If George Bush were to be judged by the standards of the Nuremberg Tribunals, he'd be hanged. So too, mind you, would every single American President since the end of the second world war, including Jimmy Carter.
The suggestion comes from perhaps the most feted liberal intellectual in the world - the American linguist Noam Chomsky. His latest attack on the way his country behaves in the world is called Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global Dominance.
Jeremy Paxman met him at the British Museum, where they talked in the Assyrian Galleries. He asked him whether he was suggesting there was nothing new in the so-called Bush Doctrine.
Well, it depends. It is recognised to be
revolutionary. Henry Kissinger for
example described it as a revolutionary
new doctrine which tears to shreds
the Westphalian System, the 17th
century system of International Order
and of course the UN Charter. But
nevertheless, and has been very
widely criticised within the foreign
policy elite. But on narrow ground the
doctrine is not really new, it's extreme.
What was the United States supposed
to do after 9/11? It had been the victim
of a grotesque, intentional attack, what
was it supposed to do but try...?
Why pick 9/11? Why not pick 1993.
Actually the fact that the terrorist act
succeeded in September 11th did not
alter the risk analysis. In 1993, similar
groups, US trained Jihadi's came very
close to blowing up the World Trade
Center, with better planning, they
probably would have killed tens of
thousands of people. Since then it was
known that this is very likely. In fact
right through the 90's there was
technical literature predicting it, and we
know what to do. What you do is police
work. Police work is the way to stop
terrorist acts and it succeeded.
But you are suggesting the United
States in that sense is the author of
Its own Nemesis.
Well, first of all this is not my opinion.
It's the opinion of just about every
specialist on terrorism. Take a look,
say at Jason Burke's recent book on
Al-Qaeda which is just the best book
there is. What he points out is, he runs
through the record of how each act of
violence has increased recruitment
financing mobilisation, what he says is,
I'm quoting him, that each act of
violence is a small victory for Bin
But why do you imagine George Bush
behaves like this?
Because I don't think they care that
much about terror, in fact we know
that. Take say the invasion of Iraq, it
was predicted by just about every
specialist by intelligence agencies that
the invasion of Iraq would increase the
threat of Al-Qaeda style terror which is
exactly what happened. The point is
Then why would he do it?
Because invading Iraq has value in
Itself, I mean establishing...
Well what value?
What value? Establishing the first
secure military base in a dependant
client state at the heart of the energy
producing region of the world.
Don't you even think that the people of Iraq are better off having got rid of a dictator?
That, they got rid of two brutal regimes,
one that we are supposed to talk
about, the other one we are not
suppose to talk about. The two brutal
regimes were Saddam Hussein's and
the US-British sanctions, which were
devastating society, had killed
hundreds of thousands of people, were
forcing people to be reliant on Saddam
Hussein. Now the sanctions could
obviously have been turned to
weapons rather than destroying
society without an invasion. If that had
happened it is not at all impossible that
the people of Iraq would have sent
Saddam Hussein the same way to the
same fate as other monsters
supported by the US and Britain.
Ceausescu, Suharto, Duvalier, Marcos,
there's a long list of them. In fact the
people, the westerners who know Iraq
best were predicting this all along.
You seem to be suggesting or
implying, perhaps I'm being unfair to
you, but you seem to be implying there
is some equivalence between
democratically elected heads of state
like George Bush or Prime Ministers
like Tony Blair and regimes in places
The term moral equivalence is an
interesting one, it was invented I think
by Jeane Kirkpatrick as a method of
trying to prevent criticism of foreign
policy and state decisions. It has a
meaning less notion, there is no moral
equivalence what so ever.
Is it a good thing if it is preferable for
an individual to live in a liberal
democracy, is there benefit to be
gained by spreading the values of that
democracy however you can?
That reminds me of the question that
Ghandi was once asked about western
civilisation, what did he think of it. He
said yeah, it would be a good idea. In
fact it would be a good idea to spread
the values of liberal democracy, but
that I would be a good idea to spread
the values of liberal democracy. But
that's not what the US and Britain are
trying to do, it's not what they've done
in the past, I mean take a look at the
regions under their domination. They
don't spread liberal democracy. What
they spread is dependence and
subordination. Furthermore its well-
known there is a large part of the
reason for the reason the great
opposition to the US policy within the
Middle East. In fact this was known in
But there is a whole slur of countries in
eastern Europe right now that would
say we are better off now than we
were when we were living under the
Soviet Empire. As a consequence of
how the west behaved.
Well, and there is a lot of countries in
US domains, like Central America, the
Caribbean who wish that they could be
free of American domination. We don't
pay much attention to what happens
there but they do. In the 1980s when
the current incumbents were in their
Reganite phase. Hundreds of
thousands of people were slaughtered
in Central America. The US carried out
a massive terrorist attack against
Nicaragua, mainly as a war on the
church. They assassinated an
Archbishop and murdered six leading
Jesuit intellectuals. This is in El
Salvador. It was a monstrous period.
What did they impose? Was it liberal
You've mentioned on two or three
occasions this relationship between
the United States and Britain. Do you
understand why Tony Blair behaved
as he did over Afghanistan and Iraq?
Well, if you look at the British
diplomatic history, back in the 1940s,
Britain had to make a decision. Britain
had been the major world power, the
United States though by far the richest
country in the world was not a major
actor in the global scene, except
regionally. By the Second World War it
was obvious the US was going to be
the dominant power, everyone knew
that. Britain had to make a choice.
Was it going to be part of what would
ultimately be a Europe that might
move towards independence, or would
it be what the Foreign Office called a
junior partner to the United States?
Well it essentially made that choice to
be a junior partner to the United
States. US, the leaders have no
illusions about this. So during the
Cuban missile crisis for example, you
look at the declassified record, they
treated Britain with total contempt.
Harold McMillan wasn't even informed
of what was going on and Britain's
existence was at stake. It was
dangerous. One high official, probably
Dean Acheson and he's not identified,
described Britain as in his words "Our
lieutenant, the fashionable word is
partner". Well the British would like to
hear the fashionable word, but the
masters use the actual word. Those
are choices Britain has to make. I
mean why Blair decided, I couldn't say.
Noam Chomsky, thank you.
This transcript was produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.