Part 3, NOAM CHOMSKY: The New World Order
November 23, 1991
NOAM CHOMSKY:
Well, instead of continuing through the Latin American horror chamber, which is
what it is, I'll turn to the second area, the Middle East. There's a lot to talk about
there. We could talk about a lot of our exploits in the Gulf, for example. But instead,
let me talk about the topic that's on the front pages right now, and has been for the last
several weeks: what's called "the Middle East peace process", in particular, the
conference in Madrid. I'm not going to be continuing with Latin American atrocity
stories, but talking about diplomacy -- nice clean topics that won't be so bloody. But
let's have a look and see what we can learn about ourselves from that.
Well, I'm sure you all read the newspapers, and you've noticed that there is
universal acclaim for the diplomatic triumph of George Bush and James Baker in Madrid. So
let me just remind you of some of the boilerplate. Our heroes "exploited the historic
window of opportunity opened by their victory in the Gulf to breathe life into the stalled
Middle East peace process, showing remarkable courage and vision." That happens to
come from Anthony Lewis who is one of the most critical commentators on U.S. Government
policies anywhere in the mainstream, and it sort of goes from there over to the real
accolades. The United States can, at last, try to bring about its traditional goals of
"land for peace", and territorial compromise and autonomy for the Palestinians
in the context of a general peace, now that the rejectionists are in disarray and the
Russians are no longer causing mischief, and the bad guys everywhere know that "what
we say goes", as the President put it last February. That's also true in Latin
America where "what we say goes" has been true for a long time, with
consequences of the kind that I've already indicated. The news columns report, with
considerable awe, that "the President is dreaming great dreams of peace and justice,
and of course, marching forth to implement them." That's diplomatic correspondent
R.W. Appel in the New York Times. James Baker is praised for his diplomatic skills and his
tenacity in putting together what the Times calls "the remarkable tableau in
Madrid".
I should point out, to be accurate, that not everyone agrees that the U.S. has
really shown itself to be an honest broker. There are people who claim that Bush and Baker
have gone too far in allowing their pro-Arab sympathies to influence what they do. But
it's agreed that they're both well on their way to a well deserved Nobel Peace Prize.
Well, that's sort of standard, but more interesting than this kind of rather
standard sort of Stalinist style rhetoric .... it's very reminiscent of the days of the
genius Stalin, for those of you who remember that kind of stuff. That's kind of standard,
but more interesting than that is the fact that similar perceptions, though without the
Stalinoid rhetoric, are pretty widespread in substantial parts of Europe. And that's more
interesting. In fact, Europe has, to a large extent, come to accept the extension of the
Monroe Doctrine to the Middle East -- which is new -- and has also come to accept, to a
certain extent, the framework of U.S. propaganda. That's also an interesting and a
noticeable shift. I think it's one worth study in itself. I think it has to do with
the end of the Cold War. Maybe I can comment on that later.
But even more interesting than that is that the euphoria is reaching much
further, even to towns and villages in the West Bank and Gaza where expectations are
apparently running quite high. The lead article of the current issue of the Journal of
Palestine studies is by an advisor to the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation in Madrid,
Walid Khalidi, who lauds "the personal commitment of the President of the United
States," (I'm quoting) "in front of Congress and the whole world, to a just and
comprehensive settlement". And he's also much impressed by "the invigoration of
international institutions, and the new recognition that we can't go too far with double
standards." So that's a pretty broad spectrum.
In my view, this is all total illusion. I'd like to give some indication of why.
Let's just start with a brief comment on the matter of our abandonment of double
standards. By chance, that issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies happened to arrive at
my home on the same day that the lead front-page story in the newspapers read: "U.S.
ACCUSES LIBYA IN PAN AM BOMBING". That's two hundred and seventy people killed. And
the sub-heading read: "RETALIATION WEIGHED, SAYS WHITE HOUSE." And the
editorials issued stern calls for just punishment, overflowing with self-righteousness.
The news reports told us that: "this fiendish act of wickedness had become
the horrific symbol of terrorism" -- quoting the New York Times. Again, it was not
entirely uniform, so the New York Times ran an op-ed pointing out that the evidence about
Libya was pretty thin, and suggested some Government duplicity in identifying Libya.
The authors accused the Government of letting the Palestinians off the hook at a
sensitive moment in the peace conference. And also, they charged that Syria and Iran had
been let off the hook for similar reasons. The authors of this article, representing the
dissidents, are Robert and Tamara Kupperman. Robert Kupperman is a leading proponent of
what is called "low-intensity conflict", the author of manuals on how to
implement it officially -- manuals in which he defines low-intensity conflict. Here's the
definition; it is: "the threat or use of force to achieve political objectives
without the full-scale commitment of resources." That's to be distinguished from
international terrorism which is defined in U.S. Army manuals as "the threat or use
of force to attain goals that are political, or religious, or ideological in nature."
In short, low-intensity conflict IS international terrorism, as the advocates and
practitioners of it are kind enough to inform us, not only in their definition, but also
in the practice.
So we have a spectrum, then, ranging from those who assume that the Government's
case against Libya is proven on the obvious grounds that it had been proclaimed. And then
on the other extreme, we have skeptics who are leading proponents of international
terrorism, and who think that the case hasn't quite yet been proven, and that we should go
after other favored enemies, like the Palestinians. So the issue is: Should we mete
out stern justice to Libya alone, and also to other official enemies -- and should we use
bombing or maybe some other technique.
Well, that's what's known as an independent Press in a free society.
| PART I |
PART II | PART III | PART IV | PART V |
| PART VI
| PART VII | PART VIII | PART IX | PART X |
