August 6, 2012
Sixty-seven years ago today, the United States government undertook one of the largest terrorist attacks in human history.
Hiroshima, one of the few Japanese cities left untouched by conventional firebombing, was leveled by an atom bomb. Seventy thousand people died immediately; tens of thousands more died over the next few months due to radiation. Three days later, another atom bomb struck Nagasaki.
At least one hundred and fifty thousand died from the two bombings, most of them civilians.
That the bombings were necessary to bring about Japanese surrender is doubtful. Many of the most respected commanders of the Second World War, including Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas McArthur, Chester Nimitz, and William D. Leahy, argued that the bombings were unnecessary and morally wrong. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey argues that Japan would have surrendered by the end of the year “even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
Even if the bombings were necessary, however, it is perfectly appropriate to call them terrorism. Terrorism, according to Webster’s, is the use of intense fear to coerce. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings certainly produced intense fear in the Japanese population, and they were launched to coerce the Japan into surrendering more quickly and without conditions.
Other than the use of atomic weaponry, there is nothing unique about these bombings in American history. American hegemony has been accompanied by mass murder and terrorism from its very beginning. When conquering the Philippines, Uncle Sam killed between 200,000 and 1.5 million civilians (reliable records do not exist). Millions died in the Korean and Vietnam wars, many as a result of American carpet bombings.
Even more horrific are the actions of American client states. The Suharto regime in Indonesia exterminated a quarter of the population of East Timor with American weapons and funding. The Mobutu regime in Zaire, consistently backed by the United States, generated the Congo Wars, an ongoing conflict that has killed over five million people. The U.S. also backed Saddam Hussein, Anastazio Somoza, the Shah of Iran, Augusto Pinochet, and Hosni Mubarak, to name just a few.
This is not to say that the U.S. is particularly evil. She is far better than her predecessors—the British Empire, for example, killed sixty million people in India alone. Nor would the world be better under any American rivals: would China really be a better superpower? The past few decades have seen a massive expansion in democracy and prosperity all over the world. While the U.S. hasn’t actively encouraged this, she hasn’t obstructed it the way China almost certainly would. In this sense, American hegemony could be seen as a force for good in the world: it holds off far worse alternatives.
But contemplating how things could be worse never makes progress. American hegemony may be better than many of its alternatives, but it is still seriously flawed. Progress requires that we fight not to keep the current system, however much of an improvement it may be, but rather for something even better.
The crimes of the United States are the inevitable result of global hegemony. Even if the U.S. wanted to spread liberty and prosperity (and it isn’t at all clear she does), it simply wouldn’t be possible. No empire can amass the social, economic, and political knowledge necessary to improve each country. Without such knowledge, there is enormous potential to make things worse: military force, if not very carefully applied, almost always reduces stability and liberty.
We must seek not a benevolent superpower, but no superpower at all. Multilateralism, in which the nations of the world work together to promote liberty, stability and democracy, would avoid the problems of imperialism. Individual countries could design policies based on their specific needs, and would thus be far more likely to make improvements.
So how do we establish multilateralism? This requires a global effort. It isn’t enough for the American public to demand their government abandon its hegemony; that by itself would open the door to Chinese influence. Populations all over the world, in both rich and poor countries, must demand a greater voice in global affairs. If enough governments, swayed by their populations, demand a say in global policy, multilateralism will be a reality; no hegemon has ever been powerful enough to resist all other governments in unison.
Constructing an international mass movement will not be easy; it’s hard enough to build such movements in one country. But if we want to stop the tyranny and killing that inevitably follows imperialism, it is absolutely necessary.
- Print print this page
- Discuss 15 comments, Blog about
Comments
Courseaire 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Isn't it nice when our young learn a new word and then use it in a sentence or two. Add 10 points to your grade and go to the head of the class. I'd like to know which rich or poor countries you'd give voice to in global affairs? Do you even think that the voices from the rich & poor countries would even be near the same. Most likely and as is currently being done, the poor would want or demand from the rich because they are poor (kind of sounds like our current US system - the rich should pay the poor just because). Though the bombs dropped on Japan were certainly overkill in hind-sight, were they really at that time? Were they any worst then the continued fire bombings of Tokyo? Do you compare them with the Nazi death camps? Most of the US actions were to help other countries better themselves, not conquer them at take their resources, though you get an argument from the left that the only reason we are in the Mid-East is for their Oil. I believe the US trie to set a better example and is contantly berated by the loud extremist minorities of those other countries (and they are usually the rich & don't like to share with others). I would hardly call Americans terrorists.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@Courseaire: So much sound and fury, so little significance. Where to begin...
" I'd like to know which rich or poor countries you'd give voice to in global affairs?"
Well, ideally all of them. That's sort of the point: it's wrong for any one country or group of countries to impose its will on any other.
"the poor would want or demand from the rich because they are poor"
Yes, because poor countries are in such a great position to demand anything positive from rich countries. What would actually happen is that poor countries would make negative demands on rich countries (namely: stop overthrowing our democratic governments, installing dictators, or forcing one-sided trade agreements on us); they would never be in a position to actually force rich countries to give them money.
If you're thinking of foreign aid, that's generally used as a tool to make low-income countries' governments do what the West wants (i.e.- compliant governments get aid, dissident governments get bombed or embargoed). It's hardly straight "giving." Not to mention that foreign aid rarely does any good for the countries that get it (see S. K. B. Asante's study: "International Assistance and International Capitalism: Supportive or Counterproductive?").
"Were [the atom bombings] any worst then the continued fire bombings of Tokyo?"
Who was arguing this? No, of course they weren't, but that doesn't make them right. I never said there was anything uniquely evil about the bombings (indeed, I say exactly the opposite).
"Do you compare them with the Nazi death camps?"
To some extent, I would. While the Nazis did something on a much larger scale, the basic morality behind it (i.e.- killing people for no good reason) is the same. Certainly the Third Reich was much worse than the United States, but that doesn't mean they're not comparable in many ways.
"Most of the US actions were to help other countries better themselves, not conquer them at take their resources"
I'd love for you to explain how placing/keeping Mobutu, Suharto, Hussein, the Shah, Somoza, or Castillio (to name just a few) in power was an attempt "to help countries better themselves." Or do you believe tyranny and poverty are an improvement?
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
"I would hardly call Americans terrorists."
Webster's defines terrorism as follows: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"
It defines terror as: "a state of intense fear."
So terrorism can be defined as the use of intense fear as a means of coercion.
What else would you call the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings? Did they cause intense fear in the Japanese population? Absolutely! Were they done to coerce the Japanese government? Again, emphatically so!
There's no question that the U.S. government has engaged in terrorism.
Courseaire 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Webster's defines terrorism as follows: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" The operative word here is "systematic". I would not call the dropping of two bombs "systematic". So yes, I question your statement that the U.S engaged in terrorism.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Fine, so the US would be a terrorist organization except it doesn't systematize its killing. Does this really help your case?
Courseaire 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Have they ever dropped another atomic bomb since then? No. So thank you, yes.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
No, the US hasn't dropped atom bombs since. She has only carpet bombed North Korea, poisoned Vietnam with Agent Orange, financed and armed Suharto's genocide, given chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and overthrown democratic governments left and right to replace them with brutal dictators. This is much better than using the atom bomb on people!
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
By the way, I love your "compliment" on my column. My youth and apparent naiveté do not constitute an argument against my position. I could be the most naive person in the world and still happen to be right against these things. Attack my arguments, not my age.
WFB 9 months, 2 weeks ago
What? The U.S. is very systematic in who, and how, it kills.
How is dropping two atom bombs not systematic? How are drone attacks on funerals and weddings not systematic?
How was the Reagan administration's backing of terrorists in Nicaragua, which resulted in the killings of priests and other clergyman who dared to assist the poor and empower them to rise above, not systematic? How was the United States' role in the over throw of the Chilean government to install Pinochet as dictator in chief not systematic? How was arming the Taliban in the 1970's not systematic? Am I missing something?
Andrew, your Reader's Blog is far more biting and honest than some of your past writing, which I imagine is why it's been posted in the Reader's Blog section. I like it. I'm almost positive you're already aware of his works but I highly recommend Noam Chomsky's commentary on power, hegemony and the manufacturing of consent. Also recommended is anything on the history of world trade, our world economies and how all that factors in to U.S. foreign excursions.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@WFB: Thanks for your comments. I imagine, from what you've said, that we agree a lot more on foreign policy than on domestic stuff. And I'm a big fan of Chomsky; glad we have that in common! I wouldn't call my other stuff less "honest," though I do have to tone down the rhetoric to get it published.
We should discuss this in private. Send me an email at seltian@yahoo.co.uk
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Not touching this with a 10 foot poll.
hmm on second thought let me ask this question. Explain what is a system better then what we have?
WFB 9 months, 2 weeks ago
"Explain what is a system better then what we have?"
If we're talking about U.S. hegemony, then from the article:
"We must seek not a benevolent superpower, but no superpower at all. Multilateralism, in which the nations of the world work together to promote liberty, stability and democracy, would avoid the problems of imperialism."
I agree that multilateralism is preferable to hegemony. But then again I don't see foreign policy as a game of soccer where we (the U.S.) must constantly dominate other nations (economically or militarily).
And let's be honest, any time we indulge ourselves with foreign excursions (post-WWII) in the name of "stabilizing" a region, we almost always end up destabilizing that region. Of course, "stability" is a relative concept. What may be considered stability by the masses in a foreign nation may be considered instability by U.S. officials if that foreign nation's stability means no unfettered U.S. access to that foreign nation's resources.
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Sounds like a college communist dream to me.
WFB 9 months, 2 weeks ago
This has nothing to do with college or communism and you're being dense by even bringing those two topics into the conversation.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@The_AnonymusProfit:
Seeing as communism (or at least the form practiced by the Soviet Union) attempted to spread its hegemony all over the world, I would say it's not just not a communist dream, but actively opposed to it.
Multilateralism is the only way to avoid the royal screw-ups and mass murder associated with imperialism. Like I said in the article, no nation can amass the kind of knowledge necessary to effectively intervene in other countries. Even if the United States wanted to promote stability and liberty (and she certainly doesn't), she would be unable to do so.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID