NOAM CHOMSKY: When I was thinking about these remarks, I had two topics in mind, couldn’t decide between them—actually pretty obvious ones. One topic is, what are the most important issues that we face? The second topic is, what issues are not being treated seriously—or at all—in the quadrennial frenzy now underway called an election? But I realized that there’s no problem; it’s not a hard choice: they’re the same topic. And there are reasons for it, which are very significant in themselves. I’d like to return to that in a moment. But first a few words on the background, beginning with the announced title, "Who Owns the World?"
Actually, a good answer to this was given years ago by Adam Smith, someone we’re supposed to worship but not read. He was—a little subversive when you read him sometimes. He was referring to the most powerful country in the world in his day and, of course, the country that interested him, namely, England. And he pointed out that in England the principal architects of policy are those who own the country: the merchants and manufacturers in his day. And he said they make sure to design policy so that their own interests are most peculiarly attended to. Their interests are served by policy, however grievous the impact on others, including the people of England.

But he was an old-fashioned conservative with moral principles, so he added the victims of England, the victims of the—what he called the "savage injustice of the Europeans," particularly in India. Well, he had no illusions about the owners, so, to quote him again, "All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." It was true then; it’s true now.

Britain kept its position as the dominant world power well into the 20th century despite steady decline. By the end of World War II, dominance had shifted decisively into the hands of the upstart across the sea, the United States, by far the most powerful and wealthy society in world history. Britain could only aspire to be its junior partner as the British foreign office ruefully recognized. At that point, 1945, the United States had literally half the world’s wealth, incredible security, controlled the entire Western Hemisphere, both oceans, the opposite sides of both oceans. There’s nothing—there hasn’t ever been anything like that in history.
And planners understood it. Roosevelt’s planners were meeting right through the Second World War, designing the post-war world. They were quite sophisticated about it, and their plans were pretty much implemented. They wanted to make sure that the United States would control what they called a "grand area," which would include, routinely, the entire Western Hemisphere, the entire Far East, the former British Empire, which the U.S. would be taking over, and as much of Eurasia as possible—crucially, its commercial and industrial centers in Western Europe. And within this region, they said, the United States should hold unquestioned power with military and economic supremacy, while ensuring the limitation of any exercise of sovereignty by states that might interfere with these global designs. And those were pretty realistic plans at the time, given the enormous disparity of power. The U.S. had been by far the richest country in the world even before the Second World War, although it wasn’t—was not yet the major global actor. During the Second World War, the United States gained enormously. Industrial production almost quadrupled, got us out of depression. Meanwhile, industrial rivals were devastated or seriously weakened. So that was an unbelievable system of power.

Actually, the policies that were outlined then still hold. You can read them in government pronouncements. But the capacity to implement them has significantly declined. Actually there’s a major theme now in foreign policy discussion—you know, journals and so on. The theme is called "American decline." So, for example, in the most prestigious establishment international relations journal, Foreign Affairs, a couple of months ago, there was an issue which had on the front cover in big bold letters, "Is America Over?" question mark. That’s announcing the theme of the issue. And there is a standard corollary to this: power is shifting to the west, to China and India, the rising world powers, which are going to be the hegemonic states of the future.
Actually, I think the decline—the decline is quite real, but some serious qualifications are in order. First of all, the corollary is highly unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future. China and India are very poor countries. Just take a look at, say, the human development index of the United Nations: they’re way down there. China is around 90th. I think India is around 120th or so, last time I looked. And they have tremendous internal problems—demographic problems, extreme poverty, hopeless inequality, ecological problems. China is a great manufacturing center, but it’s actually mostly an assembly plant. So it assembles parts and components, high technology that comes from the surrounding industrial—more advanced industrial centers—Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, the United States, Europe—and it basically assembles them. So, if, say, you buy one of these i-things—you know, an iPad from China—that’s called an export from China, but the parts and components and technology come from outside. And the value added in China is minuscule. It’s been calculated. They’ll move up the technology ladder, but it’s a hard climb, India even harder. Well, so I think one should be skeptical about the corollary.

But there’s another qualification that’s more serious. The decline is real, but it’s not new. It’s been going on since 1945. In fact, it happened very quickly. In the late 1940s, there’s an event that’s known here as "the loss of China." China became independent. That’s a loss of a huge piece of the grand area of Asia. And it became a major issue in American domestic policy. Who’s responsible for the loss of China? A lot of recriminations and so on. Actually, the phrase is kind of interesting. Like, I can’t lose your computer, right? Because I don’t own it. I can lose my computer. Well, the phrase "loss of China" kind of presupposes a deeply held principle of kind of American elite consciousness: we own the world, and if some piece of it becomes independent, we’ve lost it. And that’s a terrible loss; we’ve got to do something about it. It’s never questioned, which is interesting in itself.
Well, right about the same time, around 1950, concerns developed about the loss of Southeast Asia. That’s what led the United States into the Indochina wars, the worst atrocities of the post-war period—partly lost, partly not. A very significant event in modern history was in 1965, when in Indonesia, which was the main concern—that’s the country of Southeast Asia with most of the wealth and resources—there was a military coup in Indonesia, Suharto coup. It led to an extraordinary massacre, what the New York Times called a "staggering mass slaughter." It killed hundreds of thousands of people, mostly landless peasants; destroyed the only mass political party; and opened the country up to Western exploitation. [that is where Barry Hussein Obama's Step Father served in the US Forces fighting communists apparently] Euphoria in the West was so enormous that it couldn’t be contained. So, in the New York Times, describing the "staggering mass slaughter," it called it a "gleam of light in Asia." That was the column written by James Reston, the leading liberal thinker in the Times. And the same elsewhere—Europe, Australia. It was a fantastic event.

Years later, McGeorge Bundy, who was the national security adviser for Kennedy and Johnson, in retrospect, he pointed out that it probably would have been a good idea to end the Vietnam War at that point, to pull out. Contrary to a lot of illusions, the Vietnam War was fought primarily to ensure that an independent Vietnam would not develop successfully and become a model for other countries in the region. It would not—to borrow Henry Kissinger’s terminology speaking about Chile, we have to prevent what they called the—what he called the "virus" of independent development from spreading contagion elsewhere. That’s a critical part of American foreign policy since the Second World War—Britain, France, others to a lesser degree. And by 1965, that was over. Vietnam was—South Vietnam was virtually destroyed. Word spread to the rest of Indochina it wasn’t going to be a model for anyone, and the contagion was contained. There were—the Suharto regime made sure that Indonesia wouldn’t be infected. And pretty soon the U.S. had dictatorships in every country of the region—Marcos on the Philippines, a dictatorship in Thailand, Chun in South—Park in South Korea. It was no problem about the infection. So that would have been a good time to end the Vietnam War, he felt. Well, that’s Southeast Asia.

But the decline continues. In the last 10 years, there’s been a very important event: the loss of South America. For the first time in 500 years, the South—since the conquistadors, the South American countries have begun to move towards independence and a degree of integration. The typical structure of one of the South American countries was a tiny, very rich, Westernized elite, often white, or mostly white, and a huge mass of horrible poverty, countries separated from one another, oriented to—each oriented towards its—you know, either Europe or, more recently, the United States. Last 10 years, that’s been overcome, significantly—beginning to integrate, the prerequisite for independence, even beginning to face some of their horrendous internal problems. Now that’s the loss of South America. One sign is that the United States has been driven out of every single military base in South America. We’re trying to restore a few, but right now there are none.

But the decline continues. In the last 10 years, there’s been a very important event: the loss of South America. For the first time in 500 years, the South — since the conquistadors, the South American countries have begun to move towards independence and a degree of integration. The typical structure of one of the South American countries was a tiny, very rich, Westernized elite, often white, or mostly white, and a huge mass of horrible poverty, countries separated from one another, oriented to — each oriented towards its — you know, either Europe or, more recently, the United States.

Last 10 years, that’s been overcome, significantly — beginning to integrate, the prerequisite for independence, even beginning to face some of their horrendous internal problems. Now that’s the loss of South America. One sign is that the United States has been driven out of every single military base in South America. We’re trying to restore a few, but right now there are none.

On 14 August 2012, work on the dam was halted by order of the Brazilian Federal Court, when federal judge Judge Souza Prudente, halted construction on the controversial Belo Monte dam in the Amazon, saying that the indigenous peoples had not been consulted.

The Supreme Federal Court overturned the decision on 28 August and ordered construction to recommence.

