Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 09:19:58 -0700
Subject: FW: Chomsky interview
From: Matthew <matthew-AT-heydaybooks.com>


More comprehensive than the last Chomsky post...

> > Interviewing Chomsky -- Radio B92, Belgrade
> >
> > :: Why do you think these attacks happened?
> >
>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 todrive 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.
>
>What consequences will they have on US inner policy
>and to the American self reception?
>
>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.
> >
> > :: Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their
>policy to the rest of the world?
> >
>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.
> >
> > :: After the first shock, came fear of what the U.S.
>answer is going to be. Are you afraid, too?
> >
>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 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 possibiliy 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.
> >
> > :: "The world will never be the same after
>11.09.01". Do you think so?
> >
>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.
>It's 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 thesupport 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.
>
>




     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---