Tag Archives: noam chomsky

Noam Chomsky on Biden, Saudi Arabia, and Israel

Leave a reply

Noam Chomsky is 93 as I write this, so who knows how much longer we will hear his first-person commentary on current events? I’ll keep reading and reporting it as long as we do.

On Saudi Arabia:

In the case of Biden’s visit, first things presumably include renewed efforts to persuade MBS to increase production so as to reduce high gas prices in the U.S. There would be other ways, for example, a windfall tax on the fossil fuel industries that are drowning in profits, with the revenues distributed to those who have been gouged by the neoliberal class war of the past 40 years, which has transferred some $50 trillion to the pockets of the top 1%. That, however, is “politically impossible.”

Politically even more impossible in elite calculations would be the feasible measures to try to stave off catastrophe by moving rapidly to cut off the flow of these poisons. These need not, however, be the calculations of those who have some interest in leaving a decent world to their children and grandchildren. Time is short.

There are broader considerations in Biden’s Middle East tour. One goal surely is to firm up Trump’s one great geopolitical achievement: the Abraham Accords, which raised tacit relations among the most brutal and criminal states of the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region to formal alliance. The accords have been widely hailed as a contribution to peace and prosperity, though not all are delighted. Not, for example, Sahrawis, handed over to the Moroccan dictatorship to secure its agreement to join the accords — in violation of international law, but in conformity to the “rules-based international order” that the U.S. and its allies prefer to the archaic and unacceptable UN-based order.

Truthout

So there you have it. I have suspected for awhile that the UN is dead, with U.S. politicians mostly not even talking about it. Bernie Sanders talked about it, but he didn’t get elected as I recall. I am not sure how much longer we will have the benefit of Bernie Sanders’ commentary on current events…

And it is not obvious to me whether a next generation of leaders is emerging to replace these voices. The next generation of “liberal” leaders, it seems to me, is more focused on rhetoric and symbolic action around race and gender issues, rather than fundamental issues of social and economic fairness, equal opportunity, and peace. There is a risk that coming generations will be affected by a sort of shifting baseline syndrome where they will not even be aware that these issues even exist or how much the median conversation has shifted from meaningful to meaningless.

Chomsky on the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine

Leave a reply

People are wondering why Russia is manufacturing an acute crisis where one does not seem to be necessary. It seems to me that Vladimir Putin has chosen to bring a simmering 30-year issue to a head. There may be no particular reason for the timing, other than Putin getting older and a largely hostile U.S. administration in place. I think there is also the case of a poor, weak but historically powerful country pouring a lot of money into its military to look tough to a domestic audience. Noam Chomsky explains some of the history:

For obvious reasons, German reunification within a hostile military alliance is no small matter for Russia. Nevertheless, Gorbachev agreed to it, with a quid pro quo: No expansion to the East. President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker agreed. In their words to Gorbachev: “Not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well, it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction…”

President H.W. Bush pretty much lived up to these commitments. So did President Bill Clinton at first, until 1999, the 50th anniversary of NATO; with an eye on the Polish vote in the upcoming election, some have speculated. He admitted Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO. President George W. Bush — the lovable goofy grandpa who was celebrated in the press on the 20th anniversary of his invasion of Afghanistan — let down all the bars. He brought in the Baltic states and others. In 2008, he invited Ukraine to join NATO, poking the bear in the eye. Ukraine is Russia’s geostrategic heartland, apart from intimate historic relations and a large Russia-oriented population. Germany and France vetoed Bush’s reckless invitation, but it’s still on the table. No Russian leader would accept that, surely not Gorbachev, as he made clear.

As in the case of deployment of offensive weapons on the Russian border, there is a straightforward answer. Ukraine can have the same status as Austria and two Nordic countries throughout the whole Cold War: neutral, but tightly linked to the West and quite secure, part of the European Union to the extent they chose to be.

truthout.org

The U.S. has effectively told Russia it will not defend Ukraine militarily unless there is an attack on a neighboring NATO country, and saying there will be “severe consequences” in the form of economic sanctions only. It’s hard for the U.S. to back off any further in the midst of the acute crisis. After the crisis passes however, we could slowly back off and just choose to be less threatening. Move troops and weapons away, pull “trainers” and covert operatives out of Ukraine, and eventually make an announcement that NATO expansion is definitively over. Putin won’t live forever, neither will the Clintobushobamabiden dynasty, and if we are lucky maybe the stars will align at some point with leadership on both sides willing to make peace.

checking in with Noam Chomsky

Leave a reply

In this Alternet article, Noam Chomsky describes the business class as Marxists waging a class struggle. They never give up and working class is always on the defensive. So if the working class is less aggressive, which he says they have been since the “centrist Carter administration”, big business will get the upper hand as it has in the U.S. He sees some hope in the movement started by Bernie Sanders.

Noam Chomsky on coronavirus

Leave a reply

Here’s Noam Chomsky on coronavirus:

Describing the US president as a “sociopathic buffoon”, Chomsky said while the coronavirus was serious, “it’s worth recalling that there is a much greater horror approaching. We are racing to the edge of disaster, far worse than anything that’s happened in human history.

“Donald Trump and his minions are in the lead in racing to the abyss. In fact there are two immense threats that we’re facing – one is the growing threat of nuclear war … and the other of course is the growing threat of global warming.”

While the coronavirus can have “terrifying consequences, there will be recovery”, said Chomsky, but regarding the other threats, “there won’t be recovery, it’s finished”.

Al Jazeera

In other words, our government knew a major pandemic would eventually happen, and in fact was certain given enough time. Our experts told our government and political system what it needed to do to prepare and respond. It did next to nothing, and now we are in crisis.

Like he says, this crisis will pass, though not for those of us who don’t survive it. But the climate crisis will not pass. It is certain, and we know what to do, and we are not doing it. We are not preparing, and we will not be able to respond when the worst happens. This is the major lesson of the coronavirus – there is not some secret plan or agency that is quietly and competently preparing to meet the threat when there really is no choice.

Just to review, here’s a short list of things we need to do.

  • Secure the long term food supply.
  • Protect most of our coastal population centers, while possibly strategically and gradually abandoning some areas.
  • Ramp up innovation.
  • Do our fair share to bring down global emissions.

As for nuclear weapons, they are the acute crisis to make all other acute crises seem trivial by comparison. We need to lead by example, and also reengage with international institutions to work on the problem.

Noam Chomsky’s take on Trump and Russia

Leave a reply

Noam Chomsky’s take on Trump and Russia is interesting. He is contrarian, as usual. To summarize, he is worried that climate change and nuclear weapons are existential threats to our civilization, and he thinks our political system is failing to deal with these threats regardless of who is nominally in charge.

So, of all Trump’s policies, the one that is the most dangerous and destructive, in fact poses an existential threat, is his policies on climate change, on global warming. That’s really destructive. And we’re facing an imminent threat, not far removed, of enormous damage. The effects are already visible but nothing like what’s going to come. A sea level rise of a couple of feet will be massively destructive. It will make today’s immigration issues look like trivialities. And it’s not that the administration is unaware of this. So, Donald Trump, for example, is perfectly aware of the dangerous effects, in the short term, of global warming. So, for example, recently he applied to the government of Ireland for permission to build a wall to protect his golf course in Ireland from rising sea levels. And Rex Tillerson, who was supposed to be the adult in the room before he was thrown out, as CEO of ExxonMobil, was devoting enormous resources to climate change denial, although he had, sitting on his desk, the reports of ExxonMobil scientists, who, since the ’70s, in fact, were on the forefront of warning of the dire effects of this accelerating phenomenon. I don’t know what word in the language — I can’t find one — that applies to people of that kind, who are willing to sacrifice the literal — the existence of organized human life, not in the distant future, so they can put a few more dollars in highly overstuffed pockets. The word “evil” doesn’t begin to approach it. These are the kinds of issues that should be under discussion. Instead, what’s being — there is a focus on what I believe are marginalia…

And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he’s perfectly right when he says we should have better relations with Russia. Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes — Russia shouldn’t refuse to deal with the United States because the US carried out the worst crime of the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done. But they shouldn’t refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn’t refuse to deal with them for whatever infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We have to move towards better — right at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war, terminal for the species and life on Earth. We’re very close to that. Now, we could ask why. First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it’s because NATO expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border, expanded further under Obama. The US has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO. That’s the kind of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns. So, yes, there’s tensions at the Russian border — and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those are all issues that should be of primary concern. The fate of — the fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species, depends on this. How much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know, whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.