The Democratic Facade

As an opponent to USA policies, which political wing do you belong to?

Noam Chomsky: If you mean Democrat or Republican, the answer is:Neither. It has often been pointed out by political scientists that the US isbasically a one-party state -- the business party. with two factions, Democratsand Republicans. Most of the population seems to agree. A very high percentage,sometimes passing 80%, believe that the government serves "the few and thespecial interests," not "the people."

In the contested 2000 election, about 75% regarded it as mostly a farcehaving nothing to do with them, a game played by rich contributors, partybosses, and the public relations industry, which trained candidates to saymostly meaningless things that might pick up some votes. This was beforethe actual election, with the accusations of fraud and selection of Bushwith a minority of the popular vote.

I tend to agree with the majority of the population on these matters, andbelieve there is a significant task ahead to create a more democratic culture,in which elections are far more meaningful and there is also meaningful ongoingpolitical participation by the general population.

More serious political scientists in the mainstream describe the US not as a"democracy" but as a "polyarchy": a system of elite decisionand periodic public ratification. There is surely much truth to the conclusionof the leading American social philosopher of the 20th century, John Dewey,whose main work was on democracy, that until there is democratic control of theprimary economic institutions, politics will be "the shadow cast on societyby big business."

What are the goals of the American existence in the Iraq and Middle East?

Noam Chomsky: The primary goal, uncontroversially, is to control theimmense energy reserves of the Persian Gulf region, Iraq included. That has beena prime concern of the Western industrial powers since the time when Iraq wascreated by the British, to ensure that Iraqi oil reserves would be in Britishhands and the newly-created state of Iraq would be barred from free access tothe Gulf.

At that time the US was not a leading actor in world affairs. But after WorldWar II, the US was by far the dominant world power, and control of Middle Eastenergy reserves became a leading foreign policy goal, as it had been for itspredecessors. In the 1940s, US planners recognized that (in their words) Gulfenergy resources are "a stupendous source of strategic power" and"one of the greatest material prizes in world history." Naturally,they intended to control it -- though for many years they did not make much useof it themselves, and in the future, according to US intelligence, the US itselfwill rely on more stable Atlantic Basin resources (West Africa and the Westernhemisphere).

Nevertheless, it remains a very high priority to control the Gulf resources,which are expected to provide 2/3 of world energy needs for some time to come.Quite apart from yielding "profits beyond the dreams of avarice," asone leading history of the oil industry puts the matter, the region stillremains "a stupendous source of strategic power," a lever of worldcontrol. Control over Gulf energy reserves provides "veto power" overthe actions of rivals, as the leading planner George Kennan pointed out half acentury ago.

Europe and Asia understand very well, and have long been seeking independentaccess to energy resources. Much of the jockeying for power in the Middle Eastand Central Asia has to do with these issues. The populations of the region areregarded as incidental, as long as they are passive and obedient. Few know thisas well as the Kurds, at least if they remember their own history.

US planners surely intend to establish a client state in Iraq, withdemocratic forms if that is possible, if only for propaganda purposes. But Iraqis to be what the British, when they ran the region, called an "Arabfacade," with British power in the background if the country seeks too muchindependence. That is a familiar part of the history of the region for the pastcentury.

It is also the way the US has run its own domains in the Western hemispherefor a century. There is no indication whatsoever of any miraculous change. TheUS occupying forces have imposed on Iraq an economic program that no sovereigncountry would ever accept: it virtually guarantees that the Iraqi economy willbe taken over by Western (mostly US) multinational corporations and banks. It isa policy that has been disastrous for the countries on which it has beenimposed; in fact, such policies are a prime reason for the current sharpdifference between today's wealthy countries and their former colonies.

There is, of course, always a domestic sector that enriches itself bycollaborating in running the "facade." So far, the oil industry hasbeen excluded from foreign takeover, because that would be too blatant. But itis likely to follow, when attention turns elsewhere. Furthermore, Washington hasalready announced that it intends to impose a "status of forcesagreement" that will grant the US the right to maintain military forces inIraq and, crucially, military bases, the first stable US military bases right atthe heart of the world's major energy reserves.

As an expert in American history and policy is it suitable for Kurds toput their hope and trust completely in American project in Iraq?

