LETTER TO THOMAS K. LATIMER FROM (SANITIZED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90B01390R000400510039-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 20, 2011
• Sequence Number: 39
• Publication Date: June 12, 1986
• Content Type: LETTER

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/20: CIA-RDP90BO139OR000400510039-8
R[cPT # Kecord
STAT
STAT
TO:
Washington, D.C. 20505
Telephone: [phone] Jun 1986
Mr. Thanas K. Latimer, Staff Director
Permanent Select Ckrrinittee on Intelligence
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
House Affairs
Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclo ure (Trends in Arab Media Carmientary on
Distribution: the TJS)
Ori ,~ Addressee (w/enc)
OCA Record
1 - OCA Chrono (w/o enc)
1 - JCW Chrono (w/enc)
HA/OCA dpt (12 Jun 86)
FORM OBSOLETE
Fa 1533 PREVIOUS
EDITIONS.
OCA 86-1986
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
' Office of Congressional Affairs
The enclosed paper is per your request
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/20: CIA-RDP90BO139OR000400510039-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/20: CIA-RDP90B01390R000400510039-8
Trends in Arab Media Commentary on the United States
The most common theme of Arab media comment on the United States is
criticism of what is portrayed as an imbalance in U.S. policy toward the
Arab states and Israel. Although the degree of acerbity varies widely by
country and tends to be issue-related, Arab commentators are uniformly
critical of what they view as an uncompromising U.S. bias toward Israel.
Frustration over this often carries over to critical commentary on
bilateral issues such as arms sales to Jordan and the American aid
programs in Egypt and Sudan. While the U.S. raid on Libya was almost
universally condemned by Arab media, the stridency and duration of the
anti-U.S. rhetoric varied depending on the political orientation of the
particular Arab country.
Jordanian media comment on the United States over the past year was
primarily critical, reflecting King Husayn's continued frustration with
U.S. Middle East policies, including the Administration's failure to win
approval of a proposed arms sale to Jordan. While U.S. support for
Israel and Washington's unwillingness to engage in direct negotiations
with the PLO prior to that organization's recognition of Israel's right
to exist have occasioned bitter complaints by Amman commentators,
Jordanian media frequently balance this criticism by censuring the Arab
world for its inability unite in support of a peace initiative.
Limited editorial reaction to the 15 April airstrike deplored what the
daily Al-Dustur, for example, called the use of "a big stick" against the
third world. Jordanian commentatators have also sought to link the
terrorism issue with the need to resolve the Palestinian problem. In its
comment on King Husayn's current trip to the United States, Al-Dustur
said on 6 June that the U.S.-Jordanian relationship was facing "a
political test" because in its campaign against terrorism, the U.S.
Administration was not taking into consideration the fact that
"Palestinians are deprived of their legitimate rights."
Egypt
Principal themes in Cairo's media comment on the United States include
both broader U.S. Middle East policies and and bilateral issues such as
the U.S. aid program. Authoritative commentaries take their cue from
official statements and tend to criticize the United States only
occasionally and usually in constructive and balanced terms. At the
other end of the spectrum, commentaries in the opposition press regularly
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/20: CIA-RDP90B01390R000400510039-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/20: CIA-RDP90BO139OR000400510039-8
lambaste Washington. In between the two extremes are a variety of
views--primarily critical of U.S. policies--that appear in
government-supported publications.
The raid on Tripoli provoked considerable comment divided along these
lines. For example, while the semiofficial daily Al-Ahram's 16 April
editorial basically replayed the official reaction to the attack, noting
that "international tension cannot be eased by resorting to military
force," an editorial in the less authoritative daily Al-Jumhuriyah on the
same day called the raid "an act of barbarism" and "worse than
terrorism." Although comment on the raid died down in the
government-supported papers after a few days, opposition journalists have
continued to excoriate the United States over the attack.
An important topic of Egyptian media comment on the United States is the
debate over the utility and costs to Egypt of the U.S. economic
assistance program. Authoritative media commentary has taken a pragmatic
and constructive position on the issue, suggesting that it would be
politically naive to expect donor countries to give aid without getting
something in return and that this system of quid pro quo does not
necessarily harm the interests of the receiving party. Commentators in
less authoritative publications--both government-supported and
opposition--have frequently voiced deep mistrust of U.S. intentions over
the aid program.
Saudi media commentators are generally reserved in their treatment of the
United States. U.S. support for Israel is the most common focus of
criticism, with commentators typically appealing for more balance in U.S.
policy toward the Arab world and Israel. In a 5 April editorial reported
by the official Saudi Press Agency, for example, the daily Al-Bilad
called on the United States to apply its principles regarding "human
rights, freedom, and self-determination" to the Palestinian people and to
abandon its "biased stand" in favor of Israel. While Saudi editorialists
criticized the United States over the raid on Libya, they avoided
vitriolic excesses and merely replayed Saudi leaders' statements on the
attack. In recent weeks, Saudi media have focused on the proposed U.S.
arms sale, with commentators urging Washington to approve it. According
to the Riyadh radio press review, a 6 June editorial in the daily
Al-Jazirah welcomed the Senate vote upholding President Reagan's veto as
a victory over Israel's supporters in the United States and expressed
optimism about prospects for a "realistic" American policy "that does not
disregard the right of one party in favor of another."
