What the Arabs watch vs. what Bush says

Ghida Fakhry

Tuesday, November 11, 2003 : (International Herald Tribune) LONDON
President George W. Bush's speech about bringing "freedom and
democracy" to the Middle East has, as expected, fallen on deaf ears in
the Arab world. His attempt to recast the neoconservative doctrine of
"a global democratic revolution" was met, at best, with smiles.

The "freedom deficit" in the Arab world will not be filled by what
many consider to be American demagoguery and hubris. Washington's
daunting challenge is to pitch its rhetoric against what the Arabs see
on television screens across the Middle East - and beyond.

American policymakers and U.S.-appointed Iraqi officials, jittery
about television coverage of daily events in Iraq under occupation,
are blaming Arab satellite channels for inciting people against them.
Al Jazeera is often singled out, but the handful of other widely
watched stations, such as Al Arabiya, LBC and Abu Dhabi TV, are also
proving to be a thorn in the side of Iraq's new leaders.

These satellite channels, which did not exist during the first Gulf
War, have become in the last few years the principal source of news
for tens of millions of Arabs living in the Middle East and beyond.

Watching Arab television coverage of Iraq is a constant reminder of
the predicament the Americans are in these days. The increasing number
of casualties that the occupying forces are suffering is highlighted,
day after day, on every news program. The effect of this occupation on
the lives of ordinary Iraqis is debated endlessly. The message is
clear: "Get out and give the Iraqis control over their own destinies."

For now, the U.S. administration refuses to be deterred, insisting
that America will prevail over the "enemies of freedom." But
policymakers in Washington are also becoming acutely aware that the
kind of coverage this guerrilla war is getting is not making their
task any easier.

On his last trip to Iraq, in September, Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly
complained to the dozen American reporters accompanying him, and to
me, the only Arab news media representative on the trip, about the
absence of any coverage highlighting "the successes of the coalition
forces" in Iraq. Why were the media not showing the work that was
being done in schools and hospitals, Rumsfeld and other top U.S.
officials in Iraq asked again and again. Considering the deadly blows
to the United States and other international targets in and around
Baghdad, it is difficult to see how the media coverage could shift any
time soon in a way that would suit Washington - unless reporters cease
to cover the facts on the ground.

The news coverage on Arab television also often reflects the level of
resentment that Arabs still feel about the invasion and on-going
occupation of Iraq. There is no doubt that some of the coverage plays
to the emotions of Arab viewers, whose sense of crushed pride was
further wounded by the rapid fall of Baghdad and the collective
weakness of Arab regimes to stop the U.S.-$ led invasion of another
Muslim country in the "war on terrorism." They are aware that this is
only the second phase of what they suspect will be a drawn-out war on
a string of Arab states.

Another reality that is not playing in favor of Washington is that
people in the region are watching developments in Iraq against the
backdrop of another illegal and protracted occupation: the Israeli
occupation of Palestinian land. The United States is seen as being
directly responsible for this through its unwavering support for every
Israeli government regardless of its policies. The deep level of Arab
suspicion of U.S. motives in the Middle East explains the wide
skepticism that accompanies any U.S. endeavor to bring "reform and
democracy" to the Arab world. The fact that Washington's closest
allies in the region are not particularly renowned for their
democratic governance further supports the widespread view of American
double standards. Those countries primarily targeted in Bush's speech
aren't necessarily the ones with the worst record.

A considerable amount of airtime on Arab satellite channels is given
to U.S. officials. Their message, however, continues to be met with
distrust.. When an under secretary of defense speaks about a clash
between the West and "Satan," as Lieutenant General William Boykin
did, it only reinforces the predominant view in the Arab and Muslim
world that the U.S. "war on terrorism" is essentially a war against
Islam.

The Bush administration should realize that although Arabs were long
denied free access to information, they developed a critical sense and
the ability to decipher political realities. Today, with millions of
Arabs watching satellite television channels and other international
news media outlets, "spinning" Iraq's reality will not suffice to
extricate the United States from the quagmire into which it seems to
be sinking.

The writer is a news anchor based in London for the television channel
Al Hayat/LBC.
Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune