Introduction
You worry that the global order is breaking down and that the most powerful nations act outside the law. You see leaders invoke noble principles while committing aggression, ignoring domestic needs, and eroding the security of ordinary citizens. This widening gap between official rhetoric and destructive reality makes you question the stability of modern democracies.
Noam Chomsky argues that the reigning superpower operates as a failed state that routinely violates international law and maintains dangerous military postures. You learn that democracy promotion abroad serves as a cover for elite economic interests while domestic political systems restrict genuine popular participation.
The book examines these failures across several key areas. You explore the concept of outlaw states and the reality of the international order. You trace the true motives behind the invasion of Iraq and the War on Terror. You investigate the systematic opposition to independent nationalism disguised as democracy promotion. Finally, you analyze how domestic political structures widen inequality and ignore public opinion.
- How do hegemonic powers exempt themselves from international law?
- What role did the invasion of Iraq play in resource control?
- Why does foreign policy consistently oppose popular sovereignty?
- How do economic elites shape domestic politics to restrict participation?
1. International Order and Outlaw States
International relations operate under a single standard rather than a double standard. You see hegemonic powers follow the vile maxim of the masters of mankind by taking everything for themselves and leaving nothing for others. International law and treaties are sternly imposed on smaller countries with self-righteous posturing. Meanwhile, the reigning superpower dismisses those same rules as entirely irrelevant to itself.
The reigning doctrine in international relations is a single standard where hegemonic powers exempt themselves from international law and treaties.
This behavior mirrors the philosophical definition of outlaw states. John Rawls outlined an international society where well-ordered peoples follow a Law of Peoples. That framework excludes outlaw states that reject treaties and human rights. You find that the United States systematically exempts itself from the Nuremberg principles and the Geneva Conventions.
White House counsel Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush to rescind the Geneva Conventions. He called those provisions quaint and obsolete to avoid domestic criminal prosecution for war crimes under the War Crimes Act. The Conventions were first enacted in 1864.
The United States also exempts itself from international court judgments and multilateral treaties whenever they conflict with its geopolitical goals. When the World Court ruled against the United States in cases brought by Nicaragua, Washington rejected the jurisdiction. The administration labeled the court a hostile forum and withdrew from relevant conventions.
Condoleezza Rice informed Mexico during a March 2005 visit that the United States could simply withdraw from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. She claimed international court jurisdiction proved inappropriate, even though Mexico had a water treaty to live up to. The United States entered a reservation excluding itself from prosecution under multilateral treaties in 1946. The Vienna Convention itself was proposed by the United States in 1963.
The United States dismissed International Court of Justice and UN Security Council rulings condemning its terrorist war against Nicaragua. You can also examine the refusal to extradite Luis Posada Carriles while demanding other nations honor US extradition requests.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is facing collapse primarily due to the failure of nuclear-weapons states to fulfill their legal obligations. The NPT bargain promised non-nuclear states access to peaceful nuclear energy in exchange for renouncing weapons. Nuclear powers committed to eliminate their arsenals under Article VI. Washington refused to disarm and attempted to revise treaty terms to restrict non-nuclear states.
At the May 2005 NPT five-year review conference that ended in complete failure, the Bush administration fought every reference to its 1995 and 2000 commitments. The administration insisted on restricting Article IV while advancing plans to research new nuclear weapons. The UN Committee on Disarmament voted 147 to 1 in favor of a verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, which the United States opposed.
Global militarization increases through the transformation of the military and the pursuit of ownership of space. The United States accounted for 95 percent of total global military space expenditures in 2004. Pentagon programs and Air Force transformation plans develop space-based strike weapons and precision force delivery within minutes.
General James Cartwright explained to Congress in 2005 that the Pentagon is developing new space weaponry allowing attacks on very short timelines anywhere on the face of the earth. These Death Star programs provide 30 minutes notice to crush someone anywhere in the world. Such actions create an action-reaction cycle that threatens global stability and risks triggering an arms race.
Maintaining nuclear arsenals on high-alert, hair-trigger postures combined with deteriorating early-warning systems creates an unacceptable risk of accidental or unauthorized nuclear Armageddon. Strategic postures force leaders to decide almost instantly upon receiving incoming missile warnings, robbing them of time to verify data and avoid catastrophic mistakes. William Perry estimated a greater than 50 percent probability of a nuclear strike on US targets within a decade.
Russian transport of nuclear weapons creates severe security vulnerabilities exploited by rebels, with many hundreds of Russian nuclear weapons moving around the countryside every day. During the Cuban missile crisis, the world came within a hair's breadth of nuclear disaster. Russian submarine commander Vasily Arkhipov countermanded an order to fire a nuclear-armed torpedo during that crisis.
2. Iraq and the War on Terror
The invasion of Iraq was executed under false pretenses, serving as a terrorist magnet and a mechanism for resource control rather than security.
Intelligence agencies and independent analysts correctly predicted that the invasion would increase political Islam, fracture Iraqi society, and create a globalized network of professionalized terrorists who would eventually bleed out into their home countries.
Following the invasion of Iraq, favorable views of the US in Indonesia plummeted to 15 percent by 2002, and the 2004 incidence of significant terrorist attacks tripled compared to two decades prior.
Pretexts and Deceit
The invasion of Iraq was executed under false pretenses through the systematic manipulation of intelligence and government dishonesty regarding non-existent weapons of mass destruction. When the original pretexts concerning weapons of mass destruction proved completely false after an exhaustive search, the doctrinal system quickly concocted new justifications centered on bringing democracy.
Leaked Downing Street Memos revealed that British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith advised that regime change was illegal, and secret documents showed Bush and Blair agreed in July 2002 to use spikes of military activity to provoke a casus belli.
Almost 22,000 sorties flown by US and UK planes hit 391 targets in the nine months leading up to the official start of the war. 15,000 out of 20,000 looted pieces disappeared forever from the National Museum in Baghdad.
Crimes of War
The US military assault on Falluja involved massive violations of international humanitarian law, including attacks on hospitals and deprivation of food and water. During the November 2004 attack on Falluja, US forces closed exit roads, bombed medical centers, seized Falluja General Hospital while manacling patients and staff, and denied the Iraqi Red Crescent access to the city, committing war crimes comparable to historical atrocities.
The New York Times front-page story depicted armed soldiers rushing patients and hospital employees out of rooms and tying their hands behind their backs as a meritorious achievement.
Scientific studies and medical journals revealed a devastating civilian death toll from the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which was largely ignored or downplayed in the United States. A study published in the Lancet in October 2004 estimated a probable death toll of about 100,000 people due to the invasion and occupation, with subsequent reviews showing high proportions of deaths caused by air strikes and explosive devices.
The Lancet study estimating 100,000 probable deaths elicited government denials in England and virtual silence in the United States during the presidential campaign.
Energy and Geopolitical Power
The primary geopolitical objective driving US military interventions in the Middle East is the control of major energy resources to secure strategic power and leverage over global rivals.
Controlling the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf provides Washington with veto power over competing industrial economies in Europe and Asia that depend on the same energy exports.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and post-World War II planners like George Kennan explicitly recognized that control over Gulf region resources gives the United States critical leverage on European and Asian economies.
To deflect attention from the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the US-UK sanctions on Iraq, the government-media complex employed the thief, thief! diversion technique. Rather than addressing the hundreds of thousands of deaths and the collapse of Iraqi society caused by sanctions, authorities focused on alleged UN corruption in the oil-for-food program, while the bulk of illegal transactions actually consisted of US-approved oil smuggling to allies like Jordan and Turkey.
Investigations by the Financial Times found that the Clinton and Bush administrations told Congress that Iraq was smuggling oil to Turkey and Jordan and recommended turning a blind eye because it served vital national interests.
3. Democracy Promotion Abroad
Pronouncements about democracy promotion are standard geopolitical rhetoric masking the systematic opposition to independent nationalism.
When assertions of noble intent are adopted with unanimity by leaders and doctrinal systems, a sensible reaction is to investigate the actual evidence. Historically, notorious dictators and oppressive states have routinely produced moving rhetoric about their nobility of purpose.
Japanese Emperor Hirohito defended wartime aggression in 1945 as a sincere desire for self-preservation and stabilization. Martin Heidegger in 1935 praised Nazi Germany for defending human culture against world darkening.
Scholars analyzing post-Cold War foreign policy find a strong line of continuity showing that administrations consistently downplay or ignore popular democracy when it clashes with other significant national interests. Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment demonstrated that United States policy in Latin America during the 1980s worked against the democratic trend by supporting military governments to prevent populist-based change.
Rhetoric vs Reality
Washington's quintessential article of faith regarding democracy is that elections are acceptable only if they produce the politically preferred outcome.
The Bush administration supported elections in Palestine only after the November 2004 death of Yasser Arafat. It previously resisted them because they might have yielded a victory for Arafat or Hamas. When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon threatened to disrupt Palestinian elections if Hamas participated in his September 2005 statement to the United Nations, Washington pressured Mahmoud Abbas to require candidates to renounce violence and unlawful methods. Meanwhile, President Bush designated Sharon a man of peace.
When democratic elections produce outcomes unacceptable to Western powers, dominant states resort to covert subversion, aid manipulation, or support for military coups. In Haiti, the United States promoted opposition against President Aristide through groups like the International Republican Institute, withheld aid, and backed a subsequent military coup after orchestrating conditions of instability. USAID also spent almost 2 million dollars on quick projects to bolster the Fatah faction in Palestine.
The Middle East and Palestine
The common narrative that Arafat walked away from a magnanimous peace offer at Camp David in 2000 contradicts actual cartographic evidence. Analysis of maps by Israeli scholars Ron Pundak and Shaul Arieli reveals that Ehud Barak's opening offer left Israel in control of 13 percent of the West Bank, while his final offer retained 12 percent control. The proposal bisected the West Bank with deep Israeli salients and established three cantons in the remnants of the territory.
One salient including Ma'aleh Adumim stretched from the expanded Jerusalem area across the Jordan River. Another extended toward Ariel, separating the northern canton from the central and southern ones.
While mainstream accounts like those of Dennis Ross blame Arafat for the failure at Camp David, Israeli and European records show that at the Taba negotiations in January 2001, Israel significantly reduced its territorial demands compared to Camp David, dropping to 6 to 8 percent. Israeli Prime Minister Barak called off these negotiations four days early on January 27, 2001, simply denying that progress was possible. He told historian Ahron Bregman that he never intended to sign any agreement before the upcoming elections. High-level Israeli military intelligence officials later concurred that Arafat preferred a diplomatic process and only turned to violence when reaching dead ends.
Latin American Resistance
The Separation Barrier and strategic infrastructure development are designed to annex major settlement blocs, encircle Palestinian towns, and fragment the West Bank into unviable cantons. Rather than serving a security function, the barrier system and road networks incorporate valuable agricultural lands and water resources into Israel while cutting off Palestinian urban centers from one another. This creates isolated enclaves reminiscent of Bantustans and enforces a policy of soft transfer.
Meron Benvenisti and human rights organization B'Tselem documented how the barrier around Greater Jerusalem completely isolates villages like Sheikh Sa'ad, forcing 55,000 Palestinians officially cut off from Jerusalem to choose between living in a prison or abandoning their homes. The projected division of the West Bank by the Separation Barrier results in three Bantustans.
4. Democracy Promotion at Home
The domestic political system is designed by economic elites to restrict popular participation, widen inequality, and ignore public opinion.
Founding Intent and Corporate Power
The founders of the US political system deliberately designed it to restrict democracy and protect propertied minorities from the majority. James Madison argued that the wealthy and capable should hold power to prevent the propertyless majority from using voting rights to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth, drawing parallels to Aristotle's concerns about extreme democracy. Adam Smith similarly observed that civil government is structured to defend the rich against the poor.
Madison warned the Constitutional Convention about the consequences if elections were opened to all classes, citing England as an example where the population might redistribute land more equitably.
Corporations are legally mandated single-mindedly to pursue material self-interest, resembling pathological institutions detached from human morality. Through radical judicial activism, collectivist legal entities were granted the rights of living persons and required by Anglo-American corporate law to dedicate themselves exclusively to profit and market share, while deploying publicity and propaganda to manage an aroused public.
The Chancery Court of Delaware noted that corporations must contribute to charitable causes only to maintain the business advantages granted by law and avoid public backlash.
The Neoliberal Era
Neoliberal economic policies introduced since the 1970s have resulted in soaring inequality, stagnating real wages, and severe economic regression for the majority.
While elite wealth and corporate profits surged under policies favoring capital over labor, real wages for production and nonsupervisory workers stagnated or declined, social indicators diverged from economic growth, and poverty rates climbed.
Edward Wolff found that from 1983 to 1998, average wealth for the top 1 percent rose 42 percent while the poorest 40 percent lost 76 percent of their modest wealth.
Economic distress materialized across the population, reflected in Census Bureau figures and financial strain. There was a 12.7 percent poverty rate in 2004 according to Census Bureau figures, and 38 million people going hungry because they could not afford food in that same year.
Bankruptcy filings surged as households absorbed these pressures. There were 1.6 million bankruptcy filings in 2004, rising from 200,000 in 1978.
Public Opinion versus Policy
A profound divide exists between public opinion and state policy, with the public favoring robust social programs, diplomacy, and international agreements while the government ignores them. Polling data from respected institutions like the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and PIPA show that large majorities support universal health care, international court jurisdiction, environmental protocols like Kyoto, and deep cuts in defense spending, yet these preferences are excluded from the political agenda.
When PIPA tested popular attitudes on the federal budget, public preferences were virtually the inverse of official policy, including a 31 percent average cut in defense spending.
Further polling confirmed deep commitments to public welfare that clash with established legislative priorities. There was an 80 percent figure of the public regarding universal health care as more important than holding down taxes in a Washington Post-ABC News poll, alongside 63 percent favoring rolling back tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000, and 33 percent citing greed and materialism as the most urgent moral crisis.
The manufactured crisis surrounding Social Security is a public relations strategy designed to dismantle a public program that benefits ordinary citizens rather than corporate elites. Although Social Security is financially sound and features extremely low administrative costs compared to private alternatives, administration propaganda exploits demographic shifts to generate fear and push ownership society schemes that divert funds toward financial institutions.
Gallup polls showed that after intense public relations campaigns, Social Security rose to become a major concern for the public, with 61 percent believing the system faced serious problems.
Projections for Social Security costs remain modest when compared to the broader healthcare sector. The figures show 5 percent of GDP projected for Social Security costs through 2080 compared to nearly 25 percent for total health care benefits.
10 Key Ideas
- The reigning superpower operates as a failed state that routinely violates international law and maintains dangerous military postures.
- International relations follow a single standard where hegemonic powers exempt themselves from international law and treaties.
- Maintaining nuclear arsenals on high-alert, hair-trigger postures combined with deteriorating early-warning systems creates an unacceptable risk of accidental nuclear Armageddon.
- The invasion of Iraq was executed under false pretenses, serving as a terrorist magnet and a mechanism for resource control rather than security.
- The primary geopolitical objective driving US military interventions in the Middle East is the control of major energy resources to secure strategic power and leverage over global rivals.
- Pronouncements about democracy promotion are standard geopolitical rhetoric masking the systematic opposition to independent nationalism.
- Washington's quintessential article of faith regarding democracy is that elections are acceptable only if they produce the politically preferred outcome.
- The Separation Barrier and strategic infrastructure development are designed to annex major settlement blocs, encircle Palestinian towns, and fragment the West Bank into unviable cantons.
- Corporations are legally mandated single-mindedly to pursue material self-interest, resembling pathological institutions detached from human morality.
- A profound divide exists between public opinion and state policy, with the public favoring robust social programs, diplomacy, and international agreements while the government ignores them.