Showing posts with label DON’T OCCUPY SYRIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DON’T OCCUPY SYRIA. Show all posts

Saturday, October 12, 2019

SYRIA AND THE KURDS



THE ABSURD TIMES


I;;ustration: Since a lot of religion gets mssed into these issues, here is the Christian side, by Redd Foxx.

Syria, the World, and the Kurds
By
Czar Donic

I'll start out with letting all the hyperemotional Kurd lovers a note of equal time.  At the bottom of this is a long interview illustrating how poorly the Kurds have been treated over time and how we should weep for them.  OK?  So, scroll down and weep and feel good about yourselves.  I want to talk about what is really going on.

First off, Assad bears a great deal of the blame for being too much of a nice guy.  Let me tell you a little bit about Homs, or Homa, or whatever.  Assad's Dad ran the country for a long time until the Moslem Brotherhood tried to overthrow him.  Here is what happened:  "In response to an attempted uprising by the brotherhood in February 1982, the government crushed the fundamentalist opposition centered in the city of Hama, leveling parts of the city with artillery fire and causing many thousands of dead and wounded. During the rest of Hafez al-Assad's reign, public manifestations of anti-government activity were very limited."  (I just stole that to avoid having to type it out again.  If you know about Syria, you know it's true.  If you don't, trust me. In other words, he stopped the crap in one month and that was that.  He also helped stop a civil war in Lebanon and many other things.

So, he dies (as people do).  His first son is supposed to take over and he was trained for the job and ready.  He dies (as people do).  The lines keep going until Hafaez (the current one) winds up in charge.  Now this guy, who was an eye doctor in England, a good one, and doing well.  That's all he really wanted to be.  Well, he winds up in charge and has to move there with his British wife.  The last thing on his mind was running Syria on the Border with Israel and so forth.  His assessment of Endogen of Turkey, live on the BBC-TV, was that he "wants to be an Emperor."  In other words, he wanted to go back to the old Ottoman Empire.  (Forget I brought that up – we don't have time for it now.) 

So, during the so-called "Arab Spring," which the U.S., Hillary was a major force, this turned into a major campaign of "Regime Change."  Sisi, the guy we have in charge, was trained by us (so was Morsi).  Anyway, back to Homs:  this time it is some group calling itself "democratic" and then the "Free Syrian Army" starts to cause trouble.  Instead of bombing the crap out of them, Assad starts to negotiate and try to get along.  Then comes ISIS (trained by us, the leader was a graduate of Abu Gharab (once a College of Agriculture under Saddam), ISIS starts to take over the Mideast.  It's a bunch of weird, nutty fanatics.  They slice people heads off, auction off girls and women to each other and so on.  Bashir just wanted to be a damn eye doctor!  So now, he starts to get pissed.  We join in, Russia joins in, Nato joins in, Turkey joins in, and the Kurds join in.

Well, now it's time to remind you of something that sound a bit out of context.  Remember the "Pirates off of Somalia?"  The Blackhawk down, and so on?  Why do you suppose that stopped?  Well, these pirates kept stopping ships and getting ransom, one after another, until they made the mistake of capturing a Russian ship.  Putin blew the whole dam thing up in the water, and we never heard about another pirate at all (except for Hollywood movies).  Well, that's what they should have done in Syria.  We would never have had the problem in the first place. 

Ok, so now they go on with the ISIS part of this.  Everyone hates ISIS.  The Kurds were supposed to get their own homeland as the west divided up the Mideast after WWI and gave a large chunk of the Ottoman Empire to them.  (The Russians had already made their own deal.)  Trouble is, we ignored the problem when Turkey decided to keep that chunk.  The only country to give them any autonomy was Iraq under Saddam Hussein, limited Autonomy, and they just kept wanting more, and more.  Iran said "no way."  Sure Saddam gassed them.  Is that any worse than what turkey is doing and what we did in leaving them there?  The truth is, no country wants them.  The only reason they fought ISIS was that they thought they would get a chunk of Northern Syria as a result.  We see what happened as a result.  So, there it is.

Now, here are the Kurds talking, openly, plenty of freedom to present their opinion, as Amy can always be counted on doing for anybody:

The Kurdish side:
Turkey has launched an aerial and ground assault on northern Syria targeting Kurdish-controlled areas. The offensive began Wednesday, just days after President Trump ordered U.S. troops to fall back from their positions on the Turkish-Syrian border. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports at least 16 Kurds have been killed so far. Turkey is claiming the death toll is far higher. The Trump administration has faced widespread criticism from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers for abandoning the stateless Kurds who had helped the U.S. fight ISIS. Turkey is claiming the assault is needed to establish a "safe zone" in northern Syria where Turkey could relocate Syrian refugees who fled over the past eight years of fighting, but the Kurds see the offensive as part of a decades-long attack by Turkey to crush their attempts at greater autonomy. The Kurds have been responsible for holding over 10,000 ISIS fighters and their families in detention. While Trump has claimed Turkey will take control of the makeshift jails, there is growing concern many former ISIS fighters will be able to escape during the Turkish assault. At least one Kurdish prison has already been shelled. To discuss the implications of Turkey's assault, we speak with Elif Sarican, a Kurdish Women's Movement activist and anthropologist at the London School of Economics. We also speak with Ertuğrul Kürkçü, honorary chair of the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party in Turkey, known as the HDP. He is a former member of Parliament in Turkey.


Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Turkey has launched an aerial and ground assault on northern Syria targeting Kurdish-controlled areas. The offensive began Wednesday, just days after President Trump ordered U.S. troops to fall back from their positions on the Turkish-Syrian border. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports at least 16 Kurds have been killed so far. Turkey is claiming the death toll is far higher. Some of the heaviest fighting has been in the Syrian town of Tel Abyad. Turkish jets and artillery have reportedly hit at least 81 targets east of the Euphrates River.
The Trump administration has faced widespread criticism from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers for abandoning the stateless Kurds who had helped the U.S. fight ISIS. Turkey is claiming the assault is needed to establish a, quote, "safe zone" in northern Syria where Turkey could relocate Syrian refugees who fled over the past eight years of fighting. But the Kurds see the offensive as part of a decades-long attack by Turkey to crush their attempts at greater autonomy.
AMY GOODMAN: Fear is also growing that the Turkish assault could lead to the mass release of ISIS fighters. Up until now, the Kurds have been responsible for holding over 10,000 ISIS fighters and their families in detention. While President Trump has claimed Turkey will take control of the makeshift jails, there's growing concern many former ISIS fighters will be able to escape during the Turkish assault. At least one Kurdish prison has already been shelled. The New York Times is reporting the U.S. military has moved as many as several dozen Islamic State prisoners to more secure locations. This includes two British members of ISIS who are accused of beheading Western hostages, including the journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff.
The Turkey assault is facing international condemnation. The U.N. Security Council is expected to meet later today. The European Union has warned Turkey's hostilities would, quote, "further undermine the stability of the whole region." Earlier today, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has threatened to send millions of Syrian refugees to Europe if Turkey's assault is criticized.
PRESIDENT RECEP TAYYIP ERDOĞAN: [translated] Hey, European Union, pull yourself together. I say it again. If you try to label this operation as an invasion, it's very simple: We will open the gates and send 3.6 million refugees your way.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: On Wednesday, President Trump described Turkey's assault as a "bad idea" but defended his decision to shift U.S. troops away from the Syrian-Turkish border.
Here in New York, protesters demonstrated on Wednesday in front of the offices of Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand in New York City, demanding the U.S. defend the Kurdish autonomous region known as Rojava. This is Ozlem Goner, an assistant professor of sociology and anthropology at CUNY, the City University of New York.
OZLEM GONER: Kurds have lost thousands, tens of thousands of lives, their homes, their lands, their agricultural production — so, all their livelihood — in order to defeat ISIS so that European and U.S. citizens are comfortable in their homes. And now they are once again paying with their lives for having protected our lives.
AMY GOODMAN: We're starting right now with two guests. In London, we're joined by Elif Sarican, a Kurdish Women's Movement activist. She's an anthropologist at the London School of Economics. In Brussels, Belgium, we're joined by Ertuğrul Kürkçü, the honorary chair of the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party, known as the HDP. He's a former member of Parliament in Turkey.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Elif Sarican, let's begin with you. Let's start at the beginning, what we understand and what you understand is happening on the ground now. You have this conversation last Sunday between President Trump and the Turkish President Erdoğan, and apparently Trump tells him the U.S. will pull troops back in northern Syria, and Erdoğan makes very clear he is going to attack this area with Turkish troops. Explain what has happened since.
ELIF SARICAN: I mean, just to give it some context, you know, this is not a new development. Erdoğan has been trying to push for this for many months, if not years. And finally, somehow, through quite a mysterious and unclear phone conversation, Trump agreed to withdraw the few U.S. soldiers that were positioned there. And just to make clear that the U.S. Army, the U.S., Trump himself, the Syrian Democratic Forces and Turkey were well aware that these troops still remained posted there essentially to act as human shields to stop a Turkish invasion.
Now, what we saw yesterday was the beginning of this invasion, the long-promised invasion by Turkish President Erdoğan. And, you know, as many people have said, as there's a consensus all around the world and with public opinion, is the consequences of this can be grave and will be grave. It's not only that it's essentially threatening a Kurdish genocide; it will — it's not even just a possibility, it will — create and cause the resurgence of ISIS. It will add to the international refugee crisis. But also, equally as importantly, it will crush the democratic, ecological and women's liberationist experiment that has been happening there, as well as the Kurds fighting against ISIS.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Elif, the situation is quite extraordinary. A U.S.-NATO ally, Turkey, is relentlessly attacking, with U.S.-made arms and ammunition, a U.S. ally, the SDF, the Syrian Democratic Forces, who were also trained and armed by the U.S. Now, what do you understand is happening today? In these last two days, what do we know about casualties, both civilian, Kurdish civilian casualties, as well as casualties among the SDF?
ELIF SARICAN: So, because the situation is unfolding so quickly, it's quite difficult to get any precise figures at this moment, but some of the official figures that we've had in the last 24 hours is that there's over 10 civilians that have been killed, there's at least 15 injured civilians. And also CNN reported Clarissa Ward was going through part of the region yesterday and reported quite horrific scenes of civilians killed but left on the street, because people can't get to them because the shelling is so intense. And in terms of the SDF, again, we don't know the exact figures. We know there's clashes, with the six coordinated attacks in six border areas of northern Syria, and the Turkish Army with its allied jihadi forces don't seem to want to stop, by any means.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Ertuğrul Kürkçü into the conversation and get your response to what President Trump is now just saying. Kurdish forces have fought alongside the U.S. against ISIS for nearly half a decade, nearly 11,000 fighters dead. On Wednesday, Trump criticized the Kurds, saying they didn't help the United States during the battle of Normandy in World War II. This is Trump speaking to reporters at the White House during an event in the Roosevelt Room.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Now the Kurds are fighting for their land, just so you understand. They're fighting for their land. And as somebody wrote in a very, very powerful article today, they didn't help us in the Second World War. They didn't help us with Normandy, as an example. They mention names of different battles.
AMY GOODMAN: And he also said — The Washington Post is reporting the U.S. military has no plans to intervene if Syrian Kurdish forces leave their posts guarding ISIS prisons, raising the question of what will happen to the 11,000 ISIS militants and their families currently detained in some 20 prisons and camps under Kurdish control. So the president, Trump, was asked about this Wednesday.
REPORTER: ISIS fighters escape and pose a threat elsewhere.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, they're going to be escaping to Europe. That's where they want to go. They want to go back to their homes, but Europe didn't want them, for months.
AMY GOODMAN: Ertuğrul Kürkçü, you're honorary chair of the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party. If you could respond to both of these points, that the Kurds didn't help the U.S. at Normandy in World War II and if the ISIS prisoners get freed, they can — they will go to Europe?
ERTUĞRUL KÜRKÇÜ: Yeah, this is horrific, not only for the Kurds, but for all the world and for the Americans themselves, that they are governed by the most ignorant person in the world as a statesman. He doesn't even know that the Kurds didn't have a stake: They were not a party to the Second World War. They were enslaved by four different countries in the Middle East. And he is now speaking about the war in Normandy and why the Kurds weren't there. So he is totally ignorant of the realities of the world order, which was based on the outcome of the Second World War.
And secondly, he has no understanding of ISIS and what it means for the civilized world and Middle East and Europe, why ISIS is a problem not only the United States or Europe, but for the United Nations. ISIS is one of the two groups — one is al-Qaeda, and the second on is ISIS — which is pinpointed by the United Nations as the terrorist organizations which could be — whom should be stopped by international cooperation. And that's why the United States is having a function in the Middle East. This was not Trump's own idea.
What I would like to say, that it was the worst idea also by the Obama administration to intervene in the Middle East affairs, to export regime change in Syria, which deeply changed all the course of things in the Middle East and in Syria. And at the middle of the road, the Obama administration changed their course and took the ISIS as the enemy number one. This was a better understanding of the course of things.
But Trump doesn't understand why this was an immense problem for the American interests, as well as the Syrian interests and as well as the Kurdish interests. So, it's a pity that the United States and the world is now — is between the lips of an ignorant and a reckless person who is the leader of the United States, the number one country in the world, which assumes huge responsibilities for the peace in the world, for the stability in the region, and therefore a world where people will have to live in reconciliation. So, now Donald Trump himself may be the biggest problem for the Middle East peace.
AMY GOODMAN: And his response, what will happen to ISIS prisoners that escape from prisons, that they'll simply go to Europe?
ERTUĞRUL KÜRKÇÜ: Actually, the real situation in the field is even more problematic than Donald Trump believes to be. They are not only going to escape to Europe; they are going to operate in Turkey. And until this day, during ISIS massacres, around 200 Turkish people, 99% of whom are government dissidents, have been killed. And today, in a very interesting statement, the Turkish minister of domestic affairs, or the interior minister, in response to a question, says, "ISIS doesn't have any other opportunity than to cooperate with us, because they are at loggerheads with all the world, so they should coalesce with us." Now we have a country led by a government, an interior minister, who believes ISIS will be their ally.
So, we have done two problems. One is the Turkish official approach to ISIS, a kind of an ally against the Kurds. And the second one is that Donald Trump, that ISIS is a European problem, so that Europeans should tackle with the problem. It doesn't mean anything for Donald Trump. But he forgets 9/11, I think. They were in the United States and cost the lives of 3,000 Americans. It's a pity that, really, this guy is leading the United States. Where? Into an abyss, I see.
AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break, then come back to this discussion. Ertuğrul Kürkçü, honorary chair of the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party, is speaking to us from Brussels, Belgium. And Elif Sarican is a Kurdish Women's Movement activist, speaking to us from London. We will also be joined by Debbie Bookchin, co-founder of the Emergency Committee for Rojava. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: "Dear Viyan" by Miranda De La Frontera. This is Democracy Now! I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Our guests are Ertuğrul Kürkçü, the honorary chair of the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party, joining us from Brussels in Belgium, and Elif Sarican, a Kurdish Women's Movement activist. Also, Debbie Bookchin is with us in New York, co-founder of the Emergency Committee for Rojava.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: I'd like to ask Elif — you said earlier, of course, that there is a real risk of a Kurdish genocide, given what's happening. And it's important, I think, to remind people that over 10,000 SDF fighters have died in the fight against ISIS. And the question is: Now, given this overwhelming Turkish assault in northeast Syria, are the Kurds likely to receive any support from anybody? Some have said that they're likely to be forced to turn to Assad in an attempt to defend themselves against this assault. Could you talk about whether you think that's true and what the implications of that would be for the Kurds?
ELIF SARICAN: So, Amy [sic], as you say, there's been 11,000 people martyred in the fight against ISIS. There's 22,000 wounded in this fight, including many international volunteers, from the U.S., from the U.K., as well, and other countries included.
Now, to see what the consequences of a Turkish invasion will be, we don't have to look too far. In January 2018, the Turkish Army, again allied with ground jihadi forces, invaded Afrin, causing, in a couple of months, 1,000 — killing 1,000 people, mostly civilians, causing the displacement of 300,000 people, out of a population of 800,000, again, mostly Kurdish people. So, even at that time, and now it continues, the Syrian Democratic Council, which is the umbrella formation that also includes the Syrian Democratic Forces, have said they will negotiate, and they will sit at tables — at a table with any actor in the region to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict and the situation of the region and, you know, the effects of it on the wider Middle East and also the world.
So, this does bring the question of the ultimate aim of all of this needs to be, of course, as we said, the U.S. was — the U.S. soldiers were acting as human shields, essentially, but, you know, that was always going to be a solution that expired. So, the solution must be that — and, you know, the recognition is that this is, in some ways, less about the U.S., but more about the Turkish invasion, if that makes sense. So, therefore, the solution must be, you know, whether it's including Syria, as well, and Russia and the U.S. and all of the actors in the region, including Turkey, too — why not? — to be able to come to a political, diplomatic and peaceful solution to the future of the people of Syria, in general, which means the Syrian Democratic Council being included in the rewriting of the Syrian constitution, and being included in political developments of the region, as well.
And this is one of the reasons why the situation has got to where it has got to today, because there was a tactical alliance between the U.S. and the Syrian Democratic Forces in the fight against ISIS, but strategically there was never any political alliances. And this is what needs to be developed right now, because the question isn't — I don't think the question should be whether U.S. soldiers should return there or not. Of course, as a short-term solution, that would solve — you know, solve the or push back the invasion, and therefore save the lives of millions of people. But ultimately there needs to be a political solution, and that's what the people of northern Syria and the Syrian Democratic Council have been continuing to call for.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Elif, as you know, one of the principal objectives that Erdoğan has said for the military invasion is creating a safe zone to which millions of Syrian refugees can be returned. But there have been numerous reports of Turkey recently violently deporting thousands of Syrian refugee men and boys back to Syria. Turkish border guards have reportedly shot and killed Syrians when they tried returning to Turkey to reunite with their families. Now, you've spent time talking to Syrian refugees who have attempted to flee through Turkey. What did the Syrian refugees tell you about how they've been treated by Turkey?
ELIF SARICAN: So, I was in a refugee camp in Greece in 2016, and I spent a short time with them and, you know, talking with them, discussing with them. Most of them, at this camp, happened to be Kurdish, but there was also Syrian Arabs and other peoples at this camp, as well. And it was a — you know, it was almost every single person we spoke to, spoke about the brutality of the Turkish authorities at the border of when they were trying to cross, the extortion of these people, making — you know, confiscating their belongings, their goods. If they had any gold or money on them to, obviously, try and live and look after their families, a lot of the time these were confiscated. They reported things like doing work for — working at some of these — trying to work at local places, and because there was no protection, their wages not being paid. And, you know, so, therefore, shooting refugees trying to flee into Turkey in the first place is not a new thing. Now the forcing of Syrian refugees back into Syria, again, almost entirely, is not a voluntary move.
So, Erdoğan declaring at the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 24th of September, with a map, essentially declaring that he was going to alter the demographic of this region and, quote-unquote, "settle" his Syrian brothers and sisters in this region, is absolutely unprecedented, because often world leaders do not declare beforehand that they're about to commit war crimes. You know, firstly, an unprovoked attack is, obviously, by definition, by the U.N. and Nuremberg principle, a war crime. But also, to force the movement of people involuntarily and also to alter the demographic of a region is, again, by definition, ethnic cleansing. And Erdoğan declared all of this publicly at the United Nations a few weeks ago. But for some reason, he can do it and get away with it, which, to us on the receiving end, seems bizarre. But it also seems like he's very, very good, as you've already mentioned today, at blackmailing Europe with the 3.5 million Syrian refugees that he holds in Turkey — unfortunately, in very bad conditions. But nonetheless they're there, and he's somehow preventing them from getting to Europe.
AMY GOODMAN: I also want to bring —
ELIF SARICAN: But it's also —
As Turkey launches an aerial and ground assault on northern Syria targeting Kurdish-controlled areas, we look at how the offensive threatens the Kurdish region of Rojava with Debbie Bookchin, co-founder of the Emergency Committee for Rojava. She is a journalist and author who co-edited a book of essays by her father, Murray Bookchin, "The Next Revolution: Popular Assemblies and the Promise of Direct Democracy." We also speak with Elif Sarican, a Kurdish Women's Movement activist and anthropologist at the London School of Economics, and Ertuğrul Kürkçü, honorary chair of the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party in Turkey, known as the HDP. He is a former member of Parliament in Turkey.


Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring into this conversation Debbie Bookchin, co-founder of the Emergency Committee for Rojava. Her father, the late political philosopher Murray Bookchin, helped to inspire the Kurdish movement in Rojava. She just returned from there a few months ago and wrote a piece for The New York Review of Books titled "What the West Owes Its Best Ally Against ISIS." There are many who have not heard of Rojava, Debbie. If you can explain what it is and its significance today in what's happening just this week?
DEBBIE BOOKCHIN: That's right. Thank you, Amy. You know, one of the things that we focus on is ISIS, which has obviously been a critically important part of the United States' relationship with the Kurds. But in addition to discussing what the Kurds have been fighting against, it's incredibly and critically important, and especially to the progressive community in the American left, to talk about what they are fighting for. And that is a society that is really unparalleled right now in the 21st century. It is a society that is focused on the ideals of grassroots democracy, feminism and ecology. And —
AMY GOODMAN: And explain exactly where Rojava is.
DEBBIE BOOKCHIN: Well, Rojava is along the northern third of Syria. It is now — the Kurds are really helping [inaudible] a huge land mass, basically a third of Syria, which is another reason why it's absurd that they are not being included as part of the negotiations on the future of Syria.
But I think what's critically important — and I am very proud of the fact that a lot of my father's ideas have influenced the Rojavan society. What is critically important is that they are saying that we have to create a society that truly empowers people at the local level. And that means, especially in the Middle East, a feminist society. And I was just there, and I had the opportunity to talk to many people. And if you look at what they are doing there, and if you look at, for example, the social contract, which is their equivalent of our Constitution, it enshrines the rights of women, in a way that puts our Constitution to shame, frankly. So, really, we're talking about a very progressive society. And I think anybody in the United States, anywhere in the world, who considers themselves a progressive or a feminist should be very strongly behind the Rojava project. So, that's one very, very important aspect of it.
And I think that the other thing that I just want to emphasize is that, you know, there are not only 10,000 or 12,000 ISIS prisoners, but there are also 100,000 families that are now being held in camps. And many of these women — there's many children, of course, as well — but many of them, especially the ones who streamed out of Baghouz near the end of the so-called caliphate, the defeat of the caliphate, are very hardcore, serious jihadists. So, for Trump to say that this is not going to be a problem for us is an absurd thing to say. And you can imagine that they're jumping for joy right now. But I think it's really very — it is very important.
And I would actually like to say that, you know, I think that it's, in a certain sense, to the enduring shame of the progressive community in the American left that there hasn't been more support for Rojava over the years. We haven't heard our Democratic candidates really even talk about Syria. And this is a — and part of the reason that this can be happening, especially after what we saw in Afrin, where the [Turkish] Army — and it's really mostly a jihadi militia that the [Turks] have employed, because, as you know, after the coup attempt, Erdoğan got rid of a good chunk of his Army. So, you have essentially thugs who have come in and taken this once-peaceful region of Rojava called Afrin and turned it into basically an extension of a Turkish Islamic State, in which they've taken away people's rights, in which they've looted, robbed, kidnapped people. And this is what we can look forward to. This is what's going to happen in the rest of Rojava. And it is truly incumbent on all of us who claim to care for progressive values to stand up, to demand a no-fly zone for Rojava, to go to our representatives and say, "You know what? Tweeting your crocodile tears is not enough. We have to actually become active." And the progressive left should really play a huge role in this. It is not something that we should cede to the Republicans.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Ertuğrul Kürkçü back into the conversation in Brussels and ask you to respond to what Debbie is saying, but also to talk about the significance of the military that is now invading Syria. We're talking about the second-largest army in NATO?
ERTUĞRUL KÜRKÇÜ: Actually, this is the exact example of what an unjust war is. It has no legal basis. It has no legitimate basis for Turkey's security. It has no aim of bringing peace to any part of the world. But it is just designed for Tayyip Erdoğan's domestic ambitions of crowning his presidency with a military victory against a people which comprises only one of the hundred of its, Turkey's, population, which doesn't have an army as such, but armed citizens.
And Turkey is now seeking to suppress their gains from the Syrian administration for self-governance. Their sin is to self-govern themselves, which is a must in any modern society, across Europe, in the United States, even in the Middle East. So, now Kurds are being punished because they are becoming a bad example for the northern Kurds — that is, the Turkish citizens.
The outcome of this war, when looking at the balance of the weapons, the armament balance, Kurds may be in a bad position. But when looking at the matter from the legitimacy of the cause, it is obvious that Turkey has lost the war from the start. And not even an international organization, not a serious government across the globe is for Turkey's crackdown on Kurds in Syria. And all the peoples of the world are for the Kurds' right to determine their future. So, in the long term — maybe the Kurds, in the short term, may be inflicted casualties, but in the long term they are going to gain not only the hearts, but also the minds of the peoples of the world, because they present the only viable outcome of the Syrian war: a democratic country with self-governance for every entity in Syria.
And this will be understood, whatever the Turkish government's propaganda machine would say. They are called "terrorists." Imagine, in Turkey, there are at least 50,000 terrorists in prison. Everybody against Tayyip Erdoğan is a terrorist. Even the main opposition party is a terrorist party. But this party, tragically, said yes to a Turkish incursion into Syria. They are both crying for the losses but also supporting the war efforts of the Turkish government. It is just like the German parliament which started the First World War in 1914.
So, I would like to say that, even now, at the beginning of this Turkish incursion in the Kurdish-controlled areas, there will be no support, no empathy with the Turkish government for occupying this land. And if the international community understands, comes to the support of a nation which has the right to rule themselves, anywhere in the world, then the outcome of the war may change. All unjust wars have been lost by their perpetrators. And this is going to be lost also. But this is going to cost the Turkish people economic assets —
NERMEEN SHAIKH: I'd like to go — Ertuğrul, we'd like to go back for a second to Elif Sarican.
ERTUĞRUL KÜRKÇÜ: OK.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: If you could talk, Elif, about what you expect to happen now? How long do you expect this Turkish offensive to continue?
ELIF SARICAN: I mean, if Turkey gets its way, if the Turkish Army and Erdoğan gets its way, it will continue until they have genuinely achieved the genocide of the people of northern Syria, northeast Syria.
But, of course, a lot of this is dependent on the international community, as well, and actually even more importantly the international community. You know, we've seen that the public opinion is deeply and quite aggressively opposed to this invasion. We've seen a lot of people, you know, very, very close aides of Trump, come out very strongly to this, including the sanctions bill that has been put together. We've seen a lot of important academics, like David Harvey, pull out from conferences in Turkey, and celebrities, like Cher, who have come out with this.
So, this kind of solidarity and this kind of public outrage is genuinely important, because the lives of 5 million people are in question, including almost 3 million Kurds, but also not just Kurds, right? It's Arabs. It's Assyrians. It's Turkmen. It's a lot of other Christian groups. It's Yazidis. So there's many people, many marginalized — historically marginalized communities that are at risk here, because the Turkish Army just are not making distinctions. You know, yesterday, an Armenian village was also bombed, including other Christian neighborhoods, as well. So, this is an all-out war against the people of northern Syria. But as Debbie mentioned, as well, and Ertuğrul Kürkçü, this is against and aims to crush the beacon of hope that is the system based on direct democracy, ecology and women's liberation.
So, I think what's important is that people — you know, a lot of people want to do things, but they don't know exactly how to. It's important to encourage people to academically, culturally, touristically boycott Turkey at this point and make sure that if there is an international power or a state that is not willing to stop this Turkish invasion, that the people of the world, that we'll come together and make sure that they definitely pay for it.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank all our guests and also end with The Washington Post report. The Washington Post ran a piece earlier this week headlined "Trump's decision on Syria crystallizes questions about his business — and his presidency." The article notes Trump himself has acknowledged his conflict of interest with Turkey. Even after Trump became president, Trump Towers Istanbul remained part of the Trump Organization and continued to generate revenue for Trump himself.
We'll leave it there, Elif Sarican, Kurdish Women's Movement activist, speaking to us from London; Ertuğrul Kürkçü, honorary chair, pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party, speaking to us from Brussels, Belgium; and Debbie Bookchin, co-founder of the Emergency Committee for Rojava.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.



Virus-free. www.avg.com

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Chomsky: Syria, Obama, Brazil, War, Whatever!


THE ABSURD TIMES









More Optimism from Chomsky







Perhaps one way to resolve many issues is to discuss them all in one place, and this is the purpose of continuing the interview with Chomsky. 



In the previous issue, the point was made that now Obama has marked the longest time the U.S. has ever been in a way, but that point is misleading.  World War Two is actually the last war the U.S. involved itself in, but this is a matter semantics based on the idea that only Congress shall have the authority to declare war and it has not made such a declaration since Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked for it back in 1941, "A day that shall live in infamy," as he put it.  Since it was clear that Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor (which we said was us), the declaration was made.   We know of no such declaration since.



However, what is referred to as the Korean War immediately followed, referred to on occasion as World War 2.4.  Vietnam continued under the French until the U.S. took it over.  Truthfully, aside from no formal declaration of war (which somehow would raise salaries for American Soldiers to serve as cannon fodder and people killers, we understand) we cannot find one single period of time during which the United States was in some sort of armed conflict around the world.   If any of you can think of one, please let us know.  One of the more interesting forays by the United States was during the Reagan administration when a Marine barracks was attacked and many were killed.  Reagan did not hesitate to withdraw all of the U.S. troops from Lebanon and invade Grenada, the communist menace to the south consisting of some American medical students and some Cuban construction workers.  Don't mess with America, y'all.



Cuba is discussed and by comparison Crimea is only a moderate restructuring of administration.  One way Guantanamo  (spell it as you will) can be solved is to return it to it's rightful owner, Cuba, and simply leave.  With the American memory span roughly equivalent to that of a goldfish, all but a few people who write things down will forget the entire incident.



No point in extending this any further than is needed, so here is the interview:



Today, the U.S. and Russia co-chair a meeting of the 17-nation International Syria Support Group aimed at easing the five-year conflict with a death toll that has reached close to half a million people. Just last month, President Obama announced the deployment of 250 more Special Operations troops to Syria in a move that nearly doubles the official U.S. presence in the country. Syria is only one of a number of ongoing deadly conflicts in the Middle East. Last year, a record 60 million people around the world were forced to flee their homes, becoming refugees. For more on these conflicts and the rise of ISIS, we continue our conversation with internationally renowned political dissident, linguist and author, Noam Chomsky. "The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a major reason in the development, a primary reason in the incitement of sectarian conflicts, which have now exploded into these monstrosities," says Chomsky. He has written over 100 books, most recently, "Who Rules the World?" Chomsky is institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he's taught for more than 50 years.




TRANSCRIPT


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We're on the road in our 100-city tour, today broadcasting from Chicago.

The United States and Russia are co-chairing a meeting in Vienna today of the 17-nation International Syria Support Group aimed at easing the five-year conflict. According to a recent report by the Syrian Center for Policy Research, the death toll in Syria has reached close to half a million people, nearly twice the number counted by the United Nations a year and a half ago, when it stopped keeping track of the numbers killed because of the data's unreliability. Just last month, President Obama announced the deployment of 250 more Special Operations troops to Syria in a move that nearly doubles the official U.S. presence in the country. Syria is only one of a number of ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. Last year, a record 60 million people around the world were forced to flee their homes, becoming refugees.

Well, for more on these conflicts, from Syria to Iraq to Yemen, and the U.S. role in the ongoing violence, we continue our conversation with the internationally renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Noam Chomsky. He has written over a hundred books, most recently, Who Rules the World? Noam Chomsky is institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he's taught for more than half a century. I began by asking him to talk about the conflict in Syria.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is spiraling into real disaster, a virtual suicide. And the only sensible approach, the only slim hope, for Syria is efforts to reduce the violence and destruction, to establish small regional ceasefire zones and to move toward some kind of diplomatic settlement. There are steps in that direction. Also, it's necessary to cut off the flow of arms, as much as possible, to everyone. That means to the vicious and brutal Assad regime, primarily Russia and Iran, to the monstrous ISIS, which has been getting support tacitly through Turkey, through—to the al-Nusra Front, which is hardly different, has just the—the al-Qaeda affiliate, technically broke from it, but actually the al-Qaeda affiliate, which is now planning its own—some sort of emirate, getting arms from our allies, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Our own—the CIA is arming them. We don't know at what level; it's clandestine. As much as possible, cut back the flow of arms, the level of violence, try to save people from destruction. There should be far more support going simply for humanitarian aid. Those who are building some sort of a society in Syria—notably, the Kurds—should be supported in that effort.

These efforts should be made to cut off the flow of jihadis from the places where they're coming from. And that means understanding why it's happening. It's not enough just to say, "OK, let's bomb them to oblivion." This is happening for reasons. Some of the reasons, unfortunately, are—we can't reverse. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a major reason in the development, a primary reason in the incitement of sectarian conflicts, which have now exploded into these monstrosities. That's water under the bridge, unfortunately, though we can make sure not to do that—not to continue with that. But we may like it or not, but ISIS, the ISIL, whatever you want to call it, does have popular support even among people who hate it. The Sunni—much of the Sunni population of Iraq and Syria evidently regards it as better than the alternative, something which at least defends them from the alternative. From the Western countries, the flow of jihadis is primarily from young people who are—who live in conditions of humiliation, degradation, repression, and want something decent—want some dignity in their lives, want something idealistic. They're picking the wrong horse, by a large margin, but you can understand what they're aiming for. And there's plenty of research and studies—Scott Atran and others have worked on this and have plenty of evidence about it. And those—alleviating and dealing with those real problems can be a way to reduce the level of violence and destruction.

It's much more dramatic to say, "Let's carpet bomb them," or "Let's bomb them to oblivion," or "Let's send in troops." But that simply makes the situation far worse. Actually, we've seen it for 15 years. Just take a look at the so-called war on terror, which George W. Bush declared—actually, redeclared; Reagan had declared it—but redeclared in 2001. At that point, jihadi terrorism was located in a tiny tribal area near the Afghan-Pakistan border. Where is—and since then, we've been hitting one or another center of what we call terrorism with a sledgehammer. What's happened? Each time, it spreads. By now, it's all over the world. It's all over Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, everywhere you look. Take the bombing of Libya, which Hillary Clinton was strongly in favor of, one of the leaders of, smashed up Libya, destroyed a functioning society. The bombing sharply escalated the level of atrocities by a large factor, devastated the country, left it in the hands of warring militias, opened the door for ISIS to establish a base, spread jihadis and heavy weapons all through Africa, in fact, into the Middle East. Last year, the—according to U.N. statistics, the worst terror in the world was in West Africa, Boko Haram and others, to a considerable extent an offshoot of the bombing of Libya. That's what happens when you hit vulnerable systems with a sledgehammer, not knowing what you're doing and not looking at the roots of where these movements are developing from. So you have to understand the—understand where it's coming from, where the appeal lies, what the roots are—there are often quite genuine grievances—at the same time try to cut back the level of violence.

And, you know, we've had experience where things like this worked. Take, say, IRA terrorism. It was pretty severe. Now, they practically murdered the whole British Cabinet at one point. As long as Britain responded to IRA terrorism with more terror and violence, it simply escalated. As soon as Britain finally began—incidentally, with some helpful U.S. assistance at this point—in paying some attention to the actual grievances of Northern Irish Catholics, as soon as they started with that, violence subsided, reduced. People who had been called leading terrorists showed up on negotiating teams, even, finally, in the government. I happened to be in Belfast in 1993. It was a war zone, literally. I was there again a couple of years ago. It looks like any other city. You can see ethnic antagonisms, but nothing terribly out of the ordinary. That's the way to deal with these issues.

Incidentally, what's happening in Syria right now is horrendous, but we shouldn't—useful to remember that it's not the first time. If you go back a century, almost exactly a century, the end of the First World War, there were hundreds of thousands of people starving to death in Syria. Proportionally, proportional to the population, it's likely that more Syrians died in the First World War than any other belligerent. Syria did revive, and it can revive again.

AMY GOODMAN: We'll continue with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, his latest book, Who Rules the World?, after break.




The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

As Saudi Arabia continues to fund fighting in Syria and Yemen, Noam Chomsky says it is "the center of radical Islamic extremism." Chomsky adds that the U.S. ally is "a source of not only funding for extremist radical Islam and the jihadi outgrowths of it, but also, doctrinally, mosques, clerics and so on, schools, you know, madrassas, where you study just Qur'an, is spreading all over the huge Sunni areas from Saudi influence."




TRANSCRIPT


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We're on the road in Chicago, Illinois. I'm Amy Goodman, as we continue Part 2 of our conversation with world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Noam Chomsky, institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he's taught for more than half a century. His latest book, Who Rules the World? I asked him to talk about Saudi Arabia's role in the Middle East.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there's a long history. The basic—we don't have a lot of time, but the basic story is that the United States, like Britain before it, has tended to support radical Islamism against secular nationalism. That's been a consistent theme of imperial strategy for a long time. Saudi Arabia is the center of radical Islamic extremism. Patrick Cockburn, one of the best commentators and most knowledgeable commentators, has correctly pointed out that what he calls the Wahhibisation of Sunni Islam, the spread of Saudi extremist Wahhabi doctrine over Sunni Islam, the Sunni world, is one of the real disasters of modern—of the modern era. It's a source of not only funding for extremist radical Islam and the jihadi outgrowths of it, but also, doctrinally, mosques, clerics and so on, schools, you know, madrassas, where you study just Qur'an, is spreading all over the huge Sunni areas from Saudi influence. And it continues.

Saudi Arabia itself has one of the most grotesque human rights records in the world. The ISIS beheadings, which shock everyone—I think Saudi Arabia is the only country where you have regular beheadings. That's the least of it. Women have no—can't drive, so on and so forth. And it is strongly backed by the United States and its allies, Britain and France. Reason? It's got a lot of oil. It's got a lot of money. You can sell them a lot of arms, I think tens of billions of dollars of arms. And the actions that it's carrying out, for example, in Yemen, which you mentioned, are causing an immense humanitarian catastrophe in a pretty poor country, also stimulating jihadi terrorism, naturally, with U.S. and also British arms. French are trying to get into it, as well. This is a very ugly story.

Saudi Arabia—Saudi Arabia itself, its economy—its economy is based not only on a wasting resource, but a resource which is destroying the world. There's reports now that it's trying to take some steps to—much belated steps; should have been 50 years ago—to try to diversify the economy. It does have resources that are not destructive, like sunlight, for example, which could be used, and is, to an extent, being used for solar power. But it's way too late and probably can't be done. But it's a—it has been a serious source of major global problems—a horrible society in itself, in many ways—and the U.S. and its allies, and Britain before it, have stimulated these radical Islamist developments throughout the—throughout the Islamic world for a long time.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Obama has dealt with Saudi Arabia any differently than President Bush before him?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Not in any way that I can see, no. Maybe in nuances.

As protests continue in Brazil over the Legislature's vote to suspend President Dilma Rousseff and put her on trial, Noam Chomsky notes that "we have the one leading politician who hasn't stolen to enrich herself, who's being impeached by a gang of thieves, who have done so. That does count as a kind of soft coup." Rousseff's replacement, Brazil's former vice president, Michel Temer, is a member of the opposition PMDBparty who is implicated in Brazil's massive corruption scandal involving state-owned oil company Petrobras, and has now appointed an all-white male Cabinet charged with implementing corporate-friendly policies.




TRANSCRIPT


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: What about what's happening right now in Brazil, where protests are continuing over the Legislature's vote to suspend President Dilma Rousseff and put her on trial? Now El Salvador has refused to recognize the new Brazilian government. The Brazilian—the Salvadoran president, Cerén, said Rousseff's ouster had, quote, "the appearance of a coup d'état." What's happening there? And what about the difference between—it looked like perhaps Bush saved Latin America simply by not focusing on it, totally wrapped up in Iraq and Afghanistan. It looks like the Obama administration is paying a bit more attention.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, I don't think it's just a matter of not paying attention. Latin America has, to a significant extent, liberated itself from foreign—meaning mostly U.S.—domination in the past 10 or 15 years. That's a dramatic development in world affairs. It's the first time in 500 years. It's a big change. So the so-called lack of attention is partly the fact that the U.S. is kind of being driven out of the hemisphere, less that it can do. It used to be able to overthrow governments, carry out coups at will and so on. It tries. There have been three—maybe it depends how you count them—coups, coup attempts this century. One in Venezuela in 2002 succeeded for a couple of days, backed by the U.S., overthrown by popular reaction. A second in Haiti, 2004, succeeded. The U.S. and France—Canada helped—kidnapped the president, sent him off to Central Africa, won't permit his party to run in elections. That was a successful coup. Honduras, under Obama, there was a military coup, overthrew a reformist president. The United States was almost alone in pretty much legitimizing the coup, you know, claiming that the elections under the coup regime were legitimate. Honduras, always a very poor, repressed society, became a total horror chamber. Huge flow of refugees, we throw them back in the border, back to the violence, which we helped create. Paraguay, there was a kind of a semi-coup. What's happening—also to get rid of a progressive priest who was running the country briefly.

What's happening in Brazil now is extremely unfortunate in many ways. First of all, there has been a massive level of corruption. Regrettably, the Workers' Party, Lula's party, which had a real opportunity to achieve something extremely significant, and did make some considerable positive changes, nevertheless joined the rest—the traditional elite in just wholesale robbery. And that should—that should be punished. On the other hand, what's happening now, what you quoted from El Salvador, I think, is pretty accurate. It's a kind of a soft coup. The elite detested the Workers' Party and is using this opportunity to get rid of the party that won the elections. They're not waiting for the elections, which they'd probably lose, but they want to get rid of it, exploiting an economic recession, which is serious, and the massive corruption that's been exposed. But as even The New York Times pointed out, Dilma Rousseff is maybe the one politician who hasn't—leading politician who hasn't stolen in order to benefit herself. She's being charged with manipulations in the budget, which are pretty standard in many countries, taking from one pocket and putting it into another. Maybe it's a misdeed of some kind, but certainly doesn't justify impeachment. In fact, she's—we have the one leading politician who hasn't stolen to enrich herself, who's being impeached by a gang of thieves, who have done so. That does count as a kind of soft coup. I think that's correct.




The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

We speak with world-renowned political dissident Noam Chomsky about the Republican party, the rightward shift in U.S. politics and the 2016 election. "If we were honest, we would say something that sounds utterly shocking and no doubt will be taken out of context and lead to hysteria on the part of the usual suspects," Chomsky says, "but the fact of the matter is that today's Republican Party qualify as candidates for the most dangerous organization in human history. Literally."




TRANSCRIPT


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to move back to the United States, to the issue of the Republican Party and what you see happening there, the Republican establishment fiercely opposed to the presumptive nominee. I don't know if we've ever seen anything like this, although that could be changing. Can you talk about the significance—I mean, you have Sheldon Adelson, who is now saying he will pour, what, tens of millions of dollars into Donald Trump. You have the Koch brothers—I think it was Charles Koch saying he could possibly see supporting Hillary Clinton, if that were the choice, with Donald Trump. What is happening?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, first of all, the phenomenon that we've just seen is an extreme version of something that's been going on just for years in the Republican primaries. Take a look back at the preceding ones. Every time a candidate came up from the base—Bachmann, McCain, Santorum, Huckabee, one crazier than the other—every time one rose from the base, the Republican establishment sought to beat them down and get their own—get their own man—you know, Romney. And they succeeded, until this year. This year the same thing happened, and they didn't succeed. The pressure from the base was too great for them to beat it back. Now, that's the disaster that the Republican establishment sees. But the phenomenon goes way back. And it has roots. It's kind of like jihadis: You have to ask about the roots.

What are the roots? The Republican—both political parties have shifted to the right during the neoliberal period—the period, you know, since Reagan, goes back to late Carter, escalated under Reagan—during this period, which has been a period of stagnation and decline for much of the population in many ways—wages, benefits, security and so on—along with enormous wealth concentrated in a tiny fraction of the population, mostly financial institutions, which are—have a dubious, if not harmful, role on the economy. This has been going on for a generation. And while this has been happening, there's a kind of a vicious cycle. You have more concentration of wealth, concentration of political power, legislation to increase concentration of wealth and power, and so on, that while that's been going on, much of the population has simply been cast aside. The white working class is bitter and angry, for lots of reasons, including these. The minority populations were hit very hard by the Clinton destruction of the welfare system and the incarceration rules. They still tend to support the Democrats, but tepidly, because the alternative is worse, and they're taking a kind of pragmatic stand.

But while the parties have shifted to—but the parties have shifted so far to the right that the—today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called moderate Republicans. Now, the Republicans are just off the spectrum. They have been correctly described by leading conservative commentators, like Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann, as just what they call a radical insurgency, which has abandoned parliamentary politics. And they don't even try to conceal it. Like as soon as Obama was elected, Mitch McConnell said, pretty much straight out, "We have only one policy: make the country ungovernable, and then maybe we can somehow get power again." That's just off the spectrum.

Now, the actual policies of the Republicans, whether it's Paul Ryan or Donald Trump, to the extent that he's coherent, Ted Cruz, you pick him, or the establishment, is basically enrich and empower the very rich and the very powerful and the corporate sector. You cannot get votes that way. So therefore the Republicans have been compelled to turn to sectors of the population that can be mobilized and organized on other grounds, kind of trying to put to the side the actual policies, hoping, the establishment hopes, that the white working class will be mobilized to vote for their bitter class enemies, who want to shaft them in every way, by appealing to something else, like so-called social conservatism—you know, abortion rights, racism, nationalism and so on. And to some extent, that's happened. That's the kind of thing that Fritz Stern was referring to in the article that I mentioned about Germany's collapse, this descent into barbarism. So what you have is a voting base consisting of evangelical Christians, ultranationalists, racists, disaffected, angry, white working-class sectors that have been hit very hard, that are—you know, not by Third World standards, but by First World standards, we even have the remarkable phenomenon of an increase in mortality among these sectors, that just doesn't happen in developed societies. All of that is a voting base. It does produce candidates who terrify the corporate, wealthy, elite establishment. In the past, they've been able to beat them down. This time they aren't doing it. And that's what's happening to the so-called Republican Party.

We should recognize—if we were honest, we would say something that sounds utterly shocking and no doubt will be taken out of context and lead to hysteria on the part of the usual suspects, but the fact of the matter is that today's Republican Party qualify as candidates for the most dangerous organization in human history. Literally. Just take their position on the two major issues that face us: climate change, nuclear war. On climate change, it's not even debatable. They're saying, "Let's race to the precipice. Let's make sure that our grandchildren have the worst possible life." On nuclear war, they're calling for increased militarization. It's already way too high, more than half the discretionary budget. "Let's shoot it up." They cut back other resources by cutting back taxes on the rich, so there's nothing left. There's been nothing this—literally, this dangerous, if you think about it, to the species, really, ever. We should face that.




The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

This month President Obama will become the first serving U.S. president to visit Hiroshima, Japan, where the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb toward the end of World War II on what Noam Chomsky calls "the grimmest day I can remember." Chomsky examines the U.S. role in launching the nuclear age, Obama's role in continuing it, and the rest of his legacy. "I don't usually agree with Sarah Palin, but when she was ridiculing this—what she called this 'hopey-changey stuff,' she had a point. There were a few good things. ... But opportunities that were available, especially in the first two years when he had Congress with him, just were not used. By the standards of U.S. presidential politics, it's kind of nothing special either way, nothing to rave about, certainly."




TRANSCRIPT


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that President Obama has intensified this threat, I mean, now with the trillion-dollar plan to, quote, "modernize" the nuclear arsenal?

NOAM CHOMSKY: It's a very bad step. And it's not just modernizing the arsenal, which ought to be reduced. Worth remembering we have even a legal obligation to cut back and, ultimately, eliminate nuclear weapons. But it's also something you mentioned earlier: developing these small nuclear weapons. Sounds kind of nice. They're small, not big. It's the opposite. Small nuclear weapons provide a temptation to use them, figuring, "Well, it's only a small weapon, so it won't destroy, you know, a whole city." But as soon as you use a small nuclear weapon, chances of retaliation escalate pretty sharply. And that means you could pretty soon be in a situation where you're having a real nuclear exchange, pretty well known now that that would lead to a nuclear winter, which would make life essentially impossible.

AMY GOODMAN: As President Obama heads to Hiroshima, do you think he should be apologizing for the only nuclear bombs, atomic bombs, dropped in the world, the U.S. dropping them, launching the nuclear age, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I thought—I mean, I'm old enough to remember it. And that day was just the—maybe the grimmest day I can remember. Then came something even worse: the bombing of Nagasaki, mainly to try to test a new weapon design. These are real horror stories. The carpet—the bombing, firebombing of Japanese cities a couple months earlier was not that much better, Tokyo especially. We might even recall that there was what was called a grand finale in the Air Force history. After the two atom bombs, after Russia had entered the war, which ended any Japanese hope for any kind of—any hope that they had for any sort of negotiated settlement, after that—it was all over—after Japan had officially surrendered, though before it had been made public, after that, the U.S. organized a thousand-plane raid, which was a big logistic feat, to bomb Japanese cities to kind of show the Japs who was on top, and survivors, so like Makoto Oda, a well-known Japanese writer who recently died, reported that as a child in Osaka, he remembers bombs falling along with leaflets saying, "Japan has surrendered." Now, that was not a lethal bombing, but it was a brutal one, a brutal sign of brutality. All of these events call for serious rethinking—yes, apology, but mainly serious rethinking of just what we're up to in the world.

And remember that this goes on. Those were small bombs by today's standard. If you look at the record since, since 1945, it's an absolute miracle that we've survived. New examples are discovered all the time. Just a couple of months ago, it was revealed that in 1979, last Carter year, the U.S. automated detection systems sent a—determined that there was a major Russian missile attack against the United States. Protocol is, this goes to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they evaluate it, goes to the national security adviser—Zbigniew Brzezinski at the time—and he notifies the president. Brzezinski was actually on the phone, ready to call Carter to launch a nuclear attack, which means the Doomsday Clock goes to midnight, on the phone when they received information saying that it was a false alarm, another of the hundreds, if not thousands, of false alarms. On the Russian side, there are probably many more, because their equipment is much worse. These things happen constantly. And to play games with escalating the nuclear arsenal, when it should be reduced, sharply reduced—I mean, even people like Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and so on, are calling for elimination of nuclear weapons. To escalate and modernize at this point is just really criminal, in my opinion.

AMY GOODMAN: World-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, Noam Chomsky. His latest book, Who Rules the World? We'll continue our conversation with him in a minute, talking about President Obama's legacy, Cuba and the death of Michael Ratner, coming up.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "O Que Será," performed by Nara Leão. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman. We continue our conversation with the world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Noam Chomsky, institute professor emeritus at MIT. His latest book, Who Rules the World?I asked him for his assessment of the Obama administration.

NOAM CHOMSKY: It's about what I thought before he—before the 2008 primaries, when I wrote about him just based on the information in his web page. I didn't expect anything. I expected mostly rhetoric and—you know, nice rhetoric, good speaker and so on, but nothing much in the way of action. I don't usually agree with Sarah Palin, but when she was ridiculing this—what she called this "hopey-changey stuff," she had a point. There were a few good things. You know, there were a few good things in the W. Bush administration. But opportunities that were available, especially in the first two years when he had Congress with him, just were not used. And some—it's—by the standards of U.S. presidential politics, it's kind of nothing special either way, nothing to rave about, certainly.




The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

At the opening of the Cuban Embassy in Washington, D.C., last year after almost half a century, Democracy Now! spoke to attorney Michael Ratner, who played a key role in fighting for the habeas corpus rights of Guantánamo prisoners and wrote several books about the U.S. role in Cuba and Latin America. We discuss his legacy and new U.S. stance toward Cuba with Noam Chomsky, who argues the change came about in part because the United States was being driven out of the hemisphere. "Latin America used to be just the backyard. They do what you tell them. If they don't do it, we throw them out and put in someone else. No more. Not in the last 10, 20 years."




TRANSCRIPT


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about the passing of Michael Ratner, Michael Ratner, the former head of the—or the late head of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the trailblazing human rights attorney, who died last week at the age of 72. I had interviewedMichael last year in Washington, D.C., at the reopening of the Cuban Embassy, after it was closed for more than five decades. And I asked Michael to talk about the significance of this historic day. This is an excerpt of what he said.

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, Amy, let's just say, other than the birth of my children, this is perhaps one of the most exciting days of my life. I mean, I've been working on Cuba since the early '70s, if not before. I worked on the Venceremos Brigade. I went on brigades. I did construction. And to see that this can actually happen in a country that decided early on that, unlike most countries in the world, it was going to level the playing field for everyone—no more rich, no more poor, everyone the same, education for everyone, schooling for everyone, housing if they could—and to see the relentless United States go against it, from the Bay of Pigs to utter subversion on and on, and to see Cuba emerge victorious—and when I say that, this is not a defeated country. This is a country—if you heard the foreign minister today, what he spoke of was the history of U.S. imperialism against Cuba, from the intervention in the Spanish-American War to the Platt Amendment, which made U.S. a permanent part of the Cuban government, to the taking of Guantánamo, to the failure to recognize it in 1959, to the cutting off of relations in 1961. This is a major, major victory for the Cuban people, and that should be understood. We are standing at a moment that I never expected to see in our history.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Michael Ratner. It was July [20th]. It was that historic day in Washington, D.C., when the Cuban Embassy was opened after almost half a century. If you could talk both about the significance of Michael Ratner, from his work around Guantánamo, ultimately challenging the habeas corpus rights of Guantánamo prisoners, that they should have their day in court, and winning this case in the Supreme Court, to all of his work, also talk about Cuba, Noam, something that you certainly take on in your new book, Who Rules the World?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, Michael Ratner has an absolutely fabulous record. His achievements have been enormous. A tremendous courage, intelligence, dedication. A lot of achievement against huge odds. The center, which he largely—it was a major—he ran and was a major actor in, has done wonderful work all over the place—Cuba and lots of other things. So I can't be excessive in my praise for what he achieved in his life and the inspiration that it should leave us with.

With regard to Cuba-U.S. relations, I think what he just said is essentially accurate. In fact, it's even worse than that. We tend to forget that after the Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy administration was practically in a state of hysteria and seeking to somehow avenge themselves against this upstart who was carrying out what the government called successful defiance of U.S. policies going back to the Monroe Doctrine. How can we tolerate that? Kennedy authorized a major terrorist war against Cuba. The goal was to bring "the terrors of the earth" to Cuba. That's the phrase of his associate Arthur Schlesinger, historian Arthur Schlesinger, in his biography of Robert Kennedy. Robert Kennedy was given the responsibility to bring "the terrors of the earth" to Cuba. And it was—he in fact described it as one of the prime goals of government, is to ensure that we terrorize Cuba. And it was pretty serious. Thousands of people were killed, petrochemical plants, other industrial installations blown up. Russian ships in the Havana Harbor were attacked. You can imagine what would happen if American ships were attacked. It was probably connected with poisoning of crops and livestock, can't be certain. It went on into the 1990s, though not at that—not at the extreme level of the Kennedy years, but pretty bad. The late '70s, there was an upsurge, blowing up of a Cubana airliner, 73 people killed. The culprits are living happily in Miami. One of them died. The other, Luis Posada, major terrorist, is cheerfully living there.

The taking over of southeastern Cuba back—at the time of the Platt Amendment, the U.S. had absolutely no claim to this territory, none whatsoever. We're holding onto it just in order—it's a major U.S. military base—it was. But we're holding onto it simply to impede the development of Cuba, a major port, and to have a dumping place where we can send—illegally send Haitian refugees, claiming that they're economic refugees, when they're fleeing from the terror of the Haitian junta that we supported—Clinton, incidentally, in this case—or just as a torture chamber. Now, there's a lot of talk about human rights violations in Cuba. Yeah, there are human rights violations in Cuba. By far the worst of them, overwhelmingly, are in the part of Cuba that we illegally hold—you know, technically, legally. We took it at the force of a gun, so it's—point of a gun, so it's legal. I mean, in comparison with this, whatever you think of Putin's annexation of Crimea is minor in comparison with this.

All of this is correct, but we have to ask: Why did the U.S. decide to normalize relations with Cuba? The way it's presented here, it was a historic act of magnanimity by the Obama administration. As he, himself, put it, and commentators echoed, "We have tried for 50 years to bring democracy and freedom to Cuba. The methods we used didn't work, so we'll try another method." Reality? No, we tried for 50 years to bring terror, violence and destruction to Cuba, not just the terrorist war, but the crushing embargo. When the Russians disappeared from the scene, instead of—you know, the pretense was, "Well, it's because of the Russians." When they disappeared from the scene, how did we react, under Clinton? By making the embargo harsher. Clinton outflanked George H.W. Bush from the right, in harsh—during the electoral campaign, in harshness against Cuba. It was Torricelli, New Jersey Democrat, who initiated the legislation. Later became worse with Helms-Burton. All of this has been—that's how we tried to bring democracy and freedom to Cuba.

Why the change? Because the United States was being driven out of the hemisphere. You take a look at the hemispheric meetings, which are symbol of it. Latin America used to be just the backyard. They do what you tell them. If they don't do it, we throw them out and put in someone else. No more. Not in the last 10, 20 years. There was a hemispheric meeting in Cartagena, in Colombia. I think it was—must have been 2012, when the U.S. was isolated. U.S. and Canada were completely isolated from the rest of the hemisphere on two issues. One was admission of Cuba into hemispheric systems. The second was the drug war, which Latin America are essentially the victims of the drug war. The demand is here. Actually, even the supply of weapons into Mexico is largely here. But they're the ones who suffer from it. They want to change it. They want to move in various ways towards decriminalization, other measures. U.S. opposed. Canada opposed. It was pretty clear at that time that at the next hemispheric meeting, which was going to be in Panama, if the U.S. still maintained its position on these two issues, the hemisphere would just go along without the United States. Now, there already are hemispheric institutions, like CELAC,UNASUR for South America, which exclude the United States, and it would just move in that direction. So, Obama bowed to the pressure of reality and agreed to make—to accept the demand to—the overwhelming demand to move slowly towards normalization of relations with Cuba. Not a magnanimous gesture of courage to bring Cuba—to protect Cuba from its isolation, to save them from their isolation; quite the opposite, to save the United States from its isolation. Of course, with the rest of the world, there's not even any question. Take a look at the annual votes on—the U.N. has annual votes on the U.S. embargo, and just overwhelming. I think the last one was something like 180 to two—United States and Israel. It's been increasing like that for years. So, that's the background.

As for Michael, Michael Ratner, his achievements are just really spectacular.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Noam, you've just written this book,Who Rules the World? You've written more than a hundred other books. And, I mean, you have been a deep, profound thinker and activist on world issues, for what? I mean, more than 70 years. You were writing when you were 14 years old, giving your analysis of what's been happening. And I'm wondering where you think we stand today, if you agree with—well, with Dr. Martin Luther King, that the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Actually, it was 10 years old, but not—nothing to rave about. If you look over the past, say, the roughly 75 years of my, more or less, consciousness, it's—in general, I think the arc of history has been bending towards justice. There have been many improvements, some of them pretty dramatic—women's rights, for example, to an extent, civil rights. It should be remembered that there were literally lynchings in the South until the early 1950s. It's not beautiful now, but that's not happening. There have been steps forward. Opposition to aggression is much higher than it was in the past. There's finally concern for environmental issues, which are really of desperate necessity. All of this is slow, halting, significant steps bending the arc of history in the right way.

There's been regression, a lot of regression. Things don't move smoothly. But there have been bad periods before, and we've pulled out of them. I think there are opportunities—they're not huge, but they're real—to overcome the—and I stress again—to overcome problems that the human species has never faced in its roughly 200,000 years of existence, problems of, literally, survival. We've already answered these questions for a huge number of species: We've killed them off.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, institute professor emeritus at MIT. He taught there for over half a century. His latest book, Who Rules the World? If you want to watch Part 1 of our conversation—it was all of Monday's show—go to democracynow.org.

I'll be speaking today in Chicago at 6:30 with Jeremy Scahill at the Chicago Temple Building on West Washington Street; then on Wednesday in Madison, Wisconsin, at the Barrymore Theatre; to Toronto, Canada, Thursday and Friday; then on to Saturday in Troy, New York, at the Sanctuary for Independent Media; on Sunday inNew York; and on Monday at the Philadelphia Free Library. You can check our website at democracynow.org as we continue our 100-city tour.

Oh, Democracy Now! is hiring for our video news production fellowship and ourinternship program. Get more information at our website.




The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.