News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://tinyurl.com/6fjgpy
'Resonant and unwavering'
Noam Chomsky talks to the 'Bangkok Post' about the Vietnam War, Burma
and the future of the human race
Story by STUART ALAN BECKER
He opposed the Vietnam War long before it was fa****onable to do so. He
revolutionised the field of linguistics and helped spark the cognitive
revolution in psychology. He changed the way scientists approach the
study of the human mind.
His "Chomsky Hierarchy" is taught in basic computer science because it
offers insight into the nature of how languages are structured. His
theories of Generative and Universal Grammar indicate that the human
mind comes hard-wired with default settings that enable infants to
quickly learn any language spoken around them.
When the US dropped the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiro****ma
and Nagasaki in 1945, Chomsky walked off into the woods to be alone and
contemplate what he later called "one of the most unspeakable crimes in
history".
For the last 50 years Avram Noam Chomsky, now in his 80th year, has been
a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was voted
No. 1 in the 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll, a list of the 100 most
im****tant living public intellectuals, compiled in November, 2005 by
Prospect Magazine of the UK and Foreign Policy of the US on the basis of
a readers' ballot consisting of more than 20,000 votes.
Chomsky was followed by, in order, Umberto Eco, Richard Dawkins, Vaclav
Havel, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Krugman, Jurgen Habermas, Amartya Sen,
Jared Diamond and Salman Rushdie. Further evidence of the quality and
resonance of his work comes from the 1992 Arts and Humanities Citation
Index, which noted Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any
other living scholar from the 1980 to 1992 period, and was the
eighth-most cited scholar during any period.
Because of his universal appeal and academic accolades, Chomsky is
highly desired as a lecturer and speaker almost everywhere in the world,
giving him a unique ability like few people have to cut across all
political lines and be welcome and desired everywhere, if for no other
reason than you can't help but respect somebody whose convictions are
resonant and unwavering, even if you disagree with them.
Chomsky took the time to answer questions for the Bangkok Post,
providing some fascinating answers about the Vietnam War and the current
situation in Burma.
You opposed the Vietnam War long before it was fa****onable. When and why
did you make that decision? Do you feel you made a difference?
I opposed the Vietnam war from the mid-1940s, when the French invaded, a
few years later receiving direct US sup****t. But I did not do much
beyond signing statements and the like until 1962, when the back pages
of the New York Times casually re****ted that the US Air Force was flying
a large pro****tion of the bombing missions against South Vietnam, with
the planes disguised with SVN markings. At that point I realised that I
had better learn more about this, began to look into it more carefully,
and had to make a hard decision. I had enough experience with political
activism to know that if I became involved, it would soon grow to be a
major undertaking, with few limits, and I would have to give up a lot
that meant a great deal to me. I decided to plunge in, not without
reluctance. It took years of hard and painful work of protest and
resistance before a real anti-war movement developed. There is no doubt
that it made a difference. One illustration comes from the Pentagon
Papers, the final section, dealing with the immediate reaction to the
Tet revolt; in imperial terminology, it is called the "Tet offensive",
on the tacit assumption that a revolt against our military occupation is
aggression. The government considered sending several hundred thousand
more troops to South Vietnam, but decided not to because of concern that
they would need the troops for civil disorder control at home in the
likely event of a mass uprising of unprecedented pro****tions. We also
know that by then 70 per cent of the US population felt that the war was
"fundamentally wrong and immoral", not "a mistake" -- while intellectual
elites debated whether Wa****ngton's "bungling efforts to do good" were a
"mistake" that was becoming too costly to us (Anthony Lewis of the New
York Times, at the outer limits of dissidence within the mainstream).
How much any one individual contributed to the radical change of
consciousness and understanding, and the willingness to do something
about state crimes, it is hard to say.
You have said the US played a significant role in actions that led to
the installation of the Burmese junta back in 1962. What's the subtext,
the background we're not understanding: What are the consequences of the
enormous UK investment in Burma, of earlier US weapons sales, of recent
Israeli weapons sales to the junta -- and of Chevron Oil's continued
supply of millions and millions of dollars in oil money to the junta?
Burma had one of the few elected governments in the region in the 1950s,
and was intent on pursuing a neutralist course. The Eisenhower
administration was carrying out vigorous efforts to enlist the
governments in the region into its Cold War crusades. As part of this
broad campaign of subversion and violence, Wa****ngton installed
thousands of heavily armed Chinese Nationalist troops in northern Burma
to carry out cross-border operations into China. Burma vigorously
objected, but in vain. The China forces began arming and sup****ting
insurgent minorities in that turbulent region. In reaction, power within
Burma began to ****ft to the military, leading finally to the 1962 coup.
The matter is discussed by Audrey and George Kahin, Subversion as
Foreign Policy. George Kahin was one of the leading Southeast Asian
scholars, virtually the founder of the academic discipline in the US.
The consequences of the US-UK-Israeli operations you describe are, of
course, to strengthen the military junta. These matters are unre****ted
and unknown in the US, apart from specialists and activists, because
they interfere too dramatically with the doctrine that "we are good" and
"they are evil", the foundation of virtually every state propaganda
system.
Do you think there's any chance of a popular uprising being successful
in Burma, or do you think those who rise up will only be slaughtered
because there's no advantage for the generals to give up their power?
I do not know enough to be able to answer with any confidence, but I
suspect that now it would be a slaughter. On the other hand, the
military leaders are ageing, and there may be popular forces developing
that can erode their power from within.
Was the Kingdom of Thailand morally justified to host US military bases
during the Vietnam War? What lasting effects did the Vietnam War have
for Thailand and the region? Is that part of why Thailand is an island
of relative easy life, compared to neighbours with more severe problems?
Thailand's involvement in the US wars in Indochina was a disgrace. I
presume Thais, at least some of them, made profit from their
participation in the destruction of Indochina. I know that Japan and
particularly South Korea gained very substantially. It helped spur their
"economic miracles". To evaluate the lasting effects we have to imagine
what Southeast Asia would have been without the sadistic Western (mostly
US) interventions of the postwar period -- not to speak of what happened
before. That's a topic for a carefully researched book, not a brief
discussion -- and it would still be highly speculative, by necessity.
Do you find George W. Bush and his wife Laura calling for change in
Burma insincere? Do you think the US president's action on behalf of the
suffering and the marginalised in Burma in the wake of Cyclone Nargis
would be more justifiable on moral grounds than the invasions of Iraq
and Afghanistan?
Bush likes to posture as a deeply religious Christian. Perhaps he has
even looked at the Gospels. If so, he knows that the famous definition
of the hypocrite in the Gospels could have been written with him in
mind. One can think of all kinds of ways in which the Bush couple could
show their sincerity, were it to exist.
If Saddam Hussein had given some money to hungry children it would have
been more justifiable on moral grounds than his gassing of Kurds in
Halabja. The same principles hold in the case of Negris vs
Iraq-Afghanistan.
What do you think China's reaction would be if an internal uprising in
Burma was successful?
China would likely tolerate, maybe even welcome, the overthrowing of the
junta. There was, of course, a significant US role in actions that
elicited the military coup that installed the still-ruling tyranny. But
I don't know how much that bears on the present situation either.
Can you offer any insight into the behaviour of the Burmese generals,
their motivations and how things are likely to work out for the people
of Burma?
The rulers have a good thing going for themselves, nothing to gain by
yielding power and no major risks in using it violently. So that's what
they'll probably do, until the military erodes from within. Mass
non-violent protest is predicated on the humanity of the oppressor.
Quite often it doesn't work. Sometimes it does, in unexpected ways. But
judgements about that would have to be based on intimate knowledge of
the society and its various strands.
If a regime is so terrible that its generals loot the wealth of the
country's resources for their personal gain, carry out murders,
political imprisonment and forced labour, is there a moral justification
for an armed uprising of the suffering people?
There certainly is, in my view, with one qualification: An armed
uprising would have to evaluate with care the likely consequences for
the people who are suffering. I think it's appropriate for people to
rise up, but it's not for me to tell people to risk mass murder. As for
assassinating leaders, the question is very much like asking whether it
is appropriate to kill murderers. They should be apprehended by
non-violent means, if possible. If they pull a gun and start shooting,
it's legitimate to kill them in self-defence, if there is no lesser
option.
Would you give any examples of what could happen if the principle of
universality were applied in the world today, between nations that are
in conflict?
One example is that Bush, Cheney, Blair, and a host of others would be
facing Nuremberg-style tribunals. And the observation generalises very
broadly.
What are the greatest dangers facing our human species in the world
today and what can we most effectively do about them?
There are two dangers that could reach as far as survival of the
species: Nuclear war and environmental disaster.
About nuclear war, we know exactly what to do. In fact, the World Court
has ruled that it is a legal obligation of the signers of the
non-proliferation treaty to live up to their obligation to eliminate all
nuclear weapons. And the non-signers can be brought in as well. To give
an example that is highly relevant right now, the US population is
overwhelmingly in favour of establi****ng a nuclear-weapons-free zone
(NWFZ) in the Middle East, including Iran and Israel. The US and the UK
are formally committed to this policy. When they tried to construct a
thin legal cover for their invasion of Iraq, they appealed to Security
Council resolution 687, which calls upon Iraq to eliminate weapons of
mass destruction. The US-UK invaders claimed that it had not done so.
Resolution 687 also commits the signers to establish an NWFZ in the
region. If the US were a functioning democracy, in which public opinion
influenced policy, the exceedingly hazardous confrontation between the
US and Iran could be mitigated, perhaps terminated.
Naturally, none of this can be re****ted or discussed, and it is
inconceivable that any viable political candidate would even hint at the
stand of the overwhelming majority of the population. One may recall a
remark of Gandhi's when he was asked what he thought of Western
civilisation. His response was that it might be a good idea. The same is
true of "democracy promotion", which, if sincere, would begin at home.
How to stave off the threat of severe environmental catastrophe is less
clear, though some measures are obvious: Conservation, research and
development of renewable energy, measures to cut back emissions sharply,
and others. What is eminently clear is that the longer we delay in
addressing these problems, the more grave will be the consequences for
future generations.
Stuart Alan Becker, author and a longtime journalist in Asia, is working
on a history of US foreign policy since World War Two, and a book
containing a lively exchange of correspondence with Professor Chomsky,
called 'Letters to Chomsky'.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
|
