[Peace-discuss] Fwd: ZNet Update Request and Chomsky Interview

[Morton K. Brussel]

Good statements (and answers to criticisms) of what we want to happen  
in Iraq and elsewhere in this Chomsky interview. Thanks to Z-Magazine  
for transmitting this interview. They ask, desperately, for your  
subscriptions, which are not expensive ($19/year).

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Michael Albert" <sysop at ZMAG.ORG>
> Date: December 27, 2005 9:58:46 AM CST
> To: <znetupdates at zmail.zmag.org>
> Subject: ZNet Update Request and Chomsky Interview
>
> On the top page of ZNet -  http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm - there  
> is a
> special link for buying a one year, U.S., print subscription to Z
> Magazine, our monthly periodical, which is usually $33, for only $19.
>
> We NEED you to use that link to become a new subscriber, now.
>
> You get a year's meals for the mind. It costs you the price of one  
> night
> out at a restaurant. You diet your body. You get a subscription. You
> expand you mind. You insure our foundation. You save $14. And it only
> takes a click and a form - under five minutes.
>
> And here is the interview with Chomsky discussing the recent Iraq
> elections, Iraq motives and policy more generally, international
> relations, U.S. policy making, etc.
>
>
> ===
>
>
> On the Iraq Election
> Noam Chomsky interviewed by Andy Clark for Radio Netherlands
>
> Andy Clark: Let's start off by talking about the elections in Iraq.
> Let's hear how President Bush was billing them just a few days  
> ahead of
> the vote.
>
> President Bush: "By helping Iraqis build a strong democracy, we're
> adding to our own security and, like a generation before us, we are
> laying the foundation of peace for generations to come. Not far from
> here, where we gather today is a symbol of freedom familiar to all
> Americans - the Liberty Bell. When the Declaration of Independence was
> first read in public, the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration  
> and a
> witness said: 'It rang as if it meant something.' Today the call of
> liberty is being heard in Baghdad and Basra, and other Iraqi  
> cities, and
> its sound is echoing across the broader Middle East, from Damascus to
> Tehran, people hear it and they know it means something. It means that
> days of tyranny and terror are ending and a new day of hope and  
> freedom
> is dawning."
>
> Andy Clark: President Bush there, speaking at the Philadelphia World
> Affairs Council, just a few days ago. I mean the sentiment is very  
> clear
> there from the President, that the US is bringing hope and  
> democracy to
> Iraq and that the elections are crucial in this. After the vote, the
> President has called the elections an important milestone. Professor
> Chomsky, how do you see the elections? Do you see them as an important
> milestone for Iraq?
>
> Noam Chomsky: Actually I do, but before talking about that, I should
> just bring up a kind of a truism. No rational person pays the  
> slightest
> attention to declarations of benign intent on the part of leaders, no
> matter who they are. And the reason is they're completely predictable,
> including the worst monsters, Stalin, Hitler the rest. Always full of
> benign intent. Yes that's their task. Therefore, since they're
> predictable, we disregard them, they carry no information. What we do
> is, look at the facts. That's true if they're Bush or Blair or  
> Stalin or
> anyone else. That's the beginning of rationality. All right, the basic
> facts we know: when Bush and Blair invaded Iraq, the reason was what
> they insistently called a 'single question.' That was repeated by Jack
> Straw, by Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, everyone. 'Will Iraq  
> eliminate
> its weapons of mass destruction?' That was the single question,  
> that was
> the basis on which both Bush and Blair got authorization to use force.
> Within a few months this single question was answered and the answer
> came out the wrong way and then all of sudden...
>
> Andy Clark: This was weapons of mass destruction you're talking about?
>
> Noam Chomsky: Yes. Then very quickly it turned out that that wasn't  
> the
> reason of the invasion. The reason was what the President's liberal
> press calls his 'Messianic Mission' to bring democracy to Iraq and
> immediately everyone had to leap on the democratisation bandwagon  
> and it
> began to be described as the most noble war in history and so on  
> and so
> forth. Well, anyone with a particle of sense would know that you can't
> take that seriously and, in fact, if you look at the events that
> followed, it just demonstrated that. The US tried, in every possible
> way, to prevent elections in Iraq. They offered effort after effort to
> evade the danger of elections. Finally, they were compelled to accept
> elections by mass non-violent resistance, for which the Ayatollah
> Sistani [moderate Shi'ite leader] was a kind of a symbol. Mass
> outpourings of people demanding elections. Finally, Bush and Blair had
> to agree to elections. The next step is to subvert them and they  
> started
> immediately. They're doing it right now. Elections mean you pay some -
> in a democracy at least - you pay some attention to the will of the
> population. Well, the crucial question for an invading army is: 'do  
> they
> want us to be here?' Well, we know the answer to that. The British
> Ministry of Defence carried out a poll a couple of months ago, it was
> secret, but it leaked to the British Press - I don't think it's been
> reported in the US. They found that 82 percent of the population  
> wanted
> the coalition forces, British and US forces to leave. One percent  
> of the
> population said that they were increasing security.
>
> Andy Clark: But isn't this the start of a process that could see the
> occupying troops from America and Britain leaving? We've seen an awful
> lot of Iraqis taking part in the elections, two thirds, we're told.  
> The
> turnout was quite high...
>
> Noam Chomsky: But hold on a second, the US and Britain announced at
> once, at once, we will not have a timetable to withdraw. So yes,  
> you can
> all want us to leave, but we won't have a timetable for withdrawal.  
> Now
> of course, there's a conflict, the Iraqis have forced the occupying
> powers to allow some kind of electoral process. What the occupying
> powers are doing now is perfectly clear and very familiar, very
> familiar. We've had a long history of this in Central America, the
> British ran an empire, the Japanese ran an empire, and the Russians  
> ran
> an empire in Eastern Europe. The way they want it to work - standard
> procedure - you want the local forces to run their own countries, so
> Poland under the Russians, the Polish army runs it, the Polish  
> civilians
> are the bureaucrats, Russians are in the background. The same in  
> say, El
> Salvador, the US-run state terrorist forces are the military, the
> civilians are local, and the US is in the background. If anything goes
> wrong, they move in, the same with the British in India, the same with
> the Japanese in South Korea.
>
> Andy Clark: So you see this is a step to set up a sort of puppet
> government and not something that's really representative of ordinary
> Iraqis?
>
> Noam Chomsky: That's what they are trying to do, but there's always a
> conflict about that. Many of the Western backed or Russian or  
> Eastern or
> other backed tyrants rose up. However, it is as clear as a bell  
> that the
> US, and Britain behind it, are doing everything they can to prevent a
> sovereign, more or less democratic Iraq. And they are being dragged  
> into
> it step by step. Now there's a good reason why the US cannot  
> tolerate a
> sovereign, more or less democratic Iraq. We're not allowed to talk  
> about
> it because there's a party line. The party line we have to rigidly
> adhere to says you're not allowed to talk about the reasons for  
> invading
> Iraq. We're supposed to believe that the US would've invaded Iraq  
> if it
> was an island in the Indian Ocean and its main exports were pickles  
> and
> lettuce. This is what we're supposed to believe. Now the truth of the
> matter, obvious to anyone not committed to the party line, is that  
> Iraq
> has huge oil resources, maybe the second in the world, mostly  
> untapped,
> that it's right in the middle of the main energy-producing region  
> of the
> world and that taking control of Iraq will strengthen enormously the
> US's control over the major energy resources of the world. It will, in
> fact, give the US critical leverage over its competitors, Europe and
> Asia, that's Zbigniew Brzezsinski's [President Carter's national
> Security Adviser] accurate observation. That's the reason. Now suppose
> that Iraq were to become sovereign and democratic, what would happen?
> Just think of the policies they would undertake. I mean, we can run
> through them, it would be a nightmare for the US.
>
> Andy Clark: You maintain that they would want to maintain control.  
> This
> is an email from a listener, sent to us on the eve of the elections  
> from
> Iraq, who just simply calls himself Mohammed:
>
> Mohammed's email: "Tomorrow it's going to be us who decide and I can
> feel the greatness of the responsibility because the result will draw
> the shape of our future and will determine how long it will take  
> till we
> can announce victory in this war; our war against the past, against  
> the
> past's illusions and the past's mistakes."
>
> Andy Clark: What would you say to a comment like that? We hear that a
> lot from Iraqis. I spoke to some people from the Iraqi community  
> here in
> the Netherlands just a few weeks ago and they were expressing very
> similar sentiments that they felt they were in some way having their
> destiny in their own hands for the first time.
>
> Noam Chomsky: That's exactly what I've been saying for the last three
> years and I just said it again here. The victory of the non-violent
> resistance in Iraq, which compelled the occupying forces to allow
> elections, that's a major victory. That's one of the major triumphs of
> non-violent resistance that I know of. It wasn't the insurgents  
> that did
> it - the US doesn't care about violence, they have more violence. What
> it can't control is non-violence and the non-violent movements in  
> Iraq,
> partially with Sistani as a kind of figurehead, but it's much broader
> than that, it compelled the occupying forces to allow elections and  
> some
> limited, very limited degree of sovereignty. And yet we should be  
> trying
> to help them in these endeavours.
>
> Andy Clark: In that sense you see that there's a positive influence  
> from
> these elections and you see that those forces can grow out of these
> elections and take more control in Iraq?
>
> Noam Chomsky: I certainly hope so, but they're going to have to be
> fighting Britain and the US tooth and nail all the way. The  
> question is
> what Westerners will do about it. Will we be on the side of the
> occupying forces, which are trying to prevent democracy and  
> sovereignty?
> Or will we be on the side of the Iraqi people, who want democracy and
> sovereignty? But in order to ask that question we first have to free
> ourselves of the doctrinal blinders, which prevent us from  
> understanding
> what is actually happening.
>
> Andy Clark: OK, let's hear some more messages from listeners. This  
> is an
> argument we hear an awful lot.
>
> Listener in Canada Reg Pollock's email: "I don't think the  
> Americans had
> any right to go into Iraq, but now there are there and removed the
> government they are stuck until there is a body which can maintain the
> country. As bad a Saddam was he did control three peoples. It's not  
> the
> same as Vietnam. They (the US) have a tiger by the tail."
>
> Listener Mark Humphreys from Ireland: "The 'anti-war' movement  
> destroyed
> Vietnam, and far from being ashamed of it, they are proud of it, and
> they want to do the same thing to Iraq. They want to abandon Iraq  
> to the
> Jihadis and the Baathists and civil war. All they care about is  
> that no
> white people are involved."
>
> Andy Clark: That's an argument we hear an awful lot of. You know, the
> Americans have to now see the job out as it were. What's your reaction
> to that?
>
> Noam Chomsky: That's like saying the Russians invaded Afghanistan and
> they can't just leave it to the Jihadis so therefore they have to stay
> there. I mean I was strongly opposed to that, I assume every listener
> was, and that we should be. An invading army has no right whatsoever,
> none. It has responsibilities. Its primary responsibility is to act  
> in a
> way that the population of the country demands. They are to keep to  
> the
> will of the population. They don't have any right to stay there  
> because
> they want to. Well as far as we know, and there's fair amount of
> information. The Iraqi population wants the occupying forces to leave.
> As I mentioned, as shown by the last British Ministry of Defence poll,
> one percent think the occupying forces are contributing to security;
> most of them think they're increasing insecurity. So yes, they  
> should be
> withdrawing, as the population wants them to, instead of trying
> desperately to set up a client regime with military forces that  
> they can
> control. That's what's happening. As for the comment on Vietnam, yes
> that's probably...probably you would've heard that from some super
> Stalinist in Moscow in the case of Afghanistan. The fact of the matter
> is the US invaded South Vietnam in 1962, practically destroyed it,  
> then
> expanded the war to the rest of Indochina. It ended up killing maybe
> three or four million people in Indochina, destroying the country. The
> anti-war movement succeeded in building up enough opposition so  
> that the
> country at least survived, barely, although the US won a tremendous
> victory by destroying the country. Yes, you will find the  
> equivalent of
> Stalinists in the US who will give that party line, but simply just  
> take
> a look at the facts; they're well known and well understood.
>
> Andy Clark: But what do you think would happen if the process now goes
> forward and the Iraqi government is formed and the new parliament  
> turns
> around and passes a majority motion for the coalition-led troops to
> withdraw within six months? What do you think would happen?
>
> Noam Chomsky: In other words, suppose that the parliament, instead of
> being an elite force, dominating the population, suppose the  
> parliament
> represents popular will, say the popular will of 80 percent of Iraqis
> who want the occupying forces to withdraw, according to the British
> Ministry of Defence. Suppose that happens? Well then the occupying
> forces should immediately initiate withdrawal and leave it to the
> Iraqis. Now there's a good reason why Washington and London are not
> contemplating that. It has nothing to do with the fate of the Iraqis,
> quite the contrary. Just think for a minute. What would an independent
> Iraq be likely to do, an independent, more or less democratic Iraq?
> Think. I mean if you're going to have a Shi'ite majority. Therefore  
> the
> Shi'ites will have a lot of influence in policy, probably a dominant
> influence. The Shi'ite population in the south, which is where most of
> the oil is, would much prefer warm relations to Iran over hostile
> relations to Iran. Furthermore they are very close relations already,
> the Badr brigade, which is the militia that mostly controls the south,
> was trained in Iran. The clerics have long-standing relations with  
> Iran;
> the Ayatollah Sistani actually grew up there. Chances are pretty  
> strong,
> they'll move towards a some sort of a loose Shi'ite alliance, with  
> Iraq
> and Iran. Furthermore right across the border in Saudi Arabia,  
> there's a
> substantial Shi'ite population, which has been bitterly oppressed  
> by the
> US-backed tyranny in Saudi Arabia, the fundamentalist tyranny. Any  
> move
> towards independence in Iraq is likely to increase the efforts to  
> gain a
> degree of autonomy and justice. That happens to be where most of Saudi
> Arabia's oil is. So you can see not far in the future a loose Shi'ite
> alliance controlling most of the world's oil, independent of the US.
> Furthermore, it is beginning to turn toward the East. Iran has pretty
> much given up on Western Europe, it assumes that Western Europe is too
> cowardly to act independently of the US, well it has options. It can
> turn to the East. China can't be intimidated. That's why the US is so
> frightened of China. It cannot be intimidated. In fact, they're  
> already
> establishing relations with Iran and in fact even with Saudi Arabia,
> both military and economic. There is an Asian energy security grid  
> based
> on Asia and Russia but bringing in India, Korea and others. If Iran
> moves in that direction, having abandoned any hope in Europe, it can
> become the lynchpin of the Asian energy security grid.
>
> Andy Clark: And you say that this may be part of an attraction for the
> Shi'ite groups in Iraq as well to sort of join this movement away from
> the Western world influence as it were?
>
> Noam Chomsky: Yes, they have every reason to. In fact it might even
> happen in Saudi Arabia. From the point of view of Washington planners,
> that is the ultimate nightmare.
>
> Andy Clark: And that's why you say they won't be prepared to leave...
>
> Noam Chomsky: That is why they're fighting tooth and nail to prevent
> democracy and sovereignty in Iraq. The Iraqi people have resisted and
> it's a very impressive resistance. I'm not talking about  
> insurgency. I'm
> talking about popular, non-violent resistance under bitter conditions.
> There's a labour movement forming, which is a very important one.  
> The US
> insists on keeping Saddam's bitter anti-labour laws, but the labour
> movement doesn't like it. Their activists are being killed. Nobody  
> knows
> by whom, maybe by insurgents, maybe by former Baathists, maybe by
> somebody else. But they're working. There's the basis of a popular
> democracy being developed there, much to the horror of the occupying
> forces, but it's going on and it could have very long term  
> consequences
> in their national affairs, which is why Bush and Blair have so
> desperately been trying to prevent democracy and any form of  
> sovereignty
> and have been forced to back off step by step. This is also going on
> with the economic arrangements. The US moved in and immediately  
> tried to
> open up the economy to foreign take-over by imposing outrageous and in
> fact illegal laws for privatisation. You know, Iraqis don't want that,
> they want to take control of their own economy and resources.  
> There's a
> battle going on about that.
>
> Andy Clark: Let's hear another message from a listener. This is from
> Miguel C. Alvarez, who is a Spanish ex-patriot living in the UK:
>
> Miguel's email: "Forget about the US and EU governments: they're
> hopeless. Where to for 'the people?' How can the insanity be  
> stopped? Or
> will it have to run its course and get much worse before it can get
> better?"
>
> Andy Clark: What's your take on that?
>
> Noam Chomsky: The violence in Iraq is a serious problem for the Iraqis
> and I tend to agree with, apparently the majority of Iraqis, that it's
> the occupation forces that are stimulating the violence. The fact that
> an insurgency even developed in Iraq is astonishing. I mean it's an
> amazing fact that the US has had more trouble controlling Iraq than  
> the
> Germans had in controlling occupied Europe or the Russians in
> controlling Eastern Europe. After all, the countries under Nazi or
> Russian occupation were run by domestic forces, domestic police,
> domestic armies, and domestic civilian forces. The Nazis and the  
> Kremlin
> were in the background and if needed, they came in, but mostly it was
> domestically run. There were partisans in Western Europe and they were
> very courageous, but they would've been wiped out very quickly if it
> hadn't been for enormous foreign support and, of course, Germany  
> was at
> war.
>
>
> Well, in Iraq none of these circumstances prevailed, there was no
> outside support for the resistance. The little support that has  
> arisen,
> and it is very slight, is mostly engendered by the invasion. But  
> there's
> no outside support. The country had been devastated by sanctions.  
> The US
> was coming in with enormous resources to rebuild it and they have  
> turned
> it into a total catastrophe. It's one of the worst military  
> catastrophes
> in history. You look at figures for something like, say malnutrition;
> malnutrition is way up since the US took over, that's unbelievable.  
> It's
> one of the few wars that can't be reported, not because reporters are
> cowards, but because it's too dangerous. Reporters are mostly in the
> Green Zone or else they go out with a platoon of marines. There are
> some, like Robert Fisk, Patrick Cockburn and a couple of others who  
> are
> independent and brave it, but not many. This is an incredible
> catastrophe. But it's very likely, and I tend to agree with apparent
> opinion of most Iraqis on this, that it's the invading armies  
> themselves
> that are engendering the violence. Well, they're carrying out  
> plenty of
> it, but the violence of the insurgents would probably recline if they
> left and allowed Iraqis to be on their own.
