February 16, 2007
Foreign Policy In Focus
Noam Chomsky is a noted linguist, author, and foreign policy expert. On
February 9, Michael Shank interviewed him on the latest developments in
also commented on climate change, the World Social Forum, and why
international relations are run like the mafia.
SHANK: With similar nuclear developments in
do so with
CHOMSKY: To say that the
though neither side completely lived up to their obligations.
do what was promised, nor did
when Bush came into the presidency,
plutonium for maybe one or two bombs, but then very limited missile
capacity. During the Bush years it's exploded. The reason is, he immediately
canceled the diplomacy and he's pretty much blocked it ever since.
They made a very substantial agreement in September 2005 in which
completely. In return the
attack and to begin moving towards the planning for the provision of a light
water reactor, which had been promised under the framework agreement. But
the Bush administration instantly undermined it. Right away, they canceled
the international consortium that was planning for the light water reactor,
which was a way of saying we're not going to agree to this agreement. A
couple of days later they started attacking the financial transactions of
various banks. It was timed in such a way to make it clear that the
And of course it never withdrew the threats. So that was the end of the
September 2005 agreement.
That one is now coming back, just in the last few days. The way it's
portrayed in the U.S. media is, as usual with the government's party line,
that North Korea is now perhaps a little more amenable to accept the
September 2005 proposal. So there's some optimism. If you go across the
that an embattled Bush administration, it's their phrase, needs some kind of
victory, so maybe it'll be willing to move towards diplomacy. It's a little
more accurate I think if you look at the background.
But there is some minimal sense of optimism about it. If you look back over
the record, and
that, on this issue they've been pretty rational. It's been a kind of
tit-for-tat history. If the
Koreans become accommodating. If the
hostile. That's reviewed pretty well by Leon Sigal, who's one of the leading
specialists on this, in a recent issue of Current History. But that's been
the general picture and we're now at a place where there could be a
That's much less significant for the
issue I don't think has much to do with nuclear weapons frankly. Nobody is
point in the Middle East, as distinct from
center of the world's energy resources. Originally the British and
secondarily the French had dominated it, but after the Second World War,
it's been a
it must control
as people often say. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. In fact
If we went on solar energy tomorrow, it'd keep the same policies. Just look
at the internal record, or the logic of it, the issue has always been
control. Control is the source of strategic power.
Dick Cheney declared in
is a "tool of intimidation and blackmail." When we have control over the
pipelines it's a tool of benevolence. If other countries have control over
the sources of energy and the distribution of energy then it is a tool of
intimidation and blackmail exactly as Cheney said. And that's been
understood as far back as George Kennan and the early post-war days when he
pointed out that if the
have veto power over its industrial rivals. He was speaking particularly of
SHANK: So when the
it's under the premise of gaining control? That is what the
will gain from attacking
CHOMSKY: There are several issues in the case of
is independent and independence is not tolerated. Sometimes it's called
successful defiance in the internal record. Take
the business world is in favor of it too. But the government won't allow it.
It's attributed to the
explanation. I think it has to do with a feature of world affairs that is
insufficiently appreciated. International affairs is very much run like the
mafia. The godfather does not accept disobedience, even from a small
storekeeper who doesn't pay his protection money. You have to have obedience
otherwise the idea can spread that you don't have to listen to the orders
and it can spread to important places.
If you look back at the record, what was the main reason for the
That's the way it's been put, Kissinger in this case, referring to Allende
Schlesinger, presenting the report of the Latin American Study Group to
incoming President Kennedy, wrote that the danger is the spread of the
Castro idea of taking matters into your own hands, which has a lot of appeal
to others in the same region that suffer from the same problems. Later
internal documents charged
going back 150 years, to the Monroe Doctrine -- and that can't be tolerated.
So there's kind of a state commitment to ensuring obedience.
Going back to
it's part of the world's major energy system but it also defied the
government, installed a brutal tyrant, was helping him develop nuclear
power, in fact the very same programs that are now considered a threat were
being sponsored by the U.S. government, by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kissinger, and
others, in the 1970s, as long as the Shah was in power. But then the
Iranians overthrew him, and they kept
days. And the
and his war against
going to continue to punish
And again, the will of the
considered mostly irrelevant. Seventy five percent of the population here
favors improving relations with
disregarded. We don't have polls from the business world, but it's pretty
clear that the energy corporations would be quite happy to be given
authorization to go back into
rivals. But the state won't allow it. And it is setting up confrontations
right now, very explicitly. Part of the reason is strategic, geo-political,
economic, but part of the reason is the mafia complex. They have to be
punished for disobeying us.
towards socialism. Where are they on our list?
CHOMSKY: They're very high. The
military coup to overthrow the government. In fact, that's its last, most
recent effort in what used to be a conventional resort to such measures.
