Selective memory and a dishonest doctrine
spataru
Selective memory and a dishonest doctrine
NOAM CHOMSKY
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity
should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting
a fair trial for him by an international tribunal.
An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter
and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the
Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991.
At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view
(that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the
region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have
suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times.
Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier
of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm
U.S.-British support of Saddam.
With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's
reaction overlooked that support.
Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture
generally - a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course,
invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the
doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence
or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time
on this boring, stale stuff."
The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It
protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our
eyes.
For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in
Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass
destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not
even Bush's speechwriters.
The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and,
in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.
Sometimes, the repetition of this democracy-building posture reaches the
level of rapturous acclaim.
Last month, for example, David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator,
described the invasion of Iraq as "the most idealistic war in modern
times" - fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region.
Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, "the Bush
administration's idealist in chief," whom he described as a genuine
intellectual who "bleeds for (the Arab world's) oppression and dreams of
liberating it."
Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz's career - like his strong support for
Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and
aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald
Reagan.
As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan,
Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea
and Marcos of the Philippines.
All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of change of
course.
So, yes, Wolfowitz's heart bleeds for the victims of oppression - and if the
record shows the opposite, it's just that boring old stuff that we want to
forget about.
One might recall another recent illustration of Wolfowitz's love of
democracy. The Turkish parliament, heeding its population's near-unanimous
opposition to war in Iraq, refused to let U.S. forces deploy fully from
Turkey. This caused absolute fury in Washington.
Wolfowitz denounced the Turkish military for failing to intervene to
overturn the decision. Turkey was listening to its people, not taking orders
from Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C.
The most recent chapter is Wolfowitz's "Determination and Findings" on
bidding for lavish reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Excluded are countries
where the government dared to take the same position as the vast majority of
the population.
Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are
non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss -
along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free
to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon
Islands, but not with leading industrial societies.
What's revealing and important to the future is that Washington's display of
contempt for democracy went side by side with a chorus of adulation about
its yearning for democracy.
To be able to carry that off is an impressive achievement, hard to mimic
even in a totalitarian state.
Iraqis have some insight into this process of conquerors and conquered.
The British created Iraq for their own interests. When they ran that part of
the world, they discussed how to set up what they called Arab facades -
weak, pliable governments, parliamentary if possible, so long as the British
effectively ruled.
Who would expect that the United States would ever permit an independent
Iraqi government to exist? Especially now that Washington has reserved the
right to set up permanent military bases there, in the heart of the world's
greatest oil-producing region, and has imposed an economic regime that no
sovereign country would accept, putting the country's fate in the hands of
Western corporations.
Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are
regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent - and rhetoric about
bestowing freedom and independence.
An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the
world situation of his day: "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting
merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for
the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the
power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."
Political activist and author Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Rinocerul
> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?
pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid
=1071961807419
>
> Selective memory and a dishonest doctrine
>
> NOAM CHOMSKY
> SPECIAL TO THE STAR
>
Eu in genere nu pun mare pret pe ce zice curvetul stangist Chomsky, dar in
acest interviu are dreptate. Ba trist este ca nu descrie decat partea
vizibila a icebergului. Banditii din establishementul de la Washington sant
chiar mai stricati decat spune Chomsky. Numai militia din Montana ne mai
salveaza, hehehehe ;-)
Gica Schpritzburgh
>otse.net>
>
>spataru wrote:
>
>Eu in genere nu pun mare pret pe ce zice curvetul stangist Chomsky, dar in
>acest interviu are dreptate. Ba trist este ca nu descrie decat partea
>vizibila a icebergului. Banditii din establishementul de la Washington sant
>chiar mai stricati decat spune Chomsky. Numai militia din Montana ne mai
>salveaza, hehehehe ;-)
>
porunbei tzi'a ieshit pa gura !!
gica
toarna vin, toarna pelin,
toarna leantzo, toarna !
amouage
> >From: "Rinocerul"
>
> >otse.net>
> >
> >spataru wrote:
> >
>
> >Eu in genere nu pun mare pret pe ce zice curvetul stangist Chomsky, dar in
> >acest interviu are dreptate. Ba trist este ca nu descrie decat partea
> >vizibila a icebergului. Banditii din establishementul de la Washington sant
> >chiar mai stricati decat spune Chomsky. Numai militia din Montana ne mai
> >salveaza, hehehehe ;-)
> >
>
> porunbei tzi'a ieshit pa gura !!
Porumbel Fericit! Si Curcan Fericit, Porc Fericit, Carnat Fericit,
Buda Fericita! Cocina Fericita, Burlac Fericit, Gog Fericit, Sharon
Fericit, Bush Fericit! Si sa ma ierte cei care nu i-am Fericit!
Craciun Fericit!
si Christos A Inviat (ca n-o sa ma mai obosesc sa va gratulez si de
Paste)
toarna vin, toarna rachie
si manati maaai la cocie!