-->
1.
28Jul2002
2.
Canadian Broadcasting Program, Hot Type
with Evan Solomon
3.
Is the United States of America leading
terrorist State? Due to war in Afghanistan, American (unclear) proves George
Bush qualifies as war criminal? Well, according to Noam Chomsky, America's most
famous dissident in (unclear), Yes. We met him in Cambridge and talked about
many things including his new book, 9/11. In the hysterical days following
SeptemberElevenAttacks, when George Bush reduce the world in two camps, Either
you're with us or you're against us. Two voice of dissent distinguish
themselves. First, Susan Sontag. And then, Noam Chomsky. Both refused to buy
into George Bush's reductive world view. They reminded Americans their own
Government criminal actions around the world. Noam Chomsky is, of course, MIT
Linguistics Professor, who famously popularised the concept of
ManufacturingConsent. For years, he's written about how the West uses
propagandastic press to coerce its own citizens and how it uses covert forms of
violence to maintain power around the world. Chomsky was overwhelmed with media
requests about SeptemberEleven. So his new book, 9/11, is a collection of interviews
he gave after the event in the following months. Interestingly, 9/11 has been a
best-seller despite the fact that it has total lack of publicity. I met Noam
Chomsky in Cambridge about post-NineEleven world and how things have changed
since then. But I began by asking him to explain how the war in Afghanistan, as
an example, how the US, in his mind, is a leading terrorist state.
4.
[omitted from braodcast 1, start]
5.
I want to start off by reading a quotation from your most
recent compendium of interviews, 9-11. You wrote, "If US chooses to
respond to the attacks of September 11th by escalating the cycle of violence,
which is most likely what bin Laden and his associates hope for, the
consequences could be awesome." Now, US did.
6.
They didn't.
7.
You don't think they did?
8.
You have to remember when that was. That was late
September. At that point, the Bush administration was talking as though they
were going to carry out a massive bombing campaign against the civilian
population with no thought about the consequences. They were being told at the
time, from every source, European leaders, intelligence agencies, I'm sure
their own as well, that, if they did that, it would be a gift to bin Laden.
That's exactly what he wanted. The French Foreign Minister called it an Afghan
trap.
9.
But they did go into Afghanistan.
10.
No, they didn't. They did it in a way that would keep the
attack on the population silent. They focused the bombing on military forces,
Taliban military forces primarily, not on a massive attack. They didn't carry
out a massive attack against a civilian population. Actually, they did, but it
was indirect. It was through increasing the threat of starvation and death from
disease. Their own estimates were that they were putting a couple of million
people at risk of starvation, and that's probably correct. But that's silent,
you don't see people die of starvation.
11.
But did they pursue? I mean, you said that originally,
after the SeptemberEleven attacks, that the United States ought to treat this
as a crime, not as a war. George Bush then called it a "War on
Terrorism." Now first, what's the distinction between treating it as a
crime and war and how have those approaches affected what's happening?
12.
Well, that's what I said then, but that has since become
a very public position, not by me, but by conservative mainstream opinion. So
for example, let's take the January issue of Foreign Affairs [magazine] the main
establishment journal. There's an article by the leading Anglo-American
military historian, Michael Howard, very conservative, very respected, all the right credentials.
He thinks British Imperialism was wonderful and the American version was even
better, but he points out the same thing. He says, if there's a crime, a major
crime, crime against humanity, the way to deal with it is by careful police
work, to identify the perpetrators and then, since this is an international
crime, request international authorization, which was never received or asked
for, to bring them to justice. And then trial in an independent court.
13.
And that's the right way?
14.
An independent court will give a fair trial. Now that's a
position from the right wing in the main establishment journal in the United
States.
15.
And you support that?
16.
That's what I said last September. Yes, I think that's
the right way to deal with crimes.
17.
Now what if I say to you Bush has pursued a somewhat
similar policy?
18. [omitted
from broadcast 1, end]
19. October
12th, I guess, a couple of days after the bombing started, Bush publicly
announced to the Afghan people that we will continue to bomb you unless your
leadership turns over to us. People who we suspect are carry out crimes, although
we refuse to give any evidence, probably because they don't have any. We dismiss
without any comment, the offers of your leadership. Negotiations of
extradition. Notice that that's a textbook illustration of international terrorism.
That is, by the US official definition. That is, the use of threat and force
and use of violence, in this case, extreme violence, to attain political ends
through intimidation, fear, and so on. That's the official definition and it's
a textbook illustration of it. Three weaks later, by the end of October, warheads
were changed. They were first announced, as far as I can find out, by British
Defense Minister, Michael Boyce, Admiral Boyce, British Defense Minister. He
informed the Afghan population that we will continue to bomb you until you
change your leadership. That's even more dramatic illustration of international
terrorism if not regression. That was the, that was the the goal that was followed.
This has nothing to do with finding criminals and bringing them to Justice.
It's totally different issue.
20. If
the United States is a leading terrorist State, and if, as you say, Britain is
another example of a terrorist State, how do you distinguish between that kind
of what you described as terrorism and what they are saying Osama bin Laden who
is terrorist. Make a distinction.
21. That's
very simple. If they do it, it's terrorism. If we do it, it's
counter-terrorism. That's Historical universal. If you look at Nazi propaganda,
the most extreme mass murderers ever. If you look at Nazi propaganda, it's
exactly what they said. They said they were defending the population and
legitimate Governments in Europe, like Vichy, from the terrorist, terrorist
partisans who are directed from London. That's the basic propaganda line. Like all propaganda, no matter how vulgar, it has an element
of truth. The point is, they did carry out terror. They were directed from
London. Vichy Government is not as legitimate as half the US installed around
the world. So, yes, it has minor element of truth to it. And that's the way it
works. If somebody else carries it out, it's terror. If we carry it out, it's
counter-terror. I think perhaps one of the most dramatic examples right at this
moment is the place where I just was a couple of weeks ago, South Eastern
Turkey. South Eastern Turkey is the site of one of the, some of the worst terrorist
atrocities in 1990s. This is the.
