Taking into account the vital role of public opinion in today’s world, every modern state wants to create a unique image of the countries-opponents or countries-partners in order to justify their own actions.
In this sense, formed in Western societies the image of the Middle East, in particular the Muslim East, is largely untrue. But often it is an artificial representation of opinion that becomes a justification for policies.
This subjective approach, existing in the sphere of science, is brilliantly presented in the book «Orientalism» by a famous American social scientist of Palestinian origin Edward Said. But there is another area where the situation is more visible and has a strong impact on society.
French political scientist Yves Lacoste underlines the importance of media and especially TV, which is the main instrument for shaping public opinion in today’s information society. The reason for this is that in today’s world, according to Lacoste, not rational approach dominates, but the criteria of brightness «image» (image). The more colorful and attractive image, so reliable, and importantly it will be considered. This is well understood by the Western media, effectively use this principle in practice.
The political, ideological and geopolitical views of the overwhelming majority in society are formed, largely through television. Broadcast report aims not only to provide for the minimum time a comprehensive review of the material, but also on the placement of the necessary policy focus. Thus, the profession of journalist becomes not only describing but also the qualitative guidance (Bagdikian, 2004).
It is therefore not surprising that the huge role is played by American and European analysts and the media in shaping of public opinion on many of the processes occurring in the Middle East. This is due to strength and professionalism of the western media, which can build a profitable and attractive to the consumer image and convince the society in their veracity. The artificially created reality after repeatedly seem to be the only truth.
In fact, the world looks at the Middle East with «eyes of the West». This applies to the fight against international terrorism, and to the Arab-Israeli confrontation, and to internal developments in Islamic states. Much of the information or analytical reviews may not correspond to reality, but becomes the subject of discussion and, creating and complementing the stereotypes and legends of the Middle East.
There are a few common approaches, in which Western media represent the Muslim East (Bagdikian, 2004).
Media were not fully informed about this region. The information was distorted, and does not represent a coherent picture of the events in the Middle East. Much of the information is highlighted in negative connotation (terrorist acts, murder, and violence). In the flow of information coming from that region, dominated by bad news, and the audience formed the view that the East is a predominantly Muslim region of conflict and instability. It is interesting that along with the negative political image, there is quite a positive image of cultural consumption: Eastern exotica, as opposed to eastern policy, trendy and attractive. In fact, the basic message is as follows: East is exotic and attractive, but the main eastern political regimes are unacceptable and should be changed.
Showing and assessing developments, journalists clearly guided by Western standards and values. The role and importance of Western values is clearly exaggerated. Artificially creating developments in the western criteria and using analysis of the categories is not appropriate to local conditions, journalists originally distort reality. For example, referring to the elections held in the Middle East, the emphasis is on their line with western democracies, although the local population is guided by other criteria – strong power, stability, perseverance of the balance of power, etc.
Mass media have become the main source of creation and approval of false stereotypes. TV channels, basically, do not seek to go beyond the «official» stereotypes and images, because they facilitate the perception of the material. (Lester, 2003) For example, there are a few of the most frequently used «legends», related to the Middle East, but did not pass even the simplest criticism:
- «Those who live in the Middle East are fanatic followers of Islam». In reality, however, in contemporary Middle Eastern societies fanatical Muslims make up only a small fraction of the population.
- «In Muslim countries, women are powerless and oppressed». However, in many Muslim countries, the impact of women and their role in politics and economy, coupled with their traditionally high values in the eastern family has been steadily increasing.
- «The life of eastern city is mysterious and incomprehensible». Today, the type of Middle Eastern cities is not very different from, for example, southern European cities (Lester, 2003).
- «Islam is cruel». Even in the middle Ages, Islam was tolerance, unusual even for Europeans. It is no coincidence that Jews and Christians harassed in Europe, it is always found refuge in Islamic countries, which have religious freedom.
