By William Fisher
Pro-democracy protesters filled Tahrir Square in central Cairo and an estimated 2000 gathered outside the State Radio and TV headquarters in the Maspero section last week to express their anger over a new law approved by the Egyptian cabinet that would criminalize demonstrations that "disrupt society or business."
The demonstrations in Tahrir Square and many other locations did result in widespread disruptions to virtually every aspect of Egyptian life. It is unclear whether these demonstrations would have been banned under the new law.
Enactment of such a measure again raises the question of whether the country’s interim military rulers are on the side of the pro-democracy movement or the thousands appointed to positions of power by Mubarak. That group includes every member of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.
The law imposes heavy fines and possible prison sentences on those who defy the ban and also provides for harsh punishments for calling for or inciting sit-ins. The maximum prison sentence one year and fines of up to half a million Egyptian pounds.
A step in the wrong direction and a threat to the forces that brought about the revolution is the way Opposition groups are characterizing the law. Workers’ groups have promised that protests will continue until the military’s ruling Supreme Council opens a dialogue with workers, business owners and civil and political organizations.
The Youth Coalition called on the Council to reject the law and instead abolish the Emergency Law that has been in effect in Egypt for more than thirty years. The Emergency Law gives the government broad rights prohibited by the Egyptian constitution and allows police and state security agents to arrest and detain citizens without due process or access to lawyers or family and to try civilians in military courts.
Shady Ghozali, a member of the Youth Revolution Coalition, told the newspaper Ahram Online "I'm against it [the law], this is against human rights; peaceful demonstrations are amongst the basic human rights."
News of the law drew instant heated reaction on social media sites like Twitter that disseminate calls for demonstrations, now deemed a criminal act. "Where is Essam Sharaf who said my legitimacy is from Tahrir Square and I will return to the street with you if I can't implement your demands," said blogger Amr Ezzat.
Essam Sharaf was appointed by the Egypt’s military rulers to be Prime Minister of the country after the fall of long-time strongman Hosni Mubarak.
Wael Abbas, activist and blogger, commented on the relatively small turnout in Tahrir Square and said that more people would have come out but were frightened of the anti-protest law.
He fumed: “It has scared people and made them worried that they would be slammed with a jail sentence if they come out today. Even Mubarak wasn’t able to pass such a law, so how could they do it?”
Fellow activist Amr Ezzat, said that the low turnout could also be due to the fact that many students are preoccupied with demonstrations within their university campuses.
Ezzat added that the army approved the anti-protest law to try to avoid accusations that they arrested and abused protesters in Tahrir Square on March 9.
The protesters are also voicing their dissatisfaction with the trials of the former ministers and businessmen who prospered during the Mubarak regime. They have dubbed the court cases “imaginary,” and have called for swift and efficient trials for all, including Mubarak and his family, arguing that the former president used to accuse people and put them in jail quickly, and the same should be done to him.
In Maspero, an up-market section of Cairo that was the site of the burning of the Two Martyrs Coptic Church, Copts are protesting the new law but also the failure to arrest the criminals behind the fire.
“We are out today for a symbolic protest to show that we have strength in the street and that we still insist on our earlier demands,’ says Rola Sobhi, one of the Coptic protesters.
Maspero protesters are also calling for the removal of all media personalities associated with the old regime, and the replacement of all editors of national papers..
The protesters chanted, “The people want to free the media.”
“They want to give legitimacy to their actions and this law gives them that legitimacy,” says Ezzat.
Justice Minister Counselor Mohamed Abdel Aziz Al Guindi said the new measure will abort attempts by those affected by the ouster of the former regime to hinder public order and production, the minister told the Egyptian state television.
He cited factional protests that involved sabotage, vandalism and disorder.
Al Guindi noted that there is no ban on demonstrations and protests that are organized in line with the law. He said factional demonstrations are not prohibited on vacations and after the working hours.
However, the minister pointed out that these demonstrations should not be held in a manner that interrupts economic and commercial activity or traffic movement.
He said the new regulations prohibit factional protests in the working places, organizations, public and private banks.
Dr. Yahya Jamal, professor of constitutional law and vice president of the Council of Ministers, has said that the law will have no impact on peaceful demonstrations. But the Youth Coalition called upon the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to reject the law and abolish the emergency law.
The new measure has also drawn attention from overseas human rights activists. Among them is Chip Pitts, a Lecturer in Law at Stanford University Law School and Oxford University.
Pitts told The Public Record, “: Although supposedly targeted at protests that stop work or destroy property, measures which countries are allowed to take temporarily under international law in order to maintain public order and ensure stability for economic and political development, the fact that the Egyptian Cabinet in the current circumstances would enact such criminalization provides further evidence of how ‘fragile and reversible’ (to borrow from the US’s repeated characterization of Afghanistan) the Egyptian gains remain.”
He added, “Clearly, such laws could be a mask for repressing even wholly peaceful, non-disruptive speech, and seem singularly inappropriate given the historic peaceful protests at the very foundation of the Egyptian renaissance. The law demonstrates both the continued fear of genuine reform within the Egyptian establishment, and incomplete commitment to the democratic rights sought by the protesters. Almost certainly inspired by the crackdowns and retained repressive power in countries like Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, this should and will be taken as yet another direct Mubarakist affront to the “Spirit of Tahrir Square” and resisted to the utmost by the Egyptian people.”
The new law has also drawn the ire of another US-based human rights advocate, Human Rights Watch (HRW). The group said the new law violates international law protections for free assembly and should be reversed immediately.
The cabinet’s claims that this law is an exceptional measure under the country’s emergency law, which is still in effect, is a reminder of the need to revoke the emergency law immediately, HRW said. An end to the state of emergency was one of the primary demands of the protesters who gathered in Tahrir Square.
“This virtually blanket ban on strikes and demonstrations is a betrayal of the demands of Tahrir protesters for a free Egypt, and a slap in the face of the families whose loved ones died protesting for freedom,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW” Middle East and North Africa director.
“Any genuine transition toward democracy must be based on respect for the basic rights of the people, including their right to demonstrate,” she said.
HRW said the provisions to criminalize demonstrations that harm public order or public funds are of particular concern because of the sweeping arrests over the past few weeks of protesters accused of disrupting public order and destroying property. On February 25, March 6 and March 9, army and military police officers arrested peaceful demonstrators, detained them, in some cases tortured them, and brought them to trial before military courts that do not meet minimal due process standards.
The military apologized for the excessive use of force against protesters on February 25, but has not issued an apology for the abuses against demonstrators on other occasions, nor has it investigated the cases of torture associated with these arrests. At least 100 protesters remain detained after sentences by military tribunals under the new transitional government. The military has justified these practices based on its stated need to crack down on “thugs” who are disrupting public order.
In the published minutes of the March 24 cabinet meeting, the cabinet justified passing the law by saying that it was responding to a number of requests received “though legal channels.”
The minutes also say that the government was studying how best to “address demands with regards to wages and labor conditions,” referring to the ongoing strikes in various sectors of the economy over the past weeks. It went on to say that it “understood all of the demands by different sectors of society,” but that “the country was currently undergoing a critical period that required protecting its economy and security from manipulation in order to overcome the current crisis and to respond to the legitimate demands of different sectors of society.”
“Concerns about the economy or the security situation are no justification for repressive laws and no substitute for responsible policing and sound economic policies,” Whitson said. “Economic difficulties are no excuse for limiting people’s rights.”
Egypt has been under a state of emergency since 1981, which has allowed for the indefinite detention of thousands of people without charge or trial. In May 2010, then-President Hosni Mubarak renewed the state of emergency for another two years, despite having promised to end it in 2005.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Morocco and Turkey: Templates for MidEast Democracy?
By William Fisher
Such is the state of U.S. cable news and most other traditional media that when two big stories happen at the same time the rest of the world might just as well not exist.
Journalists and their editors are currently preoccupied with Libya and Japan, one caused by man-made hubris, the other triggered by natural disasters.
But as important as these stories undoubtedly are, there are other important events taking place and are largely going uncovered or under-covered by the so-called mainstream media.
So the American public might be forgiven if it didn’t know that dictators in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle East autocracies are banning demonstrations, violently breaking up gathering of protesters, and using paid mercenaries, snipers and its own security services to kill its own people.
Yemen is important to the U.S. because it is the home of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; US forces work with the Yemeni government to locate and snuff out the terrorists.
Bahrain is important to the U.S. because it is important to Saudi Arabia, a supplier of oil. Sunni Bahrain, just down the causeway from Sunni Saudi Arabia, sent in 2,000 troops to help Bahraini forces to help the king hang on to power. Bahrain and the Saudis are worried about the restiveness among the country’s Shia majority, and that majority, largely in the Eastern part of the tiny country, finding common cause with Saudi’s Shias, just across the bay. There have been a number of deaths in the past few days perpetrated by government soldiers and police.
In Saudi Arabia itself, the country’s aging king is attempting to “buy off” the protesters by sinking huge amounts of money into job-creating and training programs, plus giving each Saudi family a substantial cash gift.
In Syria, often thought to be the least likely target of pro-democracy forces because of the iron grip of President Basher al-Asad, demonstrations have grown larger and larger over the past few days and the Syrian military and police are accused of killing many demonstrators. Syria is said to be important to the U.S. because of its prospective role in peace talks with Israel.
And while this enormous ferment is going on, the United States is remaining virtually mute because it says these countries share strategic interests with Washington. Yemen holds the key to the defeat of Al Qaeda. The U.S. Fifth Fleet is housed in Bahrain. Saudi Arabia provides the U.S. with some 12 per cent of its oil; and countries in its sphere of influence account for a market share many times 12 per cent.
Libya is an oil-producer too. But it is ranked 17th in terms of world oil production and produces only about two per cent of world supply. Its oil is sold largely into Europe. Arguably it has zero strategic interest to the U.S., thus making it far easier to decide to proceed with the UN-endorsed, multi-nation “no fly” program on “humanitarian grounds.”
You may have seen snippets of reports on all these happenings during last week or so, and a lot more than snippets if you were watching Al Jazeera or the Real News Network via McClatchy Newspapers.
But what you almost certainly did not see or read much about is what might qualify as “good news” in the Middle East and North Africa.
Some of that hopeful news concerns Morocco. In the March 18 issue of Politico.com David Avital and David Halperin report that Morocco’s King Mohammed VI has established “a foundation for reform.”
Avital and Halperin recommend that the U.S. look to Morocco as a template. “While seeking to curb extremists from taking advantage of the unrest, Washington must change its habit of blindly supporting friendly autocrats, who favor stability over freedom. The U.S. must also work with its regional allies on reforms to create a blueprint for the model modern
Muslim state.”
The authors acknowledge that the Moroccan “model has yet to emerge.” Avital is an executive committee member of Israel Policy Forum. Halperin is a policy analyst at Israel Policy Forum and the Center for American Progress.
Morocco’s progress in recent years, they say, has been significant. “Since
becoming king in 1999, Mohammed VI broke away from his father’s brutal
policies during the ‘Years of Lead’ and immediately began a series of
liberalizing reforms.”
These include permitting the return of political exiles, holding legislative elections, enhancing investing to alleviate poverty, modifying the criminal code and setting up the first truth and reconciliation commission in the Arab world to help mend the wounds of the past and set a new course, they write.
An article by Intissar Fakir, a special assistant to the Deputy President of the National Endowment for Democracy, published in the Arab Reform Bulletin, notes that King Mohammed VI’s March 9 pledge to sponsor broad constitutional reforms following moderately-sized protests on February 20 distinguishes him from other leaders in the region, most of whom have “offered too little in terms of reforms and offered them too late in the process of uprisings to make a difference. On the surface, King Mohammed’s proposed reforms are significant.”
But the lack of specifics about the depth of these reforms creates doubt in view of past experiences, the article says, adding:
“King Mohammed announced in a televised speech a process of constitutional change that will be put to a popular referendum. Proposed reforms would increase the parliament’s powers in unspecified ways, create a more independent judiciary, and grant elected officials executive powers at the provincial and local level within a decentralization scheme first introduced in 2010.
“Decentralization will redistribute power from an appointed governor to new regional representatives to be elected by the people. Under the reforms, the prime minister would have greater executive powers, and the revised constitution would contain greater assurances of political and civil liberties and human rights.
“A commission headed by constitutional law expert Abdelatif Mennouni is tasked with consulting with representatives of labor unions, political parties, civil society, and other interest groups to discuss the scope of these reforms over the coming months.
“The 18-member commission will include representatives from professional syndicates and human rights groups (such as Amina Bouayach of the Moroccan Organization of Human Rights), political activists, judges, as well as technocrats such as Omar Izziman and Lahcen Oulhaj (who represents Amazigh/Berber interests). The committee’s recommendations will be reviewed in June and then put to a national referendum. The king indicated that as soon as these reforms are ratified, they will be implemented.”
But despite the reform-minded agenda of its King, Human Rights Watch has reported that Morocco's security forces have sometimes dispersed large demonstrations “with considerable violence.”
But today (Feb. 20), says Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, “the security forces allowed Moroccan citizens to march peacefully to demand profound changes in how their country is governed.”
“Thousands of Moroccans in cities across the country demonstrated in favor of political reform on February 20, 2011. Mostly peaceful demonstrations and marches took place in towns and villages largely without interference from police, who in some areas were barely in evidence,” she said.
HRW said Morocco's demonstrators encountered none of the deadly force utilized by the security forces against protesters in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen.
