A-Infos (en) "Of Course, It Was All About Iraq's Resources" - Gulf News: Interview with Noam Chomsky

[Worker <a-infos-en@ainfos.ca>]

 ________________________________________________
      A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
    News about and of interest to anarchists
 http://ainfos.ca/ http://ainfos.ca/index24.html
 ________________________________________________

Simon Mars: Do you think control over energy resources was
the main reason for the invasion of Iraq?

Noam Chomsky: They didn't decide to invade Eastern Congo
where there's much worse massacres going on. Of course it
was Iraq's energy resources. It's not even a question.
Iraq's one of the major oil producers in the world. It has
the second largest reserves and it's right in the heart of
the Gulf's oil producing region, which US intelligence
predicts is going to be two thirds of world resources in
coming years.

The invasion of Iraq had a number of motives, and one was to
illustrate the new National Security Strategy, which
declares that the United States will control the world
permanently by force if necessary and will eliminate any
potential challenge to that domination. It is called
pre-emptive war.

It is not a new policy, it's just never been announced so
brazenly, which is why it caused such uproar, including
among the foreign policy elite in the United States. They're
appalled by it.

But having announced the doctrine, it needed an exemplary
action, to show that the United States really meant it.

But if the United States is going to attack somebody, the
action has to meet several criteria. The first and crucial
criterion is that they must be completely defenseless. It's
stupid to attack anyone who can shoot back. Anyone knows this.

They understood perfectly well that Iraq was completely
defenseless, the weakest country in the region. Its military
expenditure was about a third of Kuwait, devastated by
sanction, held together by Scotch tape. Mostly dis-armed,
under complete surveillance, so Iraq met that condition.

Second criteria is that the place attacked has to be
important enough to matter. There's no point taking over
Eastern Congo, which is also defenseless, but Iraq matters.
That's where the issue of oil comes up, since the United
States will end up with military bases right in the heart of
the oil producing region.

The third criteria is you have to somehow pretend it's a
threat to your existence. While the people of Kuwait and
Iran might be delighted to tear Saddam Hussein limb from
limb, they still did not regard him as a threat. No one
thought he was a threat.

But in the United States the propaganda did succeed in
moving the American population, and Congress passed a
resolution authorizing the use of force to defend the US
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. No matter what
you think, that's just laughable.

How many people know that Donald Rumsfeld gave Saddam
Hussein golden spurs back in 1983?

A little of that has begun to leak out, but how many people
know that Colin Powell, the present administration moderate,
was the National Security Advisor at the time of [the]
Halabja massacre, when the Reagan administration, responded
by simply increasing aid to Saddam Hussein, as did the first
Bush administration later.

They knew that this aid was used for chemical and biological
warfare, and for developing missiles and nuclear weapons.
But they did not care so the aid continued.

Nowadays, Powell moans about the graves in Halabja, but he
didn't care at the time. They now claim this was because of
the war with Iran, but it had nothing to do with the war in
Iran. The war in Iran was over. They provided aid to their
friend Saddam Hussein because of their duty to support US
exporters, as they said on public record.

When Saddam Hussein was massacring the Kurds, he was also
wiping out agricultural areas. They needed agricultural aid
and US agro-business was delighted to have the US taxpayer
pay them to send agricultural aid to Iraq. Ronald Reagan,
George Bush, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney thought that was
just fine. Then it gets worse.

Right now, since the weapons of mass destruction have not
been found, there are other excuses being used for the
invasion of Iraq. In article after article, Thomas Friedman
of New York Times, as well as Colin Powell, both moan about
the mass graves that have been discovered.

It is true they did not see them before, but of course they
knew they were there. In 1991, after the Gulf War, the US
had total control of the whole region, Saddam Hussein was
effectively authorized to massacre the Shiites, and to put
down the rebellion that could have overthrown him.

Today, Thomas Friedman is agonizing about the mass graves,
but if you go back and read him in 1991, he knew about them.
He was the New York Times' Chief Diplomatic Correspondent,
and he said that the best of all worlds for the United
States would be an iron fisted military junta that would
rule Iraq the same as Saddam Hussein, but since Saddam is an
embarrassment, lets try to get someone else. And if we
cannot find someone else, we will have to settle for second
best, Saddam Hussein himself.

The British are an interesting case. In the US, we have
pretty much the same government that was in office in 1991.
But in Britain, today's government was in opposition in
1991. There were parliamentary protests in England about the
gassing of the Kurds and so on, but try to find the names of
Tony Blair, Jeff Hoon, Jack Straw, I think even Robin Cook.
They're missing.

What do the American public think about the situation in Israel?

The study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes,
PIPA, has done very interesting in-depth studies of people's
attitudes towards Israel and Palestine, but they are never
reported because the conclusions are unacceptable.

The PIPA study found that a considerable majority of the
American population favour what is called the Saudi plan,
which is the latest version of international consensus on a
two state settlement that the United States has been
unilaterally blocking since 1975. Yet about two thirds of
the United States' population supports it.

The Poll shows that a large majority of people in the United
States think that they should cut off aid to either of the
two parties, Israel or the Palestinians, if they refuse to
enter into goodwill negotiations.

Next question. Suppose that both sides enter into
negotiations, what should the United States do?

Give equal aid to Israel and the Palestinians.

Then comes the next question. Should the United States be
more involved in this?

Yes. Same large majority. That's a contradiction, a self
contradiction. It's the United States involvement since the
mid 1970s that's prevented a political settlement. Step by
step, vetoes at the Security Council since 1976 -- votes
alone, or with one or two client states of the General
Assembly blocking the plan.

Supporting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon with the express
purpose of undermining the possible threat of negotiations
and on and on . . .

So the US is involved in what it describes as "the peace
process," yet it is actually trying to prevent peace . . .
you just can't make that connection.

By definition the United States is running the peace
process, but does that mean they're trying to bring peace?

Of course not. You can go back to 1971 when Anwar Al Sadat,
the new president of Egypt offered a full peace treaty to
Israel with only one condition: That it withdraw from
Egyptian territory. Nothing about the Palestinians. Nothing
about the West Bank or Golan Heights. Just withdraw from
Egyptian territory and you can have a full peace treaty.

Israel understood it, they considered it, they recognized it
was a genuine peace offer that they could accept and end the
state of war. They turned it down because they said it was
more important to expand settlements.

At the point the settlements were in the North Eastern
Sinai, and tens of thousands of Bedouins had been kicked
out. It was a Labour government, not Sharon, and it decided
that it was more important to expand into the northern
Sinai, so they rejected Sadat's offer.

Well what did the United States do?

That's crucial, that determined what happened. There was an
internal debate in the United States and the United States
government. Henry Kissinger -- his position won out. As he
wrote, was that we should reject negotiations and he called
for a stalemate. No negotiations just force. So the United
States backed Israel's rejection of Sadat's peace offer.
That led directly to the 1973 war.

The 1973 war was a close call for Israel, very dangerous.
There was a nuclear alert; there was a close call for the
world. I mean even Kissinger, who's not very smart,
understood that we can't just assume Egypt's a basket case.
We have to do something. So he began the shuttle diplomacy
that then ended up in Camp David with the Camp David
agreements. That is hailed as a triumph in American
diplomacy. Carter just won the Nobel Peace prize for it.

It was a catastrophe of American diplomacy.

What they accepted at Camp David was Sadat's 1971 proposal
but now in terms that were much more harsh for both the
United States and Israel because by 1978 Sadat was calling
for a consensus on the Palestinians and leaving the rest to
the occupied territories. So actually the United States at
Camp David was forced to accept a proposal, that was worse
from their point of view and Israel's point of view, than
the one they turned down in 1971.

In the United States, Carter immediately raised US aid to
Israel to over 50 percent of total aid. Israel understood
what was happening. Egypt, the only Arab deterrent, was out
of the conflict, and the United States had increased aid.
Israel drew the conclusion that the US was telling us that
we can expand into the occupied territories and attack our
northern neighbour, which is exactly what they did.

Since 1976, the first veto at the Security Council and in
fact back to 1971, the United States has been blocking,
unilaterally blocking a Middle East peace settlement. A
settlement whose terms are accepted by almost the entire
world. I mean in 1976 the major Arab states accepted it, the
Palestinian Liberation Army accepted it, Europe accepted it.
In fact, everyone accepted it. The United States vetoed it.

The United States seems set to enter a very dark phase of
its history with the domestic legislation such as Patriot
and its foreign affairs policy.

Do you think things have a chance of getting better?

Remember that the people now in control are an extremely
reactionary nationalist wing, even of the Republican Party.
The major foreign policy journals like Foreign Affairs,
wrote very critical articles about the National Security
Strategy. The people in control are an extremist wing; and
they barely hold political power.

The presidential elections in 2000 were disputed election,
and they barely managed to sneak through, with a few tens of
thousands of votes.

How did they do it?

By frightening people. The attack on Iraq was purposely
timed, the announcement of it, to the start of the election
campaign. The campaign manager made it clear when he said
we've got to focus the election on national security issues
because people don't like our social and economic policy,
naturally because they're harming most of the population.

They're trying essentially to reverse the progressive
legislation of the past century and people don't like it so
we focus on national security issues. That way we frighten them.

You don't know how long people can be controlled. It's a
free country you know. People are free to say what they
want. Do what they want. There is very little coercion
possible. Some, but very little, so sooner or later people
are not going to accept what's being done to them.
When that will happen? Hard to say.

What is your assessment of how the World Bank, the IMF and
WTO have structured the global economy?

The IMF and World Bank have played various roles since they
were founded but let's take the last 30 years, the period of
so called neo-liberalism. This new era began in the early
1970s after Richard Nixon dismissed the Bretton Woods
system, established by Keynes and White right after the
Second World War.

Breton Woods was based on the principle that countries could
control capital flow, so you could prevent capital flight.
That's what Britain did after the war to allow recovery.
Also currencies were fixed within a pretty narrow band, so
there was very little speculation against currency.

Those were the fundamental principles, which were eliminated
in the early 1970s, first by the Nixon's US, then Britain,
Switzerland and other major countries. It was perfectly well
understood what this would mean.

Keynes pointed out 70 years ago that if you have financial
liberalization and free flow of capital, it will undermine
the possibility of democracy for a very simple reason: it
creates what economists call a virtual senate.

A virtual parliament of investors and lenders who carry out
a moment by moment referendum on government policies. If
they don't like them they destroy the economy by capital
flight, by attacking the currency.

Again technical economics talk about governments facing what
they call a dual constituency -- the voters, if they're
democratic and the virtual parliament. Of course the virtual
parliament always wins.

Since the new rules were established, there has been a very
striking attack on democracy, exactly as you'd expect.
There's been a decline of social economic policies all over
the industrial world because you just can't carry them out
against these pressures and in the third world's it's a
disaster.

The international structure is designed to prevent
democratic choices, as are every other aspect of the
neo-liberal programmes. Take, for example, the privatisation
of services like water, education, health. There is no
economic motivation for this privatization, despite the wave
of privatization instigated by the World Bank.

There were technical studies by very famous economists,
pointing out that there's no economic motivation for
privatization. If it is done in an efficient country like
Sweden, public industries will be efficient. But if it is
done in corrupt countries, they will be inefficient.

Privatization narrows the public arena by definition so that
resources like health, education are controlled by the
private sector, which in turn means corporations, which are
unaccountable tyrannies themselves. You put decisions in to
their hands, and they're out of the hands of the public, and
so the public arena shrinks. So the opportunities for
democratic choice shrink.
---------------------------

Edited excerpts of an interview with Noam Chomsky by Simon
Mars of Dubai's Business Channel. The interview will be
aired again on the programme Perspectives on Tuesday
(Business Channel) and Saturday (Channel 33). Noam Chomsky's
latest book Hegemony and Survival, America's Quest for
Global Dominance was published in November and covers some
of the themes included in this interview.
----------------------------

[Ed. remark to:
Simon:
Next question. Suppose that both sides enter into
negotiations, what should the United States do?

Chomsky:
Give equal aid to Israel and the Palestinians.

Ed.
Israel is a developed country. Once it stop wasting
resources on the naZionist expansionist project it
will not need any "aid".


*******
                       ********
       ****** The A-Infos News Service ******
      News about and of interest to anarchists
                       ******
  INFO: http://ainfos.ca/org http://ainfos.ca/org/faq.html
  HELP: a-infos-org@ainfos.ca
  SUBSCRIPTION: send mail to lists@ainfos.ca with command in
  body of mail "subscribe (or unsubscribe) listname your@address".

  Full list of list options at http://www.ainfos.ca/options.html