Posted on 16-9-2002
Nelson
Mandela: The U.S.A.
is a Threat to World Peace
In an interview with Newsweek
NEWSWEEK
Sept. 10 - Nelson Mandela, 84, may be the world's most respected
statesman. Sentenced to life in prison on desolate Robben Island
in 1964
for advocating armed resistance to apartheid in South Africa,
the African
National Congress leader emerged in 1990 to lead his country
in a
transition to non-racial elections. As president, his priority
was racial
reconciliation; today South Africans of all races refer to him
by his
Xhosa clan honorific, Madiba. Mandela stepped down in 1999 after
a single
five-year term. He now heads two foundations focused on children.
He met
with NEWSWEEK'S Tom Masland early Monday morning in his office
in
Houghton, a Johannesburg suburb, before flying to Limpopo Province
to
address traditional leaders on the country's AIDS crisis.
Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: Why are you speaking out on Iraq? Do you want to mediate,
as
you tried to on the Mideast a couple of years ago? It seems
you are
reentering the fray now.
Nelson Mandela: If I am asked, by credible organizations, to
mediate, I
will consider that very seriously. But a situation of this nature
does
not need an individual, it needs an organization like the United
Nations
to mediate. We must understand the seriousness of this situation.
The
United States has made serious mistakes in the conduct of its
foreign
affairs, which have had unfortunate repercussions long after
the
decisions were taken. Unqualified support of the Shah of Iran
led
directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Then the United
States chose
to arm and finance the [Islamic] mujahedin in Afghanistan instead
of
supporting and encouraging the moderate wing of the government
of
Afghanistan. That is what led to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
But the most
catastrophic action of the United States was to sabotage the
decision
that was painstakingly stitched together by the United Nations
regarding
the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. If you
look at those
matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of
the United
States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America]
is
saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council,
you
can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of
other
countries. That is the message they are sending to the world.
That must
be condemned in the strongest terms. And you will notice that
France,
Germany Russia, China are against this decision. It is clearly
a decision
that is motivated by George W. Bush's desire to please the arms
and oil
industries in the United States of America. If you look at those
factors,
you'll see that an individual like myself, a man who has lost
power and
influence, can never be a suitable mediator.
NEWSWEEK: What about the argument that's being made about the
threat of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's efforts to build
a
nuclear weapons. After all, he has invaded other countries,
he
has fired missiles at Israel. On Thursday, President Bush is
going to
stand up in front of the United Nations and point to what he
says is
evidence of...
Nelson Mandela: .Scott Ritter, a former United Nations arms
inspector
who is in Baghdad, has said that there is no evidence whatsoever
of
[development of weapons of] mass destruction. Neither Bush nor
[British
Prime Minister] Tony Blair has provided any evidence that such
weapons
exist. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction.
Nobody talks about that. Why should there be one standard for
one
country, especially because it is black, and another one for
another
country, Israel, that is white.
NEWSWEEK: So you see this as a racial question?
Nelson Mandela: Well, that element is there. In fact, many people
say
quietly, but they don't have the courage to stand up and say
publicly,
that when there were white secretary generals you didn't find
this
question of the United States and Britain going out of the United
Nations. But now that you've had black secretary generals like
Boutros
Boutros Ghali, like Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United
Nations.
They have contempt for it. This is not my view, but that is
what is being
said by many people.
NEWSWEEK: What kind of compromise can you see that might avoid
the coming
confrontation?
Nelson Mandela: There is one compromise and one only, and that
is the
United Nations. If the United States and Britain go to the United
Nations
and the United Nations says we have concrete evidence of the
existence of
these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we feel that we
must do
something about it, we would all support it.
NEWSWEEK: Do you think that the Bush administration's U.N. diplomatic
effort now is genuine, or is the President just looking for
political
cover by speaking to the U.N. even as he remains intent on forging
ahead
unilaterally?
Nelson Mandela: Well, there is no doubt that the United States
now feels
that they are the only superpower in the world and they can
do what they
like. And of course we must consider the men and the women around
the
president. Gen. Colin Powell commanded the United States army
in
peacetime and in wartime during the Gulf war. He knows the disastrous
effect of international tension and war, when innocent people
are going
to die, young men are going to die. He knows and he showed this
after
September 11 last year. He went around briefing the allies of
the United
States of America and asking for their support for the war in
Afghanistan. But people like Dick Cheney. I see yesterday there
was an
article that said he is the real president of the United States
of
America, I don't know how true that is. Dick Cheney, [Defense
secretary
Donald] Rumsfeld, they are people who are unfortunately misleading
the
president. Because my impression of the president is that this
is a man
with whom you can do business. But it is the men who around
him who are
dinosaurs, who do not want him to belong to the modern age.
The only man,
the only person who wants to help Bush move to the modern era
is Gen.
Colin Powell, the secretary of State.
NEWSWEEK: I gather you are particularly concerned about Vice
President
Cheney?
Nelson Mandela: Well, there is no doubt. He opposed the decision
to
release me from prison (laughs). The majority of the U.S. Congress
was in
favor of my release, and he opposed it. But it's not because
of that.
Quite clearly we are dealing with an arch-conservative in Dick
Cheney.
NEWSWEEK: I'm interested in your decision to speak out now about
Iraq.
When you left office, you said, "I'm going to go down to Transkei,
and
have a rest." Now maybe that was a joke at the time. But you've
been
very active.
Nelson Mandela: I really wanted to retire and rest and spend
more time
with my children, my grandchildren and of course with my wife.
But the
problems are such that for anybody with a conscience who can
use whatever
influence he may have to try to bring about peace, it's difficult
to say
no.
Drain the swamp and there will be no more mosquitoes
By attacking Iraq, the US will invite a new wave of terrorist
attacks
Noam Chomsky, Monday September 9, 2002, The Guardian
September 11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they
had
better pay much closer attention to what the US government does
in the
world and how it is perceived. Many issues have been opened
for
discussion that were not on the agenda before. That's all to
the good.
It is also the merest sanity, if we hope to reduce the likelihood
of
future atrocities. It may be comforting to pretend that our
enemies "hate
our freedoms," as President Bush stated, but it is hardly wise
to ignore
the real world, which conveys different lessons.
The president is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?"
In a staff
discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower described "the
campaign of
hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments
but by the
people". His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons:
the US
supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing
political or
economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the
oil
resources of the region.
Post-September 11 surveys in the Arab world reveal that the
same reasons
hold today, compounded with resentment over specific policies.
Strikingly, that is even true of privileged, western-oriented
sectors in
the region.
To cite just one recent example: in the August 1 issue of Far
Eastern
Economic Review, the internationally recognised regional specialist
Ahmed
Rashid writes that in Pakistan "there is growing anger that
US support is
allowing [Musharraf's] military regime to delay the promise
of
democracy".
Today we do ourselves few favours by choosing to believe that
"they hate
us" and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are attitudes
of
people who like Americans and admire much about the US, including
its
freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them
the freedoms
to which they too aspire.
For such reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin
Laden - for
example, about US support for corrupt and brutal regimes, or
about the US
"invasion" of Saudi Arabia - have a certain resonance, even
among those
who despise and fear him. From resentment, anger and frustration,
terrorist bands hope to draw support and recruits.
We should also be aware that much of the world regards Washington
as a
terrorist regime. In recent years, the US has taken or backed
actions in
Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name a few,
that meet
official US definitions of "terrorism" - that is, when Americans
apply
the term to enemies
In the most sober establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel
Huntington wrote in 1999: "While the US regularly denounces
various
countries as 'rogue states,' in the eyes of many countries it
is becoming
the rogue superpower ... the single greatest external threat
to their
societies."
Such perceptions are not changed by the fact that, on September
11, for
the first time, a western country was subjected on home soil
to a
horrendous terrorist attack of a kind all too familiar to victims
of
western power. The attack goes far beyond what's sometimes called
the
"retail terror" of the IRA, FLN or Red Brigades.The September
11
terrorism elicited harsh condemnation throughout the world and
an
outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims. But with
qualifications.
An international Gallup poll in late September found little
support for
"a military attack" by the US in Afghanistan. In Latin America,
the
region with the most experience of US intervention, support
ranged from
2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama.
The current "campaign of hatred" in the Arab world is, of course,
also
fuelled by US policies toward Israel-Palestine and Iraq. The
US has
provided the crucial support for Israel's harsh military occupation,
now
in its 35th year.
One way for the US to lessen Israeli-Palestinian tensions would
be to
stop refusing to join the long-standing international consensus
that
calls for recognition of the right of all states in the region
to live in
peace and security, including a Palestinian state in the currently
occupied territories (perhaps with minor and mutual border
adjustments).
In Iraq, a decade of harsh sanctions under US pressure has strengthened
Saddam Hussein while leading to the death of hundreds of thousands
of
Iraqis - perhaps more people "than have been slain by all so-called
weapons of mass destruction throughout history", military analysts
John
and Karl Mueller wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1999.
Washington's present justifications to attack Iraq have far
less
credibility than when President Bush Sr was welcoming Saddam
as an ally
and a trading partner after he had committed his worst brutalities
- as
in Halabja, where Iraq attacked Kurds with poison gas in 1988.
At the
time, the murderer Saddam was more dangerous than he is today.
As for a US attack against Iraq, no one, including Donald Rumsfeld,
can
realistically guess the possible costs and consequences. Radical
Islamist
extremists surely hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many
people and
destroy much of the country, providing recruits for terrorist
actions.
They presumably also welcome the "Bush doctrine" that proclaims
the right
of attack against potential threats, which are virtually limitless.
The
president has announced: "There's no telling how many wars it
will take
to secure freedom in the homeland." That's true.
Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless
war
poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies
do, for
reasons the terrorist organisations understand very well.
Twenty years ago, the former head of Israeli military intelligence,
Yehoshaphat Harkabi, also a leading Arabist, made a point that
still
holds true. "To offer an honourable solution to the Palestinians
respecting their right to self-determination: that is the solution
of the
problem of terrorism," he said. "When the swamp disappears,
there will be
no more mosquitoes."
At the time, Israel enjoyed the virtual immunity from retaliation
within
the occupied territories that lasted until very recently. But
Harkabi's
warning was apt, and the lesson applies more generally.
Well before September 11 it was understood that with modern
technology,
the rich and powerful will lose their near monopoly of the means
of
violence and can expect to suffer atrocities on home soil.
If we insist on creating more swamps, there will be more mosquitoes,
with
awesome capacity for destruction.
If we devote our resources to draining the swamps, addressing
the roots
of the "campaigns of hatred", we can not only reduce the threats
we face
but also live up to ideals that we profess and that are not
beyond reach
if we choose to take them seriously.
Noam Chomsky is professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts
Institute
of Technology and author of the US bestseller 9 -11
chomsky@MIT.edu
|