Monday 21 February 2011, 15:15
Very few people in the west saw the present revolutions in the Arab world coming.
I think one of the main reasons is that we are still locked into a simplified way of looking at the Arab countries - above all Egypt - that began in the 1970s.
I wanted to go back and look at the roots of that powerful but distorted vision.
It dates back to the moment in 1977 when Anwar Sadat went to Israel to open the way to a peace treaty - that was then signed in Washington in 1979.
Ever since then we have tended to report on events on the Arab world through the prism of how it will affect the peace with Israel. At the same time western politicians have assumed it was safer to have the strong old men in power to prevent disruption of the peace accords.
These things are important - but by concentrating on them we have ignored a lot of other things and, to an extent, have created an imaginary Arab world.
I have found a fascinating documentary made in 1982 called "Why Was Cairo Calm?" And I thought I would put it up because it shows very clearly and dramatically how that skewed vision began.
It begins in the days after Sadat's assassination in 1981 by an islamist cell of army officers. The American media had led an outpouring of shock and grief in the United States at the death of the heroic president. All the western leaders then travelled to Cairo to say goodbye to the man who had courageously changed the course of history.
But then they found that practically no Egyptians turned up to the funeral. And the western politicians and the American TV reporters couldn't understand why.
The documentary tries to find the answer.
It tells the story of Sadat's presidency - and how the American TV networks created a fantasy vision of him as a wise democratic leader who had opened up the Egyptian economy to the free market, and was loved by his people for making peace for Israel.
As the film shows - this was a complete illusion. And that when that image was played back to the Egyptian people they were angered and shocked. And the film makes a strong case that it was that anger that contributed to the decision to assassinate the president.
It has a great piece of footage from inside the court where the assassins are being tried. At the end of the trial one of them addresses the western media through the bars of his cage - desperately trying to tell them that they have a fantasy vision of Sadat.
The documentary argues that Sadat became an imaginary American hero - an illusion that he then came to believe. Or as one of the young Egyptians says in the film.
"He lived like an American President, and sadly he died like an American President. On television"
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
All posts are reactively-moderated and must obey the house rules.
Sunday 30 January 2011, 11:51
Wednesday 16 March 2011, 15:42
Comment number 1.
G21st February 2011 - 19:47
Thank you as always; I was waiting to hear your view on the Middle East rebellions and I knew that you would have something illuminating to contribute.
Link to this (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
egbert_the_atheist21st February 2011 - 21:00
Thanks for the interesting documentary. Here is another detailed documentary from 60 Minutes of the 1977 riots in Egypt, eerily similar battles to the recent events:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7316962n
I think this documentary is pretty illuminating too.
Link to this (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
materiality21st February 2011 - 21:19
A wake-up call for those who see in the protests in Cairo, Manama, etc a massed cry for Democracy. Is it not more likely to be a massed cry for better living standards, however delivered, and an assertion of local identity against the 'globalisation of tastes'? That it may not be the liberation that it is assumed to be by liberals?
Link to this (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
ch21ss21st February 2011 - 21:49
One thing that has struck me, tangentially related, is average (internet dwelling) US citizens and their views on say Afganistanis - in the 1980s they were virtually honorary US citizens, standing alongside John Rambo in their defiance of Soviet oppression. Now some of the same people, and those they have recruited since then, are often referred to as subhuman savages and similar invective. Whether it is caused by propaganda, tribalism, or whatever, there always seems to be a willingness in any populace to accept their government is doing the right thing in foreign countries - even in sections of the public which normally profess to distrusting government being able to do anything right. Large chunks of the Republican base seem to fit this model exceptionally well, although no doubt it is something that tends to affect everyone, at least to some extent.
Link to this (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
Moor Larkin21st February 2011 - 23:07
The Assad dynasty in Syria is supposedly as repressive as any in the Arab world, but it has remained implacably anti-Israel for the two generations of its existence and seems untouched by the current waves of rebellion. Gadaffi is probably more hated for dancing diplomatic tangoes with the likes of Blair than he is for any repression of his oil-rich people. Dictators usually remain popular so long as they are giving the people what they want emotionally, and hate is the second strongest emotion.
Hopefully Syria will collapse next week and prove me completely wrong... :-D
Link to this (Comment number 5)
Comments 5 of 16