Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 04:45:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: caspar ghostl <ranciddungdust-AT-yahoo.ca>


FEATURE STORY | Special Report 
   Reply to Hitchens
   by NOAM CHOMSKY  
      have been asked to respond to recent Nation
articles by Christopher Hitchens
      (website, September 24; magazine, Oct. 8), and
after refusing several times, will do so,
   though only partially, and reluctantly. The reason
for the reluctance is that Hitchens cannot
   mean what he is saying. For that reason
alone--there are others that should be
   obvious--this is no proper context for addressing
serious issues relating to the September
   11 atrocities. 
   That Hitchens cannot mean what he writes is clear,
   in the first place, from his reference to the
bombing
   of Sudan. He must be unaware that he is expressing
   such racist contempt for African victims of a
terrorist
   crime, and cannot intend what his words imply. This
   single atrocity destroyed half the pharmaceutical
   supplies of a poor African country and the
facilities
   for replenishing them, with an enormous human toll.
   Hitchens is outraged that I compared this atrocity
to
   what I called "the wickedness and awesome cruelty"
   of the terrorist attacks of September 11 (quoting
   Robert Fisk), adding that the actual toll in the
Sudan
   case can only be surmised, because the United
   States blocked any UN inquiry and few were
   interested enough to pursue the matter. That the
toll
   is dreadful is hardly in doubt. 
   Hitchens is apparently referring to a response I
wrote to several journalists on September
   15, composite because inquiries were coming too
fast for individual response. This was
   apparently posted several times on the web, as were
other much more detailed subsequent
   responses. In the brief message Hitchens may have
seen, I did not elaborate,
   assuming--correctly, judging by subsequent
interchanges with many respondents--that it
   was unnecessary: The recipients would understand
why the comparison is quite
   appropriate. I also took for granted that they
would understand a virtual truism: When we
   estimate the human toll of a crime, we count not
only those who were literally murdered on
   the spot but those who died as a result, the course
we adopt reflexively, and properly,
   when we consider the crimes of official
enemies--Stalin, Hitler and Mao, to mention the
   most extreme cases. If we are even pretending to be
serious, we apply the same standards
   to ourselves: In the case of Sudan, we count the
number who died as a direct consequence
   of the crime, not just those killed by cruise
missiles. Again, a truism. 
   Since there is one person who does not appear to
understand, I will add a few quotes from
   the mainstream press, to clarify.
   A year after the attack, "without the lifesaving
medicine [the destroyed facilities] produced,
   Sudan's death toll from the bombing has continued,
quietly, to rise.... Thus, tens of
   thousands of people--many of them children--have
suffered and died from malaria,
   tuberculosis, and other treatable diseases.... [The
factory] provided affordable medicine for
   humans and all the locally available veterinary
medicine in Sudan. It produced 90 percent
   of Sudan's major pharmaceutical products....
Sanctions against Sudan make it impossible
   to import adequate amounts of medicines required to
cover the serious gap left by the
   plant's destruction.... the action taken by
Washington on Aug. 20, 1998, continues to
   deprive the people of Sudan of needed medicine.
Millions must wonder how the
   International Court of Justice in The Hague will
celebrate this anniversary" (Jonathan Belke,
   Boston Globe, August 22, 1999). 
   "The loss of this factory is a tragedy for the
rural communities who need these medicines"
   (Tom Carnaffin, technical manager with "intimate
knowledge" of the destroyed plant, Ed
   Vulliamy et al., London Observer, August 23, 1998).

   The plant "provided 50 percent of Sudan's
medicines, and its destruction has left the
   country with no supplies of choloroquine, the
standard treatment for malaria," but months
   later, the British Labour government refused
requests "to resupply chloroquine in
   emergency relief until such time as the Sudanese
can rebuild their pharmaceutical
   production" (Patrick Wintour, Observer, December
20, 1998). 
   And much more. 
   Proportional to population, this is as if the bin
Laden network, in a single attack on the
   United States, caused "hundreds of thousands of
people--many of them children--to suffer
   and die from easily treatable diseases," though the
analogy is unfair because a rich country,
   not under sanctions and denied aid, can easily
replenish its stocks and respond
   appropriately to such an atrocity--which, I
presume, would not have passed so lightly. To
   regard the comparison to September 11 as outrageous
is to express extraordinary racist
   contempt for African victims of a shocking crime,
which, to make it worse, is one for which
   we are responsible: as taxpayers, for failing to
provide massive reparations, for granting
   refuge and immunity to the perpetrators, and for
allowing the terrible facts to be sunk so
   deep in the memory hole that some, at least, seem
unaware of them. 
   This only scratches the surface. The United States
bombing "appears to have shattered the
   slowly evolving move towards compromise between
Sudan's warring sides" and terminated
   promising steps toward a peace agreement to end the
civil war that had left 1.5 million
   dead since 1981, which might have also led to
"peace in Uganda and the entire Nile
   Basin." The attack apparently "shattered...the
expected benefits of a political shift at the
   heart of Sudan's Islamist government" toward a
"pragmatic engagement with the outside
   world," along with efforts to address Sudan's
domestic crises," to end support for
   terrorism, and to reduce the influence of radical
Islamists (Mark Huband, Financial
   Times, September 8, 1998). 
   Insofar as these consequences ensued, we may
compare the crime in Sudan to the
   assassination of Lumumba, which helped plunge the
Congo into decades of slaughter, still
   continuing; or the overthrow of the democratic
government of Guatemala in 1954, which
   led to forty years of hideous atrocities; and all
too many others like it. 
   One can scarcely try to estimate the colossal toll
of the Sudan bombing, even apart from
   the probable tens of thousands of immediate
Sudanese victims. The complete toll is
   attributable to the single act of terror--at least,
if we have the honesty to adopt the
   standards we properly apply to official enemies. 
   Evidently, Hitchens cannot mean what he said about
this topic. We can therefore disregard
   it. 
   To take another example, Hitchens writes that I
referred to the "the whole business [of the
   1999 Kosovo war] as a bullying persecution of--the
Serbs!" As he knows, this is sheer
   fabrication. The reasons for the war that I
suggested were quoted from the highest-level
   official US justifications for it, including
National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and the
   final summary presented to Congress by Secretary of
Defense William Cohen. We can
   therefore also disregard what Hitchens has to say
about this topic. 
   As a final illustration, consider Hitchens's fury
over the "masochistic e-mail...circulating
   from the Chomsky-Zinn-Finkelstein quarter," who
joined such radical rags as the Wall
   Street Journal in what he calls "rationalizing"
terror--that is, considering the grievances
   expressed by people of the Middle East region, rich
to poor, secular to Islamist, the course
   that would be followed by anyone who hopes to
reduce the likelihood of further atrocities
   rather than simply to escalate the cycle of
violence, in the familiar dynamics, leading to even
   greater catastrophes here and elsewhere. This is an
outrage, Hitchens explains, because "I
   know already" about these concerns--a comment that
makes sense on precisely one
   assumption: that the communications were addressed
solely to Hitchens. Without further
   comment, we can disregard his fulminations on these
topics. 
   In one charge, Hitchens is correct. He writes that
"the crime [in Sudan] was directly and
   sordidly linked to the effort by a crooked
President to avoid impeachment (a conclusion
   sedulously avoided by the Chomskys and Husseinis of
the time)." It's true that I have
   sedulously avoided this speculation, and will
continue to do so until some meaningful
   evidence is provided; and have also sedulously
avoided the entire obsession with Clinton's
   sex life. 
   From the rest, it may be possible to disentangle
some intended line of argument, but
   I'm not going to make the effort, and fail to see
why others should. Since Hitchens
   evidently does not take what he is writing
seriously, there is no reason for anyone else
   to do so. The fair and sensible reaction is to
treat all of this as some aberration, and to
   await the return of the author to the important
work that he has often done in the past. 
   In the background are issues worth addressing. But
in some serious context, not this one. 

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free -AT-yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca