[Peace-discuss] Some sense on Sunday morning

Sun Jun 15 11:43:11 CDT 2008

[Press TV is an English-language international television news channel funded by 
the Iranian government, based in Tehran and broadcasting in English on a 
round-the-clock schedule <http://www.presstv.ir/>. --CGE]

	Brazen imperialism in the Middle East
	Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:05:51

The following is Press TV's exclusive full-length interview with American 
linguist, philosopher, political activist, author and MIT professor Avram Noam 
Chomsky:

Press TV: How do you characterize this so-called security treaty between 
Washington and Baghdad?

Chomsky: The security arrangement was in fact declared last November. There was 
a declaration from the White House, presumably a Bush-Maliki declaration, but 
had nothing to do with the Congress or Parliament or any other official 
institution. It called for an indefinite long-term US military presence in Iraq 
and that could include the huge air bases that are now being built around Iraq. 
The US is building what's called an embassy but it's unlike any embassy in the 
world. Its essentially a city inside a city. These are all declared intentions 
to retain a permanent dominant presence in Iraq.

The declaration also, a little to my surprise, had a rather brazen statement 
about exploiting the resources of Iraq. It said that the economy of Iraq, which 
means its oil resources, must be open to foreign investment, privileging 
American investors. That's pretty brazen. Now that's brazen imperialism saying 
we invaded you so that we can control your country; and so that our corporations 
can have privileged access to your resources.

It was not at all clear that any Iraqi was ever going to accept this and in the 
steps that had followed as there was an attempt to sort of formulate it, more 
precisely, there have been predictably increasing objections.

Different formulations and so on but without going through the details leading 
to prime minister al-Maliki's recent comment that you quoted.

Press TV: Do you think Nouri al-Maliki will eventually succumb? I mean previous 
occupants of that position, well, they have come and gone. Haven't they?

Chomsky: I mean look the country is under military occupation. It is not a free 
country, so there is a limit on how much any individual can do when your country 
is under military occupation.

The Wall Street Journal, which is not exactly a radical newspaper, states that 
the Maliki government survives only on the basis of US arms. That's an 
exaggeration but not an inconceivable perception, so he might not survive if he 
doesn't accept it.

Press TV: Professor Chomsky, of course, one country that is being blamed by 
Washington is Iran and what's on a lot of minds in the Middle East is this 
drumbeat of war as it were. Do you think the United States wants military action 
and will there be military action against Iran? And how do you characterize the 
IAEA's nuclear negotiation process?

Chomsky: It is interesting, the way everything is blamed on Iran. And that's a 
rather striking reflection of how deep-seated the imperial mentality is in the 
West, so for example when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is asked by the 
press: is there a solution to the problem in Iraq, and she says yes a simple 
solution - foreign forces should be withdrawn and foreign arms should be 
withdrawn, referring of course to Iran -, people don't laugh and collapse in 
ridicule.

I mean, of course, there are foreign forces and foreign arms in Iraq, but not 
Iranian. They are American, but those are not considered foreign forces.

In the Western conception, US and, indeed, much of the West, if our forces are 
anywhere, they are indigenous. They are not foreign because fundamentally there 
is a tacit assumption that we own the world, so our forces are not foreign - 
they are indigenous.

We talk about Iranian interference: it's like talking about Allied interference 
in Nazi occupied Vichy France; it doesn't make any sense, but the mentality 
accepts it.

Now as far as the IAEA is concerned, the United States handed over to the 
international agency a collection of documents recently and the agency says they 
have not received adequate explanation about them from Iran. OK that's where 
things now stand.

I have my own opinion about what ought to be done and, in fact, it happens to be 
the same as the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Americans and also the 
overwhelming majority of Iranians, according to the polls in the two countries, 
namely that the right solution to this problem is to declare a nuclear weapons 
free zone in the entire region which would include Iran, Israel and American 
forces deployed there and so on. About three quarter of Americans are in favor 
of that, and I think that's the right idea!

Press TV: Professor Chomsky, that's obviously not going to happen...

Chomsky: Who says? It won't happen on the assumption that the United States is a 
completely undemocratic country in which public opinion can't influence policy. 
I don't think that's a necessary assumption.

Press TV: We're hearing things from Israel. There were remarks about some 'Iran 
Command' being set up. Of course, we had Seymour Hersh in the United States 
saying that there was going to be an attack on Iran, obviously...

Chomsky: So will it happen you mean. Nobody knows whether it will happen. I mean 
it's conceivable. I mean the whole world is aghast at the possibility. One 
leading British military historian, Corelli Barnett, said it'll mean world war 
III. It will have very serious consequences, undoubtedly, not to speak of what 
would happen to Iran, but it's conceivable that they would be willing to take a 
kind of a wild gamble and just see what happens.

Remember that everything the Bush administration has done, almost without 
exception, has turned into a catastrophe for the interest that they represent. 
And it's possible that they might decide to go out in some blaze of glory just 
to see what happens. Hit the system with a sledgehammer and see what happens. I 
frankly doubt it. I think that as far as anyone can tell, the US military is 
opposed and US intelligence seems to be opposed and surely the world is opposed. 
On whether they will accept those pressures or not, you can't really tell. 
People like Dick Cheney are unpredictable.

Press TV: Professor Chomsky, if people in your own country are opposed to the 
Iraq war, Afghanistan seems to be a sort of good war. There was recently a 
donors' conference in Paris. How do you see the situation in Afghanistan moving 
on with more money from multinational companies, more so-called donors and yet 
the security situation seems to be deteriorating.

Chomsky: Well this is a long topic, and I think we ought to talk about it 
another time, but, very briefly, what matters in this case is the opinion of 
Afghans. And though we don't have very good evidence about that, we have some. 
So, for example, this is a recent study, a very interesting study, a Canadian 
study of Taliban fighters... You know, it seems what they want is to get foreign 
forces out of the country in which case they can accommodate to the rest.

The general opinion in Afghanistan seems to be somewhat similar. They want 
accommodation with the Taliban not war and the majority think it's possible. If 
foreign involvement was reconstruction, that would be accepted undoubtedly, and 
it should be in my opinion not aid but reparations.

Russia, the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have torn this country to 
shreds and they owe reparations for what happened, and then maybe the people can 
accommodate among themselves. That's what diplomacy ought to be pushing for.