'I believe it is possible to have
a dialogue with bin Laden'
Voicing a growing public argument that violence cannot be answered with violence - in the context of September 11 and the attrition that has followed - is eminent anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist Professor Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In India on a peripatetic lecture tour, America's resident intellectual rebel met with a small group under the aegis of the Institute of Social Science (ISS), where Rinku Pegu caught up with him and his famous tinderbox wit
New Delhi, November 3
How would you describe the September 11 attacks on the US - apart from the usual "new kind of warfare" explanation?
That depends on what perspective you look at it from. Obviously, there is a huge chasm. There are the ones who hold the lash, like the US and Britain, or the ones who have been at the receiving end of the lash, like the Irish and the Palestinians. The incident of September 11 is significant historically. This is the first time an attack of such massive scale has been launched within the national boundaries of an imperial power. There were, of course, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) bombs in London, and the Algerian terror bombs in Paris, but they are miniscule compared to the September 11 attack.
Which is why there is such a state of shock among the imperial Western powers. Uppermost on their minds is, "This is not supposed to happen to us." As the history of the last 500 years shows, brutal murders happen only in colonised countries. Can you imagine the Congo attacking Britain?
Would you say that there is a presumption of violence in the US' response to Black Tuesday?
Indeed. If the US were interested in extraditing Osama bin Laden, it would have pursued the objective successfully through various channels that were offered. But extradition of Laden was not a viable option, as it would entail an entire legal process in which the US would be bound to provide evidence against him. And, importantly, where is the evidence against bin Laden?
In fact, bin Laden is not the only case where the US is opposed to extradition. Haiti, which was once the richest country in the western hemisphere, was raped and brutalised by a military regime propped up and supported by US. In fact, for the last 10 years, Haiti has been desperately asking the US for the extradition of a person called Emanuel Constant, a paramilitary personnel responsible for the massacre of over 20,000 Haitians during the brutal regime. But the US won't extradite him, because they fear that if Constant were tried in a Haitian court, the close links between the brutal regime and US intelligence officers would be exposed. Even after the September 11 attacks, the government of Haiti appealed for his extradition, but to no avail.
Are the US and Britain really attacking the roots of terrorism, or…?
Unfortunately, Western imperial powers are focusing yet again on the symptoms of terrorism, rather than its cause. The US, along with its client state, Britain, is taking the path of violence, which will only aggravate the antagonistic situation, rather than help arrive at a solution. But this is in keeping with the 500-year-old tradition of the colonial powers. After all, Britain, a tiny nation in the northwestern part of Europe, did not conquer more than three-fourths of the world by distributing candy, but through brutal and sadistic force. Similarly, there were 10 million Native Americans when the Europeans set foot on North America, but by the time the latter established their hegemony, there were only 2,000 natives left. But these brutalities are never part of US or British history.
It is the polices of these imperial powers that have to change. Unfortunately, they are not even considered for a rethink, let alone change. Going by the logic of these imperial powers, the people of London should bomb Boston every time an IRA bomb goes off, because the latter gets its funding from the Boston neighbourhood. But, tell me, will such an attitude work? Bush and Blair have to look into their policies.
At a time when bin Laden is trying to hijack the peaceful agenda of Islam through terrorist acts, is it possible to have dialogue with the likes of him?
I believe it is possible. Let me narrate a personal experience. Nearly 10 years ago, during one of my trips to Northern Ireland, I got a chance to meet with an IRA activist who had escaped from a British prison and was on the run. In two hours of conversation with him, the activist, who was a hard killer, did not reply to my query on what purpose the killings served. He knew that killing Protestants would only bring harsher reprisals against Catholics. But, most importantly, seven years later, that same person was part of the IRA team negotiating peace with its Protestant counterparts. This gives me hope.
However, we should first ask ourselves whether leaders like Bush and Blair will speak of tackling issues without resorting to violence.
Do you think there might have been a grain of truth in the "clash of civilisations" theory in the context of the current crisis?
Samuel Huntington might have come up with an interesting thesis after the end of the Cold War. But the fall of the Soviet Union has not brought about any change in policies, only some shift in tactics adopted pursued by the Western powers. Whatever change has happened is in the area of propaganda.
To cite an example, let's take the case of the US government justifying its huge military budget. With the USSR gone, what was the rationale for maintaining large US troops in the Middle East and Europe for interventions? Interestingly, George Bush Senior, in his tenure as president, gave the explanation that a huge military budget was still required (even after the disintegration of Soviet Union) because of the technological sophistication attained by Third World countries. It is almost laughable.
This is definitely not a clash of civilisations. If it were, why is the US supporting the Saudi Arabian regime, which is almost as fundamental as the Taliban? What is happening now is what has been brewing for a long time - a class clash between the rich and the poor.
What about the American people being accused of insularity?
Yes, that is a legitimate accusation. In fact, most Americans do not even know where France is. But this is because the mass media has not done enough to bring these issues to the people. Even today, the American public will demonstrate its opposition to the bombing of Afghanistan if they are told correctly about civilian casualties. The polls that show a high degree of support for bombing Afghanistan, in spite of civilian casualties, are all distorted by the media. Unlike previous wars, there is much curiosity among Americans today about why they have become targets of terror attacks.
What would you say are the chances of America's success in its operations in Afghanistan?
Militarily, the US will be successful in its campaign against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, unless there is a revolution among the Muslim population, kept under control by their brutal regimes like Saudi Arabia. The US will so complete the destruction of Afghanistan that the Afghans will welcome the arrival of American troops on their soil, like they did Chengiz Khan after he wrought destruction on them many centuries ago. The US cannot afford to lose on the Afghan front for fear of being left with no credibility at all. After all, it is because of the credibility issue that the US went ahead with the Afghan war, without seeking sanction from the United Nations Security Council. This is in violation of international law, most notably Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
In fact, it is not surprising that China and Russia have given their consent for the US attacks on Afghanistan, for it will give them the liberty to pursue their brutal suppression of movements in their own backyard - in western China and Chechnya, respectively.
tehelka.com |
