September 11th And Its Aftermath: Where is the World Heading?

(As he takes his position at the lectern in an overflowing auditorium,Noam Chomsky is greeted in traditional South Indian style, with a ponnadai, abrocade shawl, to audience applause.)

Oh, what’s going to make it stay on? [Told he is free to take it off]:It’s going to fall in one minute, so I might as well take it off [audiencelaughter]. Thank you.

A few years ago, one of the great figures of contemporary biology, Ernst Mayrof Harvard published some reflections on the search for extra-terrestrialintelligence. His conclusion was that the likelihood of success was effectivelyzero. His reasoning had to do with the adaptive value of what we call higherintelligence, meaning the particular human form of intellectual organisation.Mayr estimates the number of species since the origin of life at about 50billion, only one of which, he writes, achieved the kind of intelligence neededto establish a civilisation. It did so very recently, perhaps a hundred thousandyears ago in a small breeding group of which we are all survivors. And hespeculates that this form of intellectual organisation may not be favoured byselection, and points out that life on earth refutes the claim that "it’sbetter to be smart than stupid," at least judging by biological success,which is great for beetles and bacteria but not so good as you move higher upthe level of cognitive organisation. And he also makes the rather sombreobservation that the average life expectancy of a species is about a hundredthousand years.

We are entering a period of human life that may provide an answer to thequestion of whether it’s better to be smart than stupid. The most hopefulprospect is that the question will not be answered. If it receives a definiteanswer, that answer can only be that humans were a kind of biological error,using their allotted hundred thousand years to destroy themselves and, in theprocess, much else. The species has certainly developed the capacity to do justthat, and an extra-terrestrial observer, if one could exist, might conclude thatthey have demonstrated that capacity throughout their history, dramatically inthe past several hundred years, with an assault on the environment that sustainslife, on the diversity of more complex organisms, and with cold and calculatedsavagery, on each other as well.

September 11th and the Aftermath are a case in point. The shocking atrocitiesof September 11^th are widely regarded as a historic event and that, Ithink, is most definitely true. But we should think clearly about exactly whyit’s true. These crimes had perhaps the most devastating instant human toll onrecord, outside of war. But the word ``instant’’ should not be overlooked.It’s unfortunate but true that the crime is far from unusual in the annals ofviolence that falls short of war. The aftermath of September 11^th isonly one of innumerable illustrations of that.

Although the scale of the catastrophe that has already taken place inAfghanistan can only be guessed, and we can hardly do more than speculate aboutwhat may follow, we do know the projections on which policy decisions are based.And from these we can gain some insight into the question of where the world isheading. The answer, unfortunately, is that it’s heading along paths that arewell travelled, though there certainly are changes. The crimes of September 11^thare indeed a historic turning point -- but not because of the scale, ratherbecause of the choice of target.

For the United States, this is the first time since the British burnt downWashington, in 1814, that the national territory has been under attack, or forthat matter even under threat. And I don’t have to review what’s happened inthose two centuries. The number of victims is huge. Now, for the first time, theguns have been pointed in the opposite direction, and that’s a dramaticchange.

The same is true, even more dramatically of Europe. Europe has sufferedmurderous destruction, but that’s Europeans slaughtering one another.Meanwhile, Europeans conquered much of the world -- not very politely. With rareand limited exceptions, they were not under attack by their foreign victims, soit is not surprising that Europe should be utterly shocked by the terroristcrimes of September 11th. And while September 11^th is indeed adramatic change in world affairs, the aftermath represents no change at all, andtherefore passes with very little notice.

All of this raises questions that should be considered with some care -- ifwe hope to avert still further tragedies. And lurking not very far in theshadows is the question I already mentioned. Is the species on the verge ofdemonstrating that higher intelligence is simply a grotesque biological error?

Some of these questions have to do with immediate events, some with morelasting and fundamental issues. Among the questions that come to mind are these:First of all and most critically important, what’s happening right before oureyes? Secondly, a bit more general, what is the "new war onterrorism"? Thirdly, what about the tendencies that are already underway?

There are several that I’d like to mention at least. One is the rapidincrease in the means of mass destruction. Second is the threat to theenvironment that sustains human life. And third is the shaping of internationalsociety by the world’s dominant power centres, state and private, what’smisleadingly called "globalisation." And throughout we should askquite seriously, I think, to what extent ominous tendencies that are all tooeasy to perceive reflect choices that are natural and, in fact, even rationalwithin existing institutional and ideological structures. To the extent thatthey do, that’s the greatest danger of all.

Let’s begin, briefly at least, with the first and most immediate question:What’s happening before our eyes and what do we learn from it about where theworld is heading under the leadership of its most powerful forces?

