Does
The Usa Intend To Dominate
The Whole World By Force?
By Noam Chomsky
Amsterdam Forum
02 June, 2003
ANDY CLARK
Hello and welcome to Amsterdam Forum - Radio Netherlands' interactive
discussion programme.
Today a special edition featuring
the world-famous author and political activist Noam Chomsky.
Professor Chomsky, once described
by the New York Times as arguably the most important intellectual alive,
is an outspoken critic of US foreign policy. He says, following the
war in Iraq, the US is seeking to dominate the world by force, a dimension
in which it rules supreme. And he warns this policy will lead to proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and terror attacks based on a loathing
of the US administration. He says the very survival of the species may
be at stake.
Well professor Chomsky joins
us to take questions from our listeners around the world. Welcome professor
Chomsky.
The first e-mail is from
Norberto Silva, from the Cape Verde islands, and he says: "Could
the USA and president Bush lead the world into a nuclear war with their
policy of pre-emptive attacks?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
They very definitely could. First of all we should be clear - it is
not a policy of pre-emptive attacks. Pre-emption means something in
international law. A pre-emptive attack is one that is taken in the
case of an imminent, on-going threat. For example, if planes were flying
across the Atlantic to bomb New York, it would be legitimate for the
US Air Force to shoot them down. That's a pre-emptive attack. This is
what is sometimes called preventive war. That's a new doctrine that
was announced last September in the National Security Strategy. It declares
the right to attack any potential challenge to the global dominance
of the United States. The potential is in the eye of the observer, so
that, in effect, gives the authorisation to attack essentially anyone.
Could that lead to a nuclear war? Very definitely. We've come very close
in the past. Just last October, for example, it was discovered, to the
shock and horror of those who paid attention, that, during the Cuban
missile crisis in 1962, the world was literally one word away from probably
terminal nuclear war. Russian submarines with nuclear weapons were under
attack by US destroyers. Several commanders thought a nuclear war was
on, and gave the order to shoot nuclear missiles. It was countermanded
by one officer. That's why we're around to talk. There have been plenty
of such cases since.
ANDY CLARK
Are we in a more dangerous situation now, with this preventive doctrine
in place?
NOAM CHOMSKY
Sure. The preventive war doctrine is virtually an invitation to potential
targets to develop some kind of deterrent, and there are only two kinds
of deterrent. One is weapons of mass destruction, the other is large-scale
terror. That's been pointed out over and over again by strategic analysts,
the intelligence agencies and so on, so sure, it raises the danger that
something will get out of control.
ANDY CLARK
This email is from Don Rhodes, from Melbourne, in Australia, and he
says: "I do not believe that the US wants to dominate the world.
The Americans have been attacked on several fronts, 9/11 being only
one of them. Someone has to bring into line rogue states and it is the
USA alone that has the capability to do this. Without such a 'world
policeman' the world would just disintegrate into warring factions.
Look at history for examples of this." What do you make of that
sort of statement?
NOAM CHOMSKY
The first sentence is simply factually incorrect. The National Security
Strategy states fairly explicitly that the US intends to dominate the
world by force, which is the dimension in which it rules supreme, and
to ensure that there is never any potential challenge to this domination.
That was not only stated explicitly, it has also been commented on repeatedly,
right away in the main establishment - the Foreign Affairs journal in
its next issue is pointing out that the United States is declaring the
right to be what it calls a "revisionist state", which will
use force to control the world in its own interests. The person who
sent the email may believe that the US has some unique right to run
the world by force. I don't believe that, and contrary to what was stated
I don't think history supports that at all. In fact the US record, incidentally
with the support of Australia, since the period of its global dominance
in the 1940s, is one of instigating war and violence and terror on a
very substantial scale. The Indochina War, just to take one example
in which Australia participated, was basically a war of aggression.
The United States attacked South Vietnam in 1962. The war then spread
to the rest of Indochina. The end result was several million people
killed, the countries devastated, and that's only one example. So history
does not support the conclusion and the principle that one state should
have a unique right to rule the world by force. That's an extremely
hazardous principle, no matter who the country is.
ANDY CLARK
This is from Noel Collamer, from Bellingham, in Washington, in the USA,
and he writes: "Noam says: 'The Bush administration intends to
dominate the world by force, the one dimension in which it rules supreme,
and to do so permanently.' To this I ask, if we, who can, do not act
with force against tyrants, then what does he suggest be done? That
the brutalized populace should use non-violent resistance against their
tyrant even though this will result in their own genocide?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
First of all - I don't say that, the Bush administration says it. I'm
simply repeating what is stated quite explicitly, and that's not particularly
controversial. As I mentioned, it was commented on, essentially in those
words, in the first issue of Foreign Affairs immediately afterwards.
As for countries suffering under tyranny - yes, it would be very good
if somebody would help and support them. Take for example the current
administration in Washington. They themselves - remember, these are
mostly re-cycled Reaganites - they supported a series of monstrous dictators,
who subjected their populations to vicious tyranny, including Saddam
Hussein, Ceausescu, Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier. It's quite a long list.
The best way to deal with that would have been to stop supporting them.
Incidentally, support for terror and violence continues. The best way
to stop it is to stop supporting them. Often, in fact in every one of
those cases, they were overthrown by their own populations, even though
the US was supporting the dictator. Ceausescu, for example, was a tyrant
perfectly comparable to Saddam Hussein. He was overthrown in 1989 by
his own population, while he was being supported by the current incumbents
in Washington, and that continues. If there are people resisting oppression
and violence, we should find ways to support them, and the easiest way
is to stop supporting the tyrants. After that, complicated issues arise.
There is no record, that I know of, of the US, or any other state -
[there are] very rare examples - intervening to try to prevent oppression
and violence. That's extremely rare.
ANDY CLARK
OK, another email. This is from H.P. Velten, who is from New Jersey,
in the USA, and he says: "Why isn't there more controversy about
Bush's motives in the US media?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
Well, actually there is plenty of controversy. One thing that was quite
striking about the war in Iraq and the National Security Strategy, which
is the framework for it, was that is was very strongly criticised, right
at the core of the foreign policy elite - it was sharply criticised
in the two major foreign affairs journals, Foreign Affairs and Foreign
Policy. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which rarely takes
a position on current controversial issues, had a monograph condemning
it. There's a whole series of other articles. It's partly reflected
in the media, but not very much, because remember, the media tend to
be quite supportive of power, for all sorts of reasons.
ANDY CLARK
OK, another email. This is from Rijswijk, in The Netherlands, from M.J.
"Bob" Groothand. This message says: "Throughout history
some nations have always tried to rule the world. Most recently Germany,
Japan and Russia come to mind. If the US is now the latest 'would-be
conqueror' then we can thank our lucky stars. It would be done with
decency and honour for all mankind. The fact is that nothing like this
is being considered by Bush or the American government. You forget that
the US has a constitution and, unlike Stalin, Hitler, Hussein and other
despots, Bush is up for re-election in two years and American voters
are not dumb nor are they oppressed or intimidated. It's a secret ballot."
Will electoral accountability rein in the US government, do you think,
as this listener suggests?
NOAM CHOMSKY
First of all, the account of history is mostly fanciful, but let's put
that aside. The fact that a country has a constitution and is internally
democratic does not mean that it does not carry out violence and aggression.
There is a long history of this. England, for example, was perhaps the
most free country in the world in the 19th century and was carrying
out horrifying atrocities throughout much of the world, and the case
of the United States is similar. The record goes back very far. The
United States was a democratic country, for example, when it invaded
the Philippines a century ago, killing several hundred thousand people
and leaving it devastated. It was a democratic country in the 1980s,
when the current incumbents in Washington carried out a devastating
war of terror in Nicaragua, leaving tens of thousands dead and the country
practically ruined, an attack for which they incidentally were condemned
by the World Court and the Security Council in a veto-ed resolution,
but then escalated the attack, and so it continues. As to the democratic
election, yes, true, there is an election, and the Republicans have
explained very clearly how they intend to overcome the fact that their
policies are pretty strongly opposed by the majority of the population.
They intend to overcome it by driving the country into fear and panic,
so that they will huddle under the umbrella of a powerful figure who
will protect them. In fact, we've just seen that last September when
the Security Strategy was announced and the drumbeat of propaganda for
war began. There was a government media propaganda campaign, which was
quite spectacular. It succeeded in convincing the majority of the population
that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the United
States. No-one else believed that. Even Kuwait and Iran, where they
despise him, didn't regard him as a threat. They knew he was the weakest
country in the region. It also succeeded in convincing probably the
majority of the population that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, in fact
instigated it and carried it out, and was planning further attacks.
Again, there isn't a particle of evidence for this, and there is no
intelligence agency or security analyst in the world who believes it.
ANDY CLARK
Where is the political opposition in the US then - the Democrats? Why
don't they seek to make inroads into the Republican camp? Obviously,
there is a substantial peace movement - we saw hundreds of thousands
of people on the streets in the US who were opposed to the military
action. Where is the political opposition in the US now?
NOAM CHOMSKY
The Democratic political opposition is very tepid. There has been very
little debate, traditionally, over foreign policy issues. That's recognised
right in the mainstream. Political figures are reluctant to put themselves
in a position where they can be condemned as calling for the destruction
of the United States and supporting its enemies and presenting fantasies,
and be subjected to fantasies of the kind that in fact were included
in that email. Politicians are unwilling to subject themselves to that,
and the result is that the voice of a large portion of the population
simply is barely represented, and the Republicans recognise it. Karl
Rove, the Republican campaign manager, made it clear before the last
election in 2002 that the Republicans would have to try to run the election
on a security issue, because if they faced it on issues of domestic
policy they would lose. So they frightened the population into obedience,
and he has already announced that they are going to have to do the same
thing next time in the 2004 election. They are going to have to present
it as voting for a war president who will defend you from destruction.
Incidentally, they are simply rehearsing a script that runs right through
the 1980s, the first time they were in office - the same people, approximately.
If you look, the policies they implemented were unpopular. The population
was opposed, but they kept pressing the panic button, and it worked.
In 1981 Libya was going to attack us. In 1983 Grenada was going to set
up an airbase from which the Russians would bomb us. In 1985 Reagan
declared a national emergency because the security of the United States
was threatened by the government of Nicaragua. Somebody watching from
Mars would have collapsed in laughter. And so it went on through the
1980s. They managed to keep the population intimidated and frightened
enough so that they could maintain a thin grasp on political power,
and that's the effort since. They didn't invent that tactic, incidentally,
but it unfortunately has its effects, and political figures and others
are reluctant to stand up and face the torrent of abuse and hysteria
that will immediately come from trying to bring matters back to the
level of fact.
ANDY CLARK
OK, another email. This is from Boris Karaman, from Wyoming in the USA,
and he says: "Peace can only come from strength and often comes
after a just war. The Pax Romana resulted from the strength of the Roman
Empire, not from any pacifist ideology. There is more to criticize in
U.S. history when we failed to act soon enough. As examples, Hitler,
Stalin and Pol Pot rose to power because of a lack of aggression against
them. Your criticisms of a power-based approach to foreign policy are
either naive or disingenuous. Those who act against threats make possible
a world where arrogant leftists enjoy the freedom of speech to exhibit
their errors in reasoning. Long may it be so. Peace to you, but peace
through strength." What do you make of that email?
NOAM CHOMSKY
Well, we can begin by looking at the facts. Take, say, Hitler. Hitler
did rise to power with the support of the United States and Britain.
As late as 1937, the State Department was describing Hitler as a moderate
standing between the extremes of right and left, who we must support,
or else the masses of the population might take power and move in a
leftist direction. In fact, the United States did not enter the war
until it was attacked by Japan, and Germany declared war on the United
States. In the case of Stalin, the United States didn't bring him to
power, and they also didn't particularly oppose him. As late as 1948,
Harry Truman, the president, was stating that he thought Stalin was
a decent man, who was honest, [but] being misled by his advisers, and
so on and so forth. In the case of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge developed
in the early 1970s - they were virtually unknown in 1970 - and they
developed in the context of a massive US bombing campaign in Cambodia.
About 600,000 people died, according to the CIA, but it helped energise
a fierce, vicious resistance, which took over in 1975. After it took
over, the United States did nothing to try to stop it, but when Vietnam
did eliminate Pol Pot, in 1978-1979, by invading and driving him out,
Vietnam was bitterly attacked by the United States for the crime of
getting rid of Pol Pot. The US supported a Chinese invasion to punish
Vietnam, and imposed harsh sanctions on them, and in fact turned to
direct support of the remnants of the Pol Pot armies in Thailand. So,
if you want to talk about history, get it straight. Then we can start
with the tirades.
