| JuryFury.com
Now Every 15th of the Month ! Online School of Politics |
|||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
Leaders & Dictators
Third World Intellectuals and The Legacy of Noam Chomsky by Nader Habibi (April 2004) Noam Chomsky is an American professor of linguistics in MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). He is well known all around the world not so much for his contributions to linguistics, but for his political views that have been expressed in many books and essays over the past forty five years. (1) Chomsky, who is now in his seventies, has dedicated most of his life to analyzing and criticizing the U.S. foreign policy towards the third world. Chomsky basically believes that the U.S. foreign policy is overwhelmingly influenced by economic interests of large corporations. Under pressure from multinational corporations and special interest groups, the United States, he argues, ends up interfering in the affairs of third word countries and exploiting them. He has further argued that the U.S. policy towards the developing countries is often hypocritical and contradicts her basic moral values. Some of the specific issues that he has addressed are as follows: Opposition to Vietnam war, criticism of U.S. interventions in Latin America, criticism of Israel’s occupation of Palestine, criticism of U.S. apathy to the Turkish government’s policy towards the Kurds. Soon after the September 11 al-Qaeda attacks against U.S. targets, Chomsky claimed that U.S. policy towards the Middle East was the main cause of these attacks. In general, Chomsky believes that U.S. foreign policy must be guided by moral principals rather than by expediency and Social Darwinian worldviews. In 1960s, Chomsky sharply criticized the American intellectuals for ignoring the harmful consequences of U.S. policies in third world. He believed that those intellectuals who viewed the U.S. foreign policy as benign, were engaged in "self brain-washing".(2) While Chomsky’s criticism of U.S. foreign policy has won him many admirers throughout the world, it has generated strong negative reactions among American conservative intellectuals. In an article, published only two weeks after 9/11 terror attacks, David Horowitz called him the Ayatollah of Anti-American Hate.(3) In general the majority of intellectuals in Western democracies are willing to criticize their governments on domestic concerns, but most are reluctant to openly oppose the government on foreign policy issues to the same extent as Noam Chomsky. For majority of people such criticism runs against the norms of patriotism. They either ignore their own government’s foreign policy excesses or refrain from publicly criticizing it. Unfortunately many of the third world intellectuals who admire Chomsky, are rarely willing to subject the foreign policies of their own governments to a high level of criticism on moral grounds. This is particularly true of territorial disputes, intimidation of smaller nations and treatment of ethnic minorities. Third World intellectuals are willing and eager to protest the unfair aspects of U.S. foreign policy and globalization. They are similarly eager to speak about lack of democracy and justice in their own countries and insist on respect for human rights and freedom of press in general terms. Yet when it comes to international disputes involving their own countries, patriotism takes precedence over their commitment to justice and fairness. As some of the critics of Chomsky have pointed out, the tendency to ignore the excesses of one’s own government against others (both other ethnic groups or other nations) is not limited to Americans, rather it is a commonly observed phenomenon in many societies. One could even say that this tendency is even stronger in societies that have suffered international defeat and humiliation. In Turkey for example most Turks believe that since the vast 18th century Ottoman Empire was reduced to the relatively small modern day Turkey, the Turkish government is justified in its policy towards Kurds because otherwise the country might lose even more territory to a future Kurdish state. Turkey is by no means a unique example. Many countries treat weaker nations and their own ethnic minorities unfairly. India and China are both champions of third world causes yet India’s treatment of Kashmir region and China’s policy toward Tibet leave much to be desired. Egypt is an advocate of the Palestinian cause but it does not hesitate to intimidate Sudan on the amount of water that Sudan can withdraw from Nile River before it enters Egypt. The predominantly Arab government of Sudan has violated the rights of the black Sudanese in recent decades. Pakistan supports the liberation of Kashmir but it was willing to support the brutal Taliban regime in Afghanistan in hope of gaining economic and political influence over that country. Morocco, like other Arab countries supports the liberation of Palestine but it has denied self-determination for the Sahara region that has been struggling for independence for several decades. My own birthplace, Iran, is not an exception. Iran’s Islamic regime has been a strong supporter of the Palestinian struggle yet it has persecuted the followers of Bahaii faith. These are only a few examples and one could add the names of many other countries to this list. What we commonly observe in these countries is that the liberal intellectuals are generally silent on these issues. Some engage in self-censorship while others are misinformed or "brainwashed" into supporting the government’s position by propaganda and by reference to past defeats and injustices that their country has been through. Some intellectuals keep quiet because they realize that such criticism is highly unpopular. People in the third world generally admire political dissidents who stand up to undemocratic regimes. But when it comes to policies that exploit a minority for the benefit of the majority, or exploit weaker nations, there is little tolerance for criticism and protest. The silence of those intellectuals who live under undemocratic regimes can be justified by their fear of persecution. However, those who live in free societies or intellectuals who live outside of their countries and face little risk of punishment, have a moral responsibility to speak out on their governments’ foreign and ethnic policies. Prominent figures such as Nobel laureates who enjoy a high level of political immunity in their own countries because of their international recognition, must also pay attention to this moral responsibility. Unfortunately for the reasons that were earlier elaborated, most intellectuals prefer to remain silent or even support their government on patriotic grounds. The Chinese democracy advocates must address the rights of the Tibet people to self-determination. Indian (non-Muslim) liberal intellectuals must pay attention to the rights of Kashmiri people. I wonder how many Russian pro-democracy intellectuals have spoken on the rights of Chechen people. Iran’s Noble laureate, Shirin Ebadi who received her prize for general advocacy of human rights has a moral obligation to address the treatment of Bahaiis, or other religious minorities no matter how unpopular such a position might be. Just as morality and fairness play a key role in regulation of citizen’s behavior towards each other in any modern society, the international relations among nations must also be subject to moral norms. The current state of the world is far from this ideal. It is up to the intellectual elite of all nations to follow the path of Noam Chomsky by subjecting the behavior of their own government and all other governments to the highest standards of morality and justice. To admire Chomsky without following in his path will be hypocritical. Notes: 1) For a review of Chomsky’s views on U.S. foreign policy see: http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_chomsky911.html 2) These views are discussed in his 1967 essay The responsibility of Intellectuals that was published by the New York Review of Books. He further elaborated these ideas in a 1969 book titled: American power and the New Mandarins. 3) The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky by David Horowitz, FrontPageMagazine.com, September 26, 2001. About the Author(s): Nader Habibi is a citizen of Iran and a permanent resident of the United States. See under Our Contributors to find out about the Author(s) of this article. |
Yahoo! World News Headlines Our Winners Club Our Contributors Research Links Legal Advice ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Political Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com |
|