22. Attack on the Curds.
23. Attack
on the Curds. Left of couple of millions of refugees. Much of the countryside
devastated. Tens of thousands of people killed. Every barbarian form of torture
you can dream of. It's all well documented. Human Rights reports. How did they
do it? They did it with huge full(?) of US arms. It peaked at 1997. In the
single year of 1997, in that one year, the arms transferred to Turkey from the
United State were higher than entire Cold War period. Up until insurgency
started, counter-insurgency started. But look at the way it's treated. Look at
the way it's treated. This massive international terrorisms, run, supported by
United States, is considered a great triumph for counter-terrorism. So if you
read State Department's reports on terror, they praise Turkey for its success
in showing how to counter terror. Front page article of New York Times praises
Turkey for showing how to deal with terror. Turkey was selected as the country
to provide interna, the forces, for what they called international force for
Afghanistan. Actually, it's Kaboul alone. It's Turkey that's being offered,
it's being paid by the United States, extensively to carry out the repression
of terror thanks to their achievement in countering terror. Namely by carrying
out some of the worst terrors in 1990s. Massive ethnic cleansing and atrocities
with US support. This takes, this is really achivement of an intellectual culture
to be able to do this. It illustrate very well to answer your questions on
terror and counter-terror. If some enemy states did this, we'd be, you know, not
just outraged, we'd be bombing.
24. [omitted
from broadcast 2, start]
25.
Is Bush justified in calling Bin Laden a terrorist when,
as you say, he's running a terrorist State himself?
26.
Yeah, I agree that he should call him a terrorist.
27.
But you say even Jonathan Swift would be baffled at the
irony of that?
28.
To say that bin Laden is a terrorist, a murderous
terrorist is certainly correct, but what about Clinton? I just described one of
his minor escapades in Turkey. This example is particularly striking, not only
because of the massive atrocities, but because of the way it's treated, and
because remember this was at the same time when there was an orgy of
self-congratulation among Western intellectuals because of their magnificence
in opposing terrorism by bombing Serbia because of what Milosevic had done in Kosovo.
29. [omitted
from braodcast 2, end]
30. All
right, when we come back, Noam Chomsky says that, nations such as United States
should acknowledge their own crime before talking about Right and Wrong. And he
says a lot more than that. So ["]stick around["] for more Noam Chomsky.
31. Let's
talk about Middle East, for example, where Sharon says we are experiencing
terrorist bombings, and therefore we have to have big operation in the
West Bank and root out terrorism. And people say, "Hey, you are violating
human rights". Israelis say, "There's no equivalency between suicide
bombings and protecting our security". Palestinans says "There's no
equivalency between suicide bombings and the occupation."
32. This
is the 35th year of a harsh and brutal, vicious occupation, supported
uni-laterally by the United States. Constant terror and atrocities. Suppose Palestinians say, "Well, we're under terrorist
attack for 35 years, therefore we have a right to carry out suicide bombs."
33. Which is what they said.
34. Do you accept this? Does anybody accept it?
35. Nobody accepts it.
36. Then, how come everyone accepts the Israeli's claim to be doing it, which
is much weaker claim, because, after all, there is no symmetry in the
situation. They are the military occupiers.
Palestinian is not occupying Israel. And this hasn't just started now, it has
gone on years ago.
37. So,
that does, in your mind, justify....
38. No,
of course not. It doesn't, anybody.
39. It
invalidates both sides.
40. Those
who defend suicide bombing, and they are very few, they don't have a ["]leg["]
to stand on. Those who defend Israeli atrocities, including the US Government, most
intellectual opinion, good bit of West, generally. They don't have a
["]leg["] to stand on, either. They have a much weaker position. We
are back to Turkey again. Take the Powell mission. Powell is praised because
he's such a wonderful diplomat. He succeded, he went to Yasser Arafat who's
imprisoned in a dungeon, where he can't even flush the toilet. And extracted
from him the statement from him, codemning terror. Did anybody request, suggest
that Powell should have requested, suggest that Sharon condemn Israeli atrocities?
Did anyone suggest that Powell asked George Bush to condemn the fact that he's being
sending Israel apache attack helicopters which has been devastating Jenin?
41. But
the UN's been condemning...
42. Oh,
no, no. You don't understand my point. Did anybody suggest, can you find a word
in the press anywhere, just anywhre, just Powell should have requested condemnation
of Israeli terror of Sharon and US backing of their terror by Bush? That's a thought that couldn't even enter anybody's mind. And
the reason is because of our profound commitment to terror and violence.
When it's commited by our clients and by ourselves that it's so deep that we can't
even think of the question.
43. You
asked after 9/11, that we ought to look into the mirror. We being American or
the West, Look at the mirror. At our own. Was that a way of saying, "People
like bin Laden are angry at us for a good reason". In another words, Is
there a way to justify... (Another typical attempt to distort meaning of a
sentence.)
44. No,
that's not what I was saying. Statement of mine you just quoted is a very
conservative statement. In fact, it was articulated by George Bush's favorite
philosopher, Jesus Christ, who pointed out, famously, define the notion of
hypocrite. Hypocrite is a person who focuses on other fellow's crimes and refuses
to look at his own. That's the definition of hypocrite by George Bush's
favorite philospher. When I repeat that, I'm not taking a radical position. I'm
taking a position which is just elementary Morality.
45. But
even if he is a hypocrite...
46. Not
he, everyone.
47. Okay,
even if...
48. Let
me ask. Another question. See, here's an experiment. Try to find a phrase in
massive commentary on 9/11, which is not hypocritical in the sense of George
Bush's favorite philosopher. Find one phrase. I don't think you can do it.
