In a wild and turbulent Sea, Noam Chomsky calmly stands as a solid
island of reason and sanity. Sadly, Noam Chomsky is not a Corporation
with Endless Life granted to it by our Supreme Court. He is a mere
mortal. But his words will outlast the Corporate Persons, so long as
we defend them and hold them in our hearts.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/19/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Constructing Visions of "Perpetual Peace": An Interview With Noam Chomsky
> Sunday, 19 June 2016 00:00 By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout | Interview
> A US Air Force B-52 Stratofortress leads a formation of aircraft from
> Poland, Germany, Sweden and the US over the Blatic Sea, June 9, 2016.
> Although the US has remained supreme in the military dimension, the
> consequences of US decline have been many. One is the need to resort to
> "coalitions of the willing" when overwhelmingly opposed internationally.
> (Photo: Senior Airman Erin Babis / US Air Force)
> Through its commitment to militarism and global imperialism, the elite
> class
> that controls the United States is risking global catastrophe. In his new
> book Who Rules the World?, Noam Chomsky examines US policies from the drone
> assassination program to nuclear weapons, from Iraq and Afghanistan to
> Israel and Palestine, to show the workings and consequences of undemocratic
> imperial power. Order the book today by making a donation to support
> Truthout!
> "Who rules the world?" This is one of those perennial questions. In the
> past, it has been empires or dominant states that dictated the course of
> history. The United States was able singlehandedly to influence
> developments
> and outcomes economically, politically and ideologically in much of the
> world throughout the post-war era. Although we are now witnessing the end
> of
> "Pax Americana," the US remains the most powerful and destructive imperial
> state in the history of the world.
> However, states are not abstract entities or neutral institutions of human
> creation. On the contrary, while they may have a logic of their own due to
> their huge built-in bureaucracies, the policies they pursue reflect above
> all the interests of the dominant social classes and seek to reproduce the
> existing social and economic relations. In other words, states work on
> behalf of what Adam Smith called "the masters of mankind" whose "vile
> maxim"
> is "all for ourselves, and nothing for the other People."
> Indeed, in the case of the United States, one of the most disturbing and
> dangerous developments is the growing insulation of the elite from any
> system of democratic accountability, and the implementation of policies
> with
> total disregard for the needs of the people. This is a development observed
> today in most of the western, capitalist societies around the world,
> proving
> that financial elites are in control of so-called "democratic" regimes.
> Noam Chomsky, a professor emeritus at MIT, has written extensively about
> "the masters of mankind" and on the role of the US in world affairs. His
> latest book, titled Who Rules the World? which was released last month by
> Metropolitan Press, has already received rave reviews. In it, he examines
> the pursuit and exercise of power by the United States and provides a
> scathing critique of mass media -- particularly the way the New York Times
> reports on national and international news -- while laying out in both
> moral
> and political terms the responsibility of intellectuals.
> On the occasion of the publication of Who Rules the World?, Noam Chomsky
> granted Truthout this exclusive interview, in which he expounds on the
> crisis in today's democracies, the apparent end of Pax Americana, the
> historical significance of Castro's Cuba, the deadly threat of nuclear
> weapons, the means of exploitation under today's capitalism, and the shape
> and form of a society free of oppression and exploitation.
> CJ Polychroniou: Noam, the decline of democracy as a reflection of
> political
> apathy is evident in both the United States and in Europe, and the
> explanation provided in Who Rules the World? is that this phenomenon is
> linked to the fact that most people throughout Western societies are
> "convinced that a few big interests control policy." This is obviously
> true,
> but wasn't this always the case? I mean, people always knew that
> policymaking was in the hands of the elite, but this did not stop them in
> the past from seeking to influence political outcomes through the ballot
> box
> and other means. So, what specific factors might explain political apathy
> in
> our own age?
> Noam Chomsky: "Resignation" may be a better term than "apathy," and even
> that goes too far, I think.
> Since the early 1980s, polls in the US have shown that most people believe
> that the government is run by a few big interests looking out for
> themselves... I do not know of earlier polls, or polls in other countries,
> but it would not be surprising if the results are similar. The important
> question is: are people motivated to do something about it? That depends on
> many factors, crucially including the means that they perceive to be
> available. It's the task of serious activists to help develop those means
> and encourage people to understand that they are available. Two hundred and
> fifty years ago, in one of the first modern works of political theory,
> David
> Hume observed that "power is in the hands of the governed," if they only
> choose to exercise it, and ultimately, it is "by opinion only" -- that is,
> by doctrine and propaganda -- that they are prevented from exercising
> power.
> That can be overcome, and often has been.
> Thirty-five years ago, political scientist Walter Dean Burnham identified
> "the total absence of a socialist or laborite mass party as an organized
> competitor in the electoral market" as a primary cause of the high rate of
> abstention in US elections. Traditionally, the labor movement and
> labor-based parties have played a leading role in offering ways to
> "influence political outcomes" within the electoral system and on the
> streets and shop floor. That capacity has declined significantly under
> neoliberal assault, which enhanced the bitter war waged against unions by
> the business classes throughout the postwar period.
> In 1978, before Reagan's escalation of the attack against labor, United
> Auto
> Workers President Doug Fraser recognized what was happening -- far too late
> -- and criticized the "leaders of the business community" for having
> "chosen
> to wage a one-sided class war in this country -- a war against working
> people, the unemployed, the poor, minorities, the very young and the very
> old, and even many in the middle class of our society," and for having
> "broken and discarded the fragile, unwritten compact previously existing
> during a period of growth and progress." The union leadership had placed
> their faith -- partly for their own benefit as a labor bureaucracy -- in a
> compact with owners and managers during the postwar growth and high profits
> period that had come to an end by the 1970s. By then, the powerful attack
> on
> labor had already taken a severe toll and it has gotten much more extreme
> since, particularly since the radically anti-labor Reagan administration.
> The Democrats, meanwhile, pretty much abandoned the working class.
> Independent political parties have been very marginal, and political
> activism, while widespread, has [often] … sidelined class issues and
> offered
> little to the white working class, which is now drifting into the hands of
> their class enemy. In Europe, functioning democracy has steadily declined
> as
> major policy decisions are transferred to the Brussels bureaucracy of the
> EU, operating under the shadow of northern banks. But there are many
> popular
> reactions, some self-destructive (racing into the hands of the class enemy)
> and others quite promising and productive, as we see in current political
> campaigns in the US and Europe.
> In your book, you refer to the "invisible hands of power." What is the
> exact
> meaning of this, and to what situations and circumstances can it be applied
> in order to understand domestic and global political developments?
> I was using the phrase to refer to the guiding doctrines of policy
> formation, sometimes spelled out in the documentary record, sometimes
> easily
> detectable in ongoing events. There are many examples in international and
> domestic affairs. Sometimes the clouds are lifted by high-level disclosures
> or by significant historical events. The real nature of the Cold War, for
> example, was considerably illuminated when the Soviet Union collapsed and
> it
> was no longer possible to proclaim simply that the Russians are coming.
> That
> provided an interesting test of the real motives of policy formation,
> hidden
> by Cold War pretexts [that were suddenly] gone.
> We learn from Bush I administration documents, for example, that we must
> keep intervention forces aimed at the Middle East, where the serious
> threats
> to our interests "could not be laid at the Kremlin's door," contrary to
> long
> deceit. Rather, the serious problems trace to "radical nationalism," the
> term regularly used for independent nationalism that is under control. That
> is actual a major theme of the Cold War, masked by posturing about the
> Great
> Enemy.
> The fate of NATO is also revealing. It was constructed and maintained in
> alleged defense against the Russian hordes. By 1991, [there were] no more
> Russian hordes, no Warsaw Pact, and Mikhail Gorbachev was proposing a broad
> security system with no military pacts. What happened to NATO? It expanded
> to the East in violation of commitments to Gorbachev by President Bush I
> and
> Secretary of State James Baker that appear to have been consciously
> intended
> to deceive him and to gain his acquiescence to a unified Germany within
> NATO, so recent archival work persuasively indicates.
> To move to another domain, the free-market capitalism extolled in doctrine
> was illustrated by an IMF study of major banks, which showed that their
> profits derived mostly from an implicit taxpayer insurance policy.
> Examples abound, and are highly instructive.
> Since the end of the Second World War, capitalism throughout the West --
> and
> in fact throughout the globe -- has managed to maintain and expand its
> domination not merely through political and psychological means but also
> through the use of the repressive apparatus of the state, including the
> military. Can you talk a little bit about this in connection with the theme
> of "who rules the world"?
> The "mailed fist" [the threat of armed or overbearing force] is not lacking
> even within the most free societies. In the postwar US, the most striking
> example is COINTELPRO, a program run by the national political police (FBI)
> to stamp out dissidence and activism over a broad range, reaching as far as
> political assassination (Black Panther organizer Fred Hampton). Massive
> incarceration of populations [deemed] superfluous for profit-making
> (largely
> African-American, for obvious historical reasons) is yet another means.
> Abroad, the fist is constantly wielded, directly or through clients. The
> Indochina wars are the most extreme case, the worst postwar 20th-century
> crime, criticized in the mainstream as a "blunder," like the invasion of
> Iraq, the worst crime of the new century. One highly significant postwar
> example is the plague of violent repression that spread through Latin
> America after JFK effectively shifted the mission of the Latin America
> military from "hemispheric defense" to "internal security," a euphemism for
> war against the population. There were horrendous effects throughout the
> hemisphere, reaching Central America with Reagan's murderous wars, mostly
> relying on the terrorist forces of client states.
> While still the world's predominant power, there is no doubt that the US is
> in decline. What are the causes and consequences of American decline?
> US power peaked, at a historically unprecedented level, at the end of World
> War II. That couldn't possibly be sustained. It began to erode very soon
> with what is called, interestingly, "the loss of China" [the transformation
> of China into a communist nation in 1949]. And the process continued with
> the reconstruction of industrial societies from wartime devastation and
> decolonization. One reflection of the decline is the shift of attitudes
> toward the UN. It was greatly admired when it was hardly more than an
> instrument of US power in the early postwar years, but increasingly came
> under attack as "anti-American" as it fell out of control -- so far out of
> control that the US has held the record in vetoes after 1970, when it
> joined
> Britain in support of the racist regime of Southern Rhodesia. By then, the
> global economy was tripartite: German-based Europe, Japan-based East Asia,
> and US-based North America.
> In the military dimension, the US has remained supreme. There are many
> consequences. One is resort to "coalitions of the willing" when
> international opinion overwhelmingly opposes US resort to violence, even
> among allies, as in the case of the invasion of Iraq. Another is "soft
> coups," as right now in Brazil, rather than support for neo-Nazi National
> Security States as was true in the not-distant past.
> If the US is still the world's first superpower, what country or entity do
> you consider to be the second superpower?
> There is much talk of China as the emerging superpower. According to many
> analysts, it is poised to overtake the US. There is no doubt of China's
> emerging significance in the world scene, already surpassing the US
> economically by some measures (though far below per capita). Military,
> China
> is far weaker; confrontations are taking place in coastal waters near
> China,
> not in the Caribbean or off the coast of California. But China faces very
> serious internal problems -- labor repression and protest, severe
> ecological
> threats, demographic decline in work force, and others. And the economy,
> while booming, is still highly dependent on the more advanced industrial
> economies at its periphery and the West, though that is changing, and in
> some high-tech domains, such as design and development of solar panels,
> China seems to have the world lead. As China is hemmed in from the sea, it
> is compensating by extending westward, reconstructing something like the
> old
> silk roads in a Eurasian system largely under Chinese influence and soon to
> reach Europe.
> You have been arguing for a long time now that nuclear weapons pose one of
> the two greatest threats to humankind. Why are the major powers so
> reluctant
> to abolish nuclear weapons? Doesn't the very existence of these weapons
> pose
> a threat to the existence of the "'masters of the universe" themselves?
> It is quite remarkable to see how little concern top planners show for the
> prospects of their own destruction -- not a novelty in world affairs (those
> who initiated wars often ended up devastated) but now on a hugely different
> scale. We see that from the earliest days of the atomic age. The US at
> first
> was virtually invulnerable, though there was one serious threat on the
> horizon: ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles] with hydrogen bomb
> warheads. Archival research has now confirmed what was surmised earlier:
> there was no plan, not even a thought, of reaching a treaty agreement that
> would have banned these weapons, though there is good reason to believe
> that
> it might have been feasible. The same attitudes prevail right to the
> present, where the vast buildup of forces right at the traditional invasion
> route into Russia is posing a serious threat of nuclear war.
> Planners explain quite lucidly why it is so important to keep these
> weapons.
> One of the clearest explanations is in a partially declassified Clinton-era
> document issued by the Strategic Command (STRATCOM), which is in charge of
> nuclear weapons policy and use. The document is called Essentials of
> Post-Cold War Deterrence; the term "deterrence," like "defense," is a
> familiar Orwellism referring to coercion and attack. The document explains
> that "nuclear weapons always cast a shadow over any crisis or conflict,"
> and
> must therefore be available, at the ready. If the adversary knows we have
> them, and might use them, they may back down -- a regular feature of
> Kissingerian diplomacy. In that sense, nuclear weapons are constantly being
> used, a point that Dan Ellsberg has insistently made, just as we are using
> a
> gun when we rob a store but don't actually shoot. One section of the report
> is headed: "Maintaining Ambiguity." It advises that "planners should not be
> too rational about determining...what the opponent values the most," which
> must be targeted.
> "One of the most disturbing and dangerous developments is the growing
> insulation of the elite from any system of democratic accountability," says
> Noam Chomsky. (Photo: Don J. Usner)"That the US may become irrational and
> vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the
> national persona we project," [the report says, adding that] it is
> "beneficial" for our strategic posture if "some elements may appear to be
> potentially `out of control'." Nixon's madman theory, except this time
> clearly articulated in an internal planning document, not merely a
> recollection by an adviser (Haldeman, in the Nixon case).
> Like other early post-Cold War documents, this one has been virtually
> ignored. (I've referred to it a number of times, eliciting no notice that
> I'm aware of.) The neglect is quite interesting. Simple logic suffices to
> show that the documentary record after the alleged Russian threat
> disappeared would be highly illuminating as to what was actually going on
> before.
> The Obama administration has made some openings towards Cuba. Do you
> anticipate an end to the embargo any time soon?
> The embargo has long been opposed by the entire world, as the annual votes
> on the embargo at the UN General Assembly reveal. By now the US is
> supported
> only by Israel. Before it could sometimes count on a Pacific island or some
> other dependency. Of course Latin America is completely opposed. More
> interestingly, major sectors of US capital have long been in favor of
> normalization of relations, as public opinion has been: agribusiness,
> pharmaceuticals, energy, tourism and others. It is normal for public
> opinion
> to be ignored, but dismissing powerful concentrations of the business world
> tells us that really significant "reasons of state" are involved. We have a
> good sense from the internal record about what these interests are.
> From the Kennedy years until today there has been outrage over Cuba's
> "successful defiance" of US policies going back to the Monroe Doctrine,
> which signaled the intention to control the hemisphere. The goal was not
> realizable because of relative weakness, just as the British deterrent
> prevented the US from attaining its first "foreign policy" objective, the
> conquest of Cuba, in the 1820s (here the term "foreign policy" is used in
> the conventional sense, which adheres to what historian of imperialism
> Bernard Porter calls "the salt water fallacy": conquest only becomes
> imperial only when it crosses salt water, so the destruction of the Indian
> nations and the conquest of half of Mexico were not "imperialism"). The US
> did achieve its objective in 1898, intervening to prevent Cuba's liberation
> from Spain and converting it into a virtual colony.
> Washington has never reconciled itself to Cuba's intolerable arrogance of
> achieving independence in 1959 -- partial, since the US refused to return
> the valuable Guantanamo Bay region, taken by "Treaty" at gunpoint in 1903
> and not returned despite the requests of the government of Cuba. In
> passing,
> it might be recalled that by far the worst human rights violations in Cuba
> take place in this stolen territory, to which the US has a much weaker
> claim
> than Russia does to Crimea, also taken by force.
> But to return to the question, it is hard to predict whether the US will
> agree to end the embargo short of some kind of Cuban capitulation to US
> demands going back almost 200 years.
> How do you assess and evaluate the historical significance and impact of
> the
> Cuban revolution in world affairs and toward the realization of socialism?
> The impact on world affairs was extraordinary. For one thing, Cuba played a
> very significant role in [the] liberation of West and South Africa. Its
> troops beat back a US-supported South African invasion of Angola and
> compelled South Africa to abandon its attempt to establish a regional
> support system and to give up its illegal hold on Namibia. The fact that
> Black Cuban troops defeated the South Africans had an enormous
> psychological
> impact both in white and Black Africa. A remarkable exercise of dedicated
> internationalism, undertaken at great risk from the reigning superpower,
> which was the last supporter of apartheid South Africa, and entirely
> selfless. Small wonder that when Nelson Mandela was released from prison,
> one of his first acts was to declare:
> During all my years in prison, Cuba was an inspiration and Fidel Castro a
> tower of strength… [Cuban victories] destroyed the myth of the
> invincibility
> of the white oppressor [and] inspired the fighting masses of South Africa …
> a turning point for the liberation of our continent -- and of my people --
> from the scourge of apartheid … What other country can point to a record of
> greater selflessness than Cuba has displayed in its relations to Africa?
> Cuban medical assistance in poor and suffering areas is also quite unique.
> Domestically, there were very significant achievements, among them simply
> survival in the face of US efforts to bring "the terrors of the earth" to
> Cuba (historian Arthur Schlesinger's phrase, in his biography of Robert
> Kennedy, who was assigned this task as his highest priority) and the fierce
> embargo. Literacy campaigns were highly successful, and the health system
> is
> justly renowned. There are serious human rights violations, and
> restrictions
> of political and personal freedoms. How much is attributable to the
> external
> attack and how much to independent policy choices, one can debate -- but
> for
> Americans to condemn violations without full recognition of their own
> massive responsibility gives hypocrisy a new meaning.
> Does the US remain the world's leading supporter of terrorism?
> A review of several recent books on Obama's global assassination (drone)
> campaign in the American Journal of International Law concludes that there
> is a "persuasive case" that the campaign is "unlawful": "U.S. drone attacks
> generally violate international law, worsen the problem of terrorism, and
> transgress fundamental moral principles" -- a judicious assessment, I
> believe. The details of the cold and calculated presidential killing
> machine
> are harrowing, as is the attempt at legal justification, such as the stand
> of Obama's Justice Department on "presumption of innocence," a foundation
> stone of modern law tracing back to the Magna Carta 800 years ago. As the
> stand was explained in the New York Times, "Mr. Obama embraced a disputed
> method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It,
> in effect, counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants,
> according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit
> intelligence posthumously proving them innocent" -- post-assassination. In
> large areas of tribal Pakistan and Yemen, and elsewhere, populations are
> traumatized by the fear of sudden murder from the skies at any moment. The
> distinguished anthropologist Akbar Ahmed, with long professional and
> personal experience with the tribal societies that are under attack all
> over
> the world, forcefully recounts how these murderous assaults elicit
> dedication to revenge -- not very surprisingly. How would we react?
> These campaigns alone, I think, secure the trophy for the US.
> Historically, under capitalism, plundering the poor and the natural
> resources of weak nations has been the favorite hobby of both the rich and
> of imperial states. In the past, the plundering was done mostly through
> outright physical exploitation means and military conquest. How have the
> means of exploitation changed under financial capitalism?
> Secretary of State John Foster Dulles once complained to President
> Eisenhower that the Communists have an unfair advantage. They can "appeal
> directly to the masses" and "get control of mass movements, something we
> have no capacity to duplicate. The poor people are the ones they appeal to
> and they have always wanted to plunder the rich." It's not easy to sell the
> principle that the rich have a right to plunder the poor.
> It's true that the means have changed. The international "free trade
> agreements" (FTAs) are a good example, including those now being negotiated
> -- mostly in secret from populations, but not from the corporate lawyers
> and
> lobbyists who are writing the details. The FTAs reject "free trade": they
> are highly protectionist, with onerous patent regulations to guarantee
> exorbitant profits for the pharmaceutical industry, media conglomerates,
> and
> others, as well as protection for affluent professionals, unlike working
> people, who are placed in competition all of the world, with obvious
> consequences. The FTAs are to a large extent not even about trade; rather,
> about investor rights, such as the rights of corporations (not of course
> mere people of flesh and blood) to sue governments for actions that might
> reduce potential profits of foreign investors, like environmental or
> healthy
> and safety regulations. Much of what is called "trade" doesn't merit that
> term, for example, production of parts in Indiana, assembly in Mexico, sale
> in California, all basically within a command economy, a megacorporation.
> Flow of capital is free. Flow of labor is anything but, violating what Adam
> Smith recognized to be a basic principle of free trade: free circulation of
> labor. And to top it off, the FTAs are not even agreements, at least if
> people are considered to be members of democratic societies.
> Is this to say that we now live in a post-imperialist age?
> Seems to me just a question of terminology. Domination and coercion take
> many and varied forms, as the world changes.
> We have seen in recent years several so-called progressive leaders march to
> power through the ballot box only to betray their vows to the people the
> moment they took office. What means or mechanisms should be introduced in
> truly democratic systems to ensure that elected officials do not betray the
> trust of the voters? For example, the ancient Athenians had conceived of
> something called "the right to recall," which in the 19th century became a
> critical although little known element in the political project for future
> social and political order of certain socialist movements. Are you in favor
> of reviving this mechanism as a critical component of real, sustainable
> democracy?
> I think a strong case can be made for right of recall in some form,
> buttressed by capacities for free and independent inquiry to monitor what
> elected representatives are doing. The great achievement of Chelsea
> Manning,
> Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and other contemporary "whistleblowers" is
> to
> serve and advance these fundamental rights of citizens. The reaction by
> state authorities is instructive. As well-known, the Obama administration
> has broken all records in punishment of whistleblowers. It is also
> remarkable to see how intimidated Europe is. We saw that dramatically when
> Bolivian President Evo Morales's plane flew home from a visit to Moscow,
> and
> European countries were in such terror of Washington that they would not
> let
> the plane cross their airspace, in case it might be carrying Edward
> Snowden,
> and when the plane landed in Austria it was searched by police in violation
> of diplomatic protocol.
> Could an act of terrorism against leaders who blatantly betrayed the trust
> of voters ever be justified?
> "Ever" is a strong word. It is hard to conjure up realistic circumstances.
> The burden of proof for any resort to violence should be very heavy, and
> this case would seem extremely hard to justify.
> With human nature being what it is, and individuals clearly having
> different
> skills, abilities, drives and aspirations, is a truly egalitarian society
> feasible and/or desirable?
> Human nature encompasses saints and sinners, and each of us has all of
> these
> capacities. I see no conflict at all between an egalitarian vision and
> human
> variety. One could, perhaps, argue that those with greater skills and
> talents are already rewarded by the ability to exercise them, so they merit
> less external reward -- though I don't argue this. As for the feasibility
> of
> more just and free social institutions and practices, we can never be
> certain in advance, and can only keep trying to press the limits as much as
> possible, with no clear reason that I can see to anticipate failure.
> In your view, what would constitute a decent society and what form of a
> world order would be needed to eliminate completely questions about who
> rules the world?
> We can construct visions of "perpetual peace," carrying forward the Kantian
> project, and of a society of free and creative individuals not subjected to
> hierarchy, domination, arbitrary rule and decision. In my own view --
> respected friends and comrades in struggle disagree -- we do not know
> enough
> to spell out details with much confidence, and can anticipate that
> considerable experimentation will be necessary along the way. There are
> very
> urgent immediate tasks, not least dealing with literal questions of
> survival
> of organized human societies, questions that have never risen before in
> human history but are inescapable right now. And there are many other tasks
> that demand immediate and dedicated work. It makes good sense to keep in
> mind longer-term aspirations as guidelines for immediate choices,
> recognizing as well that the guidelines are not immutable. That leaves us
> plenty to do.
> Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
> C.J. POLYCHRONIOU
> C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has
> taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and the
> United States. His main research interests are in European economic
> integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and
> the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He is a
> regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public
> Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have
> appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news
> websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several
> foreign
> languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish
> and Turkish.
> RELATED STORIES
> Chomsky: It Is All Working Quite Well for the Rich, Powerful
> By CJ Polychroniou and Anastasia Giamali, Truthout | Interview
> Chomsky on Cuba: After Decades of US Meddling and Terrorism, Restoring Ties
> Is the Least We Could Do
> By Amy Goodman and Aaron Maté, Democracy Now! | Video Interview
> Cuba Evokes the History of US Imperialism in Latin America
> By Cody Cain, Speakout | News Analysis
> ________________________________________
> Show Comments
> Hide Comments
> <a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref">View the discussion
> thread.</a>
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
> Constructing Visions of "Perpetual Peace": An Interview With Noam Chomsky
> Sunday, 19 June 2016 00:00 By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout | Interview
> • font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
> reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
> reference not valid.
