George W. Bush in Hopes and Prospects
On Drugs:
Canceled Bolivian trade for failing counter-narcotics
In Bolivia, efforts to promote democracy, social justice, and cultural rights, and to bring about desperately needed structural and institutional changes are, naturally, bitterly opposed by the traditional rulers: the Europeanized, mostly white elite in
the eastern provinces, the site of most of the natural resources currently desired by the West. To punish Bolivians, the Bush administration canceled trade preferences, threatening tens of thousands of jobs, on the pretext that Bolivia was not
cooperating with US counter-narcotic efforts. In the real world, the UN estimates that Bolivia's coca crop increased 5% in 2007, as compared with 26% increase in Colombia, the terror state that is Washington's closest regional ally and the recipient of
enormous military aid.
As discussed earlier, "drug wars" are curious affairs. The same is true of condemnation (and decertification) for alleged noncompliance with US demands on counter-narcotic efforts.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.215
Jun 1, 2010
On Homeland Security:
Preventive War doctrine seen as path to security
Consider the first scholarly work on the roots of George W. Bush's preventive war doctrine, issued in September 2002 in preparation for the invasion of Iraq--which was then already under way, [despite Bush] pretending to be seeking a diplomatic
settlement. The study was written by the distinguished Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis, and has been much admired in the general and scholarly literature. The core principle of the Bush doctrine, as Gaddis writes approvingly, is that "expansion,
we have assumed, is the path to security, "Gaddis traces this doctrine to the "lofty, idealistic tradition of John Quincy Adams and Woodrow Wilson."
The Clinton doctrine, presented to Congress, was that the United States is entitled to resort to "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhabited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources."
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 23-24
Jun 1, 2010
On Homeland Security:
9/11 Commission said secure north border; Bush secured south
The Bush administration permitted the formation of a high-level commission to investigate ways to improve security after 9/11. The commission recommendations were mostly ignored. For example, the commission recognized the importance of securing borders,
particularly the long and easily penetrated Canadian border. The Bush administration responded by shifting agents to the Mexican border, which was not a concern of the 9/11 commission, but is important to prevent a flood of immigrants.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 28
Jun 1, 2010
On Homeland Security:
OpEd: Putin considered missile defense a threat to Russia
There is now justified concern about Russian reactions to US aggressive militarism. That includes the extension of NATO to the East by Clinton in violation of pledges to
Mikhail Gorbachev, but particularly the vast expansion of offensive military capacity under Bush, and more recently, the plans to place "missile defense" installations in Eastern Europe. Putin is ridiculed for claiming that they are a threat to Russia.
But US strategic analysts recognize that he has a point. The programs, they argue, are designed in a way that Russian planners would have to regard as a threat to the
Russian deterrent, hence calling for more advanced and lethal offensive military capacity to neutralize them. A new arms race is feared.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.136-137
Jun 1, 2010
On Homeland Security:
Why do they hate us? OpEd: we oppose Arab nationalism
Bush was probably genuinely puzzled when he asked, "Why do they hate us?" and his response that "they hate our freedom" may reflect what he learned at school. But the historical record provides more compelling answers. More than half a century before
Bush's plaintive query, Pres. Eisenhower expressed his concern about "the campaign of hatred against us" in the Arab world, "not by the governments but by the people." The reasons for the "campaign of hatred" were outlined by the National Security
Council: "In the eyes of the majority of Arabs the US opposes the realization of the goals of Arab nationalism. They believe that the US is seeking to protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic
progress." Furthermore, the perceptions are accurate: "Our economic interests in the area have led to close US relations with elements in the Arab world whose primary interest lies in the maintenance of the status quo," blocking democracy and development
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.192-193
Jun 1, 2010
On War & Peace:
OpEd: Chose to confront North Korea; then they built nukes
When Bush II came into office, both North Korea and the US were bound by the Framework Agreement of 1994. Neither was fully in accord with its commitments, but the agreement was largely being observed. North Korea had stopped testing long-range missiles.
It had perhaps 2 bombs' worth of plutonium, and was verifiably not making more. After seven Bush years of confrontation, North Korea has 8 to 10 bombs and long-range missiles, and it is developing plutonium.In Sep. 2005, under international pressure,
Washington agreed to turn to negotiations, within the 6-power framework. They achieved substantial success. North Korea agreed to abandon "all nuclear weapons and existing weapons programs" and allow international inspections, in return for international
aid & non-aggression pledge from the US. The ink was barely dry on the agreement when the Bush administration renewed the threat of force.
After Washington scuttled the promising Sep. 2005 agreements, North Korea carried out a test of a nuclear weapon.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.138-139
Jun 1, 2010
Page last updated: Jul 19, 2011