Found this on another BBS, looked interesting. Some of you may agree, some may not. I'm sorta half way but am as usual paranoid of whatever I read no matter who writes it. So am I Conservative, liberal? Hell if I know...just read. I'll leave the arguing to you heavyweights. American Virtue and "Anti-Americanism" The press sometimes will criticize US foreign policy as "ill-defined," or "overextended," but never as lacking in virtuous intent. To maintain this image, the news media say little about the US role in financing, equipping, training, advising, and directing the repressive military apparatus that exists in US client states around the world, little about the mass killings of entire villages, the paramilitary death squads, the torture and disappearances. The brutality does not go entirely unnoticed. But press reports are usually sporadic and sparse, rarely doing justice to the endemic nature of the repression, rarely, if ever, showing how the repression functions to protect the few rich from the many poor and how it is linked to US policy. Thus when Time magazine devoted a full-page story to torture throughout the world, the US came out looking like Snow White. Following the official line, the national media will readily deny that the United States harbors aggressive intentions against other governments, and will dismiss such charges by them as just so much "anti-American" propaganda and as evidence of their aggressive intent toward us. Or the media will condone the aggressive actions as necessary for our national security or implicitly accept them as a given reality needing no justification. For instance, in 1961 Cuban right-wing emigres, trained and financed by the CIA, invaded Cuba, in the words of one of their leaders, to overthrow Castro and set up "a provisional government" that "will restore all properties to the rightful owners." Reports of the impending invasion circulated widely throughout Central America, but in the United States, stories were suppressed by the Associated Press and United Press International and by all the major networks, newspapers, and news-weeklies. In an impressively unanimous act of self-censorship, some seventy-five publications rejected a report offered by the editors of the Nation in 1960 detailing US preparations for the invasion. Fidel Castro's accusation that the United States was planning to invade Cuba was dismissed by the New York Times as "shrill... anti-American propaganda," and by Time as Castro's "continued tawdry little melodrama of invasion." When Washington broke diplomatic relations with Cuba in January 1961 (after Castro started nationalizing US corporate investments and instituting social programs for the poor), the Times explained, "What snapped U.S. patience was a new propaganda offensive from Havana charging that the U.S. was plotting an 'imminent invasion' of Cuba." Yet, after the Bay of Pigs invasion proved to be something more than a figment of Castro's anti-Americanism, there was almost a total lack of media criticism regarding its moral and legal impropriety. Instead, editorial commentary referred to the disappointing "fiasco" and "disastrous attempt." Revelations about the full extent of US involvement, including the CIA training camp in Guatemala, began to appear during the post-invasion period in the same press that earlier had denied such things existed. These retrospective admissions of US involvement were discussed unapologetically and treated as background for further moves against Cuba. Perspectives that did not implicitly assume that US policy was well intentioned and supportive of democratic interests were excluded from media commentary. ***** The Nonexistence of Imperialism While Washington policy-makers argue that US overseas intervention is necessary to protect "our interests," the press seldom asks what "our interests" are and who among us is actually served by them. As we have seen in regard to Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and other cases, "defending US interests" usually means imposing a client-state status on nations that might strike a course independent of, and even inimical to, global corporate investment. This is rarely the reason given in the national media. Rather, it is almost always a matter of "stopping aggression," or "protecting our national security," or punishing leaders who are said to be dictators, drug dealers, or state terrorists. References may occasionally appear in the press about the great disparities of wealth and poverty in Third World nations, but US corporate imperialism is never treated as one of the causes of such poverty. Indeed, it seems the US press has never heard of US imperialism. Imperialism, the process by which the dominant interests of one country expropriate the land, labor, markets, capital, and natural resources of another, and neo-imperialism, the process of expropriation that occurs without direct colonization, are both unmentionables. Anyone who might try to introduce the subject would be quickly dismissed as "ideological. Media people, like mainstream academics and others, might recognize that the US went through a brief imperialist period around the Spanish-American War. And they would probably acknowledge that ;there once existed ancient Roman imperialism and nineteenth-century British imperialism and certainly twentieth-century "Soviet imperialism." But not many, if any, mainstream editors and commentators would consider the existence of US imperialism (or neo-imperialism), let alone entertain criticisms of it. Media commentators, like political leaders, treat corporate investment as a solution to Third World poverty and indebtedness rather than as a cause. What US corporations do in the Third World is a story largely untold. In tiny El Salvador alone, US Steel, Alcoa, Westinghouse, United Brands, Standard Fruit, Del Monte, Cargill, Procter & Gamble, Chase Manhattan, Bank of America, First National Bank, Texaco, and at least twenty-five other major companies reap big profits by paying Salvadoran workers subsistence wages to produce everything from aluminum products and baking powder to transformers, computers, and steel pipes- almost all for export markets and