[smygo] Hegemony or Survival

News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

[This is long but there's a lot of things well worth reading 
in it. -- DC]

washingtonpost.com
Books: 'Hegemony or Survival'
Noam Chomsky
Author
Wednesday, November 26, 2003; 2:00 PM

In his new book, "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for 
Global Dominance," intellectual activist Noam Chomsky argues 
that U.S. policy -- the militarization of space, the 
ballistic-missile defense program, unilateralism, the 
dismantling of international agreements, and the response to 
the Iraqi crisis -- cohere in a drive for hegemony that 
ultimately threatens our survival.

Chomsky was online Wednesday, Nov. 26 at 2 p.m. ET, to 
discuss his book and the risks of recents trends in American 
foreign policy.

Chomsky is the author of numerous political works, from 
"American Power and the New Mandarins" in the 1960s to 
"9-11" in 2001. A professor of Linguistics and Philosophy at 
MIT, he lives outside Boston, Mass.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain 
editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose 
the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and 
hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: I'm asking you this question sincerely: 
Why don't you direct your hatred of George Bush toward 
someone more worthy of such venom, such as Osama bin Laden?

Noam Chomsky: I don't recall having expressed any hatred for 
George Bush, though I have quoted people who expressed real 
fury at what he has done, and even compared him to the 
Japanese fascists who bombed Pearl Harbor: historian Arthur 
Schlesinger in this case. If what you mean is that I have 
criticized Bush's policies more than Osama's, that's because 
I take for granted, like everyone else, that Osama bin Laden 
is a murderous thug, who the current incumbents in 
Washington should never have supported through the 1980s, 
and who should be apprehended and tried for his crimes right 
now -- as I've written -- and don't see any point 
reiterating what 100% of us believe about him. But I am a 
citizen of the US, and therefore share responsibility for US 
government policies, and assume that one of the duties of 
citizenship is to live up to that responsibility -- by 
criticizing policies one thinks are wrong, for example

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: While I may agree with you that the United 
States is interested in preserving the dominant paradigms 
within society (i.e. capitalism, positivism, functionalism), 
it seems too simplistic to say that the U.S. foreign policy 
is unilaterally trying to secure its own hegemonic status. I 
believe the recent events are just a phase and most foreign 
policy analysts (including the President) know that if we 
cannot get back on track with international agreements and 
foreign cooperation then our own way of life is in jeopardy. 
Is it always fair to portray the United States as the rogue 
hegemony in an integrated world that is constantly trying to 
balance global economic and physical security?

Noam Chomsky: I basically agree (though I might differ with 
you about the nature of the "dominant paradigms"), but do 
not understand why you are directing the question to me. 
That the current US administration has declared that it will 
unilaterally act to secure its hegemonic status, now and for 
the indefinite future, is not seriously in question. That's 
the way the National Security Strategy of Sept. 2002 was 
interpreted at once, e.g., in the major establishment 
journal Foreign Affairs. It was not only stated clearly, but 
accompanied by "exemplary actions" to make it clear that the 
goal was intended seriously. But is this a permanent 
commitment? I don't know anyone who believes that. I've 
certainly never suggested it. The reason why I write, speak, 
and engage in other activism about these matters is to seek 
policy changes, which presuppposes that they can be changed, 
exactly as you assume. I don't see what issue you are raising.

As for US policies over the past (however long you like), 
it's surely unfair to describe them as you put it, but I 
never have, so can't really comment.

_______________________

Jamaica, N.Y.: Sir, it is an honor to speak with you today, 
what is your view on the statement that since we are the 
sole super-power, the U.S. has an obligation,not only to 
itself for protection, but to the international community to 
act, even when our allies are unwilling or unable, case in 
point Iraq, though the U.S. was never in direct danger, our 
allies in the Middle East were. Thank you sir.

Noam Chomsky: The assumption behind your question is that 
the US is entitled to act in the name of the international 
community, to defend their interests. One could debate this 
question, but it doesn't seem relevant. Take your example. 
The US went to war against the objection of an overwhelming 
majority of the international community. In the 
international Gallup polls of last December, there was 
hardly a country where support for the US-UK unilateral 
attack reached 10%. In fact, opposition was entirely without 
historical precedent. And remains so. How, in that case, can 
we even raise the question of the obligation of the US to 
act in the interests of the international community? Are we 
to assume that WE know the interests of others, but they 
don't? I'm sure you don't mean that.

_______________________

Greenbelt, Md.: Regarding proliferation of WMD, nuclear, 
chemical, and biological weapons -- there are over 190 
countries in the World.

In your opinion, is every one of these countries "entitled" 
to produce (or buy) and stockpile such weapons?

If so, please explain how such proliferation is in the 
interest of the U.S. (or the World).

If not, please explain what you consider to be legitimate 
criteria to separate the "haves" from the "have nots" -- and 
how you would envision enforcement of same, given that there 
is not and never will be worldwide commonality of opinion on 
this subject.

Noam Chomsky: I'll assume that by "weapons" in your question 
you mean "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD).

If so, then I agree with the 1970 non-proliferation treaty, 
that no country has the right to produce (etc.) nuclear 
weapons, and that the current nuclear powers have been 
obligated since 1970 to make "good faith" efforts to rid the 
world of them. As for other WMD, I agree with international 
protocols banning them, and believe that they should be 
enforced. That is why I have, for example, strongly opposed 
the steps taken by the Bush administration to undermine such 
protocols, some going back to the 1920s, others involving 
new and extremely hazardous developments, such as the 
intention to militarize space, unilaterally, and over the 
objections of virtually every other country -- now extended 
to the official plan to move on from "control" of space to 
"ownership" of space, with programs that are a serious 
threat to human survival.

I think this answers your following questions as well.

_______________________

Kabul, Afghanistan: I'm an American working in Kabul so I'd 
like your comments that might be specific to US attempts at 
nation-building here, of which I am a small part. Thanks.

Noam Chomsky: Reminds me of a question that was once posed 
to Mahatma Gandhi: "What do you think of Western 
civilization?" He's supposed to have answered: "I think it 
would be a good idea."

Same here. US attempts at nation-building would be a good 
idea. As you know better than I, they have been extremely 
meager. It should also be borne in mind that the US (like 
the Russians, and some others, back to Britain) has an 
obligation to provide Afghanistan not only with aid, but 
with reparations. Those who are familiar with the recent 
history of the current incumbents in Washington, mostly 
recycled from the Reagan-Bush I administrations, will 
understand why.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I have been to 50 or so countries in the 
past three years, and universally (with those with whom I 
spoke), Clinton is loved and Bush despised. Yet, the 9/11 
bombings, given their timing, seemed to be a response to 
America under the Clinton years. Is it realistic to ask the 
US to be any more internationalist than we were under 
Clinton? Was Clinton actually that awful that we deserved 9/11?

Noam Chomsky: Clinton was far from "loved" during his tenure 
in office. His war in Kosovo, for example, was bitterly 
condemned over much of the world, even including the most 
loyal allies, like Israel. The source of the 9-11 bombings 
is complex. I don't think it's as straightforward as you 
suggest, just as it would wrong to say, simply, that the 
bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 (which came very 
close to killing tens of thousands of people) was a response 
to America in the Reagan-Bush years. More complex than that. 
The current reactions you are hearing around the world are, 
I suspect, directed to the Bush administration policies of 
the past 2 years. Bush clearly succeeded in turning his 
administration into the most feared and disliked, sometimes 
hated, in US history, and very quickly; after 9-11 there was 
an enormous wave of worldwide sympathy for the US, which his 
policies reversed dramatically, as many commentators have 
pointed out, and as is pretty obvious from the evidence 
before our eyes. I suspect that when you hear "love" for 
Clinton, it may be by comparison. Surely there are large 
parts of the world population among whomere that was far 
from true at the time, and still isn't.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is the solution to the world's current 
troubles a stronger and more effective UN? If so, how do we 
fix it?

Noam Chomsky: I don't think it's "the solution," but it 
would be an important step forward, I think. We can help 
construct a more independent and effective UN by supporting 
it rather than undermining it. Unfortunately, the US has 
been in the lead in undermining it for many years. Just to 
take one measure -- far from the only one -- since the UN 
fell out of control in the 1960s, with decolonization and 
reconstruction of the other industrial societies, the US has 
been far in the lead in Security Council vetoes on a wide 
range of issues (even resolutions calling on all states to 
observe international law), Britain second, no one else even 
close. And we should recognize a truism: the most extreme 
way to violate a Security Council resolution is to veto it. 
If Iraq had the veto, they'd have been in violation of no 
resolutions, of course. That's only a small part of the 
story, but I think if government policy shifted more towards 
public opinion on these matters, the US would shift from a 
barrier to a stronger and more effective UN to a supporter 
of it, and it can go well beyond that. How? It would be hard 
if we were living in a military dictatorship or totalitarian 
state. But in a society with an unusual legacy of freedom 
and privilege, we know how to do it: what is missing is 
will, not means.

_______________________

Greenbelt, Md.: I presume (correct me if necessary) that you 
consider the U.N. to be the legitimate enforcer of the 
banning of WMD (since 1970, as you refer to above). When the 
U.N. fails to perform such enforcement, do you believe that 
individual countries must wait until they are under attack 
before responding, or are there some circumstances where you 
would find pre-emption justified against a state 
accumulating illegal WMD?

Noam Chomsky: The US, like other nuclear powers, is bound by 
treaty to undertake "good faith" efforts to eliminate 
nuclear weapons, and other protocols apply to other WMD. But 
international treaties and agreements have no enforcement 
mechanism. For law-abiding states, there is a means to 
implement banning of WMD: appeal to the Security Council, 
which has the right to endorse even the use of force to do 
so. The Security Council refused to endorse the use of force 
in reaction to Iraq's only partial adherence to Security 
Council resolutions, just as it has refused to endorse the 
use of force against other countries that have violated many 
more Security Council resolutions than Iraq: Israel, 
Morocco, Turkey in particular. And these are on serious 
issues: aggression, "grave breaches" of the Geneva 
Conventions (war crimes under US law), and much else. But 
without Security Council authorization, it would be a crime 
for any country to act on its own to use force -- as the US 
did in the case of Iraq. As to when violation of 
international law and institutions (and overwhelming world 
opinion) might be legitimate, it's hard to answer. One can 
imagine all kinds of hypothetical situations, but I'm not 
familiar with real ones -- at least, relevant here.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, 
why do you believe the current U.S. striving for hegemony 
(if I'm not misrepresenting your view) is a bad thing?

Noam Chomsky: I don't believe it: the current administration 
declares it, openly and brazenly, and proceeds with actions 
to make it clear to the world that it means what it says. So 
I join virtually every commentator in believing that they do 
mean what they say. Is it a good thing? It's not for you and 
me to decide. We both know that in the case I presume you 
have in mind -- the invasion of Iraq -- there was 
overwhelming popular opposition worldwide, with few if any 
historical precedents. So the world apparently thought it 
was a "bad thing," overwhelmingly. If you check 
international Gallup polls at the time when the Bush 
administration was initiating its bombing of Aghanistan, 
you'll find that there was also overwhelming opposition to 
that, most dramatically in Latin America, which has some 
experience with Washington's insistence on hegemony by use 
of force. We can, if we like, decide that the world is just 
wrong, and we know best. That's not without precedent 
either, but I don't like the company, and I doubt that you 
do. But to go back to the beginning: it is not for you and 
me to decide whether we should unilaterally resort to 
violence at will.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: I can only presume that you read the 
competition. What are your thoughts on Christopher Hitchen's 
arguments for war in his newest book?

Noam Chomsky: I don't think it would be fair to comment on 
this or any other book (or article) without going into 
specifics. No one who even tries to be serious would, in my 
opinion, criticize some writings without giving explicit 
quotes and references. I can't even think of that here, so 
cannot comment. If you want a general reaction, I did not 
find it at all convincing.

_______________________

Washington: What can you tell us about your new book? 
Certainly, you've written a great deal about U.S. foreign 
policy already; how does the new book add to your thinking?

Noam Chomsky: The new book is mostly about events more 
recent than those I've written about before, and when it 
returns to earlier events, it is either using new material 
that has appeared or doing so to place current developments 
in the historical context in which I think we can properly 
understand them. I don't quite know what you mean about 
adding to my thinking. If you are asking whether it 
represents some fundamental change of perspective and 
interpretation of how the world works -- including the US, 
but as made clear there and elsewhere, power systems 
generally, way back in history -- then the answer is that it 
doesn't. But I can't think of very many, if any, books that 
would mean that condition.

_______________________

Greenbelt, Md.: Would you support the idea of a standing 
military, under U.N. control, whose job would be to enforce 
worldwide treaties banning WMD?

Noam Chomsky: I don't think anyone supports this. It would 
require that the proposed standing military eliminate WMD 
from those countries that have the overwhelming majority of 
them and are rapidly developing more, primarily the US, 
secondarily the other nuclear powers, including those that 
have not signed the non-proliferation treaty, like Israel 
and Pakistan. I don't think anyone would propose that, but 
that is what your suggestion amounts to, if taken seriously.

_______________________

Gothenburg, Sweden: You have said that the institutions in 
the US needs to be changed. Which institutions do you have 
in mind and how do they need to be changed?

Do you think something will happen soon on this front? I am 
asking because a recent survey suggested that a majority of 
the American people are in favour of changes in the 
political system, so it seems to have mainstream appeal.

Noam Chomsky: Not just the US, but everywhere. There is no 
place in the world that does not have structures of 
authority and domination that are (in my view) illegitimate, 
and that should be dismantled in the interests of creating a 
more free and just society. Furthermore, I expect that to be 
true forever; it's part of the "human condition".

