Noam Chomsky in Power and Terror, by Noam Chomsky


On Drugs: Poisoning crops & biodiversity justified as "war on drugs"

Listen to testimonies of poor peasants: the worst terror that they have suffered is from direct US terror, namely fumigation. Fumigation completely destroys their lives. It destroys their crops; it kills their animals.

These are poor coffee farmers, mostly. Once the coffee trees are destroyed and the land is fumigated & poisoned, it's poisoned forever. Not only are lives destroyed and crops, but biodiversity is also destroyed, and rather crucially, the tradition of peasant agriculture is destroyed.

The fumigation is officially justified as a "war on drugs." This is hard to take seriously except as a cover for a counterinsurgency program, and another stage in the long history of driving peasants off the land for the benefit of wealthy elites and resource extraction by foreign investors.

The consequence is that if this area ever goes back to agriculture, it will be monoculture for agro-export with laboratory-produced seeds, bought from Monsanto. There's no real other alternative.

Source: Power and Terror, by Noam Chomsky, p. 69-70 May 25, 2002

On Foreign Policy: US foreign aid is most miserly of all major countries

US foreign aid is the most miserly by far of any of the major industrial countries. And it we take away the component that goes to 1 rich country and another middle-range country [because of its associations with the rich country], namely Israel and Egypt, there's almost nothing left. However, if you count everything, it's still grotesquely marginal, and it is declining. But there is, nevertheless, some aid, and quite a lot of military aid, in fact.
Source: Power and Terror, by Noam Chomsky, p. 46 May 25, 2002

On Foreign Policy: Cuban embargo is almost a humanitarian catastrophe

The fear of Communism was always a total fraud. We know that and have known it for years from the declassified internal record. It's from the Kennedy administration.

The effect of the Cuban embargo, the standard line here, which was repeated by former President Carter a couple of weeks ago, is that the embargo helps Castro and, of course, doesn't harm the Cubans. The only people who are harmed by it are the North Americans like farmers and agro-business who want to export there, but it has no effect on Cuba except to help Castro.

A detailed study in March 1997 concluded that the embargo had dramatically harmed health and nutrition in Cuba, and caused a significant rise in suffering and death. It would have been a humanitarian catastrophe, they said, which is quite astonishing, though it did direct resources in the health system away from other needs, with the obvious consequences.

Source: Power and Terror, by Noam Chomsky, p. 73 May 25, 2002

On Foreign Policy: Haitian embargo has stopped all rebuilding efforts

By 1995, after the junta was finally thrown out, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) and other agencies began projects to try to rebuild what was left of the battered public health system, but that has been stopped. They wanted to try to reverse the decline of life expectancy, the only case of that in this hemisphere.

That effort was stopped by the embargo. It blocked half a billion dollars' worth of aid that was coming from the IADB and other sources, and it terminated the projects and, of course, exacerbated the already horrendous conditions. The only help they're getting is from Cuba.

Haiti, incidentally, is paying interest on the loans that are blocked and that it isn't receiving, just to add to the catastrophe. So that's the 2nd embargo. This is also being imposed because of our love of democracy, as Powell and others have explained

Source: Power and Terror, by Noam Chomsky, p. 75 May 25, 2002

On Principles & Values: US freedom & privilege mean we must use power responsibly

I'd like to consider the US role in the world. The most obvious reason is that the US is the most important power in the world. It has overwhelming military force and other forms of power. It has a determinative impact on anything that happens in contemporary world history.

The second reason is, of course, that we're here. We happen to have an unusual degree of freedom in the US, and, for most of us, privilege. That confers enormous responsibility for our own actions, and for our influence on policy. Even if it were not the case that this is by far the most powerful country in the world, that responsibility would or should be of primary concern to us.

Source: Power and Terror, by Noam Chomsky, p. 45 May 25, 2002

On Homeland Security: 9-11 was historic event because of who the victims were

Q: September 11, 2001: What was your initial response?

A: A horrible atrocity. But I reacted pretty much the way people did around the world. A terrible atrocity, but unless you're in Europe or the US or Japan, I guess, you know it's nothing new. That's the way the imperial powers have treated the rest of the world for hundreds of years. This is a historic event, but unfortunately not because of the scale or the nature of the atrocity but because of who the victims were. If you look through hundreds of years of history, the imperial countries have been basically immune. There are plenty of atrocities, but they're somewhere else. And that's gone on for hundreds of years.

Source: Power and Terror, by Noam Chomsky, p. 13-14 May 21, 2002

On Homeland Security: In Japan, "Ground Zero" evokes atomic bomb, not 9-11

Q: We've just recently heard--it's not referred to this way in Japan--that the site of the attack on the World Trade Center is referred to as Ground Zero.

A: It is.

Q: For Japanese who have experienced the atomic bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, hearing the words "Ground Zero" leads to very complicated feelings. I wondered if you have any thoughts about that.

A: The interesting thing is that here, almost nobody thinks of it. Check around. I mean, I've never seen a comment in the press or the massive commentary on this that points that out. It's just not in people's consciousness.

Q: But that word.

A: That's where it comes from. Absolutely. No questions about it. It struck me right away.

Q: That's why it resonates with people.

A: I understand. But it doesn't mean that here, because here, it's the same story as before. The atrocities you commit somewhere else don't exist.

Source: Power and Terror, by Noam Chomsky, p. 16-17 May 21, 2002

On War & Peace: 1966: protests against Vietnam met with extreme hostility

Q: Can you describe a little bit about how you became an activist?

A: Things began to heat up again in the early 1960s. By the time the beginnings of the Vietnam War were coming along, it was just impossible not to become involved.

Q: And during those early years, what was the response to the work that you were doing?

A: Mostly it was total incomprehension. Through the early 1960s, you couldn't get anybody to sign a petition. By 1965 or 1966, Vietnam was becoming a big issue. But protests were met with extreme hostility. Take Boston, right here. This is a pretty liberal city, but we couldn't have public protests against the war. They would be violently broken up. The speakers would be saved from being murdered only by hundreds of state police. And the attack on the protesters would be praised in the liberal media. It was considered right. It wasn't until late 1966 that there was enough of a change for you to see substantial public opposition.

Source: Power and Terror, by Noam Chomsky, p. 24-26 May 21, 2002

On War & Peace: US declared independent Iran as evil in 1953 & in 1979

In 1953, Iran was evil, the epitome of evil. Why? Because it had a conservative nationalist elected government that was trying to take control of its own resources, which had been run by the British up until then. So it was the epitome of evil. The government had to be overthrown by a military coup carried out by the US and Britain. The Shah was reinstated.

Then for the next 26 years it was good. The Shah compiled one of the worst human rights records in the world. President Carter particularly admired the Shah. Just a couple of months before he was overthrown, he said how impressed he was by the Shah's "progressive administration," and so on.

In 1979, Iran became evil again. They pulled out of the imperial system. And since then they have been evil. They haven't been following orders.

Source: Power and Terror, by Noam Chomsky, p.128-129 Mar 19, 2002

On War & Peace: US opposes Iraqi democracy because they get closer to Iran

We know [Saddam's] crimes are not the reason for the intended conquest. Nor is it his development of weapons of mass destruction. The real problem is that a new regime must be imposed, and the new regime must be completely undemocratic.

There is a reason for that. If there is any element of democracy in the new regime, the population will have some voice in what is happening. That is what the democracy is. But the problem is that the majority of the population is Shiite, which means that to the extent that the majority of the population has any voice, it is going to move toward relations with Iran, which is the last thing the US government wants. Furthermore, the Kurds in the northern part of Iraq, who are another big part of the population, are on a quest for some kind of autonomy, and Turkey will go berserk if that happens, as will the US.

Source: Power and Terror, by Noam Chomsky, p.131-132 Mar 19, 2002

The above quotations are from Power and Terror
Post-9/11 Talks and Interviews
by Noam Chomsky.
Click here for other excerpts from Power and Terror
Post-9/11 Talks and Interviews
by Noam Chomsky
.
Click here for other excerpts by Noam Chomsky.
Click here for a profile of Noam Chomsky.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org
(We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Feb 21, 2019