On The Verge Of War

Noam Chomsky debates with Tariq Ali, Gilbert Achcar and Isin Elicin
NTV, December 19, 2002

Isin ELICIN: I would like to begin with a current issue topic for Turkey. EU rebuffed USs pressure
for early entry talks for Turkey. Starting from this example, can you elaborate on the rift or
maybe rather the rivalry between the EU and the US?
Tariq ALI: Well, the rift between the US and the EU at the moment doesnt Its not the EU as a
whole; its some of the major countries in the EU, which are extremely nervous about the war.
They think it is a big risk and they know that the bulk of their populations are opposed to the
war. Thats you know, in Germany you have 70 percent of the population is against the war in
Iraq, in Italy its over 50 percent, in Britain its over 50 percent. This has never happened before
in anti war history. The people are so hostile to a war before. Then comes the United States and
wants to reward Turkey for agreeing to participate in the war, by saying well get you EU
membership on the cheap and the Europeans used this, partially they dont want Turkey
anyway but they then used this also as {inaudible} to say hang on a bit, well discuss it later,
the United States isnt going to tell us who we let in at what stage. Later we can think about it.
So the fact that Turkish elite was convinced that if they back the war in Iraq they would get
fasttrack to EU membership, thats not the case, they will have to do a lot more than that.
I. ELICIN: If we can talk about the rift between the two in a much broader sense, what is Europe
trying to do? That is, on the one hand it has the values based on the concepts like democracy,
peace etc. But on the other hand we see that EU is beginning to choose a different track then it
used to follow. What is it?
Gilbert ACHCAR: Well, frankly speaking, I dont think that there is some, that kind of a basic rift
between the United States and the European Union. Basically the EU is accepting a position of
vesselity towards the US, which has been consistently the case since the 2nd World War and is
continuing actually. We see it through for instance, the fact that the Nato alliance was not only
kept after the end of Cold War but also even enhanced. And it is becoming now, a kind of a
direct tool, which United States plans to use as an auxiliary force in its interventions. As for the
recent, lets say, disagreements expressed by the German and the French governments; well the
German disagreement was equal to what Tarik Ali has just described as the overwhelming
opposition by German population which is one of the most pacifist population in the world from
that angle. It was for what for purely opportunistic electoral reasons. And there are a lot of
arguments to think that way since first of all we havent much heard of Schroeders opposition
to war after he is reelected. Secondly, Germany is going to be a part of this coming war to Iraq,
at least through being part of the Nato infrastructure, which will be used by the United States

for the war. As for France, here again its not a matter of a philosophical disagreement between
Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush. Its a matter of interest. Its just that the French
government has concluded very important contracts with the present Iraqi government and
doesnt want a regime change in Iraq. They want the embargo to be lifted through the UN
process but want to keep the same regime because they have their very interesting contracts
with this regime. This explains Frances reservations about the war. We are seeing now that, like
in 199091, they started shifting positions under the pressure because US is saying that we are
going to that war and if you want any piece of the cake youd better join us.
Noam CHOMSKY: I think I tend to agree with this if we take a shortterm view but in the longer
term, and in fact going back some distance, there has been a potential rift between United
States and Europe. Theres always been a question as to whether Europe will move towards a
more independent course in world affairs. United States has always been concerned about this,
it goes back to late 1940s, and Europe has had conflicting tendencies. The tendency lets be a
vessel of United States has indeed won, but its not necessarily permanent. Europe has
different interests. Potentially Europe is a force in the world affairs on a par with the United
States, the economy is on a par, the society is more developed in many ways, and its an
educated society. I mean, except that in armaments it is force like the United States and
armaments are not the only things by any means. It could move in an independent direction, just
as Asia could, just as Japan centered Asia could. US doesnt want that in neither case. And it
regularly intervenes to prevent it. Part of the reason why the US has been supporting Turkey for
the EU part of it is exactly what you said, they want it pay off for the war but there is a deep
further reason. They are expecting Turkey to be a Trojan horse for the United States to support
US interests within the European Union. In fact the US strongly supported the accession of the
Eastern European States for essentially the same reason. They want to somehow balance the
FrancoGerman interest in potentially moving in an independent direction. I think thats a
problem. Thats going to play itself at heart over a long period. And for Turkey, for Turkey to
enter the European Union on those terms, I think would be a disaster for Turkey. I mean if they
enter the European Union, it should be to pursue their own interest, a broader interest, not to
act as an agent of the United States.
I. ELICIN Mr. Achcar, in an essay adopted from your book The Clash of Barbarisms, you
pinpointed that European Union decreed a Europewide day of mourning for the victims of the
attacks of September 11, yet they did not observe a single minute of silence for the people
massacred, for example in Serebrenitza. Could you elaborate on this point a little bit?
G. ACHCAR: Well, I mentioned this example as being an example on European soil. Its an
illustration of the vesselity. This is what I call narcissistic compassion, the fact that there is
much more, you know, emotion around when the victims are people that Western Europeans can
identify with easily. Just think of the fact that we have every day more than two September 11s
in black Africa alone as a result of AIDS. Just to mention that issue among many other kind of

problems and diseases, the western world doesnt care. There is something which is deeply I
would say, scandalous in this way of reacting to September 11 and we have seen that again on
the first anniversary of the attacks. I am coming from France and in France There was a real
competition between every kind of media about who will do more about September 11. 24
hours, the whole day was booked.
I.ELICIN: You said that we havent seen so much opposition to war in the history before. So how
come then, that is, do the people begin to feel much more closer to Iraqi people or what? Why
we see this opposition now?
N. CHOMSKY: Ill talk about the United States. In the United States, for the last 40 years there
has been a strong increase in opposition to aggression and atrocities. And the administration
knows it. The first Bush administration when they came into office in 1989 any new government
has an intelligent analysis of the world situation, which usually one learns about 40 years later
when its declassified. This time it is leaked. Pieces of it releaked and they were interesting,
somebody in Pentagon didnt like it. They leaked a section which said roughly the following: It
said in the case of confrontation with more weaker enemies, meaning anybody theyre going to
fight, we must defeat them decisively and rapidly or else political support will erode. The
reason is that there isnt any support any longer for aggression and massacre. When Kennedy
started to bomb South Vietnam 40 years ago and drove millions of people into concentration
camps and started a chemical warfare there werent any protest. None in the United States,
none in Europe. Yeah, thats the way the West behaves towards the niggers. Thats {inaudible}
who cares. But there has been a change over the years. The countries have become a lot more
civilized; people do not accept aggression and atrocities. And every single case of intervention
has had to follow this model. You have to first create the image of this monstrous enemy that
about to destroy you to frighten people, then you have to quickly slay the dragon, dont let it
drag on too long. And then people forget it. So they will forget what just happened in
Afghanistan and they wont look at what it looks like. And then you won the next battle. Thats
the only way they can fight a war now and they know it.
I. ELICIN: How would you characterize the so called war on terrorism? A brief description may
be What is it?
T. ALI Its now become a joke. The war against terror was devised by the Bush administration to
enable them to wage war wherever they want, and to enable their allies to crush people who
are resisting them. So Ariel Sharon became part of the war against terror and crushing the
Palestinians. Colonel Putin in Moscow became a valued ally of the west killing more Chechens
than anyone can believe. 20 thousand people have died in Chechnya and the city of Grozni has
been erased to the ground; hospitals, schools destroyed much more than anything Milosevic
managed to do to Kosovo. So these double standards possessed in the war against terror are now
one reason as Noam was saying, people are fed up with these lies. They dont believe them any

longer. Thats why you have opposition even before a war has broken out, because people
challenge the basic premise of the war. They know that the reasons the west is giving for this
war are complete and utter lies. People are beginning to see through that. They dont believe it.
They know it. They know it is oil, they know they want to resettle the Middle Eastern region. So
they dont believe it is about weapons of mass destruction. Cause, you know, they imagine the
citizens of Europe and North America are like children that they can carry on spoonfeeding
them lies and theyll accept it. But people are beginning to resist, cause you know, we had three
wars now since the Cold War came to an end. And I think this war in Iraq, whatever it does in
the Middle East is a bit unforeseen, you know it can create a mess, but one thing it will do is
create an opposition in Europe and when you have politicians who do not reflect public opinion
in European countries, then anything is possible.
N. CHOMSKY: The only thing Id like to add that these people did not declare a war on terror on
September 11. They declared it 20 years earlier. The same people who are now running the
Washington came in with the Reagan administration. Their first act was to declare a war on
terror. They said a war on terror would be the focus of US foreign policy primarily in Central
America and in Middle East. Every one of them is now back in the office. Same rhetoric, a plague
spread by depraved opponents of civilization, a return to barbarism, and they proceeded the
fight the war on terrorism in the 1980s. They left a couple of hundred thousand corpses in
Central America, they left a trail of devastation and disaster in the Middle East. In Southern
Africa, just supporting their ally South Africa and its wars around the edge they killed another
million and half people. That was the war on terror. It was a cover for murderous interventions
all over the world. And the same people calling the same war on terror, of course going to do
the same thing.
I. ELICIN: Where will it stop, I mean this kind of attitude of the United States? Mr. Ali, you said
once for example, it is imperialism but America doesnt like this name, but now it openly says,
I want to do this and Ill do it. What is the end?
T. ALI: Well the end is not the United States is the only empire in the world. This is the first
time, I think in world history, we have a situation where there is only one empire. No other
empire exists. And they now feel that they can assert this need and people around Bush compare
themselves to Rome. But in fact their position is much more stronger Romes position ever was.
They now say we are an empire why shouldnt we behave like it. If a country doesnt accept
what were doing, were gonna kick ass. I mean the bumper stickers in California, Republican
Partys bumper stickers are saying, Kick his ass and get the gas. Which is actually very
straightforward and very honest of them to show that this was what the war is about. It is about
energy and about oil. But the United States now feels unchallengeable.
I.ELICIN: Immanuel Wallerstein, for example says the American empire is declining, that it is the
end of even, or rather that this is the first and real crisis of capitalism. Do you agree with this

view?
T.ALI Wishful thinking.
N. CHOMSKY There is a constant crisis of capitalism. Its always in crisis, I mean right now there
are very serious crisis, there is absolutely no way to predict whether they will be overcome or
compensated. In fact the main factor will be what the population does and thats not
predictable. 40 years ago you could have never predicted that an antiwar movement would
develop. It was inconceivable. You certainly couldnt predict that a feminist movement would
develop, that an environmental movement develop; I mean none of this were predictable. The
contemporary global justice movement, whats called antiglobalization, who could have
predicted that? There wasnt anything like it in the world history. Thats a big, powerful,
international movement, which may have a major effect. And the people in power know that
their grip to power is fragile. So the World Economic Forum, for example, is very concerned
about the World Social Forum. They know its there, they know its a threat. They are trying to
figure out the ways to, sort of, coopt {inaudible} I think its got to the point that Im getting
invitations to give keynote speeches for World Bank in international conferences. You know they
are trying to coopt the movements, which are substantial and could erode the whole system.
G. ACHCAR: This declinism, the decline theory, has been recurrent in the history of the United
States over the last decades and it was very strong in the 70s and 80s. Under Reagan for
instance, I mean, Reagan came to power as having a key program designed to reverse the
decline of the United States, which was a real decline at that time. But precisely the issue that
declinists, those who deal with that kind of theory, tend to forget the way the US uses its
military, political dominance in the world to restore its position every time it has been
threatened. That was very clear under Reagan and he achieved this come back of the United
States as a first rank world power. Well, we can see in the behavior of the Bush administration
today a continuation of that basic option of the United States after the Cold War, which was to
maintain and enhance this supremacy, as a priority for US politics. And a key tool to maintain
this dominance of the United States in all other fields, you know, related to that military and
political dominance.
T. ALI: The point that Id like to add to that is this; what the current situation of the strength of
the American Empire essentially produces, is a total contempt for democracy. Not just in the
United States itself, but all over the world. Because if you have populations which are opposed
to their governments becoming dependencies of the United States, then you have to prevent the
populations from exercising their right to self determination electroally. And increasingly, I think
that, I mean people are doing that at the moment by not bothering to vote. The voting patterns,
even in Western Europe by and large show declining vote. Because they feel there is no
alternative for them. And Turkey in this case, which is trying to become more democratic than it
has ever been cause this is the country which is, we know is run by the army, it has been for a

long time has a real choice facing it now. At the time when it wants to become democratic, the
Americans are going to involve this country in a big war, which will probably be opposed, by
sections of the population. Then what? What if the population carries on electing a regime which
is opposed to war? The army will then take over. So the infinite war, which the empire seeks to
wage now, is linked to totally ignoring democracy. One thing we know, youll get democracy in
Afghan style basically in countries they occupy. I think Turkey and Turkish elite, you know, has
to think very carefully of its own future. It has been a US ally or lets say dependency since the
Cold War days. Is this going to carry on forever?
I. ELICIN: Yes, but they argue that, for example our hands are tied, wee need the money
N. CHOMSKY: You need the money because youve been following the policies dictated by the US
Treasury Department, which have led Turkey, Brazil and a whole series of other countries in the
world in to a position where they have a stranglehold from the US Treasury Department. You
dont have to follow these policies.
T. ALI And you know, even prostitutes sometimes say, we have to do it, because we need the
money. But I mean, that is on an individual level and one can even sympathize. But when states
start behaving in that way, then you have to ask whats going on and whats wrong?
I. ELICIN I felt a little bit pessimistic about the near future, at least, listening to you. As my final
question, could I ask briefly from each of you, how do you see the future? I mean, on the one
hand this imperialistic thing is covering the whole world and at the same time you say that
theres a huge anti movement gathering up. How do you see the way out?
T. ALI Well, I think there is a resistance to the empire. Its not strong ant its not on the level of
states resisting to it; like the Vietnamese resistance to the US. It was carried out on the level of
state. No such states exist at the moment essentially that will resist to empire. May be some will
develop over the next 1520 years, we dont know. But they will do it for their own interests.
What we have and thats very new, are mass movements developing in different parts of the
world, which want to resist this empire. That can only be something very positive. Im not saying
that theyll win or sweep to victory but the fact that they exist, poses some restraints especially
in the North America and Western Europe. Its a sign of hope. So its not, were sort of saying
everything is wonderful and were going to score a big victories, but nor do we say that they can
carry on doing what they are doing without any resistance from below. And if resistance
continues, sooner or later itll have some effect.
N. CHOMSKY: I quite agree. In fact the tendency in this direction over the recent years is very
positive. All the popular movements there is now in US and elsewhere have no precedent. They
are far beyond anything there were before. In the United States, its not on this issue alone, on
all sorts of issues theres very substantial opposition to state policy. Thats one of the reasons
why there has to be such intensive efforts to terrify people constantly. The only way they can

control anyone anymore is to terrify him. Because theres just enormous opposition. What you
say about declining voting, in the United States, it became an absurdity. Before the last election
2000, about 75 percent of the population regarded the whole thing as a complete farce. These
reflect a strong antagonism to policies. On international economic policies like say NAFTA free
trade agreement, populations very strongly oppose, has been all along opposing. Thats why the
issues are never discussed and dont come up in elections. And theres just a question whether
these substantial popular forces can become, can interact and organize enough, so that they
introduce major changes. They already have introduced plenty of changes. How far itll go, I
cant predict.
G. ACHCAR: The dominance of the United States in military field is overwhelming to such a point
that any attempt at, you know, opposing to it through violent means is doomed to fail. Even if
there are asymmetric means like terrorism. Weve seen that September 11 was actually a gift
from heaven for George W. Bush. It was the best thing he could dream of because he made a
quite huge use of it. So the only asymmetry that can fight against this empire is the asymmetry
of mass mobilization, of popular, democratic mobilization. And in that sense, I think there are
reasons to be much more optimistic today than five years ago. For instance when we look at the
tremendous development of radicalization and mobilization against neoliberal globalization or
against the war, especially in the younger generation, well, thats very promising for the future.
I. ELICIN Thank you very much.

CHOMSKY.INFO