposition and counter-opposition. CNN and
>America are not synonymous.
No but they both work for the same interest groups.
>However, might I draw your attention to the
>ridiculous media-government relationship in Lebanon. LBC used to be the
>best source for everything Lebanese and it epitomized the return of Lebanon.
>Now it is subordinated to Future TV (Syrian) as is the whole of Lebanese
>media.
I thought we were talking about US foreign policy.
>That's right and you've just hit the nail on the head. Who are the first,
>second, and third parties? Do you think the Arabs have sat idly by as
>American imperialism passed them by?
No, but again, you have selfish oppressive leaders who want to be in power and
stay in power until the day they die. They rely on US protection or loans to
stay in power. So the US can choose who stays and who goes. Why did they
leave Saddam in power? They could have taken him out, tried him for crimes
against humanity (namely the gassing of the kurds), but no! They left him
there, because they want him there. They gave some support to the kurds to
revolt then left them alone in the battlefield. I conclude that they need to
have an enemy so they justify the need for their policing activity in the
world, and I conclude that they don't give a damn about the Iraqi population be
it Arab or Kurds - they are only serving their own interest.
>Recall that during the
>slave trade (late 19th century) fellow Africans exploited their own for
>pesonal gain? And for arguments sake, how would you characterize the whole
>episode with Lawrence of Arabia (the non-romanticized version)? I am NOT
>drawing parallels here, nor am I condoning the slave trade, I'm just trying
>to point out that there always exist two sides to a story that we should
>never ignore.
>
You are right. There can be even more than two sides. But there is always the
truth. And the truth is that man is basically good. Most people are going
about doing their business in order to survive and some even try to better
mankind in general. There are a few who will not let the rest of us live in
peace. They create war and they try to conntrol ad oppress the rest of us.
These few include the dictators, the corrupt politicians, the greedy interest
groups, the greedy bankers who care less for the human population, etc.
>>Money is power. Power corrupts, and absulote power corrupts absolutely.
>
>That is one air-tight formula!! Really, is there no room for anything other
>than 'absolute' where money and power are concerned? Perhaps your formula
>would hold true in parts of the Arab world, but less so in democratic countr
>ies.
Take a few rotten individuals and give them access to all the money they can
use in the world. See the result - or should I say look around?
>>The only saving grace is that we still have our freedom of speech in the
>U.S.
>>This is the only weapon we have left to stop this insanity. If it is taken
>>away from us, it will be over.
>
>You also have freedom of action. Freedom of speech means nothing without
>freedom of action.
You can use freedom of speech to educate people so thay they vote for the right
cause, that is the first thing to do: Educate the people and make them aware of
what is happening around them. Most people are willing to do something about
an evil once they underestand it.
>If the arab world wants to ameliorate its position, then
>its OWN governments need to remove their own Absolute power and allow
>freedom of association to take place.
You are absolutely right. I do not disagree with you one bit on this point.
>Look at Lebanon, who would have
>thought that its citizens would be less free after the war than they were
>before it!
I certainly did not expect it to end this way. As much as I don't like it, it
is far better than the bloody war. The Lebanese must now work together to
bring back freedom to ALL Lebanese, and true sovereignty to ALL Lebanon. As
long as we maintain separate "camps" and point fingers at one another as
"syrian puppets", "israeli traitors" or what have you, we will not achieve the
dream of a peaceful prosperous and independent Lebanon.
Taha
Mohamad Hamzeh
TahaK wrote in message <199807252039...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
[article deleted]
A tour de force Taha. Gosh, reading your language I was not sure if I posted
the article without me realising it! A scary though :).
Really well thought out and substantiated.
Chapeau.
TahaK
Fad
My apologies for the delay, but I'm in the process of writing a response to
your wonderful post. Thanks for the interesting points. I think your
reduction of Lebanese culture and identity more generally was brilliant and
very thoughtful. Your 'fuzzy' logic is crystal clear and most appreciated.
In fact, these are just the sort of issues I discuss over coffee with
friends. I'll try to write back soon.
Fadia
mha...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6pal58$dv0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Fad
Sorry for the delay. I'm in the process of writing back. Please bear with
me.
Regards,
Fadia
Fad
Hi Taha,
I wanted to respond to a couple of the points you made in your latest post.
Thanks for the really interesting remarks.
>Fadia, one cannot base his opinion on that of the majority of the educated
>world. One must think for himself; I look at the facts and form an
opinion, not look at at the polls then go with the majority. I choose to
judge any
>matter based on my personal understanding of it. I find it unfair to ask
people to look at the polls - for frankly who cares
>what the majority thinks; what matters is what you as an individual think
:-)
Absolutely. I don't think opinion polls are a good measure of what the
majority may or maynot be feeling; however, I think various schools of
thought - like conservative vs. leftist etc. are more influential in
determining how people feel about certain issues. Chomsky is one of those
thinkers who has a big influence (at least in the academic world) on how
people think. I suppose I think he is an extremist because of his approach,
but nonetheless, his approach had a huge impact on me in second year
university. The problem is, because he's somewhat of an extreme leftist, I
think he has little hope of melding his views into mainstream thought. I
suppose I'm a little weary of his methods and as such, I fear that he may be
breeding extremists. On the more positive side, I don't know anyone who I
went to school with that didn't find him to be one of the most influential
authors they came across. He made everyone take a second look at the impact
of the media in the gulf war. Soooo, I may be coming off as rather torn
because I am. I am afraid of the negative effects chomsky's approach may
have on those outside mainstream politics, but I think he is still a
necessary aspect of any democracy so to speak. He's the critical voice that
should never fade away.
>So he dares to be different. Why should we enforce conservative values to
his ideas?
I've been spending the last year studying leftist scholarly thought and I
guess I've had my fill. I agree with you to the extent that there is so
much to
learn outside of the conservative world that is not initially apparent to
the naked eye, but
I would prefer to take leftist teachings and use them in the conservative
world
for positive purposes instead of remaining in the leftist camp without any
hope of joining mainstream thought. What I mean is that I think academics
like chomsky are better off endorsing their views in the conservative world
and putting them to work than remaining simply in the realm of social
activism. If he has to put his ideas to work in a sea of conservative
values, then so be it, but I think that's the only way a person like chomsky
will successfully endorse his ideas.
>Try "A History of Latin America, Vol 2", 1996, by Benjamin Keen.
Thanks.
>The money-wielding barrons undoubtedly include American corporations
ranging from fruit growing to oil mining, and even senators who had stocks
in some
of these corporations; they took advantage of the mon-agricultural and
>mono-mineral economies in Latin America. They also include bankers with
great wealth, who extended loans to Latin American countries and imposed
harsh
>conditions that led to lower minimum wage (There is a great example of this
>from the mid-eighties in Mexico - it's in the book I referenced above).
The thing is, I don't think this was an entirely american induced problem.
In Mexico, for example, as in most Latin American countries, the severe debt
crisis in the 70s forced external action. I don't disagree that external
interference was probably more detrimental, especially in the 'disciplinary'
action that was taken, but I think the spending habits of some of these
governments played a large role in the mess they ended up with.
>But the government of the US has actively pursued the "protection" of these
>special interests. The CIA has had a hand in the launching or supression
of virtually every revolt and every coup that shifted the balance of power
in
>favor of American business in Latin America. Check out the book.
Under Regan, yes. Granada and Panama have the american flag written all over
them. You're absolutely right.
ANyone who argues otherwise would be lying.
>Maybe there was no elemet of opposition on the American side for the
American government was all for it, and the American people are kept in the
dark.
But there has been plenty of opposition from the Latin American countries.
The
US however has continually sponsored Latin leaders who worked for US
interest
>regardless of whether they were democratic or dictatorial.
I know...it reached a rather pathetic point with the murder of the chilean
leader in the 1970s (sorry I can't think of his name).
>> Chomsky takes any and all complex issues and
>>simplifies them to American imperialism.
>
>I am sorry Fadia, but American imperialism does exist. When it comes to
>foreign policy, the US government does not seem so accountable to the
American public; most of what they do is done secretly any way and it is
justified
with "National Security" - most Americans don't question this.
>[...] but the US is the world leader; Don't forget that the US
already kicked the butts of the colonial English and Spanish long ago; and
has
since been the #1 imperialist power in the world.
I know, I know...I don't think American imperialism doesn't exist but I
think there are so many other variables out there besides US imperialism
that can't explain US behaviour in the narrow terms of their hegemonic role.
There is a lot of discussion going on now (in academic circles) about the
fact that the US is not the superpower it once was and it is simply one
among many actors on the world stage. In its historic role, American
imperialism was certainly an influential force, but today there
>Again, I am not anti-American. I respect the political values of the
American people and I find nothing more equitable than the American
constitution and
>nothing more beautiful than the Declaration of Independence. But when it
comes to foreign policy, these things don't apply; what does apply is greed,
deceit,force and gunboat diplomacy.
>Agreed, but the US is doing little about this within the US. They only
promote sustainable development among third world countries.
You're right, they should be promoting sustainable development better within
their own borders first and then acting in the interest of sustainable
development abroad.
>>in the policies and practices of the world bank, the
>>IMF,
>
>Here you mention two entities I have only suspicion for. The World Bank is
>responsible for the deforestation of large areas of the rain forest i
Brazil. Over the year it has extended loans to companies who are actively
destroyin the forest knowing that they are doing so. The World Bank is
responsible
for many disasters that result from unethical corporation industrializing a
country while destroying its eco systems (India is a prime example). You
see all
they care about is the return on their investment.
Yes, I think the philosophy guiding world bank and IMF development policies
should better reflect the needs of their target populations. I didn't say I
had any high regard for these agencies either; what I did say was that they
should be focussing on ameliorating the problems of inequity that we are
talking about. Currently, their philosophy is guided by the logic of free
market economics and that is a dangerous philosophical approach to be
taking. In a perfect world, human rights would be the primary criteria for
guiding missions.
>"The IMF loan was, of course, subject to the usual conditions: Mexico must
>accept certain austerity measures - reduction of subsidies, restraints on
wage increases, and other economies that were bound to hit Mexico's poor the
>hardest.
This is what I mean by the free market ideology (improperly) guiding
development policies.
>"The drain of billions of dollars to service the foreign debt, coupled with
>the plunge of oil prices ad the effects of the IMF-imposed austerity
program,
>had disastrous economic consequences for Mexico. Many businesses, unable
to
>obtain loans from state banks, had to close their doors. High unemploymet
ad
>inflation (for the first 9 months of 1986 the inflation rate stood at about
>104 percent) sharply reduced purchasing power and forced many industries to
>shut down or cut production, resulting in more unemployement."
>Of course it is true that the leaders in Mexico are themselves corrupt, and
>have a great blame to bear, but the IMF capitalizes on this corruption.
I don't know that the IMF capitalizes on the corruption, but I do think that
they have few mechanisms in place to monitor whether and how reforms are
being implemented. Russia is going through a similar problem, but the IMF
has been holding back on the loan for almost two years. The IMF withheld
the loan (the G-7, Paris Club, and London Club stepped in its place) until
Russia reformed its tax code and clamped down on crime. It was only until
recently that the IMF granted Russia the 10B loan in exchange for the hope
that reforms would be implemented. I think the IMF can only go so far in
enforcing and monitoring whether the institutions have been put in place to
ensure compliance. I still disagree that the IMF capitalizes on this in any
country. If you think about it, the loan is made up of creditors, probably
US, Japanese, German, and British. The crime in Russia has been so bad, for
example, that Americans have been pulling out and investing elsewhere. Part
of the reason Russia couldn't secure its loan was because the foreign
investment needed to help pay off the loan just wasn't there. This is what
I mean when I say there are so many factors at play other than american
imperialism that we might not notice at first glance.
>that recently the IMF moved in on Indonesia with a loan with some harsh
>conditions as well. I wait to see what happens next to Indonesia - I don't
>think it will be a pretty picture.
For sure, but you know the root of the indonesian meltdown was pure
corruption. Especially after the whole fiasco with the so called changeover
to habibi, the disciplinary measures international creditors are taking will
probably move indonesia from 'tiger' to kitten. But did you see how quickly
the domino effect came about during the period of the economic crash? The
scary thing is, it is just this sort of thing that has a lot less to do with
american imperialism than it does with the uncontrollable movements of the
international economic market. A little corruption here, hardly any
governmental monitorying there, and we have ourselves an economic crisis
that requires another bail out.
>>>Did you know that the U.S. has used gunboat diplomacy over the last 150
>>years to control, subdue and exploit the resources and labor of Latin
American
>>>countries while keeping their people largely poor and uneducated?
Yep.
>Oh no, it is not just Mexico and Chile - believe me. Look up the history
of the following countries and their relations with the US:
>1. Panama: The Panama Canal. Bush sent an invasion force that destroyed
the Panamian army. Panama was due to take full control of the canal by the
year 2000 (?), but now there is an excuse to prevent them from doing so
since -
>guess what? - they don't have an army to protect it.
>2. Cuba: The Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba. Also the US-sponsored dictators
>prior to Fidel Castro.
>3. Haiti: Invasion by US in the 30's and appointment of a dictator for
life, Duvalier.
>4. Guatemala: President Arbenz wanted to expropriate US banana plantations
and land reform. CIA worked against him.
>5. Nicaragua.
>The list goes on and on. There is not a single Latin American country that
has not been influenced badly by American foreign policy.
I think I should read this book you've recommended. You're so right about
all of those places, but the thing is, I'm sure you couldn't locate a single
place on the globe that hasn't been touched by either american, french, or
British imperialism. The question was the stronger prevailed and the weak
unfortunately did not.
>I do not know how you've come to this presumption. Look, the concern of
jewish organizations in the US is that of jewish interests.
Sorry for the false generalization. I think I've been getting so much slack
from Golani and Maan that I forgot my manners and went ahead and made a
false (and stupid) presumption. My apologies if I have offended.
>The majority of the people do watch the news, but American foreign policy
is not discussed much in the news. It is only referred to in terms of
promoting democracy to other countries, and fighting tyrants like Saddam.
The
American public are pinned to the TV set every day and they watch the news
about
crime, theft, floods, fires, etc. 90% of the news is bad news and it is
inwardly,
>i.e., looks only at what is hapenning to Americans. They cover very little
of
>good news although there is much of it every day and they only show you the
>disasters and wars that occur in other countries. For instance they rarely
>menton Lebanon uless something really bad happens there. To the Americans,
>then Lebanon is but a place of trouble. If this is not brain-washing then
I don't know what is.
Again, I can't argue with you here. I guess I'm giving the american public
the benefit of the doubt when I say they are capable of forming their own
opinions. I do think though that foreign issues have received a lot more
attention than they ever have in the past, probaly no coincidence since the
end of the cold war opened up a whole new world for american media.
>No way. The educated, middle-class Americans are more brain-washed than
>the rest because they watch and read more news. Most are convinced of the
>"good" role their government plays in policing the world, keeping the
tyrants out
>and spreadg democracy, when the truth is as I have laid out above.
It depends if you're talking about time magazine being read by a wall street
banker or the NYT being read by a Columbia professor. Both are probably
just as patriotic as the other, but one is probably more apt to decipher the
meaning of their government's role than is the other.
>No but they both work for the same interest groups.
Ya but I don't think those interest groups are that influential. THey can't
control everything that is said, heard and seen by the american public.
>I thought we were talking about US foreign policy.
We were. I was only making a footnote about the role of the media in
Lebanon and the sharp turn it has taken in recent years toward greater
censorship.
>
>
>No, but again, you have selfish oppressive leaders who want to be in power
and stay in power until the day they die. They rely on US protection or
loans
to stay in power. So the US can choose who stays and who goes. Why did
they
>leave Saddam in power? They could have taken him out, tried him for crimes
>against humanity (namely the gassing of the kurds), but no! They left him
>there, because they want him there. They gave some support to the kurds to
>revolt then left them alone in the battlefield. I conclude that they need
to have an enemy so they justify the need for their policing activity in the
>world, and I conclude that they don't give a damn about the Iraqi
population be it Arab or Kurds - they are only serving their own interest.
Yes, it serves american interests to keep saddam in place, only in the sense
that it reinforces their power on the world stage. But I don't think
keeping saddam where he was is driven entirely by US interests. The
repercussions to america for taking saddam out would have been harsh.
American foreign policy makers realize that the world is much more volatile
than it was before the end of the cold war, and this conscious decision to
leave saddam where he was reflects realistic and strategic thinking on the
part of americans. The sad outcome of this is the impact saddam continues
to have on the kurds and shiites etc., but I would argue that this is
entirely saddam's fault, not the fault of americans.
>You are right. There can be even more than two sides. But there is always
>the truth. And the truth is that man is basically good. Most people are
going
>about doing their business in order to survive and some even try to better
>mankind in general. There are a few who will not let the rest of us live
in peace. They create war and they try to conntrol ad oppress the rest of
us.
>These few include the dictators, the corrupt politicians, the greedy
interest groups, the greedy bankers who care less for the human population,
etc.
We are very much on the same wavelength here. But I have a question...do
you really think man is basically good or is he solitary, nasty, and brutish
(Hobbes)? I thought you would pick the latter but I do like the optimist in
you.
>Take a few rotten individuals and give them access to all the money they
can use in the world. See the result - or should I say look around?
Yes abuse happens and that's why institutions need to be put in place so
that there are mechanisms available to prevent this. Unfortunately I think
parliamentary democracy is the closest anyone has ever come. The
institution of the market, however, seems to be operating on a completely
different level. That was another footnote.
>You can use freedom of speech to educate people so thay they vote for the
right cause, that is the first thing to do: Educate the people and make them
aware of what is happening around them. Most people are willing to do
something
about an evil once they underestand it.
You're so right. I'm all for education, especially if it means
understanding someone or something that you wouldn't have previously touched
with a ten foot pole.
>I certainly did not expect it to end this way. As much as I don't like it,
it is far better than the bloody war. The Lebanese must now work together
to
>bring back freedom to ALL Lebanese, and true sovereignty to ALL Lebanon.
As long as we maintain separate "camps" and point fingers at one another as
>"syrian puppets", "israeli traitors" or what have you, we will not achieve
the dream of a peaceful prosperous and independent Lebanon.
Yep. I hope this situation won't characterize relations in Lebanon for
years to come; hopefully with some socializing education and a lot of
understanding we will be a step closer. Thanks for the great chat.
>Taha
Maan M. Hamze
Fad wrote in message <6pmcs3$f50$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>
>Sorry for the false generalization. I think I've been getting so much
slack
>from Golani and Maan that I forgot my manners and went ahead and made a
>false (and stupid) presumption. My apologies if I have offended.
Listen you idiot, the word slack does not even start to describe it if you
continue with your provocations. Second, the False and Stupid Presumption
is written all over your face. It is your middle name.
Third, you idiot, his name is Salvador Allende. Someone that your creepy
Academic nonsense will not even start to fathom his depth. sa7i7 innik
we7de bala 7aya.
Sorry Taha for this intrusion.
Maan
Fad
Maan M. Hamze wrote in message <#kCD8$ru9GA.307@upnetnews05>...
Fad
Hi Mohammed,
Is there any relation to Maan?
>[...] Nevertheless,the rational observer does not need such documents; one
needs only look at
>*persistent* trends in the US foreign policy. For instance, the role of the
>US in:
>1. Post WWII Europe and Japan,
>2. Korea,
>3. The Suez Canal conflict (1956),
>4. Vietnam,
>5. Latin America at large (please give Guatemala and Panama some emphasis),
>6. The Arab-Israeli conflict,
>8. The Iraq-Iran war,
>9. The Gulf war,
>etc..
>In short, the US foreign policy, past and present, appears to follow a
trend
>consistent with the principles explained by Kennan (i.e., Kennan did not
>propose these guidelines, they were de-facto policy in place already), and
>which [the trend] is also consistent with what Chomsky calls the "Fifth
>Freedom" and "Bad Apple Theory".
>
>I can't argue against you on any of these points. Yes, the US was
attempting to mainatain hegemony in all the regions it forcefully entered.
But I'm not talking about periods of crisis such as war but generally the
behaviour of countries on the other end of the diplomtic stick.
>I, personally, believe that most concepts, philosophical, political,
>"scientific", or otherwise are merely models used to simplify reality for
>human analysis and comprehension. Therefore, while such models (e.g.,
>traditionalism, modernism, etc.) are useful for those experts investigating
>an issue, they very poorly represent the continuous, highly variable, and
>dynamic state of the world.
That's so true, and I see why you put 'scientific' in quotes. I don't know
if you've read Mies and Shiva Ecofeminism, but it put the word scientific in
quotes for me. Regarding analytic models, I think they are useful insofar
as they serve the purpose of the person using them. For you, I would
imagine that any analytic construct developed around the notion of american
hegemony would be useful. Hegemonic theory, for example, would explain a
lot in terms of america's international role, especially from a political
economy perspective. Have you read any of stephen gill's work?
>With this introduction, I would say NO, I am not approaching this issue
from a
>traditional point of view. I am more interested in the *application* of
>knowledge than knowledge itself or its classification. As such, and in the
>interest of objective thought (I have my limitations :), I find it more
>appropriate to free my mind from the distractions of rigid definitions, to
the
>best of my ability. In fact, I was very pleased to read some of your own
posts
>touching on the vague notion of identity. When people take this attitude,
it
>opens up an entire world of rational, civilized, thought provoking, and
>productive discussions. Unfortunately, it is also, I found, very confusing
to
>many people (my personal experience includes my being called: religious
>fanatic, islamists, atheist!, arabist, hypocrite, patriot! idiot, scholar!,
>criminal, humanist!, etc.).
Thanks for the clarification. I'm through making presumptions on this
newsgroup...it landed into trouble one too many times.
>Therefore, on the application of knowledge, there is little point arguing
>that human civilization has always been propelled by conflict; a continuous
>flux of powers locked in mortal competition (mostly driven by economics). A
>person's own preference and actions are often influenced by which group
>he/she associates with. And, a person's aspirations are often towards
>improving the well being of his own "circle" of definition; this certainly
>applies to me and is the domain in which I prefer to apply knowledge. I put
>quotes on the word circle because, to me, it is not a circle at all but
>rather a hyper-spheroidal (if one can immagine what that is) region of
>interest most intense at the center where I am located with my wife, kids
and
>family, and fading [the interest that is] radially outwards to include the
>Tasmanian Devils in Australia. I believe this model also applies, perhaps
>subconsciously, to others.
Absolutely. I think you're saying that everyone must work within the
environment that they have been fashioned with, but that there are
limitations to everyone's circle. In this context, the overlap of circles
can be positive (for example racial tolerance, or it can be
negative...extreme nationalism).
I get the gist of it and I think it should be posted for all the newsgroup
to see.
Regards,
Fadia
Golani M Golani
Fad wrote:
> Maan, go away please.
This time I witness, you started . ya3ni ma tishki if he comes after you.
Fad
Golani, you missed what he wrote earlier - it was very bad. You can't say I
didn't ask politely :-)
Maan M. Hamze
Fad wrote in message <6pna66$ipu$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>Maan, go away please.
Ah...I see that you replied after all. Ok! No, Fadia, too late! I told
you that I leave you when I wish to, and I am going to pick on you when I
wish to. Have you wanted me to leave you alone, then you would not have
provoked me for no reason. You are an idiot. Do you like it like that.
For me to get into this thread and bahdleek ya mbahdalee. Ya bala sharaf.
Ya bala 7aya. Ya Waqi7a. Do you like it? You patronizing bitch. The way
you got between me and Nishee to tell me about my nonsense. I am going to
teach you the logic of the net ya waqe7a. So, you identify with Nishee eh.
Ah, tell me then who are those "leftist scholars" that you read. Which
school do they belong to. Hypocrit. Someone like you lacks any conviction
to draw any lessons beyond memorizing textbooks. You are Miss Textbook
herself. You wanna learn eh. Tell me what would Raymond Williams say about
that? You got it into that ya waqe7a. For example, what is your critique
of Nishee's latest rabid nonsense here. Do you identify with it? This must
follow some leftist tradition that I am not aware of. Something so subtly
reflective that I missed altogether. Do you think that Althusser would have
identified with it too ya bala marba. Or maybe Lefebvre would have saluted
you for it ya 7ayawene.
Maan
Maan M. Hamze
Fad wrote in message <6pnc0s$ma8$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>mha...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
><6pal58$dv0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>Hi Mohammed,
>Is there any relation to Maan?
You have not answered ya 7ayawene? Any relation to Reve? Having
established your intellectual ties with Nishee!
Maan
Maan M. Hamze
Fad wrote in message <6podrl$n6d$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>Golani, you missed what he wrote earlier - it was very bad. You can't say
I
>didn't ask politely :-)
Wilik eh, I'll stop when I see fit ya 7ayawene. You stupid patronizing
bitch.
Maan
TahaK
Thank you for the favorable response.
I want you to know that I agree with you that there is wide-scale corruption
within the Latin American countries. The way I see it, there are bad guys on
the inside and bad guys on the outside. And mostly they help each other rob
the people of their wealth and suck their blood to death.
In fact, if the bad guys on the inside weren't there, these countries could
really flourish and prosper. The same applies to Arab countries, no doubt.
I'll give you an example. Mexico in its entire history had only two presidents
whom I am fond of. The first was Benito Juarez. He led the fight against the
French led by Napolione the Third. He defeated the French and executed there
Austrian monarch Maximilian. He became president for one term following this
victory (1860's) and did a lot of good things for the country.
the second good Mexican president was Cardenas. He was president in the
1830's. He some major agrarian reform. During his term, more land was given
to the people then in any other term. He delivered a heavy blow to
neo-colonialism. He nationalized the oil industry which was previously owned
by Americans. He improved worker conditions, and reduced the national debt.
The US did not really like him :)
In both cases Mexico did very well. But in each case, subsequent presidents
screwed things up royally and set Mexico back. But as long as it is to the US
benefit, they were supported by the US.
Taha
Fighter of Ignorance, Intolerance and Hatred.