Even before September 11^th, much of the population of Afghanistanwas relying on international food-aid for survival. Current estimates by theUnited Nations and others in a position to know are not seriously challenged.The estimates are that the number at risk since September 11^th, as adirect consequence of the threat of bombing and the attack itself has risen byabout two-and-a-half million, by 50 per cent, to approximately seven-and-a-halfmillion. Pleas to stop the bombing to allow delivery of desperately needed foodhave been rebuffed virtually without comment. These have come from high U.N.officials, from charitable agencies, and others.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) had already warned, evenbefore the bombing, that over seven million people would face starvation ifmilitary action were initiated. After the bombing began, it advised that thethreat of a humanitarian catastrophe in the short term was very grave, andfurthermore that the bombing has disrupted the planting of 80 per cent of thecountry’s grain supplies, so that the effects next year will be even moresevere.

What the effects will be, we will never know. Starvation is not somethingthat kills people instantly. People eat roots and leaves and they drag on for awhile. And the effects of starvation may be the death of children born frommalnourished mothers a year or two from now, and all sorts of consequences.Furthermore, nobody’s going to look because the West is not interested in suchthings and others don’t have the resources. There are plenty of examples ofthat. So in August 1998, Clinton bombed the Sudan, destroyed half of itspharmaceutical supplies and the factory that produced them. The consequencesthere are unknown. The few attempts to estimate the toll, the death toll, are inthe neighbourhood of tens of thousands of people -- by the German Embassy inSudan, by a few independent investigators, who have looked. Actually nobodyreally looked carefully because nobody cares! It’s not important, it’snormal, it’s ordinary for a couple of bombs to have the effect of leaving tensof thousands of corpses in a poor African country.
Something comparable, though probably on a considerably greater scale, isunfolding right in front of us at this moment. What the consequences will be wedo not know and probably never will know in any detail. But what we know is thatthese are the expectations on which Western civilisation is relying as it laysits plans. And only those who are entirely ignorant of modern history will besurprised by the course of events, or by the justifications that are provided bythe educated classes. These are important topics that I’ll reluctantly putaside for lack of time.

I might say that the combination of sadistic cruelty and starry-eyedself-adulation is captured… well, to give one example, captured accuratelyenough by the American press just about a hundred years ago during the noblecampaign to ``uplift and christianise" the Philippines, as the Presidentdescribed it. And they succeeded in uplifting about half-a-million Filipinoswithin the next few years by slaughtering them, along with horrifying war crimescarried out by old Indian fighters who were killing the `Niggers’, as they putit. That finally aroused some disquiet at home and the press explained that ittakes patience to overcome evil, that it will be a long war, and that we willhave to go on "slaughtering the natives in English fashion [until] themisguided creatures" who resist us will at least come to "respect ourarms" and later will come to understand that we wish them nothing but"liberty [and] happiness." As in Afghanistan today, and all too manyother places for hundreds of years.

Well, it’s much too brief, but let me put that terrifying issue aside andturn to the second question. What is the "new war on terrorism"? Thegoal of the civilised world has been announced very clearly in high places. Wemust "eradicate the evil scourge of terrorism," a plague spread by"depraved opponents of civilisation itself" in a "return tobarbarism in the modern age,’’ and so on. Surely a noble enterprise!

To place the enterprise in proper perspective, we should recognise that theCrusade is not new, contrary to what’s being said. In fact, the phrases justquoted are from President Ronald Reagan and his Secretary of State, GeorgeSchultz, twenty years ago. They came to office at that time – Reagan, andshortly after, Schultz -- proclaiming that the struggle against internationalterrorism would be the core of U.S. foreign policy. And they responded to theplague by organising campaigns of international terrorism of unprecedented scaleand violence, even leading to a condemnation by the World Court of the UnitedStates for what the Court called "the unlawful use of force," meaninginternational terrorism. This was followed by a U.N. Security Council Resolutioncalling on all states to observe international law, which the United Statesvetoed. It also voted alone, with one or two client states, against successivesimilar U.N. General Assembly Resolutions.

So the ``New War on Terrorism’’ is, in fact, led by the only state in theworld that has been condemned by the International Court of Justice forinternational terrorism and has vetoed a resolution calling on states to observeinternational law, which is perhaps appropriate.

The World Court order to terminate the crime of international terrorism andto pay substantial reparations was dismissed with contempt across the spectrum. TheNew York Times informed the public that the Court was a "hostileforum" and therefore we need pay no attention to it. Washington reacted atonce to the Court’s orders by escalating the economic and the terrorist wars.It also issued official orders to the mercenary army attacking from Honduras toattack "soft targets" -- those are the official orders: Attack ``softtargets,’’ undefended civilian targets like health clinics, agriculturalcooperatives and so on -- and to avoid combat, as the army could do, thanks tototal U. S. control of the skies and the sophisticated communications equipmentthat was provided to the terrorist forces attacking from foreign bases.

These orders aroused a little discussion. Not much, and they were consideredlegitimate, but only with qualifications. Only if pragmatic criteria weresatisfied. So one prominent commentator, Michael Kinsley, who’s regarded asthe spokesperson of the Left in mainstream discussion (he happened to be writingfor The Wall Street Journal this time), argued that we should not simplydismiss State Department justifications for terrorist attacks on "softtargets.’’ He wrote that a "sensible policy" must "meet thetest of cost-benefit analysis." That is, an analysis of "the amount ofblood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy willemerge at the other end."

"Democracy" means what Western elites decide is democracy. And thatinterpretation was illustrated quite clearly in the region at that time. It’staken for granted that Western elites have the right to conduct the analysis andpursue the project if it passes their tests.

And pass their tests, it did. When Nicaragua, the target, finally succumbedto superpower assault, commentators across the spectrum of respectable opinionlauded the success of the methods adopted to "wreck the economy andprosecute a long and deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow theunwanted government themselves," with a cost to us that is"minimal," leaving the victims with "wrecked bridges, sabotagedpower stations, and ruined farms’’ -- and tens of thousands of corpses,which are not mentioned -- and thus providing the U. S. candidate with "awinning issue": ending "the impoverishment of the people ofNicaragua.’’ That happens to be Time magazine, but it was prettycharacteristic. We are "United in Joy" at this outcome," TheNew York Times proclaimed, proud of the``Victory for U.S. Fair Play,"as a Times headline read.

We are now "united in joy" once again, just a few days ago on Nov.6, as the U. S. candidate won the Nicaraguan election after very stern warningsby Washington of the consequences if the Nicaraguan people did not understandtheir responsibilities. The Washington Post, the other nationalnewspaper, explained the victory cheerfully The U. S. candidate "focusedmuch of his campaign on reminding people of the economic and militarydifficulties of the Sandinista era," referring to the U. S. terrorist warand economic strangulation that destroyed the country.

Meanwhile, a leering George Bush peers at us from television, instructing usthat the "one universal law" is that all variants of terror and murderare "evil." Unless, of course, we’re the agents, in which caseterror and murder lead us to a "noble phase’’ of our foreign policywith a "saintly glow," so the The New York Times, the newspaperof record, informs us.

There’s nothing particularly new about this. This goes back hundreds ofyears and you can find examples among the hegemonic powers consistently.

Prevailing Western attitudes are revealed with great clarity by the reactionto the appointment of the new U.N. Ambassador to lead today’s "New Waragainst Terrorism,’’ John Negroponte. Negroponte’s record includes hisservice as Pro-Consul in Honduras in the 1980s, where he was the localsupervisor of the international terrorist war for which his government wascondemned by the World Court and the Security Council -- irrelevantly of coursein a world that’s governed by the rule of force. There was no detectablereaction to that either in the United States or in Europe. Another ofNegroponte’s condemned colleagues, Donald Rumsfeld, was just here. He was herefor a few hours, which gave him enough time to declare that "`We’ CrushTerror." That was the headline for an enthusiastic front-page article inthe national press here a few days ago. I think even Jonathan Swift would bespeechless at all of this [audience laughter].

I mentioned the case of Nicaragua not because it’s the most extreme exampleof international terrorism, unfortunately far from it, but because it’suncontroversial, given the judgments of the highest international authorities.Uncontroversial that is, among people who have a minimal commitment to humanrights and international law. One can estimate the size of that category bydetermining how often these elementary matters have been mentioned in the periodsince September 11^th and from that (don’t bother carrying out anextensive enquiry, you’ll find approximately zero) and from that exercisealone, you can draw some grim conclusions about what lies ahead.

During the first war on terrorism, the Reagan years, U. S.-sponsored stateterrorism in Central America left hundreds of thousands of tortured andmutilated corpses, millions of maimed and orphaned, four countries in ruins.Also in the same years, the Reagan years, Western-backed South Africandepredations killed about a million-and-a-half people and caused sixty billiondollars of damage in neighboring countries—massive international terrorismbacked by the United States and Britain and others. I don’t have to speak ofWest and South-East Asia, South America, or much else.

It’s a serious analytical error proceeding to describe terrorism as aweapon of the weak, as is often done. It’s simply not the case, radically notthe case.