NP Another Left academic describes Chomsky's responses to 11/9 asmisguided

[barbara100 at jps.net]

"If the US-policy after 9/11 had been the way it has been described in many Alter-net articles, the "coalition" would not have lasted, if the USA simply were that "Rogue Nation" the Europeans wouldn't go along."

Chomsky gives some very explicit reasons the "coalition" supports the US so blindly.  But don't take my word for it--I'm just "ignorant" and "ill-informed" and "insensitive." Go have a listen for yourself on DemocracyNow.org.  

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Otto o.sell at telda.net
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:55:11 +0100
To: jbor at bigpond.com, pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: NP Another Left academic describes Chomsky's responses to 11/9 as"misguided"


jbor:
>                        'Stuck in Noam-man's land'
>                                   by
>                             David McKnight
>
> Liberal-Left critics such as Noam Chomsky and John Pilger believe
everything
> awful in the world is created by the US, writes David McKnight. Their
attack
> on America's "war against terrorism" is as misguided as it is out of date.
>

1. There may be some "Left-Liberals" who think this way and have expressed
this after 9/11, but the way McKnight writes it is a generalisation I
wouldn't buy so easily. Schröder and Fischer definitely see themselves as
"left-wing" politicians.

2. Not so much "out of date" but very badly timed I would say. Every Marxist
idea can be called "out of date" after 1990 (as long as the tides are
turning again).

3. "misguided as it is out of date" - This doesn't necessarily mean that
every critique can be qualified that way.

> [...]
>
> In central Asia we have watched the bombing of civilians, the mass exodus
of
> refugees and a sky-high tech war resulting in blood and bodies 10,000
metres
> below. In Britain, the US and Australia civil liberties are being reduced
as
> social conservatism undergoes a resurgence.
>
> For some of the liberal-Left all this seems to fall into a familiar
pattern
> and has therefore provoked a familiar response: the "war on terrorism"
> should be opposed just as the Vietnam War was, and millions of people
should
> be mobilised to oppose US foreign policy.
>

This is precisely my critique on Chomsky: as a bad postmodernist I simply
turn the meaning of his words upside down and say that in condemning the
"war on terror" and calling it a second Vietnam-war he fabricates a
justification of that pre-1990 war. If the US-policy after 9/11 had been the
way it has been described in many Alter-net articles the "coalition" would
not have lasted, if the USA simply were that "Rogue Nation" the Europeans
wouldn't go along. People like Mandela and Arafat who have been terrorists
themselves according to US-standards wouldn't support the "war on terror"
morally as they do.

>
> But there are significant differences from previous situations and the
> liberal-Left is in danger of mechanically applying political formulas
> crafted in a different period rather than responses based on a concrete
> examination of current circumstances.
>

Indeed! Instead we should criticise aspects of US-politics (and politicians)
that are no good. One point could be the question of military tribunals, a
second one the death penalty.

"Lawmakers from both parties have criticised the Bush administration for
instituting the tribunals. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed concern about the ability to balance
"tremendous government power" and civil liberties. During a hearing convened
by his committee to discuss the tribunals, Leahy defended his questioning of
the military courts, saying, "The need for congressional oversight is not --
as some mistakenly describe it -- to protect terrorists," he said. "It is to
protect Americans and protect our American freedoms that you and everyone in
this room cherish so much. And every single American has a stake in
protecting our freedoms."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/28/inv.military.tribunal/index.html

It's strange to hear Mr. Rumsfeld saying that the US-government would not
accept decisions by European countries *not* to deliver suspected terrorists
to the States because of the death penalty. I'm sorry to disappoint him but
we can't and we won't hand over even Bin Laden if he's been caught in
Germany, but what is really disturbing me is that the Republican Party has
no better man for the job. People like Colin Powell and Joschka Fischer are
nearly silent and Rumsfeld speaks every day. The way he dismisses and shows
no respect for the democratic constitutions of other countries might throw a
light on how high he regards any constitution; at least it must be allowed
to ask if this behaviour isn't supporting the arguments of the terrorists.

>
> [...]
>
> Continues at
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/0112/29/spectrum/spectrum5.html
>
> best
>

One last point: there's one item in Barbara's post "Just the facts, maa'm"
that is important to me:

"5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to
try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and
crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was
approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US).
 In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December
2001 the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations
bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of
the proposed ICC."

In my opinion that My Lai-guy (Calley?) should have a reason to stay out of
Europe but the more or less general US-opposition to international treaties
does leave some bad taste . . .

Otto


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .