Best-selling author, journalist and commentator Robert Fisk has reported from the Middle East for more than three decades, covering eleven major wars, countless insurgencies, massacres and political crises. Based in Beirut for a long time as the Middle East correspondent for The Independent, Fisk holds more British and international journalism awards than almost any other foreign correspondent, has received six honorary doctorate degrees, and written a number of books including The Great War For Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East—an eyewitness history of the region's tragedy that was published to great critical acclaim in 2005. He spoke to Tutul Dasgupta on the phone, from his cottage in a village in the Republic of Ireland.
If a US strike on Syria goes ahead, as it seems likely to, what will be the repercussions?
Robert Fisk: I am not certain that a US strike will ultimately go ahead. If it does, there is no doubt that Syria will try to respond in some way. How they will respond is really a big unknown for me. It depends, somewhat, on what Turkey will do. Everyone has struck at Syria, the Turks, the Israelis. It seems we went to war with Iraq on the basis of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Now we are about to go to war with Syria on the basis of YouTube. I would really like to know more about what the UN weapons inspectors found, and what they say in their report.
What do you think the US is trying to achieve geo-politically here?
As I have said before, I don't think this is just about Syria. It is about Iran. It is about striking at Iran's only Arab ally.
In Iraq the US and its allies went to war to neutralise non-existent WMDs, based on information that clearly turned out be false. This time, not even Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria is denying that chemical weapons have been used on unarmed civilians in a Damascus suburb.
Remember when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on unarmed civilians in Halabja, no one did anything at all. Saddam, at that point, was a western ally. The CIA put it out that Iran had used the weapons. If the western powers were utterly nonchalant then, why can they be nonchalant now?
Do you see any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in your lifetime and ours?
No, because Israel has illegally seized so much Arab land that there is no room left for a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Geographically, there are not enough square miles left to create a Palestinian state. That is Palestine's tragedy, and that is also the tragedy of the Israeli left and those millions of Israelis who do not believe in the right wing extremist policies of Benjamin Netanyahu or his crackpot former foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman.
Does it surprise you that President Obama, who was greeted with so much hope around the world when he was first elected, and who had said peace in the Middle East would be a priority for his administration, failed to bring about even the realistic possibility of an Israeli-Palestinian settlement?
No, it does not surprise me. Governments are not about good guys and bad guys. Government is about power and the use of power. The structure of power in American politics is well known— total and uncritical support for Israel, right or wrong, even to the detriment of US interests in the Middle East. Faced with the possibility of a one-term presidency, Barack Obama was not prepared to abandon this policy in favour of justice. The presidency was worth more to the Nobel Prize winning president than were the Palestinians.
Does the Israeli Palestinian dispute have any lessons for India and Pakistan in their dispute over Kashmir?
No I don't believe that disputes travel. Nor do peace treaties. But Kashmir is about justice. And that is what the Israeli Palestinian conflict is about. It is not about freedom. It is not about democracy. It is about dignity and justice. These are the keys to peace in the Middle East and South West Asia.
Some observers, especially in the west, say the Arab Spring doesn't look pretty on the ground. It paves the way for the rise of a number of Islamist parties across the region.
Does Iran really have nuclear ambitions? Does it want a bomb?
Well if you don't have a bomb you can be invaded by the US. Look at Iraq. But if you do have the bomb—like Pakistan, India or North Korea— I promise you America will not invade you. So if I were an Iranian I might like to have the bomb—to stop America invading me. But I do not think—even if it wants a bomb—that Iran would use it in the Middle East. If it attacks Israel, it would also kill all the Palestinians—and Israel's response would destroy major Iranian cities. Iranian nuclear facilities are not in the hands of Ahmadinejad, another Middle East crackpot. I think that the whole 'crisis' about Iran is about the Sunni Arab desire to crush Shia-ism in the region and about the Israeli right wing's desire to promote the idea of Israel under constant and mortal threat from its enemies. America buys into this, which makes the crisis far more dangerous.
Afghanistan—what happens when the US troops leave? Can the Hamid Karzai government survive?
We all asked the same question when the Russians left Afghanistan in 1988. And Najibullah stayed on years afterwards. What makes you think that Karzai can't carry on? He was never sustained by US power. He was sustained by corruption—which will continue, greater than ever— when the Americans run away.
Given its role in Afghanistan, and its strategic interests in the region, is Pakistan reorienting itself as a West Asian country, rather than a south Asian one?
I am one of the few journalists I know—but there are many others—who actually likes Pakistan. Despite the corruption, which runs from the tyre mechanic to the president, there is still a deeply embedded desire and love for freedom, democracy and justice. You see this in the judiciary, in the many brave Pakistani lawyers who had fought corrupt governments, and especially in the vibrant Pakistani press. I often find Pakistani newspapers much more informative than the New York Times. We should stop writing Pakistan off as an imploding state. Its people thirst for education, which is a sign that a nation wants to progress and be respected by—and respect—its neighbours.
You are the first western journalist to have met Osama Bin Laden face to face in December, 1993. You met him many times subsequently. Your impressions of the man.
Osama bin Laden is like an albatross around my neck. Every time I talk to a journalist, I am asked about bin Laden. Like the albatross that followed the ancient mariner, he follows me across the oceans. Osama bin Laden was intelligent but had no worldly knowledge. He was self- righteous, a very dangerous quality in a leader. And he would brook no opposition to his views. In the end he was a 'has been.' He watched the Arab revolutions on television. And not a single Arab protester in any Arab country carried a picture of bin Laden or an al Qaeda flag. Sure, a violent form of Islamicism continues—but that has been the case since the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries.
A shorter version of this interview appears in print
Apropos his interview (‘The crisis is not only about Syria, but also about Iran’), is Robert Fisk indicating that, like the cataclysmic sequence of events after the assassination of Austro-Hungarian archduke Francis Ferdinand, including the first world war, seems to be the basis of the present peace, the WTC twin tower explosions and Osama bin Laden will be important milestones in world history and will not be the cause of further unhappiness?
" He was self- righteous, a very dangerous quality in a leader. And he would brook no opposition to his views. In the end he was a 'has been."
We also have "self righteous" leader. Will he follow the same fate and become irrelevant ?
Is Mr. Fisk intimating, that like the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke Francis Ferdinand, that caused the furore that led to the First World war, and seems to be the basis of the present peace, that the Twin Tower explosions and Osama Bin Laden will be important milestones in world history, and they will not be the cause of further unhappiness?
"I am one of the few journalists I know—but there are many others—who actually likes Pakistan. Despite the corruption, which runs from the tyre mechanic to the president, there is still a deeply embedded desire and love for freedom, democracy and justice." Fisk
- "Islamic" Republic of Pakistan, capital: Islamabad, state religion: Islam.
- By law, no non-Muslim can become President or Prime Minister, in keeping with sharia law that says non-Muslims cannot have authority over Muslims in an Islamic state
- The proportion of non-Muslims has been reduced from 20-25% in 1950 to about 1-2% today after forced conversions, ethnic cleansings, and genocide.
- In 1971, 3 million Hindus were exterminated in East Pakistan on the explicit orders of the Paki high command. Not one person was punished for this.
- Today, the Hindu community "faces extermination because of the kidnapping and forced conversion of its daughters" as one Pakistani reporter wrote recently.
- Pakistan has given nuclear technology to North Korea, perhaps the most dangerous and animalistic state in the world.
- Blasphemy laws are used routinely to destroy Christians and Hindus.
But for this Marxist moron and his butt-licking Outlook interviewer Tooltool, Pakis "desire and love freedom, democracy and justice"!
Why is every Muslim leader a 'crackpot', and Muslim state leaders are like Ahmedinejad, and Assad, and Saddam Hussein, who are supposed to be secular, and don't conform to what the U. S. sees are 'fundamentalist leanings'. Saddam Hussein was a conformed secularist, the question is, how did the Baa'thist Party come to be leading Iraq, when Saddam Hussein is a Sunni Arab? The Sunni Arabs are seen to be who the U. S. assume are behind the bomb blasts in Iraq. Also, was Saddam Hussein an Iraqi? Was he from Iraq, or was he made a leader there, when he was from another nationality?
The people who the U. S. trusted, seemed to have been abandoned by their own people, and also by U. S. support. How has Ahmedinejad been seen as a crazed maniac, by the west? The Ayahtollah Khomeini was not a person of govt. in Iran. The people who were said to have used brutality against Iranians, were not Ayahtollahs and clerics of Shia islam. He perhaps, wasn't meeting them, and the majority of the people who were at his rallies were not people who were assaulting and beating each other up. They were admittedly, wearing what Muslim women are allowed to wear in Islam, if they would, and if they were Muslim . I have seen men in those times in Iran, fire automatic rifles in the air, at the rallies of Ayahtollah Khomeini, in photographs, and film clippings. How can all of those in the rallies be having automatic rifles?
There were also reports of civilians using brute force against unarmed civilians. These violent individuals were not the army, if I am not mistaken. It seems, that the govt. could not justify the actions of these people, nor control them. No govt. justifies civilians using force against other civilians, as then, the govt. looses credibility. The Shah of Iran might have been accused of using armed civilians, against those unarmed civilians whom he wanted to convince. The army did not support the Shah of Iran. Who were the people, who were caught in the interaction of violence?
What is this conflict with Iran and in the region about? It seems, the U. S. was hindering business in the nations, within themselves, and was carrying out business with the region, in an individual capacity, and with individual nations. It also seems, the U. S. govt. was convincing her own civilians, when many people didn't know who their own President was, at the Oval Office, and these people did not interfere with govt. or Presidential procedures. How can the U. S. or any govt. know what is the representation of any issue in their own nation, perfectly, as they set out to know in other nations and the respective spheres?
KishoreDasMunshi >> We also have "self righteous" leader. Will he follow the same fate and become irrelevant ?
We have not just one but two self righteous leaders - a Mommy (Saint Sonia) and a sonny boy(Clown prince) who think they are always right and everyone else should blindly obey them and their perverted agenda. What will be their fate? Either they have their way and India is made irrelevant , or India has its way and these two are made irrelevant. The decision is in the hands of voters in 2014.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT