Noam Chomsky: Why is everything that the USA does is legal ("The Nation", USA)
This article originally appeared on TomDispatch.com. It is an excerpt from Noam Chomsky’s chapter in Power Systems: Conversations on the Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to the US Empire (Talking about global democratic uprisings and new challenges for the American empire). This is an interview asking David Barsamian questions, and Chomsky answers.
Barsyamyan: The United States, as before, has firm control over the energy resources of the Middle East?
Noam Chomsky: The main oil and gas producing countries are still under tight control of dictatorships that enjoy Western support. So, the successes of the “Arab Spring” seem to be limited, but they are essential. The West-controlled system of dictatorships crumbles. In fact, the process of their decomposition has been going on for quite some time. For example, if you go back to 50 years ago, we will see that now the energy resources that are of major concern to American strategists are mostly nationalized. Attempts are constantly being made to change this situation, but they remain unsuccessful.
Take the example of the American invasion of Iraq. For all but the inveterate ideologues, it was quite obvious that we had invaded Iraq not because of our ardent love for democracy, but because this country ranks second or third in the world in oil reserves. In addition, it is located in the heart of the largest oil producing region. Talk about it is impossible. Such conversations are considered conspiracy theories.
Iraqi nationalism inflicted a serious defeat on the United States, acting mainly by non-violent resistance. The United States could kill militants, but could not cope with half a million people who took to the street demonstrations. Step by step, Iraq managed to dismantle the control mechanism established by the occupying forces. By November 2007, it became very clear that it would be very difficult for the United States to achieve its goals. And what is interesting, at that moment a clear statement was made about these goals. In November 2007, the Bush administration made an official statement about what the future arrangements with Iraq could be. There were two basic requirements. The first is that the United States should have unlimited possibilities for conducting combat operations from its military bases, which they will keep. The second is that the Iraqi government should "facilitate the flow of foreign investment into Iraq, and especially American investment." In January, 2008, Bush made an unequivocal statement about this in one of his farewell statements. After a couple of months, faced with resistance from Iraq, the United States had to abandon these requirements. The power over Iraq is swimming away from their hands right before their eyes.
Iraq has become an attempt to reclaim and re-install with the help of force something like the old control system. But this attempt was repulsed. It seems to me that, overall, American policy has remained unchanged since the Second World War. However, the possibilities for implementing this policy are reduced.
- Are they shrinking due to economic weakness?
“Partly simply because the world is becoming more diverse.” Today it is much more than the most diverse centers of power. At the end of World War II, the United States was at the absolute peak of its strength and power. They possessed half the world's wealth, and all their rivals either suffered severely from the war, or were defeated. America possessed unimaginable security and, in fact, developed world management plans. At the time, this task was not so unrealistic.
- Is this what they called "grand territorial plans"?
- Yes. Immediately after World War II, the head of the Department of Political Planning Department George Kennan and others worked out the details, and then the implementation of this plan began. What is happening now in the Middle East and North Africa, and to a certain extent in South America, is, in fact, rooted in the end of the 1940s. The first successful resistance to American hegemony was in the 1949 year. These are events that have been called quite interesting, “the loss of China.” The phrase is very interesting, and no one has ever challenged it. There has been much controversy over who is responsible for the loss of China. This has become a major domestic political issue. But the phrase is very curious. You can only lose what you possess. This was taken for granted: we own China. And if the Chinese move towards independence, then we have lost China. Then there were fears of "losing Latin America", "losing the Middle East", "losing" some individual countries. And all based on the premise that the world belongs to us. And all that weakens our control is a loss for us, and we need to think about how to make up for it.
Today, if you read, say, serious foreign policy magazines or, if you need more farce, listen to the Republican debates, you will hear them ask: “How can we prevent further losses?”
On the other hand, the ability to maintain control has decreased dramatically. By 1970, the world has already become economically tripolar. There was a North American industrial center based in the USA; was a European center with a foundation in Germany, roughly comparable to that of North America in size, and was an East Asian center with a base in Japan — the fastest growing region at that time in the world. Since then, the world economic order has become much more diverse. Therefore, our policy has become more difficult to implement, but its fundamental principles have not undergone major changes.
Take the Clinton Doctrine. The Clinton doctrine is that the United States has the right to unilaterally use force to ensure "unimpeded access to key markets, to energy supplies, and to strategic resources." It goes beyond what George W. Bush said. But it was a quiet and calm doctrine, it was not arrogant and rude, and therefore did not cause much indignation. The belief in this "right I have" remains to this day. It is also part of intellectual culture.
Immediately after the murder of Osama bin Laden, when all these approving shouts and applause were heard, several critical comments appeared, the authors of which questioned the legitimacy of this action. Many centuries ago there was something called the presumption of innocence. If you detain a suspect, he remains a suspect until his guilt is proven. He must be brought to trial. This is a fundamental part of American law. It takes its origin in the Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying that it might not be necessary to throw out completely and completely the foundations of Anglo-American law. This caused a very powerful reaction of indignation, but the most interesting reaction, as usual, sounded at the left-liberal end of the spectrum. Well-known and respected left-liberal commentator Matthew Iglesias (Matthew Yglesias) wrote an article in which ridiculed such views. He stated that they are “amazingly naive” and stupid. And then substantiated his statement. Iglesias wrote: “One of the main functions of the internationally established order is precisely to legitimize the use of deadly military force by the Western powers.” Of course, he did not mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States has the right to use force whenever it pleases. Talk that the United States is violating international law is an amazing naivete and utter nonsense. By the way, this applies to me too, and I gladly admit my guilt. I also think that the Magna Carta and the norms of international law are worth giving them some attention.
I say this simply in order to illustrate the following: in intellectual culture, and even at the so-called left-liberal end of the political spectrum, the underlying principles have not changed much. However, the possibilities for their implementation have decreased dramatically. That is why all this talk is about the decline of America. Take a look at last year's last issue of Foreign Affairs, this main magazine of our establishment. On the cover it is written in large and bold letters: “America is over?” This is a standard complaint of those who think that everything should belong to them. If you think that everything should belong to you, and then something doesn’t work for you, you lose something, it becomes a tragedy, and the whole world begins to crumble. So, is America the end? Many years ago we “lost” China, we “lost” Southeast Asia, we “lost” South America. Maybe we will lose the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. And again, America is the end? It is a kind of paranoia, but paranoia of the super-rich and super-powerful people. If you do not own everything, it is a disaster.
“The New York Times describes the“ defining political difficulty of the Arab Spring, which is how to reconcile conflicting American impulses, including support for democratic change, a desire for stability, and fear of Islamists who have become a powerful political force. ” The New York Times highlights three US goals. What do you think about it?
- Two set out for sure. The United States is for stability. But we must remember what this stability means. Stability means the execution of American orders. For example, one of the accusations against Iran, this powerful foreign policy threat, is that it destabilizes Iraq and Afghanistan. How? Trying to extend its influence to neighboring countries. And we, on the other hand, “stabilize” countries when we invade and destroy them.
I occasionally present my favorite illustration of this state of affairs. These are the words of a well-known and very good liberal analyst on foreign policy issues, James Chace (James Chace), who previously worked as an editor in Foreign Affairs. Speaking about the overthrow of the regime of El Salvador Allende and the establishment of the Pinochet dictatorship in 1973, he noted that we had to “destabilize Chile in the interests of stability”. As a contradiction, this is not perceived - and it is not as such. We had to destroy the parliamentary system in order to achieve stability. That means they do what they say. So yes, we are for stability in the technical sense.
Concerns about political Islam are like any concern for independent events. Anything that does not depend on you, must necessarily cause concern, because it can weaken you. There is a small paradox here, because the United States and Britain traditionally by all means support radical Islamic fundamentalism, not political Islam, for it is a force capable of resisting secular nationalism, which is of genuine concern. For example, Saudi Arabia is the most notorious fundamentalist state in the world, a radical Islamist state. He has missionary zeal, he spreads radical Islam in Pakistan, he finances terrorism. But Saudi Arabia is a bastion of American and British politics. They consistently supported the Saudis, defending them against the threat of Egyptian secular nationalism during the time of Gamal Abdel Nasser and Iraq during the time of Abd al-Karim Qasim, as well as many other dangers. But they do not like political Islam, because it can become independent.
The first of three points, our striving for democracy, is one of the kind of talk of Joseph Stalin about Russia's commitment to the ideals of freedom, democracy and the liberation of the whole world. When such statements are heard from the mouths of commissioners and Iranian clerics, we laugh at them. But when Western leaders talk about this, we politely and even with a certain awe nod.
If you look at the facts, then our desire for democracy will seem like a bad joke. This is recognized even by leading scientists, although they say it is different. One of the main experts in the so-called promotion of democracy is Thomas Carothers, who is very conservative and enjoys great prestige. He is a “neoreiganist”, but not a fiery liberal. Carothers worked for Reagan at the State Department and wrote several books on promoting democracy, which he takes very seriously. Yes, he says, this is a deep-rooted American ideal, but he has a funny story. The story that every American administration suffers from schizophrenia. They support democracy only if it meets certain strategic and economic interests. Carothers calls this a strange pathology, as if the US is in need of psychiatric treatment. Of course, there is another interpretation, but it will not come to your mind if you are an educated and well-behaved intellectual.
“A few months after the overthrow, President Hosni Mubarak was on trial, charged, and facing a prison sentence. It is unthinkable for American leaders to be held accountable for crimes in Iraq or elsewhere. Will this situation ever change?
“Well, this is basically the Iglesias principle: the basis of the international order is that the United States has the right to use violence whenever it pleases. And how in such conditions can someone be charged?
- And no one else has such a right.
- Of course not. Well, maybe only our satellites. If Israel attacks Lebanon, kills a thousand people and destroys half the country, that’s nothing, that’s normal. Interesting. Before becoming president, Barack Obama was a senator. He did not do much, being a senator, but he nevertheless did a couple of things, which he was especially proud of. If you watched his website before the primaries, he’s sticking out the fact that during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, he was one of the initiators of the Senate resolution demanding that the United States not interfere with Israel’s military actions until it reaches goals, and America condemned Iran and Syria because they supported resistance to the Israeli offensive, during which southern Lebanon was destroyed. By the way, destroyed the fifth time in 25 years. So vassals inherit this right. This also applies to other American customers.
But in fact, all rights in Washington. That's what it means to own the world. It's like the air you breathe. You cannot question it. The main founder of the modern theory of international relations, Hans Morgenthau, was a very decent man, one of the few political scientists and experts in international affairs who criticized the war in Vietnam for moral, not for tactical reasons. Very rare person. He wrote the book The Purpose of American Politics. Well, you know what it is about. Other countries have no goals. On the other hand, America’s goal is “transcendental”: to bring freedom and justice to the rest of the world. But he is a good scientist, like Carothers. So he researched the facts. He said: when studying facts, it seems that the United States does not correspond to its transcendental goal. But then he declares: to criticize our transcendental goal is "the same thing as falling into the heresy of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on the same grounds." Good comparison. This is a deep-seated religious conviction. It is so deep that it is very difficult to understand it. And if someone starts to express doubts, this causes a state close to hysteria, and often leads to accusations of anti-Americanism and hatred of America. These are interesting concepts that are not found in democratic societies, only in totalitarian ones. And in our country, where they are taken for granted.
Information