|
by Radio B92,
Belgrade, 9/18/1
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 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.
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.
Return to Table of Contents |
