Did Chomsky Say? :: Iran Pursuing Nuclear Weapons Out of Fear
Posted on 11. Mar, 2010 by Radical Daily in War & Peace
Scholar assails U.S. for hypocritical application of Non-Proliferation Treaty
By Matthew W. Hutchins
Even the most radical conservative can agree with Noam Chomsky on at least one thing. “No one in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons.” But to Chomsky, nonproliferation requires reciprocal action, rather than international condemnation. Chomsky’s reputation as a prolific author of books on subjects including linguistics, philosophy, cognitive science, political science, and media might lead one to believe that his views stem from esoteric theoretical arguments, but Chomsky takes a pragmatic view of international relations. His conclusion is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons out of a rational fear for its national safety because of the systematically threatening posture of the United States and Israel.
Speaking at Harvard’s Memorial Church on Saturday, March 6th, Chomsky critiqued the foreign policy of President Obama ’91 and explained the historical reasons that Iran would perceive a need to develop nuclear weapons. “If they’re not developing a nuclear deterrent, they are crazy.” The problem, said Chomsky, is the defiant and hypocritical insistence of the United States on holding the constant threat of military action over Iran as a punishment for its noncompliance with United Nations mandates. “Hostile actions of the United States and its Israeli client are a major factor in Iran’s decisions of whether or not to develop a nuclear deterrent.”
In Chomsky’s eyes, Security Council Resolution 1887, which was strongly endorsed by President Obama, calls upon all nations to peacefully participate in the international regimes for nonproliferation. The resolution encourages nations to develop civilian nuclear technology, while stressing the need for conformity to the IAEA’s inspection system, and Chomsky said that the inclusion of language about peaceful action was primarily directed at the United States and its veiled threats that, “We must keep all options open.” Indeed, with its nuclear missile submarines positioned within striking distance of Iran, Chomsky estimates that there is effectively no chance that Iran would ever use a future nuclear weapon for offensive purposes. But he warned, “The threats do have the effect of inducing Iran to develop a deterrent.”
The escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States is entirely absurd to Chomsky in light of the widespread acceptance of the rights of Iranians to develop civilian nuclear technology. He sees the cult of American Empire in the government’s condemnations of Iran for refusing to follow the demands of the international community, because the definition of “international community” used in such rhetoric amounts to little more than the opinion in Washington, D.C. and among its allies. He cited to the hypocrisy of the U.S. position in its historical relationships with the three nations that did not ratify the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty: Israel, India, and Pakistan. These three nations, said Chomsky, have all received nuclear technology from the United States in violation of security council resolutions, but most Americans would not realize this, given the pro-government bias of the media.
Essentially, Chomsky believes that President Obama’s foreign policy has embodied a continuation of the policies of George W. Bush’s second term in office. But he believes we are fortunate to be living in a time when the anti-war movement is much stronger than it was during the 1960′s. He recalled a demonstration he was involved in during 1965, when state police violently dispersed a crowd from Boston Common. The next day, the Boston Globe, one of the most liberal newspapers in the country, denounced the protesters. Just three years later, following the Tet Offensive, public sentiment had moved enough that protests became common, but he ascribed this to a growing sentiment on Wall Street that the country had paid too high a price in Vietnam. Looking back at the lessons of that war, Chomsky said that the United States had essentially achieved its goal of “innoculating” the region from the domino-theory chain reaction by 1970 by installing dictators in neighboring countries and helping Suharto come to power in Indonesia.
Prize-winning journalist Amy Goodman noted in her introduction of Chomsky that he had played a crucial role in bringing the attention of the world to the oppression of the people of East Timor by Indonesia. She recounted the beatings and massacres she witnessed while traveling there as a journalist, as well as the elation when the nation achieved independence. “This nation of survivors had prevailed. They had resisted, and they had won.” Chomsky, when speaking about activism and civil disobedience, stressed the need for determined persistence. “You’re not going to win tomorrow. You are going to have a lot of defeats, but you have to keep at it.”
(Harvard Law Record)
American Gulag :: Obama to Indefinitely Imprison Detainees Without Charges
Posted on 22. Jan, 2010 by Radical Daily in Current Affairs
One of the most intense controversies of the Bush years was the administration’s indefinite imprisoning of “War on Terror” detainees without charges of any kind. So absolute was the consensus among progressives and Democrats against this policy that a well-worn slogan was invented to object: a “legal black hole.” Liberal editorial pages routinely cited the refusal to charge the detainees — not the interrogation practices there — in order to brand the camp a “dungeon,” a “gulag,” a “tropical purgatory,” and a “black-hole embarrassment.” As late as 2007, Democratic Senators like Pat Leahy, on the floor of the Senate, cited the due-process-free imprisonments to rail against Guantanamo as “a national disgrace, an international embarrassment to us and to our ideals, and a festering threat to our security,” as well as “a legal black hole that dishonors our principles.” Leahy echoed the Democratic consensus when he said:
The Administration consistently insists that these detainees pose a threat to the safety of Americans. Vice President Cheney said that the other day. If that is true, there must be credible evidence to support it. If there is such evidence, then they should prosecute these people.
Leahy also insisted that the Constitution assigns the power to regulate detentions to Congress, not the President, and thus cited Bush’s refusal to seek Congressional authorization for these detentions as a prime example of Bush’s abuse of executive power and shredding of the Constitution.
But all year along, Barack Obama — even as he called for the closing of Guantanamo — has been strongly implying that he will retain George Bush’s due-process-free system by continuing to imprison detainees without charges of any kind. In his May “civil liberties” speech cynically delivered at the National Archives in front of the U.S. Constitution, Obama announced that he would seek from Congress a law authorizing and governing the President’s power to imprison detainees indefinitely and without charges. But in September, the administration announced he changed his mind: rather than seek a law authorizing these detentions, he would instead simply claim that Congress already “implicitly” authorized these powers when it enacted the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda — thereby, as The New York Times put it, “adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies.”
Today, The New York Times’ Charlie Savage reports:
The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees at the Guantánamo Bay military prison in Cuba because a high-level task force has concluded that they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release, an administration official said on Thursday.
The Washington Post says that these decisions “represent the first time that the administration has clarified how many detainees it considers too dangerous to release but unprosecutable because officials fear trials could compromise intelligence-gathering and because detainees could challenge evidence obtained through coercion.” Once that rationale is accepted, it necessarily applies not only to past detainees but future ones as well: the administration is claiming the power to imprison whomever it wants without charges whenever it believes that — even in the face of the horrendously broad “material support for terrorism” laws the Congress has enacted — it cannot prove in any tribunal that the individual has actually done anything wrong. They are simply decreed by presidential fiat to be “too dangerous to release.” Perhaps worst of all, it converts what was once a leading prong in the radical Bush/Cheney assault on the Constitution — the Presidential power to indefinitely imprison people without charges — into complete bipartisan consensus, permanently removed from the realm of establishment controversy.
There are roughly 200 prisoners left at the camp, which means roughly 25% will be held without any charges at all. Using the administration’s perverse multi-tiered justice system, the rest will either be tried in a real court, sent to a military commission or released. What this means, among other things, is that the President’s long-touted policy of closing Guantanamo is a total sham: the essence of that “legal black hole” — indefinite detention without charges — will remain fully in place, perhaps ludicrously and dangerously shifted to a different locale (onto U.S. soil) but otherwise fully in tact. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Military Commissions Act unconstitutionally denied the right of habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees — a principle the Obama administration has vigorously resisted when it comes to Bagram detainees — but mere habeas corpus review does not come close to a real trial, which the Bill of Rights guarantees to all “persons” (not only “Americans”) before the State can keep them locked in a cage.
Numerous Democrats have spent the year justifying Obama’s desire for indefinite detention with dubious excuses that would have been unthinkable to hear from them during the Bush years. I addressed all of those excuses in full back in May, here. As but one example, the claim most commonly cited to justify Obama’s actions — these detainees can’t be convicted because the evidence against them is “tainted” by torture — is: (a) completely unproven; (b) completely immoral (it’s one of the longest-standing principles of Western justice that tortured-obtained evidence can’t be used to justify imprisonment); and (c) completely contradictory (Democrats spent years claiming, and still do, that torture doesn’t work and produces unreliable evidence; if that’s true, who could possibly justify indefinitely imprisoning someone based on torture-obtained — i.e., inherently unreliable — evidence?). Whatever else is true, both Obama’s policy and the rationale — we must imprison Terrorists without charges because there’s no evidence to convict them but they’re somehow still deemed too dangerous to release — is exactly what the Bush/Cheney faction endlessly repeated to justify its “legal black hole.”
But no matter. If there’s one thing we’ve seen repeatedly all year long, it’s that many Democrats simply do not believe in the axiom best expressed by The New York Times’ Bob Herbert when he said that “Americans should recoil as one against the idea of preventive detention.” As Herbert wrote: “policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House.” That precept should be too self-evident to require expression and yet is widely rejected. Hence, exactly that which very recently was condemned as “a dungeon, a gulag, a tropical purgatory, and a black-hole embarrassment” is now magically transformed into a beacon of sober pragmatism from a man — a Constitutional Scholar — solemnly devoted to restoring America’s Standing and Values.
* * * * *
Yesterday, prior to this decision being announced, I conducted a 20-minute interview with ACLU Exeuctive Director Anthony Romero regarding that group’s newly released report on Obama’s civil liberites record after the first year in office, pointedly entitled: “America Unrestored.” I’ll post that discussion later today. Additionally, I will have an analysis of the Supreme Court’s obviously momentous decision in Citizens United — invaliding restrictions on corporate and union election spending — posted later.
UPDATE: Just to add some thick irony to all of this, today is the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s Executive Order to close Guantanamo within one year — an anniversary the administration decided to celebrate not by fulfilling its terms, but instead by announcing that the central feature of Guanatanamo — indefinite detention with no charges — will continue indefinitely.
Interventions R Us :: War on Terror or War on Disaffected Yemenis?
Posted on 01. Jan, 2010 by Radical Daily in War & Peace
By Ron Jacobs
As if the US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were not enough to satiate the Empire’s bloodlust, the calls are increasing for an all-out war on the nation of Yemen. The reason given for this intervention is that the man who apparently wanted to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day 2009 spent some time there and may have received his instructions while he was visiting. Like the increasingly bloody occupation of Afghanistan, Washington wants the world to believe that attacking a nation that hosts organizations intent on resisting US domination will somehow end those organizations existence and make everyone safer. Left unsaid in this rather simplistic equation are the obvious facts. Over eight years of war and occupation of Afghanistan has neither stopped the desire of politically nor religiously motivated individuals to blow up airliners and other structures in their war against US cultural and economic imperialism. Nor has it broken the back of the groups in Afghanistan that also oppose the US intervention in their country. In fact, if we are to believe intelligence reports from various US agencies, these groups are not only still in existence, they have mutated politically and are at least as strong as they were before the US invasion in 2001.
In recent months, parts of Yemen have come under attack by Saudi Arabian forces backing the government there. In recent weeks, the Saudis have been supported by the US military. It seems quite likely that there is more to the growing likelihood of deeper US military involvement in Yemen than the visit of the wannabe bomber Mr. Abdulmutallab. Saudi Arabia and North Yemen fought a war in 1934 when a prince formerly aligned with Ibn Saud switched allegiance to the Yemeni Prince King Yahya, Although Riyadh supported the Zaydi monarchist predecessors (Zaydi Imams) to the Houthi rebels in the 1962 republican revolution in North Yemen, it now supports the successors to those it opposed in 1962 (the Saleh regime). This support is religious and geopolitically based, with the Saleh government being primarily Sunni (with Wahabbist leanings) and the opposition being Shia. The fact that the conflict is primarily occurring in a province on Saudi Arabia’s borders explains Riyadh’s concerns with regard to geography. he victory of the north Yemeni forces began a period that saw increasing repression of forces opposed to Saleh, with human rights groups documenting torture, displacement and extrajudicial killings. Since the defeat of the Zaydi Imams in 1962 by the forerunners of the current Yemeni government, the northwestern province of Sa’adah has been ignored by the Yemeni regime, leaving it to founder economically. Over the years this has naturally caused resentment. By 2004, a full-blown insurgency in Sa’adah shifted the Yemeni military’s interest to this historically ignored region. This rebellion is known as the Houthi insurgency because of its leadership by dissident cleric Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi (rumored to have been killed in US and Saudi airstrikes in November 2009).
South Yemen was a colony of Britain until it achieved independence in 1967 after a struggle led by socialist revolutionaries. After North and South Yemen reunited in 1990, Saleh refused to grant the former members of the Democratic Republic of South Yemen power commensurate with their support. This fact and a desire by the Marxist former leaders of South Yemen for more progressive social policies led to civil war in 1994. Saleh’s government was backed militarily by Saudi Arabia. In 2009, renewed resistance against the Yemeni regime began in southern Yemen led by leftist-leaning forces. Yemeni military forces have met this popular uprising with overt and often violent repression.
On to all this, one must add the group that calls itself Al Qaida of Yemen (AQY). While it seems unlikely that this group (if it is truly a terrorist group and not some kind of black op) is carrying out specific orders of Bin Laden or one of the dozens of supposed Al Qaida leaders, it is reasonable to say that its members are inspired by the philosophy and actions of groups nominally known as Al Qaida. However, as far as the Yemeni regime is concerned, its existence in Yemen in the minds of Washington and the rest of the west is quite useful. After all, if the Pentagon is willing to escalate its low-scale conflict to a full fledged war in the name of fighting terrorism, than Saleh and his military can gain an advantage against the two insurgencies currently being waged against his regime. By claiming that the terrorists are either aligned with one or both of the insurgencies or are at least located in territories controlled by them, Saleh’s regime can direct US airstrikes at those areas of the country. This will most likely disrupt not only the supposed terror cells, but will also interrupt the insurgencies. If it is the Yemeni air force that conducts the raids, it will be with US weaponry that will soon be on its way. In addition, the likelihood of attacks against the insurgencies increases should the Yemen government convince the US to let them run the show (with US supervision). Naturally, military action on this scale will also kill and wound civilians, thereby increasing the likelihood of alliances between the insurgents and AQY, neatly sewing the three elements together and continuing Saleh’s continued rule. I am simultaneously reminded of Israel’s use of US weaponry and funds to subdue the Palestinians and Washington’s deal with Pakistan’s Musharraf after 9-11.
Like Afghanistan, Yemen is a very poor country. It is also somewhat unstable politically, as the above paragraphs describe. Its proximity to Saudi Arabia raises some concerns for Washington primarily because of its fear that the ideas informing the insurgencies might inspire Saudi Arabia’s disenfranchised masses and upset the oil teat America depends on. Also, like Afghanistan, it can be argued that its best promise for stability and a decent life for its citizens was when it had a socialist oriented government–a regime subverted with considerable help from the United States.
Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs’ essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch’s collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net