David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Author of "War Is A Lie", Mr. Swanson blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015 and 2016 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. In an exclusive interview with Khamenei.ir, Mr. Swanson talks about the U.S.'s ongoing wars and agressions on nations as well as presidential campaigns:
How did US corporations benefit from Iraq war? Which ones were the biggest profiteers?
Remains to be seen as it is ongoing, but the biggest initial profiteers were the oil corporations that saw their prices soar. Then came the weapons and other military contractors. U.S. military spending is still about 90% higher than it was in 2001, and other countries have boosted their spending accordingly, largely with purchases of U.S. weapons -- using free money from the U.S. government in cases like Israel and Egypt. The Department of "Defense" has spent $82,421,486,217 on 40,369 contracts in Iraq in 2000 to 2015.
How did the US forces or private contractors violate human rights during the Iraq war?
By waging war, dropping bombs, shooting guns, using firebombs and depleted uranium and cluster bombs and white phosphorous, kicking in doors, kidnapping, imprisoning, torturing, destroying infrastructure, etc., etc.
Do you think in its so-called fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the US administration is making the same mistakes as it did in the war on Iraq?
The same basic mistake of killing lots of people and imagining it will accomplish something good, yes. But with lots of variations. The U.S. government is fighting both ISIS and the Syrian government, which are fighting each other. Which is better than ever for weapons sales but worse than ever for the ability to imagine some sort of successful outcome.
Why do you think the International community does nothing to hold the U.S. accountable for the crimes it commits against humanity?
In part, ideology, the belief that when the United States does it it's for a higher purpose. In part, corruption: threats, bribes, pay-offs, trade-offs. The U.S. Congress passed a bill to allow victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia in court. This was passed over a veto by President Obama who warned that this new law might encourage victims of U.S. wars around the world to begin suing the U.S. government. Let's hope so.
President John Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." Most people in the United States would rather see their government sued for its crimes than see their streets bombed. Let's have less violence from all sides and more court cases!
CIA has attempted to oust more than 50 democratically elected governments since World War II, as William Blum -a former state department staff-argues. What’s your take on it?
I agree with Bill. As we recounted in a new film between 1950 and 2000, the U.S. government has overthrown 60 democratically elected governments, bombed over 30 nations (7 being bombed right now), tried to assassinate over 60 foreign leaders, and succeeded in killing millions of human beings, with no significant benefits to weight against the damage.
What is the viable solution which would put an end to the US administrations’ continued interventions in the internal affairs of other nations?
The use of nonviolence.
Why do you think the 2016 presidential candidates don’t discuss the runaway national security state, and the endless war and surveillance that underpins it?
Jill Stein does. The others support it but know it is unpopular, so are happy to avoid the topic. Clinton seems to be both a true believer in war and completely corrupted by funding from weapon makers and other profiteers as well as from foreign governments. Donald Trump seems to be very ill informed and not very thoughtful, as well as completely willing to be corrupted by power and media preferences. He'll blurt out that NATO serves no purpose because that obvious fact apparently just occurred to him as he said it. But he'll retract the statement when people in power dislike it. He'll also support massive warfare when it occurs to him that doing so makes him look tough. He primarily wants attention, and the U.S. media wants war more than peace. War gives networks better ratings, as well as fitting the ideology of their owners.
Among US presidential candidates, Dr. Jill Stein has posed as the leading voice against US military aggression. How do you see her plans to limit US military interventions?
I agree with and have worked with her. Her platform would be very popular in the United States if people were to hear about it. She intends to end current wars, stop launching new ones, close foreign bases, and create a foreign policy based on equality, the rule of law, aid, and diplomacy. It wouldn't be hard for the United States to begin a reverse arms race or to make itself the most loved nation on earth. It just takes the will of those in power to do it.
Comment