[Peace-discuss] Letter to DI

[David Green]

The original text of my letter that was published on
Wednesday. I had to cut it to 300 words. Be warned:
the longer version includes some violations of the
Oscar Wilde rule referred to by Carl. In this case,
concision promoted relative politeness.

Editor:

In “Setting the Record Straight” (Letters, 4/28), Fred
Gottheil asserts that “societies open to modern
technology, modern ideas, and that participate in
world markets succeed while those who shut out
modernity fail.” Professor Gottheil states that “the
empirical evidence supporting this view is
overwhelming,” which must explain why he refers to no
such evidence.

What the overwhelming empirical/historical evidence
does show is that the United States defines nations as
successful if they serve the economic interests of
American corporations and elites, and as unsuccessful
if they place the needs of their own inhabitants
first. Thus for Iran in 1954, it did not matter that
their leader was modern, but that he was a
nationalist. He was overthrown by the C.I.A. and
replaced by the authoritarian Shah, whose murderous
rule was supported by the U.S. (and Israel) until the
bitter end in 1979. In Chile in 1973, the quite modern
but ultimately “unsuccessful” Allende was not only
removed but murdered by U.S.-supported military
forces, and replaced by a neo-Nazi general who was
modern in only a fascistic sense, but certainly
successful in his willingness to cooperate with U.S.
corporate interests in abiding by the ideological
dictates of the Chicago School of economics. Examples
of such U.S.-determined failures and successes are
legion, from Guatemala and Nicaragua to Vietnam and
Indonesia, where in all cases the U.S. has reacted to
the more positive aspects of modernity
(anti-colonialism, national liberation,
self-determination) with subversion or invasion,
leading to “successes” that Professor Gottheil does
not seem to find troubling; for example, Indonesia’s
genocidal invasion and occupation of East Timor.

Iraq under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein was
modern and successful so long as it served U.S.
interests, especially in its war against revolutionary
Iran. It only failed when it challenged U.S. interests
in the region. The “success” of the new Iraq will
depend not on its modernity, but its subservience to
its imperial rulers. Count Professor Gottheil among
them.

David Green


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com