Al Jazeera Forum: "Power, Media, and the Middle East"

When one thinks of a gathering of representatives of a satellite news channel, it is not common to imagine a heady academic debate about the role that media plays in the structure of power relations. But this is what made the March forum, hosted by Al Jazeera, so strange and exciting; as academics, political leaders and broadcasters gathered to imagine the ways in which the world is changing and to consider what roles opinion makers will play in bringing those changes about. It is worth thinking seriously about these issues and what the conflict analysis and resolution perspective has to offer the debate all the more since such a perspective was generally absent from the proceedings. The goal of the fourth annual forum entitled, Power, Media, and the Middle East,was to host a mix of journalists, analysts, and academics to discuss a provocative array of topics. The panels were held in a dazzling theater at the Doha Sheraton, festooned with technology, draped with blue-lighted cloth, and piping music reminiscent of Carmina Burana, just under the level of direct experience. The Gothic framework seemed appropriate in a part of the world where history appears as relevant today as does the news. The speakers were an impressive mix, from Seymour Hersh and Ahmed El Sheikh, to Robert Fisk and Azmi Beshara. The conference opened with greetings offered by Wadah Khanfar, the Director General of the Al Jazeera Network, who spoke in Arabic but theorized in English with overt references to Samuel Huntington, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Joseph Nye.

The panels of the forum revealed an intriguing worldview, the key assumptions of which were that the world was becoming multi-polar, that regional power in the Middle East was shifting from the current Israeli-American hegemony to a new balance between Turkey and Iran, and that the lessons of history make clear that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. The problem with these assumptions, as they were employed, was not that they were wrongheaded or divorced from disinterested inquiry, but that they came off as more aspirational than analytical.

The most powerful speakers like Abdul Bari Atwan, the Editor in Chief of Al Quds Al Arabi developed incisive historical condemnations of American policy in the region, which relied on first order historical analogy with little situational empirical support. Atwan argued that, as fell the British, so fell the Soviets and so too will fall the Americans. In this instance, it took an Afghani voice to suggest that the current context in that country may differ in important ways from those precedents. Atwans response that the Taliban would return to power and that their problems with womens rights were exaggerated in a biased Western media, provided little comfort.

What became clear through the course of the proceedings was that while Al Jazeera had developed a powerful new global voice, it was, as yet, unclear about how to use it in conversation with its ever present American interlocutor. Media stars from the English and Arabic divisions of the channel led discussions in a balanced and respectful way, but what was striking to this American outsider was how eager the hosts were to interface with a generally Western and specifically American viewpoint, while they had so little success in doing so.

This is a fascinating problem and stands in analogy to the problem of resolution in the region. Well meaning hosts struggled to wrest the microphones from dilating sheiks and pleaded for communicative action that would bring the moral frameworks of imperial and revolutionary forces into alignment; however, when a space opened for introspection, it was filled with cautious half reflections of salient Western self-understandings. Some were well rehearsed, familiar and grounded, like of those of Seymour Hersh, Seumas Milne, and Robert Fisk. Others emerged organically as seasoned broadcasters sought balance by imploring any American at all to speak after some fiery invocation of Israeli or American brutalities. As one might expect, the typical reaction went something like, I am rarely called on to represent my country, but I agree with everything you have just said The awkward preaching quality of the debate was no fault of the participants, but points to the challenges inherent in open discussion within the simplifying context of violent struggle. For all of the progress Al Jazeera has made in propelling open debate, one still yearned for an Israeli moderate, an Obama Democrat or a Kurdish rights activist to break through the din and offer a constructive, if unpopular, perspective. In this atmosphere, it was almost possible at times to imagine that there was a consensus on regional policy and prospects for Arab unity, but that image quickly faded when the group was reminded that the rising counterpublics Iran, Turkey and Pakistan were non-Arab and in little agreement among themselves.

As a rallying point for critical journalists, the forum was a great success. I was struck by a question asked by an Al Jazeera journalist about how he should cover the upcoming war in Afghanistan, given the size of the country and difficulty of the terrain; it would offer nothing like the conditions that led to the brilliant coverage in Gaza with its tightly packed million and a half quasi prisoners. The audience and panelists offered pragmatic and thoughtful responses on the ways that media could be used to counter American initiatives. In the spirit of Jefferson, it made me tremble for my country to reflect that God is just. As an intellectual affair, I was much less impressed. The careful and detailed framework of structural realities and historical continuities in the region, proposed by Michael Hudson of Georgetown, came off as a rare breath of fresh air. For a moment, the conversation seemed less based on an abstract hope that America will fail and more on the harsh realities of the region. These may coincide, but probably not in the spirit of the gathering. To paraphrase the remarks of Claire Spencer of Chatham House, we may wish for a wiser America but perhaps not a weaker one. The odd problematic of the setting was to demand that participants pose as tough-minded philosophical realists, but act as expressive and committed idealists; the disconnect was disconcerting. Despite the contradictions, there is something exceptional and inspiring about what this social movement with cameras is doing in the Middle East. As one of the participants observed, Al Jazeera has helped to create an Arab public sphere where none existed.

With the critical acclaim of its recent Gaza coverage in English, there is ever more reason to pay attention to the next act of this absorbing drama the crafting of Arab identity in a skeptical world because now, that skeptical world will understand what the players are saying. What may be yet missing from the Al Jazeera toolkit is a robust sense of how to find the intellectual depth to bridge cultures, how to align Arabic and English narratives, and how to imagine an emerging cosmo-Arabism that breaks the bounds and expands the scope of older reactive and confrontational pan-Arabisms. On a tour of the original and now historical Al Jazeera control room, I noticed a quote that seemed to capture the flavor of the organization and the event: Reality is a disappointment so I live in dreams. As this latest Al Jazeera forum made clear, it will be important to come to terms with the new reality that this Qatari news revolution creates for the world. However, from what I saw, dreams will remain important to those disappointed with the prospects for the region for some time to come, and they may weigh on the brains of the living like a nightmare.