Subject: Noam Chomsky on Bosnia and Angola
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
This is an excerpt from the interview with Noam Chomsky (N.C. in the text)
related to Bosnia.
******************************************************************
CHOMSKY INTERVIEW ON WPKN 10/25/93
The following is an interview broadcast over WPKN Bridgeport on
10/25/93. WPKN (89.5 FM) is a listener-supported radio station
which broadcasts a public affairs show "Counterpoint" at 10PM
Monday nights.
---------------- Scott Harris: In introducing Noam Chomsky, many
of you know he is internationally known for his groundbreaking
work in linguistics at M.I.T.; at the same time he is equally well
known around the world for his informed critique of the political
and economic structure of the United States. He has been referred
to as the nation's leading progressive dissident. Dick Fugat
(sp?), writing in the Whole Earth review recently said of one of
Chomsky's books, said of NC's abilities as a commentator: "NC is
one of those rare people whose insights are so penatrating that
they can radically alter our perception of the world", and I think
that that's a succinct way to pigeonhole Chomsky, which is a
difficult thing to do. So, without further ado, we'll get to an
interview that I conducted with Noam Chomsky just a few hours ago
on the phone from his home in Massachusetts, and the subject of
the talk was U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War era, so
we'll get to that talk right now.
.........
S.H.: On another subject, going back to some of the hot-spots
around the world, such as Somalia and Bosnia, I wonder how you
feel the nation's elites now define U.S. interests during the Post
Cold War Era. We have Senator Bob Dole, a Republican who have made
statements negating any U.S. interest in places such as Haiti.
Many others in mainstream political circles state that no U.S.
interests exist in places such as Somalia or Bosnia, a very tragic
war that has claimed hundreds, thousands of lives. What do you
interpret as the political elites and how they determine their
political and economic interests across the globe?
N.C.: Very much as they have before. The basic question is: what
are the interests of the U.S. based corporate and financial
system, which increasingly means transnational corporations,
international banks and investment firms, and so on, and what are
the interests of the global system of which they are a central
part. Global state supported capitalist system. That's U.S
interest, and beyond that there are just tactical judgments,. Take
Haiti. There's no, as far as I can see, substantial difference of
opinion between Dole and Clinton on this. The question is how
important it is to maintain Haiti as an export platform, for super
cheap labor for U.S. run assembly plants, how disruptive would it
be if the country just collapsed into total chaos and essentially
self destructed. And does the U.S. have an interest in maintaining
the pose of being concerned about democracy in the hemisphere.
Thats roughly the difference between them. they have slightly
different tactical judgments on this. On the Balkans, there is no
substantial element of the U.S. elite that wants any direct
involvement because it would just be too costly to their own
interests. They would like to see the situation simmer down. In
fact, you mentioned quite accurately Bosnia is a terrible tragedy:
so it is. But compare it to, say, Angola which is as bad or worse
a atrocity, with killings as bad or higher, and the destruction
apparently greater as well. Compare the attention to Bosnia and
Angola: its just radically different. Why should that be? Well, it
has nothing to do with human rights. Human rights are being
sacrificed and destroyed more in Angola. So Sarajevo's being
destroyed and tortured, but probably twice as many people have
been killed in Quito. So what's the difference? The difference is
that what happens in the Balkans affects the interests of rich
white people. It affects Europe's interests and it affects
American interests. What happens in Angola doesn't affect those
interests very much. Furthermore, in Bosnia you can sort of blame
what happens on "bad guys", you know, crazed Serb peasants, and so
on. In Angola, you have to blame it on UNITA and Jonas Savimbi,
our man, who received a huge amount of U.S. aid and was hailed to
the skies as a great freedom fighter, you know, the George
Washington, the Thomas Jefferson of the 20th century by the
Reaganites. Well, that doesn't look so good, so therefore its
better to be concerned about Bosnia than Angola. But as far as
U.S. interests are concerned, their interests, I mean not your
interests or mine, but elite interests are concerned, they are to
preserve their power, wealth, domination, authority, nothing novel
about that, nor anything unique to the United States, and
judgments are made accordingly. There are tactical differences
within elite groups, but I don't see that they go very far.
