Noam Chomsky on Obama's Foreign Policy

[Echo In Light]

Noam Chomsky on Obama’s Foreign Policy, His Own History of Activism, and the Importance of Speaking Out



We spend the hour with world-renowned linguist and dissident, Noam Chomsky. In a wide-ranging public conversation at the Harvard Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Chomsky talks about President Obama’s foreign and national security policies, the lessons of Vietnam, and his own activism. “You just can’t become involved part-time in these things,” Chomsky says. “It’s either serious and you’re seriously involved, or you go to a demonstration and go home and forget about it and go back to work, and nothing happens. Things only happen by really dedicated, diligent work.”

<snip>
My favorite newspaper, the London Financial Times, a couple of days ago identified Obama’s major foreign policy problem today as Iran. The occasion for the article was Hillary Clinton’s failure to convince Brazil to go along with the United States on calling for harsher sanctions and President Lula’s insistence that there should be engagement with Iran, commercial relations, and so on, and that it has a right to enrich uranium for producing nuclear energy, as do all signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Well, it was reported here, too, of course, and Lula’s position was considered sort of paradoxical. Why is he not going along with the international community, with the world? It’s an interesting usage, which is a very striking reflection of the depth of the culture of imperialism. Who is the international community? Well, it turns out, if you look, that the international community is Washington and whoever happens to agree with it at the moment. The rest are not part of the world. They’re kind of in opposition.

Well, in this case, Lula’s position happens to be that of most of the world. You can think it’s right or wrong or whatever, but just as a matter of fact, for example, it’s the position of the former non-aligned countries, the majority of countries of the world and the large majority of their populations. They have repeatedly and vigorously supported Iran’s right to enriched uranium for peaceful purposes, reiterating that it’s a signer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which does grant that right. So they’re not part of the world. Another group that’s not part of the world is the population of the United States. The last polls that I’ve seen, a couple of years ago, in those polls a considerable majority of Americans agreed that Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy, but of course not nuclear weapons. And in fact, as the poll demonstrated, the opinions of Americans on this issue were almost identical with opinions of Iranians on a whole range of issues. And, in fact, when the poll was presented in Washington at a press conference, the presenter pointed out that if people were able to make policy, could be that these tensions and conflicts would be resolved.

Well, that was a few years ago. Since then, there’s been a huge mass of propaganda about the threat of Iran and so on. And it’s very likely, I would guess, that if the poll were taken today, those figures for the American population would be different. But that was 2007, three years ago. So, at that point, Americans were not part of the world. Most of the majority of people of the world were not part of the world. And Lula, by repeating their view, is also not part of the world. Could be added that he’s almost surely the most popular political figure in the world, but that doesn’t mean anything, either. So, what about the conflict with Iran and the threat of Iran? Nobody in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons, or anyone, for that matter. So, on that, there’s complete agreement. And in fact, there are significant problems about proliferation of nuclear weapons. It’s not a joke. And Obama’s vision forcibly includes, stresses the need to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to reduce or maybe remove nuclear weapons. Well, that’s the vision. What’s the practice?

Continued:
http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/1245-noam-chomsky-on-obamas-foreign-policy.html

[Echo In Light]

1. Chomsky discusses the American 'culture of imperialism'

Much of American military policy is terrorism, 81-year-old linguist and cultural critic Noam Chomsky argued before a crowd of roughly 450

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/03/09/25484/

[mdmc]

2. yupyup

thanks for the op

[Echo In Light]

3. Bump

[Flaneur]

4. Tell it, Brother Noam.

[Echo In Light]

5. Bump

[Echo In Light]

6. Bump

[Swamp Rat]

7. k&r

[Uncle Joe]

8. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Echo In Light.

[Kolesar]

9. I didn't learn much reading those four paragraphs

I usually like Chomsky.

[LWolf]

10. K & R

[Selatius]

11. The problem is people think Obama has free-range to dictate American policy. He doesn't. Never did.

A lot of powerful corporate interests have a very large stake in what foreign policy the US has. This, for the sake of profits in foreign lands. If there ever were a president in the way of more profits, especially WAR PROFITS, that president will soon find himself a list of powerful enemies determined to defeat him. 9/11 was a perfectly packaged excuse for huge defense contractors, for instance. They had found their new Cold War in the form of the War on Terror. Now, they were justified in lobbying and receiving huge contracts in the name of waging war, as well as the profits that came out of fulfilling those contracts. Defense spending spiraled upward to levels not seen since the bad old days of the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

Every dollar spent to support such a militaristic, destructive foreign policy represents money robbed from us and our children to live in a world of peace. Nobody should ever have to suffer the fate of burying their children coming home from war unless it's necessary for self-preservation. Anything else is just a money-making racket.

[Echo In Light]

12. Exactly...however, that's a tougher CT pill for most to swallow than the notion that....

... a Dem admin would lean so staunchly to corporate/RW interests of their own accord.

[ShortnFiery]

13. Then he deserves to be a one term President. We need to have the courage to elect

someone who doesn't get the job to merely PAD his/her resume for future comforts.

The coming darkness is the eclipse of American political freedom and the unchecked reign of a venal, arrogant, and ignorant ruling class. Onerous as its depredations at home are likely to be, even more omnious is its immoral, illegal, and criminal policy of preemptive war abroad. There is no end to the war on terrorism, since a terrorist is increasingly defined as anyone who opposes the duopoly at home or abroad.

http://www.counterpunch.org/kuzminski08182004.html

[RollWithIt]

14. I guess his position is that Iran isn't trying to obtain weapons?

Because I find that to be incredibly short sighted.