The Media Campaign Against Saudi Arabia
02 December 2015By Salman Aldosary
The past weeks have seen frenzied competition among the British press to see
who can take better aim at Saudi Arabia. The anti-Saudi media campaign has,
by turns, concentrated on the notion that the Kingdom supports terrorism, and
called for amnesty for a young Saudi man condemned to death on terrorism
charges and for the release of a British man who has been imprisoned for
breaking the law in Saudi Arabia. What is interesting about this campaign is
that each case can be characterized as an attempt by a Western country to
impose its own societal norms on another, presenting its own values as a gift
that has fallen from the heavens and which is being generously donated to a
third world country.
This media campaign has been almost unceasing in recent months, and each time
it appears it bears the same agenda it had before. And don't bother asking
regarding the subject matter of the criticisms; it is the same tired list of
usual suspects: the issue of women driving cars, women's dress codes, human
rights, the death penalty, and so on it goes; and it seems that it will
continue to go on, so long as the press exists in Britain and so long as
there exists a kingdom known as Saudi Arabia.
While speaking with some fellow British journalists, they have often asked me
regarding what they term as being ''delicate'' Saudi sensitivities regarding
criticism of their country in the Western press. My answer to this was
simple: ''Where exactly are these criticisms to which you refer?'' All I have
seen in the Western press is a campaign which attacks the Saudi judicial
system and the Islamic Shari'a on which it is based. There is a big
difference between not agreeing with a particular judicial decision—this is
your right and no one can dispute you on this—and imposing your own position
so that you in effect become both public prosecutor and high court judge all
at once, demanding that others must conform to your point of view. What the
Western press needs to understand here is that it is by no means necessary
for 20 million or so Saudis to be enamored with a particular judicial
decision; Saudis are well aware that their objection to a decision is one
thing, and their attacking the very fabric on which those decisions are based
is another.
I am not among those who believe there is some kind of Western conspiracy
against Saudi Arabia. Instead, I believe the recent anti-Saudi rhetoric among
media outlets represents more of a drive to give their readers the kind of
titillating stories they wish to read regarding Riyadh and everything
surrounding it. Saudi Arabia is, after all, the place where more than a
billion Muslims worldwide turn daily, and is home to Islam's two holiest
cities, Mecca and Medina, in addition to being the most stable country in a
region engulfed by chaos and destruction. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is the
world's biggest exporter of petroleum; as such it is pretty understandable
why editors would be keen to get as much hits as possible by focusing on
stories coming out of the Kingdom. What is not understandable, however—and is
totally unacceptable—is to use this as a cover to abandon every last vestige
of journalistic credibility and professionalism, as well as abusing the wide
freedoms given to the press in Britain to shape public opinion, in a way that
at times frankly seems completely lacking in impartiality and at odds with
Britain's professed journalistic norms. Prince Mohammed Bin Nawwaf, Saudi
Arabia's ambassador to the United Kingdom, was absolutely right when he said
recently that there has been an ''alarming change in the way Saudi Arabia is
discussed in Britain'' which could have ''serious repercussions.'' The
seriousness here is not necessarily just related to the media attacks
themselves or the exaggerated way they are carried out or even their
transgressing established norms; this is something we expect will remain
ongoing in the British press. What is serious, and very dangerous, is when
this media campaign begins to influence the British government's official
policies toward Saudi Arabia, with the recent cancelation of a British
Ministry of Justice contract that would have provided training to Saudi
prison guards being a case in point. Saudi–British relations have remained
strong during the past decades, and it is in both countries' interests that
these ties continue in a way that will benefit, and not harm, both of them.
We must also bear in mind that it is not up to one side to work to improve
these relations; the interests are mutually beneficial and it is therefore
incumbent on both sides to work in order to improve them.
There is no doubt that the Western world enjoys a very advanced human rights
environment, but that does not give Western nations the right to seek to
impose their sole view on other countries around the world without accepting
any discussion on the matter. For example, the British press sees some of the
punishments based on Islamic Shari'a law as ''harsh,'' and this is discussed
very openly. At the same time, Western countries don't accept any other
society, nation, or culture disagreeing with their legalization of homosexual
relations even when that objection is based on the argument that such
relations contradict basic human nature. And does the Western world not see
that, from an Eastern cultural perspective, the practice of abandoning one's
elders in old people's homes—something very accepted in Western countries—for
us represents an outrageous violation of basic human rights?
Logic, reason, and even law dictate that all societies have the right to form
themselves according to their own culture, principles, and locally accepted
legislation. No culture has the right to impose its own interpretations of
religion or society on another. Each culture has an absolute right to define
its own vision in this regard.
Salman Aldosary is the editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments