[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on MENA

[C. G. Estabrook]

Strikes will 'antagonise' many in Arab world, says Chomsky

Military intervention in Libya is a serious mistake, activist Noam Chomsky tells 
SAUNDRA SATTERLEE

NOAM CHOMSKY wrote about the Spanish Civil War at the age of 10 for his school 
newspaper, was briefly jailed with Norman Mailer in 1967 for an anti-Vietnam 
protest at the Pentagon, and last May was detained by the Israelis when he tried 
to enter the West Bank via Jordan.

A world-renowned scholar and retired professor of linguistics at Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, he remains, at age 82, a robust political activist and 
a stinging critic of US foreign policy.

Chomsky warns that direct military intervention in Libya will turn out to be a 
serious mistake.

“When the United States, Britain and France opt for military intervention, we 
have to bear in mind that these countries are hated in the region for very good 
reasons. The rich and powerful can say history is bunk but victims don’t have 
that luxury,” he says.

“Threatening moves, I’m sure, evoke all sorts of terrible thoughts and memories 
in the region – and many people across Africa and the Arab world will be 
seriously antagonised by military intervention.”

Chomsky adds that in Egypt public opinion polls have shown about 90 per cent of 
the population thinks the US is the worst threat they face.

He stresses that Libya is a humanitarian problem. “It is also a civil war and 
intervening in a civil war is a complicated business,” he says. “We may not like 
it, but there is support for Gadafy.”

On the subject of Palestine, recent events in North Africa do not bode well if a 
reported request by the Israeli government for $20 billion from the US – as a 
force for stability in the region – is anything to go by.

“This would, predictably, be used to establish more firmly Israel’s control over 
what is left of Palestine and maintain Israel’s capacity to carry out aggressive 
actions. It doesn’t mean that Israel will succeed in obtaining these funds from 
the US but the intent is clear,” says Chomsky.

He envisages a repositioning of US power across North Africa, especially in Egypt.

He believes the Wall Street Journal accurately observed that the West – the US 
in particular – now has a problem.

“It hasn’t yet figured out how to control the new rising elements; the 
assumption is of course that we have to control them,” he says.

On shifts in western alliances with authoritarian regimes, Chomsky says that in 
a long series of cases it became impossible for the West to support its 
favourite dictators.

“At that point there’s a game plan that goes into operation. It’s being followed 
in the Arab world, basically to send dictators out to pasture when you can’t 
support them any longer and produce ringing declarations of your love of 
democracy,” he says.

Saudi Arabia provides an example of the contradiction in western policy, he says.

“Saudi Arabia is the centre of radical Islamism. It has also been the major ally 
of the United States and Britain, which have tended over the years to support 
radical Islam in opposition to secular nationalism. Saudi Arabia is a pretty 
harsh dictatorship. Prior to the recent Day of Rage the government made it clear 
that it would not be tolerated – and it wasn’t.”

Further to this, we have seen Saudi troops dispatched into Bahrain with grim 
consequences.

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton 
and British foreign secretary William Hague met in Geneva on February 28th to 
promote the case for the prosecution of Gadafy by the International Criminal 
Court (ICC).

“One question is whether that would interfere with a preferable option, namely 
getting Gadafy out of the country.

“Furthermore, as far as the ICC is concerned, we cannot overlook the fact that 
for most of the world it is regarded as a symbol of western hypocrisy,” he says.

He wonders why George Bush and Tony Blair were not taken to the ICC for invading 
Iraq.

“This is the rich and powerful exempting themselves. And that doesn’t mean that 
the ICC is worthless, but it certainly undermines its claim of integrity,” he says.

On the subject of oil and current events across North Africa and the Middle 
East, Chomsky says: “The overriding concern for control over oil has dominated 
British policy for a century and US policy for almost that long. Of course that 
will remain.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0321/1224292709087.html