 |
 |
 |
 |
   |
 |
| page 4
of 6 |
|
|
|
 |
Northeast Asia’s Gross Domestic
Product is much higher than that of the United States,
and it's growing fast. The United States is concerned
about the integration of Northeast Asia. The North Korea
issue is right in the center of this. Similar problems
are arising in Europe. All of this talk about "old
Europe"-- France and Germany, we can get rid of them--
reflects fears that go back to the end of the Second World
War, fears that Europe might move on an independent course.
And if it does, it's going to be led by its industrial
and financial heartland, namely Germany and France.
Germany and France were bitterly condemned because the
governments took the same position as the large majority
of the population, instead of following orders from Washington.
In fact, the hatred of democracy that was expressed in
the last few months has absolutely no parallel that I
know of. In the countries that were praised, New Europe,
the population was even more opposed to the war than in
Old Europe. But, the leadership was willing to follow
orders from Crawford, Texas, so that made them good guys.
They had democratic credentials, since they were following
orders from us, though they were disregarding maybe 80
or 90 percent of the population.
If there's ever been an expression of hatred of democracy
like this in the past, I haven't seen it. But it's not
just that the other countries were not following orders,
it's that they might become independent. Thirty years
ago, 1973, was called "the year of Europe,"
to celebrate European integration. Henry Kissinger gave
an important address, which one should read now because
it's very pertinent. It was called "The Year of Europe
Address," in which he warned the Europeans that,
though they're now economically powerful, they should
recognize that they have only regional responsibilities
within an overall framework of order managed by the United
States. And Northeast Asia has to realize that too. They
have regional responsibilities, but don't get any funny
ideas. This is within an overall framework of order managed
by the Untied States.
But there's no certainty that Europe and Northeast Asia
can be controlled. Asia is moving towards integration;
what's called ASEAN plus three--Southeast Asia, plus the
three industrial powers to the north-- is also moving
in an independent direction. If you look at a longer stretch
of history, it's not at all surprising. If you go back
a couple of hundred years, the major commercial and industrial
centers of the world were South and East Asia--India and
China. Asia is reconstructing. And the United States doesn't
like it at all.
For example, if Northeast Asia becomes integrated in terms
of energy resources, with pipelines from Siberia to China
and Japan, maybe through North Korea into South Korea,
it will have much less dependence on Middle East oil.
The U.S. wants to control Middle East oil as a lever of
world control. It's not that the U.S. needs the oil of
the Middle East; it probably doesn't. But, it must control
it.
Fifty years ago George Kennan, the top government planner,
said that control over Middle East oil gives us "veto
power" over Japan's potential"-- at that time,
potential industrial-military actions. They didn't take
it seriously, but it could happen. And control over Middle
East oil and over the shipping lanes gives the United
States very significant control over the countries of
the region, but not if they develop their own integrated
resource-based industrial development, which is right
on the horizon. And the same is true in Europe. So, it's
not simply a matter of controlling the population of the
United States. Controlling the world is not an easy matter.
It's true that the U.S. spends almost as much in military
expenditures as the rest of the world combined, and it's
far more advanced technologically. In the military dimension,
it's unchallenged, but that's not the only dimension by
any means. |
|
 |
In a sense, it's to the
United States’ advantage for there to be a simmering
problem in North Korea? |
|
|
It's a complicated matter. The current
administration’s [policies are] pretty striking.
After all, the Clinton administration was moving towards
some kind of diplomatic resolution. It was dragging its
feet, but the framework agreement of 1994 was at least
in place. Neither side lived up to it, but it was at least
in place, and there was some possibility.
The Bush administration immediately dismantled it and
is moving towards confrontation. It's not a big secret
that the countries of the region want to pursue diplomatic,
negotiated settlements. And there are opportunities. North
Korea is a pretty crazy place, but they're making it reasonably
clear that they would trade security guarantees in exchange
for reduction of their very threatening military development.
What they're asking for isn't that crazy. A non-aggression
agreement from the United States, economic assistance;
all of that makes sense. It may be a way of moving towards
slowly integrating North Korea into the region in a healthier
fashion, leading one hopes to changes internally that
will open the place up politically and economically and
so on. It's a long process, but that's the way to do it.
The alternative is pretty frightening. A recent task force
headed by Selig Harrison, a well-known Asia specialist,
just published a study called "The Road to Perdition."
They called the confrontational policy a road to perdition--
it's going to lead to disaster. But, there are possibilities
for diplomatic and economic initiatives, sunshine-policy
initiatives that are not without prospects and certainly
should be pursued.
It's striking that the United States is taking a different
stand from the regional countries in this respect. Not
entirely, but different. I suspect that a lot of what
lies behind the US stance is the concern that if there
is a peaceful diplomatic settlement, it will be a spur
towards integration. I mean, North Korea isn't that important
geo-politically, but it's not of no importance either.
Gas pipelines and the extension of the trans-Siberian
railroad through North Korea and into the south would
be another step towards bringing the region into closer
integration by tying together its resource base and its
industrial capacity. I think the United States is not
happy about that prospect now, just as they haven't been
happy, vocally, about the pipeline system. |
|
|
|
|
All materials on these pages
are copyrighted by SIGLO Ltd.All rights reserved.Text
(c) Noam Chomsky.
No part of these pages, either text or image, may be used
for any purpose other than personal or educational use.
Contact us:siglo@cine.co.jp |
 |
 |
|
|
|
