Truth is good, business is better

Cambridge University Press and its new strategic alliance

In classical education much stress has always been put on history, on

comparing past human experiences, on disclosing the real motives and
driving forces behind historical events. The other side of classical
education included language ,especially in its political aspect that serves as
a potent tool to distort reality and hide the real motives and acts. Without
some knowledge of how our language works the unprepared observer can
be easily misled to remain satisfied with mere words while forgetting to
look for the undisclosed facts. This classical education was not a futile
literary exercise. Thucydides, a great Greek historian and man of letters ,
brilliantly analysed this human perversity and didn’t hesitate to
characterise his book as ‘valid for ever’. He meant that things and
principles he observed in human behaviour during the Peloponnesian war
would become manifest in any real conflict situation. Selfish interests,
intrigues, dishonesty, blackmail would always bear the finest names our
 dictionary is capable of while different legal and political mechanisms
would make ways to discover the inconvenient facts behind insincere
words extremely difficult, if not simply impossible.

Yet, one might think that these awful things are valid just for politics and
economics. One might hope that despite all of that there are some holy
places, some temples and shrines left where the above doesn’t apply. In
such places Truth is more than a different word for „arbitrariness” or
„propaganda” and „fairness” would never ask a biased judge to ban
freedom of speech to stop the disclosure or spread of inconvenient
insights. Universities are often identified as such refuges of high moral and
intellectual standards. Isn’t it there that Platonic ideas, not Machiavellian
traps are worshipped and implemented ? But are they ? Are the mission
statements , which sound so fine and soothing, borne out by real practices,
particularly in critical situations? Are „the finest scholarly writing and
pedagogy.”(...) „the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the
highest international levels of excellence”, „freedom of thought and
expression” and „the encouragement of a questioning spirit” never
“influenced either by political or commercial pressures, nor by any
personal interests.”? I wish they weren’t. I wish these temples were serving
the public interest and humanity’s ideals.

One recent case sheds much light on how the declared passion for truth
becomes more and more incompatible with some other undeclared ruling
passions which govern universities behind the scenes. The case in question
is that of Cambridge University Press whose credibility seems to be
established once for all and whose virtue - just like that of Caesar’s wife -
should be above all suspicion, shouldn’t it ?

Writing a book for Cambridge University Press is an tremendous and intricate

task as scholarly standards are extremely high. „Cambridge University Press
publishes the finest academic and educational writing”, as it is proudly stated by
the said institution. First , a suitable book proposal must convince the Press
editor, referees and Press Syndicate that the proposed book will be a real new
contribution in the given field of study. Reasons for writing, what the book will
cover, the expected readership and information about the author must be
submitted. The proposal and supporting material are read by the appropriate
editor who discusses it and makes an assessment with his competent colleagues.
The governing body of Cambridge University Press , the Press Syndicate
( consisting of eighteen senior members of the University of Cambridge and
advised by a staff of professional editors with thousands of academics and
professionals around the world) must give their formal approval to the title
published under its imprint. Only after all of these painstaking procedures, the
book can be submitted for further scrutiny and final printing. As we see, very
little is left to chance and only the best Cambridge books come on the market.

No doubt also “Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic
World”, printed in April 2006 in 1500 copies by Cambridge University Press,
belongs to the category of “the finest academic writing” issued by this
respectable institution. Besides, in a time where the world is being threatened by
Islamic terrorists, this is a badly needed book. We read in its introduction :
„This book seeks to unravel and bring clarity to the complex, elaborate, and
secret world of Islamic charities that have financed terrorism.” Its two
American authors J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins must be recommended
as the most outstanding experts on the subject. The former worked for many
years in the Department of State and was US logistics advisor for Operation
Lifeline Sudan. He dealt with international charities for forty years. His friend is
Emeritus Professor of History at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Both had written together three scholarly works before. So it seemed that also
their fourth scholarly study would substantiate its publisher’s reputation for the
self-proclaimed objective of „encouraging a questioning spirit” never
“influenced either by political or commercial pressures, nor by any personal
interests.”

It perhaps would, had not a Saudi billionaire heard of the book too. Sheikh
Khalid ibn Mahfouz, an Irish citizen, is one of the richest Saudis in the world.
His father, the court financier of ibn Saud’s family, founded the National
Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia whose head in due course his son became. As
such he has had the closest ties to all major companies operating in Saudi Arabia
and many others outside the kingdom. But his record is clouded a bit as he was
involved in many very suspect operations. The most notorious was ‘the Bank of
Credit and Commerce International’ where he held a prominent post. The bank
was convicted of supporting terrorism, bribery, arms trafficking and money
laundering. Mahfouz’s brainchild , “The Muwafaq Foundation”, transferred
money to al-Qaida, allegedly without any knowledge of its founder who
squarely denied any charges and in fact has been never convicted. What is
more, whenever he heard of too vocal skeptics of his professional integrity he
sued them in the United Kingdom as his strategy consisted of appealing to the
English libel law. This antiquated law, originating in 1819, favours the plaintiff
against the defendant. It is up to the latter to prove his words cannot be
construed as the plaintiff suggests. What it means in practice is that the
defendant must be quite a wealthy person as British law is extremely expensive
and slow. Before the defendant manages to produce the evidence at the court, he
may be long ruined by costs involved so far. Mahfouz the billionaire was a
notorious “libel tourist”. He chose inconvenient authors to ruin them through
British courts unless they publicly recanted their allegations.
 In March 2007, almost a year after the publication of „Alms for Jihad” ibn
Makhfouz , he sued his next denigrator. This time it was to be a big symbolic
kill - Cambridge University Press. To launch an attack on Cambridge ibn
Mahfouz chose an alumnus of Cambridge College of Law , solicitor Laurence
Harris ( !). Another curious thing was that for the work of two Americans he
sued exclusively their publisher! The authors were of course ready to support
their publisher. They offered all the necessary additional evidence at their
disposal and had courage to face the rich plaintiff. But Cambridge University
Press lacked any courage to fight its former alumnus and his client. Nor was it
much interested in producing any evidence to support its case to the High Court
in London where the case was handled by Mr Justice Eady. Cambridge
University Press intellectual property director Kevin Tylor stated „Within the
English jurisdiction and under English libel laws we simply did not have a
defensible case.” Didn’t they? „And the evidence produced by the authors of
Alms for Jihad, repeated from earlier sources, has not stood up to the requisite
tests.” Strangely enough , the authors were not asked to testify at the court.

What now followed in London resembled strongly the Moscow show trials
from the mid 30-ies. Recanting heretical views, penitent confessions, humble
apologies, accusations of second-class officials, weeping promises of never
again committing the same and of sticking strictly to the PC party line

In fact , Cambridge University Press- and one might think on the highest
administrative level - ignominiously sacrificed its authors, acted disloyally
towards all the numerous professional staff responsible for the preparation and
the final quality of the book, ignored the decision made by its own respectable
Press Syndicate to publish the book. Instead of suggesting re-considering the
questionable passages in the book in order to improve the book Cambridge
University Press simply destroyed it all lock, stock and barrel! And it went
further! 200 libraries that had acquired the book, .were asked to get rid of it as
quickly as possible. „Amazon” and other electronic bookshops suddenly
declared the book was „currently unavailable”.

To appease one man Cambridge University Press abandoned, many of their

honest people and their loudly proclaimed principles. And then the infamous
apology in the style of the above-mentioned Moscow Show Trials was published
on the official wesite of Cambridge University Press where we read :

"Throughout the book there are serious and defamatory allegations about
yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your
businesses, family and charities, and directly.(...)
"As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those
allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely
and manifestly false."

Well , if I were ibn Mahfouz I would demand that a laudatory biography

about me be published by the very Cambridge University Press. Would it
not be the best way to show the entirely and manifestly true face of the
denigrated virtue , would it ?

Even those of us who have not enjoyed education at the University of

Cambridge have heard that knowledge tends to progress. Who can be sure then
that for today’s abject confessions Cambridge University Press will not have to
write tomorrow a long apology and that for its books pulped today they will not
be forced tomorrow to print thousands of its copies for free distribution across
the world ? Of course, if they manage to pulp and obliterate all the traces of
today’s scandal, they will be free from that inconveniency , free to further boast
of „encouraging a questioning spirit never influenced either by political or
commercial pressures, nor by any personal interests.”

I say that because I think that many commentators of this shameful story have
missed one crucial aspect of it. In my opinion the key to it lies far away
from the High Court in London and the official rationale given by
Cambridge University Press. It is to be sought elsewhere - in Saudi Arabia
itself.

Cambridge University Press is heavily involved in Saudi Arabia where it

depends first and foremost on the giant Obeikan Group ( printing,
publishing, packaging <hard and flexible>, bookselling etc. across the Gulf
Region and abroad). As they put it openly on their Website Cambridge
University Press " is engaged in a strategic Joint Venture with the Obeikan
Group of Saudi Arabia" and through it depends on a chain of bookstores
across the kingdom : Jarir Bookstore, Tihama Publications , Elmia
Bookstores and the biggest of them all - Obeikan Bookshop existing since
1991 and operating more than 100 000 titles. It means its new strategic
allies can pressure Cambridge University Press at any time to enforce
decisions the Saudis want to be made. In the case of "Alms for Jihad"
Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz - who as former head of the National
Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia has close business , if not family, ties to
 the Obeikan Group - must have told "the Press Syndicate, which bears
responsibility for (...) the works produced" that unless they surrendered
unconditionally and apologized they would face most serious troubles on
the Saudi (and Saudi-controlled and influenced) market. He would ruin
them. This might explain why Cambridge University Press ignored so
blatantly the courageous offer of the authors of „Alms for Jihad" to provide
all extra evidence to support their case at the High Court and why it made
the arrangements with Mahfouz excommunicating its own book so swiftly.

Having to choose between the loss of the Saudi market and "advancing
learning, knowledge and research" Cambridge University Press didn't
hesitate for a moment. Truth is good, business is better, at least in the eyes
of the oldest printer and publisher in the world – Cambridge University
Press.