Chapitre 1
The World According to Chomsky: Power, Deception, and the Struggle for Justice
In a world where power speaks louder than truth, Noam Chomsky stands as one of the most penetrating voices cutting through the fog of political rhetoric. His book "Who Rules the World?" has become a touchstone for those seeking to understand global power dynamics beyond the sanitized narratives of mainstream media. Since its publication, this work has influenced countless activists, scholars, and ordinary citizens trying to make sense of our complex geopolitical landscape. Celebrities from Roger Waters to Viggo Mortensen have cited Chomsky's analysis as transformative to their political understanding. What makes Chomsky's perspective so compelling is not just his encyclopedic knowledge but his ability to connect seemingly disparate events into coherent patterns that reveal the true workings of power. As we navigate increasingly turbulent times, his fundamental question - who actually rules our world? - becomes more urgent than ever.
Chapitre 2
The Masters of Mankind and Their Vile Maxim
The question of who rules the world defies simple answers, but clear power disparities exist. Since World War II, the United States has been "first among unequals," setting global discourse on critical issues from regional conflicts to existential threats. Though American power has declined from its 1945 peak when it controlled half the world's wealth, it remains dominant within what Chomsky calls the "de facto world government" of leading capitalist powers and their controlled institutions.
These "masters of mankind" - a term Chomsky borrows from Adam Smith - hardly represent their populations. Even in democracies, citizens have limited policy influence. Research shows American policy overwhelmingly reflects elite interests while the majority's opinions are ignored. This produces widespread disengagement, with voting rates recalling times when suffrage was restricted to propertied males. Similar democratic decline plagues Europe, where Brussels bureaucracy serves financial powers.
The phrase "masters of mankind" originally referred to England's merchants and manufacturers, whom Smith condemned for pursuing their "vile maxim": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people." Today's equivalents are multinational corporations, financial institutions, and their political servants. They've orchestrated a massive transfer of wealth upward, creating what Citigroup analysts aptly describe as a world dividing into the "plutonomy" and the "global precariat" - the wealthy few who power growth and consume it versus the unstable, penurious majority.
This class warfare has deep historical roots but has intensified since the 1970s when American political economy underwent major transformations. Financialization and offshoring of production emerged as manufacturing profits declined and the Bretton Woods system collapsed. "Free market doctrines" led to deregulation and CEO rewards tied to short-term profits. The resulting wealth concentration yielded greater political power for elites while most Americans saw stagnating incomes. Elections became prohibitively expensive, driving both parties into corporate pockets, with congressional leadership positions essentially auctioned off.
Imagine living in a society where your voice matters only if accompanied by substantial wealth. This isn't dystopian fiction - it's the reality we've accepted as normal. The question becomes: how did we surrender democratic control to unaccountable private powers?
Chapitre 3
The Responsibility of Intellectuals: Truth-Tellers or System Maintainers?
Before addressing intellectuals' responsibility, we must clarify who qualifies as an intellectual. The modern concept emerged with the 1898 Dreyfusards' manifesto, when those defending falsely accused officer Alfred Dreyfus presented an image of intellectuals as courageous defenders of justice against power. Yet they were a minority, viciously condemned by mainstream intellectual figures as "anarchists of the lecture-platform" with the "pretension of raising writers, scientists, professors and philologists to the rank of supermen" who dared question authority.
World War I revealed a stark division among intellectuals. In Germany, leading thinkers signed the "Manifesto of the Ninety-Three," urging the West to trust their civilized conduct in war. American progressive intellectuals similarly proclaimed themselves the "decisive" moral force behind U.S. war entry, though they were actually manipulated by British propaganda.
John Dewey initially celebrated the war as proof that "intelligent men" could manage human affairs deliberately, only to shift within years to criticizing the "un-free press" and questioning whether intellectual freedom could exist under the prevailing economic system. Not everyone conformed - figures like Russell, Debs, Luxemburg, and Liebknecht were imprisoned for their dissent, while others like Veblen faced professional consequences.
This distinction creates an ambiguity about intellectuals' responsibility. Are intellectuals morally responsible to use their privilege for freedom and justice, or should they serve established institutions as "technocratic and policy-oriented intellectuals"? Those serving power are deemed "responsible," while critics are marginalized domestically.
Yet this valuation reverses when discussing enemy states. Soviet dissidents were honored by Americans while apparatchiks were condemned. Similarly with Iran, we praise critics of the clerical regime. The term "dissident" is applied selectively - not to critics of American policies or those opposing U.S.-supported tyranny abroad. Nelson Mandela remained on the U.S. terrorist list until 2008, while Reagan supported the apartheid regime that caused 1.5 million deaths in neighboring countries.
Throughout history, conformist intellectuals who support official aims and rationalize official crimes are honored in their societies, while value-oriented intellectuals are punished. This pattern dates to ancient times, from Socrates being accused of corrupting youth to Hebrew prophets condemned as haters of Israel for their critical analysis and calls for justice.
What would happen if more intellectuals embraced their responsibility to speak truth to power? How might our world change if those with knowledge and platforms consistently challenged the comfortable narratives that enable oppression?
Chapitre 4
The Double Standards of Terrorism
On February 13, 2008, Imad Mughniyeh, a senior Hizbollah commander, was assassinated in Damascus. The U.S. State Department celebrated, declaring "the world is a better place without this man," while Intelligence Director McConnell claimed Mughniyeh was responsible for more American and Israeli deaths than anyone except bin Laden. Joy was unconstrained in Israel too, as "one of the US and Israel's most wanted men" was brought to justice. Yet this celebration reflects only the perspective of "the world" - meaning the political class in Washington and London - not the actual world, where support for American military actions like the bombing of Afghanistan ranged from minimal to nonexistent.
If we extended "the world" beyond Washington and London, we might find other candidates for most hated criminal. The Financial Times noted that most charges against Mughniyeh are unsubstantiated, with only the 1985 TWA hijacking confirmed. This hijacking, along with the Achille Lauro incident, was deemed the top terrorism story of 1985 by newspaper editors. Yet the world might view things differently. The Achille Lauro hijacking was retaliation for Israel's bombing of Tunis ordered by Shimon Peres, which killed 75 Tunisians and Palestinians with smart bombs. Washington cooperated by failing to warn Tunisia, with Secretary Shultz calling the bombing "a legitimate response" to "terrorist attacks" - though the UN Security Council unanimously denounced it as "armed aggression."
The 1985 Tunis bombing was far more severe than the Achille Lauro hijacking, but even it had competitors for worst Mideast terrorist atrocity that year. One challenger was a car bombing in Beirut outside a mosque during Friday prayers that killed 80 people and wounded 256, mostly women and girls. The bombing, targeting Sheikh Fadlallah who escaped, was carried out by Reagan's CIA with Saudi and British help, specifically authorized by CIA director William Casey.
While Arabs are accused of purposely killing civilians, Israel and the US claim their killings are merely "accidental" - a third category of crime: murder with foreknowledge but without specific intent. Like crushing ants while walking, they don't intend to kill specific people, but know deaths will follow their actions.
The contrast is striking when comparing reactions to different acts of violence. When Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine killing 298 people, the White House denounced it as an "outrage of unspeakable proportions" attributed to "Russian support." For weeks, media detailed the victims' lives, families' anguish, and international fury. Yet this coverage stands in stark contrast to the virtual silence about Iran Air Flight 655, shot down by the USS Vincennes in Iranian airspace in 1988, killing 290 people including 66 children. Not only was there no outrage then, but the Vincennes' commander later received the Legion of Merit award, while President Reagan blamed Iran.
What does this tell us about how we define terrorism? Is it simply violence we don't approve of, committed by people we don't like?
Chapitre 5
The Torture Memos and America's Historical Amnesia
The torture memos released in 2008-9 revealed shocking details, particularly testimony about Cheney and Rumsfeld's desperate pressure on interrogators to find nonexistent links between Iraq and al-Qaeda to justify invasion. Yet the general surprise at these revelations is itself surprising - Guantanamo was obviously designed as a torture site beyond legal reach. More importantly, torture has been routinely practiced since America's earliest days, from conquering national territory to imperial ventures in the Philippines and Haiti. What's truly remarkable is the common view, expressed even by eloquent Bush critics like Paul Krugman, that America "used to be a nation of moral ideals" that Bush betrayed, reflecting a deeply slanted version of American history.
The inspirational phrase "city on a hill" coined by John Winthrop in 1630 represented America as "ordained by God." A year earlier, the Massachusetts Bay Colony created its Great Seal showing an Indian with a scroll saying "Come over and help us" - depicting colonists as benevolent humanists responding to natives' pleas. This early "humanitarian intervention" led to catastrophe for the supposed beneficiaries. Secretary of War Henry Knox described "utter extirpation of all Indians" by means "more destructive" than the Spanish conquests of Mexico and Peru. John Quincy Adams later deplored "that hapless race" being exterminated with "merciless and perfidious cruelty."
Over sixty years, the CIA developed a sophisticated "torture paradigm" costing $1 billion annually, focusing on mental rather than physical torture. These methods appeared virtually unchanged in Abu Ghraib's infamous photos. Unlike the common narrative that "America lost its way" under Bush, torture has long been standard American practice - merely outsourced to foreign proxies. The Reagan administration carefully crafted diplomatic reservations to the UN Convention Against Torture, specifically redefining "mental" torture to exclude sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain - the very techniques the CIA had perfected.
While Bush authorized prima facie violations of international law beyond his predecessors, Obama largely reinstated these extremist measures despite court rejections. In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Supreme Court rejected Bush's claim that Guantanamo prisoners lacked habeas corpus rights. The administration responded by shipping prisoners to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan instead. Obama adopted this position, arguing that prisoners flown to Bagram from anywhere worldwide could be imprisoned indefinitely without rights.
The debate over torture's effectiveness assumes that if it works, it might be justified - a standard never applied to America's enemies. Experienced interrogator Major Matthew Alexander expressed contempt for Bush's harsh methods, concluding they proved "counter-productive" and may have caused "as many US soldier deaths as civilians killed in 9/11." His hundreds of interrogations revealed that foreign fighters came to Iraq specifically reacting to abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
Why do we so easily forget our own history? How does selective memory enable us to maintain moral superiority while committing the very acts we condemn in others?
Chapitre 6
The Invisible Hand of Power: Democracy vs. Economic Control
Democracy is supported by elites only when it serves their economic and social objectives. The U.S. has historically blocked democracy in regions like Egypt, imposing high tariffs against Egyptian cotton and causing dollar shortages while claiming to follow market principles. This explains why Eisenhower noted a "campaign of hatred" against America in the Arab world - people recognized that the U.S. supported dictators and blocked democracy and development.
Adam Smith warned that if British manufacturers and investors turned abroad, Britain would suffer, but hoped "home bias" would spare England "the ravages of economic rationality." Similarly, David Ricardo hoped property owners would "be satisfied with the low rate of profits in their own country" rather than seeking wealth abroad. Their predictions were wrong, but their instincts about the dangers of unchecked economic globalization were sound.
While the Arab democratic uprising is sometimes compared to Eastern Europe in 1989, the comparison is flawed. The 1989 uprisings were tolerated by Russia and supported by the West because they aligned with Western economic objectives, unlike the simultaneous struggles in Central America that were brutally suppressed. Western powers remain hostile to Arab democracy for strategic reasons.
Iran is portrayed as the greatest threat to world order, though as Israeli historian Martin van Creveld noted, Iranians would be "crazy" not to pursue nuclear weapons when under constant threat of attack. The U.S. and Europe stand largely isolated in their Iran sanctions, with non-aligned countries, Turkey, and Brazil supporting Iran's uranium enrichment rights. China's growing role in Iran's energy sector particularly alarms Washington, which demands China follow "international responsibilities" - meaning U.S. orders.
America's global power has declined from its post-WWII peak when it controlled half the world's wealth to about 25% by the 1970s as other economies recovered and decolonization progressed. The U.S. economy shifted toward financialization and outsourced production, creating a vicious cycle of wealth concentration in the top fraction of one percent. This economic elite gained immense political power, shaping policies that further increased their wealth while electoral politics became "a charade run by the public relations industry." Obama's 2008 campaign won marketing awards, with the 2012 election costing over $2 billion in mostly corporate funding.
Meanwhile, most Americans face stagnant incomes, longer work hours, increased debt, and recurring financial crises as regulations were dismantled. The wealthy benefit from implicit government insurance - "too big to fail" policies that Bloomberg News estimates provides banks $83 billion annually in taxpayer subsidies. After each crisis, propaganda redirects blame toward public sector workers, teachers, and immigrants rather than examining the systemic failures of unregulated capitalism.
Business leaders understand the grave threat of climate change but face an institutional imperative to maximize short-term profits at all costs. In Congress, Republicans - funded by business interests - are almost universally climate deniers who cut funding for environmental protection measures. Some, like the new environmental subcommittee head, reject science on religious grounds, claiming God promised Noah there would be no more floods.
Have you ever wondered why economic decisions that harm the majority continue to be implemented? Could it be that democracy itself has been subordinated to economic power?
Chapitre 7
American Decline: Self-Inflicted Wounds
The decline of American power has been underway since its peak after World War II, despite the self-delusion of post-Soviet triumphalism. While no competitor for global hegemonic power exists in the foreseeable future, America's share of world wealth has fallen dramatically from 50% at the war's end to about 25% by 1970. The world has become more multipolar, with South America and parts of the Middle East slipping from Washington's control. Despite declining hegemony, American ambition remains unchanged, with Obama actually increasing military deployments and assassinations compared to Bush's capture-and-torture approach. Special Forces now operate in 147 countries, functioning essentially as the president's private army.
America's decline is largely self-inflicted. Political dysfunction in Washington disgusts citizens and bewilders the world, with corporate powers now fearing the extremists they helped elect. As John Dewey noted, politics has become "the shadow cast on society by big business," with financial capital dominating both political parties, pushing them far right of the general population. While the public prioritizes unemployment solutions requiring government stimulus, financial institutions push deficit reduction.
The national political economy underwent major transformations in the 1970s, ending the "golden age of state capitalism." Financialization and offshoring of production emerged as manufacturing profits declined and the Bretton Woods system of capital controls collapsed. "Free market doctrines" led to deregulation and CEO rewards tied to short-term profits. The resulting wealth concentration yielded greater political power for elites while most Americans saw stagnating incomes.
American decline began immediately after World War II when the US held half the world's wealth with incomparable security and global reach. In 1949, China's declaration of independence was viewed as America's first significant "loss" - the tacit assumption being that the US "owned" China by right. This triggered the decision to support France's reconquest of Indochina based on the "domino theory" - the rational fear that independent development would spread like a "virus" to resource-rich Indonesia and eventually Japan, potentially creating an Asian system beyond US control. The solution was to destroy any hope of successful independent development in Vietnam and impose brutal dictatorships in surrounding regions.
Around the 1970s, American decline entered a new phase of conscious self-inflicted decline as planners shifted toward financialization and offshoring production, partly driven by declining manufacturing profits. This initiated a vicious cycle where wealth became highly concentrated in the top 0.1 percent, yielding political power that further advanced the cycle through revised taxation, deregulation, and corporate governance changes. This "failure by design" benefited the designers - the 1% - while harming the 99% and the country as a whole.
In the past decade, South America has taken unprecedented steps to free itself from Western domination after 500 years. The region has moved toward integration, addressing severe internal inequalities, removing US military bases and IMF controls. The newly formed Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) excludes only the US and Canada, representing another step in American decline within what was considered "the backyard."
What happens when a declining power refuses to accept its diminished role? How might America's refusal to adapt to a multipolar world affect global stability?
Chapitre 8
The Doomsday Clock: Nuclear Threats and Climate Catastrophe
In January 2015, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved its Doomsday Clock to three minutes before midnight, a threat level not reached for thirty years. The Bulletin cited two major existential threats: nuclear weapons and "unchecked climate change," condemning world leaders for failing to protect humanity from potential catastrophe. Despite mounting evidence of climate crisis-like the alarming 2012 collapse of Greenland's Zachariae Isstrom glacier, which is now losing 5 billion tons of ice annually-the Paris climate conference faced severe limitations.
Though French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared the Paris climate agreement "legally binding," its effectiveness is severely compromised by U.S. politics. As the New York Times noted, traditional legally binding treaties requiring ratification were impossible "because of the United States"-specifically the Republican-controlled Senate. Instead, the agreement relies on voluntary plans, virtually guaranteeing failure. The Republican Party has become "a real danger to decent human survival," with every 2016 Republican presidential candidate denying climate science and opposing Obama's climate policies.
The Doomsday Clock was moved to three minutes before midnight in January 2015, reflecting the growing threat of nuclear war. The last time it reached this point was 1983 during Reagan's Able Archer exercises, which simulated attacks on the Soviet Union and nearly triggered nuclear war. Recently released archives reveal Russia was preparing to respond to these "rash and reckless exercises."
We've since learned of numerous near-catastrophes: Russian officer Stanislav Petrov's refusal to report a false missile alert; submarine commander Vasili Arkhipov preventing nuclear torpedo launches during the Cuban Missile Crisis; a 1979 training tape mistakenly showing a Soviet attack that nearly prompted a real U.S. response; a 1995 scientific rocket mistaken for a nuclear missile by Russia. Nuclear security expert Bruce Blair reports numerous incidents where actual launch orders were sent instead of exercise orders, with disaster averted only by human intervention.
Current U.S. strategic doctrine, committed to "strategic primacy" (insulation from retaliatory strikes), heightens nuclear dangers. This includes Obama's "new triad" of strengthened missile systems and missile defense designed to counter retaliation. NATO's expansion to Russia's borders, violating promises made to Gorbachev during the USSR's collapse, has further escalated tensions. Russia understands that U.S. missile defense systems near its borders effectively function as first-strike weapons.
Military maneuvers on both NATO-Russian borders continue, with "both sides believing war is no longer unthinkable"-an insane position given that nuclear winter effects from a first strike could destroy the attacker even without retaliation. For seventy years, security of populations has rarely been policymakers' leading concern.
While state power obsessively protects itself from the population, actual security of citizens receives marginal concern. Two dire threats-global warming and nuclear weapons-are not only ignored but actively accelerated by state policies serving concentrated power interests. The exuberance about "a hundred years of energy independence" as America becomes "the Saudi Arabia of the next century" illustrates the moral calculus of state capitalism: profits tomorrow outweigh the fate of future generations.
If we continue on this path, will there be anyone left to remember our mistakes? What will future generations think of our priorities if we manage to survive?
Chapitre 9
Magna Carta, Its Fate, and Ours: The Erosion of Rights
As we approach the millennium of Magna Carta, the foundation of civil and human rights is being "gnawed by rats" - shredded before our eyes. Blackstone's scholarly edition included both the Charter of Liberties and the Charter of the Forest, with the former recognized as "the charter of every self-respecting man at any time in any land," as Churchill put it. When Charles I violated his pledge to recognize the law's sovereignty, it triggered the English Civil War.
The Charter of the Forest, Magna Carta's companion document, demanded protection of the commons from external power. These weren't primitive wilderness but carefully developed resources maintained in common for general sustenance, available to all and preserved for future generations. The Charter imposed limits on privatization - themes captured in Robin Hood myths. By the seventeenth century, this charter fell victim to capitalist practice, restricting common rights to what couldn't be privatized.
Today, struggles continue worldwide against privatization, from Bolivia's successful resistance against water privatization to El Salvador's fight against destructive gold mining. The prevailing capitalist view, expressed in Garrett Hardin's "tragedy of the commons," claims unowned resources will be destroyed by individual greed - a radical revision of how commons were traditionally conceived and managed.
Since the industrial revolution, enormous efforts have been devoted to inculcating what American workers bitterly called "the New Spirit of the Age, Gain Wealth forgetting all but Self." Major industries like public relations, advertising, and marketing - what Veblen called "fabricating wants" - direct people toward "superficial things" like "fashionable consumption," atomizing individuals and diverting them from challenging authority. Edward Bernays termed this "engineering of consent," while Walter Lippmann praised "the manufacture of consent" as democracy's "new art." Both believed the public must be marginalized as "spectators, not participants" because people were too "stupid and ignorant" to run their own affairs.
Post-Civil War amendments extended personhood to African-Americans in theory, but after a brief decade of relative freedom, a condition akin to slavery returned through the North-South compact that criminalized black life. Black men could be arrested for vagrancy or fabricated charges, creating what Wall Street Journal bureau chief Douglas Blackmon called "slavery by another name." This system provided a perfect workforce for the industrial revolution: docile, obedient workers who couldn't strike and required minimal maintenance. This persisted until World War II's labor demands, followed by a brief postwar period when black men could find decent unionized work. By the 1970s, neoliberal economic restructuring made much of the black population "superfluous" and led to mass recriminalization.
While the Fourteenth Amendment granted rights to former slaves theoretically, it simultaneously created a new category of persons with rights: corporations. By a century ago, courts had determined these state-created legal fictions possessed full personhood rights-in fact, far greater rights due to their scale, immortality, and limited liability protections. Under "free-trade agreements," corporations can sue nations while individuals cannot. Domestically, recent Supreme Court rulings have enhanced corporate political power, undermining democracy.
Meanwhile, Magna Carta faces direct assault. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 barring "imprisonment beyond the seas" is violated through "rendition" practices. Due process has been redefined by the Obama administration's drone assassination program to mean merely "internal deliberations in the executive branch." The Justice Department and constitutional-lawyer president agreed that this satisfies constitutional guarantees. "Presumption of innocence" has been reinterpreted too-the administration counts all military-age males in strike zones as combatants unless posthumously proven innocent, ignoring Geneva Conventions requirements.
The Charter of the Forest aimed to protect the commons from external power. While fossil fuel dependence courts global disaster, power concentrations move in the opposite direction. Indigenous communities, traditional upholders of the Charter principles, lead in confronting this environmental crisis.
How have we allowed our fundamental rights to be so thoroughly eroded? What would it take to reclaim the promise of Magna Carta for all people?
Chapitre 10
The Cuban Missile Crisis: How Close We Came to Annihilation
Fifty years ago, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world stood still as nuclear war threatened to "destroy the Northern Hemisphere." Kennedy estimated the probability of war at 50%, while his associate Arthur Schlesinger called it "the most dangerous moment in human history." Defense Secretary McNamara wondered if he'd "live to see another Saturday night" and later admitted "we lucked out."
Several moments during the crisis qualify as "most dangerous." On October 27, U.S. destroyers dropped depth charges on Soviet submarines, nearly prompting nuclear torpedo launches - averted only by Second Captain Vasili Arkhipov's intervention. Kennedy had already declared DEFCON 2, authorizing NATO aircraft to fly to Moscow with nuclear weapons.
Another candidate is October 26, which B-52 pilot Major Don Clawson considered the day "the nation was closest to nuclear war." His account reveals shocking command-and-control deficiencies: airborne crews carrying thermonuclear weapons "would have been possible to arm and drop them all with no further input from the ground. There was no inhibitor on any of the systems." About one-third of the Strategic Air Command force was airborne, with civilian leadership apparently kept in the dark about operational details.
On October 26, as Kennedy leaned toward military action, a letter arrived from Khrushchev offering to remove missiles if the U.S. promised not to invade Cuba. The next morning, another proposal emerged: Soviet withdrawal from Cuba in exchange for removing U.S. Jupiter missiles from Turkey.
Kennedy recognized this would be seen as "a very fair trade" by "any rational man" - these were obsolete missiles already scheduled for replacement by more lethal submarine-based Polaris missiles. Yet accepting such reasonable proposals was considered unthinkable.
National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy explained why: the world must understand that "the current threat to peace is not in Turkey, it is in Cuba." The vastly more powerful U.S. missile force aimed at the Soviets couldn't be considered a threat because America was "Good" - despite its ongoing terrorist campaign against Cuba.
The U.S. eventually agreed to withdraw the obsolete Turkish missiles, but refused to do so publicly or in writing - Khrushchev needed to appear to capitulate. Kennedy made an informal pledge not to invade Cuba, but with conditions: not just missile withdrawal but also termination of Russian military presence and an end to Cuba's "political subversion" in Latin America. This language of "subversion" had been used to justify overthrowing Guatemala's government under Eisenhower and Reagan's terror wars in Central America. Cuba's actual "subversion" consisted of supporting those resisting U.S. assaults and client regimes.
The missile crisis officially ended October 28, with CBS News reporting the world had escaped "the most terrible threat of nuclear holocaust since World War II" through a "humiliating defeat for Soviet policy." While Russians tried to claim their "supremely wise, always reasonable" leadership had saved the world, the basic fact remains that Khrushchev's capitulation did indeed prevent nuclear destruction.
Yet the crisis wasn't truly over. On November 8, the Pentagon announced all Soviet missile bases had been dismantled - but on that same day, a U.S. sabotage team attacked a Cuban factory, despite Kennedy's terror campaign (Operation Mongoose) having been formally curtailed during the crisis peak. This attack killed 400 workers according to Cuba's UN letter, undermining Soviet confidence in America's pledge not to attack Cuba.
In a narrow sense, Kennedy's moderation during the missile crisis seems reasonable - the ExComm tapes show him rejecting premature violence when others advocated military action. But this evaluation ignores the broader context: the unquestioned principle that America effectively owns the world by right and can deploy massive offensive force globally, while it's outrageous for others to make even slight gestures in that direction or attempt to deter American violence.
This doctrine remains the primary charge against Iran today - that it might pose a deterrent to U.S. and Israeli force. During the missile crisis, the Kennedy brothers worried Cuban missiles might deter a planned U.S. invasion of Venezuela, leading JFK to conclude "the Bay of Pigs was really right."
What lessons should we draw from how close we came to nuclear annihilation? How might understanding this history help us navigate today's nuclear tensions?
Chapitre 11
Whose Security? How Washington Protects Itself and the Corporate Sector
The question of how foreign policy is determined is crucial to understanding world affairs. While focusing on the United States due to its global significance, openness as a society, and relevance to Americans who can influence policy, the principles extend to other major powers. The "received standard version" claims governments primarily ensure security, with America's main concern after 1945 being the Russian threat. But when that threat disappeared in 1989, American foreign policy continued largely unchanged.
The U.S. immediately invaded Panama without the Soviet justification, instead creating fraudulent pretexts while violating international law - actions condemned globally but enthusiastically supported by American media. The Bush administration's post-Cold War security policy maintained a military establishment almost equal to the rest of the world combined, with the new excuse being the "technological sophistication" of Third World powers rather than Soviet threats. The policy also revealed that in the Middle East, the concern was never really Russia but "radical nationalism" - independent nationalism outside U.S. control.
At a 1945 hemispheric conference, the U.S. imposed an "Economic Charter of the Americas" designed to eliminate economic nationalism "in all its forms" - except for America itself. This directly contradicted Latin American aspirations for "broader distribution of wealth" and the belief that "the first beneficiaries of a country's resources should be the people of that country." Washington insisted that U.S. investors should be the primary beneficiaries while Latin America fulfilled its "service function," avoiding "excessive industrial development" that might compete with U.S. interests.
Cuba's 1959 independence threatened Washington because "the Castro idea of taking matters into one's own hands" appealed to the poor throughout Latin America. As Schlesinger explained to Kennedy, the region's poor were "stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution" and "demanding opportunities for a decent living." The CIA acknowledged that "Castroism" was influential not because of Cuban power but because "social and economic conditions throughout Latin America invite opposition to ruling authority." Kennedy feared Cuba might become a "showcase" for development, while the State Department worried that Castro represented "successful defiance" and "negation of our whole hemispheric policy" dating back to the Monroe Doctrine.
Kissinger captured U.S. foreign policy's essence by calling independent nationalism a "virus" that might "spread contagion." This thinking drove opposition to Allende's Chile and Vietnamese nationalism, fearing the latter might spread to resource-rich Indonesia or cause Japan to become "the industrial and commercial center of an independent new order." The solution was brutal: Vietnam was virtually destroyed and surrounded by military dictatorships, while Latin America suffered unprecedented repression from the 1960s through the 1980s.
The historical record shows that security in the conventional sense rarely drives policy. Rather, "security" often means protecting state power from its own population. Government secrecy serves primarily to "keep the population in the dark," as Samuel Huntington explained: "Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate."
While state power obsessively protects itself from the population, actual security of citizens receives marginal concern. Two dire threats - global warming and nuclear weapons - are not only ignored but actively accelerated by state policies serving concentrated power interests. The exuberance about "a hundred years of energy independence" as America becomes "the Saudi Arabia of the next century" illustrates the moral calculus of state capitalism: profits tomorrow outweigh the fate of future generations.
What would a foreign policy truly based on human security look like? How might prioritizing actual human needs transform international relations?
