By William Fisher
It’s dangerous to draw too many parallels between the folks who turned out to protest in Tahrir Square in Egypt and the folks protesting outside the State Capital in Madison, Wisconsin.
Both situations are complicated and it’s too easy to fall into a Glenn Beck simplistic, fact-free prescriptive rant about how we got here and what we should do about it.
But there are a few similarities.
In Cairo, you had a brutal dictator, the right-wing conservative Hosni Mubarak, backed by a powerful army, trying to persuade his people yet again that if they just maintained order, and went back to being docile and obedient, his rule would magically bring them all those wonderful things in life denied to them for so long.
In Madison, you have a right-wing conservative governor, backed by wealthy and powerful economic interests, yet again asking the middle class to act against its own economic interests. And they are doing so by trying to persuade these middle class “have-nots” that if they just give up their collective bargaining rights they would magically become “haves” and henceforth be free to pursue their “American Dream.”
Behind the elected officials doing the official persuading were the puppet-masters: the folks we used to call fat cats whose formula for getting richer depends on the rest of us getting poorer.
This is now known as trickle-not economics. In America, trickle-not economic has resulted in the largest disparity in income distribution in our history. We have a tiny slice of the very rich. Then we have all the rest of us. And what used to be the Middle Class is disappearing.
In Egypt, the puppet-masters wore military uniforms; in Madison, business suits.
Even though it was a prank phone call, I think we learned a lot by being able to listen in to Minnesota’s Governor Scott Walker talking to the man he thought was his puppet-master. After all, how often is it we get to eavesdrop on a call from the impersonator of David Koch, the multibillionaire oil guy who, with his brother, has funded much of the right wing’s battle plan? FBI, maybe; ordinary folks, nah!
Two things in particular were revealing. The first was the tone of the conversation. It was clearly puppet-master talking to puppet. And then there was the glee with which the puppet seemed to jump out of the phone to accept the puppet-master’s gracious invitation: “Once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and show you a real good time!”
By the time that conversation took place, the public sector unions had already agreed to meet the governor’s financial demands – but it was clear he was out to take no prisoners. Give up your collective bargaining rights or else!
The trouble with the governor, and with far too many elected officials, is that they weren’t paying attention when American history was being taught to them in grade school. Or they are memory-challenged. Or they just don’t give a damn and want to obliterate their country’s history and substitute their own.
What American history tells us is that without unions, the captains of industry would have rolled over working people like a Thompson CAT. Without unions, we would never have had a middle class in America. And without a middle class, who would have campaigned so tirelessly for so long for better schools, better teachers, better health care, better everything.
When conservatives talk about “family values,” isn’t this what they should be talking about?
The past half-century has witnessed the sharp decline in organized labor, with corporate ownership-management waging an unrelenting campaign to convince working Americans that they’d do so much better if American industry could be more competitive with the rest if the world, and that wouldn’t ever happen if unions were dictating outrageously exorbitant wages and benefits.
Dictating? Maybe Governor Scott Walker doesn’t understand all this, but it was Collective Bargaining that was responsible for wage and benefit restraints from both unions and ownership. Among other benefits, collective bargaining prevented countless strikes.
And, my old boss from JFK days, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce Jack Behrman, reminds me that the National Labor Relations Board was set up in the 1930s to support collective bargaining. It was critical in World War Two in moderating labor's wage demands to prevent inflation, which restriction led the NLRB to permit bargaining for other benefits; these led to donations by companies to health insurance and was the beginning of national health insurance.
But shouldn’t we fault the American labor movement for not doing a better job of educating union members so that they wouldn’t vote against their own economic self-interests and remain quiet while their elected representatives legislated against those very same interests?
Where was the outcry from labor when President Obama acceded to demands to continue George W. Bush’s upper-class tax cut as the Republicans’ price for not raising taxes on ordinary working Americans? It was largely AWOL. And ineffectual.
So, fault the unions? You bet. We should be mad as hell. Just as we should be mad as hell at some of the excesses of the union movement. But in the Great Crash of 2008, it was banks and other corporations who created our economic nightmare. Was our response to throw banks and other corporations under the bus? To abolish them altogether? No, in fact, it was to bail them out.
In his faux phone talk with Charles Koch, it was clear that closing his state’s fiscal gap was a secondary objective for Governor Walker. His primary goal was to break the unions. It had to be, since these teachers, firefighters, nurses and other first responders have already said they would go along with the governor and make the sacrifices necessary to do their part to help close the state’s $6.3 billion budget deficit.
But Governor Walker is still saying he has the same $3.6 billion budget deficit to balance. It was like the union response never happened!
And, by the way, I wonder if the Governor was thinking of that gap when, shortly after taking office, he handed the wealthiest people in his state a generous tax cut.
Does the Governor really expect us to believe that it is public service unions alone that are responsible for that $6.3 billion budget gap?
If he believes that, I have a terrific bridge to sell him.
There are many in Wisconsin who don’t believe the Governor’s budget gap is real. One of them is the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that “Wisconsin isn’t even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.”
And Jack Norman, research director at the Institute for Wisconsin Future, a public interest think tank, says, “Walker was not forced into a budget repair bill by circumstances beyond he control. “He wanted a budget repair bill and forced it by pushing through tax cuts… so he could rush through these other changes.”
But Messrs. Koch and Walker aren’t listening to Jack Norman. I’m sure Mr. Koch is just tickled pink with how things are going and is keeping busy making preparations to fly Mr. Walker to “Cali and show you a real good time.”
Friday, February 25, 2011
The Constitution: Egypt’s Job One
By William Fisher
Eleven days before he finally resigned, Hosni Mubarak may have had a chance to reverse his fortunes. Suddenly filled with a spirit of peace-making and reconciliation, the president offered up a smorgasbord of “reforms” he promised to make.
Among them was amending several articles of the Egyptian Constitution. Calls for these amendments had been going on for years. So central were they to the political well-being of the Egyptian people, that foreign powers – principally the United States –had intervened privately and publicly -- to persuade its most dependable Middle East ally to actually get something done.
But it was too late. The crowd in Tahrir Square didn’t believe their President. They had heard it all before. Mubarak was through.
So, days later, the task of re-writing the Constitutional amendments fell to a committee appointed by the Military Panel now governing Egypt.
Why is this important? Because over the years, the Mubarak regime created amendments to the Constitution. Their purpose was to make it virtually impossible to become a candidate, become a recognized political party, and have competent and independent monitoring of all elections.
Writing these new Constitutional articles is a modest assignment. The committee is not mandated to rewrite the entire Constitution; that may come later. But the Committee’s work is nonetheless critical. For it will be addressing the articles that, more than any others, have promulgated one-man rule in Egypt, kept the opposition from forming legal political parties, and thus effectively marginalized all candidates not named Mubarak.
The committee will work to be responsive to the leaders of the Tahrir Square opposition. They want the constitutional changes to reflect clearer separation of powers, strengthening of an independent judiciary, and less power for the president. That won’t all happen by writing a few amendments, but it’s a start.
And unless the committee finishes its work and the public votes ‘yes’ in a scheduled April referendum, it will be impossible to hold a presidential election in November.
Here, with thanks to Reuters, are the Articles the Committee is working on:
Article 77 of the suspended constitution allowed the president to seek re-election indefinitely. After specifying the length of the president’s term, the article says he “may be re-elected for other successive terms.”
The term of the Presidency is six Gregorian years starting from the date of the announcement of the result of the plebiscite that is used to decide the winner. The opposition has frequently called for a two-term limit on the president. This is a customary practice ion many democratic countries.
Article 88 cancelled the direct supervision of elections by the judiciary. Replacing it in 1977 was the Supreme Electoral Commission, of which the opposition has been widely critical for its lack of independence. Parliamentary elections were largely controlled by the Ministry of Interior.
The opposition has always called for constitutional changes to deter election rigging, a widespread practice for many decades. Supervision of selections by the relatively clean-handed judiciary was seen by the opposition as a deterrent to vote rigging. This practice has resulted in election results that were patently fraudulent and which earned Egypt the disrespect of many of its most important allies.
Article 93 dictates that the eligibility of its members can be decided only the People’s Assembly. The ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) majority has used this article to ignore court rulings invalidating election results.
Article 179, which will be eliminated, allowed the president to refer any terror related case to any judicial body, which gave him the right to use
military courts.
Article 189 says the president can ask parliament to approve an amendment or parliament can propose its own amendments. But all amendments must be approved in a referendum.
Heading the Committee is retired judge Tareq al-Bishry, reputedly respected in legal circles for his independent views. Marwa Al-A'sar of Egypt’s Daily News reports that Al-Bishry has been a strong supporter of an independent judiciary, though legal experts have said the Egyptian judiciary was subjected to increasing political meddling during Mubarak's 30-year rule.
Many in the opposition are voicing criticism of their new military bosses for not acting quickly to lift the so-called Emergency Law, which has been in effect continuously, with one brief hiatus, for thirty years. The emergency powers were implemented in 1981, after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat.
Mubarak made numerous promises to repeal these laws, but never followed through. In the last few years, the Mubarak regime introduced a set of 34 new constitutional articles, meant to be a substitute for the emergency laws.
But Mubarak’s critics say the amendments would have enabled a replacement of emergency laws with something just as authoritarian - but permanent.
The 34 new articles were approved by a vote in parliament, which was dominated by members of the ruling National Democratic Party. They would have written into permanent law emergency-style powers that, according Amnesty International, would have been used to violate human rights.
A week later they were put to a popular vote. Government officials said they were approved by more than three-quarters of voters, although the turnout was low - 27% according to official figures, much lower by other independent groups.
The opposition, led by independent supporters of the banned Muslim Brotherhood movement, boycotted the vote, saying the lightening referendum did not give them a chance to mount a proper "No" campaign.
The 34 new articles never became part of the Constitution.
But, in whatever form, the emergency laws have been used to trash the human rights of thousands of people who found themselves in conflict with the police and the security services. Capricious detentions. Incommunicado imprisonment. Torture. Police impunity. Denial of legal and family visits. Deaths in detention.
It is clear that democracy cannot flourish when laws like these are on the books and are being widely used. So hopefully the new military leaders will lift the emergency laws even before the April referendum.
But that moment is down the road a bit.
The first order of business now is the composition of four or five constitutional articles. And, even at this early stage, the hand-over of the rewriting to a committee has not gone without criticism. Thirty-one human rights organizations have criticized the amendment committee constituted by the military.
Rights groups say that committee membership is tilted toward particular ideologies, that it includes former Mubarak officials, and that it is a male-only group, despite the presence of many qualified women.
The organizations also charged that, in 2005 and 2007, some committee members belonged to legislation committees under the former regime, where they helped prepare flawed legislation and constitutional amendments.
The Rights groups also said that the committee lacked constitutional law experts who were independent and trusted by the public. Nor did it
reflect Egypt's political and social diversity, they declared.
They said it looked like a coalition between members of the former regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michele Dunne, a senior Middle East analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Truthout that the drafting committee has adopted “a very fast process.” But she adds, “We should also bear in mind that the articles to be amended were very controversial and lawyers and NGOs had already done a lot of spade work on how they should be amended, so perhaps some of that work will be used now.”
But even if the committee completes its work on time and an April referendum overwhelmingly approves the new constitutional articles, the new Egypt will have simply taken another of many baby steps toward democracy.
The Emergency Law must be addressed. Some new rules will have to be written regarding Parliamentary elections and Parliamentary power. Someone or some body is sooner or later going to have to take a look at the opaque web of business and economic interests spun by the military’s crony-capitalism . The issue of corruption probably does not require any new laws, rather the implementation of laws already on the books.
The former Mubarak ministers now charged with corruption were charged as a last-gasp distraction by Mubarak. Their guilt or innocence will be decided by a court, but there is nothing to suggest that they would have been charged with anything at any time absent the Mubarak crisis.
How much of such an agenda the military will welcome with open arms is questionable. Every senior military man now on the ruling council owes his appointment – and in many case, his prosperity -- to Mubarak.
Arguably, the most important next step for Egypt beyond amending the constitution, is the emergence of a leader. Many in the country are calling for a leader capable of exercising “adult supervision” over the incredibly diverse souls who slept in Tahrir Square. Just as many others are saying that only the youth of the country can carry the spirit of the uprising from Tahrir Square into the Presidential Palace.
Notes of caution have been delivered to the folks in the Square by thousands of commentators inside and outside Egypt. They have been cautioned about euphoria. They have been told that “democracy is not a plan.” They have been warned about faux leaders, about running too fast, about trying to get everything absolutely perfect.
That’s not possible, and is it undisputed that these young people and their elders are going to make mistakes along the way. Expect them and undoing them can be easier.
And follow the advice of Rami Khoury, Lebanese-born, American-educated journalist and policy wonk:
“It takes time and energy to re-legitimize an entire national governance system and power structure that have been criminalized, privatized, monopolized and militarized by small groups of petty autocrats and thieving families.
“Tunisia and Egypt are the first to embark on this historic journey, and other Arabs will soon follow, because most Arab countries suffer the same deficiencies that have been exposed for all to see in Egypt.
“Make no mistake about it, we are witnessing an epic, historic moment of the birth of concepts that have long been denied to ordinary Arabs: the right to define ourselves and our governments, to assert our national values, to shape our governance systems, and to engage with each other and the rest of the world as free human beings, with rights that will not be denied forever.”
Eleven days before he finally resigned, Hosni Mubarak may have had a chance to reverse his fortunes. Suddenly filled with a spirit of peace-making and reconciliation, the president offered up a smorgasbord of “reforms” he promised to make.
Among them was amending several articles of the Egyptian Constitution. Calls for these amendments had been going on for years. So central were they to the political well-being of the Egyptian people, that foreign powers – principally the United States –had intervened privately and publicly -- to persuade its most dependable Middle East ally to actually get something done.
But it was too late. The crowd in Tahrir Square didn’t believe their President. They had heard it all before. Mubarak was through.
So, days later, the task of re-writing the Constitutional amendments fell to a committee appointed by the Military Panel now governing Egypt.
Why is this important? Because over the years, the Mubarak regime created amendments to the Constitution. Their purpose was to make it virtually impossible to become a candidate, become a recognized political party, and have competent and independent monitoring of all elections.
Writing these new Constitutional articles is a modest assignment. The committee is not mandated to rewrite the entire Constitution; that may come later. But the Committee’s work is nonetheless critical. For it will be addressing the articles that, more than any others, have promulgated one-man rule in Egypt, kept the opposition from forming legal political parties, and thus effectively marginalized all candidates not named Mubarak.
The committee will work to be responsive to the leaders of the Tahrir Square opposition. They want the constitutional changes to reflect clearer separation of powers, strengthening of an independent judiciary, and less power for the president. That won’t all happen by writing a few amendments, but it’s a start.
And unless the committee finishes its work and the public votes ‘yes’ in a scheduled April referendum, it will be impossible to hold a presidential election in November.
Here, with thanks to Reuters, are the Articles the Committee is working on:
Article 77 of the suspended constitution allowed the president to seek re-election indefinitely. After specifying the length of the president’s term, the article says he “may be re-elected for other successive terms.”
The term of the Presidency is six Gregorian years starting from the date of the announcement of the result of the plebiscite that is used to decide the winner. The opposition has frequently called for a two-term limit on the president. This is a customary practice ion many democratic countries.
Article 88 cancelled the direct supervision of elections by the judiciary. Replacing it in 1977 was the Supreme Electoral Commission, of which the opposition has been widely critical for its lack of independence. Parliamentary elections were largely controlled by the Ministry of Interior.
The opposition has always called for constitutional changes to deter election rigging, a widespread practice for many decades. Supervision of selections by the relatively clean-handed judiciary was seen by the opposition as a deterrent to vote rigging. This practice has resulted in election results that were patently fraudulent and which earned Egypt the disrespect of many of its most important allies.
Article 93 dictates that the eligibility of its members can be decided only the People’s Assembly. The ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) majority has used this article to ignore court rulings invalidating election results.
Article 179, which will be eliminated, allowed the president to refer any terror related case to any judicial body, which gave him the right to use
military courts.
Article 189 says the president can ask parliament to approve an amendment or parliament can propose its own amendments. But all amendments must be approved in a referendum.
Heading the Committee is retired judge Tareq al-Bishry, reputedly respected in legal circles for his independent views. Marwa Al-A'sar of Egypt’s Daily News reports that Al-Bishry has been a strong supporter of an independent judiciary, though legal experts have said the Egyptian judiciary was subjected to increasing political meddling during Mubarak's 30-year rule.
Many in the opposition are voicing criticism of their new military bosses for not acting quickly to lift the so-called Emergency Law, which has been in effect continuously, with one brief hiatus, for thirty years. The emergency powers were implemented in 1981, after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat.
Mubarak made numerous promises to repeal these laws, but never followed through. In the last few years, the Mubarak regime introduced a set of 34 new constitutional articles, meant to be a substitute for the emergency laws.
But Mubarak’s critics say the amendments would have enabled a replacement of emergency laws with something just as authoritarian - but permanent.
The 34 new articles were approved by a vote in parliament, which was dominated by members of the ruling National Democratic Party. They would have written into permanent law emergency-style powers that, according Amnesty International, would have been used to violate human rights.
A week later they were put to a popular vote. Government officials said they were approved by more than three-quarters of voters, although the turnout was low - 27% according to official figures, much lower by other independent groups.
The opposition, led by independent supporters of the banned Muslim Brotherhood movement, boycotted the vote, saying the lightening referendum did not give them a chance to mount a proper "No" campaign.
The 34 new articles never became part of the Constitution.
But, in whatever form, the emergency laws have been used to trash the human rights of thousands of people who found themselves in conflict with the police and the security services. Capricious detentions. Incommunicado imprisonment. Torture. Police impunity. Denial of legal and family visits. Deaths in detention.
It is clear that democracy cannot flourish when laws like these are on the books and are being widely used. So hopefully the new military leaders will lift the emergency laws even before the April referendum.
But that moment is down the road a bit.
The first order of business now is the composition of four or five constitutional articles. And, even at this early stage, the hand-over of the rewriting to a committee has not gone without criticism. Thirty-one human rights organizations have criticized the amendment committee constituted by the military.
Rights groups say that committee membership is tilted toward particular ideologies, that it includes former Mubarak officials, and that it is a male-only group, despite the presence of many qualified women.
The organizations also charged that, in 2005 and 2007, some committee members belonged to legislation committees under the former regime, where they helped prepare flawed legislation and constitutional amendments.
The Rights groups also said that the committee lacked constitutional law experts who were independent and trusted by the public. Nor did it
reflect Egypt's political and social diversity, they declared.
They said it looked like a coalition between members of the former regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michele Dunne, a senior Middle East analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Truthout that the drafting committee has adopted “a very fast process.” But she adds, “We should also bear in mind that the articles to be amended were very controversial and lawyers and NGOs had already done a lot of spade work on how they should be amended, so perhaps some of that work will be used now.”
But even if the committee completes its work on time and an April referendum overwhelmingly approves the new constitutional articles, the new Egypt will have simply taken another of many baby steps toward democracy.
The Emergency Law must be addressed. Some new rules will have to be written regarding Parliamentary elections and Parliamentary power. Someone or some body is sooner or later going to have to take a look at the opaque web of business and economic interests spun by the military’s crony-capitalism . The issue of corruption probably does not require any new laws, rather the implementation of laws already on the books.
The former Mubarak ministers now charged with corruption were charged as a last-gasp distraction by Mubarak. Their guilt or innocence will be decided by a court, but there is nothing to suggest that they would have been charged with anything at any time absent the Mubarak crisis.
How much of such an agenda the military will welcome with open arms is questionable. Every senior military man now on the ruling council owes his appointment – and in many case, his prosperity -- to Mubarak.
Arguably, the most important next step for Egypt beyond amending the constitution, is the emergence of a leader. Many in the country are calling for a leader capable of exercising “adult supervision” over the incredibly diverse souls who slept in Tahrir Square. Just as many others are saying that only the youth of the country can carry the spirit of the uprising from Tahrir Square into the Presidential Palace.
Notes of caution have been delivered to the folks in the Square by thousands of commentators inside and outside Egypt. They have been cautioned about euphoria. They have been told that “democracy is not a plan.” They have been warned about faux leaders, about running too fast, about trying to get everything absolutely perfect.
