2 February 2009

British columnist Matt Kennard discusses, in an interview with Iranian journalist Kourosh Ziabari, the aftermath of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, American double standards, UN impotence and Arab collusion, and the need to try Israeli officials for war crimes.

[Kourosh Ziabari] British journalist and columnist Matt Kennard graduated from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in New York and now runs a news and comment website, The Comment Factory. While at university, his investigations led to the exposure of Dr Frank Ellis as a racist and resulted in a national scandal with the lecturer eventually taking early retirement.

In 2006 Kennard won the Guardian Student Feature Writer of the Year Award. He has written for the Guardian, the New York Post, the New Statesman, the Chicago Tribune and Newsday, among others, and has interviewed a wide selection of politicians from Jack Straw to Ken Livingstone, and intellectuals from Noam Chomsky to Howard Zinn.

[Question] Let's begin with Ban Ki-Moon, the chief of an international organization which should be exemplary for its neutral and inclusive stance toward current affairs. What are the main reasons behind his disappointing performance and strange silence on the genocide in Gaza?

[Answer] When you talk about the UN you have to understand its power relations. It's a fundamentally undemocratic institution. Five states hold veto power over the Security Council and the US inevitably vetoes any resolution critical of its client state, Israel, so the chances of getting a representative statement from the UN on anything is just institutionally impossible. The secretary-general himself has to be proposed by the Security Council, so the candidate has to be sufficiently veto-proof, i.e. will not speak out too forcefully against any of the clients of the "Great Powers”.

Add to that the fact that nearly a quarter of the UN's budget comes from the US and you start to understand why its employees find it so difficult to criticize Israel.

Having said this, Ban Ki-Moon did make the journey to Gaza, something which the "Peace Envoy" Tony Blair has never done, and did speak out at the devastation that Israel caused, which included the pounding of UN facilities and the destruction of aid, and said Israel should be held "accountable".

But when you think about the level of the crimes committed in Gaza, and against the UN as well, these words seem completely insufficient. The whole world witnessed the massacre of 1,300 defenceless people over two weeks; is this all Ban Ki-Moon could come up with? It really goes to show that anyone fighting for justice and against war should not hold out hopes for the UN.

[Q] However, UN was not the sole accomplice of carnage in Gaza. Arab states and European countries played their own fatal roles to some extent and contributed to the massacre of innocent civilians.

[A] Well, the performance of the Arab countries really showed them up for what they are: stooges of the US, just like Israel. Saudi Arabia, a backward, fundamentalist monarchy, had its hands tied because it is allowed to carry on its corrupt ways for it is the biggest friend of the US in the Middle East, after Israel. So, how can it speak out against its own friend?

Egypt is the same. The corrupt dictator Husni Mubarak has helped the US and Israel crush the Palestinians for years by refusing to let aid and commerce through the Rafah crossing and other points. Why does he do this? Because Egypt is the second largest recipient of aid from the US, after Israel, and you can't upset your biggest backer!

In the case of Egypt, Mubarak has overseen the brutal suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is intimately linked with Hamas, so Mubarak had another interest in seeing Hamas, and the Palestinian people that voted them in democratic election, smashed to pieces.

The only Arab leader that has consistently supported the Palestinian people is Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, and whatever you think of Hezbollah, his commitment is unmatched by anyone else.

[Q] However, it was very disturbing and unacceptable for the world to observe America’s policy of double standards. The US vetoed three rounds of Security Council resolutions condemning Israel and calling for a ceasefire. Meanwhile, we remember clearly that they had imposed three rounds of tough embargoes on Iran for its legal employment of nuclear energy under Nuclear Nopn-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). What do you think?

[A] Well, your question really highlights the hypocrisy of the UN. It is basically a clearinghouse for US foreign policy and when it shows any principled demurral, the US goes forward anyway, like they did in Iraq and the war on Serbia in 1999, illegally both times. So, there should be no surprise that the UN is used to condemn Iran for its nuclear activities, while it stays silent on the 200-300 nuclear warheads Israel has, and the thousands the US and their allies have.

[Q] Yes, as you mentioned correctly, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), alongside a number of other international organizations, acknowledge that Israel possesses 200 nuclear warheads. But, despite this, nobody is making any serious moves to disarm it. Why?

[A] I believe all nuclear warheads should be phased out everywhere, but the fact is that Iran is actually a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is aimed at curtailing nuclear weapons, so it is therefore more committed to the scale-down than Israel, Pakistan or India, all of whom have refused to sign up to the NPT, and all of whom have nuclear weapons, and all of whom are big allies of the US. It shows that, if you are an ally of the US, you don't have to abide by international treaties because you just don't sign up to them! Of course, it is rank hypocrisy to put sanctions on Iran while supporting other states doing exactly the same thing. In fact, in October last year the US recognized India's legitimate place as a nuclear power. Why not Iran?

[Q] Finally, do you see any need for mounting a tribunal in order to investigate and indict Israeli war criminals? How would the “international community” have reacted if other countries, e.g. Syria, Lebanon, Venezuela or Bolivia, had committed crimes similar to Israel’s?

[A] I think there should definitely be an investigation into the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. That's without question, and it would be unthinkable not to have an investigation if this was any other state than Israel. Look at what happened in the aftermath of NATO's attack on Serbia and the atrocities in Kosovo. The perpetrators of the attacks were hunted down and put on trial, and the search still continues for those responsible.

That should happen to Israel too. But it won't because, like the UN, the international justice institutions are a function of power, and when they actually do take a stand they are dutifully ignored. Ehud Barak has already said that the Israeli government will help defend any of its soldiers who are tried for war crimes, because, of course, he is a criminal himself, and if they are found guilty, then so is he. If the atrocities carried out by Israel were emulated by any of the states you mention, they would probably be bombed, arraigned before a court and then the leaders put in jail for the rest of their lives.