Read the
passage carefully and without referring to the passage classify the following
statements as TRUE or FALSE. (Answers provided at the Answers page)
KARL ROVE, President George W. Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff, said
in an interview in 2004: “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our
own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will
– we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors… and you, all of you,
will be left to just study what we do.”
Aptly, this forms the epigraph of Noam Chomsky's book Making the
Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire and Resistance, especially because
Chomsky aims to dismantle such a posture of extreme confidence and arrogance,
of inequality, disenfranchisement and deceit. The functionalist logic of late
imperial culture provides a basis to the current debate on this far-reaching
issue and focuses on the theoretical, ideological and political assumptions
that underpin it. The varied areas of media, theatre, film, photography, emphasize
the reproduction of the empire's dominant self-images with the sole purpose of
exploiting and oppressing weaker cultures, which continue to pay a huge price.
The hegemonic tenor of Pax Americana is audible in Rove's words
ensuring that American authorship remains paramount behind histories of those
nations that have experienced American interventions. The words are couched in
the language of politics that is exclusionary to the extent that it assaults
national sovereignty around the world through vast expansion of its powerful
frame of reference and regurgitating abject disinformation. The United States'
military and cultural dominance shows how imperial rule involves the control
over the internal and external policy of the ‘other', the subordinate
periphery. Military dominance sustains a massive capacity to influence the
global economy that neither a more efficient Japan nor a united Europe can
entirely overcome. To fully grasp this interaction, it is important to come to
grips with the vast differences between the inadequacy of the subject and the
power of the state. The culture of imperialism is not an event of the past, and
much still remains in the legacy of colonial history, culturally, economically
and politically.
Chomsky takes upon himself the task of unmasking American foreign
policy in the context of the timing of Rove's statement, which is around 2002
when the U.S. was divided into two camps. One of them favoured intervention in
Iraq which it said would finally usher in a transformation to a democratic form
of government that would spread all over West Asia. Along with this, the motive
of gaining from the rich oil reserves also underpinned the argument of adopting
an aggressive policy against Saddam Hussein.
The other camp, which included the Pentagon and the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), argued against the war as they were sceptical of any
success. The discourse underpinned by the theory that weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein would culminate in an Armageddon
finally lent legitimacy to George Bush entering one of the most disastrous and
expensive wars the U.S. has ever fought.
It goes to the credit of Chomsky for standing up against American
intervention in Iraq, not merely because it would be costly or achieve no
positive results, but because, as he argues, it is in the nature of American
foreign policy to be inherently ‘evil and criminal', a feature that defines its
imperial ideology. Chomsky writes: “The criticism of the Iraq war is on grounds
of cost and failure; what are called ‘pragmatic reasons', a stance that is
considered hard-headed, serious, moderate – in the case of Western crimes.”
It is clear that the prevalence of a war-like situation in West
Asia is owing to the joint designs of Israel and the U.S. which are not ready
to change their policy towards Palestine that can facilitate a solution. Nor
has the U.S. played a conciliatory role between India and China or achieved
much geopolitically in bringing about a more peaceful Afghanistan. As Chomsky
argues: “It is an article of faith, almost a part of the national creed, that
the United States is righteously unlike other great powers, past and present.”
Can we agree with Chomsky that nothing seems to have changed? The
500 years of history since Columbus has been one of subversion, aggression and
brutal genocide that was inherent even during the Cold War. With the demise of
the Cold War, things stand where they are though now the West is given a free
reign in its imperial designs unlike the pre-Gorbachev era. The Third World
escaped any interference from the West for many decades until the expiry of the
Soviet Union brought about a unilateral world in which America meddles with
international politics with its nefarious actions.
The Soviet Union ruled over Eastern Europe, but probably less
viciously than the way the U.S. exercised its hegemony over Latin America. For
example, it is a revelation to see the American hand in involving erstwhile
Nazi generals in the whole exercise of terror and domination in Latin America.
And the world goes on in a state of “repressive tolerance”, a
Marcusian conception that is applied globally. Chomsky is enraged by this
remorseless transnational hegemony. His idea of power as violence is deep down
an intellectual stance of articulating an appraisal of the existing world order
where persecution and carnage have been integral and more so recently in the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As generalisations and
theory are not sufficient for an understanding of the evolution of imperialism,
its impact at various levels of specificity has to be taken up and a
painstaking attempt made to create in detail the values, the attitudes and the
atmosphere of colonised societies. As societies are juxtaposed and then
intermingled, it creates significant and unexpected perspectives, which are the
sign of the new problems and complexities of authority and power. Chomsky sets
out to deflate the celebratory tone of American self-importance by analysing
and resisting the continuing imperial attitude of America with his
counter-narratives to the official histories in his essays on the world
financial crisis, global warming, the wars in West Asia, about the rise of
China, threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea and the shift
towards Left politics in Latin America. He has a significant story to tell, a
revisionist narrative running through the collection of essays that throw light
on decades of lies behind the American foreign policy and thereby facilitating
the process of retrieving histories of those who unfortunately suffer a
marginalised status. Provocative and firmly written, the 50 commentaries that
compose Making the Future appeared in The New York Times Syndicate over the
last few years. They bring out the state of U.S. politics between 2007 and
2011, a comprehensive and an objective perspective that rewrites biased
accounts of various national and international significance. An understanding
and appreciation of these essays will help throw light on the overwhelming
majority of the American opinion-makers and their perspectives, replete with
forged documents and blatant lies.
Classify these
statements as true or false. (Without going back to the passage)
1) “We're
an empire now,…..… will be left to just study what we do.” are the words of
George W Bush.
2)
The passage is written by Noam Chomsky.
3)
The passage is a book review.
4)
Chomsky is critical of US role in the world’s geopolitics.
5)
In 2002 Pentagon argued against the war on Iraq.
6)
Soviet Union’s rule over Eastern Europe was more evil than the US control over
Latin America
7)
The US has played a positive role in resolving the crisis in West Asia.
8) A
majority of US opinion makers have never relied on forged documents and blatant
lies.
9) The
US is morally very similar to other great powers in the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment