Karen P. Hughes experienced the full force of anti-America sentiments in the Middle East, during her recent diplomatic mission. Her progress was closely followed by the American media, and they depicted it quite objectively. From the fiasco with the Saudi women, to the showdown in Turkey they did not sugarcoat the facts. There was an analysis in the Times on Friday, which gave a comprehensive picture of her tour.
The Middle East press had some harsh words for her diplomatic efforts. According to the Times,
‘There was some coverage in the regional press, but not a great deal, combined with editorial skepticism, if not hostility, over her first overseas trip in her new role. "The Arab world is tired of U.S. hurricanes," said an editorial in Asharq, a daily paper in Qatar. "It hopes that Hurricane Hughes will be the last one."…’
Meanwhile, other papers deliberately chose to misconstrue statements in pursuit of an agenda to project her in a negative light. It stated in the Times that,
‘In Egypt, she supported democracy. But the papers focused that day on the prosecution on charges of election fraud of Ayman Nour, the leading opposition figure who got the most votes in the recent presidential election. Local reporters criticized Ms. Hughes for not meeting with enough genuine opposition figures.’
The Middle East is angry and hostile towards the United States--the continuously deteriorating conditions in Iraq especially in light of scandals like Abu Ghraib do not help the situation. The situation is complicated and the resentments are not just limited to Iraq. There is the Palestine and Israel issue which has existed for years before the Iraq war. She had to battle on that front too and as the Times explains,
‘Mr. Bush's support for a Palestinian state also seemed to count for little in an environment where attention is focused on Israeli attacks on Palestinians. "I guess I'm a little surprised that he doesn't get more credit," Ms. Hughes told reporters after hearing criticism in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, of American support for Israel...'
It was unlikely that Karen Hughes would have been welcomed with open arms in the Middle East- there is too much bad blood there. Hugging a few children and telling Saudi women that the right to drive will set them free makes for a pretty news story, but to hope that it will heal decades of resentment is asking for too much.
However, it was the media’s responsibility to facilitate the process rather than condemn it. If all diplomatic channels between the Middle East and the United States are shunned, the situation can only get worse. The media in the Middle East needs to play a more restrained and mature role in such situations, rather than aggravating a already volatile situation.
willemmarx @ October 2, 2005 - 7:33pm
What responsibility is there for the media in the Middle East to be more restrained and mature? This seems rather a one-sided way of looking at things. Is the US media not critical of foreign leaders if they make trips to the US where they embarass themselves through a lack of cultural understanding? Is this any different? Are they accused of lacking restraint and maturity on such occasions?
Another problem with this premise is that the media in that part of the world has the power of self-determination, when in fact the majority of newspapers and TV stations are state-controlled to some degree, and would therefore act as an indirect mouthpiece for the particular state when it comes to coverage such as this.
The classic example of US officials embarassing themselves abroad is Kennedy's speech in Berlin, which ended "Ich bin ein Berliner", rather than "Ich bin Berliner." This misguided but well-intentioned attempt to empathise with his German audience provoked sniggers, as the US president had just described himself to a crowd of thousands as a "jelly doughnut."
There is far less humour in the public gaffes of officials such as Hughes though, and I fail to see why the media in the Middle East should hold off, for fear of "aggravating a(n) already volatile situation." Isn't that kind of criticism exactly the kind of behaviour which amongst American journalists covering the Katrina disaster was lauded and encouraged?
I hope being more, "restrained and mature," is not a euphemism for writing with less bite, as open public dialogue and a free press (which barely exists outside of Iraq in that region of the world, incidentally), are surely two of the best ways to initiate non-violent progress?
»