More from Noam Chomsky.
Dave
Interviewing Chomsky
Radio B92, Belgrade
Q: Why do you think these attacks happened?
Chomksy: To answer the question we must first identify the
perpetrators of
the crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is the
Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the
Osama
Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization,
doubtless inspired
by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his control. Let us
assume
that this is true. Then to answer your question a sensible person
would try
to ascertain Bin Laden's views, and the sentiments of the large
reservoir of
supporters he has throughout the region. About all of this, we have
a great
deal of information. Bin Laden has been interviewed extensively
over the
years by highly reliable Middle East specialists, notably the most
eminent
correspondent in the region, Robert Fisk (London _Independent_),
who has
intimate knowledge of the entire region and direct experience over
decades.
A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became a militant Islamic
leader in
the war to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. He was one of the
many
religious fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and financed
by the
CIA and their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal
harm to the
Russians -- quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts
suspect -- though whether he personally happened to have direct
contact with
the CIA is unclear, and not particularly important. Not surprisingly,
the
CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel fighters they could
mobilize. The
end result was to "destroy a moderate regime and create a
fanatical one,
from groups recklessly financed by the Americans" (_London
Times_
correspondent Simon Jenkins, also a specialist on the region).
These
"Afghanis" as they are called (many, like Bin Laden, not from
Afghanistan)
carried out terror operations across the border in Russia, but they
terminated these after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against
Russia,
which they despise, but against the Russian occupation and
Russia's crimes
against Muslims.
The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however. They
joined
Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not object,
just as it
tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex reasons that we
need not
pursue here, apart from noting that concern for the grim fate of the
Bosnians was not prominent among them. The "Afghanis" are also
fighting the
Russians in Chechnya, and, quite possibly, are involved in carrying
out
terrorist attacks in Moscow and elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin
Laden
and his "Afghanis" turned against the US in 1990 when they
established
permanent bases in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of view, a
counterpart to
the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant
because of
Saudi Arabia's special status as the guardian of the holiest shrines.
Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive
regimes of
the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including the Saudi
Arabian
regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime in the
world, apart
from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its origins. Bin Laden
despises
the US for its support of these regimes. Like others in the region,
he is
also outraged by long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military
occupation, now in its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic,
military, and economic intervention in support of the killings, the
harsh
and destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to
which
Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to
break the
occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take control of
the
resources, the gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other
actions
that are recognized as crimes throughout most of the world, apart
from the
US, which has prime responsibility for them. And like others, he
contrasts
Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with the decade-
long
US-British assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which has
devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of
deaths while
strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally
of the US
and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing
of the
Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if
Westerners prefer
to forget the facts. These sentiments are very widely shared. The
_Wall
Street Journal_ (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy
and
privileged Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals,
businessmen
with close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same
views:
resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and
blocking
the international consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many
years while
devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and repressive
anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and imposing
barriers against
economic development by "propping up oppressive regimes."
Among the great
majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar
sentiments
are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that
has led
to suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who are
interested in
the facts.
The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story.
To quote
the lead analysis in the _New York Times_ (Sept. 16), the
perpetrators acted
out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom,
tolerance,
prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage." U.S. actions
are
irrelevant, and therefore need not even be mentioned (Serge
Schmemann). This
is a convenient picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar in
intellectual history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to be
completely at variance with everything we know, but has all the
merits of
self-adulation and uncritical support for power.
It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are
praying
for "a great assault on Muslim states," which will cause "fanatics
to flock
to his cause" (Jenkins, and many others.). That too is familiar. The
escalating cycle of violence is typically welcomed by the harshest
and most
brutal elements on both sides, a fact evident enough from the
recent history
of the Balkans, to cite only one of many cases.
Q: What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to
the American
self reception?
Chomsky: US policy has already been officially announced. The
world is being
offered a "stark choice": join us, or "face the certain prospect of
death
and destruction." Congress has authorized the use of force against
any
individuals or countries the President determines to be involved in
the
attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as ultra-criminal.
That is
easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same people would have
reacted if
Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after the U.S. had rejected the
orders
of the World Court to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against
Nicaragua and had vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on
all states
to observe international law. And that terrorist attack was far more
severe
and destructive even than this atrocity.
As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far more
complex. One
should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual elites
generally
have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the answer to this
question is,
in significant measure, a matter of decision: as in many other
cases, with
sufficient dedication and energy, efforts to stimulate fanaticism,
blind
hatred, and submission to authority can be reversed. We all know
that very
well.
Q: Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest
of the
world?
Chomsky: The initial response was to call for intensifying the
policies that
led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of
support for
the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the agenda of
the most
hard line elements of the leadership: increased militarization,
domestic
regimentation, attack on social programs. That is all to be
expected. Again,
terror attacks, and the escalating cycle of violence they often
engender,
tend to reinforce the authority and prestige of the most harsh and
repressive elements of a society. But there is nothing inevitable
about
submission to this course.
Q: After the first shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going
to be.
Are you afraid, too?
Chomsky: Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction
-- the
one that has already been announced, the one that probably
answers Bin
Laden's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of violence,
in
the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater scale.
The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food
and other
supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and
suffering people
of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented, unknown
numbers of
people who have not the remotest connection to terrorism will die,
possibly
millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded that Pakistan kill
possibly
millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban. This
has
nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even
than
that. The significance is heightened by the fact that this is
mentioned in
passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We
can learn
a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual culture
of
the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think we can
be
reasonably confident that if the American population had the
slightest idea
of what is being done in their name, they would be utterly appalled.
It
would be instructive to seek historical precedents.
If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may
come under
direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If Pakistan
does submit
to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the government will be
overthrown
by forces much like the Taliban -- who in this case will have nuclear
weapons. That could have an effect throughout the region, including
the oil
producing states. At this point we are considering the possibility of
a war
that may destroy much of human society.
Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an
attack
on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts
expect: it
will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin Laden, as he
hopes.
Even if he is killed, it will make little difference. His voice will be
heard on cassettes that are distributed throughout the Islamic
world, and he
is likely to be revered as a martyr, inspiring others. It is worth
bearing
in mind that one suicide bombing -- a truck driven into a U.S.
military
base -- drove the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20
years ago.
The opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide
attacks are very
hard to prevent.
Q: "The world will never be the same after 11.09.01". Do you think
so?
Chomsky: The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are
something quite new
in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the target.
For
the US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that its national
territory has been under attack, even threat. Its colonies have been
attacked, but not the national territory itself. During these years the
US
virtually exterminated the indigenous population, conquered half of
Mexico,
intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii
and the
Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the
past
half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout
much of
the world. The number of victims is colossal. For the first time, the
guns
have been directed the other way. The same is true, even more
dramatically,
of Europe. Europe has suffered murderous destruction, but from
internal
wars, meanwhile conquering much of the world with extreme
brutality. It has
not been under attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions
(the IRA
in England, for example). It is therefore natural that NATO should
rally to
the support of the US; hundreds of years of imperial violence have
an
enormous impact on the
intellectual and moral culture.
It is correct to say that this is a novel event in world history, not
because of the scale of the atrocity -- regrettably -- but because of
the
target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme
importance. If
the rich and powerful choose to keep to their traditions of hundreds
of
years and resort to extreme violence, they will contribute to the
escalation
of a cycle of violence, in a familiar dynamic, with long-term
consequences
that could be awesome. Of course, that is by no means inevitable.
An aroused
public within the more free and democratic societies can direct
policies
towards a much more humane and honorable course.
Dr. David Storey
Geography Department &
Centre for Rural Research
University College Worcester
Henwick Grove
Worcester WR2 6AJ
England
Tel: 01905 855189
Fax: 01905 855132
|
