Albert Interviews Chomsky on Iraq
By Noam Chomsky
The follow transcript is reproduced here, at Architecture Ink, with the permission of Znet.
Various
questions are circulating among people worried about war. On Sept 1, 2002,
Michael Albert put a dozen of these to Noam Chomsky, via email. Here are the
first three questions and his responses. The whole interview will appear in
the October issue of Z Magazine.
1. Has Saddam Hussein been as evil as mainstream media says?
Domestically? Internationally?
He
is as evil as they come, ranking with Suharto and other monsters of the modern
era. No one would want to be within his reach. But fortunately, his reach
does not extend very far.
Internationally,
Saddam invaded Iran (with Western support), and when that war was going badly
turned to chemical weapons (also with Western support). He invaded Kuwait
and was quickly driven out.
A
major concern in Washington right after the invasion was that Saddam would
quickly withdraw, putting "his puppet in [and] everyone in the Arab world
will be happy" (Colin Powell, then Chief of Staff). President Bush was
concerned that Saudi Arabia might "bug out at the last minute and accept
a puppet regime in Kuwait" unless the US prevented Iraqi withdrawal.
The
concern, in brief, was that Saddam would pretty much duplicate what the US
had just done in Panama (except that Latin Americans were anything but happy).
From the first moment the US sought to avert this "nightmare scenario."
A story that should be looked at with some care.
Saddam's
worst crimes, by far, have been domestic, including the use of chemical weapons
against Kurds and a huge slaughter of Kurds in the late 80s, barbaric torture,
and every other ugly crime you can imagine. These are at the top of the list
of terrible crimes for which he is now condemned, rightly. It's useful to
ask how frequently the impassioned denunciations and eloquent expressions
of outrage are accompanied by three little words: "with our help."
The
crimes were well known at once, but of no particular concern to the West.
Saddam received some mild reprimands; harsh congressional condemnation was
considered too extreme by prominent commentators. The Reaganites and Bush
#1 continued to welcome the monster as an ally and valued trading partner
right through his worst atrocities and well beyond.
Bush
authorized loan guarantees and sale of advanced technology with clear applications
for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) right up to the day of the Kuwait invasion,
sometimes overriding congressional efforts to prevent what he was doing. Britain
was still authorizing export of military equipment and radioactive materials
a few days after the invasion.
When
ABC correspondent and now ZNet Commentator Charles Glass discovered biological
weapons facilities (using commercial satellites and defector testimony), his
revelations were immediately denied by the Pentagon and the story disappeared.
It was resurrected when Saddam committed his first real crime, disobeying
US orders (or perhaps misinterpreting them) by invading Kuwait, and switched
instantly from friend to reincarnation of Attila the Hun.
The
same facilities were then used to demonstrate his innately evil nature. When
Bush #1 announced new gifts to his friend in December 1989 (also gifts to
US agribusiness and industry), it was considered too insignificant even to
report, though one could read about it in Z magazine at the time, maybe nowhere
else.
A
few months later, shortly before he invaded Kuwait, a high-level Senate delegation,
headed by (later) Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, visited Saddam,
conveying the President's greetings and assuring the brutal mass murderer
that he should disregard the criticism he hears from maverick reporters here.
Saddam
had even been able to get away with attacking a US naval vessel, the USS Stark,
killing several dozen crewmen. That is a mark of real esteem. The only other
country to have been granted that privilege was Israel, in 1967. In deference
to Saddam, the State Department banned all contacts with the Iraqi democratic
opposition, maintaining this policy even after the Gulf war, while Washington
effectively authorized Saddam to crush a Shi'ite rebellion that might well
have overthrown him -- in the interest of preserving "stability,"
the press explained, nodding sagely.
That
he's a major criminal is not in doubt. That's not changed by the fact that
the US and Britain regarded his major atrocities as insignificant in the light
of higher "reasons of state," before the Gulf war and even after
-- facts best forgotten.
2. Looking into the future, is Saddam Hussein as dangerous
as mainstream media says?
The
world would be better off if he weren't there, no doubt about that. Surely
Iraqis would. But he can't be anywhere near as dangerous as he was when the
US and Britain were supporting him, even providing him with dual-use technology
that he could use for nuclear and chemical weapons development, as he presumably
did.
10
years ago the Senate Banking Committee hearings revealed that the Bush administration
was granting licenses for dual use technology and "materials which were
later utilized by the Iraq regime for nuclear missile and chemical purposes."
Later hearings added more, and there are press reports and a mainstream scholarly
literature on the topic (as well as dissident literature).
The
1991 war was extremely destructive, and since then Iraq has been devastated
by a decade of sanctions, which probably strengthened Saddam himself (by weakening
possible resistance in a shattered society), but surely reduced very significantly
his capacity for war-making or support for terror.
Furthermore,
since 1991 his regime has been constrained by "no fly zones," regular
overflights and bombing, and very tight surveillance. Chances are that the
events of Sept. 11 weakened him still further. If there are any links between
Saddam and al-Qaeda, they would be far more difficult to maintain now because
of the sharply intensified surveillance and controls.
That
aside, links are not very likely. Despite enormous efforts to tie Saddam to
the 9-11 attacks, nothing has been found, which is not too surprising. Saddam
and bin Laden were bitter enemies, and there's no particular reason to suppose
that there have been any changes in that regard.
The
rational conclusion is that Saddam is probably less of a danger now than before
9-11, and far less of a threat than when he was enjoying substantial support
from the US-UK (and many others). That raises a few questions. If Saddam is
such a threat to the survival of civilization today that the global enforcer
has to resort to war, why wasn't that true a year ago? And much more dramatically,
in early 1990?
3. How should the problem of the existence and use of weapons
of mass destruction in the world today be dealt with?
They
should be eliminated. The non-proliferation treaty commits countries with
nuclear weapons to take steps towards eliminating them. The biological and
chemical weapons treaties have the same goals. The main Security Council resolution
concerning Iraq (687, 1991) calls for eliminating weapons of mass destruction
and delivery systems from the Middle East, and working towards a global ban
on chemical weapons. Good advice.
Iraq
is nowhere near the lead in this regard. We might recall the warning of General
Lee Butler, head of Clinton's Strategic Command in the early 90s, that "it
is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call
the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles
of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires other
nations to do so."
He's
talking about Israel of course. The Israeli military authorities claim to
have air and armored forces that are larger and more advanced than those of
any European NATO power (Yitzhak ben Israel, Ha'aretz, 4-16-02, Hebrew). They
also announce that 12% of their bombers and fighter aircraft are permanently
stationed in Eastern Turkey, along with comparable naval and submarine forces
in Turkish bases, and armored forces as well, in case it becomes necessary
to resort to extreme violence once again to subdue Turkey's Kurdish population,
as in the Clinton years.
Israeli
aircraft based in Turkey are reported to be flying reconnaissance flights
along Iran's borders, part of a general US-Israel-Turkey policy of threatening
Iran with attack and perhaps forceful partitioning. Israeli analysts also
report that joint US-Israel-Turkey air exercises are intended as a threat
and warning to Iran. And of course to Iraq (Robert Olson, Middle East Policy,
June 2002). Israel is doubtless using the huge US air bases in Eastern Turkey,
where the US bombers are presumably nuclear-armed. By now Israel is virtually
an offshore US military base.
And
the rest of the area is armed to the teeth as well. If Iraq were governed
by Gandhi, it would be developing weapons systems if it could, probably well
beyond what it can today. That would very likely continue, perhaps even accelerate,
if the US takes control of Iraq. India and Pakistan are US allies, but are
marching forward with the development of WMD and repeatedly have come agonizingly
close to using nuclear weapons. The same is true of other US allies and clients.
That
is likely to continue unless there is a general reduction of armaments in
the area.
Would
Saddam agree to that? Actually, we don't know. In early January 1991, Iraq
apparently offered to withdraw from Kuwait in the context of regional negotiations
on reduction of armaments, an offer that State Department officials described
as serious and negotiable. But we know no more about it, because the US rejected
it without response and the press reported virtually nothing.
It
is, however, of some interest that at that time -- right before the bombing
-- polls revealed that by 2-1 the US public supported the proposal that Saddam
had apparently made, preferring it to bombing. Had people been allowed to
know any of this, the majority would surely have been far greater. Suppressing
the facts was an important service to the cause of state violence.
Could such negotiations have gotten anywhere? Only fanatical ideologues can be confident. Could such ideas be revived? Same answer. One way to find out is to try.