Deep Concerns by Noam Chomsky; March 20, 2003
At this grim moment, we can do nothing to stop the ongoing invasion. But
that does not mean that the task is over for people who have some concern
for justice, freedom, and human rights. Far from it. The tasks will be
more urgent than before, whatever the outcome of the attack. And about
that, no one has any idea: not the Pentagon, the CIA, or anyone else.
Possibilities range from the horrifying humanitarian catastrophes of which
aid and relief agencies that work in Iraq have been warning, to relatively
benign outcomes – though even if not a hair is harmed on anyone’s
head that will in no way mitigate the criminality of those willing to
subject helpless people to such terrible risks, for their own shameful
purposes.
As for the outcomes, it will be a long time before preliminary judgments
can be made. One immediate task is to lend what weight we can to more
benign outcomes. That means, primarily, caring for the needs of the victims,
not just of this war but of Washington’s vicious and destructive
sanctions regime of the past ten years, which has devastated the civillian
society, strengthened the ruling tyrant, and compelled the population
to rely on him for survival. As has been pointed out for years, the sanctions
therefore undermined the hope that Saddam Hussein would go the way of
other murderous tyrants no less vicious than he. That includes a terrible
rogues gallery of criminals who were also supported by those now at the
helm in Washington, in many cases to the last days of their bloody rule:
Ceausescu, to mention only one obvious and highly pertinent case.
Elementary decency would call for massive reparations from the US; lacking
that, at least a flow of aid to Iraqis, so that they can rebuild what
has been destroyed in their own way, not as dictated by people in Washington
and Crawford whose higher faith is that power comes from the barrel of
a gun.
But the issues are much more fundamental, and long range. Opposition to
the invasion of Iraq has been entirely without historical precedent. That
is why Bush had to meet his two cronies at a US military base on an island,
where they would be safely removed from any mere people. The opposition
may be focused on the invasion of Iraq, but its concerns go far beyond
that. There is growing fear of US power, which is considered to be the
greatest threat to peace in much of the world, probably by a large majority.
And with the technology of destruction now at hand, rapidly becoming more
lethal and ominous, threat to peace means threat to survival.
Fear of the US government is not based solely on this invasion, but on
the background from which it arises: An openly-declared determination
to rule the world by force, the one dimension in which US power is supreme,
and to make sure that there will never be any challenge to that domination.
Preventive wars are to be fought at will: Preventive, not Pre-emptive.
Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might sometimes be, they
do not hold for the very different category of preventive war: the use
of military force to eliminate an imagined or invented threat. The openly-announced
goal is to prevent any challenge to the “power, position, and prestige
of the United States.” Such challenge, now or in the future, and
any sign that it may emerge, will be met with overwhelming force by the
rulers of the country that now apparently outspends the rest of the world
combined on means of violence, and is forging new and very dangerous paths
over near-unanimous world opposition: development of lethal weaponry in
space, for example.
It is worth bearing in mind that the words I quoted are not those of Dick
Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or other radical statist extremists now in charge.
Rather, they are the words of the respected elder statesman Dean Acheson,
40 years ago, when he was a senior advisor to the Kennedy Administration.
He was justifying US actions against Cuba – knowing that the international
terrorist campaign aimed at “regime change” had just brought
the world close to terminal nuclear war. Nevertheless, he instructed the
American Society of International Law, no “legal issue” arises
in the case of a US response to a challenge to its “power, position,
and prestige,” specifically terrorist attacks and economic warfare
against Cuba.
I bring this up as a reminder that the issues are deep-seated. The current
administration is at the extremist end of the policy-planning spectrum,
and its adventurism and penchant for violence are unusually dangerous.
But the spectrum is not that broad, and unless these deeper issues are
addressed, we can be confident that other ultrareactionary extremists
will gain control of incredible means of devastation and repression.
The “imperial ambition” of the current power holders, as it
is frankly called, has aroused shudders throughout the world, including
the mainstream of the establishment at home. Elsewhere, of course, the
reactions are far more fearful, particularly among the traditional victims.
They know too much history, the hard way, to be comforted by exalted rhetoric.
They have heard enough of that over the centuries as they were being beaten
by the club called “civilization.” Just a few days ago, the
head of the non-aligned movement, which includes the governments of most
of the world’s population, described the Bush administration as
more aggressive than Hitler. He happens to be very pro-American, and right
in the middle of Washington’s international economic projects. And
there is little doubt that he speaks for many of the traditional victims,
and by now even for many of their traditional oppressors.
It is easy to go on, and important to think these matters through, with
care and honesty.
Even before the Bush administration sharply escalated these fears in recent
months, intelligence and international affairs specialists were informing
anyone who wanted to listen that the policies Washington is pursuing are
likely to lead to an increase in terror and proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, for revenge or simply deterrence. There are two ways
for Washington to respond to the threats engendered by its actions and
startling proclamations. One way is to try to alleviate the threats by
paying some attention to legitimate grievances, and by agreeing to become
a civilized member of a world community, with some respect for world order
and its institutions. The other way is to construct even more awesome
engines of destruction and domination, so that any perceived challenge,
however remote, can be crushed – provoking new and greater challenges.
That way poses serious dangers to the people of the US and the world,
and may, very possibly, lead to extinction of the species – not
an idle speculation.
Terminal nuclear war has been avoided by near miracle in the past; a few
months before Acheson’s speech, to mention one case that should
be fresh in our minds today. Threats are severe and mounting. The world
has good reason to watch what is happening in Washington with fear and
trepidation. The people who are best placed to relieve those fears, and
to lead the way to a more hopeful and constructive future, are the citizens
of the United States, who can shape the future.
Those are among the deep concerns that must, I think, be kept clearly
in mind while watching events unfold in their unpredictable way as the
most awesome military force in human history is unleashed against a defenseless
enemy by a political leadership that has compiled a frightening record
of destruction and barbarism since it took the reins of power over 20
years ago.
Deep Concerns by Noam Chomsky; March 20, 2003
|
