| |
 |
|
| Politics Forum Index » Libertarian Forum » No Change in US "Mafia Principle" (Chomsky)... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dan Clore... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57372.shtml
Axis of Logic
Finding Clarity in the 21st Century Mediaplex
Critical Analysis
Noam Chomsky: No Change in US 'Mafia principle'
By Mamoon Alabbasi
Middle East Online
Sunday, Nov 1, 2009
As civilised people across the world breathed a sigh of relief to see
the back of former US president George W. Bush, top American
intellectual Noam Chomsky warned against assuming or expecting
significant changes in the basis of Washington's foreign policy under
President Barack Obama.
During two lectures organised by the School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS) in London, Chomsky cited numerous examples of the driving
doctrines behind US foreign policy since the end of World War II.
"As Obama came into office, Condoleezza Rice predicted that he would
follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that is pretty much what
happened, apart from a different rhetorical style," said
"But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric. Deeds commonly tell a
different story," he added.
"There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional
conception that we if can control Middle East energy resources, then we
can control the world," explained Chomsky.
Chomsky said that a leading doctrine of US foreign policy during the
period of its global dominance is what he termed as "the Mafia principle."
"The Godfather does not tolerate 'successful defiance'. It is too
dangerous. It must therefore be stamped out so that others understand
that disobedience is not an option," said Chomsky.
The US sees "successful defiance" of Washington as a "virus" that will
"spread contagion," he explained.
Iran
The US had feared this "virus" of independent thought from Washington by
Tehran and therefore acted to overthrow the Iranian parliamentary
democracy in 1953.
"The goal in 1953 was to retain control of Iranian resources," said Chomsky.
However, "in 1979 the (Iranian) virus emerged again. The US at first
sought to sponsor a military coup; when that failed, it turned to
support Saddam Hussein's merciless invasion (of Iran)."
"The torture of Iran continued without a break and still does, with
sanctions and other means," said Chomsky.
"The US continued, without a break, its torture of Iranians," he stressed.
Nuclear attack
Chomsky mocked the idea presented by mainstream media that a
future-nuclear-armed Iran may attack already-nuclear-armed Israel.
"The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about
at the level of an asteroid hitting the earth -- unless, of course, the
ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly
incinerated along with them," said Chomsky, stressing that this is not
the case.
Chomsky further explained that the presence of US anti-missile weapons
in Israel are really meant for preparing a possible attack on Iran, and
not for self-defence, as it is often presented.
"The systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But
....the purpose of the US interception systems, if they ever work, is to
prevent any retaliation to a US or Israeli attack on Iran -- that is, to
eliminate any Iranian deterrent," said Chomsky.
Iraq
Chomsky reminded the audience of America's backing of former Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein during and even after Iraq's war with Iran.
"The Reaganite love affair with Saddam did not end after the (Iran-Iraq)
war. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the United States,
then under Gorge Bush I, to receive advanced weapons' training," said
Chomsky.
This support continued while Saddam was committing atrocities against
his own people, until he fell out of US favour when in 1990 he invaded
Kuwait, an even closer alley of Washington.
"In 1990, Saddam defied, or more likely misunderstood orders, and he
quickly shifted from favourite friend to the reincarnation of Hitler,"
Chomsky added.
Then the people of Iraq were subjected to "genocidal" US-backed sanctions.
Chomsky explained that although the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003,
which was launched under many false pretexts and lies, was a "major
crime", many critics of the invasion - including Obama - viewed it as
merely as "a mistake" or a "strategic blunder".
"It's probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after
Stalingrad," he said
"There's nothing principled about it. It wasn't a strategic blunder: it
was a major crime," he added.
Chomsky credited the holding of elections in Iraq in 2005 to popular
Iraqi demand, despite initial US objection.
The US military, he argued, could kill as many Iraqi insurgents as it
wished, but it was more difficult to shoot at non-violent protesters in
the streets out on the open, which meant Washington at times had to give
in to public Iraqi pressure.
But despite being pressured to announce a withdrawal from Iraq, the US
continues to seek a long term presence in the country.
The US mega-embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under Obama, noted Chomsky.
Optimism
Chomsky stressed that public pressure in the 'West' can make a positive
difference for people suffering from the aggression of 'Western'
governments.
"There is a lot of comparison between opposition to the Iraq war with
opposition to the Vietnam war, but people tend to forget that at first
there was almost no opposition to the Vietnam war," said Chomsky.
"In the Iraq war, there were massive international protests before it
officially stated... and it had an effect. The United Sates could not
use the tactics used in Vietnam: there was no saturation bombing by
B52s, so there was no chemical warfare - (the Iraq war was) horrible
enough, but it could have been a lot worse," he said.
"And furthermore, the Bush administration had to back down on its war
aims, step by step," he added.
"It had to allow elections, which it did not want to do: mainly a
victory for non-Iraqi protests. They could kill insurgents; they
couldn't deal hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. Their
hands were tied by the domestic constraints. They finally had to abandon
- officially at least - virtually all the war aims," said Chomsky.
"As late as November 2007, the US was still insisting that the 'Status
of Forces Agreement' allow for an indefinite US military presence and
privileged access to Iraq's resources by US investors - well they didn't
get that on paper at least. They had to back down. OK, Iraq is a horror
story but it could have been a lot worse," he said
"So yes, protests can do something. When there is no protest and no
attention, a power just goes wild, just like in Cambodia and northern
Louse," he added.
[I believe that would be "Laos".--DC]
Turkey
Chomsky said that Turkey could become a "significant independent actor"
in the region, if it chooses to.
"Turkey has to make some internal decisions: is it going to face west
and try to get accepted by the European Union or is it going to face
reality and recognise that Europeans are so racist that they are never
going to allow it in?," said Chomsky.
The Europeans "keep raising the barrier on Turkish entry to the EU," he
explained.
But Chomsky said Turkey did become an independent actor in March 2003
when it followed its public opinion and did not take part in the US-led
invasion of Iraq.
Turkey took notice of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its
population, which opposed the invasion.
But 'New Europe' was led by Berlusconi of Italy and Aznar of Spain, who
rejected the views of their populations - which strongly objected to the
Iraq war - and preferred to follow Bush, noted Chomsky.
So, in that sense Turkey was more democratic than states that took part
in the war, which in turn infuriated the US.
Today, Chomsky added, Turkey is also acting independently by refusing to
take part in the US-Israeli military exercises.
Fear factor
Chomsky explained that although 'Western' government use "the maxim of
Thucydides" ('the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they
must'), their peoples are hurled via the "fear factor".
Via cooperate media and complicit intellectuals, the public is led to
believe that all the crimes and atrocities committed by their
governments is either "self defence" or "humanitarian intervention".
NATO
Chomsky noted that Obama has escalated Bush's war in Afghanistan, using
NATO.
NATO is also seen as reinforcing US control over energy supplies.
But the US also used NATO to keep Europe under control.
"From the earliest post-World War days, it was understood that Western
Europe might choose to follow an independent course," said Chomsky."NATO
was partially intended to counter this serious threat," he added.
Middle East oil
Chomsky explained that Middle East oil reserves were understood to be "a
stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material
prizes in world history," the most "strategically important area in the
world," in Eisenhower's words.
Control of Middle East oil would provide the United States with
"substantial control of the world."
This meant that the US "must support harsh and brutal regimes and block
democracy and development" in the Middle East.
Somalia
Chomsky tackled the origins of the Somali piracy issue.
"Piracy is not nice, but where did it come from?"
Chomsky explained that one of the immediate reasons for piracy is
European counties and others are simply "destroying Somalia's
territorial waters by dumping toxic waste - probably nuclear waste - and
also by overfishing."
"What happens to the fishermen in Somalia? They become pirates. And then
we're all upset about the piracy, not about having created the
situation," said Chomsky.
Chomsky went on to cite another example of harming Somalia.
"One of the great achievements of the war on terror, which was greatly
hailed in the press when it was announced, was closing down an Islamic
charity - Barakat - which was identified as supporting terrorists.
"A couple of months later... the (US) government quietly recognised that
they were wrong, and the press may have had a couple of lines about it -
but meanwhile, it was a major blow against Somalia. Somalia doesn't have
much of an economy but a lot of it was supported by this charity: not
just giving money but running banks and businesses, and so on.
"It was a significant part of the economy of Somalia...closing it
down... was another contributing factor to the breaking down of a very
weak society...and there are other examples."
Darfur
Chomsky also touched on Sudan's Darfur region.
"There are terrible things going on in Darfur, but in comparison with
the region they don't amount to a lot unfortunately - like what's going
on in eastern Congo is incomparably worse than in Darfur.
"But Darfur is a very popular topic for Western humanists because you
can blame it on an enemy - you have to distort a lot but you can blame
it on 'Arabs', 'bad guys'," he explained.
"What about saving eastern Congo where maybe 20 times as many people
have been killed? Well, that gets kind of tricky ... for people who...
are using minerals from eastern Congo that obtained by multinationals
sponsoring militias which slaughter and kill and get the minerals," he said.
Or the fact that Rwanda is simply the worst of the many agents and it is
a US alley, he added.
Goldstone's Gaza report
Chomsky appeared to have agreed with Israel that the Goldstone report on
the Gaza war was biased, only he saw it as biased in favour of Israel.
The Goldstone report had acknowledged Israel's right to self-defence,
although it denounced the method this was conducted.
Chomsky stressed that the right to self-defence does not mean resorting
to military force before "exhausting peaceful means", something Israel
did not even contemplate doing.
In fact, Chomsky points out, it was Israel who broke the ceasefire with
Hamas and refused to extend it, as continuing the siege of Gaza itself
is an act of war.
As for the current stalled Mideast peace process, Chomsky said that
despite adopting a tougher tone towards Israel than that of Bush, Obama
made no real effort to pressure Israel to live up to its obligations.
In the absence of the threat of cutting US aid for Israel, there is no
compelling reason why Tel Aviv should listen to Washington.
What can be done?
Chomsky stressed that despite all the obstacles, public pressure can and
does make a difference for the better, urging people to continue
activism and spreading knowledge.
"There is no reason to be pessimistic, just realistic."
Chomsky noted that public opinion in the US and Britain is increasingly
becoming more aware of the crimes committed by Israel.
"Public opinion is shifting substantially."
And this is where a difference can be made, because Israel will not
change its policies without pressure from the 'West'.
"There is a lot to do in Western countries...primarily in the US."
Chomsky also stressed the importance of taking legal action in 'Western'
countries against companies breaking international law via illegitimate
dealings with Israel, citing the possible involvement of British Gas in
Israeli theft of natural gas off the coast of Gaza, as one example that
should be investigated.
In conclusion of one of the lectures, Chomsky quoted Antonio Gramsci who
famously called for "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will."
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:47 pm
|
|