Product Description

From World War II until the 1980s, the United States reigned supreme as both the economic and the military leader of the world. The major shifts in global politics that came about with the dismantling of the Eastern bloc have left the United States unchallenged as the preeminent military power, but American economic might has declined drastically in the face of competition, first from Germany and Japan ad more recently from newly prosperous countries elsewhere. In Deterring Democracy, the impassioned dissident intellectual Noam Chomsky points to the potentially catastrophic consequences of this new imbalance. Chomsky reveals a world in which the United States exploits its advantage ruthlessly to enforce its national interests--and in the process destroys weaker nations. The new world order (in which the New World give the orders) has arrived.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #475276 in Books
• Published on: 1992-04-06
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 424 pages

From Publishers Weekly
Chomsky regards the "new world order" proclaimed by Bush as a sham. What this phrase means, argues the noted MIT scholar, is that the U.S. will persist in its role as global enforcer of its own foreign policies. This meticulously researched, disturbing report offers a revelatory portrait of the U.S. empire in the 1980s and '90s, an ugly side of America largely kept hidden from the public by a complacent media. Chomsky criticizes the cynical U.S. invasion of Panama that ousted Bush's and Reagan's former friend and client, General Manuel Noriega, noting also that Washington supplied military assistance to Iraq before Saddam Hussein shifted status overnight from "favored friend to new Hitler." In the Philippines, Africa and South America, Chomsky finds the same story: U.S. meddling to "defend our interests" brings increased poverty and political repression.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
This collection of essays emphasizes the destructive impact of American foreign policy in Central America. Supporting chapters interpret the origins of American global intervention, the creation of domestic consensus, and the effects of the "war on drugs." Much effort is devoted to exposing the "framework of illusion" that obscures the real objectives of violent repression in the Third World, "punishing the underclass" at home and protecting the conditions for "business rule" generally. Some readers will find Chomsky's style exaggerated and tendentious. Few scholars believe a 1952 Soviet proposal for a neutral unified Germany were remotely as straightforward as Chomsky assumes. Nevertheless, the author's sheer intellectual power and his command of sources amounts to a troubling indictment of Washington's official lies and sanctioned brutality, a situation unchallenged by the mainstream press. Recommended for academic and larger public libraries.
- Zachary T. Irwin, Pennsylvania State Univ.-Erie
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Review
"A volatile, serious contribution to the debate over American's role as the globe's sole remaining superpower."--San Francisco Chronicle

"Chomsky is the Left's answer to William F. Buckley. Deterring Democracy can sparkle with inspiration."--Los Angeles Times

"[Offers] a deepened understanding of the dynamics of global politics before, during, and after the Cold War . . . A compendious and thought-provoking work."--The New Statesman

"Noam Chomasy . . . is a major scholary resource. Not to have read [him] . . . is to court genuine ignorance."--The Nation
-- Review

Customer Reviews

Well written and well documented (from the mainstream media)
Unlike the reviewer Mr. Gartman, I do not see Chomsky's ideas as poorly researched or un-deductive. Quite the opposite: most of his sources come directly from the mainstream media in the US and are quite illuminating to US foreign policy. Chomsky is also one of the more empirical thinkers I've read before, which also means one must think a lot about his ideas before accepting or rejecting them. His assertions are based upon a very wide world view, one that cannot be easily condensed into a simply International Politics book. Like Mr. Gartman, I would interject that the US does not act to limit the freedoms of the people in other countries out of malice, but out of it's own concern and interest. This is, Mr. Gartman, what Chomsky is arguing. I do disagree with you as to the extent that elites play in the execution of US concern and interest, however. It is plain to see in the fact that, although the US is a democracy (although not in law-- we are technically a republic), that democracy only extends insofar as everyone has a meaningful way of affecting policy and interacting in that democracy. We all know how much say we have in our democracy: we get to vote once a year, and for Presidential elections, once every four years. The rest of the time it is up to certain interests to affect those policy makers to have their will done. That is not democracy. That is what Chomsky argues.

Like another reader, I think the history _can_ speak for itself: the US has acted like a belligerent thug in the past, regardless of what reason and for who's interests, and in a humanistic world view, that is wrong. Most people, if made known of that truth, would also condemn US belligerence. Others, such as Mr. Gartman, may choose to re-write that history or deny it.

Brilliant and thought provoking analysis
I picked up this book because I was quite ashamed at the American political scene at home and quite mystified with its actions abroad. I was angry that our government and the business community seemed to be drifting farther and farther from popular control, and how politicians were condescending, insincere, and corrupt. I wondered if America really was the savior of the world I had been taught to believe it to be, or whether it was all a hoax. I remembered from my childhood how the toughest guys always bullied the weaker individuals, and I was extremely skeptical that the United States could have such power and always use it benevolently. The book proved to be an incredible read, right from the first page. Chomsky did not begin with the assumption that America has acted benevolently in the past, or that it ever meant to. Instead, he started with the facts, and constructed them into a global picture that should irk anybody with a conscience. The US IS a thug and a murderer, an untrustworthy goon, as far as international affairs are concerned. Even now, George W. Bush, the Republican candidate for the presidency, says he will "cancel," or VIOLATE, the treaty the United States signed with Russia that forbids both countries from building missile defense systems. Anybody concerned with the truth would do well to read this book.

One of Chomsky's best
Like a lot of people, I came across this particular work of Chomsky's before any of the rest, perhaps because it was the first in a long time that was brought out by a major publishing corporation (Vintage UK, a division of Random House) and not by a smaller, more radical press. (Sobering to remember that his first major political work, "American Power and the New Mandarins", was published in the UK by Penguin.) It changed the way I think about the world.

It's significant that critics of Chomsky's political writings have very little means at their disposal with which to criticise him. They can claim that he quoted one source out of context (even if this were true - one source out of the hundreds cited in the whole book? Chomsky didn't make up NSC 68, it's in the archives for anyone to read...); they can claim that he's a bolshevik who should go back to Russia (in spite of his lifelong denunciations of the Soviet regime, and his deep-rooted mistrust of state power in general - in fact, Chomsky has often said that the reason he hasn't denounced the crimes of the Soviet regime more often is because he didn't need to, practically everybody else did); they can claim that he denied the Khmer Rouge atrocities (he never has, in fact he has compared it in scale to the activities of Indonesia in East Timor - however, plenty of people have pretended that he's denied KR atrocities, especially in the French press - see his "Language and Politics" for the details) or that he's a Holocaust denier (which he isn't; he defended the right of a Holocaust denier to free speech, while publicly disassociating himself from the man's opinions, on the grounds that if you don't give your enemies the right to free speech then "free speech" is meaningless). The fact is, most people who have a problem with Chomsky base their criticisms on what other critics of him have said, and never bother to actually read his work.

This is a pity, as Chomsky is not so much a theorist of politics as a sort of higher journalist. His method is to present us with facts - documents, statements, commentary - and invite us to draw conclusions based upon them. He is far from being a "conspiracy theorist"; he shows us that there is no conspiracy, that it's going on right under our noses, in the pages of our newspapers, on our TV news bulletins, albeit tarted up and edited to seem like it's something else. So that the invasions of Panama and Grenada are, in some way, of a higher moral order than the invasion of Kuwait - the first are "defending the national interest", the second is "violating the rights of a sovereign country". The actions were much the same in terms of human consequences, i.e. invading a country and killing civilians, but our justifications (when we bother to provide any) are assumed, without explanation, to be impeccable, whereas our enemies' actions must ipso facto be the work of Satan.

The recent events in New York and Washington are tragic and appalling. No less tragic and appalling were the thousands of deaths in El Salvador caused by US-trained death squads, or the suffering caused to innocents by sanctions against Iraq (which Saddam Hussein, a vicious despot and former trusted US client, is able to exploit by whipping up anti-US sentiment). It all gets a little bit clearer when you start separating people from states. States make policies, people suffer from them. Chomsky's humane anarchism increasingly seems like the only possible solution to the violence that threatens to worsen the divides that our governments and others have already created in the world.

It must be said that his literary style, while dry, factual and effective enough, is tough to read in large doses - although maybe it's the terrible nature of his subject matter that's exhausting. But that misses the point. These are books to use as resources, not as cheerful afternoon reading. They are tools, not fun reads. His published interviews are generally easier to get through, and he even displays a vein of sarcastic wit that's absent from his books. But what an example he remains, to anyone concerned with the crimes that are done in our name. He can't have a hell of a long time left on the planet, and when he goes, he will be sorely missed. But he has inspired many others to follow his example, and for this alone, anyone interested in the _true_ meaning of freedom and democracy must be grateful.