NoamChomsky has a longinterview about the Iraq invasion posted over on GNN. On the long side, but definitelyworth reading. Chomsky’s not really one for soundbites, but two quotesstood out to me when I was reading the interview:

After theinvasion, it became embarrassingly clear that they were not going to findweapons of mass destruction, so the rhetoric began to shift and bringingdemocracy became the great achievement.

However, history has shown that when democratization is used as a justificationfor foreign policy, it’s often just a code word for “installing agovernment friendly to our interests.” So long as that new democracy toesthe line, it’s permitted to exist. However, we’re more likely tosupport regimes that support our interests over regimes that are freelyelected:

The practice showsthat yes, democratic forms of government are fine as long as they do exactly aswe say, otherwise they are not fine. For example, in the Middle East to wherethis message is directed, you have to be pretty dumb not to notice that thecountries that were praised in the speechfor their progress towards democracy are those that are following orders, andthe ones that are condemned are the ones that aren't following orders. This iscompletely independent of any steps towards democracy, human rights and so on.

If you wantexamples, look at U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America in the latter halfof the last century -- specifically in El Salvador and Guatemala.

The case of Guatemala seems particularly interesting in light of the currentIraq situation. There, in 1951, Jacobo Arbenz was freely elected by one of thelargest majorities in Guatemalan history. A few years later, he was ousted by aCIA-backed coup which installed the dictatorial regime of Castillo Armas. Thereason? The Agrarian Reform Act. Arbenz wanted to nationalize the fruitindustry (Guatemala’s largest export and greatest revenue source at thetime), and the American United Fruit Company (and its principal investors, theRockefellers) would lose a lot of money if that industry was taken over by thestate. So the CIA stepped in, overthrew the democratically elected president,and solved the Rockefeller’s problem. Goes to show how corporateinterests can have a fairly drastic effect on foreign policy.

So – let’ssee…swap Guatemala for Iraq, bananas for oil, and American United forHalliburton…hrmm. Not *quite* the same, but close enough to makeme scratch my head.