Getting worse
for the Arabs
By Edward
W. Said
(Dawn, July
7, 2001)
Because of
Israel's abominable behaviour towards Palestinians, most Arabs -
myself included - have tended to direct our criticism less on the
general situation in the Arab world than we might ordinarily do.
I do not
think it is an exaggeration to say, however, that once we start to
look at what obtains in the Arab world, most of us are fairly
appalled by the over-all condition of mediocrity and galloping
degeneration that seem to have become our lot. In all significant
fields (except perhaps for cooking) we have declined to the bottom
of the heap when it comes to quality of life.
We have
become an embarrassment, as much for our powerlessness and
hypocrisy (for instance, vis-a-vis the intifada for which the Arab
states do next to nothing) as for the abysmally poor social,
economic and political conditions that have overtaken every Arab
country almost without exception. Illiteracy, poverty,
unemployment and un-productivity have increased alarmingly. And
whereas the rest of the world seems to be moving in a democratic
direction, the Arab world is going the other way, toward even
greater degrees of tyranny, autocracy, and mafia-style rule. As a
result more and more of us feel that we should no longer keep
silent about this. Yet one scarcely knows where to begin in trying
to ameliorate the situation, although honesty about what we have
allowed to happen to ourselves is a good way to start.
A small
number of instances illustrate what I mean more eloquently than
lists of facts and figures, all of which, incidentally, would
support what I mean here. A short time ago, the Egyptian-American
intellectual Saadedin Ibrahim, professor of sociology at the
American University of Cairo, and director of the Ibn Khaldun
Centre there, was sentenced to seven years prison with hard labour
by a state security court. And this after two months of solitary
confinement consequent on summary arrest, followed by several
months of trial for financial misdemeanour, tarnishing Egypt's
image, tampering with the election process, stirring up
confessional or sectarian sentiment, as well as being an enemy
informer. These are major charges of course, but what seems
amazing is that the court rendered its judgement in a matter of
hours after hearing evidence for months.
A huge
amount of attention has been lavished on the case for obvious
reasons. A prominent intellectual had been brought low in a
country whose political centrality and size almost guaranteed much
commentary and, especially in the liberal West, a great deal of
negative judgement against the system that had seemed to be
persecuting a man for his independent, if not always widely
popular, opinions.
The few
Arabs who defended him almost uniformly began by saying that they
found his views and his methods distasteful. He was known to
favour normalization with Israel, he seemed to prosper financially
because of what seemed to be his entrepreneurship, and his ideas
in general circulated with more success outside, rather than
inside, the Arab world. Still, it was meant to be clear to
everyone that an example was being made of him; he therefore
suffered unjustly, despite his rather special way of life and
success.
What seems
to be incontrovertibly abnormal, however, is that he has been
systematically punished by the state because of his fame and his
criticism of several of the state's policies. The lesson seems to
be that if you have the temerity to speak out too much and if you
displease the powers that be, you will be severely cut down. In
the United States, for example, many commentators on the Ibrahim
case fail to point out that America (which is not ruled by
emergency decree) is one of the worst offenders when it comes to
unfair sentencing (usually affecting non-whites), capital
punishment, and a horrible prison system that per capita is the
largest and most punitive in the world.
In other
words, what Egypt does must be looked at from a perspective that
includes so-called civilized countries, many of whose journalists
have condemned Ibrahim's treatment without also admitting that his
case is not unique, neither in the Middle East nor in the West.
The case
tells us that our rulers hold that no one is immune from their
wrath and that citizens should maintain a permanent sense of fear
and capitulation when it comes to authority, whether secular or
religious. I became dramatically aware of this eight years ago
when, after a lecture I gave in London in which I criticized the
Arab governments for their abuse of human freedoms, I was summoned
by an Arab ambassador to apologize for my remarks.
When I
refused even to speak to the man, a friend interceded and arranged
for me to have tea with the offended ambassador at my friend's
house. What transpired was profoundly revealing. When I repeated
my comments, the ambassador lost his temper (he happened also to
be a member of the ruling party) and told me in no uncertain terms
that, as far as he and his regime were concerned, democracy was
little more than AIDS, pornography, and chaos. "We don't want
that," he kept repeating with almost insensate rage.
Then I
understood that so deep has the authoritarianism in us become that
any challenge to it is seen as little short of devilish and
therefore unacceptable. Not for nothing have so many people turned
to an extremist form of religion as a result of desperation and
the absence of hope. As a second instance of what I am describing
as a worsening situation, there is the case of the Lebanese
journalist Raghida Dergham, a capable Lebanese woman who has
represented al-Hayat in New York for several years. A fine
reporter and commentator with an excellent reputation in America,
she has brought credit to her profession and her country for
several years. She has now been indicted for high treason in her
country because she attended a public Washington meeting and
debated Uri Lubrani, an Israeli Mossad operative who was one of
(and perhaps the chief of) the supervisors of the occupation
regime in South Lebanon. (Before that he had been Israel's
connection with the Shah of Iran).
Dergham's
passport has been withdrawn, and if she returns to her country she
will immediately be arrested. (Another Lebanese journalist, Samir
Kassir, has had his citizenship revoked because something he wrote
seems to have angered the authorities).
The Dergham
case is an amazing act of perversity that suggests how far
conceptions of the "crime" of "normalization" - a stupid concept
when overused either to divert attention from Arab indifference to
the Palestinians or to attack other Arabs or to promote ignorance
- can be taken. In the first place, Dergham's debate with Lubrani
was held in public, in the United States. There was nothing secret
about it, and it was nothing more than a debate, and certainly not
a negotiation. To expect a normal functioning citizen to obey laws
that forbid even mentioning Israel's name is mindless, to say the
least. Besides, every Arab government that I know of has had
dealings with Israel, secret or open. The whole world, and
especially Israel's Palestinian victims, knows that Israel, its
army, agents, police and society exist: what earthly use is there
in pretending that it doesn't?
At issue is
the right to free thought and expression, and underlying that, the
right to be free of ludicrously enacted restrictions against
individual freedom. Both the cases I have cited were brought
against well-known personalities who have the resources and
connections to draw attention to what was so unjustly done to
them.
Most of us
live in fear of such a fate, and this is why many intellectuals
keep silent or thank their lucky stars that what has happened to
Saad Ibrahim and Raghida Dergham hasn't happened to them. And
certainly these two individuals have been singled out so that an
example could be made of their humiliation and punishment.
Foolishly, however, other intellectuals also hope that if they
behave, join the chorus of condemnation, and be careful to say
only the "right" things, they will not suffer a similar fate.
The other
day I met a young Iraqi Kurd who had just escaped from his
country. There, he told me, if someone wanted to do you harm, you
could be reported to the police as an enemy of the state: the
likelihood is that you and your family would thereafter just
disappear. Of how many countries in the world today is this true,
and how many of them are Arab? I am too embarrassed to ask.
As the Arab
world spins into further incoherence and shame, it is up to
everyone of us to speak up against these terrible abuses of power.
No one is safe unless every citizen protests what in effect is a
reversion to medieval practices of autocracy. If we accuse Israel
of what it has done to the Palestinians, we must be willing to
apply exactly the same standards of behaviour to our own
countries.
This norm
is as true for the American as it is for the Arab and the Israeli
intellectual, who must criticize human rights abuses from a
universal point of view, not simply when they occur within the
domain of an officially designated enemy. Our own cause is
strengthened when we take positions that can be applied to all
situations, without conditions like saying "I disagree with his
views, but" as a way of lessening the difficulty and the onus of
speaking out. The truth is that, as Arabs, all we have left now is
the power of speaking out, and unless we exercise that right, the
slide into terminal degeneration cannot ever be stopped. The hour
is very late. -Copyright Edward W. Said, 2001.