Subject: Chomsky interview on Radio B92, Belgrade 
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 perception? 

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: increasedmilitarization, 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.