CAIRO, 6 November 2003 — The Egyptian Press Syndicate Council has decided it has had enough from US Ambassador David Welch. His complaints about the journalistic standards of its members and his perpetual defense of Israel were bad enough. But when he recently took Al-Gomhouriya to task for calling the bombing of a Haifa restaurant a commando operation instead of a terrorist attack, the council labeled this as interference and asked Egyptian editors and journalists to give Welch the cold shoulder.
Egypt’s Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher put his stamp of approval on the council’s attitude by saying that Welch’s attempts to influence the media were undemocratic. Then actor and director Mohammed Sobhi came in the line of America’s fire for his serial “Knight Without a Horse”, deemed anti-Semitic by the US and Israel even before it was screened.
In fact, the Syndicate would be better served by allowing the ambassador a platform. By refusing to deal with him, Welch has, by default, been awarded an importance he little deserves.
Should members of the Egyptian media care to research his earlier pronouncements, they might find that the more he is allowed to talk, the more his credibility quotient takes a dive.
During an interview on Nile TV last April — centered on the invasion of Iraq — Ambassador Welch said: “When the war concludes successfully and the Iraqi people have a genuine chance to express themselves, the United States will be asked to live up to its word — that is, the word of the president, which is that we intend to liberate this nation, free its people and give them a better future.”
The Iraqi people are still waiting. Iraq groans under the occupation; Iraqis — and Americans — are dying daily; the media there is subject to L. Paul Bremer’s censorship, and as for “a better future”, the UN is considering shipping out along with various NGOs because of a lack of security.
It seems to me that the only people certain to have a better future are the directors of companies like Halliburton and Bechtel along with their high-placed associates.
A report by America’s Center for Public Integrity shows that more than 35 US companies associated with Iraq’s reconstruction are linked to major players in various US administrations, Congress or the Pentagon.
Welch then told the interviewer Shahira Amin: “When the Iraqi people are free, if we live up to our word — you have the right to come back and ask me sometime from now how we are doing in that regard — if the Iraqi people are free and they show to their neighbors, to the world around them, the real meaning of human liberty. And then it has an effect in Damascus. Would you be disappointed? I would not be.”
I would like to see Amin take him up on that offer. She should ask him about the real meaning of human liberty vis-a-vis the Iraqis, but now she cannot without facing a ticking off from the Press Syndicate.
In March, David Welch was asked by interviewer Emad Adeeb: “If your country has gone to Iraq to get rid of one Saddam Hussein, isn’t it, on the other hand, creating 1,000 Bin Ladens? (Adeeb must have taken his script from former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.)
“I don’t believe so,” came the ambassador’s answer.
In that case, who are these so-called foreign terrorists crossing over into Iraq cited by the US administration? Were they there before the invasion? And couldn’t they be described as “a thousand Bin Ladens”, provided they exist at all?
When Ambassador Welch is no longer considered persona non grata amid Egypt’s journalistic fraternity, someone might like to remind him of the confidence he displayed when he told Adeeb: “The objective was always to disarm this regime of weapons of mass destruction. It is not supposed to have any. It does.”
Then where are they? If Iraq had WMD then why hasn’t one of the many Iraqi scientists who have had a chat with the CIA spilled the beans? Why hasn’t Tariq Aziz or Amer Al-Saadi come up with the goods? What do they have to lose? Surely they are not still afraid of the elusive Saddam Hussein?
And then there is the classic: “We do not intend to occupy Iraq. Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq and they may now get their first chance to decide for themselves what they want to do with it. The nation of Iraq should be a sovereign entity, united, with all its territory underneath its command — and the command belongs to the people of Iraq.”
So what are all those foreign soldiers are doing stomping over this “sovereign entity”? What are all those foreign companies doing with lucrative reconstruction contracts? And why are morsels of Iraq’s national assets up for auction to the highest, likely foreign, bidder?
To my Egyptian colleagues I say, don’t shut Welch out and don’t shut him up. He probably sighed with relief when he heard the Syndicate’s instruction.
As Welch has proved in the past, give him enough verbal rope and — well, you know the rest.
On the other hand, the Press Syndicate could be right. If Welch is no longer listened to in Egypt, if there is no forum for his hawkish propaganda, then the powers that be might decide he is ripe for transfer. Let’s hope for his sake the next stop is Israel. He’s sure to feel right at home.
— Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Mideast affairs and can be contacted at [email protected]
