Contradictions in U.S. Foreign Policy

By Eppel, Solomon; Khadloya, Tushar | The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Spring 2008 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Contradictions in U.S. Foreign Policy


Eppel, Solomon, Khadloya, Tushar, The Brown Journal of World Affairs


NOAM CHOMSKY

Professor Emeritus of Linguistics

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Noam Chomsky is an institute professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is an active critic of U.S. foreign policy and the author of numerous books on foreign policy and politics, including Hegemony Or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance and Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.

Brown Journal of World Affairs: Tell us a bit about yourself first. How did you, as a linguistics scholar, become an authority on international politics?

Noam Chomsky: Well, actually, my political interests long precede any awareness of the existence of linguistics. I grew up as kind of a young radical and political activist and only later learned about linguistics. But I didn't start writing and wasn't active in the general public sphere until the early 1960s. The 1950s were a pretty quiescent period; there was nothing much happening. But by the early 1960s-with the anti-nuclear movement, the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, and especially the Vietnam War in 1962-I just became more active. I didn't really intend to write on politics. Actually, a lot of my articles were just written-up talks, including my first article, which was on the responsibility of intellectuals. It was, believe it or not, a talk for the Hillel Foundation at Harvard.

Journal: How have the theoretical approaches in linguistics influenced your views on international politics and vice versa? Do you ever play the two disciplines off one another?

Chomsky: Not really. I'll tell you the honest truth-I don't really think that international relations theory should be called a theory. A theory has some non-obvious principles, from which you can deduce some unexpected consequences, and a theory can be verified. I really don't think that's true of international relations theory. It's no criticism-human affairs are just too complicated for the kinds of theories we have in the sciences.

International relations theory has two major approaches: one is realism and the other is idealism, sometimes called Wilsonian idealism. I think there are several problems with both of these approaches. One problem is that they are substantially refuted by the facts, and that's even recognized by some of the leading exponents of the theories. For example, Hans Morgenthau, a prominent realist, has a book called The Purpose of American Politics. This is mysticism, of course, because countries don't have purposes. But Morgenthau states that the purpose of the United States is to bring freedom and justice and so on to the rest of the world. Morgenthau is a good scholar, and he recognizes that the historical record completely undermines this thesis. But he says that to deny that the United States has a purpose merely on the basis of the empirical facts would be like what he calls the error of atheism, which denies religious belief on the same grounds. So the existence of a purpose is a religious belief refuted by the facts.

If you look at idealism, on the other hand, it's almost a bad joke. One problem is that every great power toys with the rhetoric of benign intentions and sacrificing to help the world. If you look at the actual record of say, Woodrow Wilson, you'd notice he was one of the most brutal interventionists in modern U.S. history. He destroyed Haiti and the Dominican Republic, not to mention his interventions in Mexico and Nicaragua. His famous principle of self-determination did not really apply to the colonies. Where is the idealism?

Journal: What do you envision the broad framework of what U.S. policy should be?

Chomsky: On a broad scale, I'd probably subscribe to the same aphorisms and truisms: that we should be in favor of peace and justice, and economic growth, and ending poverty, and so one. But you can say that about any other country as well.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Contradictions in U.S. Foreign Policy
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?