'Kick His Ass And Get The Gas'

Islin Elicin: I would like to begin with a current issue topic for Turkey. EU rebuffed US's pressure forearly entry talks for Turkey. Starting from this example, can you elaborate on the rift or maybe rather therivalry between the EU and the US?

Tariq Ali: Well, the rift between the US and the EU at the moment doesn't... It's not the EU as a whole; it's some ofthe major countries in the EU, which are extremely nervous about the war. They think it is a big risk and theyknow that the bulk of their populations are opposed to the war. That's you know, in Germany you have 70percent of the population is against the war in Iraq, in Italy it's over 50 percent, in Britain it's over 50percent. This has never happened before in anti war history. The people are so hostile to a war. 

Then comes the United States and wants to reward Turkey for agreeing to participate in the war, by sayingwe'll get you EU membership on the cheap and the Europeans used this, partially -they don't want Turkeyanyway- but they then used this also as ...{inaudible} to say hang on a bit, we'll discuss it later, theUnited States isn't going to tell us who we let in at what stage. Later we can think about it. So the factthat Turkish elite was convinced that if they back the war in Iraq they would get fast-track to EU membership,that's not the case, they will have to do a lot more than that.

Islin Elicin: If we can talk about the rift between the two in a much broader sense, what is Europetrying to do? That is, on the one hand it has the values based on the concepts like democracy, peace etc. Buton the other hand we see that EU is beginning to choose a different track then it used to follow. What is it?

Gilbert Achcar: Well, frankly speaking, I don't think that there is some, that kind of a basic rift between the United Statesand the European Union. Basically the EU is accepting a position of vassality towards the US, which has beenconsistently the case since the second World War and is continuing actually. 

We see it through for instance, the fact that the NATO alliance was not only kept after the end of Cold Warbut also even enhanced. And it is becoming now, a kind of a direct tool, which United States plans to use asan auxiliary force in its interventions. 

As for the recent, let's say, disagreements expressed by the German and the French governments; well theGerman disagreement was equal to what Tariq Ali has just described as the overwhelming opposition by Germanpopulation which is one of the most pacifist population in the world from that angle. It was for what forpurely opportunistic electoral reasons. And there are a lot of arguments to think that way since first of allwe haven't much heard of Schroeder's opposition to war after he is re-elected. Secondly, Germany is going tobe a part of this coming war to Iraq, at least through being part of the NATO infrastructure, which will beused by the United States for the war. 

As for France, here again it's not a matter of a philosophical disagreement between Jacques Chirac andGeorge W. Bush. It's a matter of interest. It's just that the French government has concluded very importantcontracts with the present Iraqi government and doesn't want a regime change in Iraq. They want the embargo tobe lifted through the UN process but want to keep the same regime because they have their very interestingcontracts with this regime. This explains France's reservations about the war. We are seeing now that, like in1990-91, they started shifting positions under the pressure because US is saying that "we are going tothat war and if you want any piece of the cake you'd better join us."

Noam Chomsky: I think I tend to agree with this if we take a short-term view but in the longer term, and in fact going backsome distance, there has been a potential rift between United States and Europe. There's always been aquestion as to whether Europe will move towards a more independent course in world affairs. United States hasalways been concerned about this, it goes back to late 1940's, and Europe has had conflicting tendencies. Thetendency "let's be a vassal of United States" has indeed won, but it's not necessarilypermanent. 

Europe has different interests. Potentially Europe is a force in the world affairs on a par with the UnitedStates, the economy is on a par, the society is more developed in many ways, and it's an educated society. Imean, except that in armaments it is force like the United States and armaments are not the only things by anymeans. It could move in an independent direction, just as Asia could, just as Japan centered Asia could. USdoesn't want that in neither case. And it regularly intervenes to prevent it. 

Part of the reason why the US has been supporting Turkey for the EU -part of it is exactly what you said,they want it to pay off for the war- but there is a deep further reason. They are expecting Turkey to be aTrojan horse for the United States to support US interests within the European Union. In fact the US stronglysupported the accession of the Eastern European States for essentially the same reason. They want to somehowbalance the Franco-German interest in potentially moving in an independent direction. 

I think that's a problem. That's going to play itself at heart over a long period. And for Turkey, forTurkey to enter the European Union on those terms, I think would be a disaster for Turkey. I mean if theyenter the European Union, it should be to pursue their own interest, a broader interest, not to act as anagent of the United States.

Islin Elicin:  Mr. Achcar, in an essay adopted from your book The Clash of Barbarisms, youpinpointed that European Union decreed a Europe-wide day of mourning for the victims of the attacks ofSeptember 11, yet they did not observe a single minute of silence for the people massacred, for example inSerebrenitza. Could you elaborate on this point a little bit?

