Western Civilization?

I understandthe term "terrorism" exactly in the sense defined in official US documents: "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attaingoals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is donethrough intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."

In accordwith this -- entirely appropriate -- definition, the recent attack on the US iscertainly an act of terrorism, in fact, a horrifying terrorist crime. There isscarcely any disagreement about this throughout the world, nor should there be.

But alongsidethe literal meaning of the term, as just quoted from US official documents,there is also a propagandistic usage, which unfortunately is the standard one:the term "terrorism" is used to refer to terrorist acts committed byenemies against us or our allies. Political scientist Michael Stohl is quitecorrect when he writes that "we must recognize that by convention -- and itmust be emphasized only by convention -- great power use and the threat of theuse of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form ofterrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the useof violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it notgreat powers who were pursuing the very same tactic."

Thispropagandistic use is virtually universal. Everyone "condemnsterrorism," in this sense of the term. The Nazis harshly condemnedterrorism, and carried out counter-terrorism against the terrorist partisans --in Greece, for example. The US basically agreed. It organized and conductedsimilar "counter-terrorism" in Greece and elsewhere in the postwaryears. Furthermore, US counterinsurgency programs drew quite explicitly from theNazi model, which was treated with respect: Wehrmacht officers were consultedand their manuals were used in designing postwar counterinsurgency programsworldwide, typically called "counter-terrorism." 

Given theseconventions, even the very same people and actions can quickly shift from"terrorists" to "freedom fighters" and back again. That'sbeen happening right next door to Greece in recent years. The kla-uck wereofficially condemned by the US as "terrorists" in 1998, because oftheir attacks on Serb police and civilians in an effort to elicit adisproportionate and brutal Serbian response, as they openly declared. As lateas January 1999, the British -- the most hawkish element in NATO on this matter-- believed that the kla-uck was responsible for more deaths than Serbia, whichis hard to believe, but at least tells us something about perceptions at highlevels in NATO. If one can trust the voluminous documentation provided by thestate department, NATO, the OSCE, and other western sources, nothing materiallychanged on the ground until the withdrawal of the KVM monitors and the bombingin late march 1999. But policies did change: the US and UK decided to launch anattack on Serbia, and the "terrorists" instantly became "freedomfighters." After the war, they became "terrorists,""thugs," and "murderers" as they carried out similar actionsin Macedonia, a US ally.

Everyonecondemns terrorism, but we have to ask what they mean. You can find the answerto your question about my views in many books and articles that I have writtenabout terrorism in the past several decades, though I use the term in theliteral sense, and hence condemn all terrorist actions, not only those that arecalled "terrorist" for propagandistic reasons.

It should beunnecessary to point out that massive terrorism is a standard device of powerfulstates, just as Stohl observes. Some cases are not even controversial. Take theUS war against Nicaragua, leaving tens of thousands dead and the country inruins. Nicaragua appealed to the world court, which condemned the US forinternational terrorism ("the unlawful use of force"), ordering it todesist and pay substantial reparations. The US responded to the court ruling bysharply escalating the war, and vetoing a security council resolution calling onall states to observe international law. The escalation included official ordersto attack "soft targets" -- undefended civilian targets, likeagricultural collectives and health clinics -- and to avoid the Nicaraguan army.The terrorists were able to carry out these instructions, thanks to thecompletely control of Nicaraguan air space by the US and the advancedcommunications equipment provided to them by their supervisors.

It shouldalso be recognized that these terrorist actions were widely approved. Oneprominent commentator, Michael Kinsley, at the liberal extreme of themainstream, argued that we should not simply dismiss state departmentjustifications for terrorist attacks on "soft targets": a"sensible policy" must "meet the test of cost-benefitanalysis," an analysis of "the amount of blood and misery that will bepoured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end"-- "democracy" as the US understands the term, an interpretationillustrated quite clearly in the region. It is taken for granted that US eliteshave the right to conduct the analysis and pursue the project if it passes theirtests. When the terrorist project succeeded, and Nicaragua succumbed, Americanswere "united in joy," the New York Times proclaimed, knowing full wellhow the goal was achieved. As Time magazine put it joyfully, the methods were to"wreck the economy and prosecute a long and deadly proxy war until theexhausted natives overthrow the unwanted government themselves," with acost to US that is "minimal," leaving the victim "with wreckedbridges, sabotaged power stations, and ruined farms," and thus providingthe US candidate with "a winning issue": ending the"impoverishment of the people of Nicaragua." euphoria over theachievement was unconstrained among elites.

But the USterrorist war was not "terrorism," it was"counter-terrorism" by doctrinal standards. And US standards prevailin much of the world, as a result of US power and the cost of defying it.

This is by nomeans the most extreme example; I mention it because it is uncontroversial,given the world court decision, and because the failed efforts of Nicaragua topursue lawful means, instead of setting off bombs in washington, provide a modelfor today, not the only one.

There are(in the light of the recent terrorist attack) a lot of debate and controversyhere in Greece (and I suppose in other countries) that in the wholeness of humanhistory, there had not been a single superpower with ethics. Many analysts,historians, politicians and intellectuals claim that superpowers, nations,states and all the other human institutes are interested only in becomingbigger, stronger. In other words, power and authority have nothing to do withvalues, ethics and ideas. They have only to do with more power, more money, muchgreater force, and much greater authority. Do you believe that? Do we have anhistoric example of an empire, a state, a superpower that dealt with the rest ofthe world and the citizens having in mind human values?

I am franklysurprised that there is even a debate. States are not moral agents. They aresystems of power, which respond to the internal distribution of power. Humanbeings, however, are moral agents, and can impose significant constraints on theviolence of their own states, particularly in societies that are more free. Theymay fail to do so; the international behavior of classical Athens was hardlydelightful, to mention one case, and we need not speak of the examples of modernhistory. But they can do so, and often do. Of course, virtually every system ofpower describes itself as deeply humane and pursuing the highest values, and aprimary task of elite intellectuals is to lead the chorus of self-acclaim, asthey commonly do. That is another story, which should be just as familiar, rightup to the present moment. I have two recent books reviewing how "the herdof independent minds" (Harold Rosenberg'sapt description of intellectual elites) fulfilled their function in the past fewyears, perhaps establishing new records in disgracing the intellectual vocation.

It isobvious that American politicians and intelligence officers know many thingsthat we don't about this tragedy. In many cases we will hear half-true facts andstraightforward lies. I've read in many articles and book of yours that when apolitician tells a lie, in a short time he comes to believe it! (forgive me fornot quoting you exactly). a) How can we explain this attitude? b) Which do you think that are the biggestlies and half true facts we heard until now for this tragedy? 

I have todisagree. I doubt that US intelligence knows much that others cannot discover.That is quite commonly the case, as we learn from a rich record of declassifieddocuments, and the record of history as well. But public officials, and theobedient chorus, are not expected to tell the truth about what they know.Rather, they are supposed to proclaim that we were targeted because of ourmagnificence: "they hate us because we champion a `new world order' ofcapitalism, individualism, secularism and democracy that should be the normeverywhere" (respected liberal intellectual Ronald Steel, NY Times, Sept.14).

Anyone whopays minimal attention to the facts knows that the reasons are quite different,not only among the terrorist networks that the CIA helped to organize, arm,train and nurture for a holy war against the Russians, but even among wealthy,privileged, and pro-American sectors of the population.The same day, the wallstreet journal published a review of opinions of "moneyed Muslims" inthe region: bankers, professionals, businessmen. They expressed dismay and angerabout US support for harsh authoritarian states and the barriers that Washingtonplaces against independent development and political democracy by its policiesof "propping up oppressive regimes." their primary concern, however,was Washington's twin policies of support for Israel's harsh and brutal militaryoccupation and devastation of the civilian society of iraq, with hundreds ofthousands of deaths, while strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who they know verywell received strong support from Washington and London through the period ofhis worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds and beyond. Among thegreat mass of poor and suffering people, similar sentiments are much morebitter, and they are also hardly pleased to see the wealth of the region flow tothe west and to small western-oriented elites and corrupt and brutal rulersbacked by western power.

Bin Laden hasissued the same charges -- just a few days ago once again, in a long interviewon the only independent Arab radio channel, rebroadcast by BBC. He and hisassociates, however, have other goals: in their words, driving "foreigninvaders" out of Muslim lands, replacing the corrupt and repressive regimesby true "Islamic" ones, and defending Muslims fighting for theirrights in Chechnya, Bosnia, Kashmir, western china, the Philippines, andelsewhere. All of this they see as a continuation of the holy war against theRussians that they fought with the support of the CIA, Saudi Arabia, and otherswho they regard as enemies of Islam.

We seethat, nowadays, the value of human life is getting... Depreciated rapidly. Doyou think that this phenomenon will continue to scale? The US government (andthe western word in general) does consider human life as a valuable"asset"?

Again, I donot agree. What was the value of human life throughout the whole history ofEuropean imperialism? For example, when the US was expanding to its nationalborders, overcoming "that hapless race of Native Americans, which we areexterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty," to quotepresident John Quincy Adams, long after his own substantial contributions to theenterprise he came to regret, but before further inglorious exploits. What wasthe value of human life when king Leopold of Belgium killed 10 millionCongolese? Or when 1/3 of the population of Germany was killed in one 17thcentury war, not to speak of more recent examples? In fact we can go back as faras we like. Everyone is, or should be, familiar with the exaltation of genocidein the holiest books of western civilization.

Now, asfar as this strike against Manhattan and the pentagon is concerned. How do youjudge the coverage of the tragedy by the US media? How do you comment on theexplanation given by many US media that "the terrorists struck USA becausethey hate western values (civil liberties, tolerance, welfare, etc).

The secondquestion we can simply dismiss. It is self-serving nonsense, and its purveyorssurely know that, at least if they have any familiarity the current history,including the middle east. Naturally, these are convenient pretenses, whichserve to deflect attention from the actual grievances expressed even by the mostpro-western elements in the middle east, as is "well-known" (in thewords of the Wall Street Journal article I quoted).

As for themedia, we have to ask how they dealt with the basic questions that arise in thecase of crimes, small or horrendous: who was responsible? What should theresponse be? Why did it happen? There has been virtually no discussion of any ofthese questions. The request of the Arab league, China, even NATO that the USpresent credible evidence is dismissed as an absurdity, and in the case of theTaliban, further evidence of their criminality. The US will produce a whitepaper, which perhaps will be accepted by its allies, though the evidence ishardly likely to be more persuasive than it was after earlier terrorist bombingsattributed to these terrorist networks -- probably correctly, but judgments arenot evidence. As for what should be done, there is virtually no discussion ofthe lawful course that was pursued by Nicaragua, among others: when our leaderscall for violence, we must applaud their courage and integrity. As for why,apart from a few exceptions like the Wall Street Journal, several times,there is very little in the mainstream.

What doyou think is: a) best case scenario b) worst case scenario c) the most probablescenario?

The properreaction is to pursue the lawful course: Nicaragua is hardly the only precedent-- and bear in mind that the terrorist attack it suffered was far moredestructive even than the September 11 crimes. To take another case, what wasthe right way for Britain to deal with IRA bombs in London? One choice wouldhave been to send the RAF to bomb the source of their finances, places likeBoston, where I live. Putting aside feasibility, that would have been criminalidiocy. Another possibility was to consider realistically the backgroundconcerns and grievances, and to try to remedy them, while at the same timefollowing the rule of law to punish criminals. Or take the bombing of thefederal building in Oklahoma City. There were immediate calls for bombing themiddle east, and it probably would have been done if even a remote hint of alink had been found. When the perpetrator was found to be someone with links tothe ultra-right militias, there was no call to obliterate Texas, Montana, Idahoand other places where the militias are located. Rather, the perpetrator wasfound, brought to court and sentenced, and to the extent that the reaction wassensible, there were efforts to understand the grievances that lie behind suchcrimes and to address the problems. Just about every crime -- whether a robberyin the streets or colossal atrocities -- has reasons, and commonly we find thatsome of them are serious and should be addressed. At least, that is the coursewe follow if we have any concern for right and justice, and hope to reduce thelikelihood of further atrocities rather than increase it. The same principleshold quite generally. Specifically, they hold in this case.

The worstcase scenario would be to carry out a massive assault that would kill manyinnocent people -- in Afghanistan, not Taliban but their victims. Apart from thecrime itself, that would answer bin Laden's prayers, as foreign leaders,specialists on the region, and probably US intelligence agencies are advisingWashington: it would serve to rally many angry and desperate people to hishorrendous cause, and to escalate the cycle of violence, with outcomes thatcould be catastrophic. Even if bin laden is killed, such an assault would belikely to have that effect: he would become a martyr, and his voice wouldresound all over the Arabic-speaking world, on the thousands of cassettes thatare already circulating.

What doyou believe that was the most hideous terrorist act in history? 

It isimpossible to answer. It depends which crimes we decide to call"terrorism," and what time scale we select.

What doyou think motivated the terrorists to commit such a crime? The "enemy"was in the twin towers in Manhattan, in the pentagon or somewhere else? Wherewas the real enemy? 

As I've said,we have every reason to take them at their word. And their word is very clear,as their deeds have been, for 20 years, when the radical Islamic forces thatwere organized by the CIA, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others, carried outtheir first attack against their creators, assassinating president Sadat ofEgypt, one of the most enthusiastic of these.