> • A US Air Force B-52 Stratofortress leads a formation of aircraft
> from Poland, Germany, Sweden and the US over the Blatic Sea, June 9, 2016.
> Although the US has remained supreme in the military dimension, the
> consequences of US decline have been many. One is the need to resort to
> "coalitions of the willing" when overwhelmingly opposed internationally.
> (Photo: Senior Airman Erin Babis / US Air Force)
> • Through its commitment to militarism and global imperialism, the
> elite class that controls the United States is risking global catastrophe.
> In his new book Who Rules the World?, Noam Chomsky examines US policies
> from
> the drone assassination program to nuclear weapons, from Iraq and
> Afghanistan to Israel and Palestine, to show the workings and consequences
> of undemocratic imperial power. Order the book today by making a donation
> to
> support Truthout!
> "Who rules the world?" This is one of those perennial questions. In the
> past, it has been empires or dominant states that dictated the course of
> history. The United States was able singlehandedly to influence
> developments
> and outcomes economically, politically and ideologically in much of the
> world throughout the post-war era. Although we are now witnessing the end
> of
> "Pax Americana," the US remains the most powerful and destructive imperial
> state in the history of the world.
> However, states are not abstract entities or neutral institutions of human
> creation. On the contrary, while they may have a logic of their own due to
> their huge built-in bureaucracies, the policies they pursue reflect above
> all the interests of the dominant social classes and seek to reproduce the
> existing social and economic relations. In other words, states work on
> behalf of what Adam Smith called "the masters of mankind" whose "vile
> maxim"
> is "all for ourselves, and nothing for the other People."
> Indeed, in the case of the United States, one of the most disturbing and
> dangerous developments is the growing insulation of the elite from any
> system of democratic accountability, and the implementation of policies
> with
> total disregard for the needs of the people. This is a development observed
> today in most of the western, capitalist societies around the world,
> proving
> that financial elites are in control of so-called "democratic" regimes.
> Noam Chomsky, a professor emeritus at MIT, has written extensively about
> "the masters of mankind" and on the role of the US in world affairs. His
> latest book, titled Who Rules the World? which was released last month by
> Metropolitan Press, has already received rave reviews. In it, he examines
> the pursuit and exercise of power by the United States and provides a
> scathing critique of mass media -- particularly the way the New York Times
> reports on national and international news -- while laying out in both
> moral
> and political terms the responsibility of intellectuals.
> On the occasion of the publication of Who Rules the World?, Noam Chomsky
> granted Truthout this exclusive interview, in which he expounds on the
> crisis in today's democracies, the apparent end of Pax Americana, the
> historical significance of Castro's Cuba, the deadly threat of nuclear
> weapons, the means of exploitation under today's capitalism, and the shape
> and form of a society free of oppression and exploitation.
> CJ Polychroniou: Noam, the decline of democracy as a reflection of
> political
> apathy is evident in both the United States and in Europe, and the
> explanation provided in Who Rules the World? is that this phenomenon is
> linked to the fact that most people throughout Western societies are
> "convinced that a few big interests control policy." This is obviously
> true,
> but wasn't this always the case? I mean, people always knew that
> policymaking was in the hands of the elite, but this did not stop them in
> the past from seeking to influence political outcomes through the ballot
> box
> and other means. So, what specific factors might explain political apathy
> in
> our own age?
> Noam Chomsky: "Resignation" may be a better term than "apathy," and even
> that goes too far, I think.
> Since the early 1980s, polls in the US have shown that most people believe
> that the government is run by a few big interests looking out for
> themselves... I do not know of earlier polls, or polls in other countries,
> but it would not be surprising if the results are similar. The important
> question is: are people motivated to do something about it? That depends on
> many factors, crucially including the means that they perceive to be
> available. It's the task of serious activists to help develop those means
> and encourage people to understand that they are available. Two hundred and
> fifty years ago, in one of the first modern works of political theory,
> David
> Hume observed that "power is in the hands of the governed," if they only
> choose to exercise it, and ultimately, it is "by opinion only" -- that is,
> by doctrine and propaganda -- that they are prevented from exercising
> power.
> That can be overcome, and often has been.
> Thirty-five years ago, political scientist Walter Dean Burnham identified
> "the total absence of a socialist or laborite mass party as an organized
> competitor in the electoral market" as a primary cause of the high rate of
> abstention in US elections. Traditionally, the labor movement and
> labor-based parties have played a leading role in offering ways to
> "influence political outcomes" within the electoral system and on the
> streets and shop floor. That capacity has declined significantly under
> neoliberal assault, which enhanced the bitter war waged against unions by
> the business classes throughout the postwar period.
> In 1978, before Reagan's escalation of the attack against labor, United
> Auto
> Workers President Doug Fraser recognized what was happening -- far too late
> -- and criticized the "leaders of the business community" for having
> "chosen
> to wage a one-sided class war in this country -- a war against working
> people, the unemployed, the poor, minorities, the very young and the very
> old, and even many in the middle class of our society," and for having
> "broken and discarded the fragile, unwritten compact previously existing
> during a period of growth and progress." The union leadership had placed
> their faith -- partly for their own benefit as a labor bureaucracy -- in a
> compact with owners and managers during the postwar growth and high profits
> period that had come to an end by the 1970s. By then, the powerful attack
> on
> labor had already taken a severe toll and it has gotten much more extreme
> since, particularly since the radically anti-labor Reagan administration.
> The Democrats, meanwhile, pretty much abandoned the working class.
> Independent political parties have been very marginal, and political
> activism, while widespread, has [often] … sidelined class issues and
> offered
> little to the white working class, which is now drifting into the hands of
> their class enemy. In Europe, functioning democracy has steadily declined
> as
> major policy decisions are transferred to the Brussels bureaucracy of the
> EU, operating under the shadow of northern banks. But there are many
> popular
> reactions, some self-destructive (racing into the hands of the class enemy)
> and others quite promising and productive, as we see in current political
> campaigns in the US and Europe.
