"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."