Albert Interviews Chomsky / Sept. 30(Latest)

This is a forward of an interview with Noam Chomsky which I 
received today.  Enjoy.

Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 8:56 AM
Subject:  Albert Interviews Chomsky / Sept. 30(Latest)


> 
> 
> 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.
> -------------------------------------------------------