SHANK: But why haven't we turned our sights more toward
CHOCMSKY: Oh they're there. There's a constant stream of abuse and attack by
the government and therefore the media, who are almost reflexively against
its exports to a limited extent, instead of just being dependent on exports
integration and independence. It's what they call a Bolivarian alternative
This again is defiance of
There's now a standard interpretation of this trend in
another kind of party line. Latin America is all moving to the left, from
bad left. The good left is Garcia and Lula, and then there's the bad left
which is Chavez, Morales, maybe Correa. And that's the split.
In order to maintain that position, it's necessary to resort to some fancy
footwork. For example, it's necessary not to report the fact that when Lula
was re-elected in October, his foreign trip and one of his first acts was to
visit Caracas to support Chavez and his electoral campaign and to dedicate a
joint Venezuelan-Brazilian project on the Orinoco River, to talk about new
projects and so on. It's necessary not to report the fact that a couple of
weeks later in
there was a meeting of all South American leaders. There had been bad blood
between Chavez and Garcia, but it was apparently patched up. They laid plans
for pretty constructive South American integration, but that just doesn't
SHANK: How is the political deadlock in
government's decision to potentially go to war with
relationship at all?
CHOMSKY: There's a relationship. I presume part of the reason for the
U.S.-Israel invasion of
are correct in calling it that, part of the reason I suppose was that
Hezbollah is considered a deterrent to a potential U.S.-Israeli attack on
to wipe out the deterrent so as to free up the
an eventual attack on
reason given for the invasion can't be taken seriously for a moment. That's
the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the killing of a couple others. For
refugees on the high seas from
bringing them to
decades, has anybody called for an invasion of
principled basis for the massive attack on
fact, one of the last acts of the U.S.-Israeli invasion, right after the
ceasefire was announced before it was implemented, was to saturate much of
the south with cluster bombs. There's no military purpose for that, the war
was over, the ceasefire was coming.
UN de-mining groups that are working there say that the scale is
unprecedented. Its much worse than any other place they've worked:
bomblets left there. A large percentage of them don't explode until you pick
them up, a child picks them up, or a farmer hits it with a hoe or something.
So what it does basically is make the south uninhabitable until the mining
teams, for which the
This is arable land. It means that farmers can't go back; it means that it
may undermine a potential Hezbollah deterrent. They apparently have pretty
much withdrawn from the south, according to the UN.
You can't mention Hezbollah in the
of "Iranian-supported Hezbollah." That's its name. Its name is
Iranian-supported Hezbollah. It gets Iranian support. But you can mention
The idea that Hezbollah is acting as an agent of
not accepted by specialists on
the party line. Or sometimes you can put in
Hezbollah," but since
SHANK: How can the
troop availability, troop capacity, and public sentiment?
CHOMSKY: As far as I'm aware, the military in the
crazy. And from whatever leaks we have from intelligence, the intelligence
community thinks it's outlandish, but not impossible. If you look at people
who have really been involved in the Pentagon's strategic planning for
years, people like Sam Gardiner, they point out that there are things that
possibly could be done.
I don't think any of the outside commentators at least as far as I'm aware
have taken very seriously the idea of bombing nuclear facilities. They say
if there will be bombing it'll be carpet bombing. So get the nuclear
facilities but get the rest of the country too, with an exception. By
accident of geography, the world's major oil resources are in
which happens to be an Arab area, not Persian. Khuzestan is Arab, has been
potential source of dissension. I would be amazed if there isn't an attempt
going on to stir up secessionist elements in Khuzestan.
across the border in
"defend" an independent Khuzestan against
put, if they can carry it off.
SHANK: Do you think that's what the surge was for?
CHOMSKY: That's one possibility. There was a release of a Pentagon
war-gaming report, in December 2004, with Gardiner leading it. It was
released and published in the Atlantic Monthly. They couldn't come up with a
proposal that didn't lead to disaster, but one of the things they considered
was maintaining troop presence in
troop replacement and so on, and use them for a potential land move in
- presumably Khuzestan where the oil is. If you could carry that off, you
could just bomb the rest of the country to dust.
Again, I would be amazed if there aren't efforts to sponsor secessionist
movements elsewhere, among the Azeri population for example. It's a very
complex ethnic mix in
secessionist tendencies anyway and almost certainly, without knowing any of
the facts, the
internally if possible. The strategy appears to be: try to break the country
up internally, try to impel the leadership to be as harsh and brutal as
That's the immediate consequence of constant threats. Everyone knows that.
That's one of the reasons the reformists, Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji and
others, are bitterly complaining about the
undermining their efforts to reform and democratize
presumably its purpose. Since it's an obvious consequence you have to assume
it's the purpose. Just like in law, anticipated consequences are taken as
the evidence for intention. And here's it so obvious you can't seriously
So it could be that one strain of the policy is to stir up secessionist
movements, particularly in the oil rich regions, the Arab regions near the
Gulf, also the Azeri regions and others. Second is to try to get the
leadership to be as brutal and harsh and repressive as possible, to stir up
internal disorder and maybe resistance. And a third is to try to pressure
other countries, and Europe is the most amenable, to join efforts to
usually go along with the
The efforts to intensify the harshness of the regime show up in many ways.
