Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

An interview with Robert Fisk

An in-depth interview on the history and contemporary situation in the Middle East.

Published

on

3,644 Views

Robert Fisk (born 1946) is a household name among foreign correspondents. We harbored some faint hope that this occasion might arise. And it did. Meeting Robert is like being transferred back in time to a novel from the Cold War days. Aside from our initial projections, Robert is quite down-to- earth. We met him at a seaside café in Beirut on a sunny day where he shared his experience with us. At once close to and remote from the current drama in the neighborhood of Lebanon.

KULTURVERK: Amidst all the carnage and conflict you have experienced, what truly inspires you to go on? What is the guiding light in your life?

Robert Fisk: Well, I suppose at the end of the day, I realize that I am watching History. Which is quite a privilege. A cursed privilege in this part of the world, but it is still a privilege. I think it has a lot to do with my father who was a soldier in World War One. And in the seventeen months after this war, the victors, who were primarily the British and the French created the borders of Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia and the Middle East.

And I spent my entire professional career in Belfast, in Yugoslavia, ex-Yugoslavia, and in the Middle East watching the people in those borders burn. I think that this is a great tragedy of history, and a tragedy of great history. And the knowledge and understanding of that must lie at the centre of any reporting and analysis you write about this region. Because the people here know the history very well. We do not know it that well.

Photo: KULTURVERK

The narrative was that the Irish were constantly resisting the pleasures and democracy of British rule. Not unlike the Iraqis. And that, you know, every time we invaded they ungenerously greeted us by trying to kill us. That they were a treacherous people etc., which was pretty much what Churchill said in World War Two. That lasted about a month. After which I saw British soldiers beating up Catholic civilians and smashing windows.

I hate seeing these leaders coming and give press conferences in Beirut or anywhere else. And they start telling people about the history of the Middle East. I once remember Clinton turned up in Islamabad in Pakistan and told the audience on the state television: “Your history is as old as the Indus river” or something like that. Jesus Christ, they know this already.

We are very good at telling their history. Our colonial objective. Colonial not in the sense of colony, but in a sense of ruling that has always been to emphasize the divisions in society. A few years ago, New York Times Magazine had a front cover about Iraq: “How Do Sunni and Shia Islam Differ?”. That was the headline. I said why not just drop it by parachute over Baghdad. Maybe it would help them.

You know I stay up late at night reading books, turning the pages. One more chapter, one more page and suddenly you see dawn coming through the curtains because you have been reading all night. What happens next? And that I think this is what keeps me going. But I also think there are so much lies, wickedness and hypocrisy that it needs journalism to expose it constantly so that people know “the truth”. I hate to use that in quotation marks, but you know there is no objective truth. It is not on a supermarket shelf. But at least we have an idea that it is not what they are being told by their bloody governments and their bloody armies.

Northern Ireland

I don’t think America cares about people in the Middle East.The Saudis are bombing civilians in Yemen. Erdogan is locking up tens of thousands of people in Turkey. President Sisi in Egypt is locking up thousands without trial. But we don’t fire cruise missiles at them. So what is the point at firing curise missiles at Syria?

They know they are being lied to. So, in a sense I always feel I am writing to friends, who are the readers. Some of them may hate you, but they read you. An Israeli officer once said to a colleague of mine: “We do not like Robert Fisk, but we read him”. And I said: “That is enough. You do not have to like me, just read me.” And I think this keeps me going. Fortunately, I work for a news organization that allows me to tell exactly what I see, in my own words, and does not touch it. And if you do not get that you should not be in a war zone and you should not be a reporter. That is the answer to your question.

KV: How influential was your coverage of Northern Ireland on your current reporting?

RF: Oh, very much so. I went to Northern Ireland when I was 23 or 24 years old, and I did not know much about Irish history then. Though I knew a bit, since I had been to Ireland before. At that the war had already started. British soldiers had been killed. And I think like most of my colleagues I regarded the Irish, then, as being an intemperate people who had a pub on every corner. That bit was true, there was a pub on every corner in Belfast.

The narrative was that the Irish were constantly resisting the pleasures and democracy of British rule. Not unlike the Iraqis. And that, you know, every time we invaded they ungenerously greeted us by trying to kill us. That they were a treacherous people etc., which was pretty much what Churchill said in World War Two. That lasted about a month. After which I saw British soldiers beating up Catholic civilians and smashing windows.

And I started to report about the lies of the British Army. For instance, I found out that they were sending Special Forces across the border to the Republic. We put this story on the front page and I was accused of being an IRA agent by the British Army, who ordered me to withdraw. My editor stood by me. Eventually the special branch came to my house in Northern Ireland demanding that I go to the police station for interrogation. I told I would follow in the car. I got in the car and drove as fast I could to the Irish Republic and stopped in Dublin.

Photo: KULTURVERK

I said from the start there will not be another civil war in Lebanon. There will be bombs, explosions and assassinations. But there will not be another war.

Within two or three hours I was being identified as being “a terrorist agent, a liar, a person who should be arrested, who illegally had documents in possession that was the property of Her Majesty’s government.” This is the literal quote. At one point the number two at the British Embassy in Dublin came to my hotel and said he wanted documents from me. I refused and he left immediately when I going to call the Irish police.

But that is how bad it got. And it taught me something. At the time, it was not so much fun as it is in recalling it now, because basically I won the war. But I did not know I was going to then. And it taught me that my own government, and my own army, lie and commit abuses and crimes. And if you write about it they will be more frighten of you than vice versa.

After that, I went for a year in the aftermath of the Portuguese revolution, which did not have much effect. But when I came to the Middle East and I was dealing with the Egyptians, the civil war here in Lebanon and the Syrians, I knew how to fight. And you must fight a political battle if you are a journalist in a war zone.

KV: This was a formative period for you?

RF: I do not think it was a formative period like it shaped me. It taught me that you must stand up to power all the time. And you must always question them.

KV: Will the recent illegal US attack on a Syrian airbase change anything?

RF: As usual the US press, who correctly identified their President as mad, both before and after the election, are now reverting to the old understanding that America must have good reasons to do what is does.

Trump doesn’t read. He watches CNN at night. He saw the pictures of dying children. And he got upset. And suddenly let fly the missiles. I think Putin realizes what kind of man Trump is.

Lebanon is like a magnificent Rolls-Royce with leather seats, flat screen TV, cocktail in the back seat, and square wheels. It is not going to move. Which may save it.

I don’t think America cares about people in the Middle East.The Saudis are bombing civilians in Yemen. Erdogan is locking up tens of thousands of people in Turkey. President Sisi in Egypt is locking up thousands without trial. But we don’t fire cruise missiles at them. So what is the point at firing curise missiles at Syria? The Americans kill a few people, they bash up an airbase (which is back in use within 24 hours). Do they think that this is going to stop the Syrian war?

KV: You live in Beirut where tensions still are high and memories of war are plenty. Do you see any imminent threat of the raging war in Syria spreading to Lebanon?

RF: Absolutely not. At the very beginning of the Syrian war I was being invited to Lebanese television. In English, French and Arabic. And I always refused in Arabic because it was such a sensitive topic I was bound to make a mistake. I said from the start there will not be another civil war in Lebanon. There will be bombs, explosions and assassinations. But there will not be another war, for two reasons.

First of all, Lebanon has been through a civil war. It has been inoculated.  And people in Lebanon have a folk memory, unless they are too young to remember it. The war was a great tragedy for everybody here. And Lebanese did not win. The Israelis did not win, either. Nor did the Syrians. But the Lebanese definitely did not win.

The second reason was that during the civil war many of the parents who had money – not necessarily the wealthy elite – sent their children abroad to be educated in the US, Geneva, London or Paris. And when they came back after the war they could not understand the sectarian society. They were not necessarily against this, but they thought it was silly and infantile. They now longer had time for it. They did not want to discuss it. And they certainly were not going to obey it.

At the same time, there was a maturing of political leadership. Not the sort of Falangist or the old people, but the younger generation of leaders. Hassan Nasrallah, for example. Thank God, he is an intellectual and intelligent man. Michel Aoun, the President of Lebanon, is not. He is a crackpot. You have a younger generation that will not tolerate war by sectarianism. Of course, if they are invaded by Israel they will fight back. Because that makes sense.

Photo: KULTURVERK

Today we have largely lost our faiths. Whether that is because of the Congress of Vienna or World War One, I do not know. Our gods (or idols) in the West tend to be Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the International Red Cross or entities like the Protocols of Geneva, Norwegian aid etc.

There might be some ISIS at the border, but there will not be another civil war in Lebanon. Now people invite me back on television to remind them that I did say that. They do remember that I got it right, when all the local commentators and the think tanks and the Institute of Preposterous Affairs in Washington were talking about a spill over. And I objected. Not only because I have been here a long time and I thought that I was right. Not because I was big arrogant Westerner, but I was the only Westerner saying that at the time. It did not make a lot of new headlines at the time, of course. It is not a big story, is it?

KV: But is not the understanding between the Shia community/Hezbollah and the Christians a kind of “safety valve”?

RF: Yes, I mean Hezbollah is still sort of supporting Aoun for the Presidency. But they do not like him. All he wants is power and Hezbollah knows that. Nasrallah knows that too, though he sounds presidential in his speeches. It is as if Nasrallah thinks he is the president. I think what lies behind all this is something that most people do not appreciate.

The Parliament is generally shaped to reflect the power, in numerical terms, of the various communities. But in fact, it does not really represent the Shiites. Now if they did have more seats in parliament, then you would have everyone saying “they’re going to create an Islamic Republic”. Instead they tolerate that Hezbollah remains armed.

Try to explain this to an audience in Washington. The Americans say that “the Lebanese Army is the army of the sovereign state of Lebanon, they must disarm the Hezbollah which is a terrorist organization”. The Shiites, who compose a large part of the army, have their uncles, cousins and brothers in Hezbollah. What are these people supposed to do? Go into the homes and shoot their families? This is how the civil war began, when the Lebanese Army split apart in 1975, when you had the Lebanese Army and the Lebanese Arab Army.

