<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Dear collegues,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>For your reading pleasure and reflections on the current world
situation, forwarding you a radio interview with Prof. Noam
Chomsky.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Regards, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Mustafa Hussain<BR>Knastebakken 151.1.<BR>DK-2750 Ballerup,
Danmark<BR>tlf. +45 44660171;<BR>+45 51539889</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>---------------------------------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P>NOAM CHOMSKY<BR><BR>Radio B92, Belgrade:<BR><BR>Why do you think these
attacks happened?<BR><BR><BR>Chomsky:<BR><BR>To answer the question we must
first identify the perpetrators of the<BR>crimes. It is generally assumed,
plausibly, that their origin is the<BR>Middle East region, and that the attacks
probably trace back to the Osama<BR>Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex
organization, doubtless<BR>inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting
under his control. Let<BR>us assume that this is true. Then to answer your
question a sensible<BR>person would try to ascertain Bin Laden's views, and the
sentiments of<BR>the large reservoir of supporters he has throughout the
region.<BR><BR>About all of this, we have a great deal of information. Bin Laden
has<BR>been interviewed extensively over the years by highly reliable
Middle<BR>East specialists, notably the most eminent correspondent in the
region,<BR>Robert Fisk (London _Independent_), who has intimate knowledge of
the<BR>entire region and direct experience over decades. A Saudi
Arabian<BR>millionaire, Bin Laden became a militant Islamic leader in the war
to<BR>drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. He was one of the many
religious<BR>fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and financed by the CIA
and<BR>their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to
the<BR>Russians -- quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many
analysts<BR>suspect -- though whether he personally happened to have direct
contact<BR>with the CIA is unclear, and not particularly important.<BR><BR>Not
surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel fighters<BR>they
could mobilize. The end result was to "destroy a moderate regime<BR>and create a
fanatical one, from groups recklessly financed by the<BR>Americans" (_London
Times_ correspondent Simon Jenkins, also a specialist<BR>on the region). These
"Afghanis" as they are called (many, like Bin<BR>Laden, not from Afghanistan)
carried out terror operations across the<BR>border in Russia, but they
terminated these after Russia withdrew. Their<BR>war was not against Russia,
which they despise, but against the Russian<BR>occupation and Russia's crimes
against Muslims. The "Afghanis" did not<BR>terminate their activities, however.
They joined Bosnian Muslim forces<BR>in the Balkan Wars; the US did not object,
just as it tolerated<BR>Iranian support for them, for complex reasons that we
need not pursue<BR>here, apart from noting that concern for the grim fate of the
Bosnians<BR>was not prominent among them. The "Afghanis" are also fighting
the<BR>Russians in Chechnya, and, quite possibly, are involved in carrying
out<BR>terrorist attacks in Moscow and elsewhere in Russian
territory.<BR><BR>Bin Laden and his "Afghanis" turned against the US in 1990
when they<BR>established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of
view, a<BR>counterpart to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far
more<BR>significant because of Saudi Arabia's special status as the guardian
of<BR>the holiest shrines. Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the
corrupt<BR>and repressive regimes of the region, which he regards as
"un-Islamic,"<BR>including the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme
Islamic<BR>fundamentalist regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a
close<BR>US ally since its origins.<BR><BR>Bin Laden despises the US for its
support of these regimes. Like<BR>others in the region, he is also outraged by
long-standing US support<BR>for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its
35th year:<BR>Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and economic
intervention in<BR>support of the killings, the harsh and destructive siege over
many years,<BR>the daily humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected, the
expanding<BR>settlements designed to break the occupied territories
into<BR>Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the resources, the
gross<BR>violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions that
are<BR>recognized as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the
US,<BR>which has prime responsibility for them. And like others, he
contrasts<BR>Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with the
decade-long<BR>US-British assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which
has<BR>devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths
while<BR>strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of
the<BR>US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the
gassing<BR>of the Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even
if<BR>Westerners prefer to forget the facts.<BR><BR>These sentiments are very
widely shared. The _Wall Street Journal_ (Sept.<BR>14) published a survey of
opinions of wealthy and privileged Muslims in<BR>the Gulf region (bankers,
professionals, businessmen with close links to<BR>the U.S.). They expressed much
the same views: resentment of the U.S.<BR>policies of supporting Israeli crimes
and blocking the international<BR>consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many
years while devastating<BR>Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and
repressive anti-democratic<BR>regimes throughout the region, and imposing
barriers against economic<BR>development by "propping up oppressive
regimes."<BR><BR>Among the great majority of people suffering deep poverty
and<BR>oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and are the
source<BR>of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings, as
commonly<BR>understood by those who are interested in the facts. The U.S., and
much<BR>of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To quote the lead
analysis<BR>in the _New York Times_ (Sept. 16), the perpetrators acted out of
"hatred<BR>for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance,
prosperity,<BR>religious pluralism and universal suffrage." U.S. actions are
irrelevant,<BR>and therefore need not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This
is a<BR>convenient picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar
in<BR>intellectual history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to
be<BR>completely at variance with everything we know, but has all the merits
of<BR>self-adulation and uncritical support for power.<BR><BR>It is also widely
recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are<BR>praying for "a great
assault on Muslim states," which will cause<BR>"fanatics to flock to his cause"
(Jenkins, and many others.). That too is<BR>familiar. The escalating cycle of
violence is typically welcomed by the<BR>harshest and most brutal elements on
both sides, a fact evident enough<BR>from the recent history of the Balkans, to
cite only one of many cases.<BR>What consequences will they have on US inner
policy and to the American<BR>self reception? US policy has already been
officially announced. The<BR>world is being offered a "stark choice": join us,
or "face the certain<BR>prospect of death and destruction." Congress has
authorized the use of<BR>force against any individuals or countries the
President determines to<BR>be involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every
supporter regards as<BR>ultra-criminal.<BR><BR>That is easily demonstrated.
Simply ask how the same people would have<BR>reacted if Nicaragua had adopted
this doctrine after the U.S. had<BR>rejected the orders of the World Court to
terminate its "unlawful use of<BR>force" against Nicaragua and had vetoed a
Security Council resolution<BR>calling on all states to observe international
law. And that terrorist<BR>attack was far more severe and destructive even than
this atrocity.<BR><BR>As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far
more complex.<BR>One should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual
elites<BR>generally have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the answer to
this<BR>question is, in significant measure, a matter of decision: as in
many<BR>other cases, with sufficient dedication and energy, efforts to
stimulate<BR>fanaticism, blind hatred, and submission to authority can be
reversed.<BR>We all know that very well. Do you expect U.S. to profoundly
change<BR>their policy to the rest of the world? The initial response was to
call<BR>for intensifying the policies that led to the fury and resentment
that<BR>provides the background of support for the terrorist attack, and
to<BR>pursue more intensively the agenda of the most hard line elements of
the<BR>leadership: increased militarization, domestic regimentation, attack
on<BR>social programs.<BR><BR>That is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks,
and the escalating<BR>cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce
the authority<BR>and prestige of the most harsh and repressive elements of a
society. But<BR>there is nothing inevitable about submission to this course.
Ater the<BR>first shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going to be. Are
you<BR>afraid, too? Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction
--<BR>the one that has already been announced, the one that probably
answers<BR>Bin Laden's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle
of<BR>violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater
scale.<BR>The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and
other<BR>supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and
suffering<BR>people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented,
unknown<BR>numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to terrorism
will<BR>die, possibly millions.<BR><BR>Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded that
Pakistan kill possibly<BR>millions of people who are themselves victims of the
Taliban. This has<BR>nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far lower moral
level even<BR>than that. The significance is heightened by the fact that this
is<BR>mentioned in passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly
be<BR>noticed. We can learn a great deal about the moral level of the
reigning<BR>intellectual culture of the West by observing the reaction to
this<BR>demand. I think we can be reasonably confident that if the
American<BR>population had the slightest idea of what is being done in their
name,<BR>they would be utterly appalled.<BR><BR>It would be instructive to seek
historical precedents. If Pakistan does<BR>not agree to this and other U.S.
demands, it may come under direct<BR>attack as well -- with unknown
consequences. If Pakistan does submit to<BR>U.S. demands, it is not impossible
that the government will be overthrown<BR>by forces much like the Taliban -- who
in this case will have nuclear<BR>weapons. That could have an effect throughout
the region, including the<BR>oil producing states. At this point we are
considering the possibility<BR>of a war that may destroy much of human society.
Even without pursuing<BR>such possibilities, the likelihood is that an attack on
Afghans will have<BR>pretty much the effect that most analysts expect: it will
enlist great<BR>numbers of others to support of Bin Laden, as he
hopes.<BR><BR>Even if he is killed, it will make little difference. His voice
will be<BR>heard on cassettes that are distributed throughout the Islamic
world,<BR>and he is likely to be revered as a martyr, inspiring others. It
is<BR>worth bearing in mind that one suicide bombing -- a truck driven into
a<BR>U.S. military base -- drove the world's major military force out
of<BR>Lebanon 20 years ago. The opportunities for such attacks are
endless.<BR>And suicide attacks are very hard to prevent. "The world will never
be<BR>the same after 11.09.01". Do you think so? The horrendous
terrorist<BR>attacks on Tuesday are something quite new in world affairs, not
in<BR>their scale and character, but in the target. For the US, this is
the<BR>first time since the War of 1812 that its national territory has
been<BR>under attack, even threat. It's colonies have been attacked, but not
the<BR>national territory itself.<BR><BR>During these years the US virtually
exterminated the indigenous<BR>population, conquered half of Mexico, intervened
violently in the<BR>surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines
(killing hundreds<BR>of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century
particularly,<BR>extended its resort to force throughout much of the world. The
number of<BR>victims is colossal. For the first time, the guns have been
directed the<BR>other way. The same is true, even more dramatically, of Europe.
Europe<BR>has suffered murderous destruction, but from internal wars,
meanwhile<BR>conquering much of the world with extreme brutality. It has not
been<BR>under attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA
in<BR>England, for example).<BR><BR>It is therefore natural that NATO should
rally to the support of the US;<BR>hundreds of years of imperial violence have
an enormous impact on the<BR>intellectual and moral culture. It is correct to
say that this is a novel<BR>event in world history, not because of the scale of
the atrocity --<BR>regrettably -- but because of the target. How the West
chooses to react<BR>is a matter of supreme importance. If the rich and powerful
choose to<BR>keep to their traditions of hundreds of years and resort to
extreme<BR>violence, they will contribute to the escalation of a cycle of
violence,<BR>in a familiar dynamic, with long-term consequences that could
be<BR>awesome. Of course, that is by no means inevitable. An aroused
public<BR>within the more free and democratic societies can direct
policies<BR>towards a much more humane and honorable
course.<BR></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>