charmaine driscoll on Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:00:03 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] Fisk to the foray


<br><br><br>
<br><br><br>
Interview with Robert Fisk at Beirut
                      Airport in Lebanon

Thursday, September 20 2001 @ 06:59 PM GMT
It sometimes comes down to the question of why when
people have brown eyes and darker skin, their lives
                      seem to be worth less than westerners

Radio New Zealan (ZMagazine)
Hill: Can I talk to you about Osama Bin Laden? I don't
know whether you are in favour of him becoming public
enemy number one at the moment but I do know that you
have met him and I wonder if you could give me some kind
of insight into, first of all, is he capable of this.

Fisk: Well, I've been trying to explain this in my own
paper, the London Independent over the last few days
and I'm not sure. We haven't actually seen the evidence
that directly links him to not just an atrocity but a crime
against humanity that took place in New York and
Washington. On the other hand, the Afghan connection
seems to be fairly strong.
Could he have done it? He certainly hasn't condemned it
although he denies being involved. The first time, no the
second time I met him in Afghanistan when he was there
with his armed fighters, I asked him if he had been
involved in an attack on American troops at Al Hoba, in
Saudi Arabia which had just taken place - 24 American
soldiers had been killed - and he said no, it was not his
doing, he was not responsible. He admitted that he knew
two or three men who have since been executed,
beheaded, by the Saudi authorities.

                      He then said, I did not have the honour to participate 
in
                      this operation. In other words, he approved of it. 
Now,
                      you can go on saying that kind of thing - he did, 
several
                      times over about other episodes later. At some point 
you
                      begin to say, "Come off it Bin Laden, surely you are 
saying
                      there's a connection, but he's never said or admitted
                      responsibility for any such event and he's denied
                      specifically the atrocities in the United States.

                      Is he capable of it? Look, I'll give you one tiny 
example.
                      The second time I met him in Afghanistan, four years 
ago,
                      at the top of a mountain, it was cold and in the 
morning
                      when I woke in the camp tent, I had frost in my hair. 
He
                      walked into the tent I was sitting in and sat down
                      opposite me, cross-legged on the floor and noticed in 
the
                      school bag I usually carry in rough country to keep 
things
                      in, some Arabic-language newspapers and he seized upon
                      these and went to the corner of the tent with a
                      sputtering oil lamp and devoured the contents.

                      For 20 minutes, he ignored us, he ignored the gunman
                      sitting in the tent, he ignored me and he didn't even
                      know, for example, that it was stated in one of the
                      stories in the newspaper that the Iranian foreign 
minister
                      had just visited Riyadh, his own country, Saudi 
Arabia,
                      well, his until he lost his citizenship. So he seemed 
to me
                      at the time to be very isolated, a cut off man, not 
the
                      sort of person who would press a button on a mobile
                      phone and say, "Put plan B into action".

                      So I don't think you can see this as a person who 
actually
                      participates in the sense of planning, step-by-step, 
what
                      happens in a nefarious attack. In other words, I doubt
                      very much if he said, "Well, four airplanes, five 
hijackers,
                      etc.". But he is a person that has a very large 
following,
                      particularly in the rather sinister Jihadi community 
or
                      culture of Pakistan. And there is such anger in the 
Middle
                      East at the moment about the American' s policies here
                      and whether it be the deaths of tens of thousands of
                      children in Iraq, which Osama Bin Laden has spoken
                      about, whether it be continued occupation and 
expansion
                      of Jewish settlements in Arab land which he's also 
spoken
                      about, whether it be about the continued 
dictatorships,
                      Ara b dictatorships, which are supported in large part 
by
                      the west, especially in the Gulf area, about which 
Osama
                      Ben Laden has spoken about and condemned, I think you
                      find in this region, enough people who admire what he
                      says, almost to conspire amongst themselves without
                      involving him, in the kind of bombing attacks that 
we've
                      seen in Saudi Arabia and I suppose it's conceivable, 
in the
                      atrocities in the United States.

                      But if you're looking for direct evidence, if you're 
looking
                      for a fingerprint, all I can say is, the moment I 
heard
                      about the World Trade Center attacks, I saw the shadow
                      of the Middle East hanging over them. As for the
                      fingerprint of Bin Laden, I think that's a different 
matter.
                      We haven't seen it yet. We may. Perhaps the Americans
                      can produce the evidence but we haven't seen it yet.

                      Hill: The corollary of that, of course, is that should 
they
                      decide to strike against Bin Laden, it will do no good
                      because, you know, there will be a thousand, a million
                      more, waiting to carry on doing the same thing, will 
they
                      not?



                      Fisk: Yes this is the problem. It is very easy to 
start a
                      war, or to declare war, or to say you are at war and 
quite
                      another thing to switch it off. And after all, let's 
face it,
                      this is a declaration of war primarily against the 
United
                      States. But once America takes up the opponent's role,
                      saying we will retaliate, then you take the risk of 
further
                      retaliation against you and further retaliation by you 
and
                      so on.

                      This is the trap that Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime
                      minister, has got himself involved in Israel with the
                      Palestinians because when the Palestinians send a 
suicide
                      bomber wickedly, for example into a pizzeria and kill 
many
                      innocent Israelis, the Israelis feel a need to 
retaliate so
                      they fire tank shells or helicopters fire American 
missiles
                      into a police post. Then a murder squad, or a 
helicopter
                      fires a missile into a car of a man who the Israelis 
believe
                      have plotted bombing. Then the Palestinians retaliate 
by
                      sending another suicide bomber and so on and so forth.

                      It's one thing to use this rhetoric, like "rooting out 
the
                      weed of world terror", "dead or alive", "a crusade" - 
my
                      goodness me, that's a word that Mr Bush has been using
                      - not a word that's likly to encourage much 
participation
                      on the American side in the Arab world because the 
word,
                      crusade, is synonymous here with Christians shedding
                      Muslim blood in Jerusalem in 1099 and Jewish blood
                      actually, historically.

                      So, the real question is, what lies behind this 
rhetoric? Is
                      there any serious military thinking going on? If so, 
are we
                      talking about the kind of blind, indiscriminate attack 
which
                      will only provoke more anger among Arabs, perhaps to
                      overthrow their own regimes which Mr Bin Laden will be
                      very happy to see, or are we talking about special 
forces
                      seizing people, taking them out of Afghanistan, trying 
to
                      have some kind of international criminal court where 
we
                      could actually see justice done as opposed to just
                      liquidation and murder squads setting out to kill 
killers.

                      Hill: George Bush, I suppose is entitled to his 
internal
                      physical needs - the needs of Americans - to put out
                      bellicose rhetoric, such as "the new war on 
terrorism", or
                      "we want Osama Bin Laden dead or alive" and so on, but
                      what he will do remains entirely obscure at the 
moment,
                      doesn't it?



                      Fisk: Yes, yes it does. You see, I can understand -
                      anyone should be able to understand - not only how
                      appalled Americans are about what happened, in such an
                      awesome way - the images of those aircraft flying
                      through the skin of the World Trade Center and 
exploding
                      are utterly unforgettable. For the rest of our lives 
we will
                      remember that. And I think therefore the anger of
                      Americans is perfectly understandable and revenge is a
                      kind of justice, isn' t it, but these days we have to
                      believe in the rule of law.

                      Once or twice you hear Colin Powell talking about 
justice
                      and law but then you hear President Bush using the
                      language of Wild West movies. And that is very
                      frightening because I don't think that NATO is going 
to
                      support America in a blind and totally indiscriminate 
attack
                      in the Middle East. And the other question is, how do 
you
                      make your strike massive enough to suit the crime.
                      Afghanistan, after all, is a country in total ruins, 
it was
                      occupied by the Russians for 10 years which is why it 
is
                      seeded with 10 million mines - I mean it, 10 million 
mines,
                      more that one tenth of all the land mines in the world 
are
                      in Afghanistan. So any idea of America sending its 
military
                      across Afghanistan is a very, very dangerous operation 
in
                      a country where America has no friends.

                      It is very significant - though it's been largely 
missed, I
                      noticed by press and television around the world - but
                      just two days before the attacks on Washington and New
                      York, Shah Massoud, the leader of the opposition in
                      Afghanistan, the only military man to stand up to the
                      Taliban, and the only friend of the west, was himself
                      assassinated by two Arab suicide bombers - men posing
                      as journalists, by the way. I've been asking myself 
over
                      the last two days, and I have no proof of this
                      whatsoever, merely a strong suspicion, whether in 
fact,
                      that assassination wasn't in a sense a code for people 
in
                      the United States to carry out atrocities which we saw
                      last Tuesday. I don't know, but certainly if America 
wants
                      to go into Afghanistan, one of the key elements, even
                      with a special forces raid, is to have friends in the
                      country, people who are on your side. [But they] have
                      just been erased, in fact erased two days before the
                      bombings in America, and I find that is a very, very
                      significant thing.



                      Hill: If one went to these people, if one went to bin 
Laden
                      or any other, if one went to the Jihadians in Pakistan 
and
                      said, "What do you guys want?" what would they say?

                      Fisk: Well, you would hear a list of objectives which 
will
                      be entirely unacceptable to the west or in many cases, 
to
                      any sane person here.

                      Hill: What do they want?

                      Fisk: Well, look, what you have to understand is, what
                      they want and what most Muslims in the region want is
                      not necessarily the same thing but they are trading 
and
                      treading on the waters of injustice in the region. But 
what
                      they want, they will tell you, is they want shariat 
imposed
                      on all Muslim states in the region, they want total
                      withdrawal of western forces from the Arab gulf 
region.
                      They ask, for example, why does America still have 
forces
                      in Saudi Arabia 10 years after the Gulf War, after 
which
                      they promised they would immediately withdraw those
                      forces?

                      Why are American forces in Kuwait? Well, we know the
                      American answer is that Saddam Hussein remains a
                      danger. Well, that might be a little bit of a dubious 
claim
                      now. And why are American forces exercising in Egypt?
                      Why are American jets allowed to use Jordan? What are
                      they doing in Turkey? On top of that, they will demand 
an
                      end to Israeli occupation of Arab land.

                      But you have to remember that when you go to one end
                      of the extreme, like the most extreme of the Jihadi 
culture
                      in Pakistan, you are going to hear demands that will 
never
                      be met. But nonetheless, and this is the point, they 
feed
                      on a general unease about injustice in the region 
which is
                      associated with the west which many, many Arab Muslims
                      - millions of them - will feel.

                      So, this goes back to the Bin Laden culture. It does
                      mean, I haven't met a single Arab in the last week, 
who
                      doesn't feel revulsion about what has happened in the
                      United States. But quite a few of them would say, and
                      one or two have, if you actually listen to what Bin 
Laden
                      demands, he asks questions that it would be 
interesting
                      to hear the answers to. What are the Americans still
                      doing in the Gulf? Why does the United States still 
permit
                      Israel to build settlements for Jews, and Jews only, 
on
                      Arab land? Why does it still permit thousands of 
children
                      to die under UN sanctions? And UN sanctions are 
primarily
                      imposed by western powers.

                      So, it's not like you have a simple, clear picture 
here. But
                      where you have a large area of the earth, where there 
is
                      a very considerable amount of injustice, where the 
United
                      States is clearly seen as to blame for some of it, 
then the
                      people in the kind of Jihadi culture - the extremists,
                      terrorists, call them what you like - are going to be 
able
                      to find a society in which they can breathe, and they 
do.

                      My point all along is, if there is going to be a 
military
                      operation to find the people responsible for the World
                      Trade Center and for the people who support them and
                      for those who harbour them - I'm using the words of 
the
                      State Department, the President, the Vice-President,
                      Secretary of State Colin Powell - then I believe that 
the
                      wisest and most courageous thing that the Americans 
can
                      do, is to make sure that it goes hand-in-hand with 
some
                      attempt to rectify some of the injustices, present and
                      historic in this region.

                      That could actually do what President Bush claims he
                      wants, that is, end "terrorism" in this region. But 
you see,
                      I don't think Mr Bush is prepared to put his politics 
where
                      he's prepared to point his missiles. He won't do that. 
He
                      only wants a military solution. And military solutions 
in the
                      Middle East never, ever work.

                      Hill: Because it's like a tar baby. I mean as soon as 
the
                      United States undertakes a military solution, then a
                      thousand more will instantly join the Jihadi or Bin 
Laden
                      because, there you go, the United States has proved
                      itself to be the great Satan once again.

                      Fisk: Well, there is a self-proving element to that 
for
                      them, yes, but again, you see, the point is, I said 
before,
                      that Bin Laden's obsession with overthrowing the local
                      pro-American regime has been at the top of his list of
                      everything he's said to me in three separate meetings 
in
                      Sudan and two in Afghanistan. And I suspect, and I 
don't
                      know if he's involved in this, but if he was - or even 
if he
                      wasn't - he may well feel the more bloody and the more
                      indiscriminate the American response is, the greater 
the
                      chance that the rage and the feeling of anger among
                      ordinary Arabs who are normally very docile beneath 
their
                      various dictatorships, will boil over and start to 
seriously
                      threaten the various pro-western regimes in the 
region,
                      especially those in the Arabian Gulf.

                      And that is what he's talked about. And indeed, Mr
                      Mubarek of Egypt, not you might think, a great
                      conceptual thinker, two weeks' ago, only a few days
                      before the World Trade Center bombing, and it's always
                      interesting to go back before these events to see what
                      people said, warned what he called "an explosion 
outside
                      the region", very prescient of him and he also talked
                      about the danger for the various Arab governments and
                      regimes - he didn't call himself a dictator, though
                      effectively he is - if American policy didn' t change. 
And
                      indeed, he sent his Foreign Minister to Washington to
                      complain that the Egyptian regime itself could be in
                      danger unless American policy changed. And what was
                      the Foreign minister told? He was told to go back to 
Cairo
                      and tell Mr Mubarek that it will be very easy for Dick
                      Cheney to go to Congress and to cut off all American 
aid
                      to Egypt.


                      Hill: The trouble with arguing, as you do, as many 
other
                      people do, that, you know, 1800 people were killed in
                      Sabra and Shatila, maybe half a million people have 
died in
                      Iraq as a result of the sanctions, how many 
Palestinians
                      have died as a result of the Israeli attacks, it 
begins to
                      sound like moral relativism in some peculiar way. I 
talked
                      to David Horovitz [editor, Jerusalem Report] earlier 
this
                      morning. You won't be surprised to hear that he 
disagrees
                      with a lot of the things you say. And he said, look, 
this
                      terrorist attack on the United States last week was
                      beyond the pale, was unacceptable, cannot be compared
                      with anything else. This is it. How do you respond to
                      that?

                      Fisk: I'm not surprised that David, who I know quite 
well,
                      would say that. I don't think it's a question of moral
                      relativism. When you live in this region… I go to New 
York
                      and I've driven past the World Trade Center many 
times.
                      This is familiar architecture for me too, and familiar
                      people, but when you live in this region, it isn't 
about
                      moral relativism, it sometimes comes down to the 
question
                      of why when some people have brown eyes and darker
                      skin, their lives seem to be worth less than 
westerners.

                      Let's forget Sabra and Shatila for the moment and
                      remember that on a green light from Secretary of State
                      Alexander Haig, as he then was, Israel invaded Lebanon
                      and in the bloody months of July and August, around
                      17,500 people, almost all of them civilians - this is 
almost
                      three times the number killed in the World Trade 
Center -
                      were killed. And there were no candlelight vigils in 
the
                      United States, no outspoken grief, all that happened 
was
                      a State Department call to both sides to exercise
                      restraint.

                      Now, it isn't a question of moral relativism, it isn't 
a
                      question in any way of demeaning or reducing the 
atrocity
                      which happened - let's call it a crime against 
humanity
                      which it clearly was - is it possible then to say 
well,
                      17,500 lives, but that was in a war and it was far 
away
                      and anyway they were Arabs which is the only way I can
                      see you dismiss the argument that, hang on a minute,
                      terrible things have happened out here too. That does 
not
                      excuse what happened in the United States. It doesn't
                      justify by a tiny millimetre anything that happened 
there
                      but we've got to see history, even the recent history 
of
                      this region if we are going to look seriously at what
                      happened in the United States.

                      Hill: That's like setting out on a marathon though. I 
mean,
                      of course David Horovitz says, look, we made the
                      Palestinians a fantastic offer and they turned it 
down.
                      What more can we do? They keep coming at us. We're
                      trying, we're trying, we're trying. If you say, yes…

                      Fisk: Wait a second, there's an inaccuracy in this, 
and
                      this is not meant to be a criticism of David, this is 
my
                      view, they were not made a great offer, they were not
                      offered 96% of the West Bank, they were offered 46%
                      roughly, because they were not being offered Jerusalem
                      or the area around it, or the area taken illegally 
into the
                      new Jerusalem and its municipality, or certain 
settlements
                      elsewhere, and they were to have a military buffer 
zone
                      that would further reduce the so-called 96%. It was 
not a
                      good offer to the Palestinians. You see, it has become
                      part of a narrative to get away from the reasons for
                      injustice and not to deal with these issues.

                      Hill: I didn't reproduce it in order to say, it was a 
fantastic
                      offer. I did it to illustrate that very point, that 
there are
                      narratives going on and the narratives are of 
different
                      pages, different books, different libraries and they 
are
                      getting increasingly different. I can't see how we can
                      ever align those narratives and it's getting harder 
and
                      harder. How do we do it?



                      Fisk: Well, I think this is wrong. I think I disagree 
with
                      you. Look, you can't say that you don't understand the
                      narrative of children dying in Iraq. Nobody is going 
around
                      claiming that they are not dying. They are. They 
clearly
                      are. And if they were, and I'm going to stick my neck 
out,
                      if they were western children, believe me, they would 
not
                      be dying.

                      Now this is a major problem. Again, you see, anyone 
who
                      tries to argue this, then you get smeared with, "O, 
you
                      are on Saddam Hussein's side". Now Saddam is a wicked,
                      unpleasant, dirty dictator. But the fact remains, 
there are
                      children dying. And if they were western children I do 
not
                      believe they would be. And this is a major problem.

                      And many, many Arabs put this point of view forward, 
not
                      in hating the United States, but simply saying, why? 
And
                      of course why is one of the questions you are not
                      supposed to ask in this region is about the motives of 
the
                      people who committed this mass murder in the United
                      States. Actually, I have to point out, they haven't 
told
                      us, have they, the people behind this haven't even
                      bothered, they've just given us this theatre of mass
                      murder, which is the most disgusting thing.

                      But you've got to come back and realise, these things
                      don't happen in isolation. These 20 suicide bombers 
did
                      not get up in the morning and say, let's go hijack 
some
                      planes. Nor did the people who organised it and funded 
it.
                      They knew they were doing it in a certain climate.
                      Otherwise it would never have been able to happen. 
That
                      is the problem. That is why we need to get at the
                      question, why.

                      Hill: It's very nice to talk to you. We hope to do it 
again
                      soon. Thank-you, Robert Fisk.








Copyright © 2001 Palestine Chronicle
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective 
owners.



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold