Mamoun Fandy, member of the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy and author of a really good book about Saudi Arabia, seems to have embarked on a determined effort to destroy his own reputation. In today's al Sharq al Awsat, Fandy writes that the main obstacles to reform in the Arab world are "the Arab League, the satellite television stations, and self-deception." Notably absent from this list? Arab states and regimes - you know, the actors that actually have the power to initiate reform if they so chose. And the ones who tend to directly or indirectly sign the paychecks of guys who write columns for al Sharq al Awsat (Saudi) or Al Ahram (Egypt).
How does Fandy develop this argument? With his typical subtlety: anybody who insists that the Arab League or the satellite television stations is a potential source of reform is "deluded or a liar or ignorant."
Now, I don't think any serious observer of the Arab world would disagree about the Arab League - and since nobody claims that the Arab League could be a force for reform except for maybe its beleaguered Secretary General Amer Musa, it's hard to think that this is the main point of Fandy's broadside. No, he is really agitated at people such as yours truly who see the Arab satellites as a potential force for reform.
So why are the Arab satellites such an obstacle to reform? "Because of the absence of real politics in the Arab world, Arabs practice a politics on the television stations.... The satellites advance only the problems and issues which Arabs have with others and not with themselves... it is not possible for any Arab satellite to discuss internal issues with any specificity." This, of course, is patently and obviously untrue. Al Jazeera is fiercely critical of almost every Arab state, and regularly broadcasts shows focused on the internal problems of the Arab world. That's why so many Arab regimes have denounced it, closed its offices, filed charges against its journalists, and complained to Qatar about it; and these genuinely novel open discussions of the big issues facing Arab politics and societies is the main reason that al Jazeera won such an enthusiastic following in the first place. Fandy is, in his own word, either lying or ignorant here.
A good argument could be made that the satellites can not themselves produce reform because there is no way to translate the arguments and ideas developed there into real political outcomes - although such arguments tend to neglect how the new Arab media changes the incentives and opportunities for reformist politicians. But that isn't Fandy's argument. He wants to pose the satellites as the main obstacle to reform. Not states and regimes determined to hold onto power by any means necessary, but the satellite television stations which critique them.
Fandy's argument dovetails perfectly with the near consensus view in the United States that the satellite stations like al Jazeera are America's enemy. Fandy is trying to advance this argument against al Jazeera by trying to counter the argument that these television stations are currently the main source of internal pressure for reform. But his attack is so clumsy, and so oddly unbalanced, that it ends up rebounding to make the satellites look better.
Which reminds me of a series of absolutely fascinating articles recently published in the Qatari newspaper al Sharq by Faisal al Qassem, host of The Opposite Direction - the most popular and influential program in the Arab media. Qassem argues that America is ill-served by its Arab defenders - that those who speak out for the United States end up hurting America's image more than do America's enemies. Al Qassem pointed out that these defenders tended to have bad reputations with Arab audiences, and they tended to adopt a superior, condescending, insulting tone which alienated and irritated Arab readers. I can't help but think that Fandy was in al Qassem's mind when he penned that essay.
Comments