Indymedia interviews Noam Chomsky

[Peter Phillips]

IMC CHOMSKY INTERVIEW | October 5, 2001
http://www.indymedia.org/

The following interview was conducted with Noam Chomsky via email on
October 5, 2001. Greg Ruggerio did the interview in conjunction with Indymedia.

greg at sevenstories.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------

IMC: In order to shape an international alliance, the U.S. has
suddenly shifted positions with a number of countries in the Middle
East, Africa and Asia, offering a variety of political, military and
monetary packages in exchange for forms of support. How might these
sudden moves be affecting the political dynamics in those regions?

CHOMSKY:  Washington is stepping very delicately. We have to remember
what is at stake: the world's major energy reserves, primarily in
Saudi Arabia but throughout the Gulf region, along with
not-inconsiderable resources in Central Asia. Though a minor factor,
Afghanistan has been discussed for years as a possible site for
pipelines that will aid the U.S. in the complex maneuvering over
control of Central Asian resources. North of Afghanistan, the states
are fragile and violent. Uzbekistan is the most important. It has
been condemned by Human Rights Watch for serious atrocities, and is
fighting its own internal Islamic insurgency. Tajikistan is similar,
and is also a major drug trafficking outlet to Europe, primarily in
connection with the Northern Alliance, which controls most of the
Afghan-Tajikistan border and has been the major source of drugs since
the Taliban virtually eliminated poppy production. Flight of Afghans
to the north could lead to all sorts of internal problems. Pakistan,
which has been the main supporter of the Taliban, has a strong
internal radical Islamic movement. Its reaction is unpredictable, and
potentially dangerous, if Pakistan is visibly used as a base for U.S.
operations in Afghanistan; and there is much well-advised concern
over the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The Pakistani
military, while eager to obtain military aid from the U.S. (already
promised), is wary, because of stormy past relations, and is also
concerned over a potentially hostile Afghanistan allied with its
enemy to the East, India. They are not pleased that the Northern
Alliance is led by Tajiks, Uzbeks, and other Afghan minorities
hostile to Pakistan and supported by India, Iran and Russia, now the
U.S. as well.

In the Gulf region, even wealthy and secular elements are bitter
about U.S. policies and quietly often express support for bin Laden,
whom they detest, as "the conscience of Islam" (New York Times,
October 5, quoting an international lawyer for multinationals,
trained in the U.S.). Quietly, because these are highly repressive
states; one factor in the general bitterness towards the U.S. is its
support for these regimes. Internal conflict could easily spread,
with consequences that could be enormous, especially if U.S. control
over the huge resources of the region is threatened. Similar problems
extend to North Afica and Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia.
Even apart from internal conflict, an increased flow of armaments to
the countries of the region increases the likelihood of armed
conflict and the flow of weapons to terrorist organizations and
narcotraffickers. The governments are eager to join the U.S. "war
against terrorism" to gain support for their own state terrorism,
often on a shocking scale (Russia and Turkey, to mention only the
most obvious examples, though Turkey has always benefited from
crucial U.S. involvement).

IMC: Pakistan and India, border countries armed with nuclear weapons,
have been eye to eye in serious conflict for years. How might the
sudden and intense pressure that the U.S. is exerting in the region
impact their already volatile relationship?

CHOMSKY: The main source of conflict is Kashmir, where India claims
to be fighting Islamic terrorism, and Pakistan claims that India is
refusing self-determination and has carried out large-scale terrorism
itself. All the claims, unfortunately, are basically correct. There
have been several wars over Kashmir, the latest one in 1999, when
both states had nuclear weapons available; fortunately they were kept
under control, but that can hardly be guaranteed. The threat of
nuclear war is likely to increase if the U.S. persists in its
militarization of space programs (euphemistically described as
"missile defense"). These already include support for expansion of
China's nuclear forces, in order to gain Chinese acquiescence to the
programs. India will presumably try to match China's expansion, then
Pakistan, then beyond, including Israel. Its nuclear capacities were
described by the former head of the U.S. Strategic Command as
"dangerous in the extreme," and one of the prime threats in the
region. "Volatile" is right, maybe worse.

IMC: Prior to 9-11, the Bush administration was being fiercely
critiqued, ally nations included, for its political "unilateralism"-
refusal to sign on to the Kyoto protocol for greenhouse emissions,
intention to violate the ABM treaty in order to militarize space with
a "missile defense" program, walkout of the racism conference in
Durban, South Africa, to name only a few recent examples. Might the
sudden U.S. alliance-building effort spawn a new "multi-lateralism"
in which unexpected positive developments-like progress for
Palestinians-might advance?

CHOMSKY: It's worth recalling that Bush's "unilateralism" was an
extension of standard practice. In 1993, Clinton informed the UN that
the U.S. will-before-act "multilaterally when possible but
unilaterally when necessary," and proceeded to do so. The position
was reiterated by UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright and in 1999 by
Secretary of Defense William Cohen, who declared that the U.S. is
committed to "unilateral use of military power" to defend vital
interests, which include "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets,
energy supplies and strategic resources," and indeed anything that
Washington might determine to be within its "domestic jurisdiction."
The last phrase is important: it refers to the exception the U.S.
granted itself from World Court decisions, employed when it rejected
the Court's order to terminate its terrorist attack against
Nicaragua. But it is true that Bush went beyond, causing considerable
anxiety among allies. The current need to form a coalition may
attenuate the rhetoric, but is unlikely to change the policies.
Members of the coalition are expected to be silent and obedient
supporters, not participants. The U.S. explicitly reserves to itself
the right to act as it chooses, and is carefully avoiding any
meaningful recourse to international institutions, as required by
law. The Palestinians are unlikely to gain anything. On the contrary,
the terrorist attack of September 11 was a crushing blow to them, as
they and Israel recognized immediately.

IMC:  Since 9-11, Secretary of State Colin Powell has been signalling
that the U.S. may adopt a new stance toward the plight of
Palestinians. What is your reading?

CHOMSKY: My reading is exactly that of the officials and other
sources quoted towards the end of the front-page story of the New
York Times. As they made clear, Bush-Powell do not even go as far as
Clinton's Camp David proposals, lauded in the mainstream here but
completely unacceptable, for reasons discussed accurately in Israel
and elsewhere, and as anyone could see by looking at a map-one
reason, I suppose, why maps were so hard to find here, though not
elsewhere, including Israel. One can find more detail about this in
articles at the time of Camp David, including my own, and essays in
the collection edited by Roane Carey The New Intifada.

IMC: The free flow of information is one of the first casualties of
any war. Is the present situation in any way an exception? Examples?

CHOMSKY: Impediments to free flow of information in countries like
the U.S. are rarely traceable to government; rather, to
self-censorship of the familiar kind. The current situation is not
exceptional-considerably better than the norm, in my opinion.

There are, however, some startling examples of U.S. government
efforts to restrict free flow of information abroad. The Arab world
has had one free and open news source, the satellite TV news channel
Al-Jazeera in Qatar, modelled on BBC, with an enormous audience
throughout the Arab-speaking world. It is the sole uncensored source,
carrying a great deal of important news and also live debates and a
wide range of opinion-broad enough to include Colin Powell a week ago
and Israeli Prime Minister Barak (me too, just to declare an
interest). Al-Jazeera is also "the only international news
organization to maintain reporters in the Taliban-controlled part of
Afghanistan" (Wall Street Journal). Among other examples, it was
responsible for the exclusive filming of the destruction of Buddhist
statues that rightly infuriated the world. It has also provided
lengthy interviews with bin Laden that I'm sure are perused closely
by Western intelligence agencies and are invaluable to others who
wants to understand what he is thinking. These are translated and
rebroadcast by BBC, several of them since 9-11.

Al-Jazeera is, naturally, despised and feared by the dictatorships of
the region, particularly because of its frank exposures of their
human rights records. The U.S. has joined their ranks. BBC reports
that "The U.S. is not the first to feel aggrieved by al-Jazeera
coverage, which has in the past provoked anger from Algeria, Morocco,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt for giving airtime to political
dissidents."

The Emir of Qatar confirmed that "Washington has asked Qatar to rein
in the influential and editorially independent Arabic al-Jazeera
television station," BBC reported. The Emir, who also chairs the
Organization of Islamic Conference that includes 56 countries,
informed the press in Washington that Secretary of State Powell had
pressured him to rein in Al-Jazeera: to "persuade Al-Jazeera to tone
down its coverage," Al-Jazeera reports. Asked about the reports of
censorship, the Emir said: "This is true. We heard from the U.S.
administration, and also from the previous U.S. administration" (BBC,
October 4, 2001, citing Reuters).

The only serious report I noticed of this highly important news is in
the Wall Street Journal (October 5), which also describes the
reaction of intellectuals and scholars throughout the Arab world
("truly appalling," etc.). The report adds, as the Journal has done
before, that "many Arab analysts argued that it is, after all,
Washington's perceived disregard for human rights in officially
pro-American countries such as Saudi Arabia that fuels the rampant
anti-Americanism." There has also been remarkably little use of the
bin Laden interviews and other material from Afghanistan available
from Al-Jazeera.

So yes, there are barriers to free flow of information, but they
cannot be blamed on government censorship or pressure, a very
marginal factor in the United States.

###

----- End forwarded message -----