1.
Newman: Mr. Chomsky, that impotence of voters, that
angry impotence as you talk about, presumably you’d say that is what is
responsible for the rise of Donald Trump.
2.
Chomsky: It’s pretty clear what is responsible for the
rise of the support for Trump and there’s general Agreement about it. If you
take a simple look at economic statistics, the primary support for Trump is
coming from mostly white, Working Class, poor People who’ve been cast by the
wayside during the liberal period. They’ve lived through a generation of Stagnation
or Decline. Real Wages are about what they were in the 1960s, but it’s also
been a Decline in functioning Democracy. Overwhelming evidence reveals that
even their own elected representatives barely reflect their interest and concerns.
Contempt for Institutions, especially Congress, has just increased,
skyrocketed. It’s down in single digits often. These are People who. Meanwhile
there has, of course, been Wealth, Wealth created. It’s gone into very few
hands, mostly into a fraction of the top 1%, so there’s enormous opulence.
3.
Newman: Yes, indeed. How dangerous do you think this
all is in terms of Donald Trump, for example? I mean, he has been toning down
some of his most extreme pronouncements recently. He may, if he ever got anywhere
near Power, he could be held in check by congressmen. How dangerous do you
think he is to America?
4.
Chomsky: Well, the greatest danger that he, and indeed
every Republican candidate poses is barely mentioned. It’s kind of reminiscent
of Sherlock Holmes’ dog that did not bark. The greatest danger is that there
are two huge dangers that the human Species faces that we’re now in a situation
where we have to decide whether the Species survives in a decent form. One is
the rising danger of nuclear War, which is quite serious, and the other is
environmental catastrophe. On these issues, Donald Trump and the other
Republican candidates are basically uniform.
5.
Newman: Do you believe that Hilary Clinton, the
Democratic front runner, would champion those issues in a way that would
satisfy you?
6.
Chomsky: Not in any way that would satisfy me, but at
least she recognises that climate change is going on and that we have to do
something about it. Every single Republican candidate denies that it’s
happening with the sole exception of Casey, who says, "Sure, it’s
happening, but we shouldn’t do anything about it." That’s having an
impact.
7.
The Paris negotiations last December
were aiming at a treaty. They couldn’t reach it for a simple reason, the
Republican Congress would not accept it. It’s a voluntary Agreement which means
even the weak standards that were proposed will be ... It undermines the
likelihood that even they will be met. Every Republican candidate, including
Trump, wants to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency and Richard Nixon’s
legacy to cut back Regulation, to restore the precipices as quickly as
possible.
8.
On militarism, every one of them
wants to raise the huge military budget. It’s already over half of
discretionary spending leading right now is one factor leading to Confrontations,
which could be extremely hazardous. This, again, is not being discussed.
9.
Newman: Indeed, well I suggest one thing perhaps that
you might agree with Donald Trump on would be about the EU. He talks about the
fact that the UK may leave the EU. You’ve railed against European Union Bureaucracy.
Could you agree with him on that?
10.
Chomsky: No, I don’t. In fact, I
actually have no real strong opinion on Brexit, but my concern about it would
be that it would weaken the European Union, but it would also probably leave
Britain even more, don’t want to use too strong a word, subordinate to US Power
than it is today, which I don’t think would be a good thing for the World or
Britain.
11.
Newman: What, in a nutshell, is the
answer to who rules the World now?
12.
Chomsky: As I try to discuss in the
book, there is no simply answer. We usually think of States when that question
is raised and with regard to States, there’s no doubt that the United States,
despite its decline for many, many years, is still overwhelmingly more powerful
than any State or Group of States. That’s only one factor. States have internal
structures and internal distribution of Power. In the United States, Power is
overwhelmingly, and increasingly in recent years, in the hands of a very narrow
sector of corporate Wealth, private Wealth and Power. They have counterparts
elsewhere who agree with them, who interact with them largely, and that’s
another dimension that rules the World.
There’s also the Public. The Public can have,
sometimes does have, enormous Power. We can go back to David Hume, first major
modern Work on Political Philosophy, Foundations of the Theory of Government,
pointed out that Force is on the side of the governed. Those who are governed
have the Force if they are willing to and eager to and recognise the
possibility to exercise it. Sometimes they do. That’s a major Force in who
rules the World.
13.
Newman: When it comes to State Power,
you don’t buy the idea of China is the next Superpower, the imminent Superpower?
14.
Chomsky: China? China plays a very
important role in the World, undoubtedly. If you take a look at, say, per
capita Income, it’s far behind the United States and other developed States. It
has enormous internal problems like demographic, ecological, resources, and so
on. It’s undoubtedly going to play an important. In military terms, it’s not
even a fraction of the United States and Western Power. Yes, economically it’s
significant, but bear in mind that a good deal of Chinese Production is actually
foreign-owned. Apple, World’s major Corporation, happens to produce in China
largely, but that’s US Production, which happens to use Chinese facilities, Labour
and other facilities.
China is a growing, developing Power in some
domains. In fact, it’s gone quite far even in high technology industries. For
example, in Production of solar panels, China’s in the lead, not just in mass Production
but also in innovation and high tech Development. All of this is significant,
but is by no means a Power on the scale of the United States.
In fact, take a look at the Confrontations
between China and the United States now. There are serious Confrontations. Are
they in the Caribbean? Are they off the coast of California? No, they’re in Waters
around China where China and others have territorial claims. That’s a symbolic reflexion
of the nature of State Power.
15.
Newman: Well, you described your
scathing about the United States. No one would be surprised to hear that. You
describe it as a leading terrorist State. I’m just interested how you describe
Russia.
16.
Chomsky: How do
I describe Russia? Authoritarian, brutal, and harsh. Carrying out ugly actions
in its own region. The United States, on the other
hand, Carries out such actions all over the World. In
fact, again, look at. There are serious Confrontations between Russia and the
United States. Once again, are they on the Mexican Border, the Canadian Border?
No, they’re on the Russian Border. In fact, right at the point of the
traditional invasion route through which Russia has been virtually destroyed
several times in the past century, also earlier History, again it’s no
apologetics for what Putin may be doing, but it should lead us to have a
rational perspective on the Relationship between these Forces in the World.
As for the US being the leading terrorist State,
I should say that’s hardly just my opinion. For example, when I was introduced,
the person who introduced me said that how I regard the United States is the
gravest Threat to World Peace. That’s not exactly, that misrepresents the
situation. There are international polls run by the leading US polling agency,
Gallop. It’s international affiliated. One of the questions they ask is: Which [Nation]
is the gravest Threat to World Peace? The United States was first by a huge
margin. Far behind, in second place, is Pakistan. That’s undoubtedly inflated
by the Indian vote, and others have slight mention. That’s global opinion. I
should mention that this was not even reported in the United States. It
happened to be reported by BBC. It wasn’t reported in the United States.
As for being a terrorist State, President Obama’s global Assassination
Campaign is an extreme terrorist War. I mean, if Iran, let’s say, was Carrying
out a Campaign to assassinate People around the World who it thought might be
planning to harm Iran, we would regard it as Terrorism. For example, if they
were bombing the editorial offices of The New York Times and The Washington
Post, which publish op-eds by prominent figures saying we should bomb Iran [fucking]
right now, not wait, so obviously they want to harm Iran. Suppose Iran was
assassinating them and anybody who happened to be standing around all over.
Would we regard that as Terrorism? I think we would.
17.
Newman: Well, let me put a few
questions to you from People online who are sending in questions via Facebook.
First, Gary says, what are the dangers of TTIP?
18.
Chomsky: Of Putin?
19.
Newman: No, no, no, sorry. What are
the dangers of tee-tee-eye-pee? The Transatlantic Trade Partnership? Tee-tee-eye-pee. Tee-tee-eye-pee.
20.
Chomsky: Tee-tee-eye-pee. Yeah, they’re
pretty extreme, in fact. Chuckle of Newman. GreenPeace a couple of days ago released 280 pages of internal
documents on this so called Trade Agreement, and they spell out details of what
all of us should know. The so called Free Trade Agreements are not Free Trade Agreements.
In fact, to a large extent they’re not even Trade Agreements. These are Investor
rights Agreements. There’s a reason why they’re kept secret from the Public. As
soon as you look at them, you see why. Notice I say secret from the Public, not
secret. They’re not kept secret. They’re not secret to the corporate lawyers and
lobbyists who are writing the detailed Regulations. Of course, in the interests
of their constituents. It doesn’t happen to be the Public of the World or their
own Countries. These are highly protectionist for the benefit of a private Power.
So called intellectual property rights effectively raise Tariffs, they’re
called Patents, which have an enormous impact on Economies. Wonderful for
pharmaceutical and media conglomerates and others.
The Investors at Corporations are given the
right to sue Government, something you and I can’t do but a Corporation can, to
sue Government for harming their potentially future Profits. You can figure out
what that means. Such cases are already in the courts. They’re not in the
courts, they go to private adjudication Groups made up largely of corporate
representatives. They’re already with NAFTA. We can expect more of them. There
are provisions that undermine efforts at Regulation, including incidentally a Regulation
of environmental dangers. Rather strikingly, the phrase climate change does not
appear in these 280 pages, which are illustrative of the whole structure.
They have almost no. I should say these Agreements,
so called Pacific and Atlantic, have virtually no effect on Tariffs. Tariffs
are already quite low among the major trading partners. When you read the
propaganda about it, it says, oh yeah, sure, Vietnam’s going to have to lower
its Tariffs. Almost no effect on Trade. The major trading partners already have
Agreements that have reduced the Tariffs very substantially with a few
exceptions, not many. We should disabuse ourself of the illusion that these are
Free Trade Agreements. Anything but. And to a large extent, not even Trade Agreements.
We have the Experience of others like NAFTA, many years of Experience. Take,
say, NAFTA, it has all of the aspects that I just described but even more,
consider even what is called Trade Interactions across the US/Mexico Border.
They’ve increased substantially since NAFTA. Economists will tell you Trade has
greatly increased, but have a look at them. For example, suppose that General
Motors that produces parts in Indiana sends them to Mexico for Assembly and
sells the Car in Los Angeles. That’s called Trade in both directions, but it’s
not. It’s Interactions internal to a command Economy. It’s
as if during the days of the Soviet Union, parts were made say in Leningrad,
sent to Warsaw for Assembly, then sold in Moscow. We wouldn’t call that Trade.
That’s Interactions internal to a command Economy.
21.
Newman: Well, Noam Chomsky, thank you
very much for being so generous with your time and for staying on to have that
live online discussion. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment