To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » The U.S., Brazil, & the Security Council

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

The U.S., Brazil, & the Security Council

By Noam Chomsky at Oct 28, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
The question why the US has been mildly supportive of Brazil as a new permanent member of the Security Council, despite its left-leaning government, is a good one. We can only speculate, of course. My speculation is along these lines. It is not unlikely that the Security Council will be expanded. There is a lot of objection around the world to the effective control of the UN by the permanent members, which means primarily the US (since the UN fell out of complete control in the 60s, the US is far ahead in vetoes, its sidekick UK second, others far behind). And most of the world now considers the US a serious threat to peace, even their survival. Even the majority of the US population believes that the Security Council veto should be abandoned. These various pressures are likely to lead to diffusion of the power of the permanent members. The two obvious candidates are Germany and Japan, the major industrial societies that are not already permanent members. But that would be problematic for Washington. A core element of US foreign policy since it became the world-dominant power during World War II has been to ensure that Europe and Japan-centered Asia not move in an independent path. Germany is Europe's powerhouse. The Franco-German alliance is the core of Europe's industrial, financial, commercial, technological,... strength. That's part of the reason for the hysteria about "old Europe" last year; it wasn't just passionate hatred of democracy, though that too was a factor, as the criterion for the old-new divide revealed. Northeast Asia, now comprising not only the Japanese economy but also South Korea and particularly China (closely linked to the Japanese economy), is the most dynamic economic region in the world, also holding about half of global financial reserves and with potential access to vast resources, energy and others, in Siberia. Preventing moves towards independence in the European and Asian political-economic entities has been and remains a central element in US foreign policy. That was a major factor in the Indochina wars. There was deep concern that an independent Vietnam might have a "virus" effect, "infecting" Southeast Asia with the curse of independence and finally leading Japan to "accommodate" to an independent Asia as its industrial heartland, meaning the US would have in effect lost the Pacific phase of World War II -- one reason why I think it is a serious analytic error to accept the familiar conclusion that the US lost the Vietnam war; it achieved its major war aims by destroying Indochina, and though it didn't achieve its maximal aims, that's hardly "defeat," as the business world understood 30 years ago. The same concerns were also a factor in the reconstruction of Europe on the basis of military aid and integration (far more significant than the Marshall Plan) and many other policies. They were surely a key feature in invading Iraq, which, as Zbigniew Brzezinski recently put it, provides the US with "critical leverage" over European and Asian economies. He is reiterating a point made by top planner George Kennan half a century earlier, when he observed that control of Middle East oil gives the US "veto power" over what Japan might do some day if it recovers from wartime disaster. Control over energy has always been a leading factor in world domination, a fact often ignored in discussion of access to oil. Reliance on Middle East oil is a lesser factor, so I think the record shows (and simply analysis of global strategy and the nature of oil markets). Coming back to Brazil, I think there are good reasons why the US would want to block the natural expansion of the Security Council to its serious rivals, Germany (linked to France) and Japan (linked to China). Whatever its government, Brazil is far more dependent on US will, sometimes exerted through the IMF. Recent years reveal that quite dramatically; left-oriented or not, the government has effectively pursued the policies dictated by the international financial community and the US. Brazil also has ambitions and potential to lead an independent bloc of nations, but those would be nations of the South, much less threatening to US world domination, whoever happens to be in the government. If we assume rational planning, with the usual cynicism that guides it, these seem to me reasonable speculations. Only speculations, of course. We don't have documentary evidence and there is very little investigation and reporting about such matters, which simply cut too deep to be acceptable, even thinkable.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (10)

The user who created this comment no longer exists.

Person

Re: The U.S., Brazil, & the Security Council

By Brunomaltais, Bruno at Dec 05, 2004 09:31 AM
I am wondering if the addition of Brazil as a permanent member of the SC would reduce the chance of Germany or Japan to become permanent members too. Even though the US supports Brazil, would it make any difference for the others? And how would Argentina and the other major South American States react?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The U.S., Brazil, & the Security Council

By Glauciobretas, Gbretas at Nov 22, 2004 20:36 PM
Any thoughts on why Russia supports Brazil on the security council ? (Putin said this today 22/11/04, on official visit to Brazil)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The U.S., Brazil, & the Security Council

By Yservel, Yservel at Nov 18, 2004 02:38 AM
A more belligerent Japan would also be particulary helpful from US perspective to prevent a chinease threat of an invasion of Taiwan. (While unlikely ATM, the reinforcement and modernisation of chinese fleet will reinforced this threat and give China more leverages to unify Taiwan). Japan is also the second UN financial contributor. So my guess is that the USA is going to stir tension between Japan and China.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The U.S., Brazil, & the Security Council

By Yservel, Yservel at Nov 18, 2004 02:30 AM
I not convinced that Japan is going to be linked with China (execpt economically). The main obstacle to a japanese UN permanent seat would be China and not the USA. There are many tension between these two countries. Japan still hasn't fully apologised for atrocities commited in China during WWII. Japanese PM is still visiting a shrine memorial when known war criminals are buried. Chinese soccer fans booed japanese soccer team during the asia soccer final. Recently, they was the chinese nuke sub and so on. A US-Japan alliance is far more likely IMHO. USA needs Japan to counter China. For this reason, Japan is flexing its musckle under US auspice. It is building 2 aircraft cariers. It has sent a ship during afgan invasion on 2001 and some troops in Irak on 2004 "to show the flag". While USA needs Japan support In Afghanistan and especially in Iraq, I think the US main motive to involve Japan there was to help manufacturing consent from japanese public opinion to get rid of their pacific constitution. Japan uses a lot of US militazry hardware.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The U.S., Brazil, & the Security Council

By Clarkson, Tony at Nov 17, 2004 13:30 PM
Mr. Chomsky, How, in your view, does Brzil's recent military intervention in Haiti fit in with their potential membership of the security council? For example, are they being allowed carte blanche in Haiti to determine their possible security council inclusion (as a compliant US puppet), or are they simply flexing their military muscles in accordance with their pst governing traditions? I would appreciate any comments from anyone on this issue as it seems the world has forgotten about Haiti; this at a time when the US is supposedly 'bringing democracy' to Iraq in order to rid it of 'terrorists', while on the other side of the world they are using ex-terrorists (CIA operatives and their Haitian henchmen) to rid an impoverished country of democracy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The U.S., Brazil, & the Security Council

By Parent, Rob at Nov 16, 2004 21:39 PM
I don't think people in this forum want to subscribe to a paid publication, such as www.brazilwatch.com. I believe the purpose of this forum is to exchange views, opinions and knowledge in order to help better understand what is going on in the world. In addition, there are a number of free news & information sites such as ZMAG with the purpose of sharing information for free. Dear Noam Chomsky, Could you share your views on the current information I have been hearing about the Euro vs Dollar for international exchange and what implications this could have on the United States economy? If this a growing threat to the United States financial sectors or is this just an over-exaggeration. Sincerely, Rob Parent

Reply this comment

Person

By Info, Dcp at Nov 16, 2004 20:58 PM
Interesting blog! I'm glad I found it. If you're interested in current Brazilian political/economic news in english, may I suggest I publication at http://www.brazilwatch.com DCP

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The U.S., Brazil, & the Security Council

By Parent, Rob at Nov 16, 2004 08:42 AM
Has anyone considered that this may be the beginning of a larger economic war? That as Noam Chomsky has indicated that this is about influence and power but may in fact be more directed at supporting the future financial structure of the United States before it implodes. I've read in a number of online news distributions that the strengthening of the Euro is having a negative effect on the US economy. Also, I have read about how if the trend to move away from the dollar as the standard currency of international trade, that this would have a grave effect on the US economy as well. Currently, Brazil could or might very well be used as a form of equalizer to the growth and popularity of the Euro. Of course, Brazil would have to be seriously courted by the United States and stronger economic ties would have to be put in place. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could comment on this particular possibility? Could this be what is in the works? Or has this financial information benn just overblown? With regards to Latin America, I don't believe that Brazil's inclusion to the security council was meant help them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The U.S., Brazil, & the Security Council

By Sh1158, Wheelworker at Nov 01, 2004 22:50 PM
I think Brazil's inclusion on the Security Council would be an important step towards greater independence for Latin America. The US may still be able to exert a great deal of pressure through the IMF, but its influence is certainly declining in the region. The election of leftists in Brazil, Uruguay, Ecuador, Argentina, and especially Venezuela underscores this trend. I believe Mercosur is going to develop politically and economically in a direction away from the neoliberal model, towards something like the EU, and that the possibility of a US dominated FTAA is mostly dead. Brazil is the largest country in Latin America and its inclusion on the Security Council would only help offset US power in the Americas and the world. I think Chomsky's right in speculating as to why the US is giving support to Brazil, but I think US policymakers have exaggerated beliefs about their influence.

Reply this comment

Loading_border