Reverse Angle

Call him a Thomas L. Friedman for the Middle East. Salama Na'mat is the Washington bureau chief for the pan-Arab daily newspaper Al-Hayat and a sought-after commentator on Arabic TV. Followed--and quoted--by Friedman and other Middle East watchers here, his contrarian takes on U.S. policy are must-reads for Arabs looking to understand America.

[Q] Playboy: Is it difficult to explain the U.S. to Arab readers?

[A] Na'mat: When someone like me explains to them what is going on--not justifying American policies but explaining them--people in the region have a tendency to want to shoot the messenger.

[Q] Playboy: What is making them so mad that they want to shoot the messenger?

[A] Na'mat: Most people in the Arab world don't buy U.S. rhetoric. They like to think this administration just wants to go and take the oil. For the past half century America has been backing the enemies of the people: the dictators, the corrupt families that have been ruling these countries--families with flags, in other words. The U.S. was interested only in securing the flow of oil. Now all of a sudden the U.S. says it wants to change that. On the one hand we have to give the president credit for saying, "Our policies were mistaken for the past 60 years. We backed dictatorships for the sake of short-term stability." On the other hand he still receives these dictators in the White House, calling them his friends. His words are not matched by his deeds.

[Q] Playboy: What could change people's minds about U.S. intentions?

[A] Na'mat: The U.S. continues to extend military and economic aid to countries that are not advancing toward democracy. If the administration wants democracy, what about the people being arrested in Syria and Iran or the reformers arrested in Saudi Arabia--why aren't you saying a word about these people? The question is, Will George Bush back down now, or is he going to say, "What's happening is not enough. We're going to put more pressure on these countries that are not advancing toward reform, punish these countries, cut off aid to these countries"? As yet, we haven't seen any concrete steps to indicate that the administration will start isolating and exposing these regimes. It needs to act if anyone is to believe it.

[Q] Playboy: Does the U.S. deserve any credit for recent elections and reforms?

[A] Na'mat: In Palestine it's not true that the Bush doctrine is responsible for elections. We've had elections in Palestine in the past. Actually Arafat was elected in 1994, freely elected. The Israelis did not allow elections until Arafat's death because they knew that if elections took place he would win again. In Lebanon mistakes made by the Syrians, coupled with the assassination of the prime minister, led to the independence uprising, which ousted the Syrians. I'm not saying the U.S. did not back these moves. I'm saying the U.S. did not initiate these moves.

[Q] Playboy: And what about the constitutional reforms undertaken in Egypt?

[A] Na'mat: The Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, manipulated the process, kept it under the control of his ruling party and basically made fools of the Americans. The opposition boycotted the referendum because the reforms were a fraud. As a result Bush said something about "urging" President Mubarak--you can "urge" these regimes forever. These people do not want to give up power.

[Q] Playboy: Is globalization, as in Friedman's flat-earth theory, affecting the Middle East?

[A] Na'mat: I disagree with Friedman's oversimplification of the situation. This applies to societies that are connected to globalization by trade, the Internet, communications. In the Middle East about two percent of people have access to the Internet. A huge number of people are not connected to communications. We have an average illiteracy rate of 40 to 50 percent. What he's talking about is true only for the elites, who are connected. But their interests are linked with the dictatorships and autocracies; these people have no interest in change.

[Q] Playboy: Is the American media telling us what we need to know about the Arab world?

[A] Na'mat: I don't want to single out Friedman, but he and others like him go to the Middle East and want to have access to the top leaders. To do that, they have to be on good terms with them. If Friedman were to write about what is really happening in Egypt, he wouldn't be allowed into Egypt again. This is dangerous because the public is being misled. The public is being kept in the dark. You can't just ignore problems somewhere else, because these problems could come and haunt you at home, as happened on 9/11. When the U.S. focuses all its foreign policy on that part of the world, you would imagine the media would get more interested. But four years after 9/11 the U.S. media are not doing any better.

Bush's words are not matched by his deeds.