MER -

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Understanding The American Empire<br> by Noam Chomsky<br><br>September 11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they had <br>better pay much closer attention to what the US government does in <br>the world and how it is perceived. Many issues have been opened for <br>discussion that were not on the agenda before. That's all to the good. <br><br>It is also the merest sanity, if we hope to reduce the likelihood <br>of future atrocities. It may be comforting to pretend that our <br>enemies "hate our freedoms," as President Bush stated, but it is <br>hardly wise to ignore the real world, which conveys different <br>lessons. <br><br>The president is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?" In a <br>staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower described "the <br>campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the <br>governments but by the people". His National Security Council<br>outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive <br>governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" <br>because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the <br>region. <br><br>Post-September 11 surveys in the Arab world reveal that the same <br>reasons hold today, compounded with resentment over specific <br>policies. Strikingly, that is even true of privileged, western-<br>oriented sectors in the region. <br><br>To cite just one recent example: in the August 1 issue of Far <br>Eastern Economic Review, the internationally recognized regional <br>specialist Ahmed Rashid writes that in Pakistan "there is growing <br>anger that US support is allowing [Musharraf's] military regime <br>to delay the promise of democracy". <br><br>Today we do ourselves few favors by choosing to believe that "they <br>hate us" and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are <br>attitudes of people who like Americans and admire much about the <br>US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official policies <br>that deny them the freedoms to which they too aspire. <br><br>For such reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin <br>Laden - for example, about US support for corrupt and brutal <br>regimes, or about the US "invasion" of Saudi Arabia - have a <br>certain resonance, even among those who despise and fear him. From <br>resentment, anger and frustration, terrorist bands hope to draw <br>support and recruits. <br><br>We should also be aware that much of the world regards Washington <br>as a terrorist regime. In recent years, the US has taken or backed<br>actions in Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name <br>a few, that meet official US definitions of "terrorism" - that is, <br>when Americans apply the term to enemies. <br><br>In the most sober establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel <br>Huntington wrote in 1999: "While the US regularly denounces various <br>countries as 'rogue states,' in the eyes of many countries it is <br>becoming the rogue superpower ... the single greatest external<br>threat to their societies." <br><br>Such perceptions are not changed by the fact that, on September 11, <br>for the first time, a western country was subjected on home soil to <br>a horrendous terrorist attack of a kind all too familiar to victims <br>of western power. The attack goes far beyond what's sometimes called <br>the "retail terror" of the IRA, FLN or Red Brigades. <br><br>The September 11 terrorism elicited harsh condemnation throughout <br>the world and an outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims. <br>But with qualifications. <br><br>An international Gallup poll in late September found little support <br>for "a military attack" by the US in Afghanistan. In Latin America, <br>the region with the most experience of US intervention, support <br>ranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama. <br><br>The current "campaign of hatred" in the Arab world is, of course, <br>also fuelled by US policies toward Israel-Palestine and Iraq. The <br>US has provided the crucial support for Israel's harsh military<br>occupation, now in its 35th year. <br><br>One way for the US to lessen Israeli-Palestinian tensions would be <br>to stop refusing to join the long-standing international consensus <br>that calls for recognition of the right of all states in the region <br>to live in peace and security, including a Palestinian state in the <br>currently occupied territories (perhaps with minor and mutual <br>border adjustments). <br><br>In Iraq, a decade of harsh sanctions under US pressure has <br>strengthened Saddam Hussein while leading to the death of hundreds <br>of thousands of Iraqis - perhaps more people "than have been <br>slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout <br>history", military analysts John and Karl Mueller wrote in<br>Foreign Affairs in 1999. <br><br>Washington's present justifications to attack Iraq have far less <br>credibility than when President Bush Sr was welcoming Saddam as <br>an ally and a trading partner after he had committed his worst <br>brutalities - as in Halabja, where Iraq attacked Kurds with <br>poison gas in 1988. At the time, the murderer Saddam was more<br>dangerous than he is today. <br><br>As for a US attack against Iraq, no one, including Donald Rumsfeld, <br>can realistically guess the possible costs and consequences. <br>Radical Islamist extremists surely hope that an attack on Iraq will <br>kill many people and destroy much of the country, providing<br>recruits for terrorist actions. <br><br>They presumably also welcome the "Bush doctrine" that proclaims the <br>right of attack against potential threats, which are virtually <br>limitless. The president has announced: "There's no telling how <br>many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland." That's<br>true. <br><br>Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless <br>war poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies <br>do, for reasons the terrorist organizations understand very well. <br><br>Twenty years ago, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, <br>Yehoshaphat Harkabi, also a leading Arabist, made a point that still<br>holds true. "To offer an honorable solution to the Palestinians <br>respecting their right to self-determination: that is the solution <br>of the problem of terrorism," he said. "When the swamp disappears, <br>there will be no more mosquitoes." <br><br>At the time, Israel enjoyed the virtual immunity from retaliation <br>within the occupied territories that lasted until very recently. But <br>Harkabi's warning was apt, and the lesson applies more generally. <br><br>Well before September 11 it was understood that with modern tech-<br>nology, the rich and powerful will lose their near monopoly of the <br>means of violence and can expect to suffer atrocities on home soil. <br><br>If we insist on creating more swamps, there will be more mosquitoes, <br>with awesome capacity for destruction. <br><br>If we devote our resources to draining the swamps, addressing the <br>roots of the "campaigns of hatred", we can not only reduce the <br>threats we face but also live up to ideals that we profess and that <br>are not beyond reach if we choose to take them seriously.<br><br>***********************************************************<br>Noam Chomsky is the son of a Rabbi who changed the face of <br>linguistics and is known for his social activism.<br>***********************************************************<br><br>Internet received - 4/10/2003 <b off></b> </body>