That’s not possible, and is it undisputed that these young people and their elders are going to make mistakes along the way. Expect them and undoing them can be easier.
And follow the advice of Rami Khoury, Lebanese-born, American-educated journalist and policy wonk:
“It takes time and energy to re-legitimize an entire national governance system and power structure that have been criminalized, privatized, monopolized and militarized by small groups of petty autocrats and thieving families.
“Tunisia and Egypt are the first to embark on this historic journey, and other Arabs will soon follow, because most Arab countries suffer the same deficiencies that have been exposed for all to see in Egypt.
“Make no mistake about it, we are witnessing an epic, historic moment of the birth of concepts that have long been denied to ordinary Arabs: the right to define ourselves and our governments, to assert our national values, to shape our governance systems, and to engage with each other and the rest of the world as free human beings, with rights that will not be denied forever.”
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
EXPERTS: UN NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH ON LIBYA
By William Fisher
Major human rights groups and Middle East experts unanimously agreed today that the United Nations was not nearly tough enough in its condemnation of Libyan dictator Moammar El-Gadhafi, who is currently trying desperately to hang on to power by mobilizing his army, air force, and mercenary militias to attack Libyan citizens demanding an end to the strongman’s iron-fisted rule of 41 years.
Amnesty International (AI, Human Rights Watch (HRW)and Human Rights First (HRF) are among rights groups voicing strong opinions today. The Public Record has also talked with one of the nation’s most respected Middle East scholars, Samer Shehata, a professor of Arab Politics at George Univerisity.
Amnesty accused the international community of failing the people of Libya in their hour of greatest need as violence spirals and Colonel al-Gadhafi threatens to “cleanse Libya house by house”.
The organization said the response to the Libya crisis by the U.N. Security Council fell “shamefully below what was needed to stop the spiraling violence, and called for concrete action, including an immediate arms embargo and assets freeze.
The U.N. Security Council on Tuesday issued a statement calling for an end to the violence and urging Libya to act with restraint and respect human rights, but took no substantive measures.
AI also criticized the African Union, which has not convened its Peace and Security Council to address the human rights crisis in Libya.
“Colonel al-Gadhafi has publicly made clear his readiness to kill those who oppose him in order to stay in power,” said Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary-General.
“This is unacceptable. Colonel al-Gadhafi and all those reporting to him need to know that they will be held personally accountable under international law for the crimes they commit.”
“His threats make the half-hearted response from the international community even more shocking. What Libyans need now is not mere words of concern but immediate, concrete action,” he said, adding:
“As a bare minimum, the Security Council must impose an immediate arms embargo against Libya and an asset freeze against al-Gadhafi and his key security and military advisers.”
AI’s call came as Colonel al-Gadhafi gave a speech in which he called protesters “cockroaches” and “rats,” and compared the situation to China, saying that national unity had been “more important than the people of Tiananmen Square."
AI also criticized the response of the African Union to the unfolding crisis, which has seen hundreds killed and persistent reports of mercenaries being brought in from African countries by the Libyan leader to violently suppress the protests against him.
“It is outrageous that the African Union Peace and Security Council has not even met to discuss the emergency taking place in one of its own member states,” said AI’s Shetty.
Amnesty called on the African Union to ensure that its member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are not complicit in human rights abuses in Libya.
The organization also urged the Arab League, which yesterday banned Libya from participation in its meetings, to act at once on its public commitments, in particular by launching an independent Arab investigative committee into the crisis in Libya.
In full, Amnesty International called on:
· The United Nations Security Council: to immediately impose an arms embargo on Libya preventing transfer of equipment and personnel, implement an asset freeze against Colonel al-Gadhafi and his senior military and security advisers and state unequivocally that crimes under international law in Libya will be investigated and punished.
· The African Union and its member states: to immediately investigate reports that armed elements are being transported from African countries to Libya, acting to secure the land borders into Libya and monitor suspicious flights.
· The U.N. General Assembly: to immediately suspend Libya from the 47-member UN Human Rights Council.
· The UN Human Rights Council: to deploy a fact-finding mission to Libya to make rapid recommendations on human rights abuses and whether a referral to the International Criminal Court is warranted.
· Libya and neighboring countries: to facilitate the safe departure of those who wish to leave Libya.
Prof. Samer Shehata, professor of Middle Eastern politics at Georgetown University, told The Public Record, “I agree fully with the idea of an asset freeze, arms embargo and the possibility of pursuing charges against those in Libya (including Qadhafi) of using military force against an unarmed civilian population. Using helicopter gunships, artillery and the report of military aircraft (and the reported ordering of Libyan naval ships to fire on Benghazi) constitute crimes against humanity.”
Shehata continued: “Qadhafi is a depraved, megalomaniacal dictator and he has been a disaster for Libya, the Arab world and Africa. He runs one of the most autocratic regimes in the world -- as a family concern -- and the sooner the Libyan people can be rid of him, the better off they will be.”
He added: “I would also hope that the Arab League and the African Union
will also pursue all possible measures against colonel Qadhafi and his criminal regime.”
Asked by The Public Record about a post-Qadhafi Libya, Shehata, who has recently returned from the Middle East, said Libya “is likely to be significantly more difficult than post-Mubarak Egypt and post Ben Ali Tunisia.”
