By William Fisher
As Syria teetered on the brink of civil war, the Canadian computer programmer who gained fame by being “rendered” to Syria by the United States, and being jailed and tortured there for a year, is charging that Syrian President Basher al-Assad is “committing political suicide” by the cruel and inhuman methods he is employing to quell anti-government protests in his country,
Maher Arar, who was spirited away from Kennedy International Airport in a case of mistaken identity for which the US has refused to apologize, was released after a year by the Syrians with no charges against him. Arar, A Canadian citizen born in Syria, wrote in an article in Prism, an online journal he founded last year:
“I believe [al-Assad] has committed so many mistakes the most serious of which is his unwillingness to understand that the continued use of state propaganda against the protesters (by accusing them of being Israeli infiltrators) in order to justify the use of lethal force against them is a tactic that does not work any more in this 21st century.”
He added that Assad is living “in a state of denial.” Assad’s “other big mistake is his total reliance on the security and intelligence people who seem to have always influenced his political decisions over the last 11 years,” Arar said.
Meanwhile, human rights groups are demanding that Deraa, the war-torn Southern city where Assad unleashed his military on civilian citizens, be allowed to receive aid. They say there are acute shortages of medical supplies, food and water.
An estimated 500 peaceful demonstraters have been killed and thousands wounded by Syrian army soldiers.
Nadim Houry, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch (HRW), told the Guardian newspaper, "The siege should be lifted, food allowed in, and communications reinstated."
HRW said on April 25, Syrian security troops raided Daraa and shot citizens indiscriminately, leading to the deaths of dozens of civilians, according to news agencies and witnesses. Authorities were aiming to suppress peaceful protests demanding political reforms that started in mid-March.
In later developments, HRW reported that hundreds of Syrian troops stormed the Damascus suburb of Saqba overnight - breaking into houses and arresting about 300 people, witnesses say.
Tanks and troops are also reported to have been sent to other trouble spots, amid fresh reports of anti-government demonstrations in Homs and Hama.The moves came despite appeals from the UN and US for President Bashar al-Assad to end the violence against protesters.
Activists, meanwhile, were vowing to stage a "Day of Defiance" on Friday.
More than 500 Syrians are thought to have been killed since the protests started seven weeks ago.
At least 2,500 others have been detained, although rights groups say the figure could be much higher.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is reporting that “The images coming out of Syria are desperate and distressing. A video that we're pretty sure is from Deraa shows nothing short of a massacre - dozens of people killed in the streets, people shot through the head, others bleeding to death on the ground.”
The BBC says “they appear to be mostly young and unarmed people who took part a few weeks ago in nothing more than a protest for change.
The few people managing to get out of Syria and across the border into Jordan are very frightened and wary of speaking out. But one man who came out this morning told me three members of his own family had been killed.
He says the army is now in Deraa literally washing away the blood from the streets. This is in anticipation of a visit by a UN human rights delegation in the next few days.”
The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) said Syrian authorities imposed complete siege on the city including a media blackout.
“The Syrian authorities bear sole responsibility for the safety of journalists. Authorities have to immediately declare reasons and places of their detention. Authorities are responsible for their disappearance and have to respond to allegations that the journalists were abducted” by government operatives,” the organization said.
The siege on the city has been the most brutal element of a vicious campaign to crush dissent that has led to widespread international condemnation. The Red Cross on Tuesday called on Syria to allow its health workers safe access to people injured in bloody protests and let it visit those who have been arrested.
"We need to have larger access, especially in the south, and here I talk about Deraa," ICRC spokesman Hisham Hassan told a news briefing in Geneva.
The Guardian newspaper reports, “There is growing evidence of a humanitarian crisis in the city. No one has been allowed in and reports trickling out paint a devastating picture of a population suffering from a lack of medical supplies, food and water. Communications are still cut off. Few agencies are licensed to work in Syria and those who are have specific remits to work with Iraqi refugees, who fled in the wake of the US war on Iraq.”
Meanwhile, according to the Guardian, some activists expressed concerns that protests could fizzle out as Syrians, “who have braved security services' gunfire, fear becoming one of thousands being rounded up.” But other observers are saying that the Syrians “have lost their fear of fear” and are determined to remain in the streets despite the all-too-real possibility that they will be killed or wounded.
The Guardian quoted the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights as saying that hundreds had been charged with "maligning the prestige of the state", which carries a three-year sentence.
"I would rather be killed than be locked up and tortured," said one young man in the capital, echoing many others. "We know what happens to people inside."
Amnesty International, which has not been allowed access to Syria, has revealed details of detainees who said they were beaten with batons and cables and subjected to harsh conditions. One said that after being stripped and beaten he was made to lick his blood off the floor.
Diplomats and some opposition figures continue to urge the government to undertake national dialogue. Over the past few weeks, Assad has met with local delegations, and reportedly reached out to some national figures.
But Syrian observers said such efforts were a farce: "They have quashed the opposition and thrown intellectuals into jail," said Ayman Abdel Nour, a Syrian dissident in Dubai. Opposition figures and activists still at large told the Guardian they would not consider meetings until the violence stopped.
That did not seem imminent as witnesses said tanks were seen heading for areas around Homs central Syria.
Homs is the largest city in Syria to experience persistant protests calling for the end of Assad's 11-year rule, while 17 were shot dead in nearby Rastan on Friday.
A witness told Reuters he had seen 30 tanks and at least 60 trucks filled with soldiers, days after an eyewitness described to the Guardian the area around Rastan as looking like a "war zone".
The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information has denounced what it says is a “trend of journalists disappearing in Syria in mysterious circumstances.”
Dorothy Parvaz , a journalist working for channel alJazeera disappeared last Friday and all and communications with her failed after her arrival at Damascus airport. The Algerian journalist, Khalid Si Mohand, who is stationed in Damascus and works for Radio France International, also disappeared April 9 in mysterious circumstances.
According to alJazeera, Ms. Parvaz, 39, who holds American, Canadian and Iranian passports, went to Damascus on Friday to join the channel crew and to participate in the coverage of the events of peaceful protests in Syria. But contact with her was lost after leaving the plane at Damascus International Airport. So far there has been no information on her whereabouts, her condition, the reasons for her disappearance, or her fate.
Despite the lack of information about these journalists, the Arabic Network believes that the Syrian authorities are mainly responsible, especially as it is the only power in Syria, which is “trying to impose media blackout on events to hide the suppression to public freedoms and the brutal assaults against the Syrian citizens for using their right to peaceful protest to demand democratic reforms in the country.”
Another well-respected human rights organization, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, is gravely concerned about the Syrian authorities’ continued insistence on using excessive force to break up ongoing peaceful protests demanding the right to dignity and democratic freedoms.
CIHRS believes that the repressive security approach undertaken by the Syrian regime “once again proves the utter lack of genuine will to engage in serious reform and exposes the falsity of recent official promises of reform meant to circumvent Syrians’ democratic entitlements and absorb the anger at home and abroad following the brutal crackdown that left at least 123 people dead. Most of the victims died in peaceful protests that have taken place since the second half of March, starting first in Deraa and spreading to several other Syrian provinces.”
The group noted that Syrian President al-Assad admitted a few days ago that reform had been too long delayed in Syria and that the country might face destructive dangers if it did not embark on reform. However, “these exalted phrases found their practical application in further violence against peaceful protests called for by forces demanding democratic freedoms, which has led to the death of an additional 100 people in the first half of April,” the group said, adding that most of the victims were killed in demonstrations in Latakia, Deir al-Zor, Damascus, Baniyas, in addition to Deraa.
While the official media and presidential aides reported that a decision had been made to lift the state of emergency that has been in force in Syria since 1963, President al-Assad quickly dispelled this notion. Instead, he seems to be following in the footsteps of deposed Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak by issuing orders to draft a new counterterrorism law to replace the emergency law.
“The practices of the Syrian authorities clearly show that the Baath regime is incapable of learning the lesson from the revolutionary uprisings in the Arab region, which have thus far led to the downfall of two of the most recalcitrant examples of police rule in the Arab world - Egypt and Tunisia - and which are shaking the thrones of tyrants in Libya and Yemen,” the CIHRS said.
It further warned that continued repression and deception by the Syrian regime to avoid addressing demands for reform and democracy “threaten to throw the country into an intractable spiral of violence.”
The group is calling on the UN Human Rights Council to convene a Special Session to discuss the rapidly deteriorating situation in Syria and consider measures to end the abuses of the Syrian authorities.
CIHRS stresses that “saving the country from violence and avoiding the Libyan or Yemeni scenario of armed conflict, which threatens wide-scale civil war, require the Syrian regime to exercise the utmost responsibility toward its people and to immediately adopt serious, far-reaching measures that respond to the aspirations and sacrifices made by Syrians to achieve democracy.”
At the end of April, Pres. Barrack Obama signed an Executive Order imposing sanctions against Syrian officials and others. He said, “The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the use of force by the Syrian government against demonstrators. This outrageous use of violence to quell protests must come to an end now. We regret the loss of life and our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the victims, and with the Syrian people in this challenging time.”
Obama went on to say, “The Syrian Government’s moves yesterday to repeal Syria’s decades-old Emergency Law and allow for peaceful demonstrations were not serious given the continued violent repression against protesters today.
“Over the course of two months since protests in Syria began, the United States has repeatedly encouraged President Assad and the Syrian Government to implement meaningful reforms, but they refuse to respect the rights of the Syrian people or be responsive to their aspirations.
“The Syrian people have called for the freedoms that all individuals around the world should enjoy: freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and the ability to freely choose their leaders.
“President Assad and the Syrian authorities have repeatedly rejected their calls and chosen the path of repression. They have placed their personal interests ahead of the interests of the Syrian people, resorting to the use of force and outrageous human rights abuses to compound the already oppressive security measures in place before these demonstrations erupted.
“Instead of listening to their own people, President Assad is blaming outsiders while seeking Iranian assistance in repressing Syria’s citizens through the same brutal tactics that have been used by his Iranian allies. We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people.
“We strongly oppose the Syrian government’s treatment of its citizens and we continue to oppose its continued destabilizing behavior more generally, including support for terrorism and terrorist groups. The United States will continue to stand up for democracy and the universal rights that all human beings deserve, in Syria and around the world.”
Though Syrian demonstrators would no doubt have welcomed Obama’s message much earlier, this would seem out of character with the step-by-step carefully calibrated messages the President and his top people have been delivering since it became apparent that The Arab Spring wasn’t going away any time soon.
The US had no overarching national interest in Tunisia; ergo, the message welcoming the overthrow of that country’s ruler of 30 years came relatively quickly. Egypt was seen as a loyal and effective ally for many years; it had its own peace treaty with Israel and had been helpful in brokering agreements between Hamas and Fatah. So it appeared to some to be taking forever for the president to, as they say, throw Mr. Mubarak under the bus – albeit that the Saudis are miffed because they think Obama did this much too soon.
And it is largely out of deference to the Saudis – suppliers of 12 per cent of our oil – that the US has not spoken out more forcefully against the brutal repression of Bahrain’s Shi’ite majority by the Sunni minority headed by the king and the royal family. In Yemen, where the US has a vital national interest in the form of AlQaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the US has helped broker a deal for the current president to step down.
But the Syrian situation is every bit as complex as any of the other Arab Spring sites. Mostly Sunni Syria has reached out to mostly Shi’ite Iran to arm Hamas and Hizbollah. Syria sits dangerously close to Israel and the two countries have been mortal enemies for years. And Syria exerts enormous influence in Lebanon, sitting on Israel’s northern border.
So one might have expected Obama to walk as gingerly among the Syrians as among, say, the Egyptians or the Bahrainis. Better the devil you know, would have been the reasoning.
That he didn’t – that he couldn’t – so reason is a work of self-destruction by Mr. Assad. Even in this time when the US is learning again how to balance the national interest with realpolitik, the unspeakable brutality, the total blindness, of some nations – no matter how influential – reaches a point where silence is no longer an option..
I’m happy we have reached that point with Syria. I wish we could summon the courage to do the same with Bahrain.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Monday, May 02, 2011
Egypt: What Else is the Army Not Doing?
By William Fisher
Over the weekend, as I was writing a piece about the failure of the Egyptian Army to put a stop to former President Mubarak’s grisly practice of arresting people on the flimsiest grounds and then proceeding to detain, torture and abuse them, I was reminded of a couple of other big things the Army isn’t being helpful about.
One of them is press freedom. The other is labor unions. In the former, the interim military government is proposing new regulations that will give journalists less freedom, not more. And in the struggle of working people to morph from pathetic “company unions” to free and independent 21st century unions, the Army seems to be a significant obstacle.
When the Army first weighed in on press freedom, I was cautiously hopeful.
Here what the Supreme Council said:
“Maintaining the council’s policy to communicate with the Egyptian population and the youths of the revolution these days to spread the truths and reply to rumors that may harm the revolt’s achievements and cause strife between the Egyptian people and the Armed Forces, the council stresses on the following:
“1- Since the beginning of the January 25 Revolution, the Supreme Council
has been keen not to interfere in the editorial policies of all kinds of
media.
“2- The media in Egypt is absolutely free to publish or discuss any matter
and assume responsibility for the consequences of its coverage based on
its credibility.
“3- All statements issued by the Supreme Council are made without the
hiding of any facts as the council believes in the importance of spreading
truths as soon as possible.
“4- The ultimate goal of the Supreme Council and the Egyptian people
nowadays is to support all kinds of Egyptian media to restore its vital
role that made the most powerful impact on our Arab and Islamic nation
while back.”
Well, that was encouraging. Restoring the press’s “vital role.”
Until I learned that the Army (which is ruling Egypt until elections can be held) has issued orders that require local print media to obtain government approval, before publication, for any reference to Egypt’s armed forces.
A letter sent to editors by the director of the "morale affairs directorate" of the Egyptian military ordered them not to "publish any (topics, news,
statements, complaints, advertisements, pictures) pertaining to the armed forces or to commanders of the armed forces without first consulting with the Morale Affairs Directorate and the Directorate of Military Intelligence and Information Gathering."
Sound familiar? That letter could have been signed by Hosni Mubarak!!
According to Britain’s Guardian newspaper, the letter's content has not been reported in Egyptian publications, but “the regime of censorship has been noted by bloggers.”
There is nothing theoretical about the Army’s intentions. Witness the military court in Cairo sentencing blogger Maikel Nabil Sanad to three years in prison for "insulting the military." His crime: Writing an article in which he criticized the military for not being transparent in its decision-making.
And what was he doing in a military court? He was there because he wrote about the military.
Sanad, 25, was sentenced after participating in a hearing on his case that left the defendant and his lawyer believing the case would be continued later.
But, after his lawyer had left, Sanad was given a 10-minute “trial” and sentenced to three years in prison. Without his lawyer or any family members present.
Maikel Nabil Sanad is well-known to the powers that be, especially the military. He is a conscientious objector and a known critic of the Egyptian military.
"In a way, his arrest proves that his criticism of the role of the military in the revolution is very true", says Andreas Speck of War Resisters International.
"Far from being a free country, Egypt is presently governed directly by the military, which did never and does not now care for political freedom or human rights. The revolution might have gotten rid of Mubarak as figure head, but it has not - yet - achieved political freedom."
"The methods used by the Egyptian military do not seem to have evolved since Hosni Mubarak's fall," Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said. "They show the degree to which the military still cannot be criticized and are still a taboo subject. A civilian should not be tried by a military court. This is not the way things are done in the democratic society to which Egyptians aspire."
Julliard added: "The circumstances of this blogger's arrest and the conduct of his trial demonstrate a complete lack of consideration by the military for the most basic principles of international law. Egypt has begun a process of democratization and it should now be possible to criticize the armed forces like any other component
Meanwhile, on the labor front, workers were struggling to come to grips with a draft anti-strike law ratified by the military in late March. According to Egyptian press reports, “this law criminalizes organizing or inciting a demonstration that is deemed by the military to halt production or the flow of public life. Those convicted will be subject to a fine of up to LE500,000 and a year in prison, even or peaceful demonstrations.”
The local press reports that the ratification “was tucked away in a few lines in SCAF’s last 15-page decree in the Official Gazette. The discreet announcement comes in stark contrast to the multi-colored, user-friendly SCAF announcements posted as pictures on their Facebook page.”
Meanwhile, in a historic “first,” Egypt’s working class was able to celebrate
Labor Day (May 1) in Tahrir Square with independent unions, said Kamal Abbas, a worker and general coordinator for the Egyptian Center for Trade Unions and Workers Services.
The newly founded Egyptian Independent Trade Unions Federation (EITUF) is now home to at least 12 labor unions. The federation sees itself as an umbrella for all independent unions created before and after the 25 January revolution.
According to the El Masry El Yaum newspaper, the EITUF aims to compete with the state-controlled Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF), which has been accused of repressing workers and being a tool of the ousted regime.
The newspaper said labor groups have called for disbanding the ETUF, and additional demands include setting a higher minimum wage, nullifying the newly implemented protest law, permanently hiring workers who currently have temporary contracts, and removing company management accused of corruption. Workers' rights groups have highlighted the difficulty in establishing new labor unions during the transitional period.
Kamal Abbas, general coordinator of the Center for Trade Unions and Workers Services (CTUWS) and board member of the EITUF, filed a lawsuit earlier this week to disband the ETUF and put its money under judicial supervision.
The group also called for the nullification of the law criminalizing sit-ins and industrial actions.
"The demand for a minimum wage and, more broadly, the restructuring of the national wages scheme, is one that brings together everyone who works for a wage. Doctors and professors are at the forefront of this battle, not only
industrial workers,” said Salma Saeed, an activist and member of one of the
parties organizing Labor Day told the press.
The coalition will also call for demands that include benefits, amending the
labor law to limit the powers of employers, protecting rights for unemployed and irregular workers and resuming work in places where employers have fled the country.
The official federation, in the meantime, announced last week the cancellation of Labor Day celebrations since its chairman, Hussein Megawer, faces corruption charges and is undergoing investigations.
Egypt’s labor unions have been consistently weakened by the state exercising control over a wide range of issues. Some of these issues have arisen from the stonewalling of employers to increase wages or enhance benefits. But others have grown out of the gradual dismantling of much of the state-owned industrial sector in favor of privatization.
Privatization has had some beneficial effects, since government enterprises were generally inefficient and unable to compete in markets outside Egypt. Some private companies that purchased government-controlled industrial properties were genuinely dedicated to remaining in production with a better competitive environment based on increased efficiencies.
But many others turned out to be a scam. For example, a syndicate of Egyptian investors, or a foreign company, would acquire a state-owned company and thereby privatize it. But instead of retaining the work force to bring about increased efficiencies to boost sales, the new owners dismantled the factories, sold its equipment, with the intention of using the land for non-industrial purposes, for example, tourism.
Government officials were bribed to allow this to happen and the factory labor force was dismissed and sometimes replaced by foreign workers familiar with the planned new incarnation of the one-time factory.
In a move triggered by desperation, workers from a once-profitable privatized factory staged a sit-in in the factory rather than allow all its equipment – and their jobs -- to be shipped elsewhere. Broadcaster Paul Ray has details in his Real News broadcast. (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=714)
I’m sure many of you remember the infamous photographs from Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, and the allegation by former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the torture of prisoners was the work of “a few bad apples.”
Well, as we learned more and more about “enhanced interrogation” techniques, we believed less and less of what Rumsfeld and his generals (and his president) told us.
But even if there never were any written orders for “enhanced” interrogations, that phenomenon known as “commend influence” would probably have got the job done. Command influence means “everyone knows what the boss wants done, so let’s get it done!”
Was there not command influence working in the sentencing of a blogger? Was there not command influence working in the attempt to emasculate the labor movement? And was there not commend influence working as military guards snatched protesters out of Tahrir Square, arrested and detained them, and proceeded to do to prisoners exactly what Hosni Mubarak’s MPs would have done to them?
I have two questions: First, how will it stop? What will stop it? These kinds of aberrations don’t go away by themselves. They’re hard enough to change even with the best training money can buy. And here we are dealing with a culture of brutality that has been nurtured by the military for a generation!
Second question: When the Egyptian people finally get to vote for a parliament and a president, will the military accept its new civilian masters?
In the answer, we’ll know the future of the Arab Awakening in Egypt.
Over the weekend, as I was writing a piece about the failure of the Egyptian Army to put a stop to former President Mubarak’s grisly practice of arresting people on the flimsiest grounds and then proceeding to detain, torture and abuse them, I was reminded of a couple of other big things the Army isn’t being helpful about.
One of them is press freedom. The other is labor unions. In the former, the interim military government is proposing new regulations that will give journalists less freedom, not more. And in the struggle of working people to morph from pathetic “company unions” to free and independent 21st century unions, the Army seems to be a significant obstacle.
When the Army first weighed in on press freedom, I was cautiously hopeful.
Here what the Supreme Council said:
“Maintaining the council’s policy to communicate with the Egyptian population and the youths of the revolution these days to spread the truths and reply to rumors that may harm the revolt’s achievements and cause strife between the Egyptian people and the Armed Forces, the council stresses on the following:
“1- Since the beginning of the January 25 Revolution, the Supreme Council
has been keen not to interfere in the editorial policies of all kinds of
media.
“2- The media in Egypt is absolutely free to publish or discuss any matter
and assume responsibility for the consequences of its coverage based on
its credibility.
“3- All statements issued by the Supreme Council are made without the
hiding of any facts as the council believes in the importance of spreading
truths as soon as possible.
“4- The ultimate goal of the Supreme Council and the Egyptian people
nowadays is to support all kinds of Egyptian media to restore its vital
role that made the most powerful impact on our Arab and Islamic nation
while back.”
Well, that was encouraging. Restoring the press’s “vital role.”
Until I learned that the Army (which is ruling Egypt until elections can be held) has issued orders that require local print media to obtain government approval, before publication, for any reference to Egypt’s armed forces.
A letter sent to editors by the director of the "morale affairs directorate" of the Egyptian military ordered them not to "publish any (topics, news,
statements, complaints, advertisements, pictures) pertaining to the armed forces or to commanders of the armed forces without first consulting with the Morale Affairs Directorate and the Directorate of Military Intelligence and Information Gathering."
Sound familiar? That letter could have been signed by Hosni Mubarak!!
According to Britain’s Guardian newspaper, the letter's content has not been reported in Egyptian publications, but “the regime of censorship has been noted by bloggers.”
There is nothing theoretical about the Army’s intentions. Witness the military court in Cairo sentencing blogger Maikel Nabil Sanad to three years in prison for "insulting the military." His crime: Writing an article in which he criticized the military for not being transparent in its decision-making.
And what was he doing in a military court? He was there because he wrote about the military.
Sanad, 25, was sentenced after participating in a hearing on his case that left the defendant and his lawyer believing the case would be continued later.
But, after his lawyer had left, Sanad was given a 10-minute “trial” and sentenced to three years in prison. Without his lawyer or any family members present.
Maikel Nabil Sanad is well-known to the powers that be, especially the military. He is a conscientious objector and a known critic of the Egyptian military.
"In a way, his arrest proves that his criticism of the role of the military in the revolution is very true", says Andreas Speck of War Resisters International.
"Far from being a free country, Egypt is presently governed directly by the military, which did never and does not now care for political freedom or human rights. The revolution might have gotten rid of Mubarak as figure head, but it has not - yet - achieved political freedom."
"The methods used by the Egyptian military do not seem to have evolved since Hosni Mubarak's fall," Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said. "They show the degree to which the military still cannot be criticized and are still a taboo subject. A civilian should not be tried by a military court. This is not the way things are done in the democratic society to which Egyptians aspire."
Julliard added: "The circumstances of this blogger's arrest and the conduct of his trial demonstrate a complete lack of consideration by the military for the most basic principles of international law. Egypt has begun a process of democratization and it should now be possible to criticize the armed forces like any other component
Meanwhile, on the labor front, workers were struggling to come to grips with a draft anti-strike law ratified by the military in late March. According to Egyptian press reports, “this law criminalizes organizing or inciting a demonstration that is deemed by the military to halt production or the flow of public life. Those convicted will be subject to a fine of up to LE500,000 and a year in prison, even or peaceful demonstrations.”
The local press reports that the ratification “was tucked away in a few lines in SCAF’s last 15-page decree in the Official Gazette. The discreet announcement comes in stark contrast to the multi-colored, user-friendly SCAF announcements posted as pictures on their Facebook page.”
Meanwhile, in a historic “first,” Egypt’s working class was able to celebrate
Labor Day (May 1) in Tahrir Square with independent unions, said Kamal Abbas, a worker and general coordinator for the Egyptian Center for Trade Unions and Workers Services.
The newly founded Egyptian Independent Trade Unions Federation (EITUF) is now home to at least 12 labor unions. The federation sees itself as an umbrella for all independent unions created before and after the 25 January revolution.
According to the El Masry El Yaum newspaper, the EITUF aims to compete with the state-controlled Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF), which has been accused of repressing workers and being a tool of the ousted regime.
The newspaper said labor groups have called for disbanding the ETUF, and additional demands include setting a higher minimum wage, nullifying the newly implemented protest law, permanently hiring workers who currently have temporary contracts, and removing company management accused of corruption. Workers' rights groups have highlighted the difficulty in establishing new labor unions during the transitional period.
Kamal Abbas, general coordinator of the Center for Trade Unions and Workers Services (CTUWS) and board member of the EITUF, filed a lawsuit earlier this week to disband the ETUF and put its money under judicial supervision.
The group also called for the nullification of the law criminalizing sit-ins and industrial actions.
"The demand for a minimum wage and, more broadly, the restructuring of the national wages scheme, is one that brings together everyone who works for a wage. Doctors and professors are at the forefront of this battle, not only
industrial workers,” said Salma Saeed, an activist and member of one of the
parties organizing Labor Day told the press.
The coalition will also call for demands that include benefits, amending the
labor law to limit the powers of employers, protecting rights for unemployed and irregular workers and resuming work in places where employers have fled the country.
The official federation, in the meantime, announced last week the cancellation of Labor Day celebrations since its chairman, Hussein Megawer, faces corruption charges and is undergoing investigations.
Egypt’s labor unions have been consistently weakened by the state exercising control over a wide range of issues. Some of these issues have arisen from the stonewalling of employers to increase wages or enhance benefits. But others have grown out of the gradual dismantling of much of the state-owned industrial sector in favor of privatization.
Privatization has had some beneficial effects, since government enterprises were generally inefficient and unable to compete in markets outside Egypt. Some private companies that purchased government-controlled industrial properties were genuinely dedicated to remaining in production with a better competitive environment based on increased efficiencies.
But many others turned out to be a scam. For example, a syndicate of Egyptian investors, or a foreign company, would acquire a state-owned company and thereby privatize it. But instead of retaining the work force to bring about increased efficiencies to boost sales, the new owners dismantled the factories, sold its equipment, with the intention of using the land for non-industrial purposes, for example, tourism.
Government officials were bribed to allow this to happen and the factory labor force was dismissed and sometimes replaced by foreign workers familiar with the planned new incarnation of the one-time factory.
In a move triggered by desperation, workers from a once-profitable privatized factory staged a sit-in in the factory rather than allow all its equipment – and their jobs -- to be shipped elsewhere. Broadcaster Paul Ray has details in his Real News broadcast. (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=714)
I’m sure many of you remember the infamous photographs from Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, and the allegation by former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the torture of prisoners was the work of “a few bad apples.”
Well, as we learned more and more about “enhanced interrogation” techniques, we believed less and less of what Rumsfeld and his generals (and his president) told us.
But even if there never were any written orders for “enhanced” interrogations, that phenomenon known as “commend influence” would probably have got the job done. Command influence means “everyone knows what the boss wants done, so let’s get it done!”
Was there not command influence working in the sentencing of a blogger? Was there not command influence working in the attempt to emasculate the labor movement? And was there not commend influence working as military guards snatched protesters out of Tahrir Square, arrested and detained them, and proceeded to do to prisoners exactly what Hosni Mubarak’s MPs would have done to them?
I have two questions: First, how will it stop? What will stop it? These kinds of aberrations don’t go away by themselves. They’re hard enough to change even with the best training money can buy. And here we are dealing with a culture of brutality that has been nurtured by the military for a generation!
Second question: When the Egyptian people finally get to vote for a parliament and a president, will the military accept its new civilian masters?
In the answer, we’ll know the future of the Arab Awakening in Egypt.
The Army is Watching Over Egypt. But Who’s Watching Over the Army?
By William Fisher
Mounting criticism of the way the Egyptian Army is governing Egypt grew louder yesterday with press reports that one of the country’s most prominent human rights lawyers has been arrested and will likely face a military trial..
The Egyptian Daily News quoted activist Mona Saif as saying that, “Law professor at the American University in Cairo Amr El-Shalakany was arrested two days ago and will be tried in a military court in Suez.” Saif is a member of "No for Military Trials for Civilians" campaign, a grassroots campaign to eliminate such trials, which were allowed under the country’s 30-year Emergency Laws.
She said El- Shalakany faces a possible sentence of 15 years in prison for "insulting the supreme military council" and causing riots and burning a police station.
Hailing from a family of prominent lawyers, El-Shalakany has not yet been officially charged.
Initial reports said he was arrested when he attempted to drive in a restricted area near Neama Bay in Sharm El-Shiekh, one of Egypt’s top beach resorts in South Sinai. He allegedly exchanged verbal insults with the military officers who tried to stop him.
Saif told the newspaper that initially El-Shalakany was to be released Friday when the detaining officers suddenly decided to transfer him to Suez for a trial under martial law.
He faces a possible sentence of 15 years in prison for "insulting the supreme military council" and causing riots and burning a police station. El-Shalakany, who has not yet been officially charged, was arrested when he attempted to drive in a restricted area near Neama Bay in Sharm El-Shiekh, one of Egypt’s top beach resorts in South Sinai, the newspaper reported..
"We assume that he would not set fire in a police station, and would calculate his actions in this context, as someone who is very aware of Egyptian Law," said Saif.
El-Shalakany's lawyer was not immediately available for comment.
El-Shalakany blogged for the NY Times during the revolution. His page at the American University says he's a member of the New York bar, who studied at Harvard and at Columbia, in the law, gender and sexuality program.
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has been the sole executive power in Egypt since Mubarak resigned on 11 February, and their position of authority is expected to last at least another nine months, until the next presidential elections. To date, however, there has been little effort exerted to hold the military accountable for its actions.
The military is widely credited with securing the fall of the Mubarak regime by placing pressure on the president to step down. But as Egypt enters its tenth week of martial law, activists and analysts are questioning the ruling military council’s decision-making process and challenging the military on frequent allegations of human rights abuses.
The Egyptian public’s unwavering support for the military is particularly problematic. In the early days of the Tahrir Square revolution, the Army won the applause of the anti-government protesters by using its tanks to keep pro-Mubarak forces from attacking demonstrators. Later, the Army was seen clearly to take the side of the anti-government protesters.
But, even during the demonstrations in Tahrir Square, the Army was accused of roughing up and arresting many anti-government demonstrators, torturing them in custody, and holding some of these civilians for military trials. Their actions sparked an outcry from the anti-Mubarak forces and an investigation by the Army Supreme Council, which is running the country until elections are held.
In recent weeks, Amnesty International has documented the continuing use of torture, arbitrary detention, trials of civilians before military courts and repression of freedom of expression by authorities.
After the army violently cleared Tahrir Square of demonstrators on 9 March, women protesters told Amnesty International that they were beaten, given electric shocks, subjected to strip searches, then forced to submit to “virginity checks” and threatened with prostitution charges.
Many revolutionaries and others have expressed serious concerns over the
performance of the SCAF, such as the continuation of military trials for
civilians, and the relatively slow pace of certain reforms, including the
dismantling of local councils and the prosecution of corrupt figures from the
former regime.
“That’s what we were out protesting against on 9 March,” said Hazem, a
30-year-old granite contractor who was arrested by military police during the 9 March protests in Tahrir. A judge in a military court gave him a quick trial and sentenced him to three years on charges of "thuggery".
Hazem, whose name has been changed for his safety, spoke to the Al-Masry Al-Youm newspaper by phone from Tora prison.
“They interrogated us for 10 minutes in the kitchen of the military police
prison before quickly giving the sentence,” he said.
Military trials are perhaps the main concern of human rights organizations
regarding SCAF performance so far. At least 40 people out of a group of 150 who were arrested on 9 March remain in prison, having been tried as "thugs", says Hazem. Legal activists say that at least 130 of the 150 arrested were recognizable figures from the Tahrir uprising that led to Hosni Mubarak’s resignation.
Many caught by the military so far say that military police beat and insulted
them more severely than the State Security apparatus ever did under Mubarak.
“When they arrested us, they continuously beat us for seven hours straight
without even looking at our IDs and checking who we were,” said Hany Adel, another 9 March detainee who is now in Torah (spelling) prison.
Human Rights Watch has criticized torture in military prisons, as well as many military arrests and trials, such as the recent one of blogger Michael Nabil.
While the military denies any systematic use of torture or abuse -- including
"virginity tests" for women -- activists feel the evidence suggests that the
military is guilty as charged.
“There are too many similarities between the acts of physical and verbal
assaults in military prisons from all over to say that they are individual and
sporadic incidents,” said Mona Seif of the “No to Military Trials” campaign.
Evidence gathered by the campaign shows that many of the detentions were of known revolutionary faces, picked out by informants.
“They made fun of us and said things like ‘Do you think you will change the
world!?’” said Hazem.
With the ongoing sparcity of law enforcement on the streets, the strict
anti-thuggery laws are generally accepted as being necessary, by Egyptian
activists and laymen alike. The law was made very public, and the military
constantly lauded any resulting arrests and sentences. However, with their quick trials and harsh penalties, anti-thuggery laws have created a system by which many revolutionaries and innocent people are not given due process.
Some inmates in Tora have told Al-Masry Al-Youm that they were arrested, beaten and put in prison without having once shown their IDs to any military personnel.
“I understand, though, that the military is burdened these days with a huge
responsibility. We just want fair trials,” said Adel.
The sometimes repressive nature of SCAF’s policies is constantly lauded by its apologists as being necessary due to the supposedly precarious security and economic situation of the country.
For others, it has raised questions about the military’s ability to handle its
position as the sole executive power in the country; its ability to control
civilian life, the caliber of the civilians advising the military, and its plans
for the handover of power.
“The Supreme Council has previously said that they acknowledge the legitimacy of the revolution. However, they are not engaging enough revolutionary figures in any of their decision-making,” said Hassan.
He added that the continued presence of figures from the old regime represents a major stumbling block in the dismantling and rebuilding process necessary in this phase of the revolution. Political figures have proposed a series of reforms to enhance increased dialogue with the SCAF.
Presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei has proposed that SCAF create a 50-person civilian consultative council to help them with decision making.
“Even though the revolution has been successful in dismantling the old system, the rebuilding process is deficient. Many of the decisions are not made with enough popular or representative participation,” said Ammar Ali Hassan, an independent political analyst and columnist for the Arabic edition of Al-Masry Al-Youm.
In late March the military ratified the draft anti-strike law, which
criminalizes organizing or inciting a demonstration that is deemed by the
military to halt production or the flow of public life. Those convicted will be
subject to a fine of up to LE500,000 and a year in prison, even for peaceful
demonstrations.
The ratification was tucked away in a few lines in SCAF’s last 15-page decree in the Official Gazette. The discreet announcement comes in stark contrast to the multi-colored, user-friendly SCAF announcements posted as pictures on their Facebook page.
“Since the referendum, where we voted on a few constitutional amendments, 52 additional articles and three important laws have been passed, with almost no open participation,” said Hassan.
But public pressure in the form of protests has had an effect on the military’s
operations. The military council said they would investigate accounts of abuse and torture and have also agreed to the retrial of some of those caught and tried during the demonstrations.
“Public pressure has yielded many positive results in the performance of the
SCAF. I think they’re concerned they might lose their benevolent public image, and so they responded to some of the demonstrations and public calls for retrial,” said Seif.
The military responded to earlier protests by replacing the cabinet and
releasing some army officers who had protested against the military council.
Many feel that continued pressure could change how the military runs Egypt.
“We need to have the rule of law if this situation continues with the SCAF,”
says Hassan. “For now we are acting on good faith.”
Mounting criticism of the way the Egyptian Army is governing Egypt grew louder yesterday with press reports that one of the country’s most prominent human rights lawyers has been arrested and will likely face a military trial..
The Egyptian Daily News quoted activist Mona Saif as saying that, “Law professor at the American University in Cairo Amr El-Shalakany was arrested two days ago and will be tried in a military court in Suez.” Saif is a member of "No for Military Trials for Civilians" campaign, a grassroots campaign to eliminate such trials, which were allowed under the country’s 30-year Emergency Laws.
She said El- Shalakany faces a possible sentence of 15 years in prison for "insulting the supreme military council" and causing riots and burning a police station.
Hailing from a family of prominent lawyers, El-Shalakany has not yet been officially charged.
Initial reports said he was arrested when he attempted to drive in a restricted area near Neama Bay in Sharm El-Shiekh, one of Egypt’s top beach resorts in South Sinai. He allegedly exchanged verbal insults with the military officers who tried to stop him.
Saif told the newspaper that initially El-Shalakany was to be released Friday when the detaining officers suddenly decided to transfer him to Suez for a trial under martial law.
He faces a possible sentence of 15 years in prison for "insulting the supreme military council" and causing riots and burning a police station. El-Shalakany, who has not yet been officially charged, was arrested when he attempted to drive in a restricted area near Neama Bay in Sharm El-Shiekh, one of Egypt’s top beach resorts in South Sinai, the newspaper reported..
"We assume that he would not set fire in a police station, and would calculate his actions in this context, as someone who is very aware of Egyptian Law," said Saif.
El-Shalakany's lawyer was not immediately available for comment.
El-Shalakany blogged for the NY Times during the revolution. His page at the American University says he's a member of the New York bar, who studied at Harvard and at Columbia, in the law, gender and sexuality program.
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has been the sole executive power in Egypt since Mubarak resigned on 11 February, and their position of authority is expected to last at least another nine months, until the next presidential elections. To date, however, there has been little effort exerted to hold the military accountable for its actions.
The military is widely credited with securing the fall of the Mubarak regime by placing pressure on the president to step down. But as Egypt enters its tenth week of martial law, activists and analysts are questioning the ruling military council’s decision-making process and challenging the military on frequent allegations of human rights abuses.
The Egyptian public’s unwavering support for the military is particularly problematic. In the early days of the Tahrir Square revolution, the Army won the applause of the anti-government protesters by using its tanks to keep pro-Mubarak forces from attacking demonstrators. Later, the Army was seen clearly to take the side of the anti-government protesters.
But, even during the demonstrations in Tahrir Square, the Army was accused of roughing up and arresting many anti-government demonstrators, torturing them in custody, and holding some of these civilians for military trials. Their actions sparked an outcry from the anti-Mubarak forces and an investigation by the Army Supreme Council, which is running the country until elections are held.
In recent weeks, Amnesty International has documented the continuing use of torture, arbitrary detention, trials of civilians before military courts and repression of freedom of expression by authorities.
After the army violently cleared Tahrir Square of demonstrators on 9 March, women protesters told Amnesty International that they were beaten, given electric shocks, subjected to strip searches, then forced to submit to “virginity checks” and threatened with prostitution charges.
Many revolutionaries and others have expressed serious concerns over the
performance of the SCAF, such as the continuation of military trials for
civilians, and the relatively slow pace of certain reforms, including the
dismantling of local councils and the prosecution of corrupt figures from the
former regime.
“That’s what we were out protesting against on 9 March,” said Hazem, a
30-year-old granite contractor who was arrested by military police during the 9 March protests in Tahrir. A judge in a military court gave him a quick trial and sentenced him to three years on charges of "thuggery".
Hazem, whose name has been changed for his safety, spoke to the Al-Masry Al-Youm newspaper by phone from Tora prison.
“They interrogated us for 10 minutes in the kitchen of the military police
prison before quickly giving the sentence,” he said.
Military trials are perhaps the main concern of human rights organizations
regarding SCAF performance so far. At least 40 people out of a group of 150 who were arrested on 9 March remain in prison, having been tried as "thugs", says Hazem. Legal activists say that at least 130 of the 150 arrested were recognizable figures from the Tahrir uprising that led to Hosni Mubarak’s resignation.
Many caught by the military so far say that military police beat and insulted
them more severely than the State Security apparatus ever did under Mubarak.
“When they arrested us, they continuously beat us for seven hours straight
without even looking at our IDs and checking who we were,” said Hany Adel, another 9 March detainee who is now in Torah (spelling) prison.
Human Rights Watch has criticized torture in military prisons, as well as many military arrests and trials, such as the recent one of blogger Michael Nabil.
While the military denies any systematic use of torture or abuse -- including
"virginity tests" for women -- activists feel the evidence suggests that the
military is guilty as charged.
“There are too many similarities between the acts of physical and verbal
assaults in military prisons from all over to say that they are individual and
sporadic incidents,” said Mona Seif of the “No to Military Trials” campaign.
Evidence gathered by the campaign shows that many of the detentions were of known revolutionary faces, picked out by informants.
“They made fun of us and said things like ‘Do you think you will change the
world!?’” said Hazem.
With the ongoing sparcity of law enforcement on the streets, the strict
anti-thuggery laws are generally accepted as being necessary, by Egyptian
activists and laymen alike. The law was made very public, and the military
constantly lauded any resulting arrests and sentences. However, with their quick trials and harsh penalties, anti-thuggery laws have created a system by which many revolutionaries and innocent people are not given due process.
Some inmates in Tora have told Al-Masry Al-Youm that they were arrested, beaten and put in prison without having once shown their IDs to any military personnel.
“I understand, though, that the military is burdened these days with a huge
responsibility. We just want fair trials,” said Adel.
The sometimes repressive nature of SCAF’s policies is constantly lauded by its apologists as being necessary due to the supposedly precarious security and economic situation of the country.
For others, it has raised questions about the military’s ability to handle its
position as the sole executive power in the country; its ability to control
civilian life, the caliber of the civilians advising the military, and its plans
for the handover of power.
“The Supreme Council has previously said that they acknowledge the legitimacy of the revolution. However, they are not engaging enough revolutionary figures in any of their decision-making,” said Hassan.
He added that the continued presence of figures from the old regime represents a major stumbling block in the dismantling and rebuilding process necessary in this phase of the revolution. Political figures have proposed a series of reforms to enhance increased dialogue with the SCAF.
Presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei has proposed that SCAF create a 50-person civilian consultative council to help them with decision making.
“Even though the revolution has been successful in dismantling the old system, the rebuilding process is deficient. Many of the decisions are not made with enough popular or representative participation,” said Ammar Ali Hassan, an independent political analyst and columnist for the Arabic edition of Al-Masry Al-Youm.
In late March the military ratified the draft anti-strike law, which
criminalizes organizing or inciting a demonstration that is deemed by the
military to halt production or the flow of public life. Those convicted will be
subject to a fine of up to LE500,000 and a year in prison, even for peaceful
demonstrations.
The ratification was tucked away in a few lines in SCAF’s last 15-page decree in the Official Gazette. The discreet announcement comes in stark contrast to the multi-colored, user-friendly SCAF announcements posted as pictures on their Facebook page.
“Since the referendum, where we voted on a few constitutional amendments, 52 additional articles and three important laws have been passed, with almost no open participation,” said Hassan.
But public pressure in the form of protests has had an effect on the military’s
operations. The military council said they would investigate accounts of abuse and torture and have also agreed to the retrial of some of those caught and tried during the demonstrations.
“Public pressure has yielded many positive results in the performance of the
SCAF. I think they’re concerned they might lose their benevolent public image, and so they responded to some of the demonstrations and public calls for retrial,” said Seif.
The military responded to earlier protests by replacing the cabinet and
releasing some army officers who had protested against the military council.
Many feel that continued pressure could change how the military runs Egypt.
“We need to have the rule of law if this situation continues with the SCAF,”
says Hassan. “For now we are acting on good faith.”
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Post-Mubarak : What Kind of Egypt?
By William Fisher
Close to two-thirds of the Egyptian public is satisfied with the way things are going in their country, pleased that former president Hosni Mubarak is gone, and optimistic about the future, according to a new survey by the Pew
Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project.
But the readiness of the public to accept military rule, or rule by a religious-based political party, and to abrogate its peace treaty with Israel, raises questions about what kind of Egypt it will be.
The Pew organization said, “In this new political era, Egyptians are embracing long-standing bases of power, and new ones, as well. The military and its leadership are very well regarded, and the Egyptian public is clearly open to religion-based political parties being part of a future government. Most have a favorable opinion of the Muslim Brotherhood, and looking ahead to the elections, it has as much potential support as any of a number of political parties.”
The Egyptian public’s unwavering support for the military is particularly problematic. In the early days of the Tahrir Square revolution, the Army won the applause of the anti-government protesters by using its tanks to keep pro-Mubarak forces from attacking demonstrators. Later, the Army was seen clearly to take the side of the anti-government protesters.
But, even during the demonstrations in Tahrir Square, the Army was accused of roughing up and arresting many anti-government demonstrators, torturing them in custody, and holding some of these civilians for military trials. Their actions sparked an outcry from the anti-Mubarak forces and an investigation by the Army Supreme Council, which is running the country until elections are held.
Egypt-watchers say the high respect in which the Army is held dates back at least to Egypt’s three wars with Israel. Thanks to Egyptian Government propaganda, many Egyptians believe Egypt was victorious in these wars. After the 1973 war, known as the Yom Kippur War, Egypt regained control of the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had won as part of the agreement ending the 1967 Six Day War. But there is no question outside Egypt that Israel was the victor in all three wars.
It was the conviction that Egypt and its Arab allies would never defeat Israel militarily that drove President Anwar Sadat to make his historic visit to Israel in 1977. That courageous act formed the basis of the US-brokered peace treaty that currently exists.
If post-revolution Egypt appears to distancing itself from what most of The West saw as the protesters’ democratic vision of the country in the future, the Pew survey also uncovered many contrary and contradictory opinions.
For example, while Egyptians would find a military or religious-based government acceptable, Pew finds that “other agents of political change are also viewed positively by majorities of Egyptians, including the relatively secular April 6 Movement and political leaders Amr Moussa, Ayman
Nour, and Mohamed ElBaradei.”
This should come as no surprise to those familiar with the myriad of contradictions that co-exist in modern Egypt. In fact Pew found near-unanimity on only two issues: “No dividend emerges for the United States from the political changes that have occurred in Egypt. Favorable ratings of the U.S. remain as low as they have been in recent years, and many Egyptians say they want a less close relationship with America. Israel fares even more poorly. By a 54%-to-36% margin, Egyptians want the peace treaty with that country annulled.”
But Egyptians, repeatedly burned by unkept leadership promises, appear to bring a healthy dose of caution into their assessments of the future. Pew notes: “This is not to say that many do not remain cautious about the prospects for political change – just 41% say that a free and fair choice in the next election is very likely, while as many (43%) think it is only somewhat likely, and 16% say it is unlikely.”
The Pew survey was conducted nationwide. Face-to-face interviews were
conducted with 1,000 adults in Egypt between March 24 and April 7, 2011. The poll finds Egyptians anxious for democracy and accountable government. When asked what has concerned them most about Egypt in recent years, corruption and a lack of democracy top the list.
And Pew says that support for democracy is clearly on the rise in Egypt. “Last year, 60% of Egyptians said that democracy is preferable to any other type of government; today, 71% hold this view. By a 64%-to-34% majority, most say they favor a democratic form of government over a strong leader.”
Four years ago the public was evenly divided on this basic question about governance. Moreover, 62% want parliamentary and presidential elections as soon as possible, rather than delaying them to give political parties more time to organize.
Yet, the poll finds that the desire for free multiparty elections co-exists, and
potentially competes with, other aspirations.
“More Egyptians say that improved economic conditions (82%) and a fair judiciary (79%) are very important than say that about honest, multiparty elections (55%). And maintaining law and order is also more highly rated (63%). In that regard, when asked to choose which is more important – a democratic government, even if there is some risk of political instability, or a stable government that is not fully democratic – democracy wins out, but by a narrow 54%-majority; 32% choose stability, and as many as 14% of Egyptians say they are not sure. When a good democracy is tested against a strong economy, it is a 47%-to-49% draw, respectively.”
Regarding economic conditions, the survey finds Egyptians somewhat more positive than they were a year ago. About one-third (34%) now rate the economy as good, compared with 20% in 2010; still, most (64%) say economic conditions are bad.
But fully 56% think the economy will improve over the next year. Just 25% were optimistic in 2010.
The military is now almost universally seen (88%) as having a good influence on the way things are going in Egypt. Fully 90% rate military chief Mohamed Tantawi favorably. In contrast, views of the police are on balance negative (39% good influence, 61% bad influence).
The court system and religious leaders are seen by most as having a good influence on the country, 67% and 81% respectively, but it is of note that fewer Egyptians give religious leaders very good ratings this year than did so in 2007 (29% vs. 43%).
Most see the traditional news media’s influence as having a positive impact on the way things are going, and the survey found as many as 23% saying they use social networking sites to get news and information about the political situation in Egypt.
Pew says Egyptians are welcoming some forms of change more than others. While half say it is very important that religious parties be allowed to be part of the government, only 27% give a similar priority to assuring that the military falls under civilian control. Relatively few (39%) give high priority to women having the same rights as men. Women themselves are more likely to say it is very important that they are assured equal rights than are men (48% vs. 30%).
Overall, just 36% think it is very important that Coptic Christians and other
religious minorities are able to freely practice their religions.
Egyptians hold diverse views about religion. About six-in-ten (62%) think laws should strictly follow the teachings of the Quran. However, only 31% of Egyptian Muslims say they sympathize with Islamic fundamentalists, while nearly the same number (30%) say they sympathize with those who disagree with the fundamentalists, and 26% have mixed views on this question.
Those who disagree with fundamentalists are almost evenly divided on whether the treaty with Israel should be annulled, while others favor ending the pact by a goodly margin.
Only 20% of Egyptians hold a favorable opinion of the United States, which is nearly identical to the 17% who rated it favorably in 2010. Better educated and younger Egyptians have a slightly more positive attitude toward the U.S. than do other Egyptians.
President Barrack Obama gets more negative than positive reviews for how he is handling the political changes sweeping through the Middle East: 52% disapprove of how Obama is dealing with the calls for political change in nations such as Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, and Libya. A plurality of those who disapprove say Obama has shown too little support for those who are calling for change.
When asked specifically about the U.S. response to the political situation in
Egypt, 39% say the U.S. has had a negative impact, while just 22% say it has had a positive effect, and 35% volunteer that the U.S. has neither positively nor negatively influenced the situation in their country.
Looking to the future, few Egyptians (15%) want closer ties with the U.S., while 43% would prefer a more distant relationship, and 40% would like the
relationship between the two countries to remain about as close as it has been in recent years.
In any environment, it would be surprising to find unanimity among the disparate groups that conceived and then carried out an 18-day revolution that brought down a three-decade dictatorial ruler. In Egypt, the hub of the Arab Middle East, that kind of unanimity would be nothing less than spectacular.
That is simply unlikely to happen, and so we in The West need to re-learn how to live with an environment rich with ambiguity and contradictions. Egyptian attitudes toward military or religious rule are not good news for small “d” democrats. Nor is the antipathy toward the United States and toward the idea of peace with Israel.
For the US, the Pew survey results should be a huge red light, a wake-up call to all those who believed that the status quo ante is something that could be bought with more aid dollars. We have been down that road before; it didn’t work. What we got for our “investment” was revolution. Being able to offer anything credible to the pro-democracy forces will require nothing less than restoration of the credibility America once enjoyed here. But the suspicion and distrust of the US is palpable. Turning that around is going to be a hard sell. But that’s the challenge for America.
The challenge for Israel is even more formidable, particularly given the hard-line attitudes of Israel’s current government. Could one dare to hope that Israel might publicly celebrate the triumph of self-determination over dictatorship? Not likely, as it was the dictator who came to be seen as the lone anchor of stability in the Arab Middle East.
Now, after three wars and thirty years of Egyptian government propaganda, even an Israeli government prepared to acknowledge the miracle of the revolution would find this a hard sell. Egyptians will change their minds about Israel when they see a few tangible actions indicating that Israel genuinely wants a peace settlement with the Palestinians. These days, such indications are in very short supply.
Close to two-thirds of the Egyptian public is satisfied with the way things are going in their country, pleased that former president Hosni Mubarak is gone, and optimistic about the future, according to a new survey by the Pew
Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project.
But the readiness of the public to accept military rule, or rule by a religious-based political party, and to abrogate its peace treaty with Israel, raises questions about what kind of Egypt it will be.
The Pew organization said, “In this new political era, Egyptians are embracing long-standing bases of power, and new ones, as well. The military and its leadership are very well regarded, and the Egyptian public is clearly open to religion-based political parties being part of a future government. Most have a favorable opinion of the Muslim Brotherhood, and looking ahead to the elections, it has as much potential support as any of a number of political parties.”
The Egyptian public’s unwavering support for the military is particularly problematic. In the early days of the Tahrir Square revolution, the Army won the applause of the anti-government protesters by using its tanks to keep pro-Mubarak forces from attacking demonstrators. Later, the Army was seen clearly to take the side of the anti-government protesters.
But, even during the demonstrations in Tahrir Square, the Army was accused of roughing up and arresting many anti-government demonstrators, torturing them in custody, and holding some of these civilians for military trials. Their actions sparked an outcry from the anti-Mubarak forces and an investigation by the Army Supreme Council, which is running the country until elections are held.
Egypt-watchers say the high respect in which the Army is held dates back at least to Egypt’s three wars with Israel. Thanks to Egyptian Government propaganda, many Egyptians believe Egypt was victorious in these wars. After the 1973 war, known as the Yom Kippur War, Egypt regained control of the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had won as part of the agreement ending the 1967 Six Day War. But there is no question outside Egypt that Israel was the victor in all three wars.
It was the conviction that Egypt and its Arab allies would never defeat Israel militarily that drove President Anwar Sadat to make his historic visit to Israel in 1977. That courageous act formed the basis of the US-brokered peace treaty that currently exists.
If post-revolution Egypt appears to distancing itself from what most of The West saw as the protesters’ democratic vision of the country in the future, the Pew survey also uncovered many contrary and contradictory opinions.
For example, while Egyptians would find a military or religious-based government acceptable, Pew finds that “other agents of political change are also viewed positively by majorities of Egyptians, including the relatively secular April 6 Movement and political leaders Amr Moussa, Ayman
Nour, and Mohamed ElBaradei.”
This should come as no surprise to those familiar with the myriad of contradictions that co-exist in modern Egypt. In fact Pew found near-unanimity on only two issues: “No dividend emerges for the United States from the political changes that have occurred in Egypt. Favorable ratings of the U.S. remain as low as they have been in recent years, and many Egyptians say they want a less close relationship with America. Israel fares even more poorly. By a 54%-to-36% margin, Egyptians want the peace treaty with that country annulled.”
But Egyptians, repeatedly burned by unkept leadership promises, appear to bring a healthy dose of caution into their assessments of the future. Pew notes: “This is not to say that many do not remain cautious about the prospects for political change – just 41% say that a free and fair choice in the next election is very likely, while as many (43%) think it is only somewhat likely, and 16% say it is unlikely.”
The Pew survey was conducted nationwide. Face-to-face interviews were
conducted with 1,000 adults in Egypt between March 24 and April 7, 2011. The poll finds Egyptians anxious for democracy and accountable government. When asked what has concerned them most about Egypt in recent years, corruption and a lack of democracy top the list.
And Pew says that support for democracy is clearly on the rise in Egypt. “Last year, 60% of Egyptians said that democracy is preferable to any other type of government; today, 71% hold this view. By a 64%-to-34% majority, most say they favor a democratic form of government over a strong leader.”
Four years ago the public was evenly divided on this basic question about governance. Moreover, 62% want parliamentary and presidential elections as soon as possible, rather than delaying them to give political parties more time to organize.
Yet, the poll finds that the desire for free multiparty elections co-exists, and
potentially competes with, other aspirations.
“More Egyptians say that improved economic conditions (82%) and a fair judiciary (79%) are very important than say that about honest, multiparty elections (55%). And maintaining law and order is also more highly rated (63%). In that regard, when asked to choose which is more important – a democratic government, even if there is some risk of political instability, or a stable government that is not fully democratic – democracy wins out, but by a narrow 54%-majority; 32% choose stability, and as many as 14% of Egyptians say they are not sure. When a good democracy is tested against a strong economy, it is a 47%-to-49% draw, respectively.”
Regarding economic conditions, the survey finds Egyptians somewhat more positive than they were a year ago. About one-third (34%) now rate the economy as good, compared with 20% in 2010; still, most (64%) say economic conditions are bad.
But fully 56% think the economy will improve over the next year. Just 25% were optimistic in 2010.
The military is now almost universally seen (88%) as having a good influence on the way things are going in Egypt. Fully 90% rate military chief Mohamed Tantawi favorably. In contrast, views of the police are on balance negative (39% good influence, 61% bad influence).
The court system and religious leaders are seen by most as having a good influence on the country, 67% and 81% respectively, but it is of note that fewer Egyptians give religious leaders very good ratings this year than did so in 2007 (29% vs. 43%).
Most see the traditional news media’s influence as having a positive impact on the way things are going, and the survey found as many as 23% saying they use social networking sites to get news and information about the political situation in Egypt.
Pew says Egyptians are welcoming some forms of change more than others. While half say it is very important that religious parties be allowed to be part of the government, only 27% give a similar priority to assuring that the military falls under civilian control. Relatively few (39%) give high priority to women having the same rights as men. Women themselves are more likely to say it is very important that they are assured equal rights than are men (48% vs. 30%).
Overall, just 36% think it is very important that Coptic Christians and other
religious minorities are able to freely practice their religions.
Egyptians hold diverse views about religion. About six-in-ten (62%) think laws should strictly follow the teachings of the Quran. However, only 31% of Egyptian Muslims say they sympathize with Islamic fundamentalists, while nearly the same number (30%) say they sympathize with those who disagree with the fundamentalists, and 26% have mixed views on this question.
Those who disagree with fundamentalists are almost evenly divided on whether the treaty with Israel should be annulled, while others favor ending the pact by a goodly margin.
Only 20% of Egyptians hold a favorable opinion of the United States, which is nearly identical to the 17% who rated it favorably in 2010. Better educated and younger Egyptians have a slightly more positive attitude toward the U.S. than do other Egyptians.
President Barrack Obama gets more negative than positive reviews for how he is handling the political changes sweeping through the Middle East: 52% disapprove of how Obama is dealing with the calls for political change in nations such as Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, and Libya. A plurality of those who disapprove say Obama has shown too little support for those who are calling for change.
When asked specifically about the U.S. response to the political situation in
Egypt, 39% say the U.S. has had a negative impact, while just 22% say it has had a positive effect, and 35% volunteer that the U.S. has neither positively nor negatively influenced the situation in their country.
Looking to the future, few Egyptians (15%) want closer ties with the U.S., while 43% would prefer a more distant relationship, and 40% would like the
relationship between the two countries to remain about as close as it has been in recent years.
In any environment, it would be surprising to find unanimity among the disparate groups that conceived and then carried out an 18-day revolution that brought down a three-decade dictatorial ruler. In Egypt, the hub of the Arab Middle East, that kind of unanimity would be nothing less than spectacular.
That is simply unlikely to happen, and so we in The West need to re-learn how to live with an environment rich with ambiguity and contradictions. Egyptian attitudes toward military or religious rule are not good news for small “d” democrats. Nor is the antipathy toward the United States and toward the idea of peace with Israel.
For the US, the Pew survey results should be a huge red light, a wake-up call to all those who believed that the status quo ante is something that could be bought with more aid dollars. We have been down that road before; it didn’t work. What we got for our “investment” was revolution. Being able to offer anything credible to the pro-democracy forces will require nothing less than restoration of the credibility America once enjoyed here. But the suspicion and distrust of the US is palpable. Turning that around is going to be a hard sell. But that’s the challenge for America.
The challenge for Israel is even more formidable, particularly given the hard-line attitudes of Israel’s current government. Could one dare to hope that Israel might publicly celebrate the triumph of self-determination over dictatorship? Not likely, as it was the dictator who came to be seen as the lone anchor of stability in the Arab Middle East.
Now, after three wars and thirty years of Egyptian government propaganda, even an Israeli government prepared to acknowledge the miracle of the revolution would find this a hard sell. Egyptians will change their minds about Israel when they see a few tangible actions indicating that Israel genuinely wants a peace settlement with the Palestinians. These days, such indications are in very short supply.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Where is Mohammed al-Tajer?
By William Fisher
Mohammed al-Tajer is one of Bahrain’s best-known defense lawyers. He was the leading defense attorney defending 25 opposition activists who were tried between October 2010 and February 2011 on charges of plotting to overthrow the government using “terrorism” and other means.
Today, April 25, marks ten days since Mohammed al-Tajer was arrested at his house in Bahrain’s capital, Manama. On the night of April 15, according to his wife, more than 20 security officers entered their house in the middle of the night. She says some were in uniforms, some were in plain clothes and all except one were wearing masks. They searched all the bedrooms and confiscated personal items, such as mobile phones, laptops and papers. Then Mohammad al-Tajer was arrested without explanation. No arrest order was shown to him or his family, she says.
Then came two days of silence. Finally, he phoned his family for two minutes on April 17 to let them know he was in the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) in Manama’s al-‘Adliya district, and wanted them to bring him clothes. When the family asked him what the charges against him were he replied that he did not know.
They still don’t know because nothing has been heard from or about al-Tajer since then, Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch told The Public Record. Like hundreds of his fellow prisoners, he has been “disappeared.”
This prominent attorney, who has defended many cases of opposition and human rights activism, is but one of the more than 500 Bahraini’s who have been arrested and imprisoned by the country’s Security Forces since March. In addition, according to Maryam Al-Khawaja, Head of Foreign Relations Office for the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, "More than 800 detainees were ‘disappeared’ within days of the imposition of a state of ‘national safety,’ (martial law) including 39 women."
According to local human rights groups, those who have been detained since March include opposition and human rights activists, teachers, doctors and nurses. They have been arrested for their participation in the February and March protests calling for far-reaching political and other reform in Bahrain. The government’s most recent concerted campaign has been against physicians, with the arrest and detention of an estimated three-dozen medical practitioners, including a number of one-of-a-kind specialists. The government’s reported motive is to prevent the treatment of people injured in the anti-government demonstrations, to silence their testimony to the horrendous wounds they treated, and to make Bahraini’s so suspicious of hospitals that they will avoid them rather than risk an encounter with law enforcement.
According to human rights groups, the whereabouts of the great majority of detainees remains unknown; many are believed to be held by the Bahrain Defense Force (BDF). If prosecuted, they may face unfair trials before the National Safety Court of First Instance and a National Safety Appeal Court, established under the State of National Safety (SNS) --martial law -- declared by the King of Bahrain on 15 March.
The US government has for the most part given King Hamid’s violent crackdown on demonstrators a ‘get out of jail free’ card. The White House and the State Department have used words such as “unfortunate” to lament the sporadic violence that has wracked this tiny island nation since January. And they have generally backed the King’s calls for a “national dialogue.”
Anti-government forces have rejected such a dialogue, believing that the King would only use it as a way of slowing the pace of protest. But, according to The Wall Street Journal, US President Barack Obama has said dialogue was an "opportunity for meaningful reform."
The Obama administration has repeatedly appealed to the Bahraini government for restraint, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this week called for apolitical process that “advances the rights and aspirations of all the citizens of Bahrain.” But the administration has neither recalled its ambassador to Manama nor threatened the kinds of sanctions it imposed on Libya — a striking disparity that is fueling anti-U.S. sentiment among Bahraini opposition groups.
“Even though the American administration’s words are all about freedom and democracy and change, in Bahrain, the reality is that they’re basically a protection for the dictatorship,” said Zainab al-Khawaja, a prominent human-rights activist who began a hunger strike after her father, husband and brother-in-law were arrested at her apartment over the weekend.
U.S. officials privately acknowledge that the administration has been
understated in its criticism of Bahrain, in part to avoid further strain in
relations with Saudi Arabia, a vital U.S. ally and neighbor to the tiny island
kingdom.
Why? Why when US and allied military forces are bombing Gaddafi’s Libya, and Obama Administration officials are regularly excoriating Syria’s Assad, is the US being so cautiously conciliatory concerning Bahrain?
There are five main reasons. First, Bahrain hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet and is therefore of strategic importance for the US. Secondly, Bahrain is an important center for international finance and oil production. Instability here would be – and is -- felt in financial markets word-wide.
Third, Saudi Arabia is Bahrain’s neighbor – just 26 km away over a causeway connecting the two countries. The Saudis fear the rise of a pro-Iranian Shiite state on its eastern frontier and have urged Bahrain to deal firmly with the throng of protesters that occupied a central square and blocked access to Manama’s main business district. Saudi fear of the protests spreading is one reason that Saudi and UAE military units were sent over that causeway on last month. Their mission is to help the King put down the demonstrations and maintain order while holding onto his power.
Fourth, while Bahrain’s rulers are Sunni Muslims, the vast majority of its population is Shia. Bahrainis, Saudis and Americans all worry that the Bahrain’s Shias will feel an allegiance that could be exploited by Shia Iran.
Finally, with Saudi Arabia already annoyed at the Americans for throwing Hosni Murarak under the bus too soon, the US seems willing to search for ways to avoid further upsetting its longtime ally and oil-supplier.
Siras Abi Ali, an analyst on the Persian Gulf region, says, “There is no good outcome from this for Saudi Arabia. If Bahrain offers concessions, the Saudi Shia will demand similar concessions. If they crack down, they risk an uprising. These people do not want to live under the House of Saud.”
Sheikh Mohammed Habib al-Muqdad, a cleric who was among political prisoners freed due to pressure from protesters, told AFP on March 1: "Dialogue is only an option once the regime steps down."
The Bahraini elite has raised fears about the “sectarian” nature of the protests. Most of the anti-government protesters are Shia Muslims, while Bahrain’s monarchy and elite consists of Sunni Muslims.
“Without Washington's support, Bahraini officials told the Americans, the kingdom risked slipping into a ‘sectarian divide,’ pitting a Shiite majority against ruling Sunnis,” the WSJ reported.
“Bahraini officials also warned the US that Iran would be the big winner should the ruling family fall.” This refers to speculation that a potential Shia-based Bahraini government might have closer relations with Shia-led Iran.
Ali Abdulemam, an activist and blogger recently released from prison, told Almasryalyoum.com on March 1: “The situation here is the same as in other places in the Arab world. There is similar anger and disillusionment. The ruling strata enjoy the same unjust advantages in distribution of wealth in the country. We have no freedom of expression or belief.
“We have the same anger as Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. We also all share a desire to live in freedom and dignity." All of these are causes for the revolution.
“[The rulers] hate anyone who is opposition, it doesn’t have as much to do with sectarianism. It is known that the majority of Shia are opposition, but there are Shia loyalists, and there are Sunni opposition. They hate whoever opposes the system.”
Jawad Fairooz, a senior member of al-Wefaq, the largest Shia party, told the Financial Times.com on February 28: “The government is just inciting fear. We don’t want a Shia prime minister or a Shia state. We just want equal rights and an end to injustice.”
The US using weasel words to soften the reality of the police state Bahrain has become will be seen by ordinary people as the US waiting to see who wins before choosing sides. Those unfamiliar with the nuances and subtleties of foreign diplomacy will condemn American action – or inaction, in this case – as cowardice. They will wonder what’s become of the much-vaunted American principles of equality, tolerance and the rule of law.
And they will try to figure out how the world’s self-described human rights champion finds it possible to stand on the sidelines as a brutal police state does all the unspeakable things that brutal police states do.
I know making foreign policy isn’t easy. I know there are competing equities. I know that sometimes there simply are no good choices. I know about realpolitik.
Well, even knowing a bit about all those issues doesn’t really help me. Maybe I’m simplistic. I want my country to stand up – and speak out -- for what it believes. I want it to cry out to condemn the cruelty, the brutality, the mindless quest for power, going on in Bahrain today.
But I find my words ineloquent. So let me use those of Richard Sollom, of Physicians for Human Rights. Here’s what he said on his return from Bahrain:
“In two decades of conducting human rights investigations in more than 20
countries, I have never seen such widespread and systematic violations of
medical neutrality as I did in Bahrain. Bahrain's ambulances, hospitals and medical clinics as well as its physicians, nurses, and medical staff are all being targeted. It's pervasive and ongoing.
“In Bahrain, as they treat protesters and wounded civilians, they have borne witness to incredible human suffering. Treating these patients has provided physicians with unparalleled evidence of the atrocities committed by the authorities, the security forces and riot police. Their knowledge of these atrocities has also made them targets. At least 32 healthcare professionals have been abducted over the past two months and are being held incommunicado by security forces.
“Salmaniya, a large 821-bed hospital housing Bahrain's leading medical
specialists, is where the most serious injuries have been treated. Doctors there have seen evidence of gas inhalation, gunshot wounds and beatings. While in Bahrain, we documented evidence of the hospital administration at Salmaniya calling doctors and nurses in for appointments, from which they were never seen again. Presumably they are taken to places of detention.
“One notable detention center, Criminal Investigations Directorate at Adliya, is also an infamous center of torture. Unfortunately, the doctors do not have to be taken to detention centers to suffer violent attacks. We have documented the story of six doctors beaten by security forces in a Salmaniya staff room.
“When security forces are capable of such brutality in a hospital, one can only imagine what happens in a detention center.”
Think about it.
Mohammed al-Tajer is one of Bahrain’s best-known defense lawyers. He was the leading defense attorney defending 25 opposition activists who were tried between October 2010 and February 2011 on charges of plotting to overthrow the government using “terrorism” and other means.
Today, April 25, marks ten days since Mohammed al-Tajer was arrested at his house in Bahrain’s capital, Manama. On the night of April 15, according to his wife, more than 20 security officers entered their house in the middle of the night. She says some were in uniforms, some were in plain clothes and all except one were wearing masks. They searched all the bedrooms and confiscated personal items, such as mobile phones, laptops and papers. Then Mohammad al-Tajer was arrested without explanation. No arrest order was shown to him or his family, she says.
Then came two days of silence. Finally, he phoned his family for two minutes on April 17 to let them know he was in the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) in Manama’s al-‘Adliya district, and wanted them to bring him clothes. When the family asked him what the charges against him were he replied that he did not know.
They still don’t know because nothing has been heard from or about al-Tajer since then, Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch told The Public Record. Like hundreds of his fellow prisoners, he has been “disappeared.”
This prominent attorney, who has defended many cases of opposition and human rights activism, is but one of the more than 500 Bahraini’s who have been arrested and imprisoned by the country’s Security Forces since March. In addition, according to Maryam Al-Khawaja, Head of Foreign Relations Office for the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, "More than 800 detainees were ‘disappeared’ within days of the imposition of a state of ‘national safety,’ (martial law) including 39 women."
According to local human rights groups, those who have been detained since March include opposition and human rights activists, teachers, doctors and nurses. They have been arrested for their participation in the February and March protests calling for far-reaching political and other reform in Bahrain. The government’s most recent concerted campaign has been against physicians, with the arrest and detention of an estimated three-dozen medical practitioners, including a number of one-of-a-kind specialists. The government’s reported motive is to prevent the treatment of people injured in the anti-government demonstrations, to silence their testimony to the horrendous wounds they treated, and to make Bahraini’s so suspicious of hospitals that they will avoid them rather than risk an encounter with law enforcement.
According to human rights groups, the whereabouts of the great majority of detainees remains unknown; many are believed to be held by the Bahrain Defense Force (BDF). If prosecuted, they may face unfair trials before the National Safety Court of First Instance and a National Safety Appeal Court, established under the State of National Safety (SNS) --martial law -- declared by the King of Bahrain on 15 March.
The US government has for the most part given King Hamid’s violent crackdown on demonstrators a ‘get out of jail free’ card. The White House and the State Department have used words such as “unfortunate” to lament the sporadic violence that has wracked this tiny island nation since January. And they have generally backed the King’s calls for a “national dialogue.”
Anti-government forces have rejected such a dialogue, believing that the King would only use it as a way of slowing the pace of protest. But, according to The Wall Street Journal, US President Barack Obama has said dialogue was an "opportunity for meaningful reform."
The Obama administration has repeatedly appealed to the Bahraini government for restraint, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this week called for apolitical process that “advances the rights and aspirations of all the citizens of Bahrain.” But the administration has neither recalled its ambassador to Manama nor threatened the kinds of sanctions it imposed on Libya — a striking disparity that is fueling anti-U.S. sentiment among Bahraini opposition groups.
“Even though the American administration’s words are all about freedom and democracy and change, in Bahrain, the reality is that they’re basically a protection for the dictatorship,” said Zainab al-Khawaja, a prominent human-rights activist who began a hunger strike after her father, husband and brother-in-law were arrested at her apartment over the weekend.
U.S. officials privately acknowledge that the administration has been
understated in its criticism of Bahrain, in part to avoid further strain in
relations with Saudi Arabia, a vital U.S. ally and neighbor to the tiny island
kingdom.
Why? Why when US and allied military forces are bombing Gaddafi’s Libya, and Obama Administration officials are regularly excoriating Syria’s Assad, is the US being so cautiously conciliatory concerning Bahrain?
There are five main reasons. First, Bahrain hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet and is therefore of strategic importance for the US. Secondly, Bahrain is an important center for international finance and oil production. Instability here would be – and is -- felt in financial markets word-wide.
Third, Saudi Arabia is Bahrain’s neighbor – just 26 km away over a causeway connecting the two countries. The Saudis fear the rise of a pro-Iranian Shiite state on its eastern frontier and have urged Bahrain to deal firmly with the throng of protesters that occupied a central square and blocked access to Manama’s main business district. Saudi fear of the protests spreading is one reason that Saudi and UAE military units were sent over that causeway on last month. Their mission is to help the King put down the demonstrations and maintain order while holding onto his power.
Fourth, while Bahrain’s rulers are Sunni Muslims, the vast majority of its population is Shia. Bahrainis, Saudis and Americans all worry that the Bahrain’s Shias will feel an allegiance that could be exploited by Shia Iran.
Finally, with Saudi Arabia already annoyed at the Americans for throwing Hosni Murarak under the bus too soon, the US seems willing to search for ways to avoid further upsetting its longtime ally and oil-supplier.
Siras Abi Ali, an analyst on the Persian Gulf region, says, “There is no good outcome from this for Saudi Arabia. If Bahrain offers concessions, the Saudi Shia will demand similar concessions. If they crack down, they risk an uprising. These people do not want to live under the House of Saud.”
Sheikh Mohammed Habib al-Muqdad, a cleric who was among political prisoners freed due to pressure from protesters, told AFP on March 1: "Dialogue is only an option once the regime steps down."
The Bahraini elite has raised fears about the “sectarian” nature of the protests. Most of the anti-government protesters are Shia Muslims, while Bahrain’s monarchy and elite consists of Sunni Muslims.
“Without Washington's support, Bahraini officials told the Americans, the kingdom risked slipping into a ‘sectarian divide,’ pitting a Shiite majority against ruling Sunnis,” the WSJ reported.
“Bahraini officials also warned the US that Iran would be the big winner should the ruling family fall.” This refers to speculation that a potential Shia-based Bahraini government might have closer relations with Shia-led Iran.
Ali Abdulemam, an activist and blogger recently released from prison, told Almasryalyoum.com on March 1: “The situation here is the same as in other places in the Arab world. There is similar anger and disillusionment. The ruling strata enjoy the same unjust advantages in distribution of wealth in the country. We have no freedom of expression or belief.
“We have the same anger as Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. We also all share a desire to live in freedom and dignity." All of these are causes for the revolution.
“[The rulers] hate anyone who is opposition, it doesn’t have as much to do with sectarianism. It is known that the majority of Shia are opposition, but there are Shia loyalists, and there are Sunni opposition. They hate whoever opposes the system.”
Jawad Fairooz, a senior member of al-Wefaq, the largest Shia party, told the Financial Times.com on February 28: “The government is just inciting fear. We don’t want a Shia prime minister or a Shia state. We just want equal rights and an end to injustice.”
The US using weasel words to soften the reality of the police state Bahrain has become will be seen by ordinary people as the US waiting to see who wins before choosing sides. Those unfamiliar with the nuances and subtleties of foreign diplomacy will condemn American action – or inaction, in this case – as cowardice. They will wonder what’s become of the much-vaunted American principles of equality, tolerance and the rule of law.
And they will try to figure out how the world’s self-described human rights champion finds it possible to stand on the sidelines as a brutal police state does all the unspeakable things that brutal police states do.
I know making foreign policy isn’t easy. I know there are competing equities. I know that sometimes there simply are no good choices. I know about realpolitik.
Well, even knowing a bit about all those issues doesn’t really help me. Maybe I’m simplistic. I want my country to stand up – and speak out -- for what it believes. I want it to cry out to condemn the cruelty, the brutality, the mindless quest for power, going on in Bahrain today.
But I find my words ineloquent. So let me use those of Richard Sollom, of Physicians for Human Rights. Here’s what he said on his return from Bahrain:
“In two decades of conducting human rights investigations in more than 20
countries, I have never seen such widespread and systematic violations of
medical neutrality as I did in Bahrain. Bahrain's ambulances, hospitals and medical clinics as well as its physicians, nurses, and medical staff are all being targeted. It's pervasive and ongoing.
“In Bahrain, as they treat protesters and wounded civilians, they have borne witness to incredible human suffering. Treating these patients has provided physicians with unparalleled evidence of the atrocities committed by the authorities, the security forces and riot police. Their knowledge of these atrocities has also made them targets. At least 32 healthcare professionals have been abducted over the past two months and are being held incommunicado by security forces.
“Salmaniya, a large 821-bed hospital housing Bahrain's leading medical
specialists, is where the most serious injuries have been treated. Doctors there have seen evidence of gas inhalation, gunshot wounds and beatings. While in Bahrain, we documented evidence of the hospital administration at Salmaniya calling doctors and nurses in for appointments, from which they were never seen again. Presumably they are taken to places of detention.
“One notable detention center, Criminal Investigations Directorate at Adliya, is also an infamous center of torture. Unfortunately, the doctors do not have to be taken to detention centers to suffer violent attacks. We have documented the story of six doctors beaten by security forces in a Salmaniya staff room.
“When security forces are capable of such brutality in a hospital, one can only imagine what happens in a detention center.”
Think about it.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Lawyers Matter!
By William Fisher
The year was 1953. I was a bureau chief for the Daytona Beach News-Journal, covering the Volusia County seat, Deland, Florida. That beat meant covering the cops and the courts.
As a young and arguably too idealistic reporter, I was profoundly disappointed in both. I learned that bad lawyering presents a real threat to some of our country’s most precious values.
I learned this by watching, on too many days, lawyers who showed up in county court visibly hung over, unable to address the bench coherently. I learned this by watching lawyers who showed up in court having never met their client and having never read his or her record (most of these defendants were black). I learned this by watching defense lawyers failing to object when prosecutors presented evidence the defense clearly never saw. I learned this by listening to prosecutors engage in rhetoric so inflammatory that it would have been thrown out by most any judge, assuming the judge was paying any attention. I learned this by watching prosecutors totally bamboozle juries by using over-the-top rhetoric and playing fast and loose with the facts of a case (this was a no-brainer in the Jim Crow era in the American South).
But the lawyers I heard all those years ago were not all bad lawyers; some of them were good lawyers practicing law badly. The reason they were practicing badly is that they were unprepared to defend their clients. And they were unprepared because they were appointed by the court. These reluctant volunteers earned a few dollars a day in fees, had little time for client contact, and had no resources to research the allegations against the accused..
That situation came about because there was no public defender, no legal aid organization, and virtually no lawyers who saw the defense of poor black men and women as any part of their responsibilities.
All of these memories came screeching back to me as I watched a meeting of the American Bar Association on C-Span. It was here that I first learned about one of the prices the Republicans in Congress expect us to pay in order to bring down the nation’s budget deficit: cutting $75 million from the budget of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), the agency that funds civil legal services for the poor.
The LSC is a private, non-profit corporation established by the U.S. Congress to seek to ensure equal access to justice under the law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. It was created in 1974 with bipartisan congressional sponsorship and the support of the Nixon administration, and is funded through the congressional appropriations process. Among other programs, LSC provides grants to help local legal aid groups to operate more efficiently for more poor people.
But none of this apparently impressed the Republicans in Congress. The cut in the LSC’s funds was part of their global plan to eliminate $74 billion from the federal budget. And to make matters worse, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee upped its overall cutting goal from $74 to $100 billion, bowing to pressure from the Tea Party. The increase would likely mean an even larger reduction in LSC funding.
The proposed $75 million funding cut would represent a 17 per cent reduction from the Obama Administration’s proposed increase in LSC funding for Fiscal Year 2011 to $435 million. The Congressional cut would amount to a 14 percent decline from LSC’s current funding of $420 million.
If it survived in the final fiscal 2011 budget passed by Congress, the budget cuts would seriously affect LSC grantee organizations, the local legal aid groups that serve low-income individuals and families throughout the U.S. These grantees are already struggling with recession-generated staff layoffs and office closures.
Professor Stephen B. Bright, president and senior counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights, told the ABA delegates that public defender offices across the country are overwhelmed with too many cases and too few attorneys. The result is that defense lawyers are forced to “meet ‘em and plead ‘em.”
This has caused what the American Bar Association calls a crisis within the justice system.
Bright explained, “There are massive amounts of federal funds for task forces and prosecuting indigents, but there’s no federal funding for representing indigents.”
Bright’s statement was backed up by Corey Stoughton, senior staff attorney and upstate litigation coordinator at the New York Civil Liberties Union. She said 20 people currently charged with a crime and receiving state–sponsored legal help are being denied their constitutional right to adequate counsel.
“The problem isn’t bad lawyers, it’s a bad system,” she said. She added that
the media often headlines the extreme cases of bad lawyers within a bad system. This makes it “hard to change the narrative,” she said.
Stephen Zack, the current ABA president, said in a statement, “Hard choices loom as to priorities for federal spending, but let’s be smart about where reductions are made. Slashing funds that keep working class and poor people from falling into a legal and financial tailspin is not the right decision in this economy.” The ABA is a long-time supporter of the LSC.
The proposed funding cut would only exacerbate the LSC’s problems. For the past several years, it has been attempting to operate with large chunks of its potential activity foreclosed. It has been unable to help, not only with programs that receive government funds but even those that use non-federal funds raised by legal services programs.
Since their passage, these restrictions have been plagued by repeated First Amendment questions and have sparked calls for change, says watchdog group OMB Watch.
Lee Mason, Director of Nonprofit Speech Rights at the Washington-based advocacy group, says, “The restrictions on the use of non-federal funds of the Legal Services Corporation amount to an all out attack on the constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Rights of millions of citizens of America."
OMB Watch says the origin of the funding restrictions was a concerted effort by right-wing interests to deny low-income people access to the courts by destroying LSC. In “Mandate for Leadership,” the conservative agenda published on the eve of President Ronald Reagan’s first term in 1981, the conservative Heritage Foundation called for LSC’s wholesale destruction. Barring its complete demise, Heritage argued for steep budget cuts and the imposition of broad restrictions through LSC appropriations riders.
Should we be surprised that Congressional Republicans want to further cripple the LSC’s efforts to provide legal help to the poor? As noted above, right-wing ideologues have been trying to destroy the LSC since 1981. And the further reduction of these legal services is clearly of a piece with the GOP’s proposed “reform” of Medicaid – which would severely limit health care services to low-income families.
I wonder if the Republicans’ budget wunderkind, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, ever had to pay legal fees out of his own pocket. Even a Congressman’s salary ($174,000 a year plus benefits) could quickly be zeroed out.
But Rep. Ryan’s salary is not a major concern to me. Except that he’s probably being overpaid.
What is of concern to me that when only one side in a dispute has access to legal help, the rule of law becomes meaningless. And when that happens, one of the core principles that define America also becomes meaningless.
Though her talk was on the role of lawyers in the national security debate,
ABA President-elect Laurel Bellows captured the essence of the campaign to castrate the LSC. She said, “For lawyers to matter and for this association to truly matter, our voice must be heard on the great issues, issues that affect the rights and liberties of all Americans.”
Competent legal help for those unable to pay for it is one of those rights.
The year was 1953. I was a bureau chief for the Daytona Beach News-Journal, covering the Volusia County seat, Deland, Florida. That beat meant covering the cops and the courts.
As a young and arguably too idealistic reporter, I was profoundly disappointed in both. I learned that bad lawyering presents a real threat to some of our country’s most precious values.
I learned this by watching, on too many days, lawyers who showed up in county court visibly hung over, unable to address the bench coherently. I learned this by watching lawyers who showed up in court having never met their client and having never read his or her record (most of these defendants were black). I learned this by watching defense lawyers failing to object when prosecutors presented evidence the defense clearly never saw. I learned this by listening to prosecutors engage in rhetoric so inflammatory that it would have been thrown out by most any judge, assuming the judge was paying any attention. I learned this by watching prosecutors totally bamboozle juries by using over-the-top rhetoric and playing fast and loose with the facts of a case (this was a no-brainer in the Jim Crow era in the American South).
But the lawyers I heard all those years ago were not all bad lawyers; some of them were good lawyers practicing law badly. The reason they were practicing badly is that they were unprepared to defend their clients. And they were unprepared because they were appointed by the court. These reluctant volunteers earned a few dollars a day in fees, had little time for client contact, and had no resources to research the allegations against the accused..
That situation came about because there was no public defender, no legal aid organization, and virtually no lawyers who saw the defense of poor black men and women as any part of their responsibilities.
All of these memories came screeching back to me as I watched a meeting of the American Bar Association on C-Span. It was here that I first learned about one of the prices the Republicans in Congress expect us to pay in order to bring down the nation’s budget deficit: cutting $75 million from the budget of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), the agency that funds civil legal services for the poor.
The LSC is a private, non-profit corporation established by the U.S. Congress to seek to ensure equal access to justice under the law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. It was created in 1974 with bipartisan congressional sponsorship and the support of the Nixon administration, and is funded through the congressional appropriations process. Among other programs, LSC provides grants to help local legal aid groups to operate more efficiently for more poor people.
But none of this apparently impressed the Republicans in Congress. The cut in the LSC’s funds was part of their global plan to eliminate $74 billion from the federal budget. And to make matters worse, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee upped its overall cutting goal from $74 to $100 billion, bowing to pressure from the Tea Party. The increase would likely mean an even larger reduction in LSC funding.
The proposed $75 million funding cut would represent a 17 per cent reduction from the Obama Administration’s proposed increase in LSC funding for Fiscal Year 2011 to $435 million. The Congressional cut would amount to a 14 percent decline from LSC’s current funding of $420 million.
If it survived in the final fiscal 2011 budget passed by Congress, the budget cuts would seriously affect LSC grantee organizations, the local legal aid groups that serve low-income individuals and families throughout the U.S. These grantees are already struggling with recession-generated staff layoffs and office closures.
Professor Stephen B. Bright, president and senior counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights, told the ABA delegates that public defender offices across the country are overwhelmed with too many cases and too few attorneys. The result is that defense lawyers are forced to “meet ‘em and plead ‘em.”
This has caused what the American Bar Association calls a crisis within the justice system.
Bright explained, “There are massive amounts of federal funds for task forces and prosecuting indigents, but there’s no federal funding for representing indigents.”
Bright’s statement was backed up by Corey Stoughton, senior staff attorney and upstate litigation coordinator at the New York Civil Liberties Union. She said 20 people currently charged with a crime and receiving state–sponsored legal help are being denied their constitutional right to adequate counsel.
“The problem isn’t bad lawyers, it’s a bad system,” she said. She added that
the media often headlines the extreme cases of bad lawyers within a bad system. This makes it “hard to change the narrative,” she said.
Stephen Zack, the current ABA president, said in a statement, “Hard choices loom as to priorities for federal spending, but let’s be smart about where reductions are made. Slashing funds that keep working class and poor people from falling into a legal and financial tailspin is not the right decision in this economy.” The ABA is a long-time supporter of the LSC.
The proposed funding cut would only exacerbate the LSC’s problems. For the past several years, it has been attempting to operate with large chunks of its potential activity foreclosed. It has been unable to help, not only with programs that receive government funds but even those that use non-federal funds raised by legal services programs.
Since their passage, these restrictions have been plagued by repeated First Amendment questions and have sparked calls for change, says watchdog group OMB Watch.
Lee Mason, Director of Nonprofit Speech Rights at the Washington-based advocacy group, says, “The restrictions on the use of non-federal funds of the Legal Services Corporation amount to an all out attack on the constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Rights of millions of citizens of America."
OMB Watch says the origin of the funding restrictions was a concerted effort by right-wing interests to deny low-income people access to the courts by destroying LSC. In “Mandate for Leadership,” the conservative agenda published on the eve of President Ronald Reagan’s first term in 1981, the conservative Heritage Foundation called for LSC’s wholesale destruction. Barring its complete demise, Heritage argued for steep budget cuts and the imposition of broad restrictions through LSC appropriations riders.
Should we be surprised that Congressional Republicans want to further cripple the LSC’s efforts to provide legal help to the poor? As noted above, right-wing ideologues have been trying to destroy the LSC since 1981. And the further reduction of these legal services is clearly of a piece with the GOP’s proposed “reform” of Medicaid – which would severely limit health care services to low-income families.
I wonder if the Republicans’ budget wunderkind, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, ever had to pay legal fees out of his own pocket. Even a Congressman’s salary ($174,000 a year plus benefits) could quickly be zeroed out.
But Rep. Ryan’s salary is not a major concern to me. Except that he’s probably being overpaid.
What is of concern to me that when only one side in a dispute has access to legal help, the rule of law becomes meaningless. And when that happens, one of the core principles that define America also becomes meaningless.
Though her talk was on the role of lawyers in the national security debate,
ABA President-elect Laurel Bellows captured the essence of the campaign to castrate the LSC. She said, “For lawyers to matter and for this association to truly matter, our voice must be heard on the great issues, issues that affect the rights and liberties of all Americans.”
Competent legal help for those unable to pay for it is one of those rights.
Bahrain: Do No Harm?
By William Fisher
Bahrain’s monarchy, struggling to hang on to power in the face of growing pro-democracy protests, is cracking down on doctors. Physicians for Human Rights says at least 19 doctors have been arrested by authorities since March 17, eight of them within the past week.
A month into the civil unrest, and under a state of martial law, police and soldiers have arrested or detained dozens of doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, paramedics, and other health care workers, the Cambridge, Massachusetts, advocacy group charges. The organization, which recently visited Bahrain to gather firsthand information on the government crackdown, says armed soldiers now stand guard at the entrances to Bahrain’s largest public hospital. It says, “The few patients who dare to seek help inside are interrogated and often detained.”
Among those detained by authorities is Dr. Sadeq Abdulla, a vascular surgeon at the Salmaniya Medical Complex. Human Rights Watch (HRW) says that, according to a source close to the doctor’s family, Interior Ministry officials summoned Abdulla to the ministry’s headquarters in the capital, Manama, at around 11 p.m. on April 14.
HRW claims Abdulla’s wife and father-in-law accompanied him to the ministry. They waited there for several hours but Abdulla never emerged. The source told HRW that the family contacted an officer at the Interior Ministry on April 15 to inquire about the status of Abdulla and was told that he would be in custody for “a few more days.” No information was provided regarding the reasons for Abdulla’s arrest, HRW says.
It adds, “Later that day Abdulla called his wife and told her “he was fine.” The authorities allowed Abdulla’s family to drop off his medications at the Criminal Investigations Directorate in Adliya on the same day, but have so far not allowed his family or his lawyer to visit him. Abdulla’s family believes that authorities are currently detaining him at the Adliya police station.”
Local human rights organizations estimate that more than 600 men and women have been held in custody since the pro-democracy demonstrations began. “We have serious concerns regarding the well-being and safety of some of the detainees,” said HRW’s Joe Stork, Middle East deputy director.
“The authorities should immediately provide information on the whereabouts of all detainees arrested since March 17 and permit them to meet with their families and lawyers,” he said.
HRW called attention to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Bahrain ratified in 1998, requires that anyone arrested shall be promptly informed of any charges and brought before a judge or other judicial authority. A refusal of the authorities to acknowledge a person’s detention or provide information on their fate or whereabouts would be an enforced disappearance, the organization said.
At the same time, the beleaguered Bahraini government appears also to be cracking down on human rights advocates. HRW is reporting that more than two dozen uniformed and plainclothes security officers, most of who were masked, raided the home of prominent defense lawyer Mohammed al-Tajer on the evening of April 15, 2011, and arrested him.
Neither he nor his family was given any reason for his detention, HRW says, adding that it believes that al-Tajer is the first defense lawyer detained in more than a decade. He is well known for defending opposition figures and rights activists arrested in security sweeps.
HRW says the arrest took place around 11 p.m. on April 15, when security officers surrounded and then entered al-Tajer’s home. Security officers searched his home and confiscated personal items including laptops, mobile phones, and documents, before taking him away. Al-Tajer is one of 499 people currently detained by the Bahraini authorities, according to a list compiled by the Wefaq National Islamic Society, an opposition political society.
HRW’s Stork charged that “The government’s arrest of a leading defense lawyer shows that Bahrain is taking a turn for the worse on human rights. The authorities should either release Mohammed al-Tajer or charge him now with a recognizable offense.”
HRW says it is concerned that al-Tajer’s arrest is an effort on the part of authorities to intimidate and silence defense lawyers. Al-Tajer is part of a group of Bahraini lawyers who have defended opposition figures and rights activists arrested and detained by authorities during the past several years, including those picked up during the most recent security sweeps.
He was one of the lead lawyers involved in the trial of 23 opposition and rights activists arrested during security sweeps last August and September and accused under Bahrain’s counterterrorism law. The government released all 23 defendants on February 23, 2011, but rearrested several of them following the latest round of targeted arrests.
HRW says it has gathered testimony indicating that prior to their release on February 23, authorities had subjected some of the 23 to “severe abuse and ill-treatment amounting to torture.”
Since March 15, Bahrain has been subject to martial law, officially labeled a state of “National Safety,” that gave authorities wide powers of arrest, censorship, and prohibitions on freedom of movement and association.
But HRW said, “Even during a state of emergency, fundamental rights – such as the right to life, the right to be secure from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and the prohibition on discrimination – must always be respected.”
In a related development, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has called on Bahraini authorities to conduct an “immediate and transparent investigation” into the death in state custody of Karim Fakhrawi, left, founder and board member of Al-Wasat, the country's premier independent daily newspaper.
Fakhrawi died last week, days after he was apparently taken into custody, according to news reports. Earlier this month, the government accused Al-Wasat of "deliberate news fabrication and falsification." Since then, the government has announced it would file criminal charges against three of the paper's senior editors and has deported two other senior staffers.
Fakhrawi is one of numerous investors in Al-Wasat, local journalists told CPJ. He is also a book publisher, the owner of one of Bahrain's biggest bookstores, and a member of Al-Wefaq, Bahrain's chief opposition party.
Bahrain's official news agency said on its Twitter feed that Fakhrawi died of kidney failure. Photographs published online, however, show a body identified as that of Fakhrawi with extensive cuts and bruises.
"The crackdown on dissent in Bahrain has taken a deadly turn with two deaths in custody in unexplained circumstances in less than a week," said Mohamed Abdel Dayem, CPJ's Middle East and North Africa program coordinator. "The Bahraini authorities must clarify how they reached the conclusion that Karim Fakhrawi died of kidney failure when photographs show his body covered in cuts and bruises," Dayem said.
Online journalist Zakariya Rashid Hassan al-Ashiri also died under mysterious circumstances while in government custody. Authorities claimed that al-Ashiri, who died April 9, had suffered complications from sickle cell anemia. However, his family denied he had ever suffered from this disease. His was the second case of death allegedly due to sickle cell anemia in detention centers by Bahraini Authorities, according to Maryam Al-Khawaja, head of the Foreign Relations Office for the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR).
Khawaja said, “All detainees (currently numbered at around 600, among them 25 women two of whom are pregnant) are at very high risk of torture, and their lives are at threat,” adding, “There are still ongoing protests and candlelit vigils which get attacked every night in different villages in Bahrain causing more injuries. Tens of people are staying at home despite serious injuries, some with shrapnel in their eyes, out of fear of going to the hospitals, which are still under the control of the security forces.
Bahrain, an archipelago of 33 small islands in the Arabian Gulf midway between the Qatar peninsula and Saudi Arabia, is ruled by King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa, a Sunni Muslim. The Bahraini demonstrations were initially aimed at achieving greater political freedom and equality for the majority Shia population, but expanded to a call to end the monarchy of King Hamad following a deadly night raid on February 17 against protesters at Pearl Roundabout in Manama.
As public protests intensified, Bahrain’s neighbor and close political ally, Saudi Arabia, sent 1,000 troops into the tiny island kingdom to help its rulers to remain in power by quashing all dissent. The United Arab Emirates, like Saudi Arabia a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council, also sent troops into Bahrain.
Omar al-Shehabi, director of the Gulf Center for Policy Studies, has written of the numerous demographic tensions in Bahraini society, aside from those between Sunni and Shia Muslims. There is a large expatriate workforce, which is tightly controlled and has limited labor rights. Bahrainis currently constitute less than a quarter of the labor force and make up less than half of the 1.2 million residents of the island, down from roughly two-thirds a decade ago, al-Shehabi notes.
He says Bahrain’s current problems are “based on a ruling elite who use the large oil revenues at their disposal to appease local residents through an extensive welfare state, while ensuring that they are marginalized on the political and economic fronts.”
“Under this structure, it is much easier for locals to lay the blame on foreigners and vice versa,” he says.
Bahrain’s monarchy, struggling to hang on to power in the face of growing pro-democracy protests, is cracking down on doctors. Physicians for Human Rights says at least 19 doctors have been arrested by authorities since March 17, eight of them within the past week.
A month into the civil unrest, and under a state of martial law, police and soldiers have arrested or detained dozens of doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, paramedics, and other health care workers, the Cambridge, Massachusetts, advocacy group charges. The organization, which recently visited Bahrain to gather firsthand information on the government crackdown, says armed soldiers now stand guard at the entrances to Bahrain’s largest public hospital. It says, “The few patients who dare to seek help inside are interrogated and often detained.”
Among those detained by authorities is Dr. Sadeq Abdulla, a vascular surgeon at the Salmaniya Medical Complex. Human Rights Watch (HRW) says that, according to a source close to the doctor’s family, Interior Ministry officials summoned Abdulla to the ministry’s headquarters in the capital, Manama, at around 11 p.m. on April 14.
HRW claims Abdulla’s wife and father-in-law accompanied him to the ministry. They waited there for several hours but Abdulla never emerged. The source told HRW that the family contacted an officer at the Interior Ministry on April 15 to inquire about the status of Abdulla and was told that he would be in custody for “a few more days.” No information was provided regarding the reasons for Abdulla’s arrest, HRW says.
It adds, “Later that day Abdulla called his wife and told her “he was fine.” The authorities allowed Abdulla’s family to drop off his medications at the Criminal Investigations Directorate in Adliya on the same day, but have so far not allowed his family or his lawyer to visit him. Abdulla’s family believes that authorities are currently detaining him at the Adliya police station.”
Local human rights organizations estimate that more than 600 men and women have been held in custody since the pro-democracy demonstrations began. “We have serious concerns regarding the well-being and safety of some of the detainees,” said HRW’s Joe Stork, Middle East deputy director.
“The authorities should immediately provide information on the whereabouts of all detainees arrested since March 17 and permit them to meet with their families and lawyers,” he said.
HRW called attention to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Bahrain ratified in 1998, requires that anyone arrested shall be promptly informed of any charges and brought before a judge or other judicial authority. A refusal of the authorities to acknowledge a person’s detention or provide information on their fate or whereabouts would be an enforced disappearance, the organization said.
At the same time, the beleaguered Bahraini government appears also to be cracking down on human rights advocates. HRW is reporting that more than two dozen uniformed and plainclothes security officers, most of who were masked, raided the home of prominent defense lawyer Mohammed al-Tajer on the evening of April 15, 2011, and arrested him.
Neither he nor his family was given any reason for his detention, HRW says, adding that it believes that al-Tajer is the first defense lawyer detained in more than a decade. He is well known for defending opposition figures and rights activists arrested in security sweeps.
HRW says the arrest took place around 11 p.m. on April 15, when security officers surrounded and then entered al-Tajer’s home. Security officers searched his home and confiscated personal items including laptops, mobile phones, and documents, before taking him away. Al-Tajer is one of 499 people currently detained by the Bahraini authorities, according to a list compiled by the Wefaq National Islamic Society, an opposition political society.
HRW’s Stork charged that “The government’s arrest of a leading defense lawyer shows that Bahrain is taking a turn for the worse on human rights. The authorities should either release Mohammed al-Tajer or charge him now with a recognizable offense.”
HRW says it is concerned that al-Tajer’s arrest is an effort on the part of authorities to intimidate and silence defense lawyers. Al-Tajer is part of a group of Bahraini lawyers who have defended opposition figures and rights activists arrested and detained by authorities during the past several years, including those picked up during the most recent security sweeps.
He was one of the lead lawyers involved in the trial of 23 opposition and rights activists arrested during security sweeps last August and September and accused under Bahrain’s counterterrorism law. The government released all 23 defendants on February 23, 2011, but rearrested several of them following the latest round of targeted arrests.
HRW says it has gathered testimony indicating that prior to their release on February 23, authorities had subjected some of the 23 to “severe abuse and ill-treatment amounting to torture.”
Since March 15, Bahrain has been subject to martial law, officially labeled a state of “National Safety,” that gave authorities wide powers of arrest, censorship, and prohibitions on freedom of movement and association.
But HRW said, “Even during a state of emergency, fundamental rights – such as the right to life, the right to be secure from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and the prohibition on discrimination – must always be respected.”
In a related development, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has called on Bahraini authorities to conduct an “immediate and transparent investigation” into the death in state custody of Karim Fakhrawi, left, founder and board member of Al-Wasat, the country's premier independent daily newspaper.
Fakhrawi died last week, days after he was apparently taken into custody, according to news reports. Earlier this month, the government accused Al-Wasat of "deliberate news fabrication and falsification." Since then, the government has announced it would file criminal charges against three of the paper's senior editors and has deported two other senior staffers.
Fakhrawi is one of numerous investors in Al-Wasat, local journalists told CPJ. He is also a book publisher, the owner of one of Bahrain's biggest bookstores, and a member of Al-Wefaq, Bahrain's chief opposition party.
Bahrain's official news agency said on its Twitter feed that Fakhrawi died of kidney failure. Photographs published online, however, show a body identified as that of Fakhrawi with extensive cuts and bruises.
"The crackdown on dissent in Bahrain has taken a deadly turn with two deaths in custody in unexplained circumstances in less than a week," said Mohamed Abdel Dayem, CPJ's Middle East and North Africa program coordinator. "The Bahraini authorities must clarify how they reached the conclusion that Karim Fakhrawi died of kidney failure when photographs show his body covered in cuts and bruises," Dayem said.
Online journalist Zakariya Rashid Hassan al-Ashiri also died under mysterious circumstances while in government custody. Authorities claimed that al-Ashiri, who died April 9, had suffered complications from sickle cell anemia. However, his family denied he had ever suffered from this disease. His was the second case of death allegedly due to sickle cell anemia in detention centers by Bahraini Authorities, according to Maryam Al-Khawaja, head of the Foreign Relations Office for the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR).
Khawaja said, “All detainees (currently numbered at around 600, among them 25 women two of whom are pregnant) are at very high risk of torture, and their lives are at threat,” adding, “There are still ongoing protests and candlelit vigils which get attacked every night in different villages in Bahrain causing more injuries. Tens of people are staying at home despite serious injuries, some with shrapnel in their eyes, out of fear of going to the hospitals, which are still under the control of the security forces.
Bahrain, an archipelago of 33 small islands in the Arabian Gulf midway between the Qatar peninsula and Saudi Arabia, is ruled by King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa, a Sunni Muslim. The Bahraini demonstrations were initially aimed at achieving greater political freedom and equality for the majority Shia population, but expanded to a call to end the monarchy of King Hamad following a deadly night raid on February 17 against protesters at Pearl Roundabout in Manama.
As public protests intensified, Bahrain’s neighbor and close political ally, Saudi Arabia, sent 1,000 troops into the tiny island kingdom to help its rulers to remain in power by quashing all dissent. The United Arab Emirates, like Saudi Arabia a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council, also sent troops into Bahrain.
Omar al-Shehabi, director of the Gulf Center for Policy Studies, has written of the numerous demographic tensions in Bahraini society, aside from those between Sunni and Shia Muslims. There is a large expatriate workforce, which is tightly controlled and has limited labor rights. Bahrainis currently constitute less than a quarter of the labor force and make up less than half of the 1.2 million residents of the island, down from roughly two-thirds a decade ago, al-Shehabi notes.
He says Bahrain’s current problems are “based on a ruling elite who use the large oil revenues at their disposal to appease local residents through an extensive welfare state, while ensuring that they are marginalized on the political and economic fronts.”
“Under this structure, it is much easier for locals to lay the blame on foreigners and vice versa,” he says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
