[Peace-discuss] Noam Chomsky: An Interview

[C. G. Estabrook]

"*The tea party movement itself is quite small,* though heavily funded and 
granted enormous media attention, Much more significant is the great number of 
Americans, probably a majority, for whom it has some appeal, even though its 
programs would be extremely harmful to their interests if implemented. *There is 
tremendous anger in the country, and bitter opposition to virtually all 
institutions*: government, corporations, banks, professions, the political 
parties (Republicans are even more unpopular than Democrats), etc. At the same 
time, careful studies show that *people largely retain attitudes that are 
basically social democratic*, facts rarely discussed in the media. The anger and 
frustration are understandable: *for about 30 years, real incomes have stagnated 
for the majority, working hours have increased (far beyond Europe), benefits -- 
which were never great -- have declined, while public funds are bailing out the 
rich and economic growth is finding its way into very few pockets.*  In 
manufacturing industry unemployment is at the level of the Great Depression, and 
these jobs are not coming back if the bipartisan policies of financialization of 
the economy and export of production proceed. But anger and frustration can be 
very dangerous, unless focused on the real causes of the plight of the 
population. That is barely happening, and the outcome could be ominous, as 
history more than amply illustrates."

      Noam Chomsky interviewed by Hicham Yezza
      Ceasefire, September 22, 2010

Hicham Yezza: In your recent London lectures, you recounted a wonderful anecdote 
about student radicalism days in MIT and also at the LSE. Do you think the 
intellectual/academic culture has changed drastically since then? You compared 
the Iraq war protest movement favourably to the anti-Vietnam one due, largely, 
to the fact mass opposition to the Iraq war actually started before the 
invasion. Do you still see the anti-Iraq-war movement in that positive light, 
especially considering how small it is now, seven years on?

Noam Chomsky: The anti-Iraq-war movement was always much too small in my view, 
though in fact much larger than the anti-Vietnam-war movement at any comparable 
stage -- a crucial qualification often ignored. I think there is good reason to 
believe that the anti-Iraq-war movement contributed to the US defeat in Iraq as 
contrasted with its considerable victory in Vietnam, already evident 40 years 
ago -- abandonment of core war aims in Iraq, while they were basically achieved 
in Vietnam.

HY: The global recession and crisis in the past two years have yielded a lot of 
popular anger against financial institutions and governmental subservience to 
them. And yet, nothing structural has shifted in terms of people saying: we want 
a different system. Do you think the left has made mistakes in responding to the 
crisis?

NC: A lot more can be done, and should be. To take merely one example, the left 
could be active in efforts by workers and communities to take over production 
that is being shut down by the state-capitalist managers and convert the 
facilities to urgent needs, such as high-speed public transportation and green 
technology. Just one case.

HY: Your 1970 lecture* on 'Government in the Future' is now a classic of the 
genre. Does it still reflect your views entirely or has there been a change? 
Many find it now extremely rare to see this sort of explicit, serious engagement 
with fundamental ideas about how society should be run, as if the case for state 
capitalism has been definitively made and the left should just give up trying to 
argue for radical alternatives. Is this your view? Or do you think the situation 
is more hopeful?

NC: I have not changed my views on these matters -- of course expressed only 
sketchily in this talk. In fact, I had pretty much the same views as a 
teen-ager. The left should very definitely be actively engaged in critical 
analysis of the destructive system of state capitalism and in developing the 
seeds of the future within it, to borrow Bakunin's image. I think there are many 
opportunities, and some of them are being pursued, though still on much too 
limited a scale.

HY: Turning to the Middle East, regarding the movement which calls for 
boycotting, divesting from and sanctioning (BDS) Israel, why do you think there 
is such a drastic disagreement between yourself and people (such as Naomi Klein) 
who traditionally agree with you wholeheartedly on Middle-East and other issues? 
Is this a mere issue of tactics? Is the BDS movement doing more harm than good?

NC: There is an interesting mythology that I have opposed the BDS movement. In 
reality, as explained over and over, I not only support it but was actively 
involved long before the "movement" took shape. BDS is, of course, a tactic. 
That should be understood. Norman Finkelstein warned recently that it sometimes 
appears to be taking on cult-like features. That should be carefully avoided. 
Like all tactics, particular implementations have to be judged on their own 
merits. Here there is room for legitimate disagreement. I have been opposed to 
certain implementations, particularly those that are very likely to harm the 
victims, as unfortunately has happened.

More generally, I think we should question the formulation you gave. It is 
convenient, particularly for Westerners, to regard it as an "anti-Israel 
movement." There are obvious temptations to blaming someone else, but the fact 
of the matter is that Israel can commit crimes to the extent that they are given 
decisive support by the US, and less directly, its allies. BDS actions are both 
principled and most effective when they are directed at our crucial contribution 
to these crimes, without which they would end; for example, boycott of western 
firms contributing to the occupation, working to end military aid to Israel, etc.

HY: My understanding is that you believe a one state solution can only happen 
via a two state solution. Is this correct? If so, do you think a call for a one 
state solution is detrimental to Palestinian interests? Or merely unhelpful?

NC: I have never felt that we must honour the boundaries imposed by imperial 
violence, hence do not see a solution keeping to the Mandatory boundaries as 
something holy, or even desirable in the long-term. A "no-state solution" 
eroding those boundaries is, in my view, both preferable and conceivable, a 
matter I have discussed elsewhere. However, I know of no suggestion as to how to 
reach that goal without proceeding in stages, at first by way of a "one-state" 
(bi-national) solution of the kind I have advocated since the 1940s, and still do.

There have been periods when it was feasible to move fairly directly towards a 
settlement of this sort -- pre-1948 and from 1967 to the mid-70's, and during 
those periods I was quite actively involved in urging direct moves towards such 
a settlement. Since Palestinian nationalism became an active force in the 
international system in the mid-1970s, I know of no suggestion as to how to 
reach this limited goal without proceeding in stages, at first by way of the 
two-state solution of the overwhelming international consensus, blocked for 35 
years by the US (and Israel) with rare and temporary exceptions.

Calling for a one-state (or better, a no-state) settlement is fine, as are many 
other calls, for example, for eliminating nuclear weapons, warding off 
environmental catastrophe, etc. But we should distinguish between "calls" and 
true advocacy, which requires sketching a path from here to there. The latter is 
the more serious and demanding task, both in thought and action.

HY: You have said before that you would accept whatever solution the 
Palestinians/Israelis wanted (one state/two state/etc), but you also said that 
if, for instance, Somalis were in favour of an international course of action 
that, in your view, would actually harm them, you naturally wouldn't participate 
in it. How would you clarify the distinction between the two moral imperatives? 
Is it possible at the same time to listen to the Palestinians' wishes but also 
independently decide what's good for them?

NC: If I said that, it was misleading. I have no authority, right or ability to 
"accept" or "reject" international agreements. Speaking personally, I do not 
regard nation-states as acceptable institutions, except as temporary expedients. 
It is always possible, and often imperative, to decide that the wishes of some 
population are not good for them. We all do it all the time, surely. And if we 
are serious about decent human values, we may often decide not to participate in 
actions that populations choose to carry out. I see no general issues here, 
though particular cases always raise questions.

HY: You've recently dismissed the idea that China and India can pose any serious 
challenge to Western dominance. What will the post-unipolar world look like in 
your view, if current trends continue?

NC: They do pose a serious challenge, something I have been speaking and writing 
about, though much of the excited rhetoric about the topic is highly misleading. 
For many years the world has been becoming more diverse, with more diffusion of 
power. In the past decade, even Latin America -- which the US has traditionally 
taken for granted -- is drifting out of control.

One striking illustration today is Iran's nuclear programs. For the US and most 
of Europe, that is THE problem of the day. This is "the year of Iran" in foreign 
policy circles, and the "Iranian threat" is depicted as the greatest current 
danger facing the world. The US is demanding that China and others meet their 
"international responsibilities": to adhere to unilateral US sanctions, which 
have no force other than what is conferred by power. Few are paying attention. 
Not China, not Brazil, not the nonaligned countries (most of the world), not 
even Iran's neighbors, particularly Turkey.

HY: Recent reports have shown inequality in the US to be greater than ever. And 
yet all we hear of is the rise of the tea party movement and its crusade against 
Obama's "socialist" agenda. Is this because people are campaigning against their 
own interests out of ignorance? Or is it that those who really suffer from 
inequality (the very poor) are completely cut off from the political debate in 
the first place and thus utterly voiceless?

NC: The tea party movement itself is quite small, though heavily funded and 
granted enormous media attention, Much more significant is the great number of 
Americans, probably a majority, for whom it has some appeal, even though its 
programs would be extremely harmful to their interests if implemented. There is 
tremendous anger in the country, and bitter opposition to virtually all 
institutions: government, corporations, banks, professions, the political 
parties (Republicans are even more unpopular than Democrats), etc.

At the same time, careful studies show that people largely retain attitudes that 
are basically social democratic, facts rarely discussed in the media. The anger 
and frustration are understandable: for about 30 years, real incomes have 
stagnated for the majority, working hours have increased (far beyond Europe), 
benefits -- which were never great -- have declined, while public funds are 
bailing out the rich and economic growth is finding its way into very few pockets.

In manufacturing industry unemployment is at the level of the great depression, 
and these jobs are not coming back if the bipartisan policies of 
financialization of the economy and export of production proceed. But anger and 
frustration can be very dangerous, unless focused on the real causes of the 
plight of the population. That is barely happening, and the outcome could be 
ominous, as history more than amply illustrates.

HY: You often state that global warming and nuclear war are the two great 
dangers threatening human life. Why do you think there's such resistance against 
believing in human-caused climate change? It's difficult to put this simply down 
to financial interests since many "sceptics", as they call themselves, seem 
genuinely convinced global warming is some sort of hoax. Are they just blinded 
by propaganda?

NC: There is a very small group of serious scientists who are skeptical about 
global warming. Major sectors of business have been entirely open about the fact 
that they are running propaganda campaigns to convince the public that it is a 
hoax. That is an interesting phenomenon, because those very same corporate 
executives probably share our views on the severity of the crisis. But they are 
acting in their institutional capacity as corporate managers, which require them 
to focus on short term gain and to ignore "externalities," in this case the fate 
of the species.

The problem is institutional, not individual. As for the public, many are 
genuinely confused. That is not surprising when the media present a "debate" 
between two sides -- virtually all scientists versus a scattering of skeptics -- 
while incidentally ignoring almost entirely a much more serious array of 
skeptics within the scientific world, namely those who believe that the general 
scientific consensus is much too optimistic. There are doubtless other reasons 
too. Taking the problem as seriously as we should leads to difficult choices and 
actions. It is easier to transfer the problems somewhere else, in this case to 
the world's poor and to our grandchildren.

HY: We had a discussion recently with some of our readers about independent 
media outlets receiving money from foundations. Some argue this is fundamentally 
wrong because even if it comes with no explicit strings attached, it would still 
affect the way an organisation reports and analyses the news. A case that was 
mentioned was Democracy Now!, which we love. Do you think receiving donations 
from charities/foundations is fine, or is it merely a lesser evil to be avoided 
if possible?

NC: I do not feel that it must be avoided in principle, though naturally 
considerable caution is necessary.

HY: Our next print issue, out in October, will feature a celebration of the late 
Edward Said. Why should young students/activists pay a great deal of attention 
to his legacy?

NC: In his highly original and justly influential scholarly work, and in his 
dedicated and courageous activism in support of suffering and oppressed people, 
Edward Said -- a close and highly valued friend -- was one of those very rare 
figures who actually fulfilled the responsibility of intellectuals that he wrote 
about so compellingly. He is an inspiring model.

chomsky.info
________________________

* I was present to hear this lecture, at MIT in 1970, and I was quite impressed; 
it's still much worth reading.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101028/9351bbad/attachment-0001.html>