“CF: What about talk of a US strike then, do you think it’s going to happen?
NC: A bombing?
NC: Well, it’s kind of an interesting debate in the United States. The Ultra-Right, the Right wing extremists who are kind of off the international spectrum, they’re opposing it, though not for reasons I like. They’re opposing it because ‘Why should we dedicate ourselves to solving other people’s problems and waste our own resources?’ They’re literally asking ‘Who’s going to defend us when we’re attacked, because we’re devoting ourselves to helping people overseas?’ That’s the Ultra-Right. If you look at the ‘moderate’ Right, people like, say, David brooks of the New York Times, considered an intellectual commentator on the right. His view is that the US effort to withdraw its forces from the region is not having a ‘moderating effect’. According to Brooks, when US forces are in the region, that has a moderating effect; it improves the situation, as you can see in Iraq, for example. But if we’re withdrawing our forces then we’re no longer able to moderate the situation and make it better.
That’s the Standard view from the intellectual right over to the mainstream, the liberal democrats and so on. So there’s a lot of talk about ‘Should we exercise our ‘Responsibility to Protect’?’ Well, just take a look at the US record on ‘Responsibility to Protect’. The fact that these words can even be spoken reveals something quite extraordinary about the US — and, in fact, Western — moral and intellectual culture.
This is quite apart from the fact that it’s a gross violation of international law. Obama’s latest line is that he didn’t establish a ‘red line” but the world did through its conventions on chemical warfare. Well, actually, the world does have a treaty, which Israel didn’t sign and which the US has totally neglected, for example when it supported Saddam Hussein’s really horrifying use of chemical weapons. Today, this is used to denounce Saddam Hussein, overlooking the fact that it was not only tolerated but basically supported by the Reagan administration. And, of course, the convention has no enforcement mechanisms.
There’s also no such thing as ‘Responsibility to Protect’, that’s a fraud perpetrated in Western intellectual culture. There is a notion, in fact two notions: there’s one passed by the UN General Assembly, which does talk about ‘Responsibility to Protect,’ but it offers no authorisation for any kind of intervention except under conditions of the United Nations charter. There is another version, which is adopted only by the West, the US and its allies, which is unilateral and says R2P permits ‘military intervention by regional organisations in the region of their authority without Security Council authorisation’.
Well, translating that into English, this means that it provides authorisation for the US and NATO to use violence wherever they choose without Security Council authorisation. That’s what’s called ‘Responsibility to Protect’ in Western discourse. If it weren’t so tragic it would be farcical.
CF: Thank you Professor Chomsky. Great talking to you.”
The Hygiology Post ® welcomes feedback from readers as to whether the articles (individually and/or collectively) help fulfill its vision and mission.
Louis DeCola, Jr. © 2013 The Hygiology Post ®