Notes
on Noam Chomsky talk
3/22/02 Rickey's Hyatt
in Palo Alto
by
Dave Danielson, CSM
"Looking into the Abyss of the
Future"
He began by talking about many
"Endangered Species;" specifically there are Democracy, and
Human Beings which are at risk. We are endangered by the
rational policies of the elites, which run the country. Our
very survival is at stake.
Early War on Terrorism
He began looking at the atrocity of
September 11th. We know how it was viewed within the US,
but how was it seen "outside of the cocoon?" He reminded us
that 20 years ago, George Schultz of the Reagan
Administration said that we needed to intervene in the
Middle East and Central America to fight the "depraved
opponents of Civilization" in a "War on Terrorism." That
War has been long forgotten and yet renewed after September
11th. The US launched the attack 20 years ago. The memory
of those events, 20 years ago, in those regions is
remembered. The people there see us as Terrorists. Some
examples.
Case Example #1: South East Turkey
&endash; from the mid 1980s to mid 1990s ethnic cleansing
took place. 2 &endash; 3 million refugees, 1000s of villages
destroyed, 10s of 1000s of people killed. The Kurds, an
Aryan race of people, were attacked by the Turkish
government. (These were the same peoples that were attacked
by Saddam Hussein in his attempt to wipe them out as well.)
The Turkish military has tortured and caused further harms
against the Kurds., according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, etc. The military and economic support to
Turkey from the US has been huge. In 1997 alone Turkey
received more than that which they received from 1945
(beginning of the cold war) to 1996. The Clinton Whitehouse
provided 80% of the arms. They are now third behind Israel
and Egypt in terms of receiving US military aid. Since 1999
Columbia is now #3 on the list due to the 'War on Terrorism'
which is linked to the 'war on drugs' there.
The repression of the Kurds in Turkey
is more vicious than that of Kosovo. And yet no word is
mentioned of this in the US press. And there is great talk
of the Milosovic trial at The Hague for crimes against
Humanity. The Parallels are amazing and yet there is no
discussion of this in the US media or its allies' media. It
was reported on NPR, about 3/20/02 that the Afghans are
celebrating New Years in Afghanistan for the first time
since the Taliban outlawed it years ago. This was hailed as
a great thing and the result of the war on Terrorism. It is
a great thing, and what went unreported was that the Turkish
government has outlawed the celebration in Turkey of New
Years celebrations by the Kurds. The halting of the
celebration was violent and people have been killed. No news
of this makes the mainstream. Currently Turkey is regarded
as a model in the state department. In fact now Turkish
soldiers are going to be sent to work in Afghanistan as
peacekeepers! "The servility of the US Elites is clear when
things like this don't even make the news."
This is nothing new. It goes back to the
idea of who defines the terms. "Terrorism" is a key concept
here. Terrorism has historically defined by each country or
nation as the attack upon us, the people of that country or
nation. What we do to others is therefore justified. The US
is not alone in this sentiment or ideological position.
This is always the case. The Nazis, for example, saw the
resistance and the underground in France as committing acts
of atrocity against the Nazis and thus needed the Vichy
government to repress the people in order to end the terror
that was sponsored from abroad by London and
Washington.
Commemorations
March 11th was the 6th month anniversary
of September 11th and it has been commemorated. This month
is also the 40th anniversary of Kennedy's announcement that
the Air Force would start bombing South Vietnam with
Chemical defoliants, Agent Orange, and Napalm. (We will
never know how many people died; estimates are as high as 2
million.) Yet this event is not commemorated. We
commemorate events of terror against us, and rightly so, the
attack of the Japanese against the military installations on
our territories December 7th 1941. But we neglect our acts
of aggression. This is not surprising. Since we initiated
it, it's not terrorism. (Back to the definition of
"terrorism.")
**** The principle is clear, don't
investigate your own crimes. ****
Sociological research into assessing
the level of knowledge regarding the numbers of deaths in
Vietnam shows that US citizens think that (the mean average
of the guess) there were 100,000 Vietnamese deaths. By
comparison it'st's like saying in Germany, if the people
were polled to determine the numbers of Jews killed in the
concentration camps and they said 200,000! We would be
appalled. They can't think this because they lost and we
can force on them the truth of the exact count. We "won" so
we are able to avoid being held accountable.
So how do the major news organizations
respond? Front-page news is the story of the level of panic
that Americans feel regarding the threat of dirty bombs
being made available. Radioactive Cobalt rods, items used to
irradiate food, could be stolen and turned into weapons of
terror. There would be few deaths but the threat is there on
the front page. (It is interesting how these items show up
and the disproportionate concern people will have when there
are real threats out there much closer to home that are
overlooked.) At the same time, there is a conference in
Vietnam regarding the public health effects of Chemical
Warfare. The results of which are still being learned as
grandchildren of those initially affected by Agent Orange
are now born deformed etc. This research comes from
Specialist at the University of Texas showing that the
dioxin levels are 200xs the average dangerous levels. A
foreign journalist has reported on this, Chomsky mentioned
an Israeli who has documented the effects in 1988 estimating
250,000 victims of Agent Orange. 10 years ago, a New York
Times reporter, Barbara Crassette (sp) wrote suggesting that
much could be learned since there were two populations and
one, the north, could be used as the control group for the
other as an experimental comparison.
N.B. During the Gulf War Secretary of
Defense Dick Cheney was asked about the numbers of Iraqi
soldiers killed. He responded that it was of course an
interesting question to know the answer to, but that there
would be no serious attempt to determine that
number.
*** Again, we don't commit Crimes, they
do, so there is no concern with exploring the nature of the
effects in any serious way. Thus there is no History of the
War on Terrorism, although the same men are running the show
as they were twenty years ago. *********
US and the World Court
The US is the only country to be
condemned by the Court, for the intervention in Nicaragua,
and the US is the country, which vetoed the resolution
calling on Nations to follow international law! While the
War on Terrorism is progressing, our partners in the
coalition are stepping up repression of their own
"terrorists" locally. So Russia is after the Chechens etc.
Outside of the cocoon of the US media there are different
voices heard however.
South East Turkish responses to September
11th condemned the actions of the terrorist attacks on the
United States, but they also recalled their own suffering at
the hands of the Turkish leadership which oppresses them
using both our military support and equally as important our
silence on their crimes and atrocities.
Central America &endash; Panama: Their
press condemned the September 11th attacks on the US but
they said they were not unfamiliar with such attacks.
"Operation Just Cause" undertaken by the United States in
December 1989 to kidnap Manuel Noriega, left 3000
Panamanians dead in one raid alone!
Nicaragua &endash; The Research Journal
of Jesuit University condemned the September 11th attacks as
(something) like Armageddon. But they reminded their
readership of the Armageddon of 10s of thousands who died in
their own Armageddon. In the early 1980s they had the best
economy etc. in Central America, now they are second to last
only ahead of Haiti!
Haiti has been the target of the most US
invasions of this century. Haiti has currently asked for the
extradition of a former leader of the paramilitary forces in
Haiti, he is currently living in New York City. The US
refuses to extradite him. He is accused of killing 4
&endash; 5 thousand people. He has been sentenced in
absentia. Chomsky believes that he won't be extradited
because he will spill the beans regarding his support by the
CIA.
"It takes incredible discipline not to
see these things for what they are. It is a tribute to our
educational systems."
US and the Middle East
After 9/11/01 the Wall Street Journal
investigated opinion in the Middle East to go get a reading
on why they hate the US. They interviewed the "moneyed
Muslims" who despise Osama bin Laden. They object to US
support of Israel's military, the sanctions on Iraq, and
they remember the support of Saddam Hussein when he was
gassing the Kurds. There is a clear hatred of the policies.
He also commented on how these are the voices that the Wall
Street Journal sought. Not the rank and file people who are
not in the financial pipeline and in the middle of the money
that flows to the US.
