|
A dangerous weapon has once again, been unfurled by the
U.S. military in this War on Terrorism. A weapon that requires neither
bullets nor bombs, and can withstand the strongest of armies. Its weaponry
is its ability to change people's minds and affect the culture of an entire
population. Its soldiers are often made heroes by their enemies. It has
the ability to deceive your eyes and ears, permeate your soul, penetrate
your heart; and leave you longing for more.
This weapon comes in the form of cultural warfare which has the ability
to change another nation’s culture, values, and traditions. Whether
it comes in the form of a new Britney Spears pop song, the hippest new
Levi’s jeans, or through the latest televised public service announcement,
the importation of the American culture has proven to be as formidable
a weapon as any fighter jet in the US arsenal. With this weapon no blood
is shed, no lives are lost, for this cultural warfare is fought over radio
waves and satellite beams. Over the past 25 years, it is clear that the
U.S. has been imposing its culture through what American politicians dub
“public diplomacy.” This is done with the hope that America’s
material and cultural dominance will make foreigners fall in love with
the glamour of the West, drowning out any possible opposition to its acts
of political, economic and social oppression.
In this new War on Terrorism, the colossal brunt of this production machine
is now squarely targeted at the Muslim population, particularly the Muslim
youth. To give an all too recent example, in the US led invasion of Afghanistan,
one of the first institutions to be taken over was the radio station in
Kabul. With the new station, Radio Free Afghanistan, blaring rock songs
and western ideals of “freedom” and “democracy” into
the homes of any Afghan with a radio set, the US gains a major advantage
in the battle to win the hearts of the Afghan people. Another example
of American attempts to turn economic and military clout into cultural
saturation can be seen in the Voice of America’s newest channel,
the Middle East Radio Network. Marketed as a station featuring 30-minute
musical programs, with news bytes, political commentaries, and American
ideals sandwiched in, the network is estimated to cost $30 million to
launch. In discussing the vision of the network, Norman Pattiz, a member
of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) did not hide the station’s
intention to win over the hearts of the Arab population when he stated,
“There’s the war of bombs and guns, and then there’s the
… war for the hearts and minds in that part of the [Arab] world.”
Upon being asked how much of the US political perspective will be pushed
through the station, Pattiz stated, “We will clearly identify the
editorial position of the United States government.” And what will
happen if any Muslim country decides it does not want to have this station
broadcasting within their borders? Once again, Mr. Pattiz gives us some
disturbing insight when he states, “That’s why we have powerful
transmitters from outside the region; so if somebody was to threaten to
pull the plug on us, our listeners will know where they can reach us on
other frequencies. We’ll also be distributed on digital audio satellite.”
Also, the station’s producers have made no apologies at the station’s
attempts to target the 25 and under Arab youth. “We want to diversify
to reach all [the youths], from kids throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers
in the West Bank to college students and tomorrow’s leaders,”
Pattiz mentions. This 25 and under demographic represents a part of the
Arab and Muslim population that has become increasingly enraged over the
effects of American foreign policy within their regions, and which the
US sees as a potentially “destabilizing factor” in the Middle
East. In other words, the launching of this network could be termed a
“pre-emptive strike,” a strike aimed at stealing the hearts
of the Arab youth with music, fast food and “hip” fashions before
they become frustrated, jaded and angry. Essentially, before they must
be repressed by bloody force.
Yet, these radio stations are mere child’s play when compared to
the mega-budget being pushed under Initiative 911, the brainchild of Senator
Joe Biden, the Democrat chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee.
This initiative has already been approved in principle by George W. Bush,
and is currently passing through the mill of America’s political
bureaucracy. According to The Guardian, “Initiative 911 would put
half a billion dollars into a [satellite TV] channel that would compete
in the region with al-Jazeera and would be aimed specifically at younger
Muslims who are seen as anti-American.” It would entail the establishment
of a massive worldwide 24-hour TV news service targeted at 40 Muslim countries
and broadcasted in 26 different languages. This channel will feature local,
regional and international news, along with information about terrorism,
US policy in the Middle East, in-depth examinations of Islam and current
issues of the Middle East. According to the BBG, “The network would
be “a 24-hour, seven-day week analogue” on the basis that “the
war of words is as important as the war of bullets.”
When asked on a National Public Radio interview about the urgency for
the creation of the station, Senator Bidden bluntly stated, “We want
to target young men between the ages of 15 and 30, the recruiting grounds
for terrorist and radical organizations.” Much like with the best
military strategies, the target population is clearly known, in this case
that of the Muslim youth. Bombing Al-Jazeera broadcasting facilities in
Afghanistan was not enough, as the assault has moved beyond mere bombs
and into the realm of controlling the Muslim mind through competitive
marketing, programming and efficient cultural packaging.
As the lines between television producers and military commanders blur,
it seems that the lack of Muslims willing to critically anayze these tactics
and break them down only allows them to continue to flourish. One of the
most profound lessons to be taken from statements such as those made by
Senator Bidden is not that powerful figures within the U.S. government
have intentions to target “potential radicals” and Americanize
them through the radio and TV waves, but that indivials can openly go
on the record in proclaiming these beliefs without fear of being held
accountable for their words.
Taking a step back, this one-way exportation of a dominant nation’s
culture to other “weaker” nations is not a new phenomenon. Historically,
colonization has caused the exportation of European cultures to vast reaches
of the “Third World,” with English tea being sipped by “uncles”
and “aunties” in South East Asia, the French language being
spoken in Franco West Africa, and the Spanish “jota” dance being
performed in the Philippines. Assimilation with the dominant colonizing
country was seen as one of the best ways for a local subject to earn the
favor of their colonial governments, setting one on the path to economic
success and social status.
Modern times have seen this exportation and assimilation come under the
guise of economic globalization and free trade. Under globalization, other
nations and countries are not valued for their intellectual or cultural
capacities, but are instead seen as potential consumers and markets with
the ability to increase the bottom line of today’s multinational
corporation. The statement made in a recent General Motors commercial
exemplifies the extent that consumerism has been ingrained into Western
culture, particularly that of the US. “The American dream. We refuse
to let anyone take it away… So GM announces interest-free financing…”
Much like colonization, assimilation in this culture means earning the
favors of the Western institutions (in this case the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund’s massive development loans) and be on
the fast track to securing economic success and social status.
Within this globalized political economy, political interests align themselves
with economic interests as happy mass consumers become docile subjects.
In other words, all those who are not willing to give up their “MTV
Lebanon” or their Gap Jeans for the sake of striving for increased
political empowerment will be affected. By fostering a culture that seeks
to erode self-determination and traditional economic and cultural values
of other nations in favor of creating new markets and consumers, the potential
for profit as well as political strength via world trade is enormous.
Business executive Rance Crain’s comments in an article for AdAge.com
on the need for American businesses to support their government’s
selling of America, illustrates this merging of America’s political
and economic goals. “[political diplomacy] is a job for US business
as well as the US government. Anything that improves the ability of people
and consumers to buy the goods and services our companies sell also enhances
our government’s ability to sell our country, especially to those
who resent how our products and culture blanket the world. That means
marketers need to do a better job of matching consumer needs with products
that fulfill those needs, and at a cost consumers can afford.”
In this ad warfare, advertising executives, multinational corporations,
and Hollywood filmmakers have all teamed up with US government officials
in undertaking the task of “selling America” to Muslim nations.
Hollywood’s soliciting of Muhammed Ali, the famous Muslim boxer,
to perform a public service announcement extolling the virtues of America
serves as another prime example of America’s attempt to sell itself
to the Muslim world. Clearly, all these new radio and TV stations will
need big celebrities to fill airtime, and this is where America’s
valiant Hollywood soldiers will shine through. Thus, America’s political,
business and celebrity institutions all converge in this endeavor to foster
an American lifestyle in the Islamic world.
In addition to this marketing of American values, there has also been
a large drive by the US government to begin to extensively study and understand
Muslim societies. Middle East think tanks are now a dime a dozen, and
the long list of Anti-Terrorism policy experts grows with each passing
day. Yet, the incentives for understanding these Muslim nations are in
line with the drive for increased US presence in radio stations and TV
channels. This gathering of information is not done in order to learn
from other peoples or to genuinely exchange ideas with other cultures.
Rather, in learning more about Muslim people and societies, American policy
makers can more effectively craft their political strategies, while at
the same time, American marketers, producers and filmmakers can more effectively
reach their target in order to sell America. When discussing the formation
of a new committee in Hollywood set up after September 11 to help Hollywood
sell America to the Muslim world, New York Times writer Jim Rutenberg
states, “The Hollywood 9/11 committee is relying on various Middle
East experts to guide its course. A misplaced word could easily offend;
a poorly chosen video image could alienate the target audience, whom already
resent Hollywood’s regular depiction of Muslims and Arabs as terrorists.”
Clearly, the missing piece in this new concept of American “public
diplomacy” is the concept of exchanging ideas and being open to receiving
criticism. As William A. Rugh, former US ambassador to Yemen and the United
Arab Emirates stated, “Criticism [in the Middle East] is extremely
strong and deep and we haven’t been listening to it . . . [and] haven’t
been dealing with it with American public diplomacy.” Issues such
as America’s support for Israel, its genocidal sanctions of Iraq
and the support of countless dictators in Muslim countries all seem too
trivial to explaining Muslim condemnation of the US. Rather the problem
seen by policy makers is America’s “poor marketing of itself”
to the Muslim world. The assumption that all it takes to appease Muslim
anger is efficient marketing, increased programming and a smart advertising
campaign is exemplary of the criticism many hold of US arrogance in its
policy making.
In looking at this drive to market America by any means necessary, the
resistance to this kind of ideological domination goes beyond any kind
of physical battlefield. Rather, it entails the ability of Muslims to
critically analyze and understand the system of Western colonization that
has permeated our societies, to look beyond the material benefits that
the US may offer in order to effectively study its policies of oppression
and subjugation and to engage in a process of deep self-reflection in
order to better understand and appreciate our own Islamic spiritual, economic
and intellectual values. By coming to consciousness and understanding
not only current day trends in America’s attempts to sell itself,
but also historical cases of colonization we will not fall victim insha’
Allah (God-willing) to this war of cultural dominance. •
Mahmood is a senior studying international development
studies and business economics at UCLA.
|
|
|
