Mind you, this is by no means a complete list. It is impossible to list all US atrocities and crimes and injustices against humanity. These are just examples to show US hypocrisy.
The US as a rogue nation
1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.
2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that "the protocol is dead," at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence.
3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.
4. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244 million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)
5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC.
6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea's "overwhelming military advantage." He stated that the US would "eventually" comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001.
7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared "dead" by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval.
8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss, even at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US "Echelon" program),
9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens.
10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001
11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa
12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US was the only one to oppose it.
13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).
14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban Treaty.
15. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US was in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for compliance with the Court's decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting no).
16. In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO's budget, over the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to lessen world media dependence on the "big four" wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with "curtailment of press freedom," as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1 in vote in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton administration proposed rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined.
17. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and containing a provision banning the execution of those under 18. The US has neither signed nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter provision, making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria). China abolished the practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000.
18. 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The only countries that have signed but not ratified are the US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe.
19. The US has signed but not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children. The only other country not to ratify is Somalia, which has no functioning government.
20. UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The US signed in 1977 but has not ratified.
21. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several "reservations" to the effect that the US Constitution and the "advice and consent" of the Senate are required to judge whether any "acts in the course of armed conflict" constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others.
22. Is the status of "we're number one!" Rogue overcome by generous foreign aid to given less fortunate countries? The three best aid providers, measured by the foreign aid percentage of their gross domestic products, are Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79), The three worst: USA (0.10%), UK (0.23%), Australia, Portugal, and Austria (all 0.26).
1989: United States has "neither signed nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter provision [of the Optional Protocol] to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and containing a provision banning the execution of those under 18." The United States is "one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria). China abolished the practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000."
1989: United States and Somalia (which has no functioning government) have "signed but not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children."
1988: United States finally ratified the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, "adding several 'reservations' to the effect that the US Constitution and the 'advice and consent' of the Senate are required to judge whether any 'acts in the course of armed conflict' constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others."
1984: United States "quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO's budget, over the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to lessen world media dependence on the 'big four' wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with 'curtailment of press freedom,' as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1 in vote in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton administration proposed rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined."
1986: United States and Israel voted "no" regarding a UN resolution "calling for compliance" with the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruling that "the US was in violation of international law for 'unlawful use of force' in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction."
1979: United States, Afghanistan, Sao Tome, and Principe are "only countries that have signed but not ratified" the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
1977: United States signed but has not ratified the 1966 UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights "covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."
October 2003: "Bush Re-Asserts Pre-Emptive Strategy" (Source: New York Times, 10/16/03). See preemptive war and Bush doctrine.
July 2003: "U.S. Suspends Aid to 35 Countries Over New International Court" (Source: New York Times 7/2/03 and Washington Post 7/1/03).
June 2003: "Washington Bullies Belgium with Threats to Withdraw Funding for NATO Headquarters" (Source: BBC Worldwide Monitoring 6/18/03; Agence France Presse 6/13/03; and Washington Post 6/13/03).
June 2003: "Bush Underestimates Complexity of Middle East Conflict" (Source: Washington Post 6/3/03).
May 2003: "U.S. Officials Consider Plans for Death Row in Guantanamo Bay" (Source: Mail on Sunday 5/25/03 and Los Angeles Time 6/3/03).
May 2003: "Bush's 'War on Terror' Condemned for Worsening the State of the World" (Source: Reuters and New York Times 5/28/03).
May 2003: "Bush Administration Moves to Shield Human Rights Abusers" (Source: Human Rights Watch 5/15/03).
May 2003: "Bush Administration Pursues New Era of Nuclear Weapons" (Source: Los Angeles Times and The Nation 5/13/03).
January 2003: "Bush Ignores Allies' Human Rights Abuses" (Source: Agence France Presse and Human Rights Watch 1/14/03).
December 2002: "Administration Refuses Developing Nations Access to Low-Cost Medicines" (Source: AP 12/20/02).
December 2002: "Bush Administration Using Questionable Military Interrogation Techniques" (Source: Washington Post 12/26/02).
December 2002: "Decline in World Opinion of U.S. Policy Coincides with Bush Government" (Source: Washington Post 12/5/02).
November 2002: "Bush's Deadly Attacks Questioned" (Source: Reuters 11/9/02).
September 2002: "Bush Drops Support for Strengthening Biological Weapons Convention" (Source: Washington Post 9/19/02).
September 2002: "Powell Describes the Administration's Idea of International Cooperation" (Source: Washington Post 9/1/02).
August 2002: "Administration Opposes Measures to Increase Renewable Energy" (Source: Agence France Presse 8/27/02).
August 2002: "Bush Praises a Dictator Who Refuses to Clean Up His Act" (Source: Washington Post 8/25/02 and Agence France Presse 8/23/02).
August 2002: "Bush Administration Disses Earth Summit" (Source: Natural Resources Defense Council 8/14/02).
August 2002: "Bush Intervenes in Human Rights Case Against Exxon Mobil" (Source: Human Rights Watch 8/7/02).
July 2002: "Administration Flip-Flops on Women's Treaty" (Source: Sripps Howard News Service 7/22/02).
June 2002: "Bush Blocks Expansion of Security Force (International Security Assistance Force beyond the capital, Kabul) in Afghanistan" (Source: New York Times 6/27/02).
May 2002: "Administration Weakens Agreement on Children's Rights" (Source: AP 4/11/02).
November 2001: "Administration Opposes Nuclear Test Ban Treaty" (Source: AP 11/11/01).
August 2001: "United States Boycotts Conference on Racism" (Source: UPI 8/27/01).
July 2001: "Bush Refuses to Back Clean Energy Sources" (Source: New York Times 7/14/01).
May 2001: "Administration Underfunds AIDS Fund, Weakens AIDS Negotiations" (Source: Health GAP Coalition 5/18/01).
May 2001: "Administration Abandons Crackdown on Tax Havens" (Source: Washington Post 5/11/01).
May 2001: "United States Booted off Human Rights Body (UN Human Rights Commission)" (Source: AP 5/4/01).
March 2001: "Bush Withdraws from Kyoto Protocol" (Source: Agence France Presse 3/28/01).
Robert E. May, for History News Service notes that
before the Civil War, people in Latin America, Western Europe, and even the faraway Hawaiian kingdom were convinced that the United States had become a base for terrorists.
No one then actually used the term "terrorism" for unauthorized attacks on other countries. Rather, these criminals were called "filibusters." But like modern terrorists, U.S. filibusters operated in underground cells, used secret codes and wreaked havoc. They attacked Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua and Honduras and were suspected of planning attacks elsewhere.
Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.
"It has never happened in history that a nation that has won a war has been held accountable for atrocities committed in preparing for and waging that war. We intend to make this one different. What took place was the use of technological material to destroy a defenseless country. From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed... We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice." Ramsey Clark
I will not deny that the US GOVERNMENT has been responsible for many atrocities over the years. As have ALL nations. I am continually disgusted by the double standard our GOVERNMENT practices every day. However, I would like to point out that none of the decisions about how our country conducts foreign affairs are in the hands of the citizens of the US. If you know anything the inner workings of the US and the opinion we ourselves have of the government and the way it conducts itself you would know that the VAST majority of us don't agree with the state of matters as they stand. I understand why many countries have negative opinions of the US, but I would urge YOU to understand that the US government and the US citizens are two separate entities at this point, and we rarely agree.
I just noticed that I'm confusing different threads. This post belongs here and not in the "Swiss minaret" thread, lol...
Also, USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world. Americans are somehow brainwashed to believe that they are the most generous nation on earth while in reality it's the largest rogue state.
However, I would like to point out that none of the decisions about how our country conducts foreign affairs are in the hands of the citizens of the US.
The same applies to all nations. Most Americans do not know how barbaric their government is. Mainstream American media is being controlled by Zionists and extremists; they are very hostile against Muslims and even against other nations and peoples.
Frankly, this massacre alone angers me enough to join some Jihad movement such as the Taliban or Al Qaida to kill as many American and westerner soldiers as possible:
"More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660."
Last night, after reading about this and many many other massacres committed by Americans against Muslims, I became so emotional that I went to a Turkish Jihad site and downloaded many videos to watch Muslim fighters kill US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq....
Do westerners realize that it is perfectly normal for Muslims to feel this way; that it's human nature to fight back? And believe me, I'm not a "terrorist" or warmonger at all, I'm a very peaceful person by nature.
Last edited by Argamemnon; 12-04-2009 at 09:46 PM.
Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian
Monthly Review, vol. 53, no. 6, November, 2001
Q: There is rage, anger and bewilderment in the U.S. since the September 11 events. There have been murders, attacks on mosques, and even a Sikh temple. The University of Colorado, which is located here in Boulder, a town which has a liberal reputation, has graffiti saying, “Go home, Arabs, Bomb Afghanistan, and Go Home, Sand (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s.” What’s your perspective on what has evolved since the terrorist attacks?
A: It’s mixed. What you’re describing certainly exists. On the other hand, countercurrents exist. I know they do where I have direct contacts, and hear the same from others. In this morning’s New York Times there’s a report on the mood in New York, including places where the memorials are for the victims of the terrorist attack. It points out that peace signs and calls for restraint vastly outnumbered calls for retaliation and that the mood of the people they could see was very mixed and in fact generally opposed to violent action. That’s another kind of current, also supportive of people who are being targeted here because they look dark or have a funny name. So there are countercurrents. The question is, what can we do to make the right ones prevail?
Q: The media have been noticeably lacking in providing a context and a background for the attacks on New York and Washington. What might be some useful information that you could provide?
A: There are two categories of information that are particularly useful because there are two distinct, though related, sources for the attack. Let’s assume that the attack was rooted somehow in the bin Laden network. That sounds plausible, at least, so letsay it’s right. If that’s right, there are two categories of information and of populations that we should be concerned with, linked but not identical. One is the bin Laden network. That’s a category by itself. Another is the population of the region. They’re not the same thing, although there are links. What ought to be in the forefront is discussion of both of those. The bin Laden network, I doubt if anybody knows it better than the CIA, since they were instrumental in helping construct it. This is a network whose development started in 1979, if you can believe President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. He claimed, maybe he was just bragging, that in mid–1979 he had instigated secret support for Mujahedin fighting against the government of Afghanistan in an effort to draw the Russians into what he called an “Afghan trap,” a phrase worth remembering. He’s very proud of the fact that they did fall into the Afghan trap by sending military forces to support the government six months later, with consequences that we know. The U.S., along with Egypt, Pakistan, French intelligence, Saudi Arabian funding, and Israeli involvement, assembled a major army, a huge mercenary army, maybe 100,000 or more, and they drew from the most militant sectors they could find, which happened to be radical Islamists, what are called here Islamic fundamentalists, from all over, most of them not from Afghanistan. They’re called Afghanis, but like bin Laden, they come from elsewhere.
Bin Laden joined very quickly. He was involved in the funding networks, which probably are the ones which still exist. They were trained, armed, organized by the CIA, Pakistan, Egypt, and others to fight a holy war against the Russians. And they did. They fought a holy war against the Russians. They carried terror into Russian territory. They may have delayed the Russian withdrawal, a number of analysts believe, but they did win the war and the Russian invaders withdrew. The war was not their only activity. In 1981, groups based in that same network assassinated President Sadat of Egypt, who had been instrumental in setting it up. In 1983, one suicide bomber, maybe with connections to the same networks, essentially drove the U.S. military out of Lebanon. And it continued.
By 1989, they had succeeded in their holy war in Afghanistan. As soon as the U.S. established a permanent military presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden and the rest announced that from their point of view this was comparable to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and they turned their guns on the Americans, as had already happened in 1983 when the U.S. had military forces in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is a major enemy of the bin Laden network, just as Egypt is. That’s what they want to overthrow, what they call the un–Islamic governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, other states of the Middle East and North Africa. And it continued.
In 1997, they murdered roughly sixty tourists in Egypt and destroyed the Egyptian tourist industry. And they’ve been carrying out activities all over the region, North Africa, East Africa, the Middle East, for years. That’s one group. And that is an outgrowth of the U.S. wars of the 1980s and, if you can believe Brzezinski, even before, when they set the “Afghan trap.” There’s a lot more to say about them, but that’s one part.
Another is the people of the region. They’re connected, of course. The bin Laden network and others like them draw a lot of their support from the desperation and anger and resentment of the people of the region, which ranges from rich to poor, secular to radical Islamist. The Wall Street Journal, to its credit, has run a couple of articles on attitudes of wealthy Muslims, the people who most interest them: businessmen, bankers, professionals, and others through the Middle East region who are very frank about their grievances. They put it more politely than the poor people in the slums and the streets, but it’s clear. Everybody knows what they are. For one thing, they’re very angry about U.S. support for undemocratic, repressive regimes in the region and U.S. insistence on blocking any efforts towards democratic openings. You just heard on the news, it sounded like the BBC, a report that the Algerian government is now interested in getting involved in this war. The announcer said that there had been plenty of Islamic terrorism in Algeria, which is true, but he didn’t tell the other part of the story, which is that a lot of the terrorism is apparently state terrorism. There’s pretty strong evidence for that. The government of course is interested in enhancing its repression, and will welcome U.S. assistance in this.
In fact, that government is in office because it blocked the democratic election in which it would have lost to mainly Islamic–based groups. That set off the current fighting. Similar things go on throughout the region.
The “moneyed Muslims” interviewed by the Journal also complained that the U.S. has blocked independent economic development by “propping up oppressive regimes,” that’s the phrase they used. But the prime concern stressed in the Wall Street Journal articles and by everybody who knows anything about the region, the prime concern of the “moneyed Muslims”—basically pro–American, incidentally—is the dual U.S. policies, which contrast very sharply in their eyes, towards Iraq and Israel. In the case of Iraq, for the last ten years the U.S. and Britain have been devastating the civilian society. Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement about how maybe half a million children have died, and it’s a high price but we’re willing to pay it, doesn’t sound too good among people who think that maybe it matters if a half a million children are killed by the U.S. and Britain. And meanwhile they’re strengthening Saddam Hussein. So that’s one aspect of the dual policy. The other aspect is that the U.S. is the prime supporter of the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory, now in its thirty–fifth year. It’s been harsh and brutal from the beginning, extremely repressive. Most of this hasn’t been discussed here, and the U.S. role has been virtually suppressed. It goes back twenty–five years of blocking diplomatic initiatives.
Even simple facts are not reported. For example, as soon as the current fighting began last September 30, Israel immediately, the next day, began using U.S. helicopters (they can’t produce helicopters) to attack civilian targets. In the next couple of days they killed several dozen people in apartment complexes and elsewhere. The fighting was all in the occupied territories, and there was no Palestinian fire. The Palestinians were using stones. So this is people throwing stones against occupiers in a military occupation, legitimate resistance by world standards, insofar as the targets are military.
On October 3, Clinton made the biggest deal in a decade to send new military helicopters to Israel. That continued the next couple of months. That wasn’t even reported, still isn’t reported, as far as I’m aware. But the people there know it, even if they don’t read the Israeli press (where it was immediately reported). They look in the sky and see attack helicopters coming and they know they’re U.S. attack helicopters sent with the understanding that that is how they will be used. From the very start U.S. officials made it clear that there were no conditions on their use, which was by then already well known. A couple of weeks later Israel started using them for assassinations. The U.S. issued some reprimands but sent more helicopters, the most advanced in the U.S. arsenal. Meanwhile the settlement policies, which have taken over substantial parts of the territories and are designed to make it virtually impossible for a viable independent state to develop, are supported by the U.S. The U.S. provides the funding, the diplomatic support. It’s the only country that’s blocked the overwhelming international consensus on condemning all this under the Geneva conventions. The victims, and others in the region, know all of this. All along this has been an extremely harsh military occupation.
Q: Is there anything else you want to add?
A: There’s a lot more. There is the fact that the U.S. has supported oppressive, authoritarian, harsh regimes, and blocked democratic initiatives. For example, the one I mentioned in Algeria. Or in Turkey. Or throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Many of the harsh, brutal, oppressive regimes are backed by the U.S. That was true of Saddam Hussein, right through the period of his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds. U.S. and British support for the monster continued. He was treated as a friend and ally, and people there know it. When bin Laden makes that charge, as he did again in an interview rebroadcast by the BBC, people know what he is talking about.
Let’s take a striking example. In March 1991, right after the Gulf War, with the U.S. in total command of the air, there was a rebellion in the southern part of Iraq, including Iraqi generals. They wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They didn’t ask for U.S. support, just access to captured Iraqi arms, which the U.S. refused. The U.S. tacitly authorized Saddam Hussein to use air power to crush the rebellion. The reasons were not hidden. New York Times Middle East correspondent Alan Cowell described the “strikingly unanimous view” of the U.S. and its regional coalition partners: “whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for stability than did those who have suffered his repression.” Times diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman observed, not critically, that for Washington and its allies, an “iron–fisted Iraqi junta” that would hold Iraq together just as Saddam’s “iron fist” had done was preferable to a popular rebellion, which was drowned in blood, probably killing more people than the U.S. bombing. Maybe people here don’t want to look, but that was all over the front pages of the newspapers. Well, again, it is known in the region. That’s just one example. These are among the reasons why pro-American bankers and businessmen in the region are condemning the U.S. for supporting antidemocratic regimes and stopping economic development.
Q: Talk about the relationship between ends and means. Let’s say you have a noble goal. You want to bring perpetrators of horrendous terrorist crimes to justice. What about the means to reach those ends?
A: Suppose you want to bring a president of the U.S. to justice. They’re guilty of horrendous terrorist acts. There’s a way to do it. In fact, there are precedents. Nicaragua in the 1980s was subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was substantially destroyed, it may never recover. The effects on the country are much more severe even than the tragedies in New York the other day. They didn’t respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court, which issued a judgment in their favor condemning the U.S. for what it called “unlawful use of force,” which means international terrorism, ordering the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparations. The U.S. dismissed the court judgment with contempt, responding with an immediate escalation of the attack. So Nicaragua then went to the Security Council, which passed a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The U.S. vetoed it. They went to the General Assembly, where they got a similar resolution that passed near–unanimously, which the U.S. and Israel opposed two years in a row (joined once by El Salvador). That’s the way a state should proceed. If Nicaragua had been powerful enough, it could have set up another criminal court. Those are the measures the U.S. could pursue, and nobody’s going to block it. That’s what they’re being asked to do by people throughout the region, including their allies.
Remember, the governments in the Middle East and North Africa, like the terrorist Algerian government, which is one of the most vicious of all, would be happy to join the U.S. in opposing terrorist networks which are attacking them. They’re the prime targets. But they have been asking for some evidence, and they want to do it in a framework of at least minimal commitment to international law. The Egyptian position is complex. They’re part of the primary system that organized the bin Laden network. They were the first victims of it when Sadat was assassinated. They’ve been major victims of it since. They’d like to crush it, but they say, only after some evidence is presented about who’s involved and within the framework of the UN Charter, under the aegis of the Security Council. That’s a way to proceed.
Q: Do you think it’s more than problematic to engage in alliances with those whom are called “unsavory characters,” drug traffickers and assassins, in order to achieve what is said to be a noble end?
A: Remember that among the most unsavory characters are the governments of the region, our own government and its allies. If we’re serious, we also have to ask, What is a noble end? Was it a noble end to drive the Russians into an Afghan trap in 1979, as Brzezinski claims he did? Supporting resistance against the Russian invasion is one thing. But organizing a terrorist army of Islamic fanatics for your own purposes is a different thing. The question we should be asking now is: What about the alliance that’s being formed, that the U.S. is trying to put together? We should not forget that the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state. What about the alliance between the U.S., Russia, China, Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, all of whom are delighted to see an international system develop, sponsored by the U.S., which will authorize them to carry out their own terrorist atrocities? Russia, for example, would be very happy to have U.S. backing for its murderous war in Chechnya. You have the same Afghanis fighting against Russia, also probably carrying out terrorist acts within Russia. As would perhaps India, in Kashmir. Indonesia would be delighted to have support for its massacres in Aceh. Algeria, as just announced on the broadcast we heard, would be delighted to have authorization to extend its own state terrorism. The same with China, fighting against separatist forces in its Western provinces, including those “Afghanis” whom China and Iran had organized to fight the war against the Russians, beginning maybe as early as 1978, some reports indicate. And that runs through the world.
Q: Is there anything else you want to add?
A: There’s a lot more. There is the fact that the U.S. has supported oppressive, authoritarian, harsh regimes, and blocked democratic initiatives. For example, the one I mentioned in Algeria. Or in Turkey. Or throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Many of the harsh, brutal, oppressive regimes are backed by the U.S. That was true of Saddam Hussein, right through the period of his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds. U.S. and British support for the monster continued. He was treated as a friend and ally, and people there know it. When bin Laden makes that charge, as he did again in an interview rebroadcast by the BBC, people know what he is talking about.
Let’s take a striking example. In March 1991, right after the Gulf War, with the U.S. in total command of the air, there was a rebellion in the southern part of Iraq, including Iraqi generals. They wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They didn’t ask for U.S. support, just access to captured Iraqi arms, which the U.S. refused. The U.S. tacitly authorized Saddam Hussein to use air power to crush the rebellion. The reasons were not hidden. New York Times Middle East correspondent Alan Cowell described the “strikingly unanimous view” of the U.S. and its regional coalition partners: “whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for stability than did those who have suffered his repression.” Times diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman observed, not critically, that for Washington and its allies, an “iron–fisted Iraqi junta” that would hold Iraq together just as Saddam’s “iron fist” had done was preferable to a popular rebellion, which was drowned in blood, probably killing more people than the U.S. bombing. Maybe people here don’t want to look, but that was all over the front pages of the newspapers. Well, again, it is known in the region. That’s just one example. These are among the reasons why pro-American bankers and businessmen in the region are condemning the U.S. for supporting antidemocratic regimes and stopping economic development.
Q: Talk about the relationship between ends and means. Let’s say you have a noble goal. You want to bring perpetrators of horrendous terrorist crimes to justice. What about the means to reach those ends?
A: Suppose you want to bring a president of the U.S. to justice. They’re guilty of horrendous terrorist acts. There’s a way to do it. In fact, there are precedents. Nicaragua in the 1980s was subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was substantially destroyed, it may never recover. The effects on the country are much more severe even than the tragedies in New York the other day. They didn’t respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court, which issued a judgment in their favor condemning the U.S. for what it called “unlawful use of force,” which means international terrorism, ordering the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparations. The U.S. dismissed the court judgment with contempt, responding with an immediate escalation of the attack. So Nicaragua then went to the Security Council, which passed a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The U.S. vetoed it. They went to the General Assembly, where they got a similar resolution that passed near–unanimously, which the U.S. and Israel opposed two years in a row (joined once by El Salvador). That’s the way a state should proceed. If Nicaragua had been powerful enough, it could have set up another criminal court. Those are the measures the U.S. could pursue, and nobody’s going to block it. That’s what they’re being asked to do by people throughout the region, including their allies.
Remember, the governments in the Middle East and North Africa, like the terrorist Algerian government, which is one of the most vicious of all, would be happy to join the U.S. in opposing terrorist networks which are attacking them. They’re the prime targets. But they have been asking for some evidence, and they want to do it in a framework of at least minimal commitment to international law. The Egyptian position is complex. They’re part of the primary system that organized the bin Laden network. They were the first victims of it when Sadat was assassinated. They’ve been major victims of it since. They’d like to crush it, but they say, only after some evidence is presented about who’s involved and within the framework of the UN Charter, under the aegis of the Security Council. That’s a way to proceed.
Q: Do you think it’s more than problematic to engage in alliances with those whom are called “unsavory characters,” drug traffickers and assassins, in order to achieve what is said to be a noble end?
A: Remember that among the most unsavory characters are the governments of the region, our own government and its allies. If we’re serious, we also have to ask, What is a noble end? Was it a noble end to drive the Russians into an Afghan trap in 1979, as Brzezinski claims he did? Supporting resistance against the Russian invasion is one thing. But organizing a terrorist army of Islamic fanatics for your own purposes is a different thing. The question we should be asking now is: What about the alliance that’s being formed, that the U.S. is trying to put together? We should not forget that the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state. What about the alliance between the U.S., Russia, China, Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, all of whom are delighted to see an international system develop, sponsored by the U.S., which will authorize them to carry out their own terrorist atrocities? Russia, for example, would be very happy to have U.S. backing for its murderous war in Chechnya. You have the same Afghanis fighting against Russia, also probably carrying out terrorist acts within Russia. As would perhaps India, in Kashmir. Indonesia would be delighted to have support for its massacres in Aceh. Algeria, as just announced on the broadcast we heard, would be delighted to have authorization to extend its own state terrorism. The same with China, fighting against separatist forces in its Western provinces, including those “Afghanis” whom China and Iran had organized to fight the war against the Russians, beginning maybe as early as 1978, some reports indicate. And that runs through the world.
Q: Your comment that the U.S. is a “leading terrorist state” might stun many Americans. Could you elaborate on that?
A: I just gave one example, Nicaragua. The U.S. is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and that rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. It continues international terrorism. That example’s the least of it. And there are also what are in comparison, minor examples. Everybody here was quite properly outraged by the Oklahoma City bombing, and for a couple of days, the headlines all read, Oklahoma City looks like Beirut. I didn’t see anybody point out that Beirut also looks like Beirut, and part of the reason is that the Reagan Administration had set off a terrorist bombing there in 1985 that was very much like Oklahoma City, a truck bombing outside a mosque timed to kill the maximum number of people as they left. It killed eighty and wounded two hundred, aimed at a Muslim cleric whom they didn’t like and whom they missed. It was not very secret. I don’t know what name you give to the attack that’s killed maybe a million civilians in Iraq and maybe a half a million children, which is the price the Secretary of State says we’re willing to pay. Is there a name for that? Supporting Israeli atrocities is another one. Supporting Turkey’s crushing of its own Kurdish population, for which the Clinton Administration gave the decisive support, 80 percent of the arms, escalating as atrocities increased, is another. Or take the bombing of the Sudan, one little footnote, so small that it is casually mentioned in passing in reports on the background to the Sept. 11 crimes. How would the same commentators react if the bin Laden network blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S. and the facilities for replenishing them? Or Israel? Or any country where people “matter”? Although that’s not a fair analogy, because the U.S. target is a poor country which had few enough drugs and vaccines to begin with and can’t replenish them. Nobody knows how many thousands or tens of thousands of deaths resulted from that single atrocity, and bringing up that death toll is considered scandalous. If somebody did that to the U.S. or its allies, can you imagine the reaction? In this case we say, Oh, well, too bad, minor mistake, let’s go on to the next topic. Other people in the world don’t react like that. When bin Laden brings up that bombing, he strikes a resonant chord, even with people who despise and fear him, and the same, unfortunately, is true of much of the rest of his rhetoric.
Or to return to “our own little region over here,” as Henry Stimson called it, take Cuba. After many years of terror beginning in late 1959, including very serious atrocities, Cuba should have the right to resort to violence against the U.S. according to U.S. doctrine that is scarcely questioned. It is, unfortunately, all too easy to continue, not only with regard to the U.S. but also other terrorist states.
Q: In your book Culture of Terrorism, you write that “the cultural scene is illuminated with particular clarity by the thinking of the liberal doves, who set the limits for respectable dissent.” How have they been performing since the events of September 11?
A: Since I don’t like to generalize, let’s take a concrete example. On September 16, the New York Times reported that the U.S. has demanded that Pakistan cut off food aid to Afghanistan. That had already been hinted before, but here it was stated flat out. Among other demands Washington issued to Pakistan, it also “demanded…the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population”—the food that is keeping probably millions of people just this side of starvation (John Burns, Islamabad, NYT). What does that mean? That means that unknown numbers of people, maybe millions, of starving Afghans will die. Are these Taliban? No, they’re victims of the Taliban. Many of them are internal refugees kept from leaving. But here’s a statement saying, OK, let’s proceed to kill unknown numbers, maybe millions, of starving Afghans who are victims of the Taliban. What was the reaction?
I spent almost the entire day afterwards on radio and television around the world. I kept bringing it up. Nobody in Europe or the U.S. could think of one word of reaction. Elsewhere in the world there was plenty of reaction, even around the periphery of Europe, like Greece. How should we have reacted to this? Suppose some power was strong enough to say, Let’s do something that will cause a million Americans to die of starvation. Would you think it’s a serious problem? And again, it’s not a fair analogy. In the case of Afghanistan, left to rot after it had been exploited for Washington’s war, much of the country is in ruins and its people are desperate, already one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world.
Q: National Public Radio, which in the 1980s was denounced by the Reagan Administration as “Radio Managua on the Potomac,” is also considered out there on the liberal end of respectable debate. Noah Adams, the host of “All Things Considered,” asked these questions on September 17. Should assassinations be allowed? Should the CIA be given more operating leeway?
A: The CIA should not be permitted to carry out assassinations, but that’s the least of it. Should the CIA be permitted to organize a car bombing in Beirut like the one I described? Not a secret, incidentally; prominently reported in the mainstream media, though easily forgotten. That didn’t violate any laws. And it’s not just the CIA. Should they have been permitted to organize in Nicaragua a terrorist army which had the official task, straight out of the mouth of the State Department, to attack “soft targets,” meaning undefended agricultural cooperatives and health clinics? What’s the name for that? Or to set up something like the bin Laden network, not him himself, but the background networks? Should the U.S. be authorized to provide Israel with attack helicopters to carry out political assassinations and attacks on civilian targets? That’s not the CIA. That’s the Clinton Administration, with no noticeable objection, in fact even reported.
Q: Could you very briefly define the political uses of terrorism? Where does it fit in the doctrinal system?
A: The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” That’s the official doctrine. If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same. Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims. That’s what the World Trade Center bombing was, a particularly horrifying terrorist crime. And that’s official doctrine. I mentioned a couple of examples. We could go on and on. It’s simply part of state action, not just the U.S. of course. Furthermore, all of these things should be well known. It’s shameful that they’re not. Anybody who wants to find out about them can begin by reading a collection of essays published ten years ago by a major publisher called Western State Terrorism, edited by Alex George (Routledge, 1991), which runs through lots and lots of cases. These are things people need to know if they want to understand anything about themselves. They are known by the victims, of course, but the perpetrators prefer to look elsewhere.
That's merely propaganda. Do you know the definition of "rogue state"? The propaganda version - which is typically the one that prevails - that's the version presented by those who have the power to control discourse, propaganda, framework of discussion, and so on. And, in that case, that means primarily the United States. As the United States uses the term "rogue state," it refers to anyone who's out of control. So, Cuba's a "rogue state" because it does not submit to U.S. domination. That's a different usage entirely. As I use the term "rogue state," the leading "rogue state" in the world is the United States. That's the neutral term.
A "rogue state" is a state that defies international laws and conventions, does not consider itself bound by the major treaties and conventions, World Court decisions -- in fact, anything except the interests of its own leadership, the forces around the leadership that dominate policy.
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Christopher Gunness
Agenda, May, 2001
QUESTION: How would you define a "rogue state"?
CHOMSKY: A "rogue state" is a state that defies international laws and conventions, does not consider itself bound by the major treaties and conventions, World Court decisions -- in fact, anything except the interests of its own leadership, the forces around the leadership that dominate policy. That would be an extreme case of a "rogue state." And then there's variations, of course.
QUESTION: Give me some examples of those variations.
CHOMSKY: Well, you know, there are states that partially reject international law and convention insofar as they can get away with it. In fact, every state is like that. Virtually every state would be. That's the nature of states. They would be "rogue states" if they could get away with it.
QUESTION: There have always been rogue states. Why has the notion of the rogue state been given so much prominence, do you think, since the end of the Cold War?
CHOMSKY: Well, first of all, remember that I'm using the term in a neutral sense, in terms of its meaning. Almost every term in political discourse has a literal meaning and a propaganda version. And I'm using it in the literal meaning. The propaganda version -- which is typically the one that prevails -- that's the version presented by those who have the power to control discourse, propaganda, framework of discussion, and so on. And, in that case, that means primarily the United States. As the United States uses the term "rogue state," it refers to anyone who's out of control. So, Cuba's a "rogue state" because it does not submit to U.S. domination. That's a different usage entirely. As I use the term "rogue state," the leading "rogue state" in the world is the United States. That's the neutral term.
QUESTION: But why do you say that? On what grounds can you argue that the United States is the leading "rogue state"?
CHOMSKY: Well, because it fits the neutral definition that I described very clearly. For example, it's the only major country -- maybe the only country -- that has declared that it is not subject to World Court decisions. For example, when it was condemned by the World Court for aggression -- the phrase was "unlawful use of force" -- against Nicaragua, the U.S. responded by increasing the attack immediately. Democrat-controlled Congress, incidentally. The intellectual classes and the press simply dismissed the World Court as a hostile forum which has discredited itself.
QUESTION: But when one thinks of the phrase "rogue state", one thinks of a state, for example, like Iraq which has, in the past, gassed its own people. You're not seriously telling me that you're putting America in that same category?
CHOMSKY: Well, much worse. First of all, recall that the United States and Britain supported Saddam Hussein when he was doing that. That was not considered a criminal act by the United States and Britain, which continued -- he was a friend and ally -- and both of them...
QUESTION: But the decision to gas the Kurds...
CHOMSKY: ... at the time...
QUESTION: ... was not made by Washington or London.
CHOMSKY: No, but it was--
QUESTION: It was [taken?] in Baghdad.
CHOMSKY: It was supported by Washington and London. And he continued to be a friend and ally. And both Washington and London continued to provide him with aid, helped him develop his weapons of mass destruction, and so on. Furthermore, all of that was a horror story -- in this case, not perpetrated by Washington and London, only supported by them. Compare it with other things.... It's now forty years since John F. Kennedy attacked South Vietnam. Of course, in the propaganda system we're not supposed to say that -- but that's what happened. Forty years ago, Kennedy sent the U.S. Air Force to bomb the South Vietnamese civilians, instituted programs to drive ultimately millions of people into concentration camps or into urban slums, destroyed food supplies because the population was supporting the resistance. And it sort of went on until, at the end, three countries were virtually destroyed and four to five million people were killed. Well, that's rather significant. Or take, say, Central America during the '80s. That was a major war [in] which hundreds of thousands of people ended up being killed. It was a U.S. war. Or we can go down to real trivialities, if you like. So, for example, a couple of years ago, Clinton attacked, bombed a poor African country, destroyed about half of its pharmaceutical supplies... If Libya did that to England or the United States, it would be considered rather serious.
QUESTION: But this is all done to promote democracy and freedom -- in Vietnam, in South and Latin America, and certainly in Sudan. Do you--?
CHOMSKY: In Sudan, the United States destroyed half the pharmaceutical supplies to protect democracy and freedom? They didn't even pretend that. In Vietnam, the purpose was to prevent an independent nationalist movement which was out of control.
QUESTION: But the Americans would argue that was part of a very important fight against international terrorism.
CHOMSKY: They never argued any such thing. They didn't use the term "international terrorism" at the time. That was introduced during the 1980s when it was pretty clear that the Soviet pretext was collapsing and another one had to be found and "international terrorism" was invented as a pretext to replace it. But you're perfectly correct that the U.S. government and the intellectual classes claimed all sorts of high, lofty aims but that's constantly true. So did Hitler. So did Stalin.
QUESTION: But are you saying that international terrorism doesn't exist? It was simply invented by what you would see as a rogue superpower to attack other countries?
CHOMSKY: Well, we know that it was [invented]. The terminology was introduced primarily by the Reagan Administration.
QUESTION: But the thing itself exists, does it not?
CHOMSKY: Oh, the phenomenon exists. So, for example, when the United States bombs Sudan and destroys half its pharmaceutical supply, that's international terrorism. When the United States bombed Libya, that's international terrorism. The U.S. war against Nicaragua -- if we want to be kind to the United States -- we could say it was international terrorism. A stronger, probably more accurate, term would be outright aggression. And we can continue... Let's take something right now... During the current fighting in the Israeli-occupied territories -- as soon as it began last October, Israel immediately -- within two days -- escalated the fighting -- there was no Palestinian firing at the time -- escalated the fighting by using attack helicopters to attack civilian targets, killing quite a few people. Immediately, Clinton made a deal to send new military helicopters to Israel -- the biggest deal in ten years -- and that continues right up till now. Yeah, that's participation in international terrorism. Remember, the territory's under military occupation.
QUESTION: Okay, would you concede that the U.S. can be a force for good -- championing the cause of democracy and freedom?
CHOMSKY: Can it? Yeah, I hope it would be. In fact, I spend a lot of my time--
QUESTION: Has it ever though? Has it ever?
CHOMSKY: Has it ever? Well, has any country ever? I mean, by accident... You know, states are not moral agents. They act in their own interests. And that means the interests of powerful forces within them. Now, sometimes... The people of countries are moral agents. They may compel their states to act in ways that are humane and decent. And that's happened sometimes. But, over time, it's, you know, just not the way history works. I mean, of course, that's the way apologists for state power describe things -- but, you know, we should be serious about it.
QUESTION: Okay, so what's your prescription? If you have a case, say, take North Korea where the government there pays little attention to the suffering of its own people. Similar case in Burma. What should be done about those "rogue states"?
CHOMSKY: Well, we should first of all look a little bit into the backgrounds. So, for example, the military dictatorship in Burma -- which is undoubtedly a monstrosity -- it came to replace the parliamentary government after U.S. operations in 1958, which established a military presence of Chinese nationalists in northern Burma to attack China. And that led to conflict within Burma which led to military overthrow of the government. So there's an interesting history there.
QUESTION: Should it --?
CHOMSKY: But what should the United States do about Burma and North Korea? Well, it should try to... For example, let's take North Korea. What it should do is support the measures -- actually Clinton had a rather decent policy there, one of his rare exceptions -- it should pursue diplomatic and other measures, first of all, to try to alleviate the suffering of people there and also to relax the tensions. So, for example, when the South Korean government -- [South Korean President] Kim Dae-Jung -- takes steps towards lessening tensions with North Korea and moving towards some kind of more peaceful relation between the two halves of Korea and more integration, well, the U.S. ought to support that. Instead, the Bush Administration, censured him sharply and tried to call it off...
QUESTION: In ["A New Generation Draws the Line"], you attack the NATO intervention in Kosovo which the West said was justified on humanitarian grounds to protect ethnic Albanians from Serb forces. Why did you oppose it? Why do you oppose this?
CHOMSKY: Well, for one thing... It's interesting that that's the interpretation of the book and also another book I wrote on the topic [The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo], neither of which attacks -- neither this one nor the other one is an attack on the NATO bombing of Serbia. It discusses it. But that's not the issue. What's discussed in both books -- and it's intriguing that it cannot be understood in the West, though it's easily understood elsewhere -- the topic of both books, including that one, very explicitly, unmistakably, unambiguously, is what's stated in the title: "A New Generation Draws the Line." That's a quote from [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair who was one of many who was announcing a grand new era in human affairs, like nothing that ever happened in the past, in which the enlightened states, as they call themselves, would pursue principles and values for the first time in history and bring about a grand era of defense of human rights and freedom. That's what the book's about. The book is about whether that is true.
QUESTION: Are you saying that it's not true? That a line was not drawn?
CHOMSKY: Oh, a line was-- Oh, sure. I mean, the usual line was drawn.
QUESTION: What do you mean by the usual line?
CHOMSKY: The usual line is: if a country is out of control and we don't like it, we'll do something to bring it under control. And we will do exactly what Britain and the United States said they were trying to do: we will ensure the establishment of "credibility." If you want to understand exactly how committed they were to the Kosovars, there's two things you do. First of all, you look at the extensive documentation available -- by now, it's very rich -- from Western sources -- State Department, NATO and others -- as to what was going on in Kosovo up to the bombing. We have rich documentation about that. And this book reviews it. In fact, as far as I know, it's the only source that reviews it. It asks what was going on, what was the expectation when the bombing began, and you discover from that that there is just no possibility that this was undertaken for humanitarian ends...
QUESTION: Well...
CHOMSKY: ... that's not ...
QUESTION: But the evidence at the time seemed to be that there was an overwhelming humanitarian case -- indeed, that genocide seemed to be being committed against the Albanians.
CHOMSKY: Interesting that it was called "genocide" -- there was never anything even moderately approaching genocide. But the atrocities picked up very sharply after the monitors were withdrawn, under Serbian objections, and the bombing began. That's when the atrocities took place and, in fact, they were anticipated.
QUESTION: So, what--?
CHOMSKY: I mean, but, but-- Excuse me. Let me just continue. So, one way of determining whether there were humanitarian aims is to look at the actual data which, from Western sources, most of it trying to justify the bombing. Well, that's done in the book and I think it undermines that claim completely. But there's another way. You can follow, say, Alexander Solzhinitsyn's observation. He said if the West is really concerned with alleviating suffering, why don't they do something about the miserable Kurds? Well, the fact is, they were doing something about the miserable Kurds right at that time. Namely, the U.S. was providing a huge flow of arms to Turkey, peaking in 1997, to implement one of the worst cases of ethnic cleansing and atrocities of the '90s [the slaughter of tens of thousands of Kurds]. And that happens to be within NATO. Well, that tells you where they're drawing the line.
QUESTION: Tell me, as far as Kosovo's concerned, what did America have to gain? What U.S. national interest is served by the bombing, in your view?
CHOMSKY: Exactly what they said. I mean, the official goals are discussed in this book. I just repeat the official goals. The official goals were three. One was to stop ethnic cleansing. Okay, we know that wasn't the goal. For one reason, because they said -- the National Security Advisor said -- it wouldn't be sufficient and, for another, because the ethnic cleansing started after the bombing. So that wasn't the goal. The other two that were mentioned were quite reasonable, however. The major goals -- and this is repeated throughout, by Britain as well -- are to ensure the "credibility of NATO" and to guarantee the stability of the Balkans. Now, all we have to do is explain those words. What does "credibility of NATO" mean? Well, it doesn't mean "credibility of Belgium" -- it means "credibility of the United States." Now, what does "credibility of the United States" mean? Well, ask any Mafia don. He'll explain. "Credibility" means you better do what we say -- or else. The same claim -- establishing credibility -- has been made, plausibly, over and over again, in cases where there was no local [or] national interest. What does "stability" mean? Well, we have a rich documentary record. I reviewed it in the book, in fact, as to what "stability" means. What it means is -- it doesn't mean that, you know, things are quiet -- it means they are quiet in the terms that we demand. In fact, I actually quote foreign policy analysts, high-level ones, who say that we had to "destabilize" Chile to ensure "stability." And that's exactly correct, in the Orwellian sense. We had to undermine the democratic government to ensure U.S. domination, which is what's called "stability." And those goals, which were repeated over and over -- and I'm just quoting the U.S. government and the British government -- yeah, those goals are perfectly understandable.
QUESTION: But isn't that how the international system works? Powerful countries will try to shore up their "credibility" to maintain their long-term interests.
CHOMSKY: Exactly. That's just what I was saying all along. And the task of intellectuals is to disguise that, in terms of lofty rhetoric and aims.
QUESTION: Let's, if I may, ask you about President Bush and his Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Will they be more or less interventionist, do you think, than the Clinton Administration?
CHOMSKY: It's very hard to say. I mean, they're somewhat different. First of all, they follow pretty much the same plans. There are some differences. The Bush Administration has moved, in terms of intervention, it's moved more towards trying to extend military domination and the arms race into new domains. So, one of it's main projects is to militarize space. The U.S., of course, has a considerable technological advantage in that. But, of course, others are going to follow. The missile defense program is part of a much broader program -- it's called "[Joint] Vision 2020" or something like that -- which is to gain what they call "full spectrum dominance," that is, ensuring military domination of space to allow U.S. forces to project power in any area of the world -- to, you know, secure what they call U.S. interests, which are global. That is going to almost certainly -- I mean, their own intelligence services are telling them that and any analyst can understand it -- that's going to lead others to find modes of deterrence. It will lead them to develop their own techniques of deterrence. Other countries are not going to sit there and just let this happen. Naturally, there'll be a reaction.
QUESTION: But the Bush Administration argues that missile defense is just that: a defensive shield. Why should one suppose it will necessarily lead to an arms race, as you say?
CHOMSKY: Necessary? Nothing is necessary in world affairs but certain things are obvious. That's why U.S. intelligence services and virtually all strategic analysts are pointing out that everyone else, of course, will regard this so-called "missile defense" and militarization of space exactly the way we would regard it if, say, China was doing it. If China was doing it, we'd naturally and correctly regard it as, in effect, a first-strike weapon, that is, a device which will allow them to project power and ensure themselves against retaliation. Those are the terms that are used by the United States. That's the way we'd understand it anywhere else, and that's the way everyone else is gonna understand it this [?]. Or we could go right next door to Canada where Canadian military authorities have informed their own government -- in documents that were leaked, incidentally, [from] Canada -- that they do not regard the National Missile Defense as a defensive effort, that they regard it exactly like everyone else does, as a way to ensure that the United States will be able to project power. The militarization of space is quite openly that -- there's not even a pretense of defense.
QUESTION: Now, you've written about the new post-Communist world order. What, as far as you're concerned, is it?
CHOMSKY: It's a system in which tactical changes were made. I mean, the basic strategic positions haven't changed because if you look over the history of the Cold War, both sides -- both the Russians and the Americans -- claim that everything they were doing was in defense against the other. But we have to be serious and ask whether that's true. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, were they defending themselves from the United States? Well, we dismiss that with ridicule. When the United States attacked Nicaragua or Vietnam, was it defending itself against the Russians? That's even more ridiculous. The fact is that if you look at the events of the Cold War -- and in the United States, you can look at internal documents, it's a pretty free country in that respect -- you find that the Cold War was always in the background, of course, but the goals were quite different. Take Cuba, which has been a target of U.S. attack for forty years. Well, we now have the internal declassified record of the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administration thinking about Cuba. And we know what they had in mind when they -- Kennedy -- invaded Cuba, they imposed the blockade, and so on. But they told us in the internal records, talking to each other. Kennedy's Latin American commission, headed by Arthur Schlesinger, informed him that the Cuban threat is, in their words, the threat of "the Castro idea of taking matters into your own hands" which may influence other people -- other groups in Latin America who face similar situations of oppression and denial of rights -- they may also want to take their matters into their own hands. The Russians are mentioned, but they're mentioned in the following fashion: the problem with the Russians is that they are offering development aid and presenting themselves as as model for economic growth in a single generation. That's the internal thinking -- and it goes case after case. Now, those things are stable after the Cold War because they had nothing to do with the Cold War.
QUESTION: Tell me, what sort of limits and how should limits be put on American power in this world order?
CHOMSKY: The limits on American power will primarily be put from inside the United States -- it's the only way -- and...
QUESTION: How will that happen? What do you mean by that?
CHOMSKY: What do I mean? I mean the population of the United States ought to prevent these things from happening. So, for example, if the population of the United States were aware of the programs of Clinton's Strategic Command which, actually, I review in these books, or of the proposals for militarization of space, they would not like it and I think they would act to stop it. That's why there's no discussion of it.
QUESTION: Do you really think the American people care about the peaceful use of outer space and far-flung parts of the world?
CHOMSKY: Oh, absolutely. In fact, if you take a look at polls -- which are very careful in the United States -- the public is in favor of direct involvement with multilateral agreements to lead to a more peaceful world, and so on. You know, people aren't crazy. They don't want their children to be murdered. And that's exactly why these things are not discussed. And it's not only in this case but it's in many cases. Furthermore, other areas of the world, they're going to react. China and Russia and India are going to react. The European Union, sooner or later, will move on its own -- to some extent -- independent course. Furthermore, other countries are likely to regard themselves as potential targets of U.S. attack, are very likely to try to find some way to deter it. And the way they'll use is not nuclear weapons and missiles -- nobody's crazy enough to believe that -- what they'll do is try to develop other forms, other kinds, of weapons of mass destruction. I should mention these are not my opinions. They're standard. So, for example -- Graham Allison who's the head of the Harvard Kennedy School [of Government] programs on these things and a long-standing strategic analyst -- he's pointed out that if any country wanted to explode a nuclear weapon in the United States, the easiest way to do it would be to wrap it in a bale of marijuana and send it into New York City. That's exactly right. No country is going to be insane enough to launch a missile attack against the United States knowing that it's going to be instantly destroyed. They'll use other means which are readily available.
QUESTION: Finally, you've been very critical of the United States for decades -- everything it does, certainly in foreign policy, you seem to think is wrong. Do you actually like America? Or, I mean, are there aspects of the country that you appreciate and admire?
CHOMSKY: And I say it all the time. It's the most free country in the world. It's probably the most democratic country in the world. I just mentioned a few moments ago that it's one of the very few countries where it's free enough to gain access to internal records. These are all wonderful things. And furthermore, there's good reason why I'm talking about the United States, two reasons. One reason is, it's the most powerful country in the world, therefore it's the most important country to talk about. Second is, I happen to be here. There's an elementary moral truism -- so elementary, it's embarrassing to repeat it -- you're primarily responsible for the consequences of your own actions. It's fine if you want to criticize someone else, okay? It has no moral quality. You're responsible for what you do. And in a country that's relatively free the actions of that country are your responsibility. So, naturally, I concentrate on it.
i consider it rogue state because of imperialism and pushing ways upon others and invading countries and killing babies and innocents in iraq vietnam and many many other places with vile chemicals such as agent orange and then they have the audacity to blame other countries like iran for testing out uranium for energy purposes or north korea for testing a missile or libya for buying uranium they should look at themselves first i think but they dont care its all about control power imperialism and domination for them
With the UN and virtually all of our allies except Britain disagreeing, with even our own intelligence sources disagreeing and Bush’s rhetoric about the need to act unilaterally, it was easy - too easy - to align with the rapidly developing protest against this fabricated need to wage war with Iraq and assume that Bush and his administration were a collection of war mongering madmen. The very day that I was e-mailing Senator Graham to vote against the resolution giving Bush a free hand to go to war with Iraq, Graham was submitting an amendment to the resolution to allow Bush to not only go after Iraq, but also Iran, Lybia, North Korea, and a few other “evil axis” states. What’s going on here? Can it really be that Bush, his cabinet and all these elected officials in congress are simply crazy or is that too simple an answer?
I decided therefore to do a bit of research on our foreign policy since the end of WWII. To that end I turned to some recent publications by rather well known critics of our foreign policy; Noam Chomsky, William Blum, Wendell Berry and a few others. Talk about opening Pandora’s box! What I discovered is most alarming! The U.S. has broken international law many, many time since the end of WWII. We have ignored the findings of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the World Court (International Court of Justice) the UN Charter and its resolutions and agreements. Bush’s behavior is entirely consistent with our international behavior over the last fifty years!
The term rogue state has two uses: as propaganda rhetoric denouncing the behavior of states we don’t like, and a literal definition that applies to states that have chosen not to regard themselves as bound by international norms. These norms are partially codified by the UN Charter, International Court of Justice decisions and various conventions and treaties. By this literal definition it is clear that we have indeed chosen to be a rogue state!
In 1963 respected statesman Dean Acheson flatly stated that “the US is not bound by international law”. Our forty year blockade of Cuba has been universally condemned by the UN, the European Union, the Organization of American States (OAS) the Inter-American Juridical Committee, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Here is a direct quote from the memoirs (1978) of UN Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “The United States wished things to turn out as they did (in regard to Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor), and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.”
In response to Nicaragua’s (1986) charges against the US, the World Court condemned us for our “unlawful use of force” and demanded that we desist and pay substantial reparations and ruled that all aid to the mercenary forces attacking Nicaragua was military, not humanitarian. US Secretary of State George Shultz derided those who advocate “utopian legalistic means like outside mediation, the United Nations, and the World Court, while ignoring the power element of the equation.” The Court was dismissed as a “hostile forum” and the US escalated the war and summarily ignored the call for reparations. We then vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law and voted in virtual isolation against a similar General Assembly resolution.
In 1993 President Clinton informed the UN that “the US will act multilaterally when possible, but unilaterally when necessary.” This position was reiterated in 1994 by UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright. And in 1999 Secretary of Defense William Cohen, declared that the US is committed to “unilateral use of military power” to defend vital interests, which include “ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources”.
In 1999 the American Society of International Law (ASIL) said that “international law is today probably less highly regarded in our country than at any time in this century”and warned of the “alarming exacerbation” of Washington’s dismissal of treaty obligations.
And I now see in the October 31 to November 6, 2002 edition of the Guardian Weekly, a lead article pointing out “US has secret bio-weapons programme. Scientists on both sides of the Atlantic warned this week that the United States is developing a new generation of weapons that undermine and possibly violate international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.” (Note the Dec. 12, 1984 UN resolution #39/65B below.)
Clearly we have publically stated that we will ignore international norms as codified by the UN Charter and unilaterally go our own way unless we can manage to elicit compliance from our allies. It’s also clear that over the last 35 or more years we have routinely acted to render the UN “utterly ineffective”.
I rank among the many U.S. citizens who have been naively putting our faith in the United Nations steadily becoming stronger and more internationally assertive in it’s peace keeping role throughout the world. Yet a bit of investigating discloses that the US is the principle saboteur of UN efforts. As is rather well known, thanks to Jesse Helms, we’ve gone over 25 years without paying our dues and now owe the organization millions of dollars in back dues. Meanwhile we choose to call ourselves the leaders of the free world. My recollections from playing follow the leader as a child tells me that without followers there’s no game. If we are the leaders, where are our followers?
To enlist support for our wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, Yugoslavia, and now Iraq again we have had to resort to bribery, threats and chicanery such as the resolution Bush recently pushed for and got in Congress. The administration openly stated that the resolution was intending to put pressure on the UN to join us in attacking Iraq for it’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Yet with noteworthy regularity we have found ourselves - often alone, sometimes joined by one or two other countries - standing in opposition to General Assembly and Security Council resolutions aimed at furthering human rights, peace, nuclear, chemical and biological disarmament, and economic justice. We are far in the lead in Security Council vetoes, with Britain second and France a distant third. In his book Rogue State, William Blum lists nearly 150 times between 1978 and 1987 when the US found itself standing alone or with one or two others in casting a ‘no’ vote against such resolutions. Here are just a handful of rather outstanding examples from that list.
•1978, Dec. 18: Resolution 33/75. Yes 110 - No 2 (US, Israel) Living conditions of the Palestinian people.
•1978, Dec. 19: Resolution 33/136. Yes 119 - NO 1 (US) Calls upon developed countries to increase quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
•1979, Dec.11: Resolution 34/83J. Yes 120 - NO 3 (US, UK, France) Negotiations on disarmament and cessation of nuclear arms race.
•1979, Dec. 14: Resolution 34/100. Yes 104 - NO 2 (US, Israel) Against support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
•1979, Dec. 17: Resolution 34.158. Yes 121 - NO 2 (US, Israel) Prepare and carry out the UN Conference on Women.
•1980, Dec. 5: Resolution 35/57. Yes 134 - NO 1 (US) Establishment of a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic cooperation.
•1980, Dec. 12: Resolution 35/145A. Yes 111 - No 2 (US, UK) Cessation of all nuclear test explosives.
•1980, Dec. 12: Resolution 34/154. Yes 110 - NO 2 (US, Albania) (Albania on this issue?) Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
•1980, Dec. 15: Resolution 35/174. Yes 120 - No 1 (US) Emphasizing that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
•1981, Oct. 28: Resolution 36/12. Yes 145 - NO 1 (US) Anti-racism, condemns apartheid in South Africa and Namibia.
•1981, Nov. 9: Resolution 36/18. Yes 123 - No 1 (US) To promote co-operative movements in developing countries (agricultural, savings and credits, housing, consumer protection, social services, etc.)
•1981, Nov. 9: Resolution 36/19. Yes 126 - No 1 (US) The right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
•1981, Dec. 9: Resolution 36/84. Yes 118 - No 2 (US, UK) Cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
•1981, Dec. 9: Resolution 36/96B. Yes 109 - No 1(US) Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
•1982, Oct. 28: Resolution 37/7. Yes 111 - No 1 (US) World Charter for protection of the ecology.
•1982, Dec. 9: Resolution 37/73. Yes 111 - No 1 (US) Need for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
•1982, Dec. 9: Resolution 37/83. Yes 138 - No 1 (US) Prevention of arms race in outer space.
•1982, Dec. 13: Resolution 37/98A. Yes 95 - No 1 (US) Necessity of a convention on the prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
•1982, Dec. 17: Resolution 37/137. Yes 146 - No 1 (US) Protection against products harmful to health and the environment.
•1982, Dec. 18: Resolution 37/100. Yes 131 - No 1 (US) Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc. are human rights.
•1983, Nov. 22: Resolution 36/25. Yes 131 - No 1 (US) The right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes. (And we claim to advocate democracy?)
•1983, Dec. 5: Resolution 38/70. Yes 147 -No 1 (US) Outer space should be used for peaceful purposes, prevention of an arms race in outer space.
•1983, Dec. 20: Resolution 38/182. Yes 116 - No 1 (US) Prohibition of the development and manufacture of new types and systems of weapons of mass destruction.
•1983, Dec. 20: Resolution 38/187A. Yes 98 - No 1 (US) Urges intensification of negotiations to achieve an accord on a prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
•1983, Dec. 20: Resolution 38/202. Yes 126 - No 1 (US) Strengthening the capacity of the UN to respond to natural and other disasters.
•1983, Dec. 12: Resolution 39/65B. Yes 84 - No 1 (US)
Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
•1983, Dec. 17: Resolution 39/148N. Yes 123 - No 1 (US) Nuclear test ban, cessation of nuclear arms race, nuclear disarmament.
•1983, Dec. 18: Resolution 39/232. Yes 118 - No 2 (US, Israel) Support of the UN Industrial Development Organization.
•1983, Dec. 18: Resolution 39/233. Yes 120 - No 1 (US) Industrial Development Decade for Africa.
•1985, Dec. 13: Resolution 40/124. Yes 130 - No 1 (US) Alternative approaches within the UN system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
•1985, Dec. 13: Resolution 40/148. Yes 121 - No 2 (US, Israel) Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities.
•1985, Dec. 17: Resolution 40/445. Yes 133 - No 1 International cooperation in the interrelated areas of money, finance, debt, resource flow, and development.
•1986, Dec. 4: Resolution 41/92. Yes 102 - No 2 (US, France) Establishment of a comprehensive system of international peace and security.
•1986, Dec. Resolution 41/151. Yes 148 - No 1 (US) Measures to improve the situation and ensure the human rights and dignity of all migrant workers.
•1986, Dec. 8: Resoltuion 41/450. Yes 146 - No 1 (US) Protection against products harmful to health and the environment.
•1987, Oct. 15: Resolution 42/5. Yes 153 - No 2 (US, Israel) Cooperation between the UN and the League of Arab States.
•1987, Nov. 12: Resolution 42/18. Yes 94 - No 2 (US, Israel) Need for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua.
•1987, Dec. 7: Resolution 42/159. Yes 153 - No 2 (US, Israel) Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people for national liberation.
Well, there’s my handful from the nearly 150 in which the US stood alone or with just one or two others during the ten years spanning 1978 to 1987. I chose to put several in bold italics because of what’s going on now with the US and terrorism and Iraq. In light of 9/11, how do you like the last one on the list?
Coupled with that information about our behavior in the UN, I learned that we currently have US troops in over 100 states in every part of the world. And take a look at the number of global interventions in which we have engaged in since the end of WWII.
U.S. Global Interventions, 1945 to the Present
Here is a listing of American interventions into the life of other nationsFor sources see Rogue State and Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II both by William Blum).
China, 1945-51. Iran, 1953. Cambodia, 1955-73. France, 1947.
Guatemala, 1953-1990s. Laos, 1957-73. Marshall Islands, 1946-58. Costa Rica, mid 1950s-1970-71.
Thailand, 1965-73. Italy, 1947-70s. Middle East, 1956-58. Ecuador, 1960-63.
Greece, 1947-49. Indonesia, 1957-58. The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65, 77-78. Philippines, 1945-53.
Haiti, 1959. France/Algeria, 1960s. Korea, 1945-53. Western Europe, 1950s-1960s.
Brazil, 1961-64. Albania, 1949-53. British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64. Peru, 1965.
Eastern Europe, 1948-56 Iraq, 1958-63. Dominican Republic 1963-65. Germany, 1950s.
Soviet Union, 1942-1960s. Indonesia, 1965. Cuba, 1959 to present. Vietnam, 1945-73.
Ghana, 1966. Uruguay, 1969-72. Honduras, 1980s. Panama, 1989.
Chile, 1964-73. Nicaragua, 1978-90. Afghanistan, 1979-92. Greece, 1967-74.
Philippines, 1970s-1990s. El Salvador, 1980-92. South Africa, 1960s-1980s. Seychelles, 1979-81.
Haiti, 1987-94. Bolivia, 1964-75. South Yemen, 1979-84. Bulgaria, 1990-92.
No doubt competent spinmasters from the State Department, Defense Department, Pentagon and White House could come up with some fairly convincing arguments (such as the current weapons of mass destruction rhetoric) to justify the necessity of any one of these interventions which took place during their time in office. However, when I look at the big picture (67 interventions are listed here, more interventions than there are years between the end of WWII and today) its pretty tough not to conclude that there’s a very consistent pattern of behavior going on here.. No other nation has ever even come close to intervening in the internal machinations of so many sovereign states in such a short period of time. And we talked about the danger of the “domino effect” of communism.
Here is a complete list of all the presidents since 1945 who have not sent US soldiers into war:
•Jimmy Carter - 1977-81
Just what is going on in this picture? A quote from Arnold Toynbee in 1961:
"America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defense of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for. Rome consistently supported the rich against the poor in all foreign communities that fell under her sway; and, since the poor, so far, have always and everywhere been far more numerous than the rich, Rome’s policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number."
That’s a rather heavy indictment, and it was said over forty years ago. Since that time we seem to have embarked on a campaign to verify it’s accuracy. As mentioned above, a rogue state is one that does not consider itself bound by international norms. By that definition we indeed qualify as a rogue state.
Have we shortened Ambrose Bierce’s famous maxim “My country right or wrong; support it when it’s right and correct it when it’s wrong.” to simply "My country right or wrong?"
We claim to represent, model, and foster democracy throughout the world. Our voting record in the UN belies that claim (check the Nov. 9,1981and Nov. 22, 1983 resolutions above) and the 2000 presidential election stands as an indelible smear on the face of the democratic process. The Supreme Court with its 5 to 4 decision perverted the election from a democratic process to a political decision.
At best we are a limited democracy. The voting public gets no input into what our government does about corporate globalization or foreign policy or health care or any of our public institutions. There is overwhelming evidence corporate lobbying and ‘soft money’ fund raising pretty much control the political structure. We now have enormous numbers of minority citizens who aren’t registered to vote, and only about 50% of those of us who are registered voters actually exercising that right. In this past off year election 37% of the registered voting population turned out to vote. That would set what the media describes as “Bush’s mandate” at about 19% of the voting population. In Bush’s rhetoric, “We’ll go to war with Iraq, unilaterally if necessary, initiate a regime change, install a democracy and maintain U.S. forces in the country for a few years to “manage” things until the new regime is stable.” Is this the brand of democracy which we purport to export to the world, forcibly if necessary?
And here’s a reminder of the power of the underlying capitalistic global economy stance that drives our foreign policy. In 1996 at a United Nations-sponsored World Food Summit, the US took issue with an affirmation by the summit of the “right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food”. The US insisted that it does not recognize a “right to food”. We instead championed free trade as the key to ending the poverty at the root of hunger. The old ‘trickle down’ approach!
Wendell Berry in the excellent three essay book In the Presence of Fear says: “It is a mistake - as events since Sept. 11 have shown - to suppose that a government can promote and participate in a global economy and at the same time act exclusively in its own interest by abrogating its international treaties and standing apart from international cooperation on moral issues.”
So, as citizens, what do we do? Those of us who are concerned and dismayed about our country actually being a rogue state? Those of us who don’t like our aggressive international bullying jingoistic approach to foreign policy? Those of us who recognize that our behavior in the world and in the UN belies our stated values as a democratic peace loving nation. Hypocrites are those who apply to others the standards that they refuse to accept for themselves. In order for us, the USA, to rise to this absolutely minimal moral level we have to agree, in fact insist, that if some act is right for us then it’s right for others, and if it’s wrong when others do it then it’s wrong when we do it. Like many others, I do periodically write and/or e-mail my congressmen, but I must confess it feels something like pissing on a forest fire - the result is a tiny burst of steam that has no effect whatever on the raging conflagration. And it appears that demonstrations, like the one in DC against war with Iraq on October 26th are equally ineffective. Just what can you and I as citizens do about all this? It seems we must do more than just shrug our shoulders and be silent. Our government is acting on our behalf, representing us, speaking for us. And as the saying goes; if you’re not part of the mop you’re part of the dirt. How do we begin to influence and change the basic direction of our international behavior? How do we get heard?
From my perspective, two essential missing ingredients are needed to make our democratic system work more efficiently and better represent the true will of the people! One is that Congress needs to be far more answerable to the full voting population and not just the moneyed lobby system. The second is that Congress and the White House need regular comprehensive widespread feedback from the people - not just a handful of polls at election time or after an issue has been in the headlines for a week or two, but clear feedback from all of us.
My suggestion for a fix that will get and retain the full attention of Congress which represents us and make our system markedly more democratic is twofold:
•Make voting compulsory for all citizens who are eligible to vote.
•Develop an electronic national referendum system which allows every voter in the country to vote yes or no on referendum questions and have national results televised within twenty-four hours.
Voting is currently compulsory in a number of countries throughout the world. Australia is one example. Hearing from the public at large on a regular basis would radically change what politicians pay attention to and actually respond to. It would go a long way toward emasculating the currently moneyed lobby system and it would change how politicians conduct their campaigns and run for office. Our present system is heavily dependent on poor voter turnout, on millions of citizens, especially minority groups, feeling apathetic and helpless and staying away from the polls. A resounding 37% turned out to vote in this past off year election. Compulsory voting would change all that. Perhaps we should combine strong penalties such as loss of driver’s license for not voting with a positive reward, such as $10.00 in cash when you actually show up and cast your vote. (If you think that would cost too much, check it against the defense budget.)
And as for conducting national surveys and referendums, all the necessary technology to do that with published results within 24 hours is currently available. We all have sufficient faith in our ATM cards to amble about the world popping them into machines will full confidence that we can get our money whenever we want and that no one else can get it. I want an ATM like electronic device attached to every television set and have every voter issued a card allowing them to vote on referendum questions right from their home. The Survey and Referendum questions would appear on public television a couple of weeks before the date of the vote. On that date people would use their card to vote and we’d have clear results announced as part of the news on the following day. This would radically modify how politicians voted on legislative issues. It is, for example, common knowledge that at least 2/3rds of our population wants much stronger gun control. However, the population is not organized like the NRA is to put pressure on Congress to influence their voting, the population at large has no platform and therefore no voice and thus stronger gun control legislation is all but impossible to get through Congress. This suggestion would give us such a platform and a voice. And, because the voting public would have a reading on the the national stance on any given issue, it would also reduce single issue voting.
I am not suggesting that national referendums carry any ‘majority rule’ legislative weight. I believe that our elected legislative officials should vote their conscience. I do, however, want them to know exactly where the public stands, what the will of the people is on major national/international issues and I want the public at large to know how their legislators vote while having full knowledge of the public’s stance on the issue at hand.
These two changes, compulsory voting and frequent national referendums, will also serve to educate the voting public and bring their attention to national political issues and their own civic responsibility to participate in the system strongly into their awareness.
Needless to say, Congress and the corporate structure would entrench and fight to the death to avoid such a change in the system. It’s a fight just to get to where voters are allowed to register while at the registry of motor vehicles. It’s far easier to leave the system as it is and accuse indigent minorities who don’t vote of apathy. And initially there would be some logistical problems to overcome. For example, voting ATM like devices would have to be available in all public malls, schools and post offices at least while television sets equipped with such ‘voting slots’ were being developed. I do, however, believe that these two changes would do more to “clean up our system” than any other approach that comes to mind. I would dearly like to see a national debate on these changes in our system develop. And, I’d like to hear responses from any of you who read this and wish to respond.
"The US is committed to unilateral use of military power to defend vital interests, which include ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources".
1999, Secretary of Defense William Cohen
Last edited by Argamemnon; 12-07-2009 at 11:19 PM.
"The US is committed to unilateral use of military power to defend vital interests, which include ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources".
1999, Secretary of Defense William Cohen
why on earth should you be surprised maybe your just waking up come on bro there is plenty of quotes from scumbag depopulationist american elites saying that they will go on future campaigns to limit populations so the US can further access their interests abroad come on this shouldnt be surprising at all our human nature is animalistic in the fact that we wish to dominate over others and be the big cheese its always been that way but the us takes it to a whole new level i think
why on earth should you be surprised maybe your just waking up come on bro there is plenty of quotes from scumbag depopulationist american elites saying that they will go on future campaigns to limit populations so the US can further access their interests abroad come on this shouldnt be surprising at all our human nature is animalistic in the fact that we wish to dominate over others and be the big cheese its always been that way but the us takes it to a whole new level i think
They are not even hiding it, they openly say that they will bomb and invade nations that refuse to submit to total US domination.
why on earth should you be surprised maybe your just waking up come on bro there is plenty of quotes from scumbag depopulationist american elites saying that they will go on future campaigns to limit populations so the US can further access their interests abroad come on this shouldnt be surprising at all our human nature is animalistic in the fact that we wish to dominate over others and be the big cheese its always been that way but the us takes it to a whole new level i think
Hi,
Are you from Japan? If so, when will Japan stop submitting to complete US domination? Japan has the capability to realize this.
They are not even hiding it, they openly say that they will bomb and invade nations that refuse to submit to total US domination.
thats what i meant i mean come on they even said they would bury afghan in a carpet of bombs and they are just there for resources and domination they only setup democracy so it can suit THEIR OWN interests in certain parts of the world its like setting up your work shed so you can get your tools easier then going across the whole shed you know what i mean they are imperialist they hide under the guise of freedom and democracy i mean those are good things but they just do things for their own interests and its only for the government to kids are lining up in bread lines to feed themselves while obama figures out new ways to tax american civilians on STUPID climate change false propaganda and further control the poorer world for their own interests that is the goal of the climate hoax and also he sends more troops to fight a pointless war that will just end up in a stalemate while more americans are being kicked out of their homes and ending up hungry and dirty on the streets
i mean come on man the govt dont care about anybody even their own people its all about power control monopoly and the POWER GAME
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks