[sacw] SACW #2 (04 January. 02)

Harsh Kapoor aiindex@mnet.fr
Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:00:43 +0100


South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch #2 | 4 January 2002
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

------------------------------------------
#1. Canada: South Asians Rally For Peace Between India and Pakistan
#2. Noam Chomsky Interviewed By Pervez Hoodbhoy

________________________

#1.

SANSAD
South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy

8027 Government Street, Burnaby, BC, V5A 2E1, Canada
[Incorporated in British Columbia under the Society Act as a=20
Non-Profit Society, # S-31797]
[SANSAD is an affiliate of International South Asia Forum (INSAF)]

January 02, 2002
A press and public release

SOUTH ASIANS RALLY
FOR PEACE BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

It was only forty-eight hours since the call for a Public Rally was sent ou=
t.

Also, the morning of Saturday, December 29, began with heavy clouds=20
hovering over the local earth, chilling winds sweeping the lands, and=20
light showers falling intermittently.

Yet, people kept coming. They came from all over the city of=20
Vancouver. And from many suburban communities: Burnaby, Delta,=20
Richmond, New Westminster, North Vancouver, Surrey, Coquitlam. One=20
young woman drove all the way from Seattle just for the Rally. The=20
inclement weather did not deter them. They were more concerned with=20
far more menacing clouds over the South Asian skies - especially=20
along the long India-Pakistan border. Yet another war between the=20
neighboring countries was looming large - with not only threatening=20
noises but also full-scale mobilization of tools of mass destruction,=20
including nuclear-warhead-capable ballistic missiles.

Approximately two hundred people assembled at the steps of the Art=20
Gallery in downtown Vancouver. While most of the people were from=20
Punjab (India) and Pakistan, there were also people from many other=20
parts of India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Middle-east, the Philippines,=20
and also from the Anti-War, Anti-Racism Movement of Vancouver.

Called by INSAF (International South Asia Forum), and its Vancouver=20
affiliate SANSAD (South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy),=20
the Rally carried banners and placards with slogans like: "War is not=20
the Answer", "No More Wars between India and Pakistan",=20
"India-Pakistan CAN be Friends". "Make Friends - Not Enemies",=20
"India: do not do a 'Bush in Afghanistan' or 'an Israel in Palestine'=20
". A few little children came with a banner of their own: "Not Bombs,=20
We Want Food, Books, Good Health".

Sixteen people spoke at the Rally - echoing the messages of the=20
slogans on the banners and the placards. Again and again it was=20
reiterated that all the previous wars between India and Pakistan have=20
not solved any of the outstanding issues of discord between the two=20
countries. In fact, the basic issues of the masses - grinding=20
poverty, hunger, housing, education, health, gender and caste based=20
oppression - have remained unresolved, while vital and scarce=20
resources are wastefully deployed in militarization.

At the end, the Rally unanimously adopted a resolution to be=20
delivered to the authorities in India and Pakistan, and to the=20
international community.

The Resolution:

Recognizing that the December 13 assault on India's parliament=20
building was an utterly deplorable and condemnable act;

And recognizing also that the Indian government should not have=20
shunned the various options that were available to it, instead of=20
arbitrarily creating a war-like hysteria,

We the people assembled at the steps of Vancouver Art Gallery on=20
December 29, 2001

o Urge that the governments of India and Pakistan immediately pull=20
back their armed forces to the position that existed on or before=20
December 13, 2001;

o Urge immediate restoration of normal diplomatic relations between=20
the two countries that were cut down by India's initiative;

o Urge immediate restoration of the Bus and Train services across the=20
Indo-Pak border, arbitrarily stopped by the Indian government;

o Urge the immediate re-opening of airspace to the civilian flights=20
of the two countries, which was closed down by India's initiative;

o Urge that steps be immediately taken to peacefully negotiate the=20
outstanding issues of dispute;

o Request that the Canadian Government use all available influences=20
to bring normalcy at the borders of India and Pakistan.

Organized by INSAF and SANSAD, the Rally of December 29, 2001 had the=20
support of following organizations in the South Asian community in=20
the Vancouver area:

- Canada Urdu Association
- Council of Muslim Community of Canada
- India-Pakistan Friendship Society
- Pakistan-Canada Association
- Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society (PICS)
- Punjabi Vichar Manch
- Shree Guru Ravidas Sabha
- South Asian Cultural Association

Hari Sharma
President, INSAF
President, SANSAD

_____

#2.

NOAM CHOMSKY INTERVIEWED BY PERVEZ HOODBHOY
Transcript (from video)
27 Nov 2001
(Pakistan Television, which recorded the interview, did not broadcast=20
it. No reason given)

Pervez Hoodbhoy: We have in the studio today a person of especial=20
distinction: professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute=20
of Technology, Professor Chomsky is the author of seventy books and a=20
thousands articles which have been written and read widely all over=20
the globe. Professor Chomsky is the recipient of the 1988 Kyoto Prize=20
in Linguistics and in that work-the work that he had done in the=20
seventies and the sixties-he had redefined the field of linguistics.=20
More important than even that, Professor Chomsky has been a very=20
vocal critic of the foreign policy of United States. Professor=20
Chomsky, welcome.

Noam Chomsky: Glad to be here.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: You have been a very - how should I say -
a very fierce critic also of the American media, and you have=20
described it as a means of building consensus. Yet, in the New York=20
Times, you have been described perhaps as the most articulate and the=20
most important intellectual alive today. How do you reconcile this=20
with the allegation that you make of its bias?

Noam Chomsky: Well, that sentence which is widely quoted does exist,=20
but the sentence that followed it is rarely quoted. The sentence that=20
follows it is something like "How can he say such things about the=20
United States and its foreign policy" (in a way of=20
criticism)-saying--"How can he say such outlandish things even though=20
he is (supposedly) a distinguished intellectual." It's rather the way=20
that the media - the New York Times in particular-- treated Bertrand=20
Russell. They despised Bertrand Russell for his anti-nuclear=20
activities, his condemnation of the Vietnam War and so on. On the=20
other hand, they recognized him to be a distinguished philosopher.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: So there is a certain level of objectivity over=20
there and therefore this media is a means of getting valid and=20
correct information. Would you agree with that?

Noam Chomsky: No, I don't. I am not going to talk about myself, but=20
let's talk about Bertrand Russell. When they described Bertrand=20
Russell as a great philosopher-that is accurate-and contributed to=20
mathematical logic and so on, when they bitterly and harshly=20
condemned him for opposing the U.S. war in Indo-China or for warning=20
against the dangers of nuclear war and nuclear armaments, they didn't=20
deal with his arguments, that was simply denunciation and=20
condemnation and slander. That's not providing information.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: So what you are saying is that in matters of=20
politics and power objectivity is perhaps an impossibility and that=20
it may not be not even be objectively possible to have a true=20
depiction of events.

Noam Chomsky: I don't think the problem of objectivity in human=20
affairs is fundamentally different from science. I mean, no one=20
working in the sciences has any confidence that what they are saying=20
is correct. You can't. It's their empirical domains. You are drawing=20
the best conclusions you can from scattered and limited evidence and=20
finding the best theories you can--understanding that they are=20
partially [unclear]...That's what science is. That's what rational=20
activity is. With regard to objectivity every scientist knows--is=20
aware--that he or she starts from a certain perspective. And you try=20
to be critical of your own perspective. But you recognize that you=20
can't [unclear]. I mean, you are approaching the problems you are=20
dealing with from the point of view that you reached on the basis of=20
earlier work--sometimes prejudiced--sometimes you think you have=20
forgotten. You constantly try to challenge it. And that's the search=20
for objectivity. And it's fundamentally no different when you are=20
looking at international affairs or economic policy or social issues.=20
Yes, of course, you are always starting from a point of view. You=20
always want to recognize that point of view. You want to allow others=20
to hear you, to understand your point of view and want to challenge=20
it.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: But in science a much higher of objectivity is=20
possible because there is the possibility of observation and=20
experiment and prediction. There is no prediction that one can make=20
in political affairs and therefore the level of objectivity is much=20
lower.

Noam Chomsky: Let me come to this. I put it little differently. If=20
science were to try to study the events of the world--what you see=20
outside the window when you look out the window--science couldn't do=20
anything either. Science succeeds in achieving a higher level of=20
objectivity by restricting its sight. If you restrict your sight to=20
the-if the evidence you are concerned with is result of carefully=20
constructed experiments designed to answer specific=20
questions--usually simple questions--yes, with those restrictions you=20
can achieve a higher level of confidence in your results, including=20
confidence in your objectivity. You are right. We can't do that in=20
human affairs. It's like looking out the window and trying to figure=20
out the laws of physics by watching the leaves float by.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: Now let's come back to the issue of the media. There=20
was a particular representation of the event of September 11th in the=20
media and we in Pakistan watched the horrific events of the Twin=20
Towers. You have been critical of the way in which those=20
representations were made and yet there was something very objective=20
about airplanes flying to Twin Towers. What precisely is your=20
objection?

Noam Chomsky: I have no objection to the way those events were=20
portrayed. It was quite correct to describe, portray them, send the=20
pictures over, and condemn them as horrendous terrorist acts. That's=20
all correct. In fact, I don't know anyone who disagrees with it.=20
However, that's not the end of the story. These were presented as if=20
this was somehow a unique event in world history--there have never=20
been such atrocities before. Unfortunately, there have been plenty of=20
such atrocities before. What was different about this one was that it=20
was an atrocity carried out against the rich and the powerful.=20
Atrocities of this kind are carried out constantly against the poor=20
and weak by the rich and the powerful. Now that's a big change. And=20
that's the way it should be represented. Furthermore, a few days=20
later the atrocities on September 11 were very soon outweighed by=20
worse atrocities, namely the ones perpetrated against the perfectly=20
innocent civilians in Afghanistan.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: What do you propose the U.S. should have done?

Noam Chomsky: Should have done? Should have followed the precedent of=20
war by stages. There is no such precedent. If a crime takes place--no=20
matter what it is--it can be a robbery in a house or a crime against=20
humanity like this one, there is a way to proceed. What you do is try=20
to find those who are responsible for the crime, collect evidence=20
against them, present the evidence to some appropriate authority and=20
if you can make your case, get authorization to take action to bring=20
the perpetrators to justice. That's the way it's done and that's the=20
way, in fact, case after case is done.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: Give us an example.

Noam Chomsky: For example-and the most obvious example- and it takes=20
real dedication for the media not to bring this one up because it is=20
such an obvious example. The most obvious example is the (and I=20
mention it only because this is uncontroversial) U.S. attack against=20
Nicaragua in the 1980s. I recall that was called the war against=20
terrorism, but, in fact, it was a massive terrorist war. The U.S. set=20
off a mercenary army to attack Nicaragua from foreign bases, gave it=20
massive supply, had total control of the air, and ordered the army to=20
attack undefended civilian targets that were called "soft targets."=20
And that was a serious atrocity. It ended up killing tens of=20
thousands of people and practically destroying the country. That's=20
even worse than September 11. How did Nicaragua respond? They went to=20
the International Court of Justice-World Court-- presented a case,=20
which in this case wasn't very difficult because it was obvious who=20
the perpetrators were and what was happening. The World Court=20
considered their case, accepted it, and presented a long judgment,=20
several hundred pages of careful legal and factual analysis that=20
condemned the United States for what it called "unlawful use of=20
force"--which is the judicial way of saying "international=20
terrorism"--ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to=20
pay substantial reparations, many billions of dollars, to the victim.=20
The United States dismissed the court judgment with complete=20
contempt. Nicaragua then went to the Security Council. Security=20
Council debated a resolution which called upon all states to observe=20
international law-didn't mention anyone but it was understood it=20
meant the United States. United States vetoed the resolution.=20
Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly which passed similar=20
resolutions several years in a row. Only the United States and one or=20
two client states voted against. At that point there was nothing more=20
that Nicaragua could do. But if the United State would have pursued a=20
legal course nobody would stop it. Everyone would applaud.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: Yes, but as you say, Nicaragua got a moral victory=20
out of it. In fact, it did not change anything. They just simply=20
shrugged it off.

Noam Chomsky: But that's, of course, because Nicaragua was trying to=20
bring a case against the most powerful and violent state in the=20
world. That's not a problem for the United States. It's true that if=20
the world is ruled just by force, as the West prefers, then, yes,=20
there is nothing to do except violence. That, incidentally, justifies=20
the September 11 atrocities, too. There is nothing to do except=20
violence-use of violence. If you think the world should not be=20
governed by the rules of force, there are ways to proceed.=20
Incidentally, this is by no means the only example. Let's take one=20
inside the United States. Few years ago there was a bombing of the=20
federal building in Oklahoma City: truck bombs went off; killed a=20
couple of hundred people. The original-the initial-reaction was: this=20
is got to be connected with the Middle East. Let's bomb Lebanon or=20
something like that. If there had been a Middle East connection, you=20
can be quite confident that the U.S. air force would have been=20
bombing somebody-in Lebanon or, you know, West Bank or Syria or=20
whatever-they don't really need to have evidence; just bomb whoever=20
they feel like. Well, it turned out there was no Middle East=20
connection. It turned out that the perpetrators were connected with=20
right-wing militia in the United States-ultra-right militarized=20
groups that are found around the country. There are several others.=20
For example, one in Texas called the Republic of Texas, which has=20
declared independence. It refuses to accept the jurisdiction of the=20
United States. It calls itself the independent state. They are=20
heavily armed and so on. And there are several in Idaho, in Montana=20
and many other places. Well, once they had determined that was the=20
source, did they go ahead and bomb Texas? Did they bomb Idaho? No.=20
They tried to find the person who was responsible. In fact, they did=20
find him, brought him to trial, sentenced him, and since the U.S. has=20
a death sentence, killed him.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: Well, the Oklahoma and the World Trade Center events=20
are distinguished by the magnitude of the crime. In a sense, the=20
September 11 event was unique. It really shook the United States.

Noam Chomsky: It shook the United States. First of all, the scale was=20
not unique. The attack on Nicaragua, for example, was much worse. =
=20

Pervez Hoodbhoy: I mean, within the United States.

Noam Chomsky: "Within the United States" may be correct. Within the=20
United States and Europe, too. Europe and United States have been=20
immune to serious violence. They have perpetrated it against others.=20
That's modern history. A leading theme of modern history-maybe, the=20
leading theme-is the violence that Europe and its offshoots have=20
conducted against others. [It's] going on constantly. And this was=20
different. It's the first time in hundreds of years that the guns=20
have been directed in the other direction. That's new. And if the=20
media were presenting it honestly, that's what they would say.=20=20

Pervez Hoodbhoy: Now, do you think there is self-reflection,=20
introspection, as to the causes of why this happened? We hear=20
President Bush asking, "Why do they hate us so much?" So, in terms of=20
the changes that this has caused to come about in the United States,=20
do you feel that the United States is now looking at a different kind=20
of foreign policy? Do you see positive changes emerging from this?

Noam Chomsky: I would discount Bush's statement. That was a=20
rhetorical question, not a real question, if what he was saying was:=20
"We are so marvelous and wonderful. How can anybody hate us?" And=20
then the official answer that comes across from New York Times and=20
other commentators is, "Well, they hate us because we are so=20
wonderful. That must be why they hate us." Incidentally a long theme=20
in the history of imperialism-go back to British imperialism, French=20
imperialism in its worst days-that's the kind of theme that is=20
projected by intellectuals. "We are marvelous, we are angelic, we are=20
wonderful, we are trying to do things for the these poor people. If=20
they hate us it's because they are backward." For example, just to=20
take one case, when the U.S., hundred years ago, invaded the=20
Philippines, the goal was, as the President put it, to "uplift and=20
Christianize" them. Within a year or two they killed a couple of=20
hundred thousand people with horrifying crimes. It was so bad that=20
[unclear]=8A. The press realized that this was not nice. We are killing=20
a lot of people. The reaction was, to quote from one of the press=20
source: "We have to slaughter the natives in English style until the=20
misguided creatures who resist us at least come to respect their arms=20
and then we will recognize that we want nothing for them but=20
happiness and freedom." That's the history of imperialism. If you can=20
find an exception to that I would like to find it. Now that's Bush:=20
"We are so wonderful. How they hate us!" On the other hand, putting=20
Bush aside, there has been some reflection on what it all means. And=20
incidentally, the best work on this [topic] in the United States came=20
from the major right-wing business journal: the Wall Street Journal.=20
Within a few days after the bombing--I think it must have been=20
September 14-it began to publish serious articles with serious review=20
and analysis about the Muslim world--what are their grievances=20
against the United States? They didn't sample the people in the=20
streets. They sampled the people they care about-bankers,=20
professionals, lawyers and people in the multinational corporations,=20
in fact, people who had reconciled to the U.S. system. Those are the=20
people they sampled, what they called moneyed Muslims. That's what=20
counts. And they gave the right answers. They reviewed why these=20
people are antagonistic to the United States. They are antagonistic=20
to the United States because it's opposed to democracy, it supports=20
authoritarian and repressive regimes, it blocks democratic=20
tendencies, it prevent economic development by supporting suppressive=20
regimes. In foreign policy areas, the U.S. and Britain are=20
devastating the civilian society in Iraq while strengthening Saddam=20
Hussain. And they know--the West prefers to forget--that that the=20
U.S. and Britain and France and Russia and others supported Saddam=20
Hussain right through his worst atrocities. It is not because of=20
their atrocities that they are destroying Iraq. And on the other=20
hand, the US in particular is giving the decisive support for the=20
Israeli military occupation, which is harsh and brutal and=20
oppressive, and this is going in to its 35th year. These are the=20
grievances; they recognize those grievances. Now, there haven't been=20
articles like that before and there some have been some others since.=20
One of the best international journals in the United States, not well=20
known outside, is he Christian Science Monitor. It's--you will be=20
surprised--is a good journal. And they did some in-depth studies of=20
this and then there is a little bit that seeps around the rest of the=20
media=8Athe New York Times, very little.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: Professor Chomsky, minorities in every society are=20
threatened. So when Indira Gandhi's Sikh bodyguards killed her, 2000=20
Sikhs were slaughtered in Delhi and when the Babri Masjid was=20
destroyed in India, 35 Hindu temples-mandirs-were leveled over here,=20
in Pakistan. In the United States, after the September the 11th,=20
there has been discrimination against Muslims and Pakistanis and=20
certainly people over here are very worried that there might be a new=20
age of McCarthyism, of repression, which is unleashed upon Muslims,=20
particularly Pakistanis. Do you believe that this fear has any real=20
cause to it?

Noam Chomsky: I don't think it can be discounted, but I wouldn't=20
exaggerate it either. I think it will be marginal. I mean, there will=20
undoubtedly be, and there have been, examples of bad treatment of=20
people considered to be Muslims and that's it. It can be an Indian=20
physicist walking down the street in New York who happens to be=20
Muslim. So, yes, there is this kind of immediate reaction since the=20
crime was attributed=8Aprobably people who carried out the crime were=20
indeed mostly Saudi Arabians. So that was an instinctive reaction,=20
but it has died now. And there were quite considerable attempts to=20
distinguish, to separate, the perpetrators of the crime from the=20
Muslim community, which is, in a way, targeted by the crime. How=20
successful that will be, I do not know, but I don't expect that there=20
will be much harsh repression.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: Yes, but people there are being tried by military courts.

Noam Chomsky: This is not unprecedented=8A. Not yet. The Bush=20
administration has called for military tribunals to try foreign=20
terrorists, not domestic population. That's a very bad move and it=20
has been harshly attacked by civil libertarians, by Congress, by=20
people in the legal profession, by popular forces. But where it will=20
go, we don't know. I agree. That's a very bad move, a terrible move,=20
but it has not yet been implemented and it may not be, and it's not=20
yet=8A. If it isn't, there is a very little chance that it will effect=20
the domestic civil libertarian situation for citizens. We should=20
remember that the U.S. has a very bad record with regard to civil=20
liberties whenever there is a moment of crises. During the Second=20
World War, during the First World War, it was worse. And this is=20
true even though the United States have never been under any threat.=20
Nevertheless, it's a highly repressive apparatus. It moves into=20
operation under conditions of crisis, less so now then in the past,=20
because the population is much more resistant to it then in the past.=20
The way we evaluate these things are: Are they going to tolerate=20
repression or they are going to struggle against repression? That's=20
what makes a difference, not what the words say. And now people are=20
much more resistant to repression. That's partly the result of the=20
1960s.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: You were very recently in India--and this is after=20
September 11--and this is after Pakistan's change of direction. What=20
kind of mood did you find amongst the peoples over there? Do you feel=20
that there is now some greater hope of rapprochement, of solving our=20
problems together, or did you find a hardening of attitude in the=20
opposite direction?

Noam Chomsky: Both. Just like here. I mean=8Aif you read the=20
newspapers=8Awhat they concentrate on is hatred for Pakistan and fear=20
that now Pakistan will become the favorite of United States and=20
United States will support Pakistan on Kashmir and so on. I mean, I=20
was asked questions by Indian journalists in press=20
conferences-serious Indian journalists--asking me to explain why the=20
United States is supporting Pakistani terrorism in Kashmir, which is,=20
of course, perfect nonsense, but a reflection of the kind of belief=20
that is spread and focused on. There is meticulous focus on what Bush=20
said to Musharraf. "Does that mean that Pakistan is going to be a=20
accepted as an ally and India will be marginalized." I mean, these=20
are various issues right in the public domain. On the other hand,=20
when you talk to people, it's quiet different, like in every country.=20
Peoples' attitude and understandings are always more nuanced and=20
complex and open and you find concern for reconciliation as well as=20
the kinds of attitudes that make it to the elite presentation. I=20
think it is a lot different here.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: Yes, but we seems to be locked in to a stalemate--no=20
movement backward or forwards--and Kashmir remains as the most=20
important single issue between the two countries. How do we ever=20
break out of this stalemate?

Noam Chomsky: Well, as you know much better than I, there have been=20
moves at the grass roots level for interaction, discussion, and=20
reconciliation. Delegations have gone up and back between Pakistan=20
and India to try to sort out these issues. Eqbal was involved. In=20
fact, there was among students of Delhi great respect for Eqbal Ahmed=20
as a result of a visit that he made there-which, apparently, was very=20
successful--in discussing these issues and bridging gaps. Student=20
from there had come here. There are other meetings in which you have=20
been involved. Establishment of relationships at grass roots level=20
where people can interact with one another as human beings, not as=20
symbols of their state authority, can take a long step in preparing=20
the ground for dealing with the situation in a humane and civilized=20
fashion. I think everyone agrees on what has to be done. At least=20
there is a preliminary. Now the fact is that official grievances=20
that Pakistan has against India--and India against Pakistan--are more=20
or less accurate. I mean=8Aeach side's propaganda is probably=20
exaggerated, but essentially correct. The trouble is that each is=20
only half the story. And what has to happen is for each side to=20
recognize the legitimacy of the grievances of the other. It's a very=20
hard step to take. I mean, even in personal life, like in a family=20
quarrel, it is a hard step to take. But it has to be done. There has=20
to be something other than an escalating cycle of violence, which, in=20
fact, is dooming both of these societies--Pakistan in particular.=20
Pakistan cannot survive a constant on-going military confrontation=20
with India. It is harmful enough to India, but it is devastating for=20
Pakistan, just for reasons of scale.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: I will come to something which is almost as=20
hard--perhaps not quite as hard, but still very hard--and that is the=20
issue of globalization. You have been very critical, perhaps rightly,=20
that globalization has led to great inequities in the distribution of=20
wealth between nations and within nations. And yet globalization seem=20
like a logical necessity as the world shrinks and as communication=20
becomes easier and in consequence of which capital flows. So your=20
criticism is perhaps perfectly valid, but what is the alternative?

Noam Chomsky: Well, first of all, the way you have presented [the=20
argument] is the usual way, but it is internal to a system of=20
doctrinal fanaticism. Globalism=8Ano one is opposed to globalization.=20
I mean, I am not opposed to the fact that I am sitting here with you=20
in Pakistan instead of sitting in my office in New York. Okay, that=20
is globalization. Integration of international society, of which we=20
are now an illustration--that's fine, I think. I have never heard=20
anyone opposed to it. The question is: What form shall international=20
integration take? Now, what's called globalization is a specific form=20
of international integration designed by the powerful for their=20
interest. It is a specific form of international integration that is=20
oriented towards the interests of investors, financial capital,=20
multinational corporations and few powerful states. And what happens=20
to the people is incidental. And, in fact, it is true that these=20
elements are so powerful that they have succeeded in imposing even=20
their own terminology on people. So what they--the specific form of=20
integration-call globalization, not the kind of international=20
integration that, say, you and I might be interested in could be=20
quiet different. We should accept that. They are not=20
pro-globalization, I am not anti-globalization. In fact, the more=20
honest journals like, again, the Wall Street journal--they don't talk=20
about free trade agreements, they talk about free investment=20
agreements--which is correct. This is what they are: free investment=20
agreements. Now the period that is called globalization, roughly the=20
last twenty-five years, is quiet different from the early post-war=20
period--twenty-five years after the First World War. In fact, it is=20
not simply that the last period has led to a greater inequality; it=20
has also led to much slower growth. The period of so-called=20
globalization has been harmful to the international economy. Just=20
about every macro-economic measures--so much so that economists=20
commonly refer to the first twenty-five years as the golden age of=20
post-war capitalism and-and the next twenty-five years, so called=20
globalization period, as the leaden age. There is lot of=20
concentration on the inequality, which is real, but it fails to=20
notice that that inequality overlays a decline. In fact, even the=20
growth of trade has declined in the last twenty-five years. The same=20
is true of per capita economic growth of investment and growth of=20
productivity. By just about every measure it's been a poor period of=20
economic performance. There are exceptions. The exceptions are=20
primarily the East Asian countries. And they are exceptions because=20
they didn't accept the rules. They violated the neo-liberal rules and=20
they indeed went through a period of rapid expansion. But in so far=20
as the rules have been followed it's been harmful. It's well-known=20
and this is not controversial. I mean, the head of the economic of=20
Latin America-U.N. Commission of Latin America--which is strongly=20
supportive of the neo-liberal reforms--he just gave a talk at the=20
International Economic Association a few months ago in which he=20
pointed out that the period of so-called reforms of the globalization=20
period had been extremely harmful for Latin America. It has caused=20
sharp deterioration. Latin America is the region which has followed=20
the rules most religiously and it's the region that has been harmed=20
the most. Comparative with East Asia which did not follow the rules=20
and has benefited.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: But let us try and imagine a better world where the=20
distribution of wealth is more equitable.

Noam Chomsky: Not just that, but where growth is better, the economic=20
progress is better.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: My question is, what should be unit of economic=20
power? Should it be the corporation or should it be the nation state?=20
And, do you think that the nation state is today a viable=20
entity--something that should still exist and something that is=20
necessary for the world of ours?

Noam Chomsky: First, I don't think it should be either--the=20
corporation or the nation state--but let's come back to that. The=20
strongest advocates of powerful states are the corporations. They=20
want powerful states and they need them. The national corporations=20
are heavily dependent on the power of nation state, but for insuring=20
a global environment in which they can function, but also simply for=20
subsidy--straight subsidy. In fact, there was a technical review few=20
years ago of the top hundred corporations in the Fortune list of the=20
corporation by assets. The "Top Hundred Multi-national Corporations"=20
is a technical study. But the European economists found that every=20
single one of them had benefited crucially from state subsidy and=20
that more then twenty of them had been saved from destruction by=20
massive state intervention. And that understates the point, because=20
it does not take account of the constant state subsidy. So take the=20
United States. It is not a free market society-- nothing like it. The=20
whole "new economy" as it is called-- computers, electronics,=20
generally=8Alasers, automation aerospace, information technology,=20
biotechnology--just run through the list--comes out of the state=20
sector--overwhelmingly.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: Professor Chomsky, I want to know of your dream. How=20
should economic power be distributed among people?

Noam Chomsky: Corporation are tyrannical organizations. They are=20
totalitarian institutions. In fact, if you look at them=8Athat what is=20
a corporation=8Ait is an unaccountable private tyranny in which power=20
comes from above, from the owners and the managers, orders are=20
transferred down below and inserted inside the system. You take your=20
orders below and above and you transmit them below. At the very=20
bottom people have the right to rent themselves to this tyrannical=20
system. It is essentially unaccountable to the public except by weak=20
regular career apparatus. In fact, it is a totalitarian institution.=20
And if you look at their intellectual roots, it happens that they=20
come out of the same neo-Hegelian conceptions of the rights of=20
organic entities that led to bolshevism and fascism. We have three=20
forms of twentieth century totalitarianism: bolshevism, fascism and=20
corporation. Two of them, fortunately, were dissolved, disappeared=20
mostly. The third remains. It shouldn't. Power should be in the hand=20
of populations.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: That's very beautiful, but it's abstract!

Noam Chomsky: No, it is not abstract!=20

Pervez Hoodbhoy: How do we make it into an actuality?

Noam Chomsky: Same way, look, 200 years ago, talking about=20
parliamentary democracy sounded abstract. We had feudalism and kings=20
and princes and slavery. How did parliamentary democracy come about?=20
By years and years of popular struggle. I mean, it wasn't until the=20
early twentieth century that the franchise was even extended--the=20
right to vote--to most of the populations in the democratic=20
countries=8Awas never a gift. Now, this came from long popular=20
struggle. Same is true here. For economic democracy to be realized,=20
for corporate entities to dissolve and for decisions to be=20
transferred to the hands of the population--meaning workers in the=20
factories, people in communities and so on--that's a further step=20
towards the realization of democracy. It's not going to be handed as=20
a gift any more than it was in the past!

Pervez Hoodbhoy: Professor Chomsky, there so many questions I want to=20
ask you, but I want to move on to the fact that above and beyond all=20
else you are a linguist. And you know so much about language. Now=20
tell us: In a multi-lingual society such as Pakistan, should one aim=20
for one language or should one allow a multitude of languages, all to=20
exist at the same time? And tell us, is there something like=20
intrinsic superiority of one language over the other?

Noam Chomsky: The only intrinsic superiority of one language over=20
another is that if one of them has more guns than the other. If=20
Australian aboriginals were to conquer the world, [unclear] would be=20
the international language. I mean, essentially, there is no=20
technical difference. Humans are basically identical-genetically=20
quiet alike--and in their language capacities if there are any=20
differences they are beyond their capacities to detect. So the idea=20
of superior language just doesn't make any sense. In fact, take, say,=20
English. I mean English is now the world's dominant language. Go back=20
a couple of hundred years back. English was the language of a group=20
of barbarians=8A

Pervez Hoodbhoy: Yes, but the fact that you and I can communicate=20
owes to the fact that we all speak English. If we didn't, there's no=20
way that I could know what you think, and it would make communication=20
impossible. This suggests that if we want to make the world a better=20
place, that there should be one universal language and then many=20
local languages?

Noam Chomsky: That's a possibility, but I don't think it's a=20
necessity. One reason why we're all speaking English is because of=20
the power of the English-speaking world; England, and primarily now=20
the United States. Their power is so overwhelming that people in=20
these countries are extremely insular. The United States is one of=20
the few countries where people see it no necessity to learn a second=20
language. In most of Europe people know several languages. In fact,=20
in most of the world people grow up knowing many different languages.=20
I jus came back from India, and if you talk to the taxi driver, he=20
may know up to five different languages. That's the way it is. If you=20
speak this language to your grandmother, and that one in the streets,=20
and so on, people easily grow up knowing many languages. They're very=20
cultured people as compared with Americans, who are very uncultured=20
in this respect. They know one language and nothing else. But I don't=20
think that's a healthy situation. I think it would be a much=20
healthier situation if the English-speaking world was more civilized,=20
and in tune to other languages and cultures.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: So to be multilingual is best?

Noam Chomsky: I'm sure you can see it yourself; being part of a=20
multicultural, multilingual environment is enriching.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: To move to something slightly more abstract, you=20
often speak of languages as being the mirror of the mind. How do you=20
feel that your research into language has helped us understand human=20
nature, and is human nature something that is definable?

Noam Chomsky: Well, human nature is as real as the nature of bees. We=20
are a specific kind of organism; we have our capacities, our=20
limitations, our modes of cognition, our modes of perception, our=20
moral values=8A..all of this comes out of some fixed genetic endowment.=20
Most of these areas are extremely hard to study. There are a few that=20
you can study closely, and language happens to be one of them. It's=20
an important one because it's at the core of our nature. Anything we=20
do, language is somehow related to it. It's furthermore the one=20
clearly identifiable human characteristic that is biologically=20
unique, so we're completely different from any other organism in this=20
respect.

Pervez Hoodbhoy: We're almost out of time, and I can't let you go=20
without asking you this question: what keeps you going after forty=20
years of struggle, where do you see hope for this world? What do you=20
see as the agents of change?

Noam Chomsky: Well, you know, there's the ancient Indian epics in=20
which the ideal sage believes in hope and resignation, meaning=20
recognize that things are difficult but hop that they'll get better.=20
You'll find the same in the Confucian analects; the master, the=20
greatest person continues to struggle though he knows there is no=20
hope. Well, it's a little too strong - we know there is hope; things=20
are difficult, but they're better. If you look over time, even over=20
the last forty years, there has been very considerable progress. In=20
many respects, things are much better now than they were forty years=20
ago.

Pervez Hoodboy: On this optimistic note, we'll conclude this=20
discussion with Professor Noam Chomsky. Thank you for coming to=20
Pakistan.