Chomsky: The US and Israel are rogue states

Moonlight Graham · October 8, 2013

Chomsky argues that "The United States is a rogue state. It doesn’t pay any attention to international law". He also talks about Israel. See video and transcript.

Summary of his arguments (all quotes by Chomsky):

-"A "rogue state" is a state that defies international laws and conventions, does not consider itself bound by the major treaties and conventions, World Court decisions -- in fact, anything except the interests of its own leadership, the forces around the leadership that dominate policy."

-"The United States has even gone so far as to veto Security Council resolutions calling on all states to observe international law. That was in the 1980s under Reagan...In fact, the U.S. has been a rogue state, the leading rogue state, radically violating international law, refusing to accept international conventions. There’s hardly any international conventions that the U.S. has accepted, and those few that it has accepted are conditioned so as to be inapplicable to the United States."

In regards to US threats to attack Syria:

-"[Obama] can maintain the threat of force, which incidentally is a crime under international law, that we should bear in mind that the core principle of the United Nations Charter bars the threat or use of force, threat or use of force. So all of this is criminal..."

- "When President Obama repeatedly says all options are open with regard to Iran, that’s a violation of fundamental international law. It says we are using the threat of force, in violation of international law."

US, Israel, and WMD's:

- "This would be a perfect opportunity to ban chemical weapons, to impose the chemical weapons convention on the Middle East. The convention, contrary to what Obama said, does not specifically refer just to use of chemical weapons; it refers to production, storage or use of chemical weapons. That’s banned by the international norm that Obama likes to preach about. Well, there is a country which...has chemical weapons and is in violation of the chemical weapons convention and has refused even to ratify it—namely, Israel."

- Israel also developed nuclear weapons with US support, yet US calls North Korea and Iran "rogues states" because they wish to do the same? Israel lets no international inspectors look at its nukes or chemical weapons, and US doesn't call for such action, yet wants inspectors in Iran, N.Korea, and Syria.

- "We could also look at the photos of deformed fetuses in Saigon hospitals still appearing decades after John F. Kennedy launched a major chemical warfare attack against South Vietnam, 1961, dousing the country with poisonous dioxin-laced Agent Orange."

Foreign intervention:

- "[Parts of Syria are] occupied by Israel and annexed by Israel. It’s the Golan Heights, annexed in violation of explicit Security Council orders not to annex it."

- "That the [israeli] settlements [in the West Bank] are illegal is not even in question. That’s been determined by...the Security Council of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice. In fact, up until the Reagan administration, the U.S. also called them illegal. Reagan changed that to "an obstacle to peace," and Obama has weakened it still further to "not helpful to peace." But the U.S. is virtually alone in this. The rest of the world accepts the judgment of the Security Council, the International Court of Justice."

- Unilateral, illegal invasions of Iraq and Vietnam by the US.

- Many other US foreign interventions ie: US-backed coups in Iran, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, Indonesia, attempted Bay of Pigs etc. in Cuba, the Congo etc.

--------------------------

So, do you think the US is a "rogue state"? What about Israel?

eyeball · October 8, 2013

The shoes certainly fit, but the US should be reclassified as a super-rogue.

Bonam · October 8, 2013

A few points:

1) If the UN is the body that decides "international law", then I'd be glad to live in a country that doesn't pay attention to it. Do we want an international body which assigns nations like Iran to the committee on women's rights to dictate laws to us? No thanks.

2) While Chomsky's focus on the US may be excusable since he is American, his focus on Israel is indicative of a biased political agenda, as there are countless other states that have violated various international conventions, often far more severely, and yet they are not mentioned.

3) The threat of force is often necessary to prevent war from breaking out. The only thing that keeps some aggressive dictators at bay is the threat of military retaliation from other nations. Many a war would have been, and has been, avoided if one side didn't present such a tempting target. In fact, the policy of mutual assured destruction, the deadliest threat of force that has been used in human history, provided relative global stability for 45 years despite the world being polarized between two antithetical superpowers and prevented a WWIII from happening. A body that tries to outlaw the threat of force does not understand human history.

