"Accepting Ukraine into NATO is a provocation." Interview with philosopher Noam Chomsky Thinker and linguist Noam Chomsky gave an interview to the Mexican El Universal.
He criticized the US position on Russia and Ukraine, supported the idea of negotiations expressed by Kissinger and told how the current stereotype of the Wild West has developed.
Gerardo Antonio Martinez (Gerardo Antonio Martínez)The No. 1 anarchist of the United States looks you straight in the eye.
He makes you feel like an equal. Noam Chomsky (Philadelphia, 1928), who revolutionized the study of linguistics and for decades fired poisonous arrows at the imperialist agenda of his country, joins the Zoom conference from Tucson. Chomsky is 93 years old, but he has not lost his sense of humor and has not stopped recognizing the sober thoughts of other people, even Henry Kissinger, whom he criticized so much in the 70s and who recently called for negotiations on the Ukrainian conflict.
"Talking about it is considered a betrayal, but it is elementary. Wars end with the conclusion of diplomatic agreements or continue until one of the parties surrenders. This is the usual logic," he said about the former Secretary of State's speech at the economic forum in Davos.
For almost an hour, an honorary professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology talks about his views on what is happening in the world: the conflict in Ukraine, tensions between NATO and the Russian Federation, the causes of global inflation and the situation in the United States, where he notices the alarming advance of the far-right.
We begin the interview at nine o'clock in the morning on July 13. A day earlier, the Presidents of Mexico and the United States, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and Joe Biden, met. Two days after the interview, the Mexican government will announce the detention of drug lord Rafael Caro Quintero, whom the judicial system of the United States wanted so much and whose official version of capture is so hard to believe. But what is quite obvious to Noam Chomsky is that the security agencies of the United States work in the name of protecting the interests of corporations, not citizens.
According to Chomsky, today there really is a crisis of the neoliberal model, but there is no evidence that it will be replaced by some other system that is more beneficial for the most disadvantaged segments of the population. He is not afraid to talk about the class struggle at a time when neoliberal ideology has reduced it to a common phrase for expressing indignation. "Neoliberal programs in their entirety should be recognized as a fierce form of class struggle, since they are created to serve the interests of large investors, large companies." The meanings of the new Cold War are told by the same Noam Chomsky, who adheres to the same ideas and leads the same battles.
– The armed conflict has spurred the desire of European countries to strengthen their defense potential, which benefits the American military industry. Is the United States interested in this crisis ending peacefully?– The position of the American government is formulated clearly and clearly.
It was announced at a NATO meeting that the United States held at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, and at the NATO summit it took on a more formal appearance. It was at this summit that the alliance, including Europe, adopted the official position of the United States, according to which Russia needs to be weakened so that it can no longer undertake military actions of this scale. If you think about it carefully, it means that Moscow needs to be weakened more than the Versailles Treaty of 1919 weakened Germany, because this did not prevent its further aggression. Therefore, it is necessary to undermine Russia's forces even more seriously, so that it cannot conduct negotiations, engage in diplomacy. If you think about it even more, it becomes clear that this is a recipe for an unheard-of game that assumes that the conflict in Ukraine, deaths and bombings can continue, that tens of millions around the world can starve, that efforts to combat climate change can be reversed and put up with the threat of a devastating nuclear war. And all this in the hope that Russia, if it can be defeated, will not resort to the weapons that, as everyone knows, it owns and which can devastate Ukraine and lay the foundation for a nuclear war. This is an unheard-of game. However, this position is held by almost the whole world, and to doubt it is considered a betrayal. Meanwhile, as for the NATO summit, it is interesting that Europe now supports this point of view. The Americans have always adhered to this policy, but Germany and France conducted some alternative diplomatic process. However, at this summit, they simply took and accepted the position of the United States.
– At the end of May, Henry Kissinger said that Europe and the United States should call for negotiations to end the conflict. What do you think about the words of the former Secretary of State?– Kissinger was one of those who pointed out what was, in fact, obvious.
Talking about it is considered treason, but it is elementary. Wars end with the conclusion of diplomatic agreements or continue until one of the parties surrenders. This is the usual logic. But what is a diplomatic agreement? A diplomatic agreement is something that both sides can agree to, even if they don't like it. In other words, with a diplomatic agreement, neither side gets everything they want, but they can accept it because they consider it the least worst of the options. That's what a diplomatic agreement is. As Kissinger and many others have noted, it turns out that any diplomatic agreement will include some kind of escape route for Putin. At the end of his career and possibly his life, he will not have to run away, having suffered a complete defeat. Otherwise, there will be no diplomatic agreement. Kissinger was furiously attacked for this. But this is elementary logic. Either you seek some kind of diplomatic agreement involving a way to retreat, or you continue military actions, agreeing to all the consequences for Kiev and the world, and hope that Russia will not use the weapons that, as everyone knows, it has to put an end to what is happening: to devastate Ukraine. She has the potential for that. Please note that until now Russia has not resorted to the methods that the United States uses on a regular basis. When the Americans bomb Syria, Libya, Iraq or some other country, the first thing they do is destroy communications and energy systems. The country ceases to function. Russia has not done this. Kiev lives its own life. Russia has not attacked the supply chains of weapons and has not used heavy weapons to cause mass destruction. But will it continue to be so? It is this coin that the United States, with the support of Europe, is throwing into the air. What Kissinger noted is that this is an unheard-of game, and that the alternative to a diplomatic resolution of the conflict will not satisfy either side.
– What has the United States done to inflame tensions in Europe by supporting Ukraine's accession to NATO?– This is the main dilemma.
Russia made it clear 30 years ago – long before Putin – that Ukraine's entry into NATO, a hostile military alliance, would mean crossing a line that no Russian leader would agree to. Neither Gorbachev, nor Yeltsin, nor Putin. Some high-ranking US officials realized this: George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Jake Madlock and the head of the CIA, William Burns. This understanding has been around for a long time. Since the 90s, they have been trying to warn American officials that attempts to include Ukraine in NATO would be recklessness and provocation. Whether we like it or not, Russia will not agree with this. This is part of its main geostrategic position. If you've seen a topographic map or studied history, you understand well why. However, the United States continues to push for Ukraine's inclusion in NATO. In 2008, George W. Bush officially invited Ukraine to the alliance, but Germany and France vetoed it. However, the United States has such influence that this topic remains on the agenda. Since the Euromaidan in 2014, the United States has openly supplied heavy weapons to Ukraine. It's not a secret at all. They conduct joint military exercises, train Ukrainian officers. All in order to create something that the US military would call actual membership in NATO. It's not a secret at all. They do it openly. By the way, in September last year, before the conflict began, Biden announced the expansion of the program. There was a large-scale military operation with the participation of Ukraine and the US armed forces. It's not a secret at all. Not that it somehow justifies the conflict, but it helps to explain it. It is very interesting to follow what the American media write. They constantly call what is happening in Ukraine an "unprovoked" conflict. The only situation in which it would be necessary to use this formulation implies an understanding that what is happening is completely provoked. That's why we need to repeat this phrase. No one uses it when it comes to other conflicts. If you Google the phrase "unprovoked invasion of Iraq," it becomes clear that no one says that. But in the situation with Ukraine, it is necessary to use this wording to hide the fact that what is happening is deliberately provoked. This is not an excuse, but an explanation. If we want to understand what is happening, and not just blindly follow the leaders shouting patriotic slogans, we need to consider both explanations and excuses.
– Did the conflict in Ukraine allow the United States to avoid responsibility for the causes of global inflation?– The conflict had a certain effect on the increase in inflationary pressure, but did not cause it.
