| Fisk Interview with President Khatami |
| Interviews | ||||||
| By MWC News | ||||||
|
Why "The IDF Could Not Protect the People of Israel" and More Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream
Meanwhile, former President Mohammed Khatami became the first high ranking Iranian official in three decades to speak in the United States. On Saturday in Chicago, Khatami addressed the annual ISNA conference - The Islamic Society of North America. The meeting of 40,000 people is the largest gathering of Muslims in the U.S. On Sunday, Robert Fisk interviewed Khatami. Fisk is the chief Middle East correspondent for the London Independent.
AMY GOODMAN: On Sunday, Robert Fisk interviewed Khatami. Fisk is the chief Middle East correspondent for the London Independent. Afterwards, I sat down with Robert Fisk at the ISNA conference for an extended discussion. Fisk began by talking about his conversation with the former Iranian president. ROBERT FISK: Well, I approached him over the issue of how do you switch off the, quote, “war on terror.” I mean, he’s spoken, of course, about how he believes that the American neoconservatives are not only influenced by lobby groups -- he didn’t say the Israeli lobby, but he obviously meant that -- but how that they’re creating more and more extremism, more and more terror, by continuing the war on terror. And I said to him, “Well, how do you switch it off?” And he started talking about the need to influence public opinion, which had me yawning a little bit, because, you know, we've heard that one before. We all want to influence public opinion. And then he said that when he was in office as president of Iran, he wanted a civic society and democracy inside the country, and he wanted constant communication and serious mature relationships with people outside the country. And the problem was, now you couldn't have that, because you were dealing with obviously -- by implication he's a careful man, he speaks in philosophical language -- you can't have a serious relationship conversation with an administration like the Bush administration, because they are ideologically driven. This was the implication of what he said, not his words. And he said, you know, that the policies of the United States are creating more and more extremism, which is then creating more and more extremism within the U.S. administration, which is then creating more and more extremism outside. And I think he’s right. I mean, if you remember, following immediately after 9/11, there was the bombardment of Afghanistan. And then we spread our wings into Iraq. And now we spread our wings via the Israelis into Gaza and into Lebanon. If you take out Iran and Syria, the whole of the Middle East is now on fire from the border of Pakistan, or even part of Pakistan, all the way to the Mediterranean, outside my own house. And I think Khatami seemed to be very much aware of this. He also praised me for my Persian. He said it was improving, which was a very good sign, I thought. It was very unkind of me. We were all answering all these demands around the table to say who we were. Of course, they all spoke in English, not in Arabic, which he understands. So I decided I would try introducing myself in Persian, which he did understand, clearly. But I made a mistake of translating Independent wrongly. I said it was azadi, and it should be istiklal. AMY GOODMAN: What did he say about Ahmadinejad? Did you ask him? ROBERT FISK: No, we went very gently into that, because obviously he's not the president any more. And his only comments -- and he made them to everyone else, you know, at the same -- we were all gathered around the table. I was talking to him. And his only comment was, ‘Look, you know, you can't have these double standards. There is a nation in the Middle East, which does not sign the nuclear treaty, which has many nuclear warheads.’ He didn't even use the word “Israel.” And he said, you know, ‘We’ve got to realize and treat these things in a mature way. You can't just say, you know, you’re going to select which United Nations resolution you’re going to accept and which you are not.’ He said these things before. I mean, it wasn't anything very exclusive, what he said to me. But the way he spoke, he has a very measured, careful philosophical way of speaking, but I noticed that, once or twice, you could see an anger in his eye, which I haven't seen before. I mean, this is a very -- you know, this is a divine or a cleric, who one has always associated with, you know, that old Syrian cliché, moderation. He’s not a hawk. This is a man who’s well known for his enormous knowledge of Islamic culture. He talked at great length about the Renaissance, the Reformation. He even talked about the Peloponnesian Wars. I mean, he's obviously been thinking a lot and trying to put what's happening now into the context of history, which I haven’t heard other Muslim clerics do. They’re always looking to the future and the present. He was constantly going back, as well as the future. But I saw once or twice the way this hardness came into his eyes, which I hadn't seen before. And he's obviously extremely angry with the way in which this country’s, United States’ administration is behaving. AMY GOODMAN: And what kind of role or influence does he have with the current Iranian leadership? ROBERT FISK: I don't think it's got anything to do with that. I think he has a tremendous standing as a scholar throughout the Islamic world, which is why he got a visa. If he had too close a relationship or even too hostile a relationship with Ahmadinejad, I don't think he would have got his visa to the United States. I mean, the mere fact that this big meeting here was effectively a meeting of Sunni Muslims -- there was not a lot of Shiites around that I have seen. It's pro-Saudi in its essence. The mere fact that it regarded him as such an honored figure to come, from the Shiite world and as a leading Shiite cleric, speaks for itself. In fact, he's going from here to Geneva, where he's founded an institute, I think for civic responsibility or civic society. And he's then going to