The
Greatest Threat To Peace
By
Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian
Monthly Review
17 May , 2003
David Barsamian: What are
the regional implications of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq?
Noam Chomsky: I think not
only the region but the world in general perceives it correctly as a
kind of an easy test case to try to establish a norm for use of military
force, which was declared in general terms last September. Last September,
the National Security Strategy of the United States of America was issued.
It presented a somewhat novel and unusually extreme doctrine on the
use of force in the world. And its hard not to notice that the
drumbeat for war in Iraq coincided with that. It also coincided with
the onset of the congressional campaign. All these are tied together.
The new doctrine was not
one of preemptive war, which arguably falls within some stretching of
the U.N. Charter, but rather of something that doesnt even begin
to have any grounds in international law, namely, preventive war. The
doctrine, you recall, was that the United States would rule the world
by force, and that if there is any challenge perceived to its domination,
a challenge perceived in the distance, invented, imagined, whatever,
then the U.S. will have the right to destroy that challenge before it
becomes a threat. Thats preventive war, not preemptive war.
And if you want to declare
a doctrine, a powerful state has the capacity to create what is called
a new norm. So if India invades Pakistan to put an end to monstrous
atrocities, thats not a norm. But if the United States bombs Serbia
on dubious grounds, thats a norm. Thats what power means.
So if you want to establish
a new norm, you have to do something. And the easiest way to do it is
to select a completely defenseless target, which can be completely overwhelmed
by the most massive military force in human history. However, in order
to do that credibly, at least to your own population, you have to frighten
them. So the defenseless target has to be turned into an awesome threat
to survival which was responsible for September 11 and is about to attack
us again, and so on and so forth. And that was indeed done. Beginning
last September there was a massive effort which substantially succeeded
in convincing Americans, alone in the world, that Saddam Hussein is
not only a monster but a threat to their existence. That was the content
of the October congressional resolution and a lot of things since. And
it shows in the polls. And by now about half the population even believes
that he was responsible for September 11.
So all this falls together.
You have the doctrine pronounced. You have a norm established in a very
easy case. The population is driven into a panic and, alone in the world,
believes fantasies of this kind and therefore is willing to support
military force in self-defense. And if you believe this, then it really
is self-defense. So its kind of like a textbook example of aggression,
with the purpose of extending the scope of further aggression. Once
the easy case is handled, you can move on to think of harder cases.
Those are the main reasons
why so much of the world is overwhelmingly opposed to the war. Its
not just the attack on Iraq. Many people perceive it correctly as exactly
the way its intended, as a firm statement that you had better
watch out, were on the way. Thats why the United States
is now regarded as the greatest threat to peace in the world by probably
the vast majority of the population of the world. George Bush has succeeded
within a year in converting the United States to a country that is greatly
feared, disliked, and even hated.
DB: At the World Social Forum
in Porto Alegre in late January, you described Bush and the people around
him as radical nationalists engaging in imperial violence.
Is this regime in Washington substantively different from previous ones?
NC: It is useful to have
some historical perspective. So lets go to the opposite end of
the political spectrum, the Kennedy liberals, about as far as you can
get. In 1963, they announced a doctrine which is not very different
from Bushs national security strategy report. This was in 1963.
Dean Acheson, a respected elder statesman, a senior adviser to the Kennedy
administration, delivered a lecture to the American Society for International
Law in which he instructed them that, no legal challenge arises in the
case of a U.S. response to a challenge to its position, prestige, or
authority. The wording was pretty much like that. What was he referring
to? He was referring to the U.S. terrorist war and economic warfare
against Cuba. And the timing is quite significant. This was shortly
after the missile crisis, which drove the world to the edge of nuclear
war. And that was largely a result of a major campaign of international
terrorism aimed at whats now called regime change, a major factor
that led to the missiles being sent. Right afterwards, Kennedy stepped
up the international terrorist campaign, and Acheson informed the Society
for International Law that we had the right of preventive war against
a mere challenge to our position and prestige, not even a threat to
our existence. His wording, in fact, was even more extreme than the
Bush doctrine last September.
On the other hand, to put
it in perspective, that was a proclamation by Dean Acheson. It wasnt
an official statement of policy. And its obviously not the first
or last declaration of this kind. This one last September is unusual
in its brazenness and in the fact that it is a formal statement of policy,
not just a statement by a high official.
DB: A slogan we have all
heard at peace rallies is No Blood for Oil. The whole issue
of oil is often referred to as the driving force behind the U.S. attack
and occupation of Iraq. How central is oil to U.S. strategy?
NC: Its undoubtedly
central. I dont think any sane person doubts that. The Gulf region
is the main energy-producing region of the world. It has been since
the Second World War. Its expected to be at least for another
generation. Its a huge source of strategic power, of material
wealth. And Iraq is absolutely central to it. It has the second largest
oil reserves. Its very easily accessible, cheap. To control Iraq
is to be in a very strong position to determine the price and production
levels, not too high, not too low, to probably undermine OPEC, and to
swing your weight around throughout the world. Thats been true
since the Second World War. It has nothing in particular to do with
access to the oil; the U.S. doesnt really intend to access it.
But it does have to do with control. So thats in the background.
If Iraq was somewhere in Central Africa, it wouldnt be chosen
for this test case. So thats certainly there in the background,
just as its there in less crucial regions, like Central Asia.
However, it doesnt account for the specific timing of the operation,
because thats a constant concern.
DB: A 1945 State Department
document on Middle East oil described it as ...a stupendous source
of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world
history. The U.S. imports 15 percent of its oil from Venezuela.
It also imports oil from Colombia and Nigeria. All three of those states
are perhaps, from Washingtons perspective, somewhat problematic
right now, with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and serious internal conflicts,
literally civil war, in Colombia and uprisings in Nigeria threatening
oil supplies there. What do you think about all of those factors?
NC: Thats very pertinent,
and those are the regions where the U.S. actually intends to have access.
The Middle East it wants to control. But, at least according to intelligence
projections, the U.S. intends to rely on what they regard as more stable
Atlantic Basin resourcesAtlantic Basin means West Africa and the
Western Hemispherewhich are more totally under U.S. control than
the Middle East, which is a difficult region. So the projections are:
control the Middle East, but maintain access to the Atlantic Basin,
including the countries you mentioned. It does, therefore, follow that
lack of conformity, disruption of one kind or another, in those areas
is a significant threat, and there is very likely to be another episode
like Iraq, if this one works the way the civilian planners at the Pentagon
hope. If its an easy victory, no fighting, establish a new regime
which you will call democratic, and not too much catastrophe, if it
works like that, they are going to be emboldened on to the next step.
And the next step, you can
think of several possibilities. One of them, indeed, is the Andean region.
The U.S. has military bases all around it now. There are military forces
right in there. Colombia and Venezuela are both, especially Venezuela,
substantial oil producers, and there is more elsewhere, like Ecuador,
and even Brazil. Yes, thats a possibility, that the next step
in the campaign of preventive wars, once the so-called norm is established
and accepted, would be to go on there. Another possibility is Iran.
DB: Indeed, Iran. The U.S.
was advised by none other than that, as Bush called him, man of
peace, Sharon, to go after Iran the day after they
finish with Iraq. What about Iran? A designated axis-of-evil state and
also a country that has a lot of oil.
NC: As far as Israel is concerned,
Iraq has never been much of an issue. They consider it a kind of pushover.
But Iran is a different story. Iran is a much more serious military
and economic force. And for years Israel has been pressing the United
States to take on Iran. Iran is too big for Israel to attack, so they
want the big boys to do it.
And its quite likely
that the war may already be under way. A year ago, over 10 percent of
the Israeli air force was reported to be permanently based in eastern
Turkey, that is, in these huge U.S. military bases in eastern Turkey.
And they are reported to be flying reconnaissance over the Iranian border.
In addition, there are credible reports, that there are efforts, that
the U.S. and Turkey and Israel are attempting to stir up Azeri nationalist
forces in northern Iran to move towards a kind of a linkage of parts
of Iran with Azerbaijan. There is a kind of an axis of U.S.-Turkish-Israeli
power in the region opposed to Iran that may ultimately, perhaps, lead
to the split-up of Iran and maybe military attack. Although there will
be a military attack only if its taken for granted that Iran would
be basically defenseless. Theyre not going to invade anyone who
can fight back.
DB: With U.S. military forces
in Afghanistan and in Iraq, as well as bases in Turkey and Central Asia,
Iran is literally surrounded now. Might not that objective reality on
the ground push forces inside Iran to develop nuclear weapons, if they
dont already have them, in self-defense?
NC: Very likely. The little
evidence we haveserious evidenceindicates that the 1981
Israeli bombing of the Osirak reactor probably stimulated and may have
initiated the Iraqi nuclear weapons development program. They were engaged
in building a nuclear plant, but what it was nobody knew. It was investigated
on the ground after the bombing by a well-known nuclear physicist from
HarvardI believe he was head of the Harvard physics department
at the time. He published his analysis in the leading scientific journal,
Nature. According to him, it was a power plant. Hes an expert
on this topic. Other Iraqi sources, exiled, have indicatedwe cant
prove itthat nothing much was going on. They may have been toying
with the idea of nuclear weapons, but that the bombing of it did stimulate
the nuclear weapons program. You cant prove this, but thats
what the evidence looks like. And its very plausible. That doesnt
have to be true. What you described is highly likely. If you come out
and say, Look, were going to attack you, and countries
know that they have no means of conventional defense, youre virtually
ordering them to develop weapons of mass destruction and networks of
terror. Its transparent. Thats exactly why the CIA and everyone
else predicted it.
DB: What does the Iraq war
and occupation mean for the Palestinians?
NC: Disaster.
DB: No roadmaps to peace?
NC: Its interesting
to read it. One of the rules of journalismI dont know exactly
how it got established, but its held with absolute consistencyis
that when you mention George Bushs name in an article, the headline
has to speak of his vision and the article has to talk about his dreams.
Maybe there will be a photograph of him right next to it peering into
the distance. And one of George Bushs dreams and visions is to
have a Palestinian state somewhere, sometime, in some unspecified place,
maybe in the desert. And we are supposed to worship and praise that
as a magnificent vision. It has become a convention of journalists.
There was a lead story in the Wall Street Journal on March 21 which
I think had the words vision and dream about
ten times.
The vision and the dream
is that maybe the United States will stop undermining totally the long-term
efforts of the rest of the world, virtually without exception, to create
some kind of a viable political settlement. Up until now, the U.S. has
been blocking it, for the last twenty-five to thirty years. The Bush
administration went even further in blocking it, sometimes in pretty
extreme ways, so extreme that they werent even reported.
For example, last December
at the U.N., for the first time the Bush administration reversed U.S.
policy on Jerusalem. Up until now, the U.S. had, at least in principle,
gone along with the 1968 Security Council resolution ordering Israel
to revoke its annexation and occupation and settlement policies in East
Jerusalem. And for the first time, last December, the Bush administration
reversed that. Thats one of many cases intended to undermine the
possibility of any meaningful political settlement. To disguise this,
its called a vision, and the effort to pursue it is called a U.S.
initiative, although in fact what it really is, as anyone who pays the
slightest attention to the history knows, is a U.S. effort to catch
up to long-standing European and Arab efforts and to try to cut them
down so they dont mean very much. The great praise for Sharon
in the United States, who is now considered a great statesmanhe
is after, after all, one of the leading terrorist commanders in the
world for the last fifty yearsthats an interesting phenomenon,
and it reveals another substantial achievement of propaganda, the whole
story, and a dangerous one.
In mid-March, Bush made what
was called his first significant pronouncement on the Middle East, on
the Arab/Israeli problem. He gave a speech. Big headlines. First significant
statement in years. If you read it, it was boilerplate, except for one
sentence. That one sentence, if you take a look at it closely, gives
his roadmap: as the peace process advances, Israel should terminate
new settlement programs. What does that mean? That means until the peace
process reaches a point that Bush endorses, which could be indefinitely
far in the future, until then Israel should continue to build settlements.
Thats a change in policy. Up until now, officially at least, the
U.S. has been opposed to expansion of the illegal settlement programs
that make a political settlement impossible. But now Bush is saying
the opposite: Go on and settle. Well keep paying for it, until
we decide that somehow the peace process has reached an adequate point.
So, yes, it was a significant change towards more aggression, undermining
of international law, and undermining of the possibilities of peace.
Thats not the way it was portrayed. But take a look at the wording.
DB: Youve described
the level of public protest and resistance to the Iraq war as unprecedented;
never before has there been so much opposition before a war began. Where
is that resistance going?
NC: I dont know any
way to predict human affairs. It will go the way people decide it will
go. There are many possibilities. It should intensify. The tasks are
now much greater and more serious than they were before. On the other
hand, its harder. Its just psychologically easier to organize
to oppose a military attack than it is to oppose a long-standing program
of imperial ambition, of which this attack is one phase, and of which
others are going to come next. That takes more thought, more dedication,
more long-term engagement. Its the difference between deciding,
okay, Im in this for the long haul and saying, okay, Im
going out to a demonstration tomorrow and then back home. Those are
choices, all of them. The same in the civil rights movement, the womens
movement, anything.
DB: Talk about threats to
and intimidation of dissidents here inside the United States, including
roundups of immigrants, and citizens, for that matter.
NC: Vulnerable people like
immigrants, definitely have to be concerned. The current government
has claimed rights which go beyond any precedents. There are some in
wartime, but those are pretty ugly ones, like the 1942 round up of Japanese,
or, say, Wilson during the First World War, which was pretty awful.
But theyre now claiming rights that are quite without precedent,
including even the right to arrest citizens, hold them in detention
without access to family or lawyers, and do so indefinitely, without
charges. Immigrants and other vulnerable people should certainly be
cautious. On the other hand, for people like us, citizens with any privileges,
though there are threats, as compared with what people face in most
of the world, they are so slight that its hard to get very upset
about them. Ive just been back from Turkey a couple of times and
Colombia, and compared with the threats that people face there, were
living in heaven. And they dont worry about it. They do, obviously,
but they dont let it stop them.
DB: Do you see Europe and
East Asia emerging as counterforces to U.S. power at some point?
NC: Theyre emerging
all right. There is no doubt that Europe and Asia are economic forces
roughly on a par with North America, and have their own interests. Their
interests are not simply to follow U.S. orders. Theyre tightly
linked. So, for example, the corporate sector in Europe, the U.S., and
most of Asia are linked in all kinds of ways and have common interests.
On the other hand, there are separate interests, and these are problems
that go way back, especially with Europe.
The U.S. has always had an
ambivalent attitude towards Europe. It wanted Europe to be unified,
as a more efficient market for U.S. corporations, great advantages of
scale. On the other hand, it was always concerned about the threat that
Europe might move off in another direction. A lot of the issues about
the accession of the East European countries to the European Union have
a lot to do with that. The U.S. is strongly in favor of it, because
its hoping that these countries will be more susceptible to U.S.
influence and will be able to undermine the core of Europe, which is
France and Germany, the big industrial countries, which might move in
a somewhat more independent direction.
Also in the background is
a long-standing U.S. hatred of the European social market system, which
provides decent wages and working conditions and benefits. Its
very different from the U.S. system. And they dont want that model
to exist, because its a dangerous one. People get funny ideas.
And its very explicitly stated that with the accession of Eastern
European countries, with low wages and repression of labor and so on,
it may help undermine the social and worker standards in Western Europe,
and that would be a big benefit for the U.S.
DB: With the U.S. economy
deteriorating and with more layoffs, how is the Bush administration
going to maintain what some are calling a garrison state with permanent
war and occupation of numerous countries? How are they going to pull
it off?
NC: They have to pull it
off for about another six years. By that time they hope they will have
institutionalized highly reactionary programs within the United States.
They will have left the economy in a very serious state, with huge deficits,
pretty much the way they did in the 1980s. And then it will be somebody
elses problem to patch it together. Meanwhile, they will have,
they hope, undermined social programs, diminished democracy, which of
course they hate, by transferring decisions out of the public arena
into private hands. and they will have done it in a way that will be
very hard to disentangle. So they will have left a legacy internally
that will be painful and hard. But only for the majority of the population.
The people theyre concerned about are going to be making out like
bandits. Very much like the Reagan years. Its the same people,
after all.
And internationally, they
hope that they will have institutionalized the doctrines of imperial
domination through force and preventive war as a choice. The U.S. now
in military spending probably exceeds the rest of the world combined,
and its much more advanced and moving out into extremely dangerous
directions, like space. They assume, I suppose, that no matter what
happens to the American economy, that will give such overwhelming force
that people will just have to do what they say.
DB: What do you say to the
peace activists who labored for so long trying to prevent the invasion
of Iraq and who are now feeling a sense of anger and sadness?
NC: That they should be realistic.
Abolitionism. How long did the struggle go on before they made any progress?
If you give up every time you dont achieve the immediate gain
you want, youre just guaranteeing that the worst is going to happen.
These are long, hard struggles. And, in fact, what happened in the last
couple of months should be seen quite positively. The basis was created
for expansion and development of a peace and justice movement that will
move on to much harder tasks. And thats the way these things go.
It isnt easy.