 Hello everybody. Welcome to this event. My name is Aidan Regan. I'm Associate Professor at the School of Politics and International Relations and very pleased and privileged to chair this event on behalf of the IAEA with Professor Noam Chomsky. So thank you all for being here. Thank you all for your participation for this this fantastic event. I think Professor Noam Chomsky doesn't quite need an introduction. I think we all know how influential and how an important intellectual Professor Chomsky is. I think it's fair to say that Professor Noam Chomsky is one of the most if not the most influential public intellectuals in the world. I think up there with the likes of Jurgen Habermas. His writings are extraordinarily prolific. I think it's fair to say that you have quartered over 100 books, authored over 100 books at this stage. Professor Chomsky and in addition to various essays and other contributions and interviews. Professor Chomsky is also a renowned scholar around renowned academic in the social sciences and particularly a scholar of linguistics but his research in linguistics has influenced so many other intellectual fields of inquiry from cognitive science to even political science, to the political economy, to philosophy, intellectual history and much further afield. But I think perhaps Professor Chomsky, you're most known or most famous for your investigations and your research on and writings on US foreign policy. It goes so much and informed the world so much about what goes on effectively or made public or made visual what is quiet in effect, particularly not least in terms of what's happening in Latin America and much further afield. So without further ado, I would like to welcome you to give your address here we Professor Chomsky will speak for 15 to 20 minutes. And then we will open it up for a Q&A session. Please send your questions true to the Q&A function at the bottom of your screen I think most people are probably familiar with using zoom at this stage, I will collect those questions. Please state your name and your affiliation, and hopefully we will be able to get to those questions, but Professor Chomsky over to you. Okay. Thank you very much. Let me begin with a brief summary of what I'd like to say then some comments to elaborate on a few highlights. We live at a unique historical moment is the first time in human history that we face a confluence of severe challenges, some so severe that failure to address them will soon effectively terminate organized human society with mass destruction of other species as well. The two most prominent are global heating nuclear war threats that are increasing in intensity. There are lesser ones that are lethal as well. So take the current pandemic. It's already killed more Americans than the terrible flu epidemic a century ago, and it has not run its course. It's well understood that failure to vaccinate globally is not only a moral scandal, but also facilitates mutations that may escape control. There are other crises looming new pandemics, antibiotic resistant bacteria may make surgery impossible and another generation destruction of agricultural land and habitats, so all too easy to continue. Another dimension dissolution of the social order of an atmosphere of rational interchange undermines efforts to address the challenges that we face. There's also good news. The good news is that for every one of the crises, the severe crises that humans face at this historically unprecedented moment for everyone feasible solutions are at hand. The unanswered question is whether humans have the moral intellectual capacity to choose a course towards a much better world. There are many issues here that require elaboration. It has to do with the roots of the crisis. It's a very far reaching question, but there's an arrow one that can also be posed. To what extent have the crisis been exacerbated by the reigning socioeconomic doctrines of recent years, past 40 years of the neoliberal era. There's quite a lot I think, but we have to be clear about what neoliberalism is. You check the internet, you find a conventional definition, quoting it, a political approach that favors free market capitalism, deregulation and reduction in government spending. The definition. A look at practice shows that it's very far from reality. Keeping to practice, neoliberalism I think was much better described by the president of the United Auto Workers in the United States. This is 1978. He pulled out of a labor management conference organized by President Carter. It was just as the neoliberal wave was beginning to gather force. It was soon to peak with Reagan and Thatcher. Fraser and his withdrawal condemned business leaders, I'll quote him, condemned business leaders for having chosen to wage a one sided class war in this country. A war against working people, the unemployed, the poor minorities, the very young and the very old, and even many in the middle class of our society. And having broken and discarded the fragile unwritten compact previously existing during a period of growth and progress. Through the early 70s, golden age of capitalism as many economists describe it. Well, I think the phrase one sided class war captures the essence of neoliberal capitalism. And I think accounts for a large part of current bullies. There's a lot more to say about that, but I'll turn instead to the two truly existential crises global heating nuclear war. So, let's start with the first. On August 9, as I'm sure you know, the IPCC IPPC released its latest report. By far the most dire yet conclusion with stark and clear. We must begin. We must begin right now to reduce fossil fuel use increasingly every year, so that we will effectively phase out fossil fuels by mid century. The alternative to that is cataclysm. So how has the international political class reacted. Begin with the United States. The Biden administration is a vast improvement over Trump. Nevertheless, the day after the IPCC report, Biden appealed to OPEC to increase production. The US Congress right now is debating legislation, which at first included some measures to mitigate the disaster as they've been eliminated. Republicans are 100% opposed. The swing votes are the so called moderate Democrats, particularly the chair of the Senate. Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Who happens also to be the champion of the Congress in receiving funds from fossil fuel industries, which is quite a feat, considering their scale. That's Joe Manchin. He's announced his position clearly. It's lifted directly from the public relations departments of ExxonMobil and its associates. The slogan is no elimination, only innovation. So maintain fossil fuel production without any ceasing at all. The blocking of legislation that would harm the fossil fuel industry is not a melody specific to the United States. As we're meeting, the major world powers are joining Washington and pressuring oil producers to increase production. The oil industry journals are euphoric about the discovery of new fields to exploit as demand for oil increases. Turn to the business press. It's debating whether the US fracking industry or OPEC is best place to increase production. They're racing to catastrophe. And furthermore, at least if they're literate, they all know that there are feasible solutions to the climate crisis, which will furthermore create a more livable world. But profit for the rich and political