The economies are arguing about what has become the source of inflation, but it seems that the main reason is supply. Neoliberal principles have done a lot of harm. They have become a kind of devastating attack on the population. Among other things, they have led to the creation of extremely fragile global supply chains. Any push leads to disaster. It is assumed that such a business model is effective, that there should be no idleness, only timely production. For example, if you produce cars, it's good, but if you're trying to manage society, it's not. And we saw it. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, American hospitals, which are supposed to function effectively, lacked beds and additional capacity. From the point of view of the business model, this is a flaw. But if you run a society, it was worth taking care of it. Germany was able to take measures to contain the pandemic because it had additional capacity. Again, returning to inflation, we have an international system that is managed according to the model of a commercial enterprise, which means that there is no additional capacity. Generally. If something goes wrong, everything collapses. We had huge supply disruptions, a huge number of container ships were stuck in ports, and we couldn't do anything with them. This led to a shortage of goods and, as a result, inflation. This is one factor. Another factor is the enormous profits that quasi-monopolistic conglomerates that regulate the global economy receive. This is another influence of neoliberalism. When the economies turned out to be unmanageable, the state could no longer intervene. First of all, this has led to numerous financial crises, as well as a tendency to monopolization. A large fish eats a small one. There is no control. And what is there is inflated profits and almost zero price competition. This is the second reason that caused inflation. There are others, the conflict in Ukraine is one of them. But it doesn't seem to be the main one.
– In this regard, do you think that the new manifestations of economic protectionism caused by the conflict reflect the crisis of the neoliberal economic model?– There are different types of protectionism.
One of its most extreme forms is integrated into the system of neoliberal globalization. Consider the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its rules. Let's go back to the Clinton era. WTO rules provide powerful unprecedented protection for the pharmaceutical industry, as well as, possibly, the media, etc. We are talking about unprecedented intellectual property rights included in existing patent laws, which have never reached such a scale and which, in short, allow large companies to promote monopolies. This is one of the reasons why medicines are so terribly expensive. They are protected. Extremely protectionist WTO measures guarantee a limited number of pharmaceutical companies total control over production. Others cannot do this... New patents relate not only to processes, but also to products. This is a new phenomenon. This means that if some Mexican drug manufacturer finds a better way to produce something, he will not be able to use it. Such restrictions have persisted for decades. This is the increased level of protectionism. In addition, new types of it are emerging to try to protect countries from the effects of the neoliberal avalanche. You can't call this system good. We need a sound international system that addresses the needs of people, not the profits of large companies. Let's recall the Bretton Woods system that prevailed from the end of the Second World War until the 70s. We know perfectly well that it was far from perfect, that it had many problems, but it, for example, allowed countries to control capital flows. The withdrawal of capital is a terrible encroachment on the well–being of society. For example, if, for example, Mexico or Brazil want to introduce programs that pursue the interests of the population, the rich can take and destroy the economy by withdrawing their capital. This is a way to ensure the triumph of the class struggle. Indeed, neoliberal programs in their entirety should be recognized as a fierce form of class struggle, since they were created to serve the interests of large investors, large companies. And it's noticeable. This can be seen in the example of the United States. An authoritative quasi-governmental company, The RAND Corporation, conducted a study on the redistribution of wealth. During the forty years of neoliberalism, wealth has moved from 90% of the poor – that is, from the working and middle classes – to 1% of the rich. According to RAND estimates, this figure reaches 50 trillion dollars. 50 trillion! This is not a small thing. This is a real robbery, staged by neoliberal programs that were created just for this. Similar things have happened in other places. This is one of the causes of anger, indignation and contempt for institutions, social disintegration and unrest that we see all over the world. In other words, it has consequences.
