Abu Aardvark

Comment is Free: the last word on hip hop

The fine folks over at the Guardian Comment is Free site asked me to write up a short piece based on my two posts on hip hop and the Middle East.  So I did: "How Eminem Can save the Middle East."   Hopefully readers over at the Guardian will recognize the somewhat tongue in cheek, just for fun nature of the original posts.  I certainly had fun writing it.   Plus, I got to publish a piece about Eminem... happy birthday to me! 

Funny:  the piece originally went out with Snoop Dogg in the title, but I can't stand Snoop Doggy and had asked to change it to Eminem.  The editor got to it almost right away, but not before one wit commented:

Could Eminem save the Middle East?

Well it seems Snoop Dogg never had much of a chance, so why not?

;-)

Ha!

POSTSCRIPT:   one of my students who spent last year in Syria read this piece.  He told me that early in his time in Damascus he was snagged by a couple of local guys who needed his help... decoding 50 Cent lyrics.  Later, they took him to a rap battle which evidently ended in a break dancing competition and a rousing performance of Tupac's California Love.   None of which surprises me, but makes for a great story! 

Hip Hop and public diplomacy

I just saw this NPR story on  new efforts to use hip hop in public diplomacy (thank to John Brown for the tip).   I actually think that this is a great thing, as far as it goes - for all the Britney vs the Terrorists griping, cultural diplomacy does have its place and hip hop is a vital part of today's American culture.  Old timers enthuse about the great cultural diplomacy jazz tours during the cold war - which were, indeed, exceedingly great - but hip hop today is more like jazz was back then than anything else I can think of (including jazz).  While some of my colleagues see hip hop as symbolic of all that is bad in American culture and want to find ways to control its negative impact rather than exploit it, I actually like it and understand why it's so attractive around the world. 

In fact, hip hop is so popular globally already that I'm not at all sure that the government needs to be involved in promoting it, simply because the market seems to be taking care of it. I mean, 50 Cent  doesn't need the US government to play Beirut.   (And let's face it, the State Department probably isn't going to be booking Fiddy or JayZ...  in fact, I remember one person who organized one of these hip hop PD tours telling me that they had trouble drawing crowds.)   

Fiddy in concert with Haifa Wehbi in Beirut (photo courtesy of Waleg)

I've actually got this whole paper worked out in my head about hip hop and international relations  - Eminem, 2Pac, and Public Enemy play leading roles, which already dates me pretty badly.  One of many great ideas for papers I've never gotten around to writing and probably never will (which in this case admittedly is probably for the best).  Not APSR material, but it sure would be fun.  Ever wonder how 2Pac's "martyrdom" resonates with Islamic martyrdom themes?  Or how exactly Eminem might "reach al-Qaeda through the power of my speech"?  Sure you have... 

US strikes in Somalia, live

Check out this screen capture from al-Jazeera this morning:

Interesting on all kinds of levels.  Seeing the CNN feed on al-Jazeera like that is a nice graphic demonstration of how far media globalization has gone.   But more important is the origin of the images themselves.  That CNN actually got live images of the US airstrike is kind of remarkable - was it not a secret mission?   Did CNN just happen to have cameras hanging around a suspected al-Qaeda base in Somalia?   Or was the strike meant for public consumption, and the US military wanted the cameras to capture it?   

If the latter, all I can say is "huh"... because the emerging press coverage of US military support for Ethiopia, along with these images of a direct US airstrike inside Somalia, are nicely feeding the al-Qaeda narrative placing Somalia within the wider framework of American assaults against Islam:  "I am here calling upon the Muslim ummah in Somalia to resist in this new battlefield of the Crusader's war, which is launched by America, its allies, and the United Nations against Islam and the Muslims," as Ayman al-Zawahiri's most recent short tape put it.    Wouldn't it have made sense to try and combat that narrative, and keep the United States out of the Somalia issue as much as possible, rather than highlight the American role and confirm the al-Qaeda narrative? 

 

Clooney's Public Diplomacy

George Clooney on al-Arabiya. 

I've just finished watching a program on al-Arabiya featuring George Clooney (along with Don Cheadle and a couple of others) talking about Darfur.  I have nothing much to say about it, other than to once again point out that in spite of the common complaint that the Arab media ignores Darfur, both al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera in fact cover Darfur rather more heavily than do any American media outlets.  (Al-Jazeera, for its part, is currently running a program on the global AIDS crisis, which is worthy enough, albeit rather glaringly lacking George Clooney.)  Also, George Clooney's charisma really does cross cultures... when he grinned and said "Shukran" to the host, you could practically feel the knees buckling all over the studio.   Gotta be some lessons for public diplomacy there somewhere.  (... though not, perhaps, lessons that can be taught at State Department PD training school, alas... )

public diplomacy and the elections

Long day.  In between teaching stuff and meetings, I recorded a segment for NPR's On the Media about the Arab reaction to the elections, which should air this weekend - check it out if you're so inclined.    Just one quick thought that I wanted to throw out there right now.  There's quite a bit of jubilant celebration about Republican defeats and Rumsfeld's resignation in exactly the places some people most feared - the jihadi forums and some of the more radical Arab newspapers.  Al-Quds al-Arabi has an editorial bluntly stating that the electoral outcome was a great victory for the Iraqi resistance, and  I listened to an mp3 of a statement by an Iraqi insurgency leader (I think from al-Jazeera but I'm not sure) claiming victory over the hated Rumsfeld.   This doesn't really bother me.  Of course those groups are going to claim victory:  the election campaign featured administration officials from Bush on down announcing that a Democratic win would be a defeat for America - so why shouldn't they take Bush at his word?   But we shouldn't accept their spin at face value or let them frame the interpretation of the election.   The US should have had an aggressive public diplomacy campaign stressing the virtues of democracy and how the campaign and the election would only produce a stronger, more effective American policy in Iraq.   But electoral considerations took priority over foreign policy interests, so here we are.    Now, among the Arab mainstream, who we really should care about, there's a lot of uncertainty about how this will affect American Iraq policy.  This would really be a good time to listen to and engage with those Arab voices over how to change course - a real opportunity that shouldn't be missed.  More tomorrow.

The Fernandez Problem

Remarks on al-Jazeera by Alberto Fernandez, director of the State Department's Arab media outreach office, that America had been "arrogant" and "stupid" in Iraq have already generated enormous controversy. The partisan hounds are out.   It isn't clear whether the State Department will rise to his defense.  It should, because there's a lot more at stake here than the partisan fallout of the reporting of his interview. 

What did he actually say?  The initial line was that he was misquoted;   I don't know since I haven't yet tracked down an Arabic transcript.   But a full translation by the AP's Baghdad office can be found here, which offers this fuller excerpt:

But what is important, we believe, is the exercise of flexibility and self- criticism and take responsibility for correcting mistakes and policies if those policies have failed or are unable to present the Iraqi people with what they want most: Security first, second and third, and then (solutions to) a long list of problems, including economic and political one.
...
Of course, some historians, history will judge American history in Iraq. We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq."

That's what is being quoted.  But look how he continues:

We focused today, and the media focuses on blame. There is no doubt that there is plenty of room for blame. Blame of the United States or others, but we haven't focused enough on the future and the possibility of failure in Iraq. If we are witnessing failure in Iraq, it's not the failure of the United States alone. Failure would be a disaster for the region. We, all of us in the region, countries in the region, have a role in what is happening in Iraq. Failure in Iraq will be a failure for the United States but a disaster for the region. We must all focus on saving Iraq for the sake of the Iraqi people and for our sakes, us in the West, and also you in the Arab world. I know that sometimes there is a kind of gloating in the Arab world that America has problems in Iraq. I fully understand that. But, in the end, we must think of the Iraqi people, the Arabs, the Muslims and the citizens of Iraq more than gloating about the United States.

Reading it makes clear that the parts of Fernandez's comments which have been quoted extensively are mostly a throat clearing preface to saying that Arabs need to move on and talk about Iraq's future instead of "gloating" over American problems.  This is a way of establishing credibility and a reputation for candor with Arab audiences - two things that almost all American spokespeople who stick to the administration's script lack.    His humility treats those audiences with respect, rather than trying to force talking points crafted in Washington down the throats of skeptical listeners who live in the region and know better.   At a time when everyone in America is talking about how and why the US failed in Iraq, and everyone in the Arab media is following those American debates, how credible could he be if he continued to whistle along and pretend otherwise?  The admission of some blame about the past sugar coats the key argument about the need for Arabs to step forward and take some responsibility for the future - which is exactly what the US needs right now. 

By the way, most of the furor over the interview has missed the really significant part of his interview:   his indication of American willingness to negotiate with any part of the Sunni insurgency other than al-Qaeda. This clearly is America's new policy, and it needed to be communicated directly to Iraq's Sunni communities without the filter of interested intermediaries.  By airing this invitation to talks on al-Jazeera, which is probably the most widely viewed television channel among Iraq's Sunnis, Fernandez accomplished something of real political significance.   

The controversy over Fernandez gets to the heart of the question of whether America can have an effective public diplomacy.  Dating back to my 2003 Foreign Affairs article,  I have consistently advocated getting American voices on to al-Jazeera and other Arab media and having them engage in real debate.  For all that it is demonized by too many Americans, al-Jazeera is still by far the most watched and most politically influential Arab television network.  Its programs are the most important place where Arab views of the United States and American policy are formulated.   Those arguments about America can happen with or without American participation.   All America's absence from those debates accomplishes is to cede the field to its enemies, to allow hostile arguments or allegations to go unchecked, and to give speakers on those programs no incentive to take American perspectives into account.   

Over the last year and a half, the American government - from Karen Hughes and the State Department to the Pentagon - have largely come to understand that reality, and have begun re-engaging with al-Jazeera for pragmatic reasons.  As a recent story about CENTCOM's efforts put it, "Influencing Arab opinion is a component of the Pentagon's new “long war” strategy, which says that America's conflict with Islamic extremists requires more diplomacy and less bombing."  If the US cares about Arab public opinion, reasonable people understand that it can't afford to ignore the most important media outlet shaping Arab public opinion.  Karen Hughes went to al-Jazeera (repeatedly) because that is where the eyeballs are, and CENTCOM does the same thing. 

As the American government has struggled to retool to act on this newfound understanding of the importance of engaging with the Arab media, Fernandez has been almost a one man show.   Fernandez has conducted literally hundreds of interviews in Arabic with various Arab media outlets at a time when few American officials could be bothered or could perform effectively when they tried.  In the first weeks of the Lebanon-Israel war, he was the only American official to appear on al-Jazeera, at a time when America desperately needed someone at least trying to defend it.    What made him effective was not just his fluent Arabic, but that he is willing to argue, to get angry, to make jokes - in short, to offer a real human face and not just a grim diplomat reading from a script.    He has established a strong reputation with Arab bookers and audiences not by "bashing America" but by being honest and candid, which has in turn made his defenses of American policy far more effective. 

This kind of public diplomacy is by far the most effective kind of engagement with the media.  But it's also dangerous for exactly the reasons currently on display.  I've been told by all kinds of old public diplomacy hands that Public Affairs Officers live in fear of having some off-hand comment picked up, translated and sent back to Washington to kill their careers.  That this has become ever more likely in the internet era (along with MEMRI and the blogosophere) has a chilling effect on would-be public diplomats.   Discretion as the better part of valor is good career advice, but terrible for the country's public diplomacy.  The partisan attack dogs who want to collect a scalp may care absolutely nothing about how this might affect the American national interest, but I hope that more serious people do. 

The State Department, and especially Karen Hughes, must back Alberto Fernandez to the hilt in this StupidStorm.  If he's fired, or transfered to Mongolia, the United States unilaterally disarms in the 'war of ideas' as currently waged in the Arab media.   While we do have 'rapid reaction' units coming online in Dubai and London, and CENTCOM has its own media outreach team, the fact is that Fernandez has been single-handedly carrying the American flag on the Arab broadcast media for years.   America simply can not afford to lose him over a silly partisan media frenzy.     And if Fernandez is punished, it's safe to guess that nobody will be foolish enough to step up and take his place and do what he did.  And that will be a major loss for America in a place where it can ill-afford any more losses at all.

Advice for al-Hurra

As noted in the update above, the rumor I reported this morning about a major management change at the American Arabic language TV station al-Hurra has been confirmed as true.  Muwafic Harb is out, and Larry Register, an experienced American journalist, is in.  Not that anyone has asked, but I thought I would offer some advice to the new management of al-Hurra.  Here, in no particular order, are some suggestions:

• Be realistic about the Arab television market and what you can realistically achieve.  The Arab satellite TV market is exceptionally dense and crowded already, and intensely competitive.  Most niches have already been filled, by stations which do not have the built-in dead weight of an American identity.   Al-Jazeera already has competitors, al-Arabiya already serves as the outlet of choice for American officials who want to reach a wide Arab audience, a wide range of stations offer American or American-style entertainment. 
• With that in mind, there remains one niche which has not really been filled in which al-Hurra could actually have a competitive advantage:  coverage of America and of American politics.  Not too long ago, al-Arabiya shut down Hisham Milhem's Washington-based program, leaving it without a single talk show covering the American foreign policy debates.   Al-Jazeera has a good DC-based talk show, From Washington, but other than that America is poorly and thinly covered by most Arab satellite television.   Al-Hurra should fill that void by offering intense, detailed, and informative coverage of American politics and society.   That coverage should demonstrate the diversity and contentiousness of American society, not try to put a pretty face on America.  Consider how useful it could be for Muslims trying to make sense of political Islam to be exposed to the wide range of deep debates among Americans about the role of religion in politics (evangelical Protestants, for instance).   That coverage should feature the full spectrum of American views on foreign policy, as well, not just the policies of the current administration.  Don't just tell Arabs how great democracy is:  show them how democracy works and doesn't work in America, in all its ugliness and beauty.   At a minimum, this could challenge monolithic stereotypes about America;  beyond that it could illuminate Arab political debates in new ways, and it could even be great TV.
• At the same time, acknowledge that you are an official American station and don't bother trying to hide it.  Al-Hurra should be the first place that Arabs check to find out the official American view of things happening in the region or the world - and al-Hurra should have a real advantage over its Arab rivals in getting interviews and news with American officials.
• This might be too politically problematic, but I'll suggest it anyway:   irritate American diplomats with your coverage.  Focus on an agenda of promoting democracy and liberalism throughout the entire Arab world, including American allies.   Cover political protests and demands for change everywhere, and give a forum for dissidents and for reformist officials alike.   This will likely infuriate the regimes in Amman, Cairo, Riyadh, and elsewhere - and will likely get you angry phone calls from other parts of Washington telling you to back off.  Good.  Establish your independence and this "Freedom Agenda" thing which the President's people used to talk about - and stick to it.  If your own government gets mad at you, good - that's a story!  Run with it!

I'm sure there's much more, but hopefully that will be some food for thought for the new al-Hurra.  Good luck. 

Changes at al-Hurra?

Elaph, the Saudi-backed webzine, is reporting that there has been a big shakeup at the troubled American Arabic satellite television station al-Hurra.  According to Elaph, station director Muwafic Harb has (finally) resigned, and there will be a total revamping of the station's management and programming.  The trigger was the recent audit by the GAO, which presented a pretty damning picture of the station's management practices and creative use of audience research.  Elaph also speculates that the US government finally recognized that after two years, the station had failed to penetrate the Arab TV market, present more daring or important programming than its rivals, or have its intended effects on Arab public opinion.  The station had been forgotten, ignored by even the American government which rarely granted al-Hurra exclusive news or interviews.

For all of this, consider the source - Elaph is a fun rumor mill, but not the most reliable of sources.  I'll believe it when I see it for myself (tipsters:  you know what to do, just remember that I'm at a gmail account now and not yahoo anymore).  But if the report is right, I will be a happy little aardvark - perhaps new management could figure out how to get something valuable out of the investment of American tax dollars in the al-Hurra white elephant.

UPDATE: confirmed!  I've just received a press release from al-Hurra which states that "Larry Register has been named Vice President of Network News for the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. (MBN) the MBN Board announced today. Register will succeed Mouafac Harb, who is stepping down to pursue private media projects."   Remember, you heard it here first! ...  unless you read the Elaph piece I took it from first of course!  The press release also said that "Alhurra and Radio Sawa would not be where they are today if it were not for Mouafac’s... leadership."  I, sadly, would have to agree.   I have no opinion at all of Register, don't know anything about him, but any change has to be positive at this point.

(in Arabic)

In her appearance with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abu el-Gheit the other day, Condoleeza Rice offered a statement of American views on the Egyptian nuclear program. This, in its entirety, is how the official transcript presents Abu el-Gheit's views:

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: (In Arabic.)

A couple of days later, she's in a joint appearance with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and this spirited exchange took place:

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (In Arabic.)
QUESTION: (In Arabic.)

 

Maybe they don't care what the Arabs think, don't want American readers to know what they said, or don't have a translator on hand capable of translating.  I find none of those possibilities reassuring.  Could there be a better symbol of American indifference to Arab attitudes or public opinion?   

Al-Arabiya: Death Makers

The Saudi TV station al-Arabiya has recently started airing a regular program on terrorism, with the neutral title "Death Makers."   

The most recent episode explores the psychological reasons that youth turn to terrorism.  Previous episodes include a profile of bin Laden, Zawahiri and Zarqawi, and a discussion of how terror groups acquire new recruits.  It should give a nice warm fuzzy feeling to those eager to see the Arab media take on the issue of terrorism and denounce extremism.  It should help al-Arabiya demonstrate to American officials its efforts in the war of ideas against terrorism and jihadism.  It fits like a glove within the general official Saudi ideological campaign against extremism, and serves an American interest in putting anti-jihadist programming out on to the Arab airwaves on a station which people actually watch.  Who could object?

Well... to make room for "Death Makers", al-Arabiya canceled Hisham Milhem's program Over the Sea.

Milhem lacks Salha's pretty face, to be sure.  But his program represented one of the only, and best, Washington-based talk shows devoted to bringing the American political debate to the Arab public, demystifying American politics and giving Americans direct access to an Arab audience.  Milhem routinely hosted a wide range of American guests, allowing Arabs to hear American differences and disagreements as they really exist.  Recent guests included Jon Alterman, Shibley Telhami, Ambassador David Welch, Amr Hamzawy, Edmund Gharib, Jim Hoagland, Richard Armitage, and Kenneth Pollack.   Al-Jazeera still offers Hafez al-Mirazi's low-key and informative From Washington, but those who distrust al-Jazeera might be concerned about that station having an effective monopoly on presenting American political debates to the Arab public. 

Milhem's show also represented one of al-Arabiya's only remaining live political talk shows - the lifeblood of what my book calls the "new Arab public."   I've argued often that the talk shows on Arab satellite TV have had a revolutionary effect on Arab discourse.  Not just by shattering taboos, although this did matter, but by presenting contention and diverse opinion as not only acceptable but as desirable.  Live, unscripted political argument defied the preferences of states to police the "red lines" of permissible political discourse.  Not every one of these talk shows offers an edifying spectacle. Many of them give platforms to obnoxious voices or disintegrate into screaming matches.  Others don't, and offfer arenas for very thoughtful political debate.   But in the aggregate, I see these talk shows as a vital force pushing the Arab world towards a more pluralist environment, contentious if not necessarily liberal.  As such, I see them as a key force pushing towards democratic trends in the region. 

Al-Arabiya from the start positioned itself as the antidote to al-Jazeera, and its rivalry with the Qatari station is arguably its only real reason for existing.  While its competition with al-Jazeera is often presented as its representing a liberal and moderate alternative, that has always been misleading.  It would be more accurate to say that it represented the views of its Saudi patrons, and more generally the pro-American Arab regimes (what we like to call the 'Axis of Pro-American Dictators').   So, it was more overtly hostile to al-Qaeda (in accord with the Saudi post-May 2003 ideological offensive against al-Qaeda), more supportive of the American project in Iraq (serving for instance as an agent of Iyad Allawi's doomed electoral campaign), more hostile to Hezbollah in the recent Israel-Lebanon war.   As a result it became the network of choice for most American officials who wanted to address an Arab public (Bush after Abu Ghraib, Condi Rice, John Bolton, even Rumsfeld).   It is also the outlet of choice for most pro-American heads of state:  King Abdullah of Jordan, Hosni Mubarak, and a variety of Foreign Ministers and other establishment politicians routinely grace al-Arabiya with interviews, while al-Jazeera tends to offer civil society activists, intellectuals, and other political opposition figures (along with Ali Abdullah Saleh just before the election, for some reason). 

But even as it pushed these pro-American positions, and preached a mantra of responsible journalism, it proved ever less open to live political talk shows.   Emad Dib's live call-in show Istifta Ala al-Hawa ran its last show in September 2005, Montaha Ramhi's Bil-Mursad ran its last program in January 2005, and now Milhem's has gone.  Giselle Khoury still has her big interviews with famous people, Turki al-Dahkhil interviews some really interesting people, and Hossein Shobakshi is good if wasted on a business show.   But for the most part al-Arabiya's programs are ever more dominated by the pre-packaged and pre-recorded.  Sometimes interesting or informative, but not a public sphere. I often disagreed with Milhem's political opinions, but at least he tried to offer a "better" public sphere than the al-Jazeera shows which he criticized.  That makes its cancelation a big loss for the Arab public sphere. 

Al-Arabiya no doubt had its reason to replace Milhem's show with "Death Makers" (ratings or whatever) and probably doesn't understand itself as pursuing an "anti- public sphere" policy.  (Probably.)   But it's an interesting theoretical and practical proposition to consider. How  is jihadism best combatted, and democratic ideas best spread?  Through pre-packaged programs disseminating a particular point of view from the top down?  Or by providing open forums in which various ideas hash it out in unpredictable, uncontrollable, and sometimes unpalatable public argument?   I don't think the answer is obvious, even though I obviously incline towards the latter.   But it's a question worth thinking about for those trying to get public diplomacy right.