Mr.

A Debate Between Taheri and prof. Chomsky

This Debate is based on the following development:

Noam Chomsky, a Harvard Unversity Professor, as well as, a worldwide known personality in Linguistics, politics, and philosophy has conducted a work on “Rogue States,” http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html in which he holds a critical view on US foreign policy.

Ahmad Reza Taheri a research scholar currently wrote an article http://www.balochacademist.blogfa.com/cat-37.aspx based on Noam Chomsky’s rogue states. In his article, he has taken the opposite view. Here is a debate between Professor Chomsky and Taheri, via email:

Prof. Chomsky: Thanks for sending me the interesting article. The fundamental premise is Hobbesian in inspiration: that the world needs "an experienced global sovereign to look after and monitor other states so that would not allow other rogue states to commit whatsoever against her will and repeat the mistakes in which she herself had committed in the past."

I don't agree. The fundamental premise is, in my opinion, groundless. There are far better forms of social and political organization, domestically and internationally: the forms that were proposed and partially developed in the early post-war system, for example, torn to shreds primarily by the world's most powerful state, which, you argue (on premises that I think are untenable), should be the global sovereign.

On your assumption, if Nazi Germany had won the Second World War, then we should support its claim to rule the world. It was by far the technologically most advanced power, was the center of the sciences, the arts, philosophy, the peak of western civilization, and having the won the war it would be the only choice to be the global sovereign. And the domestic analogue of your Hobbesian principle is that we should pick the most powerful and experienced person and make him dictator, so that he can guarantee order and ensure that his past crimes not be repeated. Perhaps the leading Mafia don, or a Hitler or a Stalin.

Ahmadreza Taheri: Fine, better forms of social and political organization?! If such forms are better, why then, have not replaced the existing global political system?! They might be suitable domestically, however, not internationally, because may divert the “national interest” of states, particularly, of superpowers from their major goals, otherwise, why don’t they spring up again?

Further, regarding Nazi Germany? Well, my idea about “an experienced global sovereign” does not end where you reacted, if we go further down in my article, we will come across “an experienced global sovereign of the contemporary period which certainly does not only possess of a mere military power to use always force and violence, rather possessed of a power in the field of logic, with a better degree of rationality who knows better than others, what is what.” Whereas, Nazi Germany lacked this particular element, that is why, it failed. If, in case, tomorrow America encounters with the similar fate that faced by Nazi Germany, or Soviet Union that ended up in its disintegration, then obviously, that can be indicative of America’s own lack of efficient political thought and theory.

By an experienced global sovereign, I do not mean a mere global dictator, rather, a rational and advance global power in all respects. Today, among the various countries of the world the most advance state is America, however, it is relative, and not absolute, but can we find another better alternative? In your “Rogue States,” you have pointed out that it is for the Security Council to decide such and such issues, but the question then comes who has/have masterminded Security Council. Are not they the very western powers?

Besides that, I do not favor what Hobbes commented on absolute sovereign, rather have just made an analogy between the “old national sovereign” of Hobbes, and “global sovereign” of the modern world, which is a mere explanation. However, as repeated earlier, I believe that an old national sovereign of Hobbes lacks the current skill, rationality, and flexibility in which possessed by global sovereign of today. The difference between Nazi Germany and the USA is that USA is a flexible and intelligent global dictator, whereas, Nazi Germany was a dogmatic and strict dictator --- Among many vital factors for the political survival of states (as you know well) one factor is the element of flexibility in international politics.

Prof. Chomsky: I do not really see much point to discussing the possibility that the Taliban, or Iraq, or Iran, or in fact any other state in the existing world or the world as it is likely to evolve as far as we can predict, might conceivably be a global sovereign. That abstracts much too far from reality, in my opinion.

Ahmadreza Taheri: In this regard, I do agree with you, and what I wrote in my article is a kind of hypothesis that if e.g. Taliban comes to that stage to monitor the international politics, then imagine what may come (taking into consideration their typical ideology that inspired their practices at home), and why they cannot come to that high stage, because of their superficial and weak political vision, as well as, presence of stronger political actors.

Prof. Chomsky: Incidentally, you ignore quite a lot that is highly relevant. On the hideous crimes of Saddam, for example, you overlook the fact that they were quite consciously abetted by the United States, which precisely did want to murder people -- on both sides in fact.

Ahmadreza Taheri: I have not overlooked this bitter reality, and also have no doubt in it. In fact, this is what that motivates me to think that leaders like Saddam Hussain are much more dangerous than Bush, simply because, they can easily fall into the hands of superpowers and play puppet role even to sacrifice their own citizens or subjects for their own personal interest. But, how many of United State’s presidents were abetted by foreign factors to sacrifice or murder their own citizens?!

Prof. Chomsky: I also incidentally think your argument on intention is flawed, for reasons I have discussed in print. If we walk down the street knowing that we will crush ants, we do not intend to kill them, but we do not care because we regard them as less than human. The same is true when we carry out actions that are sure to kill many civilians, but who cares? Bombing slums in Panama for example (while sending in elite units on dangerous missions, some being killed, to pick up wanted targets in rich communities), or destroying half the pharmaceutical supplies in Sudan, knowing that tens of thousands will probably die (as they did), but who cares -- merely to take some of the minor footnotes to the crimes of the "experienced global sovereign." That raises a general moral issue: which stance is more grotesque, killing people intentionally (as when the US supplied its friend Saddam with armaments, including means to develop WMD), or killing them because we do not even regard them as human (the entire history of aspiring "global sovereigns," your candidate being the leading recent example). You regard intentional killing as worse than killing because we regard the victims as sub-human. That is dubious, to say the least.

Ahmadreza Taheri: agreed, but, if we start thinking like that then we must not move, and stop where we are. Then, we must not kill or sacrifice animals or any living being for our own first basic and vital needs e.g. food. This is the philosophy of life: wild animals kill domestic animals for nutrition, we too kill animals for nutrition, and natural phenomenon like Tsunami and floods kill men unknowingly. As we crush ants while walking happily, nature crushes us. The world is constantly changing and in this process things, people, etc can place either into the elimination process or into production process --- some thing quite natural, though, sad.

US supplied its friend Saddam with armaments, including means to develop WMD. That is correct, and that is all about politics (political games) that differentiated men from other creatures, and thus I agree with you. But, every state is searching for its own interest and it is not the case with the USA alone, let me remind you to see the other side of the coin --- how much benefit global community got from western powers, and how much it got from non-western states? Let’s also account for positive developments…!

Any way, for all that, I do not defend America, but I am just saying that it is reality, and we can change this reality, but, for time being it is there, and can’t be altered in the near future, that is what I mean, and every development in the universe has two sides --- its negative aspects and positive aspects. That is some thing which programmed by nature.

Prof Chomsky: I wish I had time to discuss this further, but I am afraid I do not. I spend many hours a day responding to questions and queries, and much as I'd like to, cannot become involved in lengthy discussions.

Ahmadreza Taheri: I am indeed very grateful to you for your kind attention and remarks.