This is interesting...

[alixandrea]

Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology is one of the most outspoken and influential critics of US
foreign policy and the corporate mass media. His many writings include Year
501: The Conquest Continues, Manufacturing Consent (with Edward S. Herman),
What Uncle Sam Really Wants, and 9-11. Having recently returned from Turkey,
where he helped in the successful defense of a publisher facing government
persecution for printing Prof. Chomsky's essays (AGR #162, Feb. 21-27), he
took time from his very busy schedule to talk with the Asheville Global
Report.

AGR: Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has expanded US
military operations around the world. In addition to Afghanistan, troops are
deployed in the Philippines and the Republic of Georgia. Vice-president
Cheney has announced "operations underway" in Bosnia and off the Horn of
Africa, and additionally, the Bush administration has sought to marry the
"War on Drugs" and the "War on Terrorism" and increase US involvement in the
Colombian civil war. And there is, of course, the "Axis of Evil" with N.
Korea, Iraq, and Iran, as well as Somalia, Yemen, Lebanon, and Sudan, all as
potential future targets.

Does this state of affairs reflect something new in US ambitions, or are we
seeing the same old imperialism dressed up in the flashy new clothes of the
"War on Terror?"

Chomsky: My own view is that the most important change since Sept. 11 is the
establishment of what look like will be permanent military bases in Central
Asia. So the substantial development in Uzbekistan and several of the other
surrounding countries... establishes a new military presence in the world
which the United States did not have before, in addition to the already
established ones in the Pacific, in the Middle East, Latin America, in fact,
throughout the world. That's a global system, but it had not yet established
major centers in Central Asia. That's important, for one thing, because the
resources of Central Asia, while not on the scale of the [Persian] Gulf, are
nevertheless substantial and there's a good deal of jockeying for power.

This is what in the 19th century used to be called the "Great Game." In
those days it was mainly a conflict between the Russian Empire and the
British Empire, which were both expanding into that area. There was a lot of
fighting over Afghanistan about that. Now it's taking on a new form, the
major concern now being energy resources and other material resources in the
region. China doesn't like what the US is doing, it's right on their
borders, Russia doesn't like it, its on their borders. They've regarded it
as their sphere of influence. Iran certainly doesn't like it.

In fact, what drives it has nothing to do with terrorism. What drives it is
control over resources, and that's important. It's not just oil. For
example, another major resource, which people don't pay enough attention to,
is water. That may turn out to be as important or more important than oil in
the coming years.

The major sources of water in that region happen to be in eastern Turkey,
which I just came back from, and which happens to be the region of some of
the worst atrocities and ethnic cleansing of the 1990's, thanks primarily to
Bill Clinton who provided the arms and military and economic support for it.
These are Turkish atrocities, massacres, and so on, in the Kurdish areas of
eastern Turkey, which is primarily important. I meant a lot of strategic
importance, but part of it is because it controls some of the major water
resources in the region. That's where there've been big struggles over dam
building and many other things. So that's part of it as well.

Water resources are localized. Central to them is mountaintops. That's where
they come from. The UN just put out a big report warning that most of the
wars going on in the world now are in mountain areas, like in Afghanistan,
and they're having a devastating effect on potential water supplies.

But these are big problems, so, if you want to consider military deployment,
my own view, at least, is that the most important one, so far, by a good
margin, is the establishment of what look like permanent Central Asia
military bases.

Of the other cases that you mentioned, the one in the Philippines, in my
view, is for domestic consumption. Actually, Kristoff, of The New York
Times, had a pretty fair article on this a few days ago. They're going after
a criminal gang, which probably has a couple of dozen people, and no
connections to any form of international terrorism. They're criminals,
undoubtedly. What's probably needed is a couple hundred Philippine troops,
but the problem with the Philippine troops is, the military there is
probably involved in the same criminal activities and may not go after them.
US Special Forces and the rest of it has nothing to do with anything.