“The partnership between the United States, Morocco and the Moroccan people,” Burns said, “is a very high priority for President Obama and Secretary Clinton. It’s never been more important than at this moment.”
Seizing this moment requires the United States to work with Morocco on a blueprint for systematic political and economic reforms that proactively respond to the region’s spreading unrest. A U.S. effort to help Morocco achieve a balance between these reforms and reverence for its own history and religious tradition would be a crucial symbol for the developing Middle East — and its growing ties with the West, HRW says.
Even more important, a U.S.-supported program to encourage greater media freedom, economic development and open political debate could jumpstart a path for Morocco to realize its leadership as a model for re-shaping the Arab world.
Others have suggested that Turkey offers a more reliable template for real change in the Middle East because, while it is still a work in progress, many of its reforms have come to fruition as a result of the governance process.
On the other hand, according to HRW, “Well-founded concerns persist in Turkey about politically motivated prosecutions. Prosecutors and judges have pursued unwarranted cases against journalists and editors, human rights defenders, individuals participating in demonstrations, and those engaged in legal pro-Kurdish political activity.”
The trial of Pınar Selek is an example. It is what HRW calls “a perversion of the criminal justice system and abuse of due process. The pursuit of this case for 12 years violates the most basic requirements for a fair trial. These baseless charges should be dropped once and for all.”
According to Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey researcher at Human Rights Watch. (Istanbul), “The third attempt to convict the human rights activist and writer Pınar Selek on allegations that she was involved in a 1998 deadly explosion is a travesty of justice.”
Here’s the background: In 1998, Selek, then 27, had been working on a street art project in Istanbul when she was arrested. A 19-year-old youth, Abdülmecit Öztürk, was also arrested. The case against them was based on the repeatedly contested claim that the explosion was caused by a bombing and on an allegation of Selek's guilt made by Öztürk during interrogation. He later retracted his allegation in court, saying he had been coerced into making the accusation under torture by police. Selek also alleges she was severely tortured in police custody.
On February 9, 2011, Selek was scheduled to stand trial for her alleged involvement in a 1998 explosion in Istanbul's Spice Bazaar that killed seven people and injured more than 100. It is the third attempt to convict her for carrying out a lethal bombing, despite substantial evidence that there was no bombing and that the explosion was the result of a gas leak.
The court where the third round of this trial will be held, Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 12, has acquitted Selek and her former co-defendant twice on the same charges, in 2006 and 2008. The prosecutor appealed each time.
Despite the evidence from multiple expert bodies showing that the explosion was caused by a gas leak, Turkey's top court of appeal, the Court of Cassation, ordered her retrial again on February 9, 2010, saying that the explosion was a bombing she carried out on behalf of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Selek's co-defendant, who later testified that he did not know her, had originally made a false confession under police torture, implicating Selek. While he was acquitted of all charges, and his acquittal upheld, the inadmissible evidence in the form of this confession remains the sole basis of the case against Selek.
The Court of Cassation's most recent ruling calling for the third trial said that Selek should be retried under article 125 of the previous Turkish Penal Code (law no. 765), which deals with crimes against the integrity of the state, including armed attacks by outlawed separatist groups. She would face a sentence of aggravated life imprisonment, a life sentence without the possibility of release.
Selek is a sociologist who has campaigned and written extensively on human rights issues in Turkey, including issues of gender, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights as well as Kurdish and other minority rights. Her trial is one of the most striking instances of this pattern of unfair trials that appear politically motivated, Human Rights Watch said.
"The 12-year-long campaign to convict Selek for something that the evidence has repeatedly demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that she could not have done, shows that Turkey has a long way to go toward upholding fair trial standards and ensuring judicial independence," Sinclair-Webb said.
Police reports initially discounted a bombing and suggested the explosion was caused by a gas leakage. While the prosecutor who indicted Selek and Öztürk labeled the explosion a bombing, this was later refuted by three separate reports from experts in different university departments. Autopsy reports from the Forensic Medical Institute's First Special Department and later its General Board did not find any evidence that the deaths were caused by a bombing.
When Öztürk was acquitted on all charges, which the Court of Cassation upheld, the original trial court ruled that his statement was inadmissible as evidence against Selek. No other evidence, testimonial or forensic, was ever offered to establish any link between Selek and the explosion.
A written statement purportedly made by Öztürk's aunt in which she allegedly identified Selek as having visited her home was shown to have been fabricated when it became clear in court that his aunt spoke only Kurdish, not Turkish, and she testified that the police had forced her to sign a paper whose contents she did not know. In court, both Öztürk and his aunt stated that they had never even met Selek.
I have another misgiving about Turkey as a template for Middle East democracy. It is that country’s absurd treatment of the Orthodox Christian Church.
In an August 2010 episode of ‘60 Minutes,’ the audience heard one of the world’s most important Christian leaders say he feels ‘crucified’ living in a country which is Muslim-dominated. With as many as 300 million followers world wide Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew feels that the future of the Church in Turkey is threatened as there have been attacks over the years on the Christian properties as well as anti-Christian movements.
The episode showed that empty churches and lack of recognition of the minority religion by the government is almost threatening to destroy the very foundations of Christendom. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who is the leader of 300 Million of the world’s orthodox Christians, said that he is adamant to stay in Turkey because he felt that the orthodox Christians loved the country they were born in and want to die in. At the turn of the century there were as many as 2 million orthodox Christians but now there are merely 4000 left.
Observance of the rights of the minority – especially the religious minority – should be a litmus test for any country claiming to govern democratically. On this score, Turkey fails miserably.
And both Turkey and Morocco will have to have a lot more actual achievements to demonstrate before anyone should be comfortable about hailing them as examples of positive change in the MENA region.
We should applaud them for how far they’ve come. And we should be prepared to help them form more perfect unions – if and when we’re invited.
Such is the state of U.S. cable news and most other traditional media that when two big stories happen at the same time the rest of the world might just as well not exist.
Journalists and their editors are currently preoccupied with Libya and Japan, one caused by man-made hubris, the other triggered by natural disasters.
But as important as these stories undoubtedly are, there are other important events taking place and are largely going uncovered or under-covered by the so-called mainstream media.
So the American public might be forgiven if it didn’t know that dictators in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle East autocracies are banning demonstrations, violently breaking up gathering of protesters, and using paid mercenaries, snipers and its own security services to kill its own people.
Yemen is important to the U.S. because it is the home of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; US forces work with the Yemeni government to locate and snuff out the terrorists.
Bahrain is important to the U.S. because it is important to Saudi Arabia, a supplier of oil. Sunni Bahrain, just down the causeway from Sunni Saudi Arabia, sent in 2,000 troops to help Bahraini forces to help the king hang on to power. Bahrain and the Saudis are worried about the restiveness among the country’s Shia majority, and that majority, largely in the Eastern part of the tiny country, finding common cause with Saudi’s Shias, just across the bay. There have been a number of deaths in the past few days perpetrated by government soldiers and police.
In Saudi Arabia itself, the country’s aging king is attempting to “buy off” the protesters by sinking huge amounts of money into job-creating and training programs, plus giving each Saudi family a substantial cash gift.
In Syria, often thought to be the least likely target of pro-democracy forces because of the iron grip of President Basher al-Asad, demonstrations have grown larger and larger over the past few days and the Syrian military and police are accused of killing many demonstrators. Syria is said to be important to the U.S. because of its prospective role in peace talks with Israel.
And while this enormous ferment is going on, the United States is remaining virtually mute because it says these countries share strategic interests with Washington. Yemen holds the key to the defeat of Al Qaeda. The U.S. Fifth Fleet is housed in Bahrain. Saudi Arabia provides the U.S. with some 12 per cent of its oil; and countries in its sphere of influence account for a market share many times 12 per cent.
Libya is an oil-producer too. But it is ranked 17th in terms of world oil production and produces only about two per cent of world supply. Its oil is sold largely into Europe. Arguably it has zero strategic interest to the U.S., thus making it far easier to decide to proceed with the UN-endorsed, multi-nation “no fly” program on “humanitarian grounds.”
You may have seen snippets of reports on all these happenings during last week or so, and a lot more than snippets if you were watching Al Jazeera or the Real News Network via McClatchy Newspapers.
But what you almost certainly did not see or read much about is what might qualify as “good news” in the Middle East and North Africa.
Some of that hopeful news concerns Morocco. In the March 18 issue of Politico.com David Avital and David Halperin report that Morocco’s King Mohammed VI has established “a foundation for reform.”
Avital and Halperin recommend that the U.S. look to Morocco as a template. “While seeking to curb extremists from taking advantage of the unrest, Washington must change its habit of blindly supporting friendly autocrats, who favor stability over freedom. The U.S. must also work with its regional allies on reforms to create a blueprint for the model modern
Muslim state.”
The authors acknowledge that the Moroccan “model has yet to emerge.” Avital is an executive committee member of Israel Policy Forum. Halperin is a policy analyst at Israel Policy Forum and the Center for American Progress.
Morocco’s progress in recent years, they say, has been significant. “Since
becoming king in 1999, Mohammed VI broke away from his father’s brutal
policies during the ‘Years of Lead’ and immediately began a series of
liberalizing reforms.”
These include permitting the return of political exiles, holding legislative elections, enhancing investing to alleviate poverty, modifying the criminal code and setting up the first truth and reconciliation commission in the Arab world to help mend the wounds of the past and set a new course, they write.
An article by Intissar Fakir, a special assistant to the Deputy President of the National Endowment for Democracy, published in the Arab Reform Bulletin, notes that King Mohammed VI’s March 9 pledge to sponsor broad constitutional reforms following moderately-sized protests on February 20 distinguishes him from other leaders in the region, most of whom have “offered too little in terms of reforms and offered them too late in the process of uprisings to make a difference. On the surface, King Mohammed’s proposed reforms are significant.”
But the lack of specifics about the depth of these reforms creates doubt in view of past experiences, the article says, adding:
“King Mohammed announced in a televised speech a process of constitutional change that will be put to a popular referendum. Proposed reforms would increase the parliament’s powers in unspecified ways, create a more independent judiciary, and grant elected officials executive powers at the provincial and local level within a decentralization scheme first introduced in 2010.
“Decentralization will redistribute power from an appointed governor to new regional representatives to be elected by the people. Under the reforms, the prime minister would have greater executive powers, and the revised constitution would contain greater assurances of political and civil liberties and human rights.
“A commission headed by constitutional law expert Abdelatif Mennouni is tasked with consulting with representatives of labor unions, political parties, civil society, and other interest groups to discuss the scope of these reforms over the coming months.
“The 18-member commission will include representatives from professional syndicates and human rights groups (such as Amina Bouayach of the Moroccan Organization of Human Rights), political activists, judges, as well as technocrats such as Omar Izziman and Lahcen Oulhaj (who represents Amazigh/Berber interests). The committee’s recommendations will be reviewed in June and then put to a national referendum. The king indicated that as soon as these reforms are ratified, they will be implemented.”
But despite the reform-minded agenda of its King, Human Rights Watch has reported that Morocco's security forces have sometimes dispersed large demonstrations “with considerable violence.”
But today (Feb. 20), says Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, “the security forces allowed Moroccan citizens to march peacefully to demand profound changes in how their country is governed.”
“Thousands of Moroccans in cities across the country demonstrated in favor of political reform on February 20, 2011. Mostly peaceful demonstrations and marches took place in towns and villages largely without interference from police, who in some areas were barely in evidence,” she said.
HRW said Morocco's demonstrators encountered none of the deadly force utilized by the security forces against protesters in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen.
“The partnership between the United States, Morocco and the Moroccan people,” Burns said, “is a very high priority for President Obama and Secretary Clinton. It’s never been more important than at this moment.”
Seizing this moment requires the United States to work with Morocco on a blueprint for systematic political and economic reforms that proactively respond to the region’s spreading unrest. A U.S. effort to help Morocco achieve a balance between these reforms and reverence for its own history and religious tradition would be a crucial symbol for the developing Middle East — and its growing ties with the West, HRW says.
Even more important, a U.S.-supported program to encourage greater media freedom, economic development and open political debate could jumpstart a path for Morocco to realize its leadership as a model for re-shaping the Arab world.
Others have suggested that Turkey offers a more reliable template for real change in the Middle East because, while it is still a work in progress, many of its reforms have come to fruition as a result of the governance process.
On the other hand, according to HRW, “Well-founded concerns persist in Turkey about politically motivated prosecutions. Prosecutors and judges have pursued unwarranted cases against journalists and editors, human rights defenders, individuals participating in demonstrations, and those engaged in legal pro-Kurdish political activity.”
The trial of Pınar Selek is an example. It is what HRW calls “a perversion of the criminal justice system and abuse of due process. The pursuit of this case for 12 years violates the most basic requirements for a fair trial. These baseless charges should be dropped once and for all.”
According to Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey researcher at Human Rights Watch. (Istanbul), “The third attempt to convict the human rights activist and writer Pınar Selek on allegations that she was involved in a 1998 deadly explosion is a travesty of justice.”
Here’s the background: In 1998, Selek, then 27, had been working on a street art project in Istanbul when she was arrested. A 19-year-old youth, Abdülmecit Öztürk, was also arrested. The case against them was based on the repeatedly contested claim that the explosion was caused by a bombing and on an allegation of Selek's guilt made by Öztürk during interrogation. He later retracted his allegation in court, saying he had been coerced into making the accusation under torture by police. Selek also alleges she was severely tortured in police custody.
On February 9, 2011, Selek was scheduled to stand trial for her alleged involvement in a 1998 explosion in Istanbul's Spice Bazaar that killed seven people and injured more than 100. It is the third attempt to convict her for carrying out a lethal bombing, despite substantial evidence that there was no bombing and that the explosion was the result of a gas leak.
The court where the third round of this trial will be held, Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 12, has acquitted Selek and her former co-defendant twice on the same charges, in 2006 and 2008. The prosecutor appealed each time.
Despite the evidence from multiple expert bodies showing that the explosion was caused by a gas leak, Turkey's top court of appeal, the Court of Cassation, ordered her retrial again on February 9, 2010, saying that the explosion was a bombing she carried out on behalf of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Selek's co-defendant, who later testified that he did not know her, had originally made a false confession under police torture, implicating Selek. While he was acquitted of all charges, and his acquittal upheld, the inadmissible evidence in the form of this confession remains the sole basis of the case against Selek.
The Court of Cassation's most recent ruling calling for the third trial said that Selek should be retried under article 125 of the previous Turkish Penal Code (law no. 765), which deals with crimes against the integrity of the state, including armed attacks by outlawed separatist groups. She would face a sentence of aggravated life imprisonment, a life sentence without the possibility of release.
Selek is a sociologist who has campaigned and written extensively on human rights issues in Turkey, including issues of gender, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights as well as Kurdish and other minority rights. Her trial is one of the most striking instances of this pattern of unfair trials that appear politically motivated, Human Rights Watch said.
"The 12-year-long campaign to convict Selek for something that the evidence has repeatedly demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that she could not have done, shows that Turkey has a long way to go toward upholding fair trial standards and ensuring judicial independence," Sinclair-Webb said.
Police reports initially discounted a bombing and suggested the explosion was caused by a gas leakage. While the prosecutor who indicted Selek and Öztürk labeled the explosion a bombing, this was later refuted by three separate reports from experts in different university departments. Autopsy reports from the Forensic Medical Institute's First Special Department and later its General Board did not find any evidence that the deaths were caused by a bombing.
When Öztürk was acquitted on all charges, which the Court of Cassation upheld, the original trial court ruled that his statement was inadmissible as evidence against Selek. No other evidence, testimonial or forensic, was ever offered to establish any link between Selek and the explosion.
A written statement purportedly made by Öztürk's aunt in which she allegedly identified Selek as having visited her home was shown to have been fabricated when it became clear in court that his aunt spoke only Kurdish, not Turkish, and she testified that the police had forced her to sign a paper whose contents she did not know. In court, both Öztürk and his aunt stated that they had never even met Selek.
I have another misgiving about Turkey as a template for Middle East democracy. It is that country’s absurd treatment of the Orthodox Christian Church.
In an August 2010 episode of ‘60 Minutes,’ the audience heard one of the world’s most important Christian leaders say he feels ‘crucified’ living in a country which is Muslim-dominated. With as many as 300 million followers world wide Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew feels that the future of the Church in Turkey is threatened as there have been attacks over the years on the Christian properties as well as anti-Christian movements.
The episode showed that empty churches and lack of recognition of the minority religion by the government is almost threatening to destroy the very foundations of Christendom. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who is the leader of 300 Million of the world’s orthodox Christians, said that he is adamant to stay in Turkey because he felt that the orthodox Christians loved the country they were born in and want to die in. At the turn of the century there were as many as 2 million orthodox Christians but now there are merely 4000 left.
Observance of the rights of the minority – especially the religious minority – should be a litmus test for any country claiming to govern democratically. On this score, Turkey fails miserably.
And both Turkey and Morocco will have to have a lot more actual achievements to demonstrate before anyone should be comfortable about hailing them as examples of positive change in the MENA region.
We should applaud them for how far they’ve come. And we should be prepared to help them form more perfect unions – if and when we’re invited.
Egypt: For Now, Euphoria Trumps Details
By William Fisher
Millions of Egyptians turned out in record numbers, proud and euphoric, to vote in a referendum that will help determine important next steps in Egypt’s democratization.
For most, Saturday’s vote was the first they had ever cast in a poll that was not suspected of being rigged and fraudulent. They were proud that it was their spirit and perseverance that brought down the regime of Hosni Mubarak and made this referendum possible. And they were euphoric – though perhaps still a bit unbelieving – that they now had the opportunity to create a government they would be proud of.
But results of the referendum confirmed that there are deep divisions between the various groups that comprised Egypt’s spectacular version of The Arab Spring, which brought down a 30-year dictator in xmxm DAYS.
Of the approximately 18 million men and women who turned out to cast their ballots, 14.1 million (77.2 per cent) voted to approve the nine constitutional amendments. Four million (22.8 per cent) voted against them.
The turnout – 41 per cent of the country’s 45 million eligible voters – was the largest in Egypt’s history.
In announcing the results, Mohamed Ahmed Attia, the chairman of the supreme judicial committee, which supervised the elections, said, “We had an unprecedented turnout because after Jan. 25 people started to feel that their vote would matter.”
In general terms, the liberal wing of the Tahrir Square protesters, voted against approving the amendments. Their principal objection was that the military government did not allow the people enough time to organize political parties and build effective “get out the vote” programs. They also objected to having to vote for all nine amendments as either ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Those who voted to accept the amendments were largely influenced by groups that had built “get out the vote” programs, i.e. The Muslim Brotherhood and the remnants of the National Democratic Party, which was the party of deposed President Hosni Mubarak.
These parties are older and relatively well-established, despite the fact that for many years the Muslim Brotherhood has been outlawed. Its members ran for office as “independents” and the Mubarak regime turned a blind eye until 2010, when the government arrested many MB candidates to keep them from running. In the 2005 election, the Brotherhood won 20 per cent of Parliamentary seats but failed to secure a single one in 2010.
Preliminary analysis of the votes suggested that most of the ‘no’ votes came from Egypt’s urban areas, with ‘yes’ votes carrying the country’s provincial governorates.
Many expert observers were surprised by the outcome. For example, Joel Beinin, professor of Middle East history at Stanford University and a contributing editor at Middle East Report, said, "The Revolutionary Youth Coalition, after an internal debate, has decided to reject the constitutional amendments. Polls, while not entirely reliable, indicate that a majority of Egyptians likewise reject the amendments. The reason is that the amendments address only a few articles relating to election procedures and leave the rest of the highly undemocratic 1971 constitution intact. Many believe that the first step in constructing a democratic Egypt is to convene a committee of experts to draft a democratic constitution which would be submitted for a referendum."
The ruling military council, uncomfortable with the job of governing, was responsible for the short notice given before the Saturday referendum. The referendum triggered a rapid process that will see legislative elections in June and a race for the Presidency in August.
Over the years, the Mubarak regime had created various amendments to the 1971 Constitution. Their purpose was to make it virtually impossible to become a candidate, become a recognized political party, impose term limits, and have competent and independent monitoring of all elections.
If the process proceeds according to the timetable proposed by the military council, the new constitutions will be written by the Parliament that’s elected in June.
If candidates from the Muslim Brotherhood do well in the parliamentary election, they will be in a position to exert heavy influence on the language of the new constitution.
The Brotherhood “will hijack the revolution, and they will not listen to us,”
said Wael Biltagi, 40, an owner of a plastics factory, told the New York Times. “They are stubborn and nobody knows their real intentions. They think they are right and everybody else is wrong. But that is not what the revolution is about.”
While many political players advocated for a complete re-write of the constitution, the committee appointed by the interim military rulers was mandated only to write amendments.
The government said the committee’s work would 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, clear rules governing establishment of political parties, and less power for the president.
But there appeared to have been little consultation between the drafting committee and the opposition as preparation of the amendments progressed. The amendments were announced on Feb. 25 after virtually no public discussion by an 11-member committee of experts chosen by the military. This lack of opportunity for input angered many of the more liberal Tahrir Square groups.
The Arab Reform Bulletin (ARB) reported that because of the huge turnout, more than 1.5 million additional ballots had to be printed in order to accommodate voter turnout.
“Lines stretched for more than one mile in some places, as thousands were lined up outside the polling stations. High numbers of women were seen voting, and the lines for the polling stations were extremely diverse with regard to age, religion, and background. Observers and monitoring groups have reported that the process has unfolded smoothly across the country, with minimal security disruptions.”
The ARB said the Egyptian Coalition for Monitoring the Referendum issued a preliminary report of the referendum, citing scattered issues including some stations failing to open on time, votes being cast outside of the regulatory curtains, some ballot boxes without locks, the un-washable ink on voters' fingers coming off, and a large number of voting forms being unstamped.
The report also mentions that Muslim Brotherhood members have been telling people to vote 'Yes' as they queue.
The referendum came in for criticism by four human rights groups, who filed complaints with the higher judicial committee alleging some irregularities during the voting.
The groups, including Observers without Borders, the New World Foundation for Development and Human Rights, said members of the National Democratic Party and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Salafists tried to influence voters during voting held for the constitutional amendments.
Even officials at polling stations attempted to convince voters to vote "yes",
they said. They also alleged that there were no judges at several polling stations.
There was little violence, despite the small numbers of police and soldiers around polling places. In Mubarak’s time, the army was normally present in significant numbers and often interfered with those who were voting or queuing up to vote.
But in one well-publicized incident, presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei was pelted with rocks and struck with batons, and his car’s windscreen was shattered. It was later asserted that the attack came from a paid mob of criminals, paid by Islamists, though no one has yet produced any evidence.
Another aspect of the referendum is providing a cause for concern among the pro-democracy supporters. The Christian Coptic turnout was a major disappointment to many who thought a heavy Coptic vote could help turn the tide toward a “no” note. But the Copts – 10 per cent of Egypt’s population or 85 million citizens -- more or less sat on their hands. Many Copts evidently thought their vote would be meaningless.
In the months preceding Mubarak’s ouster, relations between the Copts and the government were extremely troubled. Long discriminated against in a host of ways, churches and homes were burned by, it is believed, Islamists who want to establish a Muslim theocracy. This is one of dozens of issues not addressed in any of the amendments.
For a host of other reasons, many Egyptians simply had a tough time making up their minds about which way to vote. Radio talk show host Samar Dahmash Jarrah told The Public Record, “I have had many different Egyptians on our live radio show, True Talk, in Tampa. Most were active participants in the Jan. 25 revolt and all have voted differently on the referendum! Both sides have their own reasons on why they voted ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ and none of these reasons had to do with religion or being conservative or liberal. Many Egyptians who voted ‘Yes’ did so because they want to move on and pay attention to the larger issues that Egypt faces like poverty, Education and Tourism.”
She adds, “My very own family who lives in Egypt voted ‘No’ and ‘Yes!’ One household couldn’t agree on one vote and I guess this is what democracy is after all and this is what counts.”
My old friend Herb Williamson has lived in Egypt for more than twenty years. We worked together when I lived in Egypt. Herb, an American expat, is an Agri-business Development Consultant working on an international donor-funded project. I think his view of the referendum pretty well sums up the way most Egyptians see it.
“In my very humble opinion,” he says, “I think the long term (i.e., six months) consequences of the ‘yes’ decision puts pressure on the less organized political groups to get their act together very quickly if they want to compete successfully against the more established and better organized groups - e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).”
He adds: “Having said that, I think MB will have to work very hard in the upcoming parliamentary elections as many who voted ‘yes’ were simply voting for stability rather the perceived instability a ‘no’ vote would have brought. For example, my housekeeper voted ‘yes,’ because she wants stability. She has no interest in MB. I look forward to the coming six months as they will be full of great debates and arguments as Egyptians progress further down the path of democratic reform!!!”
And he concluded: “The good news is that Egyptians, both those who voted ‘yes’ and those who voted ‘no’, are still savoring last Saturday as it was the first time they had ever voted!!!”
“The first time they had ever voted” – that’s the beauty part. I can understand people raising objections to this or that infraction at the polling places. I can understand that it might have been better for people to be able to vote on each amendment separately.
And I can even understand the Army being uncomfortable with the job of governance; armies are not trained to govern. And they are particularly not trained to govern democratically. They are guided by discipline, hierarchy and the chain of command. They are good at war-fighting, not so good at peace-making.
That said, it’s unfortunate that the generals felt they had to depend only on their own internal resources for guidance. Egypt is home to a host of professionals, experienced in consensus-building. Had any of these men and women been consulted, their first bit of advice would have been: Be transparent; let your constituents know what you’re doing and why; invite their thoughts and incorporate the good ones; share your work as it progresses, not simply the final product.
While there was little consultation with constituents, there was a lot more than would have been the case under the Mubarak regime. The Army met with 25 leaders of political parties, in addition to the Muslim Brotherhood, to discuss the constitutional amendments and mechanisms for impending elections. But no one will argue that a single meeting satisfies the need for transparency.
Still, it is very early days for democracy in Egypt. We shouldn’t be surprised that the army has made some mistakes. Be thankful that none of them seems to be life threatening.
However, down the road, what will be a lot more worrying will be a democratically elected president and his (or her) government making the same mistakes.
Millions of Egyptians turned out in record numbers, proud and euphoric, to vote in a referendum that will help determine important next steps in Egypt’s democratization.
For most, Saturday’s vote was the first they had ever cast in a poll that was not suspected of being rigged and fraudulent. They were proud that it was their spirit and perseverance that brought down the regime of Hosni Mubarak and made this referendum possible. And they were euphoric – though perhaps still a bit unbelieving – that they now had the opportunity to create a government they would be proud of.
But results of the referendum confirmed that there are deep divisions between the various groups that comprised Egypt’s spectacular version of The Arab Spring, which brought down a 30-year dictator in xmxm DAYS.
Of the approximately 18 million men and women who turned out to cast their ballots, 14.1 million (77.2 per cent) voted to approve the nine constitutional amendments. Four million (22.8 per cent) voted against them.
The turnout – 41 per cent of the country’s 45 million eligible voters – was the largest in Egypt’s history.
In announcing the results, Mohamed Ahmed Attia, the chairman of the supreme judicial committee, which supervised the elections, said, “We had an unprecedented turnout because after Jan. 25 people started to feel that their vote would matter.”
In general terms, the liberal wing of the Tahrir Square protesters, voted against approving the amendments. Their principal objection was that the military government did not allow the people enough time to organize political parties and build effective “get out the vote” programs. They also objected to having to vote for all nine amendments as either ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Those who voted to accept the amendments were largely influenced by groups that had built “get out the vote” programs, i.e. The Muslim Brotherhood and the remnants of the National Democratic Party, which was the party of deposed President Hosni Mubarak.
These parties are older and relatively well-established, despite the fact that for many years the Muslim Brotherhood has been outlawed. Its members ran for office as “independents” and the Mubarak regime turned a blind eye until 2010, when the government arrested many MB candidates to keep them from running. In the 2005 election, the Brotherhood won 20 per cent of Parliamentary seats but failed to secure a single one in 2010.
Preliminary analysis of the votes suggested that most of the ‘no’ votes came from Egypt’s urban areas, with ‘yes’ votes carrying the country’s provincial governorates.
Many expert observers were surprised by the outcome. For example, Joel Beinin, professor of Middle East history at Stanford University and a contributing editor at Middle East Report, said, "The Revolutionary Youth Coalition, after an internal debate, has decided to reject the constitutional amendments. Polls, while not entirely reliable, indicate that a majority of Egyptians likewise reject the amendments. The reason is that the amendments address only a few articles relating to election procedures and leave the rest of the highly undemocratic 1971 constitution intact. Many believe that the first step in constructing a democratic Egypt is to convene a committee of experts to draft a democratic constitution which would be submitted for a referendum."
The ruling military council, uncomfortable with the job of governing, was responsible for the short notice given before the Saturday referendum. The referendum triggered a rapid process that will see legislative elections in June and a race for the Presidency in August.
Over the years, the Mubarak regime had created various amendments to the 1971 Constitution. Their purpose was to make it virtually impossible to become a candidate, become a recognized political party, impose term limits, and have competent and independent monitoring of all elections.
If the process proceeds according to the timetable proposed by the military council, the new constitutions will be written by the Parliament that’s elected in June.
If candidates from the Muslim Brotherhood do well in the parliamentary election, they will be in a position to exert heavy influence on the language of the new constitution.
The Brotherhood “will hijack the revolution, and they will not listen to us,”
said Wael Biltagi, 40, an owner of a plastics factory, told the New York Times. “They are stubborn and nobody knows their real intentions. They think they are right and everybody else is wrong. But that is not what the revolution is about.”
While many political players advocated for a complete re-write of the constitution, the committee appointed by the interim military rulers was mandated only to write amendments.
The government said the committee’s work would 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, clear rules governing establishment of political parties, and less power for the president.
But there appeared to have been little consultation between the drafting committee and the opposition as preparation of the amendments progressed. The amendments were announced on Feb. 25 after virtually no public discussion by an 11-member committee of experts chosen by the military. This lack of opportunity for input angered many of the more liberal Tahrir Square groups.
The Arab Reform Bulletin (ARB) reported that because of the huge turnout, more than 1.5 million additional ballots had to be printed in order to accommodate voter turnout.
“Lines stretched for more than one mile in some places, as thousands were lined up outside the polling stations. High numbers of women were seen voting, and the lines for the polling stations were extremely diverse with regard to age, religion, and background. Observers and monitoring groups have reported that the process has unfolded smoothly across the country, with minimal security disruptions.”
The ARB said the Egyptian Coalition for Monitoring the Referendum issued a preliminary report of the referendum, citing scattered issues including some stations failing to open on time, votes being cast outside of the regulatory curtains, some ballot boxes without locks, the un-washable ink on voters' fingers coming off, and a large number of voting forms being unstamped.
The report also mentions that Muslim Brotherhood members have been telling people to vote 'Yes' as they queue.
The referendum came in for criticism by four human rights groups, who filed complaints with the higher judicial committee alleging some irregularities during the voting.
The groups, including Observers without Borders, the New World Foundation for Development and Human Rights, said members of the National Democratic Party and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Salafists tried to influence voters during voting held for the constitutional amendments.
Even officials at polling stations attempted to convince voters to vote "yes",
they said. They also alleged that there were no judges at several polling stations.
There was little violence, despite the small numbers of police and soldiers around polling places. In Mubarak’s time, the army was normally present in significant numbers and often interfered with those who were voting or queuing up to vote.
But in one well-publicized incident, presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei was pelted with rocks and struck with batons, and his car’s windscreen was shattered. It was later asserted that the attack came from a paid mob of criminals, paid by Islamists, though no one has yet produced any evidence.
Another aspect of the referendum is providing a cause for concern among the pro-democracy supporters. The Christian Coptic turnout was a major disappointment to many who thought a heavy Coptic vote could help turn the tide toward a “no” note. But the Copts – 10 per cent of Egypt’s population or 85 million citizens -- more or less sat on their hands. Many Copts evidently thought their vote would be meaningless.
In the months preceding Mubarak’s ouster, relations between the Copts and the government were extremely troubled. Long discriminated against in a host of ways, churches and homes were burned by, it is believed, Islamists who want to establish a Muslim theocracy. This is one of dozens of issues not addressed in any of the amendments.
For a host of other reasons, many Egyptians simply had a tough time making up their minds about which way to vote. Radio talk show host Samar Dahmash Jarrah told The Public Record, “I have had many different Egyptians on our live radio show, True Talk, in Tampa. Most were active participants in the Jan. 25 revolt and all have voted differently on the referendum! Both sides have their own reasons on why they voted ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ and none of these reasons had to do with religion or being conservative or liberal. Many Egyptians who voted ‘Yes’ did so because they want to move on and pay attention to the larger issues that Egypt faces like poverty, Education and Tourism.”
She adds, “My very own family who lives in Egypt voted ‘No’ and ‘Yes!’ One household couldn’t agree on one vote and I guess this is what democracy is after all and this is what counts.”
My old friend Herb Williamson has lived in Egypt for more than twenty years. We worked together when I lived in Egypt. Herb, an American expat, is an Agri-business Development Consultant working on an international donor-funded project. I think his view of the referendum pretty well sums up the way most Egyptians see it.
“In my very humble opinion,” he says, “I think the long term (i.e., six months) consequences of the ‘yes’ decision puts pressure on the less organized political groups to get their act together very quickly if they want to compete successfully against the more established and better organized groups - e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).”
He adds: “Having said that, I think MB will have to work very hard in the upcoming parliamentary elections as many who voted ‘yes’ were simply voting for stability rather the perceived instability a ‘no’ vote would have brought. For example, my housekeeper voted ‘yes,’ because she wants stability. She has no interest in MB. I look forward to the coming six months as they will be full of great debates and arguments as Egyptians progress further down the path of democratic reform!!!”
And he concluded: “The good news is that Egyptians, both those who voted ‘yes’ and those who voted ‘no’, are still savoring last Saturday as it was the first time they had ever voted!!!”
“The first time they had ever voted” – that’s the beauty part. I can understand people raising objections to this or that infraction at the polling places. I can understand that it might have been better for people to be able to vote on each amendment separately.
And I can even understand the Army being uncomfortable with the job of governance; armies are not trained to govern. And they are particularly not trained to govern democratically. They are guided by discipline, hierarchy and the chain of command. They are good at war-fighting, not so good at peace-making.
That said, it’s unfortunate that the generals felt they had to depend only on their own internal resources for guidance. Egypt is home to a host of professionals, experienced in consensus-building. Had any of these men and women been consulted, their first bit of advice would have been: Be transparent; let your constituents know what you’re doing and why; invite their thoughts and incorporate the good ones; share your work as it progresses, not simply the final product.
While there was little consultation with constituents, there was a lot more than would have been the case under the Mubarak regime. The Army met with 25 leaders of political parties, in addition to the Muslim Brotherhood, to discuss the constitutional amendments and mechanisms for impending elections. But no one will argue that a single meeting satisfies the need for transparency.
Still, it is very early days for democracy in Egypt. We shouldn’t be surprised that the army has made some mistakes. Be thankful that none of them seems to be life threatening.
However, down the road, what will be a lot more worrying will be a democratically elected president and his (or her) government making the same mistakes.
Egypt: ‘Virginity Tests’ For Women Protesters?
By William Fisher
I know this sounds like something out of Torquemada in the 15th Century or Mengele in the 20th. But it’s neither. It’s post-Mubarak Egypt in the second decade of the 21st Century.
Amnesty International has today called on the Egyptian authorities to investigate serious allegations of torture, including forced ‘virginity tests’, inflicted by the army on women protesters arrested in Tahrir Square earlier this month.
After army officers violently cleared the square of protesters on March 9, at least 18women were held in military detention. Amnesty International has been told by women protesters that they were beaten, given electric shocks, subjected to strip searches while being photographed by male soldiers, then forced to submit to ‘virginity checks’ and threatened with prostitution charges.
‘Virginity tests’ are a form of torture when they are forced or coerced.
"Forcing women to have ‘virginity tests’ is utterly unacceptable. Its purpose is to degrade women because they are women," said Amnesty International. "All members of the medical profession must refuse to take part in such so-called 'tests'."
Twenty-year-old Salwa Hosseini told Amnesty International that after she was arrested and taken to a military prison in Heikstep, she was made, with the other women, to take off all her clothes to be searched by a female prison guard, in a room with two open doors and a window. During the strip search, Hosseini said male soldiers were looking into the room and taking pictures of the naked women.
The women were then subjected to ‘virginity tests’ in a different room by a man in a white coat. They were threatened that “those not found to be virgins” would be charged with prostitution.
According to information received by Amnesty International, one woman who said she was a virgin but whose test supposedly proved otherwise was beaten and given electric shocks.
“Women and girls must be able to express their views on the future of Egypt and protest against the government without being detained, tortured, or subjected to profoundly degrading and discriminatory treatment,” said Amnesty International. “The army officers tried to further humiliate the women by allowing men to watch and photograph what was happening, with the implicit threat that the women could be at further risk of harm if the photographs were made public.”
Journalist Rasha Azeb was also detained in Tahrir Square and told Amnesty International that she was handcuffed, beaten and insulted.
Following their arrest, the 18 women were initially taken to a Cairo Museum annex where they were reportedly handcuffed, beaten with sticks and hoses, given electric shocks in the chest and legs, and called “prostitutes.”
Azeb could see and hear the other detained women being tortured by being given electric shocks throughout their detention at the museum. She was released several hours later with four other men who were also journalists, but 17 other women were transferred to the military prison in Heikstep.
Testimonies of other women detained at the same time collected by the El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence are consistent with Azeb and Hosseini’s accounts of beatings, electrocution and ‘virginity tests’.
“The Egyptian authorities must halt the shocking and degrading treatment of women protesters. Women fully participated in bringing change in Egypt and should not be punished for their activism,” said Amnesty International. “All security and army forces must be clearly instructed that torture and other ill-treatment, including forced ‘virginity tests’, will no longer be tolerated, and will be fully investigated. Those found responsible for such acts must be brought to justice and the courageous women who denounced such abuses be protected from reprisals.”
All 17 women detained in the military prison were brought before a military court on March 11 and released on March 13. Several received one-year suspended prison sentences.
Hosseini was convicted of disorderly conduct, destroying private and public property, obstructing traffic and carrying weapons.
Amnesty International opposes the trial of civilians before military courts in Egypt, which have a track record of unfair trials and where the right to appeal is severely restricted.
This latest report of barbaric behavior by members of Egypt’s armed forces raises serious questions about the people who are running the country and its services during the present interim period until elections can be held this summer.
The women’s complaints follow testimonies from dozens of male Tahrir Square demonstrators that they were arrested, detained, and abused by the Army as they attempted to make their way across Tahrir Square at night.
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 their 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!” 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?
“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 on 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 was confirmed by one of those who were abused, he said.
This brings back the unanswered question: Can the Egyptian people trust their Army?
Dr. Mostafa Hussein of the Nadeem Center for Victims of Torture in Cairo thinks not.
Dr. Hussein is a psychiatrist and a doctor at the Task Force Against Torture, which brings together non-profits, bloggers and activists highlighting the continuation of torture in post-Mubarak Egypt on a new web page (http://against-torture.net).
Dr. Hussein said today: "The army is engaging in massive and brutal torture. Civilians, many of them pro-democracy activists, are being detained and beaten. Then, many of them have been brought before military courts. These courts are conducted in secret, limit access to lawyers and do not allow appeals.”
Dr. Hussein adds, “People are getting sentences of three to five or even seven years for 'thuggery.' These civilians are sometimes shown on the nightly news on state TV in an apparent attempt to intimidate the public and ensure 'order.' We have testimony of people being beaten, electrocuted, whipped and seeing others beaten to death.”
"Perhaps most distressing, the media in Egypt, even the independent newspapers, are largely ignoring army torture and abuse. The army is a red line. If we're going to have a meaningful democracy in Egypt, this has to change. It's critical that outside media now cover this.”
Dr. Hussain claims she has “translated video and testimony from individuals" who were abused.
The Army is now running just about everything in Egypt, including the government. Every member of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces was appointed by deposed President Hosni Mubarak. Many have lucrative business interests facilitated by Mubarak. During the debate about the amendments to the Constitution, the Supreme Council sided with the Muslim Brotherhood and the remnants of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP) that the referendum should be held sooner rather than later, and elections for parliament and the presidency, correspondingly earlier than the more liberal Tahrir Square movement advocated.
The Armys role in the democratic revolt has been anything but transparent. They were lauded by activists for not taking sides between anti- and pro-Mubarak demonstraters. They were further praised when they came to the rescue of pro-democracy demonstraters, who were being attacked by gangs of arms thugs hired by Mubarak’s political cronies. But then they attacked peaceful protesters walking across Tahrir Square, arrested them, tortured many, and detained more.
For that kind of double-dealing, an apology is hardly sufficient. Thus far there is no serious sign that the military is inmvestigating or that it plans to file charges against the miscreant soldiers.
So the sooner a president and a legislature can be elected the sooner the Army can go back to what armies are supposed to do.
The question at that point is: Will the Military willingly report to civilian control?
Watch this space.
I know this sounds like something out of Torquemada in the 15th Century or Mengele in the 20th. But it’s neither. It’s post-Mubarak Egypt in the second decade of the 21st Century.
Amnesty International has today called on the Egyptian authorities to investigate serious allegations of torture, including forced ‘virginity tests’, inflicted by the army on women protesters arrested in Tahrir Square earlier this month.
After army officers violently cleared the square of protesters on March 9, at least 18women were held in military detention. Amnesty International has been told by women protesters that they were beaten, given electric shocks, subjected to strip searches while being photographed by male soldiers, then forced to submit to ‘virginity checks’ and threatened with prostitution charges.
‘Virginity tests’ are a form of torture when they are forced or coerced.
"Forcing women to have ‘virginity tests’ is utterly unacceptable. Its purpose is to degrade women because they are women," said Amnesty International. "All members of the medical profession must refuse to take part in such so-called 'tests'."
Twenty-year-old Salwa Hosseini told Amnesty International that after she was arrested and taken to a military prison in Heikstep, she was made, with the other women, to take off all her clothes to be searched by a female prison guard, in a room with two open doors and a window. During the strip search, Hosseini said male soldiers were looking into the room and taking pictures of the naked women.
The women were then subjected to ‘virginity tests’ in a different room by a man in a white coat. They were threatened that “those not found to be virgins” would be charged with prostitution.
According to information received by Amnesty International, one woman who said she was a virgin but whose test supposedly proved otherwise was beaten and given electric shocks.
“Women and girls must be able to express their views on the future of Egypt and protest against the government without being detained, tortured, or subjected to profoundly degrading and discriminatory treatment,” said Amnesty International. “The army officers tried to further humiliate the women by allowing men to watch and photograph what was happening, with the implicit threat that the women could be at further risk of harm if the photographs were made public.”
Journalist Rasha Azeb was also detained in Tahrir Square and told Amnesty International that she was handcuffed, beaten and insulted.
Following their arrest, the 18 women were initially taken to a Cairo Museum annex where they were reportedly handcuffed, beaten with sticks and hoses, given electric shocks in the chest and legs, and called “prostitutes.”
Azeb could see and hear the other detained women being tortured by being given electric shocks throughout their detention at the museum. She was released several hours later with four other men who were also journalists, but 17 other women were transferred to the military prison in Heikstep.
Testimonies of other women detained at the same time collected by the El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence are consistent with Azeb and Hosseini’s accounts of beatings, electrocution and ‘virginity tests’.
“The Egyptian authorities must halt the shocking and degrading treatment of women protesters. Women fully participated in bringing change in Egypt and should not be punished for their activism,” said Amnesty International. “All security and army forces must be clearly instructed that torture and other ill-treatment, including forced ‘virginity tests’, will no longer be tolerated, and will be fully investigated. Those found responsible for such acts must be brought to justice and the courageous women who denounced such abuses be protected from reprisals.”
All 17 women detained in the military prison were brought before a military court on March 11 and released on March 13. Several received one-year suspended prison sentences.
Hosseini was convicted of disorderly conduct, destroying private and public property, obstructing traffic and carrying weapons.
Amnesty International opposes the trial of civilians before military courts in Egypt, which have a track record of unfair trials and where the right to appeal is severely restricted.
This latest report of barbaric behavior by members of Egypt’s armed forces raises serious questions about the people who are running the country and its services during the present interim period until elections can be held this summer.
The women’s complaints follow testimonies from dozens of male Tahrir Square demonstrators that they were arrested, detained, and abused by the Army as they attempted to make their way across Tahrir Square at night.
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 their 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!” 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?
“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 on 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 was confirmed by one of those who were abused, he said.
This brings back the unanswered question: Can the Egyptian people trust their Army?
Dr. Mostafa Hussein of the Nadeem Center for Victims of Torture in Cairo thinks not.
Dr. Hussein is a psychiatrist and a doctor at the Task Force Against Torture, which brings together non-profits, bloggers and activists highlighting the continuation of torture in post-Mubarak Egypt on a new web page (http://against-torture.net).
Dr. Hussein said today: "The army is engaging in massive and brutal torture. Civilians, many of them pro-democracy activists, are being detained and beaten. Then, many of them have been brought before military courts. These courts are conducted in secret, limit access to lawyers and do not allow appeals.”
Dr. Hussein adds, “People are getting sentences of three to five or even seven years for 'thuggery.' These civilians are sometimes shown on the nightly news on state TV in an apparent attempt to intimidate the public and ensure 'order.' We have testimony of people being beaten, electrocuted, whipped and seeing others beaten to death.”
"Perhaps most distressing, the media in Egypt, even the independent newspapers, are largely ignoring army torture and abuse. The army is a red line. If we're going to have a meaningful democracy in Egypt, this has to change. It's critical that outside media now cover this.”
Dr. Hussain claims she has “translated video and testimony from individuals" who were abused.
The Army is now running just about everything in Egypt, including the government. Every member of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces was appointed by deposed President Hosni Mubarak. Many have lucrative business interests facilitated by Mubarak. During the debate about the amendments to the Constitution, the Supreme Council sided with the Muslim Brotherhood and the remnants of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP) that the referendum should be held sooner rather than later, and elections for parliament and the presidency, correspondingly earlier than the more liberal Tahrir Square movement advocated.
The Armys role in the democratic revolt has been anything but transparent. They were lauded by activists for not taking sides between anti- and pro-Mubarak demonstraters. They were further praised when they came to the rescue of pro-democracy demonstraters, who were being attacked by gangs of arms thugs hired by Mubarak’s political cronies. But then they attacked peaceful protesters walking across Tahrir Square, arrested them, tortured many, and detained more.
For that kind of double-dealing, an apology is hardly sufficient. Thus far there is no serious sign that the military is inmvestigating or that it plans to file charges against the miscreant soldiers.
So the sooner a president and a legislature can be elected the sooner the Army can go back to what armies are supposed to do.
The question at that point is: Will the Military willingly report to civilian control?
Watch this space.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Obama: Get Out of Jail Free For Saudi Arabia and UAE in Bahrain
By William Fisher
President Barack Obama said on Friday that he was “deeply concerned by reports of violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen.” He said the United States condemns the use of violence by governments against peaceful protesters in those countries and wherever else it may occur.”
Then he went on to say, “ We express our condolences to the family and friends of those who have been killed during the demonstrations. Wherever they are, people have certain universal rights including the right to peaceful assembly.”
He concluded: “The United States urges the governments of Bahrain, Libya and Yemen to show restraint in responding to peaceful protests, and to respect the rights of their people.”
But many observers said there was something missing from this picture: There was not a word about Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), whose troops earlier this week rumbled over the 26 km causeway separating Saudi Arabia from Bahrain, to help Bahrain’s ruling family to maintain its grip on power in the face of growing protests and demands for economic democracy.
In what has lamentably become characteristic Obama behavior, the President ignored the two 900-pound gorillas in the room. One of those gorillas, Saudi Arabia, is said to be close ally of the U.S., a major supplier of its oil, a recipient of much U.S. military aid, and a steadfast partner in the so-called “war on terror.”
The other gorilla is Bahrain itself, thought (until very recently) to be a reliable U.S. ally, like Saudi Arabia, an intrepid warrior on terror, and home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet. The United States provided around $20 million in military aid to Bahrain in 2010. The slap on the wrist Bahrain received from the American President today is not likely to require medical attention.
Prior to the “Arab Spring,” the U.S. viewed Bahrain as a reasonably enlightened Arab state. During a visit to Washington in December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raved, "Bahrain has demonstrated that multi-ethnic, multi-confessional societies can address their challenges through peaceful reform and representative institutions."
Cables by US diplomats claimed that King Hamad "understands that Bahrain cannot prosper if he rules by repression." Several of the 2009 cables from the U.S. Embassy in Manama characterize King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa as an enlightened and deeply pro-American ruler who, since assuming the throne in 1999, has fostered reconciliation with the Shi'ite Muslim majority and has undertaken serious political and economic reforms,” Reuters reports.
As for The House of Saud, it evidently gets a pass on Obama’s assertion that “people have certain universal rights including the right to peaceful assembly.” In Saudi Arabia they have no such right. And the country’s aging king is currently in the process of trying to buy off his people with announcements of massive appropriations for job creation and job training, plus substantial individual money gifts for every Saudi citizen.
So far, that strategy appears to be working -- despite some announcements and preparations for a “Day of Anger” in the Kingdom, and some minor skirmishes between police and would-be democracy demonstrators.
Should that strategy show signs of weakening, there is little doubt about what the Saudis would do to quell any rising sentiment for a more equitable, representative government.
Meantime, Reuters is reporting that Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy asked the State Department to probe whether Bahrain had broken a U.S. law that prohibits aid to foreign security forces who violate human rights. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, is the author of that legislation.
Bahrain is now under a state of martial law, after fresh violence left as many as eight people dead.
Amnesty International revealed evidence of the Bahraini security forces’ systematic use of excessive force in cracking down against protesters. In a new report, “Bloodied but Unbowed: Unwarranted State Violence against Bahraini Protesters,” the organization documents how security forces used live ammunition and extreme force against protesters in February without warning and impeded and assaulted medical staff trying to help the wounded.
The report, which is based on first hand testimonies given to an Amnesty International team in Bahrain, comes as the country is gripped by further violence, after Saudi Arabian and UAE forces entered the small Gulf state three days ago and Bahrain's King declared a national state of emergency.
"It is alarming to see the Bahraini authorities now again resorting to the same tactics that they used against protesters in February but on an even more intensive scale,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“It appears that the government has decided that the way to deal with protests is through violent repression, a totally unsustainable position and one which sets an ominous example in a region where other governments are also facing popular calls for change," he said.
Dr. Hani Mowafi, a US medical doctor who was part of the Amnesty International team, found a pattern of fatal and serious injuries during February’s violence showing that the security forces used live ammunition at close range, and apparently targeted protesters’ heads, chests and abdomens.
They also fired medium-to-large caliber bullets from high-powered rifles on 18 February.
The worst violence before today took place early on the morning of 17 February, when five people were killed. Witnesses told Amnesty that, in scenes that would be repeated on 16 March, tanks blocked access to the Pearl Roundabout as police used shotguns as well as tear gas, batons and rubber bullets to disperse protesters, many of who were camping there.
One witness told Amnesty International that on 17 February riot police were shooting from different angles, including from a bridge over the roundabout, while protesters desperately ran for cover.
Among the injured were people clearly identifiable as medical workers, who were targeted by police while trying to help wounded protesters at or near the roundabout.
"All the actions of the security forces against protesters since February must be fully and independently investigated. Those responsible for ordering and unleash lethal force against peaceful protesters must be identified and held to account.”
"There must be no impunity for unlawful killings, assaults and other abuses against both protesters and medical staff."
Amnesty says it has identified some of the ammunition found in the aftermath of the raid on Pearl Roundabout on 17 February. It includes US-made tear gas canisters, US-made 37mm rubber multi-baton rounds, French-made tear gas grenades, and French-made rubber “dispersion” grenades, which fragment into 18 pieces and produce a loud sound effect.
The organization called on governments who supply weapons to Bahrain to immediately suspend the transfer of weapons, munitions and related equipment that could be used to commit further human rights violations, and to urgently review all arms supplies and training support to Bahrain’s military, security and police forces.
Following the Bahraini security forces’ use of unwarranted force against protesters, the UK government revoked some licenses for arms exports to Bahrain, and the French authorities have suspended the export of security equipment to Bahrain.
Amnesty’s report charges that “mass peaceful protests demanding political reform have shaken the Gulf state of Bahrain since mid-February. In response, the security forces initially sought to suppress the protests with brutality, killing seven protesters, injuring hundreds of others and assaulting paramedics.”
It adds, “Proper, transparent investigations that ensure accountability and justice for the victims, and a strong government commitment to respect human rights are needed now.”
Bahraini protesters today told Amnesty of bloody scenes on the streets as government security forces stepped up their violent crackdown on demonstrations and blocked access to hospitals. Government forces also surrounded hospitals and attacked doctors trying to help the wounded.
At least six people were reportedly killed in the capital Manama amid continuing protests as the army used tanks to flatten the peaceful protest camps set up in recent weeks to demand reform in the Gulf state.
"The distressing reports and images coming out of Bahrain today provide further evidence that the authorities are using lethal and other excessive force to crush protests, with reckless disregard for human life," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Director.
"Wounded protesters have also been prevented from accessing medical attention by government forces. The Bahraini authorities must immediately put a stop to this bloodshed," he said.
Security forces attacked the mainly Shia protest camp at Manama’s Pearl Roundabout camp early on Wednesday.
Family members of those wounded at the roundabout and people trying to approach the area told Amnesty International that the army opened fire on them without warning.
"I was walking towards the Pearl Roundabout… We were 5km from the roundabout when we were shot with live ammunition - one shot came one meter away from me. There were two tanks in the street and a helicopter above us," said Nabeel al Rajab, director of the banned Bahrain Center for Human Rights.
Amnesty is also receiving testimonies from medical staff who were prevented from treating the victims of violence. For example:
"We are waiting to do something and the army is not allowing us. We know there are hundreds injured and they are not allowing them to come here," said one doctor at the central Salmaniya hospital who did not wish to be named due to safety fears.
"A doctor went to the gate this morning trying to come in and the army beat him. They also threw tear gas and another type of gas at the emergency entrance of the hospital."
In a funeral procession today to mourn a dead Bahraini pro-democracy demonstrator, anti-government participants shouted, "down with King Hamad." The crackdown that killed this activist was targeted to mainly Shi'ite protesters, which angered Iran.
Bahrain’s ruling family are Sunni Muslims, while a large majority of its people are Shia. The Shia majority contends it is discriminated against in terms of funds for public works projects and government jobs.
Virtually all reputable human rights organizations are condemning Bahrain’s violent military crackdown against pro-democracy protesters.
Neil Hicks of the New York-based Human Rights First group, said “The militarization of the conflict in Bahrain will lead to further violence and violations of basic rights and freedoms. It will not address the underlying causes of the unrest – institutionalized sectarian discrimination, the absence of representative government and the lack of legal protections for basic freedoms of assembly, and association. ”
“Suppression of dissent in Bahrain with the backing of the Gulf Cooperation Council runs the risk of extending unrest to other countries in the Gulf region with sectarian tensions, including Yemen and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia,” Hicks said.
The organization called on U.S. government officials to condemn the use of violence against unarmed protesters and urge the Bahraini government to initiate wide-ranging negotiations to implement necessary political reforms.
“In light of disturbing reports that security forces are blocking medical treatment for the injured, that interference in the provision of necessary medical treatment should stop immediately. In addition, the U.S. needs to intensify its outreach to the government of Saudi Arabia to make clear its objection to the violent suppression of dissent in Bahrain or anywhere in the Gulf region,” the organization said.
Hicks concluded, “Inflaming sectarian tensions in Bahrain will not ensure stability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
For the past decade Bahrain has promoted itself as a liberal state in an
authoritarian neighborhood, on the basis of reforms by King Hamad al-Khalifa, who took power in 1999. These reforms included holding elections - though for a parliament that lacked authority - and largely abolishing torture.
The Bahraini government insinuates whenever possible that its Shia citizens, upwards of 65 percent of the population, would turn Bahrain into an Iranian client state if so allowed.
But independent observers have for several years been raising concerns about the country's return to the dark practices of the past.
In February 2010, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting the revival of torture. A trove of reports by government doctors backed up victim accounts that security forces were again suspending detainees by their arms and legs and using electro-shock devices.
In August, the government instituted a crackdown that began with arrests of opposition activists on charges of being part of a "terror network" and soon extended to the arrests of hundreds more, including children, many on vague or non-existent charges.
The government dissolved the board of a human rights group that had suggested detainees should not be abused.
Authorities blocked websites of opposition parties, including Al Wefaq, which won a majority of votes in the October elections.
As for the "terror network," the testimony of government agents regarding
information allegedly provided by unnamed sources made clear that the defendants were being tried for political opinions rather than for any criminal acts.
Authorities denied these defendants access to counsel or their families, and
most defendants alleged that security officials abused them to elicit confessions.
The government denied these allegations, but hasn't explained the defendants' wounds displayed in open court.
President Barack Obama said on Friday that he was “deeply concerned by reports of violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen.” He said the United States condemns the use of violence by governments against peaceful protesters in those countries and wherever else it may occur.”
Then he went on to say, “ We express our condolences to the family and friends of those who have been killed during the demonstrations. Wherever they are, people have certain universal rights including the right to peaceful assembly.”
He concluded: “The United States urges the governments of Bahrain, Libya and Yemen to show restraint in responding to peaceful protests, and to respect the rights of their people.”
But many observers said there was something missing from this picture: There was not a word about Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), whose troops earlier this week rumbled over the 26 km causeway separating Saudi Arabia from Bahrain, to help Bahrain’s ruling family to maintain its grip on power in the face of growing protests and demands for economic democracy.
In what has lamentably become characteristic Obama behavior, the President ignored the two 900-pound gorillas in the room. One of those gorillas, Saudi Arabia, is said to be close ally of the U.S., a major supplier of its oil, a recipient of much U.S. military aid, and a steadfast partner in the so-called “war on terror.”
The other gorilla is Bahrain itself, thought (until very recently) to be a reliable U.S. ally, like Saudi Arabia, an intrepid warrior on terror, and home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet. The United States provided around $20 million in military aid to Bahrain in 2010. The slap on the wrist Bahrain received from the American President today is not likely to require medical attention.
Prior to the “Arab Spring,” the U.S. viewed Bahrain as a reasonably enlightened Arab state. During a visit to Washington in December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raved, "Bahrain has demonstrated that multi-ethnic, multi-confessional societies can address their challenges through peaceful reform and representative institutions."
Cables by US diplomats claimed that King Hamad "understands that Bahrain cannot prosper if he rules by repression." Several of the 2009 cables from the U.S. Embassy in Manama characterize King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa as an enlightened and deeply pro-American ruler who, since assuming the throne in 1999, has fostered reconciliation with the Shi'ite Muslim majority and has undertaken serious political and economic reforms,” Reuters reports.
As for The House of Saud, it evidently gets a pass on Obama’s assertion that “people have certain universal rights including the right to peaceful assembly.” In Saudi Arabia they have no such right. And the country’s aging king is currently in the process of trying to buy off his people with announcements of massive appropriations for job creation and job training, plus substantial individual money gifts for every Saudi citizen.
So far, that strategy appears to be working -- despite some announcements and preparations for a “Day of Anger” in the Kingdom, and some minor skirmishes between police and would-be democracy demonstrators.
Should that strategy show signs of weakening, there is little doubt about what the Saudis would do to quell any rising sentiment for a more equitable, representative government.
Meantime, Reuters is reporting that Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy asked the State Department to probe whether Bahrain had broken a U.S. law that prohibits aid to foreign security forces who violate human rights. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, is the author of that legislation.
Bahrain is now under a state of martial law, after fresh violence left as many as eight people dead.
Amnesty International revealed evidence of the Bahraini security forces’ systematic use of excessive force in cracking down against protesters. In a new report, “Bloodied but Unbowed: Unwarranted State Violence against Bahraini Protesters,” the organization documents how security forces used live ammunition and extreme force against protesters in February without warning and impeded and assaulted medical staff trying to help the wounded.
The report, which is based on first hand testimonies given to an Amnesty International team in Bahrain, comes as the country is gripped by further violence, after Saudi Arabian and UAE forces entered the small Gulf state three days ago and Bahrain's King declared a national state of emergency.
"It is alarming to see the Bahraini authorities now again resorting to the same tactics that they used against protesters in February but on an even more intensive scale,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“It appears that the government has decided that the way to deal with protests is through violent repression, a totally unsustainable position and one which sets an ominous example in a region where other governments are also facing popular calls for change," he said.
Dr. Hani Mowafi, a US medical doctor who was part of the Amnesty International team, found a pattern of fatal and serious injuries during February’s violence showing that the security forces used live ammunition at close range, and apparently targeted protesters’ heads, chests and abdomens.
They also fired medium-to-large caliber bullets from high-powered rifles on 18 February.
The worst violence before today took place early on the morning of 17 February, when five people were killed. Witnesses told Amnesty that, in scenes that would be repeated on 16 March, tanks blocked access to the Pearl Roundabout as police used shotguns as well as tear gas, batons and rubber bullets to disperse protesters, many of who were camping there.
One witness told Amnesty International that on 17 February riot police were shooting from different angles, including from a bridge over the roundabout, while protesters desperately ran for cover.
Among the injured were people clearly identifiable as medical workers, who were targeted by police while trying to help wounded protesters at or near the roundabout.
"All the actions of the security forces against protesters since February must be fully and independently investigated. Those responsible for ordering and unleash lethal force against peaceful protesters must be identified and held to account.”
"There must be no impunity for unlawful killings, assaults and other abuses against both protesters and medical staff."
Amnesty says it has identified some of the ammunition found in the aftermath of the raid on Pearl Roundabout on 17 February. It includes US-made tear gas canisters, US-made 37mm rubber multi-baton rounds, French-made tear gas grenades, and French-made rubber “dispersion” grenades, which fragment into 18 pieces and produce a loud sound effect.
The organization called on governments who supply weapons to Bahrain to immediately suspend the transfer of weapons, munitions and related equipment that could be used to commit further human rights violations, and to urgently review all arms supplies and training support to Bahrain’s military, security and police forces.
Following the Bahraini security forces’ use of unwarranted force against protesters, the UK government revoked some licenses for arms exports to Bahrain, and the French authorities have suspended the export of security equipment to Bahrain.
Amnesty’s report charges that “mass peaceful protests demanding political reform have shaken the Gulf state of Bahrain since mid-February. In response, the security forces initially sought to suppress the protests with brutality, killing seven protesters, injuring hundreds of others and assaulting paramedics.”
It adds, “Proper, transparent investigations that ensure accountability and justice for the victims, and a strong government commitment to respect human rights are needed now.”
Bahraini protesters today told Amnesty of bloody scenes on the streets as government security forces stepped up their violent crackdown on demonstrations and blocked access to hospitals. Government forces also surrounded hospitals and attacked doctors trying to help the wounded.
At least six people were reportedly killed in the capital Manama amid continuing protests as the army used tanks to flatten the peaceful protest camps set up in recent weeks to demand reform in the Gulf state.
"The distressing reports and images coming out of Bahrain today provide further evidence that the authorities are using lethal and other excessive force to crush protests, with reckless disregard for human life," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Director.
"Wounded protesters have also been prevented from accessing medical attention by government forces. The Bahraini authorities must immediately put a stop to this bloodshed," he said.
Security forces attacked the mainly Shia protest camp at Manama’s Pearl Roundabout camp early on Wednesday.
Family members of those wounded at the roundabout and people trying to approach the area told Amnesty International that the army opened fire on them without warning.
"I was walking towards the Pearl Roundabout… We were 5km from the roundabout when we were shot with live ammunition - one shot came one meter away from me. There were two tanks in the street and a helicopter above us," said Nabeel al Rajab, director of the banned Bahrain Center for Human Rights.
Amnesty is also receiving testimonies from medical staff who were prevented from treating the victims of violence. For example:
"We are waiting to do something and the army is not allowing us. We know there are hundreds injured and they are not allowing them to come here," said one doctor at the central Salmaniya hospital who did not wish to be named due to safety fears.
"A doctor went to the gate this morning trying to come in and the army beat him. They also threw tear gas and another type of gas at the emergency entrance of the hospital."
In a funeral procession today to mourn a dead Bahraini pro-democracy demonstrator, anti-government participants shouted, "down with King Hamad." The crackdown that killed this activist was targeted to mainly Shi'ite protesters, which angered Iran.
Bahrain’s ruling family are Sunni Muslims, while a large majority of its people are Shia. The Shia majority contends it is discriminated against in terms of funds for public works projects and government jobs.
Virtually all reputable human rights organizations are condemning Bahrain’s violent military crackdown against pro-democracy protesters.
Neil Hicks of the New York-based Human Rights First group, said “The militarization of the conflict in Bahrain will lead to further violence and violations of basic rights and freedoms. It will not address the underlying causes of the unrest – institutionalized sectarian discrimination, the absence of representative government and the lack of legal protections for basic freedoms of assembly, and association. ”
“Suppression of dissent in Bahrain with the backing of the Gulf Cooperation Council runs the risk of extending unrest to other countries in the Gulf region with sectarian tensions, including Yemen and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia,” Hicks said.
The organization called on U.S. government officials to condemn the use of violence against unarmed protesters and urge the Bahraini government to initiate wide-ranging negotiations to implement necessary political reforms.
“In light of disturbing reports that security forces are blocking medical treatment for the injured, that interference in the provision of necessary medical treatment should stop immediately. In addition, the U.S. needs to intensify its outreach to the government of Saudi Arabia to make clear its objection to the violent suppression of dissent in Bahrain or anywhere in the Gulf region,” the organization said.
Hicks concluded, “Inflaming sectarian tensions in Bahrain will not ensure stability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
For the past decade Bahrain has promoted itself as a liberal state in an
authoritarian neighborhood, on the basis of reforms by King Hamad al-Khalifa, who took power in 1999. These reforms included holding elections - though for a parliament that lacked authority - and largely abolishing torture.
The Bahraini government insinuates whenever possible that its Shia citizens, upwards of 65 percent of the population, would turn Bahrain into an Iranian client state if so allowed.
But independent observers have for several years been raising concerns about the country's return to the dark practices of the past.
In February 2010, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting the revival of torture. A trove of reports by government doctors backed up victim accounts that security forces were again suspending detainees by their arms and legs and using electro-shock devices.
In August, the government instituted a crackdown that began with arrests of opposition activists on charges of being part of a "terror network" and soon extended to the arrests of hundreds more, including children, many on vague or non-existent charges.
The government dissolved the board of a human rights group that had suggested detainees should not be abused.
Authorities blocked websites of opposition parties, including Al Wefaq, which won a majority of votes in the October elections.
As for the "terror network," the testimony of government agents regarding
information allegedly provided by unnamed sources made clear that the defendants were being tried for political opinions rather than for any criminal acts.
Authorities denied these defendants access to counsel or their families, and
most defendants alleged that security officials abused them to elicit confessions.
The government denied these allegations, but hasn't explained the defendants' wounds displayed in open court.
SAUDI TROOPS IN BAHRAIN: SUNNI RULERS, SHIA SUBJECTS
By William Fisher
Last week, as he accused outside agitators of planning a pro-democracy “Day of Rage” demonstration in Saudi Arabia, Prince Saud al-Faisal told a press conference in Jeddah, “The kingdom does not interfere in the affairs of others and will not allow for anyone to interfere in its own affairs.”
Sunday, an estimated 2,000 Saudi troops rumbled across the 26 km causeway separating the Kingdom of Saud from its neighboring kingdom – Bahrain, ruled by King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifah.
The Saudi troops were soon followed by some 500 others from the UAE, the United Arab Emirates.
As the Saudi and UEA troops were transported to an undisclosed location, (Euronews: 0155 PST, March 14, 2011) reported: “In one of the most violent confrontations since troops killed seven protesters last month, police used tear gas and water cannon to break up demonstrations against the kingdom's royal family. Witnesses said rubber bullets were also fired by police.”
In the Euronews video of the Sunday confrontation, a police officer is seen firing a tear gas canister point blank into the chest of a protester.
Why are the Saudi and UAE troops in Bahrain? Were they invited or did they invade? They were almost certainly invited. Bahrain is gripped in its worst unrest since the 1990s. For the past several weeks the Shi'ite majority has held demonstrations to rail against what it terms discrimination by the ruling Sunni minority.
So the official mission of the foreign troops is ostensibly to protect Bahraini government buildings, key military and oil installations, and the financial district of the capital, Manama. The financial district is reportedly occupied by several hundred Bahraini pro-democracy protesters, who have blocked off the streets in and out of the area.
But Bahrain has its own 30,000-strong military and would be capable of taking on these chores without foreign help. So arguably more important mission of the Saudi and UAE troops is symbolic: to help the country’s rulers, who are Sunni Muslims, maintain their grip on power by frightening protesters, largely members of the Shia majority, into participating in negotiations as proposed by the regime.
Bahrain’s rulers have recently laid out six main issues to be discussed in talks. These include establishment of an elected parliament empowered to affect government policy; fairly demarcated electoral constituencies; steps to combat financial and administrative corruption; and moves to limit sectarian polarization.
But the Bahraini Crown Prince revealingly did not mention one of the opposition's primary demands -- the prime minister's resignation. The reform opposition has not wavered in its demand that the Prime Minister, Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, step down.
All reports to date indicate that the Saudis were invited by that very same Prime Minister, one of the hard-liners in the ruling Khalifa family. He is reportedly opposed to any substantive negotiations with the demonstrators.
Moreover, they were invited only hours after the departure from Bahrain of U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who met with Bahraini leaders and urged genuine political reforms instead of what he called "baby steps," that, he said, would not be successful in diffusing the tense situation.
Dr. Jean-Francios Seznec, a professor at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, writing in “Foreign Policy” yesterday, says the Bahraini invitation is a direct slap in the face to the U.S.
The pro-democracy forces in Bahrain consist of members of the Shia majority plus some of the poorer Sunnis. The majority Shia country is ruled by a Sunni royal family, which controls virtually every aspect of Bahraini life.
The Sunni v. Shia dimension of the struggle over reform has inevitably drawn in Shia Iran, which has characterized the Saudi and UAE forces as having invaded a sovereign nation. They said it was “unacceptable.”
Saudi Arabia's decision to send troops to Bahrain will almost surely have an impact on its relations with the United States. How serious an impact is unclear. Historically close, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have recently been slogging through some diplomatic mud, with Saudi Arabia disapproving of America’s treatment of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. The Kingdom’s advice to President Obama was to support Mubarak even if his forces started to kill demonstrators. Obama chose another road.
At home, Saudi Arabia has so far managed to quell public demonstrations through a strategy of direct grants to Saudi citizens, billions of dollars in new government employment programs, and a massive police presence. The Saudi foreign minister said last week his nation would “cut any finger that crosses into the kingdom.” A major part of the current pro-democracy narrative as conveyed on State TV, radio and in print, is that the demonstrations sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa are being instigated by “outside forces.”
Various Internet sites have called for a Saudi “Day of Rage” on March 11 (which did not happen) and March 20, with nationwide demonstrations. But public protests are banned by the Saudi authorities, and publicly identifying with demands for political reform also remains risky and can lead to harassment or detention.
On February 25 there were peaceful marches in the Shia towns of Safwa and Qatif in the Eastern Province. Residents of al-‘Awwamiyya, an adjacent small Shia town, held a silent vigil the same day calling for the release of the so-called “Forgotten Prisoners,” nine Shia Saudis detained without charge or trial for over 12 years over unproven allegations of their involvement in the 1996 attacks on U.S. military targets in Khobar that killed 19 Americans.
Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said from Cairo, “Saudi Arabia should rescind its categorical ban on peaceful demonstrations and release the more than 20 protesters detained on March 3, 2011, in the eastern town of Qatif.”
Saudi Arabia is one of only two countries in the Middle East and North Africa that ban protests as a matter of principle; Oman is the other. Saudi Arabia is not party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protect the right to peaceful assembly, but in 2009 the country acceded to the Arab Charter for Human Rights, which also guarantees this right.
“By banning all protests Saudi rulers are telling their countrymen and women that for all political purposes they are not citizens and have no right to participate in public affairs,” said Whitson. “Saudis have had enough of unaccountable rulers telling them to do as they are told and shut up.”
According to Amnesty International, “In the five years since he ascended the Saudi throne, King Abdullah has loosened the reins stifling Saudi society. But his reforms have been largely symbolic, with few lasting institutional changes.”
The group says that, under King Abdullah, Saudis have become freer to criticize the government or societal norms, but those who cross lines such as questioning the role of religion or singling out princes for criticism face harassment or jail.
It adds that women have become more visible in public and in the workplace. But even an adult woman still requires her male guardian’s written consent to make decisions about marriage, work, education, health care, and travel. Abdullah allowed women to stay in hotels without male guardians, but has left the guardian system as a whole intact.
As for the Saudi military presence in Bahrain, Prof. Seznec of Georgetown puts it this way:
“Any troubles caused by Bahraini Shiites will only provoke further Saudi intervention. Ultimately, the island risks falling under de facto, if not de jure, Saudi control.
“The Saudi intervention, however small, is therefore a major step backward for the region. It represents a major slap in the face to the United States, a defeat for the liberal Shiite and Sunni elements in Bahrain, and ultimately a catastrophe for the entire Khalifa family, both the liberal and conservative wings, who may have just surrendered their power to the giant next door.”
Last week, as he accused outside agitators of planning a pro-democracy “Day of Rage” demonstration in Saudi Arabia, Prince Saud al-Faisal told a press conference in Jeddah, “The kingdom does not interfere in the affairs of others and will not allow for anyone to interfere in its own affairs.”
Sunday, an estimated 2,000 Saudi troops rumbled across the 26 km causeway separating the Kingdom of Saud from its neighboring kingdom – Bahrain, ruled by King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifah.
The Saudi troops were soon followed by some 500 others from the UAE, the United Arab Emirates.
As the Saudi and UEA troops were transported to an undisclosed location, (Euronews: 0155 PST, March 14, 2011) reported: “In one of the most violent confrontations since troops killed seven protesters last month, police used tear gas and water cannon to break up demonstrations against the kingdom's royal family. Witnesses said rubber bullets were also fired by police.”
In the Euronews video of the Sunday confrontation, a police officer is seen firing a tear gas canister point blank into the chest of a protester.
Why are the Saudi and UAE troops in Bahrain? Were they invited or did they invade? They were almost certainly invited. Bahrain is gripped in its worst unrest since the 1990s. For the past several weeks the Shi'ite majority has held demonstrations to rail against what it terms discrimination by the ruling Sunni minority.
So the official mission of the foreign troops is ostensibly to protect Bahraini government buildings, key military and oil installations, and the financial district of the capital, Manama. The financial district is reportedly occupied by several hundred Bahraini pro-democracy protesters, who have blocked off the streets in and out of the area.
But Bahrain has its own 30,000-strong military and would be capable of taking on these chores without foreign help. So arguably more important mission of the Saudi and UAE troops is symbolic: to help the country’s rulers, who are Sunni Muslims, maintain their grip on power by frightening protesters, largely members of the Shia majority, into participating in negotiations as proposed by the regime.
Bahrain’s rulers have recently laid out six main issues to be discussed in talks. These include establishment of an elected parliament empowered to affect government policy; fairly demarcated electoral constituencies; steps to combat financial and administrative corruption; and moves to limit sectarian polarization.
But the Bahraini Crown Prince revealingly did not mention one of the opposition's primary demands -- the prime minister's resignation. The reform opposition has not wavered in its demand that the Prime Minister, Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, step down.
All reports to date indicate that the Saudis were invited by that very same Prime Minister, one of the hard-liners in the ruling Khalifa family. He is reportedly opposed to any substantive negotiations with the demonstrators.
Moreover, they were invited only hours after the departure from Bahrain of U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who met with Bahraini leaders and urged genuine political reforms instead of what he called "baby steps," that, he said, would not be successful in diffusing the tense situation.
Dr. Jean-Francios Seznec, a professor at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, writing in “Foreign Policy” yesterday, says the Bahraini invitation is a direct slap in the face to the U.S.
The pro-democracy forces in Bahrain consist of members of the Shia majority plus some of the poorer Sunnis. The majority Shia country is ruled by a Sunni royal family, which controls virtually every aspect of Bahraini life.
The Sunni v. Shia dimension of the struggle over reform has inevitably drawn in Shia Iran, which has characterized the Saudi and UAE forces as having invaded a sovereign nation. They said it was “unacceptable.”
Saudi Arabia's decision to send troops to Bahrain will almost surely have an impact on its relations with the United States. How serious an impact is unclear. Historically close, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have recently been slogging through some diplomatic mud, with Saudi Arabia disapproving of America’s treatment of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. The Kingdom’s advice to President Obama was to support Mubarak even if his forces started to kill demonstrators. Obama chose another road.
At home, Saudi Arabia has so far managed to quell public demonstrations through a strategy of direct grants to Saudi citizens, billions of dollars in new government employment programs, and a massive police presence. The Saudi foreign minister said last week his nation would “cut any finger that crosses into the kingdom.” A major part of the current pro-democracy narrative as conveyed on State TV, radio and in print, is that the demonstrations sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa are being instigated by “outside forces.”
Various Internet sites have called for a Saudi “Day of Rage” on March 11 (which did not happen) and March 20, with nationwide demonstrations. But public protests are banned by the Saudi authorities, and publicly identifying with demands for political reform also remains risky and can lead to harassment or detention.
On February 25 there were peaceful marches in the Shia towns of Safwa and Qatif in the Eastern Province. Residents of al-‘Awwamiyya, an adjacent small Shia town, held a silent vigil the same day calling for the release of the so-called “Forgotten Prisoners,” nine Shia Saudis detained without charge or trial for over 12 years over unproven allegations of their involvement in the 1996 attacks on U.S. military targets in Khobar that killed 19 Americans.
Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said from Cairo, “Saudi Arabia should rescind its categorical ban on peaceful demonstrations and release the more than 20 protesters detained on March 3, 2011, in the eastern town of Qatif.”
Saudi Arabia is one of only two countries in the Middle East and North Africa that ban protests as a matter of principle; Oman is the other. Saudi Arabia is not party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protect the right to peaceful assembly, but in 2009 the country acceded to the Arab Charter for Human Rights, which also guarantees this right.
“By banning all protests Saudi rulers are telling their countrymen and women that for all political purposes they are not citizens and have no right to participate in public affairs,” said Whitson. “Saudis have had enough of unaccountable rulers telling them to do as they are told and shut up.”
According to Amnesty International, “In the five years since he ascended the Saudi throne, King Abdullah has loosened the reins stifling Saudi society. But his reforms have been largely symbolic, with few lasting institutional changes.”
The group says that, under King Abdullah, Saudis have become freer to criticize the government or societal norms, but those who cross lines such as questioning the role of religion or singling out princes for criticism face harassment or jail.
It adds that women have become more visible in public and in the workplace. But even an adult woman still requires her male guardian’s written consent to make decisions about marriage, work, education, health care, and travel. Abdullah allowed women to stay in hotels without male guardians, but has left the guardian system as a whole intact.
As for the Saudi military presence in Bahrain, Prof. Seznec of Georgetown puts it this way:
“Any troubles caused by Bahraini Shiites will only provoke further Saudi intervention. Ultimately, the island risks falling under de facto, if not de jure, Saudi control.
“The Saudi intervention, however small, is therefore a major step backward for the region. It represents a major slap in the face to the United States, a defeat for the liberal Shiite and Sunni elements in Bahrain, and ultimately a catastrophe for the entire Khalifa family, both the liberal and conservative wings, who may have just surrendered their power to the giant next door.”
Egypt: Hated Security Service Dismantled
By William Fisher
Egypt’s State Security Agency – responsible for the unspeakable torture of thousands and the deaths and disappearances of thousands more – has been
dissolved.
Arguably the most hated and feared symbol of the corrupt three-decade rule of strongman Hosni Mubarak, the agency, in the words of one of the leaders of the pro-democracy uprising that ended Mubarak’s rule, "invaded the life of every Egyptian."
The announcement of the agency’s end was made by the country’s new Interior Minister, Maj. Gen. Mansour el-Essawy, and was greeted with cautious glee by pro-democracy forces. Their delight was tempered by questions about what would succeed the security service and whether any of the service’s officials or operatives would be prosecuted.
The Associated Press reported that El-Essawy said the government plans a new agency that will be in charge of maintaining national security and combating terrorism. He said the new agency would operate according to the constitution and laws of the country and would respect human rights.
The end of State Security was one of the leading demands of the pro-democracy movement. After Mubarak stepped down on February 11, Egyptians forced their way into the agency’s Cairo headquarters and other provincial offices and took documents that they say were being shredded or burned to conceal evidence of human rights violations.
Some of those documents have been shown on State TV and posted on Facebook and Twitter. Several members of the pro-democracy movement said they found documents containing information regarding “disappeared” loved ones.
Reformers have complained that several of their group were detained and roughed up by the Army on their way to the Security Services headquarters. While the government has apologized for this behavior, protesters are demanding that these soldiers be held accountable.
Due to the so-called Emergency Law, the state security agency was subject to virtually no legal restraints. It had the power – which it frequently used – to arrest and detain without cause, and to deny detainees access to family or lawyers.
Egypt’s once-powerful and feared interior minister, al-Adly is currently on trial for brutally crushing the peaceful protests that led to Mubarak’s downfall.
Four senior Interior Ministry officials and three security officers have been arrested in connection with the deaths of demonstrators during the January 25th revolution. The former head of Cairo security, and the former head of public security affairs, and two others, are accused of attempted murder and misuse of public funds. Officer Wael Komy is accused of killing 37 protesters, while two other officers are accused of killing tens. The exact numbers have not yet been confirmed.
International and local human rights watchdog groups have traditionally condemned al-Adly, who served as minister for 14 years, for using torture against political opponents in a systematic manner
According to the Associated Press, Wael Ghonim, the Google executive who worked on a Facebook page that rallied hundreds of thousands of Egyptians behind the protests, tweeted, "As much as we are happy that State Security is now dissolved, National Security, the new entity, must be under real judicial supervision."
Meanwhile, Egyptians were preparing to participate in a referendum on Saturday to decide whether to accept or reject the constitutional amendments proposed by the interim military government. The amendments would make it easier to form political parties and enter political campaigns, but many observers think the amendments don’t go nearly far enough, while others believe the country needs a new constitution, not an amended one.
A number of leading players in the pro-democracy movement are urging their followers to stage protests in Tahrir Square after Friday prayers to oppose the referendum and call for a new constitution.
The National Association for Change, the organization founded by Presidential hopeful Mohamed ElBaradei, is urging rejection of the amendments.
In general, groups supporting the referendum and the amendments tend to be those that are best organized, including the Muslim Brotherhood and what is left of Mubarak’s party, the National Democratic Party (NDP). Opposition is coming from the pro-democracy movement.
In what has been described as “a sign of hope” for improved relations between the police and human rights watchdogs, the newly appointed Minister of Interior met with a leading Egyptian human rights activist on Monday.
Bahey al-Din Hassan, director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), said he met with al-Essawy for an hour and described the meeting as “very positive.”
"The minister was clear and sincere in his criticisms for the approach of former minister [Habib al-Adly],” Hassan told the newspaper, Al-Masry Al-Youm.
During the meeting, Hassan suggested that the ministry conduct an internal investigation into abuses alongside criminal investigations that are already taking place.
“I also proposed the establishment of permanent institutional channels for dialogue between human rights organizations and the minister’s office, as well as horizontal communication channels with district security offices in the provinces and police stations that do not involve the minister’s office,” added the CIHRS director.
A human rights activist meeting with the minister of interior is a rare sight in Egypt.
Hassan added that he would soon present a memo to the minister containing CIHRS proposals for security reform and ideas on the institution’s relationship with human rights groups.
With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now in Egypt and planning to travel to Tunisia later this week, a prominent human rights advocacy group is urging her to “make clear that the United States is committed to ensuring a peaceful transition to democracy in both countries and that the success of these transitions is a high priority for U.S. policy despite other problems in the region and around the world.”
The New York-based Human Rights First (HRF) said, “A peaceful and democratic transition of power in Egypt and Tunisia is far from a foregone conclusion.”
“Secretary Clinton must demonstrate that America plans to remain engaged in these developments despite other events throughout the Middle East and that it is invested in working with the people of Egypt and Tunisia toward a successful transition,” said Human Rights First’s Neil Hicks.
“During this visit, she should pledge America’s willingness to provide economic and diplomatic support toward that end. She should also reach out to independent civil society activists to indicate the United States’ support for their vital role in producing governments that will govern to serve the best interests of the people.”
HRF’s specific recommendations for Secretary Clinton include:
•Reiterate the strong support of the United States government for peaceful, democratic change in both countries and praise the progress that has been made towards that end.
•Commit to providing short-term economic assistance to compensate for the losses suffered during the uprisings.
•Meet with interim authorities, as well as a broad range of opposition political forces. During these meetings, deliver a consistent message to all that the United States will respect the outcome of a peaceful, transparent democratic process and work with any elected government committed to upholding the rule of law, respecting the human rights of all and responding to the needs of the people.
•Meet with independent civil society organizations, especially human rights and democracy promotion organizations, and encourage their role in monitoring the performance of state institutions. Pledge enhanced U.S. support for their work.
•Commit to developing a substantial package of favorable trade agreements, debt forgiveness and other long-term economic support to be negotiated with responsible government officials and private sector representatives.
•Pledge assistance in tracing and repatriating funds unlawfully expropriated by former leaders.
•Urge that transformation takes place in an atmosphere of peace, transparency and respect for the rule of law.
•Support efforts to hold to account those responsible for serious violations of human rights under previous regimes or during the transitional period; recent reports of the involvement of military personnel in detaining peaceful protesters and beating and abusing detainees should be investigated, and those responsible held to account.
Egypt’s State Security Agency – responsible for the unspeakable torture of thousands and the deaths and disappearances of thousands more – has been
dissolved.
Arguably the most hated and feared symbol of the corrupt three-decade rule of strongman Hosni Mubarak, the agency, in the words of one of the leaders of the pro-democracy uprising that ended Mubarak’s rule, "invaded the life of every Egyptian."
The announcement of the agency’s end was made by the country’s new Interior Minister, Maj. Gen. Mansour el-Essawy, and was greeted with cautious glee by pro-democracy forces. Their delight was tempered by questions about what would succeed the security service and whether any of the service’s officials or operatives would be prosecuted.
The Associated Press reported that El-Essawy said the government plans a new agency that will be in charge of maintaining national security and combating terrorism. He said the new agency would operate according to the constitution and laws of the country and would respect human rights.
The end of State Security was one of the leading demands of the pro-democracy movement. After Mubarak stepped down on February 11, Egyptians forced their way into the agency’s Cairo headquarters and other provincial offices and took documents that they say were being shredded or burned to conceal evidence of human rights violations.
Some of those documents have been shown on State TV and posted on Facebook and Twitter. Several members of the pro-democracy movement said they found documents containing information regarding “disappeared” loved ones.
Reformers have complained that several of their group were detained and roughed up by the Army on their way to the Security Services headquarters. While the government has apologized for this behavior, protesters are demanding that these soldiers be held accountable.
Due to the so-called Emergency Law, the state security agency was subject to virtually no legal restraints. It had the power – which it frequently used – to arrest and detain without cause, and to deny detainees access to family or lawyers.
Egypt’s once-powerful and feared interior minister, al-Adly is currently on trial for brutally crushing the peaceful protests that led to Mubarak’s downfall.
Four senior Interior Ministry officials and three security officers have been arrested in connection with the deaths of demonstrators during the January 25th revolution. The former head of Cairo security, and the former head of public security affairs, and two others, are accused of attempted murder and misuse of public funds. Officer Wael Komy is accused of killing 37 protesters, while two other officers are accused of killing tens. The exact numbers have not yet been confirmed.
International and local human rights watchdog groups have traditionally condemned al-Adly, who served as minister for 14 years, for using torture against political opponents in a systematic manner
According to the Associated Press, Wael Ghonim, the Google executive who worked on a Facebook page that rallied hundreds of thousands of Egyptians behind the protests, tweeted, "As much as we are happy that State Security is now dissolved, National Security, the new entity, must be under real judicial supervision."
Meanwhile, Egyptians were preparing to participate in a referendum on Saturday to decide whether to accept or reject the constitutional amendments proposed by the interim military government. The amendments would make it easier to form political parties and enter political campaigns, but many observers think the amendments don’t go nearly far enough, while others believe the country needs a new constitution, not an amended one.
A number of leading players in the pro-democracy movement are urging their followers to stage protests in Tahrir Square after Friday prayers to oppose the referendum and call for a new constitution.
The National Association for Change, the organization founded by Presidential hopeful Mohamed ElBaradei, is urging rejection of the amendments.
In general, groups supporting the referendum and the amendments tend to be those that are best organized, including the Muslim Brotherhood and what is left of Mubarak’s party, the National Democratic Party (NDP). Opposition is coming from the pro-democracy movement.
In what has been described as “a sign of hope” for improved relations between the police and human rights watchdogs, the newly appointed Minister of Interior met with a leading Egyptian human rights activist on Monday.
Bahey al-Din Hassan, director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), said he met with al-Essawy for an hour and described the meeting as “very positive.”
"The minister was clear and sincere in his criticisms for the approach of former minister [Habib al-Adly],” Hassan told the newspaper, Al-Masry Al-Youm.
During the meeting, Hassan suggested that the ministry conduct an internal investigation into abuses alongside criminal investigations that are already taking place.
“I also proposed the establishment of permanent institutional channels for dialogue between human rights organizations and the minister’s office, as well as horizontal communication channels with district security offices in the provinces and police stations that do not involve the minister’s office,” added the CIHRS director.
A human rights activist meeting with the minister of interior is a rare sight in Egypt.
Hassan added that he would soon present a memo to the minister containing CIHRS proposals for security reform and ideas on the institution’s relationship with human rights groups.
With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now in Egypt and planning to travel to Tunisia later this week, a prominent human rights advocacy group is urging her to “make clear that the United States is committed to ensuring a peaceful transition to democracy in both countries and that the success of these transitions is a high priority for U.S. policy despite other problems in the region and around the world.”
The New York-based Human Rights First (HRF) said, “A peaceful and democratic transition of power in Egypt and Tunisia is far from a foregone conclusion.”
“Secretary Clinton must demonstrate that America plans to remain engaged in these developments despite other events throughout the Middle East and that it is invested in working with the people of Egypt and Tunisia toward a successful transition,” said Human Rights First’s Neil Hicks.
“During this visit, she should pledge America’s willingness to provide economic and diplomatic support toward that end. She should also reach out to independent civil society activists to indicate the United States’ support for their vital role in producing governments that will govern to serve the best interests of the people.”
HRF’s specific recommendations for Secretary Clinton include:
•Reiterate the strong support of the United States government for peaceful, democratic change in both countries and praise the progress that has been made towards that end.
•Commit to providing short-term economic assistance to compensate for the losses suffered during the uprisings.
•Meet with interim authorities, as well as a broad range of opposition political forces. During these meetings, deliver a consistent message to all that the United States will respect the outcome of a peaceful, transparent democratic process and work with any elected government committed to upholding the rule of law, respecting the human rights of all and responding to the needs of the people.
•Meet with independent civil society organizations, especially human rights and democracy promotion organizations, and encourage their role in monitoring the performance of state institutions. Pledge enhanced U.S. support for their work.
•Commit to developing a substantial package of favorable trade agreements, debt forgiveness and other long-term economic support to be negotiated with responsible government officials and private sector representatives.
•Pledge assistance in tracing and repatriating funds unlawfully expropriated by former leaders.
•Urge that transformation takes place in an atmosphere of peace, transparency and respect for the rule of law.
•Support efforts to hold to account those responsible for serious violations of human rights under previous regimes or during the transitional period; recent reports of the involvement of military personnel in detaining peaceful protesters and beating and abusing detainees should be investigated, and those responsible held to account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
