The Arab Press During the Iraqi/UN Crisis

As The aeroplane carrying UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was landing at Baghdad airport, for an 11^th hour mission to spare the Iraqi people their third arial bombardment and Tomahawk missiles in seven years. But the Arab press, from Casablanca on the Atlantic Ocean to Muscat on the Indian Ocean, was fighting its own war of words. And if, to quote from several Arab editorials, the show-down in the Persian Gulf, was ‘ a one sided attack [by he US] against the whole of the Arab and Muslim nations,’ it was also a one side war of words by Arab journalists against the Judo-Christian culture of the ‘west.’

‘ It is the barbaric American Crusade of the 20^th century,’ screamed the first line in an editorial penned by the editor of Al-Quds, a PLO backed daily based in London, which waved Saddam Hussein’s banner from the very first day he invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

‘It is a naked comeback of the medieval crusade,’ wrote the same editor, ‘ not to save the burial ground of Christ, but to inflect the greatest measure of insult and humiliation on Arabs and Muslims.’

The editorial, claiming that president US President Bill Clinton was placing obstacles in Mr. Annan’s mission, appeared on the very day (Wednesday 18^th Feb), when Kofi Annan started his mission, backed by President Clinton and other world leaders and on the same day, the plane carrying his advisers arrived Baghdad.

Another interesting characteristic, was the absence from Baghdad of any correspondents of Arabic newspapers that fired barrage after barrage of abuse against the Americans and the Kuwaitis while lamenting the fate of starved sick children in Iraqi hospitals.

Ironically when some journalists tried to show or discuss the stories published by the Times and the Guardian Baghdad reporters about the suffering of the Iraqi children in some ‘pan-Arab’ television networks, they were censored on the spot.

The United Nations became a stone in the Arab press game. Many called on the world leaders to give the UN all the power it needs to end the crisis. But almost on the same pages they would condemn the organisation as a ‘tool in the hands of America’ as an editorial in ‘Ashaab’ the Cairo voice of Labour-Islamic alliance opposition said.

‘ America is using the UN as a Trojan horse to sneak into the Arab world and fragment it into small pieces’ said the headline in Al-Dawaa, the Muslim Brothers weekly. The publication called upon the leaders of Arab and Islamic nations to hold a summit meeting and ‘ stand united in the face of American aggression.’

It was no surprise that the White House intern Monica Lowinsky has become a darling of Arab press. The censors, all of a sudden missed many stories about a president’s infidelity and the details of his sex life, this type of reporting is usually censored from the Arab press. Some Arab feminist linked ‘ Clinton’s aggression’ to his high level of testosterone’. The warships, aircraft carries, missiles and bombs ‘ were all but an extension of the American president’s overworked vital organ that failed to satisfy Monica, so he took his frustration out on the poor people of Iraq,’ wrote some unheard of feminist in the Egyptian communist weekly and was reprinted in Beirut.

Meanwhile another Cairo weekly ‘ Al-Midan’, carried a fatwa by Sheikh Ali Noor el-Dine the head of the fatwa committee in Al-Azhar. ‘ Any body who give facilities to America to launch an attack on the Muslim people of Iraq is a traitor who betrayed his nation, his faith, his honour, his Allah and prophet Mohammed.’

In another part of the same issue, the very Sheikh launched savage attack on Saddam Hussein as ‘ an agent of America and international Zionism [sic] in this region,’ adding that the Iraqi leader ‘ was the main cause for the poverty of this nation!’

The Arab nationalist papers that follow late President Nasser’s pan-Arab line, as well as Al-Quds accused al-Midan of co-operating with Israeli papers like Yid’eut Aherunot and ‘seeking finance form the Israelis,’ which is rather a serious charge that could lead to some grave consequences if you live in the Middle East.

But not all the reporting on Iraq was an attack on the UN and the US – although in the Arab press there is no difference between reporting and comment. The – almost – only voice of reason was that of Abdel-Rahman Arrashid, the editor of the London based weekly Al-Majalla, whether in his one-page editorials in his magazine, or in his daily column in Asharq al-Awsat. He was just about the only Arab journalist who made a valid point regarding the difference between Rolf Ekeus leadership of UNSCOM (the UN Special Commission for identifying and destroying Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons) and that of Richard Butler. He pointed how Butler fell into the trap of letting Saddam provoke the current crisis and also highlighted Butler’s unfortunate and unguarded remarks about Iraq having the capabilities to destroy half of Tel Aviv.

Mr. Arrashid, again, was the only Arab journalist, to my knowledge, who pointed out the ‘backwardness of official media in the gulf,’ in his excellent column on ‘ how Saddam is managing to win the propaganda war.’ He was critical of official media in/and press controlled by Arab Gulf countries for ‘failing the readers’, listeners’ and viewers’ expectations, by not doing their job in reporting the facts as they are.’ But, I feel here I should remind Mr. Arrashid that it is the trait in the character of Arab journalists that makes the press that way, since Arab officials – like officials every where else- would like the media to dance to their tune, but it is up to the journalist to chose how to do his job.

Still in London and in the heat of the crisis – the first week of February- witnessed the launching of the newest Arabic daily in the old capital. Azzaman (Time) – ‘daily Arabic and independent’ it claims under its computer designed masthead that resembles a banners from a kids’ computer games. The editor and his staff are vague about the source of finance or the backers.

The Editor Saad el-Bazzaz was once one of Saddam Hussein's favourite media adviser. He was his man in 1980’s in London sitting in an impressive office in – Butler (no pun intended) House on Tottenham Court Road. He then, had a massive budget to back several Arab daily and weekly publications in London and bribe Arab journalists during the ideological war with Syria and the eight-year war with Iran. Mr. Bazzaz changed colours at the end of ‘ mother of all battles’ and his writing began to appear in the Saudi London daily Asaharq Al-awsat exposing his master’s disastrous errors as a self appointed commander of Iraq’s armed forces against the allies. It would be interesting to follow the battle colours of Azzaman as the events unfold especially its stance on the Iraqi government in exile – watch this space.

The details Iraqi government in exile, were first revealed by Zaki Shihab in the Saudi owned London weekly Al-wasat, then Marie Colvin published the story a few days later in the Sunday Times as an exclusive!

As usual the Arab press pointed the faults of the United Nations during the Iraqi crisis by highlighting the ‘double standard’ of the world organisation because the Security Council ‘ never seeks to use force to implement its resolutions regarding Israel’s withdrawal from south Lebanon or Israel’s nuclear arsenal.’ The idea was published in an endless number of Arab publications in London, Paris and the Middle East.

It is rather an interesting comparison and would have made a good starting point to examine the role of the United Nations and finding the mechanism to enable the UN and its Security council to be more effective in implementing resolutions. Instead no serious debate or discussion took off in that direction. Any comments regarding the UN was just an excuse to attack Israel, and some how made Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responsible for America’s tough line on Iraq.

While Arab press, in general, failed to enlighten its readership on the dilemma facing the Lebanese, who were offered a bilateral pull out by the Israelis, but the Syrians forced them to reject. No Arab paper I saw reported this simple fact, instead, almost all commentary – another reminder that there is no difference in the Arab press between reporting and commentary- accused Israel of trying to split the Arabs’ last unifying stance and separate the Lebanese issue from the Syrian issue. Only Mr. Arrashid made a passing satirical comment on ‘ a Lebanese government rejecting the withdrawal of occupying forces.’ But, if you don’t have the chance to read western press or to listen to the BBC, you would be excused to think that Lebanon’s rejecting Israel’s offer to pull out of South Lebanon was a major blow to Mr. Netanyahu.

Mr. Netanyahu is still in the doghouse as far ‘ eyes and ears’ as the daily column of Al-Hayat editor Jihad el-Khazen, who is engaged in his own jihad against the Israeli Prime Minster. Mr. el-Khazen, occasionally, gives Mr. Netanyahu the odd day off to allocate more space and energy attacking Jewish journalists and commentators in the New York Times like William Safire and Andrew Rosenthal. But Mr. Netanyahu brought it upon him self-several times one must admit. Not just by making some absurd remarks about the threat from Palestinian controlled areas, but by deeds. He was in deep water last autumn with the Mossad agents getting themselves caught red-handed attempting to assassinate Ahmad Mishaal, one of the leaders of Hamas – the Islamic movement dedicated to the destruction of Israel – in Amman.