Prof. Noam Chomsky: Illegal but Legitimate: a Dubious Doctrine for the Times

Good evening, As Principal of the University of Edinburgh, it is a privilege to welcome you. A special welcome to our rector. Welcome to the guests. Welcome to guests participating via the Internet. And, of course, a warm welcome to the students and my colleagues. The memory of Professor Edward Saeed and our

prof

essor from Gifford, who so kindly received us, is Professor Noam Chomsky. Of course, he is famous for his work on linguistics and when I was younger he would also have worked as one of my heroes and he is also known. As a leading public intellectual dealing with very important ethical and political issues, it is very appropriate that I speak in the Givet series, and historically speakers have included William James Albert Schweitzer, Arnold Toynbee, and several people who would certainly be included in the important public intellectual field and given the topic it is especially appropriate that he give this Gifford lecture dedicated to the memory of Professor Saeed well, I received the invitation with mixed emotions, naturally I felt satisfied, but it was under the shadow of the absence of a old and close friend Edward Sade who, like you, I know fought a long and brave fight against incurable cancer, but succumbed before he could give lectures here, which is an immeasurable loss to you and to all those everywhere who are They worry about freedom, justice and intellectual and cultural achievement, but at least I am happy to be able to speak in their memory address the issue by comparative and historical standards we are all fortunate to enjoy great freedom freedom clearly offers opportunities opportunity confers responsibility responsibility to use the freedom one enjoys wisely honestly and humanely we also live in centers of Therefore, our decisions about how to face our responsibilities will have enormous power.

I want to focus on one case primarily, a case that everyone agrees is of enormous importance and literally encompasses issues of human survival; that is the question of the resource. force in international affairs how its legitimacy has been understood over time how it is today as you know the horrible crimes of the 20th century led Hertz to dedicate himself in 1945 to saving humans from the curse of war and the word save It is surely not an exaggeration since then. In 1945 it became clear that the probability of ultimate perdition is far beyond what any rational person would be willing to tolerate.

Actually, the phrase definitive doom is not mine. Borrowing from two prominent strategic analysts writing in the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, who are not given to hyperbole, they conclude that Washington's current military programs and its aggressive stance in citing them carry an appreciable risk of downfall. final and express the hope that the threat that the US administration is posing to the world and the American people will be eliminated. countered by a coalition of peace-loving nations led by China, we have reached a rather serious situation when such thoughts are expressed in the heart of the establishment and what that implies about the state of American democracy is no less shocking and threatening and It can be left to you to consider what the judgments imply about Britain, which was not expected to lead the coalition well by considering their reasons: the reasons that led them to these conclusions.

A good place to start is with an event that actually took place after your article. appeared, but it's typical last November in the Disarmament Committee of the United Nations Commission, it's basically the General Assembly that voted for a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. The vote was 147 to 1, there were 2 abstentions, which you can guess. two abstentions were Israel, which is reflexive, and Britain, which explained its abstention on the grounds that, to quote the British ambassador, the resolution had divided the international community at a time when progress should be a primary goal dividing it. completely. one hundred and forty-seven to one, so obviously we got an idea of ​​the species survival ranking on the priority list which, not only because of the vote but because of the publicity it received, is unfortunately just one of many illustrative examples of efforts to end the curse of war led to a consensus on the principles that should guide state action the Charter of the United Nations the consensus and subsequent declarations and treaties the consensus was reiterated last December by a high-ranking panel level of the UN that included George Bush's National Security Advisor, the first Kofi Annan reiterated it again a couple of days ago the panel reiterated the conclusions of the United Nations Charter that force can only be deployed when authorized by the Security Council or under the famous article 51 in defense against armed attack until the Security Council Article 51 of the laws is generally interpreted as allowing the use of force when, citing the need to act It is instantaneous and overwhelming and leaves no choice of means or moment of deliberation, it is the classic wording of Daniel Webster's case involving Great Britain, any other recourse, force is a war crime is, in fact, the international crime supreme, unlike other war crimes in that it contains the accumulated evil of the whole.

The words of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the December 2004 panel concluded that Article 51 should not be rewritten or reinterpreted, the panel then adds a In a comment addressed to Western intellectuals, it says that for those impatient with such an answer, the answer must be that in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the global order and the norm of non-intervention on which it continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action as opposed to collectively backed action to be accepted, To allow one to act in that way is to allow everything that that final ruling proposes, a principle that is the basis of international law and of every moral code that deserves even the slightest attention.

The principle of universality, that is, we apply to ourselves the same standards that we apply to others, if not stricter, but that principle is flatly rejected by the political leaders of the most powerful states and also by the moral and political culture dominant of the educated elites. within them, again raising the prospects of ultimate doom, the discussion of Article 51 at the UN panel last December was, as I mentioned, directed at Western intellectuals; in fact, it was a direct response to many years of enthusiastic support by Western intellectuals for the intervention they determined. is

legitimate

even if it is

illegal

and therefore takes on an unusual meaning even apart from the fact that it reaffirms the position of the world outside of what the West calls the international community, that is, itself, for example, the declaration of the Southern Summit in 2000.

Certainly, taking into account the recent bombing of Serbia by NATO, it is the highest level meeting ever held between the former non-aligned countries that now represent 80 percent of the world population. The declaration rejects what it calls so-called humanitarian law. intervention that he perceives as traditional imperialism and a new look, also provided a detailed and quite sophisticated analysis of neoliberal globalization, was ignored apart from scattered ridicule and, in Britain, in fact, there were tantrums when interesting things were mentioned such as the blunt rejection from the post In the closing years of the last millennium there was a warlike consensus and elite Western circles across the spectrum of articulated opinions there was enthusiastic celebration of what was called a normative revolution in world affairs.

These are all quotes that vindicate the idealistic inclination of the new world. to put an end to the inhumanity that had entered a noble phase of its foreign headquarters with a holy globe for the first time in history, a state is dedicated to principles and values ​​acting solely from altruism and moral fervor as leader of the States self-proclaimed enlightened and, therefore, free. resort to force, something their leaders determined was right, and that is a very small sample of an extraordinary deluge that I have gleaned from only the most internationally respected liberal voices after several years of such flights of self-adulation that they probably do not They have historical significance. precedent of the attack: his own return, these end-of-millennium statements reflect a wide range of filtered perceptions, in fact, something close to unanimity, but not those of the general public, so in the United States, a large majority of the public, a large majority. continues to take the position that states have the right to use force only if now I cite public opinion studies only if there is strong evidence that the country is in imminent danger of being attacked, that is, an overwhelming majority of the public rejects the bipartisan agreement.

The consensus on preventive war rejects the Western intellectual consensus and agrees with the much-maligned Southern Summit and the recent UN panel. The

legitimate

legitimacy of the use of force is not the only issue on which American public opinion diverges markedly from elite political culture. To take another current example that also raises questions of survival, it is commonly reported that the United States refused to join the Kyoto treaty a month ago. That is true only if the phrase United States excluded its population. That is true only if we dismiss democracy with utter contempt. The population overwhelmingly supported ratification of the treaty, so enthusiastically, in fact, that a majority of Bush's voters believed he agreed with them that the United States should join because it is a genomic thing to do so.

Very large majorities also believe that the United States should accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court should rely on the United Nations to take the lead in international crises, including issues of security reconstruction and political transition in Iraq. This has been true since April 2003. A majority even believes that the United States should leave the Security Council. veto and accept majority rule and the same is true on many other issues, large majorities believe that the United States should rely on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military in the so-called war on terrorism and overwhelming majorities as in the past favor a greater government. spending on health education and other social expenses, all of this is in marked opposition to public policies and practically to the intellectual consensus of the elites.

The studies that reveal these facts were published by the most prestigious institutions that monitor public opinion shortly before the presidential elections of November 2004. Clearly, these results are of critical importance for the functioning of democracy. The studies reveal that both political parties are very far to the right of the population on many of the most crucial issues, they barely received any mention in the national press. The observations unfortunately become generalized and give more weight to The judgment of the strategic analysts that I cited at the beginning that the most powerful State in the world world faces a serious Democratic deficit, to use a term we apply to others, these conclusions are reinforced by public opinion studies conducted by the same major institutions that were taken shortly after the federal budget was announced a few weeks ago , the public is calling for sharp cuts in military spending along with a sharp increase in social spending is education medical research job training conservation renewable energy increased spending for the United Nations and for economic and humanitarian aid and reversal of Bush's tax cuts for the rich a government policy is dramatically opposite in every respect there is, rightly, great international concern about the consequences of the rapidly expanding twin deficits the trade deficit and the budget deficit closely related to those two are a third deficit the growing Democratic deficit that is discussed very little because it is welcomed by wealth and power that devote substantial efforts to trying to turn the country into a failed state to adopt a fashionable notion: a state that has formal democratic institutions but with the public in largely removed from politics. options and implementation and that is a very serious threat much more than in a small country somewhere this is, after all, the most powerful state in the world the provisions of the United Nations Charter were explained in more detail, in particular At the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Tokyo sentences were much more severe, although the principles they enunciated were significant, both courts had very deep flaws, as did the most basic moral standards, both were based on the explicit rejection of the principle ofuniversality to bring defeated war criminals to justice it was necessary to devise definitions of war crime and crime against humanity how this was done was explained by Telford Taylor, the lead counsel for the prosecution, distinguished international lawyer and historian, in summary , the operational definition of crime was a crime that you committed but we did not, and as Taylor explained that the urban bombing of urban civilian concentrations was not a crime because the Allies did more than the Germans while Taylor explains that his words of punishing the enemy , especially to the defeated enemy, by the conduct in which the executing nation has engaged, would be so manifestly unjust as to discredit the laws themselves are correct, but the operational definition of the crime also discredits the laws themselves.

Every subsequent court is discredited by the same

prof

ound moral flaw. The current general of Yugoslavia as an example, a group of international lawyers asked the court to investigate the NATO crimes that were recorded. by major international human rights organizations, including NATO command confessions, prosecutors rejected the request without investigating, it is a violation of the court's statutes by stating that they accept NATO's guarantees of good faith. Yugoslavia proceeded to file charges before the World Court invoking the Genocide Convention, which the United States excused withdrew from the process on the grounds that when Washington finally signed the Genocide Convention after 40 years it added a reservation that excluded it from the charges and the court. correctly accepted this argument after the outpouring of anger over the rejection of the release of the Justice Department memos that effectively authorized torture, Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh wrote an indignant article saying that this is almost as if the government is claiming the right to commit genocide;

He did not add that the government itself exercises that right in court and has done so since it finally signed the Genocide Convention. The same thing happened in the case initiated by Nicaragua against the United States 20 years ago. A key part of the Nicaragua case, which was presented by a distinguished Harvard law professor, was rejected by the court on the grounds that in accepting the jurisdiction of a world court in 1946 the United States had made a reservation that excluded it from being prosecuted under multilateral treaties, notably excluding itself from the supreme crime of aggression in 1946, was of course a liberal-democratic administration like the United States.

The decision to opt out of the global judicial process initiated by Yugoslavia was under the Clinton administration; the court accepted this in the Nicaragua case and therefore limited its deliberations to US bilateral customary international law. Nicaragua Treaty, even on these very narrow grounds, the court accused Washington of what it called

illegal

use of force, which in simple terms is international terrorism, ordered it to stop the crimes and pay substantial reparations that would go far beyond of the payment of the enormous debt that is strangling Nicaragua. the court was dismissed as a hostile forum for subpoenaing New York Times editors reflecting the prevailing US view, then vetoed two Security Council resolutions affirming the court's ruling, Britain politely abstained and proceeded to Intensify the attack, the target country was devastated thinking more misery after the US took power again in 1990, now 60 percent of children under 2 years old suffer from severe malnutrition and probable brain damage, while much of the population survives thanks to remittances.

This is a radical change from 20 years earlier, when Washington panicked over reports from UNICEF, the World Bank and other international organizations. agencies about what they called Nicaragua's remarkable achievements that were laying a solid foundation for long-term socioeconomic development while the country enjoyed one of the most dramatic improvements in child survival in the developing world, there are no problems with that now and If there was someone who really fit into the category of conservatives, if there was such a category of people, they would have a very easy way to deal with the fact that 60% of children under 2 years old suffer from probable brain damage, i.e. paying his debts.

Simple conservative principle, but that goes further. Compassionate, unthinkable conservatives want to go beyond that, if they existed, but they are much more interested in taking political advantage of the fact that a woman in a vegetative state should not be allowed to die with dignity. The importance of issues like these at Washington Western. The broader culture is revealed in the recent appointment of John Negroponte II to the new position of Director of Intelligence. He was the ambassador to Honduras and ran the largest CIA station in the world, not because Honduras was of any importance but because he was overseeing the international terrorist war for which Washington was condemned by the International Court of Justice and the Security Council. without the veto.

Also part of his job was to regularly deny horrendous state crimes in Honduras so that military aid could continue to flow for international terrorism when the Inter-American Court tried him. Honduras, in fact, was convicted under oath of these crimes. They requested that Negroponte II testify, but the No. 1 Reagan and Bush administrations refused to allow him to appear. There has been virtually no reaction to the appointment of a prominent international terrorist to the world's top counterterrorism position at the same time the heroine of the popular struggle who overthrew the murderous thug Somoza was denied a visa to teach at the School of Divinity of Harvard as a terrorist, also provoking little reaction or will, I would not have known whether to laugh or cry at the rejection of the principle of universality.

It is understandable, it is enough to consider the consequences if we were willing to even admit the possibility of paying attention to elementary moral principles. It is really unthinkable if The United States and its allies are granted the right of what is called advance self-defense against terrorism. According to the elite consensus, a fortiori Cuba Nicaragua many others have long had the right to carry out terrorist acts within the United States because there is no doubt of their participation in very serious terrorist attacks against them, widely documented in impeccable classified sources from the United States government. documents and so on and in the case of Nicaragua even condemned by the world court and the Security Council without the veto again and surely Iran would have the right to do so today in the face of very serious threats the conclusions are, of course, completely scandalous and defended by no one, For example, I would argue that Japan exercised the legitimate right of early self-defense when it bombed military bases in the American colonies of Hawaii and the Philippines, even though the Japanese knew that B-17 Flying Fortresses were coming off Boeing's production line and were surely familiar with public discussions in the United States explaining how these planes could be used to incinerate wooden cities in a war of extermination by flying from Hawaiian and Philippine bases to burn them. industrial heartland of the Empire with firebombing attacks on abundant bamboo antiquities, as Air Force General Chenault recommended in 1940, that is a far more powerful justification for early self-defense than anything from Bush and Blair and their associates. , so it is prudent not to consider not even the most basic moral principles being adopted: Washington's unilateral right to force was publicly articulated by the Bush administration, and the September 2002 national security strategy did not break new ground. paths, but he wrote in foreign affairs for the main establishment newspaper even before the 2000 election.

Condoleezza Rice condemned what she called the reflexive appeal to notions of international law and norms and the belief that the support of many states or even better of institutions like the United Nations is essential to the legitimate exercise of power by the United States, which is the usual exception. This extremist position prevails, which has been completely conventional for a long time. I'll stick to the liberal end of the spectrum for some examples. Elder statesman and Kennedy advisor Dean Acheson reported to the American Society of International Law in 1963 that by his word no legal problem arises when the United States responds to a challenge to its position of power and prestige through terror.

In this case he was speaking shortly after the Cuban missile crisis that had brought the world to the brink of nuclear war a few months earlier. We recently learned how close he was. An important part of the background to this virtual annihilation of the species was Kennedy's campaign to bring the terrors of Earth to Cuba. Quotes from historian and Kennedy advisor Arthur Schlesinger in his biography of Robert Kennedy who was assigned the responsibility of bringing the terrors of the earth to Cuba and the campaign of international terrorism were in fact no small matter and intensified in later years still staying on the liberal side of the spectrum.

The Clinton

doctrine

was that the United States, if it decides to resort to appointments, will again resort to unilateral use of military power to defend vital interests, such as guaranteeing unrestricted access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources, without even the pretext that devised by Bush and Blair, taken literally, the Clinton

doctrine

, is much more expansive than their national security strategy, which aroused enormous fear and concern around the world and provoked very harsh criticism even within the foreign policy establishment of the United States. United the more expansive contrast of the Clinton Doctrine was barely noted.

International affairs literature clarifies the difference as explained by Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, although In an article on foreign affairs, she noted that with respect to the Bush Doctrine, every president has that doctrine in his back pocket, but it's just silly to smash people in the face with it and implement it in a way that infuriates even allies. In other words, a little tact goes a long way, so it is not polite to declare that there is no United Nations when the United States leads the United Nations we will continue when it suits our interests to do it we will do it when it does not suit our interests No we will, or perhaps it is a good way, the author of the words I quoted has just been appointed and the US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, attitudes on the use of force of the elite consensus receive an instructive expression in the academic literature we know. of leading American historians, Yale University professor John Lewis Gaddis published the first academic book analyzing the historical roots of the Bush administration's so-called preventive war doctrine, which he basically supports with the usual conditions on style and tactic.

Gaddis traces the doctrine to one of his intellectual heroes, the great strategist John Quincy Adams, referring specifically to the justifications Adams provided for Andrew Jackson's conquest of Florida and what was called the first Seminole War in 1818. Adams maintains that the war was justified in self-defense. Gatiss agrees with the goddess's version after Britain sacked Washington in 1814, United States. The leaders recognized that expansion is the path to security, that is the main reason expansion as the path to security and, therefore, they conquered Florida, a doctrine now expanded to the entire world by Bush and Gaddis concludes that when Bush, quoting him, warned that Americans must be prepared for war. preventive action when necessary to defend their freedom and defend our lives, was echoing an old tradition rather than establishing a new one, reiterating principles that presidents from Adams to Woodrow Wilson would have understood only too well, all of which explains Bush's predecessor, Gatiss, recognized that the security of the United States was threatened by what he called dangerous failed power vacuum states that the United States should guarantee its own security from Florida in 1818 to Iraq in 2003 Caddis is a good historian cites the correct historical sources mainly historian William Earl Weeks did the main scholarly work on the Seminole Wars, but Gattis omits what they say, so let me fill in some of the details which are not uninformative.

Weeks describes in lurid detail, mostly familiar quotes from Jackson's display of murder and plunder in the first Seminole War, which was just another phase. Of his project to expel or eliminate Native Americans from the Southeast, which had been underway long before the sack of Washington in 1814, which was totally irrelevant, Florida was a problembecause it had not yet been incorporated into what the founding fathers called the expanding American Empire. and because it was a refuge for Indians and runaway slaves fleeing Jackson's wrath or slavery, there was in fact an Indian attack that Jackson and Adams used as a pretext, that is, after American forces expelled to a band of Seminoles from their lands, killing several of them. and burning their village to the ground, they retaliated by attacking a military supply ship and seizing the opportunity.

Jackson embarked on a campaign of terror, devastation and intimidation destroying villages and food sources and a calculated effort to inflict starvation on tribes seeking refuge from his wrath and swamps and so things continued until he reached a famous state document in which Adams supported Jackson's unprovoked aggression to establish in Florida the Dominion of this Republic on the odious basis of violence and bloodshed. These words from the Spanish ambassador are a painfully accurate description of last week. rights that Adams had consciously distorted lied about the objectives and conduct of American foreign policy to both Congress and the public weeks continues to flagrantly violate his proclaimed moral principles implicitly advocating the removal of Indians slavery and the use of military force without approval of Congress Adams recognized what Weeks called the absurdity of his explanations, but in Adams's own arms of his own words, he felt that it is better to err on the side of vigor than on the side of weakness to speak in ways clearer than the truth. , as Dean Acheson would express the same sentiment in the above.

In the early postwar years, the account that Adams gave for weeks is considered a monumental distortion of the causes and conduct of Jackson's conquest of Florida, reminding historians not to look for truth in official explanations of events. The crimes of Jackson and Adams were nothing more than a prelude. to a second war of extermination against the Seminoles in which the remnants fled west to later enjoy the same fate or were killed or forced to take refuge in the dense swamps of Florida, all this is remembered in American culture by the fact that the Seminoles are now the mascot of leading the football team wins the football championship the weak emphasizes the important point that by endorsing the crimes of Jackson Adams transferred the power to wage war from Congress to the executive in violation of the Constitution The principle remains in force without being worryingly strict Constructionist Weeks notes that Adams also relied on Empire quotes and presidential rhetoric designed for MUP to mobilize in Marshall public and congressional support for his policies, a lasting and essential aspect. of the American diplomacy inherited and elaborated by successive generations of American statesmen but fundamentally unchanged over time the rhetorical framework it points out is based on three pillars the assumption of the unique moral virtue of the United States the affirmation of its mission to redeem the world spreading his professed ideals and the American way of life and faith in the nation's divinely ordained destiny.

The theological framework reduces political decisions. Political questions become a choice between good and evil, thus undermining reasoned debate and reducing the threat to democracy. -American and Americanism, which is an interesting concept taken from the lexicon of totalitarianism, the question of defense against Britain, the only potential enemy did not arise, British Minister Castle Ray was so eager to cement Anglo-American relations that he even overlooked Jackson's murder. two innocent British citizens that Adams defended for what he called their salutary efficacy for terror and the example of the week suggests that Adams was heeding the words of his favorite historian's passages that crime once exposed had no refuge, but already You know, audacity is also a principle that persists and seals the filling well.

In these and many other instructive omissions, the picture provided by the goddess academic sources provides considerable support for his judgment about the precedents of the Bush Doctrine and its implementation from Adams to what is called Wilsonian idealism and to the present. Surely it goes without saying. This should be very familiar to anyone familiar with British history and many others as to the spread of precedents to the entire world, others may make their own judgments and are afraid and often hate towards the United States has increased to unprecedented heights, significantly increasing the threat of terrorism as anticipated and also anticipated by the United States and certainly Britain and also increasing the threat of ultimate doom.

The same applies to the extension of the Clinton doctrine of control of space for military purposes to the Bush doctrine of citing ownership of space. space, which can mean instant engagement anywhere in the world, putting any part of the world at risk of instant destruction, that's the space age version of the Adams doctrine that expansion is the path to security; Well, to briefly summarize, there is a spectrum of opinions articulated on the resort to military force at one extreme, as the postwar consensus formally articulated in the United Nations Charter was reiterated at the Southern Summit and once again by the United Nations high-level panel on the rest of the spectrum and basically adopts the principle that the United States is exceptionally exempt from international law and delegates this right to its client and with the right to resort to any measure it chooses to respond to a challenge their position of power and prestige and to ensure inhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources, simply by adhering to liberal norms. internationalist end of the spectrum.

However, I must emphasize again that the American public remains fairly steadfast in the postwar consensus that it is virtually excluded from the political system and, to a large extent, at the margins of our opinion, we find more nuanced opinions. on the resort to war, one of the most important is the independent international commission to investigate the war in Kosovo, headed by the distinguished South African judge, Judge Richard Goldstone, the Commission made the harshest criticism of the NATO bombing which comes close to the main conclusion that it was illegal but legitimately illegal for obvious reasons, but despite its illegality, he cited that it was legitimate because all diplomatic avenues had been exhausted and there was no other way to stop the killings and atrocities in Kosovo.

Justice Goldstone concluded that the United Nations Charter may need a review in In light of the report of the commission she headed, which was the conclusion rejected by the UN panel last December, NATO intervention, according to Goldstone , is a precedent too important to be considered an aberration, because it was carried out by the powerful. The United States also systematically dismisses the principle of universality and also highlighted the need for an objective analysis of human rights abuses. One question that objective analysis could address is whether indeed, as the Commission concluded, all diplomatic options had been exhausted in Kosovo, the fact is that when NATO decided to bomb there were two diplomatic options on the table and the NATO proposal in a Serbian proposal after 78 days of bombing a compromise on tariffs between them suggesting that diplomatic options may well have been available a second more important question is whether there really was another way to stop the killings and atrocities in Kosovo, as the independent commission clearly states that there is a crucial issue here.

Objective analysis is unusually easy. There is a vast documentary record from impeccable Western sources. The US State Department released several compilations of documents. The British Parliament carried out a lengthy investigation. NATO OSCE others all overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion the killings and atrocities followed the bombing in the extensive literature on this topic, from the media to academics, the documentation is almost universally ignored and the chronology is reversed. I have reviewed the sorry record elsewhere and put Justice aside here. Goldstone is indeed unusual in acknowledging the facts in his words: the direct result of the bombing was that almost a million people fled Kosovo to neighboring countries and around 500,000 were displaced within Kosovo itself, a tremendous catastrophe for the people of Kosovo was a catastrophe that was compounded by serious crimes under the NATO military occupation after the consequences of the bombing should not have been a surprise: they were predicted by NATO commander Wesley Clark as soon as the bombings began quite publicly other sources make clear that the Clinton administration also anticipated the crimes that followed the bombing and, in fact, Clarke confirms that in more detail and in his memoirs it is difficult to imagine that the British authorities were more diluted.

Kosovo is indeed an ugly place before the NATO bombings, although unfortunately not by the international community. According to major Western sources, some 2,000 people had been killed in the year before the invasion, many of them by Albanian KLA guerrillas attacking Albania's Serbs in an effort to openly announce to Elisa the harsh Serbian response that could be used. to mobilize the Serbs. Western opinion to its cause, the British government makes the surprising claim that until January 1999, two months before the bombing, most of the killings were the responsibility of the KLA guerrillas attacking from Albania, and rich Western documentation reveals that nothing substantial changed in the two months that passed. followed up to the bombing, one of the few serious academic studies that even considers these issues, it is estimated that servants were responsible for 500 of the 200 deaths.

This is the careful and judicious study of Nicholas Wheeler, who supports NATO bombing on the grounds that worse atrocities would have been committed if NATO had not bombed, so the argument is that by bombing at a time when that most atrocities were attributable to KLA guerrillas with the anticipation that bombing would lead to much worse atrocities, NATO was preventing atrocities from being committed. The argument devised by the most serious analysts tells us a lot about the decision to bomb, especially if we remember that there were diplomatic options on the table and that the agreement reached after the bombing was a compromise between them.

At least formally, NATO instantly violated the agreements. Well, Kosovo is one of the two great achievements that were achieved to provide retrospective proof that, for the first time in history, States were observing principles and values ​​under the guidance of their Anglo-American guardians and that the Charter must be revised to allow West to carry out humanitarian actions, the other example given was East Timor, that example is truly atrocious and can even be mentioned without shame as a notable commentary on Western intellectual culture and here almost the entire West is complicit, the role of the United States and Britain is by far the worst that is widely documented in print, so I will omit it along with some other recent examples that deserve discussion and I think lead to the same conclusions.

Well, one case that can hardly be ignored has to do with Bush Blair's invasion of Iraq. which is based on a single question in his words, when they and their associates repeatedly emphasized Iraq's refusal to obey Security Council orders to stop developing weapons of mass destruction. After the collapse of these pretexts, we were solemnly informed that the justification was not Ori's self-authorization. defense as had been insistently proclaimed, but rather Bush's messianic vision of bringing democracy to the world as the liberal press describes the new version; for reactions to the announcement of the messianic vision ranged from enthusiastic enthusiasm to critical comments praising the nobility and generosity of the vision, but warning that it may be beyond their means the beneficiaries may be too far behind it may be too costly to This is the guiding vision and always has been.

It obviously presupposes that it is difficult to find an exception within the mainstream that could prove that all that was missing was evidence, evidently, the statements of our leaders are sufficient, the evidence in massive counters so far can be dismissed as irrelevant without comment. Well, these strongest defense witnesses should be the leading academics and the most enthusiastic defenders of what is called democracy. The most prominent of them is the director of the democracy and rule of law project at CarnegieEndowment, Thomas Carruthers. He just published a book that looks at the record of democracy promotion since the end of the Cold War and finds what he calls a strong line. of continuity that runs through all administrations, they cite it now, where democracy seems to fit well with the economic and security interests of the United States, the United States promotes democracy, where democracy clashes with other important interests, is downplayed or even is ignored, all administrations are, in his words, schizophrenic with curious consistency.

He ruefully predicts that Iraqi policies will likely exhibit similar contradictions between stated principles and political reality, but dedication to principles is nonetheless unquestionable. It didn't take long for his predictions about Iraq to come true; The occupation authorities worked assiduously to avert the threat. of democracy, but the United States and Great Britain were forced, with great reluctance, to allow elections that were an important triumph of nonviolent resistance. A few competent observers would disagree with the editors of the Financial Times and quote them that the reason the elections were held was the insistence of the government. Grand Ayatollah Ala Sistani and the massive popular resistance he supported sparked.

I added that Sistani, who vetoed three plans by the US-led occupation authorities to sideline or dilute Bush, and Blair did not waste a single moment in declaring that they intended to subvert the elections. which they had tried to prevent by rejecting any withdrawal calendar as a large majority of the Arab population wants and as even their own candidate allowed it, they were forced to include it as a support point in their program so that the strong line of continuity persists and the fighting is reduced. Far from finishing Carruthers also wrote the standard academic work on democracy promotion in Latin America in the 1980s, partly from an insider perspective.

He was in Reagan's State Department, since he considers the programs to improve democracy sincere but a failure and a systemic failure. Failure was greatest where US influence was least in the Southern Cone, and the reason Carruthers explains is that the US would tolerate only limited, risk-free forms of top-down democratic change. To establish the traditional power structures with which the United States has long been allied, Washington sought to maintain the basic order of rather undemocratic societies and avoid populist grassroots changes; In short, the strong line of community continuity goes back a decade earlier, to its Reagan roots. and remember that I am not quoting a critic but the most prominent defender of the academic defender of the programs, well, it goes back much further, but I will leave it out and none of this should surprise us; it simply reveals that the United States is Like other powerful states of the past and present that pursue strategic and economic interests of demonic sectors, intellectuals are tasked with covering them up and making it appear that they are dedicated to principles and values.

Democracy is fine as long as it takes the top-down form. that does not run the risk of popular interference with the primary interests of power and wealth and the same doctrine is applied internally where enormous efforts are made to promote and protect the minority from the opulent of the majority, it is a main objective of the government and citing to the author of the American law. constitutional system James Madison explains what the new system should be to his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention. Well, popular struggle over these issues over the centuries has produced many victories for freedom and democracy, but progress is not a smooth upward trajectory.

There are periods of regression. some

times

they go to the point where the population is almost completely marginalized in the pseudo-elections of recent years, they are run by the same people who literally sell toothpaste and cars, as we all know very well, companies despise and fear the markets of orthodox economic doctrine and that informed consumers make rational decisions in the United States companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to avoid that result project images to deceive consumers in an indisputable way, that is the goal of advertising, notInformation and observation are as old as Adam Smith who warned that the interests of merchants and manufacturers is to deceive or even oppress the public as they have done on many occasions now served by the main industries developed for these purposes when the public relations industry is given the task of selling candidates, it naturally resorts to the same techniques it uses to sell merchandise, projecting images to deceive voters, so deception is used to undermine democracy, just as it is the natural device to undermine markets.

The November 2004 US presidential election provides a very striking example that it takes real talent to miss the US, where there is a lot of information about it, as polls show that voters had little idea of ​​the candidates' positions. about the topics; In fact, only about 10 percent said their vote is based on candidates' agendas, ideas, platforms and goals, which, as I mentioned, were often misled by important studies just before the election. and practically unreported demonstrated that the bipartisan consensus is far to the right of public opinion on important issues, which is a true triumph of the marginalization of the population in a formal democracy and it is worth adding that the political and economic administrators of The US is teaching useful lessons to its counterparts elsewhere.

I'm sure they can provide good examples; This is a small sample of issues of great importance for the future. Not the least important among them is the appropriateness of the use of force. The investigation could reveal genuine cases of intervention that are illegal but legitimate, but there is always a heavy burden of proof. The precious example offered in Leeds is a

dubious

doctrine for current

times

and tends to reinforce the measured judgment of the World Court in 1949, reaffirmed in the case of Nicaragua and others, and recently reiterated by the high-level UN panel at citing the court in 1949, the court can only consider the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy.

A use of force such as that which in the past has given rise to the most serious abuses and which, whatever the defects of the international organization, cannot find a place in international law, by the nature of things, the intervention would be reserved, on the contrary, reserved for the most powerful States and could easily lead to perverting the administration of justice itself. The investigation reveals without a doubt that State terrorism and other forms of threat and use of force have led the world very close to the edge of definitive perdition; In fact, it is shocking to observe how easily such discoveries are ignored in intellectual culture, including the most recent and surprising ones, today surely only the most blind and irrational will ignore the call that Bertrand Russell and Alfred Einstein made exactly fifty years ago when they said: "here then is the problem we present to you, crude and terrible." and inescapable, will we put an end to the human race or will humanity renounce war?

So now Professor Chomsky will answer some questions. If he poses a question, it would be helpful if he started by telling us who he is, please, yes, my name is Ash Our. Mum from the University of Nottingham and I come from Algeria Professor Chomsky thanks for the talk. It's really a pleasure. I'm glad I came out of the blue to hear a speech. My question is about the Middle East. I did not do it. I was not fortunate enough to be able to speak with you earlier today and I wanted to know what you think about the recent events in the Middle East, especially with respect to the recent London summit, and do you know what you think about what would happen or what is going to happen? pass.

I didn't hear all about the London summit. Yes, in general, the Empire, particularly recent events in the middle, saw the highest real Arab conflict with Israel, noticeably gone, thank you and the most important state was not there, that is, the United States, because it is part of intellectual culture. in England and in most of the West and, of course, in the United States is to suppress a very crucial fact: the barrier to a political solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine for the last 30 years at least, in fact, more there is the United States, but we are not allowed to say that because we are, by definition, enlightened States and that is our leader, it cannot be true, but they were missing and therefore what happened was largely irrelevant.

The actual results of the summit were more or less to reaffirm what happened in Abbas Sharan's truth the truce is better than no truth it is better to have fewer deaths than more deaths on the other hand it was a tremendous victory for us The Israeli rejection of the ISM It is the only substantial element and it is more or less the same at the London summit was to deny the legitimacy of any form and resistance to the military occupation, which means that the military occupation can continue and that does not mean just the military occupation, it means all the issues that are not discussed at either the summit or the Abbas Shoreham meeting on the truth and Those would have been at the center of the conflict for 30 years, and increasingly over the last 10 years, is the continued land grab and Palestinian resources, including the most valuable land, including water resources.

Palestinians are among the most deprived of water. people in the world because about 80% of its water resources are used by Israel and this continues constantly and I read it in the newspaper this morning with the report of 3,500 new homes built between East Jerusalem, the newspaper did not report that these The programs were started by the pigeons, Clara was in Paris and now they continue to be implemented, they continued until the Oslo accords without any big peak year, the year 2000, the last Clinton year, and it continues now and now it can continue without any break with agreements. can continue without any interruption, there is some vague talk about what they like to call Bush's two-state vision, whatever some Egon vision is supposed to mean, but the fact of the matter is that for the last time since 1976, when the US first vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a two-state agreement in writing by abstaining and since then this has been the main obstacle to the agreement and unless someone tries to address it, it is over, Finally I must add that this is another of those issues in which American public opinion is firmly opposed to government policy;

In fact, support for this position in the United States is around 17 percent to 17 percent, but that opposition is dormant because no one has any idea what is happening, or what has been happening for virtually nothing. What has been happening for the last 30 years was not even reported and that cannot be achieved, you can barely find academic literature that is very obedient. I mean, there are exceptions, of course, but that's largely true if you look at Serious studies can be found, but no one knows, and unfortunately the London summit didn't make good progress. Another question, please, thank you.

My name is Alma and I report to Burrow here. I am a musician and I have a question for Professor Chomsky, and looking at recent events it seems to me that certainly Bush's last two elections have shown more than anything that the United States is in crisis with itself and with itself, as much as it is socially and politically in crisis. with himself. The United States is in crisis with and a crisis with - with itself. At what point will the American people take back their country as it seems to me? I know, we know, we know, for example, that in past administrations there has always been a conflict of interest between visas and business. etc., you already know, but now it seems to me that past revelations clearly demonstrate that companies have perhaps really taken over to use the local parent company as a weapon and a barrel and what I see, for example, in Iraq does not It is not a government in charge, but it is the big companies that are completely in charge of the entire operation to the extent that security appears to be provided, for example, by privatized quasi-mercenaries.

So my question, in a nutshell, is: At what point do you see the American people waking up? What are they going to do? Get it right, first of all, what you are describing could be said more or less about Britain and throughout its entire history, and what you know is that there are most likely differences here and there, it looks good, and the British Empire, for example, was run by mercenaries to a much greater extent than the US in Iraq, how did Britain control India?How many British troops were there? They were mostly local forces. The Gurkhas see prepared to be taken from one area and sent to kill people in some other area, so they waited in Afghanistan and Africa, etc., the dependence on civilian soldiers is very It's strange, I mean, in fact, it's a mistake the United States made in Vietnam.

They cannot learn that civilian soldiers cannot be trusted to carry out a murderous colonial war. Britain always knew that France always knew. Others knew it. So they really depended on professional assassins or local forces that could be used in a certain way. You know, it's true that the United States, that's why Isilon's top military and politicians in the United States turned against conscription against conscription around 1970 because I finally learned the lesson that is familiar to all previous imperial powers and that the US held and invaded the Philippines and others with recruits and it is true now the second largest force the second largest military force in Iraq is not written they are private contractors some of them former US military some South African assassins some many Latin Americans who There were many Latin American Chilean soldiers or other security forces armed and trained by the United States to carry out atrocities there.

There was a lot of work to do, so they go to Iraq, but this is just the traditional pattern and the Alliance. to business is, of course, very true, but there is nothing new in that and it is nothing specific to the United States to varying degrees. What I mean is that the United States is not identical to other societies, you know, Britain is not literally, but there are very striking similarities and in many respects what the United States is now is the direction towards which the European elites are trying. of moving Europe, including the British, does not include the marginalization of the population, which is not a new policy, but which continually takes new forms Chris Froome Gallants, journalist, you said that American public opinion is in many ways to the left of the parties do you see an imminent coherent force that is beginning to claim some of that public opinion back, as even Hillary Clinton is beginning to pay homage to the right?

Do you see any reason for optimism on the left? Everyone remember what is called the left in the United States is the New York Times. I'm not kidding, top economists who I'm sure will be awarding an honorary degree one of these days, Greg Manko, who is the head of probably getting a Nobel Prize is the head of Reagan's economic advisor, just opened an article saying : I'm not kidding, saying that Harvard University is probably the most leftist institution on the face of the earth, so that's the left, you know, if anyone knows. what Harvard is like, you'll appreciate the comment, but Harvard, the New York Times, you know the Democratic Party that's supposed to be to the left and it's so far to the right that most of the population is to the left of them, can you the royal puppy?

So the real question is not about the left, but about whether the dominant public opinion can be made to generate growth to enter into policymaking, that is, can the country be turned into a functioning democracy, not just in a formal democracy? But I think that's the question that can be asked. Ask your... not a question, but specific to the United States. It may be a couple of steps ahead of other industrial societies, but you know you can answer the question very easily yourself. Is there hope for a change in the past? Often, if you look at past history, you will come to the end of history in a utopia of the Masters have been repeatedly proclaimed here - background I think in 1880 William Morris gave a speech that would be famous at Oxford and I wish I could remember the words because they are quite eloquent, but the point was that he says that he knows that it is received opinion that history is over and that everyone must subordinate themselves to the rules of business and the greatest minds tell him that, but he knows that if that is the true civilization has come to an end and refuses to believe that it is true and he was You know, after that king there were some pretty important events that led to the much higher degree of freedom and justice that we have now and that has been repeated again and again and yes, this turns out to be a moment of triumphalism for concentrated private state power, the types of meeting In the G8 we are very early, but there have been moments of triumphalism in the past that have repeatedly always been proven wrong, so Yes, there are many opportunities to change it and now the opportunities are much greater than in the past because there is already a legacy of freedom. which has gone far beyond what was available in the 1880s, 1920s or 1950s, to take the last period in which there was such triumphalism, so there are certainly plenty of opportunities.

The question is whether people use them, so please answer one last question on my behalf. I'm Nina and I don't have a fully formulated question, but I was hoping you could say a few words about the connection between what you've been talking about and the abandonment of state-to-state rule of law and what's happening. within the states, especially the so-called enlightened ones, now in the pre-g8 period, for example, the repression of protests and political activism in this country, in the pre-g8 period, there are many drastic measures on political activism and protest and I was hoping that IDE now you are a trip to hell protester running to the g8 rebels, the security system: okay, then design, there have been, well, you know much better than me, a lot of hysteria arose about the threats violent acts of violence at the g8 meetings, that is what you are referring to as the big police. presence of security forces, if that's what you mean, yes, judging by past events, I suspect this is a conscious effort to provoke violence.

If you look at the past, the government has a great interest in provoking violence at such meetings, the governments and the private power with which they are closely connected, desperately do not want the issues to be discussed, they want to keep the issues off the agenda. issues that the protesters have mine and would like more than anyone I've heard of in the meetings, except you can't have that level of secrecy, then people find out about them and they come to have positions that they want to protest because they don't They like the framework where, in fact, many people are the overwhelming majority in the world, as far as we know, certainly in countries where surveys can be carried out, it opposes the agenda that the propaganda system calls globalization, it is not globalization, it is a very particular form of economic integration aimed at guaranteeing the rights of investors and undermining democratic options.

I mean, it's a particular form of international integration and a lot of people are opposed to it, so, for example, in the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, it's an unusual agreement that says it's not about free trade. , that none of the free trade agreements are about free trade, it certainly was an agreement, at least if the populations consider themselves part of their countries, so in Canada and the United States we have good polls, the majority of the population opposed . The polls from Mexico are not that good, so you can't be sure that there is much opposition and, in fact, it is an unusual agreement and that all In three countries the populations were opposed and had alternatives, such as the labor movement in the United States, which presented a very substantive alternative for a free trade agreement, but that could not be reported and was not reported until today, was not reported until today, was not reported by the investigation office itself congressional.

He also proposed an alternative quite similar to the labor movement that cannot be denounced, so it was pushed through an executive agreement on the popular opposition and, of course, those who carry out the different stages would like to make sure that the public is well out of this. keeping the public out is to ensure that protests are limited to stone throwing and police gas masks and that sort of thing, as long as the incidents and event are limited to private discussions between important people and stone throwers. . by unimportant people then you can be sure that there will be a victory, you know that the issues are off the agenda so they would like to encourage violence as a matter of course and if you look at history in recent cases from the past it has often been true on many occasions. stone throwing and so on turns out to be police provocateurs or just the presence of strong and very secure security that you know provokes a reaction from people who would like to know what they consider funny or something that the protesters should know.

What you needed to do was be aware of that and prevent it, make sure that they use their strength, which is the problems in public support and the educational importance of developing an organization to counteract the projects that they oppose, which will happen, since We'll see, we know. the record of past events and it has often been what I describe sometimes, as in Italy and in the generals, it turned out that there was a lot of violence, it turned out that almost everything was attributable to the police, the police provocateurs, the black gangs would be breaking up windows and benches. and a couple of days later people saw them entering and leaving the police station.

I don't know if that will happen here, but just trying to create an atmosphere of tension and safety tends to promote that kind of reaction to, okay, the University. of Edinburgh and the Gifford committee are very grateful to Professor Chomsky for coming here to lecture on these very important issues and for debating them with the audience, and I am sure he will want to join me in thanking him again.