Last week I responded to an article in al-Jazeera and other news outlets about President Bush "attacking" "Arabic TV". My rant, which I revised below, actually glanced the real issue. The fundamental problem of the Bush Administration’s failure to implement, by choice or ineptitude, a functional engagement of the "other" is unilateralism. The "other", in this case, is anybody or any institution that is not directly on-board with the Administration. The "with us or against us" theology is clearly seen in the found in the "unitary executive" questions thrown at Alito’s during his confirmation hearing and anywhere else this Administration treads.
The headline "Bush Slams Arabic TV" seemed to be the topic of the story at first. I have watched and loosely monitored the English version of al-Jazeera since before they launched their current English web site. I even subscribed to an Arabic translation service so I could read the Arab version when al-Jazeera took their early English site down to revamp it into its current state after unexpected popularity. Of course this does not make me an authority on this media outlet, but I have seen a clear shift in their use of adjectives and adverbs to describe actions and people of the United States away from National Enquirer-esque headlines, content, and overall coverage. So was the "slamming" of "Arabic TV" deserved? Is this amalgamation of media outlets conspired against the US in some unholy alliance against the good ol’ US of A?
The al-Jazeera coverage of events is biased cannot be refuted. But when even US-based "mainstream media" is biased toward the left according to a recent survey, can’t we look at the media as defending some form of nationalism? The concept of nationalism from the Magrheb to the Mashriq and in-between cannot be but glossed over here. Some have said al-Jazeera promotes an Islamic-brand of nationalism and others have said it promotes an Arabic brand of nationalism. Interesting commentary when the Muslim and Arab populations are heavily divided on this. How can this station channel such deep and intense passions that may be called nationalism? From the al-Husri attempts to model an Iraqi nationalism on the German model to British-influenced Egyptian nationalists, the claim al-Jazeera speaks as a unified mouthpiece grants it greater power and penetration than it really possesses. The spoken language of the channel does not relate well to the common dialects of the "man on the street" and the "unwashed" masses of terrorist foot soldiers. Are the problems with the French press simply sporadic or inconsistent enough to not warrant "punishment" of ostracizing or bombing? In the end, it is hard to really determine the Nielsen rating of al-Jazeera because the corrupt governments under which the primary audience resides (who also have severe complaints against al-Jazeera) dissuade polling through direct and indirect power.
"Arabic TV" is not then worthy of slamming because of their audience or whom they "represent". Is it their questions? The issue of the questions can be difficult when the US Government does their best to avoid answering the questions. The rejection of al-Jazeera as a "valid" media source by the Administration and others is on shaky grounds. When the New York Stock Exchange revoked the station’s credentials it was largely seen as a response to the station’s broadcast of American POWs but the reason given was to make room for other investor-related outlets. The Administration allowed in a 23-year old blogger into the Press Room, a former male escort working under a different name and used daily "temporary" passes, and attacks, through Press Secretary Scott McCellan, and belittles certain reporter to the point other reporters jump to her defense and follow up on her question for her. Is al-Jazeera "disbarred" because it can be then? Certainly al-Manar, with their stated agenda to be bias against all things Israel, should be barred, but shouldn’t al-Jazeera be engaged as a conduit to a population when our own weak attempts, such as al-Hurra, fail?
When President Bush criticized "Arabic television for giving a false impression of the United States", he "admitted that Americans needed to do a better job of communicating their ideals." The $114m he is asking from Congress in the 2007 budget is spectacularly and painfully low. This is a paltry drop in the bucket compared to the Global War on Terror and Iraqi operations. In fact, it is paltry when considering the $300m in Pentagon contracts awarded in June of 2005. The language and cultural catch-up the US must make is severe despite the Pentagon’s intention of spending $750 million over five years separately. It is a fact that "we need intelligence officers who, when somebody says something in Arabic or Farsi or Urdu, know what they’re talking about". The disparity between the civilian and military contracting and purposes is significant and raises its own questions. There are increasing disconnects between the military and civilian leaderships that can be seen in rifts between the "Marine infantry platoon commander currently assigned as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" and Rumsfeld, in Bremer’s book, and apparently in the goal-setting to meet future requirements, including Future Combat System and privatization.
It is hard not to question that "re-calibrating the proper balance" between national security and the requirements of soft power, such as cultural diplomacy, and foundational language and cultural learning is a coming around this week in response to poll numbers of weakening support. Most notably will be how these initiatives and others likely to come out in the weeks leading to the State of Union, will be tailored to shore up support for the Party and distract from other matters.
The pronouncement was made in front of more than 120 U.S. university presidents gathered at the State Department in an event organized by the Administration to focus attention on the challenges of international education. According to the WashingontPost, "The senior educators appeared to welcome Bush’s initiative, with several calling it a positive first step toward addressing a serious shortage of linguists. But they also noted in interviews that the initial funding would be a tiny fraction of the amount needed to make a real impact."
What I missed, and WhirledView pointed out, is how much the Administration values public diplomacy. The 120 university presidents naturally wanted to hear about foreign student enrollment (which has slipped post-9/11… leading to cultural diplomacy losses to China and elsewhere)and language / cultural training. WhirledView had a more optimistic view of Karen Hughes’ pronouncement of a "third pillar of education… Americans must educate ourselves…to be better citizens of the world." The priority of watching the Longhorns and the Trojans battle on the gridiron at the Rose Bowl was apparently of greater importance to the Administration. In the end, it really is not surprising. The unitary executive does not need to convince others what to believe through soft power.
The "unlimited" war powers the President defends as he confronts leaks on the NSA program and CIA prisons, the limited reaction to "Plamegate", and the approach to Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrates an Administration who does not believe in either Joseph Nye’s Soft Power
The slamming of the Arab press is not because of their yellow journalism, but that helps the justification. The ostracization of an important, albeit of unknown importance but more so than al-Hurra etc, communication pathway into Samual Huntington’s enemy civilizations thesis
It will be interesting if, when the history is written, parallels are drawn between President Bush and President Jefferson, notably in their disdain for the government and the eviscerating of the military. President Jefferson scuttled the Navy leading to problems in our war with Britain a decade later and President Bush continues to wear down our military. This has lead some to charge there are two options in Iraq: 1)loss of Iraq; 2)loss of Iraq & the destruction of our military.