SECTION SEVEN
EMAIL PAGE FOURTEEN
sm
COLUMN
SIXTY-FOUR, OCTOBER 1, 2001
(Copyright © 2001 Al Aronowitz)
FROM PORTSIDE
Portside
(the left side in nautical parlance) is a
news, discussion and debate service of the Committees
of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It
aims to provide varied material of interest to people
on the left.
Post:
mail to 'portside@egroups.com'
Subscribe: mail to 'portside-subscribe@egroups.com'
Unsubscribe: mail to 'portside-unsubscribe@egroups.com'
List owner: portside-owner@egroups.com
Web address: <http://www.egroups.com/group/portside>
Digest mode: visit Web site
* * *
NOAM CHOMSKY INTERVIEW
Subject:
Interview with Noam Chomsky
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 19:20:14 -0400
From: portsideMod@netscape.net
Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com
To: portside@yahoogroups.com
Interview
with Noam Chomsky by Radio B92, Belgrade
"At
this point we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy much of
human society...".
"How
the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme importance."
-Ed
--------------------
Interviewing
Chomsky
Radio
B92, Belgrade
Q:
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
referred 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
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
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,
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
Q:
"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. 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
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.
Sent
by Laura X
National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape
Women's History Library
(510) 524-1582 Berkeley, Ca.
WEB SITE: http://ncmdr.org ##
CLICK HERE TO GET TO INDEX OF COLUMN SIXTY-FOUR
CLICK HERE TO GET TO INDEX
OF COLUMNS
The
Blacklisted Journalist can be contacted at P.O.Box 964, Elizabeth, NJ 07208-0964
The Blacklisted Journalist's E-Mail Address:
info@blacklistedjournalist.com
THE BLACKLISTED JOURNALIST IS A SERVICE MARK OF AL ARONOWITZ