Jun 26 2006
How to Read News in the U.S. Media
States exist first and foremost for domestic purposes, its significance in the international order is only an afterthought.
However, in the American main stream, this obvious point is hopelessly lost even as the cynics easily dismiss some of the outrageous U.S. policies as “for domestic consumption only”. Whenever there is a change in power in a 3rd world country, the overwhelming focus is on the new government’s role in the international domain first, raison d’etat becomes a term in diplomatic circles only (so much so that Huntington has to use “reason of the state” in English in his Political Orders book). It is original meaning–the justification of state sovereignty vis-a-vis domestic challengers–is useful only when it is used to explain why the new government is such or not on the international stage. That is just %$#@! nuts.
Occasionally, one reads similar reports in the media about other developed nations. For example, the last Spanish election after the terrorist bombing in Madrid was read carefully for its implication on the Coalition of the Willing. But mostly, the Europeans, and to a lesser degree, the Chinese and the Russians, are left along to be who they are. But whenever the coverage reaches the wild 3rd world countries, they are all treated like the Banana Republics: their existence or life cycle is only meaningful when filtered through American interests. Afgahnistan was significant only when it was fighting the Soviets. Its domestic affairs was never a concern, so much so as if they never existed or was not important to why the state (whatever it was at any given time) existed.
It is not my business to rant but I see the same thing happening again and again. Not only the policy makers (most of them are Poli. Sci. PhDs, mind you) behaves as such, the media goes along as if it is true.
Here is how I would read the following article, “New Militant Leader Emerges in Mogadishu”:
“The sheik, Hassan Dahir Aweys, was appointed the leader of the Council of the Islamic Courts, … Previously, the public face of the Islamists had been Sharif Ahmed, a more moderate sheik who had spoken of his desire to work with the West.”
–That is supposedly a bad thing? What if the Sharif is an inept power consolidator? What if Dahir appeals best to Somalis? With the latter, at least, you won’t have a failed state–the best gift to the Somalis and 2nd best option the West can hope for. When his peers chose Dahir the leader, I bet the U.S. interest was the last thing on their mind.
“Mr. Aweys has repeatedly declared that an Islamic state is the only answer for Somalia, which has effectively been in anarchy since its last government fell in 1991.”
“Usually reclusive, Mr. Aweys has spoken to reporters in recent months, … accusing the West of being too quick to label Islamist leaders throughout the Muslim world extremists. ”
–In the original article, the above two paragraphs appeared in reversed order. That is where the reporter got the whole business wrong!