From jad@ckuxb.att.com Ukn Jan 21 13:36:08 1993 Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2) id AA14154; Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:36:04 -0500 Message-Id: <9301211836.AA14154@css.itd.umich.edu> To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:31:43 EST From: jad@ckuxb.att.com Status: RO X-Status: Article 19483 of alt.conspiracy: Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,misc.activism.progressive Subject: Part 5, NOAM CHOMSKY: The New World Order Message-ID: <1993Jan20.223030.11890@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Followup-To: alt.conspiracy Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu Keywords: NOAM CHOMSKY: The New World Order Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX! Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu Lines: 165 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (continuation) NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, it's all particularly important right now for several reasons. For one thing, the social and economic catastrophe that resulted from the Reagan-Bush programs is getting harder and harder to put to the side. More and more people see it. And that means that efforts at diversion are needed -- and rapid and increasing ones. Secondly, it's also necessary to divert attention away from these foreign policy triumphs that have supposedly shown what great people we are, and have led to the Bush rhetoric. In fact, every one of them has been a complete catastrophe from the point of view of any human value, at least. That's true of Grenada, and Panama, and most strikingly, recently, the Gulf. It's not too pretty to look at the Gulf after our great triumph there, and notice a couple hundred thousand corpses, an ecological disaster, Saddam Hussein firmly in power, thanks to the support given to him by George Bush and Norman Schwarzkopf who backed his crushing of the popular rebellions -- the Kurdish and Shiite rebellions. In fact, for once I should say -- I've got to give the press credit -- the chief diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times (that's a technical term meaning "State Department spokesman in the New York Times") Thomas Friedman, had an accurate description of what happened. He said that right after the .... You know, George Bush was out fishing, and Norman Schwarzkopf was patting himself on the back .... at the time when Saddam Hussein was authorized to take care of the rascal multitude, the explanation that was given by Friedman expressing the State Department's position was that the United States was seeking to restore what he called "the best of all worlds." The best of all worlds would be a takeover by some Iraqi generals who would wield the iron fist, much as Saddam Hussein did in the period up until his one mistake in life; namely, when he stepped on U.S. toes on August 2nd, 1990 .... wield the iron fist, as Saddam Hussein had done, much to the satisfaction of the U.S. allies, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and, of course, the boss in Washington. Well, that's essentially correct. It would be a little embarrassing to just restore Saddam Hussein after the fuss. But we need a clone. We've got to find somebody exactly like him. And surely, we don't want to allow anything as dangerous as a democracy opening in the Middle East any more than we want a democracy opening in Latin America -- or, for that matter, in the United States. And if the way to block it is by supporting Saddam Hussein's iron fist, well you know, in the interests of what's called pragmatism, that's what we have to do. Pragmatism is a nice technical term that means doing anything you feel like doing for your own interests. And, therefore, we pursue pragmatism. And that even overcomes our high moral commitments to human rights, and so on and so forth. So there is a need to divert attention. But still, it leaves kind of a bad taste. I mean, maybe the smart guys understand that this is the right thing to do. But the population, having been aroused to considerable hysteria over the need to destroy the Beast of Baghdad, has kind of a tough time figuring out these subtle points about why we're supporting him while he's massacring everybody in sight. So you've got to overcome that somehow. There also are regional problems. The Arab tyrannies that lined up in the Gulf crusade -- these are what the British imperialists, in their day, called "the Arab facade" that manages the local oil system in the interests of the imperial powers. The British view was that we should veil absorption of the colonies behind constitutional fictions such as "buffer state" or "sphere of influence", and so on. But, of course, as Lord Lloyd George put it, in complimenting the British on blocking an international disarmament agreement, he said: "We have to reserve the right to bomb the niggers." That's sort of the bottom line. So you "reserve the right to bomb the niggers", but you've got to have this "Arab facade" out there, that you can sort of pretend they're countries, but they're actually managing the local wealth for you. And those guys have a problem too. Any tyranny too has to preserve a certain degree of credibility with their population. And if they are exposed as agents of the United States in restoring the traditional Anglo-American condominium over the wealth that lies under the ground in the Arab world, that won't be so good for them. So they need something. Thirdly, continuing with the urgency of the peace process, so-called, there is, in fact, a window of opportunity. That's not a joke. It is, in fact, correct. Bush is largely correct in saying that "what we say goes." And, in fact, that means that what you see in the Gulf is what we say because that's what we want. We hold all the cards. And now that "what we say goes," we can ram through traditional U.S. policy -- which takes us to the second point. What are traditional U.S. policies? And: Is there a break with them? Of course, the way in which we're going to get credit for this, and the "Arab facade" is going to get some credibility is by dealing with the festering Palestinian problem. The simple answer to what U.S. traditional policy is is very straightforward. It has been the adamant and inflexible opposition to the peace process. Now, before I continue, I have to make a side comment on political discourse. Every political discourse has two meanings. It has a dictionary-meaning. And it has what we might call the PC-meaning -- the "politically correct" meaning. That is, the meaning that's used to advance power ends. They're always different. So, for example, "terrorism" in the dictionary-meaning is what the Army manual says: "the use or threat of force to advance political ends." But in the PC-meaning of the word, "international terrorism" is: "the threat or use of force to implement political ends," when it's carried out by others -- not when it's carried out by the United States or [its] client states. Then, it has another name. It's called "retaliation" or "defense of freedom" or something like that. The same is true of the term, "democracy". There's a dictionary-meaning in which a state is democratic to the extent that the population has some meaningful way of participating in managing their own affairs. But then there's the PC-meaning, in which "democracy" means "the rule by elements who appreciate the transcendent need of those who own American society and who, therefore, must govern it." I borrow one of the favorite maxims of the founding fathers. That's the principle on which the country was founded. And only those who understand that are capable of participating in "democracy" in the PC-sense. Well, the same is true with the term "peace process." There's the dictionary-meaning in which the "peace process" means something like "efforts to advance peace." And then there's the PC-meaning in which the "peace process" refers to whatever the U.S. happens to be doing at the moment. If what the U.S. happens to be doing at the moment is undermining the peace process and barring the peace process at every turn -- that's the "peace process." Actually, it's all quite simple once you understand the rules. The reason for institutions like universities is to teach you the rules. So don't forget to do your homework. But once you figure all this stuff out, you can play the game rather well. (to be continued) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A 90-minute video documentary, from which this transcript was made, is available exclusively from JCOME. In addition to the full Chomsky lecture, the documentary contains background information about Chomsky and JCOME -- the only Jewish-American organization that has Chomsky on its Advisory Committee. JCOME is extending a special offer at this time. To get a copy of the video documentary simply send a check for $20 (only $15 for the documentary and $5 shipping) and indicate you read about Chomsky and JCOME on Internet or e-mail. Send to: The Jewish Committee on the Middle East P.O. Box 18367 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone orders cannot be taken. But for additional information about JCOME -- including copies of recent magazine ads and the MID-EAST REALITIES newsletter that can be sent directly to your fax machine -- call JCOME 24-hours daily to: (202) 362-JCOME (202) 362-5266 E-mail: jcome@mcimail.com FAX: (202) 362-6965 [JCOME on MCIMail] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + JCOME would be grateful to you for posting the installments of this transcript to computer bulletin boards, as well as posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Transcribed for JCOME by John DiNardo.