Three Arab countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan) refused to attend an Arab League summit on the Gaza crisis. The NY Times explained “why the Arabs splinter”:
Most Arab regimes are terrified of Islamist movements like Hamas, which represent the greatest threat to their legitimacy. Many, including Egypt and Jordan, face challenges at home from their own popular versions of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’s ideological parent. Most Arab leaders are also reluctant to provoke the United States and Israel (with which Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties).The story accepted this simple observation and moved on to quotes from academics and diplomats.
The article never connected the observation to context, background or history.
There was no mention that Egypt is the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid (approximately $1.5 billion per year, behind Israel’s $2.5 billion) and that Jordan ranks near the top ($500 million annually).
Nor did the article refer to the marriage of petroleum convenience between the monarchy in Saudi Arabia and the American government.
Seems to me that an article headlined “Why the Arabs Splinter Over Gaza” should have identified interests shared by those countries that “splintered.” Shared interests, after all, are usually the basis of a conspiracy – or at least collaboration. The NY Times didn’t even mention that the three Arab countries are all dictatorships.
In reality, it’s only the autocratic regimes – not the public – of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan that are unwilling to unite against Israeli aggression. The NY Times apparently thinks dictators represent their people…which kind of flies in the face of everything we know about authoritarianism.
The NY Times article claims groups like Hamas represent a threat to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan’s legitimacy…but provides no specifics. Readers are left to infer that Muslim Brotherhood groups – being the wild-eyed, sharia-ruling Muslims that we’ve been told they are – must be a threat because they want to kill all the infidels and institute a global theocracy.
The real reason why the Muslim Brotherhood is considered a threat is because Mubarak, King Abdullah, and the Saudi royal family don’t want freedom. As undesirable as Western media may have portrayed political entities like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, they represent choice: the first step toward political freedom.
Mubarak has been ruling Egypt since Sadat’s assassination in 1981 – and the country has remained in a state of emergency since. The emergency decree lets Mubarak imprison anyone he wishes, for any reason, for any amount of time. It has allowed Mubarak keep the Muslim Brotherhood off the ballot, assuring the dictator’s “reelection” with 90% of the vote (because he jails opposition candidates), while he ignores real reform.
Yet Mubarak has extracted more than $18 billion in U.S. foreign aid since 1999 (two-thirds used for the military). The U.S. continues to support a dictator because he’s willing to suppress an Islamic-nationalist movement (just as the U.S. sabotaged Nasser’s pan-Arabism, which similarly would have united Muslims in an oil-rich region).
Jordan, in contrast to its reputation as moderate, is ruled by a monarch. Despite his Western education and love of Star Trek, King Abdullah continues to rule his country without any sign of democratic reform.
The $500 million annual U.S. foreign aid guarantees an ally in the so-called “war on terror” and space in Jordanian prisons for rendition and torture.
And Saudi Arabia…protector of Islam’s holiest site (except when it was seized by a Muslim Brotherhood-related group in 1979 who railed against the corruption of the Saudi royal family, forcing the Sauds to hire French commandos to recapture
Mecca). Saudi Arabia is ruled by a king and
sharia law, and their record on human rights ranks near the bottom of the heap.
The Saudi Kingdom is the single biggest financier of thousands of Wahhabi madrassas across the Muslim world, responsible for turning out jihadi terrorists to fight anywhere from Mumbai to Kabul to London to New York (all initially funded by oil sales to the U.S.).
Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are a threat – not to Saudi Arabia’s philanthropy, Egypt’s freedom, or Jordan’s moderation – but to authoritarian regimes. These groups are a threat because they are a popular movement - people that seek representation, a voice, and power that is currently monopolized by a dictator.
Given the recent history of these three countries, and the effort they have made to suppress popular movements, I have to wonder why the NY Times referred to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan as “moderate.” What interest does a large media outlet have in misinforming Americans about U.S. foreign policy?
An observation is not necessarily news. To prevent propaganda from being disseminated, journalists must put observations into historical context. Context is what empowers and informs citizens.
Once the NY Times story has historical context, it becomes clear that it’s not the “Arabs” that are splintered over the war to suppress Palestinian democracy.
Rather, the Arab street is united behind Gaza (as even the NY Times’ photo seems to suggest). The only splinter is between the Arab public and their autocratic rulers.
Wil Robinson
International Political Will
No comments:
Post a Comment