Radio
Havana Interviews Chomsky
By Noam Chomsky
Telephone interview
by Bernie Dwyer for www.cubadebate.cu
with Professor Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
28th August 2003.
[Bernie Dwyer] A couple of new popular books have recently been published
such as Weapons of Mass Deception and Stupid White Men. Do you see them
as a viable alternative to the corporate media?
[Noam Chomsky] No,
they are not trying to be an alternative to the corporate media. They
are just books among the many books written about the way the corporate
media function and there is by now, in the United States, more than
any other western country that I know, a rather significant popular
movement concerned with the corporate media, which is virtually all
the media within the United States, and the way they function as a kind
of propaganda system.
There is also a
lot of popular protest against efforts to increase the concentration
of the media in fewer and fewer hands so as to prevent even the limited
diversity that exists. The books that you mention are just two of the
many. The books themselves, the critical literature Ive
written on it too- arent an alternative to the corporate media
but rather a part of an on-going effort to construct alternatives or
to compel them to function in a more honest fashion.
[Bernie Dwyer] The
recent war on Iraq and the current US occupation was fully supported
by the mainstream press in the US to the extent that the media became
the political wing of the Bush administration. Isnt that pushing
the power of the press beyond all limits?
[Noam Chomsky] Its
hard to answer that. An independent press, of course, would not function
in that fashion. You are quite right. The press became essentially an
instrument of state policy, but there is nothing new about that. That
happens during just about every military conflict and in fact during
any general confrontation. The press tends overwhelmingly to function
within the framework of state-corporate policy and those are very closely
linked.
During the Vietnam
War, which went on for years remember, the press was almost entirely
supportive of the war. Toward the end, when it started getting costly
to the United States and the business world then you started getting
timid criticisms about how it was going to cost us too much and so on
and youll find that criticism now too: its costing us too
much. This goes back as far as you would like. The First World War was
the same. And its pretty much true in other countries too.
The mass media,
the business world, and the intellectual community in general, tend
to line up in support of concentrated power - which in the US is state
and corporate power. And the same is true on the issues of Cuba. For
example almost nobody knows the history of US terrorism in Cuba since
1959. Terrorism is a big word. Everybody talks about it. You wouldnt
find a person in a thousand or maybe a hundred thousand who is aware
of the fact that the Kennedy administration intensified the on-going
terrorist operations (against Cuba) and pressed them to such a point
that they almost led to a terminal nuclear war and then they went on
for years after that. In fact they are still going on. Almost no one
knows that. Its not covered.
[Bernie Dwyer] The
US media has branded several nations as terrorist nation or as harbouring
terrorists or as being perpetrators of terrorist attacks. Cuba has been
pigeonholed as falling into one if not all of these categories when
we know that Cuba has suffered more terrorist attacks against it than
any other country. How serious do you take these accusations against
Cuba? Is the drum beat getting louder?
[Noam Chomsky] Louder
than when? Not louder than when Kennedy invaded Cuba and then launched
Operation Mongoose leading right to the missile crisis which practically
destroyed the world. But, yes, its picking up. The fact that the
United States can label other countries as terrorist states itself is
quite remarkable because it not a secret that the United States is incontrovertibly
a terrorist state.
The US is the only
country in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for
international terrorism. The words they used were: unlawful use
of force in their war against Nicaragua. Thats international
terrorism. There were two Security Council resolutions supporting that
judgement. The US of course vetoed them. And that was no small terrorist
war. It practically destroyed the country. US terrorism against Cuba
has been going on since 1959 and the fact that the US can label Cuba
a terrorist state when it has been carrying out a major terrorist campaign
against Cuba since 1959, picking up heavily in the60s and peaking
in the 70s in fact, thats pretty astonishing.
But I think if you
do a careful study of the American media and intellectual journals and
intellectual opinions and so on, you will find nothing about this and
not a word suggesting that there is anything strange about it. And if
you look at the scholarly literature on terrorism by people like Walter
Laqueur and other respected scholars, and take a look at the index,
you find Cuba mentioned often and if you look at the page references,
what is mentioned is suspicions that Cuba may have been involved in
some terrorist actions, but what you will not find is a reference to
the very well documented US terrorist operations against Cuba.
And that is not
controversial. We have reams of declassified government documents on
it. There is extensive scholarship on it, but it cannot enter into public
discourse. Its a pretty remarkable achievement, not just of the
media but of the intellectual community altogether. Its not very
different in Europe. If you did an investigation in England you would
probably find pretty much the same.
[Bernie Dwyer] The
US and the people of the US have nothing to fear from Cuba. Cuba is
not a threat. So why is the government doing such a closed job on Cuba?
[Noam Chomsky] The
United States, to its credit, is a very free country, maybe the freest
country in the world in many respects. One result of that is that we
have extremely rich internal documentation. We have a rich record of
high level planning documents which tell us the answer to your question.
And thats an achievement of American democracy. However, almost
nobody knows about it and that is a failure of democracy.
So the information
is there. Its in the scholarly literature. Its in the declassified
record and it answers your question very clearly. So when the Kennedy
administration took over, for example, it immediately organised a Latin
American mission. Latin America was going to be a centre piece of the
Kennedy administration policy. It was headed by a well-known American
historian, Arthur Schlesinger, who was adviser to the president. Schlesingers
report of the Latin American mission has been declassified for the last
number of years and the mission explains to Kennedy the importance of
overthrowing the government of Cuba.
The reason is that
they are concerned about, virtually quoting, the spread of the Castro
idea of taking matters into ones own hands which will have a lot
of appeal to suffering and impoverished people around the hemisphere
who are facing very similar problems. We dont want that idea to
spread. If you go on in the declassified records, you find descriptions
by the CIA and the intelligence agencies of how the problem with Cuba
is what they call its successful defiance of US policies going back
a hundred and fifty years. Thats a reference to the Monroe Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine, which the US was not powerful enough to implement
at the time, stated that the US would become the dominant force in this
hemisphere and Cuba is not submitting to that. That is successful defiance
of a policy that goes back a hundred and fifty years and that cant
be tolerated. They make it very clear. They are not worried about Cuban
aggression or even subversion or anything. They are worried about Cubas
successful defiance and thats not just Cuban. Thats common.
When the US overthrew
the government of Guatemala in 1954 - again we have that rich record
of declassified documents - what they explain is that the threat of
Guatemala was that its the first democratic government had enormous
popular support. It was mobilising the peasantry, instituting social
reforms and this was likely to appeal to surrounding countries that
might want to do the same thing. And that couldnt be tolerated
or else the whole framework of US domination of the hemisphere would
collapse.
And it was the same
in South East Asia and the rest of the world. The threat of independent
nationalism has always been a primary threat. And actually if you go
back far enough, remember the American colonies when they liberated
themselves from England, they were regarded by European statesmen as
a tremendous threat. The Czar, Metternich and others were extremely
upset by this threat of republicanism which might appeal to others and
undermine the conservative world order and its moral foundations. Its
the kind of thing that you cant really accept. Its basically
the threat of independence, of taking matters into your own hands, that
cant be accepted. And anyone who wants to know about this can
find it out.
As I say, its
a very free country. We have a rich documentary record of high level
planning going way back and its constantly the same thing. I mean
why did the United States, Britain and France support Mussolini and
Hitler as they did? Well, because they were afraid of what they called
the masses in Italy and Germany. If the masses, inspired by the Soviet
Union, might try to take matters into their own hands and threaten the
rights of property and power, and the only people who can stop them
are Hitler and Mussolini, then thats why they supported them almost
to the day that the war began. These are old policies and theyre
understandable. Theyre understandable if you want the world to
be subordinated primarily to domestic power interests.
[Bernie Dwyer] Because
of 43 years of non-stop aggression Cuba has obviously had to take matters
into their its own hands even though they did appeal to the United States
to stop some of this terrorism emanating from the right-wing anti-Cuba
groups in Miami. Are you familiar with the case of the five Cuban political
prisoners in the US who were incarcerated for fighting against terrorism?
[Noam Chomsky] Thats
an amazing case! Cuba approached the United States with an offer to
cooperate in combating terrorism and, in fact, the FBI sent people to
Cuba to get information from the Cubans about it. The next thing was
that Cubans who had infiltrated the terrorist groups in the United States
were arrested. That is utterly shocking! Do you think its reported?
Nobody knows about it. I mean, here are Cubans who are infiltrating
illegal, terrorist organisations in the United States, which are violating
US law and the infiltrators are arrested, not the terrorists. Its
astonishing. The US has refused intelligence cooperation with Cuba on
terrorism because it would lead directly back to terrorist groups based
in the United States.
Actually, since
the 1970s, the United States has at least officially opposed this US-based
terrorism. But it still tolerates it - it doesnt close down the
terrorist bases or the terrorist funding - but theoretically it opposes
it and in fact has even occasionally prosecuted people. Up until then
(the 1970s) the US wasnt relying on Cuban exiles. It was itself
organising the terrorism. Thats right into the 1970s officially.
What is going on now, we dont know. We know the official record
up until 20 or 30 years ago.
[Bernie Dwyer] How
are you following the case of the five Cubans considering the media
silence surrounding the case?
[Noam Chomsky] There
are, fortunately, independent sources although I cant think of
an article in the United States. The British press has covered it. There
are several independent alternative journals in the United States that
have covered it. There was quite a good article on it by William Blum
in Counterpunch. Theres a good quarterly journal called Socialism
and Democracy which published the testimonies of the Cuban prisoners.
You can find material on some of the Internet sites like Z-net. So,
it is possible for people to find out about it, but its a research
project. An ordinary person cannot be expected to do that. Its
a major research project.
[Bernie Dwyer] The
US obsession with overthrowing the Cuban Revolution reached new heights
when James Cason became chief at the US Interests Section here in Havana.
He deliberately set out to subvert the Cuban social project from the
inside by recruiting, for money and favours, Cubans who would act as
agents for the US. When the Cuban government reacted by arresting, putting
on trial and imprisoning those mercenaries, there was a lot of criticism
from many of Cubas friends.
[Noam Chomsky] Yes,
I have criticized them for that. I think it was a mistake. In the case
of the petition I signed we insisted that it emphasised US terrorist
actions and any illegal economic warfare going on against Cuba since
1959. It went on to say that in case of the people that were imprisoned,
no public information had been available - and it still isnt -
to justify the charge that they are US government agents, not critical
dissidents. I mean the fact that they met with Cason, I may be wrong,
but it doesnt prove it. I think it was the wrong thing to do and
not very wise. It was just a gift to the harshest elements in the United
States.
[Bernie Dwyer] You
would still uphold your admiration of the Cuban system as you did before?
[Noam Chomsky] As
far as I am concerned, I do not pass judgement on what Cubans decide
to do. I am in favour of Cubas successful defiance of the United
States. I am in favour of them taking matters into their own hands.
Exactly how they carry it out
I have my own opinions. A lot of
things I think are fine, a lot not, but its a matter for the Cubans
to decide. My concern is that the hemispheric superpower not resort
to violence, pressure, force, threat, and embargo in order to prevent
Cubans from deciding how to determine their own fate.
[Bernie Dwyer] There
seems to be a move forward in Latin America with Chavez, Lula and Kirchner.
Are you feeling optimistic for the future of Latin America?
[Noam Chomsky] There
certainly are opportunities. What happened in Brazil is quite dramatic.
Its a real lesson for the industrial democracies. Brazil taught
a lesson to the industrial democracies that they ought to learn. There
was an achievement of democracy in Brazil which has not been equalled
in any of the rich industrial democracies. Popular forces based in the
working class, in the peasantry, human rights organisations and others
actually succeeded in electing their own president - a quite marvellous
person, I think - over tremendous odds.
That doesnt
happen in the western countries. It cant happen in the United
States for example. But how far that can go is a difficult question.
Forty years ago when Brazil had a moderately populist president - nothing
like Lula, but at least moderately populist - the Kennedy administration
just organised a military coup which overthrew him. It was one of the
actions that set off a major plague of repression throughout the hemisphere.
They are not doing it this time even though Lula is a far more significant
figure than Goulart was and has much more popular support. They are
not doing it for a number of reasons. One of them is that the international
economic arrangement that has been imposed in the last 20 or 30 years
in neo-liberal structures creates a stranglehold which prevents democracy
from functioning. The main purpose, I believe, of the main neo-liberal
measures is to reduce the options for democratic choice.
Now whether Brazil
and others in the region will be able to combat this is a serious question
and it certainly will require a very high degree of North/South solidarity
for them to break out of this network of controls that has been designed
to prevent people from making democratic choices without military coups.