The “Hotel California Effect” of Fealty to the US
For Noam Chomsky, the Thucydidean dictum ‘the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must’ is one of the most valid and important principles of international relations, which can be expressed in different ways.
In general, the principle implies that to keep the prevailing system of control exercised by those in power intact, it is necessary to make sure that none of the weak gets out of hand, meaning that they should all behave according to direction by the strong and not independently. They must follow orders because, if independent thinking and action are seen to work in one place, others might try to do the same, and the system of domination would unravel.
The Mafia Doctrine
Chomsky (2013) refers to his application of this principle to US foreign policy as ‘the Mafia Doctrine’:
In the Mafia system, if some small storekeeper decides not to pay protection money, the money may not mean anything to the godfather, but he’s not going to let him get away with it. And, in fact, he’s not just going to go in and send his goons to get the money; he’s also going to beat him to a pulp, because others have to understand that disobedience is not tolerated. In international affairs, that’s called “credibility.”
No need here to set out the many countries, and the wide variety of ways, in which the US has firmly established its ‘credibility’.
In this short essay, we argue that countries that belong to the US-led ‘mafia’ – and therefore owe fealty to the don in Washington DC (at present, Donald Trump) – will be subject to what we call ‘the Hotel California effect’.
Roles and Responsibilities of Gang Membership
As a member of a mafia gang (or family), your role is subordinate, ranked strictly according to how willing you are to do nasty jobs effectively and efficiently for the boss without question, or how much loot you can deliver, and your reliability in these respects.
There is no participative management; no possibility of a primus inter pares arrangement; not even any meaningful consultation.
The imperious and unreflectively self-assured and authoritarian current godfather in Washington DC would entertain none of these encroachments on his absolute power, no matter how grovelling or politely expressed a request for some decision-making involvement might be, even if it came from his underboss (sottocapo).
So, for example, following a recent visit to the UK by President Trump and his ‘royal’ treatment there, ‘the president’s chief-of-staff [Susie Wiles, was asked] how much difference the visit [would] make to Britain’s ability to influence US policy on trade, tariffs and international affairs. Her response was frank – “none at all”.’
What chance then lesser gang members like Australia?
Clearly, gang members must simply to do as they are told – ‘if the don gives you orders, the guy down below doesn’t kid around’ (Chomsky, 2011). The rules are straightforward. Obey. Be in awe of your don (Donald). And every time he says or does something, make sure that you are seen to participate enthusiastically in the phocine clapping and honking of approval.
But perhaps the most important part of your job is to extract ‘rents’ and to kill people who have done you no harm (or help others to kill them) – sometimes in very large numbers that include women and children.
The reasons for doing so have solely to do with disobedience. The pretexts given are usually silly and/or spurious.
But you cannot object to any of this or concern yourself with it.
Your duties can also include inflicting less than deadly harm on others, that is, harm that is not immediately lethal but frequently leads to that end over a longer period – a form of torture, like economic sanctions.
And then of course there is actual torture, which you are also expected to carry out as instructed.
It’s all illegal of course and the killings therefore amount to murder and crimes against humanity and sometimes genocide. Collective guilt of this sort strengthens the commitment of gang members.
You are also expected not to blab about any of this to anyone and to help cover it up and stop people from talking or complaining about it (not because the don pays any attention to the law, but because he doesn’t like the disrespect it implies). This ‘code of silence’ (omerta) – behaving as if nothing untoward ever happens – must never be broken, usually on pain of death.
You can see that the analogy with the US and its allies is not at all far-fetched. Examples are easy to come by and include Australia’s and the UK’s contributions to the invasion of Iraq (as members of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’), which resulted in the deaths of up to 2.4 million Iraqis; their contributions to the US-led invasion of Afghanistan where about 241,000 people were killed (mostly civilians); and the various types of support rendered by them to the US-backed genocide in Palestine.
There are many more examples, some of which we have discussed elsewhere.
‘Rewards’ and Punishments
The disobedience rule applies equally to gang members, friends and foes.
With respect to ‘rewards’, when, as a gang member, you do as you are told, you are allowed to get on with your life (always within very strictly defined limits) and from time-to-time crumbs from the master’s table might be bestowed upon you.
He might, for example, allow you to play golf with him at Mar-a-Lago (so long as you lose, pay the green fees, and buy the drinks); or purchase nuclear submarines from him at extortionist prices; or condescend to build his military bases all over your territory, some of which incorporate highly sophisticated eavesdropping devices that supply intelligence to countries unknown for nefarious purposes that are kept secret from you.
Other examples will come readily to mind.
And that’s the good news.
To reiterate, the trouble, though, with being a member of a mafia gang, particularly the biggest and baddest one around, is that disobedience by you is not tolerated either, perhaps even less than disobedience by non-gang members.
Other mortal sins include disloyalty, disrespect, and weakness.
All of which makes you wonder how many prime ministers and foreign ministers in how many ‘international community’ countries have lain awake at night worrying that they might have said or done something that could be taken to construe any of these things.
Having inflicted so much pain and suffering on countries that have broken the rules, they will know all too well what the don’s reactions to real or perceived transgressions by gang members will be.
So, for example, on questions of human rights, this means that even in your wildest dreams you would never say to the (richly deserving) US anything remotely like what you might say – for example – to China.
It also means of course that you cannot wake up one morning feeling bright and sparky in the refulgence of a new dawn and suddenly decide that ‘all this murder and mayhem are not for me, I’m out of here’ – that is, unless you are prepared to incur the Godfather’s wrath (note that the hypocrisy of a sudden change of heart would not matter as you have become inured to all of the double dealing).
The ‘Hotel California Effect’
‘We are all just prisoners here of our own device…You can check out any time you like but you can never leave’.
When it comes to discussions of Australian foreign policy, much of what is written seems to assume that the degree to which we should follow the US lead or do as we are told is a matter of choice.
The Mafia Doctrine that we have outlined clearly indicates that the ‘choices’ that Australian and other gang members can make about what are supposedly their own foreign affairs are highly circumscribed.
Accordingly, exhortations to our foreign minister and prime minister to ‘break a leg’ and make policy changes – such as ‘disengaging’ from the Godfather in Washington or ploughing a different furrow from the one he has told us to plough, in the Pacific or anywhere else – could well turn out to be (to mix my metaphors) much too close to the bone for comfort.