The Brazilian Development Bank (Portuguese: Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social, abbreviated: BNDES) is a federal public company associated with the Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade. Its goal is to provide long-term financing for endeavors that contribute to the country's development.

BNDES is the largest development bank in the world.

Dont know if anyone here has heard of the Belo Monte dam project. To produce hydro-electric power in Brazil.

Its a controversial project...the arguments for, are self sufficiency, less reliance on foreign fuel, ofc the arguments against are environmental.

regardless of my personal opinion on the subject as to whether i think it is something that should be going ahead or not...i would say it is the western powers who have been attempting to stop it imho.

The dam has been planned since the 70's. but only coming along right now. In the past when certain powers have been attempting to build it, it has been stopped by other powers.

this is the most recent attempt to stop it...

Read More: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belo_Monte_Dam

It is funded mostly by...

Most here would know that brasil also produces large amounts of its own bio fuel.

The Biofuel issue is another distraction, the BNDES now out performs the World Bank, if you follow its founding, funders and follow the money behind it, lots of questions will unfold, Cararies in their bird cage within a wharfe cones to mind. Also see who owns the majority share in Brazils largest goal mine, its all there.

The Apprentice wrote:
Its not something ive looked into, thanks for your comments.

the dam stopping and starting all the time to me indicates some pretty powerful opinions on both sides, in opposition to each other.

Now by opinions i mean money. Some will have more money if the dam goes ahead, others will have more if it doesnt, imho.

Of course all manner of games can be played also, of that i am aware. Some of the names in public opposition to the dam...they are big names in banking and finance...and british citizens.

the dam stopping and starting all the time to me indicates some pretty powerful opinions on both sides, in opposition to each other.

Now by opinions i mean money. Some will have more money if the dam goes ahead, others will have more if it doesnt, imho.

novum wrote:
I conceed i was being a tad cynical there, tarring everybody with the same brush...what im saying is i do believe there are people genuinely opposed to this because of environmental concerns.

The Birch Society promoted the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen who included a dubious discussion of the Rothschilds and other Jewish banking interests as part of a sketch of a much larger conspiracy involving financial and political elites and the Council on Foreign Relations. Allen explicitly rejected the idea that by focusing on the early roll of the Rothschilds in investment banking he was promoting a theory of a Jewish conspiracy:

==="Anti-Semites have played into the hands of the conspiracy by trying to portray the entire conspiracy as Jewish. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The traditionally Anglo-Saxon J. P. Morgan and Rockefeller international banking institutions have played a key role in the conspiracy. But there is no denying the importance of the Rothschilds and their satellites. However it is just as unreasonable and immoral to blame all Jews for the crimes of the Rothschilds as it is to hold all Baptists accountable for the crimes of the Rockefellers.

Nicely put, yet Allen used insensitive loaded language concerning the "cosmopolitan" nature of the "international bankers," and he slipped when comparing Jews to Anglo-Saxons, mixing issues of race, ethnicity, and religion. He seemed sincere in rejecting overt and conscious antisemitism and did not seem to be cloaking a hidden hatred or distrust of Jews, but he included a hyperbolic and inaccurate assessment of the role of the Rothschilds, Warburgs, and other Jews compared to the non-Jewish banking interests that grew along with industrial capitalism.

The problem was unintentional, but still real, and the stereotype of a Jewish establishment was clearer in Allen's other work, as Mintz explained, "A conspiracist unimpressed by anti-Semitism could construe the material differently from a confirmed sociological anti-Semite, who could find a codification of his fears and anxieties."
Quote:
In the Birch Orbit
Conspiracist anti-communism similar to that offered by the JBS was widespread on the nativist right during the 1950s and 1960s. In addition to the books by Gary Allen, Robert Welch, Dan Smoot, and Alan Stang are enough books in the genre to fill several library shelves.

Among the most influential leaders of the countersubversion movement against the global communist conspiracy following the McCarthy period was Dr. Fred Schwarz and his California-based Christian Anti-communism Crusade. A tireless lecturer, Schwarz in 1960 authored You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists) which sold over one million copies.Schwarz's newsletter once suggested that communists promote abortion, pornography, homosexuality, venereal disease and mass murder as ways to weaken the moral fiber of America and pave the way for a communist takeover.

The assault on America by forces of godless communism were central themes in three other widely distributed books which were used to mobilize support for the 1964 Goldwater campaign. The best known book was Phyllis Schlafly's A Choice, Not an Echo which suggested a conspiracist theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberger banking conference, whose policies were designed to usher in global communist conquest.Schlafly's husband Fred had been a lecturer at Schwartz's local Christian Anti-communism Crusade conferences. The title "A Choice, Not an Echo" became one of Goldwater's campaign slogans.

Schlafly elaborate on the theme of the global communist conspiracy and its witting and unwitting domestic allies in The Gravediggers, a book on military preparedness co-authored with retired Rear Admiral Chester Ward. Ward, a member of the National Strategy Committee of the American Security Council was also a lecturer at the Foreign Policy Research Institute which formulated many benchmark Cold War anti-communist strategies.The Gravediggers, claimed U.S. military strategy and tactics was actually designed to pave the way for global communist conquest. The Gravediggers was tailored to support the Goldwater campaign.

Often overlooked because of the publicity surrounding A Choice, Not an Echo was John Stormer's, None Dare Call it Treason, which outlined how the equivocation of Washington insiders would pave the way for global communist conquest. None Dare Call it Treason sold over seven million copies, making it one of the largest-selling paperback books of the day. The back cover summarizes the text as detailing "the communist-socialist conspiracy to enslave America" and documenting "the concurrent decay in America's schools, churches, and press which has conditioned the American people to accept 20 years of retreat in the face of the communist enemy." Stormer updated his text in the late 1980's to expand on his theory, shifting his focus from anti-communism to claim secular humanism now played a key role in undermining America.

One of the core ideas of the US right is that modern liberalism is an ally of collectivism and a handmaiden for godless communism.

China is a great manufacturing center, but it’s actually mostly an assembly plant. So it assembles parts and components, high technology that comes from the surrounding industrial — more advanced industrial centers — Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, the United States, Europe — and it basically assembles them. So, if, say, you buy one of these i-​things — you know, an iPad from China — that’s called an export from China, but the parts and components and technology come from outside. And the value added in China is minuscule.

Out of curiosity wake up bomb what exactly do you disagree with regarding china. I am curious.

And there is a standard corollary to this: power is shifting to the west, to China and India, the rising world powers, which are going to be the hegemonic states of the future. Actually, I think the decline — the decline is quite real, but some serious qualifications are in order. First of all, the corollary is highly unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future.

China and India are very poor countries. Just take a look at, say, the human development index of the United Nations: they’re way down there. China is around 90th. I think India is around 120th or so, last time I looked. And they have tremendous internal problems — demographic problems, extreme poverty, hopeless inequality, ecological problems.

China is a great manufacturing center, but it’s actually mostly an assembly plant. So it assembles parts and components, high technology that comes from the surrounding industrial — more advanced industrial centers — Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, the United States, Europe — and it basically assembles them. So, if, say, you buy one of these i-​things — you know, an iPad from China — that’s called an export from China, but the parts and components and technology come from outside. And the value added in China is minuscule. It’s been calculated. They’ll move up the technology ladder, but it’s a hard climb, India even harder. Well, so I think one should be skeptical about the corollary.

South of the border is a pretty interesting documentary if anybody has not seen it. I learned that Brazil has a surplus which would explain why they might be a problem to some.

You will see that multinational corporations are already moving production to China. This is occurring, and will continue to occur for several reasons, but the most obvious are the vast amount of labour discussed previously, and the fact that the Chinese worker simply works harder and demands less than the American or European.

Most importantly, though, the United States is broke, as is Europe. Actually, Europe is more broke than the United States. China is the biggest holder of US debt, and was mooted to be buying up the Greek debt in 2010. This puts the US is a very vulnerable position, particularly as the dollar will become increasingly vulnerable to inflation and losing its world reserve currency status if they continue with this debt ceiling raising, borrowing and military-industrial insanity.

surely we can agree that the occurances in the narco-wars...mexico, columbia, venezuela ...would be power struggles.

would be naive to think the americans arent attempting to wrestle control of it imo and that is the reason for some of the conflcts that occur.

tho i dont play down instances of internal conflict/power struggles either...i learned long ago theres no honour amongst dealers

Id say it is "a little from column A and a little from column B" - Abe Simpson.

It's quite the opposite, in many cases it's displaced indigenous populations attempting to Wrestle control of their economies/borders/security from foreign interests/invaders.