.

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