FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The War on Al Jazeera

by

The French Revolution, according to Albert Camus, produced no artists but did give birth to two cultural notables.  In fact, he goes so far as to say that they were the only notables: a gifted journalist by the name of Camille Desmoulins; and the under-the-counter-writer, the Marquis de Sade. The only poet, he stressed, was the guillotine.  How disturbingly fitting then, that Desmoulins found himself the subject of the guillotine alongside Georges Danton in 1794, the victim of false charges.  The word, like a cruel joke, did eventually kill him.

Desmoulins’ fate, while more dramatic and bloody than that of Peter Dreste and his two colleagues from Al Jazeera, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed, do share a common thread. The convictions in an Egyptian court took place in a legal setting, seven years for Greste and Fahmy, and ten for Mohamed, but the law never operates in an objective vacuum of sterile applications.  However fine a legal system might be, it is never air tight to manipulations or the convictions of its officers.

The Revolutionary Tribunal which dispatched Desmoulins to the guillotine was moved in various ways that courts in a state of flux tend to behave – political rationales do play a role.  Accepted narratives can’t be disrupted.  The Egyptian legal system has been placed under enormous stress and demand by those wishing to quash the Muslim Brotherhood.  Mass convictions have been meted out in grandiose fashion. The Al Jazeera journalists were caught up in the whirlwind. Faulty evidence was compiled.  A conviction was desired.

Greste and his colleagues found himself in a political melee, a vendetta of long standing between the Egyptian authorities and Al Jazeera. The latter, a state-backed outlet located in Qatar, has been flattered with Islamist credentials, a beaming light into Egypt illuminating a fundamentalist threat.  Given the systematic campaign to stomp out dissent against anti-Muslim Brotherhood line, the broadcaster has become the poster boy of the Egyptian government’s demonology. When one is crafting the credo of a state, enemies tend to be in high demand.

As the prosecution emphasised in its submission to the bench, the relationship between Al Jazeera and the Muslim Brotherhood was tantamount to an alliance with Satan. The reporting of the three journalists had been, in the words of prosecuting counsel, designed to inflict harm on the Egyptian state, though no evidence was adduced to back the assertion.  Over the last few years, Al Jazeera’s offices have been raided, notably those of its Mubasher Misr Arabic language channel, its employees detained and arrested.  Some, such as cameraman Mohammad Farhat, was hospitalised for two months after being beaten by Baltagiya gangs in June 2013, said to be loyal to the regime.

Adding to this has been the detention since July 2013 of some 16,000 individuals on political grounds.  The most high-level detainee is ex-President Mohamed Morsi himself, and members of his executive staff (Al Jazeera, Jun 24).

The diplomats are getting busy, much of it a pretext of trying to soften the stance.  The newly elected President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi has made it clear, as is the formality in such situations, that he will not disturb the judicial verdicts.  As he is entitled to say, other countries should have little say over what happens in the judicial deliberations within his own country.  Questionable decisions of Australian courts, for instance, are seen as immune from executive tampering – to suggest otherwise would aggrieve the cult of common lawyers and law makers who see the Westminster system as divine in its reason and realisation.

Other approaches towards the verdicts are more aggressive, such as those of the former Australian Defence Minister, Peter Reith.   They are also inconsistent and occasionally veer into facile presumption.  Using the argot of the good old mate, which is the warning sign of imminent insincerity, Reith suggested that Australia “not just sit pat in the face of the gross injustice meted out to our mate Peter Greste” (Sydney Morning Herald, June 25).

Reith, who was very much against the school of the sniffing, enterprising journalist while in politics during the Howard years (one just has to look at this record on asylum seekers) has turned full circle, seeing Egypt with a “pretend judiciary”, “a very nasty totalitarian police state” which should not be visited by Australians.

With a degree of ridiculous pop activism, Reith reminds Australians what they did in protest against the restarting of nuclear testing by the French at Mururoa Atoll.  In political rejection, they stayed away in droves from the stunning vineyards, the aromatic Cognac, the left bank of Paris. That no reliable estimate exists on this should itself be a warning.

There is, in such attacks, an underlying assumption of judicial and legal supremacy.  Vital to this is the under emphasised idea that appeal processes have yet to be exhausted.  The doors to appeal have not been shut.  The fire of hope still flickers, resisting extinguishment.

The most dangerous reality of the imprisonments does not lie in their politicisation.  Such tragedies tend to implode into musical hall farce.  Those in prison become useful alibis for the righteous and the indignant.  The issue is to emphasise the dangers, and necessary protections, for those engaged in writing the valued word, and spreading the message that exposes political abuse.

It is appropriate to note that countries such as the UK, the US and Australia were hardly friends of Al Jazeera during the illegal invasion of Iraq.  In January 2006, two British Labour MPs defied the Official Secrets Act to reveal the transcript of a meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush which took place in April 2004.  One of the items on the agenda is worth noting, namely Bush’s proposed military action against Al Jazeera’s headquarters in Qatar. That it even went that far is an indication of what the Qatari station has achieved during its period of broadcast.

Nations cannot be defamed.  They cannot be hurt, wounded or slandered by well directed sentences.  As Brendan Behan noted with acuteness, the first thing the writer and recorder of life should do is let down one’s country.  The outcome of any directed flattery is bound to be sycophancy.  Worst of all, it is bound to lead to an unreliable record of a state’s faults.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

 

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
Nicholas Buccola
What’s the Matter with What Ted Said?
Aidan O'Brien
Thank Allah for Western Democracy, Despondency and Defeat
Joseph Natoli
The Politics of Crazy and Stupid
Sher Ali Khan
Empirocracy
Nauman Sadiq
A House Divided: Turkey’s Failed Coup Plot
Franklin Lamb
A Roadmap for Lebanon to Grant Civil Rights for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
Colin Todhunter
Power and the Bomb: Conducting International Relations with the Threat of Mass Murder
Michael Barker
UK Labour’s Rightwing Select Corporate Lobbyist to Oppose Jeremy Corbyn
Graham Peebles
Brexit, Trump and Lots of Anger
Anhvinh Doanvo
Civilian Deaths, Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Drones
Christopher Brauchli
Kansas and the Phantom Voters
Peter Lee
Gavin Long’s Manifesto and the Politics of “Terrorism”
Missy Comley Beattie
An Alarmingly Ignorant Fuck
Robert Koehler
Volatile America
Adam Vogal
Why Black Lives Matter To Me
Raouf Halaby
It Is Not Plagiarism, Y’all
Rev. Jeff Hood
Deliver Us From Babel
Frances Madeson
Juvenile Life Without Parole, Captured in ‘Natural Life’
Charles R. Larson
Review: Han Kang’s “The Vegetarian”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail