DOCSLIB.ORG

Theorizing U.S. Regime Change Efforts in Venezuela from Bush II to Trump

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Theorizing U.S. Regime Change Efforts in Venezuela from Bush II to Trump Class, Race and Corporate Power Volume 8 Issue 2 Article 1 2020 Two Decades of Imperial Failure: Theorizing U.S. Regime Change Efforts in Venezuela from Bush II to Trump Timothy M. Gill University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Joseph Marshall Brown University of North Carolina Wilmington, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower Part of the Politics and Social Change Commons Recommended Citation Gill, Timothy M. and Brown, Joseph Marshall (2020) "Two Decades of Imperial Failure: Theorizing U.S. Regime Change Efforts in Venezuela from Bush II to Trump," Class, Race and Corporate Power: Vol. 8 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. DOI: 10.25148/CRCP.8.2.009641 Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol8/iss2/1 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts, Sciences & Education at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Class, Race and Corporate Power by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Two Decades of Imperial Failure: Theorizing U.S. Regime Change Efforts in Venezuela from Bush II to Trump Abstract Former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez ushered in the Pink Tide and the rise of the left in Latin America at the turn of the 21st century. Chávez initially won presidential elections in 1998 based on the promise of participatory democracy and tackling economic inequality, and thereafter by championing 21st Century Socialism. From the beginning, Chávez challenged U.S. global leadership by condemning its vision for the world and by cultivating an anti-imperial nexus of allies. This pattern has continued under current President Nicolás Maduro. In response, the U.S. has opposed the Venezuelan socialists throughout three successive presidential administrations: Bush II, Obama, and Trump. Taking influence from Michael Mann’s IEMP model of social power, we detail the ideological, economic, military, and political strategies these administrations have used to undermine the Venezuelan government and assist right-wing opposition parties and civil society groups in Venezuela. While Bush II and Obama primarily sought to depose Chávez by bolstering right-wing political parties and groups that aimed to unseat Chávez at the ballot box, Trump has recognized a parallel government open to an extra-legal change of government and openly called for coercive regime change through a military coup d’état. Keywords Venezuela; socialism; U.S. Empire; imperialism; Hugo Chávez Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This article is available in Class, Race and Corporate Power: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/ classracecorporatepower/vol8/iss2/1 Introduction Since nearly the inception of the U.S., the country has maintained an imperial relationship with Latin America. Early U.S. leaders envisioned the Western Hemisphere as their unique sphere of influence and believed it was their God-given responsibility to safeguard the region from European influence and intervene when necessary to ensure that Latin American leaders behaved correctly, a policy enshrined in the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 (Go 2011; Grandin 2006; McPherson 2016). Though U.S. leaders cloaked their imperial behavior in the language of anti- colonial solidarity, the U.S. practiced formal colonialism in Cuba and Puerto Rico, among other places, and dispatched U.S. Marines to continually invade and occupy regional lands, illustrating the tenuous reality of territorial sovereignty (Grandin 2006; Mann 2013; McPherson 2016). The use of formal colonialism, however, dissipated after World War II, and, although the U.S. has continued to use military force and to provide aid for particular militaries throughout Latin America, U.S. imperial strategies have taken alternate forms since the days of the Monroe Doctrine. U.S. imperial ambitions in the region have long contained a mix of objectives, and we can assort and examine these objectives and the strategies used to achieve them, utilizing the IEMP social power framework designed by Michael Mann, with the acronym referring to ideological, economic, military, and political forms of power. According to Mann (1986, 2013), the exercise of social power involves multiple bases, and no one group or state agency necessarily possesses control over all bases of power. Some groups can effectively wield power in one realm in order to ultimately exercise domination in another realm. Military members, for instance, have at times mobilized their arms capabilities to overthrow existing governments and capture political power. Some political leaders have sought to garner control over economic resources as a result of their institutional position, and vice versa. As a result, Mann (1986, 2013) points out that various crystallizations of power can emerge, and, depending on the conjuncture, groups with an inordinate share of one set of resources can use them to dominate society writ large. In the contemporary world, Mann (2013) sees globalization as characterized by the extension of these four forms of power into the broader world. Indeed, although imperialism has long been a feature of modernity, it too has taken on different forms in Latin America at the turn of the 21st century. Yet, we can still analyze and assess U.S. foreign policy objectives and strategies along these same four lines. First, at the ideological level, the U.S. has long championed a liberal democratic vision of how societies should operate (Bulmer-Thomas 2018; Go 2011; Immerman 2010). These ideas are rooted in the writings of politicians and thinkers such as John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Adam Smith. Despite the realities of who and what governments U.S. leaders have actually promoted, they have at least rhetorically embraced a vision that champions individual rights, civil liberties, and freedom from government intervention. This involves free- market economic policies, but it is not entirely reducible to it. For instance, it also involves a strong emphasis on freedoms of speech and religion, and the right to bear arms. It is an encompassing view of how societies should operate. Second, economic objectives exist, and have surely often shaped and sometimes determined the direction of U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, economic objectives sometimes directly clash with broader ideological visions of what the U.S. allegedly stands for, including current U.S. diplomatic support for the Saudi monarchy. U.S leaders have remained interested in economic issues, such as the assurance of loan collection, expropriations of U.S. business, the creation of markets for U.S. products, and access to labor and resources. Broadly speaking, U.S. leaders have wanted to ensure that Latin American leaders service their loans, respect U.S. property, and allow entry into its markets and access to cheap labor and resources. Such interests have at times lent themselves to the usage of force or, Mann’s third base, military power. Even before the Cold War, Marines routinely invaded and occupied the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Nicaragua to ensure that U.S. property was respected, loans were repaid, and, in the instance of Nicaragua, that they did not build an interoceanic canal with the British (McPherson 2016). U.S. force, though, has also been deployed for additional reasons, such as to ostensibly stop Serbian forces from ethnically cleansing Kosovar Albanians and to capture terrorist groups responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. Finally, on the political end, U.S. administrations have continually demanded that Latin American leaders broadly align with the U.S. and its national security interests before the interests of any other country. For example, when former Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz as well as the Sandinista government in Nicaragua began to work with the Soviet Union, U.S. leaders sought to overthrow these governments (Go 2011; Grandin 2006; Mann 2013; McPherson 2016). Both Arbenz and the Sandinistas took control over formerly U.S.-owned industries. However, they were far from the only governments during the 20th century to exert such control. The Venezuelan government took control over the oil industry in the 1976, and the Bolivian government nationalized mining and tin industries in 1952. The difference, however, lay in how they cast these takeovers, and how extensive their ties with the Soviet Union were. While the latter governments did not align with the Soviet Union and explicitly made their allegiance with the U.S. clear, Arbenz and the Sandinistas embraced a more radical form of politics and explicitly insisted on their autonomy from the U.S. In more recent years, concerns with socialism/communism have broadly given way to concerns with terrorism. Yet, since the turn of the 21st century, Latin American citizens have elected several leaders who have once again embraced socialism and challenged U.S. hegemony. Though there has been an ebb and flow of such leaders coming to power over the last two decades, we have seen them elected in places as diverse as Bolivia, Brazil, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The most outspoken and controversial set of such leaders has emerged in Venezuela. Though some statespeople in the aforementioned countries have criticized neoliberal capitalism, no set of leaders has more directly confronted the U.S. than former President Hugo Chávez (1999-2013) and now Nicolás Maduro (2013- ). Beginning with Chávez, the Venezuelan government limited military relations with the U.S., condemned the War on Terror, sought control over several formerly U.S.-owned businesses, aligned with U.S. foes such as China and Russia, and routinely portrayed the U.S. as bent on undermining its socialist revolution. There is no question that recent U.S. administrations have opposed the Chávez and Maduro governments. Indeed, Bush II, Obama, and Trump not only opposed the Venezuelan government but also worked to destabilize Chávez and Maduro, and bring right-wing opposition groups into power, who have generally embraced the U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The War on Terrorism: Is the US Winning? Martha Crenshaw
    Area: International Terrorism - ARI 105/2006 Date: 2/10/2006 The War on Terrorism: Is the US Winning? Martha Crenshaw ∗ Theme: This paper assesses the United States strategy against international terrorism as it has evolved over the past five years. Focusing on the international dimension of American actions, special attention is paid to the scope and internal consistency of declared objectives, as well as to the suitability of the means assigned to the pursuit of the war on terror. Summary: Five years after the tragic attacks on New York and Washington of September 11, 2001, it is time to evaluate American progress in the struggle against terrorism. This assessment, which focuses primarily on the international dimensions of American actions, suggests that American goals for the global war on terrorism may be both too ambitious and too ambiguous. The aims of the United States also seem to be based on an inappropriate characterisation of the adversary and the nature of the struggle. Some objectives are also internally inconsistent, in the sense of being incompatible with each other. Furthermore, the means assigned to the pursuit of the war on terrorism may not be suited either to the ends or to each other. Some modes of action may not be feasible, even in the light of vast American economic and military power. In addition, in official statements of strategy, the American government has shown an inability or unwillingness to recognise problems in the conceptualisation of the strategy and in its implementation. It is essential to take into account contradictions in practice if progress between 2001 and 2006 is to be properly assessed.
