Month: October 2004

Regional endorsements

Micah Sifry tells us of a Bush campaign “Jewish outreach” message that “really made his blood boil.” It reported that John Kerry had received endorsements from the PLO. Here’s an excerpt:

Last spring, John Kerry boasted that a number of foreign leaders supported his campaign, but refused to name them. This week he received his first foreign-leader endorsement — from the Palestinian Authority. Congratulations, Mr. Kerry. An organization known the world over as the linchpin of terrorism has now awarded you its support. When Kerry was talking about his popularity in foreign capitals, he said “you can go to New York City and you can be in a restaurant and you can meet a foreign leader” that supports him. Well, it’s unlikely that he met the leaders bestowing this week’s endorsement at Katz’s Deli.

This was supposed to be based on something Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian Authority’s foreign minister, had said — according to the Jerusalem Post, which doesn’t actually quote him saying he supports Kerry, but rather lamenting the fact that the US elections were taking place at the Palestinians’ expense:

“I keep saying that we have many times to pay for these American elections unfairly,” Shaath told a news conference. “During an American election and the three months after, allies of the United States should do more work than they would do otherwise.”

This is what, for instance, Al Jazeera reported.

Other news sources that have reported on this also give the impression that the Palestinians would prefer Kerry, but despite bold headlines never really back up their claims. And in general, the real story with Shaath’s statement is that he was unhappy with how much attention the Bush administration is giving the roadmap — which is to say, none. Realistically speaking, no foreign leader is going to express a preference for one candidate or the other — it’s bad politics, and especially so if you’re the Palestinian Authority.

In fact, guess which Middle Eastern country has officially endorsed Bush in the region?

The answer: Iran.

208 Iraqis died last week

A disturbing report from the New York Times:

From Oct. 11 to Oct. 17, an estimated 208 Iraqis were killed in war-related incidents, significantly higher than the average week; 23 members of the United States military died over the same period.

The deaths of Iraqis, particularly those of civilians, has become an increasingly delicate topic. Early this month, the Health Ministry, which had routinely provided casualty figures to journalists, stopped releasing them. Under a new policy that the government said would streamline the release of the figures – which were clearly an embarrassment to the government as well as to the Americans – only the Secretariat of the Council of Ministers is now allowed to do so.

“It’s a political issue,” a senior Health Ministry official said last week.

No kidding.

The Middle East Awaits

It’s always good when an establishment newspaper points out the obvious even when it’s not part of the current election talking points. The NYT did so when it penned an editorial on the criminal neglect of the Middle East peace process, which should have been a priority after the 2000 election, after 9/11 and should be now.

Instead, they have joined in offering Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, virtually uncritical support for whatever military operations or settlement expansions he chooses to undertake. After pronouncing anathemas on the discredited Yasir Arafat, they have stood by waiting for a new, less compromised Palestinian leadership to somehow emerge miraculously to replace him. This is not a policy. It is an abdication of leadership that costs Israeli and Palestinian lives, deepens mistrust and makes an eventual peace that much harder to achieve. Washington cannot afford to remain on such a destructive course. It must work to rebuild its influence as a force for Middle East peace.

Update: It’s also heartening to see that most of the letters published in response to the editorial are supportive.

MEF defends Patai

The Middle East Forum yet again confirms its intellectual and moral bankruptcy — and attachment to racist stereotypes of Arabs — by reprinting the foreword of the 2002 edition Raphael Patai’s The Arab Mind, the book that the New Yorker’s Samuel Hersh revealed was behind neo-conservative ideas of the Arab world and may have encouraged the mindset that led to the use of torture at Abu Ghraib.

The foreword was written by Norvell B. De Atkine, a teacher at John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, who declares himself an “incurable Romantic” about the Arab world, as Patai did. These kind of arabists, who fancy themselves as later-day Lawrences of Arabia or Richard Burtons, are really not helpful in these days of mass poverty, social unrest, political extremism and autocratic regimes.

But here is what De Atkine has to say:

It might legitimately be asked how well Patai’s analysis bears up in today’s world. After all, it has been about thirty years since the majority of The Arab Mind was written. The short answer is that it has not aged at all. The analysis is just as prescient and on-the-mark now as on the day it was written. One could even make the argument that, in fact, many of the traits described have become more pronounced. For instance, Islamist demagogues have skillfully used the lure of the Arabic language, so carefully explained by Patai as a powerful motivator, to galvanize the streets in this era of the Islamic revival, in a way even the great orator Abdul Nasser could not achieve.

Wow, those Islamists, they use language and everything! And the idea that they “galvanized the streets” in way that “Nasser could not achieve” is ridiculous when you think of the crowds he could pull. The Islamists — at least those of the Bin Laden type — have a limited appeal in the Arab world, even if they’ve managed (because of their experience in Afghanistan and elsewhere) to be very effective organizations. Otherwise the entire Arab world would be run by Islamists. Furthermore, Islamic revivalism is also not going anywhere. The biggest trend in Arab societies today is the growth of apolitical piousness that manages to integrate with modernity just fine — not a Taliban or Wahhabi-like return to seventh-century Arabia.

The point is not that Patai had nothing worthwhile to say. It is more that whatever his contribution to understanding the Arab world was, it was too tinted by ideology and romanticism to be fully trusted. The Arab world has gone through tremendous changes since Patai first wrote The Arab Mind, which is why it is time to leave scholars with an outdated view of the region (Bernard Lewis, an outstanding Ottoman historian but dubious interpreter of the Arab world, comes to mind here) to the historiographers and intramural academic bickering.

On the anti-Semitism report

Although its intention is worthwhile, I disagree with Tom Lantos’ bill requiring the State Department to prepare an annual report on global anti-Semitism that has been signed by President Bush.

Lantos, the sole Holocaust survivor in Congress, pushed the idea amid reports of increased anti-Semitic incidents in Europe and continued propaganda against Jews and Israel in the Arab media.

The State Department had opposed his proposal, saying it would send the wrong signal around the world to single out anti-Semitism for special treatment over other human rights problems and stressing the department was already reporting on the issue.

Bush signed the bill Saturday without comment. But his signature was expected, especially in an election year in which the Jewish vote in swing states could prove important to Bush’s re-election contest against Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry.

As the State Department argues, anti-Semitism is already covered in its reports, notably its human rights report. Singling out anti-Semitism as a special form of racism is a bad idea, if only because it dissociates it from racism and makes it something “special” — something that will fuel the arguments of the anti-Semites. Highlighting anti-Semitism like this also exaggerates the phenomenon. In the case of the Arab world, where anti-Semitism is admittedly rife and occasionally gets violent, as it did in Morocco in 2003 or in Tunisia in 2002, it will compound a common misperception that anti-Semitism is the biggest form of discrimination taking place.

Taking Egypt as an example, there has been much real state persecution against Shias or Ba’hais, but no case of anti-Jewish persecution. Furthermore, if we’re going by religious groups then the most persecuted people are those accused (often falsely) of being Sunni fundamentalists. There are 12-15,000 alleged fundamentalists being held in Egyptian jails, often without trial. The vast majority of them are non-violent. Yet we’re more likely to hear about anti-Semitic articles in the Egyptian state press or TV. Focusing on anti-Semitism over other groups’ rights simply distorts the picture, which is in nobody’s interests. They should get serious about promoting human rights for everybody — Jewish or not.

Corruption in the Arab world

This just in from the BBC: Oil wealth ‘can cause corruption’.

Good to know they’re on top of things. Actually, to be fair this is a story about the latest report by Transparency International, the corruption watchdog. The Arab world, as always, does not fare particularly well. The least corrupt Arab countries are Oman and the United Arab Emirates who share a ranking of 29th (1st being the least corrupt, this year Finland) with Bahrain (slightly lower than Israel), Jordan and Qatar trailing not far behind in the mid-30s. Egypt and Morocco are way behind, sharing the 77th ranking — lower than Saudi Arabia and Syria, which is a bit of a surprise — and at the same level as Turkey. Libya and the Palestinian Authority don’t do too well and share the 108th position. The oil revenue issue is highlighted here:

“Corruption robs countries of their potential,” said [Transparency International (TI) Chairman Peter] Eigen. “As the Corruption Perceptions Index 2004 shows, oil-rich Angola, Azerbaijan, Chad, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Libya, Nigeria, Russia, Sudan, Venezuela and Yemen all have extremely low scores. In these countries, public contracting in the oil sector is plagued by revenues vanishing into the pockets of western oil executives, middlemen and local officials.”

TI urges western governments to oblige their oil companies to publish what they pay in fees, royalties and other payments to host governments and state oil companies. “Access to this vital information will minimise opportunities for hiding the payment of kickbacks to secure oil tenders, a practice that has blighted the oil industry in transition and post-war economies,” said Eigen.

And guess which Arab country is at the very bottom of the heap, along with notoriously corrupt countries like Pakistan, Congo, Azerbaijan, Myanmar and Haiti (the lowest-ranked country)?

Yup, that’s right: Iraq. Sure, it was probably down there at the bottom of the table under Saddam Hussein and the various “Mr. 10%” that controlled business, but seen as this is a report for 2004, I’m curious who they are reporting as corrupt: the Iraqi interim government, foreign contractors or the former CPA?

“The future of Iraq depends on transparency in the oil sector,” added Eigen. “The urgent need to fund postwar construction heightens the importance of stringent transparency requirements in all procurement contracts,” he continued. “Without strict anti-bribery measures, the reconstruction of Iraq will be wrecked by a wasteful diversion of resources to corrupt elites.”

Iraqi Intellectuals Seek Exile

Iraqi academics are in peril:

Since the war ended 18 months ago, at least 28 university teachers and administrators have been killed, while 13 professors were kidnapped and released on payments of ransom, according to the Association of University Lecturers. Many others have received death threats.

The result: an exodus of academics and other intellectuals, who are urgently needed by a shattered society, from their schools and often the country, joining an earlier generation of exiles who fled the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Is old Najaf being destroyed?

Kamil Mahdi reports that construction projects around Najaf are destroying the core of the old city:

The destruction of Najaf which is now under way is drastic and irreversible. A statement by the head of the Shia Waqf Diwan dated on 8 September shows clearly that the whole matter was only an idea a month ago, yet a decision was quickly taken and demolition has begun. People should at least be allowed to discuss the rights and wrongs of such decisions.

No such discussion is taking place, not even in the sham, pliant and self-selected National Council. Is this the so-called democracy all these people have died and are dying for? If the destruction continues without open and meaningful public consultation that takes place in a rational atmosphere and in total transparency, it will be nothing short of a criminal assault on Iraq’s heritage and on its history. All over the civilised world, historic cities are protected, preserved and developed in ways that retain the character and identity of the city and the integrity of its physical and social fabric.

Winning Hearts and Minds

The Washington Post has an article about an as-yet-unreleased report on Radio Sawa, one of the Bush administration’s attempts–along with Hi Magazine and Al Hurra TV station–to change the hearts and minds in the Arab world. The article says the report–which was commissioned by the State Department’s inspector general– is highly critical of Sawa, which is one of the reasons it (the report) hasn’t been released yet. The Broadcasting Board of Governors (which oversees all of the above mentioned media channels, as well as Voice of America Radio) has strongly disagreed with the findings of the reports and is seemingly in the process of “watering” it down.

I do freelance work for VOA radio here in Cairo, so I know a little about this. A few years ago VOA’s Arabic radio service was discontinued, and Radio Sawa was created instead. Sawa features a blend of pop music and short news. In the opinion of most VOA journalists, Sawa is not a serious news station (not to mention that it’s an interloper). Instead of 3 to 4 minutes reports that used to air on VOA’s Arabic service, Sawa airs at the most 45 second long news items. Also, supposedly the quality of reporting has suffered (this is noted in the leaked State Department report as well). People also complain that while VOA Arabic had a solid, age-old reputation and wide-spread name recognition, Sawa does not enjoy the same esteem, and is seen as fluff and progaganda (Arabs have wondered why Sawa doesn’t openly state that it’s a US government station). I have heard of interviewees granting interviews to VOA and specifically stipulating that they not be aired on Sawa. If people are really refusing to give Sawa interviews then that really does speak to a generally low opinion of the station.

The Washington Post article quotes Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, “VOA unions are obsessed over knocking Sawa.” It’s certainly true that VOA employees have resented Sawa since its creation–they have even sent petitions to Congress about it. Part of this may be territoriality, but most of it I think is seasoned professional journalists watching a good news service get dismantled and a crappy radio station created in its place.

The whole way Sawa has been created has all the Bush administration trademarks:

1) Appoint an ideologically sympathetic businessman to run the operation (much as advertising mogul Charlotte Biers was appointed to her disastrous stint as head of public diplomacy). The guy running the whole Hi/Sawa/Hurra show is BBG member Norman J. Pattiz, a radio tycoon from California. With what I’m guessing is little experience in public diplomacy, journalism or the Middle East, he has focused single-mindedly on “building audience,” making Sawa a pop-music station to attract the huge under-25 audience in the Middle East.

2) Rely on simplistic, flawed and condescending assumptions. The idea that Arab audiences can’t be reached by a serious news channel, but rather have to be tricked into listening by a barrage of US pop music and then slipped a little bit of the news on the hour is insulting. Arabs are much more interested in current events and politics than Americans are, for one. Also, what does this approach gain? Even if the whole Middle East listens to Britney Spears, is that really going to make them start calling the invasion of Iraq a “liberation”? Arabs know when they’re being pandered to. They can listen to our music and still think our politics are bogus, and the only thing that could change that (besides the obvious, changing our politics) is to offer substantive news coverage, talk shows, in-depth reports, etc.

3) Don’t consult any of the seasoned professionals who have been working in the field, thus alienating them all (see my remarks about VOA employees above). Choose your staff based on loyalty to your vision rather than on competency.

4) End up with a shallow, out-of-touch, low-quality, ideologically driven product.

5) Refuse to aknowledge criticism of the results. The Board of Governors is fighting the State Department report tooth and nail, and will probably succeed in having its conclusions re-written.

And the same issues apply to Hi magazine (which had one of the most dismal receptions I’ve ever seen) and Al Hurra, which is so in touch with the Middle East that it is run almost entirely by a cabal of pro-American Lebanese Maronites. These initiatives are all part and parcel of the Bush administration’s huge failure in public diplomacy–a failure to engage in any kind of open, substantive, respectful dialogue with people in the Middle East, because these people are not seen as valid interlocutors but rather as children that need to be brainwashed into agreement using whatever the most effective and shallow commercial means are available. (Hum, sounds like their attitude to the American public). And not only are these methods reprehensible, they don’t work.