Ma.

Neiseria Ailah Tuquero 4 Pol 1 A deep analysis on the works of Noam Chomsky Here in this paper, I would be actually talking about the ten selected chapters from the book Noam Chomsky entitled . In this paper I would be giving you first a brief summary of the chapter, and then later on is the opinion of the author in that specific chapter together with my analysis. Chapter 4: The Responsibility of Intellectuals This chapter discusses the responsibility of people, specifically the responsibility of the intellectuals which Dwight Macdonald refers to his series of articles published in his work Politics. The articles were published 20 years ago but its concepts and arguments have lost none of their power of persuasiveness up to the time after the wars and horrors of 1930s. In relation to these horrors, these questions of war guild have been the centre of his work: To what extent were the German or Japanese people responsible for the atrocities committed by their government? To what extent are the British or American people responsible for the vicious terror bombings of civilians, perfected as a technique of warfare by the Western democracies among the most unspeakable crimes in history? People, most especially the intellectuals have the responsibility to speak the truth and expose lies. Intellectuals are in the position to expose lies of the governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions, and to see events in their historical perspective. In case of the Western world they have their power from political liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression. Added to this, are the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misinterpretation which western democracies made available to privileged minority. Thus, the responsibility of intellectuals is deeper than the responsibility of people given the unique privileges that they enjoy. The truth we speak here is not at all obvious for modern thinkers. Truth means in Martin Heideggers account is revelation of that which makes a people certain, clear, and strong in its action and knowledge, and this is the only kind of truth that one has the responsibility to speak. However, some modern intellectuals are quite happy to lie in behalf of a cause which they know to be unjust; but it is significant that such events provoke so little response in the intellectual community. One example was the difference of Schlesingers published account regarding the Bay of Pigs incident to the story he had given in the time of the attack or the planned invasion, and he simply remarked that he had lied to protect the national interest. The press had presented documents to refute each falsehood but the power of government propaganda apparatus is such that the citizen who does not undertake a research project on the subject can hardly hope to falsify such pronouncements. These events were quiet accepted and quiet tolerated. New Frontiersmen have scarcely distinguished themselves by the passionate concern for historical accuracy and there is a growing lack of concern for truth. There had been a real or feigned naivet and failure of scepticism with regard to American actions that reaches startling proportions. This innocence becomes increasingly distasteful as the power it serves, grows more dominant in the world affairs and more capable of the unconstrained viciousness that the mass media present. Given these, the tradition of naivet and self-righteousness that disfigures

the intellectual history must serve as a warning to the Third world countries as to how the protestation of sincerity and benign intent of the West should be interpreted. In addition, modern intellectuals of social and behavioral science to imitate the surface feature of sciences or the so called pseudoscientific are almost pathological. Because of this, some intellectuals produces empty works without theories, explanations and empirical assumptions that can be tested against the consequences, as do the sciences they are attempting to mimic. It is ironical that this is the kind of works that serious people actually pay attention because of the facade of tough-mindedness and pseudoscience. However, there is a good conclusion that despite of this problem there are intellectuals which have already achieved power and affluence by accepting society as it is and promoting the value being honored in that society, instead of ideologies of free-floating intellectuals from the past; and by constructing a value-free technology for the solution of technical problems that arise in contemporary society. From the summary that I presented above, one would realize that as an intellectual you have this responsibility, not only to yourself but to the rest of the world, to speak the truth and expose lies. They are in the position to do these things because they have been given the privilege to be educated, which other people really want to but not given the privilege. So as a fortunate people, he should be using this privilege to speak about the truth and expose the lies to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions, and to see events in their historical perspective. But unfortunately, there were intellectuals who lie even though they know that it would be unjust; and Chomsky use the Bay of Pigs- an unsuccessful action by a CIA-trained force of Cuban exiles to invade southern Cuba, with support and encouragement from the US government, in an attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro , as an example of it. One would realize from this example, that the U.S. keeps on engaging into war on those countries that is actually contrary with the ideology that they believed in, which is democracy; because Fidel Castro was the one who propagate communism in Cuba, and U.S. does not want that this kind of ideology would be propagated, thats why as much as possible they would be using all the means that they have in order to eradicate it. Sadly, instead of relying on these intellectuals to promote the truth, they were actually being the one who lacks the concern for the truth and keep on lying for the betterment only of few people.

Chapter 8: The Rule of Force in International Affairs The issue here is whether or not Western intervention in many countries serves its primary purpose of assisting the countries who seek for external security and protection from those great powers in the international arena against insurgencies and external threats. The issue of legality and justice in lieu to their involvement in the intrastate conflict justifies their primary goal much less the goal of the state, they were inclined to help. As Telford Taylor, which is the chief counsel for the prosecution at Nuremberg, had his significant remarks in the flow of this study based on his own investigation tells us of certain conclusions which attests the validity of the study. A case study was presented in order to identify what kind of force usually rules on a warfare over the international setting, which in particular to the U.S. intervention in many warfare cases, such as in Vietnam War. But first, prior to its historical roots, first, we must consider the underlying issues which are more controversial and crucial to the study of international law, the issue of war crimes and justice. International law in effect, according to Chomsky is a body of moral principles accepted as valid by those who ratify treatises and other agreement, meaning treatises and manuals that were made constitutes the laws of war. This law has its implications on transnational boundaries which may affect the decision and processes of every member states of the United Nations and the non-members as well. Thus, U.S. as one of the permanent members in the Security Council has peculiar authority compared to the ordinary members and the like. Henceforth, U.S. must be subjected to further scrutiny compared to the other members and thus its action must be in accordance to the Charter which also includes the members. Notwithstanding, in Chomskys discussion, U.S. intervention violated some of the provisions in the U.N. Charter, particularly Article 2 [4] and 51 of the charter. This article in the charter, in laymans term, only refers to the non-aggression provision and only defensive mechanisms were prescribed as in case of an involvement in warfare which was without further ado. In retrospect, what happened to South Vietnam and U.S. accord is an achievement of the U.S goal in fostering the concept of liberalization rather than the welfare of the South Vietnamese instead. From this point, Chomsky argues that what had happened is mere aberration or a grave obstruction of the charter, which resulted to dire consequences of such act as the Communist blood bath which greatly affected the general population of South Vietnam including the death of many innocent lives. War crimes are mostly attributed to those condemned to be in violation of the international law, as it violates the traditional laws of war and the Geneva Convention which refers to the idea of distinction among combatants and inoffensive non-combatants, hence a civilian doesnt aid, abets, nor participates in the fighting. Thus in the case of the insurgent groups, known as Vietcong in the South Vietnam, an essential feature of revolutionary peoples war blend themselves with the local populace whence the civilians were at great risk for one very reason, the indistinctiveness of the rebels. Thus justice in this state is inconceivable since the fastest and most effective way of eliminating or extracting these rebels from the local populace requires the U.S. counterinsurgent tactics whereas, no need to identify who were the good and bad in the scene of the crime, thus all of them must suffer for the sake of the majority of Vietnamese much less U.S. national interest. In the case of the U.S., given this circumstance leaves them with no choice but to use their military and technological prowess. Of course, along with the aid and assistance to the indigenous of the South Vietnam is their states interest of incurring liberalization policies which is against the Communist movements.

From these we can say that the willful acts made by the U.S. troops in Vietnam, justifies their means at the expense of the opposition which is the North Vietnamese including the South which is said to be devastated by U.S bombs due to the insurgencies origins. So as to conclude, the involvement of U.S. in an aggressive warfare in South Vietnam which is regarded as a violation of the provisions of the UN Charter concerning the use of force, does not provide us a vivid description of what must have been took place and if it is justifiable to use such kind of force in response to the issue. From the summary that I presented above, one would realize the various unconstitutional interventions made by the U.S., and Chomsky cited the Vietnam as an example of this violation. The U.S. being one of the permanent members in the Security Council, they have a peculiar authority compared to the ordinary member; so therefore they must be more subjected to further scrutiny compared to the other members, and their actions must be in accordance to the Charter, so that they could serve as a model to the members, but unfortunately the scenario is not like that. U.S. intervention specifically in Vietnam War actually violated some of the provisions in the U.N. Charter, particularly Article 2 [4] and 51 of the charter, which stated that All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations; and Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. The U.S. government interferes in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment; which is similar to the case of the previous chapter. U.S. military involvement ended on August 15, 1973 as a result of the CaseChurch Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress. The capture of Saigon by the Vietnam People's Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year. As a result of this costly and bloody war, many lives, properties and dreams have been lost, because of pursuing their interest which actually be benefited only by the few. Each country have a freedom to choose on what type of government they want them to rule because it is something that should be imposed but it is something that should be developed within the country. But what happened to South Vietnam and U.S. is just a mere aberration or a grave obstruction of the charter. U.S. goal in this conflict is to foster the concept of liberalization instead for the welfare of the Vietnamese.; and their aggressive warfare in South Vietnam which is regarded as a violation of the provisions of the UN Charter concerning the use of force, does not provide us a vivid description of what must have been took place and if it is justifiable to use such kind of force in response to the issue.

Chapter 12: United States and East Timor East Timor is a small and remote place that is located in the eastern part of Timor in Southeast Asia. It is believed that a small country like East Timor will not devote the attention of other countries for it has no big impact to them. But since 1975, many terrible things happened in the country that can drove the attention of the rest of the world but surprisingly it did not because of the U.S policy towards the country. Throughout the colonization of the Indonesian government, East Timor offered one of the worst atrocities in this century. It has been made possible with military and diplomatic assistance of the United States. The recent history of Timor provides a revealing insight about the countrys affiliation to the policy of the U.S government and how these policies resulted to the enormous massacres of thousands of Timorese people. There are two reasons why we need to give our attention to this country. First is that the case of East Timor is quite different for it has been and still in the scene of massive killings and sufferings. Second is that what has happened in East Timor since 1975, we could actually learn from it, some important things about ourselves, our society and our institutions. The events that took place in this country will help us to make some changes in the practices and structure of institutions that cause terrible suffering and slaughter. To further understand the events that took place in East Timor since 1975, let us take a look at their history. During the 16th Century, East Timor was a colony of Portugal that was known as Portuguese Timor. The other half of the Timor Island was colonized by the Dutch that was later became part of Indonesia. After the Portuguese revolution of 1974, several political parties emerged in the country of which two, UDT and Fretilin had significant popular support. Fretilin was known to be a political party that has a Marxist influence. In the year 1975, various attempted coup occurred and by September, Fretilin became successful against the UDT. The country was then at peace when Indonesian military harassment began immediately, nine days after the declaration of being an independent nation. Indonesia launched a full-scale invasion and annexed East Timor. Indonesias invasion was said to be in full authorization by the United States and other western countries, who had cultivated Indonesia as a trading partner and coldwar ally. Moreover, it is said that during the invasion the Indonesian army was supplied with U.S arms and provide the military support for the slaughter to continue and has succeeded in blocking significant measures from different international organizations, such as the United Nations and International Red Cross. Throughout the invasion of the Indonesian government to East Timor, it shows that the U.S longstanding policy of military cooperation heightened the situation in the country that resulted to a more bloody and brutal killings. It is through the authorization of the U.S that prolonged the situation in East Timor. With this, it is believe that the U.S government has the responsibility for the 1975 invasion, in particular to the degree to which Washington actually supported the actions done by the Indonesian government. Likewise, the question on how the role of the media ceases from exposing the facts about the situation in East Timor and why did they hide it from the public is for the reason that their loyalty is on the side of U.S government. But surprisingly, up to the present, the U.S government denies that they know about the invasion that occurred in East Timor even though there are existing documents telling that Suharto began the invasion knowing that he had the full approval of the White House. Thus, the events of 1975 illustrate U.S political interests still continue despite the consequences that occurred in East Timor.

From the summary that I presented above, one would realize that even a small and not so influential country like East Timor, the U.S. through using Indonesia would still want to invade for the purpose of being a hegemonic country. A small and not influential country like East Timor could not actually catch the attention of other countries for it could not have give them a big impact; not until 1975, when many terrible things happened in the country and offered one of the worst atrocities in this century that catch the attention of the rest of the world. After East Timor declared itself as an independent nation; Indonesia launched a fullscale invasion and annexed East Timor; and this occupation was actually marked by violence and brutality. Indonesias invasion was said to be in full authorization by the United States and other western countries, who had cultivated Indonesia as a trading partner and cold-war ally. Moreover, it is said that during the invasion the Indonesian army was supplied with U.S arms and provide the military support for the slaughter to continue and has succeeded in blocking significant measures from different international organizations U.S longstanding policy of military cooperation heightened the situation in the country that resulted to a more bloody and brutal killings. It is through the authorization of the U.S that prolonged the situation in East Timor. But unfortunately, at the end of the day, U.S government still denies that they know about the invasion that occurred in East Timor even though there are existing documents telling that Suharto began the invasion knowing that he had the full approval of the White House; and Indonesia could not actually have arms and weapons, to use without someone that is powerful behind their back. Following the resignation of Indonesian President Suharto , an UN-sponsored agreement between Indonesia and Portugal allowed for UN-supervised popular referendum in August 1999. The resulting clear vote for independence was met with a punitive campaign of violence by Timorese pro-integration militia with the support of elements of the Indonesian military. An Australian led international peacekeeping force, INTERFET, was sent with Indonesian permission to ensure order was restored. The administration of East Timor was taken over by the UN through the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) in October 1999. The INTERFET deployment ended in February 2000 with the transfer of military command to the UN. East Timorese independence was formalized on May 20, 2002 with Xanana Gusmo sworn in as the country's first President. And finally East Timor became a sovereign and independent country by being declared as a member of the UN last September 27, 2002. It is very sarcastic at the end of the day, which they keep on saying that they are the advocators of peace and unity in the international community, yet they were the one that is actually violating those principles that they were fighting for.

Chapter 20: A World without War The world has been seen to be an arena of conflict and confrontation of war made by two participants, one of the participants in the conflict is concentrated power centers, state and private, closely interlinked, and the other is the worldwide general population. Traditionally, the conflict has been coined to be a class wars. Chomsky emphasizes that concentrated powers pursue wars relentlessly, and very self-consciously. These actors grasp the pursuance of their interests through different means, such as Communism and terrorism and the continuity of policies in favor of them. Crises make it possible to exploit fear and concern to demand that the adversary be submissive, obedient, silent, and distracted, while the powerful use the window of opportunity to pursue their own favored programs with even greater intensity. Chomsky discusses in the World Social Forum and World Economic Forum the conflict between actors involved namely those people who address "the big problems confronting humankind" which includes state and business leaders all over the world and those whom he called as freaks or the great beasts which he defined as people who are "opposed to globalization." The former was defined as the international community or what Chomsky has preferred them to call as masters of the universe in reference to Adam Smiths idea of principal architects of policy which makes sure that their own interests are "most peculiarly attended to"; however "grievous" the impact on others. Chomsky deemed optimistic to have a world without war in the future. According to him, wars over water, energy and other resources are not unlikely in the future, with consequences which could be devastating. Wars have had to do with the imposition of the system of nation-states, an unnatural social formation that that typically has to be instituted by violence. Popular activism within the rich and powerful societies also had a civilizing effect. These powerful societies can no longer undertake the kinds of longterm aggression that were options before, such as US attacked South Vietnam 40 years ago, smashing much of it to pieces before significant popular protest developed. Certain oppositions to these actions led to the civilizing effects that prevent this particular cause of war. As a result, large-scale aggressions of powerful societies have shifted to international terrorism to continue its actions and political support. The war on terror has been an issue especially in the United States because of its effects and harms; in different The Reagan administration 20 years ago, declared that the "war on terror" would be the focus of US foreign policy, particularly in Central America and the Middle East, aspects in the international arena. US was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and Security Council escalating the terrorist attack it was ordered to terminate; or the fact that the very people who are directing the military and diplomatic components of the re-declared war on terror were leading figures in implementing terrorist atrocities in Central America and the Middle East during the first phase of the war. It can be seen that "war on terror" will again serve as a pretext for intervention and atrocities in coming years, not just by the US, but by other countries. The issue of globalization has also been emphasized by Chomsky in relation to the threats of war. The version of globalization was primarily created by the masters of the universe with a very broad elite support, with the free trade agreements. This issue has been little reported and suppressed. Public opposition to globalization has been high for many years despite of its prosperity it brought especially in powerful societies such as the United States. The reason lies in the flaws that the rapid growth and prosperity brought by globalization has a related growing inequality because not all experience its gifts and opportunities. Chomsky cited examples showing such biases. The International economic integration from World War I to post-World War II has seen to be a priority of capital among concentrated powers and people

are only incidental. The Mexican border issue which was militarized after NAFTA by Clinton in order to block the free circulation of labor is also an example of influence private tyrannies. Globalization has been an issue of the growing gap between the haves and have-nots, which Chomsky identifies as the elites and the population. Militarization has been a key mechanism for the haves to pursue and maintain their interests away from the have-nots. Issues on which the public differs from elites are primarily on economic policy. The business world is overwhelmingly in favor of corporate-led "globalization," the "free investment agreements" called "free trade agreements," NAFTA, FTAA, GATS, and other devices that concentrate wealth and power in hands of the unaccountable to the public. The great beasts or the general population is normally opposed, even without knowing crucial facts from which they are carefully hided. Specifically in the U.S., elections do not reveal a flaw of democracy, but rather it always triumphs. The struggle to impose that idea takes many forms, but never ends, and will never, as long as high concentrations of effective decision-making power remain the same. From the summary that I presented above, one would realize that those powerful countries used their influences in order to dominate. These powerful countries pursue wars relentlessly, and very self-consciously; and these actors grasp the pursuance of their interests through different means, and making all policies in favor to them. Wars appeared because of the imposition of the system of nation-states of these powerful and influential countries- an unnatural social formation that actually creates violence. "War on terror" was one of the focuses of US foreign policy. It is an international military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom with the support of other NATO as well as non-NATO countries. Originally, the campaign was waged against al-Qaeda and other militant organizations with the purpose of eliminating them. The phrase 'War on Terror' was first used by US President George W. Bush and other high-ranking US officials to denote a global military, political, legal and ideological struggle against organizations designated as terrorist and regimes that were accused of having a connection to them or providing them with support or were perceived, or presented as posing a threat to the US and its allies in general. It was typically used with a particular focus on militant Islamists and al-Qaeda. And because of this, they were actually being condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and Security Council escalating the terrorist attack it was ordered to terminate; or the fact that the very people who are directing the military and diplomatic components of the re-declared war on terror were leading figures in implementing terrorist atrocities in Central America and the Middle East during the first phase of the war. It can be seen that "war on terror" will again serve as a pretext for intervention and atrocities in coming years, not just by the US, but by other countries. Globalization was primarily created by the masters of the universe with a very broad elite support, with the free trade agreements. Its rapid growth and prosperity brought by has a related growing inequality because not all experience its gifts and opportunities. Chomsky give example it, and one of those is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Mexico, U.S. and Canada, which actually exploited the workers without passing a provision that would actually protect them from the abuses of these agreement

Chapter 23: United States- Israel- Palestine For Jews and Palestinians, it seems that war appear as an avoidable fate. They had been in conflict for 35 years about whos going to rule and dominate the land. Jews keeps on winning against the Palestinians because they have this economic and diplomatic support from the global superpower which is the U.S. that brought Palestinians to live in miserable camps and suffered from brutality; but what does the U.S. role in the conflict and how it is internally perceived? Last January 1976 Security Council passed a resolution that called for a political settlement on the internationally recognized borders with appropriate arrangements to guarantee the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all the states in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders. In effect, a modification of U.N. resolution 242 amplified to include a Palestinian state. But during the 1980s, U.S. and Israel were desperately seeking to evade the Palestinian Liberation Organizations (PLO) offers of negotiation and political settlement while keeping to the demand that there will be no negotiation and political settlement, no additional Palestinian State, and no change in the status of Judea, Samaria and Gaza other than in accordance with the basic guidelines of Israeli Government. According to the author, Israel could not be able to occupy the whole territory including those under the Palestinians without the U.S. decisive support through providing them the means for terror and destruction. Their commitment in enhancing terror was illustrated last December 2001, when it vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for the implementation of the Mithchell Plan and dispatch of international monitors to oversee reduction of violence, which is the most effective means as generally recognized, but opposed by Israel and regularly blocked by Washington. Ten days before the veto, U.S. boycotted an international conference in Geneva. The conference specifically declared the U.S. - funded Israeli settlements to be illegal and condemned the practice of willful killing, torture, and unlawful deportation, willful depriving of the rights of fair and regular trial, extensive destruction and appropriation of property carried out unlawfully and wantonly. As a high contracting party, U.S. is obligated by solemn treaty to prosecute those responsible for such crimes; but U.S. had not officially withdrawn its recognition of the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the occupied territories or its censure of Israeli violations as the occupying power. So at the end of the day, it is meaningless to call for U.S. engagement in the peace process, and prospects because constructive action will remain grim. From the summary that I presented above, one would realize that instead of being a good example to other nations, since they are part of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, they were actually the one violating the rules and procedure imposed by the UN. But before proceeding to my analysis, it is imperative to give you first a brief background of the conflict. The issues that led to the conflict are the following: mutual recognition, borders, security, water rights, control of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, Palestinian freedom of movement and legalities concerning refugees. The violence resulting from the conflict has prompted international actions, as well as other security and human rights concerns, both within and between both sides, and internationally. In addition, the violence has curbed expansion of tourism in the region, which is full of historic and religious sites that are of interest to many people around the world.

Israel could not be able to occupy the whole territory including those under the Palestinians without the U.S. decisive support through providing them the means for terror and destruction. Thus, it proves to us, that US really play a significant role in this conflict. The US non commitment to comply with the rules and procedures imposed by the UN, reflected when U.S. and Israel were desperately seeking to evade the Palestinian Liberation Organizations (PLO) offers of negotiation and political settlement while keeping to the demand that there will be no negotiation and political settlement, no additional Palestinian State, and no change in the status of Judea, Samaria and Gaza other than in accordance with the basic guidelines of Israeli Government; and when they vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for the implementation of the Mithchell Plan and dispatch of international monitors to oversee reduction of violence, which is the most effective means as generally recognized, but opposed by Israel and regularly blocked by Washington. Mitchell Plan calls on the Palestinian Authority to punish terrorists, to stop gunmen using its areas to fire on Israelis and to renew security cooperation with Israel. Israel would have to freeze Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel's military would have to consider withdrawing to positions held before the violence began in September 2000. Being a member permanent member of the Security Council U.S, they were actually being obligated by solemn treaty to prosecute those responsible for such crimes; but U.S. had not officially withdrawn its recognition of the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the occupied territories or its censure of Israeli violations as the occupying power. So at the end of the day, it is meaningless to call for U.S. engagement in the peace process, and prospects because constructive action will remain grim. They were not actually combating terror but instead, they were forming terror, to further propagate their being imperialistic, and later on, become a hegemonic country, so that all of their interest and ideology would actually dominate and propagate. The UN should a strong mechanism so that all of those countries that would not obey in their rules and procedures would face the consequences of their action regardless of their status and position in the organization, so that they could actually serve their purpose, which is to unite all of its members.