Hegemony or Survival

Henry Holt and Company

Chapter One

A few years ago, one of the great figures of contemporarybiology, Ernst Mayr, published some reflections on thelikelihood of success in the search for extraterrestrialintelligence. He considered the prospects very low. Hisreasoning had to do with the adaptive value of what we call"higher intelligence," meaning the particular human form ofintellectual organization. Mayr estimated the number ofspecies since the origin of life at about fifty billion, onlyone of which "achieved the kind of intelligence needed toestablish a civilization." It did so very recently, perhaps100,000 years ago. It is generally assumed that only one smallbreeding group survived, of which we are all descendants.

Mayr speculated that the human form of intellectualorganization may not be favored by selection. The history oflife on Earth, he wrote, refutes the claim that "it is betterto be smart than to be stupid," at least judging by biologicalsuccess: beetles and bacteria, for example, are vastly moresuccessful than humans in terms of survival. He also made therather somber observation that "the average life expectancy ofa species is about 100,000 years."

We are entering a period of human history that may provide ananswer to the question of whether it is better to be smartthan stupid. The most hopeful prospect is that the questionwill not be answered: if it receives a definite answer, thatanswer can only be that humans were a kind of "biologicalerror," using their allotted 100,000 years to destroythemselves and, in the process, much else.

The species has surely developed the capacity to do just that,and a hypothetical extraterrestrial observer might wellconclude that humans have demonstrated that capacitythroughout their history, dramatically in the past few hundredyears, with an assault on the environment that sustains life,on the diversity of more complex organisms, and with cold andcalculated savagery, on each other as well.

Two Superpowers

The year 2003 opened with many indications that concerns abouthuman survival are all too realistic. To mention just a fewexamples, in the early fall of 2002 it was learned that apossibly terminal nuclear war was barely avoided forty yearsearlier. Immediately after this startling discovery, the Bushadministration blocked UN efforts to ban the militarization ofspace, a serious threat to survival. The administration alsoterminated international negotiations to prevent biologicalwarfare and moved to ensure the inevitability of an attack onIraq, despite popular opposition that was without historicalprecedent.

Aid organizations with extensive experience in Iraq andstudies by respected medical organizations warned that theplanned invasion might precipitate a humanitarian catastrophe.The warnings were ignored by Washington and evoked littlemedia interest. A high-level US task force concluded thatattacks with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) within theUnited States are "likely," and would become more so in theevent of war with Iraq. Numerous specialists and intelligenceagencies issued similar warnings, adding that Washington'sbelligerence, not only with regard to Iraq, was increasing thelong-term threat of international terrorism and proliferationof WMD. These warnings too were dismissed.

In September 2002 the Bush administration announced itsNational Security Strategy, which declared the right to resortto force to eliminate any perceived challenge to US globalhegemony, which is to be permanent. The new grand strategyaroused deep concern worldwide, even within the foreign policyelite at home. Also in September, a propaganda campaign waslaunched to depict Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat to theUnited States and to insinuate that he was responsible for the9-11 atrocities and was planning others. The campaign, timedto the onset of the midterm congressional elections, washighly successful in shifting attitudes. It soon droveAmerican public opinion off the global spectrum and helped theadministration achieve electoral aims and establish Iraq as aproper test case for the newly announced doctrine of resort toforce at will.

President Bush and his associates also persisted inundermining international efforts to reduce threats to theenvironment that are recognized to be severe, with pretextsthat barely concealed their devotion to narrow sectors ofprivate power. The administration's Climate Change ScienceProgram (CCSP), wrote Science magazine editor Donald Kennedy,is a travesty that "included no recommendations for emissionlimitation or other forms of mitigation," contenting itselfwith "voluntary reduction targets, which, even if met, wouldallow US emission rates to continue to grow at around 14% perdecade." The CCSP did not even consider the likelihood,suggested by "a growing body of evidence," that the short-termwarming changes it ignores "will trigger an abrupt nonlinearprocess," producing dramatic temperature changes that couldcarry extreme risks for the United States, Europe, and othertemperate zones. The Bush administration's "contemptuous passon multilateral engagement with the global warming problem,"Kennedy continued, is the "stance that began the longcontinuing process of eroding its friendships in Europe,"leading to "smoldering resentment."

By October 2002 it was becoming hard to ignore the fact thatthe world was "more concerned about the unbridled use ofAmerican power than ... about the threat posed by SaddamHussein," and "as intent on limiting the giant's power as ... in taking away the despot's weapons." World concernsmounted in the months that followed, as the giant made clearits intent to attack Iraq even if the UN inspections itreluctantly tolerated failed to unearth weapons that wouldprovide a pretext. By December, support for Washington's warplans scarcely reached 10 percent almost anywhere outside theUS, according to international polls. Two months later, afterenormous worldwide protests, the press reported that "theremay still be two superpowers on the planet: the United Statesand world public opinion" ("the United States" here meaningstate power, not the public or even elite opinion).

By early 2003, studies revealed that fear of the United Stateshad reached remarkable heights throughout the world, alongwith distrust of the political leadership. Dismissal ofelementary human rights and needs was matched by a display ofcontempt for democracy for which no parallel comes easily tomind, accompanied by professions of sincere dedication tohuman rights and democracy. The unfolding events should bedeeply disturbing to those who have concerns about the worldthey are leaving to their grandchildren.

Though Bush planners are at an extreme end of the traditionalUS policy spectrum, their programs and doctrines have manyprecursors, both in US history and among earlier aspirantsto global power. More ominously, their decisions may not beirrational within the framework of prevailing ideology and theinstitutions that embody it. There is ample historicalprecedent for the willingness of leaders to threaten or resortto violence in the face of significant risk of catastrophe.But the stakes are far higher today. The choice betweenhegemony and survival has rarely, if ever, been so starklyposed.

Let us try to unravel some of the many strands that enter intothis complex tapestry, focusing attention on the world powerthat proclaims global hegemony. Its actions and guidingdoctrines must be a primary concern for everyone on theplanet, particularly, of course, for Americans. Many enjoyunusual advantages and freedom, hence the ability to shape thefuture, and should face with care the responsibilities thatare the immediate corollary of such privilege.

Enemy Territory

Those who want to face their responsibilities with a genuinecommitment to democracy and freedom - even to decent survival- should recognize the barriers that stand in the way. Inviolent states these are not concealed. In more democraticsocieties barriers are more subtle. While methods differsharply from more brutal to more free societies, the goals arein many ways similar: to ensure that the "great beast," asAlexander Hamilton called the people, does not stray from itsproper confines.

Controlling the general population has always been a dominantconcern of power and privilege, particularly since the firstmodern democratic revolution in seventeenth-century England.The self-described "men of best quality" were appalled as a"giddy multitude of beasts in men's shapes" rejected the basicframework of the civil conflict raging in England between kingand Parliament, and called for government "by countrymen likeourselves, that know our wants," not by "knights and gentlementhat make us laws, that are chosen for fear and do but oppressus, and do not know the people's sores." The men of bestquality recognized that if the people are so "depraved andcorrupt" as to "confer places of power and trust upon wickedand undeserving men, they forfeit their power in this behalfunto those that are good, though but a few." Almost threecenturies later, Wilsonian idealism, as it is standardlytermed, adopted a rather similar stance. Abroad, it isWashington's responsibility to ensure that government is inthe hands of "the good, though but a few." At home, it isnecessary to safeguard a system of elite decision-making andpublic ratification - "polyarchy," in the terminology ofpolitical science - not democracy.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Hegemony or Survivalby Noam Chomsky Copyright © 2003 by Aviva Chomsky, Diane Chomsky, and Harry Chomsky. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.