Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs

268 Pages·2000·0.31 MB·English

by  Noam Chomsky

MARIN COUNTY FREE LIBRARY
3 1111 02191 7255
\
Id
o
^
f,-, ^^ It
# /
I
c
5-
VMS'
Ik'
'. "'>
-^X^®
W^j^
S 'i~
loam Chomsky

Civic Center New Books
0^
7.1
341. 6 Chomsky
Chomsky, Noam
Rogue states the rule
o:
:
force in world affairs
Praise for Rog 31111021917255
"World-famous MIT linguist [Noam] Chomsky has long kept up a sec-
ond careeras acogentvoice ofthehard left, excoriatingAmerican impe-
rialism, critiquing blinkered journalists and attacking global economic
injustice.... [In Rogue States] Chomsky has delivered another impres-
sive argument that the U.S. flouts international law when it finds it con-
venient to do so."
"Noam Chom" DATE DUE nic
ofselective an :hat
0^
the powerful 02 - 2 6 - pli-
<
ant.... ChomsP JUN 2 5 2002 ^ illy
disguises its p ian
'^W
intervention,' ici-
phering the rh
nce
: . . 1 1 s 2002
HAK 17
"Nothing esc£ 2003 ier-
fully lucid."
H-is
ork
On Noam
"An exploder
nes
"Reading Che ess
logic, Chomsl and
to discern wh; ses
will eventuall; out
by not listenin
eek
DEMCO, INC. 38-2931

Rogue
States
The Rule of Force in World Affairs
Noam Chomsky
South End Press
MA
Cambridge,
©
Copyright 2000 by Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust
Cover design by Ellen P. Shapiro
Any properly footnoted quotation ofup to 500 sequential words may be
used without permission, as long as the total number ofwords quoted
does not exceed 2,000. For longer quotations or for a greater number of
total words, please write to South End Press for permission.
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Chomsky, Noam.
Rogue states : the rule offorce in world affairs / by Noam Chomsky.
p. cm.
Includes index.
—
ISBN 0-89608-612-7 (cloth) ISBN 0-89608-61 1-9 (paper)
1. Aggression (International law). 2. Intervention (International law). 3.
Rule oflaw. I. Title.
KZ6374 .C48 2000
—
341.6'2 dc21
99-049570
MA
South End Press, 7 Brookline Street #1, Cambridge, 02139-4146
05 04 03 02 01 ^ 4 5 6
Printed in Canada
Contents
Who
1. Rogues' Gallery: Qualifies? 1
2. Rogue States 12
3. Crisis in the Balkans 34
4. East Timor Retrospective 51
5. "Plan Colombia" 62
6. Cuba and the US Government: David vs. Goliath 82
7. Putting on the Pressure: Latin America 93
8. Jubilee 2000 101
A
9. "Recovering Rights": Crooked Path 108
10. The United States and the
"Challenge ofUniversality" 124
11. The Legacy ofWar 156
12. Millennium Greetings 174
13. Power in the Domestic Arena 188
14. Socioeconomic Sovereignty 199
Notes 215
Index 242
About South End Press 253
Digitized by the Internet Archive
2010
in
http://www.archive.org/details/roguestatesruleoOOchom
.
1
Rogues' Gallery
Who
Qualifies?
Alike many otherterms ofpolitical discourse, the term"rogue state" has
two uses: apropagandistic use, applied to assorted enemies, and a literal
use thatapplies to states thatdo notregardthemselves as boundby inter-
nationalnorms. Logic suggests thatthe mostpowerful states shouldtend
to fall into the latter category unless internally constrained, an expecta-
tion that history confirms.
Though intemational norms are not rigidly determined, there is a
measure ofagreement on general guidelines. In the post-World War II
UN
period, these norms are partially codified in the Charter, Intema-
tional Court ofJustice decisions, and various conventions and treaties.
The US regards itselfas exempt from these conditions, increasingly so
since the Cold Warended, leaving US dominance so overwhelming that
pretense can be largely dropped. The fact has not gone unnoticed. The
newsletter of the American Society of Intemational Law (ASIL) ob-
served in March 1999 that "intemational law is today probably less
highly regarded in our country than at any time" in the century; the edi-
torofitsprofessionaljoumal hadwamed shortlybefore ofthe "alarming
exacerbation" ofWashington's dismissal oftreaty obligations.'
The operative principle was articulated by Dean Acheson in 1963
whenhe informedtheASILthatthe "propriety" ofaresponse to a "chal-
lenge ... [to the] .. . power, position, andprestige oftheUnited States ..
is not a legal issue." Intemational law, he had observed earlier, is useful
"to gildourpositions withanethos derivedfromverygeneralmoralprinci-
pieswhichhave affectedlegal doctrines."ButtheUS isnotboundby it.
Acheson was referring specifically to the Cuba blockade. Cuba has
1
2 Noam Chomsky
been one ofthe main targets ofUS terror and economic warfare for 40
years, even before the secret decision ofMarch 1960 to overthrow the
government. The Cuban threat was identified by Arthur Schlesinger, re-
porting the conclusions ofKennedy's LatinAmerican mission to the in-
comingpresident: It is "the spreadoftheCastroidea oftakingmatters into
one's own hands," whichmight stimulate the "poorand underprivileged"
elsewhere, who "are now demanding opportunities for a decent living,"
—
Schlesinger later elaborated the "virus" or "rotten apple" effect, as it
is sometimes called. There was a Cold Warconnection: "The SovietUnion
hovers inthe wings, flourishing large development loans andpresenting
itselfas the model forachievingmodernizationina single generation."^
Unsurprisingly, the US assault became considerably harsher after
the USSR disappeared from the scene. The measures have been near-
universally condemned: by the UN, the European Union, the Organiza-
tion ofAmerican States (OAS) and itsjudicial body, the Inter-American
Juridical Committee, which ruledunanimously that they violate interna-
tional law, as did the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Few doubt that they would also be condemned by the World Trade Or-
ganization (WTO), butWashingtonhas made itclearthat itwould disre-
WTO
gard any ruling, keeping to the rogue state principle.
To mention another illustration of contemporary relevance, when
Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975 it was orderedto withdraw at once
UN
by the Security Council, butto no avail. The reasons were explained
UN
in his 1978 memoirs by Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
The United Stateswishedthings to turn outastheydid, andworked to
bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United
Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook.
This taskwas given to me, and I carried itforward with no inconsider-
able success.'^
He goes on to report that within two months some 60,000 people had
been killed. The numbers reached about 200,000 within a few years,
thanks to increasing military support from the US, joined by Britain as
atrocities peaked in 1978. Their support continued through 1999, as
Kopassus commandoes, armed and trainedby the US, organized "Oper-
ation Clean Sweep" from January, killing 3,000 to 5,000 people by Au-
gust, according to credible Church sources, and later expelling 750,000
— —
people 85 percent ofthe population and virtually destroying the