It's very important for the Bush administration to get people here
frightened. The last thing they want is for people in the United States to
pay attention to what the Bush administration is doing to them, to the fact
that its working on a very substantial transfer of wealth from the poor to
the rich. That's what the tax cuts are about and all the rest of the
shenanigans.

They're destroying the environmental protection system. Just this morning
there was the resignation of one of the top EPA officials, [because] they're
not willing to regulate and that means destroying the environment in which
our grandchildren will be able to survive.

They're trying very hard to undermine what remains of welfare programs,
Medicaid, Social Security, and so on. All of these [cuts] are extremely
harmful to the population and very beneficial to their rich supporters. They
certainly don't want people to be paying attention to that or to the Enron
scandal and Cheney's dealings with oil companies, and that sort of thing. So
the best way to prevent that and to carry through this agenda, which is
what's really important to them, is to get people to be frightened. The best
way to control people is to frighten them.

Sept. 11 was just a gift to them and to other harsh and repressive elements
throughout the world. That was evident instantly. That was the first thing I
said when I was asked by reporters what I thought the effect would be. And,
yes, that's what it is. They have to keep people frightened, keep having
scares come, make it look as if they're doing something bold and courageous
to defend the American people from international terrorism. And the best
thing to do is to pick up cheap targets which are not costly and where you
can strike dramatic gestures and so on. What's better than a couple of
criminals running around some island off the Philippines? So I think that's
what the Philippines operation is about.

Colombia is just a continuation of Clinton policies. Maybe it will step up a
little, but it's the same counter-insurgency programs that have been going
on for actually 40 years, stepped-up extensively under Clinton, under the
pretext of the "Drug War," which has very little to do with it, and now
extended further under Bush. So that's a continuation.

Of the various potential military operations that you mentioned, the one
that I think is serious is Iraq. Again, that has nothing to do with
international terrorism.

The Iraq policy is also a kind of continuation, but it could change. They
may consider this to be an opportunity to reestablish control over Iraq,
which is extremely important. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in
the world, much of it under-developed or undeveloped. Saudi Arabia is the
major one, Iraq is second, and it's substantial. It's estimated to be huge,
way beyond the Caspian, East and Central Asian region. You can just be
confident that the United States is not going to allow that to stay out of
control and certainly not to fall under the influence of its rivals, like,
say, France and Russia, which have the inside track now on Iraqi oil. So one
way or another, the US will do what it can, and it can do a lot, to regain
its control over those resources.

It has nothing to do with terrorism, it has nothing to do with Saddam
Hussein's atrocities. We know that for certain. The reason we know that is
because, you hear Clinton, [British Prime Minister]Tony Blair, Bush and
[former Secretary of State] Albright, and the rest of them talking about
what a monster Saddam Hussein is, we can't let him survive, he used chemical
warfare against his own population and he carried out major massacres and so
on.

All of those charges are correct. But they're just missing three words,
namely: with our support.

It's true, he carried out all these atrocities, developing weapons of mass
destruction -- with our support. The US and Britain supported him, and
continued to support him well after the atrocities, continued to provide him
with technology to develop weapons of mass destruction, as they knew, at a
time when he was really dangerous, much more dangerous in the 1980's when
this was going on than today. So the charges are correct, but they're
plainly irrelevant. And they're just pure deception. Unless one points out,
yeah, he did all these horrible things with our support, then this is just
worse than lies. So it's not because of his atrocities, its not because of
terrorism, to which he may have connections or not. (they haven't even tried
to show anything). It's in order to regain control of, primarily, the oil
resources in a very rich area. And that involves a lot of complications.

It involves Turkey, for example. A very live issue in Turkey right now is
whether to agree to US pressure for Turkey to provide the ground forces for
an invasion of Iraq. [The US] have to have some kind of ground forces. They
have nothing comparable to the Northern Alliance there and it's a much more
substantial opponent. Turkey, of course, has a huge army, and according to
discussion inside Turkey, and a little bit here, they are being pressured to
agree to send their military forces in to take over northern Iraq, something
which they have mixed feelings about. The negative side is that they're
going to get a lot more Kurds under their control and they have plenty of
problems dealing with their own Kurdish population, which they treat
extremely ruthlessly -- with US support. That's how they can get away with
it. The last thing they want is a bigger Kurdish population.

On the other hand, the positive side for them is that Turkey has always
felt, with some justice, that what's called Northern Iraq should really be
inside Turkey. A lot of the population is Turkish. The border between Turkey
and Iraq was just established by the British. It had no meaning. It was
established in order to ensure that Britain would keep control of the oil
resources of Northern Iraq and that they wouldn't go to Turkey. The Turks
aren't exactly delighted with this, obviously...

If Turkey takes it over, it means the US takes it over, because it's a
client state, and the US would somehow take over the rest. You can be fairly
confident that plans of that kind are being considered very seriously and
might be implemented.

If the other [potential military actions] are implemented, I think it would
be kind of like the Philippines, just for domestic purposes, to frighten the
American population, make them huddle under the wings of the great hero who
will defend us from evil and so on and so forth. That's a way to control
people and to keep them from seeing what their great hero is doing to them,
which is pretty ugly.

AGR: Speaking of the domestic front, many people have become concerned about
threats to civil rights in the US as we engage in what seems to be an
endless "War on Terror." The USA PATRIOT Act, passed by Congress in the name
of "homeland defense," expanded the government's freedom to tap phones,
detain suspects, monitor internet communications, and conduct secret
searches, while at the same time reducing judicial oversight of such
actions. Additionally, President Bush has passed an executive order to keep
all presidential records since 1980 locked away, and Attorney Gen. Ashcroft
has urged various federal agencies to actively resist Freedom of Information
Act requests.

You've remarked a number of times that Americans have greater access to
internal government records than perhaps anyone else in the world, a
resource that is obviously very important in the work you do. What are your
concerns regarding these issues of civil rights?

Chomsky: There are concerns. I'm less concerned about them than a lot of
other people are, because I think there's too much resistance to it
domestically. But one is certainly right to be concerned. One instantaneous
reaction to Sept. 11, predictable and instantaneous, is that every harsh,
repressive force in the world, virtually, regarded it as a window of
opportunity to pursue their own agenda. So in, say, Russia, it meant
stepping up their atrocities in Chechnya. In Turkey, it meant increasing
repression against freedom of speech, particularly against the Kurdish
population, and in Israel it meant sending tanks into refugee camps.

In the United States, Britain, India, and other such democracies, it means
increasing efforts to control the domestic population. The elite groups in
the political system, the economic system, and the ideological system
despise democracy, for perfectly good reasons: they want to control things.
They don't want the people to be involved. So, if they can find ways to
marginalize the public and to protect state power from public scrutiny,
they'll naturally use those methods, and the Bush administration is using
them.

There's not unanimity within elite circles. This group that happens to be in
power now is toward the more authoritarian, and, if you like, quasi-fascist,
side of the spectrum. It's not new. The Reagan administration, for
example...

[U]nder the laws you are supposed to release documents after a 30-year
period. After that, the government is supposed to release declassified
documents, not all of them, and with some internal censorship, but most of
them are supposed to be released. And there's the committee of historians,
pretty conservative historians, from the academic world, who supervise this
process for the State Dept. That's the way it's supposed to work.

The Reagan administration was supposed to be releasing documents from the
early 1950's that included the US coup in Iran and the military coup in
Guatemala. Those are the major, crucial ones. They didn't release them. They
apparently destroyed them. This was so blatant an act of quasi-fascism, that
the historians' board resigned in public protest. That had never happened
before. And these are very conservative guys.

Well, that was extreme, but the Bush administration is the same people and
they would like to do the same thing. They do not want the public to have
any idea what the state is doing. They claim to be free-market people, and
all that kind of stuff, but that's nonsense. Like the Reaganites, they
believe in an extremely powerful state which serves the interests of the
rich and which is immune to inspection by the public. That's their faith.
They want to have that. I don't want to suggest that it's just them. That's
the general consensus, but they're at the extreme end.

So, yes, they're using this opportunity to try to protect state power from
public scrutiny. That's part of trying to make the public more obedient and
submissive. The so-called PATRIOT ACT, (anybody who looks at the name knows
exactly what to expect) yeah, that's aimed at the same direction. They would
like more control over people, more surveillance, more obedience, more fear,
general marginalization. That's the way you can get away with that. You can
ram through policies you know the public is opposed to.

Take the international economic treaties, the things that are called
"free-trade agreements" -- they have very little to do with free trade. They
know the public's opposed to these things, strongly, so therefore, you have
to do it in secret. It's amazing the way it works. Today's New York Times,
for example, in the business section, which people usually don't read, but
should, there's an article which is mostly about accounting, the Anderson
scandal, and Enron, and that sort of thing, but if you look inside it, it
says that there are new principles being implemented under GATS, the General
Agreement on Trade and Services. Then the author says that the GATS
negotiations have attracted none of the public attention and protest that
has been directed against the World Trade Organization. I can't say the
guy's lying, because he probably doesn't know, but that is the main focus of
the protests. You could only find that out if you ever listen to what the
people are saying at the protests, but it's a point of principle The New
York Times, The Washington Post, and everywhere, that you do not pay
attention to the proposals, discussions and concerns of the protesters. You
focus concern solely on the fact that someone broke a window somewhere. And
since that's the law from the editorial offices, and it's understandable
why, the reporters probably don't even know that this has been the main
focus of protest. To know that they'd have to pay attention to what people
are saying. You can't do that.

It's been the main focus of protest for a very good reason. The GATS is a
major assault against democracy. And you see that as soon as you ask what
"Services" mean. Services doesn't mean just accounting practices. It means
just about everything that is in the public arena. So, education, health,
control over resources, welfare, communications, and the post office --
that's services. Those are things that, in a democratic society, the people
are supposed to have something to say about it.

Well, one way to completely undermine democracy is to hand all of that over
to private power. Private power is unaccountable. Except by congressional
subpoena, you can't find out what's happening inside one of the private
tyrannies, like General Electric or Enron or any of the others. They're
tyrannies, and they're mostly unaccountable. So if you can transfer the
public arena into their hands, you can have formal elections and it doesn't
matter. It's kind of like formal elections in Russia in the old days.
There's nothing at stake. This is called "Trade and Services" -- but it has
absolutely nothing to do with trade -- in order to put it under the
framework of the various international agreements. That's in the main focus,
like at the protests at Quebec last April at the Summit of the Americas.
That was one of the main themes. But in order to know that, you'd have to
pay attention to what the protesters are saying and what's going on in their
meetings and so on and that is ruled out. So, therefore, you can have a
report like this.

But the government knows, and elites know, that the public is really opposed
to the things they're trying to push through and they have to do it in
secret for that reason and they have been able to do it to an extent after
Sept. 11. One of the first things they did was to push through what's called
"fast track" legislation, which is supposed to have something to do with
free-trade, but it actually doesn't. It has to do with democracy. The issue
is whether the executive branch of the white house, can make international
treaties without Congressional participation and without public knowledge.

According to fast track, Congress is permitted to say "yes." That's the
degree of its participation, and it happens without the public knowing it.
So that's kind of like the Kremlin in the old days. That's the way Stalin
made agreements and the Duma, the parliament, could say "yes." The most
ardent free-trader would be opposed to this if they had any commitment to
democracy. Its called "free trade" because that's the only way, without
public interference, that the government and business can push through their
own international economic agreements, which are not free trade agreements.
They're investor rights agreements.

So yes, they used the Sept. 11 opportunity to get that through and if they
can keep the public ignorant and frightened and involved in something else,
there are opportunities to do other things. Take what's called
"privitization of Social Security," which they want desperately. That's
extremely harmful to the general population. It's great for Wall Street.
It'd be a bonanza for Wall Street. They'd have huge amounts of money on
their hands. As far as the general population is concerned, it's a very
chancy operation, much worse than plenty of other alternatives. For one
thing, the whole Social Security crisis is mostly a fraud. In fact, they are
trying to increase the Social Security crisis right now by sending the
government deeply into debt with tax cuts for the rich and huge Pentagon
spending, which is going to force them -- in fact they concede that there's
no debate about it -- to deplete potential Social Security and Medicare and
Medicaid funds. If they can drive the Social Security system into a crisis,
which it is not in right now, they will be able to frighten people into
handing it over to Wall Street. It's just going to make people at the mercy
of the stock market, hardly a means of gaining security as Enron employees
know very well.

But also it has a deeper purpose. Suppose you are a working person and your
pension depends on what happens in the stock market. If you're concerned
about your pension you're going to have to act in ways which support profits
for major corporations because that's what your future depends on. In other
words, you will be committed, throughout your life, to working against your
own rights. You'll have to be committed to working against the rights of
working people, poor people, union rights, labor rights, anything. You've
got to be against that, because being against that is what increases profits
for the rich, and your future is going to depend on profits for the rich.
It's a terrific way to control people. In fact, that's probably its main
purpose, to undermine possibilities for struggling for your own rights and
for human rights in general. That's privatization of Social Security, and if
they can manage to drive the perfectly sound system into a crisis, well,
maybe they can push that through by appropriately frightening people, by the
right kind of propaganda. It's possible. Those are the kinds of things [they
don't] want people to pay attention to or to think about. What [they want
people] to pay attention to is that there's a criminal on an island off the
Philippines and our brave forces are helping attack.

AGR: After 9-11 and the subsequent military actions, there was, of course, a
massive increase in patriotic expression. You saw the pro-USA paraphernalia,
the ubiquitous flag stickers on automobiles, memorial images of the Trade
Towers, and the not-uncommon "Love It Or Leave It" T-shirts.

Within the anti-war movement itself there was some debate over the role of
"love of country" in resisting state violence. Some ascribe to the "peace is
patriotic" approach, while others take the internationalist position that
nation-states themselves are impediments to peace.

Could you comment on these positions and on the challenge of maintaining
fidelity to one's ideals and convictions -- in your case anarchist and
libertarian-socialist -- while fighting practical battles in the real-world
to, as you've said before, "widen the floor of the cage?"

Chomsky: First of all, I don't see any conflict. It seems to me, the general
principal is you say what you believe. Keep true to your beliefs. That's the
only way to reach people. Not only is that the right thing to do, but it's
well worth it. I talk to every imaginable kind of audience, unions,
activists, peace activists, whatever they are and I say basically the same
thing...

You have to ask yourself what the flag waving is about. To the extent that
it's about concern over major atrocities that were carried out against the
United States, which were, and commitment to try to find the perpetrators, I
share it. That's what ought to be done when criminal actions take place.
It's what I think ought to be done against US leaders, for example, who were
involved in criminal actions all over the place. For example, Turkey. So go
after the perpetrators of the crimes in south-eastern Turkey, right up to
Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. That would be exactly right. And the same in
this case.

I think people understand that. They don't hear it, naturally. But when they
hear it, it rings a bell. Honesty usually rings a bell. And in that case the
patriotism is okay, but it's, I think, skin deep. Right beneath it are
decent human beings who want to do the right thing. And the right way to
appeal to people is on that basis. It's not only the honest thing to do, but
it's the right thing to do.

And I think yes, we should focus, as I always do in fact, on the
nation-state as a major instrument of violence and oppression. I mean, take
a look at the wars going on around the world. They are the result of the
effort to impose nation-state systems where they don't belong. The biggest
war in the world right now, and in the last couple of years, is in the
Congo. A couple of million people have been killed there. Nobody pays much
attention -- just a lot of black people killing each other. But what's that
about? Well, it's the effects of the imperial states imposing boundaries
which have nothing to do with the populations. In fact, Europe was the most
savage place in the world for 500 years in its own effort to impose the
nation-state system. It's been a horrendous system. The history of the
United States is an example. Just establishing the national territory was a
brutal, murderous affair. So, yeah, I think we ought to point that out and I
think people should understand it and can understand it.