Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The Crimes of 'Intcom' Author(s): Noam Chomsky Source: Foreign Policy, No. 132 (Sep. - Oct., 2002), pp. 34-35 Published by: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3183448 Accessed: 24/10/2008 00:50
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ceip. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Foreign Policy.

http://www.jstor.org

What Is the International Community?

THE
T

CRIMES

OF

'INTCOM'

By Noam Chomsky hephilosopher advised Arab states agree at last to accept the existence of Wittgenstein Ludwig In fact,Arabstates(alongwith the Palestine Libreadersto attend to the use of a phrase in Israel. order to determineits meaning. Adopting erationOrganization) have repeatedlydone so since discoversthat termsof January1976, when they joinedthe restof the world that suggestion,one regularly politicaldiscourseare used with a doctrinalmeaning in backinga U.N. SecurityCouncilresolutioncalling fromthe literalone. The term for a politicalsettlementbasedon Israeliwithdrawal different thatis crucially for "terrorism," example,is not used in accordwith from the occupied territories with "appropriate ter... to guarantee... the sovereignty, the official definition but is restrictedto terrorism arrangements of them us and out ritorial carried political independence all (as officiallydefined) by integrity, against statesin the areaand their and our clients. Similar hold for "war conventions rightto live in peacewithin secure and recognized the that crime,""defense,""peace not read "One does other stanand process," borders"--in effect, U.N. dardterms. Security Council ResoluUnited States defies the tion 242 expanded to One such term is "the international internationalcommunity on includea Palestinianstate. community." The United States vetoed The literalsenseis reasonthe resolution.Sincethen, ably clear;the U.N. Genterrorism,even though it eral Assembly, or a subWashingtonhas regularly blockedsimilarinitiatives. of a is stantialmajority it, voted virtuallyalone...against A fair first approximation. majority of Americans But the term is regularly a U.N. resolution in December supportthe politicalsettlein the Saudi mentreiterated used in a technical sense it does not follow Yet to describe the United 1987 harshly condemning this plan. is defying that Washington Statesjoinedby someallies commuthe international I and clients.(Henceforth, of the modern age." plague or domestic will use the term "Intopinion. nity Under prevailingconvencom," in this technical for the tions, that cannot be since, by definition, the U.S. it is a logicalimpossibility sense.)Accordingly, international to the United States defy community. governmentcannot defy Intcom,and as a democratThese conventions are illustrated well enough by ic state, it naturallyheeds domesticopinion. one does not readthat the UnitedStates cases of currentconcern. Similarly, One does not read that for 25 years the United defies the international community on terrorism, com- even though it voted virtually alone (with Israel; Stateshas barredthe effortsof the international of the Israeli- Hondurasalone abstaining)against the majorU.N. settlement a diplomatic munityto achieve in essence, resolution in December 1987 harshly condemning conflictalongthe linesrepeated, Palestinian in the Saudiproposaladoptedby the ArabLeaguein this plague of the modern age and calling on all has beenwidelyacclaimed statesto eradicateit. The reasonsare instructiveand March2002. Thatinitiative as a historicopportunitythat can only be realizedif highlyrelevanttoday.But all of that has disappeared from history,as is customarywhen Intcom opposes the internationalcommunity (in the literalsense). Noam Chomsky is institute professor and professor of linLatin At the time, Washingtonwas undermining guistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is American effortsto bringabout a peacefulsettlement the author of, most recently, 9-11 (New York:Seven Stories in Central America and had been condemned for Press, 2001). A collection of his essays and lectures is availCourtof terrorism Power:The Indispensable able in Understanding by the International Chomsky international to terminate States the United ordered which Mitchell Peter R. edited Justice, (New York:New Press, 2002), by suchcrimes.The U.S.responsewas escalation. and John Schoeffel. Again,
34
FOREIGN POLICY

none of this history nor similar episodessince bearon Intcom's attitude toward terrorism. Occasionally,Intcom'sisolation is noticed,leadingto perplexed inquiries into the psychic maladies of the world. Richard Bernstein's January 1984 New YorkTimes Magazine article "The U.N. versus the U.S." (not the converse) is an apt example. Further evidence that the world is out of ,i i' step is that afterthe earlyyears of the United Nations, when j, writ was law, the Washington's United States has been far in the lead in vetoing Security Councilresolutions,with Great Britain second and the Soviet Union (later Russia) a distant third. The recordin the General Assemblyis similar-but no conclusions follow about the internationalcommunity. A major contemporary thatIntcomallegedrevolution themeis the normative ly underwentin the 1990s, at last acceptingits duty of humanitarianinterventionto end terriblecrimes. But one neverreadsthat the international communiinterthe of humanitarian so-called ty "reject[s] 'right' vention" along with other forms of coercion that it perceivesas traditionalimperialismin a new guise, called the versionof economicintegration particularly in doctrine. Such conclusions Western globalization were elaboratedin the declarationof the SouthSummit in April 2000, the first meeting of the heads of state of the G-77 (the descendantof the formernonalignedcountries),which accountsfor nearly80 percent of the world'spopulation.The declarationmerited a few disparagingwords in elite media. The 1990s are widely consideredthe decade of humanitarian intervention, not the 1970s, even though the latter decade was bounded by the two most significant cases of interventionto terminate horrendouscrimes:India in East Pakistanand Vietnam in Cambodia. The reasonis clear.Intcomdid not carry out these interventions. In fact, it bitterly opposed them, imposing sanctions and making threateninggesturestoward India and harshlypunPol Pot's ishingVietnamfor the crimeof terminating atrocitiesas they were peaking.In contrast,the U.S.-

,r ~s~? ''

,--'i

?: -? ?~L~ji?-;~5~ E~ ;t g .i ....?; .? " ?z 1~1?:,:I ; ;,?; P;,"v? : ??~ii~~ a..;?;? :ii ?;?~ F~z"' ~ "~~.??~"' p?,,r i ; ii, ii ~ "*r ~ ?? ?3. ~~?~??s: c~ ,. r ?.te .r i'? i?;

'?: ~;~a~$lPC~Pc" -U:?

led bombingof Serbiastandsas the greatmomentof the new international enlightenment-no matterthat such action was strongly opposed by India, China, and much of the rest of the world. Here is not the underintervention placeto reviewthe humanitarian Intcom's taken to preserve "credibility" and, for the crimesthat purposes,to terminate publicrelations it precipitated.Nor is this the place to examine Intcom's refusal to withdraw from its long-standing participation in comparable or worse crimes and what that implies about Intcom'soperative values. Such topics do not enter the extensive literature of the self-declared on the responsibilities enlightened states. Instead, there is a highly regarded literary into the culturaldefectof Intcomthat genreinquiring it from keeps respondingproperlyto the crimes of others. An interestingquestionno doubt, though by any reasonable measure it ranks well below a different one that remainsunasked:Why does Intcom persist in its own substantialcrimes, either directly or through crucial support for murderousclients? It is all too easy for me to continue, though it should be recognized that such practices are no innovation of Intcom. They are close to historical universals,includinganaloguesthat are not pleasant to recall.
SEPTEMBER

I OCTOBER

2002

35