25.03.2013 Views

Noam Chomsky - Turning the Tide U.S. intervention in

Noam Chomsky - Turning the Tide U.S. intervention in

Noam Chomsky - Turning the Tide U.S. intervention in

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The Fifth Freedom<br />

Classics <strong>in</strong> Politics: <strong>Turn<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Tide</strong> <strong>Noam</strong> <strong>Chomsky</strong><br />

101<br />

to support <strong>the</strong> right of US access to Middle East oil; <strong>the</strong> US declared an<br />

“open door,” after all concessions were safely <strong>in</strong> US hands, under <strong>the</strong><br />

Wilson corollary. 41<br />

The concept of <strong>the</strong> “open door,” as understood <strong>in</strong> practice, is well<br />

illustrated by US petroleum policy over <strong>the</strong> years. It is expla<strong>in</strong>ed clearly<br />

<strong>in</strong> a State Department memorandum of 1944 entitled “Petroleum Policy<br />

of <strong>the</strong> United States.” There must be equal access for American<br />

companies everywhere, but no access for o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Western<br />

Hemisphere (<strong>the</strong> major oil produc<strong>in</strong>g region <strong>the</strong>n and for over two<br />

decades to come), where <strong>the</strong> US was safely <strong>in</strong> control. This policy, it<br />

was expla<strong>in</strong>ed, “would <strong>in</strong>volve <strong>the</strong> preservation of <strong>the</strong> absolute position<br />

presently obta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, and <strong>the</strong>refore vigilant protection of exist<strong>in</strong>g<br />

concessions <strong>in</strong> United States hands coupled with <strong>in</strong>sistence upon <strong>the</strong><br />

Open Door pr<strong>in</strong>ciple of equal opportunity for United States companies <strong>in</strong><br />

new areas.” 42 The “Open Door policy,” so construed, is a corollary to <strong>the</strong><br />

pr<strong>in</strong>ciple of <strong>the</strong> Fifth Freedom.<br />

Interventionism was <strong>the</strong>oretically renounced by Presidents Hoover<br />

and Roosevelt <strong>in</strong> favor of <strong>the</strong> Good Neighbor policy, though <strong>the</strong><br />

renunciation was conditional on good behavior; <strong>the</strong> Roosevelt<br />

Adm<strong>in</strong>istration relied on <strong>the</strong> threat of force to <strong>in</strong>stall <strong>the</strong> dictatorship of<br />

Fulgencio Batista <strong>in</strong> Cuba when it was feared that US commercial<br />

<strong>in</strong>terests might be threatened by <strong>the</strong> civilian government of Dr. Ramón<br />

Grau San Martín. 43 But this was an exception. By that time, European<br />

competition—<strong>the</strong> major concern—had been effectively conta<strong>in</strong>ed, and<br />

<strong>the</strong> US reigned unchallenged, capable of atta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g its objectives by<br />

political and economic power. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, domestic military forces<br />

tra<strong>in</strong>ed and supplied by <strong>the</strong> US could impose order and stability—that<br />

is, could guarantee <strong>the</strong> Fifth Freedom—without <strong>the</strong> Mar<strong>in</strong>es.<br />

Dictatorships, however brutal and corrupt, were acceptable to <strong>the</strong><br />

Hoover and Roosevelt Adm<strong>in</strong>istrations as long as <strong>the</strong>y satisfied this

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!