Globular Clusters I link to this Boston Globe article not because it contains anything newsworthy or interesting, but because it's a pretty thorough compendium of clichés concerning what America must do about negative opinions in the Muslim world. "Hearts and minds" blah blah blah "dialogue" blah blah blah arrogance yadda yadda "must solve Israeli-Palestininian conflict" bawk bawk bawk, "former diplomat", "policy expert"... What disturbs me sometimes about such articles is that, despite their ostensible liberal and sympathetic viewpoint, they tend to paint entire cultures as being composed of people who never have an opinion about the state of the world beyond a certain issue (Israel and Palestine), and whose opinions, at any rate, are completely dictated by whichever media channel - Al-Jazeera or the local VOA broadcast - can yell the loudest. Far be it from anyone to imagine that, in a world of billions of people and a plethora of cultures, two intelligent human beings might have fundamental and irreconciliable differences of opinion about any number of issues, differences unrelated to who's being propagandized by whom, to whether America is "getting its message out". If, for example, an intelligent, educated, cosmopolitan Cairene or citizen of Jakarta disapproves of American policy , does it necessarily follow either that the policy is wrong, or that the individual is misinformed (or, rather, improperly propagandized)?

But back to the auto-bawking. The authors manage to drag Kyoto and the ICC into the mix; one expects that. What impressed me was the way they managed to dig up someone who could incorporate the Bush-stole-the-election trope into an article covering the Muslim world's self-criticism and criticism of America:

At a dinner party recently in Washington, senior US officials and Arab diplomats discussed the fallout from the cancellation [of a public diplomacy conference]. But one Arab diplomat questioned whether the United States really should be so brazen in preaching its values to the Arab world.

The ambassador talked about how the Arab world has "tried to learn so much from the United States." But he wondered what could be learned from a country "where there are complaints about the ability to hold fair elections, where elections are decided by the judiciary, and where there are issues about ballot boxes as well."

He offered the description of the 2000 US presidential election good-naturedly, but the message stuck. Hours later, many guests left chattering about seeing democracy from new perspectives.

I stand in awe. It's masterful to be able to fit so many levels and types of bullshit into so few words - and the final grace note of the newly enlightened sheep! (American democracy and Arab "democracy". Butter? Margarine? No difference!) Unfortunately that sets a high standard and raises one's expectations. I do commend the comically overwrought and pompous tone on display in this comment:

"The world is standing in an amazing state of helplessness and sense of impotence in the face of American power, and that is absolutely dangerous," Abdel-Halim said. "Now you find yourself standing up in front of the dominant force in the world. It's America, with its obvious misjudgment - to be very modest about it - and yet you cannot do anything. I'm talking about the European Union, the Arab world, the whole world."

Yet in end I went away a bit disappointed. There were any number of openings in the story by which the authors could have eased in the Marc Herold Afghan Casualty Figures. They fell down on the job.

Posted by Moira Breen at September 05, 2002 12:51 PM