ZNet InterActive <http://www.zmag.org/interznet.htm> by Dave Ross and Edward Herman April 05, 2003
>
> <http://www.zmag.org> <http://www.zmag.org>
> TERROR WAR
>
> David Ross: In The Real Terror Network (1982), you documented how the U.S.
> government did not support democracy around the world as we've all been
> taught, but instead, supported totalitarian states that would insure a good
> climate for investment...
>
> Ed Herman: We support democracy when it will serve our interests, but as The
> Real Terror Network indicates, not when it won't serve those interests. The
> interests were talking about are not the general, public interests, but the
> interests of the forces that dominate U.S. foreign policy. The Real Terror
> Network is about a terror network that the United States sponsored, mainly in
> Latin America during the 1960's and 1970's, which brought into existence a
> system of national security states that were highly undemocratic and torture
> prone. These were our babies. We supported them. We sponsored them, and a
> number of these states that arose in those years had previously been
> democracies, like Brazil in 1964, Chile in 1973, and Guatemala in 1954. So
> it's clear that we were not pro-democracy when other interests were at stake
> and these other interests are fundamentally corporate interests. Our
> corporations want what is called a "favorable climate for investment," and
> very often, democratic governments won't afford ent allowed unions to survive
> and gave them some protections. If you look all through the Latin American
> political system, when these democracies were being overthrown in favor of
> national security states, they were not communist governments at all. There
> were almost no communists in any of these countries, but they had social
> democratic leanings, and they, therefore, were a threat to the transnational
> corporations who didn't like trade unions. In fact, almost all those national
> security states dismantled trade unions. The national security states made
> things very good for the transnational corporations entering their country.
> The most beautiful case of support for a terror state in the interests of
> corporations is Indonesia. We supported the Suharto revolution in 1965, which
> brought in one of the most vicious, totalitarian states in modern history. But
> we loved it, because it was very corporate friendly and for a certain bribe
> price Suharto would allow our companies to enter the country and engage in
> timber
>
> DR: The fight against communism was used as a smokescreen to insure a good
> climate for investment around the world. Today we have the so-called "war on
> terror." Is this another smokescreen?
>
> Ed Herman: I really think it is. The terrorists' attack on 9-11 was a pretty
> severe attack, and I would argue that it was legitimate to try to get the
> people who perpetrated that attack. But the Bush Administration immediately
> declared a global war, allegedly targeting Al Qaeda and the Taliban, even
> though it had supported them or allowed them to exist, at least in
> Afghanistan. It became clear that the Bush Administration was going to go a
> lot farther than just looking for the people who perpetrated 9-11. It provided
> an excuse for doing what they wanted to do anyway-to project U.S. power
> overseas. Once the Bush Administration got over the shock of 9-11, which was
> perhaps one of the greatest security failures in history once they got over
> the shock and the pain, with the help of the media who let them get away with
> this, they saw that the 9-11 attack was a marvelous opportunity. We were now
> the sole superpower. We could use the war on terror to do what we wanted to do
> everywhere. We could also use war on te
>
> DR: What are the real structures of economic and political power in the United
> States?
>
> Ed Herman: That's too easy. We have a very concentrated corporate system in
> the United States. We have a concentrated corporate media. We have a huge
> business apparatus that dominates the world. We have the most powerful
> transnational companies. We have a huge array of oil and automobile companies.
> We are a major business system, the most powerful business system in the
> world. We have a huge military-industrial complex that seeks to produce
> weapons.
>
> These boys all have very strong economic interests, and therefore, political
> interests. They want to have a favorable climate for investment abroad, and
> they also want a favorable climate for investment at home. So they want a
> government that's going to be friendly to them, that will not be too favorable
> to unions, that will not tax them too heavily, and that will not press them
> for environmental constraints. It's this underlying network of economic
> organizations which runs the whole gamut through the media system, that really
> dominates the United State
>
> DR: The British ruled by direct imperialism, directly administering weaker
> "third" world countries. The U.S. government has used a policy of
> neo-imperialism where they installed puppet dictators. But now, haven't we
> evolved toward a form of financial imperialism whereby the U.S. dominates the
> International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade
> Organization (WTO) and through them, the U.S. controls other governments?
>
> Ed Herman: Well no, I wouldn't put it that way, but it's true that we have
> evolved. We have a very complex form of imperialism in which we dominate, for
> one thing, by our economic power and penetration across the globe. The United
> States is a big lending government, which gives out a lot of loans. It's a
> tremendous economic power across the globe and that, itself, gives the United
> States a lot of power overseas. We have an overseas media system. Our
> advertising agencies are all over the place. In every country, we have U.S.
> installations and U.S. subsidiaries that are interlocked with business people
> and governments, so we have a lot of power just coming out of those
> interlocking economic relationships. We also have a huge military
> establishment that everybody fears. We have used this military might with
> increasing freedom of action and brutality. That's an element of our
> imperialism. We have military bases in over 100 countries, which gives us
> leverage in those countries. We've also established, as you'veg these other
> institutions. I wouldn't say this is financial control, but it is true that
> international finance has become extremely important in the world. So the
> money flows between countries in accordance with what the private sector
> decides is good for themselves. For example, if a government starts to tax
> business too heavily and goes populist, money will flow out, and that's an
> important constraint on them. Some people have argued that Finance rules,
> because of this capacity of financial institutions, financial traders, and
> this huge quantity of money flowing around the world, and the fact that it
> will respond not only to interest rates, but to political threats, which will
> translate into interest rates. But that's really part of the whole global
> financial and economic structure in a broad way. So we have a complex form of
> imperialism in which you have the great powers, the United States being the
> primary one, exercising its power through natural global relationships, its
> military, and its domination of
>
> DR: Margaret Thatcher has said that there is no alternative. Is this "The End
> of History?" Is Marxism finished? Is there any alternative to this type of
> imperial political-economic system?
>
> Ed Herman: Is there an alternative? At the moment, there is no alternative to
> capitalism and it's very difficult for countries to escape from this whole
> imperial system because of the power of the United States, its military, and
> these economic structures that keep countries and people in line. These
> structures are very powerful now and capitalism has really triumphed. So
> Thatcher was right in the short run, there is no alternative. But I'm not sure
> that's going to be true in the long run. Is Marx finished? I would argue that
> Marx has now come into his own, because Marx was analyzing how capitalism
> works, and I could make a case that capitalism was not really pure capitalism
> since 1989. Because from 1880-1989 there was always a threat of socialism. It
> was more of a threat when the Soviet Union provided an alternative model.
> There were other smaller models too, like Vietnam, Cuba, and for a brief
> period, Nicaragua. Socialism was an alternative; a lot of people thought it
> was real, and the capitalist world te. Things are returning to a dirty
> capitalism, and under those conditions, we can expect to see some kind of
> resistance-grassroots movements and renewed union movements-because we're
> talking about a system that's benefiting, at best, 10 percent of the world's
> population, and predominately 2 percent. But it's doing rather poorly for 80
> percent, and atrociously for 50 percent. If things continue, I think we're
> going to see a resurgence of organization, resistance, and union movements.
> But these are going to have to be global movements. The idea that there's
> going to be an end of history is a big laugh. By the time Francis Fukuyama,
> author of The End of History, had hardly gotten his book in print, it was
> clear that the new world order was more unstable than the old world order, and
> instability has become more severe over the whole globe. History is changing,
> it's looking uglier. But out of these horrors that are developing, hopefully,
> resistance will come forth.
>
> DR: What can citizens do to build a more just and egalitarian society?
>
> Ed Herman: It's pretty tough right now. Everybody that I know who's on the
> honest Left is pretty darn depressed-things have not been going our way. But
> there's no way an honest Leftist can give up the fight. We have to keep
> trying, and what we have to say to citizens everywhere is that we are in the
> huge majority, and our time will come. So we have to educate ourselves; we
> have to link up with others of similar beliefs; we have to network on email
> systems and in organizations; and we have to build grassroots movements. We
> can't do it ourselves, but we can't abandon the struggle either. The struggle
> is going to go on. And so, our options right now are, information,
> organization and education.
>
>
> David Ross does a talk show on KMUD radio in Redway, CA. He has worked on the
> Nader campaign, corporate accountability, U.S. foreign policy, and
> environmental issues. He can be reached at daveross27 at hotmail.com .
>
> To Read articles by Edward Herman on Iraq check out
> http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/edward_herman.htm
> </CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/edward_herman.htm>
>
>
------ End of Forwarded Message