meet the Pope in Rome in October. He’s going to meet the Archbishop of Canterbury. He’s receiving an honorary degree from a university in Scotland in the United Kingdom. So, this is a man who has considerable status. But whether it's the status of a Nelson Mandela or the status of a Kofi Annan, which I would rather not have at the moment, I’m not sure. AMY GOODMAN: And weapons of mass destruction in Iran that the U.S. government, not only, and perhaps more importantly, the U.S. press, continually raises. ROBERT FISK: Yeah. Well, he -- I mean, I didn't question him about it, because it seemed to me that he had basically dealt with this on Saturday night, because in his speech he talked repeatedly about Islamophobia and the way the media hypes constantly and changes the direction. And I wasn’t really interested in it, because, you see, from my point of view, I think there is a Muslim nation, which is extremely dangerous to the West, which is packed with Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters and which does have a bomb, and it's called Pakistan. And that's the real crisis. And the more you get involved in discussing the crisis in Iran, the crisis in Iran, the crisis in Iran, you help to put building blocks and foundation stones underneath the Bush administration’s policies, because it's the story. And I think Pakistan is the story. I think Pakistan is a very dangerous place. I think Pervez Musharraf is playing this balancing game between the military and the ISI, the Intelligence Services, and the Taliban supporters and the large number of extreme Sunni groups in Balujistan and other parts of the northwest territories. AMY GOODMAN: Would you call Musharraf a military dictator? ROBERT FISK: Oh, he is a military dictator. I always call him the president-general in my articles, which is what he is. If you talk to him, he actually admits that, quite frankly. I mean, given the status, the state in which Pakistani democracy existed and the amount of corruption in it, you can see how he can claim to power quite well. But the fact is, he knows that the Pakistani ISI, the Inter-Services Intelligence, is giving intelligence and money to the Taliban. I mean, the Taliban, around Kandahar Province now, are rich with cash. They've got a lot of money. Now, where’s it coming from? It’s probably coming, a little bit of it, from Iran, which originally used to talk about the “Black Taliban” and didn't like them, but now it’s quite happy to keep them where they are to keep the Americans busy. And a lot of it must be coming probably from Saudi Arabia via the ISI in Pakistan. But, of course, this is a subject which is not going to be discussed upfront between the Americans and Musharraf, because he’s our friend in the war on terror. That’s part of the scenery, and you mustn’t sort of strip any wallpaper off, because you might not know -- you don't know what you’re going to find behind it, do you? AMY GOODMAN: So why does the U.S. continue to fight in Afghanistan, losing soldiers? ROBERT FISK: And losing an awful lot of civilians, of course. The last report, after the British lost a plane with 14 men on board -- it’s in this morning’s papers -- 400 Taliban killed. This is a report from, you know, coalition headquarters. Well, how do they know they’ve killed 400? Some of them must have been civilians. You don’t kill -- this is like Vietnam-type reporting. ‘500 Vietnamese soldiers were reported killed in the Mekong Delta.’ There are always civilians among them. It also says that four more Canadians have been killed. And that’s putting Canada as getting a lot of dead Canadian soldiers back at the moment. And a lot of people are beginning to question Stephen Harper's wisdom in sending those Canadian troops. You know, another bit like Blair, very keen to show his loyalty to Mr. Bush. That's the effect of Afghanistan internationally at the moment. It's not the fact that it’s a loss. It’s the fact that a lot of dead soldiers are coming home. AMY GOODMAN: And yet, the U.S. continues to support Musharraf, who is shoring up -- ROBERT FISK: Well, they’re worried about who will come afterwards, you see. I mean, we’re all worried. The reason why they don't really want to topple the President Bashar al-Assad is that maybe those horrible Sunnis from Iraq will cross the border and turn up in Damascus, and that wouldn’t be a good idea, would it? I mean, you can only go on with this policy of ideological self-delusion for so long. I mean, I watched Condoleezza Rice twice now visiting Beirut, once before the war, the last war, and then once in it. Before she came the last time, ‘There’s a new Middle East. Great new possibilities, great things are happening in the Middle East.’ I thought, well, Iraq’s on fire, and Afghanistan’s on fire, and there’s increasing tensions in southern Lebanon. Then she comes during the war, and we're all watching babies being pulled dead out of buildings that have been hit by the Israelis, and she announces that it's the birth pangs of a new Middle East. Well, in the hospital wards, there's an awful lot of blood, and it’s not from birth pangs, it’s from dying children. AMY GOODMAN: Let’s talk about Lebanon, where you live. Tell us about it today. ROBERT FISK: Well, I woke up on the morning of July the 12th, which was my birthday, Amy. It was my 60th birthday. And I received -- I hadn't exactly been partying, but I certainly got up late that morning. I got a phone call from a friend in Paris, who said, “Well, you've certainly got a birthday present today.” And I said, “What do you mean?” A classic case of the journalist who didn’t know what was going on just south of his own apartment. Of course, my friend said, “Well, you know, two Israelis have been kidnapped, captured, and three others killed.” And I thought, “Damn! You know, that's going to be a war,” because I knew that Ehud Olmert was going to do the usual Israeli policy of savage attacks against Lebanon as a result. AMY GOODMAN: Hezbollah says they didn't know that. ROBERT FISK: Well, Hezbollah, I think, is telling us a whopper. Nasrallah said, “Even if we had known one percent, we wouldn't have captured their soldiers.” Nonsense. I think the Hezbollah knew exactly what the Israelis were going to do, and they needed to flex their muscles and show their bravery, which it was, although, of course, it was a reckless kind, when you also bring upon death to more than 1,000 people, almost all of them civilians. They had clearly, with massive bunkers, underground storage depots, planned that war. They hit a warship. They hit an Israeli warship and almost sank it. They hit it on midships, killed four sailors and set it on fire for 15 hours. That wasn't because some guy got up in the morning and ate his morning minutiae with cheese and said, “Oh, let's hit a warship today.” No, that had been planned weeks, months before. You can't just set that up, like that. And, of course, now, according to Seymour Hersh, we are led to believe and it’s possible that the Israelis planned their war for months before. It's possible, as Nasrallah said, that the Israelis were planning a September offensive, which would have led to even more civilian casualties. Well, maybe, but he didn't tell us that beforehand, didn't give us a warning of it, did he -- if he knew it. AMY GOODMAN: So, describe what has happened to Lebanon since July 12th. ROBERT FISK: Well, okay, the pulverization of Lebanon by the Israeli Air Force. You approach villages in the south -- I mean, during the war, it was a hair-raising journey to go to the south and drive on those roads, hearing all the time the howl of jets, and you actually see missiles whizzing over the fields. I mean, you can see tremendous explosions. And I think, you know, it's a war crime for the Hezbollah to fire missiles at Haifa and civilian areas of Israel. It's a fact. But it's also a war crime that was committed against the Lebanese. The Israelis now say, all the Lebanese civilians are being used as human shields. That's what they always say. The British used to say that in Londonderry or Derry, when they shot down Catholics. And it's not true. I mean, the worst war crimes were committed around a place called Marwaheen, which is actually not a Shiite village, but a Sunni village right on the border with Israel. And the Israelis came along and both on radios and with bullhorns, or loudspeakers, we call them, said, “You must leave your village now. You've got two hours to leave.” And the people packed into a convoy, open-top truck, minibus, cars, left the village and were savagely attacked on the open road by the Israeli Air Force. That's a war crime. Now, you have then two questions to ask, which we were asking all the time when we were down there ourselves. The Israelis say, “Well, we have these brilliant pilots, and we’re absolute pinpoint accuracy, surgical strikes.” Well, if that's true, then the pilots are deliberately intending to kill civilians. And that's a war crime. That’s a crime against humanity by the Israeli Air Force. Or, they don't know what they’re shooting at, in which case their pilots are a riffraff. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t. And we had the same thing in 1982. We had the same thing in ’93. We had the same thing in ’96. Here we go again with our little short memories in the news business. The same arguments: human shields, direct perfect pilots, synchronized bombing, surgical strikes. And they kill all these children again and again. And the people of Marwaheen were running away on the orders of the Israeli Army. That's a war crime. When you approach the villages now -- it's funny, Amy. I was going around -- during the war, you could only be conscious of what's 50 meters each side of you, because you’re trying to stay alive. And I’m one of those guys who does not wear a helmet and flak jacket. It’s too hot. Anyway, I don’t trust them. You can't run fast enough. But going back now and looking at the damage is even more astonishing than when you were there during the war, because you couldn't have time to look at it. And what happened is, you’ll go over this hillside, and you’ll see this hillside of flowers and poppies and tobacco fields looking very neat. In the background, you’ll say, “Oh, that’s Sadikin. I was there last week.” And you’ll go closer to it, and you’ll realize that the buildings don't have the proper shape anymore. And as you approach it, you realize that the village is gray ash. I took some pictures in a village south of the Litani a couple of hours after the ceasefire came into force in August, and I didn't realize when I was taking the pictures how bad the damage was, because I was too busy concentrating on the camera. I’m one of these people who still uses real film, because there’s definition. I don't use a digital camera. And I got the pictures back to Beirut and took them in to be developed. And I have them blown up big size, so I can understand which is the picture I send to London, because I do my own editing. And I picked up this picture of this village street, and I said, “It looks Ypres.” It looks like one of those First World War pictures that my father took, which I still have, of villages in the north of France, which had been fought over. This village had been fought over. And I sent it to London. And within an hour, the foreign editor at the Independent on Sunday came back to me and said, “It looks like Ypres.” I said, “Those are exactly the same words I used, you know?” And that’s what it looks like. And, you know, while I was there, there were Hezbollah men and Lebanese soldiers, supposedly meant to be antagonists, and the Lebanese Red Cross, all of them trying to move these slabs of stone, because of the terrible stench underneath. In that village alone, they found 36 civilians buried, rotting under each others' corpses, civilians, in their homes. AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk. We spoke yesterday in Chicago. He is chief Middle East correspondent for the Independent of London. Quote this article on your site | Views: 5747
Write Comment
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4 Tags: Khatami Robert Fisk Robert Fisk Interview with Former Iranian President Khatami |
||||||