Sun, Dec 19, 2010 - Page 7 News List

Arab governments tried to silence WikiLeaks

MISSING LINK:Arab reactions to WikiLeaks revelations are a mixture of dismissive and fascinated, with some wondering why there are so few revelations about Israel

THE GUARDIAN, LONDON

WikiLeaks may be breaking new ground to promote freedom of information by releasing leaked US diplomatic cables, but Arab governments have been resorting to old tricks to ensure nothing too damaging reaches their subjects.

Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Morocco have all tried to stem the flow of Wiki-revelations, whether the subject is corruption, authoritarianism or simply the embarrassment of having private exchanges with US interlocutors enter the public domain.

There is certainly an appetite for reading state secrets.

Stories about the business interests of the king of Morocco and the nepotism of the unpopular president of Tunisia generated heavy traffic on the Guardian Web site.

But Le Monde, whose Francophone audience cares far more about the Maghreb, found its print edition banned from Morocco.

Spain’s El Pais, another of the five media partners in the WikiLeaks enterprise, was banned too. So was Al-Quds Al-Arabi, the independent London-based pan-Arab daily which has been following up on the stories from the start.

Elaph, a Saudi-run Web site, was mysteriously hacked when it ran a piece about King Abdullah’s sensational calls on the US to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear program.

Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar, a leftist and pro-Hezbollah paper, pulled off quite a trick: it somehow obtained unauthorized leaks from the WikiLeaks cache, posting 250 US cables from eight Arab countries on its Web site — only to find that it was cyber-attacked when it published one of two devastatingly frank documents about Tunisian President Zine el Abidine Ben Ali, who reinforced his country’s reputation as the most internet-unfriendly in the region.

“This is a professional job,” said publisher Hassan Khalil, “not the work of some geek sitting in his bedroom.”

In Arab countries where the media is state-controlled and even privately owned outlets exercise self-censorship to stay within well-defined red lines, outright censorship is usually a last resort.

So in Egypt, for example, there was little coverage of WikiLeaked material about the presidential succession, the role of the army and President Hosni Mubarak’s hostility to Hamas — all highly sensitive issues, though the independent Al-Masry Al-Youm did run some cables that were passed on by Al-Akhbar in Beirut.

In Syria, where newspapers are state-controlled, and the only privately owned paper is owned by a wealthy and powerful regime crony, one official insisted there was nothing discomfiting in WikiLeaks because “what we say behind closed doors is exactly the same as what we advocate publicly.”

That’s true enough when it comes to fierce hostility to any criticism of Syria’s domestic affairs and its support for the “resistance” in Lebanon and Palestine. But the cables did show Syrian President Bashar al-Assad bluntly denying all knowledge of Scud missile deliveries to Hezbollah in the face of what the Americans called “disturbing and weighty evidence to the contrary.”

Pro-Western Jordan escaped serious embarrassment but Yemen’s government faced awkward questions in parliament about its private admission of lying about US air strikes against al-Qaeda — as well as concern that Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s fondness for whisky would give ammunition to his Islamist critics. No one knew quite what to make of a document showing he had asked the Saudi air force to target the HQ of a senior Yemeni army commander.

This story has been viewed 860 times.
TOP top