Brad

Brett Knowlton brettk at unica-usa.com
Thu Aug 27 07:53:06 PDT 1998


At 09:37 AM 8/27/98 +0200, jeffrey sommers wrote:
>
>Moreover, each nation-state (or colony) cannot be treated as some
>hermetically sealed unit where direct economic exploitation is the only
>motivation for a first world nation(s) to dominate it. The "rules of
>the game" thesis applies nicely to Vietnam. In the 1960s the greatest
>danger to the world system (sorry to get Wallerteinian on you) was the
>possibility of many nations following Vietnam's lead, and thus
>threatening to remove raw materials and markets from that system.

I couldn't agree more with this assessment. In fact, if you go back and read the (now de-classified) policy planning documents of people like George Kennan and other high level government officials in charge of determining foreign policy, they bluntly admit to exactly this strategy.

Chomsky has pointed this out time and time again, relying on virtually overwhelming evidence to support this claim. If you want imperialistic relations with most of the world, then you can't just let individual countries go wandering off doing their own thing, no matter how small or insignificant. This may give other countries (with more significant resources) similar ideas. This is the domino effect, and it is plain that it is not to be tolerated. The notion of defending the free world against communism (what most people think of as the domino effect) was just a convenient excuse which served to hide our real intentions of economic dominance.

How else can you explain our invasion of Granada? I'd wager most people in the US were not even cognizant of its existence before we invaded it. And why should they? Its an insignificant speck on the map, with zero military or economic importance. But this episode underscores how seriously our gov't takes the domino effect - even GRANADA has to cowtow to US investors and multinationals.

Brett



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list