For example, the West absolutely adores Ahmadinejad. Any wild statement that
he comes out with immediately gets circulated in headlines and
mistranslated. They love him. But anybody who knows anything about
presumably the editorial offices, knows that he doesn't have anything to do
with foreign policy. Foreign policy is in the hands of his superior, the
Supreme Leader Khamenei. But they don't report his statements, particularly
when his statements are pretty conciliatory. For example, they love when
Ahmadinejad says that
Khamenei right afterwards says that
on Israel-Palestine. As far as I'm aware, it never got reported. Actually
you could find Khamenei's more conciliatory positions in the Financial
Times, but not here. And it's repeated by Iranian diplomats but that's no
good. The Arab League proposal calls for normalization of relations with
which has been blocked by the
that's not a good story, so it's either not mentioned or it's hidden
It's very hard to predict the Bush administration today because they're
deeply irrational. They were irrational to start with but now they're
desperate. They have created an unimaginable catastrophe in
should've been one of the easiest military occupations in history and they
succeeded in turning it into one of the worst military disasters in history.
They can't control it and it's almost impossible for them to get out for
reasons you can't discuss in the
reasons why they can't get out would be to concede the reasons why they
We're supposed to believe that oil had nothing to do with it, that if
were exporting pickles or jelly and the center of world oil production were
in the South Pacific that the
It has nothing to do with the oil, what a crass idea. Anyone with their head
screwed on knows that that can't be true. Allowing an independent and
that it would be Shi'ite-dominated, at least if it's minimally democratic.
It would continue to improve relations with
population, probably a majority.
Moves toward sovereignty in
among the bitterly repressed Shi'ite population but also toward some degree
of autonomy. You can imagine a kind of a loose Shi'ite alliance in
overcoming a century of domination, and simply moves on its own. It does not
get intimidated when Uncle Sam shakes his fist. That's scary. In particular,
it's dangerous in the case of the
Asian energy security grid, which includes the Central Asian states and
around the Gulf, which are the main ones in the world, if they link up to
the Asian grid, the
stake in not withdrawing from
I'm sure that these issues are discussed in internal planning. It's
inconceivable that they can't think of this. But it's out of public
discussion, it's not in the media, it's not in the journals, it's not in the
Baker-Hamilton report. And I think you can understand the reason. To bring
up these issues would open the question why the
invaded. And that question is taboo.
It's a principle that anything our leaders do is for noble reasons. It may
be mistaken, it may be ugly, but basically noble. And if you bring in normal
moderate, conservative, strategic, economic objectives you threatening that
principle. It's remarkable the extent to which it's held. So the original
pretexts for the invasion were weapons of mass destruction and ties to
al-Qaida that nobody but maybe Wolfowitz or Cheney took seriously. The
single question, as they kept reiterating in the leadership, was: will
Saddam give up his programs of weapons of mass destruction? The single
question was answered a couple of months later, the wrong way. And quickly
the party line shifted. In November 2003, Bush announced his freedom agenda:
our real goal is to bring democracy to
That became the party line, instantly.
But it's a mistake to pick out individuals because it's close to universal,
even in scholarship. In fact you can even find scholarly articles that begin
by giving the evidence that it's complete farce but nevertheless accept it.
There was a pretty good study of the freedom agenda in Current History by
two scholars and they give the facts. They point out that the freedom agenda
was announced on November 2003 after the failure to find weapons of mass
destruction, but the freedom agenda is real even if there's no evidence for
In fact, if you look at our policies they're the opposite. Take
There was a free election in
punish the Palestinian people, and punish them harshly, because they voted
the wrong way in a free election. That's accepted here in the West as
perfectly normal. That illustrates the deep hatred and contempt for
democracy among western elites, so deep-seated they can't even perceive it
when it's in front of their eyes. You punish people severely if they vote
the wrong way in a free election. There's a pretext for that too, repeated
every day: Hamas must agree to first recognize
violence, third to accept past agreements. Try to find a mention of the fact
or the threat of it - in fact they insist on it - and they don't accept past
agreements, including the road map.
I suspect one of the reasons why Jimmy Carter's book has come under such
fierce attack is because it's the first time, I think, in the mainstream,
that one can find the truth about the road map. I have never seen anything
in the mainstream that discusses the fact that
road map with
reservations that totally eviscerated it. It was done instantly. It's public
knowledge, I've written about it, talked about it, so have others, but I've
never seen it mentioned in the mainstream before. And obviously they don't
accept the Arab League proposal or any other serious proposal. In fact
they've been blocking the international consensus on the two-state solution
for decades. But Hamas has to accept them.
