Dr Edward Hermann

Dr Edward Herman Professor Emeritus, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Author The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context and Politics "Noam Chomsky's Non-Zionist Brain" - RIP

This is a special message from Mickey Huff, Director of Project Censored

It is with great sadness that we report the death of the brilliant and prolific Edward Herman…he was 92. He gave us a great chapter for our latest book, Censored 2018: Press Freedoms in a ‘Post-Truth’ World— “Still Manufacturing Consent: the Propaganda Model at Thirty.” He takes on critics of the Propaganda Model and argues how it continues to stand the test of time. Grateful that we got to work with him this past spring through late June during his writing of the chapter, which may be his last published work (done after his work on Fake News/Russia for Monthly Review).

He was incredibly kind in our exchanges. When I reached out to him last spring to talk about the upcoming 30-year anniversary of his book with Noam Chomsky (Manufacturing Consent), he was a bit reluctant as he had two other chapter-length projects in the hopper (yes, into his 90s), but said he really wanted to do the retrospective on the Propaganda Model for Project Censored. He eventually wrote back and said…”I’ll do it.” We were delighted that he agreed.

Into May, when he was finishing his stellar piece for Monthly Review, we talked by phone…he asked for some more time, he wanted to add more to it, there was so much more he wanted to say…and we were able to have a round or two of edits. At times, he would e mail every other day, excited about new items he’d added, and we got it into the book just on deadline for our publishers at Seven Stories Press. During the edits, he had a great sense of humor– self-deprecating, funny as hell, sharp as a tack. And humble. What an amazing model he himself was and is to academics and activists. We are honored and humbled ourselves to have published one of his last works. He will be greatly missed.

The US has continued to violate all treaties and agreements since the end of the cold war and US/NATO have continued to expand eastward. Ukraine is part of this expansion. Using what is called by the CIA "subversive incitement" the ordinary people's dissatisfaction with the government was harnessed by right wing and foreign sponsored elements who seized control of power in Kiev, resulting in a government controlled by right wing anti-Russian and foreign linked elements that make it a "counter-revolutionary coup". In an interview with the Voice of Russia renowned author Edward Herman gave his views on the situation in Ukraine and more calling the West the real aggressors in Ukraine.

Hello! This is John Robles, I am speaking with Dr. Edward Herman, he is a Professor Emeritus at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, the author of several books including "Manufacturing Consent", which he wrote with Noam Chomsky and "The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context and Politics". This is part 1 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voice of Russia dot com.

Herman: I think we are in a cold war in the sense that we are in a propaganda war. What has happened is that the US has successfully demonized Russia and Putin. That was one of the main features of the old cold war. It was that Russia was the evil empire and that's become true. But I think it is important to realize that there has been kind of cold war, maybe a hot war since 1991, there was that deal between Gorbachev and the high officials of Germany and the US that in exchange for giving up East Germany, NATO would not expand one inch eastward. This was an agreement, it wasn't a written agreement and the propagandists in the West keeps saying it wasn't a written agreement, it is clear that there was an understanding, and that understanding was violated very quickly, and the West and the US have moved east steadily.

They've encircled Russia to a quite remarkable scale, they even placed missile defenses right at the Russian border pretending that this was to protect Europe against Iran, which was a fraud, we all know about it.

Here now it is the West again on the southern border of Russia. In an important sense what has happened is that the substantive cold war, or the low level hot war has become more intense after Russia was pushed up against the wall.

My view is that actually what's happened in Ukraine made it imperative for Putin to make a move. If he hadn't made a move, in this case where a hostile government has been emplaced in Ukraine, with the definite aid of the West, and with NATO coming forward further into Ukraine. If Putin didn't resist this, Russia was dead. I think he had no alternative.

Robles: You said that the US has succeeded in making Russia the "evil empire". You said they succeeded. Is Russia viewed that way by most people in the West now?

Herman: "The evil empire" was Reagan's famous statement about Russia made in the 1980s. Definitely Putin is made into a very bad man and Russia is an aggressor.

Robles: NATO, Kerry and Obama have said something about Russian aggression. But there was no aggression. Russia never invaded Ukraine. The few forces that were in Crimea, they were already there!

Herman: This is a case of… if a hostile government came into power in Kiev and it was put in there with the help of the West. This constitutes a great security threat to Russia, that would make it a defensive action. You could argue that the real aggression is from the West. They engaged in what the former CIA officer Ray McGovern calls "subversive incitement.

Robles: In Kerry's view, I found this stunning, he said: "civilized countries don't do that. You just don't invade another country on phony pretext – to assert your interests". We've seen that done time and time again in the last couple of decades. Can you give us your opinion on that?

Herman: Yes, it is an amazing statement for its hypocrisy because here is a man who voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2002 on what is now known to be the phony pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

And the US has of course been invading countries all over the world on a tremendous scale. But here is this man talking about you just don't invade… I mean this is beyond hypocrisy. Also it ignores the difference with Iraq invasion because first of all Russia had agreement, had permission to have 25.000 troops in Crimea by prior agreement. It wasn't bringing it troops. It had troops there.

Secondly another point is that West loves this R2P idea that we have the responsibility to protect, but the Russians felt that they had a responsibility to protect in the light of anti-Russian actions and prospects. So on R2P grounds the West swallows. Russia was right to go in but the most important point is that the West has engineered a coup in Kiev and placed in power a government that was definitely hostile to Russia and aligned with the West, posed a real threat that eventually they would close down the Russian naval base. So, this was genuine national security threat from the coup.

