[Reader-list] interview with noam chomsky

[zehra rizvi]

amazing isnt it how chomsky is like one of the most respected
american thinkers and he gets NO MEDIA coverage here....?

zehra.
----------------------------
>
>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 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.
>>
>>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp