From the hot tarmac of Doha international airport, the 104-degree heat, clinging humidity, and dusty skyline make the Middle Eastern state of Qatar's capital city appear a rather uninviting and inhospitable place. The broad sweep of the corniche is just visible in the far distance, its skyline slowly being populated by western-style skyscrapers. But around the old town and in the countryside you may be forgiven for thinking that this, one of the world's smallest Arab states, is a rather dusty and introverted place.
Jutting out from the Arabian peninsula, Qatar shares many of the characteristics of its larger neighbor, Saudi Arabia. Qatar's tiny population follows the ultraconservative Wahabbi variant of Islam. Women wear the veil and five times a day the country stops for prayer. Yet for all the similarities, there are also striking differences. Small Christian and Hindu communities coexist alongside mosques and, unlike in the increasingly dangerous Saudi Arabia, American citizens can walk freely around the city's souks. Many are servicemen from the giant As Sayliyah airbase that is home to the forward headquarters of the U.S. Central Command. A few select hotels even offer visitors western-style bars.
And then there is Al Jazeera.
Tiny Country, Big Voice
If there is a single thing that embodies the differences between Saudi and Qatar, it is the continued existence of the Al Jazeera satellite television channel. Literally translated, Al Jazeera means "the island" and it is an apt name for a news organization that has found itself surrounded by hostility and controversy. Yet for more than 35 million Arabs worldwide the channel is the primary source of international news. As the various intelligence committee reports into the Iraq war are made public, and western news organizations contemplate how they were so completely sucked into the issue of weapons of mass destruction, many Arabs see Al Jazeera as the only credible source of honest news in this strategically important part of the world.
That western news operations such as the BBC and CNN have lost traction in this expanding market is without doubt. In the 1991 Gulf War the primary source of information for Arab populations was the BBC world service and, for those with both the language skills and the necessary money, western satellite news stations such as CNN. Today that has all changed and in teashops, restaurants, and bus stations the TV set is invariably tuned to Al Jazeera. It is not difficult to understand why. Historically, a free and independent Arab press has been an unknown entity in the Middle East.
Yet, since 1996, Al Jazeera has slowly discarded and, ultimately, broken the mold. Under its strap-line "The opinion and the counter opinion," the channel has enraged nearly every sector of society, while simultaneously being courted by all. Variously described as anti-Arab, anti-Jewish, and anti-American, the channel has transformed civil society in the Arab world. As CNN became the face of the 1991 war, so Al Jazeera has defined the first conflicts of the 21st century—coming of age in Afghanistan (the only broadcaster allowed into the country by the Taliban) and becoming a major player in the war in Iraq. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman summed it up best when he said "[Al Jazeera] is not only the biggest media phenomenon to hit the Arab world since the advent of television, it is also the biggest political phenomenon." Quite simply Al Jazeera prides itself that it will tackle any issue, regardless of sensitivity. Flagship for the channel has been the discussion program "The Opposite Direction," hosted by Doctor of English Literature (gained from the University of Hull) Fasial Al-Kassim. Bringing together two opposing points of view, the program runs, live, for 90 minutes, and often ends with guests storming out of the studios. The program allows Arab viewers to call in and pose difficult questions to the guests. Unexceptional by western standards maybe—simply explosive for the Middle East.
An Instrument of Qatar's Foreign Policy?
The origins of Al Jazeera form a tale of coincidence and intrigue that arguably says more about Qatar's international relations at the time of Al Jazeera's birth than any altruistic desire for a free press. Certainly, the Qatari government could never have anticipated the difficulties the channel would cause them on the international scene. Indeed, with a hint of irony, Al Jazeera's congenial Communications Manager Jihad Ali-Ballout rather understates the way that the relationship has developed: "I would be stretching it a bit if I were to say that the Al Jazeera of today is what they [the Qatari government] had envisaged." Since 1995 the ruler, or Emir, of Qatar has been Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, who seized power from his father in a bloodless coup that June. Hamad almost immediately began a modernization program, instituting long delayed elections, easing press restrictions and, almost uniquely for the region, undertaking formal, low level relations, with Israel. Yet his reforms have not been universally popular. Saudi Arabia has made no secret of its concern and an ongoing diplomatic dispute quietly simmers between the two nations.
That Al Jazeera should be an indirect consequence of such a dispute is remarkable. In 1994, the BBC launched an Arab language TV news channel. The service, which was hosted on the Saudi-based Orbit Satellite network, did not prosper and with the contract barely 20 months old, it was severed after the BBC refused to censor a documentary on Saudi executions. Nearly 250 Arab journalists, all of them trained by the BBC, became unemployed. How fortuitous for the new Emir that so many Arab media professionals should suddenly find themselves available to participate in a bold new media project, a project that would provide a welcome opportunity to rile Saudi sensibilities. Al Jazeera was born. A free thinking, free speaking channel unafraid to tackle highly contentious issues.
The intricacies of the channel's relationship with the government of Qatar can only be guessed, yet there is no doubting the impact of Al Jazeera across not only the Arab world but also in the West. The words "This is Al Jazeera television from Qatar" are heard every day by millions of Arab viewers worldwide; they are words that have literally put Qatar on the map and are picked out by commentators for their holistic significance. Do they signify that Al Jazeera is therefore an instrument of Qatari foreign policy? It seems unlikely, as the channel has often spoken out against Qatar's foreign policy objectives. Al Jazeera's general criticism of U.S. policy questions the close relationship that Qatar has been building with America through the hosting of the giant U.S. airbase, its bilateral security agreements, and its assistance in the war against Saddam Hussein. It is undeniable, however, that the channel's funding is derived almost exclusively from the Emir. Although Al Jazeera is a highly desirable consumer outlet for advertisers, the disapproval of the Saudi regime continues to hang like a cloud, sufficient to deter most large companies with business in the kingdom from buying time for their products and services on the channel.
Yet it is not just the ailing House of Saud whose sensibilities have been upset by the channel; many Arab regimes view its free thinking and free speaking ideology as a considerable problem. In May 2002, the Bahrain government banned it from reporting inside the tiny Gulf state. In July 2003, Reuters reported a Qatari official as saying, "Al Jazeera is a headache—we need to sort it out as we are one [Gulf Arab] family and share the same destiny." This followed criticism of the Saudi royal family on Al Jazeera by dissidents. Qatar's foreign minister, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Jabr al-Thani, offered to visit Riyadh to resolve the dispute but pointed out to Reuters that "Al Jazeera is not an official channel. We just help it financially, like Britain does to the BBC." Nevertheless, there remains no senior official Saudi representation in Doha—a direct consequence of Al Jazeera coverage.
Diplomatic Consequences
Indeed the recall of ambassadors is a regular occurrence: Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya, in addition to Saudi, have recalled their diplomats at one stage or another as a direct result of Al Jazeera programs. The Algerian government famously cut power to several of its major cities, including its capital, Algiers, in an attempt to silence a program about the Algerian civil war. The channel's airing of an interview with the late Hamas leader, Sheikh Hamad Yessin, reportedly incensed the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat, whose security personnel occupied the channel's office in March 2001. Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, a regular critic of the channel, visited the station's Doha headquarters and remarked: "All of this noise. . . from a tiny matchbox?"
Yet in the West, the channel's existence was largely unknown. That changed on 7 October 2001, when the U.S. began its attack on the Taliban regime. The subsequent screening of Osama bin Laden's tapes rocketed the channel to international prominence. In one of his first "interviews" bin Laden stated that he had "high regard and respect for the people who bombed the U.S.," while a later tape showed him accusing the United States of "violating our land, occupying it, and stealing Muslim possessions." These tapes were the start of an uneasy relationship between the channel and the Bush administration that endures today.
For many Arabs, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the final straw; the West had seemingly demonstrated its contempt for Arab sensibilities one too many times. For many Arab journalists the linguistic and emotional solidarity that is the backbone of being an Arab (today termed in the Arab word qaumiya, an idea articulating commonality and based on a much older concept of "blood solidarity") was to be severely tested. Although there was little support for Saddam's despotic regime, his willingness to stand up to the United States was met with satisfaction, none more so than among the Palestinian diaspora.
War in, or on, Iraq?
Al Jazeera's coverage of the war was significantly different from that of its western counterparts. With no correspondents embedded with British forces and only one team with the Americans, the channel focused its coverage upon the effects of war on the Iraqi civilian community. Unpleasant imagery of dead and wounded Iraqi civilians characterized its coverage. Jihad Ali-Ballout, the communications manager, is unrepentant: "We felt strongly that it is the media's prerogative to reflect what is happening on the ground as objectively as possible." The imagery was certainly distressing, yet it was to be pictures of dead and captured coalition troops that were to cause the most controversy. The coverage caused outrage in London and Washington—outrage that was very quickly communicated to a surprised Al Jazeera.
While such imagery might have been unacceptable on western screens, the acceptance of such images in the region is indicative of the reality of day-to-day Arab life. Most Arabs have had direct experience of conflict, be it the Lebanese Civil War, the Iran-Iraq war, or the continuing Palestinian uprising. That experience has often been very brutal and may well have led to a higher tolerance for distressing and unpleasant scenes. Head of U.K.-based Sky News, Nick Pollard, has some sympathy for Al Jazeera's use of the footage: "I take the view that just because a government asks us not to show something that we should not automatically fall in line. You can't just show process without results….The normal rules that we abide by in terms of taste and decency don't always apply in wartime."
Such imagery has caused the U.S.-led coalition to routinely accuse Al Jazeera of bias. The channel strenuously denies the accusation and points out that representatives from the U.S. administration have actually had more air time than their opponents, leading some Arab viewers to complain that the channel is biased in favor of the United States. Some aspects of coverage have undeniably caused difficulties. As President George Bush found to his dismay when he inadvertently used the word "crusade" to describe his war on terror—a highly offensive term in the Middle East—syntax, terminology, and emotion can cause problems. The channel's decision to use the term War on Iraq for its coverage of the invasion angered many on both sides of the Atlantic. Not unreasonably, however, the channel asks if the Fox TV strap line, "Operation Iraqi Freedom," is more or less pejorative than "war on Iraq."
Reporting events in post-Saddam Iraq has been no less difficult than during the weeks of major combat operations. The frequent and distressing images of Western hostages and their subsequent executions at the hands of insurgents and radicals has led to a whole host of new and unfounded allegations being made against Al Jazeera. Contrary to popular belief the channel has never once aired footage of an execution, that particular imagery being confined to some of the Web's more extreme sites. Indeed, the channel has a policy to edit out distressing imagery and to show only the bare minimum necessary for the news story. It also often invites representatives of Western embassies to view the footage before it is aired, not just to warn off families but also in many instances to aid authorities in the hunt for the hostage-takers themselves. Far from the irresponsible and terrorist inspired picture that many people choose to paint, the channel has a particularly strong track record of sensitivity and fairness in dealing with these distressing incidents.
With Us or against Us?
Al Jazeera's news coverage has not been without cost. Some at the channel wonder how far President Bush's speech of 20 September 2001 applies to them. The President gave notice to the world that "either you are with us or against us." In two consecutive wars the channel has been victim of "friendly-fire" incidents. The first in Kabul when the channel's offices were hit by U.S. fire and the second in Baghdad, which resulted in the death of its journalist, Tariq Ayoub. Conspiracy theories abound and many at Al Jazeera, and indeed in much of the rest of the Arab media choose to ignore the very real problems of combat identification and search for ulterior motives. They look not only at the deaths of their reporters but also at the hijacking of its English language website in the opening days of the Iraqi conflict.
Perhaps in response to some of the criticisms leveled against it, the channel announced in 2003 a new code of ethics at its first ever World Forum. More than 150 journalists from around the world assembled in Doha to consider issues such as media reporting since 9/11, the Iraq War, and the relationship between media and governments. What is quite clear is the reputation that the channel enjoys among many of its contemporaries. Indeed, during the course of the conference, South Africa's public broadcast network signed a deal to routinely use Al Jazeera footage; Indonesian TV (home to the world's largest Muslim population) also has such an arrangement, as does, to a lesser extent, the BBC. Regardless of governmental rhetoric it is clear that the channel is here to stay and given its enormous influence over Arab and Muslim populations it is evident that Western governments, particularly military forces in Iraq, will need to engage with it. There are signs that this is happening. The channel has sent representatives to speak at the British military's media operations training courses and recently filmed British troops during their pre-deployment training. Although only small moves, they are never the less important; an importance that will grow as the channel moves toward the launch of its English language station in spring 2006. The new channel hopes to capture a significant market share by presenting an alternative view to world events.
The success of Al Jazeera has spawned a host of competitors. Whether they will in time overtake the channel is debatable. But what is undeniable is that not only has Al Jazeera revolutionized the approach to media in the Arab world, it has also become a major force in the region's often fragile international relations in its own right. The West, and the United States in particular, ignores it at its peril.
Lieutenant Commander Tatham holds a Master's degree in International Relations from the University of Cambridge. He has recently undertaken research at Cambridge into the relationship between Arab media and the U.S.-led coalition during the Iraq War, in which he was the Royal Navy's public spokesman. His analysis of that relationship, A Missed Opportunity: The Battle for Arab Hearts and Minds During the Third Gulf War, will be published later this year.