11 - 17 October 2001
Issue No.555
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 11 - 17 October 2001 Issue No.555 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
War of the worlds
Despite efforts to pacify Muslim sentiments, the gulf between average Americans and the Arab street has been wrenched even wider, writes Mohamed Hakki from Washington
An eerie sense of déjà vu descended on Washington on Sunday afternoon when the attacks against Afghanistan began. Those who watched the war against Iraq 10 years ago were vividly reminded of the scenes of rockets lighting up the night sky, of cruise missiles seeking their targets. But this time around, there is a marked difference.
A defiant stance: a pro-Taliban demonstrator settles in for a long fight
(photo: Reuters)
The Gulf War was covered from Baghdad. One was given a real sense of the battle being fought -- ground resistance, suspense, tension, foreboding. This war is being covered from hundreds of miles away. American television channels, which turned the whole world into a small village during the Gulf War have failed miserably to deliver the story on the ground. No Dan Rather in battle fatigues interviewing military leaders. Not a single commentator has even been able to pronounce the name of Osama Bin Laden's terrorist circle, Al-Qa'ida. Instead the Qatar-based Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera became the primary source of news on Afghanistan. News networks have not only blatantly aired footage from Al- Jazeera broadcasts without permission, but they have actually refused to pay for it -- in times of war, it seems, even professional ethics and international copyright laws do not apply.
Throughout the second day of the attacks, the only scenes being shown on television here were early ones, which were taken Sunday night. Little can be seen besides occasional tracer fire -- no action, no movement, no sound -- in short, no excitement. It is as if H G Wells' "War of the Worlds" is happening on a distant planet. Americans are woefully divorced from reality. Despite the heroic efforts of the administration to tell the world, especially the Arab and Muslim world, that this is a war against terrorism and not against Islam, the Bush team do not sufficiently comprehend the effect of Osama Bin Laden's message on the Arab street.
It is ironic, one American colleague noted, that during the Second World War, the US administration was telling Americans: "Just read what Hitler is saying. Just listen to him." "Now, for the first time, we listen to Bin Laden and hear what he says," this friend said. "I must confess that I agree with almost everything he is saying about our blind support for Israel no matter how unjust this may be."
This view is not particularly widespread. Despite the fact that there is nothing normal about this war, the president still maintains the support of more than 90 per cent of Americans. Never before has the United States launched a military campaign against an elusive and shadowy figure like Bin Laden, or moved such an enormous armada of naval warships and long-range air force bombers against one man.
Even specialists are finding it difficult to analyse the military situation. If you don't have centres of gravity, command centres, or troop concentrations, what do you bomb? If you have no infrastructure, no sophisticated industries, or, as in the case of Iraq, no intelligence headquarters, or presidential guard bases, what are your targets? If you have ruled out a ground war, when will you declare victory?
On everyone's mind, of course, is a second set of questions, centering on "What next"? The debate that has been going on here is whether to target other countries that have harboured and encouraged terrorists. Will the US go after Saddam Hussein in Iraq? Will it follow that, as Michael O'Haalon of the Brookings Institute warns against, with "widespread strikes against the military and strategic assets of other countries harbouring other terrorist organisations besides Al-Qa'ida network?" O'Haalon suggests that broader strategic campaigns against Syria, Iran and other countries would make other nations wonder if the United States has simply lost its cool.
In fact, there is a very strong and vocal lobby that is pressing the administration to go after Saddam Hussein. Robert Novak reminds us in an op-ed piece devoted to this question that "the answer involves basic policy decisions about how closely the United States should align itself with Israel in what would look like a worldwide war against Muslim fundamentalists." Secretary of State Colin Powell maintains that such a policy is madness and Novak assures us that, so far, Bush has opted against such a war. Madness or not, Israel's friends in Washington are pushing for just such a policy in order to cover up Israel's continued and accelerated aggression against Palestinian civilians in Khan Younis, Rafah, Beit Jala, Nablus, and continued humiliating closure measures all over the West Bank and Gaza.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cautioned Americans that the US is in for a long, drawn-out war -- that in this battle against terrorism there is no silver bullet. But this has only added to a wide sense of insecurity in all major cities. Even President Bush conceded this sentiment in his address to the nation Sunday: "Many Americans feel fear today," he said, which is exactly what Bin Laden has promised more of.
On Monday morning, Tommy Ridge was sworn in as the new home security czar. He was given wide authority over all domestic security agencies, seen as crucial to ward off the future domestic attacks that almost everyone in the administration and Congress is worried about. There is even an exaggerated fear of terrorists using chemical or biological weapons. People are buying gas masks in hysterical numbers. Every so-called anti- terrorism expert and his cousin can be seen pontificating on television about the gloom and doom ahead for the US, which adds to the unfortunate sense of unease.
All of this flies in the face of the administration's urging that the American people resume their normal lives; to travel and spend money on tourism. Only by doing this, says the administration, can the economy re-energise itself and the American people obtain a true feeling of security.
There is also a degree of worry about "Web sites urging anti-US jihad". It is hardly surprising that terrorists would use the Internet as a convenient tool to spread their ideas. Investigations have already revealed that the alleged perpetrators of 11 September attacks used the Internet for communicating across continents to plan their attack. Consequently, Arab Americans are nervous about using the Internet to spread or receive news about activities back home.
One case worth mentioning is that of Fadi Chaheen, detained by the FBI on 1 October and now facing deportation by the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS). A journalist and managing editor of his own news service, Chaheen has been living in America for 20 years and is married with two children. It is not known whether he is in any way involved with overseas terrorists, but he seems an unlikely candidate for such activities. The uncertainty strikes fear in the hearts of ordinary Arab Americans who are involved in the news business, especially if they happen to oppose this war.
Opposition to this war has been more muted than at the time of the Gulf War. Back then there was a sizeable number of members of Congress who were openly against the Gulf War, not to mention large numbers of college professors, lawyers, and diplomats. But public opinion is now wrapped up in an ultra-nationalistic sense of wounded pride. Those who are opposed to the war this time around are thus invoking the high moral ground of American values, basing their opposition on the need for justice, not revenge. They have also opposed the use of overwhelming military power against one of the poorest and most backward countries in the world.
What this whole "so-called war", as Rumsfeld called it, has proved is the total lack of communication between the US and the entire Arab and Muslim world. The media on both sides are mainly negative and ignorant about each other. American embassies in the Middle East have long been "impenetrable castles separated from the local communities", as one Washington insider put it. Writers and commentators, even those who are supposed to know better, often propagate nonsensical, comical, and downright insulting stereotypes.
The fact is that the European media is light years ahead of America in covering the Arab World. Their understanding and tolerance of Islam is far more comprehensive than in America. Maybe it is because of demographic numbers of Arabs living in Europe, but that is not an excuse. The notable thirst for learning anything about Islam these days is absolutely remarkable and refreshing. When John Esposito, a professor at Georgetown University and Director of the Center for Christian- Muslim Understanding, spoke last week at the World Bank, it was standing room only. President Wolfensohn himself sat among the audience.
It is, indeed, shameful and humiliating for any Arab American living in the US to read some of the childish comments and uninformed coverage of America in Middle East publications, where clichés abound. Some writers, like Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker magazine can easily travel to the region with preconceived ideas and find fuel to reinforce these beliefs. They can fill several pages with brutal criticism of the negative way in which America is represented in the Egyptian media. It is equally true, however, that Zionist influence colours most US coverage of the area. It is certainly high time to put an end to all of this. Sadly, only with a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East can this dream be realised.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page