Today’s “Opinion Journal”–an on-line adjunct of The Wall Street Journal –links snarkily to a report just issued by Freedom House entitled, “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques”. The report also gets picked up by Instapundit, thus assuring it of wide dissemination.
The report is a serious one that makes serious allegations. I’ve asked the Saudi Embassy for more information and their reaction to the report and will post on what I learn.
In brief, the reports says that there is a lot of hate-literature available through the Saudi embassy, mosques and “cultural centers” that receive Saudi support. Much of that material was published by Saudi authorities, employees, or individuals holding some relationship to the Saudi government. This is all true, and it is reprephensible.
I will wait until I hear back from the Saudi Embassy to get their side of the story before making a definitive comment.
In the meantime, though, I recognize a couple of very serious weaknesses in the report. Whether by accident or design, I can’t yet tell.
One weakness is that much of the material discussed is actually out-of-date. The Presidency for Girls Education, for instance, which is cited as the publisher of one piece of literature, was shut down in 2002. The book in question is no longer used. Abdel Aziz Bin Baz, former Grand Mufti, died in 1999. Other materials are from textbooks no longer in use in Saudi schools.
The report dates these materials with both their publication dates–when available–as well as the date they were obtained by the report’s writers. The dates of publication range from the 1960s to one title published in 2002; the majority are from the 1980s or early 90s. The collection dates are current, late December 2003 or 2004.
Seeing the disparity in dates and based on my 25 years’ experience with and in American Cultural Centers, I can identify one issue that goes unremarked in the report: bureaucratic inertia. The home offices of all foreign affairs agencies, around the world, send out materials that are of huge importance to the government or administration then in power. Sometimes these are good materials that can be easily disseminated. Other times, the materials are worse than useless, being already out of date or so specifically agenda-driven that the best one can achieve is limited distribution. Often, the materials sit on a shelf, unused, until someone asks for them.
Sometimes, a rocket comes from headquarters inquiring about how well the pet project went over, how widely the masses clamored for the wisdom on hand. With a drug on the market, the field office does what it can. Out-and-out lying isn’t appropriate, professional, or safe. Safer by far is to send the materials–in as big a dose as you think the recipient will swallow–to anyone who will accept them. In the case of USG documents, that can be NGOs, schools, think-tanks, essentially anyone they can be fobbed off on.
An American example of this would be the expensive, beautifully-printed report on how Saddam Hussein was diverting oil-for-food money to build extensive palaces.
Sounded like a real scandal to Washington: Despot Despoils Country! Thousands Starve as Saddam Celebrates! It was such a good idea, that thousands of copies were printed up and sent to US embassies abroad.
By American moral norms, this was a scandal. But it wasn’t a big news flash in the region. Despots are expected to behave that way, using whatever they can get their hands on to enhance their honor and glory. “Of course Saddam diverted funds to build palaces, where else could he get the money?” people in the region asked.
When I arrived in Riyadh, nearly four years after the publication of this report, there were hundreds of these pamphlets stacked on the shelves. They were impossible to distribute because they were of zero interest. Luckily for me, the report was a product of the Clinton Administration. No one in the Bush Administration was going to be inquiring about the distribution pattern. They ended up in the trash, along with a load of other materials, dating back to the 70s, on then-cutting-edge political issues.
I suspect the Saudi Embassy in Washington is subject to the same bureaucratic laws. They get pallets’ worth of materials for which there are very limited possibilities for distribution. They sit there until someone–such as the report’s authors–ask for them. Or they’re sent out–in bulk–to anyone who might possibly find a use for them. And then the materials sit on the next rung down the ladder, until someone asks for them or they end up occupying expensive shelf space and finally get thrown away.
My point is that the availability of materials–never mind their content–is not a good indicator of their actual use. Better would have been to see what was actively being distributed by the various organizations, not just was was available. The authors might have sent a blind request for materials–not collected them themselves–and seen what was sent to them, a better measure of what was being promoted.
Even if the presence of these materials can be at least partially explained away, I don’t believe it excuses their presence. Saudi Arabia has changed greatly since the 1960s. Changes within the last two years, in fact, have made most books about Saudi Arabia terribly out-of-date. Government-produced materials that have passed their “sell-by” dates don’t belong on any bookshelves, for whatever reason, particularly when they no longer reflect reality. The reality is that the Saudi government is demanding moderation in the mosques and schools; textbooks have been rewritten to exclude the objectionable material the report notes.
As I noted above, I’m working to get official comment and reaction to this report. I’ll pass it on as soon as I get it.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
February:01:2005 - 12:44
“Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosquesâ€
Is this news?
See also here: http://www.nysun.com/article/8565
In my personal experience this is definitely taught in some mosques in the US, because I have met people that spew this stuff (who get most of their information from their mosque).
February:01:2005 - 13:54
I’m not at all saying that the materials aren’t out there. I’m suggesting a reason why materials, which are no longer in line with current thinking can still linger long after they should have been removed.
The NY Sun article sheds no new light on anything, just taking the best “grabs” for their readership.
February:01:2005 - 14:15
Saudi Incitement In the US
Update: Crossroads Arabia has sent a request for information to the Saudi Embassy. I’ll be interested to see their response. In his view, these are materials probably are out of date and bureaucratic leftovers from a few years ago, before the Kingdom …
February:01:2005 - 14:57
It seems to me like at best the material coming out of Saudi Arabia contradicts itself a lot, but I haven’t seen any evidence that this is truly not “in line with current thinking”. Why the change in thinking?
February:01:2005 - 16:23
From the New York Sun:
“In his inaugural address, President Bush told Americans that “We have seen our vulnerability – and we have seen its deepest source,” which he identified as “ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder.” If this is true – and we think it is – then Saudi Arabia must be counted among America’s chief enemies. No other country or organization is as responsible as the Saudi government for publishing and promoting hate-filled, violent propaganda abroad. The Saudis’ brand of fundamentalist Islam, Wahhabism, is perhaps the greatest obstacle to promoting democracy in the Muslim world
“No other country or organization is as responsible as the Saudi government for publishing and promoting hate-filled, violent propaganda abroad†– Saudi Arabia’s policy is to export terrorism, so it’s no surprise that they’re only updating the manuals for Saudi schools.
The New York Sun is fast becoming one of the most popular newspapers in the NYC area. When a popular paper states that Saudi Arabia is one of our chief enemies, that is something new.
February:01:2005 - 17:18
John – The popularity of a medium indicates the influence that it has on a population. You report things from a Saudi point of view, and I tend to report things from a New York area point of view.
You may have forgotten, but in America, public opinion is important. Right now, the public’s approval of the Saudis is a little less favorable than their approval of Michael Jackson. In fact, Saudis may be descending to the Scott Peterson level.
February:01:2005 - 22:09
Mary: Having spent at least 35 years in public relations, I think I’ve got a pretty good idea of the importance of popularity. I also have a pretty good idea when a snow-job is coming down the pike.
The NY Sun is a good local paper. How it influences NYC readers is, of course, of import. But the UK’s Sun is also their largest circulating tabloid. The import of its voice in serious matters is next to non-existent. “Next to,” because they do sometimes break a big story.
The NY Sun took a story that was sure to reinforce existing prejudices among readers. That’s not a really difficult editorial decision; it’s a marketing decision.
I’ve said clearly that these are abhorent publications. But I’ve also noted flaws in the Freedom House report methodology. If you think that’s the “Saudi point of view”, then maybe the Saudis are closer to where you want them to be. My role, as I see it, is to provide context, not mitigation.
I do confess that when it comes to Saudi Arabia–as with most things in life–I’ve a tendency to see glasses half-full, not half-empty. The Saudi glass, as I see it, is moving above the half-full mark, but has a long way to go before it gets to full.
February:02:2005 - 13:00
Well, I definitely see them as half empty.
I don’t think that the Saudi government should censor people (though it does have control over government publications), but that these views seem accepted by a significant portion of Saudi society.
For example, in the US it is our own society that will tend to censor hate speech through condemnation and general disapproval. It still happens, but it is not widespread, and people tend not to flaunt it, because the society disapproves. The societal view is probably more important than whether the government wants to silence them or not.
February:02:2005 - 14:19
Hateful speech (or publication) is hateful and should be watched carefully. Saudi Arabia does not have the concession on hateful speech. In the US, we have plenty of it, too.
You probably don’t recall the filth that used to be broadcast for years by the infamous Father Coughlin. His program was widely syndicated over the radio networks.
Hateful speech, in the US, is protected speech. Those who speak it cannot be jailed, cannot be fined. So how does one get it knocked out of the arena of public discourse?
You identify the problem accurately: How do you get a society to shift its baseline for acceptable comment?
Changing societal views on any matter is a time-consuming affair. There are still Americans railing against the use of flouride in drinking water, and that’s been normal practice for over 50 years.
I think the Saudis are taking the right steps. They’re reforming education, from the textbooks and curriculum to the conduct of teachers in the classrooms. Saudi media are criticizing and ridiculing those who go beyond the acceptable. Government officials condemn excesses.
But the past can’t be erased overnight. Saudi religious education (which comprises a too-big a part of education in general) was corrupted, thus corrupting the views of generations of students. This, I hold, was the result of a combination of thinking “Well, a religious message can’t be a bad thing,” and great official indifference and neglect of what was actually going on.
The fact is, there are parts of the Quran that can be exploited to make particular political points. There are harsh words about Jews and Christians in the Quran. There are also kind words about them. What one chooses to emphasize makes all the difference.
The Old Testament is not a great source for favorable comment about religions the Israelites were seeking to displace as they moved into the Holy Land. Protestants in Europe didn’t have much to say favorable–but a lot to say hatefully–about Catholicism… and some Protestant sects still feel that way.
We are never going to see all Saudis, all Arabs, all Muslims suddenly wake up one day and say “Oh, we must have been wrong! Jews and Christians are our brothers!” Our best hope is that most can reach the realization that a way to co-exist peacefully must be found.
February:06:2005 - 15:41
More on Saudi Arabia and the Virtual Umma
This is interesting. Googling around for that last post, it seems that the terrorism conference in Riyadh is being accompanied by a slew of media stories about Saudi efforts to fight terrorism. A complete cynic would say that such is the entire point o
March:19:2005 - 16:19
Saudi Publications, Take 2
This is an update to my earlier post "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques"
John Burgess (bio) of Crossroads Arabia wrote on the Freedom House report here. I recommend you read John’s post, plus his entries in the comm…
March:19:2005 - 16:19
Saudi Publications, Take 2
This is an update to my earlier post "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques"
John Burgess (bio) of Crossroads Arabia wrote on the Freedom House report here. I recommend you read John’s post, plus his entries in the comm…
March:19:2005 - 16:22
Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques
UPDATE: See this March 19, 2005 post on commentary by Crossroads Arabia on this report.
This just-released Freedom House report is disturbing. January 28, 2005 Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom released the 89 page report. It is availab…