I was kind of curious how the Arab media had dealt with the tsunami disaster, and particularly how they dealt with the American response. I haven't had the chance to do a full review yet, but I did search through op-eds in al Sharq al Awsat and al Quds al Arabi (probably the most pro-American and the most anti-American, respectively, of the pan-Arab dailies), and run a search on the websites of al Jazeera and al Arabiya. My search was pretty cursory, too, so I probably missed some things. But even with those caveats, I was a bit surprised. There was a lot of attention to the disaster, relatively speaking. But there was far less criticism of the US for its initial response than I had anticipated, and indeed less focus on the US at all than Americans would expect.
Let's start with al Quds al Arabi, where I'd expect to see the most enthusiastic pouncing on available criticisms of the US. Oddly, the columnists almost completely ignored the tsunami and the opportunity to score points against the US. There were plenty of columns about Syria, Iraq, explosions in Riyadh, Palestinians, Egypt, the Sudan, but not much about the tsunami. There were two main exceptions. First, the cartoonist for al Quds did several cartoons about it; neither were political, though, just using the wave image to express human tragedy.
But by far the most prominent editorial response to the tsunami in al Quds al Arabi caught me off guard: editor in chief Abd al Bari Atwan's January 5 lead editorial, "The humiliating Arab humanitarian collapse." Rather than attack America, Atwan leads with this: "Arab sympathy, official and popular, towards the earthquake disaster which struck the states of south Asia came as a great frustration of hopes, on all levels, which filled me with humiliation. The assistance was puny, the popular response and governmental action were pitiful. Who can believe that a wealthy state such as Saudi Arabia which gets some $100 billion a year from its oil wealth could find only $10 million to help (raised to $30 million eventually, which is also a very small number), that a state such as Kuwait which has foreign investments exceeding $100 billion and oil revenues of some $30 million could find only $1 million, a fifth of what Taiwan contributed, less than Portugal, 1% of what Italy paid (and it's worth mentioning that its prince spent $2 million to save animals at the London Zoo). And what was said about Kuwait could just as well be said about Qatar ($25 million), the UAE ($20 million), and so on. Does it make sense that a country like Norway, with only 5 million people and no connection to the third world, offered $181 million, more than all the Arab states put together?"
I know that Juan Cole has been contesting similar points made by American commentators, but I find it absolutely fascinating that the editor in chief of the most anti-American newspaper in the Arab world has made this - the failure of Arab states and publics - his primary target rather than the United States. Remember that, next time you hear someone say that Americans at least complained about Bush's initial stinginess but Arabs didn't even complain.
That's al Quds al Arabi. What about al Sharq al Awsat? I found four op-eds about the tsunami. Ali Ibrahim, on December 28, mused about the horrors of the disaster and how the poor always suffer the most, and argued that the most important thing now was for everyone to help in any way they could, quickly; he said nothing about America. Khalis Jalabi, on December 31, recalled earlier natural disasters, and mostly talked about the scientific and physical implications.
Muna al Tahawi, on January 2, wrote one of the most interesting responses: "Where is the jihad against the tsunami?" She wondered why, after seeing footage of this horrible natural disaster which killed over 125,000 people, she had not seen a videotape from Osama bin Laden. Why, she asked, did this self-appointed leader of the Islamic world not appeal to help all the Muslims devastated by the tsunami?
And, finally, on January 6, Amal Mussa was the only columnist I found to raise questions about the American response. In the second half of an essay which initially focused on struggling to understand the meaning of the tsunami, she then wrote that the world's response had thus far been only $2 billion, and would have been less if the United States had not increased the size of its contribution seven times, out of concern for its image abroad, since its original contribution had been puny in comparison to what it spends on the war on terror, or Iraq. But she then goes on to say that this is not a criticism of America only, but of many rich states and even poor ones who have the wrong priorities.
That's the press. What about the satellite stations?
Al Jazeera covered the tsunami pretty heavily, with a lot of news coverage, most of it pretty straightforward from what I could tell, with a heavy emphasis on human suffering. Coverage of the relief efforts tended to highlight the UN and NGO activities, but American contributions weren't ignored. When Powell arrived, the coverage was respectful; the January 6 story prominently mentioned the $350 million figure for American aid. In a January 3 story about relief assistance, the story led with Japan's $500 million contribution; the United States wasn't mentioned at all. A January 3 story reported that British private contributions equaled those pledged by the British government, which could be read as an attack on British official stinginess or as a positive report on the generosity of private British citizens (or both).
I found only one story on al Jazeera which directly focused on the American contribution: a January 4 report by Anis Zakki, entitled "The emaciated American role in confronting the tsunami tragedy." Zakki begins by noting that the US is determined to constantly affirm its leadership of a unipolar world and as the greatest defender of humanity all over the world, but that in response to the tsunami the American response was very disappointing. Even when the United States increased its aid, it only did so in response to the criticism it received, which suggests that it offered the support only in defense of its own self-interest and not out of genuine humanitarian concern. The report mentions Bush staying on vacation and initially not doing much of anything. And it compares the US contribution unfavorably to other countries such as Japan. That's the only really clear example of this kind of attack on the US over the tsunami that I found on al Jazeera; there may be more, but that's what showed up in the search I ran.
Finally, al Jazeera ran an on-line poll asking whether "the global response to the Asian tsunami disaster was sufficient"; 76.8% said no. America was not singled out in the question, which one might have expected had there been an anti-American agenda in play.
Finally, the supposedly pro-American alternative in the press these days, al Arabiya, I can't really judge - only 5 hits came back on their search engine, which just doesn't seem plausible. But among those five hits, I did find the only really obnoxiously anti-American piece in the four that I surveyed: Yasir Sa'ad, on January 2, claiming that the American navy had advance warning of the tsunami and chose not to share the information before it happened. He cites a Canadian researcher, and then runs with it: "if we accept the professor's views [that the US knew about the tsunami and chose not to inform the South Asian states in advance], then it would be a harsh blow to its credibility and its humanity." Well, yes, I suppose it would... "if" we accepted those assumptions. Anyway, that's the only genuine example I found of an anti-American disposition at work... and it ran on al Arabiya. Weird. Abd al Rahman al Rashed had better get on this.
Anyway, I'm sure there's lots more out there, and I hope to hunt it all down, but thought I would share these preliminary findings.
Posted by: praktike | January 06, 2005 at 06:58 PM