[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
European history is even worse. And surely no "civilized world" would plunge the world into a major war instead of
following the means prescribed by international law, following ample precedents.
The attacks have been called an act of hate. Where do you think this hate comes from?
For the radical Islamists mobilized by the CIA and its associates, the hate is just what they express. The U.S. was happy to
support their hatred and violence when it was directed against U.S. enemies; it is not happy when the hatred it helped nurture
is directed against the U.S. and its allies, as it has been, repeatedly, for 20 years. For the population of the region, quite a
distinct category, the reasons for their feelings are not obscure. The sources of those sentiments are also quite well known.
What do you suggest the citizens of the Western world could do to bring back peace?
That depends what these citizens want. If they want an escalating cycle of violence, in the familiar pattern, they should
certainly call on the U.S. to fall into bin Laden's "diabolical trap" and massacre innocent civilians. If they want to reduce the
level of violence, they should use their influence to direct the great powers in a very different course, the one I outlined
earlier, which, again, has ample precedents. That includes a willingness to examine what lies behind the atrocities. One
often hears that we must not consider these matters, because that would be justification for terrorism, a position so foolish
and destructive as scarcely to merit comment, but unfortunately common. But if we do not wish to contribute to escalating
the cycle of violence, with targets among the rich and powerful as well, that is exactly what we must do, as in all other cases,
including those familiar enough in Spain. [Editor's note: Chomsky is being interviewed by the Spanish press, and thus his
references to Spain.]
Did the U.S. "ask for" these attacks? Are they consequences of American politics?
The attacks are not "consequences" of U.S. policies in any direct sense. But indirectly, of course they are consequences, that
is not even controversial. There seems little doubt that the perpetrators come from the terrorist network that has its roots in
the mercenary armies that were organized, trained, and armed by the CIA, Egypt, Pakistan, French intelligence, Saudi
Arabian funding, and others. The backgrounds of all of this remain somewhat murky. The organization of these forces
started in 1979, if we can believe President Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. He claimed, maybe he
was just bragging, that in mid-1979 he had instigated secret support for Mujahidin fighting against the government of
Afghanistan in an effort to draw the Russians into what he called an "Afghan trap," a phrase worth remembering. He's very
proud of the fact that they did fall into the "Afghan trap" by sending military forces to support the government six months
later, with consequences that we know. The United States, along with its allies, assembled a huge mercenary army, maybe
100,000 or more, and they drew from the most militant sectors they could find, which happened to be radical Islamists, what
are called here Islamic fundamentalists, from all over, most of them not from Afghanistan. They're called "Afghanis," but
like bin Laden, many come from elsewhere.
Bin Laden joined sometime in the 1980s. He was involved in the funding networks, which probably are the ones which
still exist. They fought a holy war against the Russian occupiers. They carried terror into Russian territory. They won the
war and the Russian invaders withdrew. The war was not their only activity. In 1981, forces based in those same groups
assassinated President Sadat of Egypt, who had been instrumental in setting them up. In 1983, one suicide bomber, maybe
with connections to the same forces, essentially drove the U.S. military out of Lebanon. And it continued.
By 1989, they had succeeded in their Holy War in Afghanistan. As soon as the U.S. established a permanent military
presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden and the rest announced that from their point of view, that was comparable to the
Russian occupation of Afghanistan and they turned their guns on the Americans, as had already happened in 1983 when the
U.S. had military forces in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is a major enemy of the bin Laden network, just as Egypt is. That's what
they want to overthrow, what they call the un-Islamic governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, other states of the Middle East,
and North Africa. And it continued.
In 1997 they murdered roughly sixty tourists in Egypt and destroyed the Egyptian tourist industry. And they've been
carrying out activities all over the region, North Africa, East Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, Central Asia, western
China, Southeast Asia, the U.S., for years. That's one group. And that is an outgrowth of the wars of the 1980s and, if you
can believe Brzezinski, even before, when they set the "Afghan trap." Furthermore, as is common knowledge among anyone
who pays attention to the region, the terrorists draw from a reservoir of desperation, anger, and frustration that extends from
rich to poor, from secular to radical Islamist. That is rooted in no small measure in U.S. policies is evident and constantly
articulated to those willing to listen.
You said that the main practitioners of terrorism are countries like the U.S. that use violence for political motives,
When and where?
I find the question baffling. As I've said elsewhere, the U.S. is, after all, the only country condemned by the World Court for
international terrorism-for "the unlawful use of force" for political ends, as the Court put it-ordering the U.S. to terminate
these crimes and pay substantial reparations. The U.S. of course dismissed the Court's judgment with contempt, reacting by
escalating the terrorist war against Nicaragua and vetoing a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe
international law (and voting along, with Israel and in one case El Salvador, against similar General Assembly resolutions).
The terrorist war expanded in accordance with the official policy of attacking "soft targets"-undefended civilian targets, like
agricultural collectives and health clinics-instead of engaging the Nicaraguan army. The terrorists were able to carry out
these instructions, thanks to the complete control of Nicaraguan air space by the U.S. and the advanced communications
equipment provided to them by their supervisors.
It should also be recognized that these terrorist actions were widely approved. One prominent commentator, Michael
Kinsley, at the liberal extreme of the mainstream, argued that we should not simply dismiss State Department justifications
for terrorist attacks on "soft targets": a "sensible policy" must "meet the test of cost-benefit analysis," he wrote, an 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 U.S. understands that term, an interpretation illustrated quite clearly in the region. It is taken for granted
that U.S. elites have the right to conduct the analysis and pursue the project if it passes their tests.
Even more dramatically, the idea that Nicaragua should have the right to defend itself was considered outrageous across
the mainstream political spectrum in the United States. The U.S. pressured allies to stop providing Nicaragua with arms,
hoping that it would turn to Russia, as it did; that provides the right propaganda images. The Reagan administration
repeatedly floated rumors that Nicaragua was receiving jet fighters from Russia- to protect its airspace, as everyone knew,
and to prevent U.S. terrorist attacks against "soft targets." The rumors were false, but the reaction was instructive. The
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]