I recently finished Noam Chomsky's book on foreign policy and I'd have to say that it is depressing. I guess all books looking into US Foreign policy over the last 50 years would be depressing, but Dr. Chomsky pulls no punches.

I think that is one of the most depressing parts of his analysis is the length of time that it has happened. You want to believe that there are good guys and bad guys. If just Bush hadn't gotten elected it would have all been different. Yeah, maybe we wouldn't have attacked Iraq, but it would be hard to say that US foreign policy would be distinctly different. We'd still be "promoting democracy" in the same haphazard and opportunistic ways as before, and we still would be entwined in the politics of oil in the middle east. So what could change it all?

I think that the balance of power in the world would need to shift so that the US isn't a sole actor. In this way, the US wouldn't be able to steamroll decisions over countries that want very badly into US markets. If there were other markets, they would be in a better negotiating position, and thus the US policy would have to include more compromise and negotiation.

Noam puts together some interesting scenarios on how a change of power could happen based on the politics of oil. China and India are both growing countries, eager for more energy, mostly oil. They have amazing access to the countries of the middle east -- perhaps even being able to pull oil directly down a pipeline to their countries. If they were able to pull together a trading bloc for this oil, that would shift the balance of power significantly. That leaves the US negotiating with countries like Venezuela for oil, who've already started showing their dislike of US politics by making oil deals elsewhere.

In a humorous light, this scenario lays out a justification for attacking Iraq. Not for WMDs, but to grant access to the oil reserves that Saddam Hussein was unlikely to let the US into. After sanctions and regular bombings, you can rest assured that he would be more willing to sell his oil to Russia or China. So, in the interest of maintaining US access to the energy it is "addicted to" (to use The President's words) we had to attack Iraq. Oh, I'm glad I started this paragraph with "humorous," it's turning more depressing.

Back to the book. I liked the book, for nothing else to fill in some of the plot lines that I've missed over the last couple of decades. I don't know that you could call Dr. Chomsky a non-bias source on the topic, but there is good information to be known. Unfortunately, in many places I found the book to read like "soundbites," perhaps excluding some of the quoted author's opinions. I wish I had the time to check all the references. I think it is a good read, especially for American voters; learn what your country is doing in your name.


posted Oct 1, 2007 | permanent link