Noam Chomsky-Rogue States
... qualifies as a leading “rogue state” because of its alleged involvement in international terrorism,” (29). Chomsky sees this situation, the one in Cuba with the US, Indonesia, and the fight in South Africa as examples that the label “rogue state” applies only to countries whose ideas conflict with the ideas of superpowers, namely the United States. Iraq is labeled by the United States and the UK as a “rogue state.” Chomsky says that “the concept of “rogue state” plays a preeminent role today in policy planning and analysis,” (12). This fact has a direct effect on how we dealt, and are dealing with the situation in Iraq. The US and the UK claim that they have tried to talk to Iraq about problems they are having, but Chomsky states that, “The most interesting feature of the debate over the Iraq crisis is that it never took place,” (12). Chomsky believes that, “there are legitimate ways to react to the many threats to world peace…But no state hast he authority to make its own determinations on these matters and to act as it chooses; the US and UK would have no such authority even if their own hands were clean—hardly the case,” (13). He states that there is a right way to go about solving problems like the one in Iraq, but going alone and without authorization from the UN is not the correct solution. Everyone has their opinion on how superpowers and countries should deal with these so called “rogue states.” The New York Times got into the picture by stating, “US Insists It Retains Right to Punish Iraq,” (14). Chomsky follows that quote up with one of his own, “The US has the unilateral right to use force at will. Period,” (14). He believes that the US will force its will upon whoever they want, whenever they want. Prime Minister Moshe Sharett states, “In the hands of the world’s superpower, which regards itself as an outlaw state and is subject to few constraints from elites within, that stance poses no problem for the world,” (20). Chomsky writes that we were friendly with Iraq and even aided them with money and weapons until Sadaam, “misinterpreted US willingness to allow him to modify the border with Kuwait by force as authorization to take the country over,” (22). It seems as though we favor countries that only do what we want them to do, and when they act against us, we will attack them or hinder them in some way. Although Chomsky disagrees with the way we have handled the situation in Iraq, he states, “It surely qualifies as a leading criminal state,” (24). Chomsky’s most telling line about why Iraq is labeled a “rogue state” by the US is when he states, “It was not when his massive crimes that elevated Saddam to the rank of “Beast of Baghdad, it was when his stepping out of line, much as in the case of the far more minor criminal Noreiga, whose major crimes were also committed while he was a US client,” (28). Chomsky goes on to say, ”That Saddam is a criminal is undoubtedly true…It is also true that he poses a threat to anyone in his reach,” (30). While he states these opinions on Iraq, he also mentions the fact that most of Iraq’s neighboring countries do not feel threatened by him. Chomsky writes that, “The president of the United Arab Emirates described US threats of military actions as “bad and loathsome,” and declared that Iraq does not pose a threat to its neighbors,” (30). Chomsky seems to be caught in between on this situation, he knows Iraq needs to be changed for the better, but he also knows that they way the US wants to accomplish that is wrong. Noam Chomsky writes an in-depth analysis on Plan Columbia, stating many facts and providing numerous examples of what exactly the plan is. Chomsky writes, “In theory, “Plan Columbia” is a two-year Columbian government program of $7.5 billion, with the US providing the military muscle and token funds for other purposes, and some $6 billion…for social and economic programs that Columbia is to prepare,” (62). This plan was put into place to try and help Columbia with its drug trafficking problem that is ruining the lives of thousands of citizens, while benefiting very few. Chomsky states that, “In 1999, Columbia became the leading recipient of US military and police assistance,” (62). Columbia replaced Turkey the main receiver of help mainly because we didn’t need Turkey as much anymore. It is known that Columbia receives more money from the US, “than the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean combined,” (62). It seems like we are putting all our eggs in one basket. The amount of money that we are sending to Columbia is expected to only get larger. When President Clinton sent the bill to, “Congress in April 2000, which called for a $1.6 billion “emergency aid” package for two years,” (62), people like Chomsky got the sense that this might lead to something big, and quite expensive. Chomsky comments on the military part of the plan, “The military program (arms, training, intelligence infrastructure) was in place in late 1999, but the Columbian government has yet to present a coherent social investment program,” (62). The “drug war” in Columbia is said to be achieving its goals; while most people see it failing. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan states that, “we are choosing to have an intense crime problem concentrated among minorities,” (81). The next issue with Columbia has to do with the military strength that we are sending them, and how it is having a negative impact on the lives of the average Columbian. “In both Columbia and East Timor, the conclusion drawn was exactly as in Turkey: support the killers,” (67). We are sending the Columbian government weapons and money, and even training soldiers, but it seems to be backfiring. Chomsky writes, “In Columbia, however, the military armed and trained by the United States has not crushed domestic resistance, though it continues to produce its regular annual toll of atrocities,” (64). A horrible thing to read is that, “the Columbian security forces that are to be greatly strengthened by the Columbia Plan maintain an intimate relationship with death squads, organize parliamentary groups, and either participate in their massacres directly, or…help the parliamentary groups to achieve their exterminating objective,” (65). “Quite predictably, the announcement of the Columbia Plan led to countermeasures by the guerrillas, in particular, a demand that everyone with assets of more than $1 million pay a “revolutionary tax,” (70). Chomsky knows that the forces we are giving the Columbian government are being used in other ways and it’s not working out like we hoped it had; in fact more deaths are the result of it. There are different ways to connect “Plan Columbia” to what Chomsky has been talking about with regards to “Rogue States.” Although Chomsky might not consider Columbia a “rogue state,” there are similarities to how we treat Columbia like other countries we consider “Rogue States.” Just like with Iraq, we provide Columbia with money and weapons, but they end up doing horrible things with them. It isn’t until they fall out of line with what they want to do, that we will hurt them in some way. We provide them with things for now because they do what we want them to do, but when they no longer oblige to our wishes, that may soon change. If that ever happens, it is more than likely that we will then label Columbia as a “Rogue State.” “The Legacy of War” goes along with every different kind of war there is. The Legacy has to do with what went on during the war, and what were the outcomes. It has a lot to do with how people perceived the war and who won the battles. “The Legacy of War” goes back to past times, and continues today with battles that are considered spiritual fights, having to do with the “Sacralization of War.” Legacy has to do with power and how the world’s most dominant countries use that power to control the world. Usually in war throughout history, civilians have been the target of most armies. Mainly, they Legacy are how people perceive what happened in war; who was the good guy, and who was the bad guy. The most powerful nations always try to make themselves look good. The Sacralization of war “is the merger of militarism and the Church,” (156). There are many aspects that go into this “Sacralization of war,” but one of the main points is the concerns of nobody attacking member of the church and people’s houses and belongings. Modern historians call Sacralazation of war “the clerical reformation of the fighting laymen, an attempt to add a spiritual dimension to the atrocities and the brutalities of the age of chivalry,” (157). The Sacralization of war is basically just about how Church and war have effects on one another, and how Church can decide how wars are fought and who is fought against. There is an excerpt from a British historian talking about a soldier who kills all day, but if he has attained a spiritual side, all is forgiven. I believe that the “Sacralization of War” applies today in many countries throughout the world. Many countries in the Middle East and throughout the world praise their soldiers or citizens who terrorize their enemies. There is so much hate between different nations and religions in the world today; it is just one big cluster of different religions. One person could be labeled as the “evil doer” by a certain country, but back in his home land, he would be labeled as a hero, or a spiritual fighter. It seems like Church and war go hand in hand during many different situations, p...