49. Before..
I don't want to get Gnostic here and religious on it. But I do want...
50. This is not Religion. It is elementary Morality. If people cannot
rise to the level of applying to ourselves the same standard we apply to
others, they have no right to talk about Right and Wrong, or Good and Evil.
51. Let's
talk about even in Right. Look, there's nobody pure. But an argument has been
made, I know that US commited atrocities. However, they did oust more brutal
regime than Taliban. There was a celebration. There was a war aim.
52. There
wasn't even a war
aim. There wasn't even a war aim. There wasn't even a war aim.
53. But,
is that a Moral thing to do? They did get rid of a brutal regime. There was a celebration.
54. Fine,
let them bomb Israel and get rid of brutal regime there. Let them bomb Uzbekistan and get rid
of brutal regime there.
55. You're
saying that Talibans and Israelis got rid of United States?
56. No,
they're not saying they're brutal regimes. Goal was not to oust the Taliban.
That was not a war aim. That was war aim that was picked up several weeks after
the bombing started, okay? Let's go back. Suppose th.., there are dozen, I can
list all brutal regimes around the world, which ought to be overthrown, but not
by somebody bombing. However, let's go back to the late October. When, after
three weeks of bombing, when the US and British client decided to shift the war
aims to overthrow the Tabiban regime.
57. [omitted
from braodcast 3, start]
58.
Well, how do you proceed to do that? There are
differences of opinion. For example, there was an Afghan position on this right
at that time, late October. There was a meeting sponsored by the United States
in Peshawar, Pakistan of a thousand Afghan leaders, tribal
leaders, some of them came in from Afghanistan, others were in Pakistan. These
are political leaders, tribal leaders, others supported and backed by the
United States. Now they disagreed on all sorts of things, but they did agree on
one thing, namely they unanimously condemned the bombing and said it was
undermining their efforts, which they thought could succeed to overthrow the
Taliban regime from within.
59.
Two weeks before that the US favorite Abdul Hak went into Afghanistan, turned out he was killed because
he didn't get any Western support, but he want in to Afghanistan to try to
organize opposition to the Taliban. Right before he went in, he had a long
interview with a publication distributed by the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, in which he bitterly condemned the US bombing. He said
the same thing as the 1000 tribal leaders. He said it's undermining them. He
said the US is doing it just to show off their muscle, they don't care what
happens to Afghanistan. They're undermining attempts which will succeed, he
thought, to undermine the Taliban regime from within and overthrow it. The
leading women's group in Pakistan, RAWA, which has been fighting courageously
for years for women's rights, took exactly the same position. So there are
ideas about how to overthrow the Taliban, did anybody pay attention? No,
because exactly as Abdul Hak said, the US and Britain wanted to show their muscle.
60. [omitted
from broadcast 3, end]
61. There
was a meeting sponsored by United States in, Peshawar, Pakistan.
About a thousand Afghan leaders, who unanimously condemned the bombing. They said
it was undermining their efforts, which they thought would succeed to overthrow
the Tabiban regime from within. US was doing just to
show off their muscle. [sound manipulation]
62. Now...
63. The
question of overthrowing regimes, that arises. I think the Afghans are right.
Regime should be overthrown from within. And, in this case, it was probably very
likely that it would [have] succeed succeeded. There was a small, brutal
group. Highly unpopular, plenty of opposition to it, which could have been
organised from within. And that's the way to overthrow a regime. If we want to
overthrow a regime of Uzbekistan, now our great favorite but happens to be not
very different from Taliban. The way to do it would not be to bomb Uzbekistan but to
support internal Democratic forces and let them do it. That generalises around
the world.
64. Robert
Kaplan, who writes about Foreign Policy. I spoke to him about his book, Warrior Politics. I put
some of your points to him. He said, about the distinction between terrorist States,
you call Israel, America, and the terrorist states America calls Taliban. He
said, "I wish Noam Chomsky had been with me in Roumania in 70s or 80s, just
one of the seven or eight Warsaw States. Which is one of the several prison
systems with 700 000 political prisoners. I don't choice a Adult choice
of Foreign Policy as made under distinctions. Argument that Chomsky makes has
no distinctions because there's a difference between ((quantity and the kind of
dictators that America supported) and (the quantity and kind of things we went
in Communist world for 44 years.))"
65. So,
let's take his example. Roumania, Ceaușescu, hideous regime.
66. Yeah.
67. Which he forgot to tell you that United States supported.
Supported right til the end as did Britain.
68. [omitted
from broadcast 4, start]
69.
When Ceaușescu came to London he was feted by Margaret Thatcher. [Of
course.] When George Bush the First [George HW Bush] came into office, I think
the first person he invited to Washington was Ceaușescu. Yes, Romania was a miserable, brutal regime supported
by the United States right til the end, as Robert
Kaplan knows very well, so the example he gave is a perfect example.
70.
It wasn't supported by the States in the 70s though?
71.
In the 70s, in the 80s, right to the end of Ceaușescu's rule. It was supported by the United States. The
reasons had to do with great power politics. They were sort of breaking Warsaw Pact policies and so on, but the very example he picks illustrates it
and we can proceed onward.
72. [omitted
from broadcast 4, end]
73. So
the example that he gave is a perfect example. [sound
manipulation] And it's a small example because we support much more
brutal regimes.
74. [omitted
from broadcast 5, start]
75. It has nothing to do with Cold War issues.
76. [omitted from broadcast 5, end]
77. I
gave you example in South Eastern Turkey. Several million refuges, tens of
thousands of people killed, country devastated, that's rather serious. It's a,
Nobody accused Milosevic in Kasova. East Timor... We supported... Forget...
Indonesia.