all done without minimum-wage laws, occupational safety, environmental controls, and other costly hindrances to capital accumulation. The profits reaped from the exploitation of a cheap and oppressed labor market in an impoverished country like El Salvador are much higher than would be procured in stateside industries. Of the hundreds of reports about El Salvador in the major broadcast and print media in recent years, few, if any, treat the basic facts about US economic imperialism. Nor does the press say much about El Salvador's internal class structure, in which a small number of immensely rich families own all the best farmland and receive 50 percent of the nation's income. Nor is much said about how US military aid is used to maintain this privileged class system. What capitalism as a transnational system does to impoverish people throughout the world is simply not a fit subject for the US news media. Instead, poverty is treated as its own cause. We are asked to believe that Third World people are poor because that has long been their condition; they live in countries that are overpopulated, or there is something about their land, culture, or temperament that makes them unable to cope. Subsistence wages, forced displacement from homesteads, the plunder of natural resources, the lack of public education and public health programs, the suppression of independent labor unions and other democratic forces by US-supported police states, such things-if we were to believe the way they remain untreated in the media-have nothing much to do with poverty in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. ***** Doing the Third World Despite a vast diversity of cultures, languages, ethnicity, and geography, the nations of Latin America, Africa, and Asia, with some exceptions, show striking similarities in the economic and political realities they endure. Lumped together under the designation of the "Third World," they are characterized by (1) concentrated ownership of land, labor, capital, natural resources, and technology in the hands of rich persons and giant multinational corporations; (2) suppressive military forces financed, trained, equipped, and assisted by the United States-their function being not to protect the populace from foreign invasion but to protect the small wealthy owning class and foreign investors from the populace; (3) the population, aside from a small middle class, endure impoverishment, high illiteracy rates, malnutrition, wretched housing, and nonexistent human services. Because of this widespread poverty, these nations have been mistakenly designated as "underdeveloped" and "poor" when in fact they are overexploited and the source of great wealth, their resources and cheap labor serving to enrich investors. Only their people remain poor. For the better part of a century now, successive administrations in the United States have talked about bringing democracy and economic advancement to the "less-developed" peoples of the Third World, when in fact, the overriding goal of US policy toward these countries has been to prevent alternate social orders from arising, ones that would use the economy for purposes of social development and for the needs of the populace, rather than for the capital accumulation process. The purpose of US policy has been not to defend democracy, in fact, democracies- as in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1965), and Chile (1973)- are regularly overthrown if they attempt to initiate serious economic reforms that tamper with the existing class structure. The US goal is to make the world safe for multinational corporate exploitation, to keep things as they are while talking about the need for change and reform. In all this, the US corporate-owned news media have bee, intentionally or not, actively complicit.
Interesting. It goes a little farther than I would and uses a little more inflammatory language than I would, but a many people outside the US would see a lot of truth in this. Where did you find it?
Haven should love this article! I agree with much of it -- except the economic imperialism portion where I believe US corporations in foreign countries do help speed their economic growth and that paying those low wages is not a bad thing, but that's another topic. US foreign policy has always been cloaked in "doing good/right" while its really "doing what's best for us". That's one of the reasons some of these countries hate our foriegn policy so much (just as we hate theirs). However, I don't think this is unique to the US -- every country is going to make themselves look like the good guys -- and I don't think the media is really to blame for not presenting that viewpoint. Their job, ultimately, is to turn a profit and gain viewers. American viewers aren't going to be interested in hearing our own country as a whole get criticized, so that's not likely to happen much. In the past this was impossible, but in the information world, it's up to us as individuals to get a balanced viewpoint by balancing our information with outside sources. This is one of my big problems with US coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's not balanced, we automatically accept Israeli coverage, reject any Palestinian coverage, so Israel turns out to be the good guys no matter what. (Before this thread gets on a tangent, no, I don't approve of Palestinian actions, and yes, they deserve to be blasted for those actions, but Israel is doing its share of assinine stuff too).
major -- great call...there is no nation (nor has there ever been) that conducts foreign policy thinking "what's best for the world" before thinking "what's best for the people of this nation." having said that, we've taken some action in the past that you could say, "wow..i could go either way on that one." like building up japan after WWII...keep in mind, that was before the extreme notions of world trade that we have today. the US doesn't do the right thing all the time...but if I had to place a bet on another country stepping up, I wouldn't. As some foreign journalist recently said, "when freedom is threatened we all know America will be the first one to go to the mat to protect it."
MM: ...there is no nation (nor has there ever been) that conducts foreign policy thinking "what's best for the world" before thinking "what's best for the people of this nation." having said that, we've taken some action in the past that you could say, "wow..i could go either way on that one." like building up japan after WWII...keep in mind, that was before the extreme notions of world trade that we have today. I think the difference is in how you look at "what's best for the people of this nation." The US supported Sadam Hussein, bin Laden's allies (if not specifically him), the Vietnam war, etc., because they thought it was best for the nation. These turned out to be short-sighted points of view. Usually what's best for the world is what's best for a given state, in the long run. It's the win-win principle. …and are you suggesting that building up Japan was a bad thing? the US doesn't do the right thing all the time...but if I had to place a bet on another country stepping up, I wouldn't. As some foreign journalist recently said, "when freedom is threatened we all know America will be the first one to go to the mat to protect it." In many cases no other country could step up, and that put the US in a tough position. With the emergence of China and if the EU gets together politically, the US won't be alone as a supper power for long. That will take some of the negative attention off. I think you're contradicting yourself with your last line, though. You already admitted that the US doesn't step up to protect freedom. It steps up to protect its own interests.
The trick is in HOW you get involved. It is so difficult (even impossible at times) to predict with even a small amount of certainty how things will turn out when you get involved. Even good intentions can turn out bad. The US has done some very positive things in other countries and it has done some things none of us should be proud of. You just have to hope you elect the right people and that they make the right decisions. It is a very tricky business.
Agreed. It is a tricky business and the US has done some very good things. And these tend to get downplayed while the press points fingers at Iran Contra, Sadam Hussein, etc. It really became clear to me during the Gulf War what a difficult position the US is in. You were damned if you did and damned if you didn't in that one. Domestic public opinion, I think, is a big factor as well. How does a government take a big picture approach and still satisfy public opinion? Tough thing to do.
Actually, not particularly. I think the issue is more complex than this article makes it out to be. Absolutely. I would probably have been more receptive to the economics in this article last year. Since then, certain facts have changed my mind to an extent. I don't believe it's possible to institute and "international living wage" or anything of the short. Quite frankly, developing nations need jobs in order to jump start their economies. This means that there's international competitions for these jobs... which means the pay scale will always be at the lowest common denominator. Fortunately ,the situation is temporary... eventually, economic infrastructure is developed and everyone does better. Nations that reject such measures, like the Philippines, tend not to do as well as nations that do adopt them, like Singapore. Particularly, I want supranational institutions to monitor the working conditions of the employees. The cruelty that is taken for granted in some of those places is revolting... and isn't particularly linked to efficiency. Hehe... my least favorite part of US rhetoric concerns international law. When Saddam Hussein invades Iraq, it's a heinous violation of international law. When the US refuses to pay reparations to Nicaruagua... international law is an unfair threat to our sovereignty. We're very hypocritical on the issue as a nation. Sadly, true... however, the US is particularly bad. Sometime, look at a list of foreign aid as a % of GDP. We're near the bottom. That's why it's necessary to supplement one's imbibing of mainstream media information with alternative media. Even a year ago, I *hated* alternative media. Now, I still regreat that it's necessary... but it probably is. China's at least 30 years away from emerging as a "super power." Their current military technology is about 30 years old and it's not even clear that their current government will even exist in 15 years. The nation suffers from horrible divisions of wealth along geographical and society breakdowns. Part of China consists of rural peasants... other parts are modern. The EU has taken steps which will prevent any immediate deepening of the union. Before the admission of states like Greece, considerable debate was engaged in. Most states felt that they were willing to either surrender a greater degree of sovereignty *or* extend membership to less economically robust nations. They took the latter course. France doesn't want to serender any autonomy if it means that it must submit to the democratic will of less developed countries.