It really makes no sense. Hamas is a political party and political parties
don't recognize other countries. And Hamas itself has made it very clear,
they actually carried out a truce for a year and a half, didn't respond to
Israeli attacks, and have called for a long-term truce, during which it'd be
possible to negotiate a settlement along the lines of the international
consensus and the Arab League proposal.
All of this is obvious, it's right on the surface, and that's just one
example of the deep hatred of democracy on the part of western elites. It's
a striking example but you can add case after case. Yet, the president
announced the freedom agenda and if the dear leader said something, it's got
to be true, kind of North Korean style. Therefore there's a freedom agenda
even if there's a mountain of evidence against it, the only evidence for it
is in words, even apart from the timing.
SHANK: In the 2008 presidential election, how will the candidates approach
CHOMSKY: What theyre saying so far is not encouraging. I still think,
despite everything, that the
a huge catastrophe; nobody knows what the consequences would be. I imagine
that only an administration that's really desperate would resort to that.
But if the Democratic candidates are on the verge of winning the election,
the administration is going to be desperate. It still has the problem of
SHANK: The Senate Democrats can't seem to achieve consensus on this issue.
SHOMSKY: I think there's a reason for it. The reason is just thinking
through the consequences of allowing an independent, partially democratic
the sand and pretend we can't think it through because we cannot allow the
question of why the
SHANK: Is there any connection to this conversation and why we cannot find
the political will and momentum to enact legislation that would reduce C02
emissions levels, institute a cap-and-trade system, etc.?
CHOMSKY: It's perfectly clear why the
Protocol. Again, there's overwhelming popular support for signing, in fact
it's so strong that a majority of Bush voters in 2004 thought that he was in
favor of the Kyoto Protocol, s such an obvious thing to support. Popular
support for alternative energy has been very high for years. But it harms
corporate profits. After all, that's the Administration's constituency.
I remember talking to, 40 years ago, one of the leading people in the
government who was involved in arms control, pressing for arms control
measures, detente, and so on. He's very high up, and we were talking about
whether arms control could succeed. And only partially as a joke he said,
"Well it might succeed if the high tech industry makes more profit from arms
control than it can make from weapons-related research and production. If we
get to that tipping point maybe arms control will work." He was partially
joking but there's a truth that lies behind it.
SHANK: How do we move forward on climate change without beggaring the South?
CHOMSKY: Unfortunately, the poor countries, the south, are going to suffer
the worst according to most projections, and that being so, it undermines
support in the north for doing much. Look at the ozone story. As long as it
was the southern hemisphere that was being threatened, there was very little
talk about it. When it was discovered in the north, very quickly actions
were taken to do something about it. Right now there's discussion of putting
serious effort into developing a malaria vaccine, because global warming
might extend malaria to the rich countries, so something should be done
Same thing on health insurance. Here's an issue where, for the general
population, it's been the leading domestic issue, or close to it, for years.
And there's a consensus for a national healthcare system on the model of
other industrial countries, maybe expanding Medicare to everyone or
something like that. Well, that's off the agenda, nobody can talk about
that. The insurance companies don't like it, the financial industry doesn't
like and so on.
Now there's a change taking place. What's happening is that manufacturing
industries are beginning to turn to support for it because they're being
undermined by the hopelessly inefficient
worst in the industrial world by far, and they have to pay for it. Since
it's employer-compensated, in part, their production costs are much higher
than those competitors who have a national healthcare system. Take GM. If it
produces the same car in
it saves, I forget the number, I think over $1000 with the
production because there's a national healthcare system, it's much more
efficient, it's much cheaper, it's much more effective.
So the manufacturing industry is starting to press for some kind of national
healthcare. Now it's beginning to put it on the agenda. It doesn't matter if
the population wants it. What 90% of the population wants would be kind of
irrelevant. But if part of the concentration of corporate capital that
basically runs the country -- another thing we're not allowed to say but
it's obvious - if part of that sector becomes in favor then the issue moves
onto the political agenda.
SHANK: So how does the south get its voice heard on the international
agenda? Is the World Social Forum a place for it?
CHOMSKY: The World Social Forum is very important but of course that can't
be covered in the West. In fact, I remember reading an article, I think in
the Financial Times, about the two major forums that were taking place. One
was the World Economic Forum in Davos and a second was a forum in Herzeliyah
course there was also the World Social Forum in
of thousands of people from around the world.
SHANK: With the trend towards vilifying the G77 at the UN one wonders where
the developing world can effectively voice their concerns.
CHOMSKY: The developing world voice can be amplified enormously by support
from the wealthy and the privileged, otherwise it's very likely to be
marginalized, as in every other issue.
SHANK: So it's up to us.