Translation
Matt Kennard, the Guardian columnist 
Matt Kennard, the British journalist and columnist of Guardian newspaper recently graduated from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in NY, and now runs the global news and comment site, The Comment Factory. At university his investigation into Dr. Frank Ellis exposed the professor as a racist and resulted in a national scandal with the lecturer eventually taking early retirement.
In 2006 Kennard won the Guardian Newspaper Feature Writer of the Year Award. He has written for the Guardian, New York Post, New Statesman, Chicago Tribune, Newsday, amongst others, and has interviewed a wide selection of politicians from Jack Straw to Ken Livingstone, and intellectuals from Noam Chomsky to Howard Zinn.
Following is the full text of interview with Matt Kennard in which the aftermaths of Israeli genocide in Gaza, American double standards and the necessity of trying the Tel Aviv officials is discussed. An excerpt of this interview has been published in Tehran Times' last issues.
|
Kourosh Ziabari: Let's begin with Ban Ki Moon, the chief of an international organization which should be exemplary for its neutral and inclusive stance toward the current affairs. What are the main reasons behind his disappointing performance and strange silence on the genocide of Gaza?
Matt Kennard: When you talk about the UN you have to understand its power relations. It's a fundamentally undemocratic institution. Five powers hold veto power over the Security Council and the US inevitably vetoes any resolution critical of its client state, Israel, so the chances of getting a representative statement from the UN on anything is just institutionally impossible. The Secretary General himself has to be proposed by the Security Council, so the candidate has to be sufficiently veto-proof, i.e. will not speak out too forcefully against any of the "Great Powers" clients.
Add to that the fact that nearly a quarter of the UN's budget comes from the US and you start to understand why its employees find it so difficult to criticize Israel.
Having said this, Ban Ki-Moon did make the journey to Gaza, something which the "Peace Envoy" Tony Blair has never done, and did speak out at the devastation that Israel caused, which included the pounding of UN facilities and the destruction of aid, and said Israel should be held "accountable".
But when you think about the level of the crimes committed in Gaza, and against the UN as well, these words seem completely insufficient. The whole world witnessed the massacre of 1,300 defenseless people over two weeks; is this all Ban Ki-Moon could come up with? It really goes to show that anyone fighting for justice and against war should not hold out hopes for the UN.
Q: However UN was not the sole accomplice of carnage in Gaza. Arab states and European countries played their own fatal roles to some certain extents and contributed to the massacre of innocent civilians.
A: Well, the performance of the Arab countries really showed them up for what they are; stooges of the U.S. just like Israel; Saudi Arabia, a backward, fundamentalist monarchy had its hands tied because it is allowed to carry on its corrupt ways for it is the biggest friend of US in the Middle East after Israel. So how can it speak out against its own friend?
Egypt is the same. The corrupt dictator Mubarak has helped the US and Israel crush the Palestinians for years by refusing to let aid and commerce through the Rafah crossing and other points. Why does he do this? Because Egypt is the second largest recipient of aid from the US, after Israel, and you can't upset your biggest backer!
In the case of Egypt, Mubarak has overseen the brutal suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is intimately linked with Hamas, so Mubarak had another interest in seeing Hamas and the Palestinian people that voted them in democratically election, smashed to pieces.
The only Arab leader that has consistently supported the Palestinian people is Sayyed Hassan Nasrullah, and whatever you think of Hezbollah, his commitment is unmatched by anyone else.
Q: However, it was awfully disturbing and unacceptable for the world nations to observe the American policy of double standards. US vetoed three rounds of Security Council resolutions and disallowed it sanction Israel, calling for a ceasefire. Meanwhile, we remember clearly that they had imposed three rounds of rough embargo on Iran for its legal employment of nuclear energy under NPT. What do you think?
A: Well your question really highlights the hypocrisy of the UN. It is basically a clearinghouse for US foreign policy and when it shows any principled demurral, the US go forward anyway, like they did in Iraq and the war on Serbia in 1999, illegally both times.
So there should be no surprise that the UN is used to condemn Iran for their nuclear activities, while it stays silent on the 200-300 nuclear warheads Israel has, and the thousands the US and their allies have.
Q: Yes, as you mentioned correctly, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) alongside a number of other international organizations have so far admitted the possession of 200 nuclear warheads by Israel notwithstanding, nobody takes a serious move for its disarmament. Why?
A: I believe all nuclear warheads should be phased out everywhere, but the fact is that Iran is actually a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which is aimed at curtailing nuclear weapons, so it is therefore more committed to the scale-down than Israel, Pakistan, or India, all of whom have refused to sign up to the NPT, and all of whom have nuclear weapons, and all of whom are big allies of the US.
It shows that if you are an ally of the US you don't have to abide by international treaties because you just don't sign up to them!
Of course it is rank hypocrisy to put sanctions on Iran while supporting others states doing exactly the same thing. In fact, in October last year the US recognized India's legitimate place as a nuclear power. Why not Iran?
Q: and finally, do you see any necessity for mounting a tribunal in order to investigate and indict the Israeli war criminals? What would the reaction of international community have been on the condition that other countries e.g. Syria, Lebanon, Venezuela or Bolivia had committed the same felonies?
A: I think there should definitely be an investigation into the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. That's without question, and it would be unthinkable not to have an investigation if this was any other state than Israel. Look at what happened in the aftermath of NATO's attack on Serbia and the atrocities in Kosovo. The perpetrators of the attacks were hunted down and put on trial, and the search still continues for those responsible.
That should happen to Israel too. But it won't, because like the UN and the international justice institutions are a function of power, and when they actually do take a stand they are dutifully ignored. Ehud Barak has already said that the Israeli government will help defend any of their soldiers who are tried for war crimes, because, of course, he is a criminal himself, and if they are found guilty, then so is he.
If the atrocities carried out by Israel were emulated by any of the states you mention, they would probably be bombed, arraigned before a court and then the leaders put in jail for the rest of their lives.
|
|
Quote this article on your site | Views: 1422Be first to comment this article |  |
|
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4
Tags: Kourosh Ziabari Matt Kennard Guardian Barak