F
fred f and the lot
Guest
Noam Chomsky on
"The New War Against Terror"
October 18, 2001 - Transcribed from audio
recorded at The Technology & Culture Forum at MIT
Everyone knows it’s the TV people who run the world [crowd laugher]. I just got orders
that I’m supposed to be here, not there. Well the last talk I gave at this forum was on a
light pleasant topic. It was about how humans are an endangered species and given the
nature of their institutions they are likely to destroy themselves in a fairly short time. So
this time there is a little relief and we have a pleasant topic instead, the new war on terror.
Unfortunately, the world keeps coming up with things that make it more and more horrible
as we proceed.
Assume 2 Conditions for this Talk
I’m going to assume 2 conditions for this talk.
The first one is just what I assume to be recognition of fact. That is that the events
of September 11 were a horrendous atrocity probably the most devastating instant
human toll of any crime in history, outside of war.
The second assumption has to do with the goals. I’m assuming that our goal is that
we are interested in reducing the likelihood of such crimes whether they are against
us or against someone else.
If you don’t accept those two assumptions, then what I say will not be addressed to you.
If we do accept them, then a number of questions arise, closely related ones, which merit a
good deal of thought.
The 5 Questions
One question, and by far the most important one is what is happening right now? Implicit
in that is what can we do about it? The 2nd has to do with the very common assumption
that what happened on September 11 is a historic event, one which will change history. I
tend to agree with that. I think it’s true. It was a historic event and the question we should
be asking is exactly why? The 3rd question has to do with the title, The War Against
Terrorism. Exactly what is it? And there is a related question, namely what is
terrorism? The 4th question which is narrower but important has to do with the origins of
the crimes of September 11th. And the 5th question that I want to talk a little about is
what policy options there are in fighting this war against terrorism and dealing with the
situations that led to it.
I’ll say a few things about each. Glad to go beyond in discussion and don’t hesitate to
bring up other questions. These are ones that come to my mind as prominent but you may
easily and plausibly have other choices.
1. What’s Happening Right Now?
Starvation of 3 to 4 Million People
Well let’s start with right now. I’ll talk about the situation in Afghanistan. I’ll just keep to
uncontroversial sources like the New York Times [crowd laughter]. According to the New
York Times there are 7 to 8 million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That
was true actually before September 11th. They were surviving on international aid. On
September 16th, the Times reported, I’m quoting it, that the United States demanded from
Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies
to Afghanistan’s civilian population. As far as I could determine there was no reaction in
the United States or for that matter in Europe. I was on national radio all over Europe the
next day. There was no reaction in the United States or in Europe to my knowledge to the
demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people. The threat of military strikes
right after September…..around that time forced the removal of international aid workers
that crippled the assistance programs. Actually, I am quoting again from the New York
Times. Refugees reaching Pakistan after arduous journeys from AF are describing scenes of
desperation and fear at home as the threat of American led military attacks turns their long
running misery into a potential catastrophe. The country was on a lifeline and we just cut
the line. Quoting an evacuated aid worker, in the New York Times Magazine.
The World Food Program, the UN program, which is the main one by far, were able to
resume after 3 weeks in early October, they began to resume at a lower level, resume food
shipments. They don’t have international aid workers within, so the distribution system is
hampered. That was suspended as soon as the bombing began. They then resumed but at a
lower pace while aid agencies leveled scathing condemnations of US airdrops, condemning
them as propaganda tools which are probably doing more harm than good. That happens to
be quoting the London Financial Times but it is easy to continue. After the first week of
bombing, the New York Times reported on a back page inside a column on something else,
that by the arithmetic of the United Nations there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans in acute
need of even a loaf of bread and there are only a few weeks left before the harsh winter will
make deliveries to many areas totally impossible, continuing to quote, but with bombs
falling the delivery rate is down to * of what is needed. Casual comment. Which tells us
that Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million
people or something like that. On the same day, the leader of Western civilization
dismissed with contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for delivery of the alleged target,
Osama bin Laden, and a request for some evidence to substantiate the demand for total
capitulation. It was dismissed. On the same day the Special Rapporteur of the UN in
charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions
of victims. As far as I’m aware that was unreported. That was Monday. Yesterday the
major aid agencies OXFAM and Christian Aid and others joined in that plea. You can’t
find a report in the New York Times. There was a line in the Boston Globe, hidden in a
story about another topic, Kashmir.
Silent Genocide
Well we could easily go on….but all of that….first of all indicates to us what’s happening.
Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide. It also gives a good deal of
insight into the elite culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates that whatever, what
will happen we don’t know, but plans are being made and programs implemented on the
assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next few
months….very casually with no comment, no particular thought about it, that’s just kind
of normal, here and in a good part of Europe. Not in the rest of the world. In fact not even
in much of Europe. So if you read the Irish press or the press in Scotland…that close,
reactions are very different. Well that’s what’s happening now. What’s happening now is
very much under our control. We can do a lot to affect what’s happening. And that’s
roughly it.
2. Why was it a Historic Event?
National Territory Attacked
Alright let’s turn to the slightly more abstract question, forgetting for the moment that we
are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people, not Taliban of course,
their victims. Let’s go back…turn to the question of the historic event that took place on
September 11th. As I said, I think that’s correct. It was a historic event. Not unfortunately
because of its scale, unpleasant to think about, but in terms of the scale it’s not that
unusual. I did say it’s the worst…probably the worst instant human toll of any crime. And
that may be true. But there are terrorist crimes with effects a bit more drawn out that are
more extreme, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it’s a historic event because there was a change.
The change was the direction in which the guns were pointed. That’s new. Radically new.
So, take US history.
The last time that the national territory of the United States was under attack, or for that
matter, even threatened was when the British burned down Washington in 1814. There
have been many…it was common to bring up Pearl Harbor but that’s not a good analogy.
The Japanese, what ever you think about it, the Japanese bombed military bases in 2 US
colonies not the national territory; colonies which had been taken from their inhabitants in
not a very pretty way. This is the national territory that’s been attacked on a large scale,
you can find a few fringe examples but this is unique.
During these close to 200 years, we, the United States expelled or mostly exterminated the
indigenous population, that’s many millions of people, conquered half of Mexico, carried
out depredations all over the region, Caribbean and Central America, sometimes beyond,
conquered Hawaii and the Philippines, killing several 100,000 Filipinos in the process.
Since the Second World War, it has extended its reach around the world in ways I don’t
have to describe. But it was always killing someone else, the fighting was somewhere else,
it was others who were getting slaughtered. Not here. Not the national territory.
Europe
In the case of Europe, the change is even more dramatic because its history is even more
horrendous than ours. We are an offshoot of Europe, basically. For hundreds of years,
Europe has been casually slaughtering people all over the world. That’s how they
conquered the world, not by handing out candy to babies. During this period, Europe did
suffer murderous wars, but that was European killers murdering one another. The main
sport of Europe for hundreds of years was slaughtering one another. The only reason that
it came to an end in 1945, was….it had nothing to do with Democracy or not making war
with each other and other fashionable notions. It had to do with the fact that everyone
understood that the next time they play the game it was going to be the end for the world.
Because the Europeans, including us, had developed such massive weapons of destruction
that that game just have to be over. And it goes back hundreds of years. In the 17th
century, about probably 40% of the entire population of Germany was wiped out in one
war.
But during this whole bloody murderous period, it was Europeans slaughtering each other,
and Europeans slaughtering people elsewhere. The Congo didn’t attack Belgium, India
didn’t attack England, Algeria didn’t attack France. It’s uniform. There are again small
exceptions, but pretty small in scale, certainly invisible in the scale of what Europe and us
were doing to the rest of the world. This is the first change. The first time that the guns
have been pointed the other way. And in my opinion that’s probably why you see such
different reactions on the two sides of the Irish Sea which I have noticed, incidentally, in
many interviews on both sides, national radio on both sides. The world looks very different
depending on whether you are holding the lash or whether you are being whipped by it for
hundreds of years, very different. So I think the shock and surprise in Europe and its
offshoots, like here, is very understandable. It is a historic event but regrettably not in
scale, in something else and a reason why the rest of the world…most of the rest of the
world looks at it quite differently. Not lacking sympathy for the victims of the atrocity or
being horrified by them, that’s almost uniform, but viewing it from a different perspective.
