|
October
3, 2001
Ariel
Dorfman:
America
the Wounded
Lennie
Brenner
Dr.
Watson in Afghanistan
Steve
Perry:
Ashcroft's
Scare Tactics
October
2, 2001
Patrick
Cockburn:
Inside
an Afghan Hospital
Richard
Manning:
A
Vietnam Vet on Patriotism
St. Clair/Cockburn:
Tarnished
Star,
Tom Ridge in Vietnam
October
1, 2001
Noam
Chomsky:
Memo
to Hitchens
Hizam
Bitar:
Refuting
Michael Kinsley
David Grenier:
The
Good, The Bad,
and the Ugly
Douglas
Valentine:
Homeland
Insecurity
Carl
Estabrook:
Stop Bush's Killing
Mahajan/Jensen:
Food,
Fear and War
Patrick
Cockburn:
Ready
to Strike
Cockburn/St.
Clair:
Things
Could Be Worse
Terry
Allen:
Early
Profit-taking and 9/11
September
29, 2001
Steve Perry:
The
Pentagon's Blueprint
Patrick
Cockburn:
When
Will the Missiles Fall?
September
28, 2001
Edward Said:
Backlash
and Backtrack
John Troyer:
When
Language Fails
Patrick
Cockburn:
In
Afghanistan, Waiting for the Real War to Start
Steve Breyman:
War,
Oil and Renewables
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published on JULY 12
RAND's BLUEPRINT FOR
THE COLOMBIAN WAR
PRISONERS BATTLE
CALIFORNIA'S PRISON
SHU TORTURE
REMEMBERING SHAHAK
MURDER IN NAVAJOLAND
Published on JULY 1
BLACKS, LABOR AND
SOUTHERN POLITICS:
THE CASE OF THE
CHARLESTON FIVE
SO INIMITABLE:
THE LATE GREAT
JOHN LEE HOOKER
FARMINGTON, NM,
RACIST HELLHOLE
ARSENIC: THE GOOD NEWS
BONO AND HESTON
GALE NORTON'S
SECRET PAST
Search
CounterPunch
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James
Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas
Valentine
Al
Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
New Stories:
|
October 4,
2001
Chatting With Chomsky
The following is a transcript of Noam
Chomsky's October 2 appearance in the MSNBC
chatroom hosted by Will Femia.
Will Femia:
Ok. Welcome Professor Chomsky.
Question from Chip Berlet: I agree with you that aggressive militarism
is not the answer to this mess, but the Taliban and Osama bin
Laden's networks seem to me to be totalitarian and apocalyptic
clerical fascist movements. Isn't this a moment the left needs
to just say it is against terrorism, and that groups like the
Taliban and OsB's networks are not liberation stuggles but reactionary
or fascistic movements that we oppose?
Noam Chomsky:
As far as I'm aware, that's what the left has been saying for
20 years. I know I have ever since these groups were organized
by the CIA, Pakistani and Egyptian intelligence and other U.S.
allies. They were organized recruited, trained, and armed to
fight a holy war against the Russians, which they did. But they
also started right away carrying out terrorist acts. 20 years
ago they assassinated the president of Egypt and they've been
carrying out terror ever since. The groups that the CIA organized
were drawn from extremist radical Islamic groups and they have
been pursuing their own agenda. They did what the CIA wanted
them to, but they have been pursuing their own agenda. There
is no doubt that from the start they were murderous terrorist
organizations. I don't know if the word fascist is exactly correct,
they don't have that kind of ideology. But they' re extremely
dangerous and have been for 20 years. It is quite obvious. That
's been the position, as far as I'm aware, of any serious person
on the left as far back as I can remember.
Question from Geraldine Fincannon: We are a nation which
would advance the destiny of all lives and share the wealth existing
in our country with all its inhabitants and those of the world.
Isn't this the real bone of contention between our country and
the radical Moslems who send terrorists to do horrible deeds
in our country?
Noam Chomsky:
It has nothing to do with money. They have been very clear about
what they want. Bin Laden himself has had many interviews with
western journalists, many of them are broadcast in just the last
week. Two long ones were broadcast by the BBC. What he and the
others have been saying for 20 years is consistent, and it's
also consistent with their actions so we should take it seriously.
They say their main targets are the corrupt brutal regimes of
the Middle East, which from their point of view are not properly
Islamic and they want to defend Muslim rights against infidels
anywhere in the world. So they've been fighting in Chechnya,
Bosnia, North Africa, Kashmir, the Philippines, all over. Apart
from the Islamic fanaticism, what they say has considerable resonance
in the region, including very pro-American wealthy sectors.
They turned against the United States
when the United States established permanent military bases in
Saudi Arabia about 10 years ago. They regard that very much like
the Russian occupation of Afghanistan they fought against. Apart
from the Islamic fanaticism, what they say has considerable resonance
in the region, including very pro-American wealthy sectors. The
Wall Street Journal has been doing a particularly good job in
surveying those opinions beginning September 14. When they condemn
the United States for it's anti-democratic stands for supporting
brutal regimes and corrupt regimes, they are saying what people
in the streets think and there's a reason for it. The same is
true when they condemn U.S. policies towards Iraq and Israel.
They know, even if we choose not to, that the United States
has been devastating the civilian society of Iraq while strengthening
Saddam Hussein.
They know, even if we choose not to,
that the United States has been devastating the civilian society
of Iraq while strengthening Saddam Hussein, and it's been supporting
a very harsh military occupation that is now in its 35th year
in Israel, over the Palestinians. The U.S. has been pretty much
alone in the world in imposing that very cruel domination with
economic and military and diplomatic assistance. That's quite
well known there and even the most pro-American wealthy Muslim
businessmen bankers have the same feelings others do. When Bin
Laden talks about these things there is a resonance. They may
hate him. Most of them do hate him because they overwhelmingly
oppose his terrorist violence and his Islamic fanaticism, but
a good part of the message does reflect what people believe and
with justification.
Question from Pat Wickline: I am seeing a lot of media coverage of the perspective
that US foreign policy in the region has been driven by economic
reasons. It is hard to argue that our motivation is "freedom"
when we support a government like Saudi Arabia. Do you think
progress has been made in this regard, esp. compared to how US
Involvement in Central America was covered in the media?
Noam Chomsky:
In the last few weeks since these horrendous atrocities of September
11th, there has been a certain amount of opening in the media
about these questions. What I was just saying about the attitudes
of wealthy Muslims towards U.S. anti-democratic politics, that
was almost quoted from the Wall Street Journal, for example.
So there's been a little bit of opening to this. It has a long
way to go, but if we want to understand what is happening and
undertake realistic programs that will protect ourselves as well
as others, we just have to begin to pay attention to these things.
Question from Stan Feldman: Do you think that Arab states who want to be
"with the US, and not with the terrorists" as President
Bush says, should take steps to eliminate inflammatory and blatantly
false statements disseminated by their media and in their school
systems about the USA and Israel?
Will Femia:
Why does the American propaganda machine fail
overseas?
Noam Chomsky:
Of course they should stop producing outrageous lies and fabrications.
These are terrible governments. There are good reasons people
in the region hate and despise them and are angry at the U.S.
for the support that it gives them. And yes, they should, of
course, move towards open media and discussion the way most of
the population wants. There is now finally one pretty free television
channel in the regions based in the Gulf Emerit Al-Jazeera. That
has been pretty free and open and everyone in the Arab speaking
world listens to it, but it's unique. Unfortunately it's the
policies that are the problem and there's no amount of propaganda
that can overcome that.
As to why the U.S. propaganda system
fails over there, the reason is that they can see with their
own eyes what the facts are. When you produce false propaganda
to people who can see that it's false, it does not succeed. Just
the way that we never believed Soviet propaganda. It was so obviously
ridiculous that you just laughed at it. Unfortunately it's the
policies that
are the problem and there's no amount of propaganda that can
overcome that.
Question from Craig Bryant: What is the "real reason" for our
continued support of Israel?? And what would be the result if
we discontinued that support??
Noam Chomsky:
Personally I don't think and have never thought that we should
discontinue support of Israel. I am very critical of their policy
towards Israel but that's in part because I think it's very harmful
to the people of Israel. It happens to support the government,
but it's harmful to the people in my opinion. What we should
do, I think, is join what has been a very broad international
consensus for about 25 years now, which calls for a two state
settlement on the internationally recognized borders (that means
pre-June 1967) in recognizing the rights and guaranteeing the
security of all states in the region including Israel and a Palestinian
state. That has been the overwhelming position of the entire
world for 25 years. In fact, the resolution to that effect was
vetoed by the United States at the Security Council 25 years
ago and Washington has been blocking similar initiatives ever
since, still is. I don't think that that is moral or wise.
Meanwhile the U.S. has provided the means
for Israel to continue its settlements in the territories under
military occupation, and many serious abuses, all of which are
in violation of international law and conventions, particularly
the Geneva conventions of 1949. Again, there is a near universal
international consensus on that. In fact, Israel is usually the
only country that votes against. The United States usually abstains
because it doesn't want to take a position so dramatically opposed
to central elements on international law. But it's still providing
a means for that to continue. Unfortunately, most of this is
not reported here, or if it is, it' s reported very inaccurately.
But surely people who see it with their own eyes know all about
it. And around most of the world it's pretty well understood.
We do not help ourselves by hiding our heads in the sand. There
is a rich, uncontroversial documentary record on this and we
should pay attention to it. What the U.S. ought to do is join
the international consensus instead of blocking. Now, by now
that's much harder than say, 10 years ago.
Question from John Schindele: Would the U.S. moving to a more even-handed
support of Palastine & Israel (both politically & fiscally)
have a positive effect on the region's stability? Is it even
possible now without giving the appearance of the U.S. bowing
to terrorism.
Noam Chomsky:
Yes, it would almost certainly have a positive effect on the
region's stability and political and social and economic health.
It has nothing to do with bowing to terrorism. Remember that
most of the people in the region and many others throughout the
world perceive the United States as a supporter of terrorism
because they regard the military occupation and it's actions
as terrorism. So it wouldn't be bowing to terrorism to withdraw
from what most people see as support for terrorism. We should
do what is right and what is right includes what's right for
us and crucially, what is right for the people of the region.
It has been no help to the people of Israel for the United States
to support the settlement programs in territories under military
occupation which have stirred up enormous anger and resentment
and have very much punished the domestic population of Palestine.
That is no help to anyone.
Now they are in a serious difficulty
because it's going to be difficult now to extricate themselves
from these illegal settlements and integration programs that
we have been supporting, but it just has to be done. There are
many illusions here about this. For example the Camp David proposals
of last year were almost universally described here as magnanimous
and generous, but they weren't perceived that way anywhere else.
If you take a look at a map you can see why. It's rather striking
that maps were not published here. You can find them in Israel
and in other places, but not here. And if you look at the maps,
you can see why this was regarded as a completely unacceptable
proposal.
Will Femia:
Would a change in U.S. policy in the Middle East repair relations?
Or are the grudges set?
Noam Chomsky: The longer it goes on,
the harder it is to repair. So, 10 years ago it would have been
a lot easier than it is today. One year ago would have been a
lot easier. And the longer the United States and Israel continue
with these policies, the harder it's going to get. No, it would
not repair all the problems by any means, it would just be a
beginning. There are many others such as those I was quoting
from the wealthy Muslims reported in the Wall Street Journal.
They're also deeply angry about what the United States is doing
to the civilian society of Iraq while strengthening Sadam Hussein.
They are well aware, even if we prefer to forget it, that the
United States supported Hussein, right through his worst atrocities,
including the gassing of the Kurds. They know that and constantly
say it. They are strongly opposed to U.S. support for the governments
of the region, most of which are very ugly regimes, brutal, corrupt,
torturers, very unpleasant regimes and they rely extensively
on U.S. support.
Question from Mike Petty (Dayton OH): Is it possible that the attack on the WTC was
meant to provoke the U.S. into military action for the purpose
of uniting the muslim nations against the west?
Noam Chomsky:
It's very possible. We should remember that this is the second
attack on the World Trade Center. The first one was in 1993.
They didn't succeed in blowing it up but they were trying to.
Whether that was actually the intention of the terrorists who
carried it out, we don't know. They're dead and didn't leave
any messages. But it is the thinking of the groups from which
they presumably come, the terrorists networks of radical Islamists
that the CIA certainly knows all about since they helped organize
them and nurture them for a long time.
Most specialists on the region, and in
fact, foreign leaders, NATO leaders, have been telling Washington
as loudly as they can that if the U.S. carries out a large military
attack which very visibly kills a lot of innocent Afghans, that
will be an answer to Bin Laden's prayers. It will be like virtually
a recruitment procedure for new people to join his horrendous
cause. And if he's killed, even more so, he then becomes an martyr.
I think that's probably why Washington has backed off from its
early militant rhetoric, it's been hearing that message. That
would not only be a crime in itself but as you said, it would
be a way of recruiting others who want to take revenge for the
crime. That's just what the terrorists want. They would react
the same way many people here reacted to the bombing of the World
Trade Center. They want revenge. If we want to be serious about
it, we have to choose a course of action which will not escalate
the cycle of violence and play into the hands of the terrorist
groups.
Question from Arthur Buonamia: What can we as citizens do to influence a foreign
policy change that is humane, and just.
Question from John-Boston: Given recent
major media portrayals of "pacifists" or "peaceniks"
advocating we "do nothing," would you correct the record
by outlining ethical actions, like UN justice and humane foreign
policy?
Noam Chomsky:
On the first question, we should bear in mind that we are extremely
privileged. We live in a very free, very democratic society.
Unlike many other places in the world, we can act and speak in
all sorts of ways without fear of state punishment and retribution.
That leaves all kinds of avenues open to us, from meetings with
neighbors or in a church or whatever organization you're in to
publication to organization to demonstrations to political action
to there's just every means available. It can be effective. It
has been in the past and it can be now. There is no shortage
of means, if there's a shortage, it's of willingness to use them.
They're available.
On the second point, I don't know exactly
what the media means by pacifists. There are a small number of
people, people who I very much respect and who I've known for
year, who are true pacifists. They don't believe in violence.
Yes there are such people. I don't happen to agree with them
and never have, but I respect the position.
However, what's called the peace movement
has never taken that view. I know very few people who were not
in favor of fighting the war against Hitler if they'd been alive
or in retrospect. What the serious peace movement has been asking
for is pretty much what the Pope just asked for, openly. He said,
and he's right, it was a terrible crime and when there is a crime,
those who are responsible should be held accountable and brought
to justice, but without harming great numbers of innocent people.
If somebody robs my house and I think it was someone in the neighborhood
across the river, I don't go out and kill everyone in that neighborhood,
that's not the way you proceed. They way you proceed is through
lawful means. And they're available, and there are plenty of
precedents for them. The United States should, if it can, and
that's not going to be easy, present a credible case against
whoever was responsible for these atrocities. That is not going
to be easy, which is probably why they haven't done it, but that
has to be done as a preliminary. And then there are measures
that can be taken through international institutions.
Question from Stephanie Daniels: Are the international courts a real option for
the US now? If the US recognized their legitimacy and jurisdiction,
would someone (US military? UN forces?) be authorized to go into
Afghanistan and arrest bin Laden even without hard evidence.
Noam Chomsky:
Not without evidence of course. Even NATO countries say they
can't proceed without evidence. And nobody really knows if it
happens to be Bin Laden. But yes, the courts are certainly available.
Now, the international criminal court, unfortunately, we cannot
approach because the U.S. has refused to recognize its jurisdiction.
But there is the world court, and if the U.S. wanted, it could
set up a special court the same way that it was done for Yugoslavia.
There is also the UN Security Council which can initiate forceful
actions if it is presented with serious reasons.
We should remember that there are real
precedents for this. The most obvious, because it is supported
by a World Court decision and UN Security Council resolution,
the highest authorities. Twenty years ago the United States launched
a war against Nicaragua. That was a terrible war. Tens of thousands
of people died. The country was practically destroyed. Nicaragua
did not respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went
to the World Court with a case, the World Court ruled in their
favor and ordered the United States to stop its "unlawful
use of force" (that means international terrorism) and pay
substantial reparations. Well, the United States responded by
dismissing the court with contempt and immediately escalated
the attack. At that point Niagara went to the UN Security council
which voted a resolution calling on all states to obey international
law. They didn't mention anyone, but everyone knew they meant
the United States. Well, the United States vetoed it. Nicaragua
then went to the General Assembly which, two years in a row passed
a similar resolution with only the United States and Israel opposed.
El Salvador in one year. But of course, the United States is
a very powerful country. If it opposes lawful means, they can't
be pursued. So Nicaragua could do nothing. On the other hand,
if the U.S. pursued those means no one would stop it. In fact,
everyone would support it.
Question from tennisball: What do you
consider the most reliable source of news covering the WTC and
the alleged conspirators?
Noam Chomsky:
The best thing to do is read widely and always skeptically. Remember
everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and
you have to think them through for yourself.
Will Femia:
How does the international anti-terrorism coalition fit the "new
internationalism" theme? And will it last?
Noam Chomsky:
We should look very carefully at this anti-terrorism coalition
and who is joining it and why. Russia is happily joining the
international coalition because it is delighted to have U.S.
support for the horrendous atrocities it is carrying out in its
war against Chechnya. It describes that as an anti-terrorist
war. In fact it is a murderous terrorist war itself. They'd love
to have the United States support it. China is very happy to
join because it wants U.S. support for its wars in western China
against Muslim groups who, in fact, were part of the coalition
in Afghanistan 20 years ago and are now fighting for their rights
in China, and China wants to suppress them brutally and would
love to have the United States supporting that. Indonesia is
very happy to join because it wants continued U.S. support in
crushing internal uprisings as in for example Aceh, as it has
been doing very brutally for many years. Unfortunately they already
have U.S. support, but they would like to have much more support.
Algeria, which is one of the most murderous states in the world,
would love to have U.S. support for it's torture and massacres
for people in Algeria. And if you look around the world, those
who are happily joining the coalition are doing it for reasons
that should send shivers up their spine. There's a lot of applause
for the coalition, but it will disappear very quickly if you
look at the reasons why countries are joining. If that's the
new internationalism, we should not want to be part of it, we
should be strongly opposed to it.
Will Femia:
Thank you very much Professor Chomsky. I appreciate you taking
the time to chat with us.
Noam Chomsky:
Glad to do it. Thank you.
|