Defining repression
The definition of what constitutes a human rights violation in the Arab world depends on who you ask
Human rights in the Arab world was the topic of three reports issued during the past two weeks. Dina Ezzat reads through the reports.
Annual reports were published by the Arab Organisation for Human Rights (AOHR) and the US State Department, while Amnesty International (AI) put out a document that compares the situation in Iraq before and after occupation.
All gave a negative assessment of the level of respect for human rights in this part of the world. "Bleak" was the word used by the US State Department report, while the AOHR reported "a serious setback" for human rights, and AI told of violations in Iraq.
The three documents report on arbitrary arrests, illegal and incommunicado imprisonment, torture, discrimination against women, rigging elections, imposing emergency laws, persecuting journalists and restricting activities of civil society.
Read together, the reports highlight the existence of a debate over the definition of repression in the Arab world in a post 11 September context.
In a preface to the State Department report, US Secretary of State Colin Powell attempted to justify his country's military occupation of Iraq, saying that the US will not back away from "standing up to totalitarian menaces". He added that the "terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the threats they exposed challenged us to strengthen our efforts to overcome the obstacles" to build a world that upholds human rights.
That very war and the confrontation between terrorists and the international anti- terrorism coalition were highlighted by the AOHR report as two of the major causes for the "serious setback" in respect for human rights that has occurred in Arab countries.
Also subject to divergent analyses was the impact of the US government's practice of using economic assistance as a means to encourage Arab states to coordinate on security matters. The State Department said such cooperation fosters greater respect for human rights, while the AOHR criticised these same actions, saying that Arab governments were being pressured into committing serious violations of human rights, such as arbitrary arrests and even extra-judicial killings of persons the US designated as terrorists.
The AOHR singled out the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) announced by Washington in December 2002, and President George W Bush's call in the wake of the occupation of Iraq for the creation of free trade partnerships with all countries in the region by 2013 as instances of the use of funding as an incentive for security coordination. Such initiatives, AOHR wrote, "have more promises than potential" and reflect "a patronising approach" towards the choices of Arab peoples as a part of "US plans to re-arrange" this part of the world in accordance with American political and economic interests.
Similarly, the AOHR takes the US to task for levelling its infamous threat of "either you are with us or against us" at both Syria and Lebanon for their refusal to respond positively to American demands to crack down on Islamist and other groups battling for the liberation of Arab territories from Israeli occupation. Because Syria is home to the offices of some of those organisations, the State Department categorises it "a State Sponsor of Terrorism", meaning that it is "ineligible for US economic assistance".
It comes as no surprise that the AOHR report criticises Israel for its continued occupation of Arab land "a violation in and of itself" pointing out the Israeli army's actions in the Palestinian territories, including deliberate killing of civilians. The State Department approached the matter from a different angle, writing, "continued violence and terrorism were major contributors to Israel's poor human rights record in the West Bank and Gaza during 2002".
Speaking of occupation, the AOHR also dedicated much attention to the illegitimacy of the US-UK occupation of Iraq, the use of prohibited weapons by their military forces during the war and the havoc that followed military operations. The State Department decided to exclude Iraq altogether from this year's report "due to the rapidly evolving situation" there.
AI more than filled in the gap in reporting on the status of human rights in Iraq, offering a scathing assessment. "So far the occupying powers in Iraq... have shown insufficient regard to human rights issues." Of particular concern was the failure of UN Security Council Resolution 1483, adopted in May and which lifted sanctions, to stipulate sufficient independent oversight of the occupying powers.
AI reports that the US and the UK have committed human rights violations including arbitrary arrests of hundreds of Iraqis who have been subject to bodily harm while in detention. AI is also voicing concern over the US plans to administer Iraq's oil revenues and its efficiency in inducing political and economic stability in this country.
For both AI and the AOHR, the mass graves being discovered throughout Iraq and which are said to contain the remains of thousands of Iraqis and persons of other nationalities, presents a serious concern. Both organisations affirmed the need to bring those responsible to justice and to protect the legal rights of the families of the deceased. They also criticised the occupying powers' handling of this matter.
Others reading the report in Cairo expressed a resigned disappointment at the differences between the reports.
An Arab official commented, "So this is the situation: when some Arab countries arrest political activists and torture them for what a given government would consider the security interest of the country, the US cries foul except if those individuals are seen by the US as anti- Israeli activists or potential international terrorists, then the US would be ready to compliment that particular government for its progress in the battle against international terrorism."
For Mohamed El-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies and author of considerable material on human rights in the Arab world, the conflict between the political and the legal when assessing the state of human rights is not surprising.
So, the fact that the US complimented the Arab countries that facilitated its occupation of Iraq or are seeking to normalise relations with Israel was only to be expected. Equally unsurprising by this criteria is the reference to economic assistance in contexts that may not necessarily seem compatible with the acknowledged international principles for human rights.
On the Arab end, El-Said notes that there is much concern with respect to human rights. "The Israeli occupation of Palestinian [territory] is a priority. Now the occupation of Iraq is a priority. Priorities have to be considered," El-Said said.
According to El-Said the body with the "credibility" to make assessments of human rights progress or violations is the UN.
Interestingly, the US is not a signatory of most of the 100 documents that constitute the UN treaties that govern the assessment of human rights.
The issue of human rights is both a contentious and fashionable issue in the Arab world. Arab governments like to say that they are keen on the advancement of the cause of human rights but they do not particularly like to answer questions about their violations of these rights.