78. Indonesia.
79. Indonesia,
Souharto, one of
the worst killer and torturist in the late 20th century. United States and
Britian supported him throughout. "He's our kind of guy.", as the
Clinton administration said in 1995. Horrible atrocities. In fact, when he came
in the office in 1965 with a coup, CIA compared it to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
It led to total euphoria in the United States and Britain. Massive support. When
he carried out even worse, more, comparable atrocities elsewhere, couple of
hundreds of thousands of people killed then, couple hundres of thousands later.
Full support. Continued right through the end of his rule. In fact, continued
past his rule. In late 1999, when they were rampaging and destroying (what's
left of (east of Timore)), US and Britain continued to support him. And I can
continue through the world like this.
80. Kaplan
says that there is a distinction. Everyone has got some blood on their hands. He
says, "Ah, we have significantly less blood."
81. Less
blood?
82. "Because
we are soft Imperalist."
83. Really?
84. "Not
State terrorist."
85. Like,
when we supported his example, Ceaușescu
in Roumania, right til the end, that's good? How about killing several million
people in Vietnam? How about killing hundred of thousands of people in Central
America in the 80s, leaving four countries devastated beyond, uh, uh, you know,
beyond, maybe beyond recovery.
86. That
qualifies US intervening in any other way?
87. No,
it doesn't. No, it doesn't. The fact that bin Laden is a terrorist, or let's
say, Taliban are a terrorist State, that fact doesn't disqualify [qualify]
them from bombing Washington [D.C.]. What disqualifies [them] from doing that is
even Mahhatma Ghandi shouldn't do it. Kaplan can't
understand trivialities. Triviality here is, nobody accepts ultra right-wing
jingoist, like Kaplan, is comparing atrocities by various countries. What
honest people are saying is, it seems to be incomprehensible, [is that] we
should keep to the elementary Moral levels of the Gospels. We should pay
attention to our own crimes and stop commiting them. This would be true even if
we were killing even one person, okay? And it's even more true when we are
killing millions of people.
88. Let's
bring it to the bigger picture. Because, the question is. We all agree with the
Gospel.
89. He
doesn't. He doesn't. He certainly doesn't.
90. Hobbsian
world, this is what he says, nasty, if we leave people alone, they'll kill each
other. That's why what you need is what he calls organising hegemony, overwhelmed
(overwhelming) will and power. Which is sometimes. Which is always asked, he
says.
91. And
why is it us? Because we have the power. And we have a massively
subservient intellectual class, of which he's an illustration, which would
support US atrocities, no matter how awful they are.
92. He
says, Real Politic. That Chomsky's often on another land with his Gospel. That
he says, "Look..."
93. Forget Gospel. I'm talking about the most elementary Morality. If a
person doesn't understand that, they have no right to talk, okay? If
you don't understand you [should] pay attention to your own crimes, you have no
right to talk.
94. He
talks about Machivellian virtue. Sometimes, we do bad things to protect our
Democratic, good institution, and Just society. How do you...
95. How
are we protecting our Democratic institutions by supporting mass slaughter in
South Eastern Turkey in the last few years? Was that supporting our Democratic
institutions?
96. Was
it supporting?
97. Our
Democratic institutions.
98. Not
ours, but Kaplan would argue that nation State has a
right to use any means necessary to protect its sovereignty.
99. Oh
then, he's justifying Milosevic, he's saying Milosevic had a
right to do anything he wanted to repress Kosovars in Albania, is that
what he's saying?
100.
[omitted from broadcast 6, start]
101.
I think he would not say that.
102.
Why not?
103.
He would say that violates virtue.
104.
Oh, so when they do it, it violates virtue, but
when we do it it's virtuous?
105.
Should there be an organizing
hegemony,
106.
[omitted from broadcast 6, end]
107.
do we need constabulary, a force, a central
force, in this case, it's America, because it's superpower to, sometimes, to
use Unjust means in the service of Just causes?
108.
What are the Just causes? What was the
Just cause in, for example, slaughtering Kurds in South Eastern Turkey, what was the Just
cause? What was the Just cause in supporting Souharto when he
wiped, when he killed a couple of hundres of thousands of landless peasant in
Indonesia, went on, become one of the biggest torturers in the world and then destroy,
slaughter a third of the population of East Timore. What was the Just cause?
What was the Just cause when we invaded South Vietnam forty years ago, this is (the
40th anniversary of (the public announcement of the US attack on South Vietnam)),
ending up killing millions of people, leaving the country devastated, they
still die from chemical warfare, what was the Just cause? What was the Just
cause when we fought a war, to a large extent, against the Catholic Church in
Central America in 1980s, killing hundreds of thousands of people, every
imaginable kind of torture and devastation, what was the Just cause? Can I
continue? Yeah, the Just cause, for people like Kaplan,
is "We did it therefore it is Just cause." You can read that
in the Nazi archives, too.
109.
[omitted from broadcast 7, start]
110.
It's no great secret that we function by
self-interest. Self-interest is part of Foreign Policy. We're here to protect
our policy, protect the interests of our policy, in this case of the Americans.
(Finally his expresses what he really thinks.)
111.
Was the self-interest of the American people served by
slaughters in southeastern Turkey, or by destroying Vietnam, or by turning El
Salvador and Guatemala into cemeteries? Was the self-interest of the
American people served by that? No. The self-interest served by that is foreign
policy elites and the power centers they represent, which are not protecting
the American people, they're protecting their own power, profit, dominance, and
hegemony, like others around the world. And they count
on intellectuals of the Robert Kaplan type to applaud any atrocity they carry
out.
112.
[omitted from broadcast 7, end]
113.
All right, when we come back, Noam
Chomsky's always controversial views on Israel and his idea for solving
problems with international law. So, stick around for more Noam Chomsky.
114.
Hitchens says, "We've seen the
enemies and the enemy isn't us. It's the Isalmic Fascists."
115.
Okay.
116.
"We don't want to live with them.
We don't want to negotiate with them. We must destroy them. Ergo, war against
Taliban. Justified. War against Al Aqsa Brigades. Justified." He has different distinction.
But "We see the face of the enemy and we should do everything to root them
out." How do you respond to that argument?
117.
I respond to that by saying that they
are many evil forces in the world. If we want to stop atrocities. I think it's
a great idea to reduce the level of atrocities and violence around the world. The
easiest way to do it is simplest, it is to stop participating in it. If we stop
participating in it, we will [have] already reduce [reduced] the level
of violence and atrocities enormously. If we ever reach
Moral level, minimum Moral level of terminating our own massive participation
in atrocities, then we can move to another question, "What do we do about atrocities
of the others?" And I think it's right to deal with them.
118.
[omitted from broadcast 8, start]
119.
So, for example, in the case of, I don't want to go off in hysterical rhetoric about we've
seen the enemy and this and that, that's childish games that you see in fairy
tales. If we're talking about the ["]real world["] again, we're back
to what Michael Howard was talking about.
120.
[omitted from broadcast 8, end]
121.
Yes, there's an enemy. There are people who
carry out crimes against humanity. And there are ways to deal with crimes. Not by, uh, uh, bombing another country and putting millions
of people at the risk of starvation. That's not a way to deal with
crimes. When the US was condemned for international terrorism in Nicaraguara, and
then vetoed, and dismissed condemnation by the World Court, of couse, and escalated
the crimes, and vetoed the security of counsel of resolution calling out in
observant of international law. The right reaction for Nicaragua was not to say
"We have seen the enemy. And we must destroy them, therefore let's set off
bombs in Washington." But, if it's wrong for them, it's wrong for us. Again,
by elementary Moral standards. So we should ask, "What was right for them?".
And what's right for them which would be what's right for us. I think they
couldn't do what's right for them because we blocked it. We're too powerful.
But we could do what was right for them but we never even considered it because
we never rise to that minimal Moral level.
122.
[omitted from broadcast 9, start]
123.
And unless we do, we have no right to talk about good
policy, bad policy, Right or Wrong.
124.
We don't have the right to even talk about it?
125.
Of course not. If you can't rise to the most elementary Moral
level, you shouldn't even talk about it.
126.
So there's no real policy.
127.
Yes, there is. See, I admire
right wing fanatics who ["]come out straight["] and say, "Look,
I have the power and nobody's going to stop me. I'll do what I want."
That's admirable. They're honest, okay? And, in fact, we have two choices, really. We really have two simple choices. Either we
can say, Look, I'm going to be willing to enter the Moral agreement. I'm going
to be willing to rise to the most minimal Moral level, that of the Gospels, in
fact. I'm going to be willing to do that, and, in that case, I'm going to apply
to myself the same standards I apply to others. That's one choice. The other
choice is simple. I'm a Nazi, I've got the force, I've got the power. I'll do
whatever I want. If you get in my way, I'll smash you.
128.
But isn't it a little more complicated? I mean, look..
129.
That's the choice.
130.
Can't it be two rights?
131.
Can be, yeah, there
can.
132.
[omitted from broadcast 9, end]
133.
Let's take a look at the Middle East.
Let's look at the facts. The facts are, for thirty five years, I repeat, for thirty
five years, there has been a harsh, brutal, miserable military occupation. There has not been a political settlement. The reason that
there has not been a political settlement is because the United States, uni-laterally,
has blocked it for 25 years.
134.
[omitted from broadcast 10, start]
135.
Just recently, Saudi Arabia produced a highly praised
plan for political settlement. The majority of the US population supports it. The majority of population also thinks the United States
ought to be more active in the Middle East. They don't know that it's a
contradiction in terms. The reason that's a contradiction in terms is
the following: In the Saudi Arabia plan is a repetition of a series of
proposals, which go back to 1976 when the UN Security Council debated a
resolution calling for a settlement, in accord with the Saudi plan, to state
settlement on the internationally recognized borders. With arrangements to
guarantee the rights of every state in the nation to exist in peace and
security within secure and recognized borders. That was January 1976. OK, that
was actually in accord with official US Policy. Except for one thing. It called
for a Palestinian State in the territories; Israel wouldn't leave the occupied
territories. That was vetoed by the US. It was supported by the Arab states, it
was supported by the PLO, supported by Europe.
136.
Before they even recognized Israel as a state, though.
137.
This was to exist as a State within secure and recognized
borders. Nobody talked about recognizing the new Palestinian state, nobody
talked about recognizing Israel. Look, is there a possible political settlement
today? Has there been one for the last 25 years?
138.
[omitted from broadcast 10, end]
139.
It's supported by the entire world,
including the majority of the American people. The answer to that question is,
Yes. There is a political settlement that has been supported by virtually the
entire world. Including the Arab States, PLO, Europe, Eastern Europe, Canada.
140.
Didn't Barack put that on the table?
141.
No, he did not.
142.
He did not?
143.
Also supported by the majority of American
people. It has just been re-iterated by Saudi Arabia. US has uni-laterally
blocked it for 25 years. What Barack put on the table. Population doesn't know
this because people like Western medica in Canada and in United States don't
tell them. You can check and see, like, how often they
reported what I just said. Don't bother checking it. The answer is, Zero.
144.
(Solomon expresses that this is
contradiction by facial expression.)
145.
Barack proposal in Camp David,
Barack-Clinton proposal, in the United S, I didn't check the Canadian media. In
the United States, you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing, of
course. Check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can
find a map. You go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you
find when you look at a map. You'll find that there's this generous,
magnanimous proposal, uh, guaranteed, provided Israel with sailant, east of
Jerusalem, including the city of MaledDumin (?),
which was established primarily by the later Gov. of Clinton in order to byset
the West Bank. That sailant almost goes to Jericho. Breaks the West Banks into two
cantons. Then there's a second sailant, the north that going to the Israeli
settlement of ariel which bysets the northern breaks the two cantons, so we got
three cantons in the West Bank virtually separated. All three of them are separated
from the small area of east Jerusalem, which is a center of Palestenian
commercial, and cultural life, and communication. So you got four cantons. All
separated from the west, from Gaza. So that's five cantons. All surrounded by
Israels and infrastructure development, and so on. All separated from Isreali
settlement, infrastructures, and so on, which also incidentally guarantee control
of the water resources in the region. Last comment. This does not rise to the
level of South Africa forty years ago. When South Africa established the Bantustans. That's
the generous, magnanimous offer.
146.
Okay.
147.
There's a good reason why the maps
aren't shown. Because as soon as you look at the map, you see it.
148.
All right. However, that's the
characterisation of it. But let me just say Arafat didn't even bother putting
counter-proposal on the table.
149.
That's not true.
150.
They negotiated that // afterwards.
I guess my question is, If they don't continue to negotiate...
151.
[omitted from braodcast, start]
152.
They did. That's false.
153.
That's false?
154.
[omitted from broadcast, end]
155.
That's totally false. Not only is it
false, not a single participant in the meeting says it. That's a medica
fabrication.
156.
Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal on
the table?
157.
They had a proposal. They proposed the international
consensus. Which has been accepted by the entire world. The Arab States. PLO. The
Majority..
158.
Sorry.
159.
Sorry, they proposed settlement which is
in accord with overwhelming consensus
160.
I guess my question is,
161.
and it's blocked by United States.
162.
[omitted from broadcast 11, start]
163.
That Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal...
164.
Yeah, they had a proposal. They proposed the
international consensus, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab
states, the PLO. They proposed a settlement which is in accordance with an
overwhelming international consensus, and is blocked by the United States.
165.
If you don't talk...
166.
Yeah, they did talk. They talked. They proposed that.
167.
Once they walked out of Camp David,
168.
They didn't walk out of Camp David...
169.
Both camps...
170.
No, no, both sides walked out of Camp David.
171.
All right, once Camp David disbands, the radicals take
over the process, my question is, how do...
172.
No, no, the radicals didn't take over the process.
173.
You don't think that the Sharon, the right-wing
Israeli...
174.
No, Barak stayed in power for months. Barak cancelled it.
That's how it ended.
175.
[omitted from broadcast 11, end]
176.
When we come back from this break, Noam
Chomsky says the United States is not only blocked peace in Middle East, it's
actually escalating violence there. And who's guilty for these kinds of crimes?
George Bush, Bill Clinton, JFK, Eisenhower, all the American presidents. And a
lot more, so come on back, once again, for Noam Chomsky.
177.
The problem with people in Middle East
now. People say that, "It's spun out of control".
178.
[omitted from broadcast 12, start]
179.
No, there's three
sides. You're forgetting the United States. The radicals in the United States
who have blocked this proposal for 25 years, continue to block it.
180.
[omitted from
broadcast 12, end]
181.
How do you get back to. How do you get
back?
182.
First way to get back is by trying the
experiment of minimal honesty. Let's try that experiment. If we try the
experiment of minimal honesty, we look at our own position. And we discover
what I just described. That, for twenty five years, United States has blocked
political settlement, which is supported by the US population and by the entire
world. Except for Israel. Virtually. I mean, there are marginal exceptions. The
first thing we do is to accept honesty to look at that. We take a look at Camp
David and we see the same. The United States was still propos.. demanding Bantustans-style settlement and rejecting the overwhelming international
consensus and the position of American people. We then discover that the United
State immediately moved to enhance terror in the region. So let's continue. On September
29th, Ehud Barack put massive military presence outside Al Aqsa Mosque.
Very provocative. When people came out of Mosque, young people started throwing
stones, Israeli Army started shooting. In the next couple of days, There's no
Palestenian fire at this time. This is all in occupied territories, Next couple
of days, Israel used US helicopters, Israel produces no helicopters, used US
helicopters to attack civilian complexes, killing about a dozen people. Wounded
several dozen people. Clinton reacted to that, on October 3rd, by making the
biggest deal in the decade to send Israel new military helicopters, which has
just been used for the purpose I described. Of course, we continue to be. US
press co-operated with that by refusing to publish the story. To this day, they
have not published the fact. It continued. When Bush came in, one of the first
acts was to send Israel a new shipment of the most advanced military
helicopters and arsenal. That continues right up to a couple of weeks ago, new
shipment. You take a look at reports from, say, Jenin. from Peter Beaumont
in London Observer. He says that the worst atrocity there was the
apache helicopters, buzzing around, destroying and demolishing everything. This
is enhancing terror. We may easily continue. We can take, also.
183.
(Solomon raises his left hand.)
184.
Let me continue. On December 15th, 14th,
the Security Countil tried to pass a resolution, calling for what everyone recognises
to be obvious means for reducing terror, namely, sending international
monitors. That's a way of reducing terror. This happend to be in the middle of a
quite period, which lasted for about three weeks. US vetoed it. Ten days before
that, there was a meeting in Geneva of the high contracting parties of the 4th
Geneva Convention which has unanimously held for thirty five years, that it
applies to Israel. The meeting condemned the Israeli settlement as illegal, condemned
the list of atrocities, willful destruction of property, murder, trial,
torture, so on, and so forth.
185.
Okay.
186.
All right, What happend to that meeting?
I'll tell you what happend to that meeting. US boycotted it. Therefore the
media refused to publish it. Therefore no one here knows that the United States,
once again, enhaned terror by refusing to recognise the applicability of the
conventions which may be virtually everything the United States and the Israel
are doing there. A grave breach of Geneva Convention. So it's a war crime.
187.
(Solomon raises his hand.)
188.
Just a minute. These conventions were
estalished, in 1949, in order to criminalise the atrocities of the Nazis in
occupied territory. They are customary international law. The United States is
obligated, as a high contracting party, to prosecute violations of those
conventions. That means to prosecute its own leadership for the last 25 years.