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/20: CIA-RDP90BO139OR000400510039-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/20: CIA-RDP90B01390R000400510039-8
While Gulf editorial comment on the United States consists primarily of
criticism of U.S. policy on the Palestinian problem and the Middle East
conflict, bilateral exchanges with Washington--most recently Vice
President Bush's April tour of Arabian Peninsula states--have prompted
positive media treatment of the United States. Washington's expressions
of support for regional security and warnings against expansion of the
Iran-Iraq war have been particularly well received by editorialists in
Gulf states where fears of involvement in the war run high. While Gulf
media harshly condemned the U.S. airstrike on Libya, this behavior
reflected a traditional sense of obligation to support an Arab state
facing outside attack and disapproval of U.S. policy on Libya, rather
than any real support for al-Qadhdhafi whose backing of Iran in the Gulf
war conflicts with Gulf interests.
Prior to the raid on Libya, the United States was frequently criticized
by Khartoum media over its Middle East policies, its past support for
former Sudanese President Numayri, and its economic aid policies. While
the raid prompted Sudanese media denunciations of Washington, in the
weeks following the airstrike commentators became increasingly
preoccupied with events leading up to the recent elections and the
reorganization of the Sudanese Government.
North Africa
Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian media have not in recent months been
observed to comment extensively on U.S. policy. Prior to the U.S. raid
on Libya, occasional Algerian commentaries criticized American economic
sanctions against Tripoli. North African media criticized the U.S.
airstrike. On 16 April, an editorial in the Algerian ruling party's
daily El-Moudjahid accused the Administration of menacing "international
security and peace" under the "pretext" of opposing terrorism. A
commentary in the pro-Government Moroccan daily Le Matin Du Sahara on 17
April asserted that there was "no justification" for the American attack,
which was a "complete violation" of "international morality" and an act
of "gunboat diplomacy." There was very little comment on the raid in
pro-Government Tunisian media, and critical commentary in all three
countries abated by the end of April.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/20: CIA-RDP90B01390R000400510039-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/20: CIA-RDP90BO139OR000400510039-8
Arab Hardliners
Libya
Editorial comment in Tripoli media predictably reflects Libyan leader
Mu'ammar al-Qadhdhafi's implacable hostility to the United States.
Washington's support for Israel, for a Middle East peace process, and for
Arab moderates prompt frequent vitriolic denunciations by Libyan
commentators. In 1986 the tone of Libyan media comment grew increasingly
strident as the Administration made clear its intention to hold Libya
accountable for its sponsorship of terrorism. A 3 April statement
broadcast by Libya's regional radio "Voice of the Greater Arab Homeland"
described U.S. policy as "uncivilized, barbaric and an aggression against
the rights of others." Media statements since the U.S. raid on Libya
have coupled strident denunciations of American policy with violent and
at times bigoted personal attacks on and threats against U.S. leaders.
President Reagan, for example, is commonly referred to as a
"child-murderer" or a "Zionist-Mossad mad dog," while Secretary of State
Shultz is often dismissed as "the Jew Shultz."
Syria
Syrian media commentators regularly excoriate the United States over
Washington's support for Israel and for a Middle East peace process which
Damascus considers antithetical to its interests in the region.
Commentaries typically claim that U.S. backing of Israel encourages Tel
Aviv to commit aggression against the Arabs and that only Damascus has
been able to defend Arab interests against Washington. Commentators
shrilly condemned the airstrike against Libya, a regional ally of
Damascus. In the weeks following the raid, as investigations into recent
terrorist attacks raised questions about Syrian complicity and as
Damascus grew increasingly nervous about possible U.S. or Israeli
retaliation for the incidents, commentators warned that the United States
was planning to join with Israel in further hostile actions against the
Arab world. For example, a 23 April editorial in the ruling party's
daily Al-Ba'th stated that Washington and Tel Aviv had agreed to "carry
out a series of aggressions against the Arab nation" and that they would
use "terrorism" as a pretext for striking at any state that opposes their
will.
Iraq
Iraqi media monitored in recent months have consistently avoided
commentary, either favorable or unfavorable, on the United States. The
15 April U.S. attack on Libya, an ally of Iraq's enemy Iran, provoked no
hostile comment regarding the United States, although the Baghdad radio
"Voice of the Masses" did replay Foreign Minister Tariq 'Aziz's mild
condemnation of the raid. This low-key Iraqi treatment of Washington is
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/20: CIA-RDP90BO139OR000400510039-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/20: CIA-RDP90B01390R000400510039-8
consistent with the gradual moderation of Baghdad's media line toward the
United States which began several years before diplomatic relations were
resumed in November 1984. One issue that did prompt limited criticism of
the United States by Baghdad media, in April of that year, was
Washington's charge that Iraq was using chemical weapons in its war with
Iran.
West Bank Palestinian commentators are generally critical of the United
States over American support for Israel and what they perceive as
Washington's unwillingness to address the Palestinian problem. An
editorial in the 14 March 1986 issue of the daily A1-Fajr--the most
influential of West Bank Palestinian papers--typified such criticism,
condemning what it viewed as Washington's "intransigent position" which
"rejects recognition of the PLO and ignores all the inalienable national
rights of the Palestinian people." Commentary since mid-April has added
to these themes condemnation of the raid on Libya. A 9 May Al-Fajr
editorial linked the raid with the Palestinian issue, asserting that the
attack reflected an American policy which treated those engaged in
"national liberation movements" as "terrorists."
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/20: CIA-RDP90B01390R000400510039-8