'No one with a brain cell pays attention to the declarations of leaders'

Harry Browne reports from Noam Chomsky's talk at UCD.

More than 1,200 people packed the O'Reilly Hall at University College Dublin on Tuesday evening (17 January) to hear Noam Chomsky speak on 'Democracy Promotion'.

Many of the crowd had queued outdoors on a cold evening for up to two hours to ensure seats in the hall. More would-be spectators were forced to watch the lecture on TV monitors.

The crowd listened intently as the Institute Professor Emeritus of Linguistics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology delivered a typically flat, detailed lecture for about an hour, then fielded a handful of questions for a further 40 minutes. The audience included at least one infant child, many teenagers, and activists and academics of all ages.

There were no critical questions put to Chomsky, and there were a few youthful whoops during the standing ovation at the end, but the audience did not seem especially reverent and lively arguments erupted as people left the hall shortly before 9pm.

Chomsky's talk, the first of four in Dublin during the week, was subtitled 'Reflections on Intellectuals and the State'. However, as is often the case in his work, the lecture seemed to consist less of "reflections" than of examples, occasionally recited with wry humour, showing how elite media and academic figures unquestioningly adopt the highly dubious rhetoric and assumptions of US political leaders, thus setting a limited and distorting framework for discussion.

His focus was on the idea of "promoting democracy", alleged to be the idealistic principle guiding much of US foreign policy historically, and its recent policy in Iraq in particular. Chomsky said the US administration's shift from the "single question" that precipitated the invasion – "will Saddam abandon his weapons-of-mass-destruction programmes?" – to a rationale of "democracy promotion" was accepted uncritically ("scholars jumped on the bandwagon") despite the US and British leaders having been shown to be "among the most brazen liars in history".

"The new rationale became Holy Writ," he said, and "the sincerity of Our Dear Leader was accepted without challenge". He quoted liberal American commentators who called the Iraq invasion "the most idealistic war fought in modern times", but who questioned whether America's "noble and generous vision" might be "beyond our reach".

He repeatedly compared such language to what might be found in a totalitarian state such as North Korea, saying that elites there at least have the excuse of being subject to vicious repression if they step out of line. "In a democracy you'd expect some seeking of evidence for such assertions, and critical analysis of the counter-evidence," he said.

When the Iranian government, for example, says it supports the democratic wishes of the Iraqi people, "rational observers will view Iran's devotion to democracy promotion with a certain degree of scepticism". Similar scepticism ought to apply to American pronouncements, he said. "In the US there is no excuse for accepting the doctrine except cowardice and subordination to power."

Citing surveys that show Iraqis strongly opposed to the US/British invasion and occupation, and cynical about American motives, Chomsky said, to some laughter, that the invaders were faced with "the old problem of trying to explain to backward people how dedicated we are to their welfare".

He said the sincerity of the mission to promote democracy in Iraq could be measured by "the behaviour of the missionaries just moments before", during the pre-invasion debate. The US, he said, had distinguished between "Old Europe, the bad guys", countries that had opposed the war in accordance with their people's wishes, and "New Europe", countries that had supported the US despite even larger majorities of their own people in opposition.

Calling this "a display of hatred for democracy for which I can think of no precedent", Chomsky recalled how just before the war Turkey was condemned for lacking democratic credentials when it abided by the will of its people and refused to allow US troops to invade Iraq from its territory. Paul Wolfowitz, he said, had effectively "berated the Turkish military" for not overruling the civilian government's policy.

The US media went along with this attack on Turkey. Indeed, the same Wolfowitz, Chomsky said, was called "the idealist-in-chief" by the Washington Post, with a "passion for the noble goals" of the Iraq war.

Chomsky discussed US subversion of Venezuela, where there is also, from the US perspective, a "population deficient in its understanding of democracy". Despite overwhelming support for Chavez in a series of elections, the media continues to equate "anti-Chavez" with "pro-democracy". "The proof is that Washington has so declared," Chomsky said.

He said that honest researchers of the factual record, in places from Venezuela to East Timor to Palestine, who nonetheless subscribed to the "doctrinal system" were faced with a paradox about US actions and intentions. "Inexplicably, deeds accord with interests and conflict with words," he said, to further laughter.

"The US, like other states, combines the pursuit of the interests of elite groups with rhetorical declarations of universal values," he said. "No one with a brain cell pays attention to the declarations of leaders." Such normal scepticism, however, "does not qualify you for admission to esteemed intellectual circles", he said.

Chomsky said he would present seven simple and useful ideas that would bring about a change for the better in US policy. The US, he said, could: (1) accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court; (2) sign up for Kyoto; (3) let the UN take the lead role in dealing with global crises; (4) favour diplomatic and economic measures over military ones; (5) adopt a conservative interpretation of its prerogatives under the UN charter; (6) give up the UN Security Council veto, having "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" (quoting the Declaration of Independence); and (7) cut military spending and increase social spending.

All seven of these, he said, are the views of the large majority of the US population, "often an overwhelming majority", as measured in sophisticated polling, but are opinions largely excluded from the American political mainstream.

He said it was easier for media and intellectual elites to "recite the standard mantras, especially when they're self-serving". If, instead, people attend to facts and the lessons of history, we could "free ourselves from the shackles of doctrine and imposed illusions".

During the question and answer session, Chomsky was asked what activists should do about various pieces of repressive legislation, from the Patriot Act in the US to the Public Order Act here. "Ignore them," he said, adding that given the repression in many countries, Westerners are extraordinarily free to protest, and should do so.