Michael Albert Interviews Chomsky ...
I sent six questions to Noam Chomsky. His answers, by email, are
below.
(1)
There has been an immense movement of troops and extreme use of
military rhetoric, up to comments about terminating governments, etc.
Yet, to many people there appears to be considerable restraint...what
happened?
From the first days after the attack, the Bush administration has
been warned by NATO leaders, specialists on the region,
and presumably its own intelligence agencies (not to speak
of many people like you and me) that if they react with
a massive assault that kills many innocent people, that
will be answering bin Laden's most fervent prayers. They
will be falling into a "diabolical trap," as the French
foreign minister put it. That would be true -- perhaps even
more so -- if they happen to kill bin Laden, still without
having provided credible evidence of his involvement in the
crimes of Sept. 11. He would then be perceived as a martyr
even among the enormous majority of Muslims who deplore
those crimes, as bin Laden himself has done, for what it
is worth, denying any involvement in the crimes or even
knowledge of them, and condemning "the killing of innocent
women, children, and other humans" as an act that "Islam
strictly forbids...even in the course of a battle" (BBC,
Sept. 29). His voice will continue to resound on tens of
thousands of cassettes already circulating throughout the
Muslim world, and in many interviews, including the last
few days. An assault that kills innocent Afghans -- not
Taliban, but their terrorized victims -- would be virtually
a call for new recruits to the horrendous cause of the bin
Laden network and other graduates of the terrorist networks
set up by the CIA and its associates 20 years ago to fight
a Holy War against the Russians, meanwhile following their
own agenda, from the time they assassinated President Sadat
of Egypt in 1981, murdering one of the most enthusiastic
of the creators of the "Afghanis" -- mostly recruits from
extremist radical Islamist elements around the world who
were recruited to fight in Afghanistan.
After a little while, the message apparently got through to the Bush
administration, which has -- wisely from their point of view --
chosen to follow a different course.
However, "restraint" seems to me a questionable word. On
Sept. 16, the New York Times reported that "Washington
has also demanded [from Pakistan] a cutoff of fuel
supplies,...and the elimination of truck convoys
that provide much of the food and other supplies to
Afghanistan's civilian population." Astonishingly, that
report elicited no detectable reaction in the West, a
grim reminder of the nature of the Western civilization
that leaders and elite commentators claim to uphold, yet
another lesson that is not lost among those who have been
at the wrong end of the guns and whips for centuries. In
the following days, those demands were implemented. On
Sept. 27, the same NYT correspondent reported that
officials in Pakistan "said today that they would not
relent in their decision to seal off the country's
1,400- mile border with Afghanistan, a move requested
by the Bush administration because, the officials said,
they wanted to be sure that none of Mr. bin Laden's men
were hiding among the huge tide of refugees" (John Burns,
Islamabad). According to the world's leading newspaper,
then, Washington demanded that Pakistan slaughter massive
numbers of Afghans, millions of them already on the brink
of starvation, by cutting off the limited sustenance that
was keeping them alive. Almost all aid missions withdrew
or were expelled under the threat of bombing. Huge numbers
of miserable people have been fleeing to the borders in
terror, after Washington's threat to bomb the shreds of
existence remaining in Afghanistan, and to convert the
Northern Alliance into a heavily armed military force
that will, perhaps, be unleashed to renew the atrocities
that tore the country apart and led much of the population
to welcome the Taliban when they drove out the murderous
warring factions that Washington and Moscow now hope to
exploit for their own purposes. When they reach the sealed
borders, refugees are trapped to die in silence. Only a
trickle can escape through remote mountain passes. How
many have already succumbed we cannot guess, and few seem
to care. Apart from the relief agencies, I have seen no
attempt even to guess. Within a few weeks the harsh winter
will arrive. There are some reporters and aid workers in
the refugee camps across the borders. What they describe
is horrifying enough, but they know, and we know, that
they are seeing the lucky ones, the few who were able to
escape -- and who express their hopes that ''even the cruel
Americans must feel some pity for our ruined country,''
and relent in this savage silent genocide (Boston Globe,
Sept. 27, p. 1).
Perhaps the most apt description was given by the wonderful and
courageous Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy, referring to
Operation Infinite Justice proclaimed by the Bush Administration:
"Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving
to death while they're waiting to be killed" (Guardian, Sept. 29).
(2)
The UN has indicated that the threat of starvation in Afghanistan
is
enormous. International criticism on this score has grown and now the
U.S. and Britain are talking about providing food aid to ward off
hunger. Are they caving in to dissent in fact, or only in appearance?
What is their motivation? What will be the scale and impact of their
efforts?
The UN estimates that some 7-8 million are at risk of
imminent starvation. The NY Times reports in a small item
(Sept. 25) that nearly six million Afghans depend on food
aid from the UN, as well as 3.5 million in refugee camps
outside, many of whom fled just before the borders were
sealed. The item reported that some food is being sent,
to the camps across the border. If people in Washington
and the editorial offices have even a single gray
cell functioning, they realize that they must present
themselves as humanitarians seeking to avert the awesome
tragedy that followed at once from the threat of bombing
and military attack and the sealing of the borders
they demanded. "Experts also urge the United States to
improve its image by increasing aid to Afghan refugees,
as well as by helping to rebuild the economy" (Christian
Science Monitor, Sept. 28). Even without PR specialists to
instruct them, administration officials must comprehend
that they should send some food to the refugees who made
it across the border, and at least talk about air drop of
food to starving people within: in order "to save lives"
but also to "help the effort to find terror groups inside
Afghanistan" (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, quoting a Pentagon
official, who describes this as "winning the hearts and
minds of the people"). The New York Times editors picked
up the same theme the following day, 12 days after the
journal reported that the murderous operation is being
put into effect.
On the scale of aid, one can only hope that it is enormous,
or the human tragedy may be immense in a few weeks. But
we should also bear in mind that there has been nothing to
stop massive food drops from the beginning, and we cannot
even guess how many have already died, or soon will. If
the government is sensible, there will be at least a show
of the "massive air drops" that officials mention.
(3)
International legal institutions would likely ratify
efforts to arrest and try bin Laden and others, supposing
guilt could be shown, including the use of force. Why does
the U.S. avoid this recourse? Is it only a matter of not
wishing to legitimate an approach that could be used, as
well, against our acts of terrorism, or are other factors
at play?
Much of the world has been asking the US to provide some
evidence to link bin Laden to the crime, and if such
evidence could be provided, it would not be difficult
to rally enormous support for an international effort,
under the rubric of the UN, to apprehend and try him and
his collaborators. However, that is no simple matter. Even
if bin Laden and his network are involved in the crimes
of Sept. 11, it may be quite hard to produce credible
evidence. As the CIA surely knows very well, having
nurtured these organizations and monitored them very
closely for 20 years, they are diffuse, decentralized,
non-hierarchic structures, probably with little
communication or direct guidance. And for all we know,
most of the perpetrators may have killed themselves in
their awful missions.
There are further problems in the background. To quote
Roy again, "The Taliban's response to US demands for the
extradition of Bin Laden has been uncharacteristically
reasonable: produce the evidence, then we'll hand him
over. President Bush's response is that the demand is
non-negotiable'." She also adds one of the many reasons
why this framework is unacceptable to Washington: "While
talks are on for the extradition of CEOs can India put in
a side request for the extradition of Warren Anderson of
the US? He was the chairman of Union Carbide, responsible
for the Bhopal gas leak that killed 16,000 people in 1984.
We have collated the necessary evidence. It's all in the
files. Could we have him, please?" Such comparisons elicit
frenzied tantrums at the extremist fringes of Western
opinion, some of them called "the left." But for Westerners
who have retained their sanity and moral integrity, and
for great numbers among the usual victims, they are quite
meaningful. Government leaders presumably understand that.
And the single example that Roy mentions is only the
beginning, of course, and one of the lesser examples, not
only because of the scale of the atrocity, but because
it was not explicitly a crime of state. Suppose Iran
were to request the extradition of high officials of the
Carter and Reagan administrations, refusing to present
the ample evidence of the crimes they were implementing
-- and it surely exists. Or suppose Nicaragua were to
demand the extradition of the US ambassador to the UN,
newly appointed to lead the "war against terror," a man
whose record includes his service as "proconsul" (as he
was often called) in the virtual fiefdom of Honduras,
where he surely was aware of the atrocities of the state
terrorists he was supporting, and was also overseeing
the terrorist war for which the US was condemned by the
World Court and the Security Council (in a resolution the
US vetoed). Or many others. Would the US even dream of
responding to such demands presented without evidence,
or even if the ample evidence were presented?
Those doors are better left closed, just as it is best to
maintain the silence on the appointment of a leading figure
in managing the operations condemned as terrorism by the
highest existing international bodies -- to lead a "war
on terrorism." Jonathan Swift would also be speechless.
That may be the reason why administration publicity experts
preferred the usefully ambiguous term "war" to the more
explicit term "crime" -- "crime against humanity as Robert
Fisk, Mary Robinson, and others have accurately depicted
it. There are established procedures for dealing with
crimes, however horrendous. They require evidence, and
adherence to the principle that "those who are guilty of
these acts" be held accountable once evidence is produced,
but not others (Pope John Paul II, NYT Sept. 24). Not, for
example, the unknown numbers of miserable people starving
to death in terror at the sealed borders, though in this
case too we are speaking of crimes against humanity.
(4)
The war on terror was first undertaken by Reagan, as
a substitute for the cold war -- that is, as a vehicle
for scaring the public and thus marshalling support for
programs contrary to the public's interest -- foreign
campaigns, war spending in general, surveillance, and so
on. Now we are seeing a larger and more aggressive attempt
to move in the same direction. Does the problem that we
are the world's foremost source of attacks on civilians
auger complications for carrying through this effort? Can
the effort be sustained without, in fact, a shooting war?
The Reagan administration came into office 20 years ago
declaring that its leading concern would be to eradicate
the plague of international terrorism, a cancer that
is destroying civilization. They cured the plague by
establishing an international terrorist network of
extraordinary scale, with consequences that are -- or
should be -- well-known in Central America, the Middle
East, Africa, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere -- while
using the pretexts, as you say, to carry out programs that
were of considerable harm to the domestic population, and
that even threaten human survival. Did they carry out a
"shooting war"? The number of corpses they left in their
wake around the world is impressive, but technically,
they did not usually fire the guns, apart from transparent
PR exercises like the bombing of Libya, the first crime
of war in history that was timed precisely for prime
time TV, no small trick considering the complexity of
the operation and the refusal of continental European
countries to collaborate. The torture, mutilation, rape,
and massacre were carried out through intermediaries.
Even if we exclude the huge but unmentionable component of terrorism
that traces back to terrorist states, our own surely included, the
terrorist plague is very real, very dangerous, and truly terrifying.
There are ways to react that are likely to escalate the threats to
ourselves and others; there are ample precedents for more sane and
honorable methods, which we've discussed before, and are not in the
least obscure, but are scarcely discussed. Those are the basic
choices.
(5)
If the Taliban falls and bin Laden or someone they claim is
responsible is captured or killed, what next? What happens to
Afghanistan? What happens more broadly in other regions?
The sensible administration plan would be to pursue
the ongoing program of silent genocide, combined with
humanitarian gestures to arouse the applause of the usual
chorus who are called upon to sing the praises of the noble
leaders committed to "principles and values" and leading
the world to a "new era" of "ending inhumanity." The
administration might also try to convert the Northern
Alliance into a viable force, perhaps to bring in other
warlords hostile to it, like Gulbudin Hekmatyar, now in
Iran. Presumably they will use British and US commandoes
for missions within Afghanistan, and perhaps resort to
selective bombing, but scaled down so as not to answer
bin Laden's prayers. A US assault should not be compared
to the failed Russian invasion of the 80s. The Russians
were facing a major army of perhaps 100,000 men or
more, organized, trained and heavily armed by the CIA
and its associates. The US is facing a ragtag force in
a country that has already been virtually destroyed by
20 years of horror, for which we bear no slight share
of responsibility.
The Taliban forces, such as they are, might quickly
collapse except for a small hard core. And one would
expect that the surviving population would welcome an
invading force if it is not too visibly associated with
the murderous gangs that tore the country to shreds before
the Taliban takeover. At this point, most people would be
likely to welcome Genghis Khan.
What next? Expatriate Afghans and, apparently, some
internal elements who are not part of the Taliban inner
circle have been calling for a UN effort to establish
some kind of transition government, a process that
might succeed in reconstructing something viable
from the wreckage, if provided with very substantial
reconstruction aid, channeled through independent sources
like the UN or credible NGOs. That much should be the
minimal responsibility of those who have turned this
impoverished country into a land of terror, desperation,
corpses, and mutilated victims. That could happen, but
not without very substantial popular efforts in the rich
and powerful societies. For the present, any such course
has been ruled out by the Bush administration, which has
announced that it will not be engaged in "nation building"
-- or, it seems, an effort that would be more honorable
and humane: substantial support, without interference, for
"nation building" by others who might actually achieve
some success in the enterprise. But current refusal to
consider this decent course is not graven in stone.
What happens in other regions depends on internal factors,
on the policies of foreign actors (the US dominant among
them, for obvious reasons), and the way matters proceed
in Afghanistan. One can hardly be confident, but for
many of the possible courses reasonable assessments can
be made about the outcome -- and there are a great many
possibilities, too many to try to review in brief comments.
(6)
What do you believe should be the role and priority
of social activists concerned about justice at this
time? Should we curb our criticisms, as some have claimed,
or is this, instead, a time for renewed and enlarged
efforts, not only because it is a crisis regarding which we
can attempt to have a very important positive impact, but
also because large sectors of the public are actually far
more receptive than usual to discussion and exploration,
even it other sectors are intransigently hostile?
It depends on what these social activists are trying
to achieve. If their goal is to escalate the cycle
of violence and to increase the likelihood of further
atrocities like that of Sept. 11 -- and, regrettably,
even worse ones with which much of the world is all too
familiar -- then they should certainly curb their analysis
and criticisms, refuse to think, and cut back their
involvement in the very serious issues in which they have
been engaged. The same advice is warranted if they want to
help the most reactionary and regressive elements of the
political-economic power system to implement plans that
will be of great harm to the general population here and
in much of the world, and may even threaten human survival.
If, on the contrary, the goal of social activists is to
reduce the likelihood of further atrocities, and to advance
hopes for freedom, human rights, and democracy, then they
should follow the opposite course. They should intensify
their efforts to inquire into the background factors that
lie behind these and other crimes and devote themselves
with even more energy to the just causes to which they
have already been committed. The opportunities are surely
there. The shock of the horrendous crimes has already
opened even elite sectors to reflection of a kind that
would have been hard to imagine not long ago, and among
the general public that is even more true. Of course, there
will be those who demand silent obedience. We expect that
from the ultra-right, and anyone with a little familiarity
with history will expect it from some left intellectuals
as well, perhaps in an even more virulent form. But it is
important not to be intimidated by hysterical ranting and
lies and to keep as closely as one can to the course of
truth and honesty and concern for the human consequences
of what one does, or fails to do. All truisms, but worth
bearing in mind.
Beyond the truisms, we turn to specific questions, for inquiry and
for action.