The showing of material is not based on the analysis, but usually on the principle of priority of picturesque images. Topics related to the Islamic world, have a high rating, and TV use it. After the events of September 11, 2001 media simply demonized Islam. It was condemned as «aggressive» religion and followers of Islam – «fanatic believers». TV and analysts increasingly use the term «Islamic terrorism» and purposefully promote it: Today, for many people the words «Islam» and «terrorism» gained subconsciously relationship (The Middle East, 2005).
Thus, it seems that Middle East presented by the Western analysts and media is much idealized, what is very different from actually existing.
This virtual image is often taken up and distributed to the media. For the West, such an approach is understandable, because there is a clear Program – to create the image of the enemy, the sense of threat, which must be protected and against whom people want to act. However, the reproduction of the image of the Armenian media is not only surprising but also very dangerous. Historically, as part of the Middle East civilization, we are able to perceive their East and correlate it with the image of our objectives.
The latest events are marked by tumultuous events, most of which are connected with a region of the so-called Great Middle East. The sensational results of parliamentary elections in several countries in the region, where successful radical Islamic Party (Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, Shiites in Iraq), a wave of disturbances in the world because of publishing some cartoons in the European media have affected the religious feelings of Muslims – all these developments taking place against a backdrop of the continuing occupation of Iraq and anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan, forced to re-evaluate the doctrine of “democratization” of Great Middle East, were initiated by the United States of America. It is not easy to evaluate, and also partly to dispel the political and ideological “smog”, which covers the activities in Washington to realize this ambitious project.
The modernization of Great Middle East is urged by time. All the imperfections and problems of the modern world are manifested in the most severe form. The growing unemployed population, low levels of education and social protection, incompatible with the “golden billion” the level and quality of life creates a breeding ground for radicalism, extremism and terrorism. Therefore, the doctrine of “democratization” is supported by a majority of states, including countries in the region (The Middle East, 2005).
Under the cover of this idea, Washington has sought to resolve a number of own goals. There is every reason to assert that the main impetus for the U.S. is the energy potential resource of the region, its oil storage. It focuses, in the light of the Caspian Sea, about 63 percent of the world’s oil reserves. One must be very naive person to believe that the United States – the main consumers of oil in the world, besides having disproportionate military power (and consequently their own sense of impunity), would be guided in its policies in the main oil basin of peace, only altruistic objectives of the kind of “truly democratic” regime.
In report published in May 2001 “Cheney commission”, which was tasked to define the terms of reliable energy security of the United States and whose recommendations led to the country’s energy strategy, acknowledged that the United States, which consume three-quarters produced world’s oil, entered the strip energy crisis “and that oil should be” priority of the foreign and trade policy, a focus on Russia, Central Asia, Caspian Sea, the Gulf countries, as well as West Africa.
American experts noted that in 2003 the U.S. imported 55 percent of the oil. By 2020, this dependence could grow to 70 percent, of which about 50 percent of Middle East oil. How is it possible to ensure energy security in these conditions? The experts’ recommendations, in fact, have no alternative: the U.S. should “try to improve relations with the Muslim world” to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to deal with “the democratization of the Arab world, as well as to successfully fight radical Islam.” It is unlikely that this is not the full content of the official U.S. doctrine of “democratization” of Great Middle East (Bagdikian, 2004).
Of course, oil is not the only incentive, which is guided by Washington. Among the other important place in the geo-political interests and military-strategic considerations, the provision of “governability” of the region and creating the political climate which is favorable for the U.S. global leadership, the fight against international terrorism, the restructuring of relationships within the world community.
What are the preliminary results of the implementation of the U.S. strategy of democratization and reform in Great Middle East?
Activities of the U.S. concerning the “democratization” of Great Middle East, which, in general, is nothing new for the world (in fact, use of the old British policy to divide the tribes and peoples and the redistribution of spheres of influence), has led to greater instability in the region. There is a tendency of increasing fears of countries for their independence, the fear of aggression by a superpower, leading a “new crusade” to the Middle East, a growing radicalization of political life in the region, the growing influence of becoming militant Islamist movement, terrorist acts increased (The Middle East, 2005).
It creates a precedent redistribution of oil resources. This is evident in Iraq, where the dominance of American companies is provided. But other oil-producing countries in the region fear the restrictions on ownership and oppression in their energy policy, further expansion in the region of the U.S. companies, expansion, supported, as it always has been in the history of the world.
The mixed processes have been initiated by the American doctrine of democratization of Great Middle East in Europe. The conflict over Iraq has made serious divisions in recent monolithic Euro-Atlantic alliance. Europe divided into “old” and “new”. The “new” Europe supported the bellicose U.S. policy, included Eastern European countries and Baltic countries. Admission to NATO and the EU markedly increased the U.S. position in Europe, served as a catalyst to accelerate the “Americanization” of these alliances.
The implementation of the doctrine of modernization of Great Middle East, particularly developments in Iraq, fueled the process of UN reform and restructuring of international relations. But not quite in the party which wishes to Washington. The USA, of course, have learned from Iraq crisis, began to realize that “western” methods suitable for small modern world and that the role of the Ecumenical leader, which is claimed by the United States, requires less power, but excerpts and deep development of the strategy. The Summit-2005 in 60-th session of the UN General assembly confirmed no alternative to this universal international organization, faithful to all its members the fundamental principles of the UN, although it recognized the need for reform, taking into account the realities of today.
However, this does not mean that Washington accepted the priority role of the UN and the Security Council in maintaining the global security, peacekeeping and peace building. Learning experience of Iraq, the U.S. is not going to complete scrapping of the organization, but will not retreat from plans for the restructuring of the world institute in the right direction.
Washington was unable to make specific progress in the field of nuclear non-proliferation. The relative success can be considered Libya’s renunciation of its programs related to weapons of mass destruction. But those events are unfolding around Iran’s nuclear program, pose a serious threat to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the U.S. have made it in a negative contribution. Policy based on force, they provoke the desire of the region to ensure its security by all available means, including having its own nuclear weapons (Said, 1997).
The USA initiated the launching of the mechanism of Islamic radicalism around the world, armed Islamic radicals convincing concrete. Laid the basic foundation for long-term ideological confrontation is not limited within the region, the confrontation between civilizations, which can be far more dangerous than the ideological confrontation between East and West of the cold war. The wave of large-scale terrorist acts and rolled through Europe and other continents, inadequate, it seemed, the reaction of the Islamic world at the publication of cartoons directly linked to Washington’s policies in the region of Great Middle East.
What conclusions can be drawn from preliminary results of “democratization” of Great Middle East?
The Great Middle East reform remains a priority for the United States. The immediate objectives are: to stabilize Iraq, Middle East settlement, the pressure on Syria and Iran, which were exhibited in the eyes of the world community as the main sponsors of terrorist organizations, accelerating reforms in the countries – allies of Washington (Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others).
The main motivation of U.S. policy in the Great Middle East for the near term oil remains. Speaking to the annual report to Congress on the situation in the country of 1 February 2006, U.S. president set a goal to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle East oil by 25 percent by 2025, what confirms this conclusion.
The U.S. actions concerning the introducing the democratization has not yet yielded the desired results. Even the U.S. President G. Bush acknowledged that as a result of the 2005 democratic elections in Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority came to power hostile to the West by representatives of Islamic movements (Iranian President, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine). Further radicalization of the region seems to be possible (Covarrubias, 2007).
The militarization of the region continues. The U.S. military presence in the region, is not only the most powerful compared to other areas Overseas, but also constantly increasing. In recent years, the new home territory emerged – Afghanistan, Iraq, the southern CIS countries, developed their operational infrastructure, preparing the theater for quick move to the region of American troops in case of aggravation of the situation here. The North Atlantic Alliance is more and more active in the region. The efforts in the military are strengthened in the countries of the region – Turkey, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc (Covarrubias, 2007).
