In this excerpt of an interview with the Greek media, Noam Chomsky gives his historical perspective on acts of terrorism and discusses the possible repercussions

DO you condemn terrorism? How can we define the difference between acts of terrorism and acts of resistance by a desperate nation against a dictator or an occupation force? In which of these categories would you place the recent attack on the United States?

I understand the term "terrorism" exactly as it is defined in official U.S. documents: the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to obtain objectives of a political, religious or ideological nature. This is carried out through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.

According to this entirely appropriate definition, the recent attack on the United States is certainly an act of terrorism, in any case a horrendous terrorist crime. It would be hard to find any disagreement in this respect, nor should there be.

But beyond the term’s literal significance, as I just cited from official U.S. documents, it is also used for propaganda, which unfortunately is habitual. The term "terrorism" is used to refer to terrorist actions committed by enemies against us or our allies. Political scientist Michael Stohl is perfectly correct when he writes that we should recognize that, by convention—and it should be emphasized that it is only by convention—the use of force and the threat of using force is described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism, even though it generally implies the threat, and often the use of violence to achieve what would be described as terrorist aims, if it weren’t for the fact that the great powers follow exactly the same tactic.

Everyone condemns terrorism, but we must ask what they mean by that. Take the U.S. war against Nicaragua that left tens of thousands dead and the country in ruins. Nicaragua appealed to the International Court of Justice, which condemned the United States for international terrorism ("the illegal use of force"), and ordered it to desist and to pay a considerable amount of reparation money. The United States responded to the Court’s decision by greatly escalating the war and vetoing a Security Council resolution calling on all states to respect international law. The escalation included official orders to attack "soft targets," undefended civil objectives such as farming collectives and health clinics, and to avoid the Nicaraguan army. The terrorists were able to carry out these instructions thanks to the United States’ total control of Nicaraguan airspace and the modern communications equipment supplied by advisors.

When the terrorist plan was successful and Nicaragua succumbed, people in the United States were united in happiness, proclaimed The New York Times, knowing very well how this success had been won. As Time magazine joyously wrote, the methods used were to ruin the economy and maintain a long and lethal proxy war, until the tired natives themselves brought down the undesired government, at minimal "cost" to the United States, leaving the victim with bridges destroyed, electricity plants sabotaged, and haciendas in ruins. Thus the U.S.-supported candidate was handed "a winning platform," namely, to end the "impoverishment of the Nicaraguan people." The euphoria among the elites knew no bounds.

But the United States’ terrorist war was not "terrorism," it was "counter-terrorism," according to standard doctrines. And U.S. standards dominate a large part of the world as a consequence of that nation’s power and the cost of paying for such challenges. And this is not the most extreme example; I mention it because it’s not controversial, considering the International Court’s decision and because Nicaragua’s unfruitful efforts to use legal methods, instead of dropping bombs on Washington, offer a model for present times, and it’s not the only one.

Currently we see that the value of human life is... rapidly depreciating. Do you think this phenomenon will continue growing?

I don’t agree. What value was placed on human life throughout the entire history of European imperialism? For example, when the United States was expanding its national frontiers to conquer that wretched race of Native Americans whom we are exterminating with such pitiless and perfidious cruelty, to paraphrase President John Quincy Adams, a long time after his considerable contribution to that task that he subsequently regretted, but before further exploits that bore little glory. What was the value placed on human life when King Leopold of Belgium murdered 10 million Congolese? Or when a third of Germany’s population died in a 17th-century war, not to mention more recent examples? In reality, we can go back as far as we want. Everybody knows, or should know, of the glorification of genocide in Western civilization’s most sacred books.

Let’s move on to the Manhattan and Pentagon attacks. What do you think of the U.S. media’s coverage of the tragedy? What would you say the explanation given out by much of the U.S. media that the terrorists attacked the United States because they hate Western values (civil liberties, tolerance, goodwill, etc.)?

The second question can simply be thrown out. It’s deliberate nonsense and its disseminators certainly know that, at least if they have some knowledge of modern history, including that of the Middle East. Naturally these are convenient assumptions that serve to distract attention from the real injustices expressed, even by the Middle East’s more pro-Western elements, as is well known, in the words of the article I quoted before.

In what is referred to as the communications media, we must ask how they treated basic problems that arise out of small or horrific crimes. Who was responsible? What should be the reaction? Why did it happen? There has been hardly any discussion of these aspects. The request by the Arab League, China and also NATO for the United States to present reliable evidence is discarded as absurd, and in the case of the Taliban, as more evidence of their criminality. The United States will present a White Paper that may be accepted by its allies, although there is very little probability that the evidence could be more persuasive than that following previous attacks attributed to those terrorist networks—probably correct, but opinions are not proof.

What do you consider: A) the best outcome; B) the worst outcome; C) the most likely outcome?

The appropriate reaction would be to follow the legal path: Nicaragua is not the only precedent—and we must consider that the terrorist attack it suffered is much more destructive even than the September 11 crimes. To take another case, what would have been the correct reaction by the British government to the IRA bombs in London? One possibility could have been to send the Royal Air Force to bomb the IRA’s financial sources, in locations like Boston, where I live. Leaving to one side the feasibility, it would have been criminal idiocy. Another possibility would have been to consider the basic problems and difficulties in a realistic manner and try to remedy them, while using legal resources to punish the criminals.

Or let’s take the attack on the Oklahoma City federal building. There were immediate calls to bomb the Middle East and that’s what would probably have happened if the remotest connection had been discovered. When it was discovered that the perpetrator was linked to ultra-right militias, there was no call to annihilate Texas, Montana, Idaho and other places where militias live. Rather, the perpetrator was found, tried and sentenced, and insofar as the reaction was reasoned, efforts were made to understand complaints that served as the basis of similar crimes and to confront the problems. Almost every crime—be it street robbery or colossal atrocities—has its motives, and we often discover that some are serious and should be confronted. At least, this is the path to follow if we have any respect for law and justice, and if we wish to reduce the probability of new atrocities instead of increasing them. The same principles apply in general. Specifically, they apply in this case.

The worst that could happen is already happening: a massive attack killing many innocent people—in Afghanistan, not among the Taliban but among their victims. Looking beyond the same crime, this is an answer to Bin Laden’s prayers, as foreign leaders who are experts in the region have warned Washington and probably also the U.S. intelligence agencies. It will serve to mobilize many enraged and desperate people in favor of his horrendous cause, and it will increase the cycle of violence with possibly catastrophic results. Additionally, if they kill Bin Laden, it would probably turn him into a martyr and his voice would resound throughout the Arab-speaking world on the thousands of cassettes already in circulation.

Do you agree with the opinion that "the world changed on September 11, 2001"?

Without any doubt. The history of Europe and its scion, the United States, is marked by atrocious crimes against others—or mutual slaughter, like the U.S. Civil War or the European wars. This is the first time that the cannons have pointed in the opposite direction, or at least in a significant way. The Congo did not carry out attacks on Belgium, nor India on England, Algeria on France, nor Mexico and the Philippines on the United States. The September 11 atrocities were unique, unfortunately not for their size, but for their objective.

(Taken from Juventud Rebelde newspaper)

Note: this interview has been retranslated from Spanish.