189.
If we had, if we were functioning by the
Geneva Convention. Who would we then prosecute as a war criminal. Would George
Bush be a war criminal?
190.
Of course.
191.
Would Sharon be a war criminal?
192.
They're all acting in....
193.
Would Arafat be a war criminal?
194.
He's a criminal but not a war criminal.
195.
What's the difference?
196.
Difference is war crime has a technical definition.
It's crime carried out by a State.
197.
Would he be guilty of the crime against
humanity?
198.
Probably.
199.
He would?
200.
Minor crimes, compared with us.
201.
Tony Blair?
202.
Obviously.
203.
Obviously. Most leaders in the Arab
States?
204.
They're criminals, but not war criminals.
They're horrible criminals, including the ones we support. Like all the States,
every State we ever supported is a brutal terrorist State. Crime against their
own society. Technically, they're not war crimes. They're just crimes.
205.
[omitted from braodcast 13, start]
206.
We're the ones who support the military. It's us alone. I
mean, others, marginally. But primarily the United States is supporting the
military, and therefore is in grave breech of the Geneva Conventions
because of the activities it's carrying out there. Grave breech of the Geneva
Convention is a war crime. Now, I'm not suggesting we have a Nuremberg trial in
which we hang American leaders. I'm suggesting something much simpler. That the
American, that Western intellectuals rise to the minimal level of honesty in
which they tell people this, okay? In which they let the population of the
United States know that their leadership is engaged in grave breeches of the
Geneva Convention which are war crimes. The majority of the population opposes
it, they just don't know the government is doing it. And they don't know the Government is doing it because there are
intellectuals like Robert Kaplan who tell them, "Oh, well, we're really
nice guys, it doesn't matter if we don't." Let's try to let the population
know the facts. I'm convinced, myself, that the decent instincts of the
American people will be such that they will terminate these crimes.
207.
Let's talk about enforcing international law. There is an
argument that says, "All right, let's try to enforce international law in
which case, all sorts of major power figures, Bush, Blair, Sharon, whoever,
might be held accountable." Now, someone says, "That's wonderful.
Instead of invading and doing uni-lateral invasions and using military force,
let's try to function according to Law." Someone says, "That's
wonderful, dictators love to hear that." Because, they say, "Unless
you force international law with the barrel of a gun, right, History may decide
to convict us, but the slaughters like Rwanda will go on, Milosevic will go on,
because no one will back it up", and therefore a guy like Kaplan
says, "Luckily, America's barrel of the gun is the
only thing that can enforce international law." (He does not understand
Chomsky's argument.)
208.
Except that everything you just said is a total
falsehood and certainly Robert Kaplan knows that. So, in the case of, say, Rwanda, and incidentally, this
goes back 20 years. I mean, 20 years ago, I was writing about atrocities in Burundi, in Rwanda, which were going on because the West refused to do anything about them, because they
basically didn't care or supported them. But in that case, there was,
under international law, a response. Namely, a resolution of the UN Security
Council justifying the use, which already existed incidentally, of force to
prevent the atrocities. That was in accord with international law. The U.S. and
the West refused to enforce international law. In the case of Kosovo, yes there
was international law, but let's take a look at facts. The most hawkish member
of the coalition was Britain. The British have since released their internal
parliamentary records. We now know that even in late January, even after the Racak Massacre, the British government, including Robin Cook, regarded the guerillas as the main source of
atrocities. Main source. We have extensive evidence from the US State
Department, NATO, OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe]
monitors about what happened in the next period. The answer is, Nothing changed.
What happened is Britain and the United States decided, for their own reasons,
to bomb Serbia, knowing that that was going to lead to an escalation of
atrocities, obviously. And yes, they bombed Serbia, starting on March 24th, and
that's when the atrocities escalated and massive ethnic cleansing began. And
now the super hypocrites in the West are indicting Milosevic for crimes which
he committed, He's undoubtedly a war criminal, for crimes that he committed in
reaction to the bombing which they knew was going to precipitate.
209.
But if everybody...
210.
Is that humanitarian intervention? No, it's not. It's
great power politics, undertaken incidentally for exactly the reason they
publicly gave. Clinton and Blair explained very clearly, this is to maintain
NATO credibility. That's gangersterism, not humanitarianism.
211.
[omitted from broadcast 13, end]
212.
Very popular phrase, now. Samuel
Huntington, Clash of Civilisations. A book, writers like Bernard Lewis, What
Went Wrong. There might be a clash of civilisation between Alama culture and Western
Judeo-Christian culture. They resent us. There's an enourmous amount of hatred.
It goes back in History. Because of resentment.
213.
You want to know the answer to that
question? Bernard Lewis certainly knows it. He's not
telling you. First of all, he's not telling you what happend in the 19th
century. He didn't talk about what Lord Palmerston and
the British did to Egypt, for example. Let's be more recent. Yes, there's
hatred against us. Why? It's easy to find out. US is a very free country. We
have enormous internal, declassified records, so let's look at them. In 1958,
US Government faced, we know from internal records, three major crisis in the
world. North Africa, Middle East, and Indonesia. All with oil-producing States.
All Islamic States. President Eisenhower, in internal disccusion, observed to
his staff, that I'm quoting it now, "There's a campaign of hatred against
us in the Middle East. Not by the Governments, but by the people."
National Security Countil discussed that question and said, Yes. And the reason
is there's a perception in that region that the United States supports status
quo Governments which prevent Democracy and development. We do it because of
our interest in Middle East oil. Furthermore, it's difficult to counter that perception
because it is correct. Furthermore it ought to be correct. We ought to be
supporting brutal and corrupt Governments, which prevent Democracy and
development, because we want to control Middle East oil. And it's true that it
leads to a campaign of hatred against us. Now, until
Bernard Lewis tells us that, and that's only one piece of a long story, we know
that he's just a vulgar propagandist, not a scholar. So, yes, as long as
we are supporting harsh, brutal Governments, blocking Democracy and development
because of our interest in controlling the oil resources in the region, we know
there will be a campaign of hatred against us.
