Hello and Happy New Year...from ZNet.

As always, you can add or remove addresses to our free update mailing
list at the top page of ZNet -- www.zmag.org/weluser.htm

We have added a new archive of Noam Chomsky's online articles,
interviews, talks, etc. at 


It includes what is on ZNet or in Z, and what we are aware of on other
sites as well -- and this mailing includes, in tune with that
innovation, a new year's interview with Noam from the Kurdish Newspaper

I would also like to bring to your attention a new page on ZNet --
http://www.zmag.org/pps.htm -- Projects for a Participatory Society. It
has a great many links, etc. 

It's self decription is: "Projects for a Participatory Society exists to
propose, investigate, debate, explore, and advocate radical ideas for a
desirable future. It focuses on social, economic, cultural, and
political life. It's membership is responsible for this site and for
related projects which include struggling, writing, speaking, and acting
on behalf of attaining a better world. The PPS core values include
solidarity, diversity, equity, self management, justice, and

It's initial members are: Ezequiel Adamovsky (Arg), Michael Albert
(U.S.), Bridgit Anderson (Eng), Jessica Azulay (U.S.), Normand
Ballergeon (Can), Patrick Bond (S Afr), Paul Burrows (Can), Noam Chomsky
(U.S.), Brian Dominick (U.S.), Andrej Grubacic (Serbia), Elizabeth
Hartman (U.S.), John Hepburn (Aust), Adrienne Huber (Aust), Sonali
Kolhatkar (U.S.), Milos Milosavljevic (Yugo), Trevor Ngwane (S Afr),
Adele Oliveri (Italy), Pablo Ortellado (Braz), Cynthia Peters (U.S.),
Justin Podur (Can), Prabir Purkayashta (India),
Nikos Raptis (Greece), Carola Reintjas (Spain), Lydia Sargent (U.S.),
Stephen Shalom (U.S.), Tom Wetzel (U.S.). We all hope the efforts of PPS
will enrich movement vision and strategy. 

Finally, periodically I put a few Sustainer Commentaries on the top page
-- five new ones are there, now, from Shiva, Podur, Majavu, Noll,
Grubacic, and Vera-Zavala -- and, of course, the usual run of new
articles, etc. 
Please give these sample daily commentaries a look. 

If you like the idea of a commentary a day from our international team
of writers...and if you like ZNet and feel it is an important political
medium, please consider becoming a Sustainer for the New Year. 

You choose your level and means of support. You get the commentaries and
access to our Sustainer Forum system -- which now has 32,000 messages
online...and has been accessed over 30 million times. We get your
support, which provides a moral uplift and a material aid. 

See http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm for more information.

And now...

An interview with Noam Chomsky 
Hawzheen O. Kareem     
- As an opponent to USA policies, which political wing you belong to? 
If you mean Democrat or Republican, the answer is: Neither. It has often
been pointed out by political scientists that the US is basically a
one-party state -- the business party. with two factions, Democrats and
Republicans. Most of the population seems to agree. A very high
percentage, sometimes passing 80%, believe that the government serves
"the few and the special interests," not "the people." 
In the contested 2000 election, about 75% regarded it as mostly a farce
having nothing to do with them, a game played by rich contributors,
party bosses, and the public relations industry, which trained
candidates to say mostly meaningless things that might pick up some
votes. This was BEFORE the actual election, with the accusations of
fraud and selection of Bush with a minority of the popular vote.
I tend to agree with the majority of the population on these matters,
and believe there is a significant task ahead to create a more
democratic culture, in which elections are far more meaningful and there
is also meaningful ongoing political participation by the general
More serious political scientists in the mainstream describe the US not
as a "democracy" but as a "polyarchy": a system of elite decision and
periodic public ratification. There is surely much truth to the
conclusion of the leading American social philosopher of the 20th
century, John Dewey, whose main work was on democracy, that until there
is democratic control of the primary economic institutions, politics
will be "the shadow cast on society by big business."

- What are the goals of the American existence in the Iraq and Middle
The primary goal, uncontroversially, is to control the immense energy
reserves of the Persian Gulf region, Iraq included. That has been a
prime concern of the Western industrial powers since the time when Iraq
was created by the British, to ensure that Iraqi oil reserves would be
in British hands and the newly-created state of Iraq would be barred
from free access to the Gulf. At that time the US was not a leading
actor in world affairs. But after World War II, the US was by far the
dominant world power, and control of Middle East energy reserves became
a leading foreign policy goal, as it had been for its predecessors. In
the 1940s, US planners recognized that (in their words) Gulf energy
resources are "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the
greatest material prizes in world history." Naturally, they intended to
control it -- though for many years they did not make much use of it
themselves, and in the future, according to US intelligence, the US
itself will rely on more stable Atlantic Basin resources (West Africa
and the Western hemisphere). 
Nevertheless, it remains a very high priority to control the Gulf
resources, which are expected to provide 2/3 of world energy needs for
some time to come. Quite apart from yielding "profits beyond the dreams
of avarice," as one leading history of the oil industry puts the matter,
the region still remains "a stupendous source of strategic power," a
lever of world control. Control over Gulf energy reserves provides "veto
power" over the actions of rivals, as the leading planner George Kennan
pointed out half a century ago. 
Europe and Asia understand very well, and have long been seeking
independent access to energy resources. Much of the jockeying for power
in the Middle East and Central Asia has to do with these issues. The
populations of the region are regarded as incidental, as long as they
are passive and obedient. Few know this as well as the Kurds, at least
if they remember their own history.
US planners surely intend to establish a client state in Iraq, with
democratic forms if that is possible, if only for propaganda purposes.
But Iraq is to be what the British, when they ran the region, called an
"Arab facade," with British power in the background if the country seeks
too much independence. That is a familiar part of the history of the
region for the past century. 
It is also the way the US has run it's own domains in the Western
hemisphere for a century. There is no indication whatsoever of any
miraculous change. The US occupying forces have imposed on Iraq an
economic program that no sovereign country would ever accept: it
virtually guarantees that the Iraqi economy will be taken over by
Western (mostly US) multinational corporations and banks. It is a policy
that has been disastrous for the countries on which it has been imposed;
in fact, such policies are a prime reason for the current sharp
difference between today's wealthy countries and their former colonies. 
There is, of course, always a domestic sector that enriches itself by
collaborating in running the "facade." So far, the oil industry has been
excluded from foreign takeover, because that would be too blatant. But
it is likely to follow, when attention turns elsewhere. Furthermore,
Washington has already announced that it intends to impose a "status of
forces agreement" that will grant the US the right to maintain military
forces in Iraq and, crucially, military bases, the first stable US
military bases right at the heart of the world's major energy reserves.

- As an expert in American history and policy is it suitable for Kurds
to put their hope and trust completely in American project in Iraq? 
You know better than I the famous Kurdish saying about putting trust in
anyone. It holds for others as well, but Kurds familiar with their own
history need no reminders of how they were sold out by the US in 1975,
left to be massacred by the US client state in Iran, and how the people
who are now in charge in Washington fully supported Saddam Hussein right
through his worst atrocities and long after the war with Iran was over,
for reasons that the Bush I administration declared quite openly: its
responsibility to support US exporters, though they added the usual
rhetoric about how supporting their friend Saddam would contribute to
human rights and "stability." 
These same people -- now back in power in Washington -- also supported
Saddam when he crushed the 1991 uprising that might have overthrown the
tyrant, and again explained why. One can read in the New York Times that
the "best of all worlds" for the US would be an "iron-fisted military
junta" that would rule Iraq just the way Saddam did, and that Saddam
offers more hope for Iraq's "stability" than those who seek to overthrow
him. They now pretend to be outraged by the mass graves in the South and
the Halabja atrocities, but that is pure and transparent fraud, as we
can see by looking at how they acted when the atrocities occurred. 
Of course they knew all about them, but did not care. And with all the
later pretense about the Halabja massacre, how much medical aid have
they provided for the victims over the past decade? Furthermore, this
has nothing particular to do with the United States. That is,
unfortunately, the standard way in which power systems operate, secure
in the knowledge that the intellectual classes at home will construct a
suitable cover of high ideals. That has even been true of the worst mass
murderers: Hitler, the Japanese fascists, and for that matter Saddam
For the weak to put their trust in systems of power is simply to ask for
catastrophe. They may choose to cooperate with powerful states, but if
so, they should do so without illusions. And again, no one knows this
better than the Kurds, not just those in Iraq but in Turkey and

- USA did not found mass destruction weapons in Iraq and it is now
talking in realizing democracy in Middle East, will this project be
successful, and will that democracy be real one? 
Having failed to discover weapons of mass destruction, Washington
shifted its propaganda to "establishing democracy." That flatly refutes
their earlier claim that the "only question" was whether Saddam would
disarm. But with a sufficiently obedient intellectual class, and loyal
media, the farce can proceed untroubled. To evaluate the new propaganda
claim, a rational person would ask how those who know proclaim their
"yearning for democracy" have in fact acted, and act today, when their
interests are at stake. 
I will not run through the record, but those who are interested in
evaluating these claims should certainly do so. They will discover that
"democracy" is tolerated, but only when it is a "top-down form of
democracy" in which elites who collaborate with US business and state
interests retain control -- I happen to be quoting from one of the
leading authorities on Latin American democracy, who writes as an
insider, having served in the "democracy enhancement" programs of the
Reagan administration, which devastated Central America, and left a
trail of horror in the Middle East and southern Africa as well. 
Furthermore, the same policies are pursued today, without the slightest
change. Is the US bringing democracy to Uzbekistan? Or to Equatorial
Guinea, also ruled by a monster comparable to Saddam Hussein, but warmly
welcomed by the Bush White House because he sits on a very large pool of
oil. Take Paul Wolfowitz, described by the propaganda system as the
leading "visionary" seeking democracy, whose "heart bleeds" for the
suffering of poor Muslims. Presumably that explains why he was one of
the leading apologists for General Suharto of Indonesia, one of the
great mass murderers and torturers of the modern era, and continued to
praise him well into 1997, just before he was overthrown by an internal
revolt. It is all too easy to continue. 
For the rich and powerful, illusions about themselves are satisfying and
convenient. Many find it quite pleasant to lavish praise on themselves,
a major role of intellectuals, throughout history. For the weak and
defenseless, faith in illusions is not a wise course -- as the victims
of centuries of imperial practice should certainly understand.

- Is the current war of the USA to protect its national security
legitimate? How do you consider USA national security? 
US national security is threatened only by terror and weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) -- which, sooner or later, are likely to be combined,
perhaps with horrifying consequences. US and other intelligence
agencies, and independent foreign policy analysts, predicted that the
invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in terror and proliferation
of WMD, and their predictions have already been verified. The reasons
are obvious. 
The world dominant power announced its intention to attack anyone it
wishes, without credible pretext or international authorization, in the
National Security Strategy of September 2002. It then moved at once to
undertake an "exemplary action" to demonstrate to the world that it
means exactly what it said, invading an important country that it knew
of course to be virtually defenseless. 
Watching this, potential targets do not say: "thank you, please cut my
throat." Rather, they turn to means of deterrence, and sometimes
revenge. No one can compete in military force with the US, which spends
about as much as the rest of the world combined. But the weak do have
weapons: namely, terror and WMD. That is the reason for the
near-universal predictions on the part of experts that terror and WMD
would be stimulated by the declaration of the National Security
Strategy, and by the Iraq invasion. 
The Bush administration understands this as well as intelligence
agencies and independent analysts. They do not prefer to harm US
national security and subject the population to severe threats. It is
simply not a high priority for them, as compared with others: dominating
the world, and pursuing a radical reactionary domestic program aimed at
dismantling the progressive legislation of the past century that was
designed to protect the general population from the ravages of market
They also want a very powerful state: as soon as they took office, they
increased government expenditures (relative to the economy) to the
highest level since the first time they held power, 20 years earlier, in
the Reagan administration. But the powerful state they want to nourish
is to serve the interests of the rich and privileged, not the general
population. And the international and domestic goals, in their eyes, are
far more important than security, or even survival. There is nothing
novel about that. Again, those who know some history will recognize that
political leaders quite often choose the risk of catastrophe in pursuit
of power, domination, and wealth. 

- To what extent does the USA seek international legitimacy and
For a long time the US has shown disdain for the Security Council, the
World Court, and international law and institutions generally. That is
not in the least controversial. But this administration is so extreme in
its contempt for international law and institutions that it has even
been subjected to unprecedented condemnation by the foreign policy
elite. Furthermore, it is all so open and brazen that there is really no
need to discuss the topic.

- Were the UN and other international organizations successful in
protecting their independence? 
Obviously not. The Bush administration informed the UN a year ago that
it could be "relevant" by following US orders, or it could be a debating
society (as Colin Powell put it). That continued, and continues today,
not just in the case of Iraq. 
Keeping only to the Middle East, the US has continued its practice of
the past 30 years of protecting its client state of Israel by vetoing
Security Council resolutions and blocking General Assembly resolutions,
and of course by providing military aid and economic support for its
client state to continue its programs of integrating the valuable parts
of the West Bank within Israel. 
That is one of the reasons why the US has been far in the lead in
vetoing Security Council resolutions (UK second, no one else even
close), since the 1960s, when the UN was beginning to be somewhat
independent of US domination as a result of decolonization and the
recovery of the industrial powers from the war. It is not of course the
only reason. The US also vetoes Security Council resolutions on a host
of other issues, including even a call for all states to observe
international law -- not mentioning the US, though everyone understood
to whom it was directed.

- You considered USA as a leader of the terrorists, why? and to what
extent could it protect human values? 
I have not called the US "a leader of the terrorists," but I have
documented in detail the long and horrendous record of US terrorist acts
and crucial support for the terrorism of its clients. In reviewing this
record, I use the official US government definition of the term
"terrorism." But few are willing to use the official definitions,
because this is the consequence that follows at once. 
If you are not convinced, look at the ample documentation -- including
the history of the Kurds, running right to the present, though the
crucial US support for state terror against the Kurds was primarily in
Turkey in the 1990s, when Turkey became the leading recipient of US
military aid (aside from Israel and Egypt) as it was driving millions of
Kurds from the devastated countryside, killing tens of thousands, and
carrying out every imaginable kind of barbarism, some of the worst
crimes of the terrible 1990s, right near you. 
I have personally seen some of the results, in the miserable slums of
Istanbul to which refugees were driven, in the city walls of Diyarbakir
where they attempt to survive, and elsewhere. But surely you must know
all of that, right next door. And that is only a very small part of the
story, and omits the direct implementation of terrorist atrocities.
About that there is a long and ugly record. 
In fact, the US is alone in having been condemned by the World Court for
what amounts to international terrorism, in its attack against
Nicaragua. The Court ordered the Reagan administration -- those now in
power again in Washington -- to terminate its terrorist war against
Nicaragua. Of course the administration disregarded the Court order, at
once escalating the terrorist war, and vetoing Security Council
resolutions supporting the Court judgment. The US is not alone in these
practices, by any means. Rather generally, such practices run roughly in
parallel with the power to commit the crimes. Again, that is familiar to
the victims over the centuries, or at least should be. 
Can systems of power protect human values? Certainly they can, and
sometimes they do, the US included. This happens when protecting human
values serves power interests, or when an aroused citizenry demands it.
Both of those factors were responsible for US protection of Iraqi Kurds
in the 1990s, while at the same time the US was providing the decisive
military and diplomatic support for the atrocious repression of the
Kurds across the border -- though the population of the US was and
remains unaware of these crimes; the massive evidence was suppressed by
the media and the intellectual classes, as is commonly the case.

- In some of your works you said that there is no hope of a better
future since USA power is progressing, why are you a pessimistic man?
Does that mean that the American model will not be successful? 
I never say that. Rather, the opposite. There is great hope for a better
future, and to create it should be a primary commitment for people in
the US, the West generally, and the rest of the world. And there are
very hopeful signs, which I constantly stress. As for the "American
model," it depends what you mean. The people of the United States have
many wonderful achievements to their credit: protection of freedom of
speech, for example, is unique in the world, to my knowledge, and many
other rights have been won. These have not been gifts from above, but
the result of dedicated popular struggle. If that is the model you have
in mind, I hope it will be more successful, in the US and elsewhere. 
If by the "American model" you mean what is proclaimed in the Bush
National Security Strategy and implemented in practice, or the
neoliberal economic model that is designed to transfer control of most
of the world to transnational corporations linked to one another and to
a few powerful states -- what the international business press calls
"the de facto world government" -- then I certainly hope it will not be
successful, as should we all.

- To what extent is media and propaganda is successful in making
American citizens follow the policies of their government? Could the
opponents of that policy reach their voice to others? 
It varies. Take, for example, the invasion of Iraq. The invasion was
virtually announced in September 2002, along with the National Security
Strategy. That was followed by a massive government/media propaganda
campaign that quickly drove large parts of US opinion completely off the
international spectrum. A majority came to believe that Saddam Hussein
was an imminent threat to the US, that he was responsible for the crimes
of September 11 2001 and was planning new atrocities in cooperation with
Al Qaeda, etc. Those beliefs were closely correlated with support for
the invasion, not surprisingly. They were known at once to be completely
false, but it did not matter: lies proclaimed loudly and incessantly
become a Higher Truth. 
Nevertheless, the propaganda campaign was only partially successful.
Protest against the invasion reached levels beyond anything in the
history of Europe or the United States. When the US attacked South
Vietnam in 1962 -- as it did, uncontroversially -- there was no protest
at all. Protest did not begin to reach a serious level for 4-5 years; by
then South Vietnam, the main target of the US attack, had been virtually
destroyed, and the aggression had spread to most of Indochina. For the
first time in the history of the West, there was enormous protest
against the invasion of Iraq even before the war was officially
declared. That is only one of many examples of how power systems have
lost control of good parts of the population. The worldwide global
justice movements, which are also unprecedented, are another striking
example. And there are many more.

- Some critisize you as the most militant American among those who are
opponent to Israel, some say that you, as a jew, hate yourself. How does
it come about that you criticize Israel in such manner? 
The charges are interesting. Those who know the Bible know their
origins. The charges trace back to King Ahab, who was the epitome of
evil in the Bible. King Ahab condemned the Prophet Elijah as a hater of
Israel. The flatterers at King Ahab's court agreed. Elijah was a
"self-hating Jew," to borrow the terminology of the contemporary
flatterers at the court, because he was criticizing the policies of the
King and calling for justice and respect for human rights. Similar
charges were familiar in the old Soviet Union: dissidents were condemned
for hating Russia. And there are other examples in military
dictatorships and totalitarian states. Such criticisms reflect deeply
held totalitarian values. 
For a dedicated totalitarian, ruling powers are to be identified with
the people, the culture, and the society. Israel is King Ahab Russia is
the Kremlin. For totalitarians, criticism of state policy is criticism
of the country and its people. For those who have any concern for
democracy and freedom, such charges are merely farcical. 
If an Italian critic of Berlusconi were condemned as "anti-Italian," or
as a "self-hating Italian," it would elicit ridicule in Rome or Milan,
though it was possible in the days of Mussolini's Fascism. It is
particularly interesting when such attitudes are expressed in free
societies, as in the case of those you are quoting.
In fact, I do not particularly criticize Israel, but I do strongly
criticize the crucial role of the US -- my country, after all -- in
supporting barbaric crimes of its client state, and barring a peaceful
political settlement along the lines that have been supported by
virtually the entire world since the 1970s. For the totalitarian
mentality, this is "hating Israel," or "hating the United States." King
Ahab and the flatterers at his court, the Kremlin and its commissars,
and others who call for abject submission to power will doubtless agree.
Those who treasure freedom, justice, and human rights will follow a
different path, as throughout history.

===================================This message has been brought to you by ZNet 
(http://www.zmag.org). Visit our site for subscription options.

Reply via email to