The Arab and Egyptian press this week focussed on the fall of Baghdad, how the media covered events, and the future of democracy in the Arab region, writes Aziza Sami The banners in the Arab and Egyptian press on 10 April described the sudden breakdown of the Iraqi regime. Editorials in Al-Hayat, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Al-Ahram and Al-Akhbar all also dealt with the media coverage of the war. Jihad Al-Khazin wrote in his daily column in Al- Hayat on 10 April that "the battle between newspapers and satellite channels has appeared more ferocious than that between soldiers on the ground. I have heard a lot of criticism directed at the Arab media, some of which is justified, but I believe that Arab television has in the end been more truthful than have the major networks in the US and Europe. These have manipulated reality to suit the Anglo-American alliance, while the Arab channels have tried to transmit the largest amount of news as it truly is. It is for this and no other reason that its correspondents have been killed." From a different perspective, the Saudi columnist Abdel-Rahman Al-Rashid wrote in Al- Sharq Al-Awsat on 10 April that "it is not just Saddam who fell yesterday, but all those who tried to forge the facts of the past and present as well. In front of the whole world, the Iraqis showed the truth. It was said that those who rebelled in Basra were a wayward minority, and that Baghdad would be a fortress of the Iraqi regime. That is why yesterday's images came as a shock to Arabs more than to anyone else. [As in every Arab capital], the images shocked the people of Cairo, where fundamentalists, pan- Arabists, leftists and others who had been deceived led campaigns volunteering to defend Saddam's Iraq." "Now, the images of joy [in Baghdad] at the fall of the Iraqi regime have mocked the Arab cultural, political and media systems that have deceptively fought in the name of the people for 50 years." On the other hand, Salama Ahmed Salama in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram argued on 13 April that "almost two months before the war started, Pentagon experts put in place a tight media plan imposing strict military control of the media covering the war. The major networks and newspapers were contacted with offers to have their correspondents accompany the Anglo-American coalition forces. The objective was not to protect these correspondents, but to restrict their freedom and impose complete control over what is relayed in a manner suiting the Pentagon's plans. [US Defence Secretary] Rumsfeld and [Secretary of State] Powell did not hide their irritation at the independent media on many occasions, the last of which was Rumsfeld's criticism of the images in the media of looting and plundering under supervision of the coalition forces. Once America imposes total control on Iraq, it can also work to impose total media obscurity." Saudi writer Khaled Al-Dakhil wrote in Al- Hayat on 13 April an article whose title was "Is it only Baghdad which fell?" and saying that the fall of the Iraqi regime had not been the result of developments within Iraqi society or in the Arab political system. Had this been the case, regime change could have been effected by Iraqi or Arab hands. The change, however, had come at the hands of a foreign power and according to its political agenda. But "change which happens in this manner," Al-Dakhil wrote, "faces many impediments. The mechanisms of cultural self- defence will be the first to be activated in this case, and society will be overtaken trying to defend its cultural identity more than anything else. Political systems have a knack for exploiting this kind of natural response and turning it into a political force to protect their authority and resist change. The [Arab political systems] will project themselves as the line of first defence in the face of a ferocious foreign onslaught. In the process, they will perpetuate their political existence and bring little change to an order that led to this onslaught in the first place." Al-Dakhil also wrote that 9 April, the day Baghdad fell, was "an historic day, because it was when the Arabs once again, the Iraqis with them this time, relinquished responsibility to the Americans and the British. Was what happened really 'liberation?' The joy of the Iraqis, and the silence of the Arabs, say that it was. Baghdad has fallen, but we must ask ourselves what else has fallen with it. I hope I am right in concluding that Baghdad's fall is the final indication that with it the Arab regional political order has also fallen." DEMOCRACY, COLONIALISM AND LOOTING: In the same issue of Al-Hayat on 10 April Dawoud Al-Shirian wrote that "the Turkish lesson shows that however strongly a country might be allied to the US, and however great the pressures exerted on it by America, it can still break the siege of the pressures exerted upon it, if it conducts the relationship while supported by its people. The Arab countries have no option but to confront America's objectives, which seek to change the political and cultural paradigms in the region, except by resorting to the will of their peoples. It is only this that will guarantee loyalty and interaction, in a manner different from what happened in Iraq." On 10 April, the Syrian daily Tishrin's editorial stated that, "After the killing, famine and destruction of humane and spiritual values, it can now be said that there is truly an Iraqi problem to be dealt with in the UN and at the Security Council. The false allegations that Iraq was a problem [because of its possession of WMDs] were a pretext paving the way for what is now happening. The position of Syria, like that of the rest of the world, is that it is the Iraqi people who will now pay the price with their lives, sovereignty ... and national resources. There must be a quick return to international legitimacy to resolve the problem [created by this 'war'], which threatens the people and territory of Iraq. The starting point must be an Arab one, proceeding out of pan-Arab responsibility, with the aim of containing the unusual risks resulting from [this war]". Editor-in-chief of the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Abdel-Bari Atwan, also wrote on 10 April that, "I do not think the time spent by the American troops in Baghdad will be happy or risk-free, despite the sudden collapse [of the city] and the statements of those who now defend [the existence of coalition forces there]. The looting and plunder shown on TV channels across the world, together with the vendettas and bloody settling of scores in Basra, signal a new phase, which might be more difficult than the first three weeks of the invasion." Atwan wrote that "the harsh and bloody rule of President Saddam Hussein divided the Iraqis and created an opposition. The end of his rule could splinter this opposition and unify Iraqis against the American invaders." Atwan concluded with the question of what is the "feeling" now among "the Arab leaders who let Iraq down and conspired with the invasion, as they saw the statues of their colleague Saddam topple one after the other? Have they pondered or learnt the lesson? Our information tells us that the British and American administrations have started looking for alternatives, and scrutinising names in preparation for regime changes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran." The banner of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyasa on 11 April announced that "The CIA allots $50 million for finding Saddam and his aides," while in the newspaper's inner pages the headlines read that "Drivers sell water [donated from] Kuwait for their own profit and deprive the rest of the Iraqis." Another headline read that "Iraqis blame coalition forces for deliberately not curbing the security chaos." Photographs depicted militiamen touring the streets of Basra, and the looting of the Rafidayn Bank. Others showed Iraqis trundling carts with empty containers in search of water. On the opposite page were photos of the holy city of Najaf, where the Shi'ite Imam Abdel-Majid Al-Khoie was assassinated on 10 April. The headline read "Najaf: chaos and settling scores." Al-Ahram's banner on 12 April highlighted President Hosny Mubarak's call to "Kofi Annan that the UN undertake a vital role in protecting the Iraqi people and in attaining stability". The newspaper's front-page photo featured the open trunk of a car packed with furniture and a man walking by with an armchair. The caption read, "Iraqi citizens plunder luxurious furniture from the home of Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan." INTROSPECTION AND SPECULATION : Al-Siyasa on 11 April also published an article by Dawoud Al-Basri, obtained from the Web site www.elaph.com, in which he wrote that, "The ninth of April 2003 will remain forever in the memory of the Iraqis, overriding all political events since the turn of the last century." Al- Basri spoke of "17 July, 1968, which laid the foundations for the current Iraqi tragedy. [On that day] the 'caricature'-like coup d'état took place that brought the Iraqi Ba'athists to power, supported by Western intelligence." Al-Basri wrote of the resulting "authoritarian, hellish and bloody rule [which] reinforced a sectarian, tribal, primitive and backward system, glossed over by Ba'athist slogans and blessed by the party's historic and isolated leader Michel Aflaq, who saw in Saddam Hussein 'the present of the Ba'ath to Iraq and of Iraq to the Arab nation.'" Al-Basri wrote that "the Iraqis will not reap the positive benefits of this [regime] change soon. The matter will entail sacrifices, compromises and struggle through various channels. Those who have been plagued with fascism and backward rule will have to face the consequences of this rule, like all peoples who have undergone similar experiences. As for the Ba'athists, they will go back to the backroads from whence they came: fugitives seeking security and not finding it. I have no condolences for the murderers now wandering in their diaspora." The headline of the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar Al-Yom speculated on 12 April on "the secrets behind the sudden collapse of the Iraqi regime". A two-page spread scouted the opinions of various political and military experts, whose explanations ranged from its being "the natural conclusion of accumulated mistakes by the Iraqi regime" to "proof that there has been a deal [with the US] to get Saddam and his aides out of Baghdad". The same speculations were the topic of editorials written in the two independent weekly Egyptian newspapers, Sout Al-Umma and Al-Osbou', both issued on 14 April. Adel Hammouda, editor-in-chief of Sout-Al-Umma, adopted the line that the Iraqi regime had most probably "deserted the capital", while Mahmoud Bakry of Al-Osbou' was more inclined to believe that Saddam could "still be alive", with one last move up his sleeve. Sout Al-Umma, which over the past three weeks has drawn no distinction between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis, now underscored the fact that Saddam is "a dictator". Its front page featured a photo of the Iraqi president's fallen statue with the headline "the end of every dictator: to be hit with a shoe". Akhbar Al-Yom on 12 April ran two pages devoted to the topic of "Who will rule Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein?" Speculations ranged from "The American ruler [being a] first step towards the search for a new Iraqi Karzai, while the opposition is an illegal inheritor". Reflecting the predictions of various Egyptian political and military analysts, two further headlines read, "An American administration that will ensure tribal control and Israel's security", and "A colonialist model with the illusory semblance of Iraqi sovereignty". Another section of the paper included interviews with spokesmen from the Iraqi opposition with the headline, "Iraqi opposition in a crisis between American promises and the absence of legitimacy". Spokesmen from the National Kurdistan Party were quoted as saying that they would "refuse to have a dictator replaced by an extremist military ruler". The Iraqi National Congress Party demanded that it be allowed to "manage the affairs of Iraq at a third stage, after military rule and civilian administration". The Wifaq Party said that it was "waiting for America to grant us a temporary government under UN supervision". A last headline concluded that, "The Iraqi opposition expresses its fears at American plans to stay in Iraq and retract its previous promises on the rotation of power." On 12 April, Al-Hayat's Hazem Saghiya wrote that "Saddam has not been blamed by the Arabs so clearly and explicitly as when he did not resist. When he committed serious actions, he was not blamed. On the contrary, broad sentiments were with him, even as they distanced themselves from his person. They were with him when he invaded Kuwait, and they manifested themselves in refusing to have him monitored [by weapons inspections]. Now there is an attitude of wanting to overlook the fact that he has fallen. The fall of Saddam Hussein is no less positive than the new American role in Iraq is negative. Let us put aside Saddam and the systematic destruction of Arab-Iraqi ties and the slandering of the Iraqi opposition. Let us concentrate instead on thwarting the objectives of America in other countries. This is an endeavour at which the energies of 'pan-Arabism' and 'resistance' may now be directed." On 14 April, opinion articles published in Al- Sharq Al-Awsat reflected varying takes on the situation. Fahmy Howeidy, for example, wrote of "a message that should be uniformly sent to all Arab capitals: the absence of political reform provides an excuse for American pressure." On the same page, Amir Al-Taheri asked, "Iraq: should the Americans withdraw," answering, "Not now! It is wrong to give Russia and France a major political role. As for the UN, it is a corrupt bureaucracy." Al-Sharq Al-Awsat's opinion pages also carried a translation of an article by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, whose title was translated as "Collapse of the sand-wall." Egyptian-American academic Ma'moun Fandy also wrote in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat of "the 'sh'abolism' of the Arab condition and unsettled skulls", 'sh'abolism' here denoting, according to Fandy, a general Arab 'mentality' sympathetic to the words of popular singer Sha'ban Abdel- Rehim, who once sang "I love Amr Moussa and hate Israel". Fandy wrote in an anecdotal and rather sarcastic manner of the responses of experts, laymen, politicians and military men [ -- the unsettled skulls] of the Arab world, towards events in Iraq, all of whom, he argued, had been muddled in their deployment of concepts such as Israeli hegemony, globalisation, the clash of civilisations, etc. "This is how things are when there is a naïve audience lacking the ability to discuss or differ in opinion. Some have spoken of the American public as naïve and uncultured. How can they explain, then, the gullibility of the public in Tunis, Egypt and many Arab countries who all believed the illusions put forth by the Iraqi Minister of Information Said Al-Sahhaf? Who is the more naïve?" Iraqi Minister Al-Sahhaf also featured as an unexpected hero in a news item published in Al- Hayat on 13 April entitled, "www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com" -- a Web site that has received 115 million visitors in eight hours!" Al-Hayat wrote that "Al- Sahhaf, with his sarcastic smile and expressions, has reaped wide popularity, not only in the Arab street, but also in the US. The Web site, which started as a joke between friends, was set up by a British former environmental activist living in Alaska, and the number of visitors to the site, numbering 4,000 every second, has led to a breakdown in the Internet." Al-Sahhaf's admirers, according to Al-Hayat, are planning an international campaign to save him as one "of history's most amusing personalities and an international treasure". The Web site recommended that American actor- director Sydney Pollack play the role of Al- Sahhaf in any future film produced about the war on Iraq.