Beyond that, we have to turn to specifics. Take the most 
powerful institutions in the world: great powers and 
corporations. I think they are fundamentally illegitimate, 
and should be placed under democratic control. And I'm 
including the states here -- democratic control is 
substantially form, not substance, when there are vast 
internal inequities of wealth and power. The leading 
American social philosopher of the last century, John Dewey, 
"as American as apple pie," was not wrong when he described 
politics as the shadow cast over society by big business, 
and when he discussed the reasons for that. And we should, I 
think, go far beyond what he said. But now we are moving 
into a domain that requires serious thought and discussion.

As for the population, it's a complicated matter. An 
overwhelming majority feel that the political system does 
not respond to their interests, and that elections are some 
kind of game among the powerful in which they scarcely 
participate, except maybe formally. And opposition to 
corporate power is also far-reaching. Whether this will 
translate into substantial popular movements to bring about 
change -- as in past history of the US and others, and 
elsewhere in the world today -- there isn't much point 
speculating. For people concerned about the matters, the 
question is one of action, not speculation about what we 
cannot know.

_______________________

Jamaica, N.Y.: If not the United States, who should pick up 
the gauntlet and lead the world? There will always be a 
country that is above the rest. Should it not be the United 
States, we do encurage democracy and the freedom to earn an 
equal wage, it is not like Ancient Rome, or Germany, we DO 
promote freedom.

Noam Chomsky: No one should do so, in my opinion. The world 
is far better off with power diffused. I think that's true 
internal to societies as well. I wish it were true that US 
power was used to "encourage democracy and the freedom to 
earn an equal wage" and to "promote freedom." I'm afraid 
that belief will not stand up to investigation. I've 
explained why in detail in print, including current books, 
as have innumerable others, but can't try to elaborate here. 
But even if it were true, I would reject the premise, just 
as I would reject the internal analogue. If some power 
system within the US claimed the right to "lead the 
country," we'd all oppose it, and rightly, no matter what 
they professed.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You're generally known as a critic of 
American foreign policy, but can you identify any elements 
of U.S. policy that you have found praiseworthy, either 
under the current president or the past few administrations?

Noam Chomsky: There are innumerable examples. I'm in favor 
of significant foreign aid, for example, including the 
pittance that now exists (the worst record in the industrial 
world). But think it should go far beyond. I think it's 
perfectly reasonable even to use force, though under quite 
narrow conditions: in self-defense, maybe in some other 
cases, though strong arguments have to be given. There were 
elements of the Alliance for Progress that seemed to me 
worthwhile, though unfortunately they were overwhelmed by 
others. And we could go on and on. But I should say that I 
don't think it's the right question, about the US or anyone 
else. Our role, as citizens of a free society, is not to 
give grades for performance, but to change and improve what 
we think is wrong. There will always be plenty of people 
happy to sing praises to themselves, and I don't see a lot 
of point in joining them.

_______________________

Greenbelt, Md.: I think the questioner from Arlington, VA 
implies that there is an argument to be made that U.S. 
hegemony could be a good thing -- and you are being invited 
to argue the other side. Why not U.S. hegemony?

Noam Chomsky: I already answered. Maybe you mean something 
more, but I'm not sure what.

The answer was, of course, wholly inadequate. But that's 
inevitable in this format.

_______________________

Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: Dr. Chomsky, regarding the recent 
furor over the FCC's new relaxed media ownership 
regulations, what do you believe caused the massive public 
backlash against these changes? Certainly it is abnormal for 
an issue of this sort to capture such a magnitude of public 
attention.

Noam Chomsky: I presume -- at least hope -- that the public 
backlash was a recognition that the relaxed media ownership 
rules constitute a serious attack against effective free 
expression. And I stress "effective." A country can have 
very high standards of protection for free expression (as 
the US has had, at least since the 1960s, probably uniquely 
in the world) and still have very limited EFFECTIVE free 
expression, because of concentration of power over what can 
reach the public. The new proposals would reduce effective 
free expression, certainly the foundation of any society 
that pretends to be democratic.

_______________________

Stony Brook, N.Y.: What steps might the US to 
'de-hegemonize' itself, considering that the most obvious 
steps away from coercive, unilateral military policy may 
well reinforce the U.S.'s role as hegemonic 
political-economic leader?

Noam Chomsky: I don't see why either alternative is 
necessary. It's possible to support diffusion of power and 
control in all domains. Incidentally, in the economic domain 
US leadership is by no means so straightforward. For 30 
years, the world has been economically "tripolar," with 
three major centers. Europe is economically on a par with 
the US, and Northeast Asia is now the most dynamic economic 
region in the world, with GDP far beyond the US and far more 
control over foreign exchange reserves. But I don't thik the 
world should be "tripolar" either. In fact,we should work to 
diffuse power much more generally, at home as well. Anyway, 
I see no principled contradiction between the alternatives 
you pose.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How can you seriously promote the 
dismantling of "great powers and corporations"? Power abhors 
a vacuum, and unless you want us to turn into a society of 
small, independent communes, current great powers or 
corporations would merely be replaced by other conceptions 
of power and corporation. The lessons learned from the 
failed Soviet experiment should be evidence enough for the 
fallacy of this belief.

Noam Chomsky: The Soviet experiment was one of highly 
concentrated power, from the start, when Lenin and Trotsky 
moved quickly to destroy the democratic, socialist, and 
participatory elements of the pre-takeover period. It 
remained so. So I don't see the relevance. Could 
unaccountable private tyrannies be dismantled and placed 
under popular control in the US? I've never seen an argument 
to the contrary. There many very specific proposals as to 
how a more democratic economy could run: to mention just one 
example, the proposals of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel 
(together and separately) about "participatory economics," 
which you can find in many books. And there are plenty of 
others. Just how far freedom and democracy can go, we don't 
know, but I know of no reason to suppose that we've hit some 
limit.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: What role do you believe the United Nations 
could have in establishing order amongst nations? Will it 
ever be possible, and should it ever be possible, that the 
United Nations obtain greater powers in settling 
international disputes? If you do not see the United Nations 
as a possible solution, where do you forsee international 
strife being settled?

Noam Chomsky: Nothing much to add to what I said before.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Why did you sign an MIT petition calling 
for MIT to boycott Israeli investments, and then give an 
interview in which you state that you opposed such 
investment boycotts?

What was or is your position on the proposal by some MIT 
faculty that MIT should boycott Israeli investments?

Noam Chomsky: As is well known in Cambridge, of anyone 
involved, I was the most outspoken opponent of the petition 
calling for divestment, and in fact refused to sign until it 
was substantially changed, along lines that you can read if 
you are interested. The "divestment" part was reduced to 
three entirely meaningless words, which had nothing to do 
with the main thrust of the petition. I thought that the 
three meaningless words should also be deleted, but as 
everyone concerned with human rights knows, one constantly 
signs petitions without agreeing with every single word, 
just the main thrust, as I do in this case. I don't know 
what interview you are referring to, but there are many -- 
before and after -- in which I've explained my opinion about 
all of this, and it is well known among those who are 
concerned with these matters, and has been for years. On 
your last question, as noted, I was and remain strongly 
opposed, without exception -- at least if I undertand what 
the question means. How does one "boycott Israeli investments"?

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: You are very critical of our current 
politices. If you could change United States foreign and 
military policy, what would you make as our primary 
objectives? Should we have a role in providing economic 
assistance that may have mutual benefits and should we 
engage in military operations that prevent genocide?

Noam Chomsky: We should surely provide economic assistance 
that has benefits (I don't know why "mutual" enters). And 
there is no shortage of examples. To take just one, at least 
3000 children die every day in Africa from easily 
preventable diseases, and with funding so slight that we 
wouldn't even notice it, we could easily end that 
catastrophe. As for preventing genocide, yes, I think it 
would be legitimate to use force to do so, and I even know 
of a few cases. In the post-World War II period there are 
two real examples that might qualify: India's invasion of 
East Pakistan and Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. In both 
cases, the US strenuously opposed the actions to terminate 
huge atrocities, and punished India (and particularly 
Vietnam) for doing so. I don't know of any cases remotely 
comparable. If you have Kosovo in mind, I'd urge that you 
look at the massive Western documentation on the topic, 
which is quite decisive. You can find some reviews in books 
of mine, including the most recent one ("Hegemony or 
Survival"), but you should not take it on faith, but check 
the original sources, which is not hard.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Your writings and talks are generally very 
serious affairs. Do you have a humorous side? What sorts of 
things genuinely make you laugh?

Noam Chomsky: Playing with my grandchildren? Lots more. 
Frankly, I don't like to respond to personal questions. I'm 
a private person. I don't think it's anyone's business, 
apart from friends and family

_______________________

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: As a Canadian I sometimes feel as 
though my nation is crawling into bed with a known rapist, 
at the cost of our sovereignty, our identity and our 
dignity. Is there any way for Canada to extract itself from 
its already deep relationship or to resist becoming further 
under the fold of our incredibly powerful neighbor to the 
south? Would stronger ties with Europe or anyone else be 
more beneficial in the long run?

Noam Chomsky: I hesitate to give advice to others, but 
Canada surely has options, including those you mention. It's 
not Haiti. As in other cases discussed here, the issue is 
will, not opportunity.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is the Geneva Plan a step in the right 
direction? Is there any chance that public pressure in 
Israel and among the Palestinians and internationally can 
create momentum to for adoption of some variant?

Noam Chomsky: The Geneva accords seem to me a considerable 
improvement over the informal Taba negotiations (terminated 
by the Barak government in January 2001), and they were a 
very substantial step forward beyond the impossible Camp 
David proposals. I think they do present a very serious 
basis for negotiation towards a peaceful diplomatic 
settlement reflecting the overwhelming international 
consensus of the past almost 30 years, which I'm sorry to 
say has been unilaterally blocked by the US. That's what 
should concern us, including the current manifestations of 
that traditional policy.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Will you be speaking in Washington, D.C. 
any time soon?

Noam Chomsky: Not in the near future -- which for me, means 
about 2 years -- unless something comes up; sometimes happens.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: While you may not want to believe it, 
the majority of Americans, including myself, believe that 
the decisions being made by President Bush regarding Iraq, 
missile defense, proactive defense against terrorism, etc. 
is exactly what we need to defend our country and values. 
These are seen as positives, not negatives. In fact, I 
believe your ideas threaten our survival.

Noam Chomsky: Interested to hear your views, but since there 
is no argument, and no question, cannot go beyond that.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: So do you do linguistics any more, or are 
you pretty much done with that?

Noam Chomsky: All the time. And as far ahead as I can imagine

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: It appears pretty evident that U.S. 
foreign policy and its imperialistic dominance over the 
world has in fact threatened our own survival. U.S. embassy 
bombings, international protests, and 9/11 are clearly 
examples that support your argument. The Bush administration 
has supported a military response, which has increased fear 
and risks of further attacks against Americans. It would 
appear obvious that the successful road to securing our 
nation would involve reconsideration and revision of current 
U.S. policies. Which approach and/or policies would you 
argue most vital in securing Americans (both civilians and 
our young soldiers) from further attacks?

Noam Chomsky: As you know, I basically agree. The general 
question is too broad to try to answer. To take just Iraq, I 
think the answer is pretty straightforward. US policy should 
adopt general public opinion. Since April, the majority of 
Americans have called for the UN to take the lead in dealing 
with the effects of the invasion. There's little doubt that 
world public opinion agrees, probably overwhelmingly. What 
about Iraq? It's hard to judge the opinions of people under 
military occupation, but there have been credible polls, 
mostly US-run or -backed. The most recent show that by about 
5-1, Iraqis regard the US-UK forces as an occupying not a 
liberating force, and by 5-3 want them to leave -- which is 
remarkable, because even those strongly opposed to the 
invasion recognize that in the conditions to which it led, 
the resulting security consequences could be catastrophic. 
The most popular foreign leader by far is French President 
Chirac, the very symbol of opposition to the invasion, far 
above Bush or Blair. Other polls that I know of are consistent.

If Washington is willing to give up the goal of controlling 
Iraq, with some democratic forms if possible, then there is 
a way out: a pretty straightforward one.

Beyond that, those who are concerned with the safety and 
security of Americans will, obviously, seek to understand 
the source of the threats against them. That means they must 
reject the absurd and outlandish idea that to explain is to 
justify -- which, I'm afraid, one constantly reads. As to 
where that inquiry will lead -- I've written about what I 
think, but others have to figure it out for themselves.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: It seems that the same parties throughout the 
world who resent the power and actions of the U.S. are also 
the same people who support the complete destruction of 
Israel and the brutal treatment of Kurds, Sudanese and other 
minorities under Arab occupation. Do they really fear U.S. 
hegemony, or do they just fear democracy?

Noam Chomsky: I don't agree with that at all. In Europe, for 
example, there is overwhelming opposition to US policy, and 
virtually no support for destruction of Israel. Same is true 
in most of the world. As for "brutal treatment of Kurds," 
etc., it would be important to clarify what you have in 
mind. In the 1990s, for example, by far the most brutal 
treatment of Kurds was in Southeastern Turkey, where 
millions were driven from their homes and tens of thousands 
killed, with every barbaric form of torture and terror you 
can dream of. These were some of the worst crimes of the 
grisly 1990s. The responsibility traced straight back to 
Washington, which provided 80% of the arms and crucial 
diplomatic and other support. In the single year 1997, 
Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than the combined total for 
the entire cold war period up to the onset of the campaign 
of "state terror" -- as it is rightly called by Turkish 
dissidents, even sometimes by government ministers. If you 
mean the Kurds in Iraq, then the US record is quite mixed. 
Through the 1980s, when they suffered the worst atrocities 
at the hands of Saddam Hussein (Halabja, al-Anfal, etc.), 
Saddam was backed by Washington, including those now in 
office again or their immmediate descendants, and that 
support continued long after his worst crimes against the 
Kurds, and long after the war with Iran was over. The 
official reasons were quite ugly. Later policies changed, 
for reasons having to do with power interests, but it 
remains quite mixed. E.g., the US (and the rest of the 
world) has refused to provide badly needed medical 
assistance to the victims of the atrocious gas attacks that 
they basically supported. We can continue with others.

If you check the record, I think you will find that your 
assumptions cannot be sustained. I urge that you look into it.

_______________________

San Diego, Calif.: Mr. Chomsky,

Thomas Friedman from the New York Times was on Hardball last 
night and eluded to an interesting poll. It was a Pew survey 
conducted in Brazil that said over 50 percent of Brazilians 
were disappointed that the Iraqi military had not put up a 
better fight against the U.S.

Have we made the world into a David vs. Goliath scenario? 
And if so, is there a way to play down the fact that we are 
the only superpower left, in order to facilitate better 
relations with the world? I guess what I am asking is, will 
it eventually be us against the world?

Why can't we all just get along? Ha ha, right.

Noam Chomsky: I didn't hear him, and haven't seen the poll. 
I suggest that you have a careful look. Interpreting polls 
requires considerable care.

However, the reaction would hardly be surprising. There is 
tremendous resentment of US power among those who have 
experienced its use. Few Brazilians, for example, have 
forgotten events that we prefer to sweep under the rug: for 
example, the fact that the last time Brazil had a mildly 
populist President, the US supported (in fact, substantially 
initiated) a military coup that established a vicious 
neo-Nazi National Security State, and continued to support 
it until it was overthrown internally. And that's 
unfortunately a very familiar pattern, as known very well 
South of the border. History looks very different from the 
wrong end of the guns.

What should we do? First, face the past honestly, and 
understand what we have done and are doing, and why people 
have the attitudes they do. Then, if their grievances are 
legitimate, devote ourselves to responding to them. As for 
the present and future, I've already given some indication 
of what I think we should do, and there's a lot more in print.

_______________________

Hamilton, Ontario: Dr. Chomsky, you have said many times 
that you are almost completely shunned by the mainstream 
U.S. media, and yet here you are, participating in an online 
discussion at the invitation (I assume) of the Washington 
Post. How do you explain coverage such as this when the 
Propaganda Model predicts virtually nothing of this sort and 
magnitude occurring?

Noam Chomsky: This isn't the first time I've been on this 
forum, and it's not the only one. There is a radical 
difference between exposure in the US media and in other 
similar societies (the rest of the English-speaking world, 
for example); not only for me, but for anyone who does not 
accept "our conformist subservience to those in power" (I'm 
quoting the distinguished American scholar Hans Morgenthau, 
the founder of modern international relations theory, 
referring to American intellectuals). That's worldwide 
pattern, and goes back to the origins of recorded history. 
I've written about it, including the rare but very important 
exceptions: there are countries where the courage and 
integrity of intellectuals should put us to shame, Turkey 
for example, something I've also written about. I think you 
are misreading the "propaganda model". It does not suggest 
-- in fact, it strongly denies -- that the US is a 
totalitarian society where conformity is rigidly enforced, 
and we cite plenty of examples to the contrary in the joint 
book to which you are referring, and elsewhere.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Some years ago during the Faurisson matter 
you were quoted in the New York Times as saying that 
personally you believed that the Holocaust had occurred.

Are you comfortable stating that the Holocaust occurred 
without qualifying it with an "I belive"?

Do you believe that the question of whether or not the 
Holocaust occurred is one over which reasonable minds can 
differ?

Noam Chomsky: I don't recall anything that idiotic in the 
New York Times, and if there was such a statement, it's 
slanderous, because it suggests that there is some 
possibility to the contrary. Anyone who's looked at what 
I've written, since my first published political writings 
almost 40 years ago, knows that any such suggestion is about 
on a par with my saying that I read a statement in the NY 
Times that you are personally opposed to torture of children.

I'm comfortable with saying exactly what I wrote almost 40 
years ago, and have often repeated: the Holocaust was the 
most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human 
history, and we lose our humanity if we even agree to enter 
into debate with those who try to deny Nazi crimes. Of 
course, every factual statement -- e.g., that the moon is 
not made out of green cheese -- has an implicit "I believe" 
before it. That's what it means for a statement to be 
empirical -- and if we are serious about it, the conclusions 
extend even to a large part of mathematics. But that's 
utterly irrelevant here.

_______________________

Denver, Colo.: Noam: I've read your recent statement that 
the war in Iraq isn't like Vietnam which was different for 
historical reasons: but it sure feels like deja vu all over 
again when I read the media. There's exactly the same range 
of "acceptable debate" today -- from the liberals who say "I 
didn't support the invasion, but we're there now and we 
can't cut and run, we have to win," to the right-wingers who 
argue that the invasion was the completely justified and 
blame the critics for undermining morale. All these 
arguments pre-suppose that we have the right to invade in 
the first place and once we're there, to remain as long as 
"necessary."

How is this any different from the "official" debate in the 
'60s which completely ignored the position of the anti-war 
movement, that the war was immoral, not too costly to us, 
and ought to be stopped?!
We can confidently expect that once again, the anti-war 
movement will be blamed -- this time for "losing Iraq."

Noam Chomsky: The official debate over Vietnam was as you 
describe: the crucial facts have never been allowed into the 
debate: specifically, the fact -- which should hardly be in 
doubt --that the US attacked South Vietnam, certainly by 
1962, and virtually destroyed it, then extending the attack 
to the rest of Indochina. In the case of Iraq, the official 
debate is much broader. The invasion was denounced in very 
harsh terms in the mainstream. I've already quoted Arthur 
Schlesinger, and it's easy to elaborate. So the debates are 
different. But I recognize the similarities that you point 
out too, and I think we should attend to them carefully, as 
you suggest.

_______________________

Greenfield, Mass.: Do you agree that hegemony abroad 
ultimately necessitates authoritarianism at home, and given 
current trends, is a phase of a new American fascism 
inevitable or already existent?

Noam Chomsky: It's not impossible, though I don't think the 
word "necessary" is in order -- in human affairs generally. 
You might be interested in a current article by the 
distinguished international law specialist Richard Falk on 
what he calls "global fascism".

But we don't have to allow any such thing to happen, here or 
abroad.

_______________________

Buenos Aires, Argentina: Professor Chomsky, It is an honor 
to participate in this debate regarding your thoughts. Many 
years ago we met through an Argentinean common friend Maria 
Fra, who was at the Kennedy School at that time. I do agree 
with most of your statements regarding the war on Iraq. But 
something that for many foreigners as me, who love the US 
and your Democracy, frightens us is this new trend towards a 
limitation to your liberties and freedom that we can see 
recently. Including the USA Patriot Act, and other measures 
taken by your Administration. I was very much upset with the 
embarrassing situation occurred at JFK International when 
the Chilean Foreign Minister Dr. Soledad Alvear was 
interrogated when she went to the General Assembly of the UN 
in NYC, in open violation of the Vienna Convention on 
International Diplomatic Missions. Something similar 
happened with Cardinal Jorge Mejia, the Director of the 
Vatican Archives and Library. If this incidents involved 
high ranking officials of States that have diplomatic ties 
with the USA what can expect simple a tourist who has all 
their passports and documents in order according with 
existing regulations. Furthermore I do have the idea that 
these people of the Project for a New American Century are 
totalitarian, and make me fear that certain kind of Big 
Brother; a total Orwellian scenario will be imposed in your 
wonderful country. This will mean a decline of all your 
institutions and the destruction of your founding fathers 
legacy. John Adams said the USA should be under the empire 
of law and not men, now we see just the opposite.

Noam Chomsky: Thanks for your letter, and regard to our 
common friend.

You are right to be concerned with these matters, and there 
are many others like them. What's happening in Guantanomo is 
an utter disgrace. In my recent book "Hegemony or Survival," 
I quote Winston Churchill's thoughts about the methods now 
being adopted the administration: that they are "odious" and 
the foundation of every totalitarian government, whether 
Nazi or Communist (I'm not using quotes only because that's 
from memory, but it's virtually exact). Nevertheless, one 
should not exaggerate. What's happening here now is bad 
enough, but it is nothing like what has happened in the 
past, even the quite recent past (most strikingly, the 
COINTELPRO operations that went on for 15 years before they 
were banned by the Courts),or certainly Wilson's Red Scare. 
And they are not remotely like what happens in much of the 
rest of the world. There is a very strong commitment on the 
part of the public to preserve the legacy of freedom that 
was won with hard struggle over centuries -- it wasn't a 
gift from above. And though events of the kind you mention, 
and much worse ones, do take place, and should be stopped by 
an aroused public, the fact is that for those who have even 
a limited share of privilege -- which is a very large 
majority in a rich country -- there are freedoms that are 
unusual, by world standards. Nothing to be complacent about, 
but worth keeping in mind.

-- 
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Werdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/2bSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/