So, you've got the huge differences. In the case of the Iraq invasion there was what is called "a war of choice", that was a phrase the West used, meaning we could do it or not it didn't make a hell of a lot of difference but this was not a war of choice from Russia. I was a "war" involving serious R2P problems and serious national security problems.

Robles: Isn't there a radically different "western versus Russian" and critical view of the Kiev government takeover? We see it here as a violent coup d'état. They forced, they beat and they robbed and they killed their way into the houses of government. That is what we see. The West sees peaceful demonstrators, poor innocent civilians being oppressed. Can you comment on that please?

Herman: I absolutely agree that this was a coup d'etat. There were important protests on the part of ordinary citizens but what happened in Ukraine was that ordinary people's dissatisfaction with government was harnessed by right wing and foreign sponsored elements who seized control of the upheaval and have taken charge of the Kiev government, the result is a government controlled by right wing anti-Russian and foreign linked elements that make this a counter-revolutionary coup, one that threatens a large fraction of Ukrainians and threatens Russia proper. I am fond of the statement… The former CIA officer Ray McGovern speaks of "subversive incitement" as describing the role of the West. I think that is awfully good: "subversive incitement."

Robles: What do you think of Samantha Power's March 13th statement to the UN Security Council? And if you could add your reactions to what happened in the Security Council several hours ago, when Russia vetoed and China abstained from a vote calling a Crimean referendum illegal. Russia's argument is and the president's argument and the foreign minister Lavrov's argument is that the Crimean people have the right to self-determination and they have a right to hold a referendum.

Herman: It is obvious that they should have a right to carry out a referendum. The West is again very inconsistent on this. Very often they talk about the importance of self-determination. But that is when they want a people to break away from their government whichever is over them.

In the case of western treatment of Yugoslavia for example. The West actually supported all the breakaway states to dismantling Yugoslavia. But on the other hand, they didn't allow the Serbs to break out of these entities. So, you had Bosnian Serbs, you had Croatian Serbs, they were stuck in the entities that broke away.

So, you have self-determination for people that the West supports and for the people that they don't support like the Serbs there is no self-determination. That applies here.

There is no self-determination for the people in Crimea because that is part of an entity that is not supported by the west. It is a world of double standards. It is an amazing set of double standards that are at work there.

Robles: Do you think Russia has shown any of these double standards or any hypocrisy in the foreign policy?

Herman: My quick reaction is that I don't know. I think so. It is partly because Russia is on the defense here. When you are being aggressed against, when you are being taken apart by some larger entities and powers, you have a greater interests in being honest. This was true during the Vietnam war, like Mi Lai Massacre, the US said there was no massacre, the Vietnamese said there were 500 civilians killed.

It turns out after the fact that the Vietnamese were right, you had the aggressor, the US, lying endlessly in the Vietnam War but the Vietnamese victims had an interest in speaking the truth.

Robles: The media's treatment of President Putin and his actions now, if you could…

Herman: Samantha Powers, she is the US Ambassador to the UN, and she of course has been defending the demonization or claims that the new coup government is a wonderful thing. She actually says that the new Ukrainian leaders have made clear the future they wish for their people. A future of pluralism, prosperity and dignity, a future free of corruption, a future where the Ukrainian people do not have to choose between East and West. That is so "beautiful" but it has nothing to do with reality.

In fact, one of the things that tells us the truth about what this coup government stands for, is the fact that they came into existence one day after there was a February 21 agreement that would have established a national unity government, fixed early elections and then withdrawn the police and hopefully would have caused the violent protestors to stop their war, and the president would retire right then and there. So, it was a proposal that was accepted by Germany, and France, and Poland and it would have gone into the effect and it would have created a unity government.

The very next day this thing was ignored and the president was chased out of power and the coup government was installed. So, that was an opportunity to create a unified government and have elections that were not managed by one side. But that was not satisfactory for the US government and the NATO system. So that task force effort was thrown away and we had a coup government installed, they could do what the US wanted them to do.

So, that is a demonstration that what Samantha Powers is saying is a lie, it is completely untrue. This is not a pluralistic government working in the interests of all the people, it is a coup government that is working against Russian interests and the interests of what the NATO powers want.

There is also a hypocritical note that should be mentioned: she says that the coup government is really deeply concerned with the prosperity of the people but in fact Yatsenyuk actually openly declared the need to carry out austerity policies under IMF rule and he was quite open that this was going to make the public suffer.

Herman: He was selected by Nuland, the US Assistant Secretary of State. She named him in advance as the man who should be in power and darn if he doesn't show up in power.

Herman: It is interesting now, it seems to be a significant representation of anti-Semites in the new coup government. Usually the west is hostile and governments in western Europe have outlawed anti-Semitism virtually and they are very close to Israel, so you would think that anti-Semites or defenders of anti-Semitism would be a anathema to the West but they are very opportunistic if these people will serve the western interests in the short term they will take them.

The US has used the Taliban, it has used al-Qaeda, so why not some neo-fascists in Ukraine. This is real opportunism. These people will do two things; first of all they will serve the west and they will be hostile to the enemies of the west, and they will probably carry out neo-liberal policies that the West wants to.

Robles: I see. You have all the neo-conservatives, there are a lot of really pro-Israel people and they are supporting nazis. It is unbelievable.

Herman: In the history of the west the opportunism is fantastic. In the 1960s-70s the US supported in Latin America, a system of what are called "national security states", they were 10 of them that the US helped put in power.

Some of their ideology was a fascist ideology but the US liked them because they would do what the US wanted them to do. They would go after the left they would destroy the labor movement, they would open their door to foreign investment and they would adhere to US foreign policy. So, this is the way it works.

You were listening to an interview with Dr. Edward Herman, he is a Professor Emeritus at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, the author of several books including "Manufacturing Consent", which he wrote with Noam Chomsky and "The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context and Politics". This is part 1 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voice of Russia dot com. Thanks for listening and I wish you the best wherever in the world you may be.

Ukraine is a perfect example of how the US uses the worst elements of a society to do their dirty work in other countries and how the US/NATO has a problem finding honest quislings. Since the US favors the nazi coup in Ukraine they talk about sovereignty and the right to self-determination of the Crimean people is made into some outrageous business for which Russia is demonized. John McCain, the chief chicken hawk and key "moral support" figure for the US’ insurrectionists and nazis in Ukraine, urged dissidents in Russia to rise and through that the effect of Ukrainian "freedom" would spread into Russia. McCain and the rest are engaged in subversive incitement, and once again their complete lack of intelligence and knowledge has left them looking like fools to the world. Professor Edward Herman spoke to the Voice of Russia regarding these issues and more.

Hello! This is John Robles, I am speaking with Dr. Edward Herman, he is a Professor Emeritus at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also the author of several books including "Manufacturing Consent", which he wrote with Noam Chomsky and "The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context and Politics". This is part 2 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voice of Russia dot com.

Herman: I wrote an article with Noam Chomsky many, many years ago and it is called The Quest for an Honest Quisling. It was about Vietnam and the fact that the rulersand their other US mercenaries that were running Vietnam under US power were really scoundrels and crocks.

The US gravitates to scoundrels to do their dirty work in the Third World and these scoundrels are frequently crooks, robbers and their quislings tend to be crocks. That has presented a problem to the US from a long time ago "to find an honest quisling", it is difficult.

Robles: Yeah. The Western treatment of the prospective withdrawal of Crimea this is going to be starting in a few hours where the Crimean citizenry will go to the polls, they are being watched by the OSCE, by observers from the European Union, by observers from the Russian Federation, even by observers from the US. And the Crimean people are going to vote to become united with the Russian Federation. Can you contrast this with the treatment of Yugoslavia?

Herman: The West, the US, is often supportive of "self-determination" – that is a beautiful phrase too. But they always support self-determination for groups that they support, if they don’t support them, then they are against it and they are in favor of the sovereignty in the country, it is unbelievable hypocrisy.

Of course this country of Ukraine is now run by people who don’t represent the Ukrainian people, certainly not the majority of the Ukrainian people. It is a coup government. But nevertheless since the West favors this coup government and what it is about to do they talk about sovereignty.

And the right to self-determination of the Crimean people. This is made a really nasty business that Russia is helping these people to self-determinate. Their hypocrisy here is amazing.

I should mention that in the case of Yugoslavia the West supported the break out of Bosnia and the break out of Croatia, the break out of Kosovo because it didn’t like Yugoslavia, it didn’t like Serbia.

So in these cases the withdrawal of the individual nations from the whole was fine and we fought a war that helped Kosovo break out of Serbia.

Actually in the case of Serbia itself the Serbs were not allowed to self-determinate in Yugoslavia. So you had to Croatian Serbs in Croatia and the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia and they would have liked to stay in Yugoslavia. Milosevic helped them at it all and wanted to allow them to stay in Yugoslavia. That was considered a nasty business of trying to create greater Serbia, when in fact what it was trying to do was to preserve a rump Yugoslavia. That is a little complicated.

Robles: Listen, there has been all this bellicose rhetoric coming out of Washington, there has been threat after threat after threat by the West saying that "costs will have to be paid", saying that "roads must be changed or consequences will be had" etc. etc..

Herman: I think that they will probably throw out some kinds of sanctions and of course there also was I think today an attack on Russian websites. I think we will probably see something like they did to Iran.

I think also, John McCain the Senator made a speech in which he urged the dissidents in Russia to arise and he thought that the effect of the Ukrainian, quote freedom unquote, could be to cause people in Russia to insist on their rights. So he is actually engaging in the business of subversive incitement.

And I think that a lot of critics including myself feel that the West is hoping to destroy Russia to actually break it into further pieces just as they did with the Soviet Union. I think the Soviet breakup was the greatest case of destabilization and regime change in modern history and maybe in history altogether.

They succeeded in what they call "democracy promotion", but I call "regime change". I think that they might try to do that in Russia and they probably are doing it.

A lot of protests in Russia have been helped along by outsiders. And I think that is going to probably escalate. And if Russia tries to defend itself against these external incursions, they are going to be said to be threatening democracy.

Robles: Right. Ok. What about these claims that president Putin is attempting to create a "Russian Empire". I mean if you look at the Russian Federation, it is a huge, it is the biggest country in the world, it is huge. And there is this tiny little piece of Crimea and they are saying he is trying to create an empire. What about the American Empire?

Herman: Yeah, that is a question. And what about the American tactic – the idea of Russia trying to create an empire is absolutely amazing because Russia, just as the Soviet Union was on the defensive for all of the Cold War and Russia is significantly weaker than the Soviet Union. It is not capable of creating an empire, it’s been on a defensive as I said. It’s been subject to a steady encirclement.

So the US and its intellectuals and propagandists commonly engage in what the psychological people call transference. This is where they transfer to the target what is true of themselves. Actually this is as conspicuous occasion as you could ask for.

I mean clearly the US has expended hugely in the post WWII era and the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia is definitely on the defensive so this is a beautiful case of transference.

I don’t know if you saw but there was circulating in the web today a wonderful cartoon that shows Russia and then it has little patches of all the bases around Russia, the thing says: "Why is Putin putting Russia next to all these basis? Why is he doing this? Why is he putting Russia next to all these basis, all around him?" That is a very good cartoon.

Robles: I think I saw that. "Russia keeps putting their country near our basis or something, they want war."

You were listening to an interview with Dr. Edward Herman, a Professor Emeritus at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in the U. He is also the author of several books namely "Manufacturing Consent", which he wrote with Noam Chomsky and "The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context and Politics". That was part 2 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voice of Russia dot com. Thank you very much for listening and I wish you the best wherever in the world you may be. Stay with us.

The United States has no legal or moral authority to bomb or attack Syria and they are chemical war criminals themselves, on a much grander scale than an other country in history. The US media has no problem with the fact that their leaders obtained positions of power by guaranteeing they would follow the rule of law but have become worse war criminals than their predecessors. In an interview with the Voice of Russia renown author Dr. Edward Herman discussed these matters and more.

Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Dr. Edward Herman. He is Professor Emeritus at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also the author of several books, namely “Manufacturing Consent”, which he wrote with Noam Chomsky, and the “Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics”.

Robles: Regarding this situation in Syria, does the US in your opinion have the legal authority to launch military action or bomb Syria?

Herman:That’s one of the clearest things we can say “no” to. They certainly do not. The UN was organized to prevent war, aggression, cross-border attacks by individuals – it is very clear. And in fact, the Nuremberg Tribunal, should you actually read this: “war is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”. That’s from the Nuremberg Tribunal.

So, the whole UN system was built in order to prevent war, to make it illegal to cross borders without the vote of the Security Council. And the only basis for crossing a border otherwise is immediate self-defense. And there is no way that Syria is threatening the United States, and that it doesn’t even pretend that it has anything to do with self-defense of the United States.

So, the answer is absolutely no, the legal status is non-existent. And if you read Secretary John Kerry’s and Obama’s statements, only the media picked up the fact, in past years they have both said that they will abide by International Law. International Law controls this great country’s behavior. But now that they are in power and want to go to war, they say that they are not constrained by this, they can just go across borders and bomb.

It is just amazing! And it is amazing how the mainstream media of the United States don’t pick this subject up. It’s since the United States is regularly crossing borders and attacking other countries in violation of the UN Charter, the media played down, they play as if this is not an issue. It is only when somebody else, one of our targets crosses a border that we get excited.

Robles: I see. Following that line of thought, I read recently… now this goes back to 2002, and I was wondering if you could comment on it. I read a piece of legislation in the US Government, some people called it the Hague Invasion Act. Are you familiar with that?

Robles: It protects all US personnel and allies from being subjected to International Law basically or being tried for war crimes. And it allows for, literally, a military action against the Hague which would require an invasion to physically remove, for example if they’ve arrested somebody. Can you comment on it?

Herman:It was a brazen piece of legislation. In fact I think that was the time they were discussing the International Criminal Court. And in the International Criminal Court it was theoretically going to be possible that the United States and its soldiers and leaders could be brought before the Court. And that got some of the members of the Congress and Senate very upset. So, they actually got through this incredible piece of legislation that if anybody tried to take one of our soldiers and try them, we would be prepared to invade that country. It was a lunatic piece of legislation and I doubt if it ever would be applied, but it shows the spirit of this country – we are above the Law.

Our leaders have impunity … in fact, Harry Truman made this famous statement that “the buck stops with him”. This is not true! Impunity starts with him. Here is a man who dropped two atomic bombs on two cities and wiped out quickly 200 000 civilians. I mean, this was one of the great war crimes in human history. But nobody has ever suggested that Harry should have been brought before a tribunal. And of course George Bush and these guys, they’re all immune. Bush in his autobiography openly acknowledges that he supported waterboarding, which is a well-known form of torture…

Herman:…which is internationally illegal, it is illegal in the US law. But Obama comes along having promised to enforce the law, but he won’t bring George Bush to trial. So, all these guys are immune from the law, they have impunity. This is the superpower right to have impunity. Only lesser peoples can be brought before a court.

Robles: Back to Syria, does the United States, do they have the moral authority and the support of the American people to launch any kind of an operation against Syria?

Herman:I don’t think they have the moral authority in the least. And in fact this whole business of pursuing of Syria, first, it is not even proven that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons. But even apart from that, the hypocrisy involved in this is amazing.

As the United States Government committed aggression against Iraq, it has used chemical weapons itself during the Vietnam War, the United States have used Agent Orange. In fact, its use of chemical weapons in the Vietnam War was the most extensive use of chemical weapons since World War I.

And we of course supported Iraq when it used chemical warfare against Iran. We even supplied Iraq with various kinds of arms, protected against being attacked in the United Nations, and were attacking our enemy – Iran. So, it was okay. And they were, actually, recently sold I think 600 some million dollars’ worth of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. And of course Israel famously used a huge number of cluster bombs in Lebanon in 2006, just before the truce. The cluster bomb is a vicious, essentially illegal weapon.

So, here is the United States doing all these horrible things, including chemical warfare, using white phosphorus in Fallujah, depleted uranium. It has dirty hands. The moral case falls because of this incredible hypocrisy. And the American people don’t go on the offensive - this other part of your question - does it have support at home, and the answer is – in spite of the huge propaganda effort that the Government and the media are carrying out, I think it still only 60% of the polled public is against attacking Syria. The public doesn’t want it. The moral case is badly compromised. So, it is really an outrage.

The United States is behaving like an insane power, like the threat of the Nazis back in the 1930s and 40s. It’s out of control, and it’s engaging in war after war, violating international law and considers itself to be above the law. It is also the richest country in the world but it’s having trouble feeding its own citizens while preparing for yet another war. Dr. Edward Herman spoke to the Voice of Russia stating that and more, he also said it is time that the international community rose up and brought the US under control and has to take much more vigorous, hostile actions against the US war threats. He also called the Secretary General of NATO and NATO a menace and part of a US program for global domination. The world has to wake up and stop it!

Hello. This is John Robles. I’m speaking with Dr. Edward Herman. He is a Professor Emeritus at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also the author of several books namely "Manufacturing Consent" which he wrote with Noam Chomsky and "The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context and Politics."

Robles: My next question is: isn’t the US financially “stressed out” maybe if you would put it… to engage in yet another war? Is this financially viable for the US or maybe a move to actually save the economy?

Herman: For those of us that are critical of US policy, of the situation with respect to the use of resources, it’s amazing! The United States is in a financial crisis. It’s cutting back on all kinds of public expenditures, on Food Stamps, it’s cutting back on its schools and it’s really stripped for resources, and here it’s about to go into another war which is going to be extremely costly.

So we’re dealing with a country that is kind of a little “crazy”. It has unlimited resources for its military policies and its wars abroad but it’s struggling to provide for its own citizens. It’s amazing! This may be a good part why the public is against this war. The public is troubled, it’s getting very poor support from its government. And yet this government is preparing for another war of choice! It’s really quite amazing.

Robles: A lot of people in the United States seem to be, right now, afraid of losing food. Is the situation that bad in the United States?

Herman: Yeah! Republicans are certainly planning on cutting back Food Stamps. Food insecurity has increased greatly there are a lot of people in distress and a lot of people are really worried. So this is a remarkable situation: the richest country in the world, the richest country in history but it’s having trouble feeding its own people while it’s preparing for another war.

Robles: So this is a real serious problem in the United States right now? And people are truly afraid of running out of food or not being able to obtain or buy food? Right?

Herman: Yeah it is a serious problem but the high-level people don’t seem to recognize it. There’s Obama and his “crew” spending a lot of their time now organizing forces to justify another war, and meanwhile his base constituency is struggling. It’s lunacy. A lot of people consider that this is a country that is out of control. It’s kind of a lunatic asylum.

Robles: I see. Now. What drives the US government at this point into threatening yet another war? What are the real motivations behind this?

Herman: I think that there are a couple of things that are involved. One is the military forces in the United States, the military industrial complex is immensely powerful. Eisenhower warned about it back in 1960, that the military complex was getting out of control, it’s much more powerful now.

The United States has become a permanent war system and I read in a paper just the other day that the companies that are supplying cruise missiles and the rest, their stock prices are rising, Raytheon, Lockheed, they are doing very well.

So you’ve got the military industrial complex and all its affiliates pressing for war. You also have the pro-Israel lobby, the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee). The Israelis have been very influential on US policy, Syria is their enemy, Iran is their enemy, Iraq was their enemy, so they are pressing for a military operation and they have great in influence in Washington.

The United States is kind of “running wild”, globally you read about the fact that Obama says, and others say: “We have to maintain our credibility,” which can allow them to do these things and get away with them.

What about our credibility? Well, whose credibility? The American people? The United States? It’s the credibility of the imperial power. It is trying to dominate, really trying to dominate the world and it can’t stand setbacks.

Once Obama stuck his neck out and said we must stop these “bad guys,” we can’t back down. So there’s really a multiplicity of forces here but we are now in a permanent war system and the forces that support that permanent war system: the military industrial complex and the pro-Israel lobby, they are running wild here. The media follow along.

Robles: Intelligent, educated, informed people all over the world would equate credibility with following the rule of law. The world knows that an attack on Syria is a Crime Against Peace, there is no justification for it. So the hypocrisy of Obama saying: “Well we said we’re going to bomb…” and that (If we don’t) damages our credibility, I mean that could only possibly play to the internal US audience.

Herman: I think the American leaders think that they have to show foreigners that we mean business, that if we give orders and we say we are going to do something, we are going to follow through otherwise they won’t obey us.

So the claim is, draw a “Red Line” for Syria, and don’t follow through if it crosses the Red Line then Iran will take notice and it won’t follow orders either. I think the “credibility” applies to the little countries that we are trying to keep in line.

Robles: I would say 99% of the countries (other than a couple and we know who they are) are attempting to follow international law in implementing their economic policies and their interstate relationships, and to see this big bully come in and say: “We are going to kill you and we are going to do whatever we want”. A lot of people, a lot of states, a lot of countries, and this should be something that the US leadership really listens to: people are getting tired of it.

Herman:I think you have a point there. A lot of foreigners are really quite upset at the United States threatening Syria, and actually I am just hoping… I mean that’s part of the reason why the British Parliament voted down going along, that was an amazing vote that the British Parliament wouldn’t go along with Obama’s policies even our close European… other European allies, and the Canadians are not rushing in to back Obama. And that’s probably much more true of the general population.

Usually we get the leaders to go along and peoples of the world are not so enthused, but now even the leaders of the rest of the world are dragging their feet and Pope has made a powerful statement about the rule of law and even Ki-Moon, who is usually a puppet of the United States, even he is dragging his feet and calling for the rule of law.

So there is a reaction in the world, and let’s hope that it will constrain (make a difference) the trouble is in the United States the pro-war forces are extremely strong and the political parties too, the war-faction is important. Even in the United States there is a public reaction the public doesn’t want to go to war. It’s possible that it will affect the Obama administration. Let’s hope so.

Do you think the chemical weapons attack in Damascus may have been a false flag operation?

Herman: I actually believe that it probably is. The bombing of August the 21st, if you ask the question: “Who benefits from that?” The Syrian government surely does not. It has given the Obama Administration the stimulus to go to war, it fits the needs of the rebels in Syria, and the Israelis who want the United States to go to war.

So if we ask that fundamental question: “Who benefits from this chemical warfare action?” The answer is: not the Syrian government.

So, that’s one factor, the other factor is that they haven’t collected the evidence yet. The Syrian government actually welcomed the UN people who were coming in to investigate an early chemical war action and they have not impeded the work of the UN investigators.

On the other hand, United States government said it was too late for them to do their work, which was false, the work that they have to do, is work that does not have a time limit, it’s not as if they have to be there 2 or 3 days after an event to be able to get very significant evidence.

So on one hand, you have the United States trying to avoid confirmation and Syrian Government, sort of, welcoming these investigators. That’s another consideration.

Robles: The Syrian government actually invited the UN Chemical Weapons Inspection Team, and they arrived on the same day in Damascus and all of a sudden there was this chemical attack in a neighborhood that was, despite western media reports, that neighborhood was under control of the government forces. That would be complete insanity for President Assad to launch a chemical weapons attack on the day that the UN inspectors that he invited to the country arrived, don’t you think?

Herman: Well, it’s still “believable”, it could be that there was an accident, it could be that some lower level government persons did this, but it’s up in the air, it is certainly something that has to be investigated. The third important factor that is involved is that the rebels had access to these chemical weapons, they had been being supplied and trained in Jordan and Turkey and by the United States and by Israeli forces.

Robles: Are you aware of the reports that Saudi Prince Bandar (after three and a half weeks ago - four weeks ago threatening Russia with terrorist attacks at the Sochi Olympics: admitting that all the terrorists in Syria are under Saudi control, in particular Chechens), there are reports that “he” delivered, personally, he was involved in the operation to deliver the chemical weapons directly to the Syria insurgents, Wahhabis or Al-Qaeda elements or whatever you want to call them? Have you heard anything about that? Probably not in the western media but …

Herman: Yeah, that’s a very good point and I think that it is absolutely true that there “seems” to have been that threat, and evidence from Saudi Arabian sources themselves, that they were involved, that there was a threat by them and their allies to use chemical weapons, but the broad point is that the rebels surely had access to these weapons and they had the incentive to use them, and so at a minimum: it’s a serious question as to whether the Syrian Government did it, or in my view, more probably that the rebels did it.

Robles: Now.. (We could talk about this for weeks I think) Next question if we could?: Where is the international community in all of this maneuvering and why is the US so adamant about going in there so quickly and urgently? Why the urgency by the US, why the desperation to drop bombs?

Herman: Actually, the international community is looking relatively good, as I mentioned, Ki-Moon is actually dragging his feet and calling for restraint and Pope is calling for restraint and the allied governments to the United States are dragging their feet, they usually have lined-up with the United States when it wants to go to war, but they are dragging their feet.

So the international community, while actually it should be condemning the US action, the Syrian government has asked the Security Council to declare a forthcoming attack “illegal”, which it should do under the rules of the UN Charter, so if the international community was really “on its toes” and trying to prevent war and follow international law, it would be castigating the United States and bringing actions against it but it’s not doing that. But it’s an improvement that they are dragging their feet, suggesting that there should be delays until the facts are in. That’s a big deal.

Robles: Dr. Herman what would you say to those responsible for all of this, to those in power who can prevent this war, what would your message be to them?

Herman: I think the United States is behaving like an insane power, it’s almost like the threat of the Nazis back in the 1930s and 40s, it’s out of control, and it’s engaging in war after war, and it’s violating international law, considers itself to be above the law.

The international community has to rise up and bring it under control, has to take a much more vigorous, hostile action to the US war threats.

I noticed today that this guy Rasmussen, the Secretary General of NATO, has come out in favor of action against Syria, he is a menace, and NATO is a menace, and the Warsaw Pact dissolved and the whole rational for NATO dissolved and NATO has been expanding, taking on more obligations. This is part of the US program for global domination. The world has to wake up and stop it!

That was the final installment of an interview with Dr. Edward Herman, a Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also the author of several books namely “Manufacturing Consent”, “The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context and Politics” and other works. Thank you very much for listening and I wish you the best wherever you may be!

Renowned author Dr. Edward Herman spoke with the John Robles regarding the facts surrounding the Srebrenica Massacre, the pretext for the "humanitarian" invasion of the former Yugoslavia, and takes apart the "official" version that has always been promoted by the West. Dr. Herman reveals that there were in fact multiple massacres at Srebrenica, and that the killing of Bosnian-Muslim soldiers at Srebrenica (the West's pretext) was in response to the killing of over 2,000 Serb civilians, mostly women and children, at the location.

Robles: My first question is about “The Srebrenica Massacre” and the way that the establishment manipulated the media. Can you tell us, or give us some insights, on that?

Herman: The Srebrenica Massacre, actually I always put it in quote marks, because actually there were lots of massacres in the Srebrenica area, the one before July 1995 there were vast numbers of Serbs killed by Muslim, Bosnian Muslim, forces who went out of Srebrenica.

One estimate is that there were more than 150 Serbs villages that were totally wiped out and one study gives actually gives the namesof 2,383 Serb civilians who were killed between 1992 and July, 1995. So then we’d call that “The First Srebrenica Massacre”. Then in July 1995…

Herman: Yes! We’re talking about 2,383 Serb civilians killed before July 1995. And the Bosnian Serb Army took over Srebrenica in July, 1995, and there were deaths and executions after that. That’s what’s called in the West “The Srebrenica Massacre”, but, in fact, that’s really mainly a political construct.

The numbers executed there were probably in the order of between 500 and 1,000. In other words, less than half of the number of Serbs civilians killed before July, 1995.

And the Western claim is that 8,000 men and boys were executed in the quote Srebrenica massacre, but notice these were men, always men, all men, they were all soldiers, whereas those 2,383 civilians killed included very large numbers of women and children.

We’re talking about the execution in the Second Massacre of essentially army people. And of course they had never proved that there were 7,000 or 8,000, even men and boys killed. The bodies in the graves added up to something like 2,500.

A lot of those bodies were combat deaths. One of the beauties of the Western propaganda system is that all the bodies they found after July, 1995, they count as executed, even though we know very well that a large number were killed in combat.

Herman: Also another important fact about the Srebrenica massacre is that all those killings of Serbs took place coming out of an area that was supposed to be a “safe haven”. Srebrenica was a safe place, a safe haven. It was supposed to be demilitarized, but it never was.

So the Bosnian Muslim soldiers would come out to Srebrenica and they would kill Serb civilians. This is all completely ignored in the Western media. It’s as if the Serbs came in July and started to kill arbitrarily.

In fact, the U.N. military in that area, a French Offical name Phillip Movion, was asked by the Yugoslav tribunal, “Why the Serbs did it?”

He said he’s absolutely convinced that they did it because of what the commander of Srebrenica’s Bosnian Muslims did to the Serbs before July 1995.

In other words, the first massacre is what led to the lesser second massacre of namely military aged people.

The whole business of the Srebrenica Massacre is a gigantic political fraud. There was a massacre, but it was a responsive vengeance massacre, women and children were not killed.

One of the features of the “quote” Srebrenica Massacre, that is the second one, is that 20,000 Srebrenica women and children were bussed to safety by the Serb army. Women and children were not killed, only military aged people and a very large fraction of those that did die, died in combat.

So my own estimate, as I said, is that maybe there were 500 to 1,000 executions. Vengeance executions.

Herman:Yes. So there was a significant massacre, but put it in its context! This was a war, this was an army that had seen their own civilians massacred on a much larger scale. That is completely suppressed in the West, as if the Serbs came in to Srebrenica and started to kill because of a blood lust! It’s absolutely a fraud!

So, I regard the Srebrenica massacre as a tremendous propaganda triumph. The West wanted to go after Serbia and they avoided peace. They needed this massacre.

Herman:The first massacrebetween 1992 and July 1995. These were Serb civilians. There were also hundreds of Serb military killed in that period, I am just talking about civilians!

Robles: The civilians, right! And then in retaliation approximately 2,500 Muslim… Bosnian Muslims soldiers were killed.

That’s misleading, because the thrust of the 8,000 claim is that they were executed but those 2000-plus that were killed, a very large fraction were killed in combat.

Herman:Yes, and the executions were, as I say probably in the order of 500 to 1,000.

Robles: Okay. So those were Bosnian Muslims who were found to be directly responsible for killing massive numbers of Serbian civilians. Right?

Herman:The Serbs actually had lists of Bosnian Muslim soldiers they wanted to get, but I can’t honestly say they were the only ones who were executed. But certainly, a significant number of those executed were on those lists, those vengeance lists.

Edward S. Herman (born April 7, 1925) is an American economist and media analyst with a specialty in corporate and regulatory issues as well as political economy and the media.

He’s a Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He’s also the author of several books, namely “Manufacturing Consent” which he wrote with Noam Chomsky and “The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context and Politics”.

Renowned author Dr. Edward Herman spoke with the Voice of Russia's John Robles regarding the facts surrounding the Srebrenica Massacre. In part 2 of the full interview Dr. Herman speaks about how the West, the CIA and NATO manipulate the media to demonize whoever they want to attack and how friends become evil enemies at the drop of a hat. His opinion of the War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is something you have to listen to or read for yourself. Enjoy.

Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Dr. Edward Herman. He is a Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. And he is also the author of several books, namely “The Manufacturing of Consent”, he wrote that with the Noam Chomsky, and “The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context and Politics”.

Robles: You said the West wanted, or the United States, wanted a reason to get Serbia. What exactly were those reasons?

Herman: After the fall of the Soviet Union, the West: the United States and its allies, no longer wanted to support an independent Yugoslavia. It was a social-democratic state, it was relatively independent and they didn’t want it to continue and would prefer to have it broken into pieces which they could control.

So, they encouraged Slovenia and the Bosnian Muslims, in Bosnia, and the Croatians, they encouraged them to leave Yugoslavia. And the only ones who wanted to keep Yugoslavia together were the Serbs. So, the Serbs did try to keep them together but there was mutual fighting and there were efforts to settle the whole business and let them exit more or less peaceably, but the West sabotaged those agreements.

This is a famous set of episodes, there was an attempt called the Lisbon Agreement in 1992, to sort of solve some of the problems with peaceful resolution and the Bosnian Muslims were encouraged by the United States to reject that agreement.

So, they fought one another mutually trying to establish land control and this caused the tremendous amount of killings. The Srebrenica massacre was part of this mutual ethnic cleansing and struggle for land control. But behind it all was the fact that the West supported the dismantling of Yugoslavia. And the Serbs were their enemy because the Serbs opposed this dismantling. So, the Serbs were the victims of all the West’s activity.

Most important, possibly, apart from the sabotaging of this peace agreement, was the setup of Yugoslavia Tribunal. And the Tribunal was, and remains a complete instrument of NATO and the United States and it went almost entirely after Serbs, and it actually helped to sabotage peace. It was really a phony judicial arm of NATO with the Serbs as victims.

And so, eventually they went after Milosevic. All these efforts of the Tribunal were the dismantling of Yugoslavia in a proper political light. If you could criminalize all the Serb leaders, you could prove that Serbia was the bad guy and that NATO and its activities, including the bombing war against Kosovo, that NATO would look like it was engaging in humanitarian intervention, here it had this judicial backup of the Yugoslav Tribunal which was a fraud, which was a travesty.

There is a wonderful book by John Laughland entitled “Travesty”. It is a study of the Yugoslav Tribunal and its devastating. Actually another good book is by Michael Mandel called “How America Gets Away with Murder” which also has a very good discussion of the Tribunal and International Criminal Court, and the extent to which they are effectively arms of the West, they are not judicial institutions at all, really Public Realtions arms of the West.

Robles: After WW II there was an agreement not to reorganize Europe. And I’ve read some material saying that Yugoslavia was the first experiment for the US in their game of geopolitical chess to reestablish or redefine the borders of Europe. Do you think that was successful and where do you think that has led us today?

Herman: I think it was a very successful operation from the standpoint of the United States and NATO, because this independent social-democratic entity was destroyed by the West and it left a series of states that are dependent on the United States and the West. Serbia which was once an independent state is now a groveling, kind of pathetic failed state. It was failed, by the bombing and by the long blockade or sanctions against Serbia, it is now groveling before the West trying to get into the European Union. It was dismantled and taken apart.

Robles: There are “some” people in Serbia, who are as you say, groveling for the West. But there is a large percentage of Serbians who know the reality of what happened and really, hate the West because they know that their country was destroyed.

Herman: I agree with you completely. I’m talking about the people who run this, those in power. It is true that there is a very significant minority, or maybe it is even a majority…

Robles: I think it is a majority, but you just said the key words there “those in power”. Right!

Herman: You know, I think that the vast number of Serbs are resentful of what has been done to them. But the West has arranged and the power structure has been fixed so that the friends of the West retain political power and they do the groveling.

Robles: And there is so much of a media blackout of anything that counters that “evil Serb” stereotype that they promoted in the West.

Herman: Absolutely, yes. The standard procedure of the United States and the NATO powers is to demonize whoever they are going to go after. So, Milosevic was made into a devil and the Serbs were made into an evil population. And of course the Bosnian Muslims loved that and latched onto that and they are still using it to achieve some of their aims. Countries finds it extremely difficult to throw off the burden of demonization and hatred by the West.

After we crushed Vietnam, we allegedly lost that war, but we damaged Vietnam horribly, we actually succeeded in maintaining an 18 year boycott of this victim to whom we ought to have been paying huge reparations. We actually should be paying gigantic reparations to Serbia for the illegal bombing war. But the West does this demonization and the demon charge hangs on.

So, each successful target you find this demonization process at work and the hypocrisy involved here is absolutely mindboggling because sometimes you have us changing our mind in mid-stream as with Saddam Hussein, when he was warring against Iran in the 1980s, he was a friend of the United States and they actually provided him with weapons of mass destruction. And then he became worse than Hitler. But the media doesn’t stress this and avoid it, they ignore the fact that he was our ally and then the next day he is a demon.

Robles: Same thing with Muammar Gaddafi, I mean he became a friend, again, what you were saying. Disarm! Disarm! Ok, he disarmed. The same with Hussein, he disarmed.

Herman: I don’t think we ever really loved Gaddafi or Assad but we did get along with them at least for a while. But Gaddafi was always a handy villain we could turn to, like in a Lockerbie case, that was really an amazing business, because after Pan Am 103 was shot down.

Herman: No, absolutely not! Right off the bat. The shoot down of Pan Am 103 followed by six months the United States shooting down an Iranian airliner killing 290 people. And six months after that there was Lockerbie, the Pan Am 103, so everybody knew. And in fact the CIA claimed for two years it was clear fact that Iran and Syria had been behind that bombing.

But the geopolitics changed and suddenly we were having to deal with Saddam Hussein, we needed Iran and Syria to be our temporary friends and Gaddafi was brought into the picture. The convenient villain. I’m totally sure, I’ve studied that Lockerbie case and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting down of Pan Am 103.

But it is like the Srebrenica massacre. The capability of the West and the media to manipulate facts, and the CIA to manipulate facts and demonize, and have an effective case against whomever we have demonized, it is amazing how the West does this.