[wordup] Chomsky: A Historical Perspective

[Adam Shand]

well this is really old, been sitting in the queue for a long time but
hell, figured i should send something out. ;)  sorry for the silence i've
been in alaska for the last couple weeks and net access has been sporadic
and slow (dial-up ... ugg).

word up will return around the 7th of january.

Via: rebecca <rebecca at wetadigital.com>

Interviewing Chomsky (MIT Professor)
Radio B92, Belgrade

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.

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.
________________________________________
Rebecca Downes - Systems Administrator
Weta Digital Ltd: Digital Film FX
http://www.wetafx.co.nz