Noam Chomsky: Who is the greatest threat to world peace?

It has been said that Chomsky is one of the most viewed authors in history, along with Shakespeare and even the Bible, and his work covers a wide range. Take his latest book, it's called Illegitimate Authority, a collection of interviews on topics as varied as Joe Biden's climate change. the right to abortion in the United States the economic consequences of covid-19 the war in Ukraine Vladimir Putin Xi Jinping much more than known welcome to times radio thank you for joining us thank you and don't take yourself too seriously the release of PR word now listen First I want to talk to you about how you are described if you are filling out a form what is your occupation you write public intellectual as other people might expect what is your what is your job I teach I am a university professor correct teach courses on linguistics, cognitive sciences, philosophy, social issues and policies and, like any other academic, do you like to be considered a public intellectual or is the idea of ​​a public intellectual somewhat outdated in a

world

where everyone can do it? their opinions in public all the time.

Well, I never took the concept of public intellectual or seriously and I don't take it very seriously now, people like me who and you have relative privilege or are able to enter the public domain with our thoughts. and opinions may have some value maybe not maybe the guy cleaning the street outside has better opinions but not the privilege eh, the beginning of the book, the preface to your book says that we live in dangerous and disconcerting times. I wonder if you think now. It's a more dangerous and disconcerting time than when you first came to prominence in the '60s with the Vietnam War, the Cold War, what are the times we live in today compared to other times you've lived in and about? those who have written much more? dangerous, there's actually a pretty simple and direct measure of danger, it's not perfect, but as good as the simple measures we have, that's the Doomsday Clock, uh, analysts gave up on minutes during the Trump years and They moved them to seconds until midnight.

The midnight finish I now moved to 90 seconds to midnight has never been close to that and there are good reasons for that; First of all, the danger of nuclear war is increasing, there is no doubt about it, but we are running towards a cliff of environmental destruction of a couple of decades in which we could mitigate it or control it, but we are running in the opposite direction, nothing could be more dangerous than that, that means reaching irreversible tipping points, at which point it simply descended to the destruction of human life on Earth, we have never faced that before, actually, I have been facing it in a way since the August 6, 1945 than ever at this level of danger.

It's interesting. I was going to ask you if we're on that path. I guess some people would say we've been on that path for a long time and even the warning of getting close to that point doesn't seem to make the political leaders of any country of any political persuasion seem caught up in the moment, as you know when you talk , which sounds apocalyptic. and yet you know that we spend our time talking about trivial things, things like the war in Ukraine, the war in Yemen, the destruction of Iraq, still, these are all very serious things, many more, but it is true that there are underlying problems that haunt us and very little.

What is being done about this is perhaps something is the Goldman Sachs study on China. They claim that it looks like China is going to hit its Net Zero fossil fuel goals much sooner than expected, so maybe that's a good sign, but mostly. of us are going completely in the wrong direction last year fossil fuel production increased, the United States is currently the largest producer of fossil fuels expanding with new fields opening up federal lands for exploration for decades and fossil fuel companies are euphoric with the prospects for greater public support for your enterprise to destroy life on Earth, so it doesn't look good, you mentioned the war in Ukraine, let's turn our attention to that, certainly, in the UK, the left, under the leadership of people like Jeremy Corby, had argued that It was not Russia that was the enemy, it was the United States that was destabilized in the

world

and then Russia invades a sovereign democratic country right on its border, starting a conflict that claims tens of thousands of innocent lives, doesn't that make it clear? that who is the real

threat

to the world is not the United States, as the left has long argued, it is Vladimir Putin's Russia, well, the invasion of Ukraine is clearly a war crime and put it in, you can't put it in the same category as major war crimes, but it is important according to the official, the only evidence that we have solid evidence is the United Nations estimates, the Pentagon estimates and so on, they estimate that about 8,000 civilians died, that That's a lot of people, but the US and Britain do it overnight, presumably that's an underestimate, so let's say it's double that, which would put it on par with the US-backed invasion.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon has killed about twenty thousand people, let's assume that is off by a factor of 10. That is, the casualty rate is actually ten times higher than claimed, which would put it in the category of Ronald Reagan's terrorist atrocities in El Salvador, roughly a new order of 80,000. So here, of course, Iraq is just another dimension. It is serious, it is a terrible crime, you can understand why the global South does not take very seriously the eloquent protests of Western countries about this unique episode in history of which many more have been victims, perhaps the Russians will come forward. air, maybe. maybe they are still with you, maybe you remember how many people visited Baghdad;

Well, the United States and Great Britain were pulverizing it. No one visited Baghdad, in fact, no one there. UN inspectors and

peace

activists were removed from the country because it was too dangerous when the United States and Britain. go to war, no foreign leader feels like visiting. I suppose Russia could increase the ADI and move to British style war with the US, maybe they could even go as far as commemorating atrocities like Mario Paul, with the way the US is commemorating now. They are some of their worst atrocities in Iraq, like one of the worst atrocities was the marine assault on Fallujah, the beautiful city, one of the most beautiful, and Iraq destroyed an unknown number of dead people, but people are still dying from weapons that were used.

The US Navy's Righteous Commitment just commissioned its latest cult, the USS Fallujah, in honor of the Marine assault that carried out one of the worst atrocities in Iraq. Well, maybe the Russians will get to that point too one day. It's interesting, now Donald Trump's game we hear the same thing. thing from the left here in the UK sounds like something left over from the left these are exactly what is certainly true of leftist politics in the UK this is trying to create equivalence they are in an anti-western position um you are making equivalence you are taking equivalence you are saying that you literally just got equivalence with the number of deaths in various places.

I've explained to people listening to this why what you're not saying is because Ronald Reagan did this or George Bush did that doesn't mean that what Vladimir Putin did is right, right? I said that it is a serious crime, but there is no equivalence that following the party line would give figures without equivalence, perhaps the number of victims is 10 times greater than It is well estimated that it would be like Reagan's crimes in El Salvador. It's not equivalent, but I suppose some people hearing this will think you're looking to excuse what's wrong, that's a right-wing fabrication.

I'm not looking to excuse anything. I said it is a terrible war crime that is no excuse for anything. I'm talking about the extreme hypocrisy of claims that this is the worst thing that's ever happened when it's a fraction of what we do all the time, which is why the global South is watching closely. They are ridiculed while pompous Western commentators try to lecture them on why they don't join us in opposing this terrible crime, then one leader stands up and says: how can you not join us when one country is attacking another country? They laugh and ridicule, that's what you've been doing to us forever.

Do you think Britain is complicit in that in the same way or is it specifically an American problem? Do you think Britain is complicit in the same way or is it specifically an American problem? Did Britain participate? In the invasion of Iraq, did Britain actually play a leading role in the destruction of Libya? Yes, Britain is complicit. Is Britain sending weapons to Saudi Arabia to implement the world's worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen? Of course I couldn't continue in Italy I would stand out not in the past I want to take you back to something you said in August 2020, you said there was a Russian red line for 30 years, we will tolerate your flight violation, firm commitment not to move NATO. to our borders uh but it comes with uh you were talking about the idea of ​​Ukraine joining NATO would be a red line actually what we've seen as a result of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is that Ukraine is moving much closer to the West.

Finland and Swindon Sweden Finland and Sweden are now joining NATO as a result of what Vladimir Putin has been doing. Do you think Vladimir Putin miscalculated and drew red lines thinking they would never intersect properly? First of all, there is talk of a red line. lose a derivative, it's not me, it's practically the entire US Diplomatic Corps, current CIA chief, previous heads, defense secretary, halcus, Bush's defense secretary, William Perry, secretary Clinton's defense team, they are the ones who have been saying this is a red line, don't attribute it to me. I am quoting that yes, it is almost the entire leadership of the political class and the Diplomatic Corps who knew anything, except Russia, who have been arguing for 30 years that it is reckless and dangerous to try to cross what there is a red line for every Russian leader Yeltsin Gorbachev, everyone who allows Ukraine and Georgia to enter NATO, that has been clear for 30 years, so Putin made a mistake, of course, not only was it not only a criminal act of aggression, but it was an act . of criminal stupidity uh it has brought Europe under the control of Washington it is a gift to the United States on a silver platter uh Finland and Sweden are a different matter they have absolutely no reason to join NATO and they know it perfectly well their reason for joining NATO is They have advanced military systems.

They have been quite well integrated into NATO operations for many years. Officially joining NATO opens new markets for its military industry. There has never been any new potential for advanced equipment, etc., and they know it. It is the slightest

threat

to Sweden or Finland from Russia that we have, but why not, when, when, when, when, when, we were told that they told us that months before Russia invaded Ukraine, there was no prospect of Russia invaded Ukraine repeatedly. Russia said they were not. They were going to invade Ukraine and then they did, why wouldn't they? If you were Finland or Sweden, why wouldn't you join NATO for 30 years, not just Russia, all the leaders but all the senior officials in the United States with any interest in it? that NATO that wrote that if Ukraine moves toward NATO membership, no Russian leader would ever accept it, remember Biden, look at what happened in 2021 and 2012, we have a history of the Biden administration offering an enhanced program to Ukraine. for NATO, uh, uh, to join NATO, it increased the weapons, applies the interoperability of the weapons of the attacks and, if it continues, this does not justify the invasion, but it is a background until February 2022.

Russia kept saying Why don't we try them, if you consider it. or security concerns we can have a negotiation we can have a negotiated agreement that was roundly rejected it gets worse last March there were negotiations between Ukraine and Russia under Turkish auspices what did Britain do? Prime Minister Boris Johnson flew to Ukraine and fought with children that Britain and the United States do not believe this is a time for negotiations. He was followed by Lloyd Austin, US defense secretary, who presumably gave his typical extremely clear message: we have to continue the war to seriously weaken Russia; well, the negotiations collapsed, we don't.

I don't know why Western media doesn't cover these things, we only know mainly from Ukrainian sources for Western media like your Journal, they don't cover

peace

, new possibilities, they cover war, but those are all the facts we know well, does that justify the crime? attack, you know, it's an act of criminal stupidity, yes, and yet it sounds a bit like you're explaining it because why can't Ukraine join NATO? They are asovereign and independent country. Why can't they join NATO? What if Mexico? decided to join an international military alliance led by China with the shipment of heavy weapons to Mexico and the United States, the interoperability of Chinese and Mexican military systems, what would happen in Mexico, you would be impressed, you know, so then you will make comparisons between NATO. and China and Russia, you see that an equivalence between I don't, NATO is a much more aggressive alliance NATO has invaded uh Yugoslavia invaded Libya invaded Ukraine supported the invasion of Ukraine supported the invasion of Afghanistan is an aggressive military diet for all who are outside The West in the West was not allowed to think that because we are deeply controlled by adherence to the party line, but everyone else can see this, so what do you think is the purpose?

So you think that Ukraine, if it's NATO, if Ukraine.if China put military bases in Mexico, it wouldn't be a sign of China invading the United States, but the United States had tolerated it for 36 years. You know this very well, but then It seems to me that you are justifying the Russian invasion of Ukraine. You are saying that the very act of wanting to join NATO is cause for Russia to feel threatened enough to then invade Ukraine, according to the Western party line that Western intellectuals have instructed. adhere to uh rigorously says that if you count the facts that justify Russia no, it doesn't justify Russia there is not even an end to that not even a remote hint is saying here are the facts that we must face that is the fact if you get out of the small Western propaganda bubble moves towards the global south, everyone says this, okay, let me tell you something, you did it and we have certainly seen it in British politics, the anti-Western left, as I would describe them in the UK. where a position of being anti-British imperialism, anti-American imperialism, being so anti-Western, essentially led to an alliance with Vladimir Putin, he was a new type of Russian leader and everything was going smoothly up to the points where he invades Ukraine and now you're trying to, essentially you're trying to justify it through the back door, saying that you've been let down by Vladimir Putin, could you please stop reiterating the Western party line and listen to what I'm saying? word of justification there is no anti-value I know you keep saying that and then you keep making a justification it was for NATO it was for Afghanistan it was for uh Libya oh okay Sonata justification listen to the words okay there is nothing to justify the Russian invasion from Ukraine there is nothing to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine I understand, yes, but we can ask ourselves why the global South is collapsing and ridiculing itself when it hears the kind of things you are talking about.

Good reasons when you say the world. but you've used the phrase a couple of times, explain what you mean by the global south India Indonesia South Africa Brazil um Colombia do you want me to list them? They are not aligning themselves with Vladimir Putin, but are they? not aligning with Vladimir Putin that is their reiteration of the Western party line they are taking a neutral position what they are saying is this they consider this a proxy war between Russia and the United States because of the Ukrainian bodies they are saying no I don't want to participate In this, that is not pro-Putin, that is the Western party line.

We should be able to escape the Western propaganda bubble and simply look at the facts. Let's zoom out a little further than just finding where we talk about politics. Countries like Britain and the United States are moving away from the Western party line, as you say, uh Jeremy Corbyn. I think I just agreed with you on a lot of things in politics. He went to the country twice and lost twice. It turns out that the country does. I don't want Jeremy Corbyn to be Prime Minister, well you know damn well that's not what happened. Jeremy Corbyn won a huge victory in 2017.

We didn't do that, yes, the biggest victory Labor had won in a generation that lost, it didn't become. So, Prime Minister, what happened is that the British establishment, including his newspaper, attacked you with a ton of bricks with false and misleading propaganda about antisemitism, all exposed as lies. That is not true. I'm afraid that's not true. Union MPs left the Labor party because of antisemitism uh when Jeremy Corbyn was leading it had nothing to do with what I was doing, Labor MPs left the party in protest of Jeremy Corbyn's record, absolutely the parliamentary party, the party Blair MP did not want to see in fact, they said it, we have the documents in the labor files, they say that we do not want to lose our party, the party that we own in this effort to develop a popular grassroots party that works for the workers of the poor , we don't want to lose. not our party today, that's not what they said that's not what they said they didn't want Jeremy called said that you could read it in the labor issue they didn't say they didn't want a government that wanted to act for the poor what they said Won't they win tosomeone?

Yes, exactly, they will lose their party, okay, or the record of tolerating antisemitism in the Labor Party and, uh, adopting anti-Western positions, including the desire to give Russia the benefit of the doubt over the Salisbury poisonings, was one One of the big things they protested about is that there are no anti-Western positions, for example when Jeremy Corbyn takes the position that we should try to move towards a negotiated settlement in Ukraine that is not an anti-Western position, he just has a position on Ukraine. party line party line I don't have a party line. I'm just asking you a question about Jeremy Corbyn stood for election twice and twice didn't become Prime Minister, that's two defeats, jerem, let's read, let's go back to the fact of 2017. the lover, he won big, he lost, he lost , sorry, there was the

greatest

worker in history, then came the that was it, no, it wasn't, it lost, which was the largest labor union in history, so yeah, well, no, it wasn't in What was it? base?

Then came the huge attack from the establishment crossed the board from right to left, so called Left Guardian with misleading lies since it was exposed on charges of antisemitism. No, that's not true. Sorry, the Equality Commission on Human Rights in the UK, the watchdog set up by the Labor party, found the Labor party guilty of failing to protect Jews within the party. There is less antisemitism in the Labor party than among the Conservatives. All of this has been laid out in detail in the labor files that you can read and Al. Jazeera, the British press has chosen to largely suppress and marginalize it, but that is a problem for the British press.

Corbin has since been practically expelled from the Labor party for his efforts to try to develop a grassroots participatory party that would serve the interests of The British establishment crushed workers among the poor into a scandal, okay, but It has nothing to do with these other things we're talking about now. Well, Bob, I guess my original question was how do politics change in the western United States and Britain? Keith Stormer is the right person to try to recalibrate Britain's position in the world so as not to follow the line that you're talking about what do you think of Kirsten, how she's done it, you know perfectly well, take the New Deal in the 1930s. , which I'm old enough to remember first.

I believe that the labor movement in the United States had been almost completely crushed by Woodrow Wilson's Red Scare. The 1930s began to recover, reorganized, uh, CIO, organized actions, moderately comprehensive. The administration introduced social democratic policies that were, in fact, taken up later. for Europe in the post-war period This is how politics changed something else has hurt them 40 years ago Reagan and Thatcher launched a major assault on the population class war bitter class war The first act they undertook was to destroy the Freedom Movement very sensible is the Then came a defense against the bitter class reward.

I'd go over the details if you want, but if you want a number, we have it from the respectable Rand Corporation. They estimate the transfer of wealth to the bottom 90 percent of the population, the working class. in the middle class, the transfer of wealth to them to the top one percent during the years of Reagan, Clinton and the rest of them, 50 trillion dollars, that is an impressive class war, it raises the population, real wages of non-supervisory workers are about what they were in 1979. Case after case, I can analyze it if you want. Similar things have happened elsewhere in Britain with the tough recording program said in writing a long time ago the continent has resisted a bit they still have some residue of the social democratic policies uh all of this is a population left angry, resentful and distrustful. institutions, rightly so, easy pasture for demagogues like Trump or Bond, Bolsonaro or Farage, okay, that's what has happened in the last 40 years, how do you change it the way you changed it in the 1930s, but political elections and the revitalization of the organization, the union movement, etc.?

That's no secret, has there been a British Prime Minister or American President that you liked during your lifetime? public intellectual you've written so many it must be millions of words dozens of books articles um do you feel like you've failed to make this case that you've been making for so long and it just hasn't been that way? In no time did it resonate on both sides of the Atlantic, there are successes and failures, so a great success was after about 25 years of effort, finally helping to organize enough popular opposition to British support of the United States for the worst, probably the worst act of genocide. since the second world war, that is, the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, backed by the United States by Great Britain, killed perhaps a third of the population, well, it did not kill everyone, so there was a success in the flight, they still survive, there are other cases like that during the 1980s, the ADI War went from the 1970s to the 1960s, mainly to the 1960s, a very involved and we could not leave the American massacres and the destruction of all of Indochina, but it did not reach the terminal point, something survived, so it is an impartial success. 1980s, Reagan hoped to emulate the first steps I tried to emulate what Kennedy had done in China there was so much public opposition that he had to back down he resorted to terrorism Mass terror a couple hundred thousand people killed every type of torture you can imagine the country is destroyed but wasn't Vietnam good?

So there are partial successes. Have you ever thought that maybe I'm the one who's wrong? Did you ever think that maybe I'm the one who's wrong? All along I was too late to get involved in opposing the Vietnam War. I started getting seriously involved when Kennedy radically escalated the war in the early '60s. He should have been involved 10 years earlier. There's a lot of other stuff and it's funny, so, um, come on. To finish, let's try to be a little more optimistic. Do you think we can change these things? You were talking about climate change before the global conflict.

Will the next century be better than the last? There will be no organized human life within a century. Now, unless we reverse the course the leadership is now taking towards the Christmas rush on climate destruction, you read the latest IPCC report. I'm sure that's okay, it's pretty accurate, an IPCC or consensus report, so they are, by definition, conservative, the lowest, uh, no, the lowest. common company, yes, yes, the current one, they took off the gloves, now they are so desperate that they said, well, tell the truth, that is if, what are the Western leaders mostly doing running in the opposite direction? optimistic notes, but I'm afraid that the The future may not be so optimistic, no, I'm told, thank you very much for joining us on Times Radio.