Interviewing Chomsky on 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 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.
~~ 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 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.
~~ "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 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.