By William Fisher
As the state dominos continue to fall across the Arab Middle East and North Africa, “who’s next?” has become the most fashionable parlor game in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and points East.
Tunisia and Egypt have had their so-far successful uprisings. Pro-democracy demonstrators in Yemen and Bahrain are still trying to tip over their dominos. Libya’s domino is, as of five minutes ago, in a horizontal position. Morocco, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia appear to be vertical for the moment, with the Saudis offering its people the most aggressive rewards to stay quiet and enjoy the sunshine: cold hard cash.
But what about Syria? We haven’t heard much about this bastion of democracy, but that’s because the media tends to go where cataclysms have already happened, not those where the explosion is sometime in the future.
How far in the future, lord only knows. But assignment editors might do well to keep a special eye on Syria as possibly the next domino to fall.
Why not? It seems to have all the ingredients!
Syria’s 20 million people live under the authoritarian presidential regime of Bashar al-Asad. The president makes key decisions with counsel from a small circle of security advisors, ministers, and senior members of the ruling Ba'ath (Arab Socialist Renaissance) Party. The constitution mandates the primacy of Ba'ath party leaders in state institutions and society. President al-Asad and party leaders, supported by security services, dominate all three branches of government in what is characterized as a republic.
But, regardless of its structure, it is a dictatorship.
According to the U.S. State Department, in 2007 al-Asad was confirmed for another seven-year term in a "yes or no" referendum that local and international human rights advocates considered neither free nor fair.
What’s Syria’s human rights situation today? Probably as miserable as anywhere in the Middle East. But receiving a lot less attention from the U.S. press. When American journalists write about Syria, it’s generally within the context of its proximity to and violent history with neighboring Israel. Or Syria’s relationship with Iran, whose shipments of arms for Hezbollah must pass through Syrian territory.
But Syria could become a crashing domino for none of those reasons. It might happen because, in a neighborhood peopled by monster governments, Syria is a monster in its own right.
Just look at 2010 alone. In its annual report on human rights around the world, the State Department tells us that during 2010 “the government and members of the security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses, and the human rights situation worsened.”
Here’s more from the State Department report:
During 2010, the government systematically repressed citizens' abilities to change their government. In a climate of impunity, there were instances of arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life.
Members of the security forces tortured and physically abused prisoners and detainees. Security forces arrested and detained individuals--including activists, organizers, and other regime critics -- without due process.
Lengthy pretrial and incommunicado detention remained a serious problem. During the year the government sentenced to prison several high-profile members of the human rights and civil society communities.
The government violated citizens' privacy rights and imposed significant restrictions on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association, and travel. An atmosphere of corruption pervaded the government.
Violence and societal discrimination against women continued, as did sexual exploitation, increasingly aimed at Iraqi refugees, including minors. The government discriminated against minorities, particularly Kurds and Ahvazis, and severely restricted workers' rights.
During the year there were numerous reports of deaths in detention, torture, and people being disappeared. Security Services appear to act with total impunity and there are no reports of arrests, trials or even reprimands of law enforcement officials.
So sayeth our State Department.
There is no freedom of expression in Syria. The most recent outrage in this department is the arrest and jailing of a 20-year-old woman blogger, who has been sentenced after a closed-door trial to five years in jail on state security charges -- "divulging information to a foreign state."
It is widely believed that she was targeted for her online poems and
writings on political and social issues, such as on the fate of Palestinians
after the 2008 military operations in Gaza.
The State Security Court's verdict is final, and there is no possibility of
appeal.
Before the current president, Basher al-Assad, there was his father, Hafez al-Assad, who ruled the country for more than thjirty years. His reign was brutal and retrograde. Syria’s support for terrorist groups isolated it even from the more moderate Arab governments.
While Assad has from time to time made gestures toward a more open and mild regime, Syria has remained a dictatorship.
Assad’s government demonstrated its hold on the country last month, while the Middle East and North Africa was exploding in a wave of protest and civil disobedience. Anti-Assad citizens ran campaigns on Facebook and Twitter, calling for demonstrations in Damascus on Feb. 4 and 5. But, as the New York Times reported, “no one showed up except for police officers and members of the security forces.”
The Times wrote: “In stark contrast to several other Arab capitals, where hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated against their governments, planned ‘Day of Rage’ in Damascus on Friday failed to attract any protesters against President Bashar al-Assad, a sign that he opposition here remains too weak to challenge one of the region’s most entrenched ruling parties.”
Syrian activists warn that Syria is “not ready" to sustain a Tahrir-type protest.
But authorities are taking no chances. On Friday, security officials arrested Ghassan al-Najjar, an Islamist who heads a small opposition group. He had called on Syrians in his city to demand more freedoms.
Human Rights Watch said in a statement last week that at least 10 people were summoned by the police in the previous 48 hours and pressed to not demonstrate. There were also reports that prominent opposition figures, many of whom spent years in jail for opposing the government, were also summoned. On Thursday, three Syrians were briefly detained and forced to sign pledges not to participate in future protests, after they protested, along with 12 others, against corruption and high cellphone costs.
At least 100 Syrians held a vigil in support of their Egyptian counterparts last Saturday near the Egyptian Embassy in Damascus, and quietly lit candles as police officers kept a watchful eye nearby.
Eventually, witnesses said, one of them shouted: “Oh blow, winds of change. Yesterday Tunisia became green, tomorrow Egypt will be free. Oh, winds of change, blow and sweep away injustice and shame.” As she finished, they said, officers quickly moved in, ordering them to leave immediately or else they would be detained.
“It is still soon for us,” a Syrian activist told the New York Times. “We have time. The street is definitely not ready yet,” he said.
One factor possibly discouraging Syrian activists from staging a Tahrir Square-type demonstration is the memory of The Hama massacre of February 1982,when the Syrian army bombarded the town of Hama to quell a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood. An estimated 17,000 to 40,000 people were killed, including about 1,000 soldiers, and large parts of the old city were destroyed. The attack has been described as possibly being "the single deadliest act by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East".
But there are other fctors as well. Chip Pitts, a lecturer in law at Stanford and Oxford universities, told The Public Record, “Syria would certainly be more of an uphill battle, being relatively insular as compared to the other regimes in the region, and likely falling on the Libyan side of the equation, where economic and political pressures and latent resentment against the long-standing and repressive rule by the minority elite (the Alawites, in Syria) could result in even wider and more effective action than the fairly small protests seen to date.”
But, he addds, “the regime would almost certainly continue to resort to brutal force in order to defend and perpetuate itself as revealed in its recent reactions, its crackdowns on bloggers, and the alleged killings of prisoners who had started an uprising at Sednaya Prison last week.”
“The continued serious human rights violations and extreme intolerance of dissent under Syria’s ever-present emergency laws combine with the limited economic opportunity for the 65% of the populace under age 30, to set the stage for a wider revolt that could put the lie to the somewhat kinder, gentler, and less hated face presented by Bashar al-Assad (including in his turnabout in granting the recent civil pay rise and his stated willingness to embrace political reforms),” he said. President Assad lifted the three-year ban on Facebook and YouTube only three weeks ago.
Pitts added: “The Assad family has already proven itself capable, like Gaddafi, of repeatedly deploying the Syrian military against the Syrian people, especially including the Kurdish Syrians and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the notorious massacre of tens of thousands in the town of Hama in 1982 remains very much in everyone’s mind. Former staff colonel Bashar al-Assad still depends on the military and the secret police/intelligence Mukhaberat to retain power, and despite some perceptions to the contrary, is still his uncle’s nephew and his father’s son. That said, the ongoing events of the past few weeks certainly demonstrate that anything is possible –and long overdue change in Syria would be very welcome.”
Pitts concluded, “I also think it’s undoubtedly true that Bashar al-Assad is less hated than Ghadafi, in part because he hasn’t been in power for so long -- i.e. he’s a younger generation and the successor autocrat rather than the decades-long autocrat -- but also because he comes across as more normal and (relatively) less arbitrary. The fact that unemployment in Syria (8%) is only about one-third that of Libya (25%) probably also plays a role.”
Americans who have followed the “war on terror” as waged by the George W. Bush Administration may be familiar with Syrian justice through the ordeal experienced by Maher Arar.
Arar, a Canadian citizen of Syrian origin who was detained at Kennedy Airport in New York in September 2002, held in detention for two weeks, flown to Jordan, and then driven to Syria, where he was detained for ten months and, he says, tortured repeatedly.
It appears that Arar had been named by two other Canadians, `Abdullah al-Malki, of Syrian origin, and Ahmad al-Maati, of Egyptian origin, whom Syrian intelligence agents reportedly interrogated and tortured earlier in 2002. All three were eventually released without ever being charged with a criminal offense.
The Canadian Government convened a blue-ribbon inquiry into the circumstances of Arar’s “rendition” to Syria, determined that it had been guilty of providing false intelligence to U.S. authorities. The head of the Canadian Royal Mounted Police was forced to resign his post. The Canadian government apologized to Arar and awarded him a settlement of approximately $10 million.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Egypt: Army Attacks Pro-Democracy Demonstrators; Later Apologizes
By William Fisher
As press attention shifted away from Egypt in the wake of the unanimous vote of the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Libya's leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and his cronies, Egypt was experiencing developments that some observers viewed with alarm while others downplayed as an “entirely predictable dynamic” we can “expect to see” in other countries undergoing similar changes.
These developments included brutal beatings of peaceful demonstrators in Tahrir Square by members of the military. The Army has since apologized for the abuse of peaceful demonstrators, but it remains unclear why the army attacked these citizens in the first place.
The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information reported that “hundreds of thousands” of Egyptians demonstrated in Tahrir Square on Friday in protest the continuation of Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik in office. The group said the protestors demanded the dissolution of the state security apparatus and the release prisoners of conscience.
Despite continued cheers in support of the army, army units assaulted the protesters, beating and chasing them on the streets of Cairo using electric batons that led to many casualties, the organization charged.
One of the abused demonstrators, whose name is being withheld for his safety, blogged the following first hand account of what occurred:
“We were a little less than 150 people [in Tahrir Square] that night [February 25]. At around 11:30 in the evening of the 25th of February, army soldiers formed a cordon around us without violations; one of my friends thinks this might have been their way of kettling us and making sure our numbers don’t grow around the ministerial cabinet. They dismantled their human cordon at 15 minutes past midnight of the 26th of February. At around that time we started hearing news of the sit-in in Tahrir being violently dispersed. And at around 1:30 am that very night, the army started using electric batons to disperse the sit-in and of-course we ran. They continued to push, beat and kick at us, until they managed to disperse us.
“And then I was arrested…As I ran, I came across a fallen protestor, and stopped to check on him. An officer grabbed me and started to push and beat at me and I said to him “Don’t hit! Just arrest me!” And he replied “Come here ya ruh ummak,” and they pulled me into a garage in the ministerial cabinet; and this is where the physical and moral torture began.
“In the ministerial cabinet’s garage…I was shocked at the numbers of army personnel beating up protestors in the garage. At first I thought these must have been thugs, but before I had a chance to finish the thought, I was pulled very roughly and ordered to squat on the ground. With that they started to kick at every part of my body; I tried to cover my face to protect it, but one of the officers pulled my arm away and stepped on my face pushing it to the ground, while they tied my hands behind my back. They – Lieutenants, First Lieutenants and a row of officers and soldiers -- then proceeded to kick at my face as if my head were a soccer-ball.
“Others around me were much worse off. One was stripped bare in the cold and sprayed with water and beaten, while another was beaten until his shoulder was dislocated, while others were electrocuted with the electric batons. One protestor called out to declare he had a heart condition; and they shouted back at him to ask what he was doing in a protest if he had such a condition, as they proceeded to pull his hand away from his heart, and kick him where it was.
“Twice we heard what sounded like a high-ranking officer giving an order to end the beating “No one hit any of them anymore!”. But as soon as he would leave, the beating would start again; it was difficult to tell if they really weren’t following orders, or if the whole thing was just theatrical. For the beating never ceased.
“What was said in the Garage…What was worse than the beating and the insults, were the accusations that the officers and military personnel were throwing at us while we were in there. When I first got in they played the old reel of accusations related to treachery and our being spies; I could even hear an officer shout as he beat a protestor “And you’re getting 50 Euros to insult president Mubarak ya ruh ummak?!”.
“And while we were all hearing variations of this, each of us was specifically asked to say “Long live Hosni Mubarak”, and those who refused got a fresh course of beating. It was clear to us that they didn’t think they were dealing with thugs, but believed they were dealing with paid security threats.
“And one of the personal violations that I could note is their occasional calling out that “We’re in Abu Ghareeb [Abu Ghraib] here,” as they piled protestors un-top of each other and beat them.”
It remained unclear why the government soldiers assaulted the demonstrators. The Military has apologized for the beatings, according to Muhammed Tolba, Executive Secretary of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.
The apology is confirmed by one of those who was abused.
In his blog, he refers to “the kind treatment we received from the unit 28 military prosecution, as well as the respect and grace with which we were treated on the morning of the 26th of February when we were transferred to the military police administration. To be honest the Major General running the military police administration, and fellow officers and individuals were all very generous, and treated us like guests and not criminals.”
And he concludes, “And an extra thanks to the Major General for paying special attention to our cases – those who were beaten and assaulted the dawn of that very day – and taking me and a friend to Kobry El Qubba hospital in the company of an Officer to help with the ex-rays and check-ups and ensure our safety himself. They sent the rest back to Tahrir in a microbus at the same time.”
The assault on the Tahrir Square demonstrators came a few hours after Prime Minister Shafik issued instructions to cut a TV show by because guests of the show “criticized Shafiq and expressed solidarity with public demands to dismiss the prime minister.”
The group said that yesterday’s assault by the army “coincided with the return of police forces to practice repression, police forces assaulted thousands of peaceful demonstrators.” They added that “police used tear gas and batons.”
“The army assault on protestors calls for a clear apology from the army. To make [up] for this insult, the army must expel Ahmed Shafik and all the ministers loyal to Mubarak: Mahmoud Wagdy and Ahmed Aboul Gheit as well as dissolution of the state security department and prosecuting all its officers.”
The Network said, “The military’s insistence on keeping of the symbols deposed dictator Hosni Mubarak, and the attack on demonstrators, calls for an immediate apology to the Egyptian people and dismissing Shafik immediately.”
It added, “The Egyptians who made a revolution for their right to freedom and democracy, will not give up on deposing all symbols of dictatorship, starting with the dismissal of Shafik, the enemy of the people and enemy of freedom of the press, and reaching to dissolve state security and to prosecute all its officers, interior minister Mahmoud Wagdy on top.”
“The military has to know that there is no turning back. This revolution has sacrificed hundreds of martyrs for freedom and the Egyptians will not be give up by any force their the claim for a democratic civilian government clean of all symbols of dictatorship,” the Network added.
According to Chip Pitts, a long-time human rights defender and law lecturer at Stanford University, “The situation remains very fraught and uncertain, and I’m with the protesters. The government must move sooner rather than later to institutionalize truly new and democratic civilian rule.”
But he denied the Army’s action was a step backward. He told The Public Record, “I believe that this isn’t necessarily a regression, but is rather the entirely predictable dynamic arising as a result of the tumultuous changes now taking place in Egypt, the Middle East and North Africa (and, I hope, elsewhere), and we can expect to see them in the other countries undergoing change as well.”
He added, “The continued resort to repression by Shafik and the remnants of the Mubarak regime represents their attempt to firmly manage and even co-opt the reform process through the same measures that have worked for decades. Thanks to the persistent courage of the protesters and the Egyptian people, those measures will work no longer and will only increase the risks that Shafik and his ilk will be held personally accountable for human rights violations if they don’t step forward fully onto the right side of this historic movement of peoples.”
The Arabic Network also said that the ministry of interior suppressed peaceful demonstrators in Mansoura on the same day.
It said, “The consecutive attacks on freedom of expression and media freedoms in Egypt during the past few days are similar to those of the days of police repression before January 25th . The attempts of Shafik to impose himself as a guest on a popular show despite the refusal of the producer is an unacceptable violation of freedom of expression and a breach to principles and objectives of the revolution.”
“We do not know the reasons for the insistence of the military council on keeping Shafik who was appointed by the deposed dictator despite his participation in crimes against the revolution of January 25 as PM. His government hired thugs to attack protesters with petrol bombs, camels and bladed weapons.”
Shafik is the interim Prime Minister of Egypt. He was appointed Prime Minister by then-president Hosni Mubarak on January 29, 2011 in response to the 2011 Egyptian protests.
After a career as a fighter pilot, squadron, wing and base commander, he served as the commander of the Egyptian Air Force from 1996–2002, and was nominated in 2002 to become the Egyptian Minister for Civil Aviation.
All the members of the Supreme Military Council currently governing Egypt owe their appointments to Mubarak. In addition, many Mubarak appointees are still in place in senior posts.
Yesterday, Saturday, was also the day when the committee appointed to amend several articles of the Egyptian constitution was to have turned its work over to the Supreme Council.
The articles were to be amended to make it easier to form and register political parties, enter candidates in political contests, and ensure fair and free elections in the future.
As press attention shifted away from Egypt in the wake of the unanimous vote of the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Libya's leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and his cronies, Egypt was experiencing developments that some observers viewed with alarm while others downplayed as an “entirely predictable dynamic” we can “expect to see” in other countries undergoing similar changes.
These developments included brutal beatings of peaceful demonstrators in Tahrir Square by members of the military. The Army has since apologized for the abuse of peaceful demonstrators, but it remains unclear why the army attacked these citizens in the first place.
The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information reported that “hundreds of thousands” of Egyptians demonstrated in Tahrir Square on Friday in protest the continuation of Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik in office. The group said the protestors demanded the dissolution of the state security apparatus and the release prisoners of conscience.
Despite continued cheers in support of the army, army units assaulted the protesters, beating and chasing them on the streets of Cairo using electric batons that led to many casualties, the organization charged.
One of the abused demonstrators, whose name is being withheld for his safety, blogged the following first hand account of what occurred:
“We were a little less than 150 people [in Tahrir Square] that night [February 25]. At around 11:30 in the evening of the 25th of February, army soldiers formed a cordon around us without violations; one of my friends thinks this might have been their way of kettling us and making sure our numbers don’t grow around the ministerial cabinet. They dismantled their human cordon at 15 minutes past midnight of the 26th of February. At around that time we started hearing news of the sit-in in Tahrir being violently dispersed. And at around 1:30 am that very night, the army started using electric batons to disperse the sit-in and of-course we ran. They continued to push, beat and kick at us, until they managed to disperse us.
“And then I was arrested…As I ran, I came across a fallen protestor, and stopped to check on him. An officer grabbed me and started to push and beat at me and I said to him “Don’t hit! Just arrest me!” And he replied “Come here ya ruh ummak,” and they pulled me into a garage in the ministerial cabinet; and this is where the physical and moral torture began.
“In the ministerial cabinet’s garage…I was shocked at the numbers of army personnel beating up protestors in the garage. At first I thought these must have been thugs, but before I had a chance to finish the thought, I was pulled very roughly and ordered to squat on the ground. With that they started to kick at every part of my body; I tried to cover my face to protect it, but one of the officers pulled my arm away and stepped on my face pushing it to the ground, while they tied my hands behind my back. They – Lieutenants, First Lieutenants and a row of officers and soldiers -- then proceeded to kick at my face as if my head were a soccer-ball.
“Others around me were much worse off. One was stripped bare in the cold and sprayed with water and beaten, while another was beaten until his shoulder was dislocated, while others were electrocuted with the electric batons. One protestor called out to declare he had a heart condition; and they shouted back at him to ask what he was doing in a protest if he had such a condition, as they proceeded to pull his hand away from his heart, and kick him where it was.
“Twice we heard what sounded like a high-ranking officer giving an order to end the beating “No one hit any of them anymore!”. But as soon as he would leave, the beating would start again; it was difficult to tell if they really weren’t following orders, or if the whole thing was just theatrical. For the beating never ceased.
“What was said in the Garage…What was worse than the beating and the insults, were the accusations that the officers and military personnel were throwing at us while we were in there. When I first got in they played the old reel of accusations related to treachery and our being spies; I could even hear an officer shout as he beat a protestor “And you’re getting 50 Euros to insult president Mubarak ya ruh ummak?!”.
“And while we were all hearing variations of this, each of us was specifically asked to say “Long live Hosni Mubarak”, and those who refused got a fresh course of beating. It was clear to us that they didn’t think they were dealing with thugs, but believed they were dealing with paid security threats.
“And one of the personal violations that I could note is their occasional calling out that “We’re in Abu Ghareeb [Abu Ghraib] here,” as they piled protestors un-top of each other and beat them.”
It remained unclear why the government soldiers assaulted the demonstrators. The Military has apologized for the beatings, according to Muhammed Tolba, Executive Secretary of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.
The apology is confirmed by one of those who was abused.
In his blog, he refers to “the kind treatment we received from the unit 28 military prosecution, as well as the respect and grace with which we were treated on the morning of the 26th of February when we were transferred to the military police administration. To be honest the Major General running the military police administration, and fellow officers and individuals were all very generous, and treated us like guests and not criminals.”
And he concludes, “And an extra thanks to the Major General for paying special attention to our cases – those who were beaten and assaulted the dawn of that very day – and taking me and a friend to Kobry El Qubba hospital in the company of an Officer to help with the ex-rays and check-ups and ensure our safety himself. They sent the rest back to Tahrir in a microbus at the same time.”
The assault on the Tahrir Square demonstrators came a few hours after Prime Minister Shafik issued instructions to cut a TV show by because guests of the show “criticized Shafiq and expressed solidarity with public demands to dismiss the prime minister.”
The group said that yesterday’s assault by the army “coincided with the return of police forces to practice repression, police forces assaulted thousands of peaceful demonstrators.” They added that “police used tear gas and batons.”
“The army assault on protestors calls for a clear apology from the army. To make [up] for this insult, the army must expel Ahmed Shafik and all the ministers loyal to Mubarak: Mahmoud Wagdy and Ahmed Aboul Gheit as well as dissolution of the state security department and prosecuting all its officers.”
The Network said, “The military’s insistence on keeping of the symbols deposed dictator Hosni Mubarak, and the attack on demonstrators, calls for an immediate apology to the Egyptian people and dismissing Shafik immediately.”
It added, “The Egyptians who made a revolution for their right to freedom and democracy, will not give up on deposing all symbols of dictatorship, starting with the dismissal of Shafik, the enemy of the people and enemy of freedom of the press, and reaching to dissolve state security and to prosecute all its officers, interior minister Mahmoud Wagdy on top.”
“The military has to know that there is no turning back. This revolution has sacrificed hundreds of martyrs for freedom and the Egyptians will not be give up by any force their the claim for a democratic civilian government clean of all symbols of dictatorship,” the Network added.
According to Chip Pitts, a long-time human rights defender and law lecturer at Stanford University, “The situation remains very fraught and uncertain, and I’m with the protesters. The government must move sooner rather than later to institutionalize truly new and democratic civilian rule.”
But he denied the Army’s action was a step backward. He told The Public Record, “I believe that this isn’t necessarily a regression, but is rather the entirely predictable dynamic arising as a result of the tumultuous changes now taking place in Egypt, the Middle East and North Africa (and, I hope, elsewhere), and we can expect to see them in the other countries undergoing change as well.”
He added, “The continued resort to repression by Shafik and the remnants of the Mubarak regime represents their attempt to firmly manage and even co-opt the reform process through the same measures that have worked for decades. Thanks to the persistent courage of the protesters and the Egyptian people, those measures will work no longer and will only increase the risks that Shafik and his ilk will be held personally accountable for human rights violations if they don’t step forward fully onto the right side of this historic movement of peoples.”
The Arabic Network also said that the ministry of interior suppressed peaceful demonstrators in Mansoura on the same day.
It said, “The consecutive attacks on freedom of expression and media freedoms in Egypt during the past few days are similar to those of the days of police repression before January 25th . The attempts of Shafik to impose himself as a guest on a popular show despite the refusal of the producer is an unacceptable violation of freedom of expression and a breach to principles and objectives of the revolution.”
“We do not know the reasons for the insistence of the military council on keeping Shafik who was appointed by the deposed dictator despite his participation in crimes against the revolution of January 25 as PM. His government hired thugs to attack protesters with petrol bombs, camels and bladed weapons.”
Shafik is the interim Prime Minister of Egypt. He was appointed Prime Minister by then-president Hosni Mubarak on January 29, 2011 in response to the 2011 Egyptian protests.
After a career as a fighter pilot, squadron, wing and base commander, he served as the commander of the Egyptian Air Force from 1996–2002, and was nominated in 2002 to become the Egyptian Minister for Civil Aviation.
All the members of the Supreme Military Council currently governing Egypt owe their appointments to Mubarak. In addition, many Mubarak appointees are still in place in senior posts.
Yesterday, Saturday, was also the day when the committee appointed to amend several articles of the Egyptian constitution was to have turned its work over to the Supreme Council.
The articles were to be amended to make it easier to form and register political parties, enter candidates in political contests, and ensure fair and free elections in the future.
Friday, February 25, 2011
It’s On to Cali and a Real Good Time!
By William Fisher
It’s dangerous to draw too many parallels between the folks who turned out to protest in Tahrir Square in Egypt and the folks protesting outside the State Capital in Madison, Wisconsin.
Both situations are complicated and it’s too easy to fall into a Glenn Beck simplistic, fact-free prescriptive rant about how we got here and what we should do about it.
But there are a few similarities.
In Cairo, you had a brutal dictator, the right-wing conservative Hosni Mubarak, backed by a powerful army, trying to persuade his people yet again that if they just maintained order, and went back to being docile and obedient, his rule would magically bring them all those wonderful things in life denied to them for so long.
In Madison, you have a right-wing conservative governor, backed by wealthy and powerful economic interests, yet again asking the middle class to act against its own economic interests. And they are doing so by trying to persuade these middle class “have-nots” that if they just give up their collective bargaining rights they would magically become “haves” and henceforth be free to pursue their “American Dream.”
Behind the elected officials doing the official persuading were the puppet-masters: the folks we used to call fat cats whose formula for getting richer depends on the rest of us getting poorer.
This is now known as trickle-not economics. In America, trickle-not economic has resulted in the largest disparity in income distribution in our history. We have a tiny slice of the very rich. Then we have all the rest of us. And what used to be the Middle Class is disappearing.
In Egypt, the puppet-masters wore military uniforms; in Madison, business suits.
Even though it was a prank phone call, I think we learned a lot by being able to listen in to Minnesota’s Governor Scott Walker talking to the man he thought was his puppet-master. After all, how often is it we get to eavesdrop on a call from the impersonator of David Koch, the multibillionaire oil guy who, with his brother, has funded much of the right wing’s battle plan? FBI, maybe; ordinary folks, nah!
Two things in particular were revealing. The first was the tone of the conversation. It was clearly puppet-master talking to puppet. And then there was the glee with which the puppet seemed to jump out of the phone to accept the puppet-master’s gracious invitation: “Once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and show you a real good time!”
By the time that conversation took place, the public sector unions had already agreed to meet the governor’s financial demands – but it was clear he was out to take no prisoners. Give up your collective bargaining rights or else!
The trouble with the governor, and with far too many elected officials, is that they weren’t paying attention when American history was being taught to them in grade school. Or they are memory-challenged. Or they just don’t give a damn and want to obliterate their country’s history and substitute their own.
What American history tells us is that without unions, the captains of industry would have rolled over working people like a Thompson CAT. Without unions, we would never have had a middle class in America. And without a middle class, who would have campaigned so tirelessly for so long for better schools, better teachers, better health care, better everything.
When conservatives talk about “family values,” isn’t this what they should be talking about?
The past half-century has witnessed the sharp decline in organized labor, with corporate ownership-management waging an unrelenting campaign to convince working Americans that they’d do so much better if American industry could be more competitive with the rest if the world, and that wouldn’t ever happen if unions were dictating outrageously exorbitant wages and benefits.
Dictating? Maybe Governor Scott Walker doesn’t understand all this, but it was Collective Bargaining that was responsible for wage and benefit restraints from both unions and ownership. Among other benefits, collective bargaining prevented countless strikes.
And, my old boss from JFK days, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce Jack Behrman, reminds me that the National Labor Relations Board was set up in the 1930s to support collective bargaining. It was critical in World War Two in moderating labor's wage demands to prevent inflation, which restriction led the NLRB to permit bargaining for other benefits; these led to donations by companies to health insurance and was the beginning of national health insurance.
But shouldn’t we fault the American labor movement for not doing a better job of educating union members so that they wouldn’t vote against their own economic self-interests and remain quiet while their elected representatives legislated against those very same interests?
Where was the outcry from labor when President Obama acceded to demands to continue George W. Bush’s upper-class tax cut as the Republicans’ price for not raising taxes on ordinary working Americans? It was largely AWOL. And ineffectual.
So, fault the unions? You bet. We should be mad as hell. Just as we should be mad as hell at some of the excesses of the union movement. But in the Great Crash of 2008, it was banks and other corporations who created our economic nightmare. Was our response to throw banks and other corporations under the bus? To abolish them altogether? No, in fact, it was to bail them out.
In his faux phone talk with Charles Koch, it was clear that closing his state’s fiscal gap was a secondary objective for Governor Walker. His primary goal was to break the unions. It had to be, since these teachers, firefighters, nurses and other first responders have already said they would go along with the governor and make the sacrifices necessary to do their part to help close the state’s $6.3 billion budget deficit.
But Governor Walker is still saying he has the same $3.6 billion budget deficit to balance. It was like the union response never happened!
And, by the way, I wonder if the Governor was thinking of that gap when, shortly after taking office, he handed the wealthiest people in his state a generous tax cut.
Does the Governor really expect us to believe that it is public service unions alone that are responsible for that $6.3 billion budget gap?
If he believes that, I have a terrific bridge to sell him.
There are many in Wisconsin who don’t believe the Governor’s budget gap is real. One of them is the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that “Wisconsin isn’t even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.”
And Jack Norman, research director at the Institute for Wisconsin Future, a public interest think tank, says, “Walker was not forced into a budget repair bill by circumstances beyond he control. “He wanted a budget repair bill and forced it by pushing through tax cuts… so he could rush through these other changes.”
But Messrs. Koch and Walker aren’t listening to Jack Norman. I’m sure Mr. Koch is just tickled pink with how things are going and is keeping busy making preparations to fly Mr. Walker to “Cali and show you a real good time.”
It’s dangerous to draw too many parallels between the folks who turned out to protest in Tahrir Square in Egypt and the folks protesting outside the State Capital in Madison, Wisconsin.
Both situations are complicated and it’s too easy to fall into a Glenn Beck simplistic, fact-free prescriptive rant about how we got here and what we should do about it.
But there are a few similarities.
In Cairo, you had a brutal dictator, the right-wing conservative Hosni Mubarak, backed by a powerful army, trying to persuade his people yet again that if they just maintained order, and went back to being docile and obedient, his rule would magically bring them all those wonderful things in life denied to them for so long.
In Madison, you have a right-wing conservative governor, backed by wealthy and powerful economic interests, yet again asking the middle class to act against its own economic interests. And they are doing so by trying to persuade these middle class “have-nots” that if they just give up their collective bargaining rights they would magically become “haves” and henceforth be free to pursue their “American Dream.”
Behind the elected officials doing the official persuading were the puppet-masters: the folks we used to call fat cats whose formula for getting richer depends on the rest of us getting poorer.
This is now known as trickle-not economics. In America, trickle-not economic has resulted in the largest disparity in income distribution in our history. We have a tiny slice of the very rich. Then we have all the rest of us. And what used to be the Middle Class is disappearing.
In Egypt, the puppet-masters wore military uniforms; in Madison, business suits.
Even though it was a prank phone call, I think we learned a lot by being able to listen in to Minnesota’s Governor Scott Walker talking to the man he thought was his puppet-master. After all, how often is it we get to eavesdrop on a call from the impersonator of David Koch, the multibillionaire oil guy who, with his brother, has funded much of the right wing’s battle plan? FBI, maybe; ordinary folks, nah!
Two things in particular were revealing. The first was the tone of the conversation. It was clearly puppet-master talking to puppet. And then there was the glee with which the puppet seemed to jump out of the phone to accept the puppet-master’s gracious invitation: “Once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and show you a real good time!”
By the time that conversation took place, the public sector unions had already agreed to meet the governor’s financial demands – but it was clear he was out to take no prisoners. Give up your collective bargaining rights or else!
The trouble with the governor, and with far too many elected officials, is that they weren’t paying attention when American history was being taught to them in grade school. Or they are memory-challenged. Or they just don’t give a damn and want to obliterate their country’s history and substitute their own.
What American history tells us is that without unions, the captains of industry would have rolled over working people like a Thompson CAT. Without unions, we would never have had a middle class in America. And without a middle class, who would have campaigned so tirelessly for so long for better schools, better teachers, better health care, better everything.
When conservatives talk about “family values,” isn’t this what they should be talking about?
The past half-century has witnessed the sharp decline in organized labor, with corporate ownership-management waging an unrelenting campaign to convince working Americans that they’d do so much better if American industry could be more competitive with the rest if the world, and that wouldn’t ever happen if unions were dictating outrageously exorbitant wages and benefits.
Dictating? Maybe Governor Scott Walker doesn’t understand all this, but it was Collective Bargaining that was responsible for wage and benefit restraints from both unions and ownership. Among other benefits, collective bargaining prevented countless strikes.
And, my old boss from JFK days, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce Jack Behrman, reminds me that the National Labor Relations Board was set up in the 1930s to support collective bargaining. It was critical in World War Two in moderating labor's wage demands to prevent inflation, which restriction led the NLRB to permit bargaining for other benefits; these led to donations by companies to health insurance and was the beginning of national health insurance.
But shouldn’t we fault the American labor movement for not doing a better job of educating union members so that they wouldn’t vote against their own economic self-interests and remain quiet while their elected representatives legislated against those very same interests?
Where was the outcry from labor when President Obama acceded to demands to continue George W. Bush’s upper-class tax cut as the Republicans’ price for not raising taxes on ordinary working Americans? It was largely AWOL. And ineffectual.
So, fault the unions? You bet. We should be mad as hell. Just as we should be mad as hell at some of the excesses of the union movement. But in the Great Crash of 2008, it was banks and other corporations who created our economic nightmare. Was our response to throw banks and other corporations under the bus? To abolish them altogether? No, in fact, it was to bail them out.
In his faux phone talk with Charles Koch, it was clear that closing his state’s fiscal gap was a secondary objective for Governor Walker. His primary goal was to break the unions. It had to be, since these teachers, firefighters, nurses and other first responders have already said they would go along with the governor and make the sacrifices necessary to do their part to help close the state’s $6.3 billion budget deficit.
But Governor Walker is still saying he has the same $3.6 billion budget deficit to balance. It was like the union response never happened!
And, by the way, I wonder if the Governor was thinking of that gap when, shortly after taking office, he handed the wealthiest people in his state a generous tax cut.
Does the Governor really expect us to believe that it is public service unions alone that are responsible for that $6.3 billion budget gap?
If he believes that, I have a terrific bridge to sell him.
There are many in Wisconsin who don’t believe the Governor’s budget gap is real. One of them is the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that “Wisconsin isn’t even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.”
And Jack Norman, research director at the Institute for Wisconsin Future, a public interest think tank, says, “Walker was not forced into a budget repair bill by circumstances beyond he control. “He wanted a budget repair bill and forced it by pushing through tax cuts… so he could rush through these other changes.”
But Messrs. Koch and Walker aren’t listening to Jack Norman. I’m sure Mr. Koch is just tickled pink with how things are going and is keeping busy making preparations to fly Mr. Walker to “Cali and show you a real good time.”
The Constitution: Egypt’s Job One
By William Fisher
Eleven days before he finally resigned, Hosni Mubarak may have had a chance to reverse his fortunes. Suddenly filled with a spirit of peace-making and reconciliation, the president offered up a smorgasbord of “reforms” he promised to make.
Among them was amending several articles of the Egyptian Constitution. Calls for these amendments had been going on for years. So central were they to the political well-being of the Egyptian people, that foreign powers – principally the United States –had intervened privately and publicly -- to persuade its most dependable Middle East ally to actually get something done.
But it was too late. The crowd in Tahrir Square didn’t believe their President. They had heard it all before. Mubarak was through.
So, days later, the task of re-writing the Constitutional amendments fell to a committee appointed by the Military Panel now governing Egypt.
Why is this important? Because over the years, the Mubarak regime created amendments to the Constitution. Their purpose was to make it virtually impossible to become a candidate, become a recognized political party, and have competent and independent monitoring of all elections.
Writing these new Constitutional articles is a modest assignment. The committee is not mandated to rewrite the entire Constitution; that may come later. But the Committee’s work is nonetheless critical. For it will be addressing the articles that, more than any others, have promulgated one-man rule in Egypt, kept the opposition from forming legal political parties, and thus effectively marginalized all candidates not named Mubarak.
The committee will work to be responsive to the leaders of the Tahrir Square opposition. They want the constitutional changes to reflect clearer separation of powers, strengthening of an independent judiciary, and less power for the president. That won’t all happen by writing a few amendments, but it’s a start.
And unless the committee finishes its work and the public votes ‘yes’ in a scheduled April referendum, it will be impossible to hold a presidential election in November.
Here, with thanks to Reuters, are the Articles the Committee is working on:
Article 77 of the suspended constitution allowed the president to seek re-election indefinitely. After specifying the length of the president’s term, the article says he “may be re-elected for other successive terms.”
The term of the Presidency is six Gregorian years starting from the date of the announcement of the result of the plebiscite that is used to decide the winner. The opposition has frequently called for a two-term limit on the president. This is a customary practice ion many democratic countries.
Article 88 cancelled the direct supervision of elections by the judiciary. Replacing it in 1977 was the Supreme Electoral Commission, of which the opposition has been widely critical for its lack of independence. Parliamentary elections were largely controlled by the Ministry of Interior.
The opposition has always called for constitutional changes to deter election rigging, a widespread practice for many decades. Supervision of selections by the relatively clean-handed judiciary was seen by the opposition as a deterrent to vote rigging. This practice has resulted in election results that were patently fraudulent and which earned Egypt the disrespect of many of its most important allies.
Article 93 dictates that the eligibility of its members can be decided only the People’s Assembly. The ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) majority has used this article to ignore court rulings invalidating election results.
Article 179, which will be eliminated, allowed the president to refer any terror related case to any judicial body, which gave him the right to use
military courts.
Article 189 says the president can ask parliament to approve an amendment or parliament can propose its own amendments. But all amendments must be approved in a referendum.
Heading the Committee is retired judge Tareq al-Bishry, reputedly respected in legal circles for his independent views. Marwa Al-A'sar of Egypt’s Daily News reports that Al-Bishry has been a strong supporter of an independent judiciary, though legal experts have said the Egyptian judiciary was subjected to increasing political meddling during Mubarak's 30-year rule.
Many in the opposition are voicing criticism of their new military bosses for not acting quickly to lift the so-called Emergency Law, which has been in effect continuously, with one brief hiatus, for thirty years. The emergency powers were implemented in 1981, after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat.
Mubarak made numerous promises to repeal these laws, but never followed through. In the last few years, the Mubarak regime introduced a set of 34 new constitutional articles, meant to be a substitute for the emergency laws.
But Mubarak’s critics say the amendments would have enabled a replacement of emergency laws with something just as authoritarian - but permanent.
The 34 new articles were approved by a vote in parliament, which was dominated by members of the ruling National Democratic Party. They would have written into permanent law emergency-style powers that, according Amnesty International, would have been used to violate human rights.
A week later they were put to a popular vote. Government officials said they were approved by more than three-quarters of voters, although the turnout was low - 27% according to official figures, much lower by other independent groups.
The opposition, led by independent supporters of the banned Muslim Brotherhood movement, boycotted the vote, saying the lightening referendum did not give them a chance to mount a proper "No" campaign.
The 34 new articles never became part of the Constitution.
But, in whatever form, the emergency laws have been used to trash the human rights of thousands of people who found themselves in conflict with the police and the security services. Capricious detentions. Incommunicado imprisonment. Torture. Police impunity. Denial of legal and family visits. Deaths in detention.
It is clear that democracy cannot flourish when laws like these are on the books and are being widely used. So hopefully the new military leaders will lift the emergency laws even before the April referendum.
But that moment is down the road a bit.
The first order of business now is the composition of four or five constitutional articles. And, even at this early stage, the hand-over of the rewriting to a committee has not gone without criticism. Thirty-one human rights organizations have criticized the amendment committee constituted by the military.
Rights groups say that committee membership is tilted toward particular ideologies, that it includes former Mubarak officials, and that it is a male-only group, despite the presence of many qualified women.
The organizations also charged that, in 2005 and 2007, some committee members belonged to legislation committees under the former regime, where they helped prepare flawed legislation and constitutional amendments.
The Rights groups also said that the committee lacked constitutional law experts who were independent and trusted by the public. Nor did it
reflect Egypt's political and social diversity, they declared.
They said it looked like a coalition between members of the former regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michele Dunne, a senior Middle East analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Truthout that the drafting committee has adopted “a very fast process.” But she adds, “We should also bear in mind that the articles to be amended were very controversial and lawyers and NGOs had already done a lot of spade work on how they should be amended, so perhaps some of that work will be used now.”
But even if the committee completes its work on time and an April referendum overwhelmingly approves the new constitutional articles, the new Egypt will have simply taken another of many baby steps toward democracy.
The Emergency Law must be addressed. Some new rules will have to be written regarding Parliamentary elections and Parliamentary power. Someone or some body is sooner or later going to have to take a look at the opaque web of business and economic interests spun by the military’s crony-capitalism . The issue of corruption probably does not require any new laws, rather the implementation of laws already on the books.
The former Mubarak ministers now charged with corruption were charged as a last-gasp distraction by Mubarak. Their guilt or innocence will be decided by a court, but there is nothing to suggest that they would have been charged with anything at any time absent the Mubarak crisis.
How much of such an agenda the military will welcome with open arms is questionable. Every senior military man now on the ruling council owes his appointment – and in many case, his prosperity -- to Mubarak.
Arguably, the most important next step for Egypt beyond amending the constitution, is the emergence of a leader. Many in the country are calling for a leader capable of exercising “adult supervision” over the incredibly diverse souls who slept in Tahrir Square. Just as many others are saying that only the youth of the country can carry the spirit of the uprising from Tahrir Square into the Presidential Palace.
Notes of caution have been delivered to the folks in the Square by thousands of commentators inside and outside Egypt. They have been cautioned about euphoria. They have been told that “democracy is not a plan.” They have been warned about faux leaders, about running too fast, about trying to get everything absolutely perfect.
That’s not possible, and is it undisputed that these young people and their elders are going to make mistakes along the way. Expect them and undoing them can be easier.
And follow the advice of Rami Khoury, Lebanese-born, American-educated journalist and policy wonk:
“It takes time and energy to re-legitimize an entire national governance system and power structure that have been criminalized, privatized, monopolized and militarized by small groups of petty autocrats and thieving families.
“Tunisia and Egypt are the first to embark on this historic journey, and other Arabs will soon follow, because most Arab countries suffer the same deficiencies that have been exposed for all to see in Egypt.
“Make no mistake about it, we are witnessing an epic, historic moment of the birth of concepts that have long been denied to ordinary Arabs: the right to define ourselves and our governments, to assert our national values, to shape our governance systems, and to engage with each other and the rest of the world as free human beings, with rights that will not be denied forever.”
Eleven days before he finally resigned, Hosni Mubarak may have had a chance to reverse his fortunes. Suddenly filled with a spirit of peace-making and reconciliation, the president offered up a smorgasbord of “reforms” he promised to make.
Among them was amending several articles of the Egyptian Constitution. Calls for these amendments had been going on for years. So central were they to the political well-being of the Egyptian people, that foreign powers – principally the United States –had intervened privately and publicly -- to persuade its most dependable Middle East ally to actually get something done.
But it was too late. The crowd in Tahrir Square didn’t believe their President. They had heard it all before. Mubarak was through.
So, days later, the task of re-writing the Constitutional amendments fell to a committee appointed by the Military Panel now governing Egypt.
Why is this important? Because over the years, the Mubarak regime created amendments to the Constitution. Their purpose was to make it virtually impossible to become a candidate, become a recognized political party, and have competent and independent monitoring of all elections.
Writing these new Constitutional articles is a modest assignment. The committee is not mandated to rewrite the entire Constitution; that may come later. But the Committee’s work is nonetheless critical. For it will be addressing the articles that, more than any others, have promulgated one-man rule in Egypt, kept the opposition from forming legal political parties, and thus effectively marginalized all candidates not named Mubarak.
The committee will work to be responsive to the leaders of the Tahrir Square opposition. They want the constitutional changes to reflect clearer separation of powers, strengthening of an independent judiciary, and less power for the president. That won’t all happen by writing a few amendments, but it’s a start.
And unless the committee finishes its work and the public votes ‘yes’ in a scheduled April referendum, it will be impossible to hold a presidential election in November.
Here, with thanks to Reuters, are the Articles the Committee is working on:
Article 77 of the suspended constitution allowed the president to seek re-election indefinitely. After specifying the length of the president’s term, the article says he “may be re-elected for other successive terms.”
The term of the Presidency is six Gregorian years starting from the date of the announcement of the result of the plebiscite that is used to decide the winner. The opposition has frequently called for a two-term limit on the president. This is a customary practice ion many democratic countries.
Article 88 cancelled the direct supervision of elections by the judiciary. Replacing it in 1977 was the Supreme Electoral Commission, of which the opposition has been widely critical for its lack of independence. Parliamentary elections were largely controlled by the Ministry of Interior.
The opposition has always called for constitutional changes to deter election rigging, a widespread practice for many decades. Supervision of selections by the relatively clean-handed judiciary was seen by the opposition as a deterrent to vote rigging. This practice has resulted in election results that were patently fraudulent and which earned Egypt the disrespect of many of its most important allies.
Article 93 dictates that the eligibility of its members can be decided only the People’s Assembly. The ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) majority has used this article to ignore court rulings invalidating election results.
Article 179, which will be eliminated, allowed the president to refer any terror related case to any judicial body, which gave him the right to use
military courts.
Article 189 says the president can ask parliament to approve an amendment or parliament can propose its own amendments. But all amendments must be approved in a referendum.
Heading the Committee is retired judge Tareq al-Bishry, reputedly respected in legal circles for his independent views. Marwa Al-A'sar of Egypt’s Daily News reports that Al-Bishry has been a strong supporter of an independent judiciary, though legal experts have said the Egyptian judiciary was subjected to increasing political meddling during Mubarak's 30-year rule.
Many in the opposition are voicing criticism of their new military bosses for not acting quickly to lift the so-called Emergency Law, which has been in effect continuously, with one brief hiatus, for thirty years. The emergency powers were implemented in 1981, after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat.
Mubarak made numerous promises to repeal these laws, but never followed through. In the last few years, the Mubarak regime introduced a set of 34 new constitutional articles, meant to be a substitute for the emergency laws.
But Mubarak’s critics say the amendments would have enabled a replacement of emergency laws with something just as authoritarian - but permanent.
The 34 new articles were approved by a vote in parliament, which was dominated by members of the ruling National Democratic Party. They would have written into permanent law emergency-style powers that, according Amnesty International, would have been used to violate human rights.
A week later they were put to a popular vote. Government officials said they were approved by more than three-quarters of voters, although the turnout was low - 27% according to official figures, much lower by other independent groups.
The opposition, led by independent supporters of the banned Muslim Brotherhood movement, boycotted the vote, saying the lightening referendum did not give them a chance to mount a proper "No" campaign.
The 34 new articles never became part of the Constitution.
But, in whatever form, the emergency laws have been used to trash the human rights of thousands of people who found themselves in conflict with the police and the security services. Capricious detentions. Incommunicado imprisonment. Torture. Police impunity. Denial of legal and family visits. Deaths in detention.
It is clear that democracy cannot flourish when laws like these are on the books and are being widely used. So hopefully the new military leaders will lift the emergency laws even before the April referendum.
But that moment is down the road a bit.
The first order of business now is the composition of four or five constitutional articles. And, even at this early stage, the hand-over of the rewriting to a committee has not gone without criticism. Thirty-one human rights organizations have criticized the amendment committee constituted by the military.
Rights groups say that committee membership is tilted toward particular ideologies, that it includes former Mubarak officials, and that it is a male-only group, despite the presence of many qualified women.
The organizations also charged that, in 2005 and 2007, some committee members belonged to legislation committees under the former regime, where they helped prepare flawed legislation and constitutional amendments.
The Rights groups also said that the committee lacked constitutional law experts who were independent and trusted by the public. Nor did it
reflect Egypt's political and social diversity, they declared.
They said it looked like a coalition between members of the former regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michele Dunne, a senior Middle East analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Truthout that the drafting committee has adopted “a very fast process.” But she adds, “We should also bear in mind that the articles to be amended were very controversial and lawyers and NGOs had already done a lot of spade work on how they should be amended, so perhaps some of that work will be used now.”
But even if the committee completes its work on time and an April referendum overwhelmingly approves the new constitutional articles, the new Egypt will have simply taken another of many baby steps toward democracy.
The Emergency Law must be addressed. Some new rules will have to be written regarding Parliamentary elections and Parliamentary power. Someone or some body is sooner or later going to have to take a look at the opaque web of business and economic interests spun by the military’s crony-capitalism . The issue of corruption probably does not require any new laws, rather the implementation of laws already on the books.
The former Mubarak ministers now charged with corruption were charged as a last-gasp distraction by Mubarak. Their guilt or innocence will be decided by a court, but there is nothing to suggest that they would have been charged with anything at any time absent the Mubarak crisis.
How much of such an agenda the military will welcome with open arms is questionable. Every senior military man now on the ruling council owes his appointment – and in many case, his prosperity -- to Mubarak.
Arguably, the most important next step for Egypt beyond amending the constitution, is the emergence of a leader. Many in the country are calling for a leader capable of exercising “adult supervision” over the incredibly diverse souls who slept in Tahrir Square. Just as many others are saying that only the youth of the country can carry the spirit of the uprising from Tahrir Square into the Presidential Palace.
Notes of caution have been delivered to the folks in the Square by thousands of commentators inside and outside Egypt. They have been cautioned about euphoria. They have been told that “democracy is not a plan.” They have been warned about faux leaders, about running too fast, about trying to get everything absolutely perfect.
That’s not possible, and is it undisputed that these young people and their elders are going to make mistakes along the way. Expect them and undoing them can be easier.
And follow the advice of Rami Khoury, Lebanese-born, American-educated journalist and policy wonk:
“It takes time and energy to re-legitimize an entire national governance system and power structure that have been criminalized, privatized, monopolized and militarized by small groups of petty autocrats and thieving families.
“Tunisia and Egypt are the first to embark on this historic journey, and other Arabs will soon follow, because most Arab countries suffer the same deficiencies that have been exposed for all to see in Egypt.
“Make no mistake about it, we are witnessing an epic, historic moment of the birth of concepts that have long been denied to ordinary Arabs: the right to define ourselves and our governments, to assert our national values, to shape our governance systems, and to engage with each other and the rest of the world as free human beings, with rights that will not be denied forever.”
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
EXPERTS: UN NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH ON LIBYA
By William Fisher
Major human rights groups and Middle East experts unanimously agreed today that the United Nations was not nearly tough enough in its condemnation of Libyan dictator Moammar El-Gadhafi, who is currently trying desperately to hang on to power by mobilizing his army, air force, and mercenary militias to attack Libyan citizens demanding an end to the strongman’s iron-fisted rule of 41 years.
Amnesty International (AI, Human Rights Watch (HRW)and Human Rights First (HRF) are among rights groups voicing strong opinions today. The Public Record has also talked with one of the nation’s most respected Middle East scholars, Samer Shehata, a professor of Arab Politics at George Univerisity.
Amnesty accused the international community of failing the people of Libya in their hour of greatest need as violence spirals and Colonel al-Gadhafi threatens to “cleanse Libya house by house”.
The organization said the response to the Libya crisis by the U.N. Security Council fell “shamefully below what was needed to stop the spiraling violence, and called for concrete action, including an immediate arms embargo and assets freeze.
The U.N. Security Council on Tuesday issued a statement calling for an end to the violence and urging Libya to act with restraint and respect human rights, but took no substantive measures.
AI also criticized the African Union, which has not convened its Peace and Security Council to address the human rights crisis in Libya.
“Colonel al-Gadhafi has publicly made clear his readiness to kill those who oppose him in order to stay in power,” said Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary-General.
“This is unacceptable. Colonel al-Gadhafi and all those reporting to him need to know that they will be held personally accountable under international law for the crimes they commit.”
“His threats make the half-hearted response from the international community even more shocking. What Libyans need now is not mere words of concern but immediate, concrete action,” he said, adding:
“As a bare minimum, the Security Council must impose an immediate arms embargo against Libya and an asset freeze against al-Gadhafi and his key security and military advisers.”
AI’s call came as Colonel al-Gadhafi gave a speech in which he called protesters “cockroaches” and “rats,” and compared the situation to China, saying that national unity had been “more important than the people of Tiananmen Square."
AI also criticized the response of the African Union to the unfolding crisis, which has seen hundreds killed and persistent reports of mercenaries being brought in from African countries by the Libyan leader to violently suppress the protests against him.
“It is outrageous that the African Union Peace and Security Council has not even met to discuss the emergency taking place in one of its own member states,” said AI’s Shetty.
Amnesty called on the African Union to ensure that its member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are not complicit in human rights abuses in Libya.
The organization also urged the Arab League, which yesterday banned Libya from participation in its meetings, to act at once on its public commitments, in particular by launching an independent Arab investigative committee into the crisis in Libya.
In full, Amnesty International called on:
· The United Nations Security Council: to immediately impose an arms embargo on Libya preventing transfer of equipment and personnel, implement an asset freeze against Colonel al-Gadhafi and his senior military and security advisers and state unequivocally that crimes under international law in Libya will be investigated and punished.
· The African Union and its member states: to immediately investigate reports that armed elements are being transported from African countries to Libya, acting to secure the land borders into Libya and monitor suspicious flights.
· The U.N. General Assembly: to immediately suspend Libya from the 47-member UN Human Rights Council.
· The UN Human Rights Council: to deploy a fact-finding mission to Libya to make rapid recommendations on human rights abuses and whether a referral to the International Criminal Court is warranted.
· Libya and neighboring countries: to facilitate the safe departure of those who wish to leave Libya.
Prof. Samer Shehata, professor of Middle Eastern politics at Georgetown University, told The Public Record, “I agree fully with the idea of an asset freeze, arms embargo and the possibility of pursuing charges against those in Libya (including Qadhafi) of using military force against an unarmed civilian population. Using helicopter gunships, artillery and the report of military aircraft (and the reported ordering of Libyan naval ships to fire on Benghazi) constitute crimes against humanity.”
Shehata continued: “Qadhafi is a depraved, megalomaniacal dictator and he has been a disaster for Libya, the Arab world and Africa. He runs one of the most autocratic regimes in the world -- as a family concern -- and the sooner the Libyan people can be rid of him, the better off they will be.”
He added: “I would also hope that the Arab League and the African Union
will also pursue all possible measures against colonel Qadhafi and his criminal regime.”
Asked by The Public Record about a post-Qadhafi Libya, Shehata, who has recently returned from the Middle East, said Libya “is likely to be significantly more difficult than post-Mubarak Egypt and post Ben Ali Tunisia.”
He gave these reasons: “Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt, Qadhafi has systematically wiped out what existed of Libyan civil and political society; the Qadhafi regime did not allow any independent institutions to develop and he has been in power/in control much longer ... since 1969. Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt there are no known, established political parties, independent civil society groups, labor unions, syndicates, etc.”
He said Job One after Gadhafi will be to “establish order and security and agree on the basic rules of the game.”
“It's not a question of amending the constitution in Libya or bringing in a new cabinet. It's a question of writing a new constitution, creating new
institutions and forging a new form of politics,” he said.
Similar sentiments were voiced by Neil Hicks, International Policy Adviser for Human Rights First. He told The Public Record, “We do believe that the UN should have gone further than just condemnation and concern, and we hope that it will. We support the imposition of a no-fly zone, an arms embargo and targeted sanctions against Gadhafi and other implicated leaders.”
He added, “We fear that Libya, as a result of Gadhafi’s suffocating rule and divide and rule methods, faces a very messy post Gadhafi era, should one emerge.”
“Libya will require massive foreign assistance in terms of expertise and technical support – it has funds, of course. Ideally this should not be led by the West alone, but should involve the Arab League -- perhaps especially Egypt and Tunisia -- with strong backing from the EU and the US.”
He concluded: “It’s a daunting task, but the alternative -- Gadhafi hanging on grimly -- is even worse.
Fred Abrahams of Human Rights Watch told ThePublic Record, “If there is a post-Gadhafi Libya, it will be a huge mess."
He explained: "Libya has no constitution, no political parties, no free media, no civil society. It has been guided by the Green Book for forty years. This will require a radical olitical restructuring from scratch."
He said, "There are many options, and Libyans must decide for themselves. I could imagine that they would want to form a caretaker government with technocrats and also a constitutional commission to start drafting. These should pave the way for elections. All this will not be easy. And it’s also down the road, not clear what will happen in Tripoli."
Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement, “Anyone, including Muammar Gadhafi, ordering or carrying out atrocities should know they will be held individually accountable for their actions, including unlawful killings of protesters.”
She said, “We fear the death toll will rise much higher unless Gadhafi ends his bloody attempts to suppress dissent. He should call his forces including mercenaries off immediately.”
Major human rights groups and Middle East experts unanimously agreed today that the United Nations was not nearly tough enough in its condemnation of Libyan dictator Moammar El-Gadhafi, who is currently trying desperately to hang on to power by mobilizing his army, air force, and mercenary militias to attack Libyan citizens demanding an end to the strongman’s iron-fisted rule of 41 years.
Amnesty International (AI, Human Rights Watch (HRW)and Human Rights First (HRF) are among rights groups voicing strong opinions today. The Public Record has also talked with one of the nation’s most respected Middle East scholars, Samer Shehata, a professor of Arab Politics at George Univerisity.
Amnesty accused the international community of failing the people of Libya in their hour of greatest need as violence spirals and Colonel al-Gadhafi threatens to “cleanse Libya house by house”.
The organization said the response to the Libya crisis by the U.N. Security Council fell “shamefully below what was needed to stop the spiraling violence, and called for concrete action, including an immediate arms embargo and assets freeze.
The U.N. Security Council on Tuesday issued a statement calling for an end to the violence and urging Libya to act with restraint and respect human rights, but took no substantive measures.
AI also criticized the African Union, which has not convened its Peace and Security Council to address the human rights crisis in Libya.
“Colonel al-Gadhafi has publicly made clear his readiness to kill those who oppose him in order to stay in power,” said Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary-General.
“This is unacceptable. Colonel al-Gadhafi and all those reporting to him need to know that they will be held personally accountable under international law for the crimes they commit.”
“His threats make the half-hearted response from the international community even more shocking. What Libyans need now is not mere words of concern but immediate, concrete action,” he said, adding:
“As a bare minimum, the Security Council must impose an immediate arms embargo against Libya and an asset freeze against al-Gadhafi and his key security and military advisers.”
AI’s call came as Colonel al-Gadhafi gave a speech in which he called protesters “cockroaches” and “rats,” and compared the situation to China, saying that national unity had been “more important than the people of Tiananmen Square."
AI also criticized the response of the African Union to the unfolding crisis, which has seen hundreds killed and persistent reports of mercenaries being brought in from African countries by the Libyan leader to violently suppress the protests against him.
“It is outrageous that the African Union Peace and Security Council has not even met to discuss the emergency taking place in one of its own member states,” said AI’s Shetty.
Amnesty called on the African Union to ensure that its member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are not complicit in human rights abuses in Libya.
The organization also urged the Arab League, which yesterday banned Libya from participation in its meetings, to act at once on its public commitments, in particular by launching an independent Arab investigative committee into the crisis in Libya.
In full, Amnesty International called on:
· The United Nations Security Council: to immediately impose an arms embargo on Libya preventing transfer of equipment and personnel, implement an asset freeze against Colonel al-Gadhafi and his senior military and security advisers and state unequivocally that crimes under international law in Libya will be investigated and punished.
· The African Union and its member states: to immediately investigate reports that armed elements are being transported from African countries to Libya, acting to secure the land borders into Libya and monitor suspicious flights.
· The U.N. General Assembly: to immediately suspend Libya from the 47-member UN Human Rights Council.
· The UN Human Rights Council: to deploy a fact-finding mission to Libya to make rapid recommendations on human rights abuses and whether a referral to the International Criminal Court is warranted.
· Libya and neighboring countries: to facilitate the safe departure of those who wish to leave Libya.
Prof. Samer Shehata, professor of Middle Eastern politics at Georgetown University, told The Public Record, “I agree fully with the idea of an asset freeze, arms embargo and the possibility of pursuing charges against those in Libya (including Qadhafi) of using military force against an unarmed civilian population. Using helicopter gunships, artillery and the report of military aircraft (and the reported ordering of Libyan naval ships to fire on Benghazi) constitute crimes against humanity.”
Shehata continued: “Qadhafi is a depraved, megalomaniacal dictator and he has been a disaster for Libya, the Arab world and Africa. He runs one of the most autocratic regimes in the world -- as a family concern -- and the sooner the Libyan people can be rid of him, the better off they will be.”
He added: “I would also hope that the Arab League and the African Union
will also pursue all possible measures against colonel Qadhafi and his criminal regime.”
Asked by The Public Record about a post-Qadhafi Libya, Shehata, who has recently returned from the Middle East, said Libya “is likely to be significantly more difficult than post-Mubarak Egypt and post Ben Ali Tunisia.”
He gave these reasons: “Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt, Qadhafi has systematically wiped out what existed of Libyan civil and political society; the Qadhafi regime did not allow any independent institutions to develop and he has been in power/in control much longer ... since 1969. Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt there are no known, established political parties, independent civil society groups, labor unions, syndicates, etc.”
He said Job One after Gadhafi will be to “establish order and security and agree on the basic rules of the game.”
“It's not a question of amending the constitution in Libya or bringing in a new cabinet. It's a question of writing a new constitution, creating new
institutions and forging a new form of politics,” he said.
Similar sentiments were voiced by Neil Hicks, International Policy Adviser for Human Rights First. He told The Public Record, “We do believe that the UN should have gone further than just condemnation and concern, and we hope that it will. We support the imposition of a no-fly zone, an arms embargo and targeted sanctions against Gadhafi and other implicated leaders.”
He added, “We fear that Libya, as a result of Gadhafi’s suffocating rule and divide and rule methods, faces a very messy post Gadhafi era, should one emerge.”
“Libya will require massive foreign assistance in terms of expertise and technical support – it has funds, of course. Ideally this should not be led by the West alone, but should involve the Arab League -- perhaps especially Egypt and Tunisia -- with strong backing from the EU and the US.”
He concluded: “It’s a daunting task, but the alternative -- Gadhafi hanging on grimly -- is even worse.
Fred Abrahams of Human Rights Watch told ThePublic Record, “If there is a post-Gadhafi Libya, it will be a huge mess."
He explained: "Libya has no constitution, no political parties, no free media, no civil society. It has been guided by the Green Book for forty years. This will require a radical olitical restructuring from scratch."
He said, "There are many options, and Libyans must decide for themselves. I could imagine that they would want to form a caretaker government with technocrats and also a constitutional commission to start drafting. These should pave the way for elections. All this will not be easy. And it’s also down the road, not clear what will happen in Tripoli."
Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement, “Anyone, including Muammar Gadhafi, ordering or carrying out atrocities should know they will be held individually accountable for their actions, including unlawful killings of protesters.”
She said, “We fear the death toll will rise much higher unless Gadhafi ends his bloody attempts to suppress dissent. He should call his forces including mercenaries off immediately.”
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Libya: The Price of Being Tone Deaf
By William Fisher
Less than three years ago, Human Rights Watch handed over to the Libyan Government the 2009 edition of its annual survey, entitled “A Facade of Action -- The Misuse of Dialogue and Cooperation with Rights Abusers.”
The Libyan chapter of the report, like its annual predecessors, made an extensive series of recommendations for ridding the country of its most egregious human rights violations.
The report noted there had been some improvements made in the Libyan human rights environment -- less frequent arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances, greater tolerance of freedom of expression and some progress in addressing gross violations of the past, limited steps toward increased tolerance of dissent, and two new private newspapers and the Internet.
These developments, HRW said, “have created a new limited space for freedom of expression, and some unprecedented public demonstrations have been allowed to take place.”
But HRW found that Libya’s performance in the human rights area was unacceptable. It said the country’s Internal Security Agency “remains responsible for systematic violations of Libyan rights, including the detention of political prisoners, enforced disappearances and deaths in custody.”
Human Rights observers, witnessing the current bloody conflict that many believe could degenerate into a full-blown civil war, are lamenting Col. Gadaffi’s failure to correct these continuing abuses.
HRW lays out the human rights landscape in Libya today. Freedom of expression remains severely restricted by the Libyan penal code. Cracks in the wall that the government has set up against free expression are thin but evident, but there has also been an increase in the number of prosecutions of journalists, although no journalist has been sentenced to prison so far.
HRW found that, “There is no freedom of association in Libya because the concept of an independent civil society goes directly against Gaddaffi’s theory of governance by the masses. Law 71 still criminalizes political parties, and the penal code criminalizes the establishment of organizations that are ‘against the principles of the Libyan Jamahireya system’.”
The report says that Law 19, "On Associations," requires a political body to approve all nongovernmental organizations, does not allow appeals against negative decisions and provides for continuous governmental interference in the running of the organization. The government has refused to allow independent journalists' and lawyers' organizations.
The report notes that Libya’s Justice Ministry has announced plans to reform the most repressive provisions of the penal code. “Yet, despite work to develop a new penal code, an essentially repressive legal framework remains in place, as does the ability of government security forces to act with impunity against dissent.”
HRW adds, “Many trials, especially those before the State Security Court, still fail to meet international due process standards. Overall, unjustified limits on free expression and association remain the norm, including penal code provisions that criminalize "insulting public officials" or "opposing the ideology of the Revolution."
Many relatives of prisoners killed in a 1996 incident at Abu Salim prison are still waiting to learn how their relatives died and to see those responsible punished. The jurisdiction of courts, the duties of government agencies, respect for legal rights of prisoners and adherence to the country’s stated list of human rights often remain murky, erratic and contradictory, the report said.
There are a number of semi-official organizations that do charitable work, providing services and organizing seminars, but none that publicly take critical stances against the government. But Libya has no independent nongovernmental organizations.
The only organizations that can do human rights work, the most sensitive area of all in Libya, derive their political standing from their personal affiliation with the regime. The main organization that can publicly criticize human rights violations is the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (Gaddafi Foundation), chaired by Saif al-Islam al-Gadaffi.
A second organization, Waatasemu, is run by Dr. Aisha al-Gadaffi, Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi’s daughter, and has intervened in death penalty cases and women’s rights issues. The International Organization for Peace, Care and Relief (IOPCR), run by Khaled Hamedi, the son of a member of the Revolutionary Command Council, is the only organization able to access migrant detention centers.
The abuses of human rights and the recommendations for improvement are virtually identical in the 2006, 2009, and 2011 reports.
Amnesty International has also called on the Libyan government to end its clampdown of peaceful political activists after violence erupted at demonstrations in the city of Benghazi following the arrest of activists ahead of a major demonstration Thursday.
“The Libyan authorities must allow peaceful protests, not try to stifle them with heavy-handed repression, said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“Libyans have the same rights as Egyptians and Tunisians to express discontent and call for reform in their own country, and it is high time the Libyan government recognized that and respected it.”
“People should not be locked up simply because they call for peaceful protests. Libyans have a right to expect reforms, not arrests, detentions and further state repression," said Smart.
One of the consequences of Gadaffi’s inaction on the human rights and economic fronts is that, among all the Middle East nations whose leaders are now facing organized opposition, the Libyan response has been without doubt the most aggressive. Libyan soldiers and police are estimated to have killed 200-400 people as of today, February 21. There have been pitched battles between protesters and Gadaffi supporters in the streets of Benghazi and Tobruk, and most recently, these battles have begun to trickle into the capital, Tripoli. Protesters are reported to have taken control of military bases, and their stocks of arms, in provincial cities
Numerous human rights advocates have been weighing in on Libya’s handling of its current crisis. For example, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information has expressed surprise and resentment at Gaddafi’s continuation of what it termed “practices that need psychological treatment,” such as warning Libyans not to use Facebook and arresting some Internet activists because of their support of the democratic revolution in Egypt, and calling on Libyans to make democratic and economic reforms.
