News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
On the heels of the news that a Pentagon contractor pays Iraqi
journalists to write and print articles sympathetic to America, The New
York Times reported last week that the same contractor has been paying
Sunni clerics in Iraq for propaganda assistance. This recent news is,
in many ways, similarly troubling: it threatens to undermine moderate
Iraqis and other Arabs who genuinely call for democracy in the Middle
East.
Last November, The Los Angeles Times reported that the
Pentagon pays to place both news reports and opinion pieces in the
Iraqi media. Some articles are ghost-written by American soldiers and
then planted in the Iraqi press; other payments are made to Iraqi
journalists who write their own copy but toe the American line.
Reports of this program sparked much well-justified outrage
for a wide variety of reasons. Some journalists criticized the program
as contrary to the tenets of independent reporting; others noted that
such payments undermine many other American initiatives aimed at
fostering professional and respected media in the Arab world. Sen.
Harry Reid (D-Nev.) argued that the program was only the latest of the
Bush administration’s attempts to “buy the news,” and Senate Democrats
linked the Pentagon’s efforts to a Government Accountability Office
investigation which had faulted the Bush administration for preparing
news summaries that were published without attribution to the
government. In an age of global media, there were also worries that
“news” placed abroad might make its way back into the U.S., running
afoul of prohibitions on government propaganda in America. Others,
including a senior Pentagon official, cited the fundamental credibility
gap between an America that proudly champions the freedom of the press
and an administration that feels no compunction about subtly subverting
it in a foreign country.
But there has so far been little attention to perhaps the most
dangerous and detrimental effect of this program, and of the initiative
to put friendly Sunni clerics on the American payroll: its impact on
Arab perceptions of genuine Arab moderates who are unafraid to
criticize their own governments and advocate support for
democratization and other American priorities.
Arab moderates who share values or aspirations with the U.S.
are often demonized in their own countries as American agents. Such
charges are frequently lobbed at Egypt’s Ayman Nour, whose al-Ghad
opposition party supports a democratic transition away from Hosni
Mubarak’s enduring autocracy, and at Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who has
advocated democratization through strengthening civil society
organizations in the Middle East. Both were imprisoned by the Egyptian
government on what are widely considered to be trumped-up charges, and
both received vocal and public support from the U.S.—further shaping
these reformers’ images as tools of the Americans.
The news that Iraqi journalists who speak optimistically about
the American occupation are on the Pentagon’s payroll will certainly
reinforce these types of suspicions. In an environment in which
democracy and America are too often equated with suffering and
aggression, Arab democrats already have an extremely difficult time
convincing their fellow citizens that their ideas are formed from an
honest and heartfelt conviction that democracy is the best path towards
the future. Because of this Pentagon program, their fellow citizens now
have an additional reason to believe that moderate and democratic ideas
are foreign-funded rather than organically grown. Likewise, if moderate
Sunni clerics are perceived as being agents of the occupation, Iraqis
will have all the more reason to trust the radicals.
In one sense propaganda is part of every war effort, and the
Pentagon would be derelict if it did not try to influence public
opinion in Iraq. Understanding clerics’ viewpoints and seeking their
advice is an integral part of that campaign. But instead of paying them
to evaluate American propaganda, we should be encouraging and assisting
these clerics in making their own case to the Iraqi people.
We often ask how America can win the battle for Arab hearts
and minds. It is time to recognize that in the current climate of
hostility and paranoia towards the U.S., that is not the right battle
to be fighting. We should be searching for ways to convince Iraqis and
Arabs that democracy is in their own interest, not just in America’s
interest. Only Iraqis and Arabs advocating genuine and organic forms of
reform and democracy can prevail in that struggle; formulaic editorials
and Pentagon storyboards can never replace authentic Arab voices. A
program which casts doubt on the motives of those genuine moderates and
democrats is directly contrary to the purpose it purports to serve.
David M. DeBartolo ’03 is a joint law and M.A. in Arab
Studies student at Georgetown University. He is co-director of the
Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), and he was editorial chair of
The Crimson in 2002.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.