A bit of History on the Middle
East
The US is a free place and the planning
documents are available. An obvious place to look is at the
documents from 1958, where there is discussion regarding
International Affairs specifically in the Middle East. Iraq
broke free and Iran tried. The US intervened in Iran
overthrowing the elected leader and instead replaced him
with the Shah. And the history of that repression with his
secret service police. {(President Eisenhower talked of the
campaign of hatred against us not the government but the
people.) This part is unclear in my notes.} The perception
is that the US is supporting harsh, corrupt regimes and
blocking their development due to our interest in their oil.
The planners wrote, "It's hard to block this perception
because it's true." We need to keep them this way so that we
are in control. The people are asking why is the money going
to the small group of Muslim moneymen.
Nuclear Posture Review
The planning documents for the Nuclear
Posture Review were leaked in the this last few weeks.
Because there is nothing new in the ideas, why was it
reported?
Chomsky speculates: People in the Bush
administration are scared that crazies have their fingers on
the buttons. The content of the review is identical that of
Clinton's administration. 10 years ago, with the collapse of
the Soviet Union there were tactical changes in the review
needed. US is no longer facing a "Weapons Rich Environment."
(Weapons Rich Environment means that there are a great
number of targets in the Soviet Union to target with Nuclear
Weapons.) Now we are in a "Target Rich Environment." (A
target rich environment means that there are a great number
of targets for our nuclear weapons.) The switch to the
target rich was always there but the pretext of the Soviets
is now gone, we are no longer guarding against Communism.
The Pretexts change so we need mini-nukes against the enemy.
So we need adaptive planning. The description in the new
documents are available and g back to March 1990. Why do we
need the Pentagon at the same level of funding now that the
big threat is gone? "It's not the Russians we fear it's the
technological sophistication of third World countries These
nations could get weapons of mass destruction, chemical and
biological. But any nation can make these; they need a high
school level chemistry and biology lab. Thus the world is a
target rich place. Intervention forces are focused on
Middle East. Our forces from Guam to the Azores etc. are
needed to defend against threats to our interests and can't
be laid at the Kremlin's door any longer. The real threat is
indigenous independent radical nationalism.
Can the threat be laid at Saddam
Hussein's door? No Bob Dole visited Hussein in 1990 to show
support for him and to let him know that his support is
still strong in the Bush I administration. The US needs to
be prepared for small-scale operations. The Clinton era
documents support this view. The US Strategic Command
documents call for us to have available a full range of
options but those Nukes are most important. Since extreme
power to destroy others, without available remedies, like
vaccines etc. is key. They are better than biological and
chemical, which can have remedies. We need to cast a shadow
of fear upon any crisis. They also call for a kind of
ambiguity, we don't want to appear completely rational, then
others can calculate, and defend against our response.
Project the idea that the US may act irrationally, out of
revenge etc. in order to keep people in fear that we might
use the nukes. Thus we need to reject any policy that
disallows a first use scenario. We want to retain the nukes
for "Pre-emptive reaction" (oxymoron) and undermine any goal
of non-proliferation.
What is the future we face regarding
the Nuclear threat? Small nukes can be successfully
smuggled into the US. Well-planned smuggling has a 90%
chance of success according to those who look at the
scenarios. Missile defense might work for the incoming
intercontinental ballistic missiles, but it enhances these
alternatives. In fact if it looks like the Missile Defense
System would work, then others would seek out alternatives.
If the Missile Defense system turns out to be viable, then
China, it is predicted, would up their numbers of missiles
10xs their current arsenal. This would lead India and
Pakistan to increase as well. This will increase Russia's
selling of counter measures. This is the analysis of the US
intelligence services. The Bush administration seems okay
with China's increase, as was the Clinton administration.
Clinton advocated Russia's move to launch on warning in
order to get them to acquiesce on other policies we want.
Yet the Russian weapons systems are deteriorating based on
computer malfunctions. If we share the missile defense with
China, which seems to be the direction things are going, it
will put Japan and Taiwan at greater risk. Thus Missile
Defense increases the danger of Nuclear War. 50 years ago
the only potential threats were ICBMs, thermonuclear war
sometime in the future. The Russians had none and would be
dramatically at a disadvantage. In his History of the Arms
Race McGeorge Bundy reviewed the documents and found on
record no interest in banning the ICBMs. No questions asked
as to whether or not the Russians would also ban them. But
presumably it would have been in their interest. And this
was the only threat that faced the US. And there were no
negotiations to try to deter it. The threats don't seem to
make people act.
The Russian archives now reveal and
allow for comparison. The story after Stalin's death, 1950s,
is that the US was using the arms race to destroy the
Russian economy and dominate them without war. When Kruschev
gained power he reduced the offensive military forces and
called for the US to agree. Kennedy rejected this idea and
escalated weapons manufacturing. (Matthew Evangelista is a
source on this.) Kennedy's action drove a nail into the
restraint of the Russian Military, and Kruschev was booted
out. This escalation terminated Kruschev's social policies
and created stagnation in the economy from the 1960s
forward. Eventually this leads to the invasion of
Afghanistan and the current problems in the Russian economy.
(Chomsky gave no defense for these links, he merely asserted
them.) The Clinton &endash; Bush policies merely continue
this process, and show a weak concern for safety.
The Ballistic Missile defense system
is an offensive and not defensive system. It is leading to
the Militarization of Space. And it has escalated since
9/11/01 in the aftermath and is being used to take advantage
of people's concerns for safety. As China sees the system,
it will allow for the US to have a "sword and a shield in
place." The Rand Corporation sees it this way as well. "It
will be not merely a shield but an enabler of US action."
And the psychic effect is that the insulation of the
homeland from reprisal allows us to shape the environment
elsewhere. This will be a tool for global domination to
wield power abroad with absolute freedom to act as the US
wants, cementing US hegemony and make the US masters of the
world. The system will facilitate interventions that we
applaud. (This from Kaplan, somewhat leftist
interpretation.) This is a case for US hegemony and the
realization for history's purpose. This idea is not new; it
was shared by John Stuart Mill regarding Britain's empire in
the 19th century. It is a beneficial situation if you rule
the world. This was an understandable and tolerable position
when the means of enforcing one's hegemony was navies.
Other countries could develop another navy to compete. But
once the thing is space based and the US is so far ahead in
the technological and economic ability to produce it, there
will be no competitor.
There is a technological paradox
however. The weapons system is dependent on satellites. But
they are easy to target and destroy thus jeopardizing the
safety. Poor man's weapons can be used to defeat satellite
technology. Thus there will be the need to develop offensive
weapons in space to defeat an attack on a satellite. But
such also come with the principle of "normal accidents"
which occur in any complicated systems. Thus a mistake is
bound to happen. What will be the consequences?
Frightening.
So what are the goals of a space based
system? The Clinton document brochures for Vision 2020 call
for domination of space by the military in order to protect
our interests. Just as the US needed the army to open up and
defend the Westward movement, and Navies to protect the
commercial interests, the next logical step is space. A
National Missile Defense System = space based weapons. But
Space is different, and the US is in the lead, dominant in
the technology. They will be on computer alert. Then the US
will be immune and we will outspend all the allies and
enemies for the greater good. The need for total domination
with the globalization of the economy will lead to a greater
widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots. The
planners on Globalization predict chronic financial
volatility and a widening economic divide, if it works! This
will lead to unrest and the need for a force to control with
precision strikes from space to hit weapons of mass
destruction on earth before they can be deployed.
This will lead to global economics
which will lead to one market. But it will be a corporate
dominated "Free Investment Agreement."
- Reduce Globalization
- Slower growth and financial
volatility
The same model of the new economy comes
from the state sector. National Security exceptions of the
GATT agreements allow leading edge technology to advance
unrestricted. (Example of the science that led to the
ability of one ship, a floating platform, to hit with a
cannon ball, another floating platform.) This is the
investment in computers etc. that are for defense to turn
around and spin off consumer products. The scale is
qualitatively different today, but it is an abyss into which
we must peer.
There is hope however. 40 years ago
meetings such as these could not take place. The Civil
Rights Movement, the Feminist Movement could not have
occurred. US is now a more civilized place. There are
constant improvements environmental movement, solidarity
movements, anti aparthied, anti-sweatshop, mass anti-nuke
movement. In Brazil in February there were 60,000 people
meeting to discuss popular movements. Which curve will
dominate in the next years, it's up to us!
Questions:
1.) In dealing with Rwanda, are we
racist?
"In 1994 the Burundi and Rwanda conflict
lead to many deaths, yet the Hutus and Tootsies have been
long at each other's throats. 27 years ago they killed
100,000. Several million have been killed in the Congo this
year, no press. The Kurds are Aryan, they look like us and
yet we are willing to let them die, so it's not racism
persay. In fact according to the New York Times, we
intervene in Turkey and the massacres escalate. And there is
no press.
2.) Should we divest in companies linked
to bad policies?
It is a tactical decision with human
consequences. The Policy in the US regarding S. Africa, in
1988 Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, and his organization,
the African National Congress, was a terrorist organization.
South Africa was a favored ally and it was responsible for
1.5 million deaths in surrounding countries. 60 billion
dollars in damage was incurred. 1987 there was a major UN
resolution against Terrorism, the US and Israel voted
against it in part because it focused on S. Africa and the
Palestinian. The US was compelled to change due to largely
symbolic acts, like boycotting Shell Corporation, to
divest
Recently the big money is going towards
Bio-Tech companies. This is where the dynamic state sector
money is going. Cutting edge development is in bio-tech and
not in computers any more. There will be money invested in
basic biology to fight bio-terrorism. But the big money is
not in basic research, it's in the applications. And the US
destroyed international efforts to set up anti-bio-terror
treaty because the verification elements looks into the
biotech industry. The US is currently violating treaties
regarding producing genetically produced vaccines for
resistant Anthrax strains. It's driven by economic drives to
produce saleable products.
3.) A Question from an
Egyptian-American
He said that "we giggle when we hear
about US intervened in Democracy." (Spoken as an Egyptian.)
What is the Bush / bin Laden/ Lockeheed connection. BBC in
November, Cheney and Halliburton Oil profit from Iraqi and
Iranian Oil. Corporations are totalitarian institutions,
the Church committee on Multinationals is the source for how
many of these entities operate. Secret documents are sealed
to keep the information from the people since those on whom
the power comes down know the truth. Corporations are not
accountable to anyone. (And the Enron, Global Crossings not
with standing, they will be seen are aberrant cases to be
dismissed as such rather than as indicative of a system that
is rife with problems.)
Since September 11th, every repressive
government has take the opportunity to repress further.
Russia in Chechnya for example.
So what is Globalization? It is
essentially international integration. In fact it's a
mistake when the opponents of "Globalization" call
themselves "Anti-Global." No one is against Globalization.
Globalization is good. It's good that we can call people on
the phone, that email works as it does, etc. The danger is
that a narrow view of the term is being used. It's becoming
synonymous with Investor Rights Version. This version has
workers being pitted against each other. Adam Smith thought
that there would be a free circulation of labor; yet this
has declined over the years, The inverse of Smith's view
prevails. The increase in capital flow , due in part to the
Bretton Woods decisions, has controlled capital movement by
Governments. Now it's over, the last 25 years, and we see it
Mexico. There is a porous border which has become
militarized in 1994, "Operation Gatekeeper" Why? NAFTA The
results are that there are more intrafirm trades, not real
trade between countries. Or there is strategic alliances
between corporations IBM and Toshiba outsourcing their
work.
In the 1950s the US controlled half of
the world's economy. Now in 1970 it's 25% but shared
between three groups, Germany / Europe, Japan / South East
Asia. There is only one military force in the world, the
United States. Where will this lead?
Top of Page
AFT 1493
Home
last updated 5-12-02
|
