Who Rules the World?

Who Rules the World? Plot Summary

Introduction

Global power dynamics have undergone significant transformations since the end of World War II, with the United States establishing unprecedented hegemony while simultaneously facing contradictions between its stated values and actual practices. This tension between democratic rhetoric and imperial reality reveals fundamental questions about who truly benefits from American power projection around the world. The contradictions become particularly evident when examining how security is defined, whose interests are prioritized in foreign policy decisions, and how moral principles are selectively applied to justify interventions in some cases while ignoring similar situations elsewhere. Through rigorous analysis of historical patterns and contemporary policies, we can discern how power operates beneath the surface of official narratives. This approach reveals not only the mechanisms through which hegemony is maintained but also the possibilities for alternative frameworks that might better address shared global challenges. By examining the gap between democratic ideals and imperial practices, we gain insight into both the limitations of current power arrangements and potential pathways toward a more equitable global order that prioritizes human security over state dominance.

Chapter 1: The Concentration of Power in Democratic Societies

Democratic societies face a fundamental contradiction between their egalitarian ideals and the reality of concentrated power. Since World War II, the United States has maintained global dominance while experiencing internal power consolidation that undermines democratic governance. This hegemonic position allows America to frame international discourse on issues ranging from regional conflicts to existential threats facing civilization, effectively setting the parameters for what solutions are considered viable. The unprecedented power peak America reached in 1945, possessing approximately half the world's wealth and unmatched security, has gradually declined. However, power has not necessarily become more democratically distributed but rather shared among what business publications term the "masters of the universe" - primarily G7 countries and the institutions they control. These power centers operate far from democratically, with research demonstrating that economic elites and business interests substantially impact government policy while average citizens have minimal independent influence. This concentration manifests through multiple mechanisms. Campaign financing requirements drive political parties into dependence on concentrated capital, while elections increasingly resemble marketing exercises run by public relations industries. The revolving door between government positions and corporate boardrooms ensures policy continuity regardless of electoral outcomes. Meanwhile, the financialization of the economy has granted extraordinary influence to banking and investment institutions whose profits often depend on implicit taxpayer subsidies. For most citizens, this power concentration has tangible consequences. Real incomes for the majority have stagnated since the mid-1990s, with median male income falling below its 1968 level. The labor share of economic output has reached its lowest point since World War II. These outcomes result not from mysterious market forces but from deliberate policy choices that prioritize corporate interests over public welfare. When financial crises inevitably occur, the pattern repeats: banks receive government bailouts while the public bears the consequences of economic downturns. The implications extend beyond domestic policy to international relations. Power concentration enables foreign policy decisions that often contradict the expressed preferences of citizens. Polling consistently shows majorities opposing military interventions and supporting diplomatic solutions to international conflicts, yet policy frequently moves in the opposite direction. This disconnect between public opinion and state action reveals the limitations of democratic control over foreign policy in systems where economic power translates so directly into political influence.

Chapter 2: Security for Whom? State Interests vs. Public Welfare

The conventional understanding of international relations assumes that states prioritize security above all else. This doctrine, central to academic scholarship and public discourse, holds that governments primarily concern themselves with protecting their populations from external threats. However, examining actual policy decisions reveals a more complex reality where security for the general population frequently takes a back seat to other interests, raising the crucial question: security for whom? The end of the Cold War provides a revealing natural experiment. When the Soviet threat disappeared in 1989, one might have expected significant policy shifts reflecting the new security environment. Instead, everything continued much as before. The United States immediately invaded Panama, causing thousands of casualties to install a client regime, but for the first time without justification based on a Russian threat. The Bush administration issued a new national security policy maintaining a military establishment almost as large as the rest of the world combined, now justified by the "technological sophistication" of Third World powers rather than Soviet threats. This pattern continued through subsequent administrations. The Clinton doctrine explicitly entitled the United States to use military power unilaterally to ensure "uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources." Nuclear weapons remained central to strategy as tools that "cast a shadow over any crisis or conflict," despite the absence of the Soviet adversary that had previously justified their existence. Security for the population was consistently subordinated to maintaining global dominance and ensuring favorable conditions for economic interests. The historical record demonstrates that authentic public security rarely drives policy formation. Government secrecy, often justified as protecting national security, more frequently serves to keep citizens uninformed about actions taken in their name. As prominent liberal scholar Samuel Huntington candidly explained, "Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate." This observation reveals how security justifications often function to protect state power itself rather than the public. This contradiction becomes particularly evident when examining responses to genuine security threats like climate change and nuclear proliferation. Despite representing existential dangers to humanity, these issues receive inadequate attention because addressing them might constrain the power of dominant economic and political actors. The security of ordinary people is subordinated to maintaining systems that benefit those who control state policy, even when those systems generate the very insecurities they purportedly address.

Chapter 3: The Gap Between Democratic Rhetoric and Imperial Practice

American foreign policy consistently invokes noble principles of freedom, democracy, and human rights while pursuing practices that systematically undermine these very values. This contradiction is particularly evident in U.S. interventions across Latin America, where Washington has repeatedly overthrown democratically elected governments that challenged American economic interests. The 1973 coup against Salvador Allende in Chile exemplifies this pattern, with Henry Kissinger characterizing independent nationalism as a "virus" that might "spread contagion" - revealing fears not of military threats but of democratic socialism inspiring similar movements elsewhere. This gap between rhetoric and practice extends globally. In the Middle East, U.S. policy has prioritized control over oil resources rather than democracy promotion, consistently supporting authoritarian regimes while undermining independent nationalism. After the 1967 war, Israel's defeat of Egypt - the center of secular Arab nationalism - was welcomed by Washington primarily because it protected U.S. ally Saudi Arabia from potential democratic influences in the region. Even the "war on terror" launched after 9/11 served as justification for expanding American military presence in resource-rich regions while strengthening executive power domestically. The rhetoric of humanitarian intervention provides moral cover for imperial projects. NATO's transformation from a defensive alliance to an intervention force illustrates this shift, with its secretary general explicitly stating that NATO troops must "guard pipelines that transport oil and gas directed for the West" and protect "crucial infrastructure" of the energy system. When democratic uprisings occurred across the Arab world, U.S. policy focused on preventing authentic democracy, as polls showed overwhelming Arab opposition to American regional policies. Imperial practice requires managing domestic populations through sophisticated propaganda systems. Early theorists of democratic governance like Walter Lippmann praised "the manufacture of consent" as a "new art" essential for democracy, while Edward Bernays termed the process "the engineering of consent." Both understood that the public must be "put in its place," with the "intelligent minority" protected from the "trampling and roar of the bewildered herd." This system has evolved into modern public relations and media management that direct public attention toward superficial concerns while limiting serious examination of foreign policy. The contradiction between democratic values and imperial practices creates cognitive dissonance for citizens taught to believe their nation acts as a force for good. This disconnect facilitates continued public support for policies that often work against both American ideals and the long-term interests of ordinary citizens, revealing how imperial power depends not just on military dominance but on controlling the narratives through which citizens understand their nation's role in the world.

Chapter 4: Media's Role in Manufacturing Consent for Foreign Policy

Mass media in democratic societies theoretically functions as a check on power, yet systematic analysis reveals patterns that facilitate public acceptance of imperial policies. Rather than challenging official narratives about foreign interventions, mainstream media outlets typically amplify government perspectives while marginalizing critical voices, creating what has been termed "manufactured consent" for policies that might otherwise face public opposition. This pattern operates without requiring explicit censorship, instead functioning through structural factors including corporate ownership, journalistic dependence on official sources, and internalized professional norms. Media coverage relies heavily on official sources, with government representatives and approved experts constituting the majority of quoted voices. This creates a situation where the parameters of debate are established by the very institutions whose policies should be subject to scrutiny. Alternative perspectives, particularly those challenging fundamental assumptions about American foreign policy, are rarely represented or are presented as extreme outliers. The result is coverage that may appear diverse and critical on surface issues while maintaining remarkable consistency on core assumptions about American power. The selective attention given to different events reveals underlying biases. When Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over Ukraine in 2014, killing 298 people, American officials and media immediately blamed Russia, with extensive coverage of the victims and international outrage. Yet when the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988, killing 290 people including 66 children, there was minimal coverage and no official accountability. President Reagan blamed Iran, and his successor George H.W. Bush declared, "I will never apologize for the United States—I don't care what the facts are." This selective attention extends to coverage of allies versus adversaries. Israeli military operations receive sympathetic treatment despite civilian casualties, while Palestinian resistance is characterized as terrorism. The 2014 Israeli assault that killed over 2,100 Palestinians was presented as self-defense, with President Obama expressing "strong condemnation" of Hamas while merely noting "growing concern" about Palestinian civilian deaths. The Senate unanimously supported Israeli actions. This framing persists despite Israel's ongoing expansion of illegal settlements and maintenance of what British Prime Minister David Cameron accurately described as a "prison camp" in Gaza. Historical context is frequently omitted from coverage of international conflicts, creating narratives where American interventions appear as responses to unprovoked aggression rather than as part of ongoing relationships shaped by previous interventions. This selective amnesia is particularly evident in coverage of regions where the United States has a long history of military involvement, economic domination, or support for authoritarian regimes. Without this context, current policies appear reasonable and necessary rather than as continuations of imperial relationships.

Chapter 5: The Selective Application of Moral Principles in International Relations

International relations discourse frequently invokes moral principles, yet examination reveals these principles are applied with striking inconsistency. Human rights, democracy, and self-determination are championed when they align with strategic interests but ignored or actively undermined when they conflict with those interests. This selective application suggests that moral arguments often function as justification for policies driven by other considerations rather than as genuine guiding principles. The contradiction becomes apparent when comparing cases where similar human rights violations receive dramatically different responses. In countries aligned with American interests, abuses are downplayed or ignored, while in countries deemed adversarial, similar or lesser violations prompt sanctions, condemnation, or military action. Saudi Arabia's extensive human rights abuses, including public beheadings and systematic gender oppression, receive minimal official criticism while maintaining status as a major arms customer and strategic ally. Meanwhile, human rights concerns in countries like Cuba, Venezuela, or Iran are highlighted and used to justify punitive policies. Democracy promotion similarly reveals selective application of principles. While rhetorically championing democratic governance, the United States has repeatedly undermined foreign democracies whose policies threatened American strategic or economic interests. From Iran in 1953 to Chile in 1973 to more recent cases in Haiti, Honduras, and Egypt, democratically elected governments have been overthrown with American support when their policies challenged preferred economic arrangements or geopolitical alignments. Conversely, authoritarian regimes that maintain favorable policies toward American interests receive diplomatic support, military aid, and economic assistance. The concept of terrorism further illustrates this selectivity. While officially defined as "the calculated use of violence against civilians for political purposes," this definition is selectively applied to non-state actors opposed to Western interests. When state military forces deliberately target civilian infrastructure or employ tactics that predictably cause substantial civilian casualties, these actions are typically described as "counterterrorism," "security operations," or at worst, "disproportionate responses." This linguistic distinction persists even when state violence results in significantly higher civilian casualties than the non-state terrorism it purportedly addresses. These contradictions create significant credibility problems for American diplomacy. When moral arguments are transparently selective, they lose persuasive power internationally. Countries increasingly view American appeals to universal values as cynical cover for power politics rather than principled positions. This perception undermines American soft power and the ability to build international coalitions around shared values, ultimately weakening influence in a world where legitimacy increasingly matters alongside traditional power metrics.

Chapter 6: Climate Change and Nuclear Threats as Existential Challenges

Humanity faces two unprecedented existential threats that transcend traditional geopolitical concerns: climate change and nuclear weapons. These dangers share several characteristics: both are human-created, both threaten civilization itself, and both require coordinated global action to address effectively. Yet the response to these threats has been characterized by institutional inertia and prioritization of short-term interests over long-term survival, revealing profound contradictions in how power operates in the international system. Climate change represents a steadily intensifying crisis with increasingly visible consequences. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, sea level rise, and ecosystem disruption are no longer theoretical future concerns but present realities. Scientific consensus indicates that without rapid, substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the planet will experience catastrophic warming that could render large regions uninhabitable and trigger cascading system failures in food production, water availability, and social stability. The International Energy Agency has warned that the "door is closing" on preventing catastrophic climate change, while emissions continue to exceed worst-case scenarios. The nuclear threat, while less visibly urgent in daily life, remains equally devastating in potential. Nine countries possess approximately 13,000 nuclear weapons, with thousands on high-alert status ready for launch within minutes. Historical records reveal numerous incidents where nuclear war was narrowly averted not through robust safeguards but through individual decisions that countermanded established protocols. During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy estimated the probability of nuclear war might have been as high as 50 percent. In 1983, Soviet early warning officer Stanislav Petrov disobeyed orders by not reporting apparent incoming U.S. missiles, likely preventing nuclear retaliation. Both threats are exacerbated by institutional structures that prioritize short-term economic and political interests over long-term survival. Climate action is impeded by the immediate profitability of fossil fuel extraction and the political influence of industries that would face disruption from necessary transitions. Similarly, nuclear disarmament efforts confront resistance from military-industrial complexes that benefit from weapons production and strategic doctrines that elevate deterrence theory over the empirical reality of near-misses and system vulnerabilities. The response to these threats reveals troubling power dynamics. Indigenous communities and developing nations are often at the forefront of environmental protection, while the richest countries race to extract every drop of hydrocarbons. Corporate interests block meaningful action through massive propaganda campaigns and political influence. Similarly, nuclear weapons policies prioritize military dominance over human survival. As General Lee Butler, former head of U.S. Strategic Command, observed, we have survived the nuclear era "by some combination of skill, luck, and divine intervention, and I suspect the latter in greatest proportion."

Chapter 7: Toward a More Democratic Global Order

The current international system, dominated by great power politics and economic arrangements that prioritize corporate interests, is neither inevitable nor immutable. Alternative frameworks exist that could create more democratic, equitable, and sustainable global governance. These alternatives are not utopian fantasies but practical possibilities grounded in existing movements, institutional experiments, and theoretical traditions that point toward a fundamentally different approach to international relations. One promising direction involves strengthening democratic control over international institutions. Currently, organizations like the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization operate with minimal democratic accountability despite their enormous influence over national policies. Reforming these institutions to incorporate meaningful representation from affected populations rather than primarily serving powerful states and corporate interests would transform global economic governance. This would mean moving beyond the current system where voting power is allocated based on financial contributions toward more equitable arrangements that give voice to those most impacted by decisions. Another approach focuses on recognizing and empowering non-state actors that represent constituencies rather than territories. Global civil society organizations, labor unions, indigenous peoples' movements, and other transnational networks already influence international politics through advocacy and direct action. Formally incorporating these voices into decision-making processes would create more inclusive governance that reflects diverse interests beyond those of states and capital. This would acknowledge the reality that many contemporary challenges transcend national boundaries and require solutions developed with input from affected communities regardless of their location. Perhaps most fundamentally, alternative frameworks require reconceptualizing security beyond military dominance. Human security approaches that prioritize economic wellbeing, environmental sustainability, and protection from violence in all forms would transform international relations from zero-sum competition to collaborative problem-solving. This shift would recognize that genuine security cannot be achieved through military superiority in an interconnected world facing shared existential threats like climate change and nuclear weapons. Security must be understood as a collective good rather than a competitive advantage. These alternatives face significant obstacles from entrenched interests that benefit from current arrangements. Powerful states resist constraints on their autonomy, while economic elites oppose measures that would subject global capitalism to democratic oversight. Media systems that normalize existing power relations make it difficult to imagine different possibilities. Nevertheless, historical evidence suggests that fundamental transformations in global order are possible, particularly during periods of crisis when existing arrangements prove inadequate to emerging challenges. The multiple overlapping crises of our era - climate emergency, pandemic vulnerability, economic inequality, and democratic backsliding - create both necessity and opportunity for reimagining global governance along more democratic lines. By understanding how power actually operates in the international system, we can identify leverage points for transformation toward arrangements that better serve human needs and planetary boundaries.

Summary

The contradictions of American hegemony reveal fundamental tensions between democratic ideals and imperial practices in the international system. While powerful states frame their actions in terms of security, democracy, and human rights, systematic analysis shows these values are selectively applied to justify policies that primarily serve elite interests. The gap between stated principles and actual practice undermines both moral authority and effective problem-solving on shared global challenges, from climate change to nuclear proliferation to economic inequality. This critical examination does not lead to cynicism but rather to recognition of alternative possibilities. By understanding how power actually operates in the international system, we can identify leverage points for transformation. The existential threats facing humanity make this transformation not merely desirable but necessary for survival. Moving toward a more democratic global order requires both clear-eyed analysis of current power structures and imaginative engagement with alternative frameworks that prioritize human security, environmental sustainability, and genuine democratic participation across borders. The path forward lies not in accepting contradictions as inevitable but in working to resolve them through more consistent application of the democratic values so often invoked but selectively applied.

About Author

Loading...

Noam Chomsky

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Read more

Related Books by Noam Chomsky

Loading...

Profit Over People

Noam Chomsky

Neoliberalism and Global Order

★★★★☆4.0

Loading...

Manufacturing Consent

Edward S. Herman

The Political Economy of the Mass Media

★★★★☆4.2

Loading...

Failed States

Noam Chomsky

The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy

★★★½☆4.0

Loading...

Understanding Power

Noam Chomsky

The Indispensable Chomsky

★★★★☆4.4

Loading...

On Palestine

Noam Chomsky

Examine the Roots of Conflict and the Path to Justice in Palestine

★★★★☆4.3

Loading...

What Kind of Creatures Are We?

Noam Chomsky

A deep exploration of human nature, language, and consciousness

★★★½☆3.7