|
Home
Search
Subscribe Online
Archives
About
Us
Cartoons
Online
Book Store
E-Greetings
Jobs @ MG
Advertise
on MG
Our
Team
Contact Us
Muslim
Matrimonials
Our Advertisers
| |
INTERVIEW: Tahir
Mahmood
‘Americans walking into a diabolical trap’
The following is the
latest from Prof. Noam Chomsky in reply to written questions posed by
Michael Albert of Z Magazine:
There has been an immense
movement of troops and extreme use of military rhetoric, up to
comments about terminating governments, etc. Yet, to many people
there appears to be considerable restraint...what happened?
From the first days after the attack, the Bush administration
has been warned by NATO leaders, specialists on the region, and
presumably its own intelligence agencies (not to speak of many
people like you and me) that if they react with a massive assault
that kills many innocent people, that will be answering bin Laden's
most fervent prayers. They will be falling into a "diabolical
trap," as the French foreign minister put it. That would be
true -- perhaps even more so -- if they happen to kill bin Laden,
still without having provided credible evidence of his involvement
in the crimes of Sept. 11. He would then be perceived as a martyr
even among the enormous majority of Muslims who deplore those
crimes, as bin Laden himself has done, for what it is worth, denying
any involvement in the crimes or even knowledge of them, and
condemning "the killing of innocent women, children, and other
humans" as an act that "Islam strictly forbids...even in
the course of a battle" (BBC, Sept. 29). His voice will
continue to resound on tens of thousands of cassettes already
circulating throughout the Muslim world, and in many interviews,
including the last few days. An assault that kills innocent Afghans
-- not Taliban, but their terrorized victims -- would be virtually a
call for new recruits to the horrendous cause of the bin Laden
network and other graduates of the terrorist networks set up by the
CIA and its associates 20 years ago to fight a Holy War against the
Russians, meanwhile following their own agenda, from the time they
assassinated President Sadat of Egypt in 1981, murdering one of the
most enthusiastic of the creators of the "Afghanis" --
mostly recruits from extremist radical Islamist elements around the
world who were recruited to fight in Afghanistan.
After a little while, the message apparently got through to the Bush
administration, which has -- wisely from their point of view --
chosen to follow a different course.
However, "restraint" seems to me a questionable word. On
Sept. 16, the New York Times reported that "Washington has also
demanded [from Pakistan] a cutoff of fuel supplies,...and the
elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other
supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population." Astonishingly,
that report elicited no detectable reaction in the West, a grim
reminder of the nature of the Western civilization that leaders and
elite commentators claim to uphold, yet another lesson that is not
lost among those who have been at the wrong end of the guns and
whips for centuries. In the following days, those demands were
implemented. On Sept. 27, the same NYT correspondent reported that
officials in Pakistan "said today that they would not relent in
their decision to seal off the country's 1,400- mile border with
Afghanistan, a move requested by the Bush administration because,
the officials said, they wanted to be sure that none of Mr. bin
Laden's men were hiding among the huge tide of refugees" (John
Burns, Islamabad). According to the world's leading newspaper, then,
Washington demanded that Pakistan slaughter massive numbers of
Afghans, millions of them already on the brink of starvation, by
cutting off the limited sustenance that was keeping them alive.
Almost all aid missions withdrew or were expelled under the threat
of bombing. Huge numbers of miserable people have been fleeing to
the borders in terror, after Washington's threat to bomb the shreds
of existence remaining in Afghanistan, and to convert the Northern
Alliance into a heavily armed military force that will, perhaps, be
unleashed to renew the atrocities that tore the country apart and
led much of the population to welcome the Taliban when they drove
out the murderous warring factions that Washington and Moscow now
hope to exploit for their own purposes. When they reach the sealed
borders, refugees are trapped to die in silence. Only a trickle can
escape through remote mountain passes. How many have already
succumbed we cannot guess, and few seem to care. Apart from the
relief agencies, I have seen no attempt even to guess. Within a few
weeks the harsh winter will arrive. There are some reporters and aid
workers in the refugee camps across the borders. What they describe
is horrifying enough, but they know, and we know, that they are
seeing the lucky ones, the few who were able to escape -- and who
express their hopes that ''even the cruel Americans must feel some
pity for our ruined country,'' and relent in this savage silent
genocide (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, p. 1).
Perhaps the most apt description was given by the wonderful and
courageous Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy, referring to
Operation Infinite Justice proclaimed by the Bush Administration:
"Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians
starving to death while they're waiting to be killed"
(Guardian, Sept. 29).
The UN has indicated that the threat of starvation in Afghanistan
is enormous. International criticism on this score has grown and now
the U.S. and Britain are talking about providing food aid to ward
off hunger. Are they caving in to dissent in fact, or only in
appearance? What is their motivation? What will be the scale and
impact of their efforts?
The UN estimates that some 7-8 million are at risk of imminent
starvation. The NY Times reports in a small item (Sept. 25) that
nearly six million Afghans depend on food aid from the UN, as well
as 3.5 million in refugee camps outside, many of whom fled just
before the borders were sealed. The item reported that some food is
being sent, to the camps across the border. If people in Washington
and the editorial offices have even a single gray cell functioning,
they realize that they must present themselves as humanitarians
seeking to avert the awesome tragedy that followed at once from the
threat of bombing and military attack and the sealing of the borders
they demanded. "Experts also urge the United States to improve
its image by increasing aid to Afghan refugees, as well as by
helping to rebuild the economy" (Christian Science Monitor,
Sept. 28). Even without PR specialists to instruct them,
administration officials must comprehend that they should send some
food to the refugees who made it across the border, and at least
talk about air drop of food to starving people within: in order
"to save lives" but also to "help the effort to find
terror groups inside Afghanistan" (Boston Globe, Sept. 27,
quoting a Pentagon official, who describes this as "winning the
hearts and minds of the people"). The New York Times editors
picked up the same theme the following day, 12 days after the
journal reported that the murderous operation is being put into
effect.
On the scale of aid, one can only hope that it is enormous, or the
human tragedy may be immense in a few weeks. But we should also bear
in mind that there has been nothing to stop massive food drops from
the beginning, and we cannot even guess how many have already died,
or soon will. If the government is sensible, there will be at least
a show of the "massive air drops" that officials mention.
International legal institutions would likely ratify efforts to
arrest and try bin Laden and others, supposing guilt could be shown,
including the use of force. Why does the U.S. avoid this recourse?
Is it only a matter of not wishing to legitimate an approach that
could be used, as well, against our acts of terrorism, or are other
factors at play?
Much of the world has been asking the US to provide some
evidence to link bin Laden to the crime, and if such evidence could
be provided, it would not be difficult to rally enormous support for
an international effort, under the rubric of the UN, to apprehend
and try him and his collaborators. However, that is no simple
matter. Even if bin Laden and his network are involved in the crimes
of Sept. 11, it may be quite hard to produce credible evidence. As
the CIA surely knows very well, having nurtured these organizations
and monitored them very closely for 20 years, they are diffuse,
decentralized, non-hierarchic structures, probably with little
communication or direct guidance. And for all we know, most of the
perpetrators may have killed themselves in their awful missions.
There are further problems in the background. To quote Roy again,
"The Taliban's response to US demands for the extradition of
Bin Laden has been uncharacteristically reasonable: produce the
evidence, then we'll hand him over. President Bush's response is
that the demand is non-negotiable'." She also adds one of the
many reasons why this framework is unacceptable to Washington:
"While talks are on for the extradition of CEOs can India put
in a side request for the extradition of Warren Anderson of the US?
He was the chairman of Union Carbide, responsible for the Bhopal gas
leak that killed 16,000 people in 1984. We have collated the
necessary evidence. It's all in the files. Could we have him,
please?"
Such comparisons elicit frenzied tantrums at the extremist fringes
of Western opinion, some of them called "the left." But
for Westerners who have retained their sanity and moral integrity,
and for great numbers among the usual victims, they are quite
meaningful. Government leaders presumably understand that.
And the single example that Roy mentions is only the beginning, of
course, and one of the lesser examples, not only because of the
scale of the atrocity, but because it was not explicitly a crime of
state. Suppose Iran were to request the extradition of high
officials of the Carter and Reagan administrations, refusing to
present the ample evidence of the crimes they were implementing --
and it surely exists. Or suppose Nicaragua were to demand the
extradition of the US ambassador to the UN, newly appointed to lead
the "war against terror," a man whose record includes his
service as "proconsul" (as he was often called) in the
virtual fiefdom of Honduras, where he surely was aware of the
atrocities of the state terrorists he was supporting, and was also
overseeing the terrorist war for which the US was condemned by the
World Court and the Security Council (in a resolution the US
vetoed). Or many others. Would the US even dream of responding to
such demands presented without evidence, or even if the ample
evidence were presented?
Those doors are better left closed, just as it is best to maintain
the silence on the appointment of a leading figure in managing the
operations condemned as terrorism by the highest existing
international bodies -- to lead a "war on terrorism."
Jonathan Swift would also be speechless.
That may be the reason why administration publicity experts
preferred the usefully ambiguous term "war" to the more
explicit term "crime" -- "crime against humanity as
Robert Fisk, Mary Robinson, and others have accurately depicted it.
There are established procedures for dealing with crimes, however
horrendous. They require evidence, and adherence to the principle
that "those who are guilty of these acts" be held
accountable once evidence is produced, but not others (Pope John
Paul II, NYT Sept. 24). Not, for example, the unknown numbers of
miserable people starving to death in terror at the sealed borders,
though in this case too we are speaking of crimes against humanity.
If the Taliban falls and bin Laden or someone they claim is
responsible is captured or killed, what next? What happens to
Afghanistan? What happens more broadly in other regions?
The sensible administration plan would be to pursue the ongoing
program of silent genocide, combined with humanitarian gestures to
arouse the applause of the usual chorus who are called upon to sing
the praises of the noble leaders committed to "principles and
values" and leading the world to a "new era" of
"ending inhumanity." The administration might also try to
convert the Northern Alliance into a viable force, perhaps to bring
in other warlords hostile to it, like Gulbudin Hekmatyar, now in
Iran. Presumably they will use British and US commandoes for
missions within Afghanistan, and perhaps resort to selective
bombing, but scaled down so as not to answer bin Laden's prayers. A
US assault should not be compared to the failed Russian invasion of
the 80s. The Russians were facing a major army of perhaps 100,000
men or more, organized, trained and heavily armed by the CIA and its
associates. The US is facing a ragtag force in a country that has
already been virtually destroyed by 20 years of horror, for which we
bear no slight share of responsibility. The Taliban forces, such as
they are, might quickly collapse except for a small hard core. And
one would expect that the surviving population would welcome an
invading force if it is not too visibly associated with the
murderous gangs that tore the country to shreds before the Taliban
takeover. At this point, most people would be likely to welcome
Genghis Khan.
What next? Expatriate Afghans and, apparently, some internal
elements who are not part of the Taliban inner circle have been
calling for a UN effort to establish some kind of transition
government, a process that might succeed in reconstructing something
viable from the wreckage, if provided with very substantial
reconstruction aid, channeled through independent sources like the
UN or credible NGOs. That much should be the minimal responsibility
of those who have turned this impoverished country into a land of
terror, desperation, corpses, and mutilated victims. That could
happen, but not without very substantial popular efforts in the rich
and powerful societies. For the present, any such course has been
ruled out by the Bush administration, which has announced that it
will not be engaged in "nation
building" -- or, it seems, an effort that would be more
honorable and humane: substantial support, without interference, for
"nation building" by others who might actually achieve
some success in the enterprise. But current refusal to consider this
decent course is not graven in stone.
What happens in other regions depends on internal factors, on the
policies of foreign actors (the US dominant among them, for obvious
reasons), and the way matters proceed in Afghanistan. One can hardly
be confident, but for many of the possible courses reasonable
assessments can be made about the outcome -- and there are a great
many possibilities, too many to try to review in brief comments.
q |
|
Subscribe
Now
|
