Blistering State of the Union dissection - Rated 
Failed States is Professor Noam Chomsky's latest state of the nation address, a critical snapshot of where the United States is right now.
The approach he takes is that 'Failed States' is a phrase used within the U.S. establishment to justify certain exercises of power, from financially supporting opponents of failed states, to regime change and invasion. 'Failed states', like 'rogue states' and 'states of concern' before it, is a vague term, perhaps deliberately so but Chomsky identifies some defining features of a failed state, among them, a failure to adequately protect its citizens from terrorism, a failure to provide reasonable health care for all, regardless of an ability to pay, a tendency to break international law and act regardless of treaties and conventions, a lack of representative democracy in its political processes.
Chomsky argues that a fundamental moral truism is that an individual or a country should judge oneself by the same standards that you apply to others, if not to a higher standard if you are completetly honest with yourself. Therefore, the United States should be examined on the basis of the criteria briefly laid out above. Chomsky undertakes this task and finds that the U.S. is sorely lacking in many crucial respects and indeed shares many of the key aspects of countries that are currently demonised by those who stalk the corridors of power.
As is probably familiar to readers of Chomsky, I approached this book with a little caution, fearing that Chomsky was simply going to rehash many of his familiar arguments and cases through this new prism; I was pleased to find that, whilst there is obviously some overlap with previous texts, there is a great deal of fascinating contemporary material in this highly detailed book. Those who are cautious about purchasing another Chomsky text, concerned about over-familiarity, need worry no more. Read alongside his previous excellent book, Hegemony or Survival, Failed States is yet another classic.
Always good for a good debate... - Rated 
Typically, Professor Chomsky asks Americans to stop condemning 'failed states' (note the quotes) and "to look honestly in the mirror" instead. By this reasoning, America's own shortcomings would be assessed (and corrected?) before attacking the shortcomings of others--and, by a sort of 'leading by example'-process, those same shortcomings of others might also be rectified, ultimately. This is because, as Chomsky frequently argues, other states' shortcomings are ultimately the fault of the United States to begin with. A tidy, circular logic indeed. Then again, the reader has to assume, stepping into this ring, that such social and political introspection ('the Mirror'), is not a form of obsessive narcissism, if not isolationism, in itself. 'All things being equal' in a culturally-relativistic view of reality, the explicit failings of the United States today is no different than that of, say Iran--worse even by its hypocrisy and propensity for 'messianic' intervention. This is right up there with t-shirts branding Bush II as the 'World's #1 War Criminal and Terrorist'. Yes, he's MORE of a monster than Osama bin Laden, perhaps even types like Hitler and Stalin, because he simply has more power than bin Laden to do real harm in the name of real good. In other words, once you've accepted this logic, the end of the circle is quite the opposite from where you started; 'good' is 'evil' and evil is, well...what? That's where Chomsky also typically leaves off. Deferring to the United Nations and "the opinions of the majority of the US population", Chomsky argues, should be the focus of American presidents--even if types like Hitler, Stalin or, yes, Osama bin Laden expressly would not either. America's only hope for world peace, therefore, is the peace of blissful self-satisfaction as we gaze into the mirror, cleansed from all pretence of 'good', humble, powerless and deferential to other states (or non-states) who simply might not bother to do the same... That's a big 'IF' on the part of any responsible state apparatus or government. But that is ultimately what the Professor insists the United States must accomplish (and please forgive the logical contradiction here): to be a 'successful state' America must be a failed one.
limiting government power vs people's power - Rated
For the most part of civilizations, nearly all governments in all nations claimed universal rights though in somewhat different manners. But America is the very first of nations to get rid of overextended government power successfully. Instead, an elected government has become a new way of life. Even so, this elected government can go wrong from time to time.
Professor Chomsky shows that this has been the case with the American government especially of the late. He is highly critical of this dangerous trend. But at the same time, one must admit that America is still fortunate to embrace an elected system, despite all the imperfections. This is something many nations like China trying to do in a hurry. But even arriving at this stage of game is easier said than done. This deep issue is explored by another book: China's global reach: markets, multinationals, and globalization, which tells how a Self-appointed Government leads to hellish problems, among other things. Reading both books makes one appreciate more about the need to limit the power of government, here or elsewhere. Making government accountable is a long process even in Western nations.
Thought Provoking - Rated 
When trying to sum up 'Failed States', as with other books by Noam Chomsky, the words that spring to mind are 'thought provoking'. In this latest work professor Chomsky argues that America, whilst commonly accusing other nations of being failed states, can be fairly judged to be a failed state itself, or at least share some of the qualities that define a failed state. He bases this argument on America's demonstrable inability or unwillingness to protect its citizens from violence and possible destruction and its tendency to consider itself beyond domestic and international law. He also argues that America suffers from a 'democratic deficit' which is another indicator of a failed state. Each of these arguments, along with others, are discussed in detail and presented with Chomsky's usual clarity.
My early fears that Failed States would contain little that hadn't already been discussed in the excellent Hegemony or Survival were proven false as the book went on to cover fresh ground, including 'just war theory', an up to date analysis of the invasion of Iraq and the present chaotic situation, and possible future developments in the middle east and south America. Chomsky does discuss certain principles which will be familiar to those who have read him before, and which are central to his, and surely any right thinking persons, beliefs such as the principle of universality. This is understandable as keeping such principles in mind is important when considering the issues which the book discusses.
Professor Chomsky polarizes opinion like few others and there is a tendency for people to either dismiss him and his views entirely or to consider his every word and opinion to be the unequivocal truth. Maintaining an open mind, a topic which the book made me think deeply about, is clearly essential when reading Failed States.
Whatever your own thoughts on the many weighty issues may be, the book will make you think and force you to ask questions. Most importantly for me, Failed States made me think about the primary motivations that determine how the world works, be it in business, international relations or even at the level of the individual. Understanding these motivations will go some way to explaining why those in power behave, and have always behaved, the way they do.
|
