Noam Chomsky: On Power and Ideology | The New School

- Good night. My name is Maria Watson. I am executive dean of The New School, and it is my great pleasure to welcome all of you here tonight to our event with Noam Chomsky on

power

and

ideology

. As I'm sure all of you in this room know, Noam has been described with much praise, including as widely regarded as one of the world's leading critics of US foreign policy. I also welcome our livestream audience tonight and invite you to comment during the evening's presentation. For nearly 100 years, The New School has had a long history of intellectually challenging dominant discourses, supporting dissenting voices, and reframing and embracing debate.

In the 1930s, we established what was then called the university and exile, a project where the New School welcomed academics and activists facing exile and, indeed, extermination on the global stage. We created an intellectual haven here to promote progressive ideas that literally would not have survived anywhere else. And now, still at The New School, we continue this tradition, for example by awarding this year the Syrian Anonymous Media Collective, Abounaddara, our 2015 Vera List Prize for art and politics. Next month we will welcome representatives of this collective who are promoting the rights of individuals in Syrian society to be represented by their own images at a time when our dominant media images include those of millions of people exiled from Syria .

So, as part of this long intellectual tradition, The New School is honored tonight to welcome Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus of linguistics and philosophy at MIT. Noam was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He studied linguistics, mathematics and philosophy at UPENN where he obtained his doctorate. Noam has been at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for many years and now serves as professor emeritus. Chomsky is a prolific author who has written and lectured widely on linguistics, philosophy, intellectual history, contemporary issues, international affairs, and foreign policy. He has a long and illustrious lineage, including, for example, tonight, shortly before the 50th anniversary of the publication of his classic essay, The Responsibility of Intellectuals, which appeared in the New York Review of Books in February 1967.

Chomsky He has received more than two dozen honorary degrees from places such as the University of Chicago, the University of Delhi, the University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge, the University of Buenos Aires, Harvard, the University of Calcutta and many others. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences and has received numerous awards, including the American Psychological Association's Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, and the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award. Noam's most recent books include the New York Times bestsellers Hegemony or Survival and Failed States, and other books such as Imperial Ambitions, What We Say Goes, Interventions, Hopes and Prospects, Occupy, and Masters of Mankind.

He has written several provocative books about 9/11. Now I would like to introduce you to our co-sponsor of tonight's event, Anthony Arno of Haymarket Books, who will be presenting the event. Welcome. (Audience applauds) - Thank you, thank you Dean Watson, and thank you to The New School and all of you for coming tonight. It is truly a privilege for all of us at Haymarket Books to be part of this occasion, just a few internal announcements and a few people we want to thank before we get started. Pamela Tillis has been an incredible partner. She is the director of public programs at the New School and has done a number of fantastic events with us in this and other spaces.

And we really value her incredible skills and her commitment to public programming that not only serves the extraordinary community of The New School, but many other communities throughout the city. There is a live broadcast team. We want to recognize her hard work in making it possible for people in packed houses, but also people around the world, to watch tonight. Democracy Now is here and it's filming. Watch this broadcast on Democracy Now. (Audience applauds) There are some other people who work hard behind the scenes to make events like this happen. We are so honored to have our friends at the Lannan Foundation here, who have been instrumental in the success and growth of Haymarket Books over the past 14 years of our program and work as an independent publisher.

That's why we want to thank the Lannan Foundation for its invaluable support of our authors and our publishing program. I also want to thank all the volunteers who make it possible for Haymarket Books to do what we do. Some cleanup announcements, turn off the National Security Agency's tracking devices. (Audience laughs) I know you all have your new iPhones, but please silence them, turn them off. Let's be here together for a few minutes without any Sex in the City ringtone. Noam has pre-signed books, so if you go to the foyer of the Haymarket table, you will find a wide range of his titles.

Many of them she signed just an hour ago. There are also registration forms. There you will find information about more events sponsored by The New School, as well as events sponsored by Haymarket Books, such as Monday night's event at Nuyorican Poets Cafe with Boots Riley and Hari Kondabolu. So check it out if you can. There are people who will go around the audience with note cards to receive your questions. If you're on the live stream, you can submit questions and we'll send them to Noam at the end of her talk. And briefly, I've had the privilege of featuring Noam on several occasions, and there's a lot that can be said about the immense contribution he's made, but I think it really comes down to a very simple point, which is that Noam I think Chomsky He embodies, more than anyone else in our lives, the meaning of the word "solidarity," and that is something profoundly important in today's world.

So join me in welcoming Noam Chomsky. (audience applauding) (audience applauding) - Thank you. The role of concentrated

power

in shaping the ideological framework that dominates perception, interpretation, discussion and choice of action. All this is too familiar to require much comment. Tonight I would like to discuss a critically important example, but first, a word about one of the most insightful analysts of this process, George Orwell. Orwell is famous for his probing and sardonic critique of the way thought is controlled by force in totalitarian dystopia, but much less is known of his analysis of how similar results are achieved in free societies.

He is speaking, of course, of England. And he wrote that "although the country is quite free, unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force." He gave a couple of examples and some explanatory words that got to the point. A particularly pertinent comment was his observation about a quality education in the best

school

s, where they instill in you that there are certain things that it simply wouldn't be good to say, or we might add, even think. One of the reasons this essay is not given much attention is that it was not published. It was found decades later in his unpublished papers.

It was intended as an introduction to his famous Animal Farm, a bitter satire of Stalinist totalitarianism. It is apparently unknown why it was not published, but I think perhaps one can speculate. Orwell's observations about the control of thought under freedom come to mind when considering the current debate over the Iran nuclear deal, which currently takes center stage. I must say that it is a hot debate in the United States, practically alone. In almost every other country, the agreement has been greeted with relief and optimism and has not even been reviewed by parliament. This is one of many striking examples of the famous concept of American exceptionalism.

Virtually all political figures regularly recite the fact that the United States is an exceptional nation. And I think, more tellingly, the same applies to prominent academic and public intellectuals. I can select almost at random, take, for example, the professor of government science at Harvard, this distinguished liberal scholar, government advisor. He is writing in the prestigious Harvard magazine, International Security. And there he explains that, unlike other countries, the national identity of the United States is defined by a set of universal political and economic values, namely freedom, democracy, equality, private property and markets. So the United States has a solemn duty to maintain its international primacy for the benefit of the world.

And since this is a question of definition, we can dispense with the tedious work of empirical verification. (Audience laughs) So I won't waste time on that. Let's move on to the leading left-liberal intellectual magazine, the New York Review. There, a couple of months ago, we read from the former President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that American contributions to international security, global economic growth, freedom, and human well-being have been so evidently unique and so clearly directed. a To the benefit of others, Americans have long believed that the United States is a different kind of country.

While others defend their national interests, the United States attempts to promote universal principles. No evidence is provided, because again (audience laughs) it is a matter of definition, and it is very easy to continue. It is fair to add that there is nothing exceptional about this American exceptionalism. It was a standard for all great powers, very familiar in other imperial states in its time such as the Sun, Great Britain, France and others. And this is true. Curiously, even from very honorable figures, from whom something better could have been expected. Thus, for example, John Stewart Mill, in England, to mention a significant case, which raises interesting questions about intellectual life and intellectual standards.

Well, in some respects, American exceptionalism is not in doubt. I just mentioned an example: the current nuclear deal with Iran. In this case, America's exceptionalism, its isolation, is dramatic and stark, and there are actually many other cases, but this is the one I would like to think about tonight. And indeed, American isolation could soon increase. The Republican organization, I hesitate to say "Party," is dedicated to undermining agreement in interesting ways with the kind of unanimity not found in political parties, although familiar in earlier organizations like the old Communist Party, the Democratic Party. centralism. They all have to say the same thing.

That is one of the many indications that the Republicans are no longer a political party in the normal sense, despite the pretensions, comments, etc. Rather, the former Republican Party has now become a radical insurgency that has abandoned parliamentary politics. I quote two highly respected and very conservative political commentators, Thomas Miller and Norman Ornstein of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. And, in fact, they may succeed in increasing sanctions and even secondary sanctions on other countries and taking other actions that could lead Iran to opt out of the agreement with the United States. However, that does not have to mean to the United States that the agreement is void, contrary to how it is sometimes presented here.

It is not an agreement between the United States and Iran. It is an agreement between Iran and what is called V five plus one, the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council plus Germany. And the other participants could agree to move forward with Iran as well. They would then join China and India, which have already been finding ways to evade US limitations on interactions with Iran. And indeed, if they do, they will join the vast majority of the world's population in the non-aligned movement, which has always vigorously supported Iran's right to pursue its nuclear programs as a member of the NPT.

But remember that they are not part of the international community. So when we say that the international community opposes Iran's policies, or that the international community does something else, that means that the United States and anyone else who agrees with it, we can dismiss them. If others continue to honor the agreement, which could happen, the United States will be isolated from the world, which is not an unknown position. That is also the background of the other element of Obama, what is called Obama's legacy, his another important achievement in foreign policy: the beginning of the normalization of relations with Cuba.

As for Cuba, the United States has been almost totally isolated for decades. If you look at the annual votes in the UN General Assembly on the US embargo, they are rarely reported, but the US essentially votes alone. Now the last one, Israel joined, but of course, Israel violates the embargo. You just have to join because you have to join with the teacher. From time to time the Islands come togetherMarshall or Palau or someone else. And in the hemisphere, the United States has been totally isolated for years. Major hemispheric conferences have failed because the United States simply will not join the rest of the hemisphere on the major issues being discussed.

The last time in Colombia, the two main topics were the admission of Cuba into the hemisphere. We and Canada refused, everyone else agreed. And the US drug war, which is devastating Latin America, and they want to get out of it. But the United States and Canada do not agree. In reality, that is the background to Obama's acceptance of measures toward normalization of relations with Cuba. Another Hemispheric Conference was coming up in Panama. And if the United States had not taken that action, it would probably have been expelled from the hemisphere. Therefore, Obama made what is called the noble gesture of brave action of his to end the crisis of Cuba.isolation.

Although in reality it was the isolation of the United States that was the motivating factor. So if the United States ends up becoming almost universally isolated in Iran, that won't be anything particularly new. And, in fact, there are quite a few more cases. Well, in the case of Iran, the reasons for America's concerns are expressed very clearly and repeatedly: Iran is the most serious threat to world peace. We hear that regularly from higher-ups, government officials, commentators and others in the United States. It also turns out that there is a world out there and it has its own opinions.

It's easy enough to find out from standard sources, such as the leading US polling agency, Gallup Polls, which conducts regular international opinion surveys. And one of the questions that arises is which country do you think is the most serious threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States, by a huge margin, is far behind, in second place, Pakistan. It's probably inflated by the Indian vote and then a couple of others come. (Audience laughs) Iran is mentioned, but along with Israel and a few others, way down. That's one of the things that wouldn't be right to say.

And in fact, the results produced by the main polling agency in the United States did not reach the portals of what we call the free press, but they do not disappear for that reason. Well, given the prevailing doctrine on the seriousness of the Iranian threat, we can understand the virtually unanimous position that the United States has the right to react with military force unilaterally, of course, if it claims to detect any Iranian deviation from the terms. of the agreement. Again, taking an almost random example from the national press, consider last Sunday's lead editorial in the Washington Post.

Calls on Congress, I'll quote, "to make clear that Mr. Obama or his successor will have support for immediate U.S. military action if an Iranian attempt to build a bomb is detected," that is, by the United States. . So the editors, once again, make it clear that America is exceptional. It is a rogue state, indifferent to international law and conventions, with the right to resort to violence at will. But you can't blame the editors for that stance because it is almost universal among the political class of this exceptional nation. Although what it means is, again, one of those things that wouldn't be nice to say.

Sometimes the doctrine takes a rather remarkable form, and not just on the right by any means. Take, for example, the Clinton doctrine, that is, the United States is free to resort to unilateral use of military power, even for purposes such as ensuring unimpeded access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources, not to mention security or alleged humanitarian concerns. And adherence to this doctrine is very well confirmed in practice, since it is hardly necessary to discuss it among people willing to analyze the facts of current history. Well, the Washington Post editors also make clear why the United States should be prepared to take such extreme measures in its role of international primacy.

If the United States is unwilling to resort to military force, they explain, then Iran could intensify its attempt to establish hegemony over the Middle East by force. That's what President Obama calls: Iran's aggression, which we have to contain. For those who are not aware of how Iran has been trying to establish hegemony over the Middle East by force or might even dream of doing so. The editors give examples, two examples, of their support for the Assad regime and Hezbollah. Well, I won't insult your intelligence by discussing this demonstration that Iran has been seeking to establish hegemony over the region by force.

However, regarding Iranian aggression, there is an example, I believe one from the last few hundred years, namely the Iranian conquest of two Arab islands in the Gulf under the US-backed Shah regime back in the 1970. Well, these shocking Iranian efforts to establish regional hegemony by force can be contrasted with the actions of US allies, for example NATO ally Turkey, which actively supports jihadist forces in Syria. The support is so strong that it appears that Turkey helped its allies in the Al-Nusra Front, the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Al-Nusra Front, kill and capture the few dozen fighters who were introduced into Syria by the Pentagon ago. some weeks.

It is the result of several years and who knows how many billions of dollars of training. And they went in and were immediately captured or killed apparently with the help of Turkish intelligence. Well, more important than that is the central role that major US ally Saudi Arabia plays for jihadist rebels in Syria and Iraq and, more broadly, for Saudi Arabia, which has been citing a major source of funding for rebel and terrorist organizations since the 1980s. This comes from a recent study by the European Parliament, which repeats what is well known. And even more generally, the missionary zeal with which Saudi Arabia promulgates its radical extremist Wahab-Salafist doctrines by establishing Quranic

school

s and mosques and sending radical clerics throughout the Muslim world with enormous impact.

One of the region's closest observers, Patrick Coburn, writes that the Wahhabization by Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabization of mainstream Sunni Islam, is one of the most dangerous developments of our era, always with strong support from USA. These are all things that would be unwise to mention along with the fact that these pernicious developments are a direct consequence of the long-term trend of the United States taking over from Britain before supporting radical Islam as opposed to secular nationalism. These are long-standing commitments. Are there others, like UN Ambassador Samantha Power, who condemn Iran's destabilization of the region? Destabilization is an interesting concept in political discourse, so, for example, when Iran comes to the aid of the government of Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan in defense against the attack of ISIS, that is destabilization.

We have to prevent it, if not aggression, perhaps. On the contrary, when the United States invades Iraq, kills a few hundred thousand people, creates millions of refugees, destroys the country, triggers a sectarian conflict that is tearing Iraq and now the entire region into pieces, and on the other hand increases Terrorism around the world has multiplied by seven in the first year alone, that is stabilization, part of our mission of the imperial era that we must continue for the benefit of the world. In reality, the exceptionalism of American doctrinal institutions is a marvel to behold. Well, sticking with the Washington Post editors, they join Obama's negotiator, Obama's Clinton negotiator, Dennis Ross, Thomas Friedman and other notables, and call on Washington to provide Israel with B-52 bombers and maybe even the more advanced B2 bombers, and also huge, what they call, mass ordinance penetrators, bunker busters informally.

There is a problem. They don't have landing strips for huge planes like that, but maybe they can use Turkey's landing strips. And none of this is to defend yourself. These are not defensive weapons. Remember, all of these weapons are offensive weapons that Israel can use to bomb Iran if it chooses to do so. And since Israel is a client of the United States, it inherits freedom from international law from its master, so there is nothing surprising in giving it vast supplies of offensive weapons to use at will. Well, the violation of international law goes far beyond the threat: it moves to action, including acts of war, which are proudly proclaimed, presumably because that is again our right as an exceptional nation.

An example is the successful sabotage of Iranian nuclear facilities through cyber warfare. That the Pentagon has opinions on cyber warfare, the Pentagon views cyber warfare as active warfare, which justifies a military response. And a year ago, NATO affirmed the same position, determining that aggression through cyber attacks can trigger the NATO alliance's collective defense obligations, meaning that if any country is attacked by cyber war, the entire the alliance may respond with military attacks. That means cyberwar attacks against us, not us against them. And the importance of these stands is, again, something that should not need to be mentioned.

And you can verify that this condition is met well. Well, perhaps the United States and Israel are justified in cowering in terror before Iran because of its extraordinary military power. And it is possible to evaluate that concern. For example, one can turn to the authoritative and detailed analysis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the main source of information of this type, which last April carried out and published an extensive study on the regional military balance. And they find, I'll quote, "a conclusive case that the Gulf Arab states have an overwhelming advantage over Iran in both military spending and access to modern weapons." They are the Gulf Cooperation Council states, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which spend eight times more than Iran on weapons.

It is an imbalance that goes back decades and their report further notes that the Gulf Arab states have acquired and are acquiring some of the most advanced and effective weapons in the world, while Iran has essentially been forced to live in the past, often depending on the systems originally delivered. in the time of the Shah 40 years ago, they are essentially obsolete. And, of course, the imbalance is even greater with Israel, which along with the most advanced American weaponry and its role as a virtual offshore military base of the world superpower has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Of course, there are other threats that warrant serious concern and cannot be ignored. A nuclear weapons state could leak nuclear weapons to jihadists, no joke. In the case of Iran, the threat is minuscule. Not only are the Sunni jihadists the deadly elements of Iran, but the ruling clerics, whatever one thinks of them, have shown no signs of clinical madness. And they know that if there was even a hint that they were the source of a leaked weapon, everything they own would be instantly vaporized. However, that does not mean we can ignore the threat, not from Iran, where it does not exist, but from US ally Pakistan, where the threat is very real indeed.

It was recently discussed by two prominent Pakistani nuclear scientists, Pervez Hoodbhoy, Zia Mian, the leading British international affairs magazine. They write that growing fears that militants will seize nuclear weapons or materials and unleash nuclear terrorism have led to the creation of a dedicated force of more than 20,000 soldiers to protect nuclear facilities. However, there is no reason to assume that this force would be immune to the problems associated with units guarding regular military installations, which have frequently suffered attacks with insider help. In other words, the entire system is plagued by jihadist elements largely due to what Patrick Coburn described as the Wahhabization of Sunni Islam from Saudi Arabia and with strong US support since the Reagan administration.

Well, in short, the problem is quite real, very real in fact. This issue is not being seriously addressed. It's not even discussed. Rather, what concerns us are fantasies invented for other reasons about the current official enemy. Opponents of the Iran nuclear deal maintain that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons. The US intelligence services cannot see evidence of this, but there is no doubt that they tried to do this in the past to let us know, because it was clearly stated by the highest authorities in Iran. The highest authority of the Iranian State informed foreign journalists that Iran will develop nuclear weapons, without a doubt, and sooner than is thought.

The father of Iran's nuclear energy program, former head of Iran's atomic energy organization, expressed confidence that the leaders' planis to build a nuclear bomb. And a CIA report also left, in his words, no doubt that Iran would develop nuclear weapons if neighboring countries did so, as of course they have. All this was under the Shah. The highest authority just cited this during the period when top American officials, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Kissinger, were urging the Shah to continue nuclear programs. And they were also putting pressure on universities to adapt to these efforts. My own university was an example.

MIT, under government pressure, reached an agreement with the Shah to admit Iranian students to the nuclear engineering department in exchange for scholarships from the Shah. This was done despite strong objections from the student body, but with comparable support from faculty. That's a distinction that raises a number of interesting questions about academic institutions and how they operate, professors or students from a couple of years ago, but they have a different institutional place. In fact, some of these MIT students, opponents of nuclear energy, now run Iran's nuclear programs. Opponents of the nuclear deal argue that it did not go far enough.