– Why didn't the American security agencies classify the Mexican cartels as terrorist groups?–
I do not know the details, but to begin with, the American security system has little to do with security itself. It's a long story, we don't have enough time. But if we look at it, we will see that what is called security is not related to the security of the population, but to the dominant interests that control the government and which often cause serious harm to people. I am not familiar with this particular case, but I think there is only one mechanism. We need to ask who benefits from what is happening. I think we will get a standard answer: the beneficiaries are representatives of decision-making groups closely associated with large corporations and the super-rich. That's how societies work. Let's go back to what we have already said about the policy towards Ukraine. The American strategy on Ukraine significantly increases the threat of nuclear war. And a nuclear war will be the last. We won't survive it. A nuclear war between the great powers will be the end. And now let's think, does this strategy benefit the United States? It really increases the danger of a devastating nuclear war. A typical phenomenon. We have seen this many times. – On June 24, the Supreme Court of the United States abolished the right of women to make their own decisions about their bodies with regard to abortions.
This decision contrasts with the commitment of Republicans to protect the free acquisition and storage of weapons. Can this be called a manifestation of the rise of the extreme right?– In recent weeks, the Supreme Court has made a number of very important decisions, and all of them are related to the extreme right.
They are interesting to watch. The decision on abortions was handled by Judge Alito. Judge Thomas spoke in his support. He said: "Other topics need to be addressed, such as the right to contraception, the right to freely choose a sexual partner, the right to enter into same-sex marriages." Let's figure it out. All these are attempts to introduce nationalist Christian principles of the extreme right. They encourage states with right–wing legislatures – Republican states - to pass laws that will allow people from other states to sue for the decision to simply have an abortion. The arguments of Alito and Thomas are also interesting. They appeal to the fact that abortion is not in the Constitution. Of course he's not there. They say there is nothing about abortion in the 14th Amendment. Yes, but they still understand that the laws don't work that way. However, they also emphasize that there is nothing in American history and traditions that would advocate granting women such a right. And that's right. The history and traditions of women's rights are terrible. In the recent past, women were the property of the founders. The Constitution does not consider a woman as a person, only as property. This is the legacy of Blackstone's Anglo-Saxon law, which defined a woman as the property of her father and then her husband. It was only in 1975 that the Supreme Court officially recognized that women are equal to men and are individuals worthy of the right. So to some extent Alito is right. Attacks on women's rights are a terrible tradition, but it allowed him to conclude that there is no history or traditions, that this is not the topic we were paying attention to. As for gun ownership, the court overturned the New York law of 1913, according to which public carrying of weapons was allowed only if there was a reason for it. It was impossible to do it just like that. But the court overturned this law. Today, anyone can go out with a gun. By the way, the decision was made shortly after the mass murder in Yuvalda. The topic of weapons is very interesting. There is no need to delve into history and traditions. History and traditions show that all this talk about the Second Amendment, which is used as an argument, is just a relic of the past, introduced in the twentieth century. In order to maintain a well-organized militia, the carrying of weapons will not be prohibited. That's what the founding fathers said. But why did they need this well-organized militia? Firstly, there was no standing army, and they were afraid of the British - the main threat in those days. Secondly, it was necessary to kill the Indians. As soon as the British left, the settlers settled in Indian territory and they needed militia and weapons to kill the local population. And thirdly, it was necessary to keep the slaves in check. There were uprisings, in states like South Carolina, there were more slaves than whites. Therefore, in order to control them, a militia was needed. But in the twentieth century, everything was already different. In fact, the Second Amendment is an anachronism. If we turn to history and traditions, it becomes clear that this is inappropriate. The United States was an agricultural country, so peasants could have old muskets to scare off coyotes, for example. Not that they would dream of sophisticated weapons that are being produced today. This desire appeared thanks to a large-scale propaganda campaign of arms manufacturers at the end of the XIX century. It's very entertaining. They created a completely artificial image of the Wild West: with sheriffs ready to draw a gun, noble cowboys rushing to the rescue on horseback, and all those ideas on which we grew up. This is all pure fiction. None of this really happened. "Your son needs a new Hard Drive, otherwise he won't become a man," was the message. I see, right? The popularity was huge. I was a victim too. When I was a kid, I played sheriffs and cowboys. We all believed in this nonsense. There is no historical or cultural base here, but it doesn't matter. So the right, or even all the voters, start voting for the Republicans. There's a lot to talk about. The topic is complicated. As with abortions. Why are Republicans reacting so sharply to the topic of abortion? It wasn't always like that. In the 60s, Ronald