Chomsky on Osama Bin Laden.pdf

Chomsky on Bin Laden

Noam Chomsky on Osama Bin Laden & WTC

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” (according to 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

Chomsky on Bin Laden

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

35 th 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

Chomsky on Bin Laden

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.

Chomsky on Bin Laden

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.

Chomsky on Bin Laden

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

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: