>From the 22 Feb Guardian Weekly, Le Monde section:
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
US sees silver lining to the cloud over Asia
Erik Izraelewicz
IS THE financial crisis that has swept Asia the result of an
American conspiracy? Many South Koreans and Thais who have suddenly
been plunged into a terrible economic depression have no doubt that
it is. Their argument goes that, threatened by economies that had
become too big for their boots, the United States decided to call
a halt to their insolent growth. Expressed in equally undiplomatic
terms, the idea that the whole thing was a plot hatched by
Washington has also gained currency in Europe, and particularly
in France. Is there any truth in it?
What can be ruled out from the start is that a group of conspirators --
politicians or speculators in New York or Washington -- decided to
bring down the Asian currencies like dominoes and thus halt the long
period of growth that those countries have enjoyed. It is a convenient
argument, and has been extensively exploited by some political leaders
in the region to draw a veil over their own responsibility for the
present crisis, which is considerable. But the argument does not
square with the facts. Conspiracies do not affect economics. The
search for a scapegoat is man's favourite sport.
[new subject]
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-<snip>-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
What I find interesting here is the non-argument that is used to dismiss
agency. We are given a build-up "What can be ruled out..." and "does not
square with the facts..." as if we were to be presented with an argument or
facts - instead we get only a single sentence "Conspiracies do not affect
economics" - which is simply a statement of an assumption, and one refuted
by history. What is imperialism, after all, besides structuring economics
via force and conspiracy?
Then we get a "clincher" on the "argument": "The search for a scapegoat is
man's favourite sport". Hence not only has a conspiracy been "refuted",
but a reason is provided to explain why anyone might have thought
otherwise.
How easy is the job of a journalist who sets out to "establish" consensus
reality. People will actually cite this article: "Oh yeah, I heard about
that conspiracy theory, but a guy in the Guardian showed that was hogwash."
The only real information in the article is that the US gains from the
crisis, and that a lot of people suspect agency, especially ones
experiencing the crisis on the ground and observing first hand how it is
being exploited.
rkm