Many Libyan Internet activists have declared their support for the pro-democracy movement and change in Egypt, and have created groups on Facebook to call for political and economic reforms in Libya. Libyan Security Services reportedly arrested a number of them.
The Arabic Network also reported that Gadaffi hired agents to attack activists who call for political reform and an end to in Libya.
The Network said that, “following in the footsteps of the Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Security Services arrested the Libyan activist and former prisoner of conscience, Jamal Al-Hajji, over a fabricated charge of a car accident, similar to the accusations that the Tunisian used to fabricate for dissidents and political activists during his hideous ruling.”
The Arabic Network said, “The best thing for Gadaffi is to step down after seizing power against the will of the Libyans for so long. Democracy and freedoms are essential as air, no dictator or security as cruel as they can be could ever deprive people of them.”
The 2011Human Rights Watch report declares, “The steps Libya has taken to address some of its human rights problems do not go far enough in addressing the systemic and legal infrastructure that deprives Libyans of their basic human rights.”
The report continues: “Libya must ensure that it complies with all of its obligations under international human rights law and should immediately implement a number of reforms in policy, law and practice. The General People’s Congress (the legislative assembly) should repeal all provisions of the penal code and other laws such as Law 71 that violate freedom of expression and association, and that any new draft laws are fully in line with international human rights law.”
Specific recommendations arise from HRW’s concern over the country’s judicial and penal systems. HRW says, “The Internal Security Agency should immediately release all prisoners detained for peacefully exercising their right to free expression or association and compensate them for their detention.”
“In addition, Internal Security agents should immediately release the approximately 200 prisoners they are continuing to detain in Abu Salim prison despite the fact that Libyan courts have acquitted them and ordered their release or that they have completed their sentences.”
The HRW report further urges the People’s Leadership Committees to “immediately inform the families of prisoners who died in the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre of the circumstances of the death of their relatives and give them the remains of their relatives to bury.”
“The authorities must carry out a full and effective investigation and make public the findings. This should be immediately followed by the prosecution of those responsible for the summary execution of those prisoners. Under human rights law, the Libyan government is under an obligation to make reparation and must not pressure the families into accepting compensation instead of pursuing accountability.”
It adds, “The families of prisoners who were killed in Abu Salim have the right to demonstrate peacefully and make demands to the Libyan authorities without intimidation and harassment from the security forces. In addition, in the context of Libya’s increasing political and economic integration in the world community, Human Rights Watch urges all organizations and governments engaging with Libya to ensure that the promotion of human rights in Libya forms part of their relationship.”
Other recommendations to the Libyan Government:
In the area of freedom of expression:
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972, which bans any group activity based on a political ideology opposed to the principles of the 1969 al-Fateh Revolution when Mu’ammar al-Gadaffi led a military coup overthrowing the Libyan monarchy;
· Repeal articles of the penal code that criminalize free expression, including articles 166, 178, 206, 207, and ensure that the new draft penal code is revised to comply with international human rights law;
· Release all individuals imprisoned or detained solely for exercising their right to free expression.
In the area of freedom of association and assembly:
· Allow for the establishment of independent organizations that wish to peacefully exercise freedom of association;
· Revoke the decision to refuse the registration of the Association for Justice and the Center for Democracy, the organizations that a group of lawyers and journalists attempted to establish in 2008;
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972 and related articles of the penal code that criminalize free association and amend Law 19 to allow for the establishment of independent non-governmental organizations;
· Ensure that individuals seeking to establish associations are not harassed by security forces or prosecuted for the subsequent exercise of freedom of assembly;
In the area of legal justice, prisons under the control of the Internal Security Agency should:
· Immediately release all prisoners acquitted by courts; immediately release all prisoners who have served their sentences;
· Implement all legal decisions issued by Libyan courts;
· Allow the Office of the General Prosecutor to conduct investigations regarding detention in Abu Salim and Ain Zara prisons;
· Quash all sentences against and immediately release all political prisoners who are imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of their views or for activities protected by freedom of association and assembly;
· Compensate all who have been arbitrarily detained;
With respect to the State Security Court:
· Clarify the status of the State Security Court in the Libyan legal system;
· Ensure that a right of appeal is available to every defendant and clarify which court is competent to hear that appeal;
· Ensure that defendants have the right to a lawyer of their choice and sufficient access to their lawyers before the court sessions ;
· Ensure that both private and state-appointed lawyers have equal and full access to the case documents;
· Make all decisions rendered by the State Security Court publicly available, especially to the defendant and his family.
With respect to the Death Penalty:
· Order an immediate moratorium on the death penalty;
· Commute all death sentences to terms of imprisonment;
· Eliminate the death penalty as a punishment under Libyan law;
· Become a party to the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which aims at the abolition of the death penalty.
The report also included recommendations to the European Union and the UN Human Rights Council.
As in other Middle Eastern countries currently experiencing political upheavals, economic hardships as well as the human rights deficits are thought to be the major factors driving the uprisings.
The BBC reports that, “After many years when the entire population officially had jobs, Libya is now trying to tackle a growing unemployment problem, as it moves towards a more liberal economy. Previously, everyone who graduated from high school or universities was employed by the state. Officials are struggling to define unemployment and to find solutions for its jobless citizens.”
A Socialist ideology remains deeply entrenched in the mindset of many Libyans.
Over the past decade Libya dramatically transformed its international status from a pariah state under UN, EU and US sanctions to a country that, in 2009 alone, held the Presidency of the UN Security Council, the chair of the African Union and the Presidency of the UN General Assembly.
Libya earned its reputation as a pariah in the world community by attempting to secretly acquire nuclear materials. In 2003, Libya agreed to eliminate all such materials, equipment, and programs resulting in the production of nuclear or other internationally proscribed weapons.
Gadaffi admitted that, in contravention of its international obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Libya had pursued a nuclear weapons program, allegedly to counter the covert Israeli nuclear program. In 2004, the United States and Britain dismantled Libya's nuclear weapons infrastructure with oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Gadaffi's 2003 decision to reveal the true scope of Libya's nuclear ambitions and progress resulted primarily from his increasing desire to regain admission to the international community by renouncing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD); his fear that Libya might be subject to a U.S. invasion, as had Iraq, on the grounds that it possessed WMD; the interception in October 2003 of a ship bound for Libya with a cargo of Pakistani-designed centrifuge parts manufactured in Malaysia; and the promise that long-standing international sanctions imposed because of Libya's terrorist activities would be lifted, leading to economic and other benefits.
U.S. President George W. Bush lifted most of the trade restrictions on Libya, allowing U.S. oil companies to explore Libya’s large oil reserves.
Libya attracted the world’s anger in 1988, with the midair bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, headed for New York, killing all 243 passengers, 16 crew members, and 11 people on the ground.
It was determined that Libyan intelligence agents planned the bombing and one was tried and convicted by Scottish authorities. His release, on humanitarian grounds because of his terminal cancer, drew strong criticism from many world leaders. The Scottish prisoner was greeted as a hero upon his return to Libya and is still alive today.
Less than three years ago, Human Rights Watch handed over to the Libyan Government the 2009 edition of its annual survey, entitled “A Facade of Action -- The Misuse of Dialogue and Cooperation with Rights Abusers.”
The Libyan chapter of the report, like its annual predecessors, made an extensive series of recommendations for ridding the country of its most egregious human rights violations.
The report noted there had been some improvements made in the Libyan human rights environment -- less frequent arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances, greater tolerance of freedom of expression and some progress in addressing gross violations of the past, limited steps toward increased tolerance of dissent, and two new private newspapers and the Internet.
These developments, HRW said, “have created a new limited space for freedom of expression, and some unprecedented public demonstrations have been allowed to take place.”
But HRW found that Libya’s performance in the human rights area was unacceptable. It said the country’s Internal Security Agency “remains responsible for systematic violations of Libyan rights, including the detention of political prisoners, enforced disappearances and deaths in custody.”
Human Rights observers, witnessing the current bloody conflict that many believe could degenerate into a full-blown civil war, are lamenting Col. Gadaffi’s failure to correct these continuing abuses.
HRW lays out the human rights landscape in Libya today. Freedom of expression remains severely restricted by the Libyan penal code. Cracks in the wall that the government has set up against free expression are thin but evident, but there has also been an increase in the number of prosecutions of journalists, although no journalist has been sentenced to prison so far.
HRW found that, “There is no freedom of association in Libya because the concept of an independent civil society goes directly against Gaddaffi’s theory of governance by the masses. Law 71 still criminalizes political parties, and the penal code criminalizes the establishment of organizations that are ‘against the principles of the Libyan Jamahireya system’.”
The report says that Law 19, "On Associations," requires a political body to approve all nongovernmental organizations, does not allow appeals against negative decisions and provides for continuous governmental interference in the running of the organization. The government has refused to allow independent journalists' and lawyers' organizations.
The report notes that Libya’s Justice Ministry has announced plans to reform the most repressive provisions of the penal code. “Yet, despite work to develop a new penal code, an essentially repressive legal framework remains in place, as does the ability of government security forces to act with impunity against dissent.”
HRW adds, “Many trials, especially those before the State Security Court, still fail to meet international due process standards. Overall, unjustified limits on free expression and association remain the norm, including penal code provisions that criminalize "insulting public officials" or "opposing the ideology of the Revolution."
Many relatives of prisoners killed in a 1996 incident at Abu Salim prison are still waiting to learn how their relatives died and to see those responsible punished. The jurisdiction of courts, the duties of government agencies, respect for legal rights of prisoners and adherence to the country’s stated list of human rights often remain murky, erratic and contradictory, the report said.
There are a number of semi-official organizations that do charitable work, providing services and organizing seminars, but none that publicly take critical stances against the government. But Libya has no independent nongovernmental organizations.
The only organizations that can do human rights work, the most sensitive area of all in Libya, derive their political standing from their personal affiliation with the regime. The main organization that can publicly criticize human rights violations is the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (Gaddafi Foundation), chaired by Saif al-Islam al-Gadaffi.
A second organization, Waatasemu, is run by Dr. Aisha al-Gadaffi, Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi’s daughter, and has intervened in death penalty cases and women’s rights issues. The International Organization for Peace, Care and Relief (IOPCR), run by Khaled Hamedi, the son of a member of the Revolutionary Command Council, is the only organization able to access migrant detention centers.
The abuses of human rights and the recommendations for improvement are virtually identical in the 2006, 2009, and 2011 reports.
Amnesty International has also called on the Libyan government to end its clampdown of peaceful political activists after violence erupted at demonstrations in the city of Benghazi following the arrest of activists ahead of a major demonstration Thursday.
“The Libyan authorities must allow peaceful protests, not try to stifle them with heavy-handed repression, said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“Libyans have the same rights as Egyptians and Tunisians to express discontent and call for reform in their own country, and it is high time the Libyan government recognized that and respected it.”
“People should not be locked up simply because they call for peaceful protests. Libyans have a right to expect reforms, not arrests, detentions and further state repression," said Smart.
One of the consequences of Gadaffi’s inaction on the human rights and economic fronts is that, among all the Middle East nations whose leaders are now facing organized opposition, the Libyan response has been without doubt the most aggressive. Libyan soldiers and police are estimated to have killed 200-400 people as of today, February 21. There have been pitched battles between protesters and Gadaffi supporters in the streets of Benghazi and Tobruk, and most recently, these battles have begun to trickle into the capital, Tripoli. Protesters are reported to have taken control of military bases, and their stocks of arms, in provincial cities
Numerous human rights advocates have been weighing in on Libya’s handling of its current crisis. For example, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information has expressed surprise and resentment at Gaddafi’s continuation of what it termed “practices that need psychological treatment,” such as warning Libyans not to use Facebook and arresting some Internet activists because of their support of the democratic revolution in Egypt, and calling on Libyans to make democratic and economic reforms.
Many Libyan Internet activists have declared their support for the pro-democracy movement and change in Egypt, and have created groups on Facebook to call for political and economic reforms in Libya. Libyan Security Services reportedly arrested a number of them.
The Arabic Network also reported that Gadaffi hired agents to attack activists who call for political reform and an end to in Libya.
The Network said that, “following in the footsteps of the Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Security Services arrested the Libyan activist and former prisoner of conscience, Jamal Al-Hajji, over a fabricated charge of a car accident, similar to the accusations that the Tunisian used to fabricate for dissidents and political activists during his hideous ruling.”
The Arabic Network said, “The best thing for Gadaffi is to step down after seizing power against the will of the Libyans for so long. Democracy and freedoms are essential as air, no dictator or security as cruel as they can be could ever deprive people of them.”
The 2011Human Rights Watch report declares, “The steps Libya has taken to address some of its human rights problems do not go far enough in addressing the systemic and legal infrastructure that deprives Libyans of their basic human rights.”
The report continues: “Libya must ensure that it complies with all of its obligations under international human rights law and should immediately implement a number of reforms in policy, law and practice. The General People’s Congress (the legislative assembly) should repeal all provisions of the penal code and other laws such as Law 71 that violate freedom of expression and association, and that any new draft laws are fully in line with international human rights law.”
Specific recommendations arise from HRW’s concern over the country’s judicial and penal systems. HRW says, “The Internal Security Agency should immediately release all prisoners detained for peacefully exercising their right to free expression or association and compensate them for their detention.”
“In addition, Internal Security agents should immediately release the approximately 200 prisoners they are continuing to detain in Abu Salim prison despite the fact that Libyan courts have acquitted them and ordered their release or that they have completed their sentences.”
The HRW report further urges the People’s Leadership Committees to “immediately inform the families of prisoners who died in the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre of the circumstances of the death of their relatives and give them the remains of their relatives to bury.”
“The authorities must carry out a full and effective investigation and make public the findings. This should be immediately followed by the prosecution of those responsible for the summary execution of those prisoners. Under human rights law, the Libyan government is under an obligation to make reparation and must not pressure the families into accepting compensation instead of pursuing accountability.”
It adds, “The families of prisoners who were killed in Abu Salim have the right to demonstrate peacefully and make demands to the Libyan authorities without intimidation and harassment from the security forces. In addition, in the context of Libya’s increasing political and economic integration in the world community, Human Rights Watch urges all organizations and governments engaging with Libya to ensure that the promotion of human rights in Libya forms part of their relationship.”
Other recommendations to the Libyan Government:
In the area of freedom of expression:
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972, which bans any group activity based on a political ideology opposed to the principles of the 1969 al-Fateh Revolution when Mu’ammar al-Gadaffi led a military coup overthrowing the Libyan monarchy;
· Repeal articles of the penal code that criminalize free expression, including articles 166, 178, 206, 207, and ensure that the new draft penal code is revised to comply with international human rights law;
· Release all individuals imprisoned or detained solely for exercising their right to free expression.
In the area of freedom of association and assembly:
· Allow for the establishment of independent organizations that wish to peacefully exercise freedom of association;
· Revoke the decision to refuse the registration of the Association for Justice and the Center for Democracy, the organizations that a group of lawyers and journalists attempted to establish in 2008;
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972 and related articles of the penal code that criminalize free association and amend Law 19 to allow for the establishment of independent non-governmental organizations;
· Ensure that individuals seeking to establish associations are not harassed by security forces or prosecuted for the subsequent exercise of freedom of assembly;
In the area of legal justice, prisons under the control of the Internal Security Agency should:
· Immediately release all prisoners acquitted by courts; immediately release all prisoners who have served their sentences;
· Implement all legal decisions issued by Libyan courts;
· Allow the Office of the General Prosecutor to conduct investigations regarding detention in Abu Salim and Ain Zara prisons;
· Quash all sentences against and immediately release all political prisoners who are imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of their views or for activities protected by freedom of association and assembly;
· Compensate all who have been arbitrarily detained;
With respect to the State Security Court:
· Clarify the status of the State Security Court in the Libyan legal system;
· Ensure that a right of appeal is available to every defendant and clarify which court is competent to hear that appeal;
· Ensure that defendants have the right to a lawyer of their choice and sufficient access to their lawyers before the court sessions ;
· Ensure that both private and state-appointed lawyers have equal and full access to the case documents;
· Make all decisions rendered by the State Security Court publicly available, especially to the defendant and his family.
With respect to the Death Penalty:
· Order an immediate moratorium on the death penalty;
· Commute all death sentences to terms of imprisonment;
· Eliminate the death penalty as a punishment under Libyan law;
· Become a party to the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which aims at the abolition of the death penalty.
The report also included recommendations to the European Union and the UN Human Rights Council.
As in other Middle Eastern countries currently experiencing political upheavals, economic hardships as well as the human rights deficits are thought to be the major factors driving the uprisings.
The BBC reports that, “After many years when the entire population officially had jobs, Libya is now trying to tackle a growing unemployment problem, as it moves towards a more liberal economy. Previously, everyone who graduated from high school or universities was employed by the state. Officials are struggling to define unemployment and to find solutions for its jobless citizens.”
A Socialist ideology remains deeply entrenched in the mindset of many Libyans.
Over the past decade Libya dramatically transformed its international status from a pariah state under UN, EU and US sanctions to a country that, in 2009 alone, held the Presidency of the UN Security Council, the chair of the African Union and the Presidency of the UN General Assembly.
Libya earned its reputation as a pariah in the world community by attempting to secretly acquire nuclear materials. In 2003, Libya agreed to eliminate all such materials, equipment, and programs resulting in the production of nuclear or other internationally proscribed weapons.
Gadaffi admitted that, in contravention of its international obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Libya had pursued a nuclear weapons program, allegedly to counter the covert Israeli nuclear program. In 2004, the United States and Britain dismantled Libya's nuclear weapons infrastructure with oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Gadaffi's 2003 decision to reveal the true scope of Libya's nuclear ambitions and progress resulted primarily from his increasing desire to regain admission to the international community by renouncing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD); his fear that Libya might be subject to a U.S. invasion, as had Iraq, on the grounds that it possessed WMD; the interception in October 2003 of a ship bound for Libya with a cargo of Pakistani-designed centrifuge parts manufactured in Malaysia; and the promise that long-standing international sanctions imposed because of Libya's terrorist activities would be lifted, leading to economic and other benefits.
U.S. President George W. Bush lifted most of the trade restrictions on Libya, allowing U.S. oil companies to explore Libya’s large oil reserves.
Libya attracted the world’s anger in 1988, with the midair bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, headed for New York, killing all 243 passengers, 16 crew members, and 11 people on the ground.
It was determined that Libyan intelligence agents planned the bombing and one was tried and convicted by Scottish authorities. His release, on humanitarian grounds because of his terminal cancer, drew strong criticism from many world leaders. The Scottish prisoner was greeted as a hero upon his return to Libya and is still alive today.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Libya: The Price of Being Tone Deaf
By William Fisher
Less than three years ago, Human Rights Watch handed over to the Libyan Government the 2009 edition of its annual survey, entitled “A Facade of Action -- The Misuse of Dialogue and Cooperation with Rights Abusers.”
The Libyan chapter of the report, like its annual predecessors, made an extensive series of recommendations for ridding the country of its most egregious human rights violations.
The report noted there had been some improvements made in the Libyan human rights environment -- less frequent arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances, greater tolerance of freedom of expression and some progress in addressing gross violations of the past, limited steps toward increased tolerance of dissent, and two new private newspapers and the Internet.
These developments, HRW said, “have created a new limited space for freedom of expression, and some unprecedented public demonstrations have been allowed to take place.”
But HRW found that Libya’s performance in the human rights area was unacceptable. It said the country’s Internal Security Agency “remains responsible for systematic violations of Libyan rights, including the detention of political prisoners, enforced disappearances and deaths in custody.”
Human Rights observers, witnessing the current bloody conflict that many believe could degenerate into a full-blown civil war, are lamenting Col. Gadaffi’s failure to correct these continuing abuses.
HRW lays out the human rights landscape in Libya today. Freedom of expression remains severely restricted by the Libyan penal code. Cracks in the wall that the government has set up against free expression are thin but evident, but there has also been an increase in the number of prosecutions of journalists, although no journalist has been sentenced to prison so far.
HRW found that, “There is no freedom of association in Libya because the concept of an independent civil society goes directly against Gaddaffi’s theory of governance by the masses. Law 71 still criminalizes political parties, and the penal code criminalizes the establishment of organizations that are ‘against the principles of the Libyan Jamahireya system’.”
The report says that Law 19, "On Associations," requires a political body to approve all nongovernmental organizations, does not allow appeals against negative decisions and provides for continuous governmental interference in the running of the organization. The government has refused to allow independent journalists' and lawyers' organizations.
The report notes that Libya’s Justice Ministry has announced plans to reform the most repressive provisions of the penal code. “Yet, despite work to develop a new penal code, an essentially repressive legal framework remains in place, as does the ability of government security forces to act with impunity against dissent.”
HRW adds, “Many trials, especially those before the State Security Court, still fail to meet international due process standards. Overall, unjustified limits on free expression and association remain the norm, including penal code provisions that criminalize "insulting public officials" or "opposing the ideology of the Revolution."
Many relatives of prisoners killed in a 1996 incident at Abu Salim prison are still waiting to learn how their relatives died and to see those responsible punished. The jurisdiction of courts, the duties of government agencies, respect for legal rights of prisoners and adherence to the country’s stated list of human rights often remain murky, erratic and contradictory, the report said.
There are a number of semi-official organizations that do charitable work, providing services and organizing seminars, but none that publicly take critical stances against the government. But Libya has no independent nongovernmental organizations.
The only organizations that can do human rights work, the most sensitive area of all in Libya, derive their political standing from their personal affiliation with the regime. The main organization that can publicly criticize human rights violations is the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (Gaddafi Foundation), chaired by Saif al-Islam al-Gadaffi.
A second organization, Waatasemu, is run by Dr. Aisha al-Gadaffi, Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi’s daughter, and has intervened in death penalty cases and women’s rights issues. The International Organization for Peace, Care and Relief (IOPCR), run by Khaled Hamedi, the son of a member of the Revolutionary Command Council, is the only organization able to access migrant detention centers.
The abuses of human rights and the recommendations for improvement are virtually identical in the 2006, 2009, and 2011 reports.
Amnesty International has also called on the Libyan government to end its clampdown of peaceful political activists after violence erupted at demonstrations in the city of Benghazi following the arrest of activists ahead of a major demonstration Thursday.
“The Libyan authorities must allow peaceful protests, not try to stifle them with heavy-handed repression, said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“Libyans have the same rights as Egyptians and Tunisians to express discontent and call for reform in their own country, and it is high time the Libyan government recognized that and respected it.”
“People should not be locked up simply because they call for peaceful protests. Libyans have a right to expect reforms, not arrests, detentions and further state repression," said Smart.
One of the consequences of Gadaffi’s inaction on the human rights and economic fronts is that, among all the Middle East nations whose leaders are now facing organized opposition, the Libyan response has been without doubt the most aggressive. Libyan soldiers and police are estimated to have killed 200-400 people as of today, February 21. There have been pitched battles between protesters and Gadaffi supporters in the streets of Benghazi and Tobruk, and most recently, these battles have begun to trickle into the capital, Tripoli. Protesters are reported to have taken control of military bases, and their stocks of arms, in provincial cities
Numerous human rights advocates have been weighing in on Libya’s handling of its current crisis. For example, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information has expressed surprise and resentment at Gaddafi’s continuation of what it termed “practices that need psychological treatment,” such as warning Libyans not to use Facebook and arresting some Internet activists because of their support of the democratic revolution in Egypt, and calling on Libyans to make democratic and economic reforms.
Many Libyan Internet activists have declared their support for the pro-democracy movement and change in Egypt, and have created groups on Facebook to call for political and economic reforms in Libya. Libyan Security Services reportedly arrested a number of them.
The Arabic Network also reported that Gadaffi hired agents to attack activists who call for political reform and an end to in Libya.
The Network said that, “following in the footsteps of the Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Security Services arrested the Libyan activist and former prisoner of conscience, Jamal Al-Hajji, over a fabricated charge of a car accident, similar to the accusations that the Tunisian used to fabricate for dissidents and political activists during his hideous ruling.”
The Arabic Network said, “The best thing for Gadaffi is to step down after seizing power against the will of the Libyans for so long. Democracy and freedoms are essential as air, no dictator or security as cruel as they can be could ever deprive people of them.”
The 2011Human Rights Watch report declares, “The steps Libya has taken to address some of its human rights problems do not go far enough in addressing the systemic and legal infrastructure that deprives Libyans of their basic human rights.”
The report continues: “Libya must ensure that it complies with all of its obligations under international human rights law and should immediately implement a number of reforms in policy, law and practice. The General People’s Congress (the legislative assembly) should repeal all provisions of the penal code and other laws such as Law 71 that violate freedom of expression and association, and that any new draft laws are fully in line with international human rights law.”
Specific recommendations arise from HRW’s concern over the country’s judicial and penal systems. HRW says, “The Internal Security Agency should immediately release all prisoners detained for peacefully exercising their right to free expression or association and compensate them for their detention.”
“In addition, Internal Security agents should immediately release the approximately 200 prisoners they are continuing to detain in Abu Salim prison despite the fact that Libyan courts have acquitted them and ordered their release or that they have completed their sentences.”
The HRW report further urges the People’s Leadership Committees to “immediately inform the families of prisoners who died in the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre of the circumstances of the death of their relatives and give them the remains of their relatives to bury.”
“The authorities must carry out a full and effective investigation and make public the findings. This should be immediately followed by the prosecution of those responsible for the summary execution of those prisoners. Under human rights law, the Libyan government is under an obligation to make reparation and must not pressure the families into accepting compensation instead of pursuing accountability.”
It adds, “The families of prisoners who were killed in Abu Salim have the right to demonstrate peacefully and make demands to the Libyan authorities without intimidation and harassment from the security forces. In addition, in the context of Libya’s increasing political and economic integration in the world community, Human Rights Watch urges all organizations and governments engaging with Libya to ensure that the promotion of human rights in Libya forms part of their relationship.”
Other recommendations to the Libyan Government:
In the area of freedom of expression:
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972, which bans any group activity based on a political ideology opposed to the principles of the 1969 al-Fateh Revolution when Mu’ammar al-Gadaffi led a military coup overthrowing the Libyan monarchy;
· Repeal articles of the penal code that criminalize free expression, including articles 166, 178, 206, 207, and ensure that the new draft penal code is revised to comply with international human rights law;
· Release all individuals imprisoned or detained solely for exercising their right to free expression.
In the area of freedom of association and assembly:
· Allow for the establishment of independent organizations that wish to peacefully exercise freedom of association;
· Revoke the decision to refuse the registration of the Association for Justice and the Center for Democracy, the organizations that a group of lawyers and journalists attempted to establish in 2008;
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972 and related articles of the penal code that criminalize free association and amend Law 19 to allow for the establishment of independent non-governmental organizations;
· Ensure that individuals seeking to establish associations are not harassed by security forces or prosecuted for the subsequent exercise of freedom of assembly;
In the area of legal justice, prisons under the control of the Internal Security Agency should:
· Immediately release all prisoners acquitted by courts; immediately release all prisoners who have served their sentences;
· Implement all legal decisions issued by Libyan courts;
· Allow the Office of the General Prosecutor to conduct investigations regarding detention in Abu Salim and Ain Zara prisons;
· Quash all sentences against and immediately release all political prisoners who are imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of their views or for activities protected by freedom of association and assembly;
· Compensate all who have been arbitrarily detained;
With respect to the State Security Court:
· Clarify the status of the State Security Court in the Libyan legal system;
· Ensure that a right of appeal is available to every defendant and clarify which court is competent to hear that appeal;
· Ensure that defendants have the right to a lawyer of their choice and sufficient access to their lawyers before the court sessions ;
· Ensure that both private and state-appointed lawyers have equal and full access to the case documents;
· Make all decisions rendered by the State Security Court publicly available, especially to the defendant and his family.
With respect to the Death Penalty:
· Order an immediate moratorium on the death penalty;
· Commute all death sentences to terms of imprisonment;
· Eliminate the death penalty as a punishment under Libyan law;
· Become a party to the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which aims at the abolition of the death penalty.
The report also included recommendations to the European Union and the UN Human Rights Council.
As in other Middle Eastern countries currently experiencing political upheavals, economic hardships as well as the human rights deficits are thought to be the major factors driving the uprisings.
The BBC reports that, “After many years when the entire population officially had jobs, Libya is now trying to tackle a growing unemployment problem, as it moves towards a more liberal economy. Previously, everyone who graduated from high school or universities was employed by the state. Officials are struggling to define unemployment and to find solutions for its jobless citizens.”
A Socialist ideology remains deeply entrenched in the mindset of many Libyans.
Over the past decade Libya dramatically transformed its international status from a pariah state under UN, EU and US sanctions to a country that, in 2009 alone, held the Presidency of the UN Security Council, the chair of the African Union and the Presidency of the UN General Assembly.
Libya earned its reputation as a pariah in the world community by attempting to secretly acquire nuclear materials. In 2003, Libya agreed to eliminate all such materials, equipment, and programs resulting in the production of nuclear or other internationally proscribed weapons.
Gadaffi admitted that, in contravention of its international obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Libya had pursued a nuclear weapons program, allegedly to counter the covert Israeli nuclear program. In 2004, the United States and Britain dismantled Libya's nuclear weapons infrastructure with oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Gadaffi's 2003 decision to reveal the true scope of Libya's nuclear ambitions and progress resulted primarily from his increasing desire to regain admission to the international community by renouncing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD); his fear that Libya might be subject to a U.S. invasion, as had Iraq, on the grounds that it possessed WMD; the interception in October 2003 of a ship bound for Libya with a cargo of Pakistani-designed centrifuge parts manufactured in Malaysia; and the promise that long-standing international sanctions imposed because of Libya's terrorist activities would be lifted, leading to economic and other benefits.
U.S. President George W. Bush lifted most of the trade restrictions on Libya, allowing U.S. oil companies to explore Libya’s large oil reserves.
Libya attracted the world’s anger in 1988, with the midair bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, headed for New York, killing all 243 passengers, 16 crew members, and 11 people on the ground.
It was determined that Libyan intelligence agents planned the bombing and one was tried and convicted by Scottish authorities. His release, on humanitarian grounds because of his terminal cancer, drew strong criticism from many world leaders. The Scottish prisoner was greeted as a hero upon his return to Libya and is still alive today.
Less than three years ago, Human Rights Watch handed over to the Libyan Government the 2009 edition of its annual survey, entitled “A Facade of Action -- The Misuse of Dialogue and Cooperation with Rights Abusers.”
The Libyan chapter of the report, like its annual predecessors, made an extensive series of recommendations for ridding the country of its most egregious human rights violations.
The report noted there had been some improvements made in the Libyan human rights environment -- less frequent arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances, greater tolerance of freedom of expression and some progress in addressing gross violations of the past, limited steps toward increased tolerance of dissent, and two new private newspapers and the Internet.
These developments, HRW said, “have created a new limited space for freedom of expression, and some unprecedented public demonstrations have been allowed to take place.”
But HRW found that Libya’s performance in the human rights area was unacceptable. It said the country’s Internal Security Agency “remains responsible for systematic violations of Libyan rights, including the detention of political prisoners, enforced disappearances and deaths in custody.”
Human Rights observers, witnessing the current bloody conflict that many believe could degenerate into a full-blown civil war, are lamenting Col. Gadaffi’s failure to correct these continuing abuses.
HRW lays out the human rights landscape in Libya today. Freedom of expression remains severely restricted by the Libyan penal code. Cracks in the wall that the government has set up against free expression are thin but evident, but there has also been an increase in the number of prosecutions of journalists, although no journalist has been sentenced to prison so far.
HRW found that, “There is no freedom of association in Libya because the concept of an independent civil society goes directly against Gaddaffi’s theory of governance by the masses. Law 71 still criminalizes political parties, and the penal code criminalizes the establishment of organizations that are ‘against the principles of the Libyan Jamahireya system’.”
The report says that Law 19, "On Associations," requires a political body to approve all nongovernmental organizations, does not allow appeals against negative decisions and provides for continuous governmental interference in the running of the organization. The government has refused to allow independent journalists' and lawyers' organizations.
The report notes that Libya’s Justice Ministry has announced plans to reform the most repressive provisions of the penal code. “Yet, despite work to develop a new penal code, an essentially repressive legal framework remains in place, as does the ability of government security forces to act with impunity against dissent.”
HRW adds, “Many trials, especially those before the State Security Court, still fail to meet international due process standards. Overall, unjustified limits on free expression and association remain the norm, including penal code provisions that criminalize "insulting public officials" or "opposing the ideology of the Revolution."
Many relatives of prisoners killed in a 1996 incident at Abu Salim prison are still waiting to learn how their relatives died and to see those responsible punished. The jurisdiction of courts, the duties of government agencies, respect for legal rights of prisoners and adherence to the country’s stated list of human rights often remain murky, erratic and contradictory, the report said.
There are a number of semi-official organizations that do charitable work, providing services and organizing seminars, but none that publicly take critical stances against the government. But Libya has no independent nongovernmental organizations.
The only organizations that can do human rights work, the most sensitive area of all in Libya, derive their political standing from their personal affiliation with the regime. The main organization that can publicly criticize human rights violations is the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (Gaddafi Foundation), chaired by Saif al-Islam al-Gadaffi.
A second organization, Waatasemu, is run by Dr. Aisha al-Gadaffi, Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi’s daughter, and has intervened in death penalty cases and women’s rights issues. The International Organization for Peace, Care and Relief (IOPCR), run by Khaled Hamedi, the son of a member of the Revolutionary Command Council, is the only organization able to access migrant detention centers.
The abuses of human rights and the recommendations for improvement are virtually identical in the 2006, 2009, and 2011 reports.
Amnesty International has also called on the Libyan government to end its clampdown of peaceful political activists after violence erupted at demonstrations in the city of Benghazi following the arrest of activists ahead of a major demonstration Thursday.
“The Libyan authorities must allow peaceful protests, not try to stifle them with heavy-handed repression, said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“Libyans have the same rights as Egyptians and Tunisians to express discontent and call for reform in their own country, and it is high time the Libyan government recognized that and respected it.”
“People should not be locked up simply because they call for peaceful protests. Libyans have a right to expect reforms, not arrests, detentions and further state repression," said Smart.
