Vive Le Canada

Dominance and its Dilemmas* by Chomsky
Date: Saturday, December 20 2003

[comment: with all this talk about the National Missile "Defence" I think I want to put up one of the best things that mentions it. It's not just about US National Missile "Defence" but the general principle of world 'ownership' & 'dominance'. All this is supposed to maintain peace too of course, but Hitler wanted peace too. The question is, what kind of peace? - NSay]

Dominance and its Dilemmas*

by Noam Chomsky; October 10, 2003

(beginning of excerpt)...As the grand strategy was announced on September 17, the administration "abandoned an international effort to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention against germ warfare," advising allies that further discussions would have to be delayed for four years. A month later, the UN Committee on Disarmament adopted a resolution that called for stronger measures to prevent militarization of space, recognizing this to be "a grave danger for international peace and security," and another that reaffirmed "the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of poisonous gases and bacteriological methods of warfare." Both passed unanimously, with two abstentions: the US and Israel. US abstention amounts to a veto: typically, a double veto, banning the events from reporting and history.

A few weeks later, the Space Command released plans to go beyond US "control" of space for military purposes to "ownership," which is to be permanent, in accord with the Security Strategy. Ownership of space is "key to our nation's military effectiveness," permitting "instant engagement anywhere in the world... A viable prompt global strike capability, whether nuclear or non-nuclear, will allow the US to rapidly strike high-payoff, difficult-to-defeat targets from stand-off ranges and produce the desired effect... [and] to provide warfighting commanders the ability to rapidly deny, delay, deceive, disrupt, destroy, exploit and neutralize targets in hours/minutes rather than weeks/days even when US and allied forces have a limited forward presence," thus reducing the need for overseas bases that regularly arouse local antagonism.

Similar plans had been outlined in a May 2002 Pentagon planning document, partially leaked, which called for a strategy of "forward deterrence" in which missiles launched from space platforms would be able to carry out almost instant "unwarned attacks." Military analyst William Arkin comments that "no target on the planet or in space would be immune to American attack. The US could strike without warning whenever and wherever a threat was perceived, and it would be protected by missile defenses." Hypersonic drones would monitor and disrupt targets. Surveillance systems are to provide the ability "to track, record and analyze the movement of every vehicle in a foreign city." The world is to be left at mercy of US attack at will, without warning or credible pretext. The plans have no remote historical parallel. Even more fanciful ones are under development.

These moves reflect the disdain of the administration for international law and institutions, or arms control measures, dismissed with barely a word in the National Security Strategy; and its commitment to an extremist version of long-standing doctrine.

In accord with these principles, Washington informed the UN that it can be "relevant" by endorsing Washington's plans for invading Iraq, or it can be a debating society. The US has the "sovereign right to take military action," Colin Powell informed the January 2003 Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum, which also strenuously opposed Washington's war plans. "When we feel strongly about something we will lead," Powell informed them, even if no one is following us.

Bush and Blair underscored their contempt for international law and institutions at their Azores Summit on the eve of the invasion. They issued an ultimatum - not to Iraq, but to the Security Council: capitulate, or we will invade without your meaningless seal of approval. And we will do so whether or not Saddam Hussein and his family leave the country. The crucial principle is that the US must effectively rule Iraq.... (end of excerpt)

excerpt from ZMag (pronounced "ZED-mag", not "zee-mag :p ): [at least in Canada!-Ed]'

& another version, this one has his sources:

[another comment: he mentioned US bases causing local antagonism. The USA still has military bases in Japan & South Korea left over from WWII & the Korean War; after Afghanistan, the US left permanent bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and perhaps elsewhere in the region; after Yugoslavia they left with bases in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia; after Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Not very subtle is it? Would anyone think that's covert? source: Bill Blum's site @ It probably costs a lot to maintain all those bases, the National Missile "Defence" makes good economic sense also. :-) ]

This article comes from Vive Le Canada

The URL for this story is: