Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 08:50:56 +0000 (GMT)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?pierre=20guyotat?= <pierreguyotat-AT-yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Argentina to Afghanistan Capitalism Reigns Supreme Being
Report from Afghanistan: After the beating
December 19, 2001) Since the outset of the conflict in
Afghanistan, Dr. Robert Fisk,Britain’s most highly
decorated foreign correspondent, has been fielding
questionsfrom DFN readers every few weeks about his
thoughts and observations from the front
lines. He answered the first set of
readers' questions on November 28. On December
8, Dr. Fisk himself was brutally attacked
by Afghan refugees who saw him an
antagonistic Westerner.
Recuperating from his injuries, Dr. Fisk has now
resumed his correspondence with
DFN readers. He has agreed to continue to
respond to further e-mail in another few
weeks. Comments or questions may be
submitted using the DFN Web form.
The following is a transcript of the most
recent interview with Fisk. While Dr. Fisk
answered almost all queries submitted to
him, a sampling have been reprinted here.
They are in the original form in which
they were sent to Dr. Fisk and are attributed to
their writers and country of origin.
DFN: Dr. Fisk, thank you for taking time out
again to answer questions from our
readers
even as you recover from your injuries.
How are you? Fisk: Thank you for asking. I am still
writing for the newspaper. I was beaten quite
severely. I still have some scars, a few of
which will remain afterwards. Doctors in Beirut where
I am based say I have suffered no concussion, but
possibly a slight amnesia.This is why I tell radio
interviewers why I can't recall their previous calls!
I do have headaches which stop my sleeping. But if
you do my job you have to expect a bit of a rough
life.
amateur (US): I just curious, reading the article on
your beating, how youcan justify a mob trying to kill
you? Basically for being white, and representing the
West. Isn't the killing of innocents unjustifiable,
regardless of the situation? Based on your reporting
of the war, isn't your reaction hypocritical? I am
glad you survived the brutal beating, but really you
should have more respect for the value of your own
life, those people had no right to take out their
aggression on you; attempt to murder you! I wish you
much safety and better circumstances in your continued
reporting. Fisk: It's not a question of "valuing my
own life"; it's a question of facts. My car had broken
down in a village
containing many Afghan refugees
from
Qandahar who had lost
members of
their families in air raids
over the
previous two weeks. The fact
that I was
the victim of this attack and
have the
scars on my face as I tell this
to you does not excuse me from
recognizing this fact or from placing their
anger in context.
I felt humiliated at punching these
people in order to escape even though it
was in self defense and I had every right
to do so. If we rip apart a man's
family, of course, he will—when he sees a
Westerner—wish to visit his
anger upon that person. I was unfortunate
enough to be the person in the
village that day.
I realized how easy it would be to write
a story reading "angry Afghan mob
attacks British reporter." Indeed despite
my explanations, the pro-war
London Daily Mail did just that. But it
was my job as a journalist to
contextualize this event, silly and
pathetic as it was. Of course, they were
wrong to assault an innocent man. But I
repeat what I said in the article: if my
family had been torn apart by bombers I
would attack him.
chwilcke (Germany): Drawing on your
intimate knowledge of the politics of
factionalism in Lebanon, I seek your
opinion on a similar issue in
Afghanistan.
The Afghan people seem to have largely
acquiesced in the relative stability
offered by the Taliban regime over the
past five years, preferring it over
continuous factional strife. Do Afghans
now view stability as possible only
under a particular constellation of
factions, or do they have a sense that an
impartial arbitrator is needed, too?
Fisk: Poor old Afghans! How kind of you
to offer a Western psychological
profile of their predicament. They really
would like to live in peace. They really
would like no more interference from
foreign powers, i.e., Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, the Soviet Union, Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan, the U.S., Britain, the
European Union, and all the rest. Far too
many millions of Afghans are
uneducated and ignorant of world affairs,
but they sure aren't stupid. They
understand the idea of justice and
fairness and they understand peace.
Maybe we can just hoover up all those
weapons we handed up so blithely to
their warlords and leaders and murderers.
Alas, we cannot. The Taliban
found power because they crushed the
banditry of the Northern Alliance.
Maybe the Alliance will behave humanely
in the future (let us for the moment
forget the war crimes at Mazar-e Sharif)
and the Taliban were guilty of war
crimes aplenty.
At the end of the day decent people like
decent laws and justice that applies
to Palestinians, the Irish and the
British, Muslim, Jew, and Christian. We
cannot forget that Afghanistan is, as it
always was, a "great game." It will be
interesting to know if the US oil cartel
UNOCAL was negotiating with the
Northern Alliance once more about a
pipeline across Afghanistan.
Sacapus (Canada): Hezbollah is on the US
list of terrorist organizations.
The Lebanese government refuses such
classification arguing they are
resistance fighters whose sphere of
activity is restricted to the Lebanese
territory - occupied or otherwise. What
is your opinion on Hezbollah:
Terrorists or Resistance fighters?
Fisk: This is what we say in English is
"an old plum." The problem, of course,
is that many organizations that may
have been terrorists once change their
spots. They are plenty of Jewish
militant groups which have carried out
terrorist activities but which later on
became freedom fighters. The same
applies in the Arab world. I know there
are plenty of people who believe
Hezbollah was behind the US Marine
bombings which slaughtered 2,312 service
personnel on Oct. 23, 1983. I do
not know if Hezbollah or a satellite
group or a totally unconnected group was
responsible for this. I do know from
reading Veil by Bob Woodward that the
CIA was behind the terrorists' killing of
65 civilians in Beruit in an attempt to
kill the Hezbollah's religious leader
Muhammed Fadlallah.
We can go on pursuing the dark monsters
of the past—Hezbollah or the
CIA—forever. But if I were a relative of
the dead Muslims killed by the CIA or
the dead Americans quite possibly killed
by the CIA I would never give up my
struggle for justice. However,
historically, and perhaps against all justice,
ruthless organizations often survive. The
Mau Mau in Kenya weren't
"terrorists" when the British ended up
sending Jomo Kenyatta to
Buckingham Palace. IRA leaders are now in
the Northern Ireland government
receiving tea from Tony Blair on Downing
Street. There is not a shadow of
doubt the Hezbollah drove the Israeli
army out of Lebanon, but the Israeli
army called them soldiers—not
terrorists—to me. I think you have to decide
where the balance of history lies. It's
not an easy choice. But the Hezbollah
have undoubtedly acquired considerable
prestige in Lebanon as resistance
fighters and it would be very difficult
to convince the Lebanese that they were
anything else. Given the fact that Ariel
Sharon is now claiming Arafat is a
terrorist—he is certainly a corrupt
mafiosi—one also has to remember that
Sharon was "personally responsible" (in
the words of Israeli's Kahan
commission) for the terrorist massacre of
18,000 refugees in Sabra and
Shatilla.
shells786 (US): During your stay in
Pakistan do you see the silent majority
approve of the events unfolding in
Afghanistan? And do you think in the long
run US will retain the cooperation of the
Muslim world in waging war against
Iraq, Sudan, Syria etc.
Fisk: In all my conversations with
villagers, prelates, government officials (off
the record), taxi drivers, shopkeepers,
and bookstore owners, I have not met
a single Pakistani who approves of the
war in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a
military dictatorship—although one
benevolent enough to allow a free
press—and we (those who are waging the
"War for Civilization") are happy
to quote the Saudis, Uzbekis, etc. in
support of our latest adventure. But they
are not in support of it.
The notorious Arab masses have not come
onto the streets, nor would any
sane person expect them to. But the
problem for the West is that within the
administration of those
countries—especially the Saudi royal family— there
is increasing fury at our Western
behavior in the region. At some point this
will blow up. Claiming that they have not
done so thus far is not the point.
Klusener777 (U.K.): Hello. I have two
questions at present: Firstly, do you
think the current "war on terrorism" is
really a war on Islam?
Fisk: It's not a war on "terrorism"; it's
a war on America's enemies. If it were
a war on terrorism, B-52s would be
bombing Sri Lanka, Ireland, Chechnya,
and Northern Spain. Islam has been
demonized so much in the US,
especially by the vile content of
Hollywood films, that Muslims may be
forgiven in thinking it was a war on
Islam, but I don't think the B-52 pilots have
read the Koran.
Klusener777: Secondly, do you think the
Saudi monarchy will be overthrown
some time in the future?
Fisk: At some point all regimes are
overthrown or changed. There is no
God-given right why the Saudi regime will
survive forever. That doesn't mean
it will turn into a bin Laden style
bureaucracy. Not that it is exactly thrusting
its way into the 21st century, of course.
At some point, the rest of the world
will realize head-chopping and amputation
make it look like the Taliban.
aesteven (US): As a feminist activist and
advocate of nonviolence, my
greatest concern is the humanitarian
needs Afghanistan. How can US and
world policy/action be changed to address
those needs in a nonviolent and
effective manner? Indeed, do you believe
that it's possible to do so?
Fisk: If
you are a feminist, for
goodness
sake, then let Afghan
women
decide their own future without
help from
the West. In fact, whatever
your
outlook, do whatever you can to
let Afghans
decide their own future
without our
happy-slappy smug views.
Afghans are
very intelligent people;
they don't
need advice from us. They
do need to
know that we care about
them but that is not the same thing.
nazeera (South Africa): Could you please
comment on the fatalities among
the coalition troops in Afghanistan as
well as providing estimates on civilian
casualties.
Fisk: I understand a professor at the
University of Chicago has estimated
that 3,700 Afghans died from air raids. I
have not yet spoken to him and
therefore do not know how he acquired his
statistics, but it wouldn't surprise
me. I don't know whether your question on
casualties includes civilians . It
should. Needless to say, Western
cheerleaders for the "War for Civilization"
have not interested themselves in the
figures.
salmazar (US): Dr. Fisk, first I must say
I always love reading your articles.
My question is: You have been to the
worst conflict areas in the world,don't
you get scared? Don't you feel hopeless
sometimes?
Fisk: I think it is the people who live
in the conflict areas who feel scared and
hopeless , reporters who are well-paid
(moderately) can fly home club class
if they don't like it. What we
journalists think and feel is irrelevant to the
anguish of the innocent civilians who are
wounded and dying in the wars we
cover. We can get visas to places of
safety; they can't. So forget about us.
robertbarrett2 (US): You have written
much on the camp david talks of last
year and how the deal that Barak offered
was not nearly as good as the US
media made it out to be. I have several
chat groups that are constantly
challenging me on this issue and I would
like to know if you can provide me
with any concrete data that supports your
position that this was indeed not a
great deal for the Palestinian people. I
understand that the Palestinians were
not offered real control of the Temple
Mount or sections of Jerusalem but I
would greatly appreciate anything you
could forward to me that would help
me sort out this issue. Everyone I know
is convinced that the Palestinians
passed on a very generous deal. Please
respond when you have a moment.
Thank you for your excellent and
courageous reporting.
Fisk: Read the text. The Palestinians
were not offered any sovereignty over
East Jerusalem. They were offered a sort
of sovereignty over the Al-Aksa
mosque. They were offered "control" over
some streets that were not
contiguous in East Jerusalem. There would
have been a ten-mile buffer zone
around East Jerusalem. All but a very few
settlements would have remained.
The Palestinians were to be offered some
territories on the Dead Sea, and,
as you know, you can't build much there.
You can forget the "right of return."
My colleague in Jerusalem, Phil Reeves,
and I calculated the Palestinians
were being offered about 46 percent of
Mandate Palestine. Israel's own
propaganda were, of course, not seriously
challenged by the pathetic
spokesman to Arafat. But a number of
Israelis have taken up these points
very bravely. I suggest you read the work
of Amira Haas, the courageous
Israeli journalist who has done more than
any Western reporter to show
what a farce the Camp David talks were.
tanyahsu (US/UK): My admiration for your
work has no words, thus I shall
not attempt to be erudite here. But
please enlighten me - how on earth can
Arafat end the situation he finds himself
in now? He is to be sure backed in to
a corner; Hamas and the Islamic Jihad
won't recognize Israel, and Israel
won't stop provoking Arafat.
Is there any solution to the situation,
and what do you think it should be?
Fisk: At present, none at all. You have
to realize that Hamas was originally
encouraged by Israel to build mosques and
social centers when Arafat and
company were deemed "super-terrorists"
based in Beirut. I well remember
how after Israel had expelled Hamas and
Islamic Jihad to Lebanon against
International Law in 1992. One of the
Hamas men offered me Shimon Peres'
home telephone number! In other words,
all these guys talk to the Israelis
and the Israelis all talk to these guys.
After all, how do Mossad know how to
blow the heads off their enemies with
booby-trapped telephones if they don't
know the numbers for the telephones.
Israel and its enemies keep in
constant contact with each other even
while killing each other. That's not the
cinematic story you'll get on television.
When Arafat eventually departs the scene,
new Palestinian leaders chosen
by Palestine, chosen by Israelis or by
Palestinians or perhaps by both. We
will as usual be invited to clap if the
Israelis approve, but, then again, they
approved Arafat in 1993, when the
"super-terrorist" was turned into a
statesman overnight. Now the statesman
will be turned into a terrorist.
Heaven knows where the wheel of fortune
will turn next.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005