----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Siepermann
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:24 PM
Subject: 'food for thought' van Chomsky
October 24, 2001
The New War Against Terror
By Noam Chomsky
[Transcribed from audio recorded during Chomsky's talk
at The Technology & Culture Forum at MIT]
Everyone knows it's the TV people who run the world
[crowd laugher]. I just got orders that I'm supposed
to be here, not there. Well the last talk I gave at
this forum was on a light pleasant topic. It was about
how humans are an endangered species and given the
nature of their institutions they are likely to
destroy themselves in a fairly short time. So this
time there is a little relief and we have a pleasant
topic instead, the new war on terror. Unfortunately,
the world keeps coming up with things that make it
more and more horrible as we proceed.
I'm going to assume 2 conditions for this talk.
The first one is just what I assume to be recognition
of fact. That is that the events of September 11 were
a horrendous atrocity probably the most devastating
instant human toll of any crime in history, outside of
war. The second assumption has to do with the goals.
I'm assuming that our goal is that we are interested
in reducing the likelihood of such crimes whether they
are against us or against someone else. If you don't
accept those two assumptions, then what I say will not
be addressed to you. If we do accept them, then a
number of questions arise, closely related ones, which
merit a good deal of thought.
The 5 Questions
One question, and by far the most important one is
what is happening right now? Implicit in that is what
can we do about it? The 2nd has to do with the very
common assumption that what happened on September 11
is a historic event, one which will change history. I
tend to agree with that. I think it's true. It was a
historic event and the question we should be asking is
exactly why? The 3rd question has to do with the
title, The War Against Terrorism. Exactly what is it?
And there is a related question, namely what is
terrorism? The 4th question which is narrower but
important has to do with the origins of the crimes of
September 11th. And the 5th question that I want to
talk a little about is what policy options there are
in fighting this war against terrorism and dealing
with the situations that led to it.
I'll say a few things about each. Glad to go beyond in
discussion and don't hesitate to bring up other
questions. These are ones that come to my mind as
prominent but you may easily and plausibly have other
choices.
1. What's Happening Right Now?
Starvation of 3 to 4 Million People
Well let's start with right now. I'll talk about the
situation in Afghanistan. I'll just keep to
uncontroversial sources like the New York Times [crowd
laughter]. According to the New York Times there are 7
to 8 million people in Afghanistan on the verge of
starvation. That was true actually before September
11th. They were surviving on international aid. On
September 16th, the Times reported, I'm quoting it,
that the United States demanded from Pakistan the
elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the
food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian
population. As far as I could determine there was no
reaction in the United States or for that matter in
Europe. I was on national radio all over Europe the
next day. There was no reaction in the United States
or in Europe to my knowledge to the demand to impose
massive starvation on millions of people. The threat
of military strikes right after September.....around
that time forced the removal of international aid
workers that crippled the assistance programs.
Actually, I am quoting again from the New York Times.
Refugees reaching Pakistan after arduous journeys from
AF are describing scenes of desperation and fear at
home as the threat of American led military attacks
turns their long running misery into a potential
catastrophe. The country was on a lifeline and we just
cut the line. Quoting an evacuated aid worker, in the
New York Times Magazine.
The World Food Program, the UN program, which is the
main one by far, were able to resume after 3 weeks in
early October, they began to resume at a lower level,
resume food shipments. They don't have international
aid workers within, so the distribution system is
hampered. That was suspended as soon as the bombing
began. They then resumed but at a lower pace while aid
agencies leveled scathing condemnations of US
airdrops, condemning them as propaganda tools which
are probably doing more harm than good. That happens
to be quoting the London Financial Times but it is
easy to continue. After the first week of bombing, the
New York Times reported on a back page inside a column
on something else, that by the arithmetic of the
United Nations there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans
in acute need of even a loaf of bread and there are
only a few weeks left before the harsh winter will
make deliveries to many areas totally impossible,
continuing to quote, but with bombs falling the
delivery rate is down to * of what is needed. Casual
comment. Which tells us that Western civilization is
anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic,
3-4 million people or something like that. On the same
day, the leader of Western civilization dismissed with
contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for
delivery of the alleged target, Osama bin Laden, and a
request for some evidence to substantiate the demand
for total capitulation. It was dismissed. On the same
day the Special Rapporteur of the UN in charge of food
pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to
try to save millions of victims. As far as I'm aware
that was unreported. That was Monday. Yesterday the
major aid agencies OXFAM and Christian Aid and others
joined in that plea. You can't find a report in the
New York Times. There was a line in the Boston Globe,
hidden in a story about another topic, Kashmir.
Silent Genocide
Well we could easily go on....but all of that....first
of all indicates to us what's happening. Looks like
what's happening is some sort of silent genocide. It
also gives a good deal of insight into the elite
culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates
that whatever, what will happen we don't know, but
plans are being made and programs implemented on the
assumption that they may lead to the death of several
million people in the next couple of weeks....very
casually with no comment, no particular thought about
it, that's just kind of normal, here and in a good
part of Europe. Not in the rest of the world. In fact
not even in much of Europe. So if you read the Irish
press or the press in Scotland...that close, reactions
are very different. Well that's what's happening now.
What's happening now is very much under our control.
We can do a lot to affect what's happening. And that's
roughly it.
2. Why was it a Historic Event?
National Territory Attacked
Alright let's turn to the slightly more abstract
question, forgetting for the moment that we are in the
midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million
people, not Taliban of course, their victims. Let's go
back...turn to the question of the historic event that
took place on September 11th. As I said, I think
that's correct. It was a historic event. Not
unfortunately because of its scale, unpleasant to
think about, but in terms of the scale it's not that
unusual. I did say it's the worst...probably the worst
instant human toll of any crime. And that may be true.
But there are terrorist crimes with effects a bit more
drawn out that are more extreme, unfortunately.
Nevertheless, it's a historic event because there was
a change. The change was the direction in which the
guns were pointed. That's new. Radically new. So, take
US history.
The last time that the national territory of the
United States was under attack, or for that matter,
even threatened was when the British burned down
Washington in 1814. There have been many...it was
common to bring up Pearl Harbor but that's not a good
analogy. The Japanese, what ever you think about it,
the Japanese bombed military bases in 2 US colonies
not the national territory; colonies which had been
taken from their inhabitants in not a very pretty way.
This is the national territory that's been attacked on
a large scale, you can find a few fringe examples but
this is unique.
During these close to 200 years, we, the United States
expelled or mostly exterminated the indigenous
population, that's many millions of people, conquered
half of Mexico, carried out depredations all over the
region, Caribbean and Central America, sometimes
beyond, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines, killing
several 100,000 Filipinos in the process. Since the
Second World War, it has extended its reach around the
world in ways I don't have to describe. But it was
always killing someone else, the fighting was
somewhere else, it was others who were getting
slaughtered. Not here. Not the national territory.
Europe
In the case of Europe, the change is even more
dramatic because its history is even more horrendous
than ours. We are an offshoot of Europe, basically.
For hundreds of years, Europe has been casually
slaughtering people all over the world. That's how
they conquered the world, not by handing out candy to
babies. During this period, Europe did suffer
murderous wars, but that was European killers
murdering one another. The main sport of Europe for
hundreds of years was slaughtering one another. The
only reason that it came to an end in 1945, was....it
had nothing to do with Democracy or not making war
with each other and other fashionable notions. It had
to do with the fact that everyone understood that the
next time they play the game it was going to be the
end for the world. Because the Europeans, including
us, had developed such massive weapons of destruction
that that game just have to be over. And it goes back
hundreds of years. In the 17th century, about probably
40% of the entire population of Germany was wiped out
in one war.
But during this whole bloody murderous period, it was
Europeans slaughtering each other, and Europeans
slaughtering people elsewhere. The Congo didn't attack
Belgium, India didn't attack England, Algeria didn't
attack France. It's uniform. There are again small
exceptions, but pretty small in scale, certainly
invisible in the scale of what Europe and us were
doing to the rest of the world. This is the first
change. The first time that the guns have been pointed
the other way. And in my opinion that's probably why
you see such different reactions on the two sides of
the Irish Sea which I have noticed, incidentally, in
many interviews on both sides, national radio on both
sides. The world looks very different depending on
whether you are holding the lash or whether you are
being whipped by it for hundreds of years, very
different. So I think the shock and surprise in Europe
and its offshoots, like here, is very understandable.
It is a historic event but regrettably not in scale,
in something else and a reason why the rest of the
world...most of the rest of the world looks at it
quite differently. Not lacking sympathy for the
victims of the atrocity or being horrified by them,
that's almost uniform, but viewing it from a different
perspective. Something we might want to understand.
3. What is the War Against Terrorism?
Well, let's go to the third question, 'What is the war
against terrorism?' and a side question, 'What's
terrorism?'. The war against terrorism has been
described in high places as a struggle against a
plague, a cancer which is spread by barbarians, by
"depraved opponents of civilization itself." That's a
feeling that I share. The words I'm quoting, however,
happen to be from 20 years ago. Those are...that's
President Reagan and his Secretary of State. The
Reagan administration came into office 20 years ago
declaring that the war against international terrorism
would be the core of our foreign policy....describing
it in terms of the kind I just mentioned and others.
And it was the core of our foreign policy. The Reagan
administration responded to this plague spread by
depraved opponents of civilization itself by creating
an extraordinary international terrorist network,
totally unprecedented in scale, which carried out
massive atrocities all over the world,
primarily....well, partly nearby, but not only there.
I won't run through the record, you're all educated
people, so I'm sure you learned about it in High
School. [crowd laughter]
Reagan--US War Against Nicaragua
But I'll just mention one case which is totally
uncontroversial, so we might as well not argue about
it, by no means the most extreme but uncontroversial.
It's uncontroversial because of the judgments of the
highest international authorities the International
Court of Justice, the World Court, and the UN Security
Council. So this one is uncontroversial, at least
among people who have some minimal concern for
international law, human rights, justice and other
things like that. And now I'll leave you an exercise.
You can estimate the size of that category by simply
asking how often this uncontroversial case has been
mentioned in the commentary of the last month. And
it's a particularly relevant one, not only because it
is uncontroversial, but because it does offer a
precedent as to how a law abiding state would respond
to...did respond in fact to international terrorism,
which is uncontroversial. And was even more extreme
than the events of September 11th. I'm talking about
the Reagan-US war against Nicaragua which left tens of
thousands of people dead, the country ruined, perhaps
beyond recovery.
Nicaragua's Response
Nicaragua did respond. They didn't respond by setting
off bombs in Washington. They responded by taking it
to the World Court, presenting a case, they had no
problem putting together evidence. The World Court
accepted their case, ruled in their favor, ordered
the...condemned what they called the "unlawful use of
force," which is another word for international
terrorism, by the United States, ordered the United
States to terminate the crime and to pay massive
reparations. The United States, of course, dismissed
the court judgment with total contempt and announced
that it would not accept the jurisdiction of the court
henceforth. Then Nicaragua then went to the UN
Security Council which considered a resolution calling
on all states to observe international law. No one was
mentioned but everyone understood. The United States
vetoed the resolution. It now stands as the only state
on record which has both been condemned by the World
Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a
Security Council resolution calling on states to
observe international law. Nicaragua then went to the
General Assembly where there is technically no veto
but a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a
similar resolution with only the United States,
Israel, and El Salvador opposed. The following year
again, this time the United States could only rally
Israel to the cause, so 2 votes opposed to observing
international law. At that point, Nicaragua couldn't
do anything lawful. It tried all the measures. They
don't work in a world that is ruled by force.
This case is uncontroversial but it's by no means the
most extreme. We gain a lot of insight into our own
culture and society and what's happening now by asking
'how much we know about all this? How much we talk
about it? How much you learn about it in school? How
much it's all over the front pages?' And this is only
the beginning. The United States responded to the
World Court and the Security Council by immediately
escalating the war very quickly, that was a bipartisan
decision incidentally. The terms of the war were also
changed. For the first time there were official orders
given...official orders to the terrorist army to
attack what are called "soft targets," meaning
undefended civilian targets, and to keep away from the
Nicaraguan army. They were able to do that because the
United States had total control of the air over
Nicaragua and the mercenary army was supplied with
advanced communication equipment, it wasn't a guerilla
army in the normal sense and could get instructions
about the disposition of the Nicaraguan army forces so
they could attack agricultural collectives, health
clinics, and so on...soft targets with impunity. Those
were the official orders.
What was the Reaction Here?
What was the reaction? It was known. There was a
reaction to it. The policy was regarded as sensible by
left liberal opinion. So Michael Kinsley who
represents the left in mainstream discussion, wrote an
article in which he said that we shouldn't be too
quick to criticize this policy as Human Rights Watch
had just done. He said a "sensible policy" must "meet
the test of cost benefit analysis" -- that is, I'm
quoting now, that is the analysis of "the amount of
blood and misery that will be poured in, and the
likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other
end." Democracy as the US understands the term, which
is graphically illustrated in the surrounding
countries. Notice that it is axiomatic that the United
States, US elites, have the right to conduct the
analysis and to pursue the project if it passes their
tests. And it did pass their tests. It worked. When
Nicaragua finally succumbed to superpower assault,
commentators openly and cheerfully lauded the success
of the methods that were adopted and described them
accurately. So I'll quote Time Magazine just to pick
one. They lauded the success of the methods adopted:
"to wreck the economy and prosecute a long and deadly
proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the
unwanted government themselves," with a cost to us
that is "minimal," and leaving the victims "with
wrecked bridges, sabotaged power stations, and ruined
farms," and thus providing the US candidate with a
"winning issue": "ending the impoverishment of the
people of Nicaragua." The New York Times had a
headline saying "Americans United in Joy" at this
outcome.
Terrorism Works--Terrorism is not the
Weapon of the Weak
That is the culture in which we live and it reveals
several facts. One is the fact that terrorism works.
It doesn't fail. It works. Violence usually works.
That's world history. Secondly, it's a very serious
analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that
terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means
of violence, it's primarily a weapon of the strong,
overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of
the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal
systems and their terror doesn't count as terror. Now
that's close to universal. I can't think of a
historical exception, even the worst mass murderers
view the world that way. So pick the Nazis. They
weren't carrying out terror in occupied Europe. They
were protecting the local population from the
terrorisms of the partisans. And like other resistance
movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis were
carrying out counter terror. Furthermore, the United
States essentially agreed with that. After the war,
the US army did extensive studies of Nazi counter
terror operations in Europe. First I should say that
the US picked them up and began carrying them out
itself, often against the same targets, the former
resistance. But the military also studied the Nazi
methods published interesting studies, sometimes
critical of them because they were inefficiently
carried out, so a critical analysis, you didn't do
this right, you did that right, but those methods with
the advice of Wermacht officers who were brought over
here became the manuals of counter insurgency, of
counter terror, of low intensity conflict, as it is
called, and are the manuals, and are the procedures
that are being used. So it's not just that the Nazis
did it. It's that it was regarded as the right thing
to do by the leaders of western civilization, that is
us, who then proceeded to do it themselves. Terrorism
is not the weapon of the weak. It is the weapon of
those who are against 'us' whoever 'us' happens to be.
And if you can find a historical exception to that,
I'd be interested in seeing it.
Nature of our Culture--How We Regard Terrorism
Well, an interesting indication of the nature of our
culture, our high culture, is the way in which all of
this is regarded. One way it's regarded is just
suppressing it. So almost nobody has ever heard of it.
And the power of American propaganda and doctrine is
so strong that even among the victims it's barely
known. I mean, when you talk about this to people in
Argentina, you have to remind them. Oh, yeah, that
happened, we forgot about it. It's deeply suppressed.
The sheer consequences of the monopoly of violence can
be very powerful in ideological and other terms.
The Idea that Nicaragua Might Have The Right To Defend
Itself
Well, one illuminating aspect of our own attitude
toward terrorism is the reaction to the idea that
Nicaragua might have the right to defend itself.
Actually I went through this in some detail with
database searches and that sort of thing. The idea
that Nicaragua might have the right to defend itself
was considered outrageous. There is virtually nothing
in mainstream commentary indicating that Nicaragua
might have that right. And that fact was exploited by
the Reagan administration and its propaganda in an
interesting way. Those of you who were around in that
time will remember that they periodically floated
rumors that the Nicaraguans were getting MIG jets,
jets from Russia. At that point the hawks and the
doves split. The hawks said, 'ok, let's bomb 'em.' The
doves said, `wait a minute, let's see if the rumors
are true. And if the rumors are true, then let's bomb
them. Because they are a threat to the United States.'
Why, incidentally were they getting MIGs. Well they
tried to get jet planes from European countries but
the United States put pressure on its allies so that
it wouldn't send them means of defense because they
wanted them to turn to the Russians. That's good for
propaganda purposes. Then they become a threat to us.
Remember, they were just 2 days march from Harlingen,
Texas. We actually declared a national emergency in
1985 to protect the country from the threat of
Nicaragua. And it stayed in force. So it was much
better for them to get arms from the Russians. Why
would they want jet planes? Well, for the reasons I
already mentioned. The United States had total control
over their airspace, was over flying it and using that
to provide instructions to the terrorist army to
enable them to attack soft targets without running
into the army that might defend them. Everyone knew
that that was the reason. They are not going to use
their jet planes for anything else. But the idea that
Nicaragua should be permitted to defend its airspace
against a superpower attack that is directing
terrorist forces to attack undefended civilian
targets, that was considered in the United States as
outrageous and uniformly so. Exceptions are so slight,
you know I can practically list them. I don't suggest
that you take my word for this. Have a look. That
includes our own senators, incidentally.
Honduras--The Appointment of John Negroponte
as Ambassador to the United Nations
Another illustration of how we regard terrorism is
happening right now. The US has just appointed an
ambassador to the United Nations to lead the war
against terrorism a couple weeks ago. Who is he? Well,
his name is John Negroponte. He was the US ambassador
in the fiefdom, which is what it is, of Honduras in
the early 1980's. There was a little fuss made about
the fact that he must have been aware, as he certainly
was, of the large-scale murders and other atrocities
that were being carried out by the security forces in
Honduras that we were supporting. But that's a small
part of it. As proconsul of Honduras, as he was called
there, he was the local supervisor for the terrorist
war based in Honduras, for which his government was
condemned by the world court and then the Security
Council in a vetoed resolution. And he was just
appointed as the UN Ambassador to lead the war against
terror. Another small experiment you can do is check
and see what the reaction was to this. Well, I will
tell you what you are going to find, but find it for
yourself. Now that tells us a lot about the war
against terrorism and a lot about ourselves.
After the United States took over the country again
under the conditions that were so graphically
described by the press, the country was pretty much
destroyed in the 1980's, but it has totally collapsed
since in every respect just about. Economically it has
declined sharply since the US take over,
democratically and in every other respect. It's now
the second poorest country in the Hemisphere. I should
say....I'm not going to talk about it, but I mentioned
that I picked up Nicaragua because it is an
uncontroversial case. If you look at the other states
in the region, the state terror was far more extreme
and it again traces back to Washington and that's by
no means all.
US & UK Backed South African Attacks
It was happening elsewhere in the world too, take say
Africa. During the Reagan years alone, South African
attacks, backed by the United States and Britain,
US/UK-backed South African attacks against the
neighboring countries killed about a million and a
half people and left 60 billion dollars in damage and
countries destroyed. And if we go around the world, we
can add more examples.
Now that was the first war against terror of which
I've given a small sample. Are we supposed to pay
attention to that? Or kind of think that that might be
relevant? After all it's not exactly ancient history.
Well, evidently not as you can tell by looking at the
current discussion of the war on terror which has been
the leading topic for the last month.
Haiti, Guatemala, and Nicaragua
I mentioned that Nicaragua has now become the 2nd
poorest country in the hemisphere. What's the poorest
country? Well that's of course Haiti which also
happens to be the victim of most US intervention in
the 20th century by a long shot. We left it totally
devastated. It's the poorest country. Nicaragua is
second ranked in degree of US intervention in the 20th
century. It is the 2nd poorest. Actually, it is vying
with Guatemala. They interchange every year or two as
to who's the second poorest. And they also vie as to
who is the leading target of US military intervention.
We're supposed to think that all of this is some sort
of accident. That is has nothing to do with anything
that happened in history. Maybe.
Colombia and Turkey
The worst human rights violator in the 1990's is
Colombia, by a long shot. It's also the, by far, the
leading recipient of US military aid in the 1990's
maintaining the terror and human rights violations. In
1999, Colombia replaced Turkey as the leading
recipient of US arms worldwide, that is excluding
Israel and Egypt which are a separate category. And
that tells us a lot more about the war on terror right
now, in fact.
Why was Turkey getting such a huge flow of US arms?
Well if you take a look at the flow of US arms to
Turkey, Turkey always got a lot of US arms. It's
strategically placed, a member of NATO, and so on. But
the arms flow to Turkey went up very sharply in 1984.
It didn't have anything to do with the cold war. I
mean Russian was collapsing. And it stayed high from
1984 to 1999 when it reduced and it was replaced in
the lead by Colombia. What happened from 1984 to 1999?
Well, in 1984, [Turkey] launched a major terrorist war
against Kurds in southeastern Turkey. And that's when
US aid went up, military aid. And this was not
pistols. This was jet planes, tanks, military
training, and so on. And it stayed high as the
atrocities escalated through the 1990's. Aid followed
it. The peak year was 1997. In 1997, US military aid
to Turkey was more than in the entire period 1950 to
1983, that is the cold war period, which is an
indication of how much the cold war has affected
policy. And the results were awesome. This led to 2-3
million refugees. Some of the worst ethnic cleansing
of the late 1990's. Tens of thousands of people
killed, 3500 towns and villages destroyed, way more
than Kosovo, even under NATO bombs. And the United
States was providing 80% of the arms, increasing as
the atrocities increased, peaking in 1997. It declined
in 1999 because, once again, terror worked as it
usually does when carried out by its major agents,
mainly the powerful. So by 1999, Turkish terror,
called of course counter-terror, but as I said, that's
universal, it worked. Therefore Turkey was replaced by
Colombia which had not yet succeeded in its terrorist
war. And therefore had to move into first place as
recipient of US arms.
Self Congratulation on the Part of
Western Intellectuals
Well, what makes this all particularly striking is
that all of this was taking place right in the midst
of a huge flood of self-congratulation on the part of
Western intellectuals which probably has no
counterpart in history. I mean you all remember it. It
was just a couple years ago. Massive self-adulation
about how for the first time in history we are so
magnificent; that we are standing up for principles
and values; dedicated to ending inhumanity everywhere
in the new era of this-and-that, and
so-on-and-so-forth. And we certainly can't tolerate
atrocities right near the borders of NATO. That was
repeated over and over. Only within the borders of
NATO where we can not only can tolerate much worse
atrocities but contribute to them. Another insight
into Western civilization and our own, is how often
was this brought up? Try to look. I won't repeat it.
But it's instructive. It's a pretty impressive feat
for a propaganda system to carry this off in a free
society. It's pretty amazing. I don't think you could
do this in a totalitarian state.
Turkey is Very Grateful
And Turkey is very grateful. Just a few days ago,
Prime Minister Ecevit announced that Turkey would join
the coalition against terror, very enthusiastically,
even more so than others. In fact, he said they would
contribute troops which others have not willing to do.
And he explained why. He said, We owe a debt of
gratitude to the United States because the United
States was the only country that was willing to
contribute so massively to our own, in his words
"counter-terrorist" war, that is to our own massive
ethnic cleansing and atrocities and terror. Other
countries helped a little, but they stayed back. The
United States, on the other hand, contributed
enthusiastically and decisively and was able to do so
because of the silence, servility might be the right
word, of the educated classes who could easily find
out about it. It's a free country after all. You can
read human rights reports. You can read all sorts of
stuff. But we chose to contribute to the atrocities
and Turkey is very happy, they owe us a debt of
gratitude for that and therefore will contribute
troops just as during the war in Serbia. Turkey was
very much praised for using its F-16's which we
supplied it to bomb Serbia exactly as it had been
doing with the same planes against its own population
up until the time when it finally succeeded in
crushing internal terror as they called it. And as
usual, as always, resistance does include terror. Its
true of the American Revolution. That's true of every
case I know. Just as its true that those who have a
monopoly of violence talk about themselves as carrying
out counter terror.
The Coalition--Including Algeria, Russia,
China, and Indonesia
Now that's pretty impressive and that has to do with
the coalition that is now being organized to fight the
war against terror. And it's very interesting to see
how that coalition is being described. So have a look
at this morning's Christian Science Monitor. That's a
good newspaper. One of the best international
newspapers, with real coverage of the world. The lead
story, the front-page story, is about how the United
States, you know people used to dislike the United
States but now they are beginning to respect it, and
they are very happy about the way that the US is
leading the war against terror. And the prime example,
well in fact the only serious example, the others are
a joke, is Algeria. Turns out that Algeria is very
enthusiastic about the US war against terror. The
person who wrote the article is an expert on Africa.
He must know that Algeria is one of the most vicious
terrorist states in the world and has been carrying
out horrendous terror against its own population in
the past couple of years, in fact. For a while, this
was under wraps. But it was finally exposed in France
by defectors from the Algerian army. It's all over the
place there and in England and so on. But here, we're
very proud because one of the worst terrorist states
in the world is now enthusiastically welcoming the US
war on terror and in fact is cheering on the United
States to lead the war. That shows how popular we are
getting.
And if you look at the coalition that is being formed
against terror it tells you a lot more. A leading
member of the coalition is Russia which is delighted
to have the United States support its murderous
terrorist war in Chechnya instead of occasionally
criticizing it in the background. China is joining
enthusiastically. It's delighted to have support for
the atrocities it's carrying out in western China
against, what it called, Muslim secessionists. Turkey,
as I mentioned, is very happy with the war against
terror. They are experts. Algeria, Indonesia delighted
to have even more US support for atrocities it is
carrying out in Ache and elsewhere. Now we can run
through the list, the list of the states that have
joined the coalition against terror is quite
impressive. They have a characteristic in common. They
are certainly among the leading terrorist states in
the world. And they happen to be led by the world
champion.
What is Terrorism?
Well that brings us back to the question, what is
terrorism? I have been assuming we understand it.
Well, what is it? Well, there happen to be some easy
answers to this. There is an official definition. You
can find it in the US code or in US army manuals. A
brief statement of it taken from a US army manual, is
fair enough, is that terror is the calculated use of
violence or the threat of violence to attain political
or religious ideological goals through intimidation,
coercion, or instilling fear. That's terrorism. That's
a fair enough definition. I think it is reasonable to
accept that. The problem is that it can't be accepted
because if you accept that, all the wrong consequences
follow. For example, all the consequences I have just
been reviewing. Now there is a major effort right now
at the UN to try to develop a comprehensive treaty on
terrorism. When Kofi Annan got the Nobel prize the
other day, you will notice he was reported as saying
that we should stop wasting time on this and really
get down to it.
But there's a problem. If you use the official
definition of terrorism in the comprehensive treaty
you are going to get completely the wrong results. So
that can't be done. In fact, it is even worse than
that. If you take a look at the definition of Low
Intensity Warfare which is official US policy you find
that it is a very close paraphrase of what I just
read. In fact, Low Intensity Conflict is just another
name for terrorism. That's why all countries, as far
as I know, call whatever horrendous acts they are
carrying out, counter terrorism. We happen to call it
Counter Insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict. So
that's a serious problem. You can't use the actual
definitions. You've got to carefully find a definition
that doesn't have all the wrong consequences.
Why did the United States and Israel Vote
Against a Major Resolution Condemning Terrorism?
There are some other problems. Some of them came up in
December 1987, at the peak of the first war on
terrorism, that's when the furor over the plague was
peaking. The United Nations General Assembly passed a
very strong resolution against terrorism, condemning
the plague in the strongest terms, calling on every
state to fight against it in every possible way. It
passed unanimously. One country, Honduras abstained.
Two votes against; the usual two, United States and
Israel. Why should the United States and Israel vote
against a major resolution condemning terrorism in the
strongest terms, in fact pretty much the terms that
the Reagan administration was using? Well, there is a
reason. There is one paragraph in that long resolution
which says that nothing in this resolution infringes
on the rights of people struggling against racist and
colonialist regimes or foreign military occupation to
continue with their resistance with the assistance of
others, other states, states outside in their just
cause. Well, the United States and Israel can't accept
that. The main reason that they couldn't at the time
was because of South Africa. South Africa was an ally,
officially called an ally. There was a terrorist force
in South Africa. It was called the African National
Congress. They were a terrorist force officially.
South Africa in contrast was an ally and we certainly
couldn't support actions by a terrorist group
struggling against a racist regime. That would be
impossible.
And of course there is another one. Namely the Israeli
occupied territories, now going into its 35th year.
Supported primarily by the United States in blocking a
diplomatic settlement for 30 years now, still is. And
you can't have that. There is another one at the time.
Israel was occupying Southern Lebanon and was being
combated by what the US calls a terrorist force,
Hizbullah, which in fact succeeded in driving Israel
out of Lebanon. And we can't allow anyone to struggle
against a military occupation when it is one that we
support so therefore the US and Israel had to vote
against the major UN resolution on terrorism. And I
mentioned before that a US vote against...is
essentially a veto. Which is only half the story. It
also vetoes it from history. So none of this was every
reported and none of it appeared in the annals of
terrorism. If you look at the scholarly work on
terrorism and so on, nothing that I just mentioned
appears. The reason is that it has got the wrong
people holding the guns. You have to carefully hone
the definitions and the scholarship and so on so that
you come out with the right conclusions; otherwise it
is not respectable scholarship and honorable
journalism. Well, these are some of problems that are
hampering the effort to develop a comprehensive treaty
against terrorism. Maybe we should have an academic
conference or something to try to see if we can figure
out a way of defining terrorism so that it comes out
with just the right answers, not the wrong answers.
That won't be easy.
4. What are the Origins of the September 11 Crime?
Well, let's drop that and turn to the 4th question,
What are the origins of the September 11 crimes? Here
we have to make a distinction between 2 categories
which shouldn't be run together. One is the actual
agents of the crime, the other is kind of a reservoir
of at least sympathy, sometimes support that they
appeal to even among people who very much oppose the
criminals and the actions. And those are 2 different
things.
Category 1: The Likely Perpetrators
Well, with regard to the perpetrators, in a certain
sense we are not really clear. The United States
either is unable or unwilling to provide any evidence,
any meaningful evidence. There was a sort of a play a
week or two ago when Tony Blair was set up to try to
present it. I don't exactly know what the purpose of
this was. Maybe so that the US could look as though
it's holding back on some secret evidence that it
can't reveal or that Tony Blair could strike proper
Churchillian poses or something or other. Whatever the
PR [public relations] reasons were, he gave a
presentation which was in serious circles considered
so absurd that it was barely even mentioned. So the
Wall Street Journal, for example, one of the more
serious papers had a small story on page 12, I think,
in which they pointed out that there was not much
evidence and then they quoted some high US official as
saying that it didn't matter whether there was any
evidence because they were going to do it anyway. So
why bother with the evidence? The more ideological
press, like the New York Times and others, they had
big front-page headlines. But the Wall Street Journal
reaction was reasonable and if you look at the
so-called evidence you can see why. But let's assume
that it's true. It is astonishing to me how weak the
evidence was. I sort of thought you could do better
than that without any intelligence service [audience
laughter]. In fact, remember this was after weeks of
the most intensive investigation in history of all the
intelligence services of the western world working
overtime trying to put something together. And it was
a prima facie, it was a very strong case even before
you had anything. And it ended up about where it
started, with a prima facie case. So let's assume that
it is true. So let's assume that, it looked obvious
the first day, still does, that the actual
perpetrators come from the radical Islamic, here
called, fundamentalist networks of which the bin Laden
network is undoubtedly a significant part. Whether
they were involved or not nobody knows. It doesn't
really matter much.
Where did they come from?
That's the background, those networks. Well, where do
they come from? We know all about that. Nobody knows
about that better than the CIA because it helped
organize them and it nurtured them for a long time.
They were brought together in the 1980's actually by
the CIA and its associates elsewhere: Pakistan,
Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China was
involved, they may have been involved a little bit
earlier, maybe by 1978. The idea was to try to harass
the Russians, the common enemy. According to President
Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, the US got involved in mid 1979. Do you
remember, just to put the dates right, that Russia
invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. Ok. According to
Brzezinski, the US support for the mojahedin fighting
against the government began 6 months earlier. He is
very proud of that. He says we drew the Russians into,
in his words, an Afghan trap, by supporting the
mojahedin, getting them to invade, getting them into
the trap. Now then we could develop this terrific
mercenary army. Not a small one, maybe 100,000 men or
so bringing together the best killers they could find,
who were radical Islamist fanatics from around North
Africa, Saudi Arabia....anywhere they could find them.
They were often called the Afghanis but many of them,
like bin Laden, were not Afghans. They were brought by
the CIA and its friends from elsewhere. Whether
Brzezinski is telling the truth or not, I don't know.
He may have been bragging, he is apparently very proud
of it, knowing the consequences incidentally. But
maybe it's true. We'll know someday if the documents
are ever released. Anyway, that's his perception. By
January 1980 it is not even in doubt that the US was
organizing the Afghanis and this massive military
force to try to cause the Russians maximal trouble. It
was a legitimate thing for the Afghans to fight the
Russian invasion. But the US intervention was not
helping the Afghans. In fact, it helped destroy the
country and much more. The Afghanis, so called, had
their own...it did force the Russians to withdrew,
finally. Although many analysts believe that it
probably delayed their withdrawal because they were
trying to get out of it. Anyway, whatever, they did
withdraw.
Meanwhile, the terrorist forces that the CIA was
organizing, arming, and training were pursuing their
own agenda, right away. It was no secret. One of the
first acts was in 1981 when they assassinated the
President of Egypt, who was one of the most
enthusiastic of their creators. In 1983, one suicide
bomber, who may or may not have been connected, it's
pretty shadowy, nobody knows. But one suicide bomber
drove the US army-military out of Lebanon. And it
continued. They have their own agenda. The US was
happy to mobilize them to fight its cause but
meanwhile they are doing their own thing. They were
clear very about it. After 1989, when the Russians had
withdrawn, they simply turned elsewhere. Since then
they have been fighting in Chechnya, Western China,
Bosnia, Kashmir, South East Asia, North Africa, all
over the place.
The Are Telling Us What They Think
They are telling us just what they think. The United
States wants to silence the one free television
channel in the Arab world because it's broadcasting a
whole range of things from Powell over to Osama bin
Laden. So the US is now joining the repressive regimes
of the Arab world that try to shut it up. But if you
listen to it, if you listen to what bin Laden says,
it's worth it. There is plenty of interviews. And
there are plenty of interviews by leading Western
reporters, if you don't want to listen to his own
voice, Robert Fisk and others. And what he has been
saying is pretty consistent for a long time. He's not
the only one but maybe he is the most eloquent. It's
not only consistent over a long time, it is consistent
with their actions. So there is every reason to take
it seriously. Their prime enemy is what they call the
corrupt and oppressive authoritarian brutal regimes of
the Arab world and when the say that they get quite a
resonance in the region. They also want to defend and
they want to replace them by properly Islamist
governments. That's where they lose the people of the
region. But up till then, they are with them. From
their point of view, even Saudi Arabia, the most
extreme fundamentalist state in the world, I suppose,
short of the Taliban, which is an offshoot, even
that's not Islamist enough for them. Ok, at that
point, they get very little support, but up until that
point they get plenty of support. Also they want to
defend Muslims elsewhere. They hate the Russians like
poison, but as soon as the Russians pulled out of
Afghanistan, they stopped carrying out terrorist acts
in Russia as they had been doing with CIA backing
before that within Russia, not just in Afghanistan.
They did move over to Chechnya. But there they are
defending Muslims against a Russian invasion. Same
with all the other places I mentioned. From their
point of view, they are defending the Muslims against
the infidels. And they are very clear about it and
that is what they have been doing.
Why did they turn against the United States?
Now why did they turn against the United States? Well
that had to do with what they call the US invasion of
Saudi Arabia. In 1990, the US established permanent
military bases in Saudi Arabia which from their point
of view is comparable to a Russian invasion of
Afghanistan except that Saudi Arabia is way more
important. That's the home of the holiest sites of
Islam. And that is when their activities turned
against the Unites States. If you recall, in 1993 they
tried to blow up the World Trade Center. Got part of
the way, but not the whole way and that was only part
of it. The plans were to blow up the UN building, the
Holland and Lincoln tunnels, the FBI building. I think
there were others on the list. Well, they sort of got
part way, but not all the way. One person who is
jailed for that, finally, among the people who were
jailed, was a Egyptian cleric who had been brought
into the United States over the objections of the
Immigration Service, thanks to the intervention of the
CIA which wanted to help out their friend. A couple
years later he was blowing up the World Trade Center.
And this has been going on all over. I'm not going to
run through the list but it's, if you want to
understand it, it's consistent. It's a consistent
picture. It's described in words. It's revealed in
practice for 20 years. There is no reason not to take
it seriously. That's the first category, the likely
perpetrators.
Category 2: What about the reservoir of support?
What about the reservoir of support? Well, it's not
hard to find out what that is. One of the good things
that has happened since September 11 is that some of
the press and some of the discussion has begun to open
up to some of these things. The best one to my
knowledge is the Wall Street Journal which right away
began to run, within a couple of days, serious
reports, searching serious reports, on the reasons why
the people of the region, even though they hate bin
Laden and despise everything he is doing, nevertheless
support him in many ways and even regard him as the
conscience of Islam, as one said. Now the Wall Street
Journal and others, they are not surveying public
opinion. They are surveying the opinion of their
friends: bankers, professionals, international
lawyers, businessmen tied to the United States, people
who they interview in MacDonalds restaurant, which is
an elegant restaurant there, wearing fancy American
clothes. That's the people they are interviewing
because they want to find out what their attitudes
are. And their attitudes are very explicit and very
clear and in many ways consonant with the message of
bin Laden and others. They are very angry at the
United States because of its support of authoritarian
and brutal regimes; its intervention to block any move
towards democracy; its intervention to stop economic
development; its policies of devastating the civilian
societies of Iraq while strengthening Saddam Hussein;
and they remember, even if we prefer not to, that the
United States and Britain supported Saddam Hussein
right through his worst atrocities, including the
gassing of the Kurds, bin Laden brings that up
constantly, and they know it even if we don't want to.
And of course their support for the Israeli military
occupation which is harsh and brutal. It is now in its
35th year. The US has been providing the overwhelming
economic, military, and diplomatic support for it, and
still does. And they know that and they don't like it.
Especially when that is paired with US policy towards
Iraq, towards the Iraqi civilian society which is
getting destroyed. Ok, those are the reasons roughly.
And when bin Laden gives those reasons, people
recognize it and support it.
Now that's not the way people here like to think about
it, at least educated liberal opinion. They like the
following line which has been all over the press,
mostly from left liberals, incidentally. I have not
done a real study but I think right wing opinion has
generally been more honest. But if you look at say at
the New York Times at the first op-ed they ran by
Ronald Steel, serious left liberal intellectual. He
asks Why do they hate us? This is the same day, I
think, that the Wall Street Journal was running the
survey on why they hate us. So he says "They hate us
because we champion a new world order of capitalism,
individualism, secularism, and democracy that should
be the norm everywhere." That's why they hate us. The
same day the Wall Street Journal is surveying the
opinions of bankers, professionals, international
lawyers and saying `look, we hate you because you are
blocking democracy, you are preventing economic
development, you are supporting brutal regimes,
terrorist regimes and you are doing these horrible
things in the region.' A couple days later, Anthony
Lewis, way out on the left, explained that the
terrorist seek only "apocalyptic nihilism," nothing
more and nothing we do matters. The only consequence
of our actions, he says, that could be harmful is that
it makes it harder for Arabs to join in the
coalition's anti-terrorism effort. But beyond that,
everything we do is irrelevant.
Well, you know, that's got the advantage of being sort
of comforting. It makes you feel good about yourself,
and how wonderful you are. It enables us to evade the
consequences of our actions. It has a couple of
defects. One is it is at total variance with
everything we know. And another defect is that it is a
perfect way to ensure that you escalate the cycle of
violence. If you want to live with your head buried in
the sand and pretend they hate us because they're
opposed to globalization, that's why they killed Sadat
20 years ago, and fought the Russians, tried to blow
up the World Trade Center in 1993. And these are all
people who are in the midst of ... corporate
globalization but if you want to believe that,
yeh...comforting. And it is a great way to make sure
that violence escalates. That's tribal violence. You
did something to me, I'll do something worse to you. I
don't care what the reasons are. We just keep going
that way. And that's a way to do it. Pretty much
straight, left-liberal opinion.
5. What are the Policy Options?
What are the policy options? Well, there are a number.
A narrow policy option from the beginning was to
follow the advice of really far out radicals like the
Pope [audience laughter]. The Vatican immediately said
look it's a horrible terrorist crime. In the case of
crime, you try to find the perpetrators, you bring
them to justice, you try them. You don't kill innocent
civilians. Like if somebody robs my house and I think
the guy who did it is probably in the neighborhood
across the street, I don't go out with an assault
rifle and kill everyone in that neighborhood. That's
not the way you deal with crime, whether it's a small
crime like this one or really massive one like the US
terrorist war against Nicaragua, even worse ones and
others in between. And there are plenty of precedents
for that. In fact, I mentioned a precedent, Nicaragua,
a lawful, a law abiding state, that's why presumably
we had to destroy it, which followed the right
principles. Now of course, it didn't get anywhere
because it was running up against a power that
wouldn't allow lawful procedures to be followed. But
if the United States tried to pursue them, nobody
would stop them. In fact, everyone would applaud. And
there are plenty of other precedents.
IRA Bombs in London
When the IRA set off bombs in London, which is pretty
serious business, Britain could have, apart from the
fact that it was unfeasible, let's put that aside, one
possible response would have been to destroy Boston
which is the source of most of the financing. And of
course to wipe out West Belfast. Well, you know, quite
apart from the feasibility, it would have been
criminal idiocy. The way to deal with it was pretty
much what they did. You know, find the perpetrators;
bring them to trial; and look for the reasons. Because
these things don't come out of nowhere. They come from
something. Whether it is a crime in the streets or a
monstrous terrorist crime or anything else. There's
reasons. And usually if you look at the reasons, some
of them are legitimate and ought to be addressed,
independently of the crime, they ought to be addressed
because they are legitimate. And that's the way to
deal with it. There are many such examples.
But there are problems with that. One problem is that
the United States does not recognize the jurisdiction
of international institutions. So it can't go to them.
It has rejected the jurisdiction of the World Court.
It has refused to ratify the International Criminal
Court. It is powerful enough to set up a new court if
it wants so that wouldn't stop anything. But there is
a problem with any kind of a court, mainly you need
evidence. You go to any kind of court, you need some
kind of evidence. Not Tony Blair talking about it on
television. And that's very hard. It may be impossible
to find.
Leaderless Resistance
You know, it could be that the people who did it,
killed themselves. Nobody knows this better than the
CIA. These are decentralized, nonhierarchic networks.
They follow a principle that is called Leaderless
Resistance. That's the principle that has been
developed by the Christian Right terrorists in the
United States. It's called Leaderless Resistance. You
have small groups that do things. They don't talk to
anybody else. There is a kind of general background of
assumptions and then you do it. Actually people in the
anti war movement are very familiar with it. We used
to call it affinity groups. If you assume correctly
that whatever group you are in is being penetrated by
the FBI, when something serious is happening, you
don't do it in a meeting. You do it with some people
you know and trust, an affinity group and then it
doesn't get penetrated. That's one of the reasons why
the FBI has never been able to figure out what's going
on in any of the popular movements. And other
intelligence agencies are the same. They can't. That's
leaderless resistance or affinity groups, and
decentralized networks are extremely hard to
penetrate. And it's quite possible that they just
don't know. When Osama bin Laden claims he wasn't
involved, that's entirely possible. In fact, it's
pretty hard to imagine how a guy in a cave in
Afghanistan, who doesn't even have a radio or a
telephone could have planned a highly sophisticated
operation like that. Chances are it's part of the
background. You know, like other leaderless resistance
terrorist groups. Which means it's going to be
extremely difficult to find evidence.
Establishing Credibility
And the US doesn't want to present evidence because it
wants to be able to do it, to act without evidence.
That's a crucial part of the reaction. You will notice
that the US did not ask for Security Council
authorization which they probably could have gotten
this time, not for pretty reasons, but because the
other permanent members of the Security Council are
also terrorist states. They are happy to join a
coalition against what they call terror, namely in
support of their own terror. Like Russia wasn't going
to veto, they love it. So the US probably could have
gotten Security Council authorization but it didn't
want it. And it didn't want it because it follows a
long-standing principle which is not George Bush, it
was explicit in the Clinton administration,
articulated and goes back much further and that is
that we have the right to act unilaterally. We don't
want international authorization because we act
unilaterally and therefore we don't want it. We don't
care about evidence. We don't care about negotiation.
We don't care about treaties. We are the strongest guy
around; the toughest thug on the block. We do what we
want. Authorization is a bad thing and therefore must
be avoided. There is even a name for it in the
technical literature. It's called establishing
credibility. You have to establish credibility. That's
an important factor in many policies. It was the
official reason given for the war in the Balkans and
the most plausible reason.
You want to know what credibility means, ask your
favorite Mafia Don. He'll explain to you what
credibility means. And it's the same in international
affairs, except it's talked about in universities
using big words, and that sort of thing. But it's
basically the same principle. And it makes sense. And
it usually works. The main historian who has written
about this in the last couple years is Charles Tilly
with a book called Coercion, Capital, and European
States. He points out that violence has been the
leading principle of Europe for hundreds of years and
the reason is because it works. You know, it's very
reasonable. It almost always works. When you have an
overwhelming predominance of violence and a culture of
violence behind it. So therefore it makes sense to
follow it. Well, those are all problems in pursuing
lawful paths. And if you did try to follow them you'd
really open some very dangerous doors. Like the US is
demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden.
And they are responding in a way which is regarded as
totally absurd and outlandish in the west, namely they
are saying, Ok, but first give us some evidence. In
the west, that is considered ludicrous. It's a sign of
their criminality. How can they ask for evidence? I
mean if somebody asked us to hand someone over, we'd
do it tomorrow. We wouldn't ask for any evidence.
[crowd laughter].
Haiti
In fact it is easy to prove that. We don't have to
make up cases. So for example, for the last several
years, Haiti has been requesting the United States to
extradite Emmanuel Constant. He is a major killer. He
is one of the leading figures in the slaughter of
maybe 4000 or 5000 people in the years in the mid
1990's, under the military junta, which incidentally
was being, not so tacitly, supported by the Bush and
the Clinton administrations contrary to illusions.
Anyway he is a leading killer. They have plenty of
evidence. No problem about evidence. He has already
been brought to trial and sentenced in Haiti and they
are asking the United States to turn him over. Well, I
mean do your own research. See how much discussion
there has been of that. Actually Haiti renewed the
request a couple of weeks ago. It wasn't even
mentioned. Why should we turn over a convicted killer
who was largely responsible for killing 4000 or 5000
people a couple of years ago. In fact, if we do turn
him over, who knows what he would say. Maybe he'll say
that he was being funded and helped by the CIA, which
is probably true. We don't want to open that door. And
he is not he only one.
Costa Rica
I mean, for the last about 15 years, Costa Rica which
is the democratic prize, has been trying to get the
United States to hand over a John Hull, a US land
owner in Costa Rica, who they charge with terrorist
crimes. He was using his land, they claim with good
evidence as a base for the US war against Nicaragua,
which is not a controversial conclusion, remember.
There is the World Court and Security Council behind
it. So they have been trying to get the United States
to hand him over. Hear about that one? No.
They did actually confiscate the land of another
American landholder, John Hamilton. Paid compensation,
offered compensation. The US refused. Turned his land
over into a national park because his land was also
being used as a base for the US attack against
Nicaragua. Costa Rica was punished for that one. They
were punished by withholding aid. We don't accept that
kind of insubordination from allies. And we can go on.
If you open the door to questions about extradition it
leads in very unpleasant directions. So that can't be
done.
Reactions in Afghanistan
Well, what about the reactions in Afghanistan. The
initial proposal, the initial rhetoric was for a
massive assault which would kill many people visibly
and also an attack on other countries in the region.
Well the Bush administration wisely backed off from
that. They were being told by every foreign leader,
NATO, everyone else, every specialist, I suppose,
their own intelligence agencies that that would be the
stupidest thing they could possibly do. It would
simply be like opening recruiting offices for bin
Laden all over the region. That's exactly what he
wants. And it would be extremely harmful to their own
interests. So they backed off that one. And they are
turning to what I described earlier which is a kind of
silent genocide. It's a.... well, I already said what
I think about it. I don't think anything more has to
be said. You can figure it out if you do the
arithmetic.
A sensible proposal which is kind of on the verge of
being considered, but it has been sensible all along,
and it is being raised, called for by expatriate
Afghans and allegedly tribal leaders internally, is
for a UN initiative, which would keep the Russians and
Americans out of it, totally. These are the 2
countries that have practically wiped the country out
in the last 20 years. They should be out of it. They
should provide massive reparations. But that's their
only role. A UN initiative to bring together elements
within Afghanistan that would try to construct
something from the wreckage. It's conceivable that
that could work, with plenty of support and no
interference. If the US insists on running it, we
might as well quit. We have a historical record on
that one.
You will notice that the name of this
operation....remember that at first it was going to be
a Crusade but they backed off that because PR (public
relations) agents told them that that wouldn't work
[audience laughter]. And then it was going to be
Infinite Justice, but the PR agents said, wait a
minute, you are sounding like you are divinity. So
that wouldn't work. And then it was changed to
enduring freedom. We know what that means. But nobody
has yet pointed out, fortunately, that there is an
ambiguity there. To endure means to suffer. [audience
laughter]. And a there are plenty of people around the
world who have endured what we call freedom. Again,
fortunately we have a very well-behaved educated class
so nobody has yet pointed out this ambiguity. But if
its done there will be another problem to deal with.
But if we can back off enough so that some more or
less independent agency, maybe the UN, maybe credible
NGO's (non governmental organizations) can take the
lead in trying to reconstruct something from the
wreckage, with plenty of assistance and we owe it to
them. Them maybe something would come out. Beyond
that, there are other problems.
An Easy Way To Reduce The Level Of Terror
We certainly want to reduce the level of terror,
certainly not escalate it. There is one easy way to do
that and therefore it is never discussed. Namely stop
participating in it. That would automatically reduce
the level of terror enormously. But that you can't
discuss. Well we ought to make it possible to discuss
it. So that's one easy way to reduce the level of
terror.
Beyond that, we should rethink the kinds of policies,
and Afghanistan is not the only one, in which we
organize and train terrorist armies. That has effects.
We're seeing some of these effects now. September 11th
is one. Rethink it.
Rethink the policies that are creating a reservoir of
support. Exactly what the bankers, lawyers and so on
are saying in places like Saudi Arabia. On the streets
it's much more bitter, as you can imagine. That's
possible. You know, those policies aren't graven in
stone.
And further more there are opportunities. It's hard to
find many rays of light in the last couple of weeks
but one of them is that there is an increased
openness. Lots of issues are open for discussion, even
in elite circles, certainly among the general public,
that were not a couple of weeks ago. That's
dramatically the case. I mean, if a newspaper like USA
Today can run a very good article, a serious article,
on life in the Gaza Strip...there has been a change.
The things I mentioned in the Wall Street
Journal...that's change. And among the general public,
I think there is much more openness and willingness to
think about things that were under the rug and so on.
These are opportunities and they should be used, at
least by people who accept the goal of trying to
reduce the level of violence and terror, including
potential threats that are extremely severe and could
make even September 11th pale into insignificance.
Thanks.
Noam Chomsky's new book, 9/11, is available in e-book
format and in print from Seven Stories Press.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:37 BST