One of the consequences of Gadaffi’s inaction on the human rights and economic fronts is that, among all the Middle East nations whose leaders are now facing organized opposition, the Libyan response has been without doubt the most aggressive. Libyan soldiers and police are estimated to have killed 200-400 people as of today, February 21. There have been pitched battles between protesters and Gadaffi supporters in the streets of Benghazi and Tobruk, and most recently, these battles have begun to trickle into the capital, Tripoli. Protesters are reported to have taken control of military bases, and their stocks of arms, in provincial cities
Numerous human rights advocates have been weighing in on Libya’s handling of its current crisis. For example, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information has expressed surprise and resentment at Gaddafi’s continuation of what it termed “practices that need psychological treatment,” such as warning Libyans not to use Facebook and arresting some Internet activists because of their support of the democratic revolution in Egypt, and calling on Libyans to make democratic and economic reforms.
Many Libyan Internet activists have declared their support for the pro-democracy movement and change in Egypt, and have created groups on Facebook to call for political and economic reforms in Libya. Libyan Security Services reportedly arrested a number of them.
The Arabic Network also reported that Gadaffi hired agents to attack activists who call for political reform and an end to in Libya.
The Network said that, “following in the footsteps of the Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Security Services arrested the Libyan activist and former prisoner of conscience, Jamal Al-Hajji, over a fabricated charge of a car accident, similar to the accusations that the Tunisian used to fabricate for dissidents and political activists during his hideous ruling.”
The Arabic Network said, “The best thing for Gadaffi is to step down after seizing power against the will of the Libyans for so long. Democracy and freedoms are essential as air, no dictator or security as cruel as they can be could ever deprive people of them.”
The 2011Human Rights Watch report declares, “The steps Libya has taken to address some of its human rights problems do not go far enough in addressing the systemic and legal infrastructure that deprives Libyans of their basic human rights.”
The report continues: “Libya must ensure that it complies with all of its obligations under international human rights law and should immediately implement a number of reforms in policy, law and practice. The General People’s Congress (the legislative assembly) should repeal all provisions of the penal code and other laws such as Law 71 that violate freedom of expression and association, and that any new draft laws are fully in line with international human rights law.”
Specific recommendations arise from HRW’s concern over the country’s judicial and penal systems. HRW says, “The Internal Security Agency should immediately release all prisoners detained for peacefully exercising their right to free expression or association and compensate them for their detention.”
“In addition, Internal Security agents should immediately release the approximately 200 prisoners they are continuing to detain in Abu Salim prison despite the fact that Libyan courts have acquitted them and ordered their release or that they have completed their sentences.”
The HRW report further urges the People’s Leadership Committees to “immediately inform the families of prisoners who died in the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre of the circumstances of the death of their relatives and give them the remains of their relatives to bury.”
“The authorities must carry out a full and effective investigation and make public the findings. This should be immediately followed by the prosecution of those responsible for the summary execution of those prisoners. Under human rights law, the Libyan government is under an obligation to make reparation and must not pressure the families into accepting compensation instead of pursuing accountability.”
It adds, “The families of prisoners who were killed in Abu Salim have the right to demonstrate peacefully and make demands to the Libyan authorities without intimidation and harassment from the security forces. In addition, in the context of Libya’s increasing political and economic integration in the world community, Human Rights Watch urges all organizations and governments engaging with Libya to ensure that the promotion of human rights in Libya forms part of their relationship.”
Other recommendations to the Libyan Government:
In the area of freedom of expression:
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972, which bans any group activity based on a political ideology opposed to the principles of the 1969 al-Fateh Revolution when Mu’ammar al-Gadaffi led a military coup overthrowing the Libyan monarchy;
· Repeal articles of the penal code that criminalize free expression, including articles 166, 178, 206, 207, and ensure that the new draft penal code is revised to comply with international human rights law;
· Release all individuals imprisoned or detained solely for exercising their right to free expression.
In the area of freedom of association and assembly:
· Allow for the establishment of independent organizations that wish to peacefully exercise freedom of association;
· Revoke the decision to refuse the registration of the Association for Justice and the Center for Democracy, the organizations that a group of lawyers and journalists attempted to establish in 2008;
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972 and related articles of the penal code that criminalize free association and amend Law 19 to allow for the establishment of independent non-governmental organizations;
· Ensure that individuals seeking to establish associations are not harassed by security forces or prosecuted for the subsequent exercise of freedom of assembly;
In the area of legal justice, prisons under the control of the Internal Security Agency should:
· Immediately release all prisoners acquitted by courts; immediately release all prisoners who have served their sentences;
· Implement all legal decisions issued by Libyan courts;
· Allow the Office of the General Prosecutor to conduct investigations regarding detention in Abu Salim and Ain Zara prisons;
· Quash all sentences against and immediately release all political prisoners who are imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of their views or for activities protected by freedom of association and assembly;
· Compensate all who have been arbitrarily detained;
With respect to the State Security Court:
· Clarify the status of the State Security Court in the Libyan legal system;
· Ensure that a right of appeal is available to every defendant and clarify which court is competent to hear that appeal;
· Ensure that defendants have the right to a lawyer of their choice and sufficient access to their lawyers before the court sessions ;
· Ensure that both private and state-appointed lawyers have equal and full access to the case documents;
· Make all decisions rendered by the State Security Court publicly available, especially to the defendant and his family.
With respect to the Death Penalty:
· Order an immediate moratorium on the death penalty;
· Commute all death sentences to terms of imprisonment;
· Eliminate the death penalty as a punishment under Libyan law;
· Become a party to the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which aims at the abolition of the death penalty.
The report also included recommendations to the European Union and the UN Human Rights Council.
As in other Middle Eastern countries currently experiencing political upheavals, economic hardships as well as the human rights deficits are thought to be the major factors driving the uprisings.
The BBC reports that, “After many years when the entire population officially had jobs, Libya is now trying to tackle a growing unemployment problem, as it moves towards a more liberal economy. Previously, everyone who graduated from high school or universities was employed by the state. Officials are struggling to define unemployment and to find solutions for its jobless citizens.”
A Socialist ideology remains deeply entrenched in the mindset of many Libyans.
Over the past decade Libya dramatically transformed its international status from a pariah state under UN, EU and US sanctions to a country that, in 2009 alone, held the Presidency of the UN Security Council, the chair of the African Union and the Presidency of the UN General Assembly.
Libya earned its reputation as a pariah in the world community by attempting to secretly acquire nuclear materials. In 2003, Libya agreed to eliminate all such materials, equipment, and programs resulting in the production of nuclear or other internationally proscribed weapons.
Gadaffi admitted that, in contravention of its international obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Libya had pursued a nuclear weapons program, allegedly to counter the covert Israeli nuclear program. In 2004, the United States and Britain dismantled Libya's nuclear weapons infrastructure with oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Gadaffi's 2003 decision to reveal the true scope of Libya's nuclear ambitions and progress resulted primarily from his increasing desire to regain admission to the international community by renouncing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD); his fear that Libya might be subject to a U.S. invasion, as had Iraq, on the grounds that it possessed WMD; the interception in October 2003 of a ship bound for Libya with a cargo of Pakistani-designed centrifuge parts manufactured in Malaysia; and the promise that long-standing international sanctions imposed because of Libya's terrorist activities would be lifted, leading to economic and other benefits.
U.S. President George W. Bush lifted most of the trade restrictions on Libya, allowing U.S. oil companies to explore Libya’s large oil reserves.
Libya attracted the world’s anger in 1988, with the midair bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, headed for New York, killing all 243 passengers, 16 crew members, and 11 people on the ground.
It was determined that Libyan intelligence agents planned the bombing and one was tried and convicted by Scottish authorities. His release, on humanitarian grounds because of his terminal cancer, drew strong criticism from many world leaders. The Scottish prisoner was greeted as a hero upon his return to Libya and is still alive today.
Democracy? Not So Fast: Address Culture of Police Brutality
By William Fisher
Eleven days before he finally resigned, Hosni Mubarak may have had a chance to reverse his fortunes. Suddenly filled with a spirit of peace-making and reconciliation, the president offered up a smorgasbord of “reforms” he promised to make.
Among them was amending several articles of the Egyptian Constitution. Calls for these amendments had been going on for years. So central were they to the political well-being of the Egyptian people, that foreign powers – principally the United States –had intervened privately and publicly -- to persuade its most dependable Middle East ally to actually get something done.
But it was too late. The crowd in Tahrir Square didn’t believe their President. They had heard it all before. Mubarak was through.
So, days later, the task of re-writing the Constitutional amendments fell to a committee appointed by the Military Panel now governing Egypt.
Why is this important? Because over the years, the Mubarak regime created amendments to the Constitution. Their purpose was to make it virtually impossible to become a candidate, become a recognized political party, and have competent and independent monitoring of all elections.
Writing these new Constitutional articles is a modest assignment. The committee is not mandated to rewrite the entire Constitution; that may come later. But the Committee’s work is nonetheless critical. For it will be addressing the articles that, more than any others, have promulgated one-man rule in Egypt, kept the opposition from forming legal political parties, and thus effectively marginalized all candidates not named Mubarak.
The committee will work to be responsive to the leaders of the Tahrir Square opposition. They want the constitutional changes to reflect clearer separation of powers, strengthening of an independent judiciary, and less power for the president. That won’t all happen by writing a few amendments, but it’s a start.
And unless the committee finishes its work and the public votes ‘yes’ in a scheduled April referendum, it will be impossible to hold a presidential election in November.
Here, with thanks to Reuters, are the Articles the Committee is working on:
Article 77 of the suspended constitution allowed the president to seek re-election indefinitely. After specifying the length of the president’s term, the article says he “may be re-elected for other successive terms.”
The term of the Presidency is six Gregorian years starting from the date of the announcement of the result of the plebiscite that is used to decide the winner. The opposition has frequently called for a two-term limit on the president. This is a customary practice ion many democratic countries.
Article 88 cancelled the direct supervision of elections by the judiciary. Replacing it in 1977 was the Supreme Electoral Commission, of which the opposition has been widely critical for its lack of independence. Parliamentary elections were largely controlled by the Ministry of Interior.
The opposition has always called for constitutional changes to deter election rigging, a widespread practice for many decades. Supervision of selections by the relatively clean-handed judiciary was seen by the opposition as a deterrent to vote rigging. This practice has resulted in election results that were patently fraudulent and which earned Egypt the disrespect of many of its most important allies.
Article 93 dictates that the eligibility of its members can be decided only the People’s Assembly. The ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) majority has used this article to ignore court rulings invalidating election results.
Article 179, which will be eliminated, allowed the president to refer any terror related case to any judicial body, which gave him the right to use
military courts.
Article 189 says the president can ask parliament to approve an amendment or parliament can propose its own amendments. But all amendments must be approved in a referendum.
Heading the Committee is retired judge Tareq al-Bishry, reputedly respected in legal circles for his independent views. Marwa Al-A'sar of Egypt’s Daily News reports that Al-Bishry has been a strong supporter of an independent judiciary, though legal experts have said the Egyptian judiciary was subjected to increasing political meddling during Mubarak's 30-year rule.
Many in the opposition are voicing criticism of their new military bosses for not acting quickly to lift the so-called Emergency Law, which has been in effect continuously, with one brief hiatus, for thirty years. The emergency powers were implemented in 1981, after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat.
Mubarak made numerous promises to repeal these laws, but never followed through. In the last few years, the Mubarak regime introduced a set of 34 new constitutional articles, meant to be a substitute for the emergency laws.
But Mubarak’s critics say the amendments would have enabled a replacement of emergency laws with something just as authoritarian - but permanent.
The 34 new articles were approved by a vote in parliament, which was dominated by members of the ruling National Democratic Party. They would have written into permanent law emergency-style powers that, according Amnesty International, would have been used to violate human rights.
A week later they were put to a popular vote. Government officials said they were approved by more than three-quarters of voters, although the turnout was low - 27% according to official figures, much lower by other independent groups.
The opposition, led by independent supporters of the banned Muslim Brotherhood movement, boycotted the vote, saying the lightening referendum did not give them a chance to mount a proper "No" campaign.
The 34 new articles never became part of the Constitution.
But, in whatever form, the emergency laws have been used to trash the human rights of thousands of people who found themselves in conflict with the police and the security services. Capricious detentions. Incommunicado imprisonment. Torture. Police impunity. Denial of legal and family visits. Deaths in detention.
It is clear that democracy cannot flourish when laws like these are on the books and are being widely used. So hopefully the new military leaders will lift the emergency laws even before the April referendum.
But that moment is down the road a bit.
The first order of business now is the composition of four or five constitutional articles. And, even at this early stage, the hand-over of the rewriting to a committee has not gone without criticism. Thirty-one human rights organizations have criticized the amendment committee constituted by the military.
Rights groups say that committee membership is tilted toward particular ideologies, that it includes former Mubarak officials, and that it is a male-only group, despite the presence of many qualified women.
The organizations also charged that, in 2005 and 2007, some committee members belonged to legislation committees under the former regime, where they helped prepare flawed legislation and constitutional amendments.
The Rights groups also said that the committee lacked constitutional law experts who were independent and trusted by the public. Nor did it reflect Egypt's political and social diversity, they declared.
They said it looked like a coalition between members of the former regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michele Dunne, a senior Middle East analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Truthout that the drafting committee has adopted “a very fast process.” But she adds, “We should also bear in mind that the articles to be amended were very controversial and lawyers and NGOs had already done a lot of spade work on how they should be amended, so perhaps some of that work will be used now.”
But even if the committee completes its work on time and an April referendum overwhelmingly approves the new constitutional articles, the new Egypt will have simply taken another of many baby steps toward democracy.
The Emergency Law must be addressed. Some new rules will have to be written regarding Parliamentary elections and Parliamentary power. Someone or some body is sooner or later going to have to take a look at the opaque web of business and economic interests spun by the military’s crony-capitalism . The issue of corruption probably does not require any new laws, rather the implementation of laws already on the books.
The former Mubarak ministers now charged with corruption were charged as a last-gasp distraction by Mubarak. Their guilt or innocence will be decided by a court, but there is nothing to suggest that they would have been charged with anything at any time absent the Mubarak crisis.
How much of such an agenda the military will welcome with open arms is questionable. Every senior military man now on the ruling council owes his appointment – and in many case, his prosperity -- to Mubarak.
Arguably, the most important next step for Egypt beyond amending the constitution, is the emergence of a leader. Many in the country are calling for a leader capable of exercising “adult supervision” over the incredibly diverse souls who slept in Tahrir Square. Just as many others are saying that only the youth of the country can carry the spirit of the uprising from Tahrir Square into the Presidential Palace.
Notes of caution have been delivered to the folks in the Square by thousands of commentators inside and outside Egypt. They have been cautioned about euphoria. They have been told that “democracy is not a plan.” They have been warned about faux leaders, about running too fast, about trying to get everything absolutely perfect.
That’s not possible, and is it undisputed that these young people and their elders are going to make mistakes along the way. Expect them and undoing them can be easier.
And follow the advice of Rami Khoury, Lebanese-born, American-educated journalist and policy wonk:
“It takes time and energy to re-legitimize an entire national governance system and power structure that have been criminalized, privatized, monopolized and militarized by small groups of petty autocrats and thieving families.
“Tunisia and Egypt are the first to embark on this historic journey, and other Arabs will soon follow, because most Arab countries suffer the same deficiencies that have been exposed for all to see in Egypt.
“Make no mistake about it, we are witnessing an epic, historic moment of the birth of concepts that have long been denied to ordinary Arabs: the right to define ourselves and our governments, to assert our national values, to shape our governance systems, and to engage with each other and the rest of the world as free human beings, with rights that will not be denied forever.”
Eleven days before he finally resigned, Hosni Mubarak may have had a chance to reverse his fortunes. Suddenly filled with a spirit of peace-making and reconciliation, the president offered up a smorgasbord of “reforms” he promised to make.
Among them was amending several articles of the Egyptian Constitution. Calls for these amendments had been going on for years. So central were they to the political well-being of the Egyptian people, that foreign powers – principally the United States –had intervened privately and publicly -- to persuade its most dependable Middle East ally to actually get something done.
But it was too late. The crowd in Tahrir Square didn’t believe their President. They had heard it all before. Mubarak was through.
So, days later, the task of re-writing the Constitutional amendments fell to a committee appointed by the Military Panel now governing Egypt.
Why is this important? Because over the years, the Mubarak regime created amendments to the Constitution. Their purpose was to make it virtually impossible to become a candidate, become a recognized political party, and have competent and independent monitoring of all elections.
Writing these new Constitutional articles is a modest assignment. The committee is not mandated to rewrite the entire Constitution; that may come later. But the Committee’s work is nonetheless critical. For it will be addressing the articles that, more than any others, have promulgated one-man rule in Egypt, kept the opposition from forming legal political parties, and thus effectively marginalized all candidates not named Mubarak.
The committee will work to be responsive to the leaders of the Tahrir Square opposition. They want the constitutional changes to reflect clearer separation of powers, strengthening of an independent judiciary, and less power for the president. That won’t all happen by writing a few amendments, but it’s a start.
And unless the committee finishes its work and the public votes ‘yes’ in a scheduled April referendum, it will be impossible to hold a presidential election in November.
Here, with thanks to Reuters, are the Articles the Committee is working on:
Article 77 of the suspended constitution allowed the president to seek re-election indefinitely. After specifying the length of the president’s term, the article says he “may be re-elected for other successive terms.”
The term of the Presidency is six Gregorian years starting from the date of the announcement of the result of the plebiscite that is used to decide the winner. The opposition has frequently called for a two-term limit on the president. This is a customary practice ion many democratic countries.
Article 88 cancelled the direct supervision of elections by the judiciary. Replacing it in 1977 was the Supreme Electoral Commission, of which the opposition has been widely critical for its lack of independence. Parliamentary elections were largely controlled by the Ministry of Interior.
The opposition has always called for constitutional changes to deter election rigging, a widespread practice for many decades. Supervision of selections by the relatively clean-handed judiciary was seen by the opposition as a deterrent to vote rigging. This practice has resulted in election results that were patently fraudulent and which earned Egypt the disrespect of many of its most important allies.
Article 93 dictates that the eligibility of its members can be decided only the People’s Assembly. The ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) majority has used this article to ignore court rulings invalidating election results.
Article 179, which will be eliminated, allowed the president to refer any terror related case to any judicial body, which gave him the right to use
military courts.
Article 189 says the president can ask parliament to approve an amendment or parliament can propose its own amendments. But all amendments must be approved in a referendum.
Heading the Committee is retired judge Tareq al-Bishry, reputedly respected in legal circles for his independent views. Marwa Al-A'sar of Egypt’s Daily News reports that Al-Bishry has been a strong supporter of an independent judiciary, though legal experts have said the Egyptian judiciary was subjected to increasing political meddling during Mubarak's 30-year rule.
Many in the opposition are voicing criticism of their new military bosses for not acting quickly to lift the so-called Emergency Law, which has been in effect continuously, with one brief hiatus, for thirty years. The emergency powers were implemented in 1981, after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat.
Mubarak made numerous promises to repeal these laws, but never followed through. In the last few years, the Mubarak regime introduced a set of 34 new constitutional articles, meant to be a substitute for the emergency laws.
But Mubarak’s critics say the amendments would have enabled a replacement of emergency laws with something just as authoritarian - but permanent.
The 34 new articles were approved by a vote in parliament, which was dominated by members of the ruling National Democratic Party. They would have written into permanent law emergency-style powers that, according Amnesty International, would have been used to violate human rights.
A week later they were put to a popular vote. Government officials said they were approved by more than three-quarters of voters, although the turnout was low - 27% according to official figures, much lower by other independent groups.
The opposition, led by independent supporters of the banned Muslim Brotherhood movement, boycotted the vote, saying the lightening referendum did not give them a chance to mount a proper "No" campaign.
The 34 new articles never became part of the Constitution.
But, in whatever form, the emergency laws have been used to trash the human rights of thousands of people who found themselves in conflict with the police and the security services. Capricious detentions. Incommunicado imprisonment. Torture. Police impunity. Denial of legal and family visits. Deaths in detention.
It is clear that democracy cannot flourish when laws like these are on the books and are being widely used. So hopefully the new military leaders will lift the emergency laws even before the April referendum.
But that moment is down the road a bit.
The first order of business now is the composition of four or five constitutional articles. And, even at this early stage, the hand-over of the rewriting to a committee has not gone without criticism. Thirty-one human rights organizations have criticized the amendment committee constituted by the military.
Rights groups say that committee membership is tilted toward particular ideologies, that it includes former Mubarak officials, and that it is a male-only group, despite the presence of many qualified women.
The organizations also charged that, in 2005 and 2007, some committee members belonged to legislation committees under the former regime, where they helped prepare flawed legislation and constitutional amendments.
The Rights groups also said that the committee lacked constitutional law experts who were independent and trusted by the public. Nor did it reflect Egypt's political and social diversity, they declared.
They said it looked like a coalition between members of the former regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michele Dunne, a senior Middle East analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Truthout that the drafting committee has adopted “a very fast process.” But she adds, “We should also bear in mind that the articles to be amended were very controversial and lawyers and NGOs had already done a lot of spade work on how they should be amended, so perhaps some of that work will be used now.”
But even if the committee completes its work on time and an April referendum overwhelmingly approves the new constitutional articles, the new Egypt will have simply taken another of many baby steps toward democracy.
The Emergency Law must be addressed. Some new rules will have to be written regarding Parliamentary elections and Parliamentary power. Someone or some body is sooner or later going to have to take a look at the opaque web of business and economic interests spun by the military’s crony-capitalism . The issue of corruption probably does not require any new laws, rather the implementation of laws already on the books.
The former Mubarak ministers now charged with corruption were charged as a last-gasp distraction by Mubarak. Their guilt or innocence will be decided by a court, but there is nothing to suggest that they would have been charged with anything at any time absent the Mubarak crisis.
How much of such an agenda the military will welcome with open arms is questionable. Every senior military man now on the ruling council owes his appointment – and in many case, his prosperity -- to Mubarak.
Arguably, the most important next step for Egypt beyond amending the constitution, is the emergence of a leader. Many in the country are calling for a leader capable of exercising “adult supervision” over the incredibly diverse souls who slept in Tahrir Square. Just as many others are saying that only the youth of the country can carry the spirit of the uprising from Tahrir Square into the Presidential Palace.
Notes of caution have been delivered to the folks in the Square by thousands of commentators inside and outside Egypt. They have been cautioned about euphoria. They have been told that “democracy is not a plan.” They have been warned about faux leaders, about running too fast, about trying to get everything absolutely perfect.
That’s not possible, and is it undisputed that these young people and their elders are going to make mistakes along the way. Expect them and undoing them can be easier.
And follow the advice of Rami Khoury, Lebanese-born, American-educated journalist and policy wonk:
“It takes time and energy to re-legitimize an entire national governance system and power structure that have been criminalized, privatized, monopolized and militarized by small groups of petty autocrats and thieving families.
“Tunisia and Egypt are the first to embark on this historic journey, and other Arabs will soon follow, because most Arab countries suffer the same deficiencies that have been exposed for all to see in Egypt.
“Make no mistake about it, we are witnessing an epic, historic moment of the birth of concepts that have long been denied to ordinary Arabs: the right to define ourselves and our governments, to assert our national values, to shape our governance systems, and to engage with each other and the rest of the world as free human beings, with rights that will not be denied forever.”
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Revolutionary Residue: Political Prisoners
By William Fisher
Major international human rights groups are demanding that Egypt’s new military rulers immediately release all political prisoners, or charge them with a criminal offense, bring them before an independent judge, and try them before a court that meets international fair trial standards.
On February 13, 2011, the ruling High Military Council ordered the suspension of the constitution and the dissolution of parliament, and promised free and fair elections, but said nothing about prisoners and their fate.
There are thousands of political prisoners in Egypt’s jails. Of these, 1500-2000 were taken into custody during the pro-democracy demonstrations. Egypt has released 34 of these in Cairo and 16 protestors who were arrested in North Sinai province.
The release of the 34 political prisoners was ordered by the newly appointed Interior Minister, Mahmoud Wagdi. These prisoners were among those turning themselves in to the authorities after escaping from custody during the wave of prison-breaks sparked by a state of lawlessness after the massive demonstrations that started on January
25. Thousands of prisoners reportedly escaped from jails amid the nationwide uprising.
Pro-democracy protesters arrested by the police of the Ministry of the Interior told journalists of the serious abuse they suffered in custody. They were eventually turned over the Military Police.
Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch said that "Protesters initially greeted the military as their protector from the abuses of the interior ministry. While the military may have promised not to shoot protesters, it must also respect their right to freedom of assembly and their right not to be arbitrarily detained."
“The first priority of Egypt’s military authorities should be to create a government that respects human rights and establishes the rule of law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “A good place to begin would be for the Higher Military Council to end the state of emergency and demonstrate zero tolerance for the abusive practices of the past.”
T. Kumar, Amnesty International’s Director of International Advocacy, told us, “The military council needs to release these prisoners immediately or charge them with a crime. If they simply hold them incommunicado, they will be doing exactly what President Mubarak did.”
He added that Amnesty has been demanding an honest penal system for years under Mubarak’s rule. “We’re not saying anything different now.”
In its communiqué number five on February 13, the Higher Military Council announced that it was setting up a committee to draft a new constitution to be submitted to referendum. Human Rights Watch urged the council to ensure that all bodies tasked with drafting the constitution and planning the transition to democracy are inclusive, credible, transparent, and accountable.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) recommend that military authorities should take the following six steps “to build confidence.”
· Immediately release all detainees still in military custody or charge them with a recognizable criminal offense under the regular criminal law, bring them immediately before an independent judge, and try them before a court meeting international fair trial standards;
· Ensure an independent, thorough, and transparent investigation of all credible allegations of torture by the military police over the past two weeks, including six cases reported to Human Rights Watch;
· Repeal the Emergency Law that gives the Interior Ministry broad powers to arrest and detain people arbitrarily and that limits the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly;
· Ensure the right to freedom of assembly by allowing for peaceful public protests as well as the right of workers to organize independent trade unions and conduct peaceful strikes;
· Publicly announce a policy of zero tolerance regarding torture or ill treatment and enforced disappearance by State Security Investigations and other ministry of interior officers as well as military officers. Instruct all security forces and members of the armed forces to refuse to obey any order to carry out such abuse and warn that they will face criminal prosecution;
· Instruct the Public Prosecutor to initiate investigations against ministry of interior officials, including senior officials, who have ordered, condoned, or carried out torture in the past, and in particular investigate State Security Investigations officers who allegedly “disappeared” detainees and subjected them to torture.
“The Egyptian military command says they intervened to guarantee the wishes of the people,” Roth said. “The paramount desire of a people who had long suffered under authoritarian rule is to uphold the rule of law and protect fundamental human rights.”
But the Council refused, for now, demands to release political prisoners and overturn Egypt's state-of-emergency law, “a legal measure [ousted President Hosni] Mubarak relied on for three decades to arrest dissidents.”
Before Mubarak’s resignation, Vice President Omar Suleiman appeared to have won the blessing of both the Mubarak and Obama administrations as the leader of a political transition toward democracy in Egypt.
But the New York Times reported that “human rights advocates say that so far Mr. Suleiman, who also is in charge of Egyptian intelligence, has shown no sign of discontinuing the practice of extra-legal detention of political opponents — a hallmark of President Hosni Mubarak’s nearly 30-year rule that is a central grievance of the protesters in the streets.”
The Military also appeared to gain widespread approval from the protesters, though many knowledgeable observers pointed out that the military police had committed more than their share of brutality and abuse of prisoners in detention.
The Guardian newspaper reported that “the Egyptian military has secretly detained hundreds and possibly thousands of suspected government opponents since mass protests against President Hosni Mubarak began, and at least some of these detainees have been tortured, according to testimony gathered by the newspaper.”
It went on to say, “The military has claimed to be neutral, merely keeping anti-Mubarak protesters and loyalists apart. But human rights campaigners say this is clearly no longer the case, accusing the army of involvement in both disappearances and torture – abuses Egyptians have for years associated with the notorious state security intelligence (SSI) but not the army.”
Who are Egypt’s “political prisoners”?
Several hundred are believed to be demonstrators who were arrested during the Tahrir Square demonstrations. The UK’S Guardian newspaper reported that journalists, human rights defenders, and youth activists were arrested “to intimidate reporting and undermine support for the Tahrir protest.”
The paper noted that “These arrests and reports of abuse in detention are exactly the types of practices that sparked the demonstrations in the first place.”
Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch, said the Egyptian government tortured at least five of them.
He added that, in the cases Human Rights Watch has documented, those detained, who have since been released, said that they were held incommunicado, did not have access to a lawyer, and could not inform their families about their detention.
Among the political prisoners still in detention are bloggers, journalists and political activists. Many have been convicted for insulting the president or writing articles that would negatively affect Egypt’s “image.” Both are crimes under Egyptian law.
But the majority of political prisoners are thought to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Among those, there are several hundred who were arrested in the period immediately preceding the Parliamentary election, which was held in November and December of 2010. The election has been widely condemned inside and outside Egypt as having been rigged.
Major international human rights groups are demanding that Egypt’s new military rulers immediately release all political prisoners, or charge them with a criminal offense, bring them before an independent judge, and try them before a court that meets international fair trial standards.
On February 13, 2011, the ruling High Military Council ordered the suspension of the constitution and the dissolution of parliament, and promised free and fair elections, but said nothing about prisoners and their fate.
There are thousands of political prisoners in Egypt’s jails. Of these, 1500-2000 were taken into custody during the pro-democracy demonstrations. Egypt has released 34 of these in Cairo and 16 protestors who were arrested in North Sinai province.
The release of the 34 political prisoners was ordered by the newly appointed Interior Minister, Mahmoud Wagdi. These prisoners were among those turning themselves in to the authorities after escaping from custody during the wave of prison-breaks sparked by a state of lawlessness after the massive demonstrations that started on January
25. Thousands of prisoners reportedly escaped from jails amid the nationwide uprising.
Pro-democracy protesters arrested by the police of the Ministry of the Interior told journalists of the serious abuse they suffered in custody. They were eventually turned over the Military Police.
Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch said that "Protesters initially greeted the military as their protector from the abuses of the interior ministry. While the military may have promised not to shoot protesters, it must also respect their right to freedom of assembly and their right not to be arbitrarily detained."
“The first priority of Egypt’s military authorities should be to create a government that respects human rights and establishes the rule of law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “A good place to begin would be for the Higher Military Council to end the state of emergency and demonstrate zero tolerance for the abusive practices of the past.”
T. Kumar, Amnesty International’s Director of International Advocacy, told us, “The military council needs to release these prisoners immediately or charge them with a crime. If they simply hold them incommunicado, they will be doing exactly what President Mubarak did.”
He added that Amnesty has been demanding an honest penal system for years under Mubarak’s rule. “We’re not saying anything different now.”
In its communiqué number five on February 13, the Higher Military Council announced that it was setting up a committee to draft a new constitution to be submitted to referendum. Human Rights Watch urged the council to ensure that all bodies tasked with drafting the constitution and planning the transition to democracy are inclusive, credible, transparent, and accountable.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) recommend that military authorities should take the following six steps “to build confidence.”
· Immediately release all detainees still in military custody or charge them with a recognizable criminal offense under the regular criminal law, bring them immediately before an independent judge, and try them before a court meeting international fair trial standards;
· Ensure an independent, thorough, and transparent investigation of all credible allegations of torture by the military police over the past two weeks, including six cases reported to Human Rights Watch;
· Repeal the Emergency Law that gives the Interior Ministry broad powers to arrest and detain people arbitrarily and that limits the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly;
· Ensure the right to freedom of assembly by allowing for peaceful public protests as well as the right of workers to organize independent trade unions and conduct peaceful strikes;
· Publicly announce a policy of zero tolerance regarding torture or ill treatment and enforced disappearance by State Security Investigations and other ministry of interior officers as well as military officers. Instruct all security forces and members of the armed forces to refuse to obey any order to carry out such abuse and warn that they will face criminal prosecution;
· Instruct the Public Prosecutor to initiate investigations against ministry of interior officials, including senior officials, who have ordered, condoned, or carried out torture in the past, and in particular investigate State Security Investigations officers who allegedly “disappeared” detainees and subjected them to torture.
“The Egyptian military command says they intervened to guarantee the wishes of the people,” Roth said. “The paramount desire of a people who had long suffered under authoritarian rule is to uphold the rule of law and protect fundamental human rights.”
But the Council refused, for now, demands to release political prisoners and overturn Egypt's state-of-emergency law, “a legal measure [ousted President Hosni] Mubarak relied on for three decades to arrest dissidents.”
Before Mubarak’s resignation, Vice President Omar Suleiman appeared to have won the blessing of both the Mubarak and Obama administrations as the leader of a political transition toward democracy in Egypt.
But the New York Times reported that “human rights advocates say that so far Mr. Suleiman, who also is in charge of Egyptian intelligence, has shown no sign of discontinuing the practice of extra-legal detention of political opponents — a hallmark of President Hosni Mubarak’s nearly 30-year rule that is a central grievance of the protesters in the streets.”
The Military also appeared to gain widespread approval from the protesters, though many knowledgeable observers pointed out that the military police had committed more than their share of brutality and abuse of prisoners in detention.
The Guardian newspaper reported that “the Egyptian military has secretly detained hundreds and possibly thousands of suspected government opponents since mass protests against President Hosni Mubarak began, and at least some of these detainees have been tortured, according to testimony gathered by the newspaper.”
It went on to say, “The military has claimed to be neutral, merely keeping anti-Mubarak protesters and loyalists apart. But human rights campaigners say this is clearly no longer the case, accusing the army of involvement in both disappearances and torture – abuses Egyptians have for years associated with the notorious state security intelligence (SSI) but not the army.”
Who are Egypt’s “political prisoners”?
Several hundred are believed to be demonstrators who were arrested during the Tahrir Square demonstrations. The UK’S Guardian newspaper reported that journalists, human rights defenders, and youth activists were arrested “to intimidate reporting and undermine support for the Tahrir protest.”
The paper noted that “These arrests and reports of abuse in detention are exactly the types of practices that sparked the demonstrations in the first place.”
Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch, said the Egyptian government tortured at least five of them.
He added that, in the cases Human Rights Watch has documented, those detained, who have since been released, said that they were held incommunicado, did not have access to a lawyer, and could not inform their families about their detention.
Among the political prisoners still in detention are bloggers, journalists and political activists. Many have been convicted for insulting the president or writing articles that would negatively affect Egypt’s “image.” Both are crimes under Egyptian law.
But the majority of political prisoners are thought to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Among those, there are several hundred who were arrested in the period immediately preceding the Parliamentary election, which was held in November and December of 2010. The election has been widely condemned inside and outside Egypt as having been rigged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