Reagan advocated freedom of choice. When he was governor of California, he passed a law allowing abortions. The same goes for George H.W. Bush and other Republicans. But then, in the mid-70s, Republican strategists realized that if they publicly opposed abortion, they could get the votes of evangelicals and Catholics – and there are quite a few of them – so they abandoned the previous position. In reality, they didn't care. It was a way to earn votes, because the party failed to attract them through programs that were actually aimed at supporting the wealth of corporations and power. These same programs can be seen in the only legislative achievement of Trump, which influenced the population. In a nutshell, it came down to tax cuts that implied huge benefits for the corporate sector and the wealthiest segments of the population. But such an image will not bring votes. That's why they resort to so-called cultural issues: guns, abortion, racism, white supremacism… Anything that will distract attention from their true politics. Hence their hysteria grows around the topic of abortion, weapons and everything else. This is a very dangerous situation. By the way, the worst decision of the court was the decision in the case of West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. Then the court revoked the agency's right to monitor emissions. This is a real disaster in the matter of environmental destruction. The only way to deal with it somehow is to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and monitor them to reduce their harmful impact. However, the court ruled that this could not be done, since Congress did not specifically adopt such a resolution. It is clear that Congress cannot make decisions on each issue separately, it only provides a general framework and forms administrative agencies that conduct investigations and analyze how to implement them in practice. This is how the modern state works. Congress cannot deal with the issue of emissions control at one single coal-fired power plant in West Virginia. These are our representatives. The Supreme Court simply ruled: "You can't do that." And this destroyed the entire supervisory authority. He turned the country against himself. It is impossible to say that this is a jungle, because it would be an insult to the jungle.
– On July 12, a meeting was held between President Lopez Obrador and President Joe Biden, at which they agreed to invest in border infrastructure, mainly in terms of energy, as well as reduce duties, streamline migration and so on. How to understand these agreements in the light of the global crisis?– We need to significantly reduce the use of fossil fuels and do it quickly.
We need to reduce their number to a certain extent every year, until in a couple of decades we will not abandon them at all. But we're going the wrong way. Joe Biden in the Middle East. One of his goals is to convince Saudi Arabia to increase oil production. In addition, the United States has discovered new deposits to increase the production of fossil fuels. Much of this is a direct reaction to the conflict in Ukraine, albeit largely ostentatious and useless. If you start to develop a new deposit, then it will be useful only in a few years. This has nothing to do with gasoline prices. One of the most dangerous consequences of the conflict in Ukraine is that we are nullifying the few efforts we have made to combat the most serious environmental crisis. Germany is starting to use coal again. Europe has decided that natural gas is a source of sustainable energy, but in fact it is not. The United States is taking urgent measures to increase the production of fossil fuels. Whatever the statements, in fact, everything is like this. This is exactly what you don't need to do. Biden's immediate interest in the Middle East is in gasoline prices in the United States. He asks Saudi Arabia to produce more oil to lower gasoline prices, but at the same time it destroys the chance for a decent life on the planet. There are other ways to reduce gasoline prices. Taxes could be levied on the huge revenues of fossil fuel companies. It would be possible to levy taxes from the banks that finance them, for example. We are talking about very high incomes. It would be possible to levy taxes on these incredible profits and send this money to the needy, those who cannot pay for gasoline, representatives of the working class who cannot pay for fuel to get to work. It is necessary that they receive these incomes. It would be quite reasonable, and it could be done in the blink of an eye. But, from the point of view of politics, this is impossible. The right will never allow this. Poor people who support Republicans will not allow taxes to be increased for the rich. This threshold cannot be crossed. But the Democrats, in turn, are ambivalent. Some would go for it, and others would oppose it. But if you need to lower gasoline prices, this is one of the options. We need to use this opportunity to abandon fossil fuels, as well as to ensure new investments in renewable energy sources. Renewable energy sources are also not everything. Public transport should be more efficient. The United States depends on private transportation, and public transportation is very limited. This is a suicidal step. If we want to fight the environmental crisis, we don't need more cars and traffic jams at all. So, it's not just about renewable sources. We need to modernize the airlines so that we have more efficient public transport. We should adapt our houses to the weather, instead of wasting energy on heating. Changes are also needed in food production and agriculture. It is necessary to destroy the industrial production of meat. It will take a lot of changes, social changes, if we want to save the environment so that our children and grandchildren get an inhabited world. Renewable energy sources are one of the options. The worst thing we can do is increase the production of fossil fuels, and that's exactly what is happening now.
– Last question. In your opinion, in light of the current global situation, are Mexico and Latin America as a whole an important topic on the US international agenda?– I think you know what the Monroe Doctrine is.
In 1823, the United States declared its intention to dominate the entire hemisphere, although at that time it was impossible. They weren't that powerful back then. At that time, Great Britain prevented the Americans from annexing Cuba and expanding their sphere of influence. But the founding fathers knew that the power of the United States would grow, and Great Britain would shrink. Over time, the United States was to replace the United Kingdom and extend its power to the entire hemisphere. In the middle of the XIX century, the United States attacked Mexico and conquered half of its territory. For example, the place where I live, Tucson, Arizona, was part of Mexico. This continued until 1945, when the war ended. The United States called the states of the entire western hemisphere to a meeting in Chapultepec, Mexico, and presented the so-called "Economic Charter of America", which opposed what was called "new nationalism". His idea was that the main benefit from the resources of a certain country should be received by the inhabitants of that country. It was impossible to do this anymore. Brazil was allowed to produce steel, but not at such a level that it could compete with the United States. Only cheap steel. That was the "Economic Charter of America". Latin America tried in every possible way to find a way around it, but each time it came across a harsh suppression that forced it to submit once again. This is repeated again with the "pink wave" and moderate left-wing governments that are beginning to achieve a certain level of dependence on the United States. In the case of Latin America, the problem is not only in the United States, but also in itself. Her case is unusual for the global system, since the rich do not bear any responsibility. They are not required to pay taxes. They can export capital. They have no responsibility to their country. The contrast between Latin America and East Asia is shocking. One of the reasons why East Asia is experiencing long–term growth, and Latin America is stagnating and declining, is huge inequality, extreme poverty. Latin America has many advantages over East Asia. It is rich in resources, it has no enemies, but because of the internal structure it lags behind. In addition, pressure from another State – the United States – and the international investment community that it represents plays a role. Therefore, Latin America had to get rid of this. She made several attempts. Imagine, for example, what would happen if there were attempts to form a Latin America free of the United States. The recent elections in Colombia represent a step in this direction. A similar thing may happen in Brazil in the near future. We'll see. This is an age-old problem that has been dragging on for more than a century. It should be emphasized that in the early 60s, Kennedy and Johnson imposed tough sanctions against Cuba. We should not forget that the United States did it. And their motives were obvious. "Cuba has been involved in successful opposition to U.S. policy since the Monroe Doctrine," the State Department said. This was unacceptable. That is why Cuba has been subjected to unspeakable tortures for the past 60 years. It is impossible to gain independence from the US government, moreover, to successfully resist their policies. That's what's on the agenda for Latin America. And this applies to both domestic and foreign policy. As they say in Mexico, the problem is that we are too close to the United States and too far from God. If we leave the part about God aside, it's about domestic politics. Mexico and Latin America are too close to the United States and too far away to cope with the harsh suppression of the suffering classes. That's what Latin America's agenda is: to deal with these two problems.
