We live in disconcerting and dangerous times. Humanity is facing two existential threats that could end civilization as we know it — as well as other life on Earth. International cooperation is lacking in both the cases of global warming and nuclear weapons. Worse, with respect to nuclear weapons, there has been a growing trend towards normalizing the idea nuclear war. This is actually what Noam Chomsky claims in this exclusive interview. Truthout, dismissals of the true threat of nuclear annihilation have grown to highly dangerous levels and “the means for reducing the threat of terminal war are being cast out the window.” But it doesn’t have to be that way.
“Human agency has not ended,” Chomsky points out. There are realistic ways to safeguard humanity from the existential threat of nuclear weapons.
Chomsky is emeritus institute professor in the department of linguistics and philosophical at MIT and laureate Professor of Linguistics and Agnese Nelms Haury Head in the Program in Environment and Social Justice of the University of Arizona. One of the world’s most-cited scholars and a public intellectual regarded by millions of people as a national and international treasure, Chomsky has published more than 150 books in linguistics, political and social thought, political economy, media studies, U.S. foreign policy and world affairs. His most recent books are The Secrets of Words(with Andrea Moro; MIT Press 2022); The Withdrawal of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and the Fragility U.S. Power(with Vijay Prashad; The New Press 2022); The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic, and the Urgent Need for Social Change (with C. J. Polychroniou; Haymarket Books 2021).
C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has triggered several unexpected and unintended consequences. One of the consequences, which isn’t as widely discussed, is that use of nuclear weapons, possibly with lower yields has almost been normalized. Indeed, in the course of this war, we have heard of several scenarios for how Russia might use nuclear weapons, and, in the early days of the invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin even ordered his country’s nuclear forces on a higher alert. And, just last month, he said that Russia will use nuclear weapons to defend its sovereignty and stressed that the “era of the unipolar world” has ended. On the other hand, we have people like Francis Fukuyama saying that the possibility of a nuclear war “is not something anyone should be worrying about” because there are many stopping points before we get to that point. How did we get to this point where people have such a casual attitude about nuclear weapons
Noam Chomsky: Before turning to the important issues raised, we should keep firmly in mind one overriding concern: The great powers will find a way to cooperate in addressing today’s critical problems, or the wreckage of human society will be so extreme that no one will care. This fundamental fact about our current world is so important that it is almost impossible to ignore. It cannot be repeated too often or too strongly.
In the Toronto StarLinda McQuaig, a veteran journalist and political analyst wrote that she had just heard “what struck me as possibly the most foolish remark ever uttered on TV. And I know that’s a high bar.”
McQuaig was referring to “the celebrated U.S. political scientist Francis Fukuyama” and the comment of his that you just quoted. Put simply, “there’s no need to be concerned about nuclear war. Take my word for it.”
In defense of “possibly the most foolish remark ever uttered on TV,” we might argue that it is not only commonly voiced, but in fact is implicit in official U.S. policy. Last April, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that Washington’s goal in Ukraine is “to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” He was reprimanded by the president, but “officials acknowledged that was indeed the long-term strategy, even if Mr. Biden did not want to publicly provoke Mr. Putin into escalation.”
The long-term strategy is to keep the war raging in order to weaken Russia. This is a much harsher approach than the treatment of Germany at Versailles 100 years ago, which didn’t achieve its stated goal.
The long-term strategy was reaffirmed clearly enough in the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit, providing a new “Strategic Concept” based on a core principle: no diplomacy on Ukraine, only war to “weaken Russia.”
This is perhaps the most foolish comment ever made. It doesn’t take much insight to see why. The implicit assumption is that the U.S. and its allies are attempting to weaken Russia sufficiently. However, Russian leaders will continue to stand by silently, refraining from resorting the advanced weapons we all know Russia to have.
Take our word for this.
It may be true, but it is a gamble, not just with the fate of Ukrainians, but also with many others.
