back to index

Noam Chomsky: Putin, Ukraine, China, and Nuclear War | Lex Fridman Podcast #316


small model | large model

link |
00:00:00.000
Will there be a war between U.S. and China in the 21st century?
link |
00:00:05.000
If there is, we're finished.
link |
00:00:08.000
A war between the U.S. and China would destroy the possibilities of organized life on Earth.
link |
00:00:18.000
The following is a conversation with Noam Chomsky, his second time on the podcast.
link |
00:00:23.000
This episode is focused on the war in Ukraine.
link |
00:00:27.000
And it is a departure from the way I usually do this podcast in several ways.
link |
00:00:32.000
Noam is a strong and healthy 93 year old, but this conversation is remote to be cautious.
link |
00:00:40.000
It is brief, only one hour.
link |
00:00:42.000
It is more of an interview than a conversation due to the limitations of our audio and video connection.
link |
00:00:50.000
I decided it's best to get Noam's clear thoughts on this war
link |
00:00:54.000
and the complicated geopolitics of today and the rest of the 21st century that is unrolling before us,
link |
00:01:01.000
with our decisions and actions fully capable of either helping humanity flourish
link |
00:01:06.000
or unleashing global destruction and suffering.
link |
00:01:10.000
As a brief aside, perhaps you know this, but let me mention that I traveled to Ukraine
link |
00:01:16.000
and saw, heard, felt things that are haunting and gave me a lot to think about.
link |
00:01:22.000
Because of that, I've been really struggling to edit the videos I recorded.
link |
00:01:27.000
I hope to finish it soon.
link |
00:01:29.000
I'm sorry for these delays, and I'm especially sorry to the people there who gave me their time,
link |
00:01:34.000
their story, their heart.
link |
00:01:37.000
Please be patient with me.
link |
00:01:39.000
I hope you understand.
link |
00:01:41.000
This is the Lex Readman Podcast.
link |
00:01:43.000
To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
link |
00:01:46.000
And now, dear friends, here's Noam Chomsky.
link |
00:01:50.000
You have studied and criticized powerful leaders and nations in times of global conflict and struggles for power.
link |
00:01:58.000
So let me ask you, what do you think motivates Vladimir Putin?
link |
00:02:03.000
Is it power, legacy, fame, geopolitical influence, or the flourishing of a nation he loves and represents?
link |
00:02:11.000
I have no particular insight into Putin's mind.
link |
00:02:18.000
I can only watch the actions over the last 20, 25 years and read the statements.
link |
00:02:28.000
Took power about almost 25 years ago, has held it since as prime minister or president.
link |
00:02:38.000
His first task was to try to overcome the chaos and disarray of the 1990s.
link |
00:02:51.000
During the 90s, Gorbachev had a proposal, he called for a cooperative enterprise with the West.
link |
00:03:08.000
They would share an effort to rebuild what he called a common European home,
link |
00:03:15.000
in which there would be no military alliances, just Russia, Western US accommodation,
link |
00:03:24.000
with a move towards social democracy and former USSR and comparable moves in the United States.
link |
00:03:36.000
Well, that was quickly smashed. The United States had no interest in that.
link |
00:03:42.000
Clinton came along pretty soon, early 90s.
link |
00:03:47.000
Russia was induced to adopt what was called shock therapy,
link |
00:03:56.000
a harsh, quick market transformation, which devastated the economy,
link |
00:04:03.000
created enormous social disarray, rise of what are called oligarchs, kleptocrats, high mortality.
link |
00:04:17.000
And Clinton started the policy of expanding NATO to the East
link |
00:04:23.000
in violation of firm, unambiguous promises to Gorbachev not to do so.
link |
00:04:30.000
Yeltsin, Putin's friend, opposed it. Other Russian leaders opposed it, but they didn't react.
link |
00:04:39.000
They accepted it. When Putin came in, he continued that policy.
link |
00:04:45.000
Meanwhile, did reconstruct the Russian economy.
link |
00:04:49.000
Russian society became a viable, deeply authoritarian society under his tight control.
link |
00:04:58.000
He himself organized a major kleptocracy with him in the middle,
link |
00:05:06.000
apparently became very wealthy. On the international front,
link |
00:05:10.000
he pretty much continued the former policies as US diplomats,
link |
00:05:17.000
practically every diplomat who had any contact with Russia had been dispatched there,
link |
00:05:24.000
knew about it, as they all warned from the 90s that what Clinton was doing,
link |
00:05:30.000
expanded by Bush afterwards, was reckless and provocative,
link |
00:05:38.000
that Russia did have a clear red line before Putin, which he adhered to,
link |
00:05:46.000
namely no NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.
link |
00:05:51.000
This is pretty much how things went on through the 2000s.
link |
00:06:00.000
In 2008, President Bush did invite Ukraine to join NATO.
link |
00:06:10.000
That was vetoed by France and Germany, but under US pressure, it was kept on the agenda.
link |
00:06:17.000
The Russians continued to object. Western diplomats,
link |
00:06:22.000
including the present current head of the CIA and his predecessors,
link |
00:06:29.000
warned that this was reckless, provocative, shouldn't be done, continued.
link |
00:06:35.000
Putin didn't do much. He stayed with it until pretty recently.
link |
00:06:41.000
After 2014, the uprising that threw out the former president,
link |
00:06:51.000
who was pro Russian, instituted anti Russian laws.
link |
00:06:56.000
The United States and NATO began a policy of moving to effectively integrate Ukraine
link |
00:07:07.000
into the NATO command, joint military exercises, training, sending weapons and so on.
link |
00:07:17.000
Putin objected. Other Russian leaders objected. They're unified on this, but didn't do much.
link |
00:07:26.000
They continued with the proposals that Ukraine be excluded from NATO,
link |
00:07:37.000
and that there be some form of autonomy for the Donbass region.
link |
00:07:43.000
Meanwhile, in reaction to the uprising, the Maidan Uprising 2014,
link |
00:07:51.000
Russia moved in and took over Crimea, protecting its warm water base and major naval base.
link |
00:08:01.000
The US objected and recognised it, but things continued without notable conflict.
link |
00:08:09.000
I won't go through all the details. When Joe Biden came in,
link |
00:08:14.000
he expanded the program of what US military journals call a defective integration of Ukraine within NATO,
link |
00:08:27.000
proposed September 2021, proposed enhanced program of preparation for NATO mission,
link |
00:08:40.000
extended with a formal statement in November. We're now practically up to the invasion.
link |
00:08:48.000
Putin's position hardened. France, mainly France, to an extent Germany,
link |
00:08:55.000
did make some moves towards possible negotiations. Putin dismissed them,
link |
00:09:04.000
moved on to the direct invasion. What are his, to get back to your question, what motivates him?
link |
00:09:16.000
I presume what he's been saying all along, namely establishing his legacy as a leader
link |
00:09:26.000
who overcame the extensive destruction of Russia, massive weakening over it,
link |
00:09:35.000
restored his position as a world power, prevented Ukraine from entering NATO.
link |
00:09:42.000
It may have further ambitions as to dominating and controlling Ukraine, very likely.
link |
00:09:50.000
There is a theory in the West that he suddenly became a total madman who wants to restore the great Russian empire.
link |
00:10:02.000
This is combined with the gloating over the fact that the Russian military is a paper tiger that can't even conquer cities
link |
00:10:16.000
a couple of kilometers from the border, but defended not even by a regular army.
link |
00:10:23.000
But somehow along with this, he's planning to attack NATO powers, conquer Europe, who knows what.
link |
00:10:32.000
It's impossible to put all these concepts together. They're totally internally contradictory.
link |
00:10:39.000
So what's my judgment? I think what motivates him is what he's been demonstrating in his actions.
link |
00:10:48.000
Restore Russia as a great power, restore its economy, control it as a total dictatorship,
link |
00:11:00.000
enrich himself and his cronies, establish a legacy as a major figure in Russian history,
link |
00:11:09.000
make sure that Ukraine does not join NATO, and probably by now he's hardened the position,
link |
00:11:19.000
maintain Crimea and the southeastern corridor to Russia, and some ambiguous agreements about the Donbass region.
link |
00:11:32.000
That looks like his motivation. There's much speculation that goes beyond this,
link |
00:11:39.000
but it's very hard to reconcile with the assessment of the real world by the same people who are making the grandiose speculations.
link |
00:11:54.000
I don't think anything's changed.
link |
00:12:04.000
It seems to me his policies are about the same as what they were. They've changed in response to changed circumstances.
link |
00:12:14.000
So very recently, right before the invasion, a few weeks before, for the first time,
link |
00:12:22.000
Putin announced recognition of the independence of the Donbass region. That's a stronger position than before, much stronger.
link |
00:12:34.000
Up till then, he had pretty much kept to the longstanding position of some kind of accommodation within a federal structure
link |
00:12:45.000
in which the Donbass region would have considerable autonomy. So that's a harshening of the position.
link |
00:12:53.000
So even the human mind of Vladimir Putin, the man?
link |
00:12:57.000
I can't read his mind. I can only see the policies that he's pursued and the statements that he's made.
link |
00:13:04.000
There are many people speculating about his mind. And as I say, these speculations are, first of all, not based on anything.
link |
00:13:15.000
Never said anything about trying to conquer NATO. But more importantly,
link |
00:13:21.000
they are totally inconsistent with the analyses of Russian power by the same people who are making the speculations.
link |
00:13:31.000
So we see the same individual speculating about Putin's grandiose plans to become Peter the Great and conquer,
link |
00:13:46.000
start attacking NATO powers, on the one hand saying that, on the other hand gloating over the fact that his military powers
link |
00:13:55.000
so minuscule he can't even conquer towns a couple miles from the border.
link |
00:14:03.000
Well, it's impossible to make sense of that position.
link |
00:14:07.000
Why did Russia invade Ukraine on February 24th? Who do you think is to blame? Who do you place the blame on?
link |
00:14:17.000
Well, who's to blame? Any power that commits aggression is to blame. So I continue to say, as I have been for many months,
link |
00:14:29.000
that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is on a par with such acts of aggression as the U.S. invasion of Iraq,
link |
00:14:41.000
the Stalin, Hitler invasion of Poland, other acts of supreme international crime under international law.
link |
00:14:55.000
Of course he's to blame.
link |
00:14:58.000
The U.S. committed $6.9 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the Russian invasion.
link |
00:15:04.000
Should U.S. keep up with this support?
link |
00:15:08.000
There are two questions. One has to do with providing support for defense against the invasion, which is certainly legitimate.
link |
00:15:18.000
The other is seeking ways to end the crime before even worse disasters arise.
link |
00:15:28.000
Now that second part is not discussed in the West, barely discussed.
link |
00:15:33.000
Anyone who dares to discuss it is immediately subjected to a flood of invective and hysterical condemnation.
link |
00:15:43.000
But if you're serious about Ukraine, there are two things you ask.
link |
00:15:48.000
One, what can we do to support Ukraine in defense against aggression?
link |
00:15:54.000
Second, how can we move to end the war before it leads to even worse destruction of Ukraine, more starvation worldwide,
link |
00:16:06.000
reversing the limited efforts to deal with global warming, possibly moving up an escalation out of the war, the nuclear war.
link |
00:16:17.000
That's the second half of the borrow, a phrase attributed to Winston Churchill.
link |
00:16:27.000
There's a lot of war, war, but no joy, joy, joy.
link |
00:16:33.000
And there ought to be joy, joy if you care about Ukraine and the rest of the world.
link |
00:16:39.000
Can it be done? We don't know.
link |
00:16:41.000
Official U.S. policy is to reject a diplomatic settlement, to move to weaken Russia severely so that it cannot carry out further aggression,
link |
00:16:56.000
but not do anything on the joy, joy side, not think of how to bring the crimes and atrocities to an end.
link |
00:17:07.000
That's the second part of the question.
link |
00:17:10.000
So, yes, the U.S. should continue with the kind of calibrated support that's been given.
link |
00:17:20.000
The Pentagon wisely has vetoed initiatives to go well beyond support for defense up to attack on Russia.
link |
00:17:34.000
So far, the Pentagon, which seems to be the dovish component in the U.S. administration,
link |
00:17:42.000
has vetoed plans which very likely would lead on to nuclear war, which would destroy everything.
link |
00:17:49.000
So calibrated provision of weapons to blunt the offensive, allow Ukraine to defend itself,
link |
00:17:58.000
if sensible, combined with efforts to see if something can be done to bring the crimes and atrocities to an end
link |
00:18:11.000
and avert the much worse consequences that are in store, that would be instead the U.S. only dealing with the first.
link |
00:18:21.000
And all of our discussions limit themselves to the first in the United States and in Britain, not in Europe.
link |
00:18:29.000
Do you worry about nuclear war in the 21st century? How do we avoid it?
link |
00:18:35.000
Anyone who doesn't worry about nuclear war doesn't have a gray cell functioning.
link |
00:18:41.000
Of course, everyone is worried about nuclear war, or should be.
link |
00:18:46.000
It's very easy to see how steps could be taken, even been recommended, that would lead to nuclear war.
link |
00:18:54.000
So you can read articles even by liberal commentators who say we should drop all the pretenses, just go to war against Russia.
link |
00:19:05.000
They have to be destroyed.
link |
00:19:08.000
You can see proposals coming from Congress, the leading figures, saying we should establish a no fly zone.
link |
00:19:19.000
Pentagon objects. They point out correctly that to establish a no fly zone, you have to have control of the air,
link |
00:19:29.000
which means destroying Russian air defense systems, which happen to be inside Russia.
link |
00:19:37.000
We don't know that Russia won't react.
link |
00:19:41.000
Even the call, now almost universal, to ensure that Ukraine wins, drives out all the Russians, drives them out of the country,
link |
00:19:53.000
sounds nice on paper, but notice the assumption.
link |
00:19:58.000
The assumption is that Vladimir Putin, this madman who just seeks power and is out of control, will sit there quietly,
link |
00:20:10.000
accept defeat, slink away, not use the military means that of course he has to destroy Ukraine.
link |
00:20:20.000
One of the interesting comments that came out in today's long article, I think Washington Post reviewing a lot of leaks,
link |
00:20:31.000
actually not leaks, actually presented by U.S. intelligence and U.S. leaders about the long build up to the war.
link |
00:20:41.000
One of the points it made was surprised on the part of British and U.S. leaders about Putin's strategy
link |
00:20:50.000
and his failure to adopt, to fight the war the way the U.S. and Britain would, with real shock and awe,
link |
00:20:59.000
destruction of communication facilities, of energy facilities and so on.
link |
00:21:04.000
They can't understand why he hasn't done all that.
link |
00:21:07.000
If you want to make it very likely that that will happen, then insist on fighting until somehow Russia faces total defeat.
link |
00:21:21.000
Then it's a gamble, but if he's as crazy and insane as you claim, presumably will use weapons that he hasn't used yet to destroy Ukraine.
link |
00:21:35.000
So the West is taking an extraordinary gamble with the fate of Ukraine.
link |
00:21:41.000
Gambling that the madman, lunatic, mad Vlad won't use the weapons he has to destroy Ukraine
link |
00:21:52.000
and set the stage for escalation of the latter which might lead to nuclear war.
link |
00:21:58.000
It's quite a gamble.
link |
00:22:00.000
How much propaganda is there in the world today in Russia, in Ukraine, in the West?
link |
00:22:06.000
It's extraordinary.
link |
00:22:08.000
In Russia, of course, it's total.
link |
00:22:12.000
Ukraine is a different story.
link |
00:22:14.000
They're at war.
link |
00:22:15.000
They expect propaganda.
link |
00:22:17.000
In the West, let me quote Graham Fuller, very highly placed in U.S. intelligence,
link |
00:22:28.000
one of the top officials for decades dealing mostly with Russia and Central Asia.
link |
00:22:36.000
He recently said that in all the years of the Cold War, he's never seen any extreme Russia phobia to the extent that he sees today.
link |
00:22:49.000
I think that's pretty accurate.
link |
00:22:53.000
I mean, the U.S. has even canceled Russian outlets, which means if you want to find out what Sergei Lavrov or other Russian officials are saying,
link |
00:23:10.000
you can't look it up on their own outlets.
link |
00:23:14.000
You have to go through Al Jazeera, Indian state television or someplace where they still allow Russian positions to be expressed.
link |
00:23:27.000
And of course, the propaganda is just outlandish.
link |
00:23:31.000
I think Fuller is quite correct on this.
link |
00:23:34.000
In Russia, of course, you expect total propaganda.
link |
00:23:38.000
There's nothing, any independent outlets such as there were have been crushed.
link |
00:23:46.000
If the media is a source of inaccuracies and even lies, then how do we find the truth?
link |
00:23:54.000
I don't regard the media as a source of inaccuracies and lies.
link |
00:24:01.000
They do exist.
link |
00:24:03.000
But by and large, media reporting is reasonably accurate.
link |
00:24:09.000
Reporters, the journalists themselves, as in the past, do courageous, honest work.
link |
00:24:19.000
I've written about this for 50 years.
link |
00:24:23.000
My opinion hasn't changed.
link |
00:24:26.000
But they do pick certain things and not other things.
link |
00:24:31.000
There's selection, there's framing, there's ways of presenting things.
link |
00:24:37.000
All of that forms a kind of propaganda system, which you have to work your way through.
link |
00:24:45.000
But it's rarely a matter of straight, outright lying.
link |
00:24:50.000
So there's a difference between propaganda and lying?
link |
00:24:54.000
Of course, a propaganda system shapes and limits the material that's presented.
link |
00:25:02.000
It may tell the truth within that framework.
link |
00:25:05.000
So let me give you a concrete example, which I wrote about extensively.
link |
00:25:12.000
I have a book called Manufacturing Consent jointly with Edward Herman.
link |
00:25:19.000
It's about his term, which I had accepted a propaganda model of the media.
link |
00:25:26.000
A large part of the book is defense of the media.
link |
00:25:30.000
Defense of the media against harsh attacks by Freedom House.
link |
00:25:36.000
Several volumes they published attacking the media,
link |
00:25:40.000
charging that the media were so adversarial and dishonest that they lost the war in Vietnam.
link |
00:25:47.000
Well, it took the trouble of reading through the two volumes.
link |
00:25:52.000
One volume is charges, the next volume is evidence.
link |
00:25:57.000
Turns out that all of the evidence is lies.
link |
00:26:01.000
They had no evidence.
link |
00:26:03.000
They were just lying.
link |
00:26:05.000
The media, in fact, the journalists were doing honest, courageous work.
link |
00:26:11.000
But within a certain framework.
link |
00:26:16.000
A framework of assuming that the American cause was basically just, basically honorable,
link |
00:26:24.000
making mistakes, doing bad things.
link |
00:26:28.000
But the idea of questioning that the United States was engaged in a major war crime.
link |
00:26:38.000
That's off the record.
link |
00:26:40.000
So unfortunately, there was this crime and that crime which harmed their effort to do good and so on.
link |
00:26:50.000
Well, that's not lying, it's propaganda.
link |
00:26:53.000
So how do we find the truth?
link |
00:26:55.000
How do we find the truth?
link |
00:26:58.000
That's what you have a brain for.
link |
00:27:01.000
It's not deep.
link |
00:27:03.000
It's quite shallow.
link |
00:27:05.000
It's not quantum physics.
link |
00:27:07.000
Put a little effort into it.
link |
00:27:09.000
Think about, look for other sources.
link |
00:27:13.000
Think a little about history.
link |
00:27:15.000
Look at the documentary record.
link |
00:27:18.000
They're all pretty well fools together and you can get a reasonable understanding of what's happening.
link |
00:27:25.000
If you could sit down with Vladimir Putin and ask him a question or talk to him about an idea, what would you say?
link |
00:27:35.000
I would walk out of the room, just as with almost any other leader.
link |
00:27:40.000
I know what he's going to say.
link |
00:27:42.000
I read the party line.
link |
00:27:43.000
I read his pronouncements.
link |
00:27:45.000
Doesn't want to hear from me.
link |
00:27:47.000
Am I going to say, why did you carry out a crime that's comparable to the US invasion of Iraq and the Stalin Hitler invasion of Poland?
link |
00:27:59.000
Am I going to ask that question?
link |
00:28:02.000
If I met with John F. Kennedy today, would I ask, why did you radically escalate the war in Vietnam, launch the US Air Force, start authorized napalm, drive launch programs to drive villagers who you know are supporting the National Liberation Front,
link |
00:28:26.000
drive them into concentration camps to separate them from the forces they're defending?
link |
00:28:32.000
Would I have asked him that?
link |
00:28:34.000
Of course not.
link |
00:28:36.000
Do you think the people who led us into the war in Vietnam, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the war in Ukraine are evil?
link |
00:28:50.000
I mean, it's very hard to be in a position of leadership of a violent, aggressive power without carrying out evil acts.
link |
00:29:03.000
Are the people evil?
link |
00:29:06.000
I mean, I'm not their moral advisors.
link |
00:29:11.000
I don't know anything about them.
link |
00:29:13.000
I look at their actions, their statements, their policies, evaluate those.
link |
00:29:19.000
Their families can evaluate their personalities.
link |
00:29:24.000
Will there be a war between US and China in the 21st century?
link |
00:29:29.000
If there is, we're finished.
link |
00:29:33.000
A war between the US and China would destroy the possibilities of organized life on Earth.
link |
00:29:43.000
In fact, we can put it differently. Unless the US and China reach an accommodation and work together and cooperatively,
link |
00:29:55.000
it's very unlikely that organized human society will survive.
link |
00:30:00.000
We are facing enormous problems, problems, destruction of the environment, endemics, threat of nuclear war.
link |
00:30:14.000
None of these decline of democratic functioning of an arena for rational discourse.
link |
00:30:23.000
None of these things have boundaries.
link |
00:30:26.000
We either work together to overcome them, which we can do, or we'll all sink together.
link |
00:30:34.000
That's the real question we should be asking.
link |
00:30:37.000
What the United States is doing is not helping.
link |
00:30:42.000
So the current US policy, which is perfectly open, nothing secret about it, is to what's called encircle China with sentinel states,
link |
00:30:57.000
South Korea, Japan, Australia, which will be heavily armed, provided by Biden with precision weapons aimed at China,
link |
00:31:14.000
backed by major naval operations, huge naval operations just took place in the Pacific.
link |
00:31:23.000
Many nations participating, RIMPAC didn't get reported here, as far as I know, but an enormous operation threatening China.
link |
00:31:32.000
All of this to encircle China, to continue with policies like that.
link |
00:31:41.000
Somebody like Pelosi, just to probably make her look more, I don't know what her motives are, taking a highly provocative,
link |
00:31:56.000
stupid act, opposed by the military, opposed by the White House.
link |
00:32:02.000
Yes, acts like that, which of course called for the response of highly dangerous.
link |
00:32:09.000
We don't have to do that. We don't have to increase the threat.
link |
00:32:14.000
I mean, right now, the last NATO summit, take a look at it.
link |
00:32:20.000
For the first time, it invited to attend countries that are in the sentinel states surrounding China and circling China from the east.
link |
00:32:33.000
And it, in fact, extended the range of NATO to what's called the Indo Pacific region.
link |
00:32:41.000
So all of us by now, the North Atlantic includes the whole Indo Pacific region to try to ensure that we can overcome the so called China threat.
link |
00:32:55.000
Certainly, we might ask exactly what the China threat is. It's done sometimes.
link |
00:33:03.000
So former prime minister of Australia, Paul Keating, well known international diplomat, had an article a while ago in the Australian press.
link |
00:33:16.000
That's right in the claws of the dragon asking, going through what the China threat is.
link |
00:33:22.000
He ran through the various claims, finally concluded the China threat is that China exists.
link |
00:33:30.000
It exists. It does not follow U.S. orders. It's not like Europe.
link |
00:33:36.000
Europe does what the United States tells it to do, even if it doesn't like it.
link |
00:33:42.000
China just ignores what the U.S. says. There's a formal way of describing this.
link |
00:33:49.000
There are two versions of the international order.
link |
00:33:54.000
One version is the U.N. based international order, which theoretically we subscribe to, but we don't accept.
link |
00:34:04.000
The U.N. based international order is unacceptable to the United States because it bans U.S. foreign policy.
link |
00:34:14.000
Literally, it explicitly bans the threat or use of force in international affairs, except under circumstances that almost never arise.
link |
00:34:27.000
Well, that's U.S. foreign policy. Try to find a president who isn't engaged in the threat or use of force in international affairs.
link |
00:34:36.000
So obviously we can't accept the U.N. based international system, even though under the Constitution, that's the supreme law of the land.
link |
00:34:48.000
It doesn't matter. So the United States has what's called a rule based international order.
link |
00:34:56.000
That's acceptable because it's the United States that sets the rules.
link |
00:35:02.000
So we want a rule based international order where the U.S. sets the rules.
link |
00:35:08.000
In commentary in the United States, even in scholarship, almost 100 percent calling for a rule based international order.
link |
00:35:20.000
Is that false? No, it's true. Is it propaganda? Of course it's propaganda because of what's not said and because of what's presupposed.
link |
00:35:31.000
An answer to an earlier question. Well, China does not accept the rule based international order.
link |
00:35:39.000
So when the U.S. imposes demands, Europe may not like them, but they follow them.
link |
00:35:47.000
China ignores them. So take, for example, the U.S. sanctions on Iran.
link |
00:35:55.000
The U.S. has to punish Iran because the United States pulled out of the, unilaterally pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreements.
link |
00:36:08.000
So in order to punish Iran for wrecking the agreements in violation of Security Council orders, we impose very harsh sanctions.
link |
00:36:19.000
Europe strongly opposes the sanctions, condemn them harshly, but it adheres to them because you don't disobey U.S. orders.
link |
00:36:35.000
That's too dangerous. China ignores them. They're not keeping to the rule based international order.
link |
00:36:43.000
Well, that's unacceptable. In fact, it's said pretty openly. You can hear the Secretary of State and others saying China is challenging our global hegemony.
link |
00:36:58.000
Yes, they are. They don't accept U.S. global hegemony, especially in the waters off China.
link |
00:37:05.000
They do a lot of rotten things, China. I mean, internally, there's all kind of repression, violence and so on.
link |
00:37:16.000
But first of all, that's not a threat to us. And second, the U.S. doesn't care about it because it easily accepts and supports comparable crimes and atrocities internal to allies.
link |
00:37:29.000
So, yes, we should protest it, but without hypocrisy. We have no standing to protest it. We support comparable things in all sorts of other places.
link |
00:37:41.000
Just take a look at the U.S. foreign aid. The leading recipient of U.S. foreign aid is Israel, which is engaged in constant terror, violence and repression, constant, almost daily.
link |
00:37:57.000
Second leading recipient is Egypt, one of the worst dictatorships in Egypt's history.
link |
00:38:05.000
About 60,000 people in jail, political prisoners tortured and so on. Do we care?
link |
00:38:13.000
Second leading recipient. I mean, what are we talking about? That's why most of the world just laughs at us.
link |
00:38:21.000
There's a lot of failure to understand here about why the global South doesn't join us in our proxy war against Russia, fighting Russia until it's severely weakened.
link |
00:38:38.000
They don't join us. Here, the question is, what's wrong with them?
link |
00:38:43.000
They look into their minds to figure out what's wrong. They have a different attitude. They say, yes, we oppose the invasion of Ukraine, terrible crime.
link |
00:38:56.000
But what are you talking about? This is what you do to us all the time. You don't care about crimes like this. That's most of the global South.
link |
00:39:06.000
We can't comprehend that because we're so insulated that we are just obviously right and everyone who doesn't go along must be wrong.
link |
00:39:17.000
Do you think the United States as a global leader, as an empire, may collapse in this century? Why and how will it happen and how can we avoid it?
link |
00:39:29.000
The United States can certainly harm itself severely. That's what we're doing right now. Right now, the greatest threat to the United States is internal countries tearing itself apart.
link |
00:39:49.000
I really don't have to run through it with you. Take a look at something as elementary as mortality. The United States is the only country outside of war, life expectancy is declining, mortality is increasing.
link |
00:40:12.000
It doesn't happen anywhere. You take a look at health outcomes generally. They're among the worst among the developed societies and health spending is about twice as high as the developed societies.
link |
00:40:28.000
You look at the charts, all of this starts around the late 1970s, early 80s. If you go back to that point, the United States was pretty much a normal developed country in terms of mortality, incarceration, health expenses, other measures.
link |
00:40:50.000
Since then, the United States has fallen off the chart. It's gone way off the chart. Well, that's the neoliberal assault of the last 40 years. It's had a major effect on the United States.
link |
00:41:05.000
It's left a lot of anger, resentment, violence. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has simply drifted off the spectrum. It's not a normal political party in any usual sense, not what it used to be.
link |
00:41:21.000
Its main policy is block anything in order to regain power. That's its policy, stated almost openly by McConnell, followed religiously by the entire Congress.
link |
00:41:39.000
That's not the acts of a political party. Of course, democracy has declined. Violence has increased. The judgements, the decisions of the Supreme Court, the court's the most reactionary court in memory.
link |
00:42:00.000
To go back to the 19th century, decision after decision is an effort to create a country of white supremacist Christian nationalists. I mean, scarcely hidden, if you read the opinions of Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and others.
link |
00:42:28.000
So yes, we can destroy ourselves within. And in fact, the ways we're doing it are almost astonishing. So it's well known, for example. Everybody knows that U.S. infrastructure, bridges, subways, and so on, is in terrible shape, needs a lot of repair.
link |
00:42:49.000
The American Association of Engineers gives it a failing mark every year. Finally, Congress did pass a limited infrastructure bill, say rebuild bridges and so on.
link |
00:43:03.000
It has to be called a China Competition Act. We can't rebuild their bridges because they're falling apart. We have to rebuild their bridges to beat China. It's pathological.
link |
00:43:19.000
And that's what's happening inside the country. Take Thomas's decision in the recent case in which he invalidated a New York law.
link |
00:43:34.000
This is last October, a couple of weeks ago, and validated a New York law going back to 1913 that required people to have some justification if they wanted to carry concealed weapons in public.
link |
00:43:51.000
He went through that with a very interesting decision. He said the United States, he said, is such a decaying, collapsing, hateful society that people just have to have guns.
link |
00:44:08.000
I mean, how can you expect somebody to go to the grocery store without a gun in a country as disgusting and hideous as this one? It's essentially what he said. Those weren't his words, but they were the import.
link |
00:44:24.000
What gives you hope about the United States, about the future of human civilization?
link |
00:44:33.000
Human civilization will not survive unless the United States takes a leading position in dealing with and overcoming the very severe crises that we face.
link |
00:44:50.000
The United States is the most powerful country, not only in the world, but in human history. There's nothing to compare with it.
link |
00:44:58.000
What the United States does has an overwhelming impact on what happens in the world.
link |
00:45:06.000
When the United States alone pulls out of the Paris agreements on dealing with climate change and insists on maximizing the use of fossil fuels and dismantling the regulatory apparatus that provides some mitigation.
link |
00:45:29.000
When the United States does that, as it did under Trump, it's a blow to the future of civilization.
link |
00:45:37.000
When Republican states today, right now, say they're going to punish corporations that seek to take climate change into account and their investments.
link |
00:45:53.000
The U.S. is telling the world, we want to destroy all of us. Again, not their words, but their import. That's what they mean.
link |
00:46:04.000
So as long as we have a political organization dedicated to gaining power at any cost, maximizing profit, no matter what the consequences, no future for human civilization.
link |
00:46:22.000
Noam, thank you for talking today. Thank you for talking once again. And thank you for fighting for the future of human civilization. Again, thank you.
link |
00:46:35.000
Thank you.
link |
00:46:37.000
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Noam Chomsky. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
link |
00:46:44.000
And now, let me leave you with some words from Voltaire. It is forbidden to kill. Therefore, all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers, and to the sound of trumpets.
link |
00:46:59.000
Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.