INTERVIEW WITH NOAM CHOMSKY

This interview has been translated from the French Le Monde 
Libertaire. In turn it is taken from the Portuguese anarchist 
paper A Batahla. We are unaware of any other English version.

A Batalha: You are very critical of the American media and you 
consider her European counterpart more democratic. What are the 
essential differences - in democratic terms - between the American 
and the European media?
Noam Chomsky: I don't think the European media are any more 
democratic than the American, neither are they any more serious. 
There's a greater variety, but in any case it is impossible to 
make generalisations...
A Batalha: The Middle East is one of your main concerns. The US 
and Israel have always opposed a diplomatic solution to the 
problem. Why the recent change in attitude? Do you think they 
are going to substitute military and political control of the 
occupied lands with economic control?
Noam Chomsky: The US and Israel have always wanted a diplomatic 
solution in the Middle East but under their terms. These weren't 
accepted by the rest of the world. For nearly 20 years the US has 
simply rejected any Palestinian right to self-determination. They 
refused to accept UN resolution 242 in the terms chosen by International 
opinion and - incidentally - the US between 1957 and 1971. The 
resolution called for peace in response to a total evacuation with 
minimal mutual adjustments. In order to achieve this the US had to 
oppose Security Council decisions; vote, along with Israel, against 
the resolutions of the General Assembly; block all diplomatic moves 
after the Sadat initiative of  February 1971 to reach an agreement 
based on 242... Because of the power of US propaganda, the main import 
of these facts were suppressed and the Europeans, so under US dominance 
at the time, forgot to defend what they had defended in the past.
   That situation continued until 1990. The last UN resolution (144-2) 
which calls once again for a diplomatic solution was blocked by the US 
in December 1990. After the war with Iraq, Europe handed the region over 
to the US and took no independent position. The non-aligned nations found 
themselves in a state of total confusion and Russia found itself more or 
less in the US camp along with Great Britain. The US went into action in 
the autumn of 1991, in Madrid, unilaterally imposing their plan for the 
region.. This was accepted in 1993-94, this time with Norway's support.
   The current agreement is based on the explicit presupposition that 
Israel will not withdraw from the occupied territories until she wishes 
to do so and under her own conditions.. Thus from the moment when the 
Declaration of Principles was signed in September 93, the colonisation 
and confiscation of land in the occupied area has increased with 
financial support from the US. At the moment Israel controls nearly 
75% of the Gaza strip, nearly 35% of the territory and probably all 
its water.. In the Declaration of Principle not a word about 
Palestinian self-determination because the US have never accepted 
the idea...
   I have written about this situation which has been going on for 
25 years (see my recent book World Orders, Old and New)
A Batalha: What do you see as they main causes of the growth of 
fundamentalist Islamic groups in the Arab world for example in 
Algeria and Egypt? Do you think these movements have a local cause 
or are due to religious fanaticism?
Noam Chomsky: I would be wary of the tern 'religious fanaticism' and '
fundamentalism'. I think that one of the most fundamentalist countries 
in the world is the US, perhaps on an even footing with Iran. The most 
extreme Muslim fundamentalist country in the world is Saudi Arabia, an 
intimate ally of the US and which is not considered a problem because 
it obeys orders. Also one of the most extreme of the Muslim 
fundamentalists is Gulbiddin Hekmatyar, who received, in the 
1980s, from the US and Saudi Arabia, nearly $6 million and large 
quantities of arms whilst he was in the process of transforming 
Afghanistan into a huge drug producing centre, and who today is 
blowing up what is left of that devastated country. In general 
terms the US and its satellites have nothing against fundamentalism 
Islamic or other. What they fear is the possibility of people acting 
independently. This rule applies to the Roman Catholic Church. The 
US are neither for or against here. Those elements of the church who 
'side with the poor' must be objectively eliminated, if necessary by 
means of terror and violence. Those who 'side with the rich' are fine. 
The reason for the development of fundamentalist movements in the Arab 
world is simple. The secular movements were either destroyed or 
self-destructed. Only the Islamic fundamentalists have anything to 
offer the population. When you live in the slums of Cairo and your 
child is dying you can take it to a clinic run by Islamic 
fundamentalists. The governments are too corrupt to offer 
anything. These people offer a certain vision which takes into 
account the needs of the people...
  That is a rather simplistic analysis given limitations of space 
but I think it covers the essentials...
A Batalha: What do you see as the main causes of the war in the 
former Yugoslavia and what are the possible solutions?
Noam Chomsky: The Balkan wars have many causes. The main ones are 
of an internal nature, but the actions of the outside powers have 
done little to help the situation, to put matters mildly.. The 
international recognition of Croatia failed to take into account 
the fact that there was a lot of opposition to the move coming 
from an important Serb minority. Bosnia was recognised despite 
the fact that it was made up of three distinct parts and that 
even if it had had strong multi-ethnic aspects this had little 
impact on the Serb mountain community who were fearful of Muslim 
domination. It is probable that all these factors added to the 
behaviour of the Serb government led to war. Before it would 
perhaps have been possible to ameliorate the problem. But it 
is hard know to conceive of a solution which is not unthinkable. 
I haven't seen any sensible solutions to the problem...
A Batalha: Over the last few years we have seen the rise of 
fascist, nationalist and racist ideologies. Today this is not 
limited to the activities of small isolated groups and with the 
popular support of Zhironovski and Berlusconi perhaps we are 
seeing signs that we are faced with a problem of a large dimension. 
Do you think that the economic and social crisis is conducive to the 
development of anti-democratic movements as happened in Germany after 
WW1?
Noam Chomsky: For the last 20 years the world has seen society 
dividing itself into two camps along the lines of the Third World 
model with islands of great richness and privilege in a sea of 
misery, with a growing superfluous population which has no rights
 and doesn't contribute to profit creation. The proportions in a 
rich country like the US or a poor country like Mexico are different 
but the structures are very similar. The reasons are quite clear: 
since the 70s there has been a growing move towards globalisation 
with the enormous accumulation of power in the hands of transnational 
corporations, which are incredibly totalitarian institutions. There 
has also been an explosion of capital and a change in its composition. 
In 1970, 90% of the capital on the international exchanges came from 
trade and investment, from the real economy, and 10% from speculation. 
In 1990 these figures have to be turned upside down. By 1994 speculative 
capital is estimated to stand at 95% and its growth rate is the highest 
ever recorded. Such an evolution was already apparent in the 1970s. In 
1978, James Tobin, Nobel Prize for Economics Laureate, suggested a tax 
aimed at reducing capital speculation which would lead to a world based 
on low growth, low salaries and high profits. This is what has happened,
 with the possibility of transferring production abroad, a powerful 
weapon to be used against workers. The end of the cold war which means 
that the Eastern countries have returned to their traditional Third World 
status offers the western bosses class new arms to use against the 
national population. In such a situation it is natural that power 
should wish to eliminate that which threatens it: human rights, 
liberty and democracy which had been gained by popular struggles 
over the last century. This is what is happening in a sharpened 
fashion in the US and Great Britain. For the vast majority it is 
a disaster. For example in the US salaries have gone down since 
the Reagan era. At the same time the review Fortune speaks of 
spectacular profit making. All of this has been organised by 
propaganda barrages which are quite impressive and which have 
left people extremely confused, hopeless, frustrated and rebellious. 
The liberal intellectuals and the press and also the 'left' have 
contributed to all of this. It is a very dangerous situation which 
could explode and bring about various horrors unless we see the 
creation of alternatives which answer to the needs and preoccupations 
of the people.
A Batalha: Many people used to think that with the collapse of the 
USSR and socialist regimes that there would be a fresh interest in 
anarchism. This hasn't happened. Do you think it is the anarchists 
fault for having failed to present themselves in a good light?
Noam Chomsky: Who are the anarchists who have failed to present 
themselves as an alternative? It's true that there are a few. For 
example a lot was hoped of the CNT in Spain. But one must remember 
that there are nearly no anarchist intellectuals for the simple 
reason that anarchism does not offer intellectuals any position 
of power or privilege. Anarchists also are responsible, since 
anarchist feelings are too scattered. However, there are ways 
of articulating them in a constructive way, and in the tradition 
of the popular movements to put forward a libertarian character to 
make anarchists look appealing.
A Batalha: What should anarchists and the anarchist press be doing 
right now.
Noam Chomsky: Same as always: help people gain control of their 
lives, to understand the world in which they live and to organise 
themselves in order to destroy illegitimate authority... As has 
always been the case.

Le Monde Libertaire
145, Rue Amelot,
75011, Paris.


