Noam Chomsky: "The U.S. and Its Allies Will Do Anything to Prevent Democracy in the Arab World"

Noam Chomsky: "The U.S. and Its Allies Will Do Anything to Prevent Democracy in the Arab World"


Speaking at the 25th anniversary celebration of the national media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, world-renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky analyzes the U.S. response to the popular uprisings sweeping the Middle East and North Africa. "Across the , an overwhelming majority of the population regards the United States as the main threat to their interests," Chomsky says. "The reason is very simple... Plainly, the U.S. and its allies are not going to want governments which are responsive to the will of the people. If that happens, not only will the U.S. not control the region, but it will be thrown out."

LISTEN AND TRANSCRIPT, HERE:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/11/noam_chomsky_the_us_and_its

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

His "blame America" reactionary shtick grew old thirty years ago....a perfect illustration of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

and why she has committed herself to rewriting history textbooks.. I thought liberals were about truth and transparency among other things anathetical to Repugs.. blame america first? really?

But that ("blame America first") is not what I said. Truth? Yes, please.

Classic example of someone with expertise in one area suddenly thinking they have expertise in all areas.

He says that polls in the middle east reflect widespread support for Iran and anti-Israeli policies. Is he wrong about this? And if he isn't wrong, is it surprising the US and other Western powers would be concerned about truly representative democracies emerging in the region which might reflect this view?

That's why.

:hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Geesh... Fer him or agin him, huh? Get a grip.

Chomsky's critique may have been defensible several years ago. Now, the facts on the ground, and US policy, blow it to smithereens. Has he been sleeping under a rock for the past three-four years?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and has been for decades, in the ME and elsewhere in the world?? Can you explain eg, the US backing coups against democratically elected leaders of countries like Honduras, Venezuela, Haiti, Iraq (back in the '60s and now a puppet government there) and the Shah of Iran, and the Saudi Monarchy, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen. Can you seriously claim the US supports democracy ANYWERE in the world except for Western Europe?

It's easy to say 'Chomsky is wrong' but I'd love to see something to back that up with.

on Middle East politics and Chomsky was at one point the world's most cited living author. Expert usually implies publishing in a field (at least that' generally the standard for Congressional testimony if memory serves me write) and by any objective standard given his influential scholarship in the area of Middle East affairs Chomsky is certainly a standard.

Unless of course your definition of expert is political.

We've been sabotaging democracy whenever it is inconvenient for us for decades now. Why would this policy suddenly change? And do you not agree that those whom we occupy would toss us out if they had the chance?

While the US has a vested interest in stability in the Middle East above all else, that does not mean they oppose "democracy". I wonder if Chomsky considers a theocratic republic, a la Iran, a "democracy"...

Besides, seems that Chomsky is treading on neo-con turf here, suggesting the US should actively promote "democracy" in the Middle East.

As do more than a few Christians right here in the USA..

I doubt it is much different with most religions, there is always going to be some of the faithful who wish to impose their standards by force of law.

ETA: Indeed, there are atheists who would impose atheism by force of law, not that many but they do exist, it's simply a common human failing.

support a theocracy.

If you have evidence to the contrary on that, please post it.

Otherwise, understand that the LIBYANS do NOT fall into that category.

I'm certainly no expert on the ME, but even here in the US I'm not sure that if it was put to a vote today we wouldn't end up with a Christian theocracy, I personally know quite a few people who would enthusiastically vote for such a thing.

The idea of a theocracy taking hold in the US is not really that farfetched, it's been dealt with several times in fiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid's_Tale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can't_Happen_Here

If it can happen in the USA, it can happen a lot of other places.

Oh, :hi: BTW, I haven't been online much lately, lots of computer and personal problems..

I'm no expert either, but I am fully in support of the Libyans, which garners me much vilification here. Many times it is the Libyans who inspire me to keep going.

I haven't been following the other movements as closely, but I understand, hope and believe that their goals are pretty much the same as the Libyans.

As for the US.. yes, if we Dems don't start relating to poor people in this country, and lose more ground to the neocons, I won't be surprised if what you are warning about takes place.

If that does happen, we might all just end up being more comfortable with the Arab countries which are then run as the current revolutionaries are working (and dying) for!

:hi: Good to see you again!

And, Libya Hurra!

toppled two US-backed Dictatorships, it was made very clear that neither wants anything to do with a theocratic state. And the same appears to be true in Bahrain and Syria and Yemen. I'm sure they will have their fundies, we seem to have a large contingency of them right here, but they do not appear to be particularly relevant as to what kind of governments these countries are demanding and dying for.

Of course, their idea of what constitutes a "theocracy" and a government I would seriously chafe under as an atheist may be two entirely different things.

The current government in Tunisia is arresting anyone who protests against it. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/11/us-tunisia-arrests-idUSTRE74A0AC20110511 Guess you don't follow recent news much.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:

"treading on neo-con turf"? Who the hell honestly believe that the neocons care about democracy in the slightest? Besides, I don't remember Chomsky
supporting any kind of intervention for any reason. He simply points out the hypocrisy of US government, as in touting "democracy" while supporting
the tyrants. That fact is such a common place that it is even hard to argue about. When and how did it suddenly become controversial? What did I miss?

actively supporting Dictatorships in the ME. By doing that they have made miserable, the lives of millions of people across the Arab world.

Now those people are taking matters into their own hands, they are toppling the dictators the US called 'good friends and allies' after decades of living in fear and oppression.

Chomsky is absolutely correct. It is not in the best interests of the US to have truly democratic governments in the ME or anywhere else for that matter.

We supported Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Mubarak, Ben Ali, Pol Pot, Noriega, Karamov, the list is long and even when there was a chance to support a democratic leader, we helped coups against them, ie, Haiti, Honduras more recently, Venezuela. So it's not just in the ME, this has been US foreign policy for a very long time. Now, the world is changing, the people are refusing to accept their US approved dictators anymore. And we'll see how well the US adapts to losing their 'friends and allies' and respecting governments that may not always be willing to do things our way.

The neocon game is calling for the enforcement of democracy worldwide, but once the military is in a given country, doing exactly the opposite.

A consistent argument from Chomsky is that the US routinely thwarts the will of other nations' people in order to suit our ends. And I've yet to see how he's wrong about this.

but our history indicates we prefer strong men.

...in the same way the USA is a democracy. Of course, I don't disagree with him (Iran, like Cuba, and Soviet Russia, don't allow candidate selection, and Chomsky argues that neither does the USA in reality). But it's really a practice in moral equivalence and it does not actually take a stand in particular. Chomsky always has to contrast every single shitty thing in the world to the USA. It matters not.

Really, his critique is outdated, and he's just doing it to save up a nest egg for his family, there's nothing original coming out of Chomsky for decades.

You are making points that have nothing to do with what Chomsky said. Read his article and then maybe you might be able to respond to the actual facts that he presents.

the stops for him.

Look, I know breathless hyperbole is fun fun fun, but words like "will do anything" actually mean things. Even if your point is that the "U.S. and Its Allies" (And who could he be talking about, here? Hmmmmmm. I wonder.) Would really rather not see Democracy in the Arab World ---A dubious point I would argue is hard to make, by the way--- that's still not the same thing as saying we and they "will do anything to prevent" it.

Words mean things. Chomsky, of all people, should know this.

I'm not sure how else you think this should or could have been handled?

The elite needed a way out, so they staged a very effective drama, to pacify them while in effect maintaining the status quo.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So I doubt I qualify as someone who is "inherently pre-disposed to oppose anything and everything Chomsky". Maybe you meant someone else?

As for the quote I am 'focusing and nit picking' on, it happens to not only be important enough (apparently) to headline the OP, but also the democracynow interview itself. So if it's a throwaway line that shouldn't be 'nit picked', maybe it shouldn't be the thing advertising the entire rest of the interview.

I think it is clear, from said rest of the interview, that a lot of what Chomsky is talking about isn't so much current events but extrapolations based upon past performance of the United States. While this may be a valid paradigm, I do think that, say, how the US handled Arbenz and Guatemala- while reprehensible- really isn't relevant to the current ME situation for a whole laundry list of geopolitical reasons.

I read your reply incorrectly. I often find it annoying when I reads headers/headlines that diverge from the most important point of the article.. I think the historical events you mentioned are relevant as but a couple deeply reprehensable examples, but are we to ignore our history of supporting Sadaam Hussein before, during and after their war with Iran? Speaking of Iran.. are we to ignore how we destablized Iran's democratically elected leader to install the Shaw in 1953? Are we to ignore that we supported Mubarek for how many decades?

No doubt I'm forgetting to mention other countries in the region. The Iraq invasion was not about installing a democracy.. that was an after thought, white wash of what our actual agenda and intentions regarding the establishing and maintaining political and economic hegemony.

We don't give a rats ass about democracies.. unless of course they're lead by people "we can work with".. I do believe history has established this. We don't want a democracy established in Yemen. Lybia is going to be interesting.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Bombing Libya in alliance with Arab Oil Potentates?

Looks the same to me.