Noam Chomsky: On Libya and the Unfolding Crises

Aus Z-news geklaut und (noch)nicht übersetzt – schaff ich jetzt auch nicht – geht in Nachtarbeit in kleinen Portionen – so lange eben nur auf Englisch. Noam Chomsky klaue ich am liebsten, weil seine linguistischen Forschungen, seine Thesen, seine pädagogische Theorie und Praxis mich in den späten 60ern und den 70ern bis ins neue Millenium am stärksten beeinflusst haben. Bernstein und Oevermann waren nur ein schwacher Abklatsch. Für mich ist Noam Chomsky neben Ernest Jouhy-Jablonski und Robert Jungkh und deren Schüler Herbert Stubenrauch ein Vorbild an umfassender humanistischer Bildung, die nicht nur im Kopf stecken bleibt und durch Elfenbeintürme geistert, die das Herz beseelt und wohltuend praktisch ein- und Partei er-greift.  Noam Chomsky ist für mich der exakte Gegenentwurf zu solch jämmerlichen StrichMännchen wie Micha Brumlik und Consorten… aus dem Überbau des EUROfighters Daniel Cohn-Bendit (HaBE)

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Stephen Shalom and Michael Albert; Thursday, March 31, 2011 Noam Chomsky’s ZSpace Page  Join ZSpace

1. What are U.S. motives in international relations most broadly? That is, what are the over arching motives and themes one can pretty much always find informing U.S. policy choices, no matter where in the world we are discussing? What are the somewhat more specific but still over arching motives and themes for U.S. policy in Middle East and the Arab world? Finally, what do you think are the more proximate aims of U.S. policy in the current situation in Libya?

A useful way to approach the question is to ask what U.S. motives are NOT.  There are some good ways to find out.  One is to read the professional literature on international relations: quite commonly, its account of policy is what policy is not, an interesting topic that I won’t pursue.More…

Another method, quite relevant now, is to listen to political leaders and commentators.  Suppose they say that the motive for a military action is humanitarian.  In itself, that carries no information: virtually every resort to force is justified in those terms, even by the worst monsters – who may, irrelevantly, even convince themselves of the truth of what they are saying.  Hitler, for example, may have believed that he was taking over parts of Czechoslovakia to end ethnic conflict and bring its people the benefits of an advanced civilization, and that he invaded Poland to end the “wild terror” of the Poles.  Japanese fascists rampaging in China probably did believe that they were selflessly laboring to create an “earthly paradise” and to protect the suffering population from “Chinese bandits.” Even Obama may have believed what he said in his presidential address on March 28 about the humanitarian motives for the Libyan intervention.  Same holds of commentators. „Noam Chomsky: On Libya and the Unfolding Crises“ weiterlesen