13/04/2019 2 articles democracynow.org  6 min #154731

Julian Assange arrêté par la police britannique et inculpé de «piratage» aux Etats-Unis (En Continu)

Chomsky: Arrest of Assange Is « Scandalous » and Highlights Shocking Extraterritorial Reach of U.s.

 Noam Chomsky
world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author. He is a laureate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona and professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than 50 years.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I'm Amy Goodman in Boston, as we sit down with Noam Chomsky for a public conversation. I asked him about the arrest of Julian Assange.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the Assange arrest is scandalous in several respects. One of them is just the effort of governmentsand it's not just the U.S. government. The British are cooperating. Ecuador, of course, is now cooperating. Sweden, before, had cooperated. The efforts to silence a journalist who was producing materials that people in power didn't want the rascal multitude to know aboutOK?that's basically what happened. WikiLeaks was producing things that people ought to know about those in power. People in power don't like that, so therefore we have to silence it. OK? This is the kind of thing, the kind of scandal, that takes place, unfortunately, over and over.

To take another example, right next door to Ecuador, in Brazil, where the developments that have gone on are extremely important. This is the most important country in Latin America, one of the most important in the world. Under the Lula government early in this millennium, Brazil was the mostmaybe the most respected country in the world. It was the voice for the Global South under the leadership of Lula da Silva. Notice what happened. There was a coup, soft coup, to eliminate the nefarious effects of the labor party, the Workers' Party. These are described by the World Banknot me, the World Bankas the "golden decade" in Brazil's history, with radical reduction of poverty, a massive extension of inclusion of marginalized populations, large parts of the populationAfro-Brazilian, indigenouswho were brought into the society, a sense of dignity and hope for the population. That couldn't be tolerated.

After Lula'safter he left office, a kind of a "soft coup" take placeI won't go through the details, but the last move, last September, was to take Lula da Silva, the leading, the most popular figure in Brazil, who was almost certain to win the forthcoming election, put him in jail, solitary confinement, essentially a death sentence, 25 years in jail, banned from reading press or books, and, crucially, barred from making a public statementunlike mass murderers on death row. This, in order to silence the person who was likely to win the election. He's the most important political prisoner in the world. Do you hear anything about it?

Well, Assange is a similar case: We've got to silence this voice. You go back to history. Some of you may recall when Mussolini's fascist government put Antonio Gramsci in jail. The prosecutor said, "We have to silence this voice for 20 years. Can't let it speak." That's Assange. That's Lula. There are other cases. That's one scandal.

The other scandal is just the extraterritorial reach of the United States, which is shocking. I mean, why should the United Stateswhy should anyno other state could possibly do it. But why should the United States have the power to control what others are doing elsewhere in the world? I mean, it's an outlandish situation. It goes on all the time. We never even notice it. At least there's no comment on it.

Like, take the trade agreements with China. OK? What are the trade agreements about? They're an effort to prevent China's economic development. It's exactly what they are. Now, China has a development model. The Trump administration doesn't like it. So, therefore, let's undermine it. Ask yourself: What would happen if China did not observe the rules that the United States is trying to impose? China, for example, when Boeing or Microsoft, some other major company, invests in China, China wants to have some control over the nature of the investment. They want some degree of technology transfer. They should gain something from the technology. Is there something wrong with that? That's how the United States developed, stealingwhat we call stealingtechnology from England. It's how England developed, taking technology from more advanced countriesIndia, the Low Countries, even Ireland. That's how every developed country has reached the stage of advanced development. If Boeing and Microsoft don't like those arrangements, they don't have to invest in China. Nobody has a gun to their heads. If anybody really believed in capitalism, they should be free to make any arrangement they want with China. If it involves technology transfer, OK. The United States wants to block that, so China can't develop.

Take what are called intellectual property rights, exorbitant patent rights for medicines, for Windows, for example. Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, through the World Trade Organization. Suppose China didn't observe these. Who would benefit, and who would lose? Well, the fact of the matter is that consumers in the United States would benefit. It would mean that you'd get cheaper medicines. It would mean that when you get a computer, that you wouldn't be stuck with Windows. You could get a better operating system. Bill Gates would have a little less money. The pharmaceutical corporations wouldn't be as super-rich as they are, a little less rich. But the consumers would benefit. Is there something wrong with that? Is there a problem with that?

Well, you might ask yourself: What lies behind all of these discussions and negotiations? This is true across the board. Almost any issue you pick, you can ask yourself: Why is this accepted? So, in this case, why is it acceptable for the United States to have the power to even begin to give even a proposal to extradite somebody whose crime is to expose to the public materials that people in power don't want them to see? That's basically what's happening.

The original content of this program is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

 democracynow.org

 Commenter

Articles enfants
15/04/2019 les-crises.fr  8 min #154804

Chomsky: Arrest of Assange Is « Scandalous » and Highlights Shocking Extraterritorial Reach of U.s.

Noam Chomsky, 90 ans : A propos d'Orwell, des chauffeurs de taxi, et du rejet de l'endoctrinement. Par John Nichols

Source : The Nation, John Nichols, 07-12-2018

Toujours aussi affûté, il ne retient pas ses coups, dénonçant les failles du capitalisme et les abus de pouvoir, épargnant peu de politiciens et aucun parti.

par John Nichols

le 7 décembre 2018

Noam Chomsky lors d'un événement à Karlsruhe, Allemagne, le 30 mai 2014. (Uli Deck / AP)

Noam Chomsky a été décrit, avec justesse, dans une critique de livre du New York Times publiée il y a près de quarante ans comme étant « sans doute l'intellectuel le plus important en vie aujourd'hui ».