Bitterlemons-international

| Home |

Edition 5 Volume 9 - February 10, 2011

How media leaks have affected the Middle East

• We haven't seen the last of it - an interview with Ian Black
It's hard to resist having privileged access to something like this.

• Contributing to transparency - Ghassan Khatib
The public viewed the Wikileaks and al-Jazeera documents differently.

• A blessing for the region - an interview with Bassma Kodmani
It was malevolent.

• Setting Egypt on fire - Mark Perry
Our means of communicating has been transformed, but what's being communicated has not.

We haven't seen the last of it
an interview with Ian Black

BI: How would you assess Wikileaks' contribution to the revolutionary popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere and to the Arab reform effort in general?

Black: The question is most relevant with reference to Tunisia. There, cables from 2008 sent by the American ambassador painted a devastating picture of the Ben Ali regime and family's corruption and luxurious life-style. I think, though, it's rather condescending to think that it took the leaks of Wikileaks--the Guardian was one of five papers that first published them--to galvanize Tunisians into action. It's a very West-centric approach to believe that the people of Tunisia needed Wikileaks. This is more about the corruption itself at the top. Still, hearing that the American ambassador had reported it had some influence.

Having said that, it's true that before President Ben Ali was overthrown the Tunisian government took strenuous efforts to prevent access to the Wikileaks cables; this indicated how anxious it was about their content.

In Egypt only one revelation was very shocking. A dispatch from the US ambassador in Cairo in which she fully expected Mubarak would run again for president in September 2011. Now, any Egyptian might have reached that conclusion. Still, it's the revelation from someone with privileged access that confirmed this with authority, and this had particular weight. Other than that, not much attention was paid to the Wikileaks material concerning Egypt until the unrest began. Now we see [Vice President] Omar Suleiman referred to more.

The real innovation of Wikileaks is that after the initial publication, it's considered a useful resource [for use once events take place somewhere]. In terms of actual revelations, I'm less excited than others about its impact.

BI: Let's turn to the Palestine Papers. What was the journalistic intent behind releasing the papers?

Black: The papers were obtained by al-Jazeera, then shared with us. Any large collection of documents is always of interest to journalists, to know what people are saying about a whole range of issues. In this case, we believed the insights would be of great interest, as indeed proved to be the case.

BI: How do you deal with the accusation that there was malevolent intent here, to damage the PLO leadership in Ramallah?

Black: There was certainly no such intent on the part of the Guardian. I can't speak for anyone else.

BI: And how do you deal with the contention that there was nothing new in these revelations, that anyone who follows the Israeli-Palestinian process closely already was aware of the negotiating positions and aspects of cooperation?

Black: I would disagree with that. I'm absolutely certain that many elements that came out in the stories were not known until the papers were published. For example, the PLO offer regarding the settlements in East Jerusalem was not public knowledge.

BI: Would you say the leaks of the Palestine Papers damaged the PLO leadership and the peace process as it understands it?

Black: Well, there is no peace process.

BI: I'm referring to the PLO concept of the process as presented in the leaks?

Black: Palestinians critical of the parameters of the peace process have been affected by the leaks. Meanwhile, the leaks have been overtaken by events in Egypt. Then too, personally I believe the Palestinians have little alternative to the present leadership with its approach as reflected in the leaks. Is the entire Arab world about to change its peace strategy? But I agree, the revelations probably were damaging to the PLO strategy.

BI: Looking at the broader picture of leaked diplomatic documents, what lies ahead for the Middle East and indeed the entire international community?

Black: If you're in the media these days, post-Wikileaks, you're looking at a novel innovation of technology. We received 250,000 documents on a memory stick the size of my little finger. There is reasonable suspicion that digital information will not always be secured in future and this will happen again, whether or not negotiations are held in secret. There always seem to be people with personal or political motives to expose something. We haven't seen the last of it.

This is a bizarre position to be in as a journalist, dealing with masses of information. It's not always easy. I would admit quite freely that in both cases documents can be misinterpreted and taken out of context. But it's very hard to resist having privileged access to something like this. You can't reinvent it.-Published 10/2/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Ian Black is Middle East editor of the Guardian.

Contributing to transparency
Ghassan Khatib

The thousands of documents that have been leaked, both by Wikileaks and al-Jazeera, have made a great impact on the Middle East. Some of this impact is immediate and the rest will be felt for some time to come. The reason why these leaks were very dramatic in the Middle East and the Arab world in particular is, of course, the absence of transparency in the landscape of the political elite and governments.

In most cases, the Wikileaks documents confirmed positions and official behavior of which the public was already suspicious and which the opposition had warned against. Therefore, the release of these documents had the effect of further discrediting regional governments in the eye of their respective publics.

There was a difference, however, in the public's perception of the Wikileaks and al-Jazeera documents, respectively. While Wikileaks simply presents its documents as they are, leaving to the public (among them journalists, leaders, academics and politicians) to draw different and sometimes contradictory conclusions and feeding a healthy public debate, al-Jazeera went further than that. The Qatar-owned satellite station took great pains to present these leaks through a clear political lens--to the extent that this affected the leaks' credibility, particularly among Palestinians.

Al-Jazeera, which already pursues an Islamic political and ideological agenda, not only posted these documents on a website, but produced four major television programs "presenting" the documents. Al-Jazeera maliciously took things out of context with the objective of exaggerating the negative light they cast on the Palestinian Authority.

For Palestinians, the effect was two-fold. First, some Palestinians expressed the view that there was a need to review the performance of the negotiators and open the door to correction and self-criticism. This impulse was clear in many writings after the leaks, including an early statement issued by the secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The other outcome was a backlash against al-Jazeera itself, as Palestinians expressed suspicion about the intentions of the satellite channel. Some specialists say that this has led to a decline in the channel's viewership in the occupied Palestinian territories.

But there has been another angle to these leaks, especially the Wikileaks documents. Here, the leaked cables unveiled the at times unsavory role of American diplomats in general and in the region. First, the documents showed that American diplomats sometimes acted in a non-diplomatic manner, to put it mildly, periodically misrepresenting the positions and views that they heard from other officials. Most damaging, however, has been widespread shaken confidence in American diplomats' ability to keep what is supposed to be confidential from being disclosed.

All in all, however (and in spite of the negative effects and damage here and there), one can conclude that these leaks had a positive effect, contributing to more careful and responsible diplomacy, in addition to greater transparency in politics and international relations. -Published 10/2/2011 © bitterlemons-international

Ghassan Khatib is coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications and director of the Government Media Center. This article represents his personal views.

A blessing for the region
an interview with Bassma Kodmani

BI: How would you assess Wikileaks' contribution to the revolutionary popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere?

Kodmani: The way official foreign sources characterized the regimes seems to have powerfully affected the public opinion of the elites (not the ruling elites). Corruption was described [by these sources, in leaked cables] in terms that are harsher than anything used by the most radical [local] activists--words that criminalized the behavior of the regimes, using terms like "mafia". Previously these were only used by a few activists, yet here we have reasonable diplomats using those words.

This is what made societies cross the psychological threshold of waiting patiently for reforms to be conducted from the top thanks to the generosity of the regimes [and recognize that] we're dealing with thugs who have no credibility. The leaks were decisive in pointing to the refusal of the ruling echelon to deal with popular grievances and the need for democracy. Leaks about Egyptian security cooperation with Israel, regarding Hamas in Gaza for example, were also damaging to the Mubarak regime.

BI: Would you say there was a cause and effect relationship here, with the leaks actually triggering the demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt?

Kodmani: The leaks weren't the only factor. There were local and societal conditions and grievances, but the leaks were definitely a trigger.

BI: How do you understand the intent of the Jazeera and Guardian leaks of the Palestine Papers?

Kodmani: It was malevolent, seeking to paint the PLO leadership and negotiators in a bad light by revealing embarrassing details. Most of the details revealed were in any case known to many. But the presentation was malevolent.

I think this is a fair characterization, not about reading the leaks but rather when watching the promotion of the documents on al-Jazeera. This was manipulative. Regarding the Guardian, it's doing a job just as al-Jazeera was [in its actual broadcasts]. It's perfectly legitimate to publish the documents. I'm talking about the way al-Jazeera advertised their publication. This was some sort of incitement.

BI: Why did al-Jazeera incite against the PLO leadership?

Kodmani: I can't account for the motives of al-Jazeera or the Guardian.

BI: What influence have the Palestine Paper leaks had on Palestinian and other Arab support for the PLO leadership?

Kodmani: A negative influence, mainly among Arabs outside of the West Bank. Inside, there has been a closing of the ranks.

BI: Finally, having seen what Wikileaks, al-Jazeera, Facebook and Twitter have done, can you share your thoughts on the future influence of media technology on reform in the Middle East.

Kodmani: I think it's a blessing for the region, an absolute blessing. Real space is closed, there is no place for truth and free expression, and here technology is offering virtual space that is increasingly relevant and enabling for society. We have totally secretive and opaque political systems, so leaks are a way of challenging these governments. And the use of social media is a guarantee that the younger generation and the people in general, the real elites, can oppose the ruling elites. This is one way of removing the blockage of [Arab] society, so I have much hope for these means.-Published 10/2/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Bassma Kodmani is executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative.

Setting Egypt on fire
Mark Perry

Crane Brinton (a saint among historians) tells us that dictators are human: they cite "plots," "conspiracies" and "unprincipled schemers" to excuse their tyranny. So it is that Louis XVI blamed the devious Duc D'Orleans for the Bastille's fall, George III railed against an obstinate "clique" of deluded tavern keepers, and Nicholas II attributed his forced retirement to unscrupulous freemasons. Yet, while we moderns chuckle at these foolish explanations, they remain attractive among those who view the current contretemps in Cairo (and elsewhere) with suspicion.

In truth, not much has changed since the cart carrying "Citizen Capet" rolled towards the guillotine--except for our language. Now, instead of blaming devious dukes, deluded tavern keepers and crafty (so to speak) freemasons, we have a new trinity of conspirators: Wikileaks, the "social media" and al-Jazeera. They are the new "outside agitators," the "unwanted foreign elements" in our happy, happy midst. So it is that Hillary Clinton called the Wikileaks revelations an "attack" on US "foreign policy interests", Egypt Today suggested banning Facebook and Omar Suleiman blamed "unfriendly TV stations" (not Egypt Today, presumably) for "inciting youth against us."

In the midst of our tut-tut-tutting over such silly statements, it might be useful to reflect on our complicity in repeating them. American network anchors seem unaware that words betray emotions--and political preferences. Hence, while State Department and White House officials "strategize", the Muslim Brotherhood "plots", while CBS and CNN "report", al-Jazeera "blares", while Mr. Mubarak and Co. go about the business of "managing Egypt's challenges," Google and Facebook and Twitter "find ways to exploit" Egypt's "reservoir of popular discontent". Even the most sober among us (a Middle East scholar soporifically intoned) "is forced to admit," that "while the social media and al-Jazeera did not cause this unrest, it's hard to imagine all this happening without them." That seems true, if trivial. Think of it: without that damned Guttenberg, there'd have been no Thomas Paine.

This is not to say that Wikileaks, the social media and al-Jazeera are not important. They are. They may even be revolutions in themselves: Wikileaks provides a more accessible means of publishing secrets, the social media a faster way of accelerating political protest and al-Jazeera a new way of viewing it--allowing, as television does, a camera to tell the story. Then too, the "cyberactivists" of Egypt's demonstrations mastered (as Maryam Ishani writes) "new-media tools to report events, alert participants about security situations, and provide legal assistance to those rounded up by state security forces." This is an important observation, if simply confirmation that today's media is the equivalent of America's "committees of correspondence", France's "committees of public safety", and Russia's "peasants and workers soviets".

Thankfully, all the chatter about how Egypt's revolution would not have been possible without the (quick intake of breath) "new media", has been dampened by those who know it best. "Tunisians took to the streets due to decades of frustration, not in reaction to a WikiLeaks cable, a denial-of-service attack, or a Facebook update," Ethan Zuckerman wrote in Foreign Policy in mid-January. "This is not a Facebook revolution, and not an Internet revolution," one Egyptian protester insisted. "This is not about the Internet, this is about the needs and demands of the Egyptian people."

This seems more than just an opinion: "Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen have a combined total of 14,642 Twitter users," one political blogger notes. So why all the fuss? "The Western media's focus on so-called Twitter Revolutions," he goes on to note, "may tell less" about revolutions "and more about the preoccupations of the American journalists who cover them."

These views simply (though not merely) confirm what historians and political observers have long known: that while our means of communicating has certainly been transformed, what's being communicated has not. The causes that sent people into the streets of Boston, Paris and Petrograd in 1776, 1789 and 1917 are the same as those that sent them into the streets of Cairo in 2011: a greedy king, a squalid court, a botched government--a ruthless regime.

Fifteen years--fifteen years!--before the Bastille was stormed, France's future (and Louie's) was foretold by a lonely figure on a Paris stage: "Because you are a great lord, you think you are a great genius," Beaumarchais has Figaro say, ". . . nobility, fortune, rank, appointments, all this makes a man so proud! But what have you done to deserve so many good things? You took the trouble to get born." Hmmm: perhaps Louis Capet should have closed the theatres. Which is to argue that the fires of all revolutions, including the one in Cairo, are not kindled by pamphlets, broadsides, or even internet sites but (as James Billington notes) are set alight by "ideas in the minds of men".-Published 10/2/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Mark Perry is an author and foreign policy, military and intelligence analyst based in Washington, DC.

Notice Board