Noam Chomsky recientemente

Una amistad del tiempo, desde Colombia donde estudia, me envió un enlace de un diario digital en Costa Rica. Este es sobre una entrevista hecha a Noam Chomsky en la cual Miguel Vera le hace una serie de preguntas sobre la política exterior de Barak Obama (recientemente cumplió 200 días en el poder)

Pensé si quería anotar aquí el "link" con el artículo pues si bien es cierto no quisiera dudar del Diario,(el mundo digital es como un mundo de cuentos), todo es posible sea tarde o temprano. En todo caso aquí está: http://www.informa-tico.com/index.php?scc=articulo&ref=12-08-090013&noti=1

Como aún así tengo mi sospecha, pues me fui a la página del autor mencionado, la que está en Zspace y que encuentro bastante actualizada, realmente su blog está allí http://www.zmag.org/zspace/noamchomsky

No encontré artículo similar o entrevista. Asumo que no busqué lo suficiente o bien me aburrí en el mar de cosas y a estas horas de la noche. Ya no importa. Lo cierto es que hay algunos "posts" recientes, con un sabor interesante. Me gustó este titulado "Season of Travesties: Freedom and Democracy in mid-2009" Si hay chance, si no odian tanto al Chomsky como para leerlo, tomen un poco de tiempo, que tiene su "toque no se qué" y en este caso, quizá compartan hasta lo que dice

Anoto algo para calentar: The discussions about Responsibility to Protect (R2P), or its cousin "humanitarian intervention," are regularly disturbed by the rattling of a skeleton in the closet: history, to the present moment.

Throughout history, there have been a few principles of international affairs that apply quite generally. One is the maxim of Thucydides that the strong do as they wish, while the weak suffer as they must. A corollary is what Ian Brownlie calls "the hegemonial approach to law-making": the voice of the powerful sets precedents.

Another principle derives from Adam Smith's account of policy-making in England: the "principal architects" of policy -- in his day the "merchants and manufacturers" -- make sure that their own interests are "most peculiarly attended to" however "grievous" the effect on others, including the people of England -- but far more so, those who were subjected to "the savage injustice of the Europeans," particularly in conquered India, Smith's own prime concern.

A third principle is that virtually every use of force in international affairs has been justified in terms of R2P, including the worst monsters. Just to illustrate, in his scholarly study of "humanitarian intervention," Sean Murphy cites only three examples between the Kellogg-Briand pact and the UN Charter: Japan's attack on Manchuria, Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia, and Hitler's occupation of parts of Czechoslovakia, all accompanied by lofty rhetoric about the solemn responsibility to protect the suffering populations, and factual justifications. The basic pattern continues to the present. The historical record is worth recalling when we hear R2P or its cousin described as an "emerging norm" in international affairs. They have been considered a norm as far back as we want to go.

Saludos.