Features

Section Editor: Sven Bellamy

 

January 15, 2003

Chomsky Cuts to the Heart of the Matter

Noam Chomsky sits down for a conversation about the upcoming war in
Iraq, the United States’ foreign policy, the history of international terrorism

opfeatures@netscape.net

and the future of the Middle East

Faiz Ahmad and Omar Badawi
The McGill Daily

MONTREAL (CUP)—Noam Chomsky,
MIT linguistics professor and outspoken
critic of US foreign policy, has authored
dozens of works pertaining to political
radicalism, media control, American mili-
tary interventions and state terrorism. His
most recent book, 9-11, was an interna-
tional bestseller and provoked much
debate about American responsibility for
the World Trade Centre attacks in
September, 2001. On November 8, Faiz
Ahmad and Omar Badawi sat down with
Chomsky to discuss the impending threat

of war against Iraq.

CUP: Do the US and the rest of the world
have a responsibility to change the regime in
Iraq? Do they even have a right to do so?
No one has a right, and if you don’t have
a right you don't have a responsibility.
Undoubtedly, there are plenty of regimes
that need to be changed, and Saddam
Hussein's is one. But there’s a long list. For
example, let’s take the United States—a
great deal of the world regards the US as
“a menace to itself and the world.” I’m
quoting a senior member of the Carnegie
Foundation writing in a mainstream
British newspaper.

Incidentally, there’s nothing new about
regime change. That’s an old, old policy.
Just last October there was a commemora-
tion of the Cuban missile crisis—Arthur
Schlesinger, who attended the high level
meetings in Havana, pointed out accu-
rately that it was the most dangerous
moment in the history of the world. And
where did it come from? It grew out of an
effort at regime change. The US was com-
mitted to overthrowing the Cuban gov-
ernment, first by terrorism—when that
didn’t work, they tried by invasion, and
when that didn’t work, there was even
more terrorism, which led up to the mis-
sile crisis and practically destroyed the
world. That's a dramatic case, but there
are many others like it. Efforts at regime
change are an old story.

CUP: Many believe that, regardless of US
motives or methods for removing Saddam
Hussein from power, the world and the peo-
ple of Iraq will be better off without him,
often pointing to the Taliban in Afghanistan
as an example. The argument, therefore, is
that military action is justified.

First of all, the war aim in Afghanistan
was not to overthrow the Taliban. That
was an afterthought. There were people

who were very much committed to over-
throwing the Taliban—Afghans like
Abdul Haq, one of the most respected
Afghan leaders, whose position was that
the US was bombing the country in order
to show its muscle and to scare the world,
not to overthrow the Taliban. Getting rid
of the Taliban was a goal added three
weeks later, when the war was almost over.
Would the world and the people of Iraq
be better off without Saddam Hussein?
Absolutely. But you can go down a list
from A to Z and pick out a lot of coun-
tries for which that’s true. Does the US
have any special right to intervene? Of
course not. In fact, if anyone believed
Bush’s arguments and the arguments of
the pro-war people, there’s a very simple
way to overthrow Saddam Hussein which
has many advantages to the current
plan—help Iran invade. Terrific. The
Iranians will tear Saddam Hussein to
shreds, they'll kill anyone who's anywhere
near him, they'll destroy all the weapons
of mass destruction, they'll make sure that
no successor ever develops any weapons of
mass destruction—a great contribution to
disarmament. There'll be people on the
streets of Basra and Karbala cheering as
the Iranian liberators come in, there won't

 

be any problems with the UN, there won't
be any US casualties, there won't be any
Israeli casualties, it’s just perfect. So why
isnt anyone talking about it?

There are two downsides to this propos-
al: it doesn’t leave the US in control of the
second-largest oil reserves in the world,
and it doesn’t get Bush out of his immedi-
ate domestic problem, which is how to
terrify the country into submission while
he pursues a domestic agenda that’s
extremely harmful to most of the popula-
tion—which, incidentally, is an immedi-
ate problem. That’s why they have to
invade this winter and not next winter.
The problem with next winter is that it’s
in the middle of a presidential campaign.
By then you have to have had the victory
behind you, so that the brave cowboy can
be praised for saving us from disaster. The
timing is purely domestic. The long term
goals are something that everyone has
known for years. The people that are run-
ning the show in Washington now are all
supporters of Saddam Hussein—they sup-
ported him through his worst atrocities.

CUP: What would you see a just policy
toward Iraq entailing?
I think that weapons inspectors should go

the other press

back. The US has been trying very hard to
prevent weapons inspectors from going
back, because they want to go to war.
Remember what Resolution 687 says—
that the disarmament of Iraq should be
part of a general program of reduction of
armaments and delivery systems through-
out the region. That makes very good
sense.

The US wants to go in exactly the
opposite direction. But if you think that
anybody has the right or the responsibili-
ty to overthrow Iraq, there’s the obvious
example of Iran. They’re the victims, they
have the means, they can be trusted far
more than the United States. After all, 60
percent of the population is Shiite, not
necessarily pro-Iranian but at least much
more positive toward Iran than toward the
US. Iran would be much more successful
in installing democracy—they can give a
voice to a lot of the population, which the
US probably can’t. It’s an insane proposal,
but it makes much more sense than the
actual proposal if we take the reasons seri-
ously.

CUP: Mr Negroponte, the US ambassador
to the UN, has stressed that the US is com-
mitted to allowing weapons inspectors to go
forward. Addressing the fears of war-weary
members of the Security Council, he called
the last draft resolution put forth by the US
“the best way to achieve the disarmament of
Iraq by peaceful means.” What do you think
of his assessment?

He knows perfectly well that it’s the worst
way. The Bush administration has stated
explicitly that they are interpreting the
resolution as an authorization to go to
war. That undermines the likelihood that
Iraq will agree to inspections—that’s pret-
ty obvious. Conditions have been
imposed which allow the United States to
do what it wants—conditions which were
carefully written into the draft, such that
the United States at any point can say,
well, you didn’t meet the conditions, so
we bomb you. So if at four o'clock in the
morning an inspector shows up at a presi-
dential palace and he isn’t given the keys
in five minutes, the US can say “Okay,
youre in material breach, therefore we
bomb tomorrow.” In fact, they can say
anything they want. This resolution is
simply a way for the countries of the
world not to have to face the wrath of the
United States. They’re terrified of the
United States, for pretty good reasons.

 

© page 18