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 Race to Destruction<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 />

281<br />

fully ban nuclear weapon tests.” 19<br />

In September 1985, <strong>the</strong> USSR proposed a 50% reduction <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

strategic nuclear arsenals of <strong>the</strong> US and <strong>the</strong> USSR <strong>in</strong> exchange for<br />

bann<strong>in</strong>g of Reagan’s SDI. 20 The Times reported that Reagan “welcomed”<br />

<strong>the</strong> Soviet proposals and that <strong>the</strong> Adm<strong>in</strong>istration responded with<br />

“optimism that <strong>the</strong> Soviet Union was f<strong>in</strong>ally weigh<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> with a serious<br />

proposal . . .” In fact, <strong>the</strong> proposal led to consternation as to how best to<br />

evade it, and it was hardly <strong>the</strong> first “serious proposal.” Only a week<br />

before, <strong>the</strong> majority of <strong>the</strong> 90-nation conference review<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> antiproliferation<br />

treaty supported <strong>the</strong> Soviet position on bann<strong>in</strong>g of nuclear<br />

weapons test<strong>in</strong>g, follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> unilateral Soviet 5-month suspension of<br />

weapons test<strong>in</strong>g on August 6, which <strong>the</strong> US refused to jo<strong>in</strong>. UPI reports<br />

that “The United States, backed only by Great Brita<strong>in</strong>, became <strong>the</strong> odd<br />

man out by refus<strong>in</strong>g to support a full nuclear test ban—<strong>the</strong> burn<strong>in</strong>g issue<br />

<strong>in</strong> this year’s conference,” and cited Senator Carl Lev<strong>in</strong>, after visit<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />

conference: “What struck me <strong>the</strong> most,” he said, “is <strong>the</strong> nearly<br />

unanimous view of US allies that <strong>the</strong> United States should return to <strong>the</strong><br />

negotiat<strong>in</strong>g table with <strong>the</strong> Soviets relative to a comprehensive test ban<br />

treaty. Repeatedly I was told <strong>the</strong> United States is hurt<strong>in</strong>g itself by<br />

refus<strong>in</strong>g to even sit down and negotiate.” The evasive Times report on<br />

this conference is headl<strong>in</strong>ed “Parley Criticizes Nuclear Powers.” The<br />

Times commentary on <strong>the</strong> September proposal also noted, this time<br />

accurately, that <strong>the</strong> Adm<strong>in</strong>istration was concerned over Soviet<br />

“shrewdness and f<strong>in</strong>esse”; <strong>the</strong> unstated problem is that this<br />

“shrewdness” makes it difficult to evade <strong>the</strong> proposals. 21<br />

The August 6 announcement of a Soviet test moratorium elicited an<br />

effective US government dis<strong>in</strong>formation operation, which virtually<br />

elim<strong>in</strong>ated it from awareness. On learn<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> proposal, <strong>the</strong> US<br />

moved to undercut its impact before it was made public by announc<strong>in</strong>g<br />

an “unconditional” and “unilateral” offer to <strong>the</strong> USSR to monitor a US

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!