By Noam Chomsky, written following his trip to the Gaza Strip on October 25-30, 2012.
(Ashraf Amra / APA Images)
Posted Friday, June 30, 2006
On Latin America's Move Towards "Independence and Integration", audio/video recording of a segment of the United Nations talk (June 5, 2006). An excerpt:
The U.S. in the past has had two fundamental mechanisms for controlling Latin America: one is violence, the other is economic strangulation. They're both weakening. The last exercise of violence was in the year 2002, when in its dedication to democracy promotion the U.S. supported a military coup to overthrow the elected government of Venezuela. Well, had to back down, for one thing, because there was a popular uprising in Venezuela. But another reason was just the reaction in Latin America, where democracy is taken a lot more seriously than it is in North America and Europe and people don't think it's amusing anymore to have elected governments overthrown by a military coup. So the U.S. had to back down and turn to subversion instead, which is what's going on now. That's the last major use of violence.
Europe and America as Underwriters of the International Order, talk delivered at the Institute of European Affairs (January 19, 2006). An excerpt:
Since time is very tight I won't take my 20 minutes so we can have time to talk, which is more interesting. The idea that Europe--later the United States--is the guarantor of world order is very old as you know.
The 'Innateness Hypothesis' and Explanatory Models in Linguistics, by Hilary Putnam, Synthese (January, 1967). An excerpt:
The 'innateness hypothesis' (henceforth, the 'I.H.') is a daring--or apparently daring; it may be meaningless, in which case it is not daring--hypothesis proposed by Noam Chomsky. I owe a debt of gratitude to Chomsky for having repeatedly exposed me to the I.H.; I have relied heavily in what follows on oral communications from him; and I beg his pardon in advance if I misstate the I.H. in any detail, or misrepresent any of the arguments for it. In addition to relying upon oral communications from Chomsky, I have also relied upon Chomsky's paper 'Explanatory Models in Linguistics', in which the I.H. plays a considerable rble.
A View from the West, interview with Torgeir Norling, Global Knowledge (June, 2006). An excerpt:
By geographic accident most Middle East oil happens to be in Shia areas, and if that moves along, it is for the US an utter disaster. But you can't talk about this in the West, for we are not allowed to admit that oil had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq. We are supposed to believe that the US and Britain would have liberated Iraq even if its main export was pickles.
Homeland Insecurity, review of Failed States by Jonathan Freedland, The New York Times (June 25, 2006). An excerpt:
This latest philippic from Noam Chomsky sets out to overturn every belief about their country Americans hold dear. The self-image of the United States as a beacon of freedom and democracy, lighting the way for the rest of the world, is a lie, Chomsky says, and it always has been. "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy" aims to expose the rot of the shining city on a hill, from its foundations to its steeples.
Solution in Sight, Khaleej Times (June 23, 2006). An excerpt:
The urgency of halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and moving toward their elimination, could hardly be greater. Failure to do so is almost certain to lead to grim consequences, even the end of biology's only experiment with higher intelligence. As threatening as the crisis is, the means exist to defuse it.
A Superb Demolition: The Observer's Foreign Affairs Editor Peter Beaumont Reviews Noam Chomsky's Failed States. By David Edwards and David Cromwell, MediaLens (June 22, 2006). An excerpt:
[B]oth Alton and Beaumont must have witnessed the grisly fate that befell Emma Brockes and the Guardian after Brockes' 'interview' with Chomsky last October. That earlier "demolition"--complete with maximally unflattering portrait photos and snaps of Chomsky in league with the enemies of civilisation--was destined to quickly vanish from the newspaper's website, while the editors issued apologies to Chomsky and 400+ readers who had complained. Chomsky described the Guardian's effort as "one of the most dishonest and cowardly performances I recall ever having seen in the media".ADDENDUM: The link has been updated.
On Iraq, Iran and Blair, interview with Andrew Stephen, New Statesman (June 19, 2006). An excerpt:
Starting in the summer of 2003, two interesting things happened. First, all of a sudden, the reason for invading Iraq was not weapons of mass destruction. It was to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East and the world . . . But the other thing that happened which has been little noticed is that there was already the beginning of building up a government media campaign about Iranian nuclear weapons. And as Bush's popularity declined, the intensity of this campaign increased. Maybe it's just coincidence, but I don't think so. In fact, the Iranian alleged nuclear weapons are now providing a pretext which will be used for a permanent US presence in Iraq. They're building the biggest embassy in the world in Baghdad which towers over everything, they're building military bases. Is that because they intend to get out and leave Iraq to itself? No. If you're staying in Iraq you have to have a reason. Well, the reason will be that you have to defend the world against Iran.
I am finally back. I apologize for the long delay. Relevant items published since my previous update will be posted within the next few days.