>
> Andy Clark: Another message, this is from Charles Harlich, from New
> Jersey in the US:
>
> Charles' email: "I have a relative who is now serving as a soldier in
> Iraq. What advice would you give to him?"
>
> Noam Chomsky: Look, I have plenty of correspondence with soldiers in
> Iraq and all you can do is offer them your sympathy. You hope that  
> they
> make it safely and that their leaders will get them out of there. The
> same kind of advice you would've given to Russian soldiers in
> Afghanistan. You have to sympathize with them; it's not their fault.
> It's the fault of their commanders. I don't mean their military
> commanders, I mean the civilians in the Pentagon, in the White  
> House and
> their counterparts in England.
>
> Andy Clark: This is from Steve Brown in Mexico:
>
> Steve's email:" No one is talking anymore about oil. Isn't that still
> the main reason the US invaded Iraq and are Iraq's large reserves now
> under control of US corporations?"
>
> Noam Chomsky: Nobody was talking about oil all along if you look.  
> It was
> considered outrageous to talk about oil. If anyone talked about oil,
> Tony Blair would have a tantrum about conspiracy theories.
>
> Andy Clark: Plenty of the protestors said it was a war for oil all
> along...
>
> Noam Chomsky: Protesters did, but take a look at the mainstream. It  
> was
> considered a conspiracy theory, Marxist, delusional and so on to talk
> about oil. Although every sane person knows that that was the  
> reason, if
> Iraq had been producing pickles and lettuce, would they have been
> invaded? I mean, let's be serious. Of course it's oil. Furthermore the
> Iraqis know that. Right after the president gave his dramatic  
> speech at
> the National Endowment for Democracy, announcing his 'Messianic  
> Mission'
> to bring democracy to Iraq, after the collapse of the 'single  
> question,'
> right after that a poll was reported. Gallup, the main polling
> organisation in the US, took a poll in Baghdad and asked people in
> Baghdad why they think the US invaded, about one percent agreed, with
> 100 percent of educated Western opinion, to bring democracy, one  
> percent
> agreed to bring democracy, five percent said to help Iraqis. Most  
> of the
> rest said the obvious: to take control of Iraq's resources and to
> strengthen the US strategic position in the region. And incidentally,
> going back to the writer, it's not so much a matter of gaining  
> access to
> Iraq's resources, you can get access even if you don't control a
> country. I mean the oil market is something of a market. What  
> matters is
> control, not access. It's a very big difference. The main theme of US
> policy since the Second World War has been to control the resources of
> the Middle East, the energy resources. That would give what George
> Cannon, one of the early planners, called 'veto power' over their
> allies, they wouldn't get out of line because we'd have our hand on  
> the
> spicket. Now at that time, for about 30 years, North America was the
> major oil exporter. The US wasn't using any Middle East oil, but it
> nevertheless was dedicated and it was the main theme of US policy to
> maintain control over it. If you look at US intelligence  
> projections for
> the future, they project that the US must control Middle East oil, but
> that it itself will rely on more stable Atlantic Basin resources,
> Western Africa, Western Hemisphere resources. Europe and Japan will  
> rely
> on the less stable Middle East resources, but the US will control  
> them.
> That's the way you prevent independence from developing. That's why  
> the
> Asian Energy Security Grid and the Shanghai Cooperation Council are
> regarded as such a threat by the US. The meetings right now, the
> Malaysian meetings, East Asian meetings, that's a threat, it's a
> coalescence of power moving independently of the US. You look back
> through the history of the Cold War, and it was the same with  
> regard to
> Europe, a major concern throughout the Cold War was what was called
> European Third Force, which might find a way independent of the US in
> Europe, and there was every effort made to prevent that. A long story,
> and that makes sense if you want to run the world, you want to make  
> sure
> there are not independent forces out of your control.
>
> Andy Clark: This is a message from L. Douglas Raymond in the US:
>
> "With the war in Iraq, it seems we are viewing the US's engagement in
> some bold, in your face, strategic geopolitical chess. In your  
> opinion,
> what is the US's next likely international move?"
>
> Noam Chomsky: My own guess frankly, was that the invasion of Iraq  
> would
> be over in about three days and that the US would install a stable
> client regime. It should have been one of the easiest military  
> victories
> in history. But they did turn it into a catastrophe. My guess back at
> that time was that the next place the US would move would be the Andes
> in the Western Hemisphere. This is a traditional region of US
> domination, but from Venezuela down to Argentina, the region is pretty
> much out of control and that's a very serious worry for US planners.
> They expect the Western Hemisphere to be obedient and placid. And  
> if you
> look at modern history the US has intervened violently and brutally
> throughout the Western Hemisphere for a long time to ensure obedience,
> overthrowing democratic governments, installing murderous military
> dictatorships, carrying out large-scale terror and it goes on pretty
> much to the present. It is somewhat out of control. Venezuela is
> increasingly going on an independent path and Venezuela is very
> important, the US took it from the British in 1921, kicked the British
> out at the time of the beginning of the oil-based economy because  
> it was
> recognized that Venezuela had enormous oil resources, also others. And
> it has been one of the main oil suppliers under US control ever since,
> but it's moving towards independence. Chavez is enormously popular in
> Venezuela; in fact, support for the elected government is higher in
> Venezuela than in any other Latin American country. Venezuela is
> beginning to diversify its international relations; it's starting to
> export oil to China and may do so even more soon. The same is true of
> the other raw materials exporters, Brazil and Chile, not to the extent
> of Venezuela, but increasing. Furthermore, the region has left of  
> centre
> governments. All through the regions, a few exceptions but almost  
> all of
> them, and some of them are defying the IMF. Argentina simply defied  
> IMF
> orders, told them to get lost, and did very well as a result.
> Furthermore, there's a large Indian population in Latin America from
> Bolivia up to Ecuador, very large, and they're beginning to  
> organise and
> become independent. They may actually win an election in Bolivia [left
> wing leader Evo Morales has now won that election]. They've  
> overthrown a
> couple of governments in Ecuador. They're also calling for an Indian
> nation throughout this region. Now, they do not want their resources
> taken from them, they have plenty of resources, a lot of oil. They  
> want
> either to control their own resources, rather than having it taken  
> over
> by foreigners, or - many of them - don't even want resources to be
> developed, so there are plenty of indigenous people in Ecuador who  
> don't
> particularly want their lifestyle disrupted so that people drive  
> SUVs in
> New York City.
