I want my Al Jazeera

The lack of availability in the United States of international news outlets is a cause for concern, author argues. Naomi Wolf Last Modified: 05 Apr 2011 11:20

Ayman Mohyeldin, who is currently building up support in the US, was one of the reporters on the ground in Gaza during Israel's offensive in 2009, and was arrested in Egypt during the popular uprisings there Al Jazeera correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin is on a victory lap in the United States – or rather, Al Jazeera is sending him on its own victory lap. After all, Mohyeldin is a modest guy, despite being one of Al Jazeera's best-known reporters – and clearly a rising international media star. Al Jazeera has good reason to gloat: it has a new cachet in the US after millions of Americans, hungry for on-the-ground reporting from Egypt, turned to its online live stream and Mohyeldin's coverage from Cairo's Tahrir Square. So now Mohyeldin is in the US for three weeks of media events – there will even be a GQ photo shoot – having become well known in a country where viewers are essentially prevented from seeing his station. The network has been targeted by the US government since 2003, when former vice president Dick Cheney and former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld described it as tantamount to an arm of al-Qaeda. Two of its reporters were later killed in Baghdad when US missiles hit its office. Al Jazeera and others voiced suspicions that the channel's reporters had been deliberately targeted. And, to this day, Al Jazeera, which, together with BBC News, has become one of the premier global outlets for serious television news, is virtually impossible to find on televisions in the US. The country's major cable and satellite companies refuse to carry it – leaving it with US viewers only in Washington, DC and parts of Ohio and Vermont – despite huge public demand. So Al Jazeera is sending its news team around the US in an effort to "mainstream" the faces of this once-demonised network. And Mohyeldin can sound like Robert F. Kennedy: when the cry rose up from Tahrir Square hailing Mubarak's abdication, he commented, "One man stepped down and eighty million people stepped up." The station's US push could hardly be more necessary – to Americans. By being denied the right to watch Al Jazeera, Americans are being kept in a bubble, sealed off from the images and narratives that inform the rest of the world. Consider the recent scandal surrounding atrocity photos taken by US soldiers in Afghanistan, which are now available on news outlets, including Al Jazeera, around the globe. In America, there have been brief summaries of the fact that Der Spiegel has run the story. But the images themselves – even redacted to shield the identities of the victims – have not penetrated the US media stream. And the images are so extraordinarily shocking that failing to show them – along with graphic images of the bombardment of children in Gaza, say, or exit interviews with survivors of Guantanamo – keeps Americans from understanding events that may be as traumatic to others as the trauma of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. For example, the leading US media outlets, including the New York Times, have not seen fit to mention that one of the photos shows a US soldier holding the head of a dead Afghan civilian as though it were a hunting trophy. So, for America's sake, I hope that Al Jazeera penetrates the US media market. Unless Americans see the images and narratives that shape how others see us, the US will not be able to overcome its reputation as the world's half-blind bully. Indeed, Egyptians are in some ways now better informed than Americans (and, as Thomas Jefferson often repeated, liberty is not possible without an informed citizenry). Egypt has 30 newspapers and more than 200 television channels. America's newspapers are dying, foreign news coverage has been cut to three or four minutes, at most, at the end of one or two evening newscasts, and most of its TV channels are taken up with reality shows. I met Mohyeldin before a recent public appearance in Manhattan. His analysis of the Egyptian revolution, and others in the region, is that the kind of globalised media to which Americans do not have full access created the conditions in which people could rise up to claim democracy. He points out that, "People are aware of their rights from the internet, from satellite TV – people are watching movies and reading bloggers. This was a revolution of awareness, based on access to fast-travelling information. The farmers, the peasants in Tahrir Square, were aware of their rights." Americans have a hunger for international news; it is a myth that we can't be bothered with the outside world. Maybe Americans will rise up and threaten to boycott their cable and satellite providers unless we get our Al Jazeera – and other carriers of international news. We would then come one step closer to being part of the larger world – a world that, otherwise, will eventually simply leave us behind. Source Aljazeera

OLEMA E SU KAI NAAM

Democracy in Arab and the West by Tafhimur Rahman

The popular revolutions which begin in Egypt caused immense anxiety in the west which was not unexpected. NATO chief started warning to the west about the existing hegemony in this region is at risk by youths of Egypt on Tehreer Squire. Hilary Clinton’s fear of perfect storm in Arab world was unfolding her concern of loss of neo cons foreign policy. The revolution in Egypt was so peaceful that nobody could stand in front of them to provide immunity to the tyrant. And finally there were no way left for Mr Mubarak except stepping down. And this way 11^th February has become a great ecstatic day for the Egyptians. This day should be celebrated by them as a day of liberation from dictatorship to democracy. Since 25^th of January 2011 millions of Egyptians were on the roads who were demanding the end of Mubarak era. Egyptian were frustrated for 30 years of draconian form of west backed democratic dictatorship and tyrannical government.  Mr Mubarak was sharing a very warm relationship with both republican and democrats of USA. Under the nose of these highly democratic leadership Mr Mubarak was running the country with all the power in his hand, he was elected president several time not because of the popularity he might gained by his service to the nation but by imprisoning to all who dared to come on his way. . No elections were held free and fair since he had been in the office, these were always marked as rigged but the previous election was carried fraud to a new peak which supplemented people’s faith to all time low on the regime.   

 Mr Mubarak has always been taking the pride of Egypt’s stability in his reign but at what cost? It has lost the regional leadership; political stagnation and suppression was the key to impose his will which was undermining the very basic fabric of Arab society and its sentiments. His foreign policy has weakened the cultural and educational flow with other Arab nations.  During his 30 years of reign USA has not only backed his dictatorial regime but also supported him by all means. Egypt was getting $1.5 billion dollar aid per annum for their defence and other budgets; many Egyptians consider this aid as a bribe to Mubarak to protect US interest in the region.

Although USA has been a great supporter of democracy in the entire globe but when it comes to the Arabs they find it easier said than done to stick with their moral authority to support democratic process in this region.  Otherwise the Egyptians who were on the road should have been supported with all the eagerness but none of the western democratic country, their head of state or the media came in support of them.  The western media and the respective countries also has been a great advocate of democracy. Entire eastern countries look to wards west as a source of democratic motivation. The political system of developing countries has been trying to copy all the good and bad thing of western democracy.. The entire western society has reached into that state where dictatorship and despotism are unthinkable way of ruling. Thus every pro democratic activist expects at least a moral support from them. In the case of unfolding development of Egypt the west praises Egyptians on their achievement only after the fall of Mubarak with great caution. The current situation has once again made it crystal clear that the west in general and America in particular is more fascinated to shield its interest in the region and those allies who don’t question them. . traditionally, the United States has had three core interests in the Middle East: preserving the free flow of oil and gas, securing the movement of marine traffic through the Suez Canal, and guaranteeing the security of key allies, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia*. (Saudi is a ally till it guarantees free flow of petrol)  since Egypt controls the suez canal and shares boarder with Israel in one hand on the other hand its status as most papules Arab country always lured the west to keep him under their fold. For America favouring dictators in this region is pertinent in a way that no democratic government can bear the cost of legitimising vested interest of any nation. America has reason to worry because people would come on street when innocent Palestine bleeds due to Zionist expansion plan. The entire west is not frightened with Muslim Brotherhood but they make out a kind of defeat even if a modern democratic party like AKP of Turkey comes to power after this popular revolution. This revolution encompasses a chunk of educated youths who are intelligent and technocrats’, if such people come to power in the coming days than it would be an enormous loss to Israel who never wishes people’s mandate in this region. Because of the pressure of America and Israel Egypt could never establish its free foreign policy which was the fundamental obligation of NAM nations. A very unpopular peace treaty with Tel Aviv forced Mubarak to formulate a congruent foreign policy with Israel and hence he always kept Iran at the bay.

The history of supporting democracy has never been identical with what America preaches. Bush doctrine has spoke endlessly about democracy in the Middle East. However they never passed the litmus test of supporting democracy in the Arab world.  The real concern of USA is probably to make sure that democratic aspiration remains on the discussion table but democracy should never be practiced in this region. Many commentators say that not accepting the verdict of the people of Gaza in 2006 election was a complete vulnerability of neo conservatism of the western democracy. They also say that two-facedness of west is behind creating the present milieu in Pakistan. Campaigner of democracy has always favoured Pavaiz Musharaaf who engendered chaotic environment which lead to creation of more fanatic ideology in Pakistan, a series of bombing in the country are the endangered repercussion of such favouritism. These all development proves all genesis of doubt that dishonouring the philosophy of democracy has been circumfused around the globe by none other than the oldest democratic country of the world.

In the era of 1950s nationalism in Iran was taken boost up by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian oil company.  Nationalist like Mr.Musaadeq became prime minister in 1950. The popularity of Musaadeq could influence other neighbour countries more democratic aspiration. American anxiety with the mass popularity of Musaadiq made CIA to engineer his over throne, which followed restoration of the shah once again which had obviously full proof back support from America. In these way past actions of America has paved the method to make enemy even to an ordinary educated Iranian. Although a complete anti Israel government like Iran is unlikely to form in Egypt however continuous suppression of democratic aspiration of them will bring all Arabs more close to each other which would be disastrous to American interest in this whole region.

In the present scenario Egypt has not much business relations with Israel except the sale of natural gas to them. However this business treaty is important in way that Egypt has been maintaining this bilateral treaty even after a huge public opinion against of it. Not only the public opinion but even the supreme court of Egypt had put a halt on this treaty. It was been argued that Israel will receive 1.7 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually on lower than market price. The court had asked the government to seek approval from the parliament. But Mr. Mubarak didn’t respect the court’s verdict perhaps he was afraid with the illusion that even his embedded parliament may go against of it, and this way Mr Mubarak gone ahead with the agreement by keeping all the pros and cons of the deal at bay. Later on it was disclosed that a chunk of his close aides were the real beneficiaries by that agreement. Recent media report reveals that in the last eighteen days of uprising Mr Mubarak was busy in transferring millions of dollars to his international accounts. Few countries have already frozen these transactions. A question raised that had this government not became a private limited company. Even on theses gross injustice the entire west and America maintain silence. It was the beginning of a significant development that is, helping Israel by Arab’s resources. Therefore an authoritarian government in Egypt is not desirable in the west but has become essential to support Israel.

The issue of gas agreement is not as important as the fear of Muslim brother hood, Israel knows that all the resistant organizations like hizbullah, Hamas etc are considering Muslim brotherhood as a source of intellectual resources. The fear is that an organized party like them will enhance the resistance in their expansion plan in Palestine. It will also cause Israel to increase its defence budget. In the coming day unfolding development would be again a litmus test for the west, what they would do if people of Egypt give their mandate to Muslim brotherhood? Will the west accept it or the history will repeat once again?  

America knew that from a democratic Egypt they can’t expect same concession as they had been getting from the dictator’s regime. It would be hard for Israel to find friends like Mubarak and Omar Sulaiman who were not committed to bring starvation in the Gaza but was in favour of hunger for these people for the sake of Israel?

The united state has been taking no-nonsense course of action when it comes to safe guard Israel. The policy of United States is also in tune with domestic pressure. Neo-conservatism in USA has been influencing the foreign policy maker of democrats and republican to formulate pro Israel policy at any cost. Supporting Mubarak regime was a very calculative step of USA. A neoconservative policy maker has more empathy for Israel than Israelis for themselves; it is because of the fact that strong Israel is the guarantee of neo cons success in this whole region.

The successful over throne of dictators of Tunisia and Egypt has once again ignited the Arab nationalism which is of course an indispensable characteristic to bring about a major change in the Arab world. With all these development it is easier to predict that these revolutions will have a great impact in the entire Arab world. But at the same time neo cons are looking it as a game changer for this region. Is not this irony that if American president like Obama tries to opens a new door of Arab west relations, it flaunts nothing except renewing contract of exploiting the oil fields?  The indifferent attitude of America has created a vacuum in the mind of the youths in this region. Therefore Arab political thinker, social and pro democratic activist should be now more concern about the future of democracy in this region. Brotherhood needs to bring more changes in their ideological and working pattern so that the world and Egyptian mass can listen and get through with their original message. AKP of Egypt could provide some light when dealing with western democratic fundamentalism. 

The 'new' rhetoric of Islamophobia

Islamophobes in and outside Congress are claiming that a mass 'radicalisation' of American Muslims is taking place.

The Radical Humanist - ARTICLE-Indian Secularism: majoritarian playground? By Mushtaque Madni

The Radical Humanist - ARTICLE-Indian Secularism: majoritarian playground? By Mushtaque Madni