The wide-ranging political views of the exceptional, international public intellectual, Noam Chomsky, have recently been searchingly assessed in the journal, Foreign Policy, by Professor Stephen M Walt, in an article entitled, “Noam Chomsky Has Been Proved Right”.
Professor Walt, a distinguished political scientist at Harvard University and a columnist at Foreign Policy, begins by explaining how:
“For more than half a century, Noam Chomsky has been arguably the world’s most persistent, uncompromising, and intellectually respected critic of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. In a steady stream of books, articles, interviews, and speeches, he has repeatedly sought to expose Washington’s costly and inhumane approach to the rest of the world, an approach he believes has harmed millions and is contrary to the United States’ professed values. As co-author Nathan J. Robinson writes in the preface, The Myth of American Idealism was written to ‘draw insights from across [Chomsky’s] body of work into a single volume that could introduce people to his central critiques of U.S. foreign policy.’ It accomplishes that task admirably.”
Noam Chomsky is fundamentally recognised for his seminal work in the field of cognitive science. Referred to by some as the “father of modern linguistics’ he is among the most cited of living authors. Chomsky, now aged 95, is currently living in Brazil where he is receiving medical treatment after a severe stroke.
Walt attentively summarises Chomsky’s work and he also sets out a series of thoughtfully argued reservations about aspects of Chomsky’s broad perspective. First, he questions the assessment that US foreign policy is overwhelmingly shaped by those corporate titans, “who own and manage the private empires that govern most aspects of our lives” while “the public’s role in decision-making is limited” and is kept that way through government and media “manufactured consent”.
Walt agrees that the importance of such special interests is “beyond question.” But then contends that experience shows how asserted national security interests can still thwart the best laid plans of American money-barons looking to profit from trade with, for example, Iran and China. Later he wonders, what if some of, today’s leading American tech-moguls (like Musk, Bezos and Thiel) were to apply themselves to manufacturing consent for a “less interventionist foreign policy” to advance their global trading ambitions – and their view of America best interests? Would Chomsky and Robinson still decry this new elite’s ability to manufacture consent for policies they might support?”
Walt also argues that the lack of discussion of the positive aspects of US foreign policy is the reviewed book’s “greatest limitation.” Professor Walt does not spell out specific, hallmark examples of those positive aspects. In fact, he seems less than firmly sure about their precise significance when it comes time to square the ledger, first confirming how many bad things the US has done before circumspectly adding that, “it must have done a few things right, as well.”
The apt primary concern of this review is the work of Chomsky and Robinson. Nevertheless, the review unsurprisingly encourages reflection on the central motivation for the intensified deformation of American foreign policy this century: the extraordinary rise of China. As it happens, current, recurring Sino-hostile foreign policy revisions are continually justified by reliance on avowed US national security interests.
Over the last forty years, China has fundamentally reduced global abject poverty numbers and become the world’s largest economy using a Purchasing Power Parity measure. As it has pioneered these astounding achievements, China has learnt, through intense experience, that if those it deals with ultimately do well too, then trade will be even better and the rise of China will be enhanced. This is the essence of what is understood by Beijing’s frequently repeated win-win mantra. This vision, when more fully expressed, is wordy and broad – but it is forward-looking and creative. Moreover, as CNN reports, it is a viewpoint that is plainly attractive to many countries.
And what is the America alternative? As it gets ready to inaugurate President Trump for a second term, the US looks set to offer a conspicuously re-heated version of Make America Great Again – and hang the rest. When we consider this comparative context, it is fair to expect that more American foreign policy “bad things” may be in the offing.
Professor Walt concludes by observing that, despite his reservations, “The Myth of American Idealism is a valuable work that provides an able introduction to Chomsky’s thinking.” adding that:
“If I were asked whether a student would learn more about US foreign policy by reading this book or by reading a collection of essays that current and former US officials occasionally write in journals such a Foreign Affairs and the Atlantic, Chomsky and Robinson would win hands down. I wouldn’t have written that last sentence when I began my career 40 years ago. I’ve been paying attention, however, and my thinking had evolved as the evidence has piled up. It is regrettable but revealing that a perspective on U.S. foreign policy once confined to the margins of left-wing discourse in the United States is now more credible than any shopworn platitudes that many senior U.S. officials rely on to defend their actions.”
Richard Cullen is an Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong. He was previously a Professor in the Department of Business Law and Taxation at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
