Text of Chomsky Reply to Snitchens
Jim Baldauf
jfbaldauf@prodigy.net
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:51:46 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0165_01C16E30.7C3C59A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I was wrong, Chomsky does not say that Hitchens showed promise as a =
humor writer.=20
jb
Chomsky Replies to Hitchens
By Noam Chomsky
=20
Note: Christopher Hitchens wrote an essay in the Nation, and a =
subsequent comment on the Nation web site.and among those he attacked in =
his fulminations, was Noam Chomsky. Here, Chomsky replies...
I have been asked to respond to recent articles by Christopher =
Hitchens (webpage, Sept. 24; _Nation_, Oct. 8), and after refusing =
several times, will do so, though only partially, and reluctantly. The =
reason for the reluctance is that Hitchens cannot mean what he is =
saying. For that reason alone -- there are others that should be obvious =
-- this is no proper context for addressing serious issues relating to =
the Sept. 11 atrocities.
That Hitchens cannot mean what he writes is clear, in the first place, =
from his reference to the bombing of the Sudan. He must be unaware that =
he is expressing such racist contempt for African victims of a terrorist =
crime, and cannot intend what his words imply. This single atrocity =
destroyed half the pharmaceutical supplies of a poor African country and =
the facilities for replenishing them, with an enormous human toll. =
Hitchens is outraged that I compared this atrocity to what I called "the =
wickedness and awesome cruelty" of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 =
(quoting Robert Fisk), adding that the actual toll in the Sudan case can =
only be surmised, because the US blocked any UN inquiry and few were =
interested enough to pursue the matter. That the toll is dreadful is =
hardly in doubt.
Hitchens is apparently referring to a response I wrote to several =
journalists on Sept. 15, composite because inquiries were coming too =
fast for individual response. This was apparently posted several times =
on the web, as were other much more detailed subsequent responses. =
Assuming so, in the brief message Hitchens may have seen, I did not =
elaborate, assuming -- correctly, judging by subsequent interchange -- =
that it was unnecessary: the recipients would understand why the =
comparison is quite appropriate. I also took for granted that they would =
understand a virtual truism: When we estimate the human toll of a crime, =
we count not only those who were literally murdered on the spot but =
those who died as a result, the course we adopt reflexively, and =
properly, when we consider the crimes of official enemies -- Stalin, =
Hitler, and Mao, to mention the most extreme cases. If we are even =
pretending to be serious, we apply the same standards to ourselves: in =
the case of the Sudan, we count the number who died as a direct =
consequence of the crime, not just those killed by cruise missiles. =
Again, a truism.
Since there is one person who does not appear to understand, I will =
add a few quotes from the mainstream press, to clarify.
A year after the attack, "without the lifesaving medicine [the =
destroyed facilities] produced, Sudan's death toll from the bombing has =
continued, quietly, to rise... Thus, tens of thousands of people -- many =
of them children -- have suffered and died from malaria, tuberculosis, =
and other treatable diseases... [The factory] provided affordable =
medicine for humans and all the locally available veterinary medicine in =
Sudan. It produced 90 percent of Sudan's major pharmaceutical =
products... Sanctions against Sudan make it impossible to import =
adequate amounts of medicines required to cover the serious gap left by =
the plant's destruction.... [T]he action taken by Washington on Aug. 20, =
1998, continues to deprive the people of Sudan of needed medicine. =
Millions must wonder how the International Court of Justice in The Hague =
will celebrate this anniversary" (Jonathan Belke, _Boston Globe_, Aug. =
22, 1999).
"[T]he loss of this factory is a tragedy for the rural communities who =
need these medicines" (Tom Carnaffin, technical manager with "intimate =
knowledge" of the destroyed plant, Ed Vulliamy et al., London =
_Observer_, 23 Aug. 1998).
The plant "provided 50 percent of Sudan's medicines, and its =
destruction has left the country with no supplies of choloroquine, the =
standard treatment for malaria," but months later, the British Labour =
government refused requests "to resupply chloroquine in emergency relief =
until such time as the Sudanese can rebuild their pharmaceutical =
production" (Patrick Wintour, _Observer_, 20 Dec. 1998).
And much more.
Proportional to population, this is as if the bin Laden network, in a =
single attack on the US, caused "hundreds of thousands of people -- many =
of them children -- to suffer and die from easily treatable diseases," =
though the analogy is unfair because a rich country, not under sanctions =
and denied aid, can easily replenish its stocks and respond =
appropriately to such an atrocity -- which, I presume, would not have =
passed so lightly. To regard the comparison to Sept. 11 as outrageous is =
to express extraordinary racist contempt for African victims of a =
shocking crime, which, to make it worse, is one for which we are =
responsible: as taxpayers, for failing to provide massive reparations, =
for granting refuge and immunity to the perpetrators, and for allowing =
the terrible facts to be sunk so deep in the memory hole that some, at =
least, seem unaware of them.
This only scratches the surface. The US bombing "appears to have =
shattered the slowly evolving move towards compromise between Sudan's =
warring sides" and terminated promising steps towards a peace agreement =
to end the civil war that had left 1.5 million dead since 1981, which =
might have also led to "peace in Uganda and the entire Nile Basin." The =
attack apparently "shattered...the expected benefits of a political =
shift at the heart of Sudan's Islamist government" towards a "pragmatic =
engagement with the outside world," along with efforts to address =
Sudan's domestic crises," to end support for terrorism, and to reduce =
the influence of radical Islamists (Mark Huband, _Financial Times_, =
Sept. 8, 1998).
In this respect, we may compare the crime in the Sudan to the =
assassination of Lumumba, which helped plunge the Congo into decades of =
slaughter, still continuing; or the overthrow of the democratic =
government of Guatemala in 1954, which led to 40 years of hideous =
atrocities; and all too many others like it.
One can scarcely try to estimate the colossal toll of the Sudan =
bombing, even apart from the probable tens of thousands of immediate =
Sudanese victims. The complete toll is attributable to the single act of =
terror -- at least, if we have the honesty to adopt the standards we =
properly apply to official enemies.
Evidently, Hitchens cannot mean what he said about this topic. We can =
therefore disregard it.
To take another example, Hitchens writes that "I referred to the "the =
whole business [of the 1999 war] as a bullying persecution of - the =
Serbs!" As he knows, this is sheer fabrication. The reasons for the war =
that I suggested were quoted from the highest level US official =
justifications for it, including National Security Adviser Sandy Berger =
and the final summary presented to Congress by Secretary of Defense =
William Cohen. We can therefore also disregard what Hitchens has to say =
about this topic.
As a final illustration, consider Hitchens's fury over the =
"masochistic e-mail...circulating from the Chomsky-Zinn-Finkelstein =
quarter," who joined such radical rags as the _Wall Street Journal_ in =
what he calls "rationalizing" terror -- that is, considering the =
grievances expressed by people of the Middle East region, rich to poor, =
secular to Islamist, the course that would be followed by anyone who =
hopes to reduce the likelihood of further atrocities rather than simply =
to escalate the cycle of violence, in the familiar dynamics, leading to =
even greater catastrophes here and elsewhere. This is an outrage, =
Hitchens explains, because "I know already" about these concerns -- a =
comment that makes sense on precisely one assumption: that the =
communications were addressed solely to Hitchens. Without further =
comment, we can disregard his fulminations on these topics.
In one charge, Hitchens is correct. He writes that "The crime [in the =
Sudan] was directly and sordidly linked to the effort by a crooked =
President to avoid impeachment (a conclusion sedulously avoided by the =
Chomskys and Husseinis of the time)." It's true that I have sedulously =
avoided this speculation, and will continue to do so until some =
meaningful evidence is provided; and have also sedulously avoided the =
entire obsession with Clinton's sex life.
>From the rest, it may be possible to disentangle some intended line =
of argument, but I'm not going to make the effort, and fail to see why =
others should. Since Hitchens evidently does not take what he is writing =
seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to do so. The fair and =
sensible reaction is to treat all of this as some aberration, and to =
await the return of the author to the important work that he has often =
done in the past.
In the background are issues worth addressing. But in some serious =
context, not this one.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Roger Baker=20
To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net=20
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:41 AM
Subject: Links for skeptics
>Jim-- it's uncanny-- everything you say about Hitchens could be said =
about our own Bob!=20
>What do we need Hitchins for when we've got our >own Vanity Fair =
editor (Mike) and chief
>acolyte Simmons? Nevertheless, I'd like the reference on that Chomsky =
hit-piece!
>
>Jon
Here's that link=20
http://www.zmag.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html
And here's a month's worth of intelligent analysis of all kinds of =
stuff
http://www.zmag.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html
And here's a link about a documented plot by US Gov evildoers that was =
rejected by President=20
Kennedy. There's more of course, but they won't let me talk about it.=20
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
Then after the last link, top that one off with this link
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=3D99402
------=_NextPart_000_0165_01C16E30.7C3C59A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#b8b8b8>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P align=3Dleft class=3DMsoNormal>I was wrong, Chomsky does not say =
that Hitchens=20
showed promise as a humor writer. </P>
<P align=3Dleft class=3DMsoNormal>jb</P>
<P align=3Dcenter class=3DMsoNormal><FONT size=3D6></FONT> </P>
<P align=3Dcenter class=3DMsoNormal><B><FONT =
size=3D6></FONT></B> </P>
<P align=3Dcenter class=3DMsoNormal><B><FONT size=3D6>Chomsky Replies =
to=20
Hitchens</FONT></B></P>
<P align=3Dcenter class=3DMsoNormal><B><FONT size=3D6>By Noam=20
Chomsky<BR> </FONT></B></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Note: Christopher Hitchens wrote an essay in =
the=20
<I>Nation</I>, and a subsequent comment on the <I>Nation</I> web =
site…and=20
among those he attacked in his fulminations, was Noam Chomsky. =
Here,=20
Chomsky replies...</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>I have been asked to respond to recent articles =
by=20
Christopher Hitchens (webpage, Sept. 24; _Nation_, Oct. 8), and after =
refusing=20
several times, will do so, though only partially, and reluctantly. The =
reason=20
for the reluctance is that Hitchens cannot mean what he is saying. For =
that=20
reason alone -- there are others that should be obvious -- this is no =
proper=20
context for addressing serious issues relating to the Sept. 11 =
atrocities.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>That Hitchens cannot mean what he writes is =
clear, in the=20
first place, from his reference to the bombing of the Sudan. He must =
be=20
unaware that he is expressing such racist contempt for African victims =
of a=20
terrorist crime, and cannot intend what his words imply. This single =
atrocity=20
destroyed half the pharmaceutical supplies of a poor African country =
and the=20
facilities for replenishing them, with an enormous human toll. =
Hitchens is=20
outraged that I compared this atrocity to what I called "the =
wickedness and=20
awesome cruelty" of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 (quoting Robert =
Fisk),=20
adding that the actual toll in the Sudan case can only be surmised, =
because=20
the US blocked any UN inquiry and few were interested enough to pursue =
the=20
matter. That the toll is dreadful is hardly in doubt.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Hitchens is apparently referring to a response I =
wrote to=20
several journalists on Sept. 15, composite because inquiries were =
coming too=20
fast for individual response. This was apparently posted several times =
on the=20
web, as were other much more detailed subsequent responses. Assuming =
so, in=20
the brief message Hitchens may have seen, I did not elaborate, =
assuming --=20
correctly, judging by subsequent interchange -- that it was =
unnecessary: the=20
recipients would understand why the comparison is quite appropriate. I =
also=20
took for granted that they would understand a virtual truism: When we =
estimate=20
the human toll of a crime, we count not only those who were literally =
murdered=20
on the spot but those who died as a result, the course we adopt =
reflexively,=20
and properly, when we consider the crimes of official enemies -- =
Stalin,=20
Hitler, and Mao, to mention the most extreme cases. If we are even =
pretending=20
to be serious, we apply the same standards to ourselves: in the case =
of the=20
Sudan, we count the number who died as a direct consequence of the =
crime, not=20
just those killed by cruise missiles. Again, a truism.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Since there is one person who does not appear to=20
understand, I will add a few quotes from the mainstream press, to =
clarify.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>A year after the attack, "without the lifesaving =
medicine=20
[the destroyed facilities] produced, Sudan's death toll from the =
bombing has=20
continued, quietly, to rise... Thus, tens of thousands of people -- =
many of=20
them children -- have suffered and died from malaria, tuberculosis, =
and other=20
treatable diseases... [The factory] provided affordable medicine for =
humans=20
and all the locally available veterinary medicine in Sudan. It =
produced 90=20
percent of Sudan's major pharmaceutical products... Sanctions against =
Sudan=20
make it impossible to import adequate amounts of medicines required to =
cover=20
the serious gap left by the plant's destruction.... [T]he action taken =
by=20
Washington on Aug. 20, 1998, continues to deprive the people of Sudan =
of=20
needed medicine. Millions must wonder how the International Court of =
Justice=20
in The Hague will celebrate this anniversary" (Jonathan Belke, _Boston =
Globe_,=20
Aug. 22, 1999).</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>"[T]he loss of this factory is a tragedy for the =
rural=20
communities who need these medicines" (Tom Carnaffin, technical =
manager with=20
"intimate knowledge" of the destroyed plant, Ed Vulliamy et al., =
London=20
_Observer_, 23 Aug. 1998).</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>The plant "provided 50 percent of Sudan's =
medicines, and=20
its destruction has left the country with no supplies of choloroquine, =
the=20
standard treatment for malaria," but months later, the British Labour=20
government refused requests "to resupply chloroquine in emergency =
relief until=20
such time as the Sudanese can rebuild their pharmaceutical production" =
(Patrick Wintour, _Observer_, 20 Dec. 1998).</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>And much more.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Proportional to population, this is as if the bin =
Laden=20
network, in a single attack on the US, caused "hundreds of thousands =
of people=20
-- many of them children -- to suffer and die from easily treatable =
diseases,"=20
though the analogy is unfair because a rich country, not under =
sanctions and=20
denied aid, can easily replenish its stocks and respond appropriately =
to such=20
an atrocity -- which, I presume, would not have passed so lightly. To =
regard=20
the comparison to Sept. 11 as outrageous is to express extraordinary =
racist=20
contempt for African victims of a shocking crime, which, to make it =
worse, is=20
one for which we are responsible: as taxpayers, for failing to provide =
massive=20
reparations, for granting refuge and immunity to the perpetrators, and =
for=20
allowing the terrible facts to be sunk so deep in the memory hole that =
some,=20
at least, seem unaware of them.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>This only scratches the surface. The US bombing =
"appears to=20
have shattered the slowly evolving move towards compromise between =
Sudan's=20
warring sides" and terminated promising steps towards a peace =
agreement to end=20
the civil war that had left 1.5 million dead since 1981, which might =
have also=20
led to "peace in Uganda and the entire Nile Basin." The attack =
apparently=20
"shattered...the expected benefits of a political shift at the heart =
of=20
Sudan's Islamist government" towards a "pragmatic engagement with the =
outside=20
world," along with efforts to address Sudan's domestic crises," to end =
support=20
for terrorism, and to reduce the influence of radical Islamists (Mark =
Huband,=20
_Financial Times_, Sept. 8, 1998).</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>In this respect, we may compare the crime in the =
Sudan to=20
the assassination of Lumumba, which helped plunge the Congo into =
decades of=20
slaughter, still continuing; or the overthrow of the democratic =
government of=20
Guatemala in 1954, which led to 40 years of hideous atrocities; and =
all too=20
many others like it.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>One can scarcely try to estimate the colossal =
toll of the=20
Sudan bombing, even apart from the probable tens of thousands of =
immediate=20
Sudanese victims. The complete toll is attributable to the single act =
of=20
terror -- at least, if we have the honesty to adopt the standards we =
properly=20
apply to official enemies.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Evidently, Hitchens cannot mean what he said =
about this=20
topic. We can therefore disregard it.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>To take another example, Hitchens writes that "I =
referred=20
to the "the whole business [of the 1999 war] as a bullying persecution =
of -=20
the Serbs!" As he knows, this is sheer fabrication. The reasons for =
the war=20
that I suggested were quoted from the highest level US official =
justifications=20
for it, including National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and the final =
summary=20
presented to Congress by Secretary of Defense William Cohen. We can =
therefore=20
also disregard what Hitchens has to say about this topic.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>As a final illustration, consider Hitchens's fury =
over the=20
"masochistic e-mail...circulating from the Chomsky-Zinn-Finkelstein =
quarter,"=20
who joined such radical rags as the _Wall Street Journal_ in what he =
calls=20
"rationalizing" terror -- that is, considering the grievances =
expressed by=20
people of the Middle East region, rich to poor, secular to Islamist, =
the=20
course that would be followed by anyone who hopes to reduce the =
likelihood of=20
further atrocities rather than simply to escalate the cycle of =
violence, in=20
the familiar dynamics, leading to even greater catastrophes here and=20
elsewhere. This is an outrage, Hitchens explains, because "I know =
already"=20
about these concerns -- a comment that makes sense on precisely one=20
assumption: that the communications were addressed solely to Hitchens. =
Without=20
further comment, we can disregard his fulminations on these =
topics.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>In one charge, Hitchens is correct. He writes =
that "The=20
crime [in the Sudan] was directly and sordidly linked to the effort by =
a=20
crooked President to avoid impeachment (a conclusion sedulously =
avoided by the=20
Chomskys and Husseinis of the time)." It's true that I have sedulously =
avoided=20
this speculation, and will continue to do so until some meaningful =
evidence is=20
provided; and have also sedulously avoided the entire obsession with =
Clinton's=20
sex life.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>>From the rest, it may be possible to =
disentangle some=20
intended line of argument, but I'm not going to make the effort, and =
fail to=20
see why others should. Since Hitchens evidently does not take what he =
is=20
writing seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to do so. The =
fair and=20
sensible reaction is to treat all of this as some aberration, and to =
await the=20
return of the author to the important work that he has often done in =
the=20
past.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>In the background are issues worth addressing. =
But in some=20
serious context, not this one.</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A href=3D"mailto:rcbaker@eden.infohwy.com" =
title=3Drcbaker@eden.infohwy.com>Roger=20
Baker</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net"=20
=
title=3Daustin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net</=
A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, November 16, 2001 =
12:41=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Links for =
skeptics</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>>Jim-- it's uncanny-- everything you say about =
Hitchens=20
could be said about our own Bob! <BR>>What do we need Hitchins for =
when=20
we've got our >own Vanity Fair editor (Mike) and =
chief<BR>>acolyte=20
Simmons? Nevertheless, I'd like the reference on that Chomsky=20
hit-piece!<BR>><BR>>Jon<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Here's that =
link=20
<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.zmag.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html">http://www.zmag.org/=
ZNETTOPnoanimation.html</A><BR><BR><BR><BR>And=20
here's a month's worth of intelligent analysis of all kinds of=20
stuff<BR>http://www.zmag.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html<BR><BR><BR>And =
here's a=20
link about a documented plot by US Gov evildoers that was rejected by=20
President <BR>Kennedy. There's more of course, but they won't let me =
talk=20
about it.=20
<BR><U><?color><?param =
1A1A,1A1A,FFFF>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_01=
0501.html<?/color></U><BR><BR><BR>Then=20
after the last link, top that one off with this=20
=
link<BR>http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=3D99402</BLOCKQUOTE>=
</BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0165_01C16E30.7C3C59A0--