Chomsky – in London

Tuesday December 10^th, 2002

Talk and questions arranged by Red Peppermagazine and introduced by the Editor, Hillary Wainwright – audio and video tapes being made of the proceedings, also streaming over the internet, copies available at a later date [? - unclear whether the internet or just the hard copies] – amazing that so many people who one wouldn't normally expect turned out to hear Chomsky: 2000 in St Pauls Cathedral yesterday plus a further thousand outside, and then another 900 tonight plus 350 in a second hall with a video link.

Introduction to Chomsky by Mike Markesey [??sp.]: an American in London. Talked about analogies with the past [previous American presidents and the civil war] then introduced also the anti-war theme. “I hope when you succede, it won't lead to another civil war” [not sure by who though!]

Today is Human Rights Day. Time to remind ourselves that every type of power should be challenged. And if not so, dismantled. That has (always) been second nature to people who value freedom.

Chomsky

Since World War Two, there has been US dominance in terms of world power, although this has decreased. From 1945 to 1970, the US share of production decreased by 50%, but over the same time period, US military power increased. Britain has made a choice to become “her” [the US] lieutenant: a fashionable word is “partner” - and Britain prefers the fashionable.

[Something about the Foreign Office in the UK defending the US right to fight...] “We must reserve the right to bomb niggers.” - Lloyd-George complementing the British Government when they vetoed an International Treaty against bombing civilians – and this has been a precedent followed ever since! Indeed, the UK and US power alliance appears invincible – but really it is only superficial.

[some discussion about the scale of the forthcoming Iraqi war]

The Global Justice Movement, or whatever you want to call it: some say the anti-globalisation movement but this isn't as accurate a description; the Global Justice Movement is offering good resistance – and the Foreign Office know this. The march on September 28^th was known about accross the United States....

They call themselves “Conservatives,” but this is an insult to the word: actually they are Radical Statist Reactionaries.

Condaleeza Rice in September warned that the next bit of evidence of Sadaam Husseins' nuclear capability woud be... a mushroom cloud. Where? - in New York, of course!! Iran and Turkey are not fearful of that.

Jack Straw “discovered” evidence of Iraq being bad: he found some Amnesty reports published back in the 1980's, back when the Iraqi government was being backed by the CIA and other US departments and allies in the West, that stated Iraq was bad, that Sadaam was using chemical warfare against Iraqs own people.

And then an asylum seeker came to Britain from Iraq. This was about 18 months ago, but the story was discovered back in September of this year [although it didn't really make any news] accused of something [back in Iraq] like stealing a bag of potatoes and Jack Straw rejected his asylum appeal on the grounds that “the Iraqi political and legal system is reliable.” What made him change his mind in 12 months?

And furthermore, who hates Iraq? Iran don't – and they were involved in a war for many years: they despise Iraq, but they don't fear Sadaam. They fear the USA.

Even right-wing people are saying this: “Warning: the US is regarded by most of the world as a rogue Superpower.” - Samuel P. Huntington.

And these were warnings that the Clinton administration was following the wrong path – not Bush!

Israel favours war – but they're “not losing any sleep over a nuclear threat....the threat is at least 4 years away” - [according to the Israeli government]

[If you imagine that there are all these people in America in the various intelligence agencies sitting around in offices discussing the problems, and each problem has its' own little room to be discussed in...] “Well, the Iraqi threat is off in a room somewhere behind where the janitors stay”

[Discussion about] UN Resolution 1441

Colin Powell = the official “dove”

Today, there are just recycled Reaganites and people from the first Bush administration running the show; only differences are:

• they have a lot more power now,

• there is no external enemy like during the Cold War when there was Russia and the Communist bloc; instead they are able to construct one in the form of “terrorists”

• There is more to play with and use now, for example, Brazil...

40-50 years ago, the Americans instituted a military coup when they were worried about the possibility of the people taking power. Now, the inernational investor community saw that Lula was about to be elected and they started to turn the screws to tighten the financial noose: this is NEO-LIBERALISM – it's function is to undercut democracy.

And we are back to the Radical Statist Reactionaries.

[nd it's all come full circle.] Back in the early eighties, Reagan declared “war on Terror.” Now, it's hard to find a mention of that previous one, we seem to have all caught the disease called elementary sanity, a new disease where you look back and learn from the past, and we are fighting hard to ward it off, to forget,

A big summit, 1986, I think it was, the G7 (or whatever it was) Summit in Tokyo, and Reagan told the Europeans to line up or “the crazy Americans will take matters into their own hands.” So Europe lined up! And the same has happened now in New York at the UN with Resolution 1441,

The tactic is known as terrifying people: also used to control a population.

In 1981 the “leader” [Ronald Reagan] hid in the White House behind tanks.

In 1983, there was a big airbase being built in Grenada, and the Americans said the Russians were going to use it to bomb the USA.

And then the Sandinistas were said to be 2 days march from Mexico City and threatening to come up towards the southern states....

And the Secretary of State borrowed quotes from “Mein Kampf;” - he said that Nicaragua was an “arrow pointed at the hear of Texas.”

So if you think Sadaam is scary, remember the 1980s! And it's working well now, this tactic of terrifying the people. Mid-term elections prove this, when everybody was re-elected and people voted for the same parties and policies – but this was eclipsed by the threat of Iraq! - Imminent war announced early September '02: elections but a month or two away.

There are important and longstanding reasons for this war: oil. S11 gave the excuse and domestic politics provided the timing. But the big question is what will happen next year? - in the run up to the new presidency??

There sure is a security problem - it is to secure the radical right-wing agenda for the next 6 to 10 years, maybe even make it impossible to dismantle the[ir] system. Here is a good example:

Condaleeza Rice: “There is no link between Iraq and Al Quaeda – but we can construct a link.”

Indeed, one has a 90% chance of success at being able to smuggle a nuclear device into the United States – and that's a publically published fact, I believe that it was actually MIT press that you can find it in....

[Got to talking about Cuba... and here I drifted off a bit (which I am probably doing a bit here, too, as the hour is late, the beers are drunk and bed is beckoning...) as it was a dark room! But I got the punchline - ] Vasili should be awarded 5000 Nobels [Peace Prizes – and I got the reason too...] because the Russians had a flotilla of ships sailing towards Cuba, and they were accompanied by some submarines. And like the Americans, direct control of nuclear weapons is held locally, close to where the weapons actually are. And in this case, the word of 3 officers was needed to fire the missiles – and two had already said “yes.” And Vasili said “no,” thereby saving the world from nuclear war.

Arthur Schlesinger [actually, I wasn't really listening at this point either, just liked the name and thought I could spell it so I wrote it down. Next to it, the word,] Cuba ==> REGIME CHANGE [i don't know what it means!]

In 1988 the Pentagon released a report that said the didn't have to tremble with fear against Cuba anymore. [Wasn't really aware that they had been trembling in the first place, should they have been?]

23^rd October, 2002 – a treaty presented in the United Nations (and this one didn't make the news either, surprise, surprise) to ratify some past Acts:

1. Ban weapons in space – originally agreed in 1967 that Space was to be a de-militarised zone,

2. Re-affirmation of the Chemical Weapons Treaty – originally passed by General Convention in 1925.

Any surprise that it should be the USA and Israel that provide the veto? - In fact, a double veto: as it was a veto against both the statements and against publicity of the fact that they had provided a veto.

[Here there was a discussion on Capitalism and the mounting evidence against it as an economic theory. Evidence cited included:] Global Trends 2015 published in 2000 by thw US Government. Globalisation: “it's evolution will be rocky with financial volatility. As globalisation proceeds the deepening chasm between [haves and have-nots (adapted from *below)] will produce [(**ditto**)]

And then Visions 2020, again produced in 2000, by the British government: “the growing gap between haves and have-nots, who will become increasingly uncontrollable...”

[And back to the “war”...] It's not about access to oil, but control of it all. And the good news is that there are very strong challenges to the system, but we are all privileged, we can act without facing the prisons and tortures and degradation [and worse] that is shown to others....

Questions

[In this section, I didn't take as thorough notes, so some of it is a bit sparse, but I have tried to include key phrases. Italics used at the beginning of a paragraph are para-phrased questions, otherwise generally used for emphasis.]

Venezuala – Representative of a continent in uproar! The US kicked Britain and France out of this area of the world. They then expected the area to become of “favourable trade balance.” The US kicked Britain and France out of Venezuala in 1920 and the reason was that the world was switching to an oil-based economy.

S11 and Pearl Harbour – were they allowed to happen? But this very much exaggerates the capacity and intelligence of the intelligence agencies. Truth is, they are inundated with information and easy as it is in retrospect to pick stuff out, doesn't mean they should have spotted it in the first place. A parallel example is in science where scientists carry out controlled experiments to try and eliminate all the other stuff.

Academic boycotts – e.g. versus Zionism – good or bad? In reality, one should be boycotting the USA, not Israel, as countries will only go as far as the US allows them to. On the 3^rd December, The UN General Assembly passed a resolution which rejected Israels' annexation of Jeruselum, which is acknowledged by all as truthfully being a key part of Palestinian heritage. Interestingly, for the first year ever, the United States voted in favour of this resolution. On the same day, in the Financial Times, Douglas Hurd condemned the Palestinians for rejecting proposals put to them by the USA. In fact, overall the real problem seems to be the security of Israel– but not the security of the Palestinians.

This doesn't even bear resemblance to what happened over the last hundred years or so in Africa, where it wasn't even politically correct to say the 'security of the white man'

US movement? The US 'movement' [see earlier] has no links with the [mainstream] media, and therefore isn't as easily visible. But that doesn't mean it isn't there. Even the anti-Vietnam war movement didn't have links with the media – it wasn't until 6 or 7 years after the war started that some articles began appearing in the media, and these were the softarticles - but this didn't stop the movement from growing. What it did instead was to develop outsideof the mainstream. And here it is happening again now, there is a movement developing.

For example, the largest University Campus in the country, the University of Texas, has passed an anti-war resolution, but this wasn't communicated across the town, let alone the country. And like at the start of the Vietnam War when one would never have been able to predict the scale of opposition just 6 or 7 years later, it is impossible to predict now what is going to happen.

How would you deal with the Middle East? Follow the lead of the people in the region in trying to rebuild. For example, North Korea, now there's a country in a mess! Why not talk to the South Koreans? To nottalk and listen to them is just plain old imperialism, under a new guise. We should try and intergrate Iraq back into the region.

Maybe we could help....

Maybe we could support the people opposed to murderous regimes, instead of supporting the murderers...People say that Sadaam is evil because “he gassed his own people,” but really they were Turks. Surely then, the Cherokees were Andrew Jacksons' own people, weren't they? Sadaam - “he gassed his own people” - with our support, and then we continued to supply him with weapons of mass destruction.

And why don't the surrounding governments do something to stop him? Well, all governments are pursuing the best course open to them.

What could we do “if we had power?”- “If we had power?” - But we do!! Most people in the world could not even get together to talk about subjects such as this, at meetings such as this...we [in the west] all have the power...

The problem is will not opportunity.

(c)OPYLEFT NOTICE:

I hope you enjoy this text. All original work is @nti-(c)opyright: please feel free to redistribute the information in this document, as long as you credit the source (Alfred Scott). Permission to link to, manipulate, publish and/or mention in print (paper, electronic, etc.) is also granted, provided that a) the source is credited; and b) where no conflicting rights are stated below.

The above rights are not extended to the following groups, organizations, and related sub-organizations, each of whom must obtain full written permission from Alfred Scott prior to publishing and/or reproducing any text:

* anything that looks like, smells like, feels like, or is a for-profit organisation, whatever form it may take

* any "Internet guidebook"

* any academic or non-academic periodical with a circulation over 10,000

* anything run by one (or more) individual(s) who make more than or equal to GB£50,000/yr each (even if from another source)

* any periodical that uses more than 25 font families in one issue

* any for-profit pressing of a CD-ROM, whether by individuals or groups