A Crack of Light in the Press

Abu Dhabi's new daily, The National, seems to be a refreshing new idea. A paper with actual journalism. I found a recent article by Fawaz Gerges to be a refreshing read coming out of the region, even in an English paper. In it, he discusses the traditionally interpreted meanings and bases of jihad and how al-Qaeda's project to radically reinterpret these tenets has failed, producing a backlash in the Arab world against their senseless violence. Even so, his comments require some adjustment, especially for those in the West who would think he is wholly accurate about opportunities at hand.

Al Qa'eda has lost Muslim minds because it has failed in its attempt to radically redefine jihad and gain acceptance of indiscriminate violence in the name of Islam. A number of recent opinion surveys confirm that an overwhelming majority of Muslims are not merely unsympathetic to the ideology of bin Laden and his followers - they place direct blame at his feet for the harm he has caused to the image of Islam and the damage his movement has wrought within Muslim societies.

Another comment is interesting, but I think needs a little nuance. I don't have time to look up the Gallup poll right now, but I will either post a comment or a second post with the info. I think that, while very few people think the attacks of 9/11 were completely justified, there are a lot of people who were happy to see America's nose bloodied, maybe just not in such a horrific way. I think there is a middle answer between Gerges' assertion that the attacks have very little support and the common Western notion that a vast majority supported it.

Gallup conducted tens of thousands of hourlong, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than 35 predominantly Muslim nations between 2001 and 2007, and found that only 7 per cent of respondents believed the September 11 attacks were "completely" justified. Contrary to the perception in the West that the actions of al Qa'eda enjoy wide support in the Muslim world, 90 per cent of respondents condemned the killings on religious and humanitarian grounds.
Despite the real and potent challenges to al Qa'eda and its ideology evident in these debates, they have not received the attention they deserve. The West has failed, by and large, to understand the critical distinctions in Muslim opinion on these matters, and to forge policies to address the legitimate grievances of many Muslims - foremost among them the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war in Iraq.

Gerges goes on to talk about the distinction between AQ and resistance to occupation. Yes, there is a distinction. Some of the resisters are fighting occupation. Americans would do the same. Just look at the movie (I know it's a movie) Red Dawn. Charlie Sheen and Patrick Swayze were insurgents and they were heroes. But there's a difference between guys like that, and the guys who are doing the same thing in Iraq, etc, and the thugs who man sectarian death squads, bomb civilians, and so on. And furthermore, people try to argue against the American definition of Hamas and Hizbollah as terrorist groups, saying that they're political parties. Well, if they were really just political parties, then why did their militias mount what were basically armed coups, albeit stopping short of toppling the government, in Gaza and Lebanon? They did not increase their power by political means, they maneuvered into political power through terror. Yes, they had some electoral successes before that, but the bottom line is that they are armed groups, seeking political power through any means available.

Here's Gerges on the subject:

While al Qa'eda's "jihad" is clearly regarded by most Arabs and Muslims as terrorism, Palestinian, Lebanese, and Iraqi groups that employ violence in the service of what is seen as resistance to foreign occupation are considered legitimate. Muslims still regard the defence of besieged or occupied territories as honourable examples of jihad. It is not the violence per se that is the issue. Rather, the question is, What is the justification for taking up arms?

Gerges, calling for the U.S. to moderate its policies to take advantages of changes in support for AQ and their like, says: "In most of the Muslim world, the US is admired for its democracy and freedoms."

I'm not so sure. I hear a lot of people throwing freedom and democracy back in the U.S.'s face. America's democracy and freedom at home is questioned, and its attempts to promote the same in the region are thoroughly discredited among many. So, I don't know that his statement is true here.

In closing, Gerges says:

There is more than a glimmer of hope: the fact that al Qa'eda has been marginalised and discredited, not by military force but by exegetes using sound theological arguments is encouraging. It should make us appreciate that it is the articulation of ideas - not military force - that will defeat those who would engage in terrorism.

I agree that ideas are important, but at the same time, I think that refutation of AQ does not equal an opening for rapprochement between the U.S. and the Muslim world. I think that the issues and wounds go much beyond AQ and support for AQ. See this Brookings Institution poll for an idea of the depth of the problem. AQ is, and always has been a marginal phenomenon. There needs to be a much deeper change in public opinions for the U.S. to have an opening. Much of this needs to come from changes in U.S. policy, but it also needs time for views in the Muslim world to change.

It is great to see this discussion in a regional paper. Unfortunately, I do not know of any plans to launch an Arabic language twin of this ambitious new project. It is sorely needed.

More Press Idiocy

I got a pointer to another glowing example of Gulf media shortly after I wrote my last post. I don't know what to call this genre. In my last post, I typed Arab press, but I really was talking about the English papers in the Arab world. English Arab press? Arab English press? The English press that is sometimes poorly translated from Arabic and at other times is terrified of biting the hand that feeds it? The doormat? What do you call it? Incidentally, for those of you who want something translated into any language, my odds are on a native speaker of the translated-into language. I can understand English mi'a bil-mi'a as it is my native language. If you ask me to translate an English article into Arabic, I can do it, but it won't be spotless. Now, with Arabic, I cannot understand it mi'a bil-mi'a, but if you give me just a dictionary in most cases, or a dictionary and an Arab in a few cases like literature or especially flowery or idiomatic wording, I can translate any Arabic piece into an English piece that will never be second guessed as to whether it was originally written in English by a native. It makes sense. Native speaker should do the writing. Even if you have an Arab translate it into English, then a native English speaker check it, or vice versa, this should be the standard for journalism. Also, many Western press sources are good at translating Arab quotes, but others translate it word for word, accidentally or purposely making the interviewed person sound like an illiterate. Not good.

In any case, after my ramble, here is the article in question: "So a drunk guy in a bar says to another drunk guy." Start of a joke? Maybe. The Gulf News reports that the recent UK terror alert for UAE was caused by two Arab drunks at a hotel bar.

One drunk man told the other in jest: "If someone wants to scare all these
people and make them run away, just say there is a bomb. A belt bomb will kill
hundreds of them."

I'm not sure which is more surprising: the lack of creativity in this story or the fact that they admit that there were two drunk Arabs in Abu Dhabi. Perhaps the "drunk Arabs" causing the terror alert is true, but I'd be willing to bet a year's pay that it isn't. Other stories I've read recently said that there is "no threat" of a terrorist attack in the UAE. NO threat? None? Please. Like I said in my last post, COMPLETE denial is COMPLETELY unbelievable. It only worked for Stalin because he backed it up with killing everyone.

I can't think of another adjective, so I'll say that the regional press must get beyond this CHILDISHNESS before it expects to have a real voice in changing anyone's perspective.

Human Trafficking in the Press

A good bit of debate has been going around Oman's blogging community (here and here) regarding the recent U.S. State Department Human Trafficking Report, which labeled Oman as Tier 3 (the worst of 3 tiers) for the second year running. The validity of this rating, or lack thereof, has been batted back and forth as can be seen at the two posts linked above. What I want to address here is the reaction by public officials and the press, which was actually the original issue in Undercover Dragon's post.

If Oman (press, politicians, people) wants to criticize the legitimacy of the rating, fine. If they want to question the U.S.'s right to level such a charge, whether in terms of national sovereignty or in terms of moral standing, fine. But the sad thing is that the Omani press and public officials could have gained credibility by saying, "Yes, there are SOME problems in Oman, but they are very slight in comparison to other Tier 3 countries and we are working very hard to fix them. Therefore, we feel that the U.S. report is innacurate and misleading." Take that theme and run with it. You can even play on a variation, and admit that there is a slight problem, but that the U.S. was purposely misleading to attain political goal X. I assure you, though, that high-level political operators have much more important machinations to occupy themselves with than this report that made little impact anywhere but Oman.

Instead, the latest gem from the Omani press in the Times of Oman, goes to quote an American, an Indian, a Dutch, and a Fillipino, all of whom deny the validity of the report out of hand. Several go on about how Oman is a free, fair, and tolerant place. Who cares? Is the report about freedom and tolerance or about the few people who traffick humans and the fact that Oman has not made sufficient attempts to stop them? So, the writer needs to tailor her questions and steer her interviewees more to the point.

Then there is this whopper:

“Human trafficking? There is nothing like that over here. The report is
extremely biased and unjustified, to say the least,” says Josie, a Dutch
national who has been living in Muscat for the last 10 years. “The rules are
very strict here and no one is allowed to come and go without proper
documentation. That being the case, I can confidently say there is absolutely no
trafficking of any sort happening here.”

Really? I've been here a bit less than 10 years, but I know that "Josie" is either lying, or she spends all day at the Left Bank or some other high end place sozzling and never gets beyond some high-end expat circles. Alternatively, perhaps she is one of those expats who has some sort of Stockholm syndrome where they want to be more Omani than the Omanis (or whatever other country they happen to be in). For those who have followed the debates at MuscatConfidential and Blue-Chi, Balqis falls into this category.

To someone who already believes that Oman is squeaky clean, of course this is very soothing, but to the many who believe that there is a problem and think that Oman deserved Tier 3, this does nothing to change their minds. Now, if you told me "yes, there is a problem" then went on to explain why it is not as bad as the U.S. says and then gave me examples of how Oman is fighting it and how the U.S. report is overstated, I'd have to moderate my position. But if you say, "There is no problem whatsoever," I know you are lying.

Now, for those who question the U.S.'s right to do this, I have a few comments. First, the U.S. needs to realize that many of its policies, especially with regard to the War on Terror, impeach its credibility in cases like this. I recognize that. But, why does the U.S. make reports like this? Part of the reason is because people in the U.S. truly feel that the country is an "exceptional" beacon of freedom and want to spread that freedom. Question the politicians and policies all you want, but I am telling you that Americans truly want to spread freedom. The other part is because activists and victims from all over the world lobby the U.S., as the world's greatest power, to use that power to good. The U.S. didn't come with these reports to humiliate people. Someone who either was a victim of human trafficking, or saw it first-hand started spreading the word, then some activist group got involved and pressured Congress members, etc. until a law was passed requiring this report, in the hopes that it would force nations to take steps to stop these practices. So, you have to understand this wasn't some report Bush dreamed up to humiliate Oman.

Finally, here are a few links to reports or articles from the U.S. about human trafficking in our own country. While we don't give ourselves a rating, we do criticize and evaluate and try to improve. Americans never trust answers like the Times of Oman gives, so American journalists try to give both sides of the story, those who say there is no problem, and those who say there is. Then, with the weight of quotes and facts, the reader is left to decide what the truth is. If the reader is given only one side, he or she is left to think that the writer is covering something up.

Look at the below links from the U.S. government and press about trafficking in the U.S. The U.S. has a big problem with human trafficking too. Probably a lot bigger than Oman's in some ways. Yet, the U.S. admits the problem and has stern measures in place to deal with it, and actively investigates and prosecutes it.

After reading the below links, consider whether the Arab press will ever get beyond catering to those who are already convinced by striking a middle tone that may win the unconvinced over to their side. As it is, they are verbally mastrubating each other in a closed circle. Evidently they don't want anyone else to join in.

U.S. Department of Education factsheet that states that human trafficking has been reported in all 50 U.S. states and Washington DC.

A newspaper article about Louisiana kids being sold for sex. (Americans trafficking Americans)

Newspaper article about a (Hispanic) American couple who lured Hispanics from Latin America with promises of good pay then forcing them into work.

Department of Health and Human Services factsheet that states that around 15,000 persons are trafficked across U.S. borders annually.