Do the Democrats have a different answer on Iran?
Written by Haitham Sabbah on 25. November 2007, 2111hrs // Part of Haitham Sabbah's adventure in Iran, Israel, USA, War // Other posts by Haitham Sabbah
You should not miss this interview with Noam Chomsky. This is the best description to the situation when it comes to Israel, US Policy, Media and war on Iran.
Transcript:
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: The vote over the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, the Senate resolution to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, essentially was followed up on by the administration when they did declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and issued sanctions against three major Iranian banks. The reaction in the Democratic Party was interesting, Senator Clinton being the only presidential candidate in the Senate that voted for the resolution. All the other candidates both in and out of the Senate opposed it—quite a significant split, I would say, with Joe Biden and Senator Webb, who were very, very vocal, vocally against the resolution. What do you make of what this next Democratic, well, I should say, between now and the election, the leadership of the Democratic Party? And if we are looking at Senator Clinton as the next president, which if all things remain the same we probably are, what do you make of the Democratic Party and Iran?
NOAM CHOMSKY, PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS, MIT: The Democratic Party is somewhere in between the administration and overwhelming world opinion. I mean, the world is just appalled at the thought that the United States might invade Iran, attack Iran. Now, even in the region, you know, where the countries don’t like Iran at all-Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan hostile to Iran in many ways-but, nevertheless, the population in the region, which has been polled, prefers Iran to have nuclear weapons than to having any war, even though they definitely don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. When you go beyond, opposition is simply overwhelming. In fact, you can’t find any corner of the world, I think, outside of Israel where there’s any support for the U.S. policies. In fact, the American population is overwhelmingly opposed. About 75% of the population-at least a few months ago, before the huge propaganda offensive-75% of the population was against any threats against Iran. So the Democratic Party is sort of hovering in between almost universal world opposition to even the threats of war.
JAY: There seems to be a division amongst at least the leadership of the Democratic Party on this question. Webb, Biden on one side and some others, certainly, you know, Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Gravel. But in terms of leadership there seems to be a serious split with Senator Clinton signing on to this resolution.
CHOMSKY: There’s a split between Gravel, Kucinich, and others like them and the rest of the Democratic Party, and then there’s a split between them and the extreme hawks like Lieberman. But the question is one of degree. I mean, every viable candidate-I’m not talking about Gravel and Kucinich or Ron Paul-every viable candidate has said we have to keep the options open, meaning they are continuing the threats of military action against Iran. I don’t know if anybody cares, but there is something called the U.N. Charter, which is a valid treaty that we’re committed to which bars the threat or use of force. So they’re all in violation of the Charter and they don’t seem to care. The media don’t seem to care. I mean, the media and the political class are isolated from both world opinion and even domestic opinion. And, yes, there are some variations within the Democratic Party over this as to how extreme they are. But its, all, almost all of it is just kind of like off the wall from an international point of view, except for people like Gravel and Kucinich.
Do you like - Do the Democrats have a different answer on Iran? - Subscribe to Sabbah's for Free.
Article Tags>> 
November 26th, 2007 at 2:35 am
They are all the same.
They are scared of Muslims. Or is it Islam?
As a non-believer, I am more scared of Christians.
Christians I know are very radical.
Muslims I know are more gentle and forgiving.
I have made my choice.
November 26th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Chomsky is the smartest idiot I have ever heard or read. As a professor of linguistics he makes a horrible pundit. He rambled on, lost in those questions.
Ah but he is the left’s hero. The man they go to when they need someone to sound smart while saying nothing.
To the point, his mischaracterization of what the UN charter says and stands for is typical of someone with his unyielding narrative of doom and hate.
Here is a letter penned just today to someone who was also mistaken about the US relationship with the UN. Perhaps its wisdom will do good here as well.
________________________
You are close. But not quite there in your understanding of the UN Charter.
Iraq is a member and was required to uphold the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. Just as it is incumbent upon all members to up hold the purposes and principles of the UN. Failure to do so by act or OMISION is the only “crime” that continually goes purposefully unnoticed. Additionally, the doctrine of the “responsibility to protect” removes traditional Westphalian concepts of sovereignty and promotes a Lockian concept that suggests nations are only truly sovereign when they provide for freedom and liberty of its own citizens and are not a destabilizing force to their neighbors. Neighbors that in today’s globally interconnected world constitute any country affected by the destabilizing forces in question. (i.e. not just those that share a border)
Further, it is lunacy to suggest that the question of conflict be left solely to the UNSC. The perm. 5 members have demonstrated over and again that they can not come to any consensus within effective time frames and can only agree on least common denominator principles that prove to be ineffective and serve to undermine the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
As well, the UN charter provides for regional alliances for protection and for “responsibility to protect” missions. The term regional is now seen to mean any bilateral or larger force that works for the Purposes and Principles of the UN. In the case of the Balkans the Purpose and Principles of the UN were served without the approval of the UNSC. The actions by NATO in the Balkans have widely been held up to be within the Purposes and Principles meeting the requirements of a regional alliance and were not therefore illegal under the UN charter.
The Iraq war consists of a broader alliance than was present in the Balkans. It meets the Purpose and Principle requirement as described above and by any non biased measure is therefore not illegal.
There are also questions of what can and can not be “legal” in terms of international law if there is no FUNCTIONING body to adjudicate fairly what is legal and what is not. Since there is NO FUNCTIONING and UNBIASED body it can be said that issues of legality are merely academic and not in any way enforceable even if unbiased adjudication was possible.
As you can see it is not as easy as just saying the US actions in Iraq are “illegal” under the UN Charter. It is in fact quite complicated. Made so by changing norms in International Relations and the inadequacy of the United Nations. Inadequacy that is partly because of dated concepts and partly because of the self serving nature of the permanent 5 and other members.
I hope this helps you better understand the dynamics at work.
Kind Regards,
Benjamin Cook
Director, the Organization for Public Diplomacy
http://www.org4pd.org
November 27th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Benjamin,
With all respect, you can take your rambling to the Knesset or the Congress and I’m sure you will win the next presidential elections.
Your “legal” war in Iraq is called “occupation”. Your “legal” occupation costed Iraq, so far, one million life and more than four million refugees. This is what you call “legal” and more to come with your new “legal” war on Iran.
Call it whatever you want, but for humans with minimum IQ, they know that all what US army did and is still doing in Iraq is nothing but “illegal occupation” and continuous “war crimes”.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Thanks for responding.
Knesset huh? You assume too much. I am sorry you have such a narrow view of those that disagree with you.
“Until the mischief be grown general, and the evil designs of the RULERS become visible, the people, who are MORE disposed to SUFFER than to right themselves by resistance are not apt to stir.” - Locke [emphasis mine]
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same course, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY to throw off such government, and to provide NEW guards for their future safety.” - Declaration of Independence [emphasis mine]
When Iraq did not avail themselves of their rights or perform their duty to remove Saddam Hussein and when failing to do so became a destabilizing force of attrition and uncertainty to the region it became the right and duty of other nations to confront that destabilization of attrition and uncertainty. Confrontation that, in the scope of historical conflict, is neither unjust nor unnecessarily brutal. The concept of bloodless war and effortless freedom is a new concept not supported by history or “Common Sense”.
Evidence of this bloodless concept is the abandonment of Iraq by its citizens of means. The drain of professionals whose education and skills was sorely needed only served to prolong the suffering of those who chose to stay or had no choice but to stay. Further evidence is the depiction of US troops as indiscriminant in their war-fighting. By any fair and unbiased measure of the whole the US military has shown unprecedented restraint -possibly to the detriment of the mission.
Kofi Annan on the Responsibility to Protect –
“This responsibility lies, first and foremost, with each individual State, whose primary raison d’être and duty is to protect its population. But if national authorities are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens, then the responsibility shifts to the international community…”
What happens when the apparatus of the UN, the Security Council that he later describes, also fails? Like in the Balkans? Or Rwanda? Or Darfur? And when diplomacy is a circular game rather than a useful tool? Then does serving the Purposes and Principles of the UN require stepping outside its framework? What is the higher priority? Certainly not the procedure, but rather the Purpose and Principle.
Can a good argument be made that the Iraq war is itself more destabilizing than Saddam? Yes, but that argument must rely on short sighted and outmoded concepts that don’t take into consideration our global interconnectedness or the historical benefit of liberty and democracy -benefits that take generations to fully realize.
Has the Iraq war been prosecuted well? Obviously not. There have been too many mistakes that continue to cost thousands of Iraqi lives and hundreds of US and Coalition lives. Do these mistakes constitute negligence? I am open to that, but don’t at this time think so.
Therefore, to say that the Iraq war is “illegal” or to use the word “occupation” in a pejorative way is to avoid the facts. Facts supported by modern and historical notions of the rights of man and the obligations of government.
Benjamin Cook
Director, the Organization for Public Diplomacy
November 28th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Benjamin Cook,
“narrow view” better than being a “devil view”. All what you said and trying to spread is nothing but justification for war criminals to do what they are doing in Iraq and elsewhere. I’m sorry, but no one here buys this shit.
I challenge you to apply the same standards on other dictatorships in the region. Say, Israeli occupation of Palestine. But you don’t have to try, it already smells rotten.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:45 am
Benjamin didn’t mention the lies made for the invasion of Iraq.
He just supported the occupation of Palestein.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
At Haitham’s suggestion I am posting a private email we shared. I was uneasy about posting it because it contained a personal suggestion to him about his blog. I would never presume to publicly tell him or any blogger how to run their own website. It seems my admonition was not needed anyway because it was a misunderstanding.
________
Thanks again for responding.
Again, you assume I am in Israel’s corner. I stop short of calling them terrorists. But that is about it. I think the US has caused many of its own problems by looking the other way while Israel crushed the Palestinians. I have NO love for Israel and think the way the US protects it is counter productive.
There is no solution in Iraq that does not involve a Palestinian state and a democratic Lebanon. It doesn’t matter what our government or the Iraqi government does. Middle East peace goes first through Jerusalem and then through Beirut and finally through Baghdad.
By the way. You can have a conversation with me without calling me a “devil”. I know that kind of talk drives readers to your blog. But if you are at all interested in dialogue I would humbly suggest no name calling.
Kind Regards,
Ben