>
> Andy Clark: This is an area, you think, that will be an area of  
> concern
> for the US?
>
> Noam Chomsky: It's of deep concern. There are more US military in  
> Latin
> America today than at the height of the Cold War. For the first  
> time the
> number of US military in Latin America exceeds the combined number of
> civilians in key federal agencies, aid, state departments and others.
> Furthermore, the training of the Latin American military, which has
> always been under US control, has recently shifted; the Congress  
> shifted
> it from the State Department to the Pentagon. Now that's quite
> important. The State Department has a terrible record of atrocities  
> and
> torture and crime - everyone should know about that - but under the
> State Department, military training was under some Congressional
> supervision, had some human rights conditions, some democracy
> conditions. Under the Pentagon, it has no conditions. Furthermore, the
> military is now being trained to deal with, what are called social
> problems, social unrest.
>
> Andy Clark: It plays into an e-mail we received from somebody in Peru.
>
> Gonzalo Alvarado, Peru: "Do you see any serious alternative to the  
> Bush
> administration for next elections, in order to change the US foreign
> policy? How do you think the US will deal with the regimes in  
> Venezuela
> and Bolivia? In Peru, we have a presidential candidate with the same
> profile, Humala. He is growing in the polls for next presidential
> elections. His tactic? Blaming imperialism and the free market for
> making us poorer."
>
> Noam Chomsky: It certainly doesn't like them [the regimes in  
> Bolivia and
> Venezuela]. Incidentally, we should stop talking about the free  
> market,
> that's another ideological trick. The US does not believe in a free
> market. The US itself is a largely state-based economy. You use
> computers and the Internet and telecommunications and lasers and
> aeroplanes and so on, most of it comes out of the dynamic state  
> sector.
> The economy is handed over to private businesses if they make some
> profit out of it, but mostly state-based and same is true of
> pharmaceuticals and biology-based industries and so on. So, we should
> have no illusions about this. Even the free trade agreements, so- 
> called,
> are highly protectionists, the extra-ordinary intellectual property
> rights go way beyond anything existed in the past those are purely
> protectionist. They are designed to maintain monopoly rights for major
> corporations. If the currently rich countries had ever been faced with
> such rules, the US would now be exporting fish and fur. So there's no
> free market. But how the US is planning to deal with it, well we know.
> Let's take Venezuela; there was a military coup in Venezuela in 2002.
> The US supported the military coup, the US had to back down very  
> quickly
> because there was an overwhelming uproar in Latin America, where
> democracy is taken much more seriously than it is in Washington and
> there was great protest about US support for a military coup
> overthrowing a democratic government, so Washington had to back  
> down and
> the military coup was quickly reversed. The US then moved into the  
> next
> step, which is subversion; if you can't carry out a military coup, try
> to subvert the government. So the US had been pouring in aid into what
> are called officially 'anti-Chavez, pro-democracy elements.' That's
> where the money is going. The implication is: you can't be a pro- 
> Chavez,
> pro-democracy element; you can't because the US says so. The fact that
> Venezuela leads Latin America in support for democracy and support for
> the elected government, going up very sharply since Chavez took  
> over in
> 1998, that's just irrelevant, we decide what's democracy, not the  
> people
> - that's just subversion. We saw it in the last election just a couple
> of days ago. It was clear the US candidate was going to do very badly,
> so the opposition, almost surely with US initiative or support, pulled
> out of the election to try to de-legitimate the election, well,  
> that's a
> very standard tactic, the US used the same tactic in Haiti a couple of
> years ago. It was clear that Aristide, who they didn't like, was going
> to easily win the election, so they got together with the  
> opposition and
> got the opposition, which was quite small, to pull out and then they
> could say, well look it's not legitimate, he's a tyrant. The most
> striking example of this was 1984 in Nicaragua. There was an  
> election in
> Nicaragua in 1984, we're not allowed to admit that, but there was one.
> It was very heavily observed including a Dutch government team, very
> hostile, rightwing Dutch government observation team. There was a big
> delegation of Latin American scholars and US and British parliamentary
> human rights group and others. Probably the most heavily monitored
> elections in history and they regarded it as a pretty fair  
> election, not
> magnificent, but fair by Latin American standards. Well Washington
> didn't want that election, so it got its own candidate to pull out. He
> happened to be on the CIA pay roll, it turned out, to de-legitimate  
> the
> election and claim that the election didn't take place. You take a  
> look
> at American press and journals and the same in Western Europe, they  
> say
> there was never any election, the first election was in 1990.  
> That's the
> way you de-legitimate elections when you know you're going to lose  
> them.
>
> And that's what just happened in Venezuela. My guess was if Iraq had
> been successful, the US would simply have invaded. But by now they  
> have
> lost the capacity to carry out military action.
>
> Andy Clark: There's been a lot of talk recently about how far the US
> should go in questioning suspected terrorists. If we can talk a little
> bit about the War on Terror. You know persistent allegations have been
> made of torture, and allegations were also made that there were secret
> CIA prisoners in Eastern Europe. US Secretary of State Condoleezza  
> Rice
> was keen to dispel the torture allegations during her recent trip to
> Europe.
>
> We've also seen the Bush Administration accepting the bill put forward
> by Senator John McCain within the past few days, which will ban US
> interrogators from using, and I quote: 'cruel, inhuman or degrading
> treatment or punishment of detainees in the war on terror.' Earlier,
> Vice-President Dick Cheney had lobbied to try and have an exception  
> for
> the CIA from this, but the government has now backed away from that.
> Professor Chomsky, what do you make of the McCain bill being accepted?
>
> Noam Chomsky: To the extent the McCain bill is accepted, which hasn't
> happened, that is saying that what Condoleezza Rice just said is a  
> lie,
> she claimed it wasn't happening. The discussion of the McCain bill is
> saying, yes it did happen, but we won't do it any more. OK, that  
> allows
> us to dismiss Condoleezza Rice's statement.
>
> Andy Clark: Are they saying that really, or are they saying "we want a
> safeguard against it happening in the future?"
>
> Noam Chomsky: Yes that meant it happened in the past, they're  
> conceding
> it. Of course they don't have to concede it, there's overwhelming
> evidence for it. Just read American legal journals, full of discussion
> on it. Take a look at Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch,
> extensive evidence. Of course they've been torturing. Condoleezza Rice
> was very careful to say we don't send people to countries where we
> believe they're going to be tortured, so we send them to Egypt and
> Syria, but we don't believe they're going to be tortured there. How  
> can
> you listen to that without laughing? What are they sending them there
> for? Why aren't they sending them to Holland? But why aren't they
> leaving them in the US? Do we have to even know what's going on in
> Guantanamo? I mean Guantanamo is a horror chamber - there's plenty of
> evidence, but did we need that evidence? Why are they even in
> Guantanamo? Why aren't they in a prison in New York? There's no  
> security
> reason for that. The reason they're sent to Guantanamo is elementary,
> any child can understand it, Guantanamo they can claim, is not  
> under US
> judicial jurisdiction, so therefore they can do to people whatever  
> they
> want, without habeas corpus, without judges and so on. If they weren't
> torturing them, they would put them in New York, where they'd be under
> the legal system and the rendition, which is a shocking crime, is
> obviously to send people to places where they can be tortured. What
> Condoleezza Rice actually said is: 'we take the word of the  
> countries to
> which we're sending them that they're not going to torture them,'
> meaning we know they torture everybody, but we're going to take their
> word they're not going to torture these people. We're just sending  
> them
> there for a vacation because we want them to have a good time, you  
> know
> at a ritzy resort. How can we even listen to these words?
>
> Andy Clark: Let's hear from two listeners on torture.
>
> Noel Smyth, Dublin, Ireland: "Can the people of this country believe
> anything that the US says about torture not being committed on their
> behalf in EU countries?"
>
> R. Kurt, Oak Ridge, Tennessee: "Why isn't Europe more critical of the
> Bush administration's policy on torture and human rights?"
>
> Andy Clark: What about that second question and Europe not being more
> forthright in that listener's viewpoint?
>
> Noam Chomsky: When you talk about a country you have to differentiate.
> Do you mean the elite sectors, the political class?
>
> Andy Clark: I guess he does, he's talking about the European Union, I
> guess.
>
> Noam Chomsky: Well, talking about the elite sectors, the reason they
> don't protest is they more or less agree. The general population  
> doesn't
> agree. The question: can you believe what the US says? Of course not,
> you don't believe what any government say, you don't believe what
> corporate leaders say. The role of people in power is to deceive, it's
> not just the US, I mean, we all know that. When you look at an ad on
> television, do you believe it's telling the truth? I mean, after all,
> systems of power are dedicated to deceit and delusion, to maintain  
> power
> and to pursue their interests. That's elementary; we should learn that
> in elementary school. So sure, you don't believe what, you know, the
> benign, grandiose statements that are made by leaders. As I said  
> before,
> they're predictable, they carry no information, it doesn't matter
> whether it's the US or anyone else. You look at the practices, when  
> you
> look at the practices, it stares you in the face, even without the
> volumes of evidence that we have. As for why Europe accepts it, I  
> don't
> think that Europe does. If you mean by Europe, the people of  
> Europe. In
> fact, the US doesn't accept it, if you mean the people of the US, they
> don't like these policies. In fact, there's an enormous gulf in the US
> between public attitudes and public policy, not just on this issue,  
> but
> on a host of issues. Take another one, which is right on the front  
> pages
> now, the Montreal Conference, the Kyoto protocols, you read everywhere
> that the US refused to accept Kyoto and broke up the Montreal  
> meetings.
> Well, that's true if you understand the US to exclude its population.
> The population of the US is overwhelmingly in favour of those
> agreements. In fact, so strongly that a majority of Bush voters think
> that he's in favour of them because it's so obviously right to be in
> favour of them. But when you have an enormous gulf between public  
> policy
> and public opinion, we can mislead ourselves by saying Europe doesn't
> want, the US doesn't want and so on. No, we mean sectors that  
> happen to
> concentrate power and keep the population out of their hair. What that
> means there's a very serious democratic deficit in western countries,
> the US in particular. The population plays a very little role in  
> policy
> and is often very strongly opposed to it.
>
> Andy Clark: Professor Chomsky, your outspoken comments always provoke
> equally outspoken criticism. And when people have been e-mailing into
> our web page, there was, of course, criticism, too. So let me put some
> of these e-mails to you. I'm sure you've heard these arguments many a
> time before but it's always interesting to hear your answer to them as
> well.
>
> Michael Molluck, who is in Philadelphia in the US: "Noam Chomsky has a
> pathological hatred for the United States. Like all haters, he is
> blinded to everything that does not support his bigotry. It must kill
> him and his followers to constantly be so smart, so wrong and
> consistently on the wrong side of history."
>
> Andy Clark: That is an accusation that's levelled against you that you
> are unpatriotic and that you have a hatred of the US What do you  
> say to
> that?
>
> Noam Chomsky: Well, since it's just a tantrum, there's nothing that  
> you
> can say. If people want to have tantrums, that's fine. There is a
> history of that; the writer should at least know what company he's
> keeping. He's keeping the company of Stalinist commissars, that's
> exactly what they said about every dissident. So, Sakharov and the  
> rest
> had a pathological hatred of Russia, they were on the wrong side of
> history and so on. That's the stand of the commissars. In fact,  
> it's the
> stand of their counterparts in every country. It has a long history. I
> don't know if the writer has religious education, but maybe he's heard
> of something called the Bible, which is the source of this. The  
> Bible is
> the source of the concept of hating your country. At that point, it
> meant hating Israel. King Ahab, who was the epitome of evil in the
> Bible, condemned the prophet Elijah as a hater of Israel. What did he
> mean by that? What did he mean by saying Elijah had a pathological
> hatred of Israel? What he meant is Elijah was condemning the acts  
> of the
> evil king, not of the people of Israel, but of the evil king. And the
> king, like every totalitarian, identified himself with the people, the
> society, the country and so on. So you can love your country more than
> anyone else, but you have a pathological hatred of it if you criticize
> the acts of leadership. That's the attitude of those who totally
> subordinate themselves to power, like Soviet commissars and others. So
> yes, it's a familiar complaint, it goes through history, as in this
> case, it's not presented with any argument or evidence, because there
> isn't any, it's presented as a tantrum, like King Ahab.
>
> Andy Clark: This is from Jude Kirkham from Vancouver in Canada:
>
> Jude's email: "My problem with Mr Chomsky and the left in general
> regarding Iraq is that they oversimplify and fail to put forth  
> realistic
> solutions. When I see a crowd of hippies parading around with giant
> paper-mace puppets of George Bush and Tony Blair, how on earth am I
> supposed to take them seriously? The invasion went well, insofar as it
> overthrew Saddam Hussein. The occupation was and is a disaster. Simply
> withdrawing is not going to happen because it would be political
> suicide. The answer is to reform the occupation, taking more a Colin
> Powell approach rather than Rumsfield one."
>
> Andy Clark: What's your reaction to that?
>
> Noam Chomsky: Well, forget about the hippies and so on and so  
> forth. The
> person who proposed it has an idea, it's the very same idea that was
> proposed by moderate communists in Russia during the Afghanistan  
> years.
> They said Russia was originally successful, the invasion, took it  
> over,
> it turned into a disaster. We obviously can't leave; it would be
> politically impossible for the Kremlin. So there we have to reform it,
> it doesn't matter what the Afghans want. That's a point of view, to  
> say,
> what he calls, the left doesn't have a point of view is completely
> wrong, they have a clear point of view, he just doesn't like it. The
> clear point of view is what I said before: let the people of Iraq
> decide. An invasion is a crime, in fact it's the supreme crime, which
> includes, with it supreme international crime, which contains  
> within it,
> all the evil that follows, I'm quoting from the Nuremberg judgements.
> Yes, it's a supreme crime. I'm not saying we should hang the criminals
> who carried out the crimes, as it was done at Nuremberg, rather we
> should get rid of them. But once the crime has been committed, a very
> clear policy, whether the writer likes it or not, is to recognise that
> the invaders have no rights. They have responsibilities. There is the
> prime responsibility, one responsibility is to pay huge reparations to
> the people invaded for all the destruction they caused and that would
> include the sanctions, which were monstrous. The second one, as  
> much as
> you can, is to keep to their will. If the large majority of the
> population, let's say the British Defence Ministry poll is more or  
> less
> accurate, if 80 percent of the population wants the invaders to leave,
> good, they should be preparing to leave. That's a plan. When the  
> writer
> said it's politically impossible, meaning in Washington and in London,
> well if so, that's a problem in Washington and London. That's a  
> problem
> in the US and Canada and England, we should deal with that problem
> because it's our problem. Our problem is we can't control our leaders.
> Iraqis don't have to suffer for that. But the solution, the proposals
> that are coming from what he calls the left, are very clear, precise,
> belief in democracy, belief in freedom. He just doesn't happen to like
> them. That doesn't mean the proposals aren't there.
>
> Andy Clark: Another criticism that is sometimes levelled against you
> goes back to Cambodia and some of your writings there. This is from  
> Noah
> Cooperman from Florida in the US
>
> Noah's email: "Does the Professor harbour any feelings of guilt for
> acting as an apologist for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge during the  
> period
> of the genocide in Cambodia. Or is mass murder by leftwing extremists
> still acceptable?"
>
> Noam Chomsky: I would ask the listener whether he harbours any  
> guilt for
> having supported Hitler and the Holocaust and insisting the Jews be  
> sent
> to extermination camps. It has the same answer. Since it never  
> happened,
> I obviously can't have any guilt for it. He's just repeating  
> propaganda
> he heard. If you ask him, you'll discover that he never read one  
> word I
> wrote. Try it. What I wrote was, and I don't have any apologies for it
> because it was accurate, I took the position that Pol Pot was a brutal
> monster, from the beginning was carrying out hideous atrocities,  
> but the
> West, for propaganda purposes, was creating and inventing immense
> fabrications for its own political goals and not out of interest  
> for the
> people of Cambodia. And my colleague and I with whom I wrote all this
> stuff simply ran through the list of fanatic lies that were being told
> and we took the most credible sources, which happened to be US
> intelligence, who knew more than anyone else. And we said US
> intelligence is probably accurate. In retrospect, that turns out to be
> correct, US intelligence was probably accurate. I think we were the  
> only
> ones who quoted it. The fabrications were fabrications and should be
> eliminated. In fact, we also discussed, and I noticed nobody ever  
> talks
> about this, we discussed fabrications against the US. For example a
> standard claim in the major works was that the US bombings had killed
> 600,000 people in 1973. We looked at the data and decided it was
> probably 200,000. So we said let's tell the truth about it. It's a
> crime, but it's not like anything you said. It's interesting that  
> nobody
> ever objects to that. When we criticize fabrications about US crimes,
> that's fine, when we criticize and in fact expose much worse
> fabrications about some official enemy, that's horrible, it becomes
> apologetics. We should learn something about ourselves. If you're
> interested in the truth, which you ought to be, tell the truth about
> yourself and tell the truth about others. These fabrications had an
> obvious political purpose. Incidentally, we continually criticize the
> Khmer Rouge after the Vietnamese invasion. After the Vietnamese
> invasion, which finally threw them out thankfully, the US and Britain
> immediately turned to support Pol Pot. Well, we criticized that,  
> too, we
> said, no, you shouldn't be supporting this monster. So yes, our  
> position
> was consistent throughout. There's been a huge literature trying to  
> show
> that there was something wrong in what we said. To my knowledge,
> nobody's even found a comma that's misplaced. And therefore what you
> have is immense gossip. My guess is that the person who just wrote  
> this
> in has never seen anything we wrote, but has heard a lot of gossip  
> about
> it.
>
> Andy Clark: This is from Jeremy Raskin in Los Angeles:
>
> "What then do you make of the trend currently underway in the Middle
> East to move towards more democratic national institutions - for
> example, the growing strength of the anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon
> and the recent elections in Egypt and Iraq? Can we succeed in remaking
> the states of the Middle East by encouraging this trend? Or does  
> America
> give up 'spreading the gospel' of democratic institutions?"
>
> Noam Chomsky: US policy in these countries has always been and remains
> to deter democracy. There are a lot of popular democratic forces, all
> over the Middle East, they've been there for a long time and  
> they're not
> just starting now. We should stop preventing them. Take; say Egypt,  
> the
> Kafiya movement is significant. The US is opposed to it. The Kafiya
> movement began with ... its immediate roots were outrage over the US
> backed Israeli atrocities in the West Bank in 2000, which were  
> extreme.
> That's the origins of the Kafiya movement. Of course it has deeper
> origins and Egyptian democratic tendencies, which go far back. That  
> was
> the origins of Kafiya and then it gained even more strength from the
> enormous opposition to the US invasion of Iraq. Now, it's trying to
> break through to give some opening to the US backed Mubarak
> dictatorship. And yes, I think that instead of opposing Democracy in
> Egypt, as we've always been doing and still are, we should be  
> supporting
> it. In Lebanon, there's a long history. The issue right now is the
> Syrian involvement in Lebanon. Syria entered Lebanon in 1976 with the
> approval of the US and Israel, open approval because their task at the
> time was to murder Palestinians. They stayed there. In 1990, George  
> Bush
> no 1, gave them further authorisation to stay in Lebanon because he
> wanted them as allies in the war against Iraq. By the early part of  
> this
> millennium, they were becoming the one state in the region, which was
> not obeying US orders, so the US turned against them and wanted them
> out. Well how did they get out? I think they should've been out all
> along. Congress passed legislation to condemn Syria and impose  
> sanctions
> and so on and in that resolution, if you look at it, here you see the
> ultimate cynicism. They appeal to a UN resolution, correctly, which  
> said
> every country should allow Lebanon to run its own affairs and that all
> foreign forces should get out. That was the resolution they  
> appealed to.
> Take a look at that resolution, it was directed against Israel in  
> 1980.
> It said Israel should get out of Lebanon. Instead, Israel invaded
> Lebanon again and extended its role in Lebanon and stayed there until
> the year 2000. So here we use a resolution that was directed against
> Israel for its occupation of Lebanon for 22 years, parts of  
> Lebanon. And
> we say that resolution says Syria should get out. Not a word in the
> Congressional discussion, not a word in the debate. I mean the  
> cynicism
> is just mind-boggling. Yes, Syria should get out; of course, they  
> should
> have been out in 1976, when we helped bring them in. The immediate
> impetus for getting Syria out was a car bombing of Rafik Hariri.  
> Unless
> the CIA was involved in that bombing, the US has nothing to do with
> getting Syria out of Lebanon. There was a very important  
> development in
> Lebanon of democratic forces, complex. One of the strongest forces in
> Lebanon is Hezbollah, which has a strong Shi'ite support. The US, of
> course, is opposed to it. But yes, we should permit for the first  
> time,
> we should permit democracy to function in Lebanon, meaning getting our
> dirty hands out of their affairs. You could say the same about Iraq.
> Iraq has a long democratic tradition, goes back a century. It was
> crushed by the British invasion, but it continued to function in many
> different ways. There was some hope for it with the 1958 revolution,
> which was a kind of populist revolution which threw out the British  
> and
> began to introduce social measures and so on and so forth. It  
> introduced
> the constitution, which is far more liberal than the current one. Well
> the US and Britain couldn't stand that, so they backed and maybe
> initiated a coup, a military coup to put the Baath party in. That
> crushed Iraqi democracy for years. We should let Iraqi democratic
> forces, which go way back, to flourish and develop internally. We can
> say the same thing right throughout the region.
>
> Andy Clark: One final email, we're almost out of time, this is from
> Jasmin:
>
> "Politicians are rarely great minds or intellectuals, they are
> 'scoundrels' as Samuel Johnson said. So my question to Mr Chomsky is,
> what effect do intellectuals or great minds have in the politics of
> today, and has he ever been able to influence any major decision of  
> the
> political leaders in the past few decades?
>
> Noam Chomsky: First of all, we should have no illusions. History is
> written by intellectuals, almost by definition. So if you look at
> history intellectuals look pretty good. On the other hand, if you look
> at the actual history, the role of intellectuals has typically been
> awful. I mention the Bible as an example, but it's a good example that
> pattern replicates. There were people in the biblical period who we
> would call dissident intellectuals, they're called Prophets. It's a  
> bad
> translation of an obscure Hebrew word. But if you look at what the
> Prophets were saying, it's what we would call dissident intellectuals.
> Geopolitical critique, a call for justice and freedom and so on. Yes,
> that's dissident intellectuals. How were they treated? Well? No, they
> were denounced as haters of Israel. They were driven into the desert,
> they were imprisoned, reviled. Now, there were intellectuals at that
> time who were very highly respected, namely the flatterers at the  
> court.
> Hundreds of years later they were called false prophets. That's the  
> way
> it works. It's the flatterers at the court who are typically the
> mainstream of the intellectuals. It runs all the way through history,
> very few exceptions. So, you don't look to intellectuals to influence
> policy. Dissident intellectuals often have many things to say, but
> they're usually pretty badly treated, varying in different societies.
> What makes things better is popular movements. That is what effects
> policy, that's how we've gained the freedoms that we have and we  
> have a
> lot of freedom, but it didn't come from above and it didn't come from
> intellectuals. It came from organised popular movements, which  
> demanded
> more freedom, like the non-violent resistance in Iraq, which forced  
> the
> US and Britain to permit elections. That's how we got the right to  
> vote
> here. That's how we got women's rights, that's how we got freedom of
> speech and so on. Constant struggle, that's why there are such efforts
> to break up popular movements and to atomise people and separate them
> from one another and to create enormous gulfs between public  
> opinion and
> public policy. It's a constant battle and, yes, that's the way to make
> things better as in the past, plenty of concrete ways to do it. We're
> much more able to than in the past because of the freedoms that have
> been won. We have a legacy of freedom, which has been won. We can use
> it, improve it, carry it forward or we can abandon it. But you're not
> going to look to intellectuals to save you.
>
> Andy Clark: Professor Chomsky, as ever, a pleasure talking to you.  
> Thank
> you very much for joining us.
>
> Noam Chomsky: Good to be with you.
>
> ====================================
> This message has been brought to you by ZNet (http://www.zmag.org).  
> Visit our site for subscription options.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20051227/89c56637/attachment.html