[Peace-discuss] Do they hate our freedom? Or something else?

[C. G. Estabrook]

	April 26, 2006
	Perceptions of the "Unpeople"
	By Noam Chomsky

It is comforting to attribute the alleged "clash" between Islam and the 
West to their hatred of our freedom and values, as the president 
proclaimed after 9/11, or to our curious inability to communicate our 
true intentions. A New York Times headline reads: "US Fails to Explain 
Policies to Muslim World, Panel Says," referring to a study by the 
Defense Science Board, a Pentagon advisory panel, in December 2004.

The conclusions of the panel, however, were quite different. "Muslims do 
not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies," the study 
concluded, adding that "when American public diplomacy talks about 
bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than 
self-serving hypocrisy." As Muslims see it, the report continues, 
"American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy 
there, but only more chaos and suffering."

The Defense Science Board study was reiterating conclusions that go back 
many years. In 1958, President Eisenhower puzzled about "the campaign of 
hatred against us" in the Arab world, "not by the governments but by the 
people," who are "on Nasser's side," supporting independent secular 
nationalism. The reasons for the "campaign of hatred" were outlined by 
the National Security Council: "In the eyes of the majority of Arabs the 
United States appears to be opposed to the realization of the goals of 
Arab nationalism. They believe that the United States is seeking to 
protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and 
opposing political or economic progress." Furthermore, the perception is 
understandable: "Our economic and cultural interests in the area have 
led not unnaturally to close US relations with elements in the Arab 
world whose primary interest lies in the maintenance of relations with 
the West and the status quo in their countries," blocking democracy and 
development.

Much the same was found by the Wall Street Journal when it surveyed the 
opinions of "moneyed Muslims" immediately after 9/11. Bankers, 
professionals, businessmen, committed to official "Western values" and 
embedded in the neoliberal globalization project, were dismayed by 
Washington's support for harsh authoritarian states and the barriers it 
erects against development and democracy by "propping up oppressive 
regimes." They had new grievances, however, beyond those reported by the 
National Security Council in 1958: Washington's sanctions regime in Iraq 
and its support for Israel's military occupation and takeover of the 
territories. There was no survey of the great mass of poor and suffering 
people, but it is likely that their sentiments are more intense, coupled 
with bitter resentment of the Western-oriented elites and the corrupt 
and brutal rulers backed by Western power who ensure that the enormous 
wealth of the region flows to the West, apart from enriching themselves. 
The Iraq invasion only heightened these feelings, much as anticipated.

Writing about the same 2004 Defense Science Board study, David Gardner 
observes that "for the most part, Arabs plausibly believe it was Osama 
bin Laden who smashed the status quo, not George W. Bush, [because] the 
9/11 attacks made it impossible for the west and its Arab despot clients 
to continue to ignore a political set-up that incubated blind rage 
against them." Saudi Shiites share that belief, as the New York Times 
reported.

The evidence concerning Washington's actual stance and role, virtuous 
declarations aside, is clear and compelling, surely by the standards of 
complex world affairs. Nonetheless, it is always possible that 
Washington's actions might have an incidental positive effect. It is 
hard to predict the consequences of striking a system as delicate and 
complex as a society with a bludgeon. This is often true of even the 
worst crimes.

As noted, Osama bin Laden's atrocities are reported to have had a 
positive effect in spurring democratization in the Arab world. The 
terrible crimes of imperial Japan led to the expulsion of the European 
invaders from Asia, saving many millions of lives -- in India, for 
example, which has been spared horrifying famines since the British 
withdrew and was able to begin to recover from centuries of imperial 
domination. Perhaps what many Iraqis and others see as another Mongol 
invasion will end up having positive consequences as well, though it 
would be disgraceful for privileged Westerners to leave that possibility 
to chance. The United States is very much like other powerful states in 
pursuing the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors to the 
accompaniment of rhetorical flourishes about its exceptional dedication 
to the highest values. It should come as no surprise that the evidence 
for Washington's dedication to its proclaimed messianic mission reduces 
to routine pronouncements, or that the counterevidence is mountainous. 
The reaction to these facts is of no slight significance for those 
concerned with the state of US democracy, as noted at the outset. 
Abroad, democracy is fine as long as it takes the "top-down form" that 
does not risk popular interference with primary interests of power and 
wealth. Much the same doctrine holds internally.

Noam Chomsky is the author, most recently, of Failed States 
(Metropolitan Books), from which this commentary is excerpted.