[Nettime-bold] Radio B92 Interview with Noam Chomsky

["geert lovink" <geert@xs4all.nl>]

(via lbo talk digest and www.b92.net)

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 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?

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?

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.

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?

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.




_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold