A-Infos (en) Noam Chosky on new Gulf War

[Platformist Anarchism <platform@geocities.com>]

________________________________________________
     A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
           http://www.ainfos.ca/
________________________________________________

An Interview with Noam Chomsky about
the current build up to a new 'Gulf War'

Originally for the Italian journal "La 
Repubblica"   
The interviewer was Giampaolo Cadalanu

1) The intervention of the U.S. in Irak seems at 
the moment unavoidable.  Do you think the real 
reason of this intervention is to impose respect 
of U.N. resolutions?

Ans: To evaluate the proposal, we can ask how 
the US itself respects UN resolutions. There are  
simple ways to check. For the past 30 years, the 
US is far in  the lead in vetoing 
SecurityCouncil Resolutions (Britain second, 
France a distant third). In the General 
Assembly, theUS regularly votes against 
resolutions in virtual isolation -- hence in 
effect vetoing them --on  a wide range of 
issues. The pattern extends to the World Court, 
international conventions on human rights, and 
much else. Furthermore the US freely disregards  
violation of UN resolutions that it has formally 
endorsed,  and often contributes materially 
tosuch violation. The case of Israel is 
notorious (for example, the 1978 Security 
Councilresolution calling  on Israel to withdraw 
immediately from Lebanon). To select another   
example  that is quite relevant here, in 
December 1975 the Security Council unanimously    
ordered Indonesia to withdraw its invading 
forces from East Timor  "without delay"  
andcalled upon "all States to respect the 
territorial integrity of East  Timor as well as 
theinalienable right of its people to self-
determination."

The US responded by (secretly) increasing its 
shipments of arms to the aggressors,  
accelerating the arms flow once again as the 
attack reached near-genocidal levels in 1978.In 
his memoirs, UN Ambassador Daniel  Patrick 
Moynihan takes pride in his success in  
rendering the UN "utterly  ineffective in 
whatever measures it undertook," following 
theinstructions of the  State Department, which 
"wished things to turn out as they did and   
worked to  bring this about." The US also 
cheerfully accepts the robbery of East Timor's  
oil  (with participation of US-based companies), 
in violation of any  reasonable interpretation 
of  international agreements. The analogy to 
Iraq/Kuwait  is close, though there 
aredifferences: to mention only the most  
obvious, US-backed atrocities in East Timor were  
vastly beyond anything  attributed to Saddam 
Hussein in Kuwait.

 It is easy to extend the record. Like other 
great powers, the US is  committed to the rule 
of  force, not law, in international affairs. UN   
resolutions, World Court Judgments,  
International Conventions, etc., are acceptable  
if they accord with policy; otherwise they  are 
mere words.

2) Which difference do you see between this 
intervention and Operation  "Desert Storm", with 
the Bush administration?

ans: There are many differences. "Desert Storm" 
was allegedly  intended to drive Iraq from 
Kuwait; today the alleged  goal is to compel 
Iraq to  permit UN inspection of Saddam's 
weapons programs. In both cases, a closer look    
reveals a more complex story. After Iraq invaded 
Kuwait, the US feared  that in "the next few 
days Iraq willwithdraw" leaving in place a 
puppet  government and "everyone in the Arab 
world will be happy" (Chairman of  the Joint  
Chiefs Colin Powell). The concern, in brief, was 
that Iraq would act much as the  US had done a 
fewmonths earlier when it invaded Panama 
(vetoing two  Security Council resolutions 
condemning its actions). Whatfollowed also does  
not quite conform to standard versions. Today, 
it is widely expected that a military strike 
willleave Iraq's murderous tyrant in power, 
continuing  to pursue his weapons programs, 
while undermining suchinternational  inspection 
as exists.

 It may also be recalled that Saddam's worst 
crimes were committed when  he was a favored US 
ally and tradingpartner, and that immediately 
after he  was driven from Kuwait, the US watched 
quietly while he turned to the   slaughter of 
rebelling Iraqis, even refusing to allow them 
access to captured Iraqi  arms. Official stories 
rarely yieldan accurate picture of what is 
happening. Nonetheless, the differences between 
1990 and today are  substantial.

 3) Do you believe that the so-called "Sexgate", 
the scandal about sexual behaviour of president 
Clinton, had a role in the decisionto attack  
Iraq?

Ans:  I doubt that it is much of a factor.

 4) Do you see an alternative to the "new world 
order" of the U.S.?

Ans:   "World order," like "domestic order," is 
based on decisions made within institutions 
thatreflect existing power structures. The 
decisions can  be changed; the institutions can 
bemodified or replaced. It is natural  that 
those who benefit from the organization of state 
and private power  will portray it as 
inevitable, so that the victims will feel 
helpless to act. There  is no reason to believe 
that. Particularly in the rich  countries that 
dominate world affairs, citizens can easily act 
to create alternatives even within existing 
formal arrangements, andthese are not graven in 
stone, any  more than in the past.

5) Do you see in Irak an alternative to Saddam 
Hussein?

Ans: The rebelling forces in March 1991 were an 
alternative, but the US  preferred Saddam. There 
was an Iraqidemocratic opposition in exile. 
Washington refused to have anything to do with 
them before, during, or after the Gulf War,  and 
they were virtually excluded from the US media, 
apart from marginal  dissident journals. 
"Politicalmeetings with them would not be 
appropriate for  our policy at this time," State 
Department spokesman RichardBoucher stated  on 
March 14, 1991, while Saddam was decimating the 
opposition under the eyes  of Stormin'Norman 
Schwartzkopf. They still exist. How realistic 
their  programs are, I cannot judge, and I do 
not think wecan know as long as the US remains 
committed -- as apparently it still is -- to the 
Bush adminstration  policy that   preferred "an 
iron-fisted Iraqi junta," without Saddam Hussein 
if  possible, a return to the days when Saddam's  
"iron fist...held Iraq together, much  to the 
satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and 
Saudi Arabia," not tospeak of Washington (NY 
Times chief diplomatic  correspondent Thomas 
Friedman, July 1991). 
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
       International Anarchist Web Page
   http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter.html

International Class Struggle anarchist discussion list,
    contact platform@geocities.com for details

     ****** A-Infos News Service *****
  News about and of interest to anarchists

Subscribe -> email MAJORDOMO@TAO.CA
             with the message SUBSCRIBE A-INFOS
Info      -> http://www.ainfos.ca/
Reproduce -> please include this section