Striking hazardous chords --'Fast and first'

Bin Laden's defiance of a super power has struck a chord with some. Amira Howeidy reports
Finally, the strikes began. And then, in a matter of moments, Osama Bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist and "evil-incarnate" appeared for the first time in three years on our TV screens. Watching in disbelief, a nation followed every word, motion and gesture of the villain the global media has excoriated since 11 September. There he sat, this nemesis of civilisation: calm, composed, serene. He spoke for a few moments, using religious dawn-of-Islam terminology to express political views. In short, he argued that America is the enemy; it has killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq, Palestine and Hiroshima. It applies double standards. It is fighting Islam. Then he demanded that every Muslim rise and defend the faith. And finally, he threatened more suffering. He "pledged" that, as long as there is no security in Palestine, and as long as US forces remain in Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Americans, innocent or not, who live there, will never feel safe.
The words struck. So did the image of a thin, weak man in an unknown desert or mountain far away, confounding 36 military bases, and squadrons of US-UK war planes. "The US made a myth out of him," Fahmy Howeidy, a prominent columnist in Al-Ahram newspaper, said. "Bin Laden now stands for challenge and compensates for hurt dignity. If he is killed now, he will be an idol. He has won 50 per cent of the media war. The more the strikes, the more popular he will be."
In this part of the world, many are treading carefully around that popularity. Arab-League Secretary General Amr Moussa, for one, refused to "comment" on the speech. He conceded that "we are against terrorism," but in the same breath pointedly argued that "there must be an end to double-standards," adding "we will not accept the status quo in Palestine."
Bin Laden's timing, in the words of Howeidy, "played a very important role in delivering his message, hence the emotional and psychological impact it had on those who identified with it." Bin Laden spoke, Howeidy said, while Afghanistan was being bombed. "This doubled or tripled the effect of his speech and easily drew a link... between why Afghanistan was being attacked and what he was telling us."
There were other effects. "It unified the ranks and created harmony between Arab Nationalism and Islam," Abdel-Wahab Elmesseri, author of an eight part encyclopedia on Zionism, told Al-Ahram Weekly. But others found his message less enchanting. Radwa Ashour, a left-wing university professor and champion of Palestinian rights, argued, "It is a negative thing to deliver a message that basically says all those who are not "us" are the enemy. Although this very argument is American, and was voiced by President Bush, it remains an oppressive stance." But her critique was not wholly pessimistic: "I believe that this battle, and perhaps other experiences in recent years, have helped Arab youths to realise that they have deep support in the Islamic world. Israel's oppression of the Palestinians injures the Indonesian citizen, and so on. Awareness of this Islamic link is definitely a plus that we, as a generation, were unaware of and actually thought, given that many of us are leftist, was backward. Appreciating this link, guiding and developing it, is indeed very important."
Others agree that Bin Laden's words had a potent emotional effect that couldn't be overlooked. But some thought the response was the consequence of grievances amassed over time, not the hype of the moment. In the words of Nabil Abdel-Fatah, a secular expert on Islamist radical groups at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, "the effect was not born then. Rather, it is the outcome of anti-US sentiment that has accumulated over the years in Egypt, since the birth of the liberation movement in the 1950s and 1960s. These sentiments were fuelled by the 1967 defeat, and Egypt's open-door policy towards both foreign investment and towards the American way of life," he told the Weekly. Add to this, the failure to reach a peace settlement between the Palestinians and Israel, the siege imposed on the Iraqi people, the psychological and emotional effect of the sight of dying Iraqi children and "those who are moved by all this are not only Islamists," argued Abdel-Fatah. Abdel-Fatah continued, "Bin Laden is viewed as a hero combating a repressive, mighty force that seeks to control everything."
