Posted By Marc Lynch Share

 

 

Al-Jazeera Director Wadah Khanfar at the Middle East Institute

 This morning I joined a small group at the Middle East Institute for a free-wheeling hour with Wadah Khanfar, the controversial and energetic director of al-Jazeera who is in Washington DC for the first time.  (My FP colleague Blake Hounshell was there too.) Khanfar will meet with a range of administration officials, will be giving a public talk at the New America Foundation over lunch, and -- best of all! -- will be visiting with my course on the Arab media at the Elliott School of International Affairs this evening.  When I last saw Khanfar (in Doha this past February), I had urged him to come to Washington and to give the new administration a chance.  I'm delighted that he has. The simple fact of his visit to Washington symbolizes the new opportunities for engagement between the U.S. and the Arab public -- as well as the complexities of that engagement.  

 Khanfar said that the Obama administration's new approach has opened up a window of opportunity for engagement between the Arab world and the United States.  That window takes the form of an argument, though, not of any automatic change in attitudes -- something which I think can be seen far more clearly in Arab talk shows and op-eds than in public opinion surveys.  Khanfar suggested that Obama's election has sparked an intense debate within the Arab public.  On one side are those who sense a new spirit in the region, who want to help him in his new vision and to leave the preceding eight years of conflict and hostility behind.  On the other are those who warn Arabs not to be deceived  by beautiful words, because American interests and behavior will never really change.  

 How that argument will be resolved is very much in the air, he suggested, but at least now for the first time in eight years there is the opportunity to argue about the value of engagement and dialogue.   But many in the region want to see an end to the years of hostility and confrontation, he claimed.   They admire American values, especially about freedom and democracy, and want the U.S. to be an inspiration rather than an enemy.  But their experience has been one of double-standards, of the U.S. not living up to its claimed values, and of an American foreign policy which outrages and offends.   Hence the hope that Obama can restore that potential for shared values and aspirations lost under the previous administration.  

 Khanfar, as one might expect, was keen to defend al-Jazeera against a variety of well-known criticisms prevalent in the U.S.    He argued that al-Jazeera reported the reality of Arab anger against U.S. policies rather than creating it, just as it reported the likely difficulties of the invasion and occupation of Iraq rather than creating America's problems there.  Many in the U.S., he argued, labeled al-Jazeera as "them", on "their" side, so that they did not have to pay attention to it -- but in the end its coverage of Iraq and other issues turned out to be far more accurate and even prescient.  Wouldn't the U.S. have been better served by listening to and engaging with al-Jazeera than by demonizing it?  

 I can't do justice to the entire conversation.  Over the course of the hour he defended al-Jazeera against a variety of other charges while advancing his vision of the station as centered on professional reporting and on an identification with the people rather than with regimes.  He rejected criticism that al-Jazeera had stopped covering human rights, pointing in particular to a new program focused on prisons and detainment in the Arab world (which I haven't seen personally, I should note). He deflected several questions about Qatari intervention in the station's content, arguing that the Qataris understood that al-Jazeera's influence rested on the perception that it was independent. 

 He offered a thoughtful take on the impact of the Iranian election crisis on Arab public views of Iran, which boiled down to "it's too soon to tell" but with an active and intense argument going on about it.  He described the difficulties of covering divided societies such as Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian scene -- where any coverage, no matter how balanced, would inevitably anger one side or the other (the answer: strong editorial leadership from Doha).  And he said that getting greater access to the American market for al-Jazeera English, building on the recent opening up of the Washington DC cable system, was a high priority.  

 The most important part of Khanfar's visit is probably the visit itself.  His decision to come to Washington, and his ability to meet with a wide range of government officials, demonstrates the very real new possibilities for a new style of American engagement with the Arab world.  For all the transformation of the Arab media landscape over the last decade, al-Jazeera remains the most widely viewed and most influential Arabic news station.  Americans should not view al-Jazeera simply as a hostile presence in the Arab political arena or or the source of its image problems. Nor should they view it only as a possible vehicle for public diplomacy and spreading American messages, though they should certainly take every opportunity to be on its programs and engage.  They should also listen to it, to the raucous talk show arguments and the dominant narrative frames and the voices of the Arab public which it presents. Those arguments won't end, and that's a good thing --- and better to be in that argument rather than pretending it doesn't exist.  

 

WALKING WOUNDED

6:11 PM ET

July 27, 2009

watch Khanfar online

streaming video at:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=288055-1

C-SPAN schedule for cable repeats:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=schedule

 

PROGRAMMER.CRAIG

12:11 AM ET

July 28, 2009

I had urged him to come to

I had urged him to come to Washington and to give the new administration a chance. I'm delighted that he has. The simple fact of his visit to Washington symbolizes the new opportunities for engagement between the U.S. and the Arab public -- as well as the complexities of that engagement.

lol. Your success comes about 8 years too late, Marc.

How that argument will be resolved is very much in the air, he suggested, but at least now for the first time in eight years there is the opportunity to argue about the value of engagement and dialogue.

See? you admit it yourself. Engagement and dialog had to happen before 9/11. The only thing to talk about now is if we should stop killing eachother. And that's an issue Arabs have to decide amongst themselves, before they can articulate a serious position towards the west. Or at least, a position worthy of being taken seriously by the west. Although, I'm sure Obama will pay any premature idiocy lip-service.

Those arguments won't end, and that's a good thing --- and better to be in that argument rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

The US doesn't need to listen to Arabs arguing with eachother about how they should react towards the US. Once they reach a consensus of opinion (if they ever do) then the US should pay attention... provided that consensus of opinion is something different than it was in previous decades.

...who want to help him in his new vision and to leave the preceding eight years of conflict and hostility behind.

There was no conflict and hostility before 9/11? How old are you, Marc? And what caused 9/11 in the first place?

I had urged him to come to Washington and to give the new administration a chance.

I think you have it backwards. It is Obama who is giving Arabs a(nother) chance. But it doesn't really matter. The Arab world has become largely irrelevant in US policy. How is your Farsi? How up to date are you in events in South Asia?

 

PROGRAMMER.CRAIG

12:42 AM ET

July 28, 2009

PS-When you present Islamists

PS-When you present Islamists who are in the Muslim Brotherhood as "moderates" that the US needs to talk to, and then you make a post claiming there is some big debate amongst Arabs in regards to the US, I have doubts about your credibility. I also have doubts about whose interests you are serving. But then, I've always had those doubts about you. You were wrong on Iraq. What have you been right about?

 

WALKING WOUNDED

6:43 AM ET

July 29, 2009

He's right about Jazeera's Khanfar

being worth listening to. Give it a try.

 

MANSOURMD

5:07 AM ET

July 28, 2009

without a doubt!

For Khanfar to have the opportunity to meet with administration officials is great news, especially after eight years of alienating al Jazeera by US government, and even attempting to bomb its headquarters in Doha. What a difference!
Al Jazeera, without a doubt, the most influential satellite channel in the Middle East, and I am hopping the President will end his predecessor's boycott of the channel and gives it an interview.

 

DAVID IN DC

11:35 AM ET

July 29, 2009

But many in the region want

But many in the region want to see an end to the years of hostility and confrontation, he claimed. They admire American values, especially about freedom and democracy, and want the U.S. to be an inspiration rather than an enemy. But their experience has been one of double-standards, of the U.S. not living up to its claimed values, and of an American foreign policy which outrages and offends. Hence the hope that Obama can restore that potential for shared values and aspirations lost under the previous administration.

Isn't Obama adopting a more "Realist" foreign policy than Bush's? In which case, our so-called "claimed values" will hold only as long as they also advance our perceived interests, and "many in the region" will inevitably be disappointed in us, right?

I guess this also leads to the question - when exactly did these "many in the region" see the "potential for shared values and aspirations", that it can be described as being "restored"? No doubt public relations with the Arab world took a hit under Bush, but it seems like relations pre-Bush are being examined through rose colored glasses here. I don't recall them being all that rosy then either.

 

MANSOURMD

4:08 PM ET

July 29, 2009

soft power

David, good post.
The US can no longer apply the same realist Machiavellian standards of "necessity negates justice" in dealing with domestic and foreign affairs in an era of globalization and complex interdependence. U.S. power should be embedded into the international system, and advancing and protecting US interests can be done through soft power and coopeation, not hawkish policies. I believe that's what the new administrations is doing, therefore, in a sense that's not realism

As Fareed Zakaria argued in his book "The Post American Word": A world in which the United States takes up less space, but is one in which the very American ideas and ideals of freedom, justice and democracy are overwhelmingly dominant, is a lot more stable than a world in which the U.S. is a superpower but Anti-Americanism is fueling hate and violence and making America less secure.

 

Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Read More