|
|
|
Rumsfeld
charged that Arab media in Iraq was “violently
anti-coalition.”
|
|
The forcible shutting down of the Al-Arabiya news channel in Baghdad is
the first act of a new dictatorship shedding its teeth in the increasingly
undemocratic Iraq.
What is
a dictatorship? A classic definition clarifies that it is “a form of
government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a
constitution or laws or opposition etc.).”
Let us
examine the situation in Iraq.
There is
a US-appointed government called the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC). It is
comprised of foreign-bred, foreign-educated, foreign-financed autocrats. Most do
not carry Iraqi citizenship, but US, British and Australian passports. Most had
never set foot in Iraq before April of this year.
All are
protected by their local security guards and a heavy US security detail. Some of
the council members have their own private little armies. Galal Talabani and
Masoud Barazani, both rival Kurdish leaders, maintain highly-equipped armies of
peshmerga who at one point fought Saddam’s armies, and at several junctions,
one another. Ahmad Chalabi, who is wanted on charges of fraud and embezzlement
in neighboring Jordan (he was sentenced to 20 years in absentia), has his own
army of Iraqi opposition who were trained by the CIA and wear American-made
uniforms and wield American-made weaponry.
They
claim to represent the Iraqi people, but the average Iraqi had never heard of
them before they arrived on US transport planes from Kuwait in April.
They are
such a squabbling lot that they share a rotating presidency. They are not bound
by laws or a constitution. Any opposition to the IGC is dealt with swiftly. In
the wake of Saddam’s demise, some 300 newspapers and magazines sprouted in the
“new, free” Iraq. Some focused on social issues, while others focused on the
rights of Iraqi minorities, such as the Assyrians or the Sabaeans.
Some,
however, took the courageous step of cherishing their new-found freedom and
launched political newspapers. Almost immediately, they were warned not to
criticize the IGC nor take a position calling on Iraqis to resist working with
the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).
During
the past summer, journalists coming out of Iraq spoke of harassed Iraqi editors
and writers, the trashing of print shops, and the arresting of independent Iraqi
writers. Threats of security were cited – sounds eerily familiar to the
classic version of Arab despotic regimes.
In
September, an Iraqi editor who fiercely criticized the IGC, the US forces and
Saddam’s former regime was shot dead while standing on his roof. No formal
investigation was launched, no one detained. US forces simply blamed “former
regime terrorist elements” and shrugged their shoulders. Mosul residents,
however, painted a far more dire picture. They claimed that the murdered editor
was killed because he was on the verge of detailing corruption charges against
IGC members.
Since
September, three newspapers in Mosul were shut down; other newspaper editors
feared for their lives and gave up their quest for a free press. Eleven
newspapers have been shut down in Baghdad.
During
the same period, 16 journalists have been killed in Iraq. Fourteen of those have
been killed by direct US action.
The Al
Jazeera all-news channel says its reporters and cameramen have been arrested 18
times while on assignment in Iraq since the beginning of the war in March.
Imagine the outrage had Iran detained a CNN crew, or had Saudi Arabia
interrogated a FOX reporter. Every editorial in North America would have
screamed bloody murder and called for independent investigations and sanctions
against those nations, and called for freedom of access and freedom of the
press.
In Iraq,
which is meant to be on its way to a pluralistic democracy, as President Bush
has envisioned, the rules are different. No freedom of the press just yet, no
dissent, no public outcry. Just behave like good little ragheads and we won’t
hurt you.
On the
12th of November, The New Zealand Herald reported the
following:
American soldiers handcuffed and
firmly wrapped masking tape around an Iraqi man’s mouth as they arrested him
today for speaking out against occupation troops.
Asked why the man had been arrested and put into the back
of a Humvee vehicle on Tahrir Square, the commanding officer told Reuters at the
scene: “This man has been detained for making anti-coalition statements.”
In
April, when US invading forces were poised on the outskirts of Baghdad, Al
Jazeera journalist Tareq Ayyoub was gunned while standing outside the Baghdad Al
Jazeera office by US troops. The same day, Spaniard Jose Couso for Spain’s
Telecinco was killed when US tanks shelled the Palestine Hotel in central
Baghdad. Taras Protsyuk, a Ukrainian television cameraman for Reuters, was
killed in the same incident.
US
forces have not been held accountable, nor assumed responsibility, for the
killing and detention of journalists in Iraq. It is worth mentioning that the US
has signed no treaty that holds its military responsible for war crimes. While
an Austrian army colonel may be held for a war crime if he tortures a Rwandan
prisoner (let’s consider for the sake of argument), a US colonel torturing an
Iraqi will not be handed over to an international court.
US
military investigations concluded in the above attacks on journalists that “US
forces reacted appropriately in a hostile environment” in all of the above
cases. The findings have enraged human rights and international journalists’
groups.
Many
within journalism circles have accused US forces of trying to thwart the
unfettered access and broadcast of information pertaining to the situation in
Iraq.
Also on
November 12, Slobodan Lekic of the Associated Press news agency (AP) wrote:
With casualties mounting in Iraq
(news
- web
sites), jumpy U.S. soldiers are becoming more aggressive in their
treatment of journalists covering the conflict.
Media people have been detained,
news equipment has been confiscated and some journalists have suffered verbal
and physical abuse while trying to report on events…Reuters television
cameraman Mazen Dana was killed while videotaping near a U.S.-run prison on the
outskirts of Baghdad following a mortar attack.
The military later said the
troops had mistaken Dana’s camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. An
investigation concluded the soldiers “acted within the rules of engagement,”
although the U.S. Army has never publicly announced those rules, citing security
reasons.
The
latest attack on press freedoms came when the IGC ordered the Al-Arabiya news
station shut down, accusing it of promoting murder and chaos in Iraq. According
to the (AP) “[the] State Department defended the U.S.-appointed Iraqi
Governing Council’s banning of a major Arab television station, saying Monday
that the aim was to try ‘to avoid a situation where these media are used as a
channel for incitement.’” Al-Arabiya aired an audio-tape of Saddam last
week, which many feel is the real reason the move against the network was taken.
That’s
funny. Consider the hatred and vitriol against all things Arab and Islamic on
North American radio, talk-shows, the FOX network among others. No, American
journalism is beyond compare and cannot be scrutinized.
But
there is method to this madness. In 1931, a young Adolf Hitler learned the value
of the media. A powerful media could control the people, move them when needed,
silence them when needed. This is called propaganda.
Last
month, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld charged that Arab media in Iraq
was “violently anti-coalition.” Apparently, showing images of girls being
frisked by US soldiers, an affront to Muslims and Arabs, is anti-coalition.
Apparently, giving voice to Iraqi civilians who complain that they were beaten,
or showing old men being pushed around and forced to strip by anxious US
soldiers is anti-coalition.[i]
Arab
networks have been bringing audiences news that their North American
counterparts have sensitized and censored. The burning of Iraqi farms as a
measure of collective punishment, the razing of fields, the demolition of family
homes, the humiliation of Iraqis – are all stories North American viewers do
not get to see. Now, the IGC and the CPA want to ensure that Arab audiences
don’t see them either.
(Last
month, the BBC criticized North American coverage of the war as being
sensitized.)
A
controlled media is the very first lesson in effective dictatorship. Have we all
forgotten our Orwellian and Machiavellian lessons?
So,
what’s Rumsfeld’s solution? According to AP, Rumsfeld “said a satellite
channel controlled by the U.S. government would begin broadcasts next month.”
Maybe
Rumsfeld would do well to heed the Iraqi public’s tastes: “Two hundred
Iraqis vented their anger in Baghdad on Wednesday against what they called
‘immodest images’ on the coalition-run national television,” said the BBC
on November 19.[ii]
If
outside control is acceptable to American conscience then I suggest the US
public be given a television station controlled by Mauritania. By stating that
Iraqis will have someone else determine their programming, Rumsfeld takes a
racist and ethnocentric approach to the issue.
The
above article is sure to incite fury and anger because it presents a side of the
occupation most do not want to hear. Consequently, this writer receives death
threats and various forms of hate mail. To those who find the above contrary to
their inbred beliefs, consider an old Sioux adage which says walk a mile in a
man’s moccasin before you learn to judge him. Would the average American
citizen appreciate the silencing of a newspaper because it publishes articles
critical of Congress? Or would a British citizen appreciate if Buckingham Palace
ordered all stories of the royal family entirely removed from the public eye?
Censorship
of the media in the West is intolerable. Why is it then acceptable for Iraqis
who only seek to air their views and find alternate forms of information?
To make
things worse, The New York Times reported on November
25th that the IGC is trying to wedge its way out of its commitment to
relinquishing control to an elected Iraqi body.
But Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish
leader who is serving as president of the council this month, said in an
interview Monday that a majority of the council members “want to keep the
Governing Council as it is now.” Some council members who oppose this idea say
they believe that the proposal is being promoted by members who are afraid that
they may not fare well in the coming elections. Opponents of the idea also say
they fear that staying on will be a public relations disaster for the nascent
rebuilt Iraqi state.
A new
dictatorship is in the making in Iraq. History lessons are being tossed aside.
The Iraq policy is going sour for both the CPA and IGC. A great crime is being
committed against the Iraqi people. And they don’t want you to know.
Unfortunate.
Firas
Al-Atraqchi is a Canadian
journalist of Iraqi heritage. Holding an MA in Journalism and Mass
Communication, he has eleven years of experience covering Middle East issues,
oil and gas markets, and the telecom industry. You can reach him at firascape@hotmail.com.
[i]Smallman,
Lawerence, “US
continues to humiliate Iraqis,” Al Jazeera.net (English)
November 23, 2003.
[ii]
Feuilherade, Peter, “Protests
hit Iraq ‘Coalition TV’” BBC News November 19, 2003.
|
