 |
 |
 |
 |
   |
 |
| page 5
of 6 |
|
|
|
 |
So the obstruction of that
process, in a sense, is pushing North Korea against the
wall, isn't it? And pushing them to develop nuclear weapons
whether they want to or not? |
|
 |
It is pushing them in that direction.
You can see it. You can ask whether that's the conscious
intent of that or not. We can't say. We don't have television
cameras in the internal planning meetings. But, it certainly
looks like that. I think there must be internal debates
going on, recognizing that this is dangerous. On the other
hand, if we let integration develop, that's also dangerous.
They've got to make a choice. And there are similar questions
about Europe and have been for years. Kissinger's statement
wasn't out of the blue. That goes back a long time.
The United States has always been quite ambivalent about
European unification. It favored it, in that Europe is
a huge market. The basis of contemporary multinational
industry and enterprise is the European market. The U.S.
multinationals flourished on the European integration,
so they're very much in favor of it.
On the other hand, they're worried about it, for the reasons
that Kissinger mentioned. He was neither the first nor
the last. This hysteria about new and old Europe is in
large part a reflection of that. It's not the "disobedience"
of France and Germany [that is at issue].. Their unwillingness
to follow U.S. orders is regarded as very threatening.
Who knows what they'll do next? That's one of the reasons
why the United States is so interested in expanding the
European Union and NATO to include the Eastern European
countries. It is assumed, probably rightly, that they
will be more submissive to U.S. demands than the old centers
of European power are. They're kind of Trojan horse by
which U.S. power can intervene.
And it's also hoped that they'll help undermine the European
social market, which the U.S. doesn't like at all, of
course. They are a source of cheap labor-- kind of a European
Mexico-- that can undermine the more progressive structure
of the European social market system. All of this ties
together, and it's a complicated affair.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is shifting its military basing system
from Central Europe towards the Middle East and Central
Asia. Bases are moving from Germany to Bulgaria and Romania.
Probably the major result of the Afghan war, from the
U.S. point of view, is that the U.S. ends up with a strong
military position in Central Asia, which is a benefit
to U.S. corporations in the so-called Great Game, over
who controls its resources, but, more important than that,
it helps surround the far more significant Persian Gulf
energy system, which is the main one in the world.
The U.S. military basing system, from Okinawa and Guam
up to the Azores, has been focused, to a large extent,
on the Middle East. And the same is true of the Central
European ones. Now that's moving closer to the region.
Until the Afghan War, the U.S. had only one reliable military
base near the Persian Gulf, namely the British island
of Diego Garcia. The population was kicked out [of the
island]. The British courts ordered the government to
allow them to return, but the U.S. just refused. That's
a military base, but it was a small base in the middle
of the ocean. Now they've got bases in Afghanistan, in
Central Asia, and probably pretty soon in Iraq, and surrounding
ones in Eastern Europe. The bases are moving toward the
region that's of crucial significance for strategic domination
of the world. |
|
|
They're also moving from
South Korea and Okinawa toward frontline positions. |
|
|
South Korea is interesting. It's a little
ominous. The part of the North Korean deterrent that's
prevented a U.S. attack on North Korea is not nuclear
weapons. It's massed artillery right along the DMZ, which
is aimed at Seoul and at American troops. That's the deterrent.
But the American troops are being withdrawn to the south,
and that's causing a lot of concern in both Koreas and
in the region as to whether it's a signal that the U.S.
might attack, with its own soldiers out of artillery range.
Pretty cynical, and I don't believe it, but it's something
to worry about.
I'm sure that, meanwhile, the Pentagon is working very
hard on precision-guided weapons and other methods for
destroying that artillery to the north of the DMZ. And
if they can figure out how to do that, then North Korea
would be vulnerable. North Korea is not protecting itself
with nuclear weapons. |
|
|
|
|
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 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
