Al Jazeera in English

Al Jazeera is launching its English-language station in November 2005, and its chosen different headquarters than for its Arabic channels (it has sports channels in Arabic as well as the famous news channels): Kuala Lumpur.

Most Malaysian analysts interviewed for this article said they eagerly await a greater al-Jazeera presence in the region, regardless of what shape it takes, because it will provide viewers with a different perspective. But when it comes to news, celebrating diversity for its own sake can be dangerous. Consider how big media have tended to celebrate diversity in the divisive post-September 11, 2001, era. Outfits such as al-Jazeera, CNN and FOX are ossifying allegiances and exacerbating gaps in understanding as they inexorably pursue their nationalistic agendas.

On the other hand, al-Jazeera is a young station. It is bold and irreverent. It has challenged traditional barriers of press freedom in the Middle East and has forced outlets subservient to draconian Arab governments to either change or risk being ignored. Who’s to say al-Jazeera can’t become the same inspiring equipoise in Asia? In places like Malaysia, which consistently lands in the basement of press freedom indices, and where the variety of print and broadcast media eerily mirrors the choices on an old Soviet-era supermarket shelf, a stronger challenge to the status quo is sorely needed. (Despite plans to drop its incendiary tone, Collins said the Malaysian government has no intentions of tampering with al-Jazeera’s content.)

This reflects an interesting trend for the Gulf to look Eastward to India and South-East Asia rather than to the Arab world and the West. The Asia Times article quoted above is rather snarky about Al Jazeera in my opinion, sometimes unfairly. But it raises some interesting questions as to whether it will provide the same critical take on South-East Asia that it has on the Arab world. Their coverage of China, in an area where big media’s desire to get inside the homes of 1.2 billion Chinese has made them rather coy about criticizing Beijing (see Murdoch’s pandering for instance), will be particularly interesting to watch.

Light blogging this week

I am currently in Rome attending a conference, so I will not be able to post much this week. I apologize to all those who left comments in the past few days — I’ll add some of my own thoughts soon. I’ll also have a few comments on the conference, although I probably won’t be able to say much as it was confidential and not generally open to the press, as there are both Arabs and Israelis who may not want to be identified. More on that soon.

Barghouti decides to back Abbas after all

Oh well, that didn’t last very long:

“After a meeting of four hours, during which we debated this issue, Marwan Barghouti sends this message to the Palestinian people and its fighters … He calls on the members of the movement to support the movement’s candidate, Mahmoud Abbas,” Fares said.

After the announcement, Barghouti’s daughter Ruba, 15, began weeping. “He is putting his confidence in the sellouts,” she cried.

So I guess the question is, what exactly they promise him in exchange for his support?

Barghouti running for presidency

Now things get interesting:

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) – Firebrand uprising leader Marwan Barghouthi has decided to run for Palestinian president from his Israeli jail cell, an official of his Fatah faction said on Thursday.

The candidacy could throw the Jan. 9 election wide open and pose a dramatic challenge to current front-runner Mahmoud Abbas, a former prime minister now caught in the glare of the charismatic Barghouthi’s popular appeal with Palestinians.

Barghouthi’s behind-bars bid to succeed the Yasser Arafat (news – web sites) as president also raised the specter of a split in the late leader’s historic Fatah movement, which went ahead and endorsed Abbas as its candidate despite Barghouti’s challenge.

“He has decided to run for president,” the Fatah official, who said he had spoken with Barghouthi’s lawyer, told Reuters. “An official announcement will be made within 24 hours.”

But Fatah ruled out running Barghouthi on its ticket by approving the candidacy of Abbas, 69, three days after a Fatah panel nominated him in a race that has also drawn several lesser-known figures.

It’s truly unfortunate that Barghouti can’t do this from outside of jail. It’d be nice to have a new generation of Palestinian leaders rather than Arafat’s old Tunisian crowd. But I also wonder if this will divide the Fatah vote to the benefit of other factions, unless it’s just a ploy for Barghouti’s group to gain more influence among PLO elders.

Here is the New York Times’ take on it, too:

Palestinian officials said Thursday night that Mr. Barghouti, upset with the vague role Mr. Abbas has offered him in a future Palestinian government, apparently wanted to run. But some Palestinians close to Mr. Barghouti say the Palestinians do not need an incarcerated president, that Fatah must remain united and that his time will come if he makes peace with Mr. Abbas.

Mr. Barghouti could run as an independent, but his candidacy would probably split Fatah. Until his name appears on the ballot, some Palestinians suggest, Mr. Barghouti may simply be reminding Fatah that his supporters, especially young militants, need to be heard and that the intifada should not be halted without Israeli concessions.

One Palestinian official said that Fatah had secured Israeli permission to send Qadura Fares, a minister without portfolio, to Mr. Barghouti to learn his intentions.

They also report that Moshe Katsav, Israel’s president, has said he would consider a pardon for Barghouti. Note that Katsav also recently said that Israel should stop building its “security fence” if Palestinians stop terrorist attacks.

Bush meets Sharansky

I hate to imagine what kind of case this guy makes for democracy:

Those looking for clues about President Bush’s second-term policy for the Middle East might be interested to know that, nine days after his reelection victory, the president summoned to the White House an Israeli politician so hawkish that he has accused Ariel Sharon of being soft on the Palestinians.

Bush met for more than an hour on Nov. 11 with Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident now known as a far-right member of the Israeli cabinet. Joined by Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., incoming national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and administration Mideast specialist Elliot Abrams, Bush told Sharansky that he was reading the Israeli’s new book, “The Case for Democracy,” and wanted to know more. Sharansky, with co-author Ron Dermer, had a separate meeting with Condoleezza Rice, later chosen by Bush to be the next secretary of state.

So as well as surrounding himself with people like Danielle Pletka, Condoleeza Rice, Elliott Abrams and Stephen Hadley, Bush also want to meet Israeli politicians that are on the right of Ariel Sharon. Considering who was around, I don’t think this was about convincing him to become more moderate. Mind you, Sharansky may have been the most moderate person there.

American Jews for Peace

This group of people have apparently placed a full-page ad in today’s New York Times. They been doing that for nearly three years now in several major American papers, and should be commended for their public stance. It would be great if a similar organization would enable all Americans, no matter their ethnic backgrounds, to place ads in key media calling for peace in Israel and Palestine.

MEMRI vs. Cole

Juan Cole, of the foremost Middle East blog juancole.com has been threatened with a lawsuit by MEMRI, the infamous “media research” think tank that seems to find most of its time misrepresenting the Arabic press by picking out the worst articles and calling them representative. Read the original post and Cole’s follow up — they reveal more about what kind of organization MEMRI is than anything he’s written in the past. This whole incident is going to backfire on MEMRI and help expose it as the fraud that it is, especially as other major blogs are likely to be on his side. (And yes, you can sue me too, MEMRI, if you care to.)

Update: As I thought, this is backfiring on MEMRI: look at all the attention that it’s getting, as well as the calls for investigations into exactly how MEMRI operates in these posts [1, 2] on juancole.com. Of particular interest would be investigating MEMRI’s Jerusalem offices, for which Cole prints the address. Jerusalamite bloggers might want to look into it.

Sharm wrap-up

The conference on Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, is over. Yesterday was a flurry of press conferences, with everybody finally wanting to talk, and with several interesting things being said. For some of the offiicial highlights, you can check out my story for VOA.

Basically, the final statement was identical to the draft, with the countries at the conference expressing their support for Iraq and for the electoral process there (the date for the election has now been set as January 30). There was a call for neighboring countries to control borders and to prevent terrorists and weapons and funding from passing. There was a call for a conference in Iraq to include all Iraqi groups, even ones that oppose the US presence and the interim government, as long as they don’t engage in violent action. And there the statement that the US-led forces’ mandate is “not open-endedâ€�–not quite the wtihdrawal date that France and many Arab countries wanted, but a step in that direction. Various forms of economic and logistical support were promised, although there was a notable absence of commitment to send troops to be part of the so-called UN Protection Force (to protect UN election advisors and monitors). All in all, although it’s unclear whether violence will really be under control in time for the elections, I think the conference was a real boost for the Iraqi interim government. As the French Foreign Minister said, the elections in January are “difficult, and possible.â€�

One thing I noticed was that the Arab media at the conference was focused on entirely different issues from the Western media. They asked again and again about Fallujah, and were quite confrontational with the Iraqi officials. While the Iraqi officials insist on the (ridiculous) claim that “no� civilians have been killed, the Arab media has leaped to the conclusions that thousands have, and Falluja has become shorthand for “atrocity.� It would be good to actually get to the bottom of this. One thing I don’t understand is why humanitarian agencies weren’t allowed into the city when they wanted to go there.

What I find disturbing is the way both the Western and the Arab media approaches Iraq not as a real place lived in by a real people but as a symbolic battlefield in which to inscribe different ideas of terrorism, colonialism, democratization, Western interference, Islamic extremism, good and evil. Everything that happens there gets reconfigured on each side to match its own ideological grid. The Arab media, with its anti-Americanism and pan-Arabism, has painted itself into a corner where it is almost rooting for more chaos and instability in Iraq rather than peaceful elections and transition. However much you may be dissatisfied or suspicous of the interim governments, this is a bankrupt position. (Western media that doesn’t make the distinction between armed resistance against an occupying army and terrorism against civilians–in the Occupied Territories and in Iraq–is just as blinkered).

I also caught the press conference of the very dour Iranian Foreign Minister Kharrazi. The Iranians were super organized. They took everyone’s name and employer down and called on them in order (it was funny to hear the names of major US news institutions slowly pronounced as if for the first time). They staid for exactly half an hour. Kharrazi said Iran would continue its suspension of uranium enrichment as long at felt it was getting somewhere with the negotiations. He also said Iran would not deal directly with the US being there was no “mutual respect� between the two countries. He called the claims that Iran has been making nuclear warheads “nonsense.� And he said he and Colin Powell, who sat at the same table at a dinner the night before, talked about “nothing.