[Reader-list] B92 Interview with Chomsky,

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Interview with Noam Chomsky,  Radio B92, Belgrade
forwarded from Nettime

B 92 : Why do you think these attacks happened?

C : 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.

B 92 : What consequences will they have on US  inner policy and to the 
American self reception?

C : 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. 

B 92 :  Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest of 
the world?
 
C : 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.

B 92 : After the  first shock, came  fear of what the U.S. answer is going to 
be. Are you afraid, too? 

C : 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 governmentwill 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.

B 92 : The world will never be the same after 11.09.01". Do you think so?

C : 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.