Something we might want to understand.
"The New War Against Terror"
October 18, 2001 - Transcribed from audio
recorded at The Technology & Culture Forum at MIT
Everyone knows it’s the TV people who run the world [crowd laugher]. I just got orders
that I’m supposed to be here, not there. Well the last talk I gave at this forum was on a
light pleasant topic. It was about how humans are an endangered species and given the
nature of their institutions they are likely to destroy themselves in a fairly short time. So
this time there is a little relief and we have a pleasant topic instead, the new war on terror.
Unfortunately, the world keeps coming up with things that make it more and more horrible
as we proceed.
Assume 2 Conditions for this Talk
I’m going to assume 2 conditions for this talk.
The first one is just what I assume to be recognition of fact. That is that the events
of September 11 were a horrendous atrocity probably the most devastating instant
human toll of any crime in history, outside of war.
The second assumption has to do with the goals. I’m assuming that our goal is that
we are interested in reducing the likelihood of such crimes whether they are against
us or against someone else.
If you don’t accept those two assumptions, then what I say will not be addressed to you.
If we do accept them, then a number of questions arise, closely related ones, which merit a
good deal of thought.
The 5 Questions
One question, and by far the most important one is what is happening right now? Implicit
in that is what can we do about it? The 2nd has to do with the very common assumption
that what happened on September 11 is a historic event, one which will change history. I
tend to agree with that. I think it’s true. It was a historic event and the question we should
be asking is exactly why? The 3rd question has to do with the title, The War Against
Terrorism. Exactly what is it? And there is a related question, namely what is
terrorism? The 4th question which is narrower but important has to do with the origins of
the crimes of September 11th. And the 5th question that I want to talk a little about is
what policy options there are in fighting this war against terrorism and dealing with the
situations that led to it.
I’ll say a few things about each. Glad to go beyond in discussion and don’t hesitate to
bring up other questions. These are ones that come to my mind as prominent but you may
easily and plausibly have other choices.
1. What’s Happening Right Now?
Starvation of 3 to 4 Million People
Well let’s start with right now. I’ll talk about the situation in Afghanistan. I’ll just keep to
uncontroversial sources like the New York Times [crowd laughter]. According to the New
York Times there are 7 to 8 million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That
was true actually before September 11th. They were surviving on international aid. On
September 16th, the Times reported, I’m quoting it, that the United States demanded from
Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies
to Afghanistan’s civilian population. As far as I could determine there was no reaction in
the United States or for that matter in Europe. I was on national radio all over Europe the
next day. There was no reaction in the United States or in Europe to my knowledge to the
demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people. The threat of military strikes
right after September…..around that time forced the removal of international aid workers
that crippled the assistance programs. Actually, I am quoting again from the New York
Times. Refugees reaching Pakistan after arduous journeys from AF are describing scenes of
desperation and fear at home as the threat of American led military attacks turns their long
running misery into a potential catastrophe. The country was on a lifeline and we just cut
the line. Quoting an evacuated aid worker, in the New York Times Magazine.
The World Food Program, the UN program, which is the main one by far, were able to
resume after 3 weeks in early October, they began to resume at a lower level, resume food
shipments. They don’t have international aid workers within, so the distribution system is
hampered. That was suspended as soon as the bombing began. They then resumed but at a
lower pace while aid agencies leveled scathing condemnations of US airdrops, condemning
them as propaganda tools which are probably doing more harm than good. That happens to
be quoting the London Financial Times but it is easy to continue. After the first week of
bombing, the New York Times reported on a back page inside a column on something else,
that by the arithmetic of the United Nations there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans in acute
need of even a loaf of bread and there are only a few weeks left before the harsh winter will
make deliveries to many areas totally impossible, continuing to quote, but with bombs
falling the delivery rate is down to * of what is needed. Casual comment. Which tells us
that Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million
people or something like that. On the same day, the leader of Western civilization
dismissed with contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for delivery of the alleged target,
Osama bin Laden, and a request for some evidence to substantiate the demand for total
capitulation. It was dismissed. On the same day the Special Rapporteur of the UN in
charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions
of victims. As far as I’m aware that was unreported. That was Monday. Yesterday the
major aid agencies OXFAM and Christian Aid and others joined in that plea. You can’t
find a report in the New York Times. There was a line in the Boston Globe, hidden in a
story about another topic, Kashmir.
Silent Genocide
Well we could easily go on….but all of that….first of all indicates to us what’s happening.
Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide. It also gives a good deal of
insight into the elite culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates that whatever, what
will happen we don’t know, but plans are being made and programs implemented on the
assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next few
months….very casually with no comment, no particular thought about it, that’s just kind
of normal, here and in a good part of Europe. Not in the rest of the world. In fact not even
in much of Europe. So if you read the Irish press or the press in Scotland…that close,
reactions are very different. Well that’s what’s happening now. What’s happening now is
very much under our control. We can do a lot to affect what’s happening. And that’s
roughly it.
2. Why was it a Historic Event?
National Territory Attacked
Alright let’s turn to the slightly more abstract question, forgetting for the moment that we
are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people, not Taliban of course,
their victims. Let’s go back…turn to the question of the historic event that took place on
September 11th. As I said, I think that’s correct. It was a historic event. Not unfortunately
because of its scale, unpleasant to think about, but in terms of the scale it’s not that
unusual. I did say it’s the worst…probably the worst instant human toll of any crime. And
that may be true. But there are terrorist crimes with effects a bit more drawn out that are
more extreme, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it’s a historic event because there was a change.
The change was the direction in which the guns were pointed. That’s new. Radically new.
So, take US history.
The last time that the national territory of the United States was under attack, or for that
matter, even threatened was when the British burned down Washington in 1814. There
have been many…it was common to bring up Pearl Harbor but that’s not a good analogy.
The Japanese, what ever you think about it, the Japanese bombed military bases in 2 US
colonies not the national territory; colonies which had been taken from their inhabitants in
not a very pretty way. This is the national territory that’s been attacked on a large scale,
you can find a few fringe examples but this is unique.
During these close to 200 years, we, the United States expelled or mostly exterminated the
indigenous population, that’s many millions of people, conquered half of Mexico, carried
out depredations all over the region, Caribbean and Central America, sometimes beyond,
conquered Hawaii and the Philippines, killing several 100,000 Filipinos in the process.
Since the Second World War, it has extended its reach around the world in ways I don’t
have to describe. But it was always killing someone else, the fighting was somewhere else,
it was others who were getting slaughtered. Not here. Not the national territory.
Europe
In the case of Europe, the change is even more dramatic because its history is even more
horrendous than ours. We are an offshoot of Europe, basically. For hundreds of years,
Europe has been casually slaughtering people all over the world. That’s how they
conquered the world, not by handing out candy to babies. During this period, Europe did
suffer murderous wars, but that was European killers murdering one another. The main
sport of Europe for hundreds of years was slaughtering one another. The only reason that
it came to an end in 1945, was….it had nothing to do with Democracy or not making war
with each other and other fashionable notions. It had to do with the fact that everyone
understood that the next time they play the game it was going to be the end for the world.
Because the Europeans, including us, had developed such massive weapons of destruction
that that game just have to be over. And it goes back hundreds of years. In the 17th
century, about probably 40% of the entire population of Germany was wiped out in one
war.
But during this whole bloody murderous period, it was Europeans slaughtering each other,
and Europeans slaughtering people elsewhere. The Congo didn’t attack Belgium, India
didn’t attack England, Algeria didn’t attack France. It’s uniform. There are again small
exceptions, but pretty small in scale, certainly invisible in the scale of what Europe and us
were doing to the rest of the world. This is the first change. The first time that the guns
have been pointed the other way. And in my opinion that’s probably why you see such
different reactions on the two sides of the Irish Sea which I have noticed, incidentally, in
many interviews on both sides, national radio on both sides. The world looks very different
depending on whether you are holding the lash or whether you are being whipped by it for
hundreds of years, very different. So I think the shock and surprise in Europe and its
offshoots, like here, is very understandable. It is a historic event but regrettably not in
scale, in something else and a reason why the rest of the world…most of the rest of the
world looks at it quite differently. Not lacking sympathy for the victims of the atrocity or
being horrified by them, that’s almost uniform, but viewing it from a different perspective.
Something we might want to understand.