214.
[omitted from broadcast 14, start]
215.
Didn't he say there's no Democracy there anyway
because it's not their culture?
216.
Fine. But notice, first of all, the total irrelevance of
that claim to the campaign of hatred against us, which is exactly what the
National Security Council described. If we did permit Democracy and
development, which we're blocking, that might overcome that, okay? But we're
not permitting Democracy, and we have Bernard Lewis telling us, "Well, it's because of their bad culture, it's not because of our
input, it's not because of what the US Government says." I mean,
we are supporting un-Democratic regimes because we want their oil. "Don't
pay attention to the facts. Pay attention to self-serving
theology that I'll
present to you." And Bernard Lewis knows the
earlier History. If you want to go through that, we can go through that.
So, we ask what happened in the 1820s when the United States and Egypt both
began their internal economic development programs in rather similar ways. Both
based on textiles, both had cotton, both had cultural producers. The United
States had kicked out the British so it was able to continue. The Egyptians had
not kicked out the British, therefore the British intervened forcefully, and
quite consciously and openly, you can read it in public documents, to block
internal economic development in Egypt, because as they said, we're not going
to permit a competitor in this region which we run, and they did, too, by
force.
217.
So the clash of civilizations is a created...
218.
No, it's a fabrication.
219.
Countries in that area have an overwhelming hatred for
what they perceive is the West. In fact, you say there's History justifying
these things... (Another attempt to distort meaning of sentence.)
220.
I didn't say History justifies it, History gives many of
the reasons for it. If you want to look at lots of other reasons, there are
plenty of them. So, part of what Bernard Lewis said is correct. So, when he
talks about things internal to the region, Yeah, that's true. What he's ignoring, however, and what he knows perfectly
well, is that there's an overwhelming outside force which has exacerbated those
problems and has created new problems of its own. And he won't tell you that
because that would be looking back at ourselves, and you're not allowed to do
that. You're only allowed to look at the crimes of others. You must be
very careful never to look in the mirror. To say, instead, it's all there for
you, bad genes, bad culture, and so on. It's not the fact that we didn't do
anything, it's just irrelevant that the British crushed
Egyptian efforts at economic development. And that this went on for
another century, that the US took it over, that's just kind of an irrelevance.
They would have been bad anyway.
221.
[omitted from broadcast 14, end]
222.
What State does function according to
what you call minimum levels of honesty? Is there a State...
223.
None. States are power centers. The only
thing that imposes constraints on them is either outside force or their own
populations.
224.
Internal criticism. Critical dialogue.
225.
That's exactly why
intellectuals we're talking about are so adamant at preventing (people (in the
United States and Britain)) from learning the most elementary facts about these
things.
226.
Is it even possible? If you say no State
functions...
227.
It's not impossible, it happens. United
States is, for example, far more civilised country than it was forty years ago.
Let's just take that. March nine, This March happend to the fortieth
anniversary of the public announcement of Kennedy administration that US Air
Force is bombing South Vietnam. It also initiated chemical warfare to destroy
crops, initiated napalms, started driving millions of people to concentration
camps to separate them from guerillas they knew they were supporting. This is
all public. Did we commemorate the fortieth anniversary? No. Why? Because forty
years ago, nobody cared. If the Government announes, okay, we're gonna start
bombing another country, start using napalm, start chemical warfare to wipe out
their crops, and drive them to concentration camps. Fine. Not a problem.
228.
Now there's more protest.
229.
Yes. Because the country has gotten more
civilised. No US President today, or for the last twenty years could
conceivably do what Kennedy could do with total impunity forty years ago. The
reason is because there was massive popular protest, oppposed by the
intellectual classes, of course, who hate it. But it did, it led to all sorts
of things, including to opposition of aggression and violence. It also spawned
to contemporary Civil Rights Movement, Feminist Movement, Environment Movement,
and all sort of other things. And it imposed important constrains on State
violence. In fact, that's how we got rid of Slavery. That's how we got rid of
Feudalism.
230.
So are we moving toward emancipation
towards these things? You're optimistic of it?
231.
Yes. Over time, there has been agonizingly
slow progress, but very real. Always opposed by intellectuals who support violence
and atrocities, and try to justify them, and try to prevent the populations
from knowing about them. But, fortunately, their control is limited.
232.
What would the State look like at the
end?
233.
At the end? End is a long time.
234.
What would it look like?
235.
At the end, I think States ought to be
dissolved. I think they're illegimate structures. But that's a long time.
236.
Is the end of the nation State that you
foresee in your vision?
237.
I don't foresee anything. What I'm
saying is that, as long as people, ordinary people are able to free themselves
from doctrinal controls imposed on them by their self-appointed veterans and
mentors. As long as they're able to do this, they'll continue to be able to
struggle for peace, and Justice, and freedom, limitation on violence, constrains
on power, as they have been doing for hundreds of years, and I don't see an end
of that. Where will it end up in the long run? I can tell you where I would
like it to, but I wouldn't even dream about that. Immediate problem is to free
ourselves from shackles imposed, very consciously, by the kind of people you're
talking about, who don't want the facts to be known. And for very good reasons.
Because, people know the facts, they're not gonna
tolerate them. Therefore you have to prevent people from knowing. You have to
indoctrinate them. You have to tell them stories about how we are really good
guys. If we use violence, it must be for the general good because we represent
the course of History. Yeah, that's the job of propagandas for power and
violence. And it's a task of populations to free themselves from those, the
kinds of controls and domination.
238.
Pleasure to see you. Always.