Not everyone is enamoured. "I sense danger," cautions Ashour. "Presenting [the conflict] as a clash of civilisations and dividing the world into two camps: faith versus infidelity, or Muslims versus non-Muslims and confusing all this with specific political issues (imperialism and abuse of American hegemony) is a contradiction that we should be aware of," she explained. As an example of how Bin Laden's reductive simplification fails to reflect reality properly, Ashour pointed out that there are non-Muslim communities living in Muslim countries, and added that, "not defining this battle as against imperialism, capitalism etc., and referring to it as a battle resulting from [a clash] between identities is wrong."
Hussein Abdel-Razeq, editor of the left-wing Al- Yassar magazine, agrees the speech created an impact, but dismisses its importance. "His discourse," Abdel- Razeq told Al-Ahram Weekly, "is basically an emotional one that capitalised on the anger at what is happening in Afghanistan. But his logic cannot be accepted by anyone who is rational." Besides, he argued, "I don't see why we have to choose between the camp of Bin Laden and that of the US. We are against both."
Nevertheless, Bin Laden's brief speech remains at the back of many minds. Some have learned it by heart. Others have acted on it: like those who demonstrated in the Egyptian Delta province of Kafr El- Sheikh, who were clearly inspired by it. Such excitement is limited to the "less politically aware masses," observed Abdel-Razeq. But Ashour believes the impact was wider; it touched the sentiments of "young people who felt that Bin Laden is weak, and identified with him because we are all weak."
It is too early to say where Bin Laden fever will lead. Will it revive Islamist militancy? Will his stance move Arabs to rethink their identity? Answers, say the wise, will come much sooner than many expect. Perhaps the moment the strikes exceed the border of Afghanistan. And if that happens, it will be far harder to win the battle against the world's most wanted fugitive.
'Fast and first'
Qatar's Al-Jazeera emerges as part of the dynamics of a new age, as it scoops all the major Western news networks with its coverage of the war in Afghanistan. Shaden Shehab tunes in
sSince 11 September, many Arabs switch on satellite TV, and start surfing the numerous channels. Then they reach Al-Jazeera, and there they stop.
Al-Jazeera not only offered comprehensive coverage before, and during, the ongoing war waged by the US- led coalition against Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, but is the only outlet that Osama Bin Laden has to the world. And to the sound of explosions and images of burning light, it also provides viewers with live coverage of the hostilities.
It is the only broadcaster permitted in Afghanistan since 19 September. Taliban kicked out foreign journalists from the capital, Kabul, leaving the two Al- Jazeera correspondents alone. Since then, the station has won numerous exclusives. Less than an hour after the air strikes on Afghanistan began on Sunday, Al- Jazeera shocked the world by airing an exclusive pre- taped statement by Osama Bin Laden. The broadcast was timed to coincide with the start of the strikes. In the same video-tape appeared Ayman El-Zawahri, leader of Egyptian Jihad, believed to be Bin Laden's right hand man, and Al-Qa'ida spokesman Suleiman Abu-Gheith, a Kuwaiti. A source in Al-Jazeera told Al- Ahram Weekly that "a man delivered the tape to our office in Kabul as soon as the air strikes started."
The film had a stunning impact, in different ways, on both the Muslim world and the US-led coalition. Bin Laden used highly emotional terms to excite Muslim sentiment. The film also led British Prime Minister Tony Blair to seek an interview with Al-Jazeera, even though he had already made a statement on Sunday to coincide with the start of the strikes.
"It was at his request and we were glad for it. He wanted to address the same viewers, especially Muslims, who watched Bin Laden's statement," Ahmed El- Sheikh, chief of Al-Jazeera's news desk, told the Weekly.
Members of Al-Qa'ida and British prime ministers have not been the only ones to speak on Al-Jazeera. Taliban foreign ministry and defence officials have spoken via satellite link. "The anchors acted in a highly professional manner and appeared informed, composed and rarely taken off guard," agreed several Al-Jazeera viewers. "The anchor at the time [of the Bin Laden broadcast] did not know that a film airing Bin Laden was to be broadcast," said El- Sheikh. "But we are trained to handle such situations," he added.
The Qatari station also broadcast the only pictures of Afghan demonstrators setting fire to the empty US embassy in Kabul on 26 September. And it made world headlines again a few days later with a report that Al- Qa'ida had captured three US special forces men and two Afghan-US citizens near the border with Iran. Both the Taliban and the US government denied the report.
In between, Al-Jazeera has also been broadcasting an exclusive interview with Bin Laden that was made three years ago.
Some have asked whether the Taliban and Al- Qa'ida are using Al-Jazeera as a propaganda tool. Some British newspapers called the station a "mouthpiece" for Bin Laden and Al-Qa'ida. And US officials have asked Qatar to rein in Al-Jazeera, which describes itself as editorially independent. The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad Khalifa Al-Thani, confirmed after a meeting with US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington that he had been asked to exert influence on the channel. He said he viewed the request as "advice." Powell, at the time, was trying to build a global alliance, including Arab states, against international terrorism. The visit by the Emir was of particular importance as he is also the chairman of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which includes 56 countries. A meeting of OIC foreign ministers was scheduled to open in Doha, capital of Qatar, yesterday.
"These accusations are totally groundless," said El- Sheikh. "We are the only channel in Kabul, and this is why we are the only ones broadcasting the Taliban view. We applied for an office there two years ago. Had other broadcasters, like CNN, done the same, they might be there now," he suggested. "This is the world of news, take it first and fast. We aired Bin Laden's statement because undoubtedly he is the focus of the world's attention," El-Sheikh added. "Regardless of the Taliban's purpose in accepting Al- Jazeera, we are giving the world the two sides of the coin, and this is what a television channel should be all about," he continued.
On the other hand, El-Sheikh said, "we are having great difficulty interviewing US officials, but we broadcast any official press conferences or statements, so it is not like we are taking sides."
The station made a deal with CNN to provide it with war footage six hours before it was given to other American channels. The other channels have ignored the deal and have so far aired footage early. Neither CNN nor Al-Jazeera have taken action.
Observers find it ironic that CNN, known to the world as the leading news channel, is buying broadcast rights from Al-Jazeera. During the Gulf War (before Al-Jazeera was established), CNN was the only station to broadcast live from Baghdad.
In the past, Al-Jazeera has provoked several Arab countries, including Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, by giving air time to political dissidents.
The news channel angered Egypt more than two years ago by screening an interview with Adel Abdel-Meguid, an Egyptian Islamist militant living in London, who an Egyptian military court sentenced to death in absentia in 1997 for conspiring to bomb Cairo's Khan Al-Khalili bazaar.
Al-Jazeera also broadcasts the interviews and speeches of senior Iraqi officials, including President Saddam Hussein. On 5 January, ahead of Iraqi Satellite TV and other Iraqi media, it broadcast the Iraqi president's Army Day speech in which he called on Arabs to overthrow their leaders if they are allied to the US. Consequently, the Kuwaiti authorities accused the channel of trying to rehabilitate the Iraqi regime, and closed the Al-Jazeera office in Kuwait.
Since its launch in 1996, the channel has relied on funding from the Qatari government, advertising and viewer revenue, and deals with other broadcasters. It recently signed a deal to broadcast on Sky Digital to the UK and Europe. The channel is financed by 500 million riyals from the Qatari government, on condition that it becomes financially independent by the end of this year.
Al-Jazeera's apparent independence, in a region where much of the media is state-run, accounts for its considerable popularity and success.
Recommend this page
Related stories:
Addressing 'the nation', targeting America
Operation enduring madness
George Bin Bush
'Food mixed with blood'
See Focus: War
Readying for battle 4 - 10 October 2001
Fall-out 4 - 10 October 2001
Fall-out 27 Sep. - 3 Oct. 2001
US Tragedy: The fall-out 20 - 26 September 2001
US Attacked 13 - 19 September 2001
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor