Rogue states draw the usual line

May 2001
Edited transcript of a radio interview on the BBC programme Agenda, discussing Noam
Chomsky's atest !ooks Rogue States and A New Generation Draws the Line
Noam Chomsky interviewed !y Christopher "unness
#$E%&'(N) *ow woud you define a +rogue state+,
C*(M%-.) / +rogue state+ is a state that defies internationa aws and conventions,
does not consider itsef !ound !y the ma0or treaties and conventions, 1ord Court
decisions 22 in fact, anything e3cept the interests of its own eadership, the forces around
the eadership that dominate poicy4 &hat woud !e an e3treme case of a +rogue state4+
/nd then there's variations, of course4
#$E%&'(N) "ive me some e3ampes of those variations4
C*(M%-.) 1e, you know, there are states that partiay re0ect internationa aw and
convention insofar as they can get away with it4 'n fact, every state is ike that4 5irtuay
every state woud !e4 &hat's the nature of states4 &hey woud !e +rogue states+ if they
coud get away with it4
#$E%&'(N) &here have aways !een rogue states4 1hy has the notion of the rogue state
!een given so much prominence, do you think, since the end of the Cod 1ar,
C*(M%-.) 1e, first of a, remem!er that ''m using the term in a neutra sense, in
terms of its meaning4 /most every term in poitica discourse has a itera meaning and a
propaganda version4 /nd ''m using it in the itera meaning4 &he propaganda version 22
which is typicay the one that prevais 22 that's the version presented !y those who have
the power to contro discourse, propaganda, framework of discussion, and so on4 /nd, in
that case, that means primariy the $nited %tates4 /s the $nited %tates uses the term
+rogue state,+ it refers to anyone who's out of contro4 %o, Cu!a's a +rogue state+ !ecause
it does not su!mit to $4%4 domination4 &hat's a different usage entirey4 /s ' use the term
+rogue state,+ the eading +rogue state+ in the word is the $nited %tates4 &hat's the neutra
term4
#$E%&'(N) But why do you say that, (n what grounds can you argue that the $nited
%tates is the eading +rogue state+,
C*(M%-.) 1e, !ecause it fits the neutra definition that ' descri!ed very ceary4 6or
e3ampe, it's the ony ma0or country 22 may!e the ony country 22 that has decared that it
is not su!0ect to 1ord Court decisions4 6or e3ampe, when it was condemned !y the
1ord Court for aggression 22 the phrase was +unawfu use of force+ 22 against
Nicaragua, the $4%4 responded !y increasing the attack immediatey4 7emocrat2controed
Congress, incidentay4 &he inteectua casses and the press simpy dismissed the 1ord
Court as a hostie forum which has discredited itsef4
#$E%&'(N) But when one thinks of the phrase +rogue state+, one thinks of a state, for
e3ampe, ike 'ra8 which has, in the past, gassed its own peope4 .ou're not seriousy
teing me that you're putting /merica in that same category,
C*(M%-.) 1e, much worse4 6irst of a, reca that the $nited %tates and Britain
supported %addam *ussein when he was doing that4 &hat was not considered a crimina
act !y the $nited %tates and Britain, which continued 22 he was a friend and ay 22 and
!oth of them444
#$E%&'(N) But the decision to gas the -urds444
C*(M%-.) 444 at the time444
#$E%&'(N) 444 was not made !y 1ashington or 9ondon4
C*(M%-.) No, !ut it was22
#$E%&'(N) 't was :taken,; in Baghdad4
C*(M%-.) 't was supported !y 1ashington and 9ondon4 /nd he continued to !e a
friend and ay4 /nd !oth 1ashington and 9ondon continued to provide him with aid,
heped him deveop his weapons of mass destruction, and so on4 6urthermore, a of that
was a horror story 22 in this case, not perpetrated !y 1ashington and 9ondon, ony
supported !y them4 Compare it with other things4444 't's now forty years since <ohn 64
-ennedy attacked %outh 5ietnam4 (f course, in the propaganda system we're not
supposed to say that 22 !ut that's what happened4 6orty years ago, -ennedy sent the $4%4
/ir 6orce to !om! the %outh 5ietnamese civiians, instituted programs to drive utimatey
miions of peope into concentration camps or into ur!an sums, destroyed food suppies
!ecause the popuation was supporting the resistance4 /nd it sort of went on unti, at the
end, three countries were virtuay destroyed and four to five miion peope were kied4
1e, that's rather significant4 (r take, say, Centra /merica during the '=0s4 &hat was a
ma0or war :in; which hundreds of thousands of peope ended up !eing kied4 't was a $4%4
war4 (r we can go down to rea triviaities, if you ike4 %o, for e3ampe, a coupe of years
ago, Cinton attacked, !om!ed a poor /frican country, destroyed a!out haf of its
pharmaceutica suppies444 'f 9i!ya did that to Engand or the $nited %tates, it woud !e
considered rather serious4
#$E%&'(N) But this is a done to promote democracy and freedom 22 in 5ietnam, in
%outh and 9atin /merica, and certainy in %udan4 7o you22,
C*(M%-.) 'n %udan, the $nited %tates destroyed haf the pharmaceutica suppies to
protect democracy and freedom, &hey didn't even pretend that4 'n 5ietnam, the purpose
was to prevent an independent nationaist movement which was out of contro4
#$E%&'(N) But the /mericans woud argue that was part of a very important fight
against internationa terrorism4
C*(M%-.) &hey never argued any such thing4 &hey didn't use the term +internationa
terrorism+ at the time4 &hat was introduced during the 1>=0s when it was pretty cear that
the %oviet prete3t was coapsing and another one had to !e found and +internationa
terrorism+ was invented as a prete3t to repace it4 But you're perfecty correct that the
$4%4 government and the inteectua casses caimed a sorts of high, ofty aims !ut that's
constanty true4 %o did *iter4 %o did %tain4
#$E%&'(N) But are you saying that internationa terrorism doesn't e3ist, 't was simpy
invented !y what you woud see as a rogue superpower to attack other countries,
C*(M%-.) 1e, we know that it was :invented;4 &he terminoogy was introduced
primariy !y the ?eagan /dministration4
#$E%&'(N) But the thing itsef e3ists, does it not,
C*(M%-.) (h, the phenomenon e3ists4 %o, for e3ampe, when the $nited %tates !om!s
%udan and destroys haf its pharmaceutica suppy, that's internationa terrorism4 1hen the
$nited %tates !om!ed 9i!ya, that's internationa terrorism4 &he $4%4 war against
Nicaragua 22 if we want to !e kind to the $nited %tates 22 we coud say it was
internationa terrorism4 / stronger, pro!a!y more accurate, term woud !e outright
aggression4 /nd we can continue444 9et's take something right now444 7uring the current
fighting in the 'sraei2occupied territories 22 as soon as it !egan ast (cto!er, 'srae
immediatey 22 within two days 22 escaated the fighting 22 there was no @aestinian firing
at the time 22 escaated the fighting !y using attack heicopters to attack civiian targets,
kiing 8uite a few peope4 'mmediatey, Cinton made a dea to send new miitary
heicopters to 'srae 22 the !iggest dea in ten years 22 and that continues right up ti now4
.eah, that's participation in internationa terrorism4 ?emem!er, the territory's under
miitary occupation4
#$E%&'(N) (kay, woud you concede that the $4%4 can !e a force for good 22
championing the cause of democracy and freedom,
C*(M%-.) Can it, .eah, ' hope it woud !e4 'n fact, ' spend a ot of my time22
#$E%&'(N) *as it ever though, *as it ever,
C*(M%-.) *as it ever, 1e, has any country ever, ' mean, !y accident444 .ou know,
states are not mora agents4 &hey act in their own interests4 /nd that means the interests
of powerfu forces within them4 Now, sometimes444 &he peope of countries are mora
agents4 &hey may compe their states to act in ways that are humane and decent4 /nd
that's happened sometimes4 But, over time, it's, you know, 0ust not the way history works4
' mean, of course, that's the way apoogists for state power descri!e things 22 !ut, you
know, we shoud !e serious a!out it4
#$E%&'(N) (kay, so what's your prescription, 'f you have a case, say, take North
-orea where the government there pays itte attention to the suffering of its own peope4
%imiar case in Burma4 1hat shoud !e done a!out those +rogue states+,
C*(M%-.) 1e, we shoud first of a ook a itte !it into the !ackgrounds4 %o, for
e3ampe, the miitary dictatorship in Burma 22 which is undou!tedy a monstrosity 22 it
came to repace the pariamentary government after $4%4 operations in 1>A=, which
esta!ished a miitary presence of Chinese nationaists in northern Burma to attack China4
/nd that ed to confict within Burma which ed to miitary overthrow of the government4
%o there's an interesting history there4
#$E%&'(N) %houd it 22,
C*(M%-.) But what shoud the $nited %tates do a!out Burma and North -orea, 1e,
it shoud try to444 6or e3ampe, et's take North -orea4 1hat it shoud do is support the
measures 22 actuay Cinton had a rather decent poicy there, one of his rare e3ceptions 22
it shoud pursue dipomatic and other measures, first of a, to try to aeviate the suffering
of peope there and aso to rea3 the tensions4 %o, for e3ampe, when the %outh -orean
government 22 :%outh -orean @resident; -im 7ae2<ung 22 takes steps towards essening
tensions with North -orea and moving towards some kind of more peacefu reation
!etween the two haves of -orea and more integration, we, the $4%4 ought to support
that4 'nstead, the Bush /dministration, censured him sharpy and tried to ca it off444
#$E%&'(N) 'n :+/ New "eneration 7raws the 9ine+;, you attack the N/&(
intervention in -osovo which the 1est said was 0ustified on humanitarian grounds to
protect ethnic /!anians from %er! forces4 1hy did you oppose it, 1hy do you oppose
this,
C*(M%-.) 1e, for one thing444 't's interesting that that's the interpretation of the !ook
and aso another !ook ' wrote on the topic :The New Military Humanism: Lessons from
Kosovo;, neither of which attacks 22 neither this one nor the other one is an attack on the
N/&( !om!ing of %er!ia4 't discusses it4 But that's not the issue4 1hat's discussed in !oth
!ooks 22 and it's intriguing that it cannot !e understood in the 1est, though it's easiy
understood esewhere 22 the topic of !oth !ooks, incuding that one, very e3picity,
unmistaka!y, unam!iguousy, is what's stated in the tite) +/ New "eneration 7raws the
9ine4+ &hat's a 8uote from :British @rime Minister; &ony Bair who was one of many who
was announcing a grand new era in human affairs, ike nothing that ever happened in the
past, in which the enightened states, as they ca themseves, woud pursue principes and
vaues for the first time in history and !ring a!out a grand era of defense of human rights
and freedom4 &hat's what the !ook's a!out4 &he !ook is a!out whether that is true4
#$E%&'(N) /re you saying that it's not true, &hat a ine was not drawn,
C*(M%-.) (h, a ine was22 (h, sure4 ' mean, the usua ine was drawn4
#$E%&'(N) 1hat do you mean !y the usua ine,
C*(M%-.) &he usua ine is) if a country is out of contro and we don't ike it, we' do
something to !ring it under contro4 /nd we wi do e3acty what Britain and the $nited
%tates said they were trying to do) we wi ensure the esta!ishment of +credi!iity4+ 'f you
want to understand e3acty how committed they were to the -osovars, there's two things
you do4 6irst of a, you ook at the e3tensive documentation avaia!e 22 !y now, it's very
rich 22 from 1estern sources 22 %tate 7epartment, N/&( and others 22 as to what was
going on in -osovo up to the !om!ing4 1e have rich documentation a!out that4 /nd this
!ook reviews it4 'n fact, as far as ' know, it's the ony source that reviews it4 't asks what
was going on, what was the e3pectation when the !om!ing !egan, and you discover from
that that there is 0ust no possi!iity that this was undertaken for humanitarian ends444
#$E%&'(N) 1e444
C*(M%-.) 444 that's not 444
#$E%&'(N) But the evidence at the time seemed to !e that there was an overwheming
humanitarian case 22 indeed, that genocide seemed to !e !eing committed against the
/!anians4
C*(M%-.) 'nteresting that it was caed +genocide+ 22 there was never anything even
moderatey approaching genocide4 But the atrocities picked up very sharpy after the
monitors were withdrawn, under %er!ian o!0ections, and the !om!ing !egan4 &hat's when
the atrocities took pace and, in fact, they were anticipated4
#$E%&'(N) %o, what22,
C*(M%-.) ' mean, !ut, !ut22 E3cuse me4 9et me 0ust continue4 %o, one way of
determining whether there were humanitarian aims is to ook at the actua data which,
from 1estern sources, most of it trying to 0ustify the !om!ing4 1e, that's done in the
!ook and ' think it undermines that caim competey4 But there's another way4 .ou can
foow, say, /e3ander %oBhinitsyn's o!servation4 *e said if the 1est is reay concerned
with aeviating suffering, why don't they do something a!out the misera!e -urds, 1e,
the fact is, they were doing something a!out the misera!e -urds right at that time4
Namey, the $4%4 was providing a huge fow of arms to &urkey, peaking in 1>>C, to
impement one of the worst cases of ethnic ceansing and atrocities of the '>0s :the
saughter of tens of thousands of -urds;4 /nd that happens to !e within N/&(4 1e, that
tes you where they're drawing the ine4
#$E%&'(N) &e me, as far as -osovo's concerned, what did /merica have to gain,
1hat $4%4 nationa interest is served !y the !om!ing, in your view,
C*(M%-.) E3acty what they said4 ' mean, the officia goas are discussed in this !ook4
' 0ust repeat the officia goas4 &he officia goas were three4 (ne was to stop ethnic
ceansing4 (kay, we know that wasn't the goa4 6or one reason, !ecause they said 22 the
Nationa %ecurity /dvisor said 22 it woudn't !e sufficient and, for another, !ecause the
ethnic ceansing started after the !om!ing4 %o that wasn't the goa4 &he other two that
were mentioned were 8uite reasona!e, however4 &he ma0or goas 22 and this is repeated
throughout, !y Britain as we 22 are to ensure the +credi!iity of N/&(+ and to guarantee
the sta!iity of the Bakans4 Now, a we have to do is e3pain those words4 1hat does
+credi!iity of N/&(+ mean, 1e, it doesn't mean +credi!iity of Begium+ 22 it means
+credi!iity of the $nited %tates4+ Now, what does +credi!iity of the $nited %tates+ mean,
1e, ask any Mafia don4 *e' e3pain4 +Credi!iity+ means you !etter do what we say 22
or ese4 &he same caim 22 esta!ishing credi!iity 22 has !een made, pausi!y, over and
over again, in cases where there was no oca :or; nationa interest4 1hat does +sta!iity+
mean, 1e, we have a rich documentary record4 ' reviewed it in the !ook, in fact, as to
what +sta!iity+ means4 1hat it means is 22 it doesn't mean that, you know, things are 8uiet
22 it means they are 8uiet in the terms that we demand4 'n fact, ' actuay 8uote foreign
poicy anaysts, high2eve ones, who say that we had to +desta!iiBe+ Chie to ensure
+sta!iity4+ /nd that's e3acty correct, in the (rweian sense4 1e had to undermine the
democratic government to ensure $4%4 domination, which is what's caed +sta!iity4+ /nd
those goas, which were repeated over and over 22 and ''m 0ust 8uoting the $4%4
government and the British government 22 yeah, those goas are perfecty understanda!e4
#$E%&'(N) But isn't that how the internationa system works, @owerfu countries wi
try to shore up their +credi!iity+ to maintain their ong2term interests4
C*(M%-.) E3acty4 &hat's 0ust what ' was saying a aong4 /nd the task of inteectuas
is to disguise that, in terms of ofty rhetoric and aims4
#$E%&'(N) 9et's, if ' may, ask you a!out @resident Bush and his %ecretary of %tate,
Coin @owe4 1i they !e more or ess interventionist, do you think, than the Cinton
/dministration,
C*(M%-.) 't's very hard to say4 ' mean, they're somewhat different4 6irst of a, they
foow pretty much the same pans4 &here are some differences4 &he Bush /dministration
has moved, in terms of intervention, it's moved more towards trying to e3tend miitary
domination and the arms race into new domains4 %o, one of it's main pro0ects is to
miitariBe space4 &he $4%4, of course, has a considera!e technoogica advantage in that4
But, of course, others are going to foow4 &he missie defense program is part of a much
!roader program 22 it's caed +:<oint; 5ision 2020+ or something ike that 22 which is to
gain what they ca +fu spectrum dominance,+ that is, ensuring miitary domination of
space to aow $4%4 forces to pro0ect power in any area of the word 22 to, you know,
secure what they ca $4%4 interests, which are go!a4 &hat is going to amost certainy 22 '
mean, their own inteigence services are teing them that and any anayst can understand
it 22 that's going to ead others to find modes of deterrence4 't wi ead them to deveop
their own techni8ues of deterrence4 (ther countries are not going to sit there and 0ust et
this happen4 Naturay, there' !e a reaction4
#$E%&'(N) But the Bush /dministration argues that missie defense is 0ust that) a
defensive shied4 1hy shoud one suppose it wi necessariy ead to an arms race, as you
say,
C*(M%-.) Necessary, Nothing is necessary in word affairs !ut certain things are
o!vious4 &hat's why $4%4 inteigence services and virtuay a strategic anaysts are
pointing out that everyone ese, of course, wi regard this so2caed +missie defense+ and
miitariBation of space e3acty the way we woud regard it if, say, China was doing it4 'f
China was doing it, we'd naturay and correcty regard it as, in effect, a first2strike
weapon, that is, a device which wi aow them to pro0ect power and ensure themseves
against retaiation4 &hose are the terms that are used !y the $nited %tates4 &hat's the way
we'd understand it anywhere ese, and that's the way everyone ese is gonna understand it
this :,;4 (r we coud go right ne3t door to Canada where Canadian miitary authorities
have informed their own government 22 in documents that were eaked, incidentay,
:from; Canada 22 that they do not regard the Nationa Missie 7efense as a defensive
effort, that they regard it e3acty ike everyone ese does, as a way to ensure that the
$nited %tates wi !e a!e to pro0ect power4 &he miitariBation of space is 8uite openy that
22 there's not even a pretense of defense4
#$E%&'(N) Now, you've written a!out the new post2Communist word order4 1hat, as
far as you're concerned, is it,
C*(M%-.) 't's a system in which tactica changes were made4 ' mean, the !asic strategic
positions haven't changed !ecause if you ook over the history of the Cod 1ar, !oth sides
22 !oth the ?ussians and the /mericans 22 caim that everything they were doing was in
defense against the other4 But we have to !e serious and ask whether that's true4 1hen the
?ussians invaded /fghanistan, were they defending themseves from the $nited %tates,
1e, we dismiss that with ridicue4 1hen the $nited %tates attacked Nicaragua or
5ietnam, was it defending itsef against the ?ussians, &hat's even more ridicuous4 &he
fact is that if you ook at the events of the Cod 1ar 22 and in the $nited %tates, you can
ook at interna documents, it's a pretty free country in that respect 22 you find that the
Cod 1ar was aways in the !ackground, of course, !ut the goas were 8uite different4
&ake Cu!a, which has !een a target of $4%4 attack for forty years4 1e, we now have the
interna decassified record of the Eisenhower and -ennedy /dministration thinking a!out
Cu!a4 /nd we know what they had in mind when they 22 -ennedy 22 invaded Cu!a, they
imposed the !ockade, and so on4 But they tod us in the interna records, taking to each
other4 -ennedy's 9atin /merican commission, headed !y /rthur %chesinger, informed
him that the Cu!an threat is, in their words, the threat of +the Castro idea of taking
matters into your own hands+ which may infuence other peope 22 other groups in 9atin
/merica who face simiar situations of oppression and denia of rights 22 they may aso
want to take their matters into their own hands4 &he ?ussians are mentioned, !ut they're
mentioned in the foowing fashion) the pro!em with the ?ussians is that they are offering
deveopment aid and presenting themseves as as mode for economic growth in a singe
generation4 &hat's the interna thinking 22 and it goes case after case4 Now, those things
are sta!e after the Cod 1ar !ecause they had nothing to do with the Cod 1ar4
#$E%&'(N) &e me, what sort of imits and how shoud imits !e put on /merican
power in this word order,
C*(M%-.) &he imits on /merican power wi primariy !e put from inside the $nited
%tates 22 it's the ony way 22 and444
#$E%&'(N) *ow wi that happen, 1hat do you mean !y that,
C*(M%-.) 1hat do ' mean, ' mean the popuation of the $nited %tates ought to
prevent these things from happening4 %o, for e3ampe, if the popuation of the $nited
%tates were aware of the programs of Cinton's %trategic Command which, actuay, '
review in these !ooks, or of the proposas for miitariBation of space, they woud not ike
it and ' think they woud act to stop it4 &hat's why there's no discussion of it4
#$E%&'(N) 7o you reay think the /merican peope care a!out the peacefu use of
outer space and far2fung parts of the word,
C*(M%-.) (h, a!soutey4 'n fact, if you take a ook at pos 22 which are very carefu in
the $nited %tates 22 the pu!ic is in favor of direct invovement with mutiatera
agreements to ead to a more peacefu word, and so on4 .ou know, peope aren't craBy4
&hey don't want their chidren to !e murdered4 /nd that's e3acty why these things are not
discussed4 /nd it's not ony in this case !ut it's in many cases4 6urthermore, other areas of
the word, they're going to react4 China and ?ussia and 'ndia are going to react4 &he
European $nion, sooner or ater, wi move on its own 22 to some e3tent 22 independent
course4 6urthermore, other countries are ikey to regard themseves as potentia targets of
$4%4 attack, are very ikey to try to find some way to deter it4 /nd the way they' use is
not nucear weapons and missies 22 no!ody's craBy enough to !eieve that 22 what they'
do is try to deveop other forms, other kinds, of weapons of mass destruction4 ' shoud
mention these are not my opinions4 &hey're standard4 %o, for e3ampe 22 "raham /ison
who's the head of the *arvard -ennedy %choo :of "overnment; programs on these things
and a ong2standing strategic anayst 22 he's pointed out that if any country wanted to
e3pode a nucear weapon in the $nited %tates, the easiest way to do it woud !e to wrap
it in a !ae of mari0uana and send it into New .ork City4 &hat's e3acty right4 No country
is going to !e insane enough to aunch a missie attack against the $nited %tates knowing
that it's going to !e instanty destroyed4 &hey' use other means which are readiy
avaia!e4
#$E%&'(N) 6inay, you've !een very critica of the $nited %tates for decades 22
everything it does, certainy in foreign poicy, you seem to think is wrong4 7o you actuay
ike /merica, (r, ' mean, are there aspects of the country that you appreciate and admire,
C*(M%-.) /nd ' say it a the time4 't's the most free country in the word4 't's pro!a!y
the most democratic country in the word4 ' 0ust mentioned a few moments ago that it's
one of the very few countries where it's free enough to gain access to interna records4
&hese are a wonderfu things4 /nd furthermore, there's good reason why ''m taking
a!out the $nited %tates, two reasons4 (ne reason is, it's the most powerfu country in the
word, therefore it's the most important country to tak a!out4 %econd is, ' happen to !e
here4 &here's an eementary mora truism 22 so eementary, it's em!arrassing to repeat it 22
you're primariy responsi!e for the conse8uences of your own actions4 't's fine if you want
to criticiBe someone ese, okay, 't has no mora 8uaity4 .ou're responsi!e for what you
do4 /nd in a country that's reativey free the actions of that country are your
responsi!iity4 %o, naturay, ' concentrate on it4