[Peace-discuss] Q & A with Noam Chomsky

[C. G. Estabrook]

[A rare appearance by Noam Chomsky in the corporate media --
the Washington Post. In its introduction, the Post notes that,
according to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between
1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than
any living scholar, and the eighth most cited source overall
(i.e., living and dead).  But although he is widely cited in
the foreign press, it's rare that "mainstream" media in the US 
give him space.  Below is an interesting exception, beginning
with the question of what the war in Iraq is about.  --CGE]

Friday, March 24, 2006; 2:00 PM
Noam Chomsky, noted international activist and professor of
linguistics at M.I.T., was online to offer analyses and
insights on the latest headlines on domestic and international
affairs.  A transcript follows.

____________________

Arlington, Va.: Why do you think the US went to war against Iraq?

Noam Chomsky: Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the
world, it is right in the midst of the major energy reserves
in the world. Its been a primary goal of US policy since World
War II (like Britain before it) to control what the State
Department called "a stupendous source of strategic power" and
one of the greatest material prizes in history. Establishing a
client state in Iraq would significantly enhance that
strategic power, a matter of great significance for the
future. As Zbigniew Brzezinski observed, it would provide the
US with "critical leverage" of its European and Asian rivals,
a conception with roots in early post-war planning. These are
substantial reasons for aggression -- not unlike those of the
British when they invaded and occupied Iraq over 80 years
earlier, at the dawn of the oil age.

_______________________

State College, Pa.: Noam - I heard you talking about
international law on alternative radio and (I think)
expounding the idea that the Bush administration's flavor of
premtive war is illegal. I agree that the Bush
administration's actions are illegal. Would you comment on how
much we should submit to international law in that area?

Noam Chomsky: That depends on whether we want to be what's
called an "outlaw state," which dismisses international law
and norms and treaty obligations, or a law-abiding member of
the international community. Public opinion studies strongly
indicate that the general public wants the latter. State
policy, to an extreme extent under Bush II, adopts the former
conception, quite explicitly, in words and in practice. I
think this country and the world would be far better off if
the US is not an outlaw state.

_______________________

Forest Glen Park, Md.: Professor Chomsky, I don't recall your
exact quote, but I believe you have said something to the
effect, that in your opinion, the mainstream media outlets in
the US have gotten better since 9-11 with getting out
accurate, more accessible, less-censored news to the general
public. My husband disagrees, he thinks that the editorial
boards of too many mainstream news outlets slant too much to
the right. I agree in some situations. Look at how NPR is now.
Can you expand on your opinion of the current state or trends,
of US mainstream news outlets? Thank you!

Noam Chomsky: I don't recall the statement. It's hard to give
a measure. There are too many dimensions, too much
variability. There are outstanding reporters and commentators,
but as a broad generalization, I think it is fair to say that
the media adopt the basic framework of state and private
power, mostly uncritically. It's not hard to demonstrate, and
plenty has been written revealing these unfortunate but
typical patterns -- which are by no means new.

_______________________

Cleveland, Miss.: Are you really so much of a stereotypical
"say as I do, not as I say" liberal icon that you deride tax
shelters and trust funds, all the while setting up one of your
own, or is the story that's been a hot topic on the internet
the past few days a lie?

Noam Chomsky: A person who issues that charge that someone
adheres to the principle "do as I say, not as I do" (the
actual charge) has three options: (1) produce an example; (2)
withdraw the charge; (3) take the coward's way out and slink
away silently. So far, no one has provided even a single
example (if you can find one, I'd be glad to know about it and
correct the practice). That leaves (2) or (3). The examples
you mention obviously won't work unless you can produce a
statement of mine saying that others should not do exactly
what I do. You'll find no such statement, either in the
literature to which you are referring, or elsewhere. I'm
omitting the many pure fabrications that accompany these charges.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Why is the Republican spin (propaganda)
so effective with the American public?

Noam Chomsky: It's not so clear that it is all that effective,
a long story. But to some extent it doubtless is effective.
There's no space to go into the matter here, but there is a
perceptive and accurate analysis of the techniques of deceit
and misrepresentation that the current administration has
refined to a high art in a recent book by political scientists
Hacker and Pierson, called "Off Center."

_______________________

Elgin, Ill.: Everyone in basic linguistics knows of your work.
What are you doing these days in linguistics? I've had some
interesting discussions with several neurobiologists... turns
out the Language Organ may actually exist, heh heh.

Noam Chomsky: That a "language organ" exists is almost
impossible to deny. The questions have to do with the nature
of the genetically determined capacities that enable an
infant, but not her pet kitten (songbird, chimp, etc.), to
develop the capacities we are now using, even if they all have
exactly the same data. That's the topic I'm continuing to work
on, as are many others. There are I think quite interesting
recent insights and discoveries, but I can't go into them here.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: From a sociolinguistic perspective, do you think
that the way that the US conveys messages is affecting the
perception of the US negatively in the international
community? If so, what would you suggest to government
officials to keep in mind as they shape public statements?

Noam Chomsky: It's not a matter of public relations and
rhetorical style but of actions. It's the actions and policies
that have left the US government remarkably isolated, feared
and often hated to an extent with no historical precedent.
International polls show that very clearly, in the past few years.

_______________________

Inverness, Fla.: Professor Chomsky,I am curios if you have any
understandings and, or opinions of the global water situation?
Where do you see us in 10-20 years trying to sustain and
distribute water?

Noam Chomsky: I'm no expert on this matter. It is, however,
pretty clear that the problems are severe and perhaps dire.
Right now, huge numbers of people cannot obtain even drinking
water, and the situation is likely to become worse with
predicted climate change and failure to take the actions that
are necessary.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I've read a lot of your works and i can't
figure out where exactly to locate you in terms of political
philosophy: social democrat, socialist, communist? One useful
barometer would be to know if you believe in a right to
private property? if, yes, what are the limits of that right?

Noam Chomsky: The terms have been so debased that they are
hardly usable. I think a decent society should protect rights
to private property within limits, but not concentrations of
private power that infringe on the freedom and rights of
others, including exploitation of labor, and that convert any
democratic forms into what have been called sometimes
"hierarchical democracies," like ours, in which some have
vastly greater influence over public policy than others.
Spelling all of this out is a complex matter that raises many
issue and problems that are impossible to address here.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Noam, there is a general conception that the
public is much more cynical and jaded these days than past;
and yet it also seems that the public is gullible
("Manufacturing Consent"). How can I reconcile these 2
notions? Or is it as simple as anticipating and manipulating
people's distrust (in 9/11's case, xenophobia)?

Noam Chomsky: One should be cautious about "general
conceptions." I think a strong case can be made that activism
today is as high as ever, perhaps more so, and is also taking
new and significant forms. There has never been anything like
the international solidarity movements that began to take
shape in the 1980s, right in the mainstream, or the global
justice movements that have become a very powerful force in
later years. It's true that the society is highly atomized,
which does induce a sense of hopelessness often -- quite
mistakenly I think. There are enormous opportunities to work
for a world that is more free, peaceful and just. The phrase
"manufacturing consent" (which my co-author Edward Herman and
I borrowed from Walter Lippmann) does not have to do with the
success of efforts at manipulation, but rather with the nature
of the institutions dedicated to these efforts, and what they
produce. How effective it is. and among which sectors of the
population, is a different matter.

_______________________

Lancaster, U.K: What do you feel are the limits to 'free
speech' given the arguments recently over racial hatred and
religious intolerance?

Noam Chomsky: My feeling is that the Supreme Court reached a
reasonable standard of protection of speech in the 1960s, a
standard higher than any other country in the world, to my
knowledge. In brief, speech should be protected up to
participation in imminent criminal action. So if you and I go
into a store to rob it, and I say "shoot," that's not
protected. Like all judicial decisions and legislation, this
leaves plenty of gray areas, including many of great
significance that are rarely discussed: advocacy of imminent
war crimes, such as aggression, for example. I think we would
all agree that such speech should be protected, despite the
often horrific consequences, but it's worth noting that that
stretches the doctrine to its limits.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: You stated in a previous response that "It's the
actions and policies that have left the US government
remarkably isolated, feared and often hated to an extent with
no historical precedent. " What if any, have been the most
negative international reaction from those actions which have
adversely affected the US? I am familiar with losing partners
in the "war on terror", but I am looking more at business
decisions of other countries/international corporations.

Noam Chomsky: The response had to do with public opinion.
Business decisions are a different matter.

_______________________

Wellfleet, Mass.: Mr. Chomsky:

Many fear the country is moving towards a "police state" where
the Executive acts according to its desires, without
constraint. What possibilities do you see, if any, for the
trend towards consolidation of power in the Executive to be
thwarted?

Noam Chomsky: The concerns are justified. Thus in this
morning's press it was reported that after signing the new
version of the Patriot Act with grandiose flourishes,
President Bush quietly issued a "signing statement" that
exempted him from its requirement to notify Congress of FBI
actions that go beyond court authorization. That is yet another
brazen affirmation of executive power. There are many others.
There is little doubt that this administration is at an
extreme in seeking to establish a powerful state executive,
free from interference by Congress or public awareness of its
actions. The justification is the "war on terror," but that
can hardly be taken seriously. Terror is doubtless a very
serious threat, but it is all to easy to demonstrate that it
does not rank high in administration priorities.

Though the concerns are valid, we should not exaggerate. The
public is not likely to give up the achievements of centuries
of struggle easily.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you believe that Latin America can be
successful in developing alternatives to Washington Consensus
neoliberal policy and do you believe that Globalization is a
real thing as often portrayed by writers like Thomas Friedman?

Noam Chomsky: The term "globalization," like most terms of
public discourse, has two meanings: its literal meaning, and a
technical sense used for doctrinal purposes. In its literal
sense, "globalization" means international integration. Its
strongest proponents since its origins have been the workers
movements and the left (which is why unions are called
"internationals"), and the strongest proponents today are
those who meet annually in the World Social Forum and its many
regional offshoots. In the technical sense defined by the
powerful, they are described as "anti-globalization," which
means that they favor globalization directed to the needs and
concerns of people, not investors,financial institutions and
other sectors of power, with the interests of people
incidental. That's "globalization" in the technical doctrinal
sense. Latin America is now exploring new and often promising
paths in rejecting the doctrinal notions of "globalization,"
and also in the remarkable growth of popular movements and
authentic participation in the political systems. How
successful this will be is more a matter for action than for
speculation.

_______________________