Noam Chomsky. (photo: Andrew Rusk)
Noam
Chomsky: My Hopes for the Future
By Emanuel Stoakes, Jacobin
28 November 15
Noam Chomsky on ISIS, his foreign policy critics, and why
socialist ideas are “never far below the surface.”
Noam
Chomsky, to rehearse a cliché, is among the world’s greatest living radical
intellectuals. It is no less trite or true to add that he is also a broadly
controversial figure:accused from various corners of a variety of
failings ranging from “genocide denial” to rigid,
“amoral quietism” in the
face of mass atrocities. Most recently, critics of dissimilar political hues
claim to have identified a range of follies in his
statements on Syria.
In the
following interview, freelance journalist Emanuel Stoakes puts some of these
criticisms to Chomsky.
While
reasserting his opposition to full-scale military intervention, Chomsky says he
does not in principle oppose the idea of a no-fly zone established alongside a
humanitarian corridor (though Putin’s recent interventions have all but killed
the possibility of the former option). Chomsky also clarifies his positions on
the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo.
In
addition to answering his critics, Chomsky gives his thoughts on a wide range
of other topics: what should be done to combat ISIS, the significance of
popular struggles in South America, and the future of socialism.
As
always, his underlying belief in our capacity to build a better society
shines through.
What’s
your reaction to the attacks in Paris earlier this month, and what do you
think of the current Western strategy of bombing ISIS?
The
current strategy plainly is not working. The ISIS statements, both for
this and the Russian airliner, were very explicit: you bomb us and you will
suffer. They are a monstrosity, and these are terrible crimes, but it
doesn’t help to hide our heads in the sand.
The
best outcome would be if ISIS were destroyed by local forces, which could
happen, but it will require that Turkey agree. And the outcome could be
just as bad if the jihadi elements supported by Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia
are the victors.
The
optimal outcome would be a negotiated settlement of the kind being inched
towards in Vienna, combined with the above. Long shots.
Like
it or not, ISIS seems to have established itself pretty firmly in Sunni areas
of Iraq and Syria. They seem to be engaged in a process of state building that
is extremely brutal but fairly successful, and attracts the support of Sunni
communities who may despise ISIS but see it as the only defense against
alternatives that are even worse. The one major regional power that is
opposing it is Iran, but the Iran-backed Shiite militias are reputed to be as
brutal as ISIS and probably mobilize support for ISIS.
The
sectarian conflicts that are tearing the region to shreds are substantially
a consequence of the Iraq invasion. That’s
what Middle East specialist Graham Fuller, a former CIA analyst, means when
he says that “I think the
United States is one of the key creators of this organization.”
Destruction
of ISIS by any means that can be imagined might lay the basis for something
worse, as has been happening quite regularly with military intervention. The
state system in the region imposed by French and British imperial might after
World War I, with little concern for the populations under their control, is
unraveling.
The
future looks bleak, though there are some patches of light, as in the Kurdish
areas. Steps can be taken to reduce many of the tensions in the region and to
constrain and reduce the outlandishly high level of armament, but it is not
clear what more outside powers can do apart from fanning the flames, as they
have been doing for years.
Earlier
this year, we saw the Greek government struggling with its creditors to work
out a deal. It’s tempting to view this showdown, as well as the crisis as a
whole, as less a case of the EU trying to manage a debt crisis in the common
interests of the union and more as a battle between Greek society and those who
benefit from austerity. Would you agree? How do you view the situation?
There
has been no serious effort to manage a debt crisis. The policies imposed on
Greece by the troika sharply exacerbated the crisis by undermining the economy
and blocking hopeful chances for growth. The debt-to-GDP ratio is now far
higher than it was before these policies were instituted, and there’s been a
terrible toll on the people of Greece — though the German and French banks that
bear a large part of responsibility for the crisis are doing fine.
The
so-called “bailouts” for Greece mostly went into the pockets of the creditors,
as much as 90 percent by some estimates. Former Bundesbank chief Karl Otto
Pöhl observed very
plausibly that the whole affair “was about protecting German banks, but
especially the French banks, from debt write-offs.”
Commenting
in the leading US establishment journal Foreign Affairs, Mark
Blyth, one of the most cogent critics of the destructive
austerity-under-depression programs, writes, “We’ve never understood Greece because we
have refused to see the crisis for what it was — a continuation of a series of
bailouts for the financial sector that started in 2008 and that rumbles on
today.”
It is
recognized on all sides that the debt cannot be paid. It should have been
radically restructured long ago, when the crisis could have easily been
managed, or simply declared “odious” and cancelled.
The
ugly face of contemporary Europe is presented by German Finance Minister
Schäuble, apparently the most popular political figure in Germany. As
reported by Reuters news service, he explained that “a
write-off of some of Europe’s loans to Greece might be needed to get the
country’s debt to a manageable level,” while he “in the same breath ruled out
such a step.” In brief, we’ve milked you about as dry as we can, so get lost.
And much of the population is literally getting lost, with hopes for decent
survival smashed.
Actually
Greeks are not yet quite milked dry. The shameful settlement imposed by
the banks and bureaucracy includes measures to ensure that Greek assets will be
taken over by the right greedy hands.
Germany’s
role is particularly shameful, not just because Nazi Germany devastated Greece,
but also because, as Thomas Piketty pointed out in Die
Zeit, “Germany is really the single best example of a country that,
throughout its history, has never repaid its external debt. Neither after the
First nor the Second World War.”
The
London Agreement of 1953 wiped out over half of Germany’s debt, laying the
basis for its economic recovery, and currently, Piketty added, far from being
“generous,” these days “Germany is profiting from Greece as it extends loans at
comparatively high interest rates.” The whole business is sordid.
The
policies of austerity that have been imposed on Greece (and on Europe
generally) were always absurd from an economic point of view, and have been a
complete disaster for Greece. As weapons of class war, however, they have been
rather effective in undermining welfare systems, enriching the northern banks
and the investor class, and driving democracy to the margins.
The
behavior of the troika today is a disgrace. One can scarcely doubt that their
goal is to establish firmly the principle that the masters must be obeyed:
defiance of the northern banks and the Brussels bureaucracy will not be
tolerated, and thoughts of democracy and popular will in Europe must be
abandoned.
Do you
think the struggle taking place over Greece’s future is representative of a lot
of what is happening in the world at the moment — i.e., a struggle between the
needs of society and the demands of capitalism? If so, do you see much hope for
decent human outcomes when the trump cards all seem to be held by a small
number of people linked to private power?
In
Greece, and in Europe more generally in varying degrees, some of the most
admirable achievements of the postwar years are being reversed under a
destructive version of the neoliberal assault on the global population of the
past generation.
But it
can be reversed. Among the most obedient students of the neoliberal orthodoxy
were the countries of Latin America, and not surprisingly, they were also among
those who suffered the worst harm. But in recent years they have led the way
towards rejecting the orthodoxy, and more generally, for the first time in five
hundred years are taking significant steps towards unification, freeing
themselves from imperial (in the past century US) domination, and confronting
the shocking internal problems of potentially rich societies that had been
traditionally governed by wealthy foreign-oriented (mostly white) elites in a
sea of misery.
Syriza
in Greece might have signaled a similar development, which is why it had to be
smashed so savagely. There are other reactions in Europe and elsewhere
that could turn the tide and lead to a much better future.
The
twentieth anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre passed this year. It has
emerged that the US watched the killing take place in real time from
satellites, and that many of the world’s great powers were negligent or worse
when it came to making efforts to prevent predictable slaughter there. What do
you think should have been done at the time? Do you think, for example, that
the Bosnian Muslims should have been given a greater chance to defend
themselves far earlier, for example?
Srebrenica
was a barely protected safe area — and we should not forget that thanks to that
status, it was as a base for Nasir Oric’s murderous Bosnian militias to attack
surrounding Serb villages, taking a brutal toll and boasting of the
achievement. That there would sooner or later be a Serb response was not
too surprising, and measures should have been taken to “prevent predictable
slaughter,” to borrow your words.
The
best approach, which might have been feasible, would have been to reduce and
maybe end the hostilities in the region rather than allowing them to escalate.
You’ve
come in for a lot of criticism for your position on the Kosovo intervention. My
(perhaps mistaken) understanding is that you believe there were alternatives to
the bombing, and that the violence could have been stopped if there had been
greater political will to find a diplomatic solution. Is that right? Can you
outline what could have been done as an alternative?
I
haven’t seen criticisms of my position on the intervention, and there are
unlikely to be any, for the simple reason that I scarcely took a
position. As I made explicit in what I wrote on the topic (The New Military Humanism), I hardly even
discussed the propriety of the NATO intervention. That’s clearly stated in
the early pages.
The
topic is indeed brought up, three pages from the end, noting that what precedes
— the entire book — leaves the question of what should have been done in Kosovo
“unanswered,” though it seems a “reasonable judgment” that the US was selecting
one of the more harmful of several options available.
As
explained clearly and unambiguously from the outset, even from the title, the
book is about a wholly different topic: the import of the Kosovo events for the
“new era” of “principles and values” led by the “enlightened states” whose
foreign policy has entered a “noble phase” with a “saintly glow” (to quote some
of the celebratory rhetoric reviewed).
That
very important topics must be sharply distinguished from the question of what
should have been done, which I scarcely addressed. An important topic, and
evidently an unpopular one, best avoided. I don’t recall even seeing a mention
of the subject of the entire book in the critical commentary on it.
I did
review the diplomatic options available, pointing out that the settlement after
seventy-eight days of bombing was a compromise between the NATO and Serbian
pre-bombing positions.
A year
later, after the war ended, in my book A New Generation Draws the Line, I reviewed in
extensive detail the rich Western documentary record on the immediate
background to the bombing. It reveals that there was a steady level of
violence divided between KLA guerrillas attacking from Albania and a brutal
Serb response, and that the atrocities were very sharply escalated after the
bombing, exactly as was predicted publicly, and to US authorities privately, by
commanding Gen. Wesley Clark.
If
there has been criticism of what I actually wrote, I haven’t seen it, though
you’re right that there has been a great deal of furious condemnation — namely,
of what I didn’t write.
As to
a possible alternative, there were what seemed to be fairly promising
diplomatic options. Whether they could have worked, we don’t know, since
they were ignored in favor of bombing.
The
usual interpretation, which I’ve reviewed elsewhere, is that the bombing was
motivated by a sharp upsurge of atrocities. This reversal of the
chronology is quite standard, and useful to establish the legitimacy of NATO
violence. The upsurge of atrocities was the consequence of the bombing, not its
cause — and as noted, was predicted quite publicly and authoritatively.
What
do you think was the real objective of NATO’s Balkan intervention?
If we
can believe the US-UK leadership, the real objective was to establish the
“credibility of NATO” (there were other pretexts, but they quickly
collapse). As Tony Blair summarized the official
reason, failure to bomb “would have dealt a devastating blow to the credibility
of NATO,” and “the world would have been less safe as a result of that” —
though, as I reviewed in some detail, the “world” overwhelmingly disagreed,
often very sharply.
“Establishing
credibility” — basically, the Mafia principle — is a significant feature of
great power policy. A deeper look suggests motives beyond those officially
stressed.
Do you
oppose military intervention under any circumstances during dire humanitarian
disasters? What are the conditions that would make it acceptable from your
point of view?
Pure
pacifists would always oppose military intervention. I am not one, but I think
that like any resort to violence, it carries a heavy burden of proof. It’s
impossible to give a general answer as to when it is justified, apart from some
useless formulas.
It is
not easy to find genuine cases where intervention has been justified. I’ve
reviewed the historical and scholarly record. It’s very thin. Two
possible examples stand out in the post–World War II period: the Vietnamese
invasion of Cambodia, terminating Khmer Rouge crimes as they were peaking; and
the Indian invasion of Pakistan that ended the hideous atrocities in the former
East Pakistan.
These
two cases do not enter the standard canon, however, because of the fallacy of
“wrong agency” and because they were both bitterly opposed by Washington, which
reacted in quite ugly ways.
Moving
on to Syria, we see an appalling humanitarian situation and no end in sight in
terms of the internecine warfare taking place. I know some Syrian activists who
are furious at what they perceive to be your tolerance of the immense misery
being experienced by people living with barrel bombs and so on; they say this
because they think you are opposed to any kind of intervention against Assad,
however limited, on ideological grounds.
Is
this accurate or fair? Would you support the idea of a no-fly zone, with an
enforced humanitarian corridor? Can you clarify your position on Syria?
If
intervention against Assad would mitigate or end the appalling situation, it
would be justified. But would it? Intervention is not advocated by careful
observers on the scene with close knowledge of Syria and the current situation
— Patrick Cockburn, Charles Glass, quite a few others who are bitter critics of
Assad. They warn, with no little plausibility I think, that it might well
exacerbate the crisis.
The
record of military intervention in the region has been awful with very rare
exceptions, a fact that can hardly be overlooked. No-fly zones,
humanitarian corridors, support for the Kurds, and some other measures would be
likely to be helpful. But while it is easy to call for military
intervention, it is no simple matter to provide reasoned and well-thought-out
plans, taking into account likely consequences. I haven’t seen any.
One
can imagine a world in which intervention is undertaken by some benign force
dedicated to the interests of people who are suffering. But if we care about
victims, we cannot make proposals for imaginary worlds. Only for this
world, in which intervention, with rare consistency, is undertaken by powers
dedicated to their own interests, where the victims and their fate is
incidental, despite lofty professions.
The
historical record is painfully clear, and there have been no miraculous
conversions. That does not mean that intervention can never be justified, but
these considerations cannot be ignored — at least, if we care about the
victims.
Looking
back at your long life of activism and scholarship, what cause or issue are you
most glad to have supported? Conversely, what are your greatest regrets — do
you wish that you had done more on certain fronts?
I can’t
really say. There are many that I’m glad to have supported, to a greater
or lesser degree. The cause that I pursued most intensely, from the early
1960s, was the US wars in Indochina, the most severe international crime in the
post–World War II era. That included speaking, writing, organizing,
demonstrations, civil disobedience, direct resistance, and the expectation,
barely averted more or less by accident, of a possible long prison sentence.
Some
other engagements were similar, but not at that level of intensity. And
each case has regrets, always the same ones: too little, too late, too
ineffective, even when there were some real achievements of the dedicated
struggles of many people in which I was privileged to be able to participate in
some way.
What gives
you the most hope about the future? Do you feel that young people in the US
that you have interacted with are different from some of those you dealt with
decades before? Have social attitudes changed for the better?
Hopes
for the future are always about the same: courageous people, often under severe
duress, refusing to bow to illegitimate authority and persecution, others
devoting themselves to support and to combatting injustice and violence, young
people who sincerely want to change the world. And the record of successes,
always limited, sometimes reversed, but over time bending the arc of history
towards justice, to borrow the words that Martin Luther King made famous in
word and deed.
How do
you view the future of socialism? Are you inspired by developments in South
America? Are there lessons for the Left in North America?
Like
other terms of political discourse, “socialism” can mean many different
things. I think one can trace an intellectual and practical trajectory
from the Enlightenment to classical liberalism, and (after its wreckage on the
shoals of capitalism, in Rudolf Rocker’s evocative phrase) on to the
libertarian version of socialism that converges with leading anarchist tendencies.
My
feeling is that the basic ideas of this tradition are never far below the
surface, rather like Marx’s old mole, always about to break through when the
right circumstances arise, and the right flames are lit by engaged activists.
What
has taken place in recent years in South America is of historic significance, I
think. For the first time since the conquistadors, the societies have taken
steps of the kind I outlined earlier. Halting steps, but very significant
ones.
The
basic lesson is that if this can be achieved under harsh and brutal
circumstances, we should be able to do much better enjoying a legacy of
relative freedom and prosperity, thanks to the struggles of those who came
before us.
Do you
agree with Marx’s prognosis that capitalism will eventually destroy itself? Do
you think that an alternative way of life and system of economics can take hold
before such an implosion occurs, with potentially chaotic consequences? What
should ordinary people concerned with the survival of their family, and that of
the world, do?
Marx
studied an abstract system that has some of the central features of
really-existing capitalism, but not others, including the crucial state role in
development and in sustaining predatory institutions. Like much of the financial
sector, which in the US depends for most of its profits on the implicit
government insurance program, according to a recent IMF study — over $80
billion, a year according to the business press.
Large-scale
state intervention has been a leading feature of the developed societies
from England to the US to Europe and to Japan and its former colonies, up to
the present moment. The technology that we are now using, to take one
example. Many mechanisms have been developed that might preserve existing
forms of state capitalism.
The
existing system may well destroy itself for different reasons, which Marx also
discussed. We are now heading, eyes open, towards an environmental catastrophe
that might end the human experiment just as it is wiping out species at a rate
not seen since 65 million years ago when a huge asteroid hit the earth — and
now we are the asteroid.
There
is more than enough for “ordinary people” (and we’re all ordinary people) to do
to fend off disasters that are not remote and to construct a far more free and
just society.
C 2015 Reader Supported News
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment