It is recognized to him like one of the most important linguists of the world, and in addition it is catalogued to him more like one of the ten mentioned intellectuals in all the history of the humanity. One is the philosopher and North American mathematician Noam Chomsky, who was this week in Bogota to receive the doctorate honoris cause on the part of the National University of Colombia.

Before returning to his country it engaged in a dialog with the Spectator on diverse subjects of the national present time, and in individual on one of the aspects that greater controversy has provoked in diverse academic circles of the world: the sociopolítico analysis of the relations of the United States with other nations and in special with the countries of denominated the Third World.

P. How it evaluates the position that has assumed today the United States as far as its fight against the antinarcotic terrorism and its policy?

R. To EU drug traffic does not worry to him mainly. Rather there is an internal problem that has EU with the use of these dangerous substances. And most dangerous, of distant spot, it is the tobacco. The following one would be the alcohol and much less significant it would be the cocaine. And I mean to him that, in addition, everybody knows how to handle them. Let us suppose the case of the tobacco, that he is most serious, is almost average million deaths to the year produced by its consumption, it was not handled fumigating the tobacco cultures of Carolina of the North, nor was solved sending paramilitary swarms to assassinate union leaders. It was handled with educative programs and of treatment.

P. Then, really which is the EU interest, for example in Colombia?

R. It is a different interest. They are programs that have taken during many years and the illicit drug production is not reduced. And the illicit drug consumption in EU does not lower. There it is understood perfectly that the way to reduce the consumption is with the prevention and the treatment. But the policies with respect to drugs for the case of Colombia yes have consequences, like the destruction of the social movements, leaves from the general program of counterinsurgency. For that reason it is fumigated in the Putumayo but not in the north, where the paramilitary ones have control of the drug production. And therefore it is that it is not persecuted to the North American banks that wash hundreds of million dollars derived from the drug traffic. In Colombia one is a counterinsurgency program. A policy that also has consequences in EU. Veamos the number of people who are jailed. For years 80, the volume of population jailed in the EU was at the same comparable level that had the other industrialized countries. Whereas today it is five times over the volume of these countries. But this does not have to do with the crime but with the use of the drugs by those who denominate dangerous classes: black, Hispanic or poor of EU. Are plus a form to exert social control.

P. Create then that the fight undertaken by EU in front of the terrorism in Colombia is a contrainsurgente fight?

R. This already had occurred before the 11 of September. In fact it has been decades and not only in Colombia. During years 80, for example, the main preoccupation was Central America, and the position that was assumed before the public one was that EU was being defended before the terrorism. Let us remember that the administration of president Reagan arrived at the power 20 years ago and proclaimed that its main activity would be the fight against the terrorism, a "plague" that was implementing a population "depraveed" of the civilization. And that was going to develop to that policy in Central America and the Middle East. And we know well how that war was developed: in the Middle East, giving him support and support to the main atrocities that have been carried out in that region, and America Center, creating the greater terrorist organization of all history. After all, EU is the only country that has been condemned by the World-wide Court (The World Court) by international terrorism.

P. And how to understand the decision of the Department of State to certify to the Colombian Army in the matter of human rights?

R. Also one has occurred traditionally. In Guatemala and El Salvador, during years 80, the governments exerted a genocide policy. Nevertheless, the agreements fulfillment in and commitment with respect to the DH. were certified as far as and the Turkish government, during years 90, was praised by his record in DH and were carrying out the worse atrocities of the decade with North American armament and diplomatic support of EU. And the same it is valid for Colombia. Now the North American Congress imposes legislative conditions to the North American aid, so that the Government of EU is forced to consult with the DH organizations before giving aid him to some country. And only during the last months information documented enough have taken place that talk about to the participation of the Colombian military in some of the worse massacres. He is not something new. Clinton did the same. Not only in Colombia but also in Indonesia. They had to find the way to evade the restrictions imposed by the North American Congress to give that aid illegally. And the same it happened in El Salvador, Guatemala and with the cons in Nicaragua. The difference now is that the legislation approved by the Congress occurs to aid violating. During years 60 it was made the same, but then there were no legislative restrictions.

P. How can be understood the decision of the European Union of not including in the list of terrorists the CRAF?

R. The list of terrorist organizations that has produced the Department of State and the Ministry of Outer Relations of EU is a joke. For example, Cuba appears like one of the main terrorist States. And in spite of which it is wanted to think on Cuba, this country does not participate in the international terrorism. Rather, Cuba has the record of being the main victim of the international terrorism of last the 40 years. And the same it is valid for the other organizations of countries that appear in the list. Of such form that Turkey, Colombia, Israel or other States EU clients do not appear in the list because their acts of terrorism are carried out with North American aid. In the case of the UE, I suppose that probably they are looking for that some form of negotiation occurs and that the conflict can be mitigated. He is reasonable. But if the UE wanted to be honest in their listing of terrorists, they would have to include its own governments, to EU, the Colombian Government and the guerrilla of the CRAF.

P. Soon of the failure of the peace dialogues, the country can find option in the military sortie?

R. I doubt that this is what the Colombian town really thinks. Perhaps they accept eslogan, but it is worth the trouble to ask itself if they accept a reality of military solution that corresponds to murders, displacements, destruction of the social movements and the societies farmers. It is to leave the field left, destroyed, into the hands of foreign corporations and of a small sector of the Colombian elites. That is the military solution, and I doubt that most of the Colombians they prefer it. There are fundamental and structural problems that they are source of the long history of the Colombian conflict. And everybody knows as they are those problems: a rich country with enormous poverty, wealthy classes without responsibility with respect to most of the population and a political system that has excluded alternating options. Although there is much international participation, most are internal questions. And until those problems they are as much not treated in a serious way and different from the violence, everything is going to follow equal. The only sensible approach is to reduce the violence with the negotiation and to treat the fundamental problems.

Chomsky: a critic of the Colombia Plan

In the last years, the philosopher and mathematician Noam Chomsky have become a permanent critic of the international relations between Colombia and the United States, and particularly, as opposed to the controverted Colombia Plan.

According to Chomsky, Colombia is today the main receiving country of military aid and police attendance of the United States, but paradoxicalally the country has been described by its record of violations to the human rights.

The precise university university professor, in addition, that that ambiguous policy that maintains the United States Colombia in front of, stays at moments in that important activists of human rights continuan leaving the country under threats and pressures of death.

Particularly, on the Colombia Plan, Chomsky assures that it is part of the regional military projects of the United States, and that the country is exposed to a tragic crisis because short term it does not have how to solve his true national dilemmas.

Noam Chomsky notices that, additionally, the war against drugs only serves private interests that agree with the main interests of the foreign policy of EU.