    [Show full text]
  • Haiti in the British Imagination, 1847–1904 Jack Webb
    Haiti in the British Imagination, 1847–1904 by Jack Webb Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the degree of DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY September 2016 ii Acknowledgements Throughout the course of researching and writing this thesis, I have collected many debts. My first note of thanks must go to my supervisors, Charles Forsdick, Kate Marsh, and Mark Towsey. I could not ask for a better group of scholars to guide me through the often exhausting and exasperating PhD process. In their very individual ways, they each provided me with a wealth of support, knowledge, encouragement, and insight. They have persistently taught me to think critically, to be respectful of my source material, and to reflect on why this project matters. I think I am one of the few PhD students who will claim to miss supervisory meetings! Beyond this trio, I have formed my own ‘academic support group’. Key within this are the fellow Haitianists who were, for a fleeting moment, all based in Liverpool: Dr Wendy Asquith, Dr Kate Hodgson, and Dr Raphael Hoermann. Their thought-provoking conversation, contacts, and eagerness to convene events has been invaluable to this project. Fellow PhD students in the Department have always been well placed to offer advice when it’s been most needed, these include (but are not limited to) Nick Bubak, Joe Kelly, Philip Sargeant, Kanok Nas, Pablo Bradbury, Emily Trafford, Joe Mulhearn, Tom Webb, Dan Warner, Alison Clarke, and Jon Wilson. I have also happily drawn on the intellect of historians employed in, and outside of the Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Colonizing Iraq
    tariq ali Editorial RE-COLONIZING IRAQ n 15 February 2003, over eight million people marched on the streets of five continents against a war that had not yet Obegun. This first truly global mobilization—unprecedented in size, scope or scale—sought to head off the occupation of Iraq being plotted in the Pentagon. The turnout in Western Europe broke all records: three million in Rome, two million in Spain, a million and a half in London, half a million in Berlin, over a hundred thousand in Paris, Brussels and Athens. In Istanbul, where the local authorities vetoed a protest march in the name of ‘national security’, the peace movement called a press conference to denounce the ban—to which ten thousand ‘journalists’ turned up. In the United States there were mass demonstrations in New York, San Francisco, Chicago and la and smaller assemblies in virtually every state capital: over a million people in all. Another half a million marched in Canada. The antipodean wing of the movement assembled 500,000 in Sydney and 250,000 in Melbourne. On 21 March, as British and American forces headed across the Iraqi border, the long quiescent Arab street, inspired by these global protests, came to life with spontaneous mass demonstrations in Cairo, Sanaa and Amman. In Egypt, the mercenary regime of Hosni Mubarak panicked and arrested over 800 people, some of whom were viciously maltreated in prison. In the Yemen, over 30,000 people marched against the war; a sizeable contingent made for the us Embassy and had to be stopped with bullets.
    [Show full text]
  • Global South to the Rescue: Emerging Humanitarian Superpowers and Globalizing Rescue Industries
    This article was downloaded by: [FU Berlin] On: 10 February 2012, At: 22:39 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Globalizations Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rglo20 Global South to the Rescue: Emerging Humanitarian Superpowers and Globalizing Rescue Industries Paul Amar a a University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Available online: 01 Feb 2012 To cite this article: Paul Amar (2012): Global South to the Rescue: Emerging Humanitarian Superpowers and Globalizing Rescue Industries, Globalizations, 9:1, 1-13 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2012.657408 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Globalizations February 2012, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran Won't Give up on Its Revolution | the Washington Institute
    MENU Policy Analysis / Articles & Op-Eds Iran Won't Give Up on Its Revolution by Soner Cagaptay, James Jeffrey, Mehdi Khalaji Apr 26, 2015 Also available in Arabic / Farsi ABOUT THE AUTHORS Soner Cagaptay Soner Cagaptay is the Beyer Family fellow and director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute. James Jeffrey Ambassador is a former U.S. special representative for Syria engagement and former U.S. ambassador to Turkey and Iraq; from 2013-2018 he was the Philip Solondz Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute. He currently chairs the Wilson Center’s Middle East Program. Mehdi Khalaji Mehdi Khalaji, a Qom-trained Shiite theologian, is the Libitzky Family Fellow at The Washington Institute. Articles & Testimony Given Iran's hegemonic history under the Safavids, the Shah, and the mullahs alike, Washington should not expect the regime to compromise its principles any time soon. he announcement last month of a preliminary agreement between the United States and Iran has led some to T believe that Tehran will now enter the international system as a responsible actor. But such optimism ignores the fact that Iran's current government still bears the imprint of a long imperial history and longstanding Persian regional ambitions. Iran is a revolutionary power with hegemonic aspirations. In other words, it is a country seeking to assert its dominance in the region and it will not play by the rules. Yet, the Obama administration hopes a nuclear agreement will have a "transcendental effect" on Iran and convince it to abandon its imperial aspirations in return for a sense of normalcy.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Iran Wants the Bomb and What It Means for Us Policy
    WHY IRAN WANTS THE BOMB AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR US POLICY Clifton W. Sherrill Understanding why the Iranian regime wants to possess nuclear weapons is essential to formu- lating the best policy to prevent (or perhaps to simply manage) the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran. Three general theories*realism, liberalism, and constructivism*provide a framework for looking at Iran’s nuclear motivations. However, contrary to many analyses, the regime’s desire to possess nuclear arms stems not from neorealist defensive concerns, but rather from offensive goals driven by domestic politics. The use of extremist Islamism by the Iranian regime to justify its autocratic rule is the primary motivating factor. Accordingly, the outlook for diplomatically addressing the Iranian regime’s nuclear aspirations appears dim. KEYWORDS: Iran; nuclear proliferation; diplomacy In order to formulate the best policy for preventing, or perhaps dealing with, the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, it is important to understand why the current Iranian regime would want nuclear weapons. An academic framework for answering this question offers a variety of theoretical explanations. The realist family of models focuses on power and security within the international system; liberal models emphasize domestic political influences, and constructivist models highlight questions of identity and perception.1 Neorealism posits the most intuitive reason for pursuing nuclear arms; to wit, a state believes its security is threatened and seeks to reduce the threat through acquisition of a nuclear deterrent. This can involve allying with nuclear-armed partners or developing an indigenous nuclear capability. However, other variants of realism look beyond neorealism’s exclusive emphasis on defensive purposes, recognizing that some states may want nuclear weapons to assist with offensive ambitions.2 For example, a nuclear arsenal could lead a regime to believe its existential security is assured, thereby lowering the regime’s risk in adopting aggressive, coercive policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Cles Over the Past Few Years Is That the Subject of Imperialism Is No Longer a Bailiwick of the Left
    0 N E o F T H E c u R I o u s D E v E L o P M E N T s in intellectual cir- cles over the past few years is that the subject of imperialism is no longer a bailiwick of the Left. To be sure, so long as colonial empires were in strength, there was no denying the reality of European and American imperial expansion. But over the course of the post-war era, as decoloniza- tion rippled through the Third World and the formal mechanisms of colo- nial control were thrown overboard, any insistence on the continuing salience of imperialism became identified with left-wing ideologies. If it did enter mainstream debates, it was inevitably Soviet or, more generically, Communist imperial ambitions that were subjected to scrutiny. The Presidency of Bush the Younger seems to have put an end to that. Serious discussion of imperialism - not generally, but as an American phenomenon - has suddenly acquired intellectual respectability. Analyses of the "new imperialism" are now flowing out in a steady stream of books, and in organs and magazines associated with both ends of the political spectrum. And there is an unmistakable sense of urgency in the debates. It was clear in the years after 1989 that the United States was searching for a way to maintain its sway over Europe and the South - a condition that couldn't be taken for granted once the specter of the Soviet threat had passed from the scene. Under Clinton, however, the strategy did not exhibit the martial and messianic posturing of the Bush team.
    [Show full text]
  • Can the War on Terror Be Won?
    Can the War on Terror Be Won? How to Fight the Right War Philip H. Gordon Less than 12 hours after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush pro- claimed the start of a global war on terror. Ever since, there has been a vigorous debate about how to win it. Bush and his supporters stress the need to go on the oªensive against terrorists, deploy U.S. military force, promote democracy in the Middle East, and give the commander in chief expansive wartime powers. His critics either challenge the very notion of a “war on terror” or focus on the need to fight it diªerently. Most leading Democrats accept the need to use force in some cases but argue that success will come through reestablishing the United States’ moral authority and ideological appeal, conducting more and smarter diplomacy,and intensifying cooperation with key allies.They argue that Bush’s approach to the war on terror has created more terrorists than it has eliminated—and that it will continue to do so unless the United States radically changes course. Almost entirely missing from this debate is a concept of what “victory” in the war on terror would actually look like. The traditional notion of winning a war is fairly clear: defeating an enemy on the battlefield and forcing it to accept political terms. But what does victory—or Philip H. Gordon is Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution. His latest book is Winning the Right War:The Path to Security for America and the World (Times Books, 2007), from which this essay is drawn.
    [Show full text]
  • Mulich Final
    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Mulich, J. ORCID: 0000-0002-7919-1836 (2017). Empire and Violence: Continuity in the Age of Revolution. Political Power and Social Theory, 32, pp. 181-203. doi: 10.1108/S0198-871920170000032007 This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/24691/ Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0198-871920170000032007 Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] Empire and Violence: Continuity in the Age of Revolution Jeppe Mulich, LSE Forthcoming in: Political Power and Social Theory, volume 31 (2016) Abstract When the Thirteen Colonies in North America, the slave colony of Saint-Domingue, and the colonial territories of the Portuguese and Spanish Americas all rose against their imperial rulers a new postcolonial order seemingly emerged in the Western Hemisphere. The reality of this situation forced political theorists and practitioners of the early nineteenth century to rethink the way in which they envisioned the nature and dynamics of international order.
    [Show full text]
  • China and Iran
    CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST PUBLIC POLICY International Programs at RAND CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and EDUCATION AND THE ARTS decisionmaking through research and analysis. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service INFRASTRUCTURE AND of the RAND Corporation. TRANSPORTATION INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY Support RAND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Browse Reports & Bookstore TERRORISM AND Make a charitable contribution HOMELAND SECURITY For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Center for Middle East Public Policy View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation occasional paper series. RAND occa- sional papers may include an informed perspective on a timely policy issue, a discussion of new research methodologies, essays, a paper presented at a conference, a conference summary, or a summary of work in progress. All RAND occasional papers undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • HAITI and the Myth of Canadian Peacekeeping by Roger Annis
    $2.00 HAITI and the myth of Canadian Peacekeeping by Roger Annis A Socialist Voice Pamphlet 2 CONTENTS Haiti: A Social and Economic Calamity ................................................................... 3 Blood on the Hands of Canadian Imperialists in Haiti ............................................. 7 Imperialists Wield Deadly Force in Haiti; International Opposition Grows .......... 10 Canada And The New World Order: The Case of Haiti .......................................... 13 Haitian Masses Move Forward Against Foreign Occupation ................................. 15 From Revolution to the Kidnapping of a President ................................................ 21 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Roger Annis is co-editor of Socialist Voice, and a coordinator of the Van- couver-based Haiti Solidarity BC and the Canada Haiti Action Network. He is a member of the International Association of Machinists. Copyright 2004-2008 by Socialist Voice www.socialistvoice.ca Published by South Branch Publications Printed in Canada ISBN 978-0-9809889-8-7 Socialist Voice Marxist Perspectives for the 21st Century A forum for discussion of today’s struggles of the workers and oppressed from the standpoint of revolutionary Marxism, based in Canada but international in scope. All Socialist Voice articles, as well as a selection of important documents from international movements for socialism and liberation, are available on our website, www.socialistvoice.ca For a free email subscription send a blank email to [email protected] Socialist Voice is also available through an RSS feed at feeds.feedburner.com/SocialistVoice 3 Haiti: A Social and Economic Calamity (Green Left Weekly, February 28, 2008) The following is abridged from an interview with Haiti solidarity activist Roger Annis for the Norwegian left daily newspaper Klassenkampens. On February 29, 2004, Haiti’s president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was overthrown by a military intervention from the US, Canada, France and Chile allied with small numbers of foreign-armed and financed Haitian paramilitaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Chomsky and Genocide
    Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Volume 14 Issue 1 Article 8 5-7-2020 Chomsky and Genocide Adam Jones University of British Columbia Okanagan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp Recommended Citation Jones, Adam (2020) "Chomsky and Genocide," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 14: Iss. 1: 76-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.14.1.1738 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol14/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Chomsky and Genocide Adam Jones University of British Columbia Okanagan Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada Introduction Avram Noam Chomsky (1928–) may be the most prominent and significant public intellectual of the post-World War Two period. His contributions to linguistic theory continue to generate debate and controversy. But two generations know him primarily for his political writings, public talks, and other activism, voicing a left-radical, humanist critique of US foreign policy and other subjects. Works such as American Power and the New Mandarins (1969, on Vietnam and US imperialism more generally), The Fateful Triangle: Israel, the US, and the Palestinians (1983), James Peck’s edited The Chomsky Reader (1987), and 1988’s Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (co-authored with Edward S. Herman) hold a venerated status for leftist/progressive readers.
    [Show full text]