Changing Contours of Global Order (Q&A session), Professor Noam Chomsky

okay now in the lead up to this evening's lecture the university collaborated with the Media Group our side of org the RSA website links the online community to politicians decision-makers and commentators via social media enabling people to pose and vote for questions that they want answered in the online forum created for this event by our side the most popular question was registered by rear shelters XI 136 votes and here's the question over the past decade we have seen the assassination of Osama bin Laden the Guantanamo Bay detention of David Hicks and many individuals rights significantly curtailed as a result of being labeled a terrorist yet many of these terrorists do not consider themselves terrorists as the consequences for being labeled a terrorist continue to intensify what in your opinion is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is it merely a difference in perspective that framework is commonly used to discuss the issue common phrase you've heard a thousand times is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter I think that's a pretty misleading way of describing the issue and if questions aren't formulated correctly it often prevents you from getting to a reasonable answer there's no dichotomy between terrorists and freedom fighters the freedom fighters are quite typically terrorists so it takes a George Washington's army and they're I suppose freedom fighters if anybody was but they were carried out brutal terrorist acts now that's why there's a huge flight of loyalists from the colonies after the rebels took over now they were fleeing in terror to writing letters from Nova Scotia it's saying they're dying in the snow but they have to get away from these maniacs who won the war in fact the flight of refugees from the United States elsewhere was roughly on the scale of the flight of boat people from Vietnam after the Indochina war and remember they were fleeing from what was already the richest country in the world and they weren't being drawn out they were fleeing in terror is quite unlike Vietnam and that's pretty typical most Wars of liberation or civil wars that's pretty standard the American Revolution for example was in fact the civil war if you look at the rough estimates rough estimate is about maybe a third of the population were with the rebels about a third were loyalists to the third wish they'd all go away that's probably pretty normal so it there's no dichotomy and that's just one of the numeral examples typically Wars of liberation do it involve terror I don't think they should I'm not condoning it I'm just describing a fact so the real question is which two questions one do we ever support terror I don't think we should myself no matter who's carrying it out but the second question is of the efforts at achieving some say political goal which ones do we approve of and which ones don't we approve of and what are the reasons well that's things in a different framework as far as the concept terror is concerned it's quite an interesting one the concept entered modern you know daily talk when the Reagan administration came in when Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981 his administration declared that a prime focus of the u.s. foreign of US policy would be what they called state directed international terrorism particular kind of terrorism they described that as the plague of the modern age returned to barbarism in our time on and on with such similar rhetoric that's the moment 1981 when the there's an academic field like put it in quotes there's an academic field that calls itself the academic study of terrorism whatever you think about it it took off right at that time the debate and discussion about terrorism became a major topic than an immediate everywhere else actually I started writing about it too along with some friends Edward Herrmann and others we began writing about terrorism however the work that we did on terrorism is cannot be included in the Canon and if you look back you see it's excluded and there's a very simple reason we I for example at urban and others defined terror as it is defined officially in the u.s. code and in British law and in army manuals and by now in the declarations of the Security Council and the General Assembly they all have definitions of terrorism which to my mind are pretty good ones and those are the definitions we kept to but those definitions cannot be used for a very simple reason if you use those definitions it follows almost immediately that the United States is the leading terrorist state leadings and you know it Britain is not lagging far behind them France is right behind it's not terribly surprising that's what imperial power is well that's the wrong conclusion and since the wrong conclusion something must be wrong with the argument and what's wrong with the argument it's using the official definition of the word terror and because of that there's been a in the academic profession and social science international conferences these have been going on wait a volumes have been written they're trying to define terror and it's it's recognized on all sides that defining terror is a very difficult problem and indeed it is it's extremely difficult try it to craft the definition which includes their terror against us but not our much greater terror against them that's hard and so therefore it's a difficult problem but I think there's a simple solution let's take the official definitions and just apply them honestly if we don't like the conclusions well it doesn't mean we're doing the wrong thing means we got to rethink why we don't like the conclusions and what the policies are that we don't like so that's one question the second question is which efforts at using violence or the threat of violence to attain political ideological and other ends which ones we approve of and which ones we don't I mean I mentioned the American Revolution that could have mentioned a ton of others that take say the anti-apartheid struggle by any measure I can think of that was a struggle for liberation the African National Congress which led it was in the forefront of a major struggle for liberation on the other hand it was a terrorist organization the Reagan administration was not lying when it declared that the African National Congress was a terrorist organization in fact as they put it it was one of the more notorious terrorist groups in the world that was 1988 it's 1988 you every can administration denounced the ANC Mandela's ANC as one of the more notorious terrorist groups in the world well it's a vast exaggeration didn't come close to the Reagan administration itself for example but nevertheless they did carry out terrorist acts and on those grounds of the the United States under Reagan continued to support apartheid South Africa supported apartheid South Africa while it was carrying out crimes in the neighboring countries Angola and Mozambique which led to the deaths of about a million and a half people and billions of dollars of damage it's quite apart from what they were doing internally but we had to support them because that's one of the more notorious terrorist groups in the world actually Nelson Mandela himself was just taken off the terrorist list about two years ago he could now come to the United States without special dispensation well okay that's as I say a wild exaggeration but an exaggeration of something correct this national liberal this liberation struggle a prime example of one that did use terror we can say it shouldn't have done so I don't think it should have but it did you know and it's just the wrong formulation we should ask different questions what is terror is there a reason why we don't use the official definitions apart from the fact that they give conclusions which are considered unacceptable not a good reason of course and second what kinds of use of violence or the threat of violence said do we condone and what kind which ones don't those are hard questions but different ones okay we've had to love a lot of questions I've had a lot of questions about the occupation movements and as you know we've had occupations in Melbourne and Sydney which were violently disrupted not that long ago so if Luke's Stanford has logged the following question on our Facebook page what is your view of the Occupy movements currently spreading worldwide are they likely to elicit the desired long-term results and how can the 99% realistically compete against the resources and power of the 1% well briefly I think there are pretty fantastic development actually inspiring development I mean if you think about the comments I made at the very end there has been a you know we've been living in a period of a kind of an unprecedented period after hundreds of years of growth and development the advanced industrial societies the United States Britain and the lead have entered into a period of stagnation decline it's not the same as American decline of power over the world that's been going on for a long time but internal decline for a majority of the population and also kind of loss of hope they're much less sense of hopefulness than there was that's quite she doesn't have to happen now these are particular policy choices different ones can easily be adopted and thought of finally there's a reaction to it the Occupy movements are the first major kind of sort of spontaneous in a way but now they've expanded and have many features in common this is the first organized mass popular overreaction to a major assault against the populations and that's got to be important now the very fact that it's taken place has already left I think a legacy of change that's going to remain whatever their outcome is now it's not going to be easy to go on it's necessary to recognize that victories are not won quickly there are short-term issues where they can make a big difference that take the United States again you can I'm sure find analogues here in the United States there's a budget commission meeting bipartisan Budget commission it's due to come out with its deficit Commission sorry bipartisan deficit Commission it's due to come out with its results toward the end of this month it will probably be deadlocked you've been watching what's happened in Washington you know why it'll probably be deadlocked at which point automatic procedures go into operation which in fact are kind of a dagger and at the heart of the society its planned that way it's a trap there's a trap set up which will do exactly the opposite of what the population wants it'll what the population thinks about the deficit is very clear the United States is a very heavily polled society we've kind of information about it point number one is the large majority the population thinks that the deficit is not a major problem its joblessness that's a major problem I think they're right and that's the overwhelming majority so if democracy was functioning but you'd have a joblessness Commission not a deficit Commission but the financial institutions say it's the deficit so that's what Washington does independent of the public so let's just take a look at the deficit well the public has opinions about that too it says the deficit should be dealt with by restoring the proper form of taxation on the very wealthy the form of taxation that in fact was in place during the high growth period 50s and 60s that's been dismantled by now taxes on the super-rich are ridiculously low and the public wants them returned secondly the public does does not want the benefits systems attacked at all they want them protected and in fact to grow they're not very substantial in the United States they're not like Australia but they do exist and the public doesn't want changed well you can be pretty sure that the the bipartisan Commission if it has an outcome and the automatic procedures if it doesn't have an outcome will do the opposite they'll maintain the outrageous tax cuts on the rich the Bush administration initiated following from the reagan years and they'll harm the limited that benefits positions benefits programs actually there's another point which isn't mentioned in the media because the financial institutions don't want it there's a very straightforward way of getting rid of the US deficit very straightforward simply institute the kind of health care system that other industrial countries have say Australia or Canada or France and they differ but there's things in common among them some kind of national health care system that's highly efficient there's plenty of things wrong with it but you know that better than I do but it's it's compared with the u.s. system of pretty much privatized more or less unregulated health care it's quite efficient also much more humane per capita health care costs in the United States are about twice as high as other industrial societies and the outcomes are pretty poor in terms of you know infant mortality usual measures and it's also pretty Savage that means ten millions of people just don't have health care or maybe they get it at an emergency room there's something like that it's extremely inefficient very expensive and quite savage and in fact if the u.s. simply adopted a health care system like other industrial countries in the u.s. that could mean for example expanding Medicare the medical medical insurance for a national program for the elderly just extended the whole population that would very sharply cut the deficit in fact it would eliminate it it would in fact actually leave a surplus but that can't be discussed even though the population wants it because the financial institutions are against it and they now have such an ordinate power that they determine that what happens in Washington well that's that's something that the Occupy movements could deal with very quickly if they could reach a substantial enough scale they could compel the large majority opinion in the United States to influence policy within the next few weeks that's literally the case I don't know if it'll happen probably won't but it could happen in the very short term and there are other short term issues that could be dealt with by a popular movement which in fact tries to introduce an element of functioning democracy into the system an element savagely sir seriously lacking a similar comments hold of other industrial societies I'm different from one society to another the United States isms extreme in some sense but what about the longer-term goals they're very insignificant ones that could be implemented piece by piece even beginning right now and could lead the major changes so let me give you an example from the United States again two or three years ago the Obama administration essentially pretty much nationalized the auto industry they can call it that they took over the auto industry which was collapsing it was essentially in public hands well there were several choices that could have been made that one choice is the one that was made reconstitute the oil the auto industry restructure it fix it up federal subsidies and so on cut back wages attacked the unions and then hand it back to the old owners or people very much like them the same banks and so on that's what was done that was one option another option which wasn't done was to turn the auto industry over to the workforce and the communities and to help them proceed to produce things that the country very badly needs if any of you have been to the United States you know any time in the last couple of decades you'll know that the country desperately needs high-speed rail system I mean it's just you know it's it's kind of a scandal if I try to go from say Boston to Washington it could take place by the fastest train in the country it can take maybe seven or eight hours just recently I was giving talks in France and I had to ended up in southern France and I had to take a train from Avignon to Paris that duvall Airport which is the same distance that's Washington to Boston it took two hours on a comfortable quiet train that's humanly significant it's also economically significant and these are things the country needs all over the place well the same auto industries that we're collapsing and their skilled workforce could be producing high-speed rail could be doing it under community and worker control there they're small experiments with that which are working pretty well maybe thousands of them this would be a large one and that could happen that's not pie in the sky it's pretty close to happening and it could happen if there's a substantial popular movement which is in there for the long haul and is dedicated to making changes in this and that would would be the beginning of a revolutionary change and there's plenty of other things well could it happen you know that depends on whether the Occupy movements can proceed with what's beginning to happen but go on I mean one of the exciting things this just to watch and participated in the Occupy movements is the way they're just forming functioning democratic communities you know developing links making associations cooperative kitchens you know all kinds of things which are the germs of a decent society and it's kind of developing spontaneously people are participating in it learning and so on well if those can be strengthened sustained maintained against the certain repression which is coming these you know those with power don't give it up easily so if they can be sustained against that and can continue spread out into broader communities and so on will you know could have a really major effect hist arts of historic significance that's an optimistic view I don't think it's totally unrealistic but even if that's not reached I think it's already made a major change it's beginning to formulate then articulate the anger frustration fear that the population has felt but has not had a way to carry forward in some constructive way and this is leaves a kind of legacy for that and if you think about other movements like say the civil rights movement they didn't win there whatever results they got with a single march on Washington and Martin Luther King making a speech that's mythology the civil rights movement in the United States it goes way back but it really hard you have really hard work on it begun in the 30s and the 40s that beaten back repressed violently in the early 60s that black students began sitting in lunch counters of Freedom Writers I began trying to register voters it was pretty brutal a lot of people killed a lot of violence but they kept at it and within a couple of years there was a large-scale popular movement then you could get the march on Washington Martin Luther King I have a dream voter registration legislation a victory not an insignificant victory though a very limited one and far short of what King had in mind or what any of us should have in mind but that's the way popular movements developed that's the way society becomes more civilized all right we're off to the Middle East now the Australian government only a few days ago voted against Palestines admissions into UNESCO voted with 14 opposing it I think there were 52 abstentions in 107 in favor so what is the two-state solution really mean in 2011 it's the first all the official policy of the Australian government to support a two-state solution I think it's still the bomber administration's official position stated position but what does that really mean in 2011 that's up to Australia to decide Australia is not a major player in world affairs but you know has a role and just like any individual one of us you know we're not major players but we do have a role and what's going on is very clear I think since 435 the israel-palestine problem you know conflict at least in the short term has a very straightforward solutions one of the simplest problems to solve but when you think of you know Kashmir or in eastern Congo or something it's extremely hard even to dream up what could be a satisfactory solution in Israel policy Palestine there's a short-term settlement which is very straightforward and is agreed by virtually the entire world it's the official position you mentioned it's been pretty well understood to state settlement on the internationally recognized border in pre June 67 border with minor and mutual modifications and that phrase is from official u.s. foreign policy in the early 70s and when the US was still part of the world on this issue well then there are other questions about what do you do about you know various other aspects of it but that's the basic framework of a short-term settlement I don't think it's great settlement but it's a at least a step towards maybe something better and it could seriously cut down violence destruction threats make life better for everyone now what's blocking it that one thing is blocking it for 35 years the United States has been blocking it unilaterally this proposal proposal pretty much along those lines that came to the Security Council in January 1976 it was advanced by the three major Arab states Egypt Syria Jordan the so-called confrontation States it was vetoed by the United States a similar proposal came in 1980 vetoed by the United States shifted to the General Assembly correctly every year there was a vote with more or less similar proposals they varied in wording General Assembly resolutions the votes were you know 150 one two three the United States Israel Palau something like that and that went on year that's gone on year after year it and there's a couple of modifications and it won't run through the whole details but that's essentially what's happening now the US and Israel have a position a definite position they insist on negotiations but with crucial preconditions now that's not the way it's described what's claimed is the Palestinians and system preconditions for negotiations and Israel says no let's just have them without preconditions and of course the United States is an honest broker throwing up its hands and despair at its inability to bring the two sides together that's the official myth that the actuality is that the US and Israel insist on crucial preconditions one precondition is that the negotiations will be run by the United States that essentially undermines any possibility of progress and if you take a look at the world stand on this issue meaningful negotiations that would be run by some neutral party whoever you might pick with the US and Israel on one side in the world on the other side those would be negotiations but the u.s. insists on a precondition no we the partner of Israel and blocking a diplomatic settlement we've got a control the negotiations well that's consistent with what I was talking about all along it's part of the system and making sure you control them at least and you don't permit others to interfere well that's one free condition the second precondition is that Israel must be free to continue with settlements in the occupied territories now those settlements are unequivocally criminal actions not just the expansion of the settlements but the settlements themselves transfer of population into occupied territories is a major crime it's a war crime and say it's in violation of fundamental the conventions of international law and that's been recognized by every relevant Authority the International Court of Justice the Security Council in fact Israel itself conceded it back in 1967 now that they said we'll do it anyway as long as the u.s. backs and faxes so a second precondition is that they must continue to extend these criminal acts carefully designed to ensure that no viable Palestinian state can emerge and as I mentioned before that gas will be separated from the West Bank and kept under a siege that's the second precondition a third precondition you can read in the newspapers right in the last few days you probably noticed that after Palestine asked for membership in UNESCO Israel retaliated by immediately announcing new building programs in the West Bank and what they call Jerusalem vastly expanded region that Israel annexed the settlement programs in Jerusalem I should say are doubly illegal first because all the settlements are illegal and secondly because in Jerusalem there are an explicit violation of specific Security Council resolutions going back to 1968 demanding that the status of Jerusalem not be changed now if you look at premise no not mr. yahoos statements when he announced the current settlement programs in retaliation for the UN move he said doesn't really matter because these are in areas that will remain in Israel in any final settlement okay what does that mean that means he's saying we've got a precondition for negotiations namely parts of the West Bank that we want we're going to an axe period that's a precondition for negotiations well you know with a framework like that nothing's going to happen this is a framework designed to allow meaningless negotiations and go on forever that while Israel proceeds with us backing to take over what it wants in the occupied territories okay so what's the status of the two-state settlement well you know that depends on whether the world is willing to act the the most of the world you know whatever was 140 countries whatever they already insist on the international consensus have for decades australia has tended to go along with the united states not completely but tended to okay that's saying we don't want a settlement we're willing to follow the master we don't care what happens Europe with its typical courage trails after the master it's going along with the United States from these issues Europe is powerful enough to take an independent stand it's kind of like what I was talking about before following an independent but that's a European decision if your joins the United States or it sort of backs away Australia to Canada to then the United States and Israel but continued to block a settlement indefinitely until they get what they want Palestinians or you don't lost and that's their position as to the status quo actually suits them because it enables them to encroach further just go further and the status quo is fine as far as the US and Israel concern Israel has quite definite plans they're not a secret they're approximately what was called the Shorin plan at one time it means that Israel takes over everything behind the what they call the separation walls actually an annexation wall that cuts through about 85% of it cuts through the West Bank it signs on the Israeli side arable land some of the major water resources there's a nice suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and so on that is what Netanyahu says what we're going to take over permanently they're also settling the Jordan Valley there's a recent study by B'Tselem the Israeli human rights group which gives some details of what Israel is doing in the Jordan Valley I mean the hundreds of wells are are being sunk of communities being established vast areas where Palestinians are barred these are the traditional steps towards slowly taking taking over the region so that means that what's left of Palestine would be trapped between Israel's Jordan Valley take over and it's a takeover of the land behind the annexation wall the vastly expanded Jerusalem is about five times the original size that's been annexed illegally and in addition to that there are oh I don't know what you're saying but I'll be glad to come back to it in addition to that there are a salience cut-through you can see it on the maps the east of Jerusalem there's a salient going to the east virtually bisects the West Bank that leading to the town of Mallard mmm that was built it was started in the 70s was built mostly under Clinton in the 90s and it essentially bisects the West Bank there's another one farther north going through the town of Arielle bisects much of what's left there's another one even beyond to another town so you got these set it's cutting through they leave unviable Canton's they're huge infrastructure projects for Israelis only Palestinians will be you know they can right up in the hills I mean Israel has recognized recently that it makes sense to establish a traditional neo-colonial project any imperial colony or neo-colonial system has a sector of extreme wealth you go to the poorest country in sub-saharan Africa and there's a sector of where people live and opulence way beyond what we can imagine and Israel's doing the same thing not to that extent but in Ramallah for example you could live a kind of a Western life you know nice restaurants theaters and so on so that's the Ailey sector that while the rest of the country is becomes kind of a desperate third-world guise of courses they're just a prison a prison kept at the barest level of survival because they want to have absolute genocide too much reaction well that's what's developing and if Australia continues a to vote with the u.s. they're helping it I'm conscious the audience might know that you've been up since 6:00 a.m. this morning and I don't wanna stretch the friendship too far and I know the odds then people behind are doing an incredible job on the side of the stage trying to interpret all this I've got we've got one final question and that is what on earth is going on with the Republican Party primaries on this side of the Pacific it's we're not quite sure whether it's reality TV or this is the preparing people to take over the country in the next election you're not the only one I was been in Europe a couple of times the last couple of months and people can't believe what's going on in fact in the United States it's hard to believe this is something that has no precedent as far as I know in the history of parliamentary democracy it's kind of a freak show it literally is it's I mean I've been following it it's kind of shocking and it's the continuation of a process that's been going on for 30 years over the past during this period I described this kind of roughly neoliberal period the Republican Party has increasingly ceased to become a traditional political party now a party that participates in parliamentary interactions I mean you may be alike of maybe a theater but at least they're somehow functioning and a parliamentary framework they've ceased now the party is and for years in fact the party has been so deep in the pockets of corporate America because of the financial sector that you need a telescope to find them you look at their policies that's what they are well you know no political party couldn't survive that much as voters and you're not going to get voters from 1/10 of 1% of the population so they've had to try to develop a different mask some math base that'll tolerate this and what they've been compelled to do it's hard to think of an alternative is to appeal to some of the elements of American society and culture which have always been there but that are not very attractive and have been never been mobilized politically before so just to take one example it's been known for decades plenty of studies if you if you do comparative studies of religious extremism the United States is just off the spectrum literally like about a third of the population believes in the literal truth of every word of the Bible about half the population thinks the world was created a couple thousand years ago with all the fossils and everything else I think about 85% believe in miracles roughly two-thirds expect the second coming most of them within our lifetimes if we act properly you know I mean these are whatever you think about these things they're just off the international spectrum even in extremist Islamic fundamentalist societies you don't have comparable things this guy goes way back goes back to the colonists who were pretty much religious fanatics but it's just a feature of American society you know love it or hate it and there are other things like the the fear it's a very frightened society there always has been back to the earliest days you see it in popular literature it's part of the gun culture you know people have gone this course are afraid what are they afraid of you know it's the most secure country in history but they're terrified I mean I know people who they're people are well-known scientists in fact who are survivalists the meaning they have a barn full of you know salt rifles or whatever you stick of those things and they're going to defend themselves against who you know well if you look at the examples it's frightening the state of Indiana at Midwest state a couple of years ago had to tear down all of its highway signs why because the you know there's signs to say turn right at the next light or something signs it turns out have a code presumably for the people who clean the highways or something and rumors started spreading that that code was for the United Nations which is planning to commit genocide America gets the American people and is said that people see black helicopters coming which are from the United Nations and they're going to planning to descend on us and destroy us and those codes are for them so people started tearing out the sides and this state literally had to replace all the signs and take the codes off it's a very frightened society you ask why people have guns well one of the Republican congressman who's been in the lead of maintaining the gun rights told the New York Times we have to have our guns because when the federal government comes after us to take away our rights we're going to defend ourselves I mean you know it you can't even call it paranoia it's so far out but it's a definite feeling and there's a lot of things like this and the Republicans to the extent that their party have mobilized them that's their mass base they can't have a mass base of people who support their policies but nobody supports their policies and what you end up with is this show that you're seeing this is very I mean I I don't want to exaggerate but just about old enough so it has some resonances it's a little bit like it's a little bit like what happened then late for him are Germany you know there are plenty of differences but enough similarities to be frightening Germany remember in the 1920s was the absolute peak of Western civilization and the sciences in the arts it was considered a model of democracy this is at as Western civilization could be a couple of years later it was the absolute depths of history you know part of what happened is that there was just the loss of respect for the central institutions of the society people began to hate the political parties they hated the wrangling in Parliament they want to get rid of everything nothing was working everyone was against them the world was attacking them the unfair Versailles settlement and so on and kind of a paranoia spread and a charismatic figure came along then we know what happened next wasn't very very nice um I don't think that's going to happen but there's enough similarities to be at least worrisome well I'm sorry we have to draw the questions to a conclusion I know you must be exhausted

Channel: Deakin University

Views: 12,019

Rating: 4.7829456 out of 5

Keywords: Part, Noam, Chomsky, lecture, changing, contours, world, order, deakin, university, humanities, social, sciences

Id: QTx1St0an5I

Length: 44min 37sec (2677 seconds)

Published: Thu Nov 10 2011