The more you watch, the less you know
Amina Elbendary reviews the war in the Arab press
The confusion that has characterised reporting on the US-led war on Iraq on news channels over the past week has also been reflected in the papers, with reports of each side making conflicting declarations. However, while the Arab press remains firm in its support for the Iraqi people and in its denunciation of the Anglo- American invasion, developments on the ground have forced journalists and commentators to move from stressing the illegitimacy of the war and the steadfastness of Iraqi resistance to focus instead on the equally troubling shape of post- war Iraq. News of that is coming, inevitably, from American and British sources.
No Iraqi sources have spoken to the Arab press, the only such source being the daily briefings by Iraqi Information Minister Mohamed Said Al-Sahhaf. Iraqi opposition figures have rarely been interviewed directly, and General Garner, the man who is to be governor of Iraq if the Americans have their way, has yet to give interviews. As the war progresses, covered round the clock by the television channels, Arab commentators have been left with more questions than answers.
BAGHDAD UNDER FIRE: The headlines changed quickly this week where Baghdad was concerned. On 4 April, the London-based daily Al-Hayat's main banner announced that Baghdad was, "Within the reach of the artillery, and Rumsfeld urges the army to overthrow [the regime]." On Sunday 6 April, it read, "Psychological penetration of Baghdad and fierce battles in the airport." By Tuesday 8 April the paper's banner was reading, "The Americans in the presidential palace in Baghdad... after Basra fell." But, another front page story, also in Al-Hayat, pointed out that though "the Americans are in Baghdad, the strategic goal of the war is vague". In an earlier interview with Al-Hayat on 5 April, US Secretary of State Colin Powell had insisted there were not going to be "any diplomatic efforts to reach a cease-fire or negotiate with the Iraqi regime and Saddam Hussein." Once the siege started, Saddam's regime should make way for new people, he insisted.
MEANWHILE, IN THE SOUTH: Even as Coalition forces drove north towards Baghdad, developments in southern Iraq continued to be confusing. Also confusing were the various fatwas by leading Shi'ite clerics reported either as urging people in the south to help the Coalition, or to fight against it, or to stay out of the fight altogether. One Shi'ite figure, Al-Khu'i, a member of the Iraqi opposition in London viewed with suspicion by opposition figures in Tehran, entered Najaf with Coalition forces, the Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported on 4 April, and he seems to have contributed to the confusion surrounding a fatwa by the venerable Al-Sayed Al- Sistani, under house arrest in Najaf. On 5 April, Al-Hayat reported a fatwa ordering the defence of the nation being aired repeatedly on Iraqi television.
On 6 April Al-Hayat was reporting "street battles with the Iraqi resistance in Karbala". The American army was being inspired by "urban warfare Israeli-style", another article in the same issue said, making further comparisons throughout the week as commentators watched the scenes on television.
On 8 April, Al-Hayat carried a front-page story indicating that "British forces in Basra are watching generalised looting." The story quoted sources within Iraq's Bedouin community, reporting that British forces had entered Basra last Sunday after receiving information that the Iraqi army units guarding the city had fled. These sources confirmed to Al-Hayat that British army intelligence had bribed the Bedouins, asking them to persuade the units to desert, with figures reaching some US$3 million, less than the price of a tank they commented, being also paid to agents of the Iraqi opposition.
THE WAR AFTER THE WAR: News of the new Iraqi government to be set up by the US after the war also filled newspapers throughout the week.
On 6 April, Al-Hayat reported that Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher considered plans for Iraq's future as not being "cause for optimism". The London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi announced on 4 April, "Drawing maps, setting up radio stations, reading history books, studying the British experience: The Americans set up a shadow Iraqi government in Kuwait, the majority of whose members are former ambassadors and followers of Wolfowitz."
One challenge that will face Arab states is whether or not to recognise this US-appointed government, especially if it is announced before the fall of the current regime. On 5 April, Al- Sharq Al-Awsat quoted Arab diplomats as saying that Arab states will not easily recognise a new Iraqi government, feeling that it would be premature as long as the regime has not actually fallen. The new government's priority, a diplomat who preferred to remain anonymous told Al- Sharq Al-Awsat, would be to recognise Israel and enter into military and strategic relations with it, making Iraq the spearhead of a new Middle East order imposed by the US.
The diplomat also intimated that, were they to take power, members of the Iraqi opposition in exile would want to settle scores with the Arab regimes that have ignored them for 20 years. This was a view shared by the head of the Kuwaiti parliament, Al-Khirafi, who was quoted in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on 6 April as saying that some people's faces "would go red in shame" because of their positions during this crisis and that Kuwait would have no problem in hosting members of the Iraqi opposition on its soil.
Most commentators in the Arab press were appalled by the emerging shape of the new Iraqi government. That retired General Jay Garner would head it was seen as offensive, and, as Huda Al-Husseini wrote in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on 4 April, both he and James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, "are known for their deep- rooted hatred of Arabs, whether Muslims or Christians, as well as their total and blind loyalty to Israel, invasive and unjust as it is. It wouldn't be surprising, given the call to include advisers from other countries [in the shadow government] if this list that has Garner and Woolsey on it will also include Binyamin Netanyahu".
US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman told Al-Hayat in an interview on 6 April that the new Iraqi government would include opposition figures both from within Iraq and from the diaspora. He stressed that, "we do not look forward to American military governors for Iraq. Our goal is that Iraqis will govern Iraq. ...therefore, the way forward is to bring together the dissidents within Iraq and those who have been working hard outside Iraq for this day." Asked about pressures placed on countries in the Arab world both to democratise and to make peace deals with Israel, Grossman argued that these "are not double pressures, but double opportunities: the opportunities to conclude peace with Israel, to get a Palestinian state side by side with an Israeli state, as President Bush suggested, and the opportunity to achieve development and democracy in the Middle East".
Arab newspapers have also been preoccupied by the commercial deals the American administration has been pursuing in order to sell Iraq's oil. As Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported on 4 April, "The Pentagon is preparing to carry out plans for selling Iraqi oil despite opposition from its Allies and from the Arab states." Ahmed Hamrush, writing in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on 3 April, argued that it had been obvious from the first days of the war that its rationale was not liberating Iraqis, or destroying Iraq's alleged WMD, but rather ensuring American hegemony in Middle Eastern areas rich in oil -- an important prerequisite for world hegemony.
Going ahead with the war despite the failure to gain UN legitimacy indicated, Hamrush argued, a desire by the US to transcend the UN and strengthen its own unilateral decision-making.
In his editorial of 5 April, editor-in-chief of Al- Safir, Talal Salman, wrote a poetic essay recalling his memories of the siege of Beirut in 1982, which had come flooding back as he had watched the bombing of Baghdad. "The remains of cities laden with history and now burning with the fires of siege," he wrote, "are spread across roads from Fao, to Umm Qasr, Basra, Nasseriya, Souq Al-Shuyukh, Al-Zubayr, Al-Hilla, Karbala, Najaf, Haditha and Wasit, while flames in the north devour the capitals of former civilisations -- Mosul, Ur, Dhuk, Kirkuk, Tikrit, Samara, Baghdad. US democracy likes to see Iraq burned, so that freedom can be regained on the wings of B52s from Washington and via Cruise Missiles, Tomahawks, Phantoms, Apaches and Cobras."
Editor-in-Chief of Al-Arab Al-Yawm, Taher Al-Odwan, in his editorial on 4 April pointed out that three Arab capitals have now been invaded over the last four decades: Jerusalem, Beirut and now Baghdad. "This means that the independence of the [Arab] nation has not yet been established, and that the cries of our grandparents at the dawn of the previous century for freedom, independence and unity, have returned to us as a means of stopping the aggressors and invaders and liberating our land and will."
Fears that the invasion of Iraq would only be the beginning of US plans for the region also continued this week, especially following threats made by senior US officials to Syria and Iran. Selim Nassar in his article, "Coalition forces at the gates of the Arab Berlin," in Al-Hayat on 5 April, mentioned that a piece by Israeli commentator Zeiv Scheff in Ha'aretz claiming that Damascus had passed weapons to Iraq, and that Baghdad was hiding some of its WMD in Syria, had been the basis for Rumsfeld's accusation. On 7 April, Hisham Milhim reported in Al-Safir that Washington had stepped up pressure on Syria to "stop its games in Iraq". Milhim referred to statements made by Paul Wolfowitz that change was "also necessary" in Syria following change in Iraq.
In the same issue, Talal Salman's editorial announced, "Occupation is on the way for all the Arabs," pointing to the threats by Wolfowitz, now dubbed "Lawrence of Arabia", against Syria. Salman denounced the US invasion, which he said expressed the US's disdain for the world, its governments, institutions and peoples. He also pointed to the fact that US discourse differed when addressing the Shi'ites in southern Iraq, the Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the centre, and Assyrians and Chaldeans elsewhere. This was an attempt to divide Iraq, he said, adding that talk about forming a new Palestinian government under Israeli occupation coincided with talk of the new Iraqi government under Anglo-American occupation.
"The American war, under the banner of 'Iraqi Freedom'," he concluded, "has killed the Arabs' right to liberation and has hit 'international public opinion', announcing its disdain for all populations and states."
STILL NO TO WAR: As anti-war demonstrations continued throughout the Arab world, the newspapers this week were careful to cover these events. While Al-Quds Al-Arabi announced on 4 April that, "Egyptian activists defy the government ban, and the Muslim Brothers denounce the war and refuse to clash with the authorities in Egypt," the subsequent clampdown and the arrest of activists also received coverage. On 5 April, Al-Hayat reported "dozens of demonstrators arrested in Egypt, and marches in Jordan criticise the official stance; demonstrators in Manama shout slogans denouncing American bases in Arab countries."
Under the title, "Smoke on earth, smoke in minds: Those who see in the international opposition to the war support for the Iraqi regime do not realise that such contentions are an honour to Saddam's regime," Mohieddin Amimour wrote in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on 4 April that objecting to the war did not equal support for the regime of Saddam Hussein, a theme common to many other opinion pieces.
Editor-in-chief of Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Abdel- Bari Utwan, writing on 4 April argued that Iraqi steadfastness in fighting the invasion, and Arab popular support for the resistance and opposition to the war, had forced some Arab leaders to break their silence. King Abdullah of Jordan, for example, had spoken out against the war, for example, he wrote. Utwan lamented Egypt's position, as articulated by President Mubarak, which forced it to honour the 1888 Constantinople Treaty governing navigation in the Suez Canal and keeping it open to shipping.
Statements made by Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, Sheikh of Al-Azhar, calling for jihad against the Anglo-American invasion and encouraging Arab and Muslim volunteers to fight by their Iraqi brethren and for President Saddam Hussein to step down, also received attention. As Al-Hayat explained on its front page on 6 April, Tantawi had retracted earlier statements characterising the invasion as a "crusade" because this would have been to deny the positive role played by Christians in many Western countries, among them France, Germany and Russia, in their attempts to stop the war. Tantawi also saluted Coptic Patriarch Pope Shenouda III and Pope Jean-Paul II for their stands against the war, affirming that it had nothing to do with Christianity, a religion that calls for peace.
NOT-SO-FRIENDLY FIRE: Comments mace by Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa in support of Iraq this week also caused a furore, particularly in Kuwait. On the front page of Al- Sharq Al-Awsat on 2 April the Kuwaiti MP Al- Barak accused Amr Moussa of having "Saddamist inclinations". Al-Hayat of 5 April quoted Jassem Al-Kharafi, head of the Kuwaiti parliament, as saying that resignation would now be a quick solution, since Moussa "appeared unhappy" in his position. These remarks, Abdel- Rahman Al-Rashed said in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on 6 April, had been characterised by Amr Moussa as "friendly fire".
While both sides exchanged remarks in the newspapers, the quarrel also fuelled debate about the future of the Arab League. The Arab League and Arab political cooperation will be the first casualties of the war, warned the editorial of the Jordanian daily Al-Ra'i on 5 April, with Ghassan Tueni, publisher of Al-Nahar, also delivering hard blows to the institution in his editorial on 7 April. No one had a plan to find an exit from the current crisis, not even Amr Moussa, Tueni said. But Arab politicians should stop issuing inflammatory statements, and then, since a full Arab summit would be impossible to convene, a limited Arab summit including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon, should meet. This limited summit could then be the core of a future Arab league, Tueni said. Arab states should not be preoccupied with saving their regimes, but should instead take the initiative in fighting for the life of the nation.
The Kuwaiti press remained on the defensive, with the editorial in Al-Qabas on 1 April arguing that "reason is not absent." According to an article by Hamed Al-Hamud in the same newspaper on 5 April, Kuwaitis should be "patient with other Arabs who oppose them, because they know they [the Kuwaitis] are right". The Kuwaitis had acknowledged the noble role of the US in liberating Kuwait, he argued. Unlike other Arabs, however, they "have managed to separate America's position vis-à-vis the Palestinian question from its current position and its sacrifices in liberating Iraq".
COVERING THE WAR: As the war dragged on, Arab commentators were numbed by what they could see and aggravated by what they couldn't. An article in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on 4 April announced that "Truth is the very casualty of war," with Abbas Baydoun, writing in Al-Safir on 7 April, arguing that even though watching war on television is boring it soon becomes addictive. As in other addictions, however, the addict ends up hating himself and the addiction.
While some Arab satellite channels, notably Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, have been criticised in the West for the nationalist tone of their coverage, they have also received criticism back home. Al-Arabiya has been reprimanded by Kuwait, as Al-Hayat reported on 1 April, for allegedly presenting the point of view of the Iraqi regime, while for others the channels are not doing enough to present a non-Coalition point of view.
Taher Al-Odwan in his editorial in Al-Arab Al-Yawm on 6 April, for example, criticised what he called "The satellites of the Siliya base" for lacking a clear Arab identity that could stand up to Anglo-American aggression. Most Arab channels give hours of air time to American and British generals and politicians, balanced with a few field reports from their correspondents in Baghdad and the press conferences of the Iraqi information minister. For Al-Odwan, the Arab satellite channels were serving American propaganda, with scenes of the humiliation that Iraqi citizens were being subjected to passing without comment.
Why had there been no reporting on the treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war, Al-Odwan asked, and why had not the Arab satellite channels given more attention to the consequences of the war for the Arab states?
Egyptian television coverage also received criticism in Al-Quds Al-Arabi on 5/6 April, the newspaper condemning Egyptian television channels for going out of their way to cover the war objectively and neutrally. Some stories, such as demonstrations in Egyptian universities and in provincial cities, had either been ignored or downplayed as a result, the paper argued.
However, Prince Al-Hassan Bin Talal, former Crown Prince of Jordan, saluted the Arab media in the pages of Al-Hayat on 8 April. He pointed out that the Arab satellite channels had shown themselves to be independent of the international news agencies, having their own correspondents and therefore carrying images of the conflict that were closer to the truth.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 10 -16 April 2003 (Issue No. 633)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/633/sc14.htm