IN CONVERSATION
Voice of reason
|
SUMAN K. JHA talks to Professor Noam Chomsky about Edward Said, the current crisis in Iraq and the emerging axis against globalisation.
|
AP
Edward Said ... a figure of courage and integrity.
In one of your recent works, you write: "The basic rules of the world remain as they've always been: The rule of law for the weak, the rule of force for the strong. The traditional task remains: to shape past and current history in the interests of power or to challenge and unmask illegitimate authority." With the demise of Edward Said, do you feel that the latter category has lost an important voice?
No doubt. Edward was an old and cherished personal friend, but his passing is a great and tragic loss as well for those who were not lucky enough to know him personally. He is famous, rightly, as the leading spokesperson for Palestinian rights, who kept their cause alive through grim and harsh years. But he was much more than that. He was a true "voice for the voiceless", eloquent and unyielding in his dedication to justice and freedom, from his brilliant scholarship that literally changed the way we interpret the modern world, to his tireless daily engagement in the struggles of suffering and oppressed people throughout the world. Few people have so left their mark upon the world. He is truly irreplaceable, a figure of unparalleled courage and integrity.
More importantly, are you worried that among the present generation, there are few who can claim to inherit the legacy of a Said, or a Chomsky, thus severely affecting the spirit of free, fearless inquiry?
Not at all. There are marvellous younger people, all over the world, ready and willing, capable and energetic. The problems and threats that lie ahead are daunting, but prospects for confronting them and opening the way to a much better world have never been brighter, I think.
After President Bush's Iraq misadventure, don't you think that your prophecy about the United States being the world's "rogue state" has come true?
I cannot take credit for that prophecy. Even in the Clinton years, prominent and respected political analysts were warning in the leading establishment journals that for much of the world, probably most of it, the U.S. is "becoming the rogue superpower", considered "the single greatest external threat to their societies" (Samuel Huntington, Foreign Affairs). The radical right extremists who have carried these threats forward are causing justified concern around much of the world — eliciting fear and hatred too — but also within the core of the foreign policy elite at home, who regard them as a very serious danger even to their own narrow interests, and to the safety and security of Americans, not a high priority for them.
However, do you see a ray of hope in the people's growing disenchantment with the Bush regime, (especially in the wake of the U.S. administration's repeated statements on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, but ending up with egg on its face)?
The most likely consequence of the collapse of the official pretexts, I fear, is to lower the bars for aggression. The original doctrine, sufficiently outlandish, was that the U.S. claims the right to attack and destroy anyone it believes has WMD, which might threaten the country. After the claims fell apart, the administration changed the doctrine, now claiming the right to attack and destroy anyone who has the "intent and ability" to develop WMD. Just about every country has the ability, and who is to judge intent? This is a brazen declaration of the right to use force, at will, without pretext. Whether the doctrine can be implemented, however, depends not on the words, but on what the public will permit, in the U.S. and elsewhere.
SHAJU JOHN
Noam Chomsky
For the last decade or so, the U.S. has had a virtually free run as the world's sole superpower, whether it's about politics or business. However, at the recent Cancun meet, the developing world (especially India, Brazil and South Africa) put up a stiff resistance and called the developed world's bluff. Do we see, in your opinion, an emerging axis that will challenge the hegemony of the global cop?
What happened at Cancun is not without significance, but one should be careful not to exaggerate the achievement. There was no real showdown. Business will go on as before. The basic issues of the WTO structure were scarcely addressed: TRIPS, TRIMS, other devices to "kick away the ladder" that the currently developed countries used. Furthermore, the India-Brazil-South Africa protest was not directed against the U.S. any more than against the EU and Japan.
A related question is that of the sporadic protests — or shall we say the backlash — against the globalisation drive the world over. Can this discontent be tapped to create an alternative to this inherently hegemonistic ideology? Or, is it too much to ask?
It is the wrong question, in my opinion. Rather like asking in India a century ago whether the end of British imperialism was too much to ask. Or a million other questions like these. The answers depend on immeasurable factors: will, dedication, courage ....
With so much of indifference, apathy and hedonism around, how do you motivate yourself to carry on, against all odds?
Even if I saw only indifference, apathy, and hedonism, I would, I hope, go on to do what I think is right. But that is not the way the world looks to me. True, what you describe is there, but also vitality, enthusiasm, organisation on a scale without historical precedent (as in the international Global Justice movements, for example), and other highly encouraging developments. Optimism and pessimism are not objective judgments; they are choices, in a complex world. And when we face the choices, we can also figure out the likely consequences of choosing one or the other path.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