4) International interventions have been undertaken by many other nations, and yet, again, Chomsky does not mention these.

5) The notion of a "rogue state" is mere wordplay to begin with, and Chomsky would be better served deconstructing and refuting this term, along with such terms as "war on terror", etc, rather than bandying it about.

eyeball · October 8, 2013

Do we want an international body which assigns nations like Iran to the committee on women's rights to dictate laws to us? No thanks.

How about an international body that assigns super-rogues to security councils? Thanks for nothing.

Boges · October 8, 2013

How about an international body that assigns super-rogues to security councils? Thanks for nothing.

You mean Russia and China?

The 5 permanent members were the main winners of WW2. It's not like the UN has a choice on the matter.

cybercoma · October 8, 2013

By his own definition he's right. The United States doesn't care about international law and the sovereignty of foreign states.

GostHacked · October 8, 2013

By his own definition he's right. The United States doesn't care about international law and the sovereignty of foreign states.

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria.

If I was the leader of Yemen or Pakistan I'd be bringing the USA into the ICC for war crimes. Drone strikes in other nations is an act of war.

cybercoma · October 8, 2013

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria.

If I was the leader of Yemen or Pakistan I'd be bringing the USA into the ICC for war crimes. Drone strikes in other nations is an act of war.

You're forgetting everything they did in South and Central Americas.

Boges · October 8, 2013

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria.If I was the leader of Yemen or Pakistan I'd be bringing the USA into the ICC for war crimes. Drone strikes in other nations is an act of war.

North Korea invaded South Korea, the war was a UN backed.

How does Syria have any claim of war crimes against the US?

The Afghanistan war was NATO backed and is still supported by many NATO nations, including Canada.

Pakistan is currently an ally of the United States. America is sort of doing them a favour by dealing with extremists on their boarder.

As for Yemen, would the US have to declare war on a nation to deal with terrorists within their borders that the government doesn't necessarily support?

Edited October 8, 2013 by Boges

DogOnPorch · October 8, 2013

North Korea invaded South Korea, the war was a UN backed.

North Viet-Nam invaded South Viet-Nam...but let's not let that get in the way of a good America bash. Damn Yankees.

:lol:

Moonlight Graham · October 8, 2013

1) If the UN is the body that decides "international law", then I'd be glad to live in a country that doesn't pay attention to it. Do we want an international body which assigns nations like Iran to the committee on women's rights to dictate laws to us? No thanks.

That's a valid opinion, but the US spearheaded the creation of the UN and helped create and pass its Charter, and demands that every other country (well, besides Israel, among others) follow its international laws, yet doesn't do so itself.

2) While Chomsky's focus on the US may be excusable since he is American, his focus on Israel is indicative of a biased political agenda, as there are countless other states that have violated various international conventions, often far more severely, and yet they are not mentioned.

Chomsky was responding to a question about US attacks on Syria, so he got into talking about the middle-east and made the point about chemical weapons in Israel and Israel's annexation of Syria, and the US's complicity . There's no way to know if Israel and the US exhaust his list of "rogue states".

3) The threat of force is often necessary to prevent war from breaking out. The only thing that keeps some aggressive dictators at bay is the threat of military retaliation from other nations. Many a war would have been, and has been, avoided if one side didn't present such a tempting target. In fact, the policy of mutual assured destruction, the deadliest threat of force that has been used in human history, provided relative global stability for 45 years despite the world being polarized between two antithetical superpowers and prevented a WWIII from happening. A body that tries to outlaw the threat of force does not understand human history.

Chomksy's response to you:

"The threat and use of force can be effective. So, for example, Russia was able to control Eastern Europe for 50 years with the threat and occasional use of force. Hitler was able to take over Czechoslovakia with the threat of force. Yes, it often works, no doubt. That’s one of the reasons it’s banned under international—under international law."

Again, maybe the threat of force is useful, just don't sign agreements saying you won't do it and then do it, and then demand other countries not do it.

5) The notion of a "rogue state" is mere wordplay to begin with, and Chomsky would be better served deconstructing and refuting this term, along with such terms as "war on terror", etc, rather than bandying it about.

Chomsky's response (he talks about it a lot here):

"...Remember that I'm using the term in a neutral sense, in terms of its meaning. Almost every term in political discourse has a literal meaning and a propaganda version. And I'm using it in the literal meaning. The propaganda version -- which is typically the one that prevails -- that's the version presented by those who have the power to control discourse, propaganda, framework of discussion, and so on. And, in that case, that means primarily the United States. As the United States uses the term "rogue state," it refers to anyone who's out of control. So, Cuba's a "rogue state" because it does not submit to U.S. domination. That's a different usage entirely. As I use the term "rogue state," the leading "rogue state" in the world is the United States. That's the neutral term."

Edited October 8, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

Moonlight Graham · October 8, 2013

Pakistan is currently an ally of the United States. America is sort of doing them a favour by dealing with extremists on their boarder.

Pakistan has made it clear they don't like the drone strikes.

eyeball · October 8, 2013

It's not like the UN has a choice on the matter.

There it is!

North Viet-Nam invaded South Viet-Nam...but let's not let that get in the way of a good America bash. Damn Yankees.

I say damn us too, we're all in it together on this little blue speck. Like eating farmed fish or driving drunk, friends shouldn't let their friends do it.

Boges · October 8, 2013

Pakistan has made it clear they don't like the drone strikes.

Was Zero Dark Thirty a War Crime?

Moonlight Graham · October 8, 2013

Was Zero Dark Thirty a War Crime?

The US clearly broke Pakistan's sovereignty. War crime not sure, but very likely broke international law.

GostHacked · October 8, 2013

North Korea invaded South Korea, the war was a UN backed.

How does Syria have any claim of war crimes against the US?

The CIA is really really good at subversion from within.

The Afghanistan war was NATO backed and is still supported by many NATO nations, including Canada.

A war that lasted longer than both world wars put together. We call this perpetual war. Always needing another bad guy to put in the sights of all that military hardware. That way all the 'defence' spending can be justified.

Pakistan is currently an ally of the United States. America is sort of doing them a favour by dealing with extremists on their boarder.

Pakistan is an ally of convenience.

As for Yemen, would the US have to declare war on a nation to deal with terrorists within their borders that the government doesn't necessarily support?

Officially, yes. Otherwise that is an act of aggression and according to International Law Yemen could legally strike back.

The United States violates it's own laws if congress/senate did not give authorization for war.

Keep your eye on Iran, things might start going BOOM in that country.

DogOnPorch · October 8, 2013

There it is!

I say damn us too, we're all in it together on this little blue speck. Like eating farmed fish or driving drunk, friends shouldn't let their friends do it.

Didn't the anti-war efforts re: the Viet-Nam work? Several million died as a result of the 'US defeat' in Indochina. Triumph of the hippie.

One day we'll wake-up and realize that we indeed are playing a giant game of Risk.

GostHacked · October 8, 2013

Was Zero Dark Thirty a War Crime?

The movie itself was a crime in cinematography. But if the raid was not given permission by Pakistan authorities, then yes, it is an act of aggression and an act of war.

eyeball · October 8, 2013

Was Zero Dark Thirty a War Crime?

It was certainly absent the sort of due process any western leader in a similar situation would expect and demand.

DogOnPorch · October 8, 2013

The movie itself was a crime in cinematography. But if the raid was not given permission by Pakistan authorities, then yes, it is an act of aggression and an act of war.

What sort of 'act' was hiding Bin Laden? Buddy-buddy?

eyeball · October 8, 2013

Didn't the anti-war efforts re: the Viet-Nam work? Several million died as a result of the 'US defeat' in Indochina. Triumph of the hippie.

One day we'll wake-up and realize that we indeed are playing a giant game of Risk.

Monopoly is more like it.