The army is not going to overthrow Bashar. Who is going to take his place? Have you noticed any great towering eloquent figures of Syria? Well there might be somebody living in great five-star hotels in Istanbul, but they are not in Damascus.

The problem in Lebanon is that once you create a sectarian society you cannot disentangle it. It is like getting cancer: it is very difficult to get it out of the system. And even down to the checkpoints: you abandon a checkpoint; some other militia will take it over. Sectarianism is the identity of Lebanon. If you deconfessionalize Lebanon it will seize to exist. The identity disappears.

And you have this beautiful country with its wonderful food, Roman ruins in Baalbek, crusader castles and snow-capped mountains. Not to mention the immensely talented people, in the most literal sense of the word. They are very well educated. Lebanon is like a magnificent Rolls-Royce with leather seats, flat screen TV, cocktail in the back seat, and square wheels. It is not going to move. Which may save it.

KV: What is the main difference between the West and the Middle East?

RF: In the Middle East, most of the people are Muslims. And they have, or believe they have, kept their faith. They believe the idea of Islam dominates their family, their prayers, their thoughts, the way they die, the way they live, in way that Christianity used to, maybe 200 years ago, in our Western societies. Today we have largely lost our faiths. Whether that is because of the [post-Napoleonic] Congress of Vienna or World War One, I do not know.

Our gods (or idols) in the West tend to be Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the International Red Cross or entities like the Protocols of Geneva, Norwegian aid etc. And the big problem I suspect here is that the question for Arab Muslims, not all Muslims (for instance the Malaysians), is this: How come the people who kept their faith have come to be dominated economically, militarily, socially and culturally by a people who have largely lost their faith? That lies at the heart of al-Nusra, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood and all Islamist-type insurrections against “the Other” (e.g. the West).

Photo: KULTURVERK

The only working institution in the Syrian state is the Syrian Army. Whether you like it or not. They are fighting for their country. When an army likes fighting it will win. Whether you like it or not. If soldiers come back to fight when they still are wounded, they will win.

KV: Before Christmas, Aleppo was burning in the media as bombs fell and carnage ensued. What do you believe will be the outcome of the war in Syria, and why?

RF: I think the Syrian Army will come to effectively control all of Syria under Russian protection. Bashar is not going to be thrown out, unless he gets shot. He will remain the president at large. But the Syrian Arab Army will have to rebuild Syria. They have lost 65.000 soldiers at minimum. Dead. I am not talking about the wounded. For them, that is a sacrifice which must be repaid. And the only repayment is going to be “you are in charge of Syria”. And I can spot some people there who might be capable of doing that.

It is not going to be this sort of simplistic Western idea of a coup d’état. That is not going to happen. Because Baathism as an idea remains alive in Syria, even if it does not in Iraq. And given the fact that the basis of Syrian society, I am talking about government, is supposed to be secularism you cannot abandon the Baath party. The army is not going to overthrow Bashar. Who is going to take his place? Have you noticed any great towering eloquent figures of Syria? Well there might be somebody living in great five-star hotels in Istanbul, but they are not in Damascus.

But at the moment, the war will carry on because both sides think they are going to win. And all sides are pouring weapons and money into the creation of further power elements who are destroying the country.

KV: Are there really any good solutions ahead for Syria?

RF: There are no solutions anywhere. There are only resolutions in the Middle East.

The idea that the Iranians are sitting there and calibrating their missiles is ridiculous. They do not need to. You know, one of the problems here is [that many believes that] they need the Russians to fire the guns. They do not. Arabs have been firing weapons for longer than any else in the world in the last fifty years.

KV: What do you believe is a realistic end to the Syrian war? And what do you think would be an ideal solution?

RF: Reconstruction. Getting all those refugees to go back. The problem of the refugees is that, for example in the Beqaa Valley, they are illiterate. How can you rebuild a country if you cannot read? How can you know how many metres long the wall of this new building is supposed to be if you do not understand what a meter is? You cannot read mathematics and you cannot even read Arabic. So, you have a returning population of refugees to Syria who want to go back. They do not want to live in Lesbos or Lebanon or Jordan or Turkey.

And the only working institution in the Syrian state is the Syrian Army. Whether you like it or not. They are fighting for their country. When an army likes fighting it will win. Whether you like it or not. If soldiers come back to fight when they still are wounded, they will win. And I have seen them and talked to them, and they let me talk to soldiers on my own.

They used to take me on their retreats. Can you believe it? My wife and I were with them as they pulled out of towns under fire because they wanted to show us the reality of what was happening. And I wrote about it, that they were retreating. That is why they need Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the Russian fire power from the air.

KV: Iran has played an important part in the Syrian war together with Hezbollah.  Do you see a positive role for Iran in the region?

RF: Hezbollah fights to win, like the Syrian army. Hezbollah is much better equipped than the Syrians, by the way. Better weapons, better boots, better sniper rifles. Regarding Iran: I think they are probably going to be the most powerful country in the region. I am keeping Israel out of this as a special case, for all kinds of reasons. It is a sort of extension of the West in many ways.

Iranian forces

There has been an evolution in the years that I have been here. The population has become more educated. And it is also a population that has learned through hard, tragic experience: that they are on their own and that they must have their own ideas. No point in relying on America, France, Britain or Iran. That is why the Lebanese survive. They only believe in Lebanon.

And you have got this Iranian nuclear deal. The deal has been cemented. It is on record. The problem is that it has been destroyed by various elements within the US institutions who want to undermine the end of sanctions by threatening banks to the degree that they cannot support the investments that Iran needs.

This naturally supports those who are convinced that America form the start is in bad faith. And that means that they will grow and gain political prestige and power inside Iran. That those who want to have a new relationship with the West are crushed. Thus, the American-Iranian-Shia relationship crumbles. Because the greatest supporters of those who do not want that relationship, inside Iran, are within the American institutions, and particularly in Israel and with Israeli friends within the American institutions. Whether you call that the Israeli lobby or the Jewish lobby, does not matter.

KV: Is Shia Islam winning politically?

RF: I think the answer to your questions is yes.

KV: Does Iran have any influence in Yemen?

RF: I do not believe that the Iranian support for the Houthis is anything like some people claim it to be. There is no evidence at all that the Iranians have given weapons to the Houthis. They may have done. But we have no evidence. Not of a single Kalashnikov with any physical proof that they come from Iran. In a sense, you (Magne and Stein) are already following the Washington narrative.

If you go back in Yemeni history, it was never an Iranian story until six years ago. It was a Yemeni story. It was a civil war story. The Iranian element of the story only came in about four or five years ago. And it was particularly emphasized when the Saudis began bombing the Houthis, because obviously, you were “bombing the Iranians”.

Houthi fighters in Yemen

[Putin] sees militant Islam as being anti-civilization.  It goes back to Byzantium. I think Putin is fascinated by Istanbul, Constantinople. Because it is where the great battle took place.

The idea that the Iranians are sitting there and calibrating their missiles is ridiculous. They do not need to. You know, one of the problems here is [that many believes that] they need the Russians to fire the guns. They do not. Arabs have been firing weapons for longer than any else in the world in the last fifty years.

I heard an interesting story the other day. Actually, I heard it from a friend of mine that came from Yemen, who had met in prison a Yemeni Shiite who had been invited to Teheran via Damascus to learn how to permeate the Houthis with Iran’s influence. And he made his way to Teheran.  Eventually he was taken to a training camp, in which he was taught how to distribute money to contractors to rebuild streets and houses. He was not taught how to drive a T-54 tank, was he? He was not taught how to refine the magnetic aiming mechanism of a missile. He was taught how to rebuild with Iranian money and don’t spend and told “don’t spend too much and scatter the money”.

But if you are a Wahhabi – which is Qatar and Saudi-Arabia only – then your vision is very clear-cut. Shiism is their apostate enemy. And it does not matter how many times you reopen the embassy in Teheran, for an example. Shiism is the enemy that they will try to destroy in any form. And when you get desperate, when you think the Americans are leaving you (which I think they are), when you see that your murderous friends are not winning in Syria or in Iraq, you panic. You start lashing out.

The Saudi power resides in a thousand princes or two thousand, depending on your point of view. These people do not have a sophisticated view of the world. They joy the world. They go on holiday to Cannes, they go to nightclubs in London or a Playboy club, whatever. But their view is quite clear-cut when they get home.

I have a good friend that is a Saudi journalist. When he came to Egypt with his family, his wife was sitting at the table.  When I went to his home in Riyadh, his wife was kept in the background. I never saw her. He is a nice guy. So is his family, by the way. I am not bringing him into the story. But I am just saying that you have this: once a Saudi is at home he is not the guy you meet in Washington.

The President of Ukraine ran away. He is somewhere in Russia. We do not even see him. He left Kiev, but Assad did not leave Damascus. He fought on. And the Russians admire the Syrian Army for fighting.

KV: Should we regard the wars in Syria and Yemen as separate and isolated events or as parts of a larger grid?

RF: There is nothing separate in the Middle East. It is all connected. It is all part of the Arab awakening. It is all part of the evolution of Arab society where people have begun to realize that they should own their own land. Whether it be the house, the street, their country, the Ummah. You name it. I mean, you can apply this to ISIS, you can apply it to middle class liberals (there are not many left of the latter in Egypt).

There has been an evolution in the years that I have been here. The population has become more educated. And it is also a population that has learned through hard, tragic experience: that they are on their own and that they must have their own ideas. No point in relying on America, France, Britain or Iran. That is why the Lebanese survive. They only believe in Lebanon.

KV: What about the Kurds?

RF: The Kurds are born to be betrayed.  They were betrayed by Kissinger and the Algiers agreement between Iraq and Iran. The Kurds are very brave, but they constantly make the mistake of trusting other people. Whether it be the British, the Iraqis, the Turks or the Americans.

And do you think they will get their freedom in the YPG area? No, again. And the Turks are very happy with that. And this is why I don’t think Turkey is really against the Assad regime. And again, in the future after you and I are in [our graves] or wherever we go to, the Kurds will still be betrayed.

KV: Exactly. To what extent is the Russian engagement in Syria a pre-emptive war?

RF: It is! 100%. Look, I go to Russia every two or three years. If you go to the Kremlin you can get quite high up. Almost as if you are on the Kremlin walls. And if you look to the south, there is Grozny. And Middle East is not in the ‘Middle East’. It is south. And immediately after Grozny you see the minarets of Damascus. It is the same war.

Putin at Mount Athos

Who cares about the Palestinians now? That is the real question. Because all this regional nuclear heat has obscured the Palestinian question, where the Israelis continue to build colonies on land which does not belong to them. Which is not their property.

Putin again and again has expressed his absolute hatred, vitriol hatred, for Islamism. That it is sectarian and visceral. Forget about the school killings and so on. He sees militant Islam as being anti-civilization.  It goes back to Byzantium. I think Putin is fascinated by Istanbul, Constantinople. Because it is where the great battle took place.

KV: Is it a continuation of Byzantium?

RF: In a sort of way, yes.

KV: It is a pre-emptive war before it spreads to the Caucasus.

RF: The President of Ukraine ran away. He is somewhere in Russia. We do not even see him. He left Kiev, but Assad did not leave Damascus. He fought on. And the Russians admire the Syrian Army for fighting.  The Economist had a very arrogant piece about Syria last autumn. According to them, the Syrian Army is not capable of fighting a real war. What have they been doing? Losing five or six thousand dead, right? And [in] a recent film at the Khmeymim Russian air base Syrian soldiers, according to the Economist, could hardly keep step and march in line.

I think the Russians have an admiration for the Syrians because they do not give in. Not because they are brutal, which of course they are. Or savage in their attacks, which of course they are, as are the attacks on them. But [the Russians admire them] because they see the Syrian Army as being a wall against the dangerous perversion of religion, which ISIS represents.

KV: But simultaneously, Putin also admires Muslims living in Russia.

RF: Of course, yes! Why not? Do you think the President of Chechnya is not his friend? He brought all these clerics to Grozny to condemn the Wahhabis.  And effectively, to disenfranchise Saudi-Arabia and the Islamic State.

Stay away from Syria. Western military forces have no moral justification to be in the Middle East. This is not our land. These are not our people. This is not our property. We should leave. By all means, send your doctors, aid workers, architects, people who know how to build bridges. Though these people are pretty good at building bridges.

KV: But Putin’s aversion for Wahhabism is sort of matched by an admiration for the Shiites. Like the Iranian Shiites.

RF: I think that his relationship with Iran has always been fairly straight forward. The Russians are not giving them aggressive weapons. They are not giving them missiles to bombard Tel Aviv. The Russians do not want Iran to be a nuclear power. And though, here again you see, we are locked into the Iranian “nuclear power danger”.

What about Pakistan? It has got nuclear weapons! It is a fragmented state and it is bananas! It is full of islamists. But we do not care about Pakistan. They are the “moderate” neighbors to the East or the West, or whatever we dream up they are. You see, I do not find anything strange about the Russian-Iranian relationship. It is very straightforward, it is very pragmatic and both sides fully understand each other. Much better than the Iranians and the Americans do.

Putin’s concern, first of all, is the guarantee of Russian security. And secondly, a guarantee of his role in history as a guarantor of Russian security. [Some say] he is getting very weary and tired at night. Do not be fooled, he will be able to go through four more years. And I think, you know, his pragmatism is so much at odds with America’s moralism. Remember the Crimean War? The British were on the Turkish Muslim side, and so were the French.

KV: What is your take on Israel’s current role, clandestine or otherwise in the Syrian war?

RF: They are supporting al-Nusra and take care of their wounded members. They are not doing that to wounded Syrian soldiers. No doubt they want them for intelligence operations and spies inside Nusra. This really came to the fore when an Israeli ambulance was stopped by an Israeli Druze who dragged out the Nusra fighter and lynched him. Murdered him. It did not get a lot of publicity in the Israeli press. But it was true, and it happened.

There are no relations to reality, to history, to culture, to understanding. All these universities. What are they for? To produce this infantile creep who comes along and tells the press what the story is? And they all repeat it.

The Israelis do not bomb ISIS, they do not bomb Nusra. They bomb the Syrian Army and they bomb Hezbollah.  That is all you need to know. Later on, they can deal with Damascus, of course. I do not think people care about Israel’s policy any more than they think they care about what America’s policy is. Those days are over.

I remember after the 2011 revolutions, I met an Egyptian army intelligence officer who was with the anti-Mubarak people. I met him in Alexandria and said: “I gathered the American sixth fleet is heading to the Mediterranean”. He said: “What do I care. They can go to Iceland if they want”. Ten years ago, he would have asked: “WHAT?! Are they going to bomb, are they going to attack? Are they backing Israel? Is there a war coming?”

KV: But who cares about Israel now?

RF: Who cares about the Palestinians now? That is the real question. Because all this regional nuclear heat has obscured the Palestinian question, where the Israelis continue to build colonies on land which does not belong to them. Which is not their property. For Jews and Jews only. Against all international law. And they keep getting away with it. And that will come back to be another future tragedy, and another future cause of war.

KV: At last we want to ask you about Norway.

RF: I feared you might.

KV: In June 2016, the Norwegian parliament approved the deployment of Norwegian special forces to Jordan to train Syrian rebels. We do not know who they are. They were authorized to enter Syrian territory if necessary, in violation of international law. The rebels who are receiving training are not exactly the kind of people who would get a visa to Norway, or guys you would invite in for a cup of tea. How do you perceive Norway’s role here?

RF: Madness! Stay away from Syria. Western military forces have no moral justification to be in the Middle East. This is not our land. These are not our people. This is not our property. We should leave. By all means, send your doctors, aid workers, architects, people who know how to build bridges. Though these people are pretty good at building bridges. But, by all means, send your doctors and your medical scientific assistance. If they ask for it. And that is an act of complete moral kindness, generosity and goodness.

But what do we do? We keep promising them democracy, and we arrive with our M1A1 Abrams tanks, and our Bradley fighting armored vehicles, and our Apaches. What is this nonsense? Just like the crusaders always arrived with their horses and their swords. You know, Napoleon arrived in Cairo saying he was going to free the Egyptians who were being hanged when they expressed their minds before the Pashas.

I often say when I am lecturing in America: From sea to shining sea you have the finest universities, best funded in the world. The US have departments of Islamic Affairs, Hebrew Affairs. They have departments of Middle East history, Islamic history, you name it. And you listen to the State Department spokesman and it is like listening to an infantile creature. A child talking. There are no relations to reality, to history, to culture, to understanding. All these universities. What are they for? To produce this infantile creep who comes along and tells the press what the story is? And they all repeat it.

Submitted by Magne Stolpnessæter at www.kulturverk.com

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Britain’s Enemy Is Not Russia But It’s Own Ruling Class, UN Report Confirms

In austerity Britain, who the enemy is has never been more clear.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by John Wright. op-ed via RT.com:


As the UK political establishment rips itself to pieces over Brexit, a far greater crisis continues to afflict millions of victims of Tory austerity…

A devastating UN report into poverty in the UK provides incontrovertible evidence that the enemy of the British people is the very ruling class that has gone out of its way these past few years to convince them it is Russia.

Professor Philip Alston, in his capacity as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, spent two weeks touring the United Kingdom. He did so investigating the impact of eight years of one of the most extreme austerity programs among advanced G20 economies in response to the 2008 financial crash and subsequent global recession.

What he found was evidence of a systematic, wilful, concerted and brutal economic war unleashed by the country’s right-wing Tory establishment against the poorest and most vulnerable section of British society– upending the lives of millions of people who were not responsible for the aforementioned financial crash and recession but who have been forced to pay the price.

From the report’s introduction:

“It…seems patently unjust and contrary to British values that so many people are living in poverty. This is obvious to anyone who opens their eyes to see the immense growth in foodbanks and the queues waiting outside them, the people sleeping rough in the streets, the growth of homelessness, the sense of deep despair that leads even the Government to appoint a Minister for Suicide Prevention and civil society to report in depth on unheard of levels of loneliness and isolation.”

Though as a citizen of the UK I respectfully beg to differ with the professor’s claim that such social and economic carnage seems “contrary to British values,” (on the contrary it is entirely in keeping with the values of the country’s Tory establishment, an establishment for whom the dehumanization of the poor and working class is central to its ideology), the point he makes about it being “obvious to anyone who opens their eyes,” is well made.

For it is now the case that in every town and city centre in Britain, it is impossible to walk in any direction for more than a minute before coming across homeless people begging in the street. And the fact that some 13,000 of them are former soldiers, casualties of the country’s various military adventures in recent years, undertaken in service to Washington, exposes the pious platitudes peddled by politicians and the government as reverence for the troops and their ‘sacrifice,’ as insincere garbage.

Overall, 14 million people in the UK are now living in poverty, a figure which translates into an entire fifth of the population. Four million of them are children, while, according to Professor Alston, 1.5 million people are destitute – that is, unable to afford the basic necessities of life.

And this is what the ruling class of the fifth largest economy in the world, a country that parades itself on the world stage as a pillar of democracy and human rights, considers progress.

The values responsible for creating such a grim social landscape are compatible with the 18th not 21st century. They are proof positive that the network of elite private schools – Eton, Harrow, Fettes College et al. – where those responsible for this human carnage are inculcated with the sense of entitlement and born to rule ethos that defines them, are Britain’s hotbeds of extremism.

Professor Alston:

“British compassion for those who are suffering has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous approach apparently designed to instill discipline where it is least useful, to impose a rigid order on the lives of those least capable of coping with today’s world, and elevating the goal of enforcing blind compliance over a genuine concern to improve the well-being of those at the lowest levels of British society.”

Here, set out above in bold relief, is the barbarism that walks hand in hand with free market capitalism. It is the same barbarism that was responsible for pushing post-Soviet Russia into a decade-long economic and social abyss in the 1990s, and the values that have pushed 14 million people in the UK into the same economic and social abyss in our time.

Austerity, it bears emphasizing, is not and never has been a viable economic response to recession in a given economy.

Instead, it is an ideological club, wielded on behalf of the rich and big business to ensure that the price paid for said economic recession is borne exclusively by those least able to bear it – namely, the poor and working people. It is class war by any other name, packaged and presented as legitimate government policy.

However, in Britain’s case in 2018, this is a war like no other because, as Professor Philip Alston’s report lays bare, only one side in this war has been throwing all the punches and only one side has been taking them.

With Christmas season upon us, the scale of human suffering across the UK ensures that the elaborate ad campaigns inviting us to shop and indulge to our heart’s content – ads depicting the middle class dream of affluence and material comfort – take on the character of a provocation. In fact, they call to mind the truism that wars take place when the government tells you who the enemy is, while revolutions take place when you work it out for yourself.

In austerity Britain, who the enemy is has never been more clear.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

America Has Built 800+ Military Bases Worldwide. So Why Can’t It Build a Mexican Border Wall?

How did America arrive at a place where such a fundamental element of nationhood – the ability to control borders from any and all outside illegal intruders – be considered a radical concept?

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


The US government has constructed at tremendous cost to its taxpayers some of the most impressive structures – both architectural and organizational – of all time. Yet somehow it has failed to build a viable wall on the Mexican border.

In 1931, during the Great Depression, the US government began construction of the Hoover Dam, one of the most ambitious civil engineering projects ever attempted. Employing thousands of US laborers, some 100 of whom reportedly lost their lives in the course of the project, the dam is mind-boggling due its sheer size, rivaling that of the pyramids.

At 726 feet tall, the wedge-shaped structure is 660 ft (200 m) thick at its base, narrowing to 45 ft (14 m) at the top, which provides enough room to accommodate a highway connecting Nevada and Arizona. The project required millions of cubic feet of concrete – said to be enough to pave a two-lane highway from San Francisco to New York – and tens of millions of pounds of steel.

Many decades later, the US government undertook another extensive project known as the US Embassy in Baghdad. Although rarely discussed in the US media, this 104-acre slice of American property in a foreign country is so immense that it rivals Vatican City in terms of size [the Vatican is an independent city-state, complete with its own euro-based currency and security detail, located inside of Rome].

Officially opened in 2009, the $750 million embassy, which is situated in Baghdad’s so-called Green Zone, is by far the most expansive and expensive embassy in the world. Why does a foreign nation need a footprint the size of a small country to house a few thousand diplomats and private contractors? That is a very good question, but one that was never really pursued by legislators when Congress approved plans in 2005 for the mega structure under the Bush administration.

To this day, much of the complex remains under heavy wraps due to “security concerns.” Yet this behemoth cash cow continues to suck money dry from government coffers; in 2012, just several years after its construction was finished, the Obama administration requested and got more than $100 million for a “massive” upgrade to the compound.

Speaking of Iraq, which suffered military conquest at the hands of US-led forces starting in 2003, the United States also managed to find ways to construct some 900+ military bases around the world. Needless to say, this is no cheap venture, and helps to explain why the US military budget is approaching $1 trillion dollars annually – more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, and Japan combined.

In light of these monumental projects, it goes without saying that the United States certainly possesses the technical prowess and the financial wherewithal to perform the simple task of building a wall, and more specifically, a wall on the Mexican border. Yet thus far, and despite the fact that Donald Trump pledged on the campaign trail that would be his first task in office, the wall remains – a bit like Barack Obama’s past promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay detention center – a pipe dream.

How did we Americans arrive at a place where such a fundamental element of nationhood – that is, the ability to control our borders from any and all outside illegal intruders – is considered a radical concept? Since when did the universally accepted idea of a strong national border become an issue for debate and contention among our legislators? Since when have weak, porous borders become a desired state of affairs for a global superpower, and especially one that has a habit of attacking sovereign states? Part of the answer seems to lie within the present atmosphere of political correctness and identity politics that has conflated the need for a strong border with racism and even white supremacist ideology. More on that in a moment.

Just this week, part of the South American ‘caravan’ that the US mainstream media had called a “myth” has turned up on America’s doorstep in the Mexican town of Tijuana. Images show dozens of young men straddling the top of the border fence with none of the US troops that Trump activated in sight. Now, if the US Democrats had their way, these thousands of illegal aliens would be awarded amnesty and shepherded into ‘sanctuary cities’ where these individuals would slip undetected into the fabric of American society. And for those – including the US president – who voice opposition to this invasion, they are casually branded as racist or a white supremacist. However, the real motivation for the Democrats behind such ad hominem attacks is raw political opportunism.

The Democrats are actually building part of their platform on awarding asylum to illegals, and despite the fact that many of these people are not suffering political repression back home. In fact, most of these people just want to improve their financial well-being. In other words, the great majority of these new arrivals – as was established by on-the-ground interviews – are economic migrants.

And who can blame anyone for wanting a better life? After all, it was the incentive of economic opportunity that first brought millions of migrants to America in the first place. However, the difference between the migrants from past generations and many of those arriving today is that the former went through a lengthy legal process for entering the country. Today, it’s even worse than just a matter of legality; it’s a matter of criminality on multiple fronts.

What the US mainstream media fails to inform the American public is that the overwhelming majority of people from this so-called ‘caravan’ are young, male and oftentimes dangerous. This much was confirmed by Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch, one of the only Western journalists to actually travel to South America and report on the march of migrants firsthand. In addition to reporting that, in his estimation, some 98 percent of the migrants were young and male, he added that some of them bore tattoos that identified them as members of the notorious MS13 international crime gang. To get a better understanding of this caravan and the true makeup of its participants I would encourage the reader to watch Farrell’s interview in its entirety.

Now this leads us to the question of constructing a wall on the US-Mexico border. To date, those efforts have gone fizzled. In March, Congress passed its trillion-dollar spending bill; glaringly missing from the numerous pages was funding for construction of Trump’s wall. Instead, $1.6 billion was put aside for “border security,” as well as replacing parts of the existing fence. In other words, nothing that will prevent illegals from entering the United States.

Republican Rep. Jim Jordan said this week that the Trump White House has one last chance – with a lame duck Republican Congress still in place – to secure funding for the US-Mexican border wall.

“We should be focused on that one main thing over the next several weeks as we still have a few weeks left while Republicans control all of government,” Jordan said in an interview.

Time is ticking like a bomb for the American people to restore control over its southern border, and there is no good excuse for not completing this monumental project. Americans should not be cowered by accusations of ‘racism,’ when the country itself has been founded on the blood, sweat and tears of migrants throughout history. Much of the so-called racism that exists in America is a figment of the media’s hyperactive imagination. Nor should the expense of the project – considering the price tag for so many other US adventures and misadventures, up to and including wars abroad – be a reason for preventing it.

The overall cost of failing to protect America’s border will far excel the total price of a wall if action is not taken now. It’s time for America to act like a real nation – a superpower with a backbone – and protect its border.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

US Meddles in Interpol Election in Effort to Stop Russian Leadership Role (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 19.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a quick look at Interpol elections, which may result in Alexander Prokopchuk (a general in the Russian Interior Ministry and Interpol’s current Vice President) taking over as the President of the international police organization.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has stated that the US endorses acting Interpol head Kim for Interpol Chief, while four US Senators are urging nations to vote against Russian front-runner Prokopchuk.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge


Four US senators, and their mainstream media mouthpieces, are enraged at the idea that Alexander Prokopchuk – a general in the Russian Interior Ministry who is currently a vice president of Interpol – is the front-runner to become its next president; and have urged nations to vote against him.

The position in question became vacant after Interpol’s President Meng Hongwei was detained in his homeland China, pending a corruption investigation.

Based in the French city of Lyon, Interpol is a clearinghouse for police agencies around the world, helping them cooperate outside their borders. It is best-known for issuing red notices, or alerts that identify a suspect pursued by another country, effectively putting them on the world’s “most-wanted” list.

As AP reports, the Interpol presidency is more of a ceremonial position compared to the hands-on leadership role of the secretary-general. The president oversees the executive committee, which meets a few times a year and makes decisions on Interpol’s strategy and direction.

Interpol’s charter explicitly proclaims its neutrality, and two years ago it introduced measures aimed at strengthening the legal framework around the red notice system. As part of the changes, an international team of lawyers and experts first check a notice’s compliance with Interpol rules and regulations before it goes out.

But the potential of a Putin loyalist in such a prominent role has prompted concern among those critical of the Russian president’s leadership.

AP reports that Kremlin foes including financier Bill Browder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Alexei Navalny have warned that naming a top Russian police official to lead the international law enforcement agency will undermine Interpol and politicize police cooperation across borders.

As RT reports, the four US senators said in a statement, released on Monday, that electing Prokopchuk as the head of Interpol is “akin to putting a fox in charge of a henhouse.”

Along with the senators, media mouthpieces also added to the arguments:

Last week, a report in The Times named Prokopchuk, who currently serves as one of Interpol’s vice-presidents, “favorite” to lead the organization. The official also heads the nation’s Interpol bureau. His election as Interpol’s president will signify a “victory” for the Kremlin, the paper reported.

As soon as the report surfaced, the Western media published several opinion pieces, blasting Prokopchuk’s candidacy.

A Forbes contributor called him an “abuser-in-chief,” while the piece, published by the Washington Post editorial board on Monday, referred to him as “a wolf at Interpol’s door.”

Prokopchuk’s election would be “a colossal mistake and would imperil the organization’s integrity,” the Post editorial board wrote.

The Kremlin branded this “intervention” in the voting process, accusing unnamed Kremlin critics of trying to politicize the upcoming election of the Interpol president.

In a Tuesday statement Russian Interior Ministry spokesman Irina Volk lashed out at critics, which she did not name, accusing them of running a “campaign to discredit” the Russian candidate Alexander Prokopchuk.She said that Prokopchuk, who is an Interpol vice-president, is a respected professional, and, if elected, he will be leading the organization “in the interests of the international police community.”

Interpol’s general assembly is expected to elect its new president on Wednesday.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending