From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo)
Subject: Part 3,  NOAM CHOMSKY: The New World Order
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Keywords: NOAM CHOMSKY: The New World Order
Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:44:42 GMT

    THE NEW WORLD ORDER: The Middle East and Central America
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             Lecture by Professor Noam Chomsky
                       Given at
               George Washington University
                    November 23, 1991

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                      (continuation)
NOAM CHOMSKY:
Well, instead of continuing through the Latin American horror 
chamber, which is what it is, I'll turn to the second area, the
Middle East. There's a lot to talk about there. We could talk
about a lot of our exploits in the Gulf, for example. But instead,
let me talk about the topic that's on the front pages right now,
and has been for the last several weeks: what's called "the Middle
East peace process", in particular, the conference in Madrid.
I'm not going to be continuing with Latin American atrocity stories,
but talking about diplomacy -- nice clean topics that won't be so
bloody. But let's have a look and see what we can learn about 
ourselves from that.

Well, I'm sure you all read the newspapers, and you've noticed 
that there is universal acclaim for the diplomatic triumph of
George Bush and James Baker in Madrid. So let me just remind you
of some of the boilerplate. Our heroes "exploited the historic
window of opportunity opened by their victory in the Gulf to
breathe life into the stalled Middle East peace process, showing
remarkable courage and vision."  That happens to come from Anthony
Lewis who is one of the most critical commentators on U.S.
Government policies anywhere in the mainstream, and it sort of 
goes from there over to the real accolades. The United States can,
at last, try to bring about its traditional goals of "land for
peace", and territorial compromise and autonomy for the
Palestinians in the context of a general peace now, that the
rejectionists are in disarray and the Russians are no longer
causing mischief, and the bad guys everywhere know that "what
we say goes", as the President put it last February. That's also
true in Latin America where "what we say goes" has been true for
a long time, with consequences of the kind that I've already
indicated. The news columns report, with considerable awe, that
"the President is dreaming great dreams of peace and justice, and
of course, marching forth to implement them."  That's diplomatic
correspondent R.W. Appel in the New York Times. James Baker is
praised for his diplomatic skills and his tenacity in putting
together what the Times calls "the remarkable tableau in Madrid".
I should point out, to be accurate, that not everyone agrees that
the U.S. has really shown itself to be an honest broker. There are 
people who claim that Bush and Baker have gone too far in allowing
their pro-Arab sympathies to influence what they do. But it's 
agreed that they're both well on their way to a well deserved
Nobel Peace Prize.

Well, that's sort of standard, but more interesting than this
kind of rather standard sort of Stalinist style rhetoric ....
it's very reminiscent of the days of the genius Stalin, for those
of you who remember that kind of stuff. That's kind of standard,
but more interesting than that is the fact that similar perceptions,
though without the Stalinoid rhetoric, are pretty widespread in
substantial parts of Europe. And that's more interesting. In fact,
Europe has, to a large extent, come to accept the extension of 
the Monroe Doctrine to the Middle East -- which is new -- and has
also come to accept, to a certain extent, the framework of U.S.
propaganda. That's also an interesting and a noticeable shift.
I think it's one worth study in itself. I think it has to do with
the end of the Cold War. Maybe I can comment on that later. 

But even more interesting than that is that the euphoria is 
reaching much further, even to towns and villages in the West Bank 
and Gaza where expectations are apparently running quite high. 
The lead article of the current issue of the Journal of Palestine
studies is by an advisor to the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation
in Madrid, Walid Khalidi, who lauds "the personal commitment of 
the President of the United States," (I'm quoting) "in front of
Congress and the whole world, to a just and comprehensive 
settlement". And he's also much impressed by "the invigoration of
international institutions, and the new recognition that we can't
go too far with double standards." So that's a pretty broad spectrum.

In my view, this is all total illusion. I'd like to give some
indication of why. Let's just start  with a brief comment on the
matter of our abandonment of double standards. By chance, that 
issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies happened to arrive at 
my home on the same day that the lead front-page story in the    
newspapers read: "U.S. ACCUSES LIBYA IN PAN AM BOMBING". That's
two hundred and seventy people killed. And the sub-heading read:
"RETALIATION WEIGHED, SAYS WHITE HOUSE." And the editorials issued
stern calls for just punishment, overflowing with self-righteousness.
The news reports told us that: "this fiendish act of wickedness had
become the horrific symbol of terrorism" -- quoting the New York
Times. Again, it was not entirely uniform, so the New York Times
ran an op-ed pointing out that the evidence about Libya was pretty
thin, and suggested some Government duplicity in identifying Libya.
The authors accused the Government of letting the Palestinians
off the hook at a sensitive moment in the peace conference. And
also, they charged that Syria and Iran had been let off the hook
for similar reasons. The authors of this article, representing the
dissidents, are Robert and Tamara Kupperman. Robert Kupperman is
a leading proponent of what is called "low-intensity conflict",
the author of manuals on how to implement it officially -- 
manuals in which he defines low-intensity conflict. Here's the
definition; it is: "the threat or use of force to achieve political
objectives without the full-scale commitment of resources."
That's to be distinguished from international terrorism which is
defined in U.S. Army manuals as "the threat or use of force to 
attain goals that are political, or religious, or ideological in
nature."  In short, low-intensity conflict IS international 
terrorism, as the advocates and practitioners of it are kind enough
to inform us, not only in their definition, but also in the practice.

So we have a spectrum, then, ranging from those who assume that the 
Government's case against Libya is proven on the obvious grounds
that it had been proclaimed. And then on the other extreme, we 
have skeptics who are leading proponents of international terrorism,
and who think that the case hasn't quite yet been proven, and that
we should go after other favored enemies, like the Palestinians.
So the issue is: Should we mete out stern justice to Libya alone,
and also to other official enemies -- and should we use bombing or
maybe some other technique. 

Well, that's what's known as an independent Press in a free society. 
                        (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

    A 90-minute video documentary, from which this transcript was made, 
    is available exclusively from JCOME.  In addition to the full
    Chomsky lecture, the documentary contains background information 
    about Chomsky and JCOME -- the only Jewish-American organization 
    with Chomsky as a member of its Advisory Committee. 

    JCOME is extending a special offer at this time.  To get a copy
    of the video documentary simply send a check for $20 (only $15 for the
    documentary and $5 shipping) and indicate that you read about Chomsky 
    and JCOME on a computer network.  Send to:

                 The Jewish Committee on the Middle East
                             P.O. Box 18367
                         Washington, D.C. 20036
          
Phone orders cannot be taken.  But for additional information about JCOME --
including copies of recent magazine ads and the MID-EAST REALITIES newsletter
that can be sent directly to your fax machine -- call JCOME 24-hours daily to:
                  
                     (202) 362-JCOME    (202) 362-5266
    E-mail: jcome@mcimail.com                      FAX:   (202) 362-6965
            [JCOME on MCIMail]                             

                       +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +  
                        JCOME would be grateful to you for posting the
                        installments of this trnscript to computer
                        bulletin boards, as well as in public places, 
                        both on and off campus.
                       +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +   

   Transcribed for JCOME by John DiNardo


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic