Power and Terror

March 19 and 22, 2002

Excerpts from the 2003 film "Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky In Our Times" which

is currently in theatrical release and available on video from First Run

Features

[At a question-and-answer session, Chomsky responds to a query: "Don't you think

that you greatly simplify all matters, as if the United States acts everywhere

as an evil empire?"]

CHOMSKY: Do I simplify all matters by saying that the US acts everywhere as an

evil empire? Yeah, that would certainly oversimplify things. [audience laughs]

And that's why I pointed out that the US is behaving like every other power. The

US happens to be more powerful so it's therefore, as you'd expect, more violent.

But, yeah, everyone else is about the same. So when the British were running the

world, they were doing the same thing.

So take, say, the Kurds. Let's just take the Kurds. What was Britain doing about

the Kurds? Well, here's a little lesson in history that they don't teach you in

schools in England -- but we know it from declassified documents. Britain had

been the world dominant power but by the time of the First World War, it was

weakened -- by the war. Air power was just coming along at that time. So the

idea was to use air power to attack civilians. They figured that'd be a good way

to reduce the costs of crushing the barbarians. Churchill, who was then Colonial

Secretary [of Iraq], didn't think that was enough. [As Secretary of State at the

War Office in 1919, Churchill] got a request from the RAF [Royal Air Force]

office in Cairo asking him for permission -- I'm quoting it now -- to use poison

gas against "recalcitrant Arabs." The "recalcitrant Arabs" they were talking

about happened to be Kurds and Afghans, not Arabs. But, you know, by racist

standards, anybody you want to kill is an "Arab."

Poison gas was the ultimate atrocity at that time. You know, kind of the worst

thing you could imagine. Well, this was circulated around the British empire.

The India office was resistant. They said: if you use poison gas against Kurds

and Afghans, it's gonna cause us problems in India where we are having plenty of

problems. There'll be uprisings and people'll be furious and so on. I mean,

they're not gonna mind in England, of course, but in India they might. Churchill

was outraged by this. He said, I cannot understand this "squeamishness" about

the use of poison gas against "uncivilised tribes." It'll cause "a lively

terror." It will save British lives. We have to use every means that science

permits us. Okay? So that's the way you deal with Kurds and Afghans when you're

the British. If we run through the rest of the countries, we're gonna find the

same thing. So it would be surely a mistake to describe the United States as

"the evil empire." Just happens to be the most powerful force in the world since

1945. ...

[After a talk, Chomsky, surrounded by a thick crowd pressing in on him,

struggles to autograph books and answer queries.]

QUESTIONER 1: ... You don't have any concern that CNN and MSNBC are becoming

mouthpieces for the US military?

CHOMSKY: No, no, they always-- They're much less so than they were in the past.

So it's not "they're becoming" -- they always were and it's less so than it used

to be. So, like, take MSNBC. I mean, you know, since September 11th, the media

have opened up somewhat. I mean, I was on MSNBC for a long discussion program in

November [2001] for the first time ever. It's a reflection of public concerns

that are forcing the media to open up a little. And--

QUESTIONER 1: I hope you're right. I tend to be a little bit skeptical.

CHOMSKY: Well, yeah. You should be. I mean, the [increasing] concentration [of

the corporate media into fewer companies] is true but there are other pressures

which I think are more important.

QUESTIONER 2: ... What's the mechanism by which the government influences the

media ... ?

CHOMSKY: It doesn't. It doesn't. The government has almost no influence over the

media.

QUESTIONER 2: So how does that happen? ...

CHOMSKY: ... It's kind of like asking-- Suppose somebody asks: How does the

government convince General Motors to try to increase profit? It doesn't make

any sense. The media are huge corporations which share the interests of the

corporate sector that dominates the government. The government can't tell the

media what to do. They don't have the power to do it here.

I mean, let me give you a simple example, a really simple one. The current

Intifada started in the occupied territories on September 29th [2000], okay? On

October 1st, two days later, Israel started using US helicopters -- there are no

Israeli helicopters, they all come from here -- started using US helicopters to

attack civilian targets -- apartment complexes and so on -- killing and wounding

dozens of people. That went on for two days. No Palestinian fire, just stone

throwing from kids. On October 3rd, after two days of this, Clinton made the

biggest deal in a decade to send military helicopters to Israel. The media here

refused to publish it. To this day, there has not been a report. That was a

decision of editors. Like, you know, I happen to know the editors of the Boston

Globe. I've been livin' there for forty-five years and I know all these guys. I

actually went [with a group] and talked to them. You know? And they simply made

it clear they're not gonna publish it. And the same decision was made by every

other newspaper in the United States. Literally, every one. Somebody did a

database search. The only reference to it in the country [he could find] was a

letter to the editor in Raleigh, North Carolina. Now, did the government tell

'em not to publish it? No. If it had told them not to, they probably would have

published it, just out of indignation. That happens to be an unusually narrow

and easily identifiable case. But it generalizes.

QUESTIONER 3: How come humanity is under threat and doing much better than two

hundred years ago?

CHOMSKY: How come?

QUESTIONER 3: Yeah.

CHOMSKY: You mean in what respect [is humanity doing better]?

QUESTIONER 3: Right, right.

CHOMSKY: You think it was better to have slavery and kings and...? I don't think

so.

QUESTIONER 3: No, no. What I want to say was-- I agree with you but I want to

say--

CHOMSKY: How did it get better?

QUESTIONER 3: No. What I want to say is, we have slavery right now--

CHOMSKY: Some. But it's not like it was two hundred years ago.

QUESTIONER 3: But how come now we are under threat when we weren't two hundred

years ago under threat?

CHOMSKY: Who wasn't under threat?

QUESTIONER 3: Humanity. Humanity ...

CHOMSKY: Well, because now there's more means of violence. The means of violence

are greater--

QUESTIONER 3: The question, in other words, would be: do you think that humanity

could live peacefully under capitalism? Or do you foresee another ideology

replacing it?

CHOMSKY: Well, first of all, Gandhi was once asked what he thought about Western

civilization. And his answer was he thought maybe it would be a good idea. And

you can say the same about capitalism. Maybe it would be a good idea -- we've

never had anything remotely resembling it. And the reason we haven't is, you

know, the owning class would never permit it. Because they know perfectly well

that if capitalist institutions were established, it would destroy the economy

in no time. So therefore they insist on a powerful state that intervenes to

protect them from the ravages of the market. Okay? Everybody seems to know this

except the economists.

And it's a system that, whatever you have, this kind of state capitalist

structure, yeah, it does what it does. I mean, I think there are much better

systems possible -- just like I think there were better systems possible than

feudalism. So you've gotta try 'em out and establish them. But there's nothing

that's special about this one.

QUESTIONER 3: I have this book that I would like to present to you...

ORGANIZER: [to the crowd] Folks, let me ask for a little compassion. He's had a

very grueling weekend. I promised his wife to have him home by midnight.

[But the crowd remains: asking more queries, wanting autographs, thanking

Chomsky, asking to have their picture taken with him, etc.]