We might also add, in defense of this absurdity, that it is common sense. It is commonly just taken for granted that we can disregard the shocking record of the past 75 years, which demonstrates with brilliant clarity that it is a near miracle that we have escaped nuclear war — terminal war if major powers are involved.
Illustrations are everywhere. Yale University Program on Climate Change Communication conducts some of the most sophisticated and detailed studies of public opinion on major topics. The studies are not limited to climate, although it is the primary focus of their concern.
The most recent study, which was just released, addresses 29 major current issues. It also asks subjects to answer questions about them. rank them in terms of significance for the upcoming November election. Nuclear war is not mentioned. The threat is severe and increasing, and it’s easy to construct all-too-plausible scenarios that would lead up the escalation ladder to terminal destruction. But our leaders and “celebrated political scientists” assure us, either directly or implicitly: “No need for concern, take our word for it.”
The study leaves out some of the most important information. The amount of information that is included is even more alarming. “Of 29 issues we asked about,” the directors of the poll report, “registered voters overall indicated that global warming is the 24th most highly ranked voting issue.”
It is, along with nuclear war, the most important human-related issue.
You can see the worsening effects when you look closer. In just a few short months, Republicans may take over Congress. Their leadership isn’t hiding their intention to keep the political power they have, almost without the consent of the people. This might be possible with the help of the ultra-reactionary Supreme Court. The party — to dignify it with that word — has been 100 percent denialist on global warming since it succumbed to the Koch conglomerate onslaught in 2009, and the leadership has carried along the voting base. According to the Yale study, global warming was ranked 28th out of 29 options. The rest ranked global warming 29th.
The two most critical issues in human history are issues of literal survival. This is a continuation of the grim experiences of the four Trump years.
It is not completely off the agenda. There are voices of sanity. Some with considerable prestige and experience. A decade ago, four of them — William Perry, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and Sam Nunn — wrote an op-edIn The Wall Street Journal calling for “reversing the world’s reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.”
They are not the only ones. Last month (June 21,-23), the first meeting of states-parties of the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was held. Citing “increasingly strident nuclear rhetoric,” the TPNW states-parties issued the Vienna Declaration, which condemns all threats and use of nuclear weapons as violations international law, including the UN Charter. The declaration demands “that all nuclear-armed states never use or threaten to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances.”
Although the nuclear states have refused to sign the treaty, this can be changed under popular pressure, as we’ve seen many times before.
The 10th review conference under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty will be held in August. That could offer an opportunity for an organized public to demand adherence to its provisions, which call for “good faith” efforts to remove the scourge of nuclear weapons from the Earth, and while pursuing these efforts, to sharply reduce the enormous threats they pose.
This will not happen if two of the most important issues in human history are ignored. The one is almost entirely ignored, while the other barely receives a fraction the attention it needs if we want a livable planet.
We don’t have to be passive observers and be content to be used by the powerful. This is a choice, it’s not a necessity.
In an interview with The Independent, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian President, warned that there was a danger in the future. CNNThe possibility that Russia might use nukes in Ukraine is something that the world needs to consider. On several occasions, he has hinted that Ukraine could develop nuclear weapons despite being a signatory to Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. I don’t know if Ukraine has the capabilities to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapons program, but wouldn’t it be absolutely suicidal to do so?
Completely suicidal. Even the most tentative attempts would result in harsh retaliation and then escalatory ladder. It is not impossible, however, considering the insane leadership of the world.
Putin has openly stated that Russia is open to dialogue on nuclear non-proliferation, but the perspective on the part of the U.S. appears to be that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has subverted the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. I’d like your comments on this issue.
Let’s recall the overriding concern: The great powers will find a way to cooperate in addressing today’s critical problems, or the wreckage of human society will be so extreme that no one will care.
Therefore, it is important to consider all options for dialogue and, if possible, pursue them. In fact, it is possible to have dialogue in an international setting at NPT review conference. Or the option can be simply dismissed as unthinkable, adopting the stance of the West at the G20 conference last week, where Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, was treated “like a skunk at the tropical resort party, shunned by many, though by no means all.”
The final qualification is important. The West didn’t join the West in shunting the skunk. This included the Indonesian hosts who welcomed him and many others: China and India, Turkey, Turkey, Argentina, Brazil and others. This raises the question: Who is being isolated from the new world order?
This is not an idle question and it is not ignored. It is not an idle question, and there are serious reflections close to the centers. One example is an analysis of the evolving world orderGraham Fuller, ex-vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at CIA and responsible for global intelligence estimations. His analysis raises important issues that warrant close attention.
Fuller is not faking any doubts about the origins and nature of the war. Putin and his associates, the agents of criminal aggression, are the primary ones responsible. This should not be controversial. But “secondary condemnation belongs to the U.S. (NATO) in deliberately provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia. This war did not have to be if Ukrainian neutrality, á la Finland and Austria, had been accepted. Instead, Washington has called for clear Russian defeat.”
Fuller sees the conflict not as a “Ukrainian-Russian war but an American-Russian war fought by proxy to the last Ukrainian… And most of the rest of the world — Latin America, India, the Middle East and Africa — find few national interests in this fundamentally American war against Russia.”
Those who refused Russia to be shunned at the G20 conference strongly condemned it, but did not take too seriously their outrage at the U.S. allied. It is possible that they were asking if the U.S. was considered a pariah because of its many violent criminal acts. Many memories are enhanced by direct, vivid, and often horrific experiences. How are they supposed to pay attention when high-ranking violators of these principles protest against them?
Europe is already suffering badly, Fuller continues, and will, sooner or later, have to “return to the purchase of inexpensive Russian energy.” It has little realistic choice. “Russia lies on the doorstep and a natural economic relationship with Russia will possess overwhelming logic in the end.” Beyond that, “Europe can even less afford to blunder into confrontation with China — a ‘threat’ perceived primarily by Washington yet unconvincing to many European states and much of the world.” It will cost Europe dearly to isolate itself from China’s Belt and Road Initiative, “perhaps the most ambitious economic and geopolitical project in world history,” which runs right through Russia and “is already linking China with Europe by rail and sea… The end of the Ukraine war will bring serious reconsideration in Europe about the benefits of propping up Washington’s desperate bid to maintain its global hegemony.”
Another result of this desperate bid?
Russia’s geopolitical character has very likely now decisively tilted towards Eurasia… Russian elites now no longer possess an alternative to accepting that its economic future lies in the Pacific where Vladivostok lies only one or two hours away by air from the vast economies of Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul. China and Russia have been pushed closer together by common concern to prevent the US from imposing unilateral military and economic interventions around the globe. It is impossible to imagine that the US could split US-induced Russian and Chinese cooperation. Russia has scientific brilliance and abundant energy. It also has rich rare minerals, metals, and rich energy. Meanwhile, global warming will increase Siberia’s agricultural potential. China has the capital and markets, as well as the manpower, to play a role in what will be a natural partnership between Eurasia and China.
Fuller is not the only one. “The idea of Eurasia is once again the subject of geopolitics,” reads a headline in the London Economist. The report examines the renewed attention paid to the principle of Halford Mackinder, the founder of modern geopolitics. This is that central Asian control is crucial to world control. These ideas are changing as the Ukraine conflict reshapes global strategic landscapes in ways that could prove to be profound.
The “utter corruption” of the media, Fuller writes, is one of the most disturbing features of the current crisis: “In the midst of a virulent anti-Russian propaganda barrage whose likes I have never seen during my Cold Warrior days, serious analysts must dig deep these days to gain some objective understanding of what is actually taking place in Ukraine.”
This is good advice. There are many more. The tendencies that shape the world order are not permanent. Human agency has not ended. This crucially includes the agency and commitment of an organized public to take advantage of the opportunities available for dialogue and accommodation. The alternatives are too dark to contemplate.
The late 1950s are the beginning of the nuclear disarmament movement. The prospects for nuclear disarmament look dim, if they are not negligible. Nuclear disarmament will require that nations-states trust one another, which is a zero-probability situation in the real-world, but it is also highly doubtful that the nuclear know-how genie can ever come back in the bottle. What is the best way to avoid nuclear war? What are the best ways to avoid nuclear war?
There are realistic ways to reduce the likelihood of terminal war — once again, the appropriate term for nuclear war involving great powers. The best way to reduce the likelihood of a nuclear war is to establish a serious arms control system. Elements of such a regime had been laboriously constructed since Eisenhower’s Open Skies proposals in 1955 — dismantled by Trump in May 2020 when he was wielding his wrecking ball. There were other important steps forward, among them the Reagan-Gorbachev Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 1987, which significantly reduced the threat of outbreak of terminal war in Europe — and, we should not forget, was impelled by enormous popular anti-nuclear protests in Europe and the U.S. Another step was the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which both sides recognized to be a “substantial factor in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms.”
George W. Bush dismantled The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, (ABM), and Trump renegotiated the INF Treaty.
There was little left after Trump’s presidency, except for the New START Treaty, which Biden was able just days later to save from destruction. It was set to expire shortly following his inauguration.
There is more, such as Trump’s destruction of the joint agreement (JCPOA) on Iranian nuclear programs in violation of the UN Security Council, which had endorsed it, another contribution of the modern GOP to global destruction.
One of the greatest tragedies of the Ukraine conflict is that the means to reduce the threat of a final war are being thrown out of the window. The U.S. cannot be expected to make any agreements with the party of the skunks. The impending return of full power to the party of the wreckers only adds to the tragedy.
However, the same mass mobilization tactics that brought about earlier steps towards sanity may still be effective. This means that we must first revive the tattered arms control system and then move on to greater heights.
If enough popular pressure was mounted, there could be other steps taken. In fact, the August NPT conference will be held in the coming weeks. There are other possibilities than just pushing forward the TPNW and the NPT’s stated goals. A Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone in the Middle East (NWFZ), is one of the key issues that will likely be brought up again at the conference. This could be a significant step in international security. Popular pressure could make it a reality.
At NPT review sessions, the establishment of a Middle East NWFZ has been discussed frequently. This was mainly at the initiative of the Arab countries, who have threatened to withdraw from it if they don’t take the necessary steps to implement it. It enjoys almost universal support, but it is constantly blocked by Washington, most recently by Obama during the 2015 conference.
Let’s review the facts. The call for a Mideast NWFZ has been supported by Iran, the Arab states, and the Global South. G-77 now includes 134 countries, which is the vast majority of the world. Europe has no objections. The unilateral U.S. objection is accompanied by various pieties, which can be easily dismissed. The real reason is clear: the enormous Israeli nuclear weapons system, which is the only one in the region must not be subjected to international regulation. This is not an option. The New York Times editors made clear recently in calling for a “Nuclear-Weapons-Free Persian Gulf” — Persian GulfNot the Middle East. A Persian Gulf NWFZ, the editors say, would be “One Way Forward on Iran,” which is causing troubles once again by adhering to the unanimous consensus (minus the Master).
The U.S. refuses to officially acknowledge Israel’s nuclear weapons facilities, presumably because to do so would call into question the legality of all U.S. aid to Israel, under U.S. law. That’s a door that both political parties have insisted on keeping tightly shut, but as public opinion on the matter has been visibly shifting, there are some breaks in rigid discipline. One example of this is Congressional Rep. Betty McCollum. She sponsored legislation to ban Israel. using U.S. military aid to attack Palestinian children.
Establishment of NRFZs is an important step towards reducing nuclear weapons threats. This would be a very important step if they were implemented. They are currently being blocked by the U.S. insistence that they maintain nuclear weapons facilities within them. This is something we have previously reviewed.
All of these could be on the agenda right now as a way to address the terminal threat.
Beyond that, there is the overriding concern: To repeat again, the great powers will find a way to cooperate in addressing today’s critical problems, or nothing else will matter.
