Globalization

Chomsky gave another (long) talk in India on November 10, 2001 (found at FrontLine − The Hindu). In it, he discusses globalization, Western hegemony, militarization of space, state-supported corporations and other topics he’s discussed before. Some will be familiar, but most of the material is discussed in considerable depth and there is even the spark of occasional emotion (instead of the jaded seeming-complacency that some find so off-putting about him). There’s much focus on the current Western approach to running the world and the seeming fact the the U.S. is well-aware of the disastrous ramifications of its actions:

<q>The U.S. intelligence community [has] several scenarios. The most optimistic is that “globalisation” will proceed on course: “its evolution will be rocky, marked by chronic financial volatility and a widening economic divide.’’ That means less convergence, less globalisation in the technical sense but more globalisation in the doctrinally preferred sense. And financial volatility of course means slower growth and more crisis. … I’ve already noted that military planners are adopting the same projections and they explain forthrightly that the overwhelming resources of violence, which are to be space- based in the new era, will be required to keep the growing numbers of have-nots under control.</q>

Once again, he expresses amazement at the sophistication of the propaganda being used:

<q>[Globalization is] designed primarily in the interest of private concentrations of power, and the interests of everyone else are incidental. With that terminology in place, the great mass of people around the world who object to these programmes can be labelled ‘anti-globalisation,’ as they always are. The force of ideology and power is such that they even accept that ridiculous designation. … It’s the way you’d expect a dedicated propaganda system to work, but it’s a little surprising as it’s so powerful that even its victims accept it. They shouldn’t. No sane person is opposed to globalisation. The question is what form it takes.</q>

There is also a lengthy Q & A session. In response to a question about Clinton’s recent comments on the U.S. government’s behavior, he points out the bombing of Sudan (orchestrated by Clinton) and the following policy in Israel:

<q>The current intifada, the fighting broke out on September 30th, 2000. In the next few days, U. S. helicopters flown by Israeli pilots attacked apartment complexes and other civilian targets, killing dozens of people. … What did Clinton do about it? Well, on October 3rd, 2000, two days after this, he made a deal — the biggest deal in a decade — to send Israel advanced military helicopters. That was his contribution. … One of Bush’s early acts, when he came into office, was to arrange to send a new shipment of the most advanced attack helicopters in the U. S. arsenal.</q>

So much for Bush’s ‘universal law that murder is evil’.

The Essentials of Post Cold-War Deterrence mentioned in Chomsky’s speech, wherein the U.S. plan of attack is laid out during the Clinton Administration to show that:

<q>…Our national persona must be irrational and vindictive…otherwise people might not be afraid enough to do what we tell them to do … and you regularly have to demonstrate this…</q>

has a further good writeup and collection of articles at The Nautilus Institute − Nuclear Strategy Project and is in PDF format here.