Interview with Chomsky
Beyond the frame - The Afghan Trap
Media Education Foundation
http//mediaed.sitepassport.net/

Well, the immediate response is shared by everyone it was a horrible atrocity and crime against humanity is not too strong a word for it. So shock and horror and outrage, and these are the natural responses, and I share them, as does everyone. The further question is what you do about it? That’s a different matter. And then you have choices.

One way is to answer bin Laden’s prayers and launch a massive assault against some Muslim population. That’s precisely what they’re asking for, and every intelligence expert and strategic analyst knows it and has been pointing it out over and over again. Just yesterday the French foreign minister pointed out that a massive military assault against any Muslim population will be in, say Afghanistan, to do that would be to fall into what he called a diabolical trap and he knows exactly what he’s talking about. France, and French intelligence particularly, was deeply involved, in fact played a primary role, in drawing the Russians into what Zbigniew Brzezinski later called "an Afghan trap." When Brzezinski took credit for the fact, maybe he is exaggerating, but he took credit (national security advisor under Carter) in a secret directive of 1979, which provided aid to the Mujahidin fighting against the government of Afghanistan and according to Brzezinski the purpose was to insight a Russian invasion, which indeed took place a couple of months later and drew the Russians into this Afghan trap, which led this major factor leading to the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Brzezinski is very proud of that. The French were in the forefront of planning that, so when Foreign Minister Vedrine talks about a diabolical trap, he knows exactly what he is talking about. Yes, that’s one reaction and the consequences are predictable.

The consequences will presumably be exactly what bin Laden and his network are praying for an attack that kills lots of Afghans, let’s say, will help increase the anger and resentment that are already rampant throughout the region. Privileged people, poor people, everyone because of U.S. policies, it will increase it, it will mobilize more people to the same cause, and then there will be further terrorist atrocities in the United States and Europe and maybe much worse ones. 

This is a very familiar dynamic. It’s a familiar cycle of escalating violence. I mean, on a small scale, you see it in smaller conflicts. Let’s say take Northern Ireland. I mean, there are what they call hardmen on both sides whose interest is primarily to kill, and what they hope is that the other side will carry out a brutal attack which will give them a reason and popular support for carrying out an even more brutal retaliation, and then the cycle escalates.

 The same is true in the Balkans, the same is true in Israel/Palestine; it’s true wherever there [are] conflicts like that. There are ways to escalate conflict. There are ways to escalate violence and to ensure that things will get even worse, and the massive response is one of them. I should add only one point we are already engaged in a massive attack against Afghans. Just a couple of days ago the New York Times reported that the U.S. government had demanded that Pakistan cut off food aid and other supplies which are keeping millions of suffering Afghans just this side of starvation. If Pakistan follows the orders, as they presumably will, they'll move to the other side. Millions of people will be starving, maybe to death. These are not Taliban; these are victims of the Taliban, and we are now deciding that we want to kill them. That’s not going to be unknown in the region.

How Should We Respond?

This was a criminal act, and it should be treated as a criminal act, and there is a very definite series of procedures that you would go through, and, in fact, there are precedents other countries have gone through. So let’s take a precedent, which is a good one. Fifteen years ago the United States was engaged in a major terrorist attack against Nicaragua, I mean, much worse than this, killed tens of thousands of people, practically destroyed the country.

Nicaragua did not respond by setting off bombs in Washington, which I suppose they could have done. They responded by going to the World Court. The World Court issued a judgment condemning the United States, ordering it to terminate its, what they called "unlawful use of force" ­ that is, terrorism ­ and to pay massive reparations. The U.S. of course dismissed the court judgment. With contempt, Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council. The Security Council passed a resolution calling on all states to observe international law, directed to the United States. Well, they didn't pass it; of course, the U.S. vetoed it. So Nicaragua went to the general assembly, which passed a very similar resolution unanimously, the United States and Israel voting no. They then went back the same year, the next year, did the same thing. This time El Salvador joined Israel and the United States in opposing international law. At that point, Nicaragua couldn't do anything, but that’s not going to happen if the United States proceeds that way. It’s not the only example.

If the United States proceeds by the methods, by what is dictated by our own solemn treaty obligations and the principals we like to uphold when it is convenient to apply them to others, there is a procedure put together a case, find out/get some evidence about who the perpetrators were, present that evidence in an appropriate forum, could be the security council, could be the World Court, if that’s too slow it could be…unfortunately the United States can't go to the International Criminal Court because its refusals to accept its jurisdiction…but an independent court could be established or any other independent tribunal, security council is enough. Present the case, present the case that most of the world is asking for.

So the Arab League, for example, the other day said we are happy to join this attack against war against terrorism, but first you have to provide us with some evidence. Yes, that’s a reasonable request. The Egyptian ambassador just said it again yesterday provide us with some evidence and we will proceed. If some evidence can be put together, you know, it doesn't have to be the kind that'll convict in a court of law, but some plausible evidence as to who’s responsible ­ present it, get international authorization for an appropriate action, which could be taken on the orders of the security council, for example, and then proceed to find the perpetrators and bring them to some sort of appropriate tribunal. That could be done, and in fact it is the only way to proceed, unless of course you want to just demonstrate to the world that we are indeed a violent rogue state and virtually guarantee that the circle of violence will escalate with further atrocities like this here. Those are essentially the choices.

There is a more long-term issue. This is the immediate question. The more long-term issue is the same one that arises in any act of violence no matter what it is. When Timothy McVeigh bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City, one possible response would have been to say nuke Montana and Idaho; it’s a possible response. Another response is to find out who is responsible, try him, convict him and try to figure out what lies behind it. Because something does lie behind it, and when you investigate what lies behind such acts, you invariably find that there’s some elements, which are realistic, and those have to be dealt with; that’s what provides the background out of which these actions arise. That’s true of any act of violence. You know, a minor criminal assault in a city or a major war. If you don't want to look at the reasons, you are simply saying, "Well, we want to ensure that this continues."

And in this case, the reasons are not very much hidden; they are well known in fact. What is the Broader Motivations of the Attacks? First of all, we have to know who the perpetrators were.

But let’s assume, which is plausible, that it’s the bin Laden network. Notice that doesn't necessarily mean bin Laden himself. It’s possible that he is telling the truth when he said he had nothing to do with this particular act, hidden away in some cave in Afghanistan. But the network that he helped establish, that’s involved. We know a lot about that network; in fact the CIA knows more about it then they are telling us, because they helped set it up. This is a network that was established, as Brzezinski says, first as an effort to draw the Russians into the Afghan trap, assuming that he is telling the truth, and then through the 1980s in an effort to cause maximal harm to the Soviet Union; in order to do this, the CIA, Pakistani Intelligence, Saudi Arabia, help from others, Israel, Egypt, Britain, they rounded up the best killers they could find, who happened to be extreme radical fundamentalist Arabs. And there has been blowback all over the world, I mean Hammas in Palestine had its origins there, the Islamic Jihad in Egypt, which has been tearing the place apart, had their origins there; it’s blowing back all over. But they set it up, they backed it, they gave them advanced armaments including stinger missiles, they trained them, and, finally, they carried out terrorist attacks inside Russia. Finally, the Russians pulled out. They hate the Russians, but at that point they stopped carrying out terrorist attacks in Russia except in one case. They went to Chechnya, where they’re fighting to resist the Russian atrocities there and are carrying out terrorist attacks in Moscow. It is one of the reasons Moscow is happy to join this, hoping the U.S. will back them in their brutal repression in Chechnya. Also, they are involved in western China, in the Uighur uprising. And China, again, would be delighted to have the United States join in repression.

But the U.S. intelligence knows all about these people they helped create. And they have their own reasons, and they've told us what their reasons are, if we want to listen. There are plenty of in-depth interviews with bin Laden himself, there is a CIA profile on him, they are all pretty much the same. He was fighting a holy war to drive the Russians out of part of Afghanistan when the U.S. established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia.

He says that he’s going to fight a holy war to drive the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia, which is much more important to them because Saudi Arabia is a guardian of the holiest shrines and so on. Now the Saudi Arabian regime is a major target ­ it’s the most fundamentalist Islamic regime in the world outside of the Taliban ­ but it doesn't satisfy their criteria, they want to get rid of the corrupt, and they are corrupt, the corrupt, brutal, authoritarian regimes in the Arab states, replace them with, what they consider proper, Muslim regimes and defend Muslims around the world in Chechnya, western China, probably Aceh, Indonesia, Algeria, yes, that’s what their plans are. They've been perfectly frank about them, and they’re perfectly willing to carry out the violent terrorist actions to achieve these ends.

It’s not new, we may forget, but twenty years ago, in 1983, one suicide bomber in Lebanon drove the U.S. military out of Lebanon. Maybe we forget; they didn't forget. There have been other cases since. Suicide bombers are fundamentally unstoppable. If people are perfectly happy to commit suicide, there are endless numbers of ways in which they can succeed. So that’s the particular category of the bin Laden network. Now they draw from a reservoir. There is a background, and the reservoir includes, with different levels of intensity, people from bankers and businessmen, to the huge mass of poor and impoverished people who are being brutally oppressed very often. Over that range throughout the region, there’s plenty of grievances, and they'd also tell you about them. So, for example, the Wall Street Journal, the day after the bombing published a good story on the attitudes of wealthy Muslims ­ bankers, professionals, businessmen and so on.

They were very frank. They said that they object to the fact that the United States is supporting harsh, authoritarian, anti-democratic governments throughout the region, that the U.S. is "preventing independent economic development by propping up oppressive regimes" ­ I'm quoting ­ and their prime concern, and that’s everyone, is the decisive U.S. support for the Israeli military occupation of…they’re going into its 35th year…harsh, brutal, oppressive, the U.S. is providing the diplomatic support, the military means, for the settlement and the oppression and everything else. They know that, everybody knows that. It’s been blocking efforts at diplomatic settlement for years, serious diplomatic settlement, that’s on the one side. And that contrasts very sharply with U.S. policy towards Iraq.

In the last ten years, the United States has devastated the civilian society of Iraq. Maybe, if Madeline Albright gets up on television and is asked, "What do you think about killing half a million children under five?" And she says, "Well, it’s a high price, but we think it’s worth it." Fine, maybe she thinks it’s worth it, and the U.S. government apparently does, but that doesn't mean that the people in the Middle East think that the price is worth it to kill half a million children while strengthening Saddam Hussein, which is exactly what they are doing. So you put these two policies side by side, and it’s causing tremendous outrage. Now that’s the rich people. That is the pro-U.S. wealthy people. You go down to the streets, or take a look at the people who are at the wrong end of the guns in the occupied territories or in Lebanon, or the slums of Cairo, or wherever you go, you get much more bitter reactions, and out of that background comes the kind of fury and desperation that can allow groups like the CIA-organized bin Laden network to carry out their activities.

How Do We Remedy The Root Causes?

Every single case that I mentioned just quoting wealthy, pro-U.S. people in the region. Every single case is real, and every single case is remedial. There is no necessity for the United States to continue to prop up oppressive regimes to block efforts at internal democracy, to block attempts at internal development. There is no necessity in continuing to destroy Iraqi civilian society, while strengthening Saddam Hussein; that is not a law of nature. And crucially, and this is everyone’s main concern, the U.S. insistence on maintaining what amounts to effectively permanent Israeli occupation of the territories, and every single plan right through Camp David continues that; that’s by no means necessary. Since the U.S. has now, during the last ten years ­ the so-called ‘Oslo years’ ­ the U.S. has supported a vast expansion of the settlements and the territories.

Jerusalem, what they've called Jerusalem, is now far beyond its original boundaries, it’s probably eight times its size, and that includes regions that here are called parts of Jerusalem, but everywhere else in the world they are called "illegal settlements." So the fighting that’s going on between Gilo and Beit Jala, Gilo is called here a settlement and part of Jerusalem, well call it that if you like, but it’s a settlement placed illegally on areas that were conquered. That and everything else is in gross violation of the Geneva Conventions. The world is united on this.

Outside, when a vote comes up in the United Nations, it’s unanimous, Israel opposed, the United States abstaining, because it doesn't want to take such a blatant stand in violation of fundamental principals of international law, particularly because the origin of these principals, the Geneva Conventions, were established right after the second world war in an effort to put on record that the crimes of the Nazis could not repeated. Everybody knows that. Just anything that is done there, any single settlement, any act of repression, it’s all in violation of the convention, it’s all illegal.

The United States continues to support it, provides the…and if you go beyond the so-called Jerusalem, the vast area of Jerusalem, there’s another…settlements have virtually doubled during the Oslo years, and they’re all over the place. A settlement doesn't just mean people, you know it means big infrastructure development, with big highways and barriers and so on. The Camp David proposal, the one that was regarded here as so generous and  magnanimous last year, that broke the West Bank into three separate cantons. Two big settlements would be taken over, ultimately annexed inside Israel, one going almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank in half, in fact it was developed for that purpose. It includes a city, Maale Adumim, and another one like it to the north, up to Ariel, and in Israel, these are commonly called bantustans, three cantons in the West Bank and further encroachments, and all separated from the Gaza strip, and who knows what’s going to happen there. Well, if you put forth proposals like that, you are saying, "Let’s continue with the occupation." And it’s a harsh occupation. Palestinians have been living under siege. It’s gotten much worse during the Oslo process, during these years, the last eight years. The Israeli military occupation prevented any form of economic development ­ that was policy, no economic development. After 1993, when the Oslo thing started, it got worse. The closures were almost constant. The economy has deteriorated sharply; the repression is extremely harsh. Now there are two forms of repression. It’s not only from the Israeli military authorities, but also from the Palestinian authority, which is a miserably corrupt, brutally oppressive regime, mostly collaborating with Israel and surprising the population. So now they have two weights on their shoulders, and it is very brutal. People live with daily humiliation, with beatings, with killings, stuck in your house, you can't cross the road to go to the hospital or visit your friend.

Anybody who knows anything about it knows it’s total misery. By now, after the U.S. support…the U.S. support for the occupation has been going on for thirty years, but it’s intensified in the last ten years, and by now it’s extremely hard to deal with. I mean, to try to withdraw to the internationally recognized border, as the world demands, it has been for 25 years, that’s been the international consensus. By now that means dismantling areas that are within Israel that look as much like Jerusalem as Cambridge looks like Boston, it’s part of the city. What do you do about that? It’s probably the only solution now, after these miserable policies, is some kind of territorial exchange, which will leave some of these areas, maybe what’s called Jerusalem, parts of it at least, inside Israel, but will give equivalent territory, maybe in...that doesn't mean a couple pieces of sand in the desert ­ it means equivalent serious territory adjacent to the Palestinian State, hand it over to that. There are possible arrangements.

It’s not beyond the bounds of feasibility, but there has to be a willingness to do it, and this is not just…remember while the United States is providing with offering light reprimands when Israel abuses, say carries out political assassinations or sends tanks into Ramala or something, it’s also providing, at the same time, providing the means to continue and intensify those actions. So right at the beginning of the latest antifada, within the first days, Israel was using helicopters, military helicopters to attack civilian targets, killing plenty of people. This is reported. There was no Palestinian fire; all of the violence was confined to the occupied territories. On October third, two days after the fighting started, Clinton made the biggest deal in a decade to send new military helicopters to Israel, for that purpose, and they were used for that purpose ­ Israel can't produce helicopters, so we provide them.

Soon after that they began to be used for target of assassinations. The U.S. said we don't like that, but it sent more helicopters in February. As soon as Israel began to use F-16s, advanced jets, to attack civilian targets in the occupied territories. Within a week, there was a new deal to send them more F-16s, and this goes across the board, and it’s been going on for years. And it doesn't get reported here, but people there know that when a helicopter is coming, it’s a U.S. helicopter with an Israeli pilot. And the same is true with the rest of them, they know. If we want to keep our heads in the sand and say we don't know, well we can, but then we are just guaranteeing, we are contributing not only to crimes, because they are crimes, but to laying the basis for an escalation of crimes which will react against us, too.

What Is The Immediate Effect Of The Atrocities?

Part of the standard dynamics. And one of the reasons is that the harsher and more brutal elements on all sides are strengthened. That’s what happens in any period of confrontation, and conflict, and violence, and it’s true here, too. So just as bin Laden and his network would welcome a massive American assault, hard-liners in the United States are doubtless quite happy about the opportunities that this offers them. It offers an opportunity to further regiment the society, to prevent dissidents, to ram through their agenda militarization ­ more military spending, militarization of space, which is under the cover of missile defense, which is just a cover; and further attacks on social-democratic programs, welfare programs and so on. Right at this moment, while we are talking, they are trying to use it as an opportunity to eliminate the Capital Gains Tax and transfer wealth even more to very narrow sectors of the population. So of course there will be all these efforts, and a crucial part of it is cutting back dissidents, making sure nobody talks about it. Corporate globalization, problems of the poor, uninsured health people, environmental issues ­ "don't talk about any of that stuff, just follow orders and let us ram through our hard line agenda." It’s a wonderful opportunity for that, and of course it’s being exploited right in front of our eyes, and just what you'd expect.

* Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The most quoted living author in the world, Chomsky's work in linguistics, philosophy and politics places him among the most important intellectuals of the last century. He is widely regarded as America's leading dissident.