ANDY CLARK
Do you think there is a point where force can be justified? We heard
a lot of arguments about the Iraq war - that this was the lesser of
two evils. The recent history of Iraq was well-known, but now it was
a stage whereby something had to be done to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Lots of Iraqi people themselves - within the country - seemed to support
that argument.
NOAM CHOMSKY
First of all, we don't know that Iraqis were calling out to be invaded,
but if that was the goal, what was the point of all the lying? What
you are saying is that Tony Blair, George Bush, Colin Powell and the
rest are fanatic liars - they were pretending until the last minute
that the goal was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. If the
goal was to liberate the Iraqi people, why not say so? Why the lies?
ANDY CLARK
President Bush did say that in the very last weeks [before the war].
He started talking about a war of liberation.
NOAM CHOMSKY
At the last minute, at the Azores summit, he said that, even if Saddam
Hussein and his associates leave the country, the United States is going
to invade anyway - meaning the US wants to control it. Now, in fact,
there is a serious issue behind this. It has nothing to do with liberating
the Iraqi people. You might ask the question why Iraqis did not overthrow
Saddam the way, say, Romanians overthrew Ceausescu... and so on through
a long series of others. Well, you know it's pretty well understood.
The westerners who know Iraq best - Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck,
the heads of the UN oil for food programme - they had hundreds of investigators
running through the country. They knew the country intimately, and they
have been pointing out, as have plenty of others, that what has prevented
any kind of uprising in Iraq is the murderous sanctions regime, which
killed hundreds of thousands of people by conservative estimates, strengthened
Saddam Hussein, and made the population completely reliant on him for
survival. So the first step in allowing Iraqis to liberate themselves
would have been to stop preventing it, by permitting the society to
reconstruct, so that then they could take care of their own affairs.
If that failed, if Iraqis were unable to do what other populations have
done under the rule of comparable tyrants, at that point the question
of the use of force might arise, but until they have been at least given
an opportunity, and haven't been prevented by US-British action from
undertaking it, we can't seriously raise that question, and in fact
it was not raised by Britain and the United States during the build-up
to war. The focus was on weapons of mass destruction. Just look at the
record.
ANDY CLARK
This is an email from Bob Kirk, in Israel. He says: "Why is Professor
Chomsky so opposed to the spread of democracy and the liberation of
most of the world's peoples (by the US if necessary, since the EU has
abandoned challenging dictators), and what means other than persuasion
and sometimes justifable force would he propose in order to liberate
the unfree societies of the world?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
I would be strongly in favour of bringing democracy to the world, and
I am opposed to preventing democracy. One of the reasons - it's very
striking, if you look at the last few months - [is that] I have never
seen, that I can recall, such clear and brazen contempt and hatred for
democracy as has been expressed by US elites. Just have a look. Europe,
for example, was divided into what was called Old and New Europe. There
was a criterion - Old Europe were the countries where the governments,
for whatever reason, took the same positions as the vast majority of
their populations. That's called democracy. New Europe - Italy, Spain,
Hungary - were the countries where the governments overrode an even
larger percentage of their populations. The population was more opposed
in those countries than in Old Europe, but the governments disregarded
their populations - maybe 80 or 90 percent of them - and followed orders
from Washington, and that's called good! Turkey is the most striking
example. Turkey was bitterly attacked by US commentators and elites,
because the government took the same position as about 95 percent of
the population. Paul Wolfowitz, who is described as the great exponent
of democratisation, a few weeks ago condemned the Turkish military for
not intervening to compel the government to, as he put it, "help
Americans", instead of paying attention to 95 percent of their
own population. This expresses brazen contempt for democracy, and the
record supports it. It's not that the United States is uniquely bad,
it's like any other powerful state, but take a look at the record in
the areas where the US has controlled the region for a long time - Central
America and the Caribbean. It's about a hundred years. The US has been
willing to tolerate democracy, but as they themselves put it, only if
it is - I'm quoting from a Reagan administration advocate of democracy
- "top-down democracy", in which traditional elites remain
in power, elites that have been associated with the United States and
run their societies the way the US wants. In that case, the US will
tolerate democracy. They are very similar to other powerful states,
but let's not have any illusions about it. The sender is writing from
the Middle East, if I remember...
ANDY CLARK
From Israel.
NOAM CHOMSKY
...and there the United States has supported brutal, oppressive dictatorships
for a long time, and it has known for a long time that that is the major
reason for popular opposition. Back in the 1950s, we know from internal
records, president Eisenhower discussed with his staff what he called
the "campaign of hatred against us" among the people of the
Middle East, and the reason was that the US was supporting oppressive
and undemocratic regimes and blocking democracy and development because
of our interest in controlling near-east oil. Well that continues until
the present day. You hear the same thing from wealthy westernised Muslims
interviewed in the Wall Street Journal at this very moment. There is
a long record of opposing democracy, unless it is under control, and
for reasons that are rooted in familiar great power politics.
ANDY CLARK
Let's take another email. This is from Vera Gottlieb, from British Columbia,
in Canada, and she says: "Under the guise of 'fighting terrorism',
the US Bill of Rights is being strongly curtailed, not to say decimated.
I can't understand why the average American is not up in arms over it.
Does the average American know, or care, what is really going on?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
Very few are well aware of what's going on. The Patriot Act, and the
new, planned Patriot 2 Act, it is true, undermine - in principle at
least, in words, and partially in actions - fundamental civil liberties
to a remarkable extent. So, the current justice department has claimed
the right to arrest people, including American citizens, put them in
confinement indefinitely, without charge, without access to lawyers
and families, until the president declares that the war on terror is
over. They have even gone beyond that. The new plans include plans to
actually take away citizenship if the attorney general decides to do
so. This has been very harshly condemned by civil rights lawyers, law
professors, others, but very little of it leaks into the media. It's
not really well-known. These moves are quite dramatic. President Bush
is supposed to have on his desk a bust of Winston Churchill, given to
him by his friend Tony Blair, and in fact Churchill had something to
say about this. He said, and this is virtually a quote, [that] for a
government to put a person in prison without trial by his peers is in
the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian governments,
whether nazi or communist. He said that in 1943, condemning proposals
of a similar nature in England, which weren't enacted. Remember, in
1943 England was in pretty desperate straits - it was under attack and
facing destruction by the most vicious military force in history, and
nevertheless Churchill rightly described measures like these as "in
the highest degree odious", and "the foundation of totalitarian
governments". Yes, people should be very upset about it.
ANDY CLARK
Why isn't this an issue of common debate in the USA then? And why isn't
there grassroots opposition against the Patriot Act and these things
you've just been describing?
NOAM CHOMSKY
First of all, to know these things you have to do a bit of a research
project. I don't say that it is hidden - you can find the facts if you
look, but they are certainly not common knowledge. To the extent they
are common knowledge, there is opposition, but you have to recall the
great success of the government media propaganda campaign, since last
September, to convince the population of the United States that they
are in imminent threat of destruction by the monster Saddam Hussein,
and next week it will be someone else who we have to protect ourselves
against. Incidentally, the majority, who were convinced by those propaganda
lies, their attitudes correlate very closely with support for war, and
you can understand why - if you really believe that, you're willing
to see civil liberties erode. Of course, it was fabrication, one of
the most spectacular examples of propaganda fabrication known, as many
have pointed out, but it did work. When people are frightened they will
- sometimes - be willing not to defend the rights that they have won.
ANDY CLARK
OK, another email. This is from Venezuela. This is from Alberto Villasmil
Raven, and he says: "I would like to know if Professor Chomsky
thinks it possible that the US will invade Venezuela."
NOAM CHOMSKY
Well, I don't think they'll directly invade, but among the regions that
are targeted for so-called preventive war, one of them is almost certainly
the Andes region. It's a region of substantial resources. It is, to
a certain degree, out of control. The US already has extensive military
resources - a large military basing system in Ecuador, the Dutch islands,
El Salvador - surrounding the region, and quite a few forces on the
ground. My suspicion is that the US will probably, in Venezuela, once
again support a coup as it did last year. But if that doesn't work,
direct intervention is not impossible. Remember, this has long been
planned. One of the very good things about the United States is it's
a very free society, uniquely so. We have extensive records of internal
planning. Right in the middle of the Cuban missile crisis, where we
have the records, president Kennedy and his brother were discussing
the threat of the Cuban missiles, and they said one of the big problems
they posed was: "They might deter an invasion of Venezuela, if
we decide to invade." That was 1962. These are old policies, deeply
rooted.
ANDY CLARK
OK, this is from Berrada M. Ali, from Rabat, in Morocco, and his question
is as follows: "Do you think that, after the unjustified and unjustifiable
war against Iraq, the world will lose the meaning of its existence,
like in the field of language, when we lose the gramatical rules? Will
we automatically lose the reference of the meaning of sentences, and
consequently the meaning of the world around us?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
In my opinion, the most honest commentary on this point has been made
by strong supporters of the war in Iraq. For example, if you take a
look at the current issue of Foreign Affairs, the main establishment
journal, there is a lead article by a well-known specialist on international
law, Michael Glennon, who argues that we should recognise that international
law and international institutions are what he calls "hot air".
They have proven their inapplicability by the fact that the United States
disregards them, and he says it is right to disregard them, and the
United States must maintain the right to use force as it chooses, independent
of these institutions, which we simply have to dismiss and disregard.
Well that's at least an honest statement. I think it's a terrible threat
to the world, and it's part of the reason why the US government has
become an object of massive fear around the world. The international
polls on this are remarkable, and it's understandable. When a country
takes that position, of course people are going to be frightened, and
furthermore, as again has been pointed out over and over by intelligence
agencies and analysts and so on, they'll do something about it. They'll
try to find means of deterrence. The United States is calling on the
world to proliferate weapons of mass destruction and terror, if only
as a deterrent.
ANDY CLARK
One final email. This is from John Blessen, in Beverly Hills, in the
United States, and his message is: "How can the United States best
protect itself from rogue states like North Korea? And from nuclear,
chemical, and biological threats from outlaw states? Cataclysmic threats
to the United States are real and some say imminent, so how would you,
Dr Chomsky, fashion a defense policy for the United States?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
Well, let's take the one example that was mentioned - North Korea. You
can't make a general comment, it depends on the case. Take the case
of North Korea. Here there is a strong consensus among the states of
the region - South Korea, Japan, China and Russia - that a diplomatic
path should be followed, a path of negotiations to reduce the threat,
which is real, and to integrate North Korea slowly back into the region
in some fashion, and that's a wise move. Actually, Clinton made moves
in that direction. He didn't actually implement them, but he made them.
They were pretty successful, and I think that consensus is correct.
The way to defend yourself against such threats is to prevent them from
arising. There are many ways to do that, and the same is true in other
cases that were mentioned. In the case of Iraq, it was a horrible regime.
That's why I was always opposed to the fact that the United States supported
Saddam Hussein, and also was opposed to the sanctions regime, which
prevented a revolt against him, but, horrible as it was, it was not
a threat. Kuwait and Iran, which despise Saddam Hussein - they were
both invaded by him - nevertheless didn't regard him as a threat, and
there was good reason for that. Iraq was the weakest state in the region.
Its military expenditures were about a third those of Kuwait, which
has ten percent of its population. It had been decimated by the sanctions,
virtually disarmed - a horrible place, but not a threat. This was propaganda
- grotesque, ugly propaganda. If you want to look at other cases that
one has a reason to be worried about - yes, then make up appropriate
plans for them. Take, say, the threat of terror. That's very real and
very dangerous. The threat of terror has been increased by actions of
the Bush administration. For example, intelligence agencies are pointing
out that recruitment for terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda has risen
very sharply since the threat to invade Iraq began, and then the invasion,
and that's to be anticipated for good reasons. It's understood why.
ANDY CLARK
You are somebody who seeks to debunk this propaganda that you say the
US government is pushing onto the population. What sort of attitudes
do people take towards you now - someone who speaks out against current
US policy?
NOAM CHOMSKY
I probably spend an hour a night just very reluctantly writing letters
turning down invitations to talk all over the country - huge audiences,
tremendous interest. The United States is not different from other countries
in the world in this respect. There is great fear and concern about
the policies that the Bush administration is pursuing. If you eliminate
the element of panic, which was induced by the propaganda, which is
unique to the United States, then opposition to the war and to the security
strategy here are approximately the same as elsewhere. I and in fact
other people who are willing to speak publicly are simply overwhelmed
by requests and demands to discuss these issues.
ANDY CLARK
Professor Noam Chomsky, author, political activist and linguistics professor
from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, thank you very much
for joining us.
NOAM CHOMSKY
Thank you.
ANDY CLARK
And thank you all very much for listening.