Whose human rights?
While Americans promote occupation as a potential vehicle for human rights, Arabs stall on enforcing the rights they honour on paper
Arab foreign ministers who concluded four days of meetings in Cairo yesterday nodded approvingly towards an Arab League effort to adopt a modernised charter for human rights. The charter that might be considered by the Arab summit in Tunis later this month has been in the process of being drafted for a few years. It outlines some basic rights related to the principles of equality and freedom. It also takes into consideration some basic political and other social rights.
However, according to the views of Arab human rights activists the proposed charter falls short of recognising in clear terms some concepts related to political pluralism and individual liberties. Meanwhile, the division among Arab countries on this proposed document is a clear indication of the growing differences among Arab states regarding human rights. While countries like Saudi Arabia, for example, find the proposed political and legal rights somewhat too advanced, Iraq says that the charter falls far short of its expectations.
During a recent meeting of the Arab League Permanent Human Rights Committee the Saudi delegation, among others, expressed concern over what it qualified as an increased dose of women's rights that an Arab experts committee suggested the charter should enforce. On the other hand, the Iraqi delegation charged that, among other shortcomings, the proposed charter deliberately avoids making explicit reference to the need for Arab countries to adopt concepts and practices of democracy, women's rights and to abandon any resort to capital punishment.
"It is very difficult to expect that the Arab summit is going to take a clear stance on this charter. We may have to work on it a little bit more before it gets the approval of the 22 member states of the Arab League," one Arab League source told Al- Ahram Weekly. According to this source, moving forward on the human rights issue is certainly something that most Arab countries are planning to consider, "especially in view of the avalanche of initiatives that are being proposed, in an imposing fashion, for the reform and democratisation of Arab and Muslim countries. The question is how far the Arab states are willing to go when it comes to collective commitment on the issue of human rights."
Judging by the reaction of most Arab countries to a report issued by an Arab organisation that urged for a wider and more fundamental adherence to the concept and practice of human rights, it seems that they are not willing to go very far. Put together by the Arab League Science, Culture, Education Organisation in response to a resolution of an Arab foreign ministers meeting in 2001 to discuss the means to upgrade human rights observance, the report called for a modern and a fresh outlook towards selected cultural and social issues. It criticised the Arab countries -- though not in too harsh a tone -- for their unimpressive lack of political pluralism and respect for liberties. It suggested that injecting school curricula with a dose of human rights principles would not serve, in and by itself, to promote human rights.
Arab educational systems need to be overhauled and more political and personal freedoms adopted, the report stressed. It also included some very explicit remarks against using religious, cultural or political pretexts to undermine rights. Chair of the Human Rights Department at the Arab League Mahmoud Rached stated that the report had to be returned to its authors, who were asked to make it more practical and compatible with Arab realities. However, as critics argue, it is this kind of attitude that could allow foreign forces to intervene to enforce human rights in the Arab world. For if Arab countries fail to act promptly on human rights out of their own will, observers note, then they might be forced to do so by concerned Western countries, especially the US.
A recent report issued by the US State Department argued that promoting human rights is a foreign policy priority for the US. The annual US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for the year 2003 was released 25 February. Its content illustrated for many commentators that military cooperation with, and accommodation of, the US -- especially when it comes to Arab and Muslim countries -- proves the best way to win a US mark of confidence with respect to standards of human rights adherence. Allies fared better than sceptics, in other words.
The two most striking examples offered by the report promoting improved practices of human rights in what the US is now coming to call the Greater Middle East are Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are currently under American occupation.
Iraq -- despite all the stories of havoc and human tragedy that are being aired every day from almost every Iraqi city -- is set by the US as an example to follow for improving the observance of human rights standards. "The liberation of Iraq by Coalition forces in April ended years of grave human rights violations by Saddam Hussein's regime," the report says. It also states that the occupation of Afghanistan has "seen dramatic improvements in democracy and human rights since the days of Taliban".
And when it comes to harsh measures imposed by countries friendly towards, or afraid of, the US in a post-11 September world, the State Department is willing to openly deny any suggestions that the US campaign violates human rights. "America's post-9/11 foreign policy has increased our scrutiny and activism in whole regions on the issues of human rights and democracy. Not surprisingly, some authoritarian governments -- from the Middle East to Central Asia to China -- have attempted to justify old repression by cloaking it as part of the new 'war on terror'," the report says. It adds that "knowledgeable observers note that authoritarianism existed in such areas before 11 September".
In fact those countries that have been facilitating the US "war on terror" -- especially by hosting the US military -- have been viewed favourably as actively promoting human rights. Of the five Arab countries referred to by the report as making clear progress in adopting the mechanisms of human rights, three have been openly playing host to the US army for years, offering their unreserved security cooperation: Qatar, Oman and Yemen. Then there are Jordan and Morocco, both of which play a favourable role with regards to US policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Still, Arab countries that have been traditionally considered to be among Washington's most dedicated friends in the region were sure to receive a reminder that they still have to do more to please the State Department. For example, both Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- two traditional allies of the US that have been repeatedly asked by the US State Department to show more flexibility towards Israel -- were heavily criticised by the report for failing to honour their commitments to democracy and human rights.
Israel and the Palestinian Authority appeared under the same subtitle: "Internal and Other Conflicts". The executive summary of the report dedicates two and a half lines to violations committed by Israel and five lines to those perpetrated by the Palestinian Authority. The US State Department report referred to Israel's "continuing abuses [and] the use of excessive force by security" against Palestinians but not of the Israeli-declared policy of targeted killings. It employs similar language in reference to the Palestinian Authority as it details the excessive use of force by security forces against Palestinians.
Official Arab sources are not impressed by the overall findings of the report. Speaking to the Weekly sources that preferred to remain anonymous said that the US was tailoring a human rights code that is only meant to serve its political interests. "The Syrian forces in Lebanon are considered as a form of occupation but the US invasion and military presence of Iraq -- which is codified by the UN Security Council as an occupation -- is referred to as liberation. Whose human rights are we talking about?" asked one source. This source added, "the US may want to talk of its own human rights but we have the right to do the same."
