[News] Bush Doctrine by Noam Chomsky

[News at freedomarchives.org]

Bush Doctrine
BBC Interview
by Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Paxman
May 21, 2004
<http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=5565>http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=5565 


If George Bush were to be judged by the standards of the Nuremberg 
Tribunals, he'd be hanged. So too, mind you, would every single American 
President since the end of the second world war, including Jimmy Carter.

The suggestion comes from the American linguist Noam Chomsky. His latest 
attack on the way his country behaves in the world is called Hegemony or 
Survival, America's Quest for Global Dominance.

Jeremy Paxman met him at the British Museum, where they talked in the 
Assyrian Galleries. He asked him whether he was suggesting there was 
nothing new in the so-called Bush Doctrine.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, it depends. It is recognised to be revolutionary. Henry 
Kissinger for example described it as a revolutionary new doctrine which 
tears to shreds the Westphalian System, the 17th century system of 
International Order and of course the UN Charter. But nevertheless, and has 
been very widely criticised within the foreign policy elite. But on narrow 
ground the doctrine is not really new, it's extreme.

JEREMY PAXMAN: What was the United States supposed to do after 9/11? It had 
been the victim of a grotesque, intentional attack, what was it supposed to 
do but try...?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Why pick 9/11? Why not pick 1993. Actually the fact that the 
terrorist act succeeded in September 11th did not alter the risk analysis. 
In 1993, similar groups, US trained Jihadi's came very close to blowing up 
the World Trade Center, with better planning, they probably would have 
killed tens of thousands of people. Since then it was known that this is 
very likely. In fact right through the 90's there was technical literature 
predicting it, and we know what to do. What you do is police work. Police 
work is the way to stop terrorist acts and it succeeded.

JEREMY PAXMAN: But you are suggesting the United States in that sense is 
the author of Its own Nemesis.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, first of all this is not my opinion. It's the opinion 
of just about every specialist on terrorism. Take a look, say at Jason 
Burke's recent book on Al-Qaeda which is just the best book there is. He 
runs through the record of how each act of violence has increased 
recruitment financing mobilisation, what he says is, I'm quoting him, that 
each act of violence is a small victory for Bin Laden.

JEREMY PAXMAN: But why do you imagine George Bush behaves like this?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Because I don't think they care that much about terror, in 
fact we know that. Take say the invasion of Iraq, it was predicted by just 
about every specialist in intelligence agencies that the invasion of Iraq 
would increase the threat of Al-Qaeda style terror which is exactly what 
happened. The point is that...

JEREMY PAXMAN: Then why would he do it?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Because invading Iraq has value in Itself, I mean 
establishing...

JEREMY PAXMAN: Well what value?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Establishing the first secure military base in a dependant 
client state at the heart of the energy producing region of the world.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Don't you even think that the people of Iraq are better off 
having got rid of a dictator?

NOAM CHOMSKY: They got rid of two brutal regimes, one that we are supposed 
to talk about, the other one we are not suppose to talk about. The two 
brutal regimes were Saddam Hussein's and the US-British sanctions, which 
were devastating society, had killed hundreds of thousands of people, were 
forcing people to be reliant on Saddam Hussein. Now the sanctions could 
obviously have been turned to weapons rather than destroying society 
without an invasion. If that had happened it is not at all impossible that 
the people of Iraq would have sent Saddam Hussein the same way to the same 
fate as other monsters supported by the US and Britain. Ceausescu, Suharto, 
Duvalier, Marcos, there's a long list of them. In fact the westerners who 
know Iraq best were predicting this all along.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You seem to be suggesting or implying, perhaps I'm being 
unfair to you, but you seem to be implying there is some equivalence 
between democratically elected heads of state like George Bush or Prime 
Ministers like Tony Blair and regimes in places like Iraq.

NOAM CHOMSKY: The term moral equivalence is an interesting one, it was 
invented I think by Jeane Kirkpatrick as a method of trying to prevent 
criticism of foreign policy and state decisions. It is a meaning less 
notion, there is no moral equivalence what so ever.

JEREMY PAXMAN: If it is preferable for an individual to live in a liberal 
democracy, is there benefit to be gained by spreading the values of that 
democracy however you can?

NOAM CHOMSKY: That reminds me of the question that Ghandi was once asked 
about western civilisation, what did he think of it. He said yeah, it would 
be a good idea. In fact it would be a good idea to spread the values of 
liberal democracy. But that's not what the US and Britain are trying to do. 
It's not what they've done in the past. Take a look at the regions under 
their domination. They don't spread liberal democracy. What they spread is 
dependence and subordination. Furthermore it's well-known that this is a 
large part of the reason for the great opposition to US policy within the 
Middle East. In fact this was known in the 1950's.

JEREMY PAXMAN: But there is a whole slur of countries in eastern Europe 
right now that would say we are better off now than we were when we were 
living under the Soviet Empire. As a consequence of how the west behaved.

NOAM CHOMSKY: And there is a lot of countries in US domains, like Central 
America, the Caribbean who wish that they could be free of American 
domination. We don't pay much attention to what happens there but they do. 
In the 1980s when the current incumbents were in their Reganite phase. 
Hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in Central America. The US 
carried out a massive terrorist attack against Nicaragua, mainly as a war 
on the church. They assassinated an Archbishop and murdered six leading 
Jesuit intellectuals. This is in El Salvador. It was a monstrous period. 
What did they impose? Was it liberal democracies? No.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You've mentioned on two or three occasions this relationship 
between the United States and Britain. Do you understand why Tony Blair 
behaved as he did over Afghanistan and Iraq?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, if you look at the British diplomatic history, back in 
the 1940s, Britain had to make a decision. Britain had been the major world 
power, the United States though by far the richest country in the world was 
not a major actor in the global scene, except regionally. By the Second 
World War it was obvious the US was going to be the dominant power, 
everyone knew that. Britain had to make a choice. Was it going to be part 
of what would ultimately be a Europe that might move towards independence, 
or would it be what the Foreign Office called a junior partner to the 
United States? Well it essentially made that choice to be a junior partner 
to the United States.

So during the Cuban missile crisis for example, you look at the 
declassified record, they treated Britain with total contempt. Harold 
McMillan wasn't even informed of what was going on and Britain's existence 
was at stake. It was dangerous. One high official, probably Dean Atchers 
and he's not identified, described Britain as in his words "Our lieutenant, 
the fashionable word is partner". Well the British would like to hear the 
fashionable word, but the masters use the actual word. Those are choices 
Britain has to make. I mean why Blair decided, I couldn't say.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Noam Chomsky, thank you.


The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20040524/2ed5025b/attachment.htm>