Iraq will remain a priority issue in the transformative work of the United States in the region. Developments show that the U.S. completely caught up in that country. Meanwhile, in November 2006, pending elections in the U.S. Congress, and Republicans could lose the present majority of legislators. Not far away, the presidential election of 2008. Voters must be convinced that the sacrifices, the deaths of thousands of young Americans who were not in vain.
As for the future objects of “democratization” of Great Middle East, the priorities “claimants” to this role in Washington Iran and Syria are viewed. It is possible the military intervention in Iran, which is now seen as the main threat to the United States.
A special role in the modernization of plan of Great Middle East is Central Asia and the Caucasus. Growing fears that the region that could become a region of cooperation between Russia and the United States could become a region of rivalry. Initiate a process aimed at weakening Russia’s influence and gradually squeezing Russia out of the region. This is particularly noticeable in the case of Georgia, which aspires to become outpost of advancing American influence and role of a strategic foothold of the USA, used in the modernization of plan of Great Middle East and other military-strategic purposes (Said, 1997).
Consistently implemented by Washington doctrine of modernization Great Middle East fit into the overall concept of building a unipolar world with American leadership. But unregulated dominance of the U.S. for the full spectrum “not only makes the world a policy the element of unpredictability, risk taking adventurous decisions, the negative effects of which will address many countries, but also carries infringement of their sovereignty.
The prospects of the Middle East conflict largely depend on how the tragic events are covered in media. On whose side is the advantage in the information war?
The trust to the American media has reached its lower limit. Now the Arab media has a real chance to take first place as the world’s leading source of news, because their American colleagues cover the events in Iraq subjectively.
Instead of submitting the accurate information about the war, the media act as an advocate, deliberately ignoring the real processes taking place in American society.
According to Goodman, the study of news programming NBC, CBS, ABC and PBS for two weeks showed that of 393 interviews, taken over the conflict in Iraq, only three reflected the anti-war views.
Joining the journalists with the military put a cross on independent journalism. The Western audience needs to look at a war, not from the battlefield, but from hospitals. If the American people saw the real picture of what is happening in Iraq – killed children mutilated women, dying soldiers – they would firmly say no to war in Iraq (Said, 1997).
The gap in the supply of material between American and Arab media only increases: the Americans report only about victories, the Arabs – only about the victims.
The American media is not interested in what is happening outside the United States.
There is no doubt that the future of the global device is largely dependent on the processes that are now occurring in the Middle East. The old relationship of Middle Eastern States and the «first world» is irretrievably broken, gradually acquiring the traits according to developed nations of Europe and America from the Middle East region. The dependence is apparent in many ways – energy, demographics and even ideology; because militant Islam is a strong ideology of expansion, while Europeans and Americans are ideologically in fact little that can oppose it because the ideology of consumer society is not very competitive. Hence the relevance of research policy modifications Middle east, the center of many of the key challenges of our time.
References
Bagdikian Ben H. , Kamalipour Yahya R., Snow Nancy, War, Media, and Propaganda: A Global Perspective, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 1st edition, 2004.
Covarrubias Jack, Lansford Tom, Strategic Interests in the Middle East, Ashgate , 2007.
Lester Paul Martin, Ross Susan Dente, Images That Injure: Pictorial Stereotypes in the Media, Topeka Bindery, 2003.
Norris Pippa, Just Marion R. , Kern Montague , Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government and the Public, Routledge; 1 edition, 2003
Roy Olivier , The Politics of Chaos in the Middle East (Columbia/Hurst), Columbia University Press, 2008.
Said Edward W. , Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World, Vintage; Revised edition, 1997.
Shlaim Avi , War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History, Revised and Updated, Penguin (Non-Classics); Rev Upd edition , 1995.
(Middle East (Congressional Quarterly Hardcover)), CQ Press; 10 edition, 2005.