[Peace-discuss] Not pessimism but realism

[C. G. Estabrook]

[It's not "What decision will Obama make?"  It's US gangsterism.  --CGE]


	Noam Chomsky: no change in US 'Mafia principle'
	11.01.2009 | Middle East Online	
	Top American intellectual sees no significant change
	of US foreign policy under Obama.
	By Mamoon Alabbasi - LONDON

As civilised people across the world breathed a sigh of relief to see the back 
of former US president George W. Bush, top American intellectual Noam Chomsky 
warned against assuming or expecting significant changes in the basis of 
Washington’s foreign policy under President Barack Obama.

During two lectures organised by the School of Oriental and African Studies 
(SOAS) in London, Chomsky cited numerous examples of the driving doctrines 
behind US foreign policy since the end of World War II.

“As Obama came into office, Condoleezza Rice predicted that he would follow the 
policies of Bush’s second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart 
from a different rhetorical style,” said Chomsky.

“But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric. Deeds commonly tell a 
different story,” he added.

“There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional 
conception that we if can control Middle East energy resources, then we can 
control the world,” explained Chomsky.

Chomsky said that a leading doctrine of US foreign policy during the period of 
its global dominance is what he termed as “the Mafia principle.”

“The Godfather does not tolerate ’successful defiance’. It is too dangerous. It 
must therefore be stamped out so that others understand that disobedience is not 
an option,” said Chomsky.

Because the US sees “successful defiance” of Washington as a “virus” that will 
“spread contagion,” he explained.

Iran

The US had feared this “virus” of independent thought from Washington by Tehran 
and therefore acted to overthrow the Iranian parliamentary democracy in 1953.

“The goal in 1953 was to retain control of Iranian resources,” said Chomsky.

However, “in 1979 the (Iranian) virus emerged again. The US at first sought to 
sponsor a military coup; when that failed, it turned to support Saddam Hussein’s 
merciless invasion (of Iran).”

“The torture of Iran continued without a break and still does, with sanctions 
and other means,” said Chomsky.

“The US continued, without a break, its torture of Iranians,” he stressed.

Nuclear attack

Chomsky mocked the idea presented by mainstream media that a 
future-nuclear-armed Iran may attack already-nuclear-armed Israel.

“The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the 
level of an asteroid hitting the earth — unless, of course, the ruling clerics 
have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated along with 
them,” said Chomsky, stressing that this is not the case.

Chomsky further explained that the presence of US anti-missile weapons in Israel 
are really meant for preparing a possible attack on Iran, and not for 
self-defence, as it is often presented.

“The systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But …the 
purpose of the US interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any 
retaliation to a US or Israeli attack on Iran — that is, to eliminate any 
Iranian deterrent,” said Chomsky.

Iraq

Chomsky reminded the audience of America’s backing of former Iraqi President 
Saddam Hussein during and even after Iraq’s war with Iran.

“The Reaganite love affair with Saddam did not end after the (Iran-Iraq) war. In 
1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the United States, then under 
Gorge Bush I, to receive advanced weapons’ training,” said Chomsky.

This support continued while Saddam was committing atrocities against his own 
people, until he fell out of US favour when in 1990 he invaded Kuwait, an even 
closer alley of Washington.

“In 1990, Saddam defied, or more likely misunderstood orders, and he quickly 
shifted from favourite friend to the reincarnation of Hitler,” Chomsky added.

Then the people of Iraq were subjected to “genocidal” US-backed sanctions.

Chomsky explained that although the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was 
launched under many false pretexts and lies, was a ” major crime”, many critics 
of the invasion - including Obama - viewed it as merely as “a mistake” or a 
“strategic blunder”.

“It’s probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after 
Stalingrad,” he said

“There’s nothing principled about it. It wasn’t a strategic blunder: it was a 
major crime,” he added.

Chomsky credited the holding of elections in Iraq in 2005 to popular Iraqi 
demand, despite initial US objection.

The US military, he argued, could kill as many Iraqi insurgents as it wished, 
but it was more difficult to shoot at non-violent protesters in the streets out 
on the open, which meant Washington at times had to give in to public Iraqi 
pressure.

But despite being pressured to announce a withdrawal from Iraq, the US continues 
to seek a long term presence in the country.

The US mega-embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under Obama, noted Chomsky.

Optimism

Chomsky stressed that public pressure in the ‘West’ can make a positive 
difference for people suffering from the aggression of ‘Western’ governments.

“There is a lot of comparison between opposition to the Iraq war with opposition 
to the Vietnam war, but people tend to forget that at first there was almost no 
opposition to the Vietnam war,” said Chomsky.

“In the Iraq war, there were massive international protests before it officially 
stated… and it had an effect. The United Sates could not use the tactics used in 
Vietnam: there was no saturation bombing by B52s, so there was no chemical 
warfare - (the Iraq war was) horrible enough, but it could have been a lot 
worse,” he said.

“And furthermore, the Bush administration had to back down on its war aims, step 
by step,” he added.

“It had to allow elections, which it did not want to do: mainly a victory for 
non-Iraqi protests. They could kill insurgents; they couldn’t deal hundreds of 
thousands of people in the streets. Their hands were tied by the domestic 
constraints. They finally had to abandon - officially at least - virtually all 
the war aims,” said Chomsky.

“As late as November 2007, the US was still insisting that the ‘Status of Forces 
Agreement’ allow for an indefinite US military presence and privileged access to 
Iraq’s resources by US investors - well they didn’t get that on paper at least. 
They had to back down. OK, Iraq is a horror story but it could have been a lot 
worse,” he said

“So yes, protests can do something. When there is no protest and no attention, a 
power just goes wild, just like in Cambodia and northern Louse,” he added.

Turkey

Chomsky said that Turkey could become a “significant independent actor” in the 
region, if it chooses to.

“Turkey has to make some internal decisions: is it going to face west and try to 
get accepted by the European Union or is it going to face reality and recognise 
that Europeans are so racist that they are never going to allow it in?,” said 
Chomsky.

The Europeans “keep raising the barrier on Turkish entry to the EU,” he explained.

But Chomsky said Turkey did become an independent actor in March 2003 when it 
followed its public opinion and did not take part in the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Turkey took notice of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its population, 
which opposed the invasion.

But ‘New Europe’ was led by Berlusconi of Italy and Aznar of Spain, who rejected 
the views of their populations - which strongly objected to the Iraq war - and 
preferred to follow Bush, noted Chomsky.

So, in that sense Turkey was more democratic than states that took part in the 
war, which in turn infuriated the US.

Today, Chomsky added, Turkey is also acting independently by refusing to take 
part in the US-Israeli military exercises.

Fear factor

Chomsky explained that although ‘Western’ government use “the maxim of 
Thucydides” (’the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must’), 
their peoples are hurled via the “fear factor”.

Via cooperate media and complicit intellectuals, the public is led to believe 
that all the crimes and atrocities committed by their governments is either 
“self defence” or “humanitarian intervention”.

NATO

Chomsky noted that Obama has escalated Bush’s war in Afghanistan, using NATO.

NATO is also seen as reinforcing US control over energy supplies.

But the US also used NATO to keep Europe under control.

“From the earliest post-World War days, it was understood that Western Europe 
might choose to follow an independent course,” said Chomsky.”NATO was partially 
intended to counter this serious threat,” he added.

Middle East oil

Chomsky explained that Middle East oil reserves were understood to be “a 
stupendous source of strategic power” and “one of the greatest material prizes 
in world history,” the most “strategically important area in the world,” in 
Eisenhower’s words.

Control of Middle East oil would provide the United States with “substantial 
control of the world.”

This meant that the US “must support harsh and brutal regimes and block 
democracy and development” in the Middle East.

Somalia

Chomsky tackled the origins of the Somali piracy issue.

“Piracy is not nice, but where did it come from?”

Chomsky explained that one of the immediate reasons for piracy is European 
counties and others are simply “destroying Somalia’s territorial waters by 
dumping toxic waste - probably nuclear waste - and also by overfishing.”

“What happens to the fishermen in Somalia? They become pirates. And then we’re 
all upset about the piracy, not about having created the situation,” said Chomsky.

Chomsky went on to cite another example of harming Somalia.

“One of the great achievements of the war on terror, which was greatly hailed in 
the press when it was announced, was closing down an Islamic charity - Barakat - 
which was identified as supporting terrorists.

“A couple of months later… the (US) government quietly recognised that they were 
wrong, and the press may have had a couple of lines about it - but meanwhile, it 
was a major blow against Somalia. Somalia doesn’t have much of an economy but a 
lot of it was supported by this charity: not just giving money but running banks 
and businesses, and so on.

“It was a significant part of the economy of Somalia…closing it down… was 
another contributing factor to the breaking down of a very weak society…and 
there are other examples.”

Darfur

Chomsky also touched on Sudan’s Darfur region.

“There are terrible things going on in Darfur, but in comparison with the region 
they don’t amount to a lot unfortunately - like what’s going on in eastern Congo 
is incomparably worse than in Darfur.

“But Darfur is a very popular topic for Western humanists because you can blame 
it on an enemy - you have to distort a lot but you can blame it on ‘Arabs’, ‘bad 
guys’,” he explained.

“What about saving eastern Congo where maybe 20 times as many people have been 
killed? Well, that gets kind of tricky … for people who… are using minerals from 
eastern Congo that obtained by multinationals sponsoring militias which 
slaughter and kill and get the minerals,” he said.

Or the fact that Rwanda is simply the worst of the many agents and it is a US 
alley, he added.

Goldstone’s Gaza report

Chomsky appeared to have agreed with Israel that the Goldstone report on the 
Gaza war was bias, only he saw it as biased in favour of Israel.

The Goldstone report had acknowledged Israel’s right to self-defence, although 
it denounced the method this was conducted.

Chomsky stressed that the right to self-defence does not mean resorting to 
military force before “exhausting peaceful means”, something Israel did not even 
contemplate doing.

In fact, Chomsky points out, it was Israel who broke the ceasefire with Hamas 
and refused to extend it, as continuing the siege of Gaza itself is an act of war.

As for the current stalled Mideast peace process, Chomsky said that despite 
adopting a tougher tone towards Israel than that of Bush, Obama made no real 
effort to pressure Israel to live up to its obligations.

In the absence of the threat of cutting US aid for Israel, there is no 
compelling reason why Tel Aviv should listen to Washington.

What can be done?

Chomsky stressed that despite all the obstacles, public pressure can and does 
make a difference for the better, urging people to continue activism and 
spreading knowledge.

“There is no reason to be pessimistic, just realistic.”

Chomsky noted that public opinion in the US and Britain is increasingly becoming 
more aware of the crimes committed by Israel.

“Public opinion is shifting substantially.”

And this is where a difference can be made, because Israel will not change its 
policies without pressure from the ‘West’.

“There is a lot to do in Western countries…primarily in the US.”

Chomsky also stressed the importance of taking legal action in ‘Western’ 
countries against companies breaking international law via illegitimate dealings 
with Israel, citing the possible involvement of British Gas in Israeli theft of 
natural gas off the coast of Gaza, as one example that should be investigated.

In conclusion of one of the lectures, Chomsky quoted Antonio Gramsci who 
famously called for “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.”

Mamoon Alabbasi can be reached via: alabbasi at middle-east-online.com .