expediency come first. That's true neoliberal doctrine, of course, has deeper roots. Well, let's turn to briefly to international affairs. I'll keep to one example. The most important current one, I think. The China threat, as it's called. You know, escalating conflict is escalating on a path that might well lead to terminal nuclear war. It's worth a careful look. Well, first of all, the United States is, of course, far in the lead in global military power swamps all potential adversaries combined. Well ahead in the mad race to develop even more dangerous weapons and to extend their yearning for global suicide extended to space. The United States has incomparable security, but that's not how it's perceived in high places. The gravest perceived threat to the United States is China. So what then is the threat of China? Well, the China threat is well described by distinguished international diplomat. Paul Keating, former prime minister of Australia, right within reach of the dragons claws. I'll quote his words. The fact that somehow the rise of 20% of humanity from abject poverty in to something approaching a modern state is illegitimate. That's the China threat. And more than that, by its mere presence, it's an affront to the United States. It's not that China presents a threat to the United States. Something China has never articulated or delivered. Rather, its mere presence represents a challenge to United States preeminence. My own view is that's the essence of the China threat. Well, the main point of contention right now is what's called freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. That's how it's described. It's not accurate. More accurately, the conflict concerns military and intelligence operations in China's exclusive economic zone. The US holds that such operations are permissible in all such exclusive zones. China holds that they are not. India agrees with China's interpretation vigorously protested recent US military operations in its exclusive to zone. For example, these exclusive zones were established by the 1982 law of the sea. United States is the only maritime power that has not ratified the law. It asserts it will not violate it. The law, if you read it, bans the threat or use of force in the exclusive zones, borrowing the words of the UN Charter. Controversy has nothing at all to do with freedom of navigation. It's not threatened in the least. It has to do with whether military intelligence operations constitute a threat of force. Surely that's a clear case where diplomacy is in order, not highly provocative acts like sending in a big naval armada and a region of considerable tension with the threat of escalation, possibly without bounds. But it is crucial to establish US preeminence everywhere, even off the coasts of China, which, unlike the United States, we are led to believe faces no threats, surely not from the nuclear armed missiles in US military bases off China's coasts. These are among the 800 US military bases around the world. China has one in Djibouti. The nature of the China threat is further elaborated by Australia's preeminent military correspondent, Brian Tui. And it's worth quoting in detail to help understand world affairs. So I'll quote him. China's nuclear weapons are so inferior that it couldn't be confident of deterring a retaliatory strike from the United States. Take the example of nuclear powered ballistic missile arms submarines. China has four. Each can carry 12 missiles, each with a single warhead. According to the subs are easy to detect, because they're very noisy. According to the US Office of Naval Intelligence, each is noisier than a Soviet submarine first launched in 1976. Russian and US subs are now much quieter. China is expected to acquire another four that are a little quieter by 2030. However, the missiles on the subs won't have the range to reach the continental United States. They would have to reach suitable locations in the Pacific Ocean. They are effectively bottled up inside the South China Sea to escape that have to pass through a series of checkpoints, choke points where they could be easily sunk by US hunter killer nuclear submarines. In contrast, the United States has 14 missile arm subs Ohio class, each can launch 24 Trident missiles, each containing eight independently targetable warheads, able to reach anywhere on the globe. A single US submarine can destroy 192 cities of the targets anywhere on the globe. That's one submarine compared to 12 for the Chinese submarine, but that's not good enough. The Ohio class is now being replaced by the bigger Columbia class. Well, to write this imbalance, the United States is now sending Australia advanced hunter killer nuclear subs, which Australia will pay for, though they'll be incorporated in the US Naval Command. The sale of advanced nuclear subs abrogates a France-Australia agreement for sale of conventional subs. It's a serious blow to French industry. Washington did not take the trouble even to notify France that instructs the European Union on its place in the US-run global order. Tui observes further that Australia's submission to the United States does not enhance its security. Quite the contrary. And he observes further that the nuclear subs sale has no discernible strategic purpose. The subs will not be operable for over a decade. By that time, China will surely have expanded its military forces to deal with this new military threat. The sub-agreement does serve a purpose, however. It establishes more firm firmly that the United States intends to rule the world, even if that requires escalating the threat of war, possibly terminal war in a highly volatile region. And of course, as Tui such sysified measures as diplomacy, not for tough guys like us. Well, these steps to escalate conflict take place against the background that's plain and stark. The United States inherited the mantle of global dominance from Britain substantially extending its reach. China's arising power found to play a major role in world affairs. The crises we face are international. Pandemics, destruction of the environment, no no borders, nor does nuclear war. The United States and China will either cooperate in addressing these crises or we're doomed. Cooperation is surely achievable, just as the other crises we face have solutions that are within reach. The question we face is whether we can have the will to save ourselves from cataclysm, always tempted in these conditions to reflect on Fermi's paradox, famous paradox in grief. Where are they? Fermi's discipline of astrophysics demonstrates that there's a vast number of planets accessible to us with conditions similar enough to life on earth, on to earth, so that they should be able to support life. Over time, intelligent life, maybe super intelligent life. So where are they? With the most diligent search, we cannot find the slightest hint of their existence. Well, one possible answer is that intelligent life developed but proved to be a lethal mutation and quickly destroyed itself. We know of only one case of intelligent life, humans on earth. We're a new species, a few hundred thousand years old. It's a blink of an eye in evolutionary time. With these thoughts in mind, we can return to the crises we now face. We know how to overcome them. Do we have the will to do so? Or will we choose to show that higher intelligence really may be a lethal mutation, providing an unhappy answer to Fermi's paradox? Thank you.