|
CounterPunch
Special Report
The Crimes of
Bob Kerrey
By Douglas Valentine
Five Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
with 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
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
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
TDY
By Douglas Valentine
New Stories:
CounterPunch Coverage
of Election 2000
|
Septmeber 18, 2001
Interviewing Chomsky
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.
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.
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.
|