ON THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - NEW
YORK Noam Chomsky interviewed in Radio B92, Belgrade, on 18th
September 2001
Q.- Why do you think these attacks happened?
Chomsky.- 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. 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.
End of the interview.-
