|
----- Original Message -----
From: Bogdan Rabanca
> > > > > > 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. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > clac mailing list > > > clac@mail.lsit.ucsb.edu > > > https://mail.lsit.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/clac > > > > -- |