Gilbert Achcar: Well, I mentioned this example as being an example on European soil. It's an illustration of the vassality.This is what I call "narcissistic compassion", the fact that there is much more, you know, emotionaround when the victims are people that Western Europeans can identify with easily. Just think of the factthat we have every day more than two September 11's in black Africa alone as a result of AIDS. 

Just to mention that issue among many other kind of problems and diseases, the western world doesn't care.There is something which is deeply I would say, scandalous in this way of reacting to September 11 and we haveseen that again on the first anniversary of the attacks. I am coming from France and in France there was areal competition between every kind of media about who will do more about September 11. 24 hours, the wholeday was booked.

Islin Elicin: You said that we haven't seen so much opposition to war in the history before. So how comethen, that is, do the people begin to feel much more closer to Iraqi people or what? Why we see thisopposition now?

Noam Chomsky: I'll talk about the United States. In the United States, for the last 40 years there has been a strongincrease in opposition to aggression and atrocities. And the administration knows it. The first Bushadministration, when they came into office in 1989 - any new government has an intelligent analysis of theworld situation - which usually one learns about 40 years later when it's declassified - this time it isleaked, pieces of it re-leaked and they were interesting, somebody in Pentagon didn't like it.- they leaked asection which said roughly the following: 

It said in the case of confrontation with more weaker enemies -- meaning anybody --  they're going tofight, we must defeat them decisively and rapidly or else political support will erode. The reason is thatthere isn't any support any longer for aggression and massacre. When Kennedy started to bomb South Vietnam 40years ago and drove millions of people into concentration camps and started a chemical warfare there weren'tany protest. None in the United States, none in Europe.

Yeah, that's the way the West behaves towards the 'niggers'. That's ...{inaudible} who cares. But there hasbeen a change over the years. The countries have become a lot more civilized; people do not accept aggressionand atrocities. And every single case of intervention has had to follow this model. 

You have to first create the image of this monstrous enemy that about to destroy you to frighten people,then you have to quickly slay the dragon, don't let it drag on too long. And then people forget it. So theywill forget what just happened in Afghanistan and they won't look at what it looks like. And then you won thenext battle. That's the only way they can fight a war now and they know it.

Islin Elicin: How would you characterize the so called "war on terrorism"? A brief descriptionmay be... What is it?

Tariq Ali:  It's now become a joke. The war against terror was devised by the Bush administration to enable them towage war wherever they want, and to enable their allies to crush people who are resisting them. So ArielSharon became part of the war against terror and crushing the Palestinians. Colonel Putin in Moscow became avalued ally of the west killing more Chechens than anyone can believe. 20 thousand people have died inChechnya and the city of Grozni has been erased to the ground; hospitals, schools destroyed much more thananything Milosevic managed to do to Kosovo. 

So these double standards possessed in the war against terror are now one reason as Noam was saying, peopleare fed up with these lies. They don't believe them any longer. That's why you have opposition even before awar has broken out, because people challenge the basic premise of the war. They know that the reasons the westis giving for this war are complete and utter lies. People are beginning to see through that. They don'tbelieve it. They know it. 

They know it is oil, they know they want to resettle the Middle Eastern region. So they don't believe it isabout weapons of mass destruction. 'Cause, you know, they imagine the citizens of Europe and North America arelike children that they can carry on spoon-feeding them lies and they'll accept it. 

But people are beginning to resist, 'Cause you know, we had three wars now since the Cold War came to anend. And I think this war in Iraq, whatever it does in the Middle East is a bit unforeseen, you know it cancreate a mess, but one thing it will do is create an opposition in Europe and when you have politicians who donot reflect public opinion in European countries, then anything is possible.

Noam Chomsky: The only thing I'd like to add that these people did not declare a war on terror on September 11. Theydeclared it 20 years earlier. The same people who are now running the Washington came in with the Reaganadministration. Their first act was to declare a war on terror. They said a war on terror would be the focusof US foreign policy primarily in Central America and in Middle East. Every one of them is now back in theoffice. 

Same rhetoric, a plague spread by depraved opponents of civilization, a return to barbarism, and theyproceeded the fight the war on terrorism in the 1980's. They left a couple of hundred thousand corpses inCentral America, they left a trail of devastation and disaster in the Middle East. In Southern Africa, justsupporting their ally South Africa and its wars around the edge they killed another million and half people.That was the war on terror. It was a cover for murderous interventions all over the world. And the same peoplecalling the same war on terror, of course going to do the same thing.

Islin Elicin: Where will it stop, I mean this kind of attitude of the United States? Mr. Ali, you saidonce for example, it is imperialism but America doesn't like this name, but now it openly says, "I wantto do this and I'll do it". What is the end?

Tariq Ali: Well the end is not the United States is the only empire in the world. This is the first time, I think inworld history, we have a situation where there is only one empire. No other empire exists. And they now feelthat they can assert this need and people around Bush compare themselves to Rome. But in fact their positionis much more stronger than Rome's position ever was. 

They now say, "We are an empire why shouldn't we behave like it. If a country doesn't accept whatwe're doing, we're gonna kick ass". I mean the bumper stickers in California, Republican Party's bumperstickers are saying, "Kick his ass and get the gas". 

Which is actually very straightforward and very honest of them to show that this was what the war is about.It is about energy and about oil. But the United States now feels unchallengeable.

Islin Elicin:  Immanuel Wallerstein, for example says the American empire is declining, that it isthe end of even, or rather that this is the first and real crisis of capitalism. Do you agree with this view?

Tariq Ali: Wishful thinking.

Noam Chomsky: There is a constant crisis of capitalism. It's always in crisis, I mean right now there are very serious crises,there is absolutely no way to predict whether they will be overcome or compensated. In fact the main factorwill be what the population does and that's not predictable. 

40 years ago you could have never predicted that an anti-war movement would develop. It was inconceivable.You certainly couldn't predict that a feminist movement would develop, that an environmental movement develop;I mean none of this were predictable. The contemporary global justice movement, what's calledanti-globalization, who could have predicted that? There wasn't anything like it in the world history. That'sa big, powerful, international movement, which may have a major effect. 

And the people in power know that their grip to power is fragile. So the World Economic Forum, for example,is very concerned about the World Social Forum. They know it's there, they know it's a threat. They are tryingto figure out the ways to, sort of, co-opt ...{inaudible} I think it's got to the point that I'm gettinginvitations to give keynote speeches for World Bank in international conferences. You know they are trying toco-opt the movements, which are substantial and could erode the whole system.

Gilbert Achcar: This declinism, the decline theory, has been recurrent in the history of the United States over thelast decades and it was very strong in the 70's and 80's. Under Reagan for instance, I mean, Reagan came topower as having a key program designed to reverse the decline of the United States, which was a real declineat that time. But precisely the issue that declinists, those who deal with that kind of theory, tend toforget the way the US uses its military, political dominance in the world to restore its position every timeit has been threatened. 

That was very clear under Reagan and he achieved this come back of the United States as a first rank worldpower. Well, we can see in the behavior of the Bush administration today a continuation of that basic optionof the United States after the Cold War, which was to maintain and enhance this supremacy, as a priority forUS politics. And a key tool to maintain this dominance of the United States in all other fields, you know,related to that military and political dominance.

Tariq Ali: The point that I'd like to add to that is this; what the current situation of the strength of the AmericanEmpire essentially produces, is a total contempt for democracy. Not just in the United States itself, but allover the world. Because if you have populations which are opposed to their governments becoming dependenciesof the United States, then you have to prevent the populations from exercising their right to selfdetermination electorally.  And increasingly, I think that, I mean people are doing that at the moment bynot bothering to vote. The voting patterns, even in Western Europe by and large show declining vote. Becausethey feel there is no alternative for them.

And Turkey in this case, which is trying to become more democratic than it has ever been -'cause this isthe country which is, we know is run by the army, it has been for a long time - has a real choice facing itnow. At the time when it wants to become democratic, the Americans are going to involve this country in a bigwar, which will probably be opposed, by sections of the population. Then what? What if the population carrieson electing a regime which is opposed to war? The army will then take over. 

So the infinite war, which the empire seeks to wage now, is linked to totally ignoring democracy. One thingwe know, you'll get democracy in Afghan style basically in countries they occupy. I think Turkey and Turkishelite, you know, has to think very carefully of its own future. It has been a US ally or let's say dependencysince the Cold War days. Is this going to carry on forever?

Islin Elicin: Yes, but they argue that, for example "our hands are tied, we need the money..."

Noam Chomsky: You need the money because you've been following the policies dictated by the US Treasury Department, whichhave led Turkey, Brazil and a whole series of other countries in the world in to a position where they have astranglehold from the US Treasury Department. You don't have to follow these policies.

Tariq Ali:  And you know, even prostitutes sometimes say, "we have to do it, because we need the money." But Imean, that is on an individual level and one can even sympathize. But when states start behaving in that way,then you have to ask what's going on and what's wrong?

Islin Elicin: I felt a little bit pessimistic about the near future, at least, listening to you. As myfinal question, could I ask briefly from each of you, how do you see the future? I mean, on the one hand thisimperialistic thing is covering the whole world and at the same time you say that there's a huge anti movementgathering up. How do you see the way out?