Chomsky - What We Say Goes (2007) - Synopsis

UFPPC (www.ufppc.org) Digging Deeper LXXVIII: April 6, 2009, 7:00 p.m. Noam Chomsky, What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World—Interviews with David Barsamian (New York: Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books, October 2007). [The book’s title comes from words spoken by President George Herbert Walker Bush in a speech on Feb. 1, 1991: “When we win, and we will, we will have taught a dangerous dictator, and any tyrant tempted to follow in his footsteps, that the United States has a new credibility and that what we say goes, and that there is no place for lawless aggression in the Persian Gulf and in this New World Order that we seek to create.”] Ch. 1: What We Say Goes [Feb. 10, 2006]. The U.S. “is a leading outlaw state, totally unconstrained by international law, and it openly says so” (1). The principle of the U.S. government and of media like the New York Times is “service to power” (2; 2-4, 6-7). Civil obedience is a greater problem than civil disobedience (4-5). Ch. 2: Lebanon and the Crisis in the Middle East [Aug. 15, 2006]. The justifications given for the July 2006 war (a cross-border attack & capture of soldiers) were spurious (9-12). Hamas and Hezbollah to Israel are prepared to accept a two-state solution (12-14). Chomsky visited Lebanon and met with Nasrallah (14-15). Hezbollah is justified in seeking and having deterrent weapons (15-17). The U.N. has interfered in Lebanon (17-18). The U.S. was involved in Israel’s war (18-20). Despite the 2000 withdrawal, Israel’s posture toward Lebanon remained aggressive (20-21). Israel’s regional military power remains overwhelming (22-23). The U.S. isn’t concerned about Islamism, it’s concerned about obedience (24-27). In Iraq, the U.S. has created a pro-Iranian Shiitedominated state (27). “[A] sovereign, mildly democratic Iraq would be an utter catastrophe for U.S. planners” (30; 2830). The U.S. is refusing to negotiate with Iran (30-32). Of many threats we face, nuclear war is the greatest (32-34). The 9/11 truth movement is “almost a kind of religious fanaticism” and is “a terrible drain of energy away from much more serious problems” (35; 36; 34-40).

Ch. 3: Latin America: Stirrings in the Servants’ Quarters [Sept. 29, 2006]. Endorses Thucydides’s Melian Dialogue (41-42). Hugo Chávez’s proposals have not been given serious attention (42-47). Criticism of Thomas Friedman and the Washington Consensus (48-52). In general, U.S. media ignore policy proposals (52-54). A lack of “real elections” is more of a problem than voter fraud (55-56). The oppressed remember history, the oppressors promote amnesia (56-59). Telesur, “an Al Jazeera in Spanish” (59-63). Mercosur is a “very significant” move toward economic integration in Latin America (64-67). Americans should look in the mirror (67-71). Ch. 4: The United States versus the Gospels [Dec. 12, 2006]. The U.S. was deeply involved in overthrowing democracy in Chile (73-79). Nicaragua is “a sad place” subservient to IMF rules (79-82). Ecuador (82). Mexico (82-83). The Grameen Bank and microcredit are “sensible” but “not the answer to everything” (84). Liberation theology is guilty of taking the Gospel seriously (8485). Liberals are not really opposed to the Iraq war (85-86). “[T]he Afghan war itself was a major war crime” (86; 86-88). Books by Michael Walzer and Jean Bethke Elshtain are intellectually “horrible” (89; 88-89). GI coffeehouses “were very effective” in the Vietnam War era (90). “[T]he nuclear-armed states are criminal states” (91; 90-92).

Ch. 5: The Framework for Thinkable Thoughts [Jan. 29, 2007]. Dissent, and discussions of Israel and imperialism, are easier now than in the 1960s (93-94). Eugene McCarthy “would be regarded as a charlatan” by today’s standards (94; 94-95). In the U.S., there is a “major fissure” between “the public” and “the country’s real power sectors” (95; 95-96). The decline in labor unions can be reversed (96-97). About “the future of the economy,” no one “really knows” (97; 97-100). There is an acceptance by “the intellectual class” that the U.S. act as “an outlaw state,” e.g. vis-à-vis Iraq and Iran (100; 100-02). The U.S. bombing of Cambodia and its role in the genocide (102-04). Historical parallels with the 1930s or with Vietnam tend to be superficial (104-10). Setting debate parameters is an effective tool of power (110-12). The “Israeli narrative” overwhelms discussions of Palestinian rights (112-13). What’s happening in Palestine is not colonization, “[i]t’s annexation . . . It’s conquest” (114, emphasis in original; 114-15). U.S. media are always subservient to U.S. power (115-18). Ch. 6: Invasions and Evasions [Feb. 2, 2007]. Tinkering with the system can be as important as seeking its overhaul (119-21). The U.S. has been imperialist historically and racism has been the natural accompaniment of this (121-24). Some of the best polls are by the Program of International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the Univ. of Maryland (124-25). Mearsheimer and Walt seriously underestimate the power of the Israel lobby as they define it (though Chomsky rejects Mearsheimer and Walt’s notion of “the national interest”), and the Israel lobby is broader than AIPAC, it includes “the U.S. intellectual community and the media” (126; 125-37). The most important thing in Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid was not discussed: its report that the U.S. and

Israel rejected the Quartet’s “road map” (139; 137-40). Ch. 7: Threats [Mar. 1, 2007]. The global warming disaster is not imminent; nuclear war and avian flu are (141-43). The global water situation is “extremely serious” (143). Cooperative action is needed, but Chomsky dismisses “global government” (143-44). Corporate and political leaders are short-sighted; as a result, automobile manufacturers are “now going into decline, maybe terminal decline, in the United States” (145; 14451). Internet media is abundant but draws ignorant people into “crazed cocoons of wild interpretation” (152; 15152). “Whether it’s in print or on the Internet, you have to know what to look for. That requires knowledge of history, an understanding of backgrounds, a conception of the way the media functions as filters and interpreters of the world. Then you know what to look for. And the same is true on the Internet” (152-53). When it comes to archives, openness is more important than security (153-54). Alternative media has limited reach (154-55). Activists are “extremely atomized” (155). Social activism doesn’t require a draft or economic collapse (155-56). Not “Al Qaeda” but the jihadi “network of networks” is what the significant phenomenon, and we have adopted policies that incite it (157-58). Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilization” thesis is “ridiculous” as history, though he’s right that there are people pursuing that end (158-59). Ch. 8: What We Can Do [Mar. 12, 2007]. “What we say goes” was uttered by Pres. G.H.W. Bush in Feb. 1991 (16164). Ed Herman has pointed out the correlation between U.S. aid and human rights violations (164-67). Wall Street turned against the Vietnam War in 1968 but has not turned against the Iraq war (167-68). The only important question for U.S. elites is “the costs to us,” not principles (169; 168-69). The current

U.S. approach to the world can be traced to the “Grand Area” strategic planning documents drawn up in the 1940s by the Council on Foreign Relations and the U.S. State Dept., which extended the Monroe Doctrine to the rest of the world (16971). The history of Guantánamo and its use as “a convenient torture chamber” (171-73). The U.S. behaves in the international arena much as a Mafia don does (173-74). The examples of Cuba and Iran (174-77). Countries do not concede their atrocities—e.g. Turkey (177-79). The goal of the new U.S. Africa command is “a firmer grip on Middle East energy resources” (179-81). Mahmood Mamdani’s article on Darfur recommended (182). Chomsky’s “strong impression” is that the “right to exist” phrase with regard to Israel was “either invented or at least reached prominence in the mid-1970s” (183). In fact, “No state is granted a right to exist. They’re recognized, but not granted a right to exist” (184). Chomsky and his wife came close to moving to Israel fifty years ago (184-85). He sees no connection between his linguistic and his political work (185). The U.S. public needs to be educated; “[i]ndividuals can’t do it,” only groups (185-87). Chomsky favors

international institutions like the International Criminal Court, the U.N. Charter, etc. (187-88). The U.S. is “an organizer’s paradise” (188; 188-89). Of Eqbal Ahmad’s saying that intellectuals have to be willing to “take risks,” Chomsky says that “being decent” is all that’s needed, since here intellectuals’ risks are “undetectable”; but he agrees that “love of people is central,” or “at least commitment to them and their needs” (189-90). Notes. 22 pp. Acknowledgments. Research assistants. Index. 9 pp. About the authors. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics and philosophy at MIT, lives “outside Boston”; David Barsamian, director of Alternative Radio, lives in Boulder, CO. [Additional information: Chomsky was born on Dec. 7, 1928. He has written prolifically on political questions since American Power and the New Mandarins (1969). New Press published The Essential Chomsky in February 2008.]