Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2009, pages 30-31

European Press Review

Waiting to See if Obama Was Serious in His al-Arabiya Interview

By Lucy Jones

PRESIDENT BARACK Obama’s decision to give the first official interview of his presidency to an Arabic TV channel, al-Arabiya, was seen in Europe as evidence of the administration’s wish to turn a new page in U.S. relations with the Muslim world.

In the Jan. 26 interview, Obama said he hoped to convey a message to Muslims that “Americans are not your enemy.” He said the U.S. would extend the hand of friendship to Iran if it “unclenched its fist.” He also talked about using a “language of respect” with Muslims.

“President Barack Obama offered his first overture to the Muslim world when he included his middle name, Hussein, when he swore the oath of office,” said Britain’s Independent of Jan. 28. “He offered his second when he specifically mentioned Muslims high up in his inaugural speech. And he made his third when the first foreign leader he phoned after taking office was the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas,” it added.

“In his most pointed and direct overture so far, Mr. Obama has given his first formal television interview as president to the Dubai-based station, al-Arabiya. And he used his broadcast not only to signal a friendlier—or, as he put it, respectful—approach to the Muslim world in general, but to make absolutely clear that he was not excluding Iran,” the newspaper continued.

“In singling out Iran for special mention, Mr. Obama showed canny judgment. If one country holds the key to a host of regional problems—from Hezbollah in Lebanon through Shi’i militancy in Iraq to nuclear proliferation—it is Iran,” the newspaper commented.

“Action is the key word here,” urged The Guardian’s commentator Simon Tisdall, also in the UK, the same day. “Obama’s swift plunge into the Israel-Palestine conflict, his personal promise, televised directly into the Arab world, to treat Muslims and their leaders with respect, his move to close Guantanamo Bay and turn America’s back on torture, and his instructions to his generals to get out of Iraq have all reinforced the impression of a world suddenly turned on its head,” he wrote.

“Yet in all these areas, as on Iran, Obama has yet to deliver the change he stands for, has yet to turn words into meaningful, lasting action. His supporters say: give him time. His many foreign interlocutors, opponents and enemies say: give us solid proof that he means what he says.”

“An Obama speech in Gaza would really make an impact.”

According to Germany’s Financial Times Deutschland of Jan. 28, “Obama can offer strong engagement and his yet-unscathed moral authority.” But, the newspaper warned, “the toolbox he has to work with is no bigger than that of his predecessor. So far Obama has applied more skill to using those tools—but there will come a moment when things will get serious and only then will we really know if his [al-Arabiya] interview was really a meaningful symbol.”

“Arab Muslims primarily resent what they consider to be the United States’ stubbornly pro-Israeli stance with regard to the Middle East conflict. Now corrections will be made in this area. But it is hard to believe that Obama will change his policies according to the ‘public opinion’ of Muslim countries,” editorialized Germany’s Allgemeine Zeitung the same day.

“Obama plans to speak in an important Muslim city before the end of April, within his first 100 days in office. The place he chooses will have enormous symbolic value…An Obama speech in Gaza would really make an impact. But even the great transformer from Washington probably wouldn’t dare,” opined the Jan. 28 Die Tageszeitung.

BBC Said to Have Taken Partisan Stand by not Showing Gaza Appeal

Many newspapers in Britain disagreed with the British Broadcasting Corporation’s decision not to broadcast an appeal aimed at raising funds for aid to Gaza. The BBC on Jan. 22 defended the decision, saying it wanted to avoid compromising public confidence in its impartiality. A corporation statement added there were also doubts about “the delivery of aid in a volatile situation.”

The London Times of Jan. 26 described the BBC’s decision as “an error,” arguing, “First, it elevates bizarre media preoccupations about the Corporation’s image above the need to help people in an emergency. Second, the fear expressed that footage of the conflict might confuse viewers is patronizing. Viewers are easily able to tell the difference between a humanitarian appeal and a news report,” it continued.

“The BBC is evidently concerned that to show pictures of the suffering, and plead for assistance, is to take sides, presumably against Israel…This reveals that they believe that once you have seen the suffering, you can only take one side. Naturally, this is not true,” it noted.

“Giving aid to Gaza is something that can and should be done, whoever you think is to blame for the conflict,” The Times concluded.

The BBC’s argument that such a broadcast would risk undermining public confidence in the corporation’s impartiality “might be feasibly true if it could be shown, or even credibly argued, that the broadcast was anything other than a genuine humanitarian appeal,” Britain’s Observer of Jan. 25 pointed out. “There is no such evidence,” it stated.

“By rejecting the campaign in principle, the BBC is taking a partisan stance,” editorialized The Guardian on Jan. 27. “To object to using news images of the destruction and suffering in Gaza in the service of a relief campaign is to agree with those who claim that humanitarian relief to Gaza cannot be delivered in a humanitarian way, because Hamas is in charge. Israel used this argument to justify the blockage that preceded the 22-day war.”

On Jan. 30, however, the newspaper’s media editor, Dan Sabbagh, said the BBC was right not to show the appeal. “The reality is that the campaign against the BBC has become politicized in its own right, which demonstrates that the Corporation was right to be cautious about running the appeal,” he wrote. “Whatever opinions you have on this subject, it is best if the Corporation can bestride them all,” Sabbagh concluded.

Netherlands Urged to Consider Taking Guantanamo Prisoners

Should the Netherlands assist the U.S. with the closure of the Guantanamo prison? That was the question posed in a Jan. 16 editorial in the Netherlands’ NRC International. The writer suggested that the Netherlands could be asked to house former detainees whose lives would be put at risk should they be repatriated to their own countries.

“When it was the Bush administration asking for help, the request could be brushed aside. The question will, however, become more complicated when it is posed by Obama,” the editorial noted.

“Germany and Portugal have informed Washington they would be willing to take on Guantanamo prisoners. The Netherlands could follow suit,” it added, “provided that the United States—that traditional destination for immigrants—does not keep its own borders closed.”

Iranian Satellite Launch Called “a Test Of Obama’s Tehran Intentions”

Iran on Feb. 3rd said it had launched its first domestically made satellite into orbit, a move which Germany’s Suddeutsche Zeitung thought had “strategically elevated its stature, lifting it above its Arab neighbors.”

“Tehran wants to be a predominant regional power—also in space,” the newspaper remarked the following day.

“Taken out of context, this step is no reason for concern,” said Financial Times Deutschland on Feb. 4. “But if you put the puzzle pieces together and combine them with Iran’s latent threats towards Israel, you have cause for alarm,” it said. “Because this development comes just months before Iran’s presidential elections, there is little more the West can do than observe the situation and try to remain calm,” it concluded.

In France, Le Figaro on Feb. 4 suggested that Iran’s decision to launch a domestically made satellite into orbit is designed to test Obama’s intentions regarding Tehran.

Bin Laden’s Simple Survival Has Proved Hugely Important, Times Says

Why has the U.S. failed to capture Osama bin Laden, the London Times asked in a Jan. 15 editorial. “A reward of $50 million is a vast sum,” it noted. “Yet no disgruntled zealot, no bounty-hunting tribesman has betrayed bin Laden’s whereabouts or tipped off the U.S. forces combing the Hindu Kush.”

The Pentagon’s first failure, the newspaper argued, was that it was unprepared for the difficulty of coordinating a manhunt in an unfamiliar landscape. “Washington’s second big failure was then to switch tactics. Bin Laden, spokesmen said, was increasingly irrelevant,” the newspaper commented.

“Bin Laden, however, was not irrelevant,” it opined. “Bin Laden’s simple survival has proved hugely important. To millions of angry Muslims and others chafing at U.S. power, he has become a symbol of resistance. Even those who found his beliefs repulsive were somehow heartened by his defiance,” it said.

“Mr. Bush leaves office, as his father did, with unfinished business abroad. It is a strategic failure and a brutal legacy for his successor,” the newspaper concluded.

Call for Preaching in Italian in Mosques, Corriere della Sera Reports

Gianfranco Fini, leader of Italy’s Chamber of Deputies, has called for preaching in the country’s mosques to be done in Italian to avoid “any risk of instigation to hatred or violence,” Italy’s Corriere della Sera reported on Jan. 19. During an official visit to the United Arab Emirates, Fini said preaching in mosques is “a serious issue that should be borne in mind, especially in Italy, in consideration of the superficiality with which such complex topics are approached in our country.” According to the Italian paper, Fini added that “The crown prince, Mohammed Bin Zayed, is firmly convinced that in Italy, as elsewhere, preaching of the Qur’an should be carried out in the language of the host country.”

Danish Lawyers Wear Hijab in Court To Protest Ban on Religious Symbols

In Denmark, three defense lawyers wore headscarves in court on Jan. 23 in protest over a proposal to ban religious symbols in the courtroom, The Copenhagen Post reported that day. One of the three protestors was male lawyer Janus Malcolm Petersen, who denied their action was in contempt of court. “On the contrary, we think we are showing respect for the court with this action. We trust that the judges understand how they should be dressed in court, without having to introduce legislation about it,” he told the government-owned television station TV2 the same day.

Lucy Jones is a free-lance journalist based in London.

< Prev		Next >