After an interview with world-renowned scholar, American linguist, prominent philosopher, and political activist Noam Chomsky, Alessia Mazuelos reflects on the exceptionalism and imperialism of American foreign affairs, and re-considers the so-called threats to the US’ hegemonic influence. Is it facing manifold foreign threats, or simply on a domestic path towards self-destruction?

You can access and view the Full Interview here.

The US’ long-standing foreign policies reflect the “standard imperial policy” of its global predecessors, Britain and France, and acts with the same imperialist aims. Recent events have only enhanced this characterization; from the war in Afghanistan, the current Russo-Ukrainian War, and Sino-American relations around the Taiwan straits. The critique posited by Noam Chomsky throughout this interview on US exceptionalism relied on the two main problems of this doctrine: “(it) disregards everything (wrong) that it’s done and (...) it’s not exceptional (because) every other country was the same way”, as is the norm for imperialist powers. 

Unjustified Reasoning Behind the Invasion of Afghanistan and the US Withdrawal

In the case of Afghanistan, the withdrawal of American troops “was carried out in a way which quite predictably wrote to total collapse,” Chomsky explained. Leaving behind a “shadow government (that) had no backing and (an) Afghan army (that) much of it didn’t exist.” 

When assessing the original reasons for the US’ invasion of Afghanistan, the only logical and backed-up response that emerges is one given by the leading figure of the anti-Taliban resistance in Afghanistan, Commander Abdul Haq, who explained in a 2001 interview with Anatol Lieven that US bombing was “trying to show its muscle, score a victory and scare everyone in the world.” Professor Chomsky considered that Abdul Haq, despite only directly commenting on US bombing, perhaps gave the only appropriate answer to the everlasting question of ‘Why did the US invade Afghanistan?’ Since many have now concluded that “the US had no reason to invade”, the Commander’s comment has strong foundations. Alongside this, Chomsky referenced the press conference given by the contemporary head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, when he was asked: “who was responsible for 9/11”. His response revealed that while Washington suspected it was Al-Qaeda, they were still in an ongoing investigation and did not know. Pushing forward, the professor concluded that this ultimately revealed the promise made by President George W. Bush of hunting down and finding “those folks who committed this act” was indeed ‘hollow’, and evidence of the ‘nonexistent’ intelligence that the United States had regarding the authors of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 

Unfortunately, US foreign policy in Afghanistan is not only controversial in regard to the invasion itself, but also for the nature and repercussions of the War, its length, and finally the eventual withdrawal. Chomsky illustrated a highly opportunistic, intimidating, and imperialistic US presence in Afghanistan. He first alluded to when “the Taliban offered to surrender (just weeks into the war), which would have meant giving over the Al-Qaeda,” this was rejected by the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, a decision that was affirmed by President Bush. This displayed the US’ lack of focus on Al-Qaeda in the invasion of Afghanistan, inevitably sparking the debate over whether the War really had to happen, as reflected in The New York Times. Hence, considering this portrayal of the US, it is not surprising that after roughly 176,000 direct war deaths following the invasion, its 20th anniversary was celebrated in the United States. For instance, there was “an interview with President George W. Bush,” as Chomsky, ‘the father of modern linguistics’, remembers, where he is ‘showing off’ paintings from famous fellow world leaders that this ‘goofy dad’ had met, portraying him with a different type of reputation and popularity compared to his time.

However, regardless of the destruction exerted by the American foreign policy in Afghanistan,  and despite the fact that their genuine interest in invading Afghanistan had originated from ‘a real crime target’ to attack Iraq. Chomsky emphasised that “there was (not) any ulterior motive, there’s no strategic motive”. Before moving on, he sighed that, in the case of Afghanistan, the US position was ultimately: “if we kill a couple of million Afghans, too bad. It’s not our problem.”

American Foreign Policy after the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: ‘No negotiations, no diplomacy.’

Concerning the Russo-Ukrainian war that began on 24th February 2022, it has been widely argued that the US has ended its so-called ‘zombie policy’. According to Anatol Lieven, this policy referred to the continuous American objectives in front of the Minsk Agreement and the 2014 coup d’etat wherein the Russian-oriented Ukrainian government was overthrown to institute a western-oriented regime. This has in-part contributed to the reasons behind the Crimean War and the annexation of Ukraine. Chomsky explains that “before the invasion, the United States didn’t have a coherent policy,” stubbornly continuing with their “dead strategy” or ‘zombie policy’ but since the Russian invasion, there is a clear approach of “no negotiations, no diplomacy,” as was made evident in the April 2022 meeting organised by Washington with NATO in Ramstein, Germany. In this meeting, Chomsky argues, the US cemented NATO’s position around the notion “we all believe that Ukraine will win the war” which was communicated by the US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, who confidently asserted that “Ukraine believes it can win. And so does everyone here”. This policy of optimism did not sit well with the renowned scholar Chomsky, who admitted how in his view, Ukraine winning the War would’ve be ‘crazy’. He confidently remarked, “they are not going to defeat Russia” because if there were ever the slightest possibility of Russia’s defeat, “they’d use the weapons that of course, they have.”

When reflecting on how the Russo-Ukrainian War could progress, Chomsky expressed there were two routes in his opinion: the first one is to end the war “through a diplomatic settlement,” and the second one is to ultimately “reject the diplomatic settlement”, which would then mean that “the war will go on until one side capitulates and it’s not gonna be Russia.” With an American foreign policy that, after resetting, explicitly supports blocking diplomacy, the likely end of the war would therefore be the second route introduced by Chomsky. This, he explained, would not involve a settlement but a weakening of Russia “so severely that it will never be able to undertake aggression again”. In this way, the American linguist alluded to the Versailles treaty, confessing how, in his eyes, it was not strong enough because “Germany could conduct aggression again,” so for Russia, a much more extreme defeat than Versailles would have to be imposed. 

Reflecting on this, the American policy of ‘no negotiations, no diplomacy’ in the Russo-Ukrainian War cannot be more accurately illustrated than the way in which the American diplomat Chas Friedman described how the US and the West “will fight (Russia) to the last Ukrainian for Ukrainian Independence,”. This brutal reality is a reference to the ‘Afghan model’ from the book Out of Afghanistan by Diego Cordovez and Selig S. Harrison on the 1980s Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The ‘Afghan trap’ policy, named by US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, which focused on drawing Russians into conflict to keep the War going was seen by Cordovez and Harrison as the US “fighting (Russia) to the last Afghan,” which resembles contemporary American foreign policy in Ukraine. 

This ‘no diplomacy’ US foreign policy, cheered on by Europe as Chomsky noted in a critical tone, demonstrates how “the political elite has gone insane” when considering that the US and its Western allies are very capable of helping Ukraine expel Russian forces or negotiate for Russia’s withdrawal. Despite these options, the US relationship with Ukraine seems to better resemble what was termed by the Global Times as “I love you, but I cannot protect you.” Thus, regardless of the fact that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “is a criminal invasion, (...) a war crime,” the US does not feel it is its responsibility to pursue a diplomatic settlement, meaning the war can “devastate Ukraine much worse.” Chomsky insisted on a return to the ‘elementary logic’ of a diplomatic settlement to look at all possible outcomes, stating that this was not only the most logical alternative but the only option “if you care at all about (...) Ukrainians.” Despite this, he went on to agree with  former CIA agent Graham E. Fuller who said that even if the diplomatic settlement can guarantee “some kind of escapage,” it frequently  “means an ugly settlement, (...) not the kind you’d like, (...) no justice” which was characteristic of the world of international affairs which “is not a morality play.”

Sino-American Relations,  the ‘Chinese Threat’ and the Rising Tensions in Taiwan

The rising tensions between China and Taiwan did not seem to be of concern for Noam Chomsky, who is attributed with bringing the diplomatic position of a ‘One China Policy’, that has been effectively held for 50 years, into the discussion. Its inception came from a diplomatic acknowledgement between China and the US who established their foreign relations with one another “rather than (with) the island of Taiwan”, made viable by the fact that the US agreed that Taiwan is part of the reunifying China. Even though the current Sino-Taiwanese tensions have not been seen to this extent before, Chomsky still believes that both sides are aware that any provocative actions will lead to major consequences. He reiterated his half-century old policy; if the ‘One China Policy’ has “held for 50 years, (it) can continue” and furthermore, in his view, “China (does not want) an invasion, and the US certainly shouldn’t.” 

Sino-American relations are some of the most complex in history, followed by Russo-American affairs. Hence, the Trump administration in 2018 did not seek to change their strategy, and, just as Chomsky has explored, the US is still committed to being “prepared to fight and win two wars simultaneously: one against China and one against Russia.” He did not hesitate to affirm that “the war against either would be the termination of the human species” because a war against nuclear power is impossible. This is much more the case when assessing the revelations made by Noam Chomsky on the strategic analysis and posture accepted by Biden’s administration of needing to strengthen and help build up the US militarily, not to attempt the impossible of winning both wars, but to surround China with a ring of sentinel states. He remarked that these had most recently been seen in  “the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue,” and in their efforts to update their arsenal, because a single US nuclear submarine capable of destroying around 200 cities is “not powerful enough.” However, the significance of the US grand strategy for a growing China is that it brings the so-called ‘Chinese aggression’ into question: “What exactly is ‘Chinese aggression’; and where is ‘Chinese aggression’? Asked one of the most important intellectuals alive today.

Professor Chomsky paraphrased the words of former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating to commend his most pertinent answer to what ‘the China threat’ really is, asserting that “the threat of China is that China exists” and “it is not following US orders (because) it’s not like Europe,” it cannot “be intimidated the way Europe can be.” This is because, for a global hegemon such as the United States, even if China is uninterested in “turning over the existing world order,” a China that simply aims to reform global regimes currently exists, which is intolerable to the US. This threat unquestionably requires the “continuation of the normal (American foreign) policy,” which is “to prepare for a major war to counter this threat,” as Chomsky concludes. Chomsky maintains his reputation as the west’s most prominent critic of US imperialism and foreign affairs, outlining how illogical it would be to consider the possibility of China surpassing the United States as ‘a threat’ and terming this behaviour “operative lunacy.” Chomsky calls for the need to celebrate China’s development ahead of the US rather than calling it a threat: “we should be cheering it, we should be cooperating with China to ensure that”, since the world will benefit from it. In closing his response to the question on the China threat, Chomsky reflected on the internal problems of the US that reveal how it “is destroying itself from inside in all sorts of ways” and that “the biggest threat to America's security and prosperity comes not from abroad, but from within.”

The End of the US Global Hegemony: Are We Witnessing The Revival of Russia and the Rise of China, or the Self-Destructing Domestic Politics Within the United States?

This question had a straightforward answer for Chomsky after he described throughout the interview what ‘a crazy society’ the US has to be to grant everyone the right to carry concealed weapons for ‘self-defence’ or for Congress to get the Republican vote to a bill that is beneficial to the American society only because it was presented “as a China Competition Bill.” He unhesitantly affirmed that “it’s self-destruction, in any objective case” but that the “US global domination should be able to continue indefinitely” because of how much of an advantage in all aspects, it has compared to any other country in the world and history. The description the self-described libertarian socialist gave of Russia and China is that Russia is merely “a declining kleptocracy, (...) a T-Rex” and “China is not a potential global hegemon (as) it has enormous problems internally.” Therefore, the furore Washington expresses in front of the alleged ‘threats’ these states represent to the United States cannot be more controversially described than the way Chomsky does: “well, that’s imperial mentality. (...) It’s like the Mafia (...) you must follow orders; if you don’t, we’re gonna crush you.”