You've heard a lot of that. And, interestingly, some of the supporters of the agreement agree and demand that it go beyond what has been achieved and that the entire Middle East rid itself of nuclear weapons and, indeed, weapons of mass destruction in general. Actually, I am quoting Iran's Foreign Minister Jovan Zarif, who reiterates the call of the non-aligned movement. Most of the world and Arab states have been trying for many years to establish a "zone free of weapons of mass destruction" in the Middle East. That would be a very simple way to address any threat that Iran supposedly poses, but there is much more than that at stake.

This was recently discussed in the world's leading American arms control magazine, Arms Control Today, by two leading figures in the international anti-nuclear movement. Two senior scientists from Pugwash and UN agencies noted that the successful adoption in 1995 of the resolution establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East was the main element of a package that allowed the extension of the treaty. nonproliferation. That is the most important arms control treaty there is. And its continuation is conditional on the acceptance of measures aimed at establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and a zone free of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

Repeatedly, the implementation of this plan has been blocked by the United States at the annual five-year review meetings of the nonproliferation treaty, most recently by Obama in 2010. And again, in 2015, a couple of months ago, the same two anti-proliferation -Nuclear specialists comment that in 2015, this effort was again blocked by the United States on behalf of a state that is not party to the non-proliferation treaty and is widely believed to be the only one in the region that possesses weapons nuclear. That is a polite and tactful reference to Israel. Washington's sabotage of the defense possibility of Israeli nuclear weapons may well undermine the nonproliferation treaty and maintain dangerous instability in the Middle East, always, of course, in the name of stability.

By the way, this is not the only case in which Washington has undermined opportunities to end the alleged Iranian threat. Some pretty interesting cases, there's no time, and I won't go into them, but all of this raises pretty interesting questions, which we should ask ourselves about what's really at stake. So, getting back to that, what really is the threat that Iran poses? Clearly, it is not a military threat, it is obvious. We can put aside feverish pronouncements about Iranian aggression, support for terrorism, seeking hegemony over the region by force, or the even more extravagant notion that even if Iran had a bomb, it could use it and therefore would suffer instant destruction.

The real threat has been clearly explained by US intelligence in its reports to Congress on the global security situation. Of course, they deal with Iran and point out, I quote US intelligence, that "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrence strategy." It is part of Iran's deterrent strategy, not offensive policies, but they are trying to build a deterrent. And serious analysts do not doubt that Iran has a serious interest in a deterrence strategy. This is recognized, for example, by US intelligence. Thus, influential analyst and CIA veteran Bruce Riddell, who is by no means a dove, writes that "if I were an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

And the reasons are quite obvious." He also makes another crucial comment. He notes that Israel's strategic room for maneuver in the region would be limited by an Iranian nuclear deterrent. And of course this also applies to the United States. Room for maneuver means resorting to aggression and violence. And yes, it would be limited by an Iranian deterrent. For the two rogue states freely rampaging through the region, the United States and Israel, any deterrent is, of course, unacceptable. And for those who are accustomed to and take for granted their right to rule by force, that concern easily becomes what is called an existential threat.

The threat of deterrence is very serious if one hopes to resort to force unilaterally at will to achieve one's objectives, as the United States and, secondarily, Israel often do. And more recently, the United States' second ally, Saudi Arabia, has been trying to enter the club rather incompetently with its invasion of Bahrain to prevent mild reform measures and, more recently, with its extensive bombings of Yemen, which are causing a huge humanitarian crisis. . So for them, a deterrent is a problem, maybe even an existential threat. I think that's the crux of the matter. Even if it were no use saying or thinking, and except for those who hope to defend themselves from possible disasters and move towards a more peaceful and just world, it is necessary to respect these mandates.

These are things that it wouldn't be nice to say, it wouldn't be nice to think that you don't read about them, that you don't hear about them, but I think they are the heart of the problem. Thank you. (Audience applauds) So how has the United States supported radical Islam? As I mentioned, just like Britain did before. I won't comment on the British government, but if you want to learn about it, there is a pretty good book written by a very good British diplomatic historian, Mark Curtis, who analyzes in detail, going back to the documentary record, how Britain supported radical Islam during its domain period.

The United States has always done it. The main center of radical Islam, of radical extremist Islam, is undoubtedly Saudi Arabia. They are the source of the Wahbization of the region, which Patrick Coburn points to as one of the main advances of the modern era. Who is Saudi Arabia's main supporter? Are you. That's where your tax money goes, and for a long time. Tens of billions of dollars in weapons are currently being shipped under the Obama administration, but that goes back a long time. In fact, the United States' strong relationship with Israel grew out of this. The United States and Israel maintained close, though not unusual, relations during the 1950s and early 1960s.

That changed in 1967. What happened in 1967? Israel provided an enormous service to the United States and its ally Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been and remains the center of extremist radical fundamentalist Islam with its offshoots and jihadist movements etc., including ISIS. At that time, the center of secular nationalism was Nasser's Egypt and there was a conflict between the two. In fact, while they were at war in Yemen at the time, Israel dealt a very serious blow to secular nationalism. He devastated the Egyptian army and Syria, saved Saudi Arabia, and offered great aid to the United States. And in fact, if we look back, it is at that time that the unusual, indeed unique, relationship between Israel and the United States developed.

And in fact, it continues after that. I could give more examples if I had time, but that's been a consistent pattern. There are some exceptions here and there. For this reason, the United States has sometimes supported secular Islamic states. The most extreme and interesting example is that of Saddam Hussein, who was very beloved by the Reagan administration and the Bush administration. I could give you the details that they supported Saddam Hussein so much that they even gave him a gift that has otherwise only been granted to Israel, to no other country. He was allowed to attack an American warship, kill a couple dozen American sailors, and get away with it with just a slap on the wrist;

Israel had done the same thing in 1967. Saddam Hussein did it in 1987. And their friendship because Saddam Hussein was so enormous that he was granted that right. And that was a secular state. In fact, George Bush's number one even invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the United States for advanced training in nuclear weapons production. That's a pretty, pretty supportive relationship. So there are cases where the United States has supported secular Islam, but usually it is radical Islam that has benefited from American support, like Britain before it. - This one is coming live broadcast. And it's connected to that.

And let's mention that it came from the live broadcast. - Should I answer this too? - No, just do that. - Why isn't the United States doing more to help Syrian refugees? That is a question you should ask yourself. Why don't we do more? (Audience applauds) After all, we are already quite generous. I think 2000 have been accepted after several years. Wait, but yes, that is a very serious question. It can be generalized, there are other refugees. What happens to people fleeing Honduras? (Audience applauds) That is the main source of what is called the refugee crisis here.

Most of them come from Honduras. Because? Something happened in Honduras a couple of years ago. There was a military coup that overthrew the democratic government. The support of the United States was almost the only country that provided its support. And the result of the military coup is a true horror story. It used to be pretty bad, but it's become horrendous. And so people are fleeing and that's why we have to build a mile-high wall on the Texas border or whatever. So yes, these are fair questions. The Obama doctrine against Syria. That is a good question. (Audience laughs) Washington has no idea.

It's obvious and it's a little hard to blame them for that. It is very difficult to think of a constructive outcome for this total disaster. The United States has adopted a somewhat indifferent position, except that it is supporting its allies which are very clear, as I mentioned, Turkey, a NATO ally, has been supporting jihadist fronts related to Al-Qaeda, mainly the Al-Nusra front . , a couple more. The Gulf states, also allies of the United States, Saudi Arabia, where they have been strong supporters of what has now become the Islamic State. Technically, the Saudi government no longer claims that it no longer supports them directly, but it surely has in the past.

And financiers of the wealthy Gulf states are presumably still funding them as they have in the past. This is quite clear in the case of Qatar. So these are indirect policies of the United States. The only conceivable hope for any resolution to this horrendous crisis, which is totally destroying the country, is the kind of negotiated agreement that serious negotiators like Laktel Rahimi, a very respectable and sensible international negotiator, worked on. And the main idea that any analyst with a functioning gray cell shares is some kind of negotiated agreement, which will involve the Assad government, whether he likes it or not, and will involve elements of the opposition, whether he likes it or not.

There can be no negotiations that do not involve the parties that are fighting. This is quite obvious, just as the South African negotiations had to involve the leaders of the Apartheid State, not otherwise. There can be no other negotiations. It is perfectly obvious that the Assad government is not going to enter into negotiations based on the condition that he commits suicide. If that is the condition, they will continue to destroy the country. Unfortunately, that has been the position of the United States. The negotiations The United States and its allies have demanded that negotiations be based on the precondition that Assad's government does not survive.

It is a horrible government. I would like him not to survive, but that is a recipe for destroying Syria because it is not going to enter into negotiations on those terms. Right now, and indeed in the past, these have been proposals practically supported by the Russians. And in fact, you may not have seen it, but for those of you who read the international press, the British press a couple of days ago, there was a very interesting revelation that in 2012, the Russians had apparently put forward a proposal for a provisional government. regime,which would not include Assad.

And it was rejected by the United States and the West. That was reported in virtually all of the British press, Guardian, Independent, Daily Telegraph, across the spectrum, it didn't appear in the United States for a while. But ultimately, as far as I know, it appeared not in print, but in an online edition of the Washington Post, where there is the usual type of article that mentions that this is a rumor, but can't be taken seriously. and so on, he probably didn't mean it and so on. Well, okay, you can draw your own conclusions, but if you ask what the Obama doctrine is, it doesn't exist.

We saw the Obama doctrine a couple of weeks ago when the Pentagon sent these 50 fighters who had been trained for years and were immediately captured, killed or just hit by Turkey's ally, the Al-Nusra front, as I mentioned, apparently with the support of Turkish intelligence. That is the doctrine, nothing, except supporting the allies, who in fact support the jihadist forces. But I think what the doctrine should be is pretty clear. It is difficult to say what the chances of reaching an agreement on those terms are and they are not very high, but if they come up with an alternative, they should present it.

No other alternative has been proposed. What do you think of Donald Trump's addicts in relation to his earlier idea of ​​American exceptionalism? (Audience laughs) Well, action. (Audience applauds) I think we need to recognize that the other candidates are not that different. I mean, if you take a look. (Audience applauds) I mean, just take a look at their views. They have told you their views and they are surprising. So, to narrow it down to Iran a couple of weeks ago, the two favorites are no longer the favorites, where Jeb Bush and Scott Walker and they differed on Iran.

Walker said: "We have to bomb Iran." When he is elected, they will bomb Iran immediately on the day of his election. Bush was small, he is more serious. He said he will wait until the first cabinet meeting. (Audience laughs) And then they will bomb Iran. I mean, this is outside the spectrum of not only international opinion, but even relative sanity. (Audience laughs) That's right, I think Orange Donald and the men are right. It is a radical insurgency. It is not a political party. That can even be seen by the votes. I mean, any issue of any complexity is going to have some diversity of opinion, but when you get a unanimous vote to overturn the Iran deal or the Affordable Care Act or whatever is next, you know you're not dealing with a political problem. party.

It's an interesting question why that's true. I think what really happened is that throughout what is called the neoliberal period, the last generation, both political parties have drifted to the right. Today's Democrats are what used to be called "moderate Republicans." Republicans just left the spectrum. They are so committed to extreme wealth and power that they cannot get votes by presenting those positions. So what has happened is that they have mobilized sectors of the population that have been coming for a long time. It is a quite exceptional country in many ways. One is that it is extremely religious.

It is one of the most extreme fundamentalist countries in the world. And now I suspect that the majority of the base of the Republican Party are evangelical Christians, extremists, they are not a mix, but these are the extremists. Nativists who fear our white Anglo-Saxon country is being taken away from us. People who have to carry guns when they walk into Starbucks because, who knows, they might get murdered by Islamic terrorists and such. I mean, that's all part of the country and it goes back to colonial times, their true roots, but they haven't been an organized political force in the past like they are now.

That is the basis of the Republican Party and it is seen in the primaries. So, yes, Trump is maybe comic relief, but he's not that different from the mainstream, which I think is more important. American exceptionalism has been around since, what is that? - Doctrine, - Since the doctrine of Manifest Destiny in the 18th century, actually 19th century, what has changed? Well, what has changed is the ability to implement the doctrines. So it is with the Monroe Doctrine, 1823. The Monroe Doctrine essentially declared that the United States should govern the hemisphere. He didn't say it in those words, but that's what it means.

And he was the intellectual father of the Monroe Doctrine. It was John Quincy Adams, who was also the mastermind behind Manifest Destiny. Well, there was a problem. We are in the 1820s. There was deterrence. The deterrent was Britain, Britain was the hated enemy. They were the great military power and prevented the United States from achieving its first foreign policy objective. By exterior I mean outside the national territory, that is also aggression, but it is not called aggression, but conquest of the national territory, what is now national territory, of course, was a war against the indigenous population who were exterminated and expelled.

But you know, the first foreign objective was to take over Cuba, it goes back to the 1820s, they couldn't do it, the British Navy was in the way. John Quincy Adams, a great astute strategist, pointed out to his colleagues that we just have to wait. He said that sooner or later, American power will increase and British power will decrease. And as he said, Cuba will fall into our hands by the laws of political gravitation, just as an apple falls from the tree, which in fact happened during the 19th century. American power increased, British power decreased. The United States was able to take new steps in the Western Hemisphere and, in fact, in 1898 it was able to conquer Cuba.

That is, if you go to school in the United States, you learn that the United States liberated Cuba in 1898. In fact, the United States invaded to prevent Cuba from liberating itself from Spain, which is what happened. And since then, it became a virtual colony until the liberation of it and finally in 1959. And since then, the United States has been trying to reverse this situation, and the same is true in general. The United States did not do it, it may have been; It was probably the richest country in the world at the beginning of the 19th century, but not the most powerful country.

Britain was the most powerful. France was a powerful country. And that changed over the years, especially with World War I and finally World War II. So exceptionalism has expanded enormously as power has expanded. And I say again that this exceptionalism was also valid for other great powers during their time of power and imperial domination. World leaders will meet in New York City next week to define a new set of global anti-poverty goals and sustainable development goals. Do you think these objectives are sufficient? As an easy answer, two letters. (Audience laughs) And furthermore, nothing will be achieved.

It's pretty safe to say. (Audience laughs) (Audience applauds) Can you comment on the importance of the WikiLeaks cables? They have been really revealing. You learn a lot from them. And some of them are really interesting, including those that aren't talked about much. I mean, most of them you've seen, but for example, one from WikiLeaks, an interesting question that should be on everyone's mind is what is the basis of the extraordinary relationship between the United States and Israel? There are many reasons for this, but one interesting aspect was revealed by a WikiLeaks cable, which I believe was not reported.

One of the cables listed, the leaks listed an internal US document, a Pentagon document, that listed the top strategic priorities of the United States, regions of the world that were so important that we had to protect them at all costs. Maybe there were, I don't remember how many, a dozen or something like that. One of them was just outside Haifa, Rafael Military Industries, a major military industry. That's one of the main places where drone technology has been developed. The ties between the American and Israeli high-tech military industries are extremely close. In fact, in this case, Rafael, the largest industry, the ties are so close that Rafael moved its administrative headquarters to Washington, where the money is.

Well, what does that tell you? This gives an interesting insight into the nature of the relationship. Israel now plays an important role: it is a small country, but with a good high-tech industry. And it plays an important role in repression and aggression. Israeli arms fairs have developed, where they sell their weapons. They correctly announce that they have developed advanced means of repression and control, and that the weapons they are displaying have been tested on the battlefield, specifically against the Palestinians. So they have refined control techniques and contribute to that all over the place, in Central America, even in the United States.

They are providing advice on how to prevent Honduran immigrants from coming to the United States. They help train the police, etc., many examples. Well, that's just one case, but there have been many other cases of WikiLeaks materials. It is really worth reading them, not only those that are reported, but many others. In fact, there is a volume that just came out on Wikileaks, which is an important read. Oh, do you think that the foreign policy of the UN, the foreign policy of the United States, sorry, is driven exclusively by economic interests? What other factors influence US foreign policy and to what extent?

That's a pretty interesting question. It is certainly not driven exclusively by economic interests. In fact, there are very striking cases. Generally speaking, US foreign policy, like that of other major states, is driven by dominant domestic forces. That's something natural. And the dominant internal forces are, of course, the business sector, that is not in doubt, so in general foreign policy is driven by their interests and what the Clinton doctrine, which I cited, "is an obvious case ", but there are many others. However, there are exceptions and they are very interesting. Actually, Iran is an exception, quite interesting. And that goes back to the United States' first serious involvement with Iran.

Iran was a kind of virtual British colony. The British were involved in preventing Iran from developing, either economically or politically. But that changed in 1953, when Britain was too weak to overthrow the parliamentary regime and the United States took power and carried out, basically carried out, the coup that installed the Shah. Something quite interesting happened at that moment. The US government wanted US energy corporations to take over 40% of the British concession. It was, the British were taking over Iran and the oil, but the Eisenhower administration wanted American energy corporations to keep 40%. Well, that's an economic interest. They didn't want to, they didn't want to for good reasons.

So it was much cheaper to get oil from Saudi Arabia. So, for purely business reasons, they didn't want to have to go to Iran. And furthermore, they were worried that it could damage their relations with the Saudi dictators, the Saudi family that essentially owns and runs the country. And they didn't want to bother with that. In fact, the US government forced them, forced the oil companies to accept a 40% concession. The Eisenhower administration threatened them with antitrust lawsuits and other threats if they did not do so. So, of course, they backed off and did it. That's quite unusual and I think it's happening now too.

We do not have documents from the current period. You get documents from earlier periods, but you can be pretty sure that American energy corporations would be happy to enter the Iranian market. They don't like the idea. Every other major country, almost every other country, sends business delegations, investors and others to try to profit from Iran's openness, which they support, and American energy corporations and other American companies are blocked by state power. And you can be sure they don't like it. If we had access to their internal deliberations. I'm sure he would say that. Well, that's a case where state power, in this case, overwhelms even economic interests.

Iran must be punished. Iran committed a serious crime. They disobeyed orders and you don't disobey orders. One of the main doctrines of international affairs, which does not appear in literature, is the mafia doctrine. International affairs are handled much like the mafia. The godfather does not tolerate disobedience. It is largely due to the dangers. So if some small trader somewhere says he doesn't pay protection money. The gift does not accept it. You send their goons to beat them to a pulp even if you don't need the money, because others might get the idea and things might start to erode.

That is a dominant principle of international affairs. In fact, that was the reason for the 1953 coup when you look back. And it is also the reason for the United States' hostility toward Iran, which is extreme. I mentioned the support for Saddam Hussein, which was an attack against Iran and serious, butThey defied orders. They overthrew a tyrant imposed by the United States. They made fun of the United States and they don't get away with that. Cuba is actually very similar, as Cuba is extremely, the hostility towards Cuba is quite interesting. I want to say that for decades, since the polls were conducted, the majority of the American population has been in favor of normalizing relations.

Ok, it's normal to ignore the population in a democracy, they don't count. But what is unusual in this case is that important sectors of the American economic power have been in favor of normalization. Large sectors, pharmaceuticals, energy, agroindustrial, have all wanted to enter the Cuban market and the State has blocked it, which is quite unusual. And there is another case in which state power has surpassed even the power of its main internal sources. In fact, these are two quite striking examples and it is the same thing. And in the case of Cuba, we know it. If you go back to the Kennedy administration, when the war against Cuba really took off, it was very explicit.

The State Department said we cannot tolerate what it called "a successful challenge to American policies" dating back to the Monroe Doctrine. Arthur Schlesinger, Kennedy's Latin American advisor, reported to him. The report from his Latin American mission said the problem is Castro's idea of ​​taking matters into his own hands, which appeals to others in the hemisphere where people suffer similar repression and that idea cannot be allowed to spread. This is again the mafia doctrine, powerful enough to conflict with economic interests. There are cases, but they are rare and illuminating. - I think this will have to be the last one.

We have all this, but time is running out. - What is intelligence? (Audience laughs) Well, it's something that's missing in certain places. (Audience laughs) Let's put it this way. (audience applauding) (audience applauding)