Hmmm…. So you're saying that the US will be the lone world superpower for 30 years plus. This will be problematic, no? You'll still be perceived as the king of the hill, and the focus for much of the dissatisfaction in the world. You'll be the only world cop, and people hate cops, especially somebody else's cops.
Something could happen. It's always possible, especially in this political climate, that America could turn inwards. It's also possible that the EU nations will grow closer more quickly than even they anticipate. I just don't think it's likely. It's also possible, but unlikely, that the UN will become more than a purveyor of handouts for 3rd world nations and develop genuine enforcement mechanisms. This is what I'd like to see happen. In terms of raw power... the US should remain dominant well into the first half of the next century. Considering my own liberal tendencies, I do not think this a good thing... seems like power is always more likely to be abused when there is not sufficient opposition to it.
… and be the focus of abuse. I can see it going both ways. It would be nice if the UN could take more of a leadership role, but they just don't have the hardware to get into the tough spots, do they. These are strange and uncertain times. (btw, are you a polysci major, or just an informed citizen?)
grizzled -- i think you misunderstood my post...i did not say that the US acts soley out of the interest of what's best for its people or solely out of what's best for the world. what i simply pointed out was that america is more willing to go to the mat to defend freedom elsewhere than any other nation is, despite the fact they filter foreign policy questions in the same manner that all nations do (what suits us best?)...and not just from the fact that they're the world's superpower. There are other nations that talk a big game about the necessity of preservation of freedom, but contribute absolutely nothing to that end. See most of Western Europe, save Great Britain. the short-sighted points of view that you speak of are really easy to criticize with hindsight, grizzled. but i didn't hear anyone at that time thinking that somehow if we armed afghans to defend themselves from soviet aggression, that they might eventually turn those arms against us. hindsight is 20/20. i'm not suggesting building up japan was a bad thing...i think it was a great thing that is a testament to this nation. but the US certainly had no obligation to do so...and we ended up planting seeds for an economic power that rivaled us for many years. that competition forced the american economy to become smarter and leaner. i would like to point out, however, that there aren't just a ton of nations that would invest such massive sums of money into a nation that sneak-attacked it just 5 years earlier.
It's not a black and white thing, I agree. I guess the word that throws me is your use of the word "freedom." The governments the US has supported/propped up/installed around the world have not been democracies, and in many cases they have not had the popular support of the people within the country. (The Shah of Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, and Pinochet in Chile are a few that spring to mind.) I can't speak to public opinion inside the US, but outside, since Vietnam at least, there have been loud voices questioning US involvement in other countries, including Afghanistan. By that time the US policy of arming and supporting third world dictators was quite well known and widely criticised. On a positive note, I see signs that US policy has changed in the last 10 years or so. By doing so the US helped create a productive and efficient trading partner that has added much to the American standard of living. And, it has developed an ally. If Japan hadn't developed as it has, and remained an enemy of the US, how would the US be anything other than much worse off? I would say that it was a smart thing and was in the US's best interest to do. Too bad they didn't apply the same wisdom in some of their other interventions. There aren't a lot of other countries that could have done that, but to a lesser degree, this is what third world economic development is about.
What's ironic is that the Soviet Union never should have attempted to rival us. After WW2, the US was producing more than 50%!!!!!!! of the world's GDP. While that changed, of course, as new industries were developed in Europe and the rest of the world, the Soviet Union might very well still exist had it not chosen to engage in an arms race it could not hope to win.
As many times as I've heard that stat, it still staggers me. I mean think about it, it's like 1 product for us, 1 product for england, france, germany, japan, spain, mexico, canada, africa, south america, asia, russia, australia, so on and so on. Just crazy.
Such are the actions of a crazed dictator who had no respect for his own people, I guess. Communism Schmommunism, the USSR under Stalin was simply one of the most brutal dictatorships the world has ever known.
How much of our propping back up of Japan (if any) do you guys think had to do with guilt over nuking them. How much was due to the lesson learned with Germany after WWI? If it was this last reason, why did it not translate to Afghanastan, Cambodia, Panama, etc.? How much was due to economics (the hope that Japan could be a good trading partner vs knowing the others would never be)? So that there will not be any confusion, I am not advocating any of these lines of thought, just asking a range of possibilities off of my head.