Posted
26th September 2001
Old Words New Meanings
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Radio B92, Belgrade
"... if the American population had the slightest idea of what
is being done in their name, they would be utterly appalled."
QUESTION: Why do you think these attacks (Sept 11/01) happened?
CHOMSKY:
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.
t
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.
QUESTION: 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.
QUESTION:
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.
QUESTION: 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 twenty years ago. The opportunities for such
attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are very hard to prevent.
QUESTION:
"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. 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 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. ?
|