You know better than I the famous Kurdish saying about putting trust inanyone. It holds for others as well, but Kurds familiar with their own historyneed no reminders of how they were sold out by the US in 1975, left to bemassacred by the US client state in Iran, and how the people who are now incharge in Washington fully supported Saddam Hussein right through his worstatrocities and long after the war with Iran was over, for reasons that the BushI administration declared quite openly: its responsibility to support USexporters, though they added the usual rhetoric about how supporting theirfriend Saddam would contribute to human rights and "stability."

These same people -- now back in power in Washington -- also supported Saddamwhen he crushed the 1991 uprising that might have overthrown the tyrant, andagain explained why. One can read in the New York Times that the "best ofall worlds" for the US would be an "iron-fisted military junta"that would rule Iraq just the way Saddam did, and that Saddam offers more hopefor Iraq's "stability" than those who seek to overthrow him. They nowpretend to be outraged by the mass graves in the South and the Halabjaatrocities, but that is pure and transparent fraud, as we can see by looking athow they acted when the atrocities occurred.

Of course they knew all about them, but did not care. And with all the laterpretense about the Halabja massacre, how much medical aid have they provided forthe victims over the past decade? Furthermore, this has nothing particular to dowith the United States. That is, unfortunately, the standard way in which powersystems operate, secure in the knowledge that the intellectual classes at homewill construct a suitable cover of high ideals. That has even been true of theworst mass murderers: Hitler, the Japanese fascists, and for that matter SaddamHussein.

For the weak to put their trust in systems of power is simply to ask forcatastrophe. They may choose to cooperate with powerful states, but if so, theyshould do so without illusions. And again, no one knows this better than theKurds, not just those in Iraq but in Turkey and elsewhere.

USA did not find mass destruction weapons in Iraq and it is now talkingabout realizing democracy in Middle East, will this project be successful, andwill that democracy be real one?

Having failed to discover weapons of mass destruction, Washington shifted itspropaganda to "establishing democracy." That flatly refutes theirearlier claim that the "only question" was whether Saddam woulddisarm. But with a sufficiently obedient intellectual class, and loyal media,the farce can proceed untroubled. To evaluate the new propaganda claim, arational person would ask how those who know proclaim their "yearning fordemocracy" have in fact acted, and act today, when their interests are atstake.

I will not run through the record, but those who are interested in evaluatingthese claims should certainly do so. They will discover that"democracy" is tolerated, but only when it is a "top-down form ofdemocracy" in which elites who collaborate with US business and stateinterests retain control -- I happen to be quoting from one of the leadingauthorities on Latin American democracy, who writes as an insider, having servedin the "democracy enhancement" programs of the Reagan administration,which devastated Central America, and left a trail of horror in the Middle Eastand southern Africa as well.

Furthermore, the same policies are pursued today, without the slightestchange. Is the US bringing democracy to Uzbekistan? Or to Equatorial Guinea,also ruled by a monster comparable to Saddam Hussein, but warmly welcomed by theBush White House because he sits on a very large pool of oil. Take PaulWolfowitz, described by the propaganda system as the leading"visionary" seeking democracy, whose "heart bleeds" for thesuffering of poor Muslims. Presumably that explains why he was one of theleading apologists for General Suharto of Indonesia, one of the great massmurderers and torturers of the modern era, and continued to praise him well into1997, just before he was overthrown by an internal revolt. It is all too easy tocontinue.

For the rich and powerful, illusions about themselves are satisfying andconvenient. Many find it quite pleasant to lavish praise on themselves, a majorrole of intellectuals, throughout history. For the weak and defenseless, faithin illusions is not a wise course -- as the victims of centuries of imperialpractice should certainly understand.

Is the current war of the USA to protect its national security legitimate?How do you consider USA national security?

US national security is threatened only by terror and weapons of massdestruction (WMD) -- which, sooner or later, are likely to be combined, perhapswith horrifying consequences. US and other intelligence agencies, andindependent foreign policy analysts, predicted that the invasion of Iraq wouldlead to an increase in terror and proliferation of WMD, and their predictionshave already been verified. The reasons are obvious.

The world dominant power announced its intention to attack anyone it wishes,without credible pretext or international authorization, in the NationalSecurity Strategy of September 2002. It then moved at once to undertake an"exemplary action" to demonstrate to the world that it means exactlywhat it said, invading an important country that it knew of course to bevirtually defenseless.

Watching this, potential targets do not say: "thank you, please cut mythroat." Rather, they turn to means of deterrence, and sometimes revenge.No one can compete in military force with the US, which spends about as much asthe rest of the world combined. But the weak do have weapons: namely, terror andWMD. That is the reason for the near-universal predictions on the part ofexperts that terror and WMD would be stimulated by the declaration of theNational Security Strategy, and by the Iraq invasion.

The Bush administration understands this as well as intelligence agencies andindependent analysts. They do not prefer to harm US national security andsubject the population to severe threats. It is simply not a high priority forthem, as compared with others: dominating the world, and pursuing a radicalreactionary domestic program aimed at dismantling the progressive legislation ofthe past century that was designed to protect the general population from theravages of market systems.

They also want a very powerful state: as soon as they took office, theyincreased government expenditures (relative to the economy) to the highest levelsince the first time they held power, 20 years earlier, in the Reaganadministration. But the powerful state they want to nourish is to serve theinterests of the rich and privileged, not the general population. And theinternational and domestic goals, in their eyes, are far more important thansecurity, or even survival. There is nothing novel about that. Again, those whoknow some history will recognize that political leaders quite often choose therisk of catastrophe in pursuit of power, domination, and wealth.

To what extent does the USA seek international legitimacy and agreements?

For a long time the US has shown disdain for the Security Council, the WorldCourt, and international law and institutions generally. That is not in theleast controversial. But this administration is so extreme in its contempt forinternational law and institutions that it has even been subjected tounprecedented condemnation by the foreign policy elite. Furthermore, it is allso open and brazen that there is really no need to discuss the topic.

Were the UN and other international organizations successful in protectingtheir independence?

Obviously not. The Bush administration informed the UN a year ago that itcould be "relevant" by following US orders, or it could be a debatingsociety (as Colin Powell put it). That continued, and continues today, not justin the case of Iraq.

Keeping only to the Middle East, the US has continued its practice of thepast 30 years of protecting its client state of Israel by vetoing SecurityCouncil resolutions and blocking General Assembly resolutions, and of course byproviding military aid and economic support for its client state to continue itsprograms of integrating the valuable parts of the West Bank within Israel.

That is one of the reasons why the US has been far in the lead in vetoingSecurity Council resolutions (UK second, no one else even close), since the1960s, when the UN was beginning to be somewhat independent of US domination asa result of decolonization and the recovery of the industrial powers from thewar. It is not of course the only reason. The US also vetoes Security Councilresolutions on a host of other issues, including even a call for all states toobserve international law -- not mentioning the US, though everyone understoodto whom it was directed.

You consider USA as a leader of the terrorists, why? and to what extentcould it protect human values?

I have not called the US "a leader of the terrorists," but I havedocumented in detail the long and horrendous record of US terrorist acts andcrucial support for the terrorism of its clients. In reviewing this record, Iuse the official US government definition of the term "terrorism." Butfew are willing to use the official definitions, because this is the consequencethat follows at once.

If you are not convinced, look at the ample documentation -- including thehistory of the Kurds, running right to the present, though the crucial USsupport for state terror against the Kurds was primarily in Turkey in the 1990s,when Turkey became the leading recipient of US military aid (aside from Israeland Egypt) as it was driving millions of Kurds from the devastated countryside,killing tens of thousands, and carrying out every imaginable kind of barbarism,some of the worst crimes of the terrible 1990s, right near you.

I have personally seen some of the results, in the miserable slums ofIstanbul to which refugees were driven, in the city walls of Diyarbakir wherethey attempt to survive, and elsewhere. But surely you must know all of that,right next door. And that is only a very small part of the story, and omits thedirect implementation of terrorist atrocities. About that there is a long andugly record.

In fact, the US is alone in having been condemned by the World Court for whatamounts to international terrorism, in its attack against Nicaragua. The Courtordered the Reagan administration -- those now in power again in Washington --to terminate its terrorist war against Nicaragua. Of course the administrationdisregarded the Court order, at once escalating the terrorist war, and vetoingSecurity Council resolutions supporting the Court judgment. The US is not alonein these practices, by any means. Rather generally, such practices run roughlyin parallel with the power to commit the crimes. Again, that is familiar to thevictims over the centuries, or at least should be.

Can systems of power protect human values? Certainly they can, and sometimesthey do, the US included. This happens when protecting human values serves powerinterests, or when an aroused citizenry demands it. Both of those factors wereresponsible for US protection of Iraqi Kurds in the 1990s, while at the sametime the US was providing the decisive military and diplomatic support for theatrocious repression of the Kurds across the border -- though the population ofthe US was and remains unaware of these crimes; the massive evidence wassuppressed by the media and the intellectual classes, as is commonly the case.