>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.
Speaking of Kennan, I don't think anyone's quoted the man himself on the topic of imperialist economics. Here's a beaut, from Chomsky's Turning the Tide:
"... we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction ... We should cease to talk about vague and-for the Far East-unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
[Source: Policy Planning Study 23, Feb 24, 1948, Foreign Relations of the United States 1948, I (part 2), cited in Etzold and Gaddis, Containment, p. 226.]
Chomsky comments: "This prescription is noteworthy not only for its clarity and forthrightness, but also because of its source, one of the most thoughtful and humane of US planners, who left his position not long after because he was considered not sufficiently tough-minded for this harsh world."
Now the U.S. has about 4% of the world's population and 25% of its wealth, but the principle holds.
Doug