> In your book, you refer to the "invisible hands of power." What is the
> exact
> meaning of this, and to what situations and circumstances can it be applied
> in order to understand domestic and global political developments?
> I was using the phrase to refer to the guiding doctrines of policy
> formation, sometimes spelled out in the documentary record, sometimes
> easily
> detectable in ongoing events. There are many examples in international and
> domestic affairs. Sometimes the clouds are lifted by high-level disclosures
> or by significant historical events. The real nature of the Cold War, for
> example, was considerably illuminated when the Soviet Union collapsed and
> it
> was no longer possible to proclaim simply that the Russians are coming.
> That
> provided an interesting test of the real motives of policy formation,
> hidden
> by Cold War pretexts [that were suddenly] gone.
> We learn from Bush I administration documents, for example, that we must
> keep intervention forces aimed at the Middle East, where the serious
> threats
> to our interests "could not be laid at the Kremlin's door," contrary to
> long
> deceit. Rather, the serious problems trace to "radical nationalism," the
> term regularly used for independent nationalism that is under control. That
> is actual a major theme of the Cold War, masked by posturing about the
> Great
> Enemy.
> The fate of NATO is also revealing. It was constructed and maintained in
> alleged defense against the Russian hordes. By 1991, [there were] no more
> Russian hordes, no Warsaw Pact, and Mikhail Gorbachev was proposing a broad
> security system with no military pacts. What happened to NATO? It expanded
> to the East in violation of commitments to Gorbachev by President Bush I
> and
> Secretary of State James Baker that appear to have been consciously
> intended
> to deceive him and to gain his acquiescence to a unified Germany within
> NATO, so recent archival work persuasively indicates.
> To move to another domain, the free-market capitalism extolled in doctrine
> was illustrated by an IMF study of major banks, which showed that their
> profits derived mostly from an implicit taxpayer insurance policy.
> Examples abound, and are highly instructive.
> Since the end of the Second World War, capitalism throughout the West --
> and
> in fact throughout the globe -- has managed to maintain and expand its
> domination not merely through political and psychological means but also
> through the use of the repressive apparatus of the state, including the
> military. Can you talk a little bit about this in connection with the theme
> of "who rules the world"?
> The "mailed fist" [the threat of armed or overbearing force] is not lacking
> even within the most free societies. In the postwar US, the most striking
> example is COINTELPRO, a program run by the national political police (FBI)
> to stamp out dissidence and activism over a broad range, reaching as far as
> political assassination (Black Panther organizer Fred Hampton). Massive
> incarceration of populations [deemed] superfluous for profit-making
> (largely
> African-American, for obvious historical reasons) is yet another means.
> Abroad, the fist is constantly wielded, directly or through clients. The
> Indochina wars are the most extreme case, the worst postwar 20th-century
> crime, criticized in the mainstream as a "blunder," like the invasion of
> Iraq, the worst crime of the new century. One highly significant postwar
> example is the plague of violent repression that spread through Latin
> America after JFK effectively shifted the mission of the Latin America
> military from "hemispheric defense" to "internal security," a euphemism for
> war against the population. There were horrendous effects throughout the
> hemisphere, reaching Central America with Reagan's murderous wars, mostly
> relying on the terrorist forces of client states.
> While still the world's predominant power, there is no doubt that the US is
> in decline. What are the causes and consequences of American decline?
> US power peaked, at a historically unprecedented level, at the end of World
> War II. That couldn't possibly be sustained. It began to erode very soon
> with what is called, interestingly, "the loss of China" [the transformation
> of China into a communist nation in 1949]. And the process continued with
> the reconstruction of industrial societies from wartime devastation and
> decolonization. One reflection of the decline is the shift of attitudes
> toward the UN. It was greatly admired when it was hardly more than an
> instrument of US power in the early postwar years, but increasingly came
> under attack as "anti-American" as it fell out of control -- so far out of
> control that the US has held the record in vetoes after 1970, when it
> joined
> Britain in support of the racist regime of Southern Rhodesia. By then, the
> global economy was tripartite: German-based Europe, Japan-based East Asia,
> and US-based North America.
> In the military dimension, the US has remained supreme. There are many
> consequences. One is resort to "coalitions of the willing" when
> international opinion overwhelmingly opposes US resort to violence, even
> among allies, as in the case of the invasion of Iraq. Another is "soft
> coups," as right now in Brazil, rather than support for neo-Nazi National
> Security States as was true in the not-distant past.
> If the US is still the world's first superpower, what country or entity do
> you consider to be the second superpower?
> There is much talk of China as the emerging superpower. According to many
> analysts, it is poised to overtake the US. There is no doubt of China's
> emerging significance in the world scene, already surpassing the US
> economically by some measures (though far below per capita). Military,
> China
> is far weaker; confrontations are taking place in coastal waters near
> China,
> not in the Caribbean or off the coast of California. But China faces very
> serious internal problems -- labor repression and protest, severe
> ecological
> threats, demographic decline in work force, and others. And the economy,
> while booming, is still highly dependent on the more advanced industrial
> economies at its periphery and the West, though that is changing, and in
> some high-tech domains, such as design and development of solar panels,
> China seems to have the world lead. As China is hemmed in from the sea, it
> is compensating by extending westward, reconstructing something like the
> old
> silk roads in a Eurasian system largely under Chinese influence and soon to
> reach Europe.
> You have been arguing for a long time now that nuclear weapons pose one of
> the two greatest threats to humankind. Why are the major powers so
> reluctant
> to abolish nuclear weapons? Doesn't the very existence of these weapons
> pose
> a threat to the existence of the "'masters of the universe" themselves?
> It is quite remarkable to see how little concern top planners show for the
> prospects of their own destruction -- not a novelty in world affairs (those
> who initiated wars often ended up devastated) but now on a hugely different
> scale. We see that from the earliest days of the atomic age. The US at
> first
> was virtually invulnerable, though there was one serious threat on the
> horizon: ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles] with hydrogen bomb
> warheads. Archival research has now confirmed what was surmised earlier:
> there was no plan, not even a thought, of reaching a treaty agreement that
> would have banned these weapons, though there is good reason to believe
> that
> it might have been feasible. The same attitudes prevail right to the
> present, where the vast buildup of forces right at the traditional invasion
> route into Russia is posing a serious threat of nuclear war.
> Planners explain quite lucidly why it is so important to keep these
> weapons.
> One of the clearest explanations is in a partially declassified Clinton-era
> document issued by the Strategic Command (STRATCOM), which is in charge of
> nuclear weapons policy and use. The document is called Essentials of
> Post-Cold War Deterrence; the term "deterrence," like "defense," is a
> familiar Orwellism referring to coercion and attack. The document explains
> that "nuclear weapons always cast a shadow over any crisis or conflict,"
> and
> must therefore be available, at the ready. If the adversary knows we have
> them, and might use them, they may back down -- a regular feature of
> Kissingerian diplomacy. In that sense, nuclear weapons are constantly being
> used, a point that Dan Ellsberg has insistently made, just as we are using
> a
> gun when we rob a store but don't actually shoot. One section of the report
> is headed: "Maintaining Ambiguity." It advises that "planners should not be
> too rational about determining...what the opponent values the most," which
> must be targeted.
> "One of the most disturbing and dangerous developments is the growing
> insulation of the elite from any system of democratic accountability," says
> Noam Chomsky. (Photo: Don J. Usner)"That the US may become irrational and
> vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the
> national persona we project," [the report says, adding that] it is
> "beneficial" for our strategic posture if "some elements may appear to be
> potentially `out of control'." Nixon's madman theory, except this time
> clearly articulated in an internal planning document, not merely a
> recollection by an adviser (Haldeman, in the Nixon case).
> Like other early post-Cold War documents, this one has been virtually
> ignored. (I've referred to it a number of times, eliciting no notice that
> I'm aware of.) The neglect is quite interesting. Simple logic suffices to
> show that the documentary record after the alleged Russian threat
> disappeared would be highly illuminating as to what was actually going on
> before.
> The Obama administration has made some openings towards Cuba. Do you
> anticipate an end to the embargo any time soon?
> The embargo has long been opposed by the entire world, as the annual votes
> on the embargo at the UN General Assembly reveal. By now the US is
> supported
> only by Israel. Before it could sometimes count on a Pacific island or some
> other dependency. Of course Latin America is completely opposed. More
> interestingly, major sectors of US capital have long been in favor of
> normalization of relations, as public opinion has been: agribusiness,
> pharmaceuticals, energy, tourism and others. It is normal for public
> opinion
> to be ignored, but dismissing powerful concentrations of the business world
> tells us that really significant "reasons of state" are involved. We have a
> good sense from the internal record about what these interests are.
> From the Kennedy years until today there has been outrage over Cuba's
> "successful defiance" of US policies going back to the Monroe Doctrine,
> which signaled the intention to control the hemisphere. The goal was not
> realizable because of relative weakness, just as the British deterrent
> prevented the US from attaining its first "foreign policy" objective, the
> conquest of Cuba, in the 1820s (here the term "foreign policy" is used in
> the conventional sense, which adheres to what historian of imperialism
> Bernard Porter calls "the salt water fallacy": conquest only becomes
> imperial only when it crosses salt water, so the destruction of the Indian
> nations and the conquest of half of Mexico were not "imperialism"). The US
> did achieve its objective in 1898, intervening to prevent Cuba's liberation
> from Spain and converting it into a virtual colony.
> Washington has never reconciled itself to Cuba's intolerable arrogance of
> achieving independence in 1959 -- partial, since the US refused to return
> the valuable Guantanamo Bay region, taken by "Treaty" at gunpoint in 1903
> and not returned despite the requests of the government of Cuba. In
> passing,
> it might be recalled that by far the worst human rights violations in Cuba
> take place in this stolen territory, to which the US has a much weaker
> claim
> than Russia does to Crimea, also taken by force.
> But to return to the question, it is hard to predict whether the US will
> agree to end the embargo short of some kind of Cuban capitulation to US
> demands going back almost 200 years.
> How do you assess and evaluate the historical significance and impact of
> the
> Cuban revolution in world affairs and toward the realization of socialism?
> The impact on world affairs was extraordinary. For one thing, Cuba played a
> very significant role in [the] liberation of West and South Africa. Its
> troops beat back a US-supported South African invasion of Angola and
> compelled South Africa to abandon its attempt to establish a regional
> support system and to give up its illegal hold on Namibia. The fact that
> Black Cuban troops defeated the South Africans had an enormous
> psychological
> impact both in white and Black Africa. A remarkable exercise of dedicated
> internationalism, undertaken at great risk from the reigning superpower,
> which was the last supporter of apartheid South Africa, and entirely
> selfless. Small wonder that when Nelson Mandela was released from prison,
> one of his first acts was to declare:
> During all my years in prison, Cuba was an inspiration and Fidel Castro a
> tower of strength… [Cuban victories] destroyed the myth of the
> invincibility
> of the white oppressor [and] inspired the fighting masses of South Africa …
> a turning point for the liberation of our continent -- and of my people --
> from the scourge of apartheid … What other country can point to a record of
> greater selflessness than Cuba has displayed in its relations to Africa?
> Cuban medical assistance in poor and suffering areas is also quite unique.
> Domestically, there were very significant achievements, among them simply
> survival in the face of US efforts to bring "the terrors of the earth" to
> Cuba (historian Arthur Schlesinger's phrase, in his biography of Robert
> Kennedy, who was assigned this task as his highest priority) and the fierce
> embargo. Literacy campaigns were highly successful, and the health system
> is
> justly renowned. There are serious human rights violations, and
> restrictions
> of political and personal freedoms. How much is attributable to the
> external
> attack and how much to independent policy choices, one can debate -- but
> for
> Americans to condemn violations without full recognition of their own
> massive responsibility gives hypocrisy a new meaning.
> Does the US remain the world's leading supporter of terrorism?
> A review of several recent books on Obama's global assassination (drone)
> campaign in the American Journal of International Law concludes that there
> is a "persuasive case" that the campaign is "unlawful": "U.S. drone attacks
> generally violate international law, worsen the problem of terrorism, and
> transgress fundamental moral principles" -- a judicious assessment, I
> believe. The details of the cold and calculated presidential killing
> machine
> are harrowing, as is the attempt at legal justification, such as the stand
> of Obama's Justice Department on "presumption of innocence," a foundation
> stone of modern law tracing back to the Magna Carta 800 years ago. As the
> stand was explained in the New York Times, "Mr. Obama embraced a disputed
> method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It,
> in effect, counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants,
> according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit
> intelligence posthumously proving them innocent" -- post-assassination. In
> large areas of tribal Pakistan and Yemen, and elsewhere, populations are
> traumatized by the fear of sudden murder from the skies at any moment. The
> distinguished anthropologist Akbar Ahmed, with long professional and
> personal experience with the tribal societies that are under attack all
> over
> the world, forcefully recounts how these murderous assaults elicit
> dedication to revenge -- not very surprisingly. How would we react?
> These campaigns alone, I think, secure the trophy for the US.
> Historically, under capitalism, plundering the poor and the natural
> resources of weak nations has been the favorite hobby of both the rich and
> of imperial states. In the past, the plundering was done mostly through
> outright physical exploitation means and military conquest. How have the
> means of exploitation changed under financial capitalism?
> Secretary of State John Foster Dulles once complained to President
> Eisenhower that the Communists have an unfair advantage. They can "appeal
> directly to the masses" and "get control of mass movements, something we
> have no capacity to duplicate. The poor people are the ones they appeal to
> and they have always wanted to plunder the rich." It's not easy to sell the
> principle that the rich have a right to plunder the poor.
> It's true that the means have changed. The international "free trade
> agreements" (FTAs) are a good example, including those now being negotiated
> -- mostly in secret from populations, but not from the corporate lawyers
> and
> lobbyists who are writing the details. The FTAs reject "free trade": they
> are highly protectionist, with onerous patent regulations to guarantee
> exorbitant profits for the pharmaceutical industry, media conglomerates,
> and
> others, as well as protection for affluent professionals, unlike working
> people, who are placed in competition all of the world, with obvious
> consequences. The FTAs are to a large extent not even about trade; rather,
> about investor rights, such as the rights of corporations (not of course
> mere people of flesh and blood) to sue governments for actions that might
> reduce potential profits of foreign investors, like environmental or
> healthy
> and safety regulations. Much of what is called "trade" doesn't merit that
> term, for example, production of parts in Indiana, assembly in Mexico, sale
> in California, all basically within a command economy, a megacorporation.
> Flow of capital is free. Flow of labor is anything but, violating what Adam
> Smith recognized to be a basic principle of free trade: free circulation of
> labor. And to top it off, the FTAs are not even agreements, at least if
> people are considered to be members of democratic societies.
> Is this to say that we now live in a post-imperialist age?
> Seems to me just a question of terminology. Domination and coercion take
> many and varied forms, as the world changes.
> We have seen in recent years several so-called progressive leaders march to
> power through the ballot box only to betray their vows to the people the
> moment they took office. What means or mechanisms should be introduced in
> truly democratic systems to ensure that elected officials do not betray the
> trust of the voters? For example, the ancient Athenians had conceived of
> something called "the right to recall," which in the 19th century became a
> critical although little known element in the political project for future
> social and political order of certain socialist movements. Are you in favor
> of reviving this mechanism as a critical component of real, sustainable
> democracy?
> I think a strong case can be made for right of recall in some form,
> buttressed by capacities for free and independent inquiry to monitor what
> elected representatives are doing. The great achievement of Chelsea
> Manning,
> Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and other contemporary "whistleblowers" is
> to
> serve and advance these fundamental rights of citizens. The reaction by
> state authorities is instructive. As well-known, the Obama administration
> has broken all records in punishment of whistleblowers. It is also
> remarkable to see how intimidated Europe is. We saw that dramatically when
> Bolivian President Evo Morales's plane flew home from a visit to Moscow,
> and
> European countries were in such terror of Washington that they would not
> let
> the plane cross their airspace, in case it might be carrying Edward
> Snowden,
> and when the plane landed in Austria it was searched by police in violation
> of diplomatic protocol.
> Could an act of terrorism against leaders who blatantly betrayed the trust
> of voters ever be justified?
> "Ever" is a strong word. It is hard to conjure up realistic circumstances.
> The burden of proof for any resort to violence should be very heavy, and
> this case would seem extremely hard to justify.
> With human nature being what it is, and individuals clearly having
> different
> skills, abilities, drives and aspirations, is a truly egalitarian society
> feasible and/or desirable?
> Human nature encompasses saints and sinners, and each of us has all of
> these
> capacities. I see no conflict at all between an egalitarian vision and
> human
> variety. One could, perhaps, argue that those with greater skills and
> talents are already rewarded by the ability to exercise them, so they merit
> less external reward -- though I don't argue this. As for the feasibility
> of
> more just and free social institutions and practices, we can never be
> certain in advance, and can only keep trying to press the limits as much as
> possible, with no clear reason that I can see to anticipate failure.
> In your view, what would constitute a decent society and what form of a
> world order would be needed to eliminate completely questions about who
> rules the world?
> We can construct visions of "perpetual peace," carrying forward the Kantian
> project, and of a society of free and creative individuals not subjected to
> hierarchy, domination, arbitrary rule and decision. In my own view --
> respected friends and comrades in struggle disagree -- we do not know
> enough
> to spell out details with much confidence, and can anticipate that
> considerable experimentation will be necessary along the way. There are
> very
> urgent immediate tasks, not least dealing with literal questions of
> survival
> of organized human societies, questions that have never risen before in
> human history but are inescapable right now. And there are many other tasks
> that demand immediate and dedicated work. It makes good sense to keep in
> mind longer-term aspirations as guidelines for immediate choices,
> recognizing as well that the guidelines are not immutable. That leaves us
> plenty to do.
> Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
> C.J. Polychroniou
> C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has
> taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and the
> United States. His main research interests are in European economic
> integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and
> the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He is a
> regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public
> Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have
> appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news
> websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several
> foreign
> languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish
> and Turkish.
> Related Stories
> Chomsky: It Is All Working Quite Well for the Rich, Powerful
> By CJ Polychroniou and Anastasia Giamali, Truthout | InterviewChomsky on
> Cuba: After Decades of US Meddling and Terrorism, Restoring Ties Is the
> Least We Could Do
> By Amy Goodman and Aaron Maté, Democracy Now! | Video InterviewCuba Evokes
> the History of US Imperialism in Latin America
> By Cody Cain, Speakout | News Analysis
>
> Show Comments
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment