A CNN documentary titled Pakistan: Threat from Within hosted by CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson was aired six times on July 7 and July 8, 2007. The documentary hoped to prove that Pakistani President, General Pervez Musharraf is actually double dealing; i.e., he tries to appease both the terrorists and America and play them off against each other. Thus, instead of being an ally of America in its War on Terror, Pakistan may actually be a threat from within.
Is the CNN documentary paving the way for America’s eventual abandonment of its Number One Muslim ally; namely General Musharraf? Or was the documentary done in order to force the hand of Musharraf; i.e., to fight the militant “Islamists” more aggressively?
QUESTIONABLE TIMING
The timing of the documentary is uncanny. The documentary was shown on July 7 and 8, right in the middle of the standoff between the Pakistani government of Musharraf and the Red Mosque militants. And to top it all, the documentary featured the Red Mosque leader himself, Abdul Rasheed Ghazi.
Pres. Musharraf is under political fire. The modernist and moderate Pakistanis are up in arms because of the suspension of Pakistan’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry. And with the Red Mosque standoff, the militant jihadists had thrown a direct challenge to Musharraf’s leadership.
CONTEXTUALIZING
The CNN documentary is not a newly made documentary. It is a hodgepodge of Nic Robertson’s reports on Pakistan and Afghanistan made previously. One segment was aired at CNN on September 12, 2006 as part of the CNN Newsroom reports while another was aired on September 27, 2006 as part of Anderson Cooper: 360 Degrees program. The Tanweer Shazad segment seems to have come from the YOUR WORLD TODAY program aired on July 14, 2005 while the nuclear weapons segment came from CNN NEWSROOM aired on October 11, 2006. (The transcripts of these shows are available at the CNN website).
The individual reports were not anti-Musharraf. For example, Robertson’s Sept. 12 report was an attack on the madrassas [1] (Islamic schools). Robertson was careful to say, “And Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf tried to crack down on the madrassas, but many defied him.”
The Sept. 27 report was about the difficulty of capturing Osama bin Laden while the Oct. 11 segment was aimed at the Korean nuclear program.
The July 7 documentary is a classic example of contextualizing. By providing the proper background or context, the otherwise neutral or pro-Musharraf reports was turned into an anti-Musharraf coverage. By “cutting and pasting” from past reportage, the documentary created a totally different scenario about the beleaguered Pakistani President.
MUSHARRAF THE GOOD GUY
After 9/11, President Musharraf became the darling of America and American media. He was portrayed as America’s foremost non-Western ally in its War against Terror. The media hype has been so great that Indians in America signed a petition to CNN protesting its pro-Pakistan bias. In the petition, “the concerned U.S. citizens/ residents of Indian origin” listed several arguments for CNN’s pro-Pakistan / anti-India bias.
The Indian-Americans reject CNN’s portrayal of “Musharaff as a Statesman” because, according to them,
“This military General who is the self appointed ‘Chief Executive of Pakistan’ came to power by overthrowing an elected government… Yet, CNN continues to pay obeisance to him and gives him more ‘face time’ than his counterpart, Mr. Vajpayee of India…”
With the Nic Robertson’s documentary, the Indians can now heave a sigh of relief. Musharraf has finally been portrayed as a “bad guy”
.
MUSHARRAF, THE BAD GUY
After 9/11, Musharraf was in an unenviable position. Being America’s Good Guy also meant becoming the Bad Guy for most Pakistanis and the rest of the Muslim world.
It was an open secret in the 1980s that America was arming the Afghani rebels and funding recruitment of rebels through madrassas in Pakistan. According to the introductory essay to the CIA and State Department microfiche collection Afghanistan: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1973-1990 published in 1990:
“Literally days after the Soviet invasion, Carter was on the telephone with (Pakistani President, General) Zia (ul-Haq) offering him hundreds of millions of dollars in economic and military aid in exchange for cooperation in helping the rebels…
The Reagan Administration was able to gain Pakistan’s confidence by offering a huge, six-year economic and military aid package which elevated Pakistan to the third largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid…
Traditionally, the Agency purchased foreign, usually Soviet-styled, weaponry in order to "plausibly deny" U.S. involvement if the need arose. Throughout the Afghan war, the CIA purchased Soviet-designed weapons from Egypt, China and elsewhere and transported them to Pakistan…
Congress ultimately provided nearly $3 billion in covert aid for the mujahidin, more than all other CIA covert operations in the 1980s combined. By 1987, the United States was providing the rebels with nearly $700 million in military assistance a year, more than what Pakistan itself was receiving from Washington.” (Available on the web:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/essay.html)
America was the absentee father and provider while Pakistan was the mother and nourisher to the Taliban and the mujahideen (which included Osama Bin Laden). Taliban is Arabic for students. The Taliban were the students trained in Pakistan by the CIA and Pakistani government to fight as mujahideen against the Soviets. As Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 showed, President George W. Bush hosted a Taliban official delegation to the US just weeks before the 9/11 event indicating the close ties between the Taliban and the American government. Then all of a sudden, Bush decided that Bin Laden was the Enemy and Taliban were his accomplices.
Musharraf was forced to give up his babies (the Taliban), whom Pakistan helped form and mold into leaders of their land (Afghanistan) yet surrogate sons to their Mother Pakistan. At first, Musharraf tried to negotiate good terms for them like being part of the new Afghani government.
WRONG PREMISE
The documentary seems to be working from a wrong premise; i.e., that Pakistan is or was a firm believer in America’s War on Terror. Pakistan or its President-General was at best a reluctant ally and not a believer in Bush’s War on Terror at all. President General Musharraf simply followed the footsteps of President General Zia ul-Haq. The Taliban were sacrificed for political expediency.
And the US government knows that Musharraf is doing a balancing act. That is why, like the Carter and Reagan administrations, Bush showered Pakistan with money and military aid. The above-mentioned Indian-American CNN petition says that “Musharraf received one billion dollars of US taxpayer money.”
REACTION FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE
The CNN documentary naturally raised the ire of many Pakistanis. One angry Pakistani engineer blogger raises 4 issues. First, he wonders why Robertson blames Pakistan and Pakistani madrassas for the actions of 23-year old Tanweer Shahzad, who was born and bred in Britain, and supposedly committed a terrorist act there. The blogger says that Robertson should blame British education and current British situation for the actions of a British citizen and not the few months that he spent in a Pakistani madrassa.
Second, he is appalled by Robertson’s insinuations that the Qur’an is the only thing taught in madrassas and that “the Holy Quran is responsible for the fundamentalist thinking of students.”
Third, as to the allegation that the Pakistan army is training the Taliban, he asks, “who financed Taliban and Osama during 80’s and 90’s?”
Finally, he wonders what Kashmir has to do with America’s War on Terror. He then asks, “Doesn’t he (Robertson) sound like an extremist?
Another blogger, a Pakistani-American was furious and called the documentary “a complete factual mistake”. He vented his ire on Robertson, who he said had done several false reports before which he described in his blog post.
The blogger was so incensed by the fact that the people arrayed against Musharraf; namely, Pakistani journalist Amir Mir, Lieutenant General Hamid Gul and Red Mosque imam Abdul Rashid Ghazi were / are the very people who are fighting Musharraf and America’s War on Terror.
Gen. Hamid Gul, he says, “ is one of the strongest supporters of the Taliban that ever existed, with the Asia Times dubbing him the ‘Godfather of the Taliban’, and providing comprehensive understanding of where his support lies.”
As for the Red mosque leader, the blogger says, “ it is blatantly obvious that he is a terrorist, bragging about his meetings with Osama bin Laden and his ridicule of the Musharraf government.”
Like the engineer blogger, he questions Robertson’s depiction of Tanweer Shahzad. He wrote: “Be clear here: British born, British raised, British educated, turned extremist in Britain, but because of a 3 month trip to Pakistan; Pakistan is the hub of terrorism in the world.”
VALID CRITICISMS
The bloggers’ concerns appear to be valid on its face. For example, about the madrassas, here is the transcript:
NIC ROBERTSON (voice over): It’s late, 10:00 at night. We’re uncertain about what we’re witnessing. Are these devoted and peace-loving students of Islam? Or is it a school where students gravitate to terrorism?
“We are in Lahore, Pakistan. Dozens of children, some only five, are painstakingly memorizing every word of the Koran, every word. It can take years.
(on camera): These children begin their studies at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning. They get a break for breakfast around 8:00 a.m. Then they go back to their books. They get a break for lunch, then studying again all afternoon. A long break in the early evening, and then back to their books again.
(voice-over): But is this about love, love of Islam or hate, hate for the U.S. and the West?
(on camera): Extremists could try to recruit young men from here?
Robertson then introduces Ghazi, the Red Mosque imam recently killed in the gun battle between students and the Pakistani army:
“This man, Mullah Abdul Rashid Ghazi, runs some of the largest anywhere. He says he met Osama bin Laden and describes himself as being ideologically close to the world’s most wanted terrorist. In fact, he says jihad, war with oneself and one’s enemies, a holy war, is part of the Koran, so he must teach it.”
Any non-Muslim watching the documentary would be led to believe that the young boys and girls in madrassas are taught nothing but the Qur’an, which includes (rather, emphasizes) jihad or holy war and whose mentors are like Ghazi, the radical leader of the Red Mosque who had met Osama bin Laden, his ideological brother.
In his interview with Ghazi, Robertson says:
“In the 1980s the madrassas launched graduates of holy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. In the 1990s madrassas produced leaders and soldiers for the Taliban. And since 9/11, they have incubated a growing hatred for the West, declaring the war on terror a campaign against all Muslims.”
Robertson conveniently did not mention the fact that these jihadist-producing madrassas were created and massively financed by the CIA and American governments in the 1980s and 1990s.
EFFECTS OF THE DOCUMENTARY
The documentary made ordinary middle class Pakistanis like the engineer blogger to become more anti-US; while, pro-US and pro-Musharraf Pakistanis like the Pakistani-American blogger to become angry at American media at the least or turn anti-US at the most. The documentary would confirm to most of the world’s Muslims the anti-Muslim bias of America.
Ironically, the ones who would approve of the documentary would be the anti-US, anti-Musharraf people like the Taliban and other radical fundamentalist Muslims as the documentary serves their purpose – to make the Muslims angry at America and Musharraf.
(end)
[1] Madrassa means Islamic school. Madaris is the plural form but I’m using madrassas as the plural form following the usage in the documentary
SEE RELATED POSTS:
I appreciate you quoting information from my blog (a Pakistani-American) but I think you have something wrong about me. I am not anti-US in any way, shape or form. I spent 25 years of my life in the US from childhood through the first 8 years of my professional career. I am anti-US media. The US media has shown that they are nothing more than a puppet of the lobby groups and will either support the President or bash him to no end. While I firmly believe that George W. Bush has set US foreign policy back 20 years, I don’t think that the American media will understand that until after he leaves office and another President comes into power.
Additionally, the Congress of the United States is useless. The stick and carrot approach that they have used with Pakistan has been unfair to say the least. We have had leaders (Benazir & Nawaz) forced upon the people of Pakistan because the US wanted them, and not because Pakistanis wanted them. Both has robbed the country blind and done many of the same things that military dictators have done,including dismissing Supreme Court judges (Sajjad Ali Shah), taking out military operations against civilian Pakistanis (Operation Cleanup), and silencing the media when they are criticized (War on Jang), but as long as the US government continues to think of them as a viable option, Pakistan will stay unstable.
My ire towards Nic Robertson is truly because he aired a factually incorrect report, which I have detailed on my blog. He didn’t once look at the reason why madrassas are breeding grounds for terrorists; who is funding them or who is arming them. It was nothing more than a bash Musharraf piece. Present a true picture and I won’t have the ire, present a picture that is biased against a President that has done a lot for Pakistan, and most educated Pakistanis will be upset, to say the least.
Comment by Khalid Muhammad — July 13, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Hi Khalid,
I did not write that you are anti-US. On the contrary, I described you as “pro-US and pro-Musharraf Pakistanis like the Pakistani-American blogger”. In the sentence “The documentary made…pro-US and pro-Musharraf Pakistanis like the Pakistani-American blogger to become angry at American media at the least or turn anti-US at the most” merely means that some pro-US, pro-Musharraf Pakistanis might become “angry at American media” like yourself or “turn anti-US at the most” like some people we don’t know but could probably exist or somewhere in between.
I agree completely about the US Media, but as a student of Media Studies, the Media cannot be completely separated from the powers that be — in this case, the American government, Big Business, etc..
Robertson knows exactly the history of CIA-funding of terrorist-breeding madrassas, but the Media as a whole have their agenda.
Even our own madrassas (Mindanao) which did not have any funding from CIA ever, are now publicly accused by no less than the Philippine president as a breeding ground for terrorists.
The world’s Media cannot be expected to “present a true picture” most of the time. That is why people like us - bloggers, writers, etc.– should point out their mistakes.
Wassalam.
Comment by jamalashley — July 13, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
Hello,
Sorry, I mis-read that one. Humblest apologies. I fully agree with you that the world’s media can’t be trusted to tell the truth and that we have to point out the mistakes!
Wa’salam!
Comment by Khalid Muhammad — July 14, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Nice Blog! i think CNN needs to do get their facts right! They should be brave enough to question what Mr.Bush has been doing to his nation and How successful he has been in fighting against the terrorism instead of poking nose in our affairs!
Comment by Mohsin Irshad — July 14, 2007 @ 8:39 pm