9-11 Noam Chomsky
Copyright 2001 by Noam Chomsky
I would like to thank David Peterson and Shifra
Stern for invaluable assistance with current media research particularly.
-NOAM CHOMSKY
CONTENTS
Editor's Note ................................9
9-11
1. NOT SINCE THE WAR OF 1812............11
2. IS THE WAR ON TERRORISM WINNABLE?....23
3. THE IDEOLOGICAL CAMPAIGN.............27
4. CRIMES OF STATE......................39
5. CHOICE OF ACTION.....................59
6. CIVILIZATIONS EAST AND WEST..........71
7. CONSIDERABLE RESTRAINT?..............93
Appendix A...................................119
DEPARTMENT OF STATE REPORT ON FOREIGN
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS (OCTOBER 5, 2001)
Appendix B...................................125
RECOMMENDED READING
About the Author.............................127
EDITOR'S NOTE
What follows is a set of interviews conducted with Noam Chomsky by a variety of interviewers during the first month
following the attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The interviews were conducted
largely via email, many with foreign journalists who speak and write English as a second language. Although some
interviews were conducted as early as eight days after the attacks, edits, additions, and revisions consistent with the latest
news continued up until the book left for the printer on October 15. As a result, interviews dated September may contain
references to October events. Furthermore, in the process of editing, sections were cut in which questions or answers were
repeated between interviews. However, occasionally a repeated fact or point has been intentionally left in, for emphasis. As
Chomsky wrote me during the editing process, "These facts have been completely removed from history. One has to
practically scream them from the rooftops."
Greg Ruggiero
New York City
1.
NOT SINCE THE WAR OF 1812
Based on an interview with I1 Manifesto (Italy),
September 19, 2001
Q: The fall of the Berlin Wall didn't claim any victims, but it did profoundly change the geopolitical scene. Do you
think that the attacks of 9-11 could have a similar effect?
CHOMSKY: The fall of the Berlin Wall was an event of great importance and did change the geopolitical scene, but not in
the ways usually assumed, in my opinion. I've tried to explain my reasons elsewhere and won't go into it now.
The horrifying atrocities of September 11 are something quite new in world affairs, not in the their scale and character, but
in the target. For the United States, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that the national territory has been under
attack, or even threatened. Many commentators have brought up a Pearl Harbor analogy, but that is misleading. On
December 7, 1941, military bases in two U.S. colonies were attacked - not the national territory, which was never threatened.
The U.S. preferred to call Hawaii a "territory," but it was in effect a colony. During the past several hundred years the U.S.
annihilated the indigenous population (millions of people), conquered half of Mexico (in fact, the territories of indigenous
peoples but that is another matter), intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines
(killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and, in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout
much of the world. The number of victims is colossal. For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way. That is
a dramatic change.
The same is true, even more dramatically, of Europe. Europe has suffered murderous destruction, but from internal wars.
Meanwhile European powers conquered much of the world with extreme brutality. With the rarest of exceptions, they were
not under attack by their foreign victims. England was not attacked by India, nor Belgium by the Congo, nor Italy by
Ethiopia, nor France by Algeria (also not regarded by France as "a colony"). It is not suprising, therefore, that Europe should
be utterly shocked by the terrorist crimes of September 11. Again, not because of the scale, regrettably. Exactly what this
portends, no one can guess. But that it is something strikingly new is quite clear.
My impression is that these attacks won't offer us new political scenery, but that they rather confirm the existence of
a problem inside the "Empire." The problem concerns political authority and power. What do you think?
The likely perpetrators are a category of their own, but uncontroversially, they draw support from a reservoir of bitterness
and anger over U.S. policies in the region, extending those of earlier European masters. There certainly is an issue of
"political authority and power." In the wake of the attacks, the Wall Street Journal surveyed opinions of "moneyed
Muslims" in the region: bankers, professionals, businessmen with ties to the United States. They expressed dismay and
anger about U.S. support for harsh authoritarian states and the barriers that Washington places against the independent
development and political democracy by its policies of "propping up oppressive regimes." Their primary concern, however,
was different: Washington's policies towards Iraq and towards Israel's military occupation. Among the great mass of poor
and suffering people, similar sentiments are much more bitter, and they are also hardly pleased to see the wealth of the region
flow to the West and to small Western-oriented elites and corrupt and brutal rulers backed by Western power. So there
definitely are problems of the authority and power. The immediately announced U.S. reaction was to deal with these
problems by intensifying them. That is, of course, not inevitable. A good deal depends on the outcome of such
considerations.
Is America having trouble governing the process of globalization-and I don't mean just in terms of national security
or intelligence systems?
The U.S. doesn't govern the corporate globalization project, though it of course has a primary role. These programs have
been arousing enormous opposition, primarily in the South, where mass protests could often be suppressed or ignored. In the
past few years, the protests reached the rich countries as well, and hence became the focus of great concern to the powerful,
who now feel themselves on the defensive, not without reason. There are very substantial reasons for the worldwide
opposition to the particular form of investor- rights "globalization" that is being imposed, but this is not the place to go into
that.
"Intelligent bombs" in Iraq, "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo. The U.S.A. never used the
word
word文档格式规范word作业纸小票打印word模板word简历模板免费word简历
"war" to
describe that. Now they are talking about war against a nameless enemy. Why?
At first the U.S. used the word "crusade," but it was quickly pointed out that if they hope to enlist their allies in the Islamic
world, it would be a serious mistake, for obvious reasons. The rhetoric therefore shifted to "war." The Gulf War of 1991
was called a "war." The bombing of Serbia was called a "humanitarian intervention," by no means a novel usage. That was a
standard description of European imperialist ventures in the 19th century. To cite some more recent examples, the major
recent scholarly work on "humanitarian intervention" cites three examples of "humanitarian intervention" in the immediate
pre-World War II period: Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia, and Hitler's takeover of the
Sudetenland. The author of course is not suggesting that the term is apt; rather, that the crimes were masked as
"humanitarian."
Whether the Kosovo intervention indeed was "humanitarian," possibly the first such case in history, is a matter of fact:
passionate declaration does not suffice, if only because virtually every use of force is justified in these terms. It is quite
extraordinary how weak the arguments are to justify the claim of humanitarian intent in the Kosovo case; more accurately,
they scarcely exist, and the official government reasons are quite different. But that's a separate matter, which I've written
about in some detail elsewhere. But even the pretext of "humanitarian intervention" cannot be used in the normal way in the
present case. So we are left with "war."
The proper term would be "crime"-perhaps "crime against humanity," as Robert Fisk has stressed. But there are laws for
punishing crimes: identify the perpetrators, and hold them accountable, the course that is widely recommended in the Middle
East, by the Vatican, and many others. But that requires solid evidence, and it opens doors to dangerous questions: to
mention only the most obvious one, who were the perpetrators of the crime of international terrorism condemned by the
World Court 15 years ago?
For such reasons, it is better to use a vague term, like "war." To call it a "war against terrorism," however, is simply more
propaganda, unless the "war" really does target terrorism. But that is plainly not contemplated because Western powers
could never abide by their own official definitions of the term, as in the U.S. Code* or Army manuals. To do so would at
once reveal that the U.S. is a leading terrorist state, as are its clients.
Perhaps I may quote political scientist Michael Stohl: "We must recognize that by convention- and it must be emphasized
only by convention-great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as
a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as
terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic," in accord with the literal meaning of
the term. Under the (admittedly unimaginable) circumstances that Western intellectual cultures were willing to adopt the
literal meaning, the war against terrorism would take quite a different form, along lines spelled out in extensive detail in
literature that does not enter the respectable canon.
------------------------------
* "[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the
United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to
be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the
conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session,
1984, Oct 19, volume 2; par 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984]).
The quote I just gave is cited in a survey volume called Western State Terrorism, edited by Alex George and published by a
major publisher 10 years ago, but unmentionable in the United States. Stohl's point is then illustrated in detail throughout the
book. And there are many others, extensively documented from the most reliable sources-for example, official government
documents- but also unmentionable in the U.S., though the taboo is not so strict in other English-speaking countries, or
elsewhere.
NATO is keeping quiet until they find out whether the attack was internal or external. How do you interpret this?
I do not think that that is the reason for NATO's hesitation. There is no serious doubt that the attack was "external." I
presume that NATO's reasons for hesitation are those that European leaders are expressing quite publicly.
They recognize, as does everyone with close knowledge of the region, that massive assault on Muslim population would be
the answer to the prayers of bin Laden and his associates, and would lead the U.S. and its allies into a "diabolical trap," as the
French foreign minister put it.
Could you say something about connivance and the role of American secret service?
I don't quite understand the question. This attack was surely an enormous shock and surprise to the intelligence services of
the West, including those of the United States. The CIA did have a role, a major one in fact, but that was in the 1980s, when
it joined Pakistani intelligence and others (Saudi Arabia, Britain, etc.) in recruiting, training, and arming the most extreme
Islamic fundamentalists it could find to fight a "Holy War" against the Russian invaders of Afghanistan.
The best source on this topic is the book Unholy Wars, written by longtime Middle East correspondent and author John
Cooley. There is now, predictably, an effort under way to clean up the record and pretend that the U.S. was an innocent
bystander, and a bit surprisingly, even respectable journals (not to speak of others) are soberly quoting CIA officials to
"demonstrate" that required conclusion-in gross violation of the most elementary journalistic standards.
After that war was over, the "Afghanis" (many, like bin Laden, not Afghans), turned their attention elsewhere: for example,
to Chechnya and Bosnia, where they may have received at least tactic U.S. support. Not surprisingly, they were welcomed
by the governments; in Bosnia, many were welcomed by the governments, in Bosnia, many Islamic volunteers were granted
citizenship in gratitude for their military services (Carlotta Gall, New York Times, October 2, 2001).
And to western China, where they are fighting for liberation from Chinese domination; these are Chinese Muslims, some
apparently sent by China to Afghanistan as early as 1978 to join a guerrilla rebellion against the government, later joining the
CIA-organized forces after the Russian invasion in 1979 in support of the government Russia backed-and installed, much as
the U.S. installed a government in South Vietnam and then invaded to "defend" the country it was attacking, to cite a fairly
close analog. And in the southern Philippines, North Africa, and elsewhere, fighting for the same causes, as they see it.
They also turned their attention to their prime enemies Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab states, and by the 1990s, also to
the U.S. (which bin Laden regards as having invaded Saudi Arabia much as Russia invaded Afghanistan).
What consequences do you foresee for the Seattle movement? Do you think it will suffer as a result, or is it possible
that it will gain momentum?
It is certainly a setback for the worldwide protests against corporate globalization, which-again-did not begin in Seattle.
Such terrorist atrocities are a gift to the harshest and most repressive elements on all sides, and are sure to be exploited-
already have been in fact- to accelerate the agenda of militarization, regimentation, reversal of social democratic programs,
transfer of wealth to narrow sections, and undermining democracy in any meaningful form. But that will not happen without
resistance, and I doubt that it will succeed, except in the short term.
What are the consequences for the Middle East? In particular for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
The atrocities of September 11 were a devastating blow for the Palestinians, as they instantly recognized. Israel is openly
exulting in the "window of opportunity" it now has to crush Palestinians with impunity. In the first few days after the 9-11
attack, Israeli tanks entered Palestinian cities (Jenin, Ramallah, Jericho for the first time), several dozen Palestinians were
killed, and Israel's iron grip on the population tightened, exactly as would be expected. Again, these are the common
dynamics of a cycle of escalation violence, familiar throughout the world: Northern Ireland, Israel-Palestine, the Balkans,
and elsewhere.
How do you judge the reaction of Americans? They seemed pretty cool-headed, but as Saskia Sassen recently said in
an interview, "We already feel as though we are at war."
The immediate reaction was shock, horror, anger, fear, a desire for revenge. But public opinion is mixed, and
countercurrents did not take long to develop. They are now even being recognized in mainstream commentary. Today's
newspapers, for example.
In an interview you gave to the Mexican daily La Jornada, you said that we are faced with a new type of war. What
exactly did you mean?
It is a new type of war for the reasons mentioned in response to your first question: the guns are now aimed in a different
direction, something quite new in the history of Europe and its offshoots.
Are Arabs, by definition, necessarily fundamentalist, the West's new enemy?
Certainly not. First of all, no one with even a shred of rationality defines Arabs as "fundamentalist." Secondly, the U.S. and
the West generally have no objection to religious fundamentalism as such. The U.S. in fact, is one of the most extreme
religious fundamentalist cultures in the world; not the state, but the popular culture. In the Islamic world, the most extreme
fundamentalist state, apart from the Taliban, is Saudi Arabia, a U.S. client state since its origins; the Taliban are in fact an
offshoot of the Saudi version of Islam.
Radical Islamist extremists, often called "fundamentalists" were U.S. favorites in the 1980s, because they were the best
killers who could be found. In those years, a prime enemy of the U.S. was the Catholic Church, which had sinned grievously
in Latin America by adopting "the preferential option for the poor," and suffered bitterly for that crime. The West is quite
ecumenical in its choice of enemies. The criteria are subordination and service to power, not religion. There are many other
illustrations.
2.
IS THE WAR ON TERRORISM WINNABLE?
Based on separate interviews with Hartford Courant on September 20, 2001 and David Barsamian on September 21, 2001
Q: Is the nation's so-called war on terrorism winnable? If yes, how? If no, then what should the Bush administration
do to prevent attacks like the ones that struck New York and Washington?
CHOMSKY: If we want to consider this question seriously, we should recognize that in much of the world the U.S. is
regarded as the leading terrorist state, and with good reason. We might bear in mind, for example, that in 1986 the U.S. was
condemned by the World Court for "unlawful use of force" (international terrorism) and then vetoed a Security Council
resolution calling on all states (meaning the U.S.) to adhere to international law. Only one of countless examples.
But to keep to the narrow question- to terrorism of others directed against us- we know quite well how the problem should
be addressed, if we want to reduce the threat rather than escalate it. When IRA bombs were set off in London, there was no
call to bomb West Belfast, or Boston, the source of much of the financial support for the IRA. Rather, steps were taken to
apprehend the criminals, and efforts were made to deal with what lay behind the resort to terror. When a federal building
was blown up in Oklahoma City, there were calls for bombing the Middle East, and it probably would have happened if the
source turned out to be there. When it was found to be domestic, with links to the ultra-right militias, there was no call to
obliterate Montana or Idaho. Rather, there was a search for the perpetrator, who was found, brought to court, and sentenced,
and there were efforts to understand the grievances that lie behind such crimes and to address the problems. Just about every
crime- whether a robbery in the streets or colossal atrocities- has reasons, and commonly we find that some of them are
serious and should be addressed.
There are prope