_______ ____ ______
/ |/ / /___/ / /_ // M I D - E A S T R E A L I T I E S
/ /|_/ / /_/_ / /\\ Making Sense of the Middle East
/_/ /_/ /___/ /_/ \\� http://www.MiddleEast.Org
News, Information, & Analysis That Governments, Interest Groups,
and the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know!
--------------------------
IF YOU DON'T GET MER, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!
To receive MER regularly email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CHOMSKY WARNS OF POSSIBLE OVERTHROW OF PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT
LEADING TO A NUCLEAR-ARMED RADICAL MUSLIM STATE
"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."
Professor Noam Chomsky
MID-EAST REALITIES � - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 9/18/2001:
Asked "Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest of the world?"
Professor Noam Chomsky replied today: "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... 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." This is the
complete interview as broadcast today in Belgrade:
INTERVIEW WITH NOAM CHOMSKY
By Radio B92 in Belgrade
9-18-2001
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.
----------------------------------
MiD-EasT RealitieS - http://www.MiddleEast.Org
Phone: 202 362-5266
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fax: 815 366-0800
To subscribe email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject SUBSCRIBE
To unsubscribe email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject UNSUBSCRIBE
