File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0109, message 213


Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:27:22 +1000
From: shamass <aphayes-AT-cyberone.com.au>
Subject: AUT: FWD: Noam Chomsky Interview on September Eleventh (S11)


from a-infos [http://www.ainfos.ca/]

------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:51:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Clore Daniel C" <clore-AT-columbia-center.org>
Subject: (en) Noam Chomsky Interview on September Eleventh (S11)

Interviewing Chomsky by 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 iimportant. 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.


--
THE RED THREAD: http://redthread.cjb.net


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005