[Here's Uncle Noam. Does he ever sleep? John.]================================================
The Fifth Freedom
Gangster Pimping in the Culture of Terrorism

http://www.guerrillanews.com/counter_intelligence/206.html


Stephen Marshall: Hi Noam.


Noam Chomsky: Hello. What are we going to be talking about today?


Well. I'd like to begin with a brief discussion about your work in
linguistics and how that developed into a major concentration on U.S.
foreign policy. I'd like to then move on to the subject of the current
conflict. Looking at it from the perspective that is presented in The
Culture of Terrorism. And then I want to focus on stuff like the Fifth
Freedom and your opinion about how the Bush Administration is handling the
retaliations. Is that cool?


Sounds great.


Ok. Maybe we'll just start with the fact that your original scholastic focus
was in the field of linguistics. Some people might actually be surprised to
hear that. I wanted to ask you if there is a connection between the study of
language and that of political systems. How should we look at language in
our political studies?


Well, my professional field happens to be linguistics and I've been in it
since I was 17 years old. But it has basically nothing to do with my
interests in international affairs and social and economic issues, which
actually preceded it from childhood. Just parallel lives...


There are certainly questions about the use of language, that's a very
important question but you don't have to be a professional linguist to say
anything about those. Those are just common sense.


Take, say, a word like 'terrorism,' for example. Like most terms of
political discourse it has two meanings: there's a literal meaning and if
you want to know what that is you can look up the official U.S. code or army
manuals, they'll tell you what terrorism is. And it's what you would think,
terrorism is "the calculated use of violence against civilians to
intimidate, induce fear, often to kill, for some political, religious, or
other end."


That's terrorism, according to its official definition.


But that definition can't be used. Because if that definition is used, you
get all the wrong consequences. For one thing, that definition turns out to
be almost the same as the definition of official U.S. policy. Except, when
it's U.S. policy, it's called 'counter-insurgency' or 'low-intensity
conflict' or some other name. But, in fact, if you look at the definition,
it's essentially terrorism. In fact, almost a paraphrase. Furthermore, if
you apply the literal definition, you conclude that the U.S. is a leading
terrorist state because it engages in these practices all the time. It's the
only state, in fact, which has been condemned by the World Court and the
Security Council for terrorism, in this sense. And the same is true of its
allies. So, right now, they're putting together what they call a 'coalition
against terror', for the 'war on terror', and if you run down the list,
every one of them is a leading terrorist state.


So obviously you can't use that definition.


So therefore, there's a propagandistic definition which is the one actually
used and in that definition terrorism is "terrorism which is directed
against the United States or its allies and carried out by enemies." Well,
that's the propagandistic use and, if you read the newspapers and the
scholarly literature, they're always using that use. And that's not just the
U.S. Every country does that, even the worst killers, the worst mass
murderers do it. Take the Nazis, they were combating an occupied Europe.
They combated what they called terrorism, namely partisan resistance, which
often was, in fact, terrorism in the technical sense.


Resistance usually is.


The American Revolution is a good example - plenty of terrorism. So, the
Nazis were combating terrorism and they called what they were doing, which
was extraordinarily brutal, 'counter-terrorism'. And the U.S. basically
agreed with them. The U.S. Army, after the war, made extensive use of Nazi
training manuals... did studies which did careful analysis of them, thinking
what was right, what was wrong - meaning did it work or didn't it work -
essentially accepting the same framework, and, furthermore, immediately
started carrying out the same actions against, pretty much, the same
enemies. The U.S. Army manuals, on what is called 'counter-terrorism', drew
from German manuals and even involved the high German officers-Wehrmacht
officers - who were used as consultants. And, in every other state, it's the
same. The terrorism they don't like is called 'terrorism' and the terrorism
they do like, because they carry it out or their allies carry it out, is
called 'counter-terrorism'.


Well, this all has to do with the use of language. But you certainly don't
have to be a professional linguist to see this. This just requires having
ordinary intelligence and looking at the facts. And the same is true
throughout, I mean the terms that are used are twisted in ways to satisfy
the needs of whoever's using them, which turns out mostly to be concentrated
power centers, state or private, and that's true wherever you look.


And that's a serious issue. So you can look at the use of language and
propaganda and ideology and schools and so on, but it's really just common
sense.


In many of your writings, you have discussed the notion of state deception,
especially when it comes to historical revision. Something happened one
night during a news broadcast that made me question how immediate the
revision is becoming. I was watching CNN after Bush's address to Congress,
and they were discussing Bush's use of the word 'crusade'. And there was an
advisor or policy analyst who came on and said: "It's unfortunate that Bush
and his speechwriters didn't understand the implications of a word like
crusade." And I was shocked. I mean, do you believe that George Bush's
speechwriters would not understand the implications of a word like 'crusade'
to the Islamic people and, on the converse, aren't words like those used to
incite or trigger responses?


Well, you're right to emphasize George Bush's speechwriter because he
probably doesn't even know what he's saying. But the speechwriter's picked
the word 'crusade', and you can understand it. In English, the term
'crusade' is used quite generally. A crusade against something just means a
struggle against it. But in the Islamic world it has a different meaning, it
refers to the crusades, which were an extremely brutal and violent invasion
of their land by Christian fundamentalist fanatics who left a horrendous
trail of bloodshed.


And that's part of their history.


It's usually the victims who remember the history, not the perpetrators. So
the use of the word 'crusade' in the Islamic world carries many strong
memories and associations and Bush's speechwriters hadn't thought about it.
So they withdrew the word crusade. That's happened a couple of times
already.


The first operation against Afghanistan was called 'Infinite Justice' and
they withdrew that when it was pointed out to them that the only 'infinite
justice' is God's justice, and they were being interpreted as regarding
themselves as divinity. And they didn't want to do that for obvious reasons,
so they changed it to some other phrase. The phrase they did pick is
interesting. The campaign is now called 'Enduring Freedom'. Well, a number
of comments about that...


If you want to look at the kind of 'freedom' they have in mind, there's an
ample historical record of the kind of freedom they impose. The other point
is, nobody seems to have noticed it but, the word 'enduring' is actually
ambiguous. It can mean 'lasting' or it can mean 'suffering from'. So, I'm
enduring pain is another interpretation of 'enduring' and, in fact, if you
think of the kind of freedom they impose and enduring freedom in the other
sense, that is: 'somehow living with the horrendous consequences of it,' is
not an inaccurate description.


Nobody's pointed that out to them yet so they're still using this phrase,
but if someone does maybe they'll make another one up.


Yeah, but I wondered if it wasn't a bit of a ploy, if there isn't a bit of
incitement going on. Kind of subliminal psychological intimidation. I mean,
these speechwriters are, I imagine, are some of the best in the country.
They must implicitly understand the import and potential impact of every
word -

No, I don't think so. I think they're just mistakes.


Fair enough. Now, sticking with this analysis of language and, specifically,
the use of the word 'freedom'. In The Culture of Terrorism, you discuss
something called the 'fifth freedom'. Can you please just define that for us
and maybe describe how it has any relevance right now?


Well, there's a famous concept called The Four Freedoms. In, I think it must
have been 1944 approximately... President Roosevelt, towards the end of the
war, announced that the allies were fighting for the 'four freedoms.' That's
freedom from want, freedom from fear, I forget the exact other words, but
all good things. So those were the four freedoms we were fighting for.


We actually have a declassified record, a released internal record of the
background... what they were afraid of at the time. Remember, that at the
time the world was mostly colonies and the colonies, in fact, often
welcomed, especially, the Japanese. They welcomed the Japanese because the
Japanese were throwing out the colonial oppressors - they were throwing out
the British, and the French, and the Dutch, and the Americans and so on.


And it was understood, internally, that it was necessary to make some appeal
to the huge part of the world which was the colonial world - we now call the
south or the Third World - which would make them believe that we were really
fighting for good things. Not just to restore colonialism.


And out of that came the Four Freedoms. And by the 'fifth' freedom, I meant
the one that they didn't mention. But the crucial one. Namely the freedom to
rob and exploit, that's a freedom that we and our powerful countries, the
imperial countries, insist on. And that was the real freedom that was being
fought for.


And the colonial world, if they didn't know it already, discovered that very
fast after the Second World War. That's a good part of the history of the
last 50 years... is the record of how the great powers - primarily the
United States, because it's the most powerful - pursued their own freedom to
rob and exploit and oppress and so on. That's the real history. It may not
be taught in school here but the real history of British imperialism wasn't
taught in British schools either. It's known by the victims.


Historical revisionism. On that topic, you published an official reaction to
the terrorist attacks and the proposed U.S. reaction on October 8th. There
is a lot to that but I wanted to focus on one point you made, namely this
concept of historical revisionism. In that text, you used the words
"systemic falsification of the past" to describe the West's approach to its
history. I'd like to ask you to define that terminology for people who don't
understand it, and how it plays a role in current events in allowing them to
sustain itself. Is it a mode of behavior that can have severe human
consequences?


It's very typical over history, over time, for the world to look very
different depending on whether you're holding the whip, or you're under the
whip.


It just looks different.


For a couple hundred years, Europe and its offshoots - we're one of it
offshoots - have been holding the whip. They've been carrying out massive
atrocities against others, and that's U.S. history. That's the history of
England, France, Belgium, Germany and others. They've always been attacking
people outside and conquering the world; they didn't conquer the world in a
pretty fashion. And they have a picture which is about how they were
bringing freedom and justice and... 'maybe they made some mistakes, but it
was all well intentioned'... and so on. From the other end of the guns, it
looks very different.


Now, our systematic falsification of history... well, let's just take where
we're talking right now:


Well, we're here in New England because religious fanatics, extreme fanatic
religious fundamentalists, very much like Islamic fundamentalists, landed
here and mercilessly destroyed the indigenous population. So we're here.
That's not the way it's taught, but that's the way it was. And the founding
fathers were well aware of it. And they recognized it, sometimes with
regret, sometimes not, and it continued until the national territory was
conquered. There were, after all, maybe 7 or 8 million or maybe more
inhabitants here, they weren't around by the year 1900. And the U.S., for
example, conquered half of Mexico. Well, the Mexicans know it; we don't get
taught it in school. When the U.S. took over the Philippines, they killed a
couple hundred thousand people. Filipinos, they know it, we don't talk about
it.


And this falsification of history has consequences. In fact, we saw some of
them on Sept 11th. Here, the commentary often... much of the commentary is:
"Well, why do they hate us?" And a lot of the commentary, op eds, in The New
York Times and so on, by big thinkers, was: "Well, they hate us because we
stand for freedom and democracy and prosperity and therefore they hate us."


Well, that's a nice, comforting point of view, but it's totally false. And
some of the press, to its credit, did begin to look at the history. So the
Wall Street Journal very soon, within a few days, began running articles on
actual attitudes of people in the Middle East towards the United States.
They sampled the wealthy and the privileged - the people who they're
concerned about - not beggars and rural people, but bankers, and lawyers for
international corporations, businessmen, and they did several good studies
of their attitudes. And, it turns out, that they're very bitter and angry
and frustrated about the United States though they're very pro-American and,
in fact, all involved in the U.S. system.


And their anger is precisely the opposite of what the elite intellectuals
are saying.


They don't hate us for our democracy, they hate us because we repress
democracy. They hate us because we've supported the oppressive and brutal
and authoritarian regimes and undermined any attempt at democracy in the
region, and because of their explicit policies. So the policy of the last
ten years... the U.S. and Britain have devastated the civilian society of
Iraq meanwhile, strengthening Saddam Hussein. And they know very well, even
though we don't like to say it, that the U.S. and Britain supported Hussein
right through his worst atrocities. The ones that are now being brought up
to show how terrible he is. Like the gassing of the Kurds. A horrible
atrocity, and, yet, the U.S. and Britain supported him right through it,
continued to support him afterwards. And they know that. They also know that
the policies are destroying the civilian society and strengthening Saddam
Hussein, and that stands alongside the U.S. policies towards Israel and
Palestine.


I mean, they know, even if we pretend not to, that there has been a brutal
military occupation, now going into its 35th year, which has relied
crucially on U.S. support - diplomatic support, military support, economic
support. When Israel builds settlements to break up the occupied territories
illegally, the U.S. is paying for it. When it sends helicopters to carry out
assassinations or attack civilian complexes, they are U.S. helicopters sent
with a certain knowledge that that's how they're going to be used. On the
diplomatic front, they know, even if we pretend not to, that for twenty-five
years, the U.S. has been blocking a diplomatic settlement which has almost
total - almost, the whole world has been in favor of it for 25 years,
including the Arab states, Europe, former Soviet Union, everybody - [in
favor of] some sort of two-state settlement. And the U.S. has been blocking
it, and they're still blocking it.


Well, they know all of this. And such policies towards say, Iraq and the
consistent U.S. support for brutal and oppressive regimes. Even its own
atrocities within the region, which are not slight... its opposition to
democracy, those are the attitudes of the pro-American elements. The
wealthy, privileged elements. If you get out on the streets, you hear the
same things, it's just much more bitter and they're also furious about the
fact that the wealth of the region, which is real - mostly oil wealth - is
not being used for them, but it's going to the West. It's going to purchase
U.S. Treasury securities, or U.S. arms, or pay off U.S. and British
investment firms, well they know all that.


They're living in misery and the wealth is going to the West.


These are the real attitudes. Now if we choose not to pay attention to those
attitudes and to pretend that they're angry because we're so wonderful,
well, we're just guaranteeing that there will be more terrorist acts. If you
don't want to understand the reasons, you can be pretty sure that it will
continue. And this is true of, take any crime you like - robbery in the
streets or a major atrocity - whoever is committing it has reasons. I mean,
maybe it's just pathology, that could happen too, but usually they have
reasons. And if you look at the reasons, there's usually something behind
them, even something legitimate behind them. So, when... take the Oklahoma
city bombing, when it first happened, there were big headlines about "Let's
Bomb Beirut" or something like that. It was assumed that it had some Middle
East connection and if it had some Middle East connection, the U.S. probably
would have gone to war, like it's doing now. Well, it turned out not to have
a Middle East connection, but to be a domestic person with militia
associations.


OK, what was the reaction?


Was the reaction to bomb Idaho and destroy Montana and bomb the Republic of
Texas, which has declared independence of the oppressive government of
Washington? No that wasn't the reaction, that would have been crazy. The
reaction was to find the person who was responsible, bring him to trial,
follow legal procedures, and consider the grievances. I mean, the militia
movements come out of something. And if you look at what they come out of,
you find that there are some things that really ought be attended to.
They're important. And that's typically the case. We can choose not to do
that, but then we're just guaranteeing that the cycle of violence will
escalate, like tribal warfare - you hurt me, I'm going to hurt you more.
That's a way to go on, and we know the consequences.

************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************