He gave these reasons: “Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt, Qadhafi has systematically wiped out what existed of Libyan civil and political society; the Qadhafi regime did not allow any independent institutions to develop and he has been in power/in control much longer ... since 1969. Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt there are no known, established political parties, independent civil society groups, labor unions, syndicates, etc.”
He said Job One after Gadhafi will be to “establish order and security and agree on the basic rules of the game.”
“It's not a question of amending the constitution in Libya or bringing in a new cabinet. It's a question of writing a new constitution, creating new
institutions and forging a new form of politics,” he said.
Similar sentiments were voiced by Neil Hicks, International Policy Adviser for Human Rights First. He told The Public Record, “We do believe that the UN should have gone further than just condemnation and concern, and we hope that it will. We support the imposition of a no-fly zone, an arms embargo and targeted sanctions against Gadhafi and other implicated leaders.”
He added, “We fear that Libya, as a result of Gadhafi’s suffocating rule and divide and rule methods, faces a very messy post Gadhafi era, should one emerge.”
“Libya will require massive foreign assistance in terms of expertise and technical support – it has funds, of course. Ideally this should not be led by the West alone, but should involve the Arab League -- perhaps especially Egypt and Tunisia -- with strong backing from the EU and the US.”
He concluded: “It’s a daunting task, but the alternative -- Gadhafi hanging on grimly -- is even worse.
Fred Abrahams of Human Rights Watch told ThePublic Record, “If there is a post-Gadhafi Libya, it will be a huge mess."
He explained: "Libya has no constitution, no political parties, no free media, no civil society. It has been guided by the Green Book for forty years. This will require a radical olitical restructuring from scratch."
He said, "There are many options, and Libyans must decide for themselves. I could imagine that they would want to form a caretaker government with technocrats and also a constitutional commission to start drafting. These should pave the way for elections. All this will not be easy. And it’s also down the road, not clear what will happen in Tripoli."
Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement, “Anyone, including Muammar Gadhafi, ordering or carrying out atrocities should know they will be held individually accountable for their actions, including unlawful killings of protesters.”
She said, “We fear the death toll will rise much higher unless Gadhafi ends his bloody attempts to suppress dissent. He should call his forces including mercenaries off immediately.”
Major human rights groups and Middle East experts unanimously agreed today that the United Nations was not nearly tough enough in its condemnation of Libyan dictator Moammar El-Gadhafi, who is currently trying desperately to hang on to power by mobilizing his army, air force, and mercenary militias to attack Libyan citizens demanding an end to the strongman’s iron-fisted rule of 41 years.
Amnesty International (AI, Human Rights Watch (HRW)and Human Rights First (HRF) are among rights groups voicing strong opinions today. The Public Record has also talked with one of the nation’s most respected Middle East scholars, Samer Shehata, a professor of Arab Politics at George Univerisity.
Amnesty accused the international community of failing the people of Libya in their hour of greatest need as violence spirals and Colonel al-Gadhafi threatens to “cleanse Libya house by house”.
The organization said the response to the Libya crisis by the U.N. Security Council fell “shamefully below what was needed to stop the spiraling violence, and called for concrete action, including an immediate arms embargo and assets freeze.
The U.N. Security Council on Tuesday issued a statement calling for an end to the violence and urging Libya to act with restraint and respect human rights, but took no substantive measures.
AI also criticized the African Union, which has not convened its Peace and Security Council to address the human rights crisis in Libya.
“Colonel al-Gadhafi has publicly made clear his readiness to kill those who oppose him in order to stay in power,” said Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary-General.
“This is unacceptable. Colonel al-Gadhafi and all those reporting to him need to know that they will be held personally accountable under international law for the crimes they commit.”
“His threats make the half-hearted response from the international community even more shocking. What Libyans need now is not mere words of concern but immediate, concrete action,” he said, adding:
“As a bare minimum, the Security Council must impose an immediate arms embargo against Libya and an asset freeze against al-Gadhafi and his key security and military advisers.”
AI’s call came as Colonel al-Gadhafi gave a speech in which he called protesters “cockroaches” and “rats,” and compared the situation to China, saying that national unity had been “more important than the people of Tiananmen Square."
AI also criticized the response of the African Union to the unfolding crisis, which has seen hundreds killed and persistent reports of mercenaries being brought in from African countries by the Libyan leader to violently suppress the protests against him.
“It is outrageous that the African Union Peace and Security Council has not even met to discuss the emergency taking place in one of its own member states,” said AI’s Shetty.
Amnesty called on the African Union to ensure that its member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are not complicit in human rights abuses in Libya.
The organization also urged the Arab League, which yesterday banned Libya from participation in its meetings, to act at once on its public commitments, in particular by launching an independent Arab investigative committee into the crisis in Libya.
In full, Amnesty International called on:
· The United Nations Security Council: to immediately impose an arms embargo on Libya preventing transfer of equipment and personnel, implement an asset freeze against Colonel al-Gadhafi and his senior military and security advisers and state unequivocally that crimes under international law in Libya will be investigated and punished.
· The African Union and its member states: to immediately investigate reports that armed elements are being transported from African countries to Libya, acting to secure the land borders into Libya and monitor suspicious flights.
· The U.N. General Assembly: to immediately suspend Libya from the 47-member UN Human Rights Council.
· The UN Human Rights Council: to deploy a fact-finding mission to Libya to make rapid recommendations on human rights abuses and whether a referral to the International Criminal Court is warranted.
· Libya and neighboring countries: to facilitate the safe departure of those who wish to leave Libya.
Prof. Samer Shehata, professor of Middle Eastern politics at Georgetown University, told The Public Record, “I agree fully with the idea of an asset freeze, arms embargo and the possibility of pursuing charges against those in Libya (including Qadhafi) of using military force against an unarmed civilian population. Using helicopter gunships, artillery and the report of military aircraft (and the reported ordering of Libyan naval ships to fire on Benghazi) constitute crimes against humanity.”
Shehata continued: “Qadhafi is a depraved, megalomaniacal dictator and he has been a disaster for Libya, the Arab world and Africa. He runs one of the most autocratic regimes in the world -- as a family concern -- and the sooner the Libyan people can be rid of him, the better off they will be.”
He added: “I would also hope that the Arab League and the African Union
will also pursue all possible measures against colonel Qadhafi and his criminal regime.”
Asked by The Public Record about a post-Qadhafi Libya, Shehata, who has recently returned from the Middle East, said Libya “is likely to be significantly more difficult than post-Mubarak Egypt and post Ben Ali Tunisia.”
He gave these reasons: “Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt, Qadhafi has systematically wiped out what existed of Libyan civil and political society; the Qadhafi regime did not allow any independent institutions to develop and he has been in power/in control much longer ... since 1969. Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt there are no known, established political parties, independent civil society groups, labor unions, syndicates, etc.”
He said Job One after Gadhafi will be to “establish order and security and agree on the basic rules of the game.”
“It's not a question of amending the constitution in Libya or bringing in a new cabinet. It's a question of writing a new constitution, creating new
institutions and forging a new form of politics,” he said.
Similar sentiments were voiced by Neil Hicks, International Policy Adviser for Human Rights First. He told The Public Record, “We do believe that the UN should have gone further than just condemnation and concern, and we hope that it will. We support the imposition of a no-fly zone, an arms embargo and targeted sanctions against Gadhafi and other implicated leaders.”
He added, “We fear that Libya, as a result of Gadhafi’s suffocating rule and divide and rule methods, faces a very messy post Gadhafi era, should one emerge.”
“Libya will require massive foreign assistance in terms of expertise and technical support – it has funds, of course. Ideally this should not be led by the West alone, but should involve the Arab League -- perhaps especially Egypt and Tunisia -- with strong backing from the EU and the US.”
He concluded: “It’s a daunting task, but the alternative -- Gadhafi hanging on grimly -- is even worse.
Fred Abrahams of Human Rights Watch told ThePublic Record, “If there is a post-Gadhafi Libya, it will be a huge mess."
He explained: "Libya has no constitution, no political parties, no free media, no civil society. It has been guided by the Green Book for forty years. This will require a radical olitical restructuring from scratch."
He said, "There are many options, and Libyans must decide for themselves. I could imagine that they would want to form a caretaker government with technocrats and also a constitutional commission to start drafting. These should pave the way for elections. All this will not be easy. And it’s also down the road, not clear what will happen in Tripoli."
Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement, “Anyone, including Muammar Gadhafi, ordering or carrying out atrocities should know they will be held individually accountable for their actions, including unlawful killings of protesters.”
She said, “We fear the death toll will rise much higher unless Gadhafi ends his bloody attempts to suppress dissent. He should call his forces including mercenaries off immediately.”
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Libya: The Price of Being Tone Deaf
By William Fisher
Less than three years ago, Human Rights Watch handed over to the Libyan Government the 2009 edition of its annual survey, entitled “A Facade of Action -- The Misuse of Dialogue and Cooperation with Rights Abusers.”
The Libyan chapter of the report, like its annual predecessors, made an extensive series of recommendations for ridding the country of its most egregious human rights violations.
The report noted there had been some improvements made in the Libyan human rights environment -- less frequent arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances, greater tolerance of freedom of expression and some progress in addressing gross violations of the past, limited steps toward increased tolerance of dissent, and two new private newspapers and the Internet.
These developments, HRW said, “have created a new limited space for freedom of expression, and some unprecedented public demonstrations have been allowed to take place.”
But HRW found that Libya’s performance in the human rights area was unacceptable. It said the country’s Internal Security Agency “remains responsible for systematic violations of Libyan rights, including the detention of political prisoners, enforced disappearances and deaths in custody.”
Human Rights observers, witnessing the current bloody conflict that many believe could degenerate into a full-blown civil war, are lamenting Col. Gadaffi’s failure to correct these continuing abuses.
HRW lays out the human rights landscape in Libya today. Freedom of expression remains severely restricted by the Libyan penal code. Cracks in the wall that the government has set up against free expression are thin but evident, but there has also been an increase in the number of prosecutions of journalists, although no journalist has been sentenced to prison so far.
HRW found that, “There is no freedom of association in Libya because the concept of an independent civil society goes directly against Gaddaffi’s theory of governance by the masses. Law 71 still criminalizes political parties, and the penal code criminalizes the establishment of organizations that are ‘against the principles of the Libyan Jamahireya system’.”
The report says that Law 19, "On Associations," requires a political body to approve all nongovernmental organizations, does not allow appeals against negative decisions and provides for continuous governmental interference in the running of the organization. The government has refused to allow independent journalists' and lawyers' organizations.
The report notes that Libya’s Justice Ministry has announced plans to reform the most repressive provisions of the penal code. “Yet, despite work to develop a new penal code, an essentially repressive legal framework remains in place, as does the ability of government security forces to act with impunity against dissent.”
HRW adds, “Many trials, especially those before the State Security Court, still fail to meet international due process standards. Overall, unjustified limits on free expression and association remain the norm, including penal code provisions that criminalize "insulting public officials" or "opposing the ideology of the Revolution."
Many relatives of prisoners killed in a 1996 incident at Abu Salim prison are still waiting to learn how their relatives died and to see those responsible punished. The jurisdiction of courts, the duties of government agencies, respect for legal rights of prisoners and adherence to the country’s stated list of human rights often remain murky, erratic and contradictory, the report said.
There are a number of semi-official organizations that do charitable work, providing services and organizing seminars, but none that publicly take critical stances against the government. But Libya has no independent nongovernmental organizations.
The only organizations that can do human rights work, the most sensitive area of all in Libya, derive their political standing from their personal affiliation with the regime. The main organization that can publicly criticize human rights violations is the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (Gaddafi Foundation), chaired by Saif al-Islam al-Gadaffi.
A second organization, Waatasemu, is run by Dr. Aisha al-Gadaffi, Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi’s daughter, and has intervened in death penalty cases and women’s rights issues. The International Organization for Peace, Care and Relief (IOPCR), run by Khaled Hamedi, the son of a member of the Revolutionary Command Council, is the only organization able to access migrant detention centers.
The abuses of human rights and the recommendations for improvement are virtually identical in the 2006, 2009, and 2011 reports.
Amnesty International has also called on the Libyan government to end its clampdown of peaceful political activists after violence erupted at demonstrations in the city of Benghazi following the arrest of activists ahead of a major demonstration Thursday.
“The Libyan authorities must allow peaceful protests, not try to stifle them with heavy-handed repression, said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“Libyans have the same rights as Egyptians and Tunisians to express discontent and call for reform in their own country, and it is high time the Libyan government recognized that and respected it.”
“People should not be locked up simply because they call for peaceful protests. Libyans have a right to expect reforms, not arrests, detentions and further state repression," said Smart.
One of the consequences of Gadaffi’s inaction on the human rights and economic fronts is that, among all the Middle East nations whose leaders are now facing organized opposition, the Libyan response has been without doubt the most aggressive. Libyan soldiers and police are estimated to have killed 200-400 people as of today, February 21. There have been pitched battles between protesters and Gadaffi supporters in the streets of Benghazi and Tobruk, and most recently, these battles have begun to trickle into the capital, Tripoli. Protesters are reported to have taken control of military bases, and their stocks of arms, in provincial cities
Numerous human rights advocates have been weighing in on Libya’s handling of its current crisis. For example, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information has expressed surprise and resentment at Gaddafi’s continuation of what it termed “practices that need psychological treatment,” such as warning Libyans not to use Facebook and arresting some Internet activists because of their support of the democratic revolution in Egypt, and calling on Libyans to make democratic and economic reforms.
Many Libyan Internet activists have declared their support for the pro-democracy movement and change in Egypt, and have created groups on Facebook to call for political and economic reforms in Libya. Libyan Security Services reportedly arrested a number of them.
The Arabic Network also reported that Gadaffi hired agents to attack activists who call for political reform and an end to in Libya.
The Network said that, “following in the footsteps of the Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Security Services arrested the Libyan activist and former prisoner of conscience, Jamal Al-Hajji, over a fabricated charge of a car accident, similar to the accusations that the Tunisian used to fabricate for dissidents and political activists during his hideous ruling.”
The Arabic Network said, “The best thing for Gadaffi is to step down after seizing power against the will of the Libyans for so long. Democracy and freedoms are essential as air, no dictator or security as cruel as they can be could ever deprive people of them.”
The 2011Human Rights Watch report declares, “The steps Libya has taken to address some of its human rights problems do not go far enough in addressing the systemic and legal infrastructure that deprives Libyans of their basic human rights.”
The report continues: “Libya must ensure that it complies with all of its obligations under international human rights law and should immediately implement a number of reforms in policy, law and practice. The General People’s Congress (the legislative assembly) should repeal all provisions of the penal code and other laws such as Law 71 that violate freedom of expression and association, and that any new draft laws are fully in line with international human rights law.”
Specific recommendations arise from HRW’s concern over the country’s judicial and penal systems. HRW says, “The Internal Security Agency should immediately release all prisoners detained for peacefully exercising their right to free expression or association and compensate them for their detention.”
“In addition, Internal Security agents should immediately release the approximately 200 prisoners they are continuing to detain in Abu Salim prison despite the fact that Libyan courts have acquitted them and ordered their release or that they have completed their sentences.”
The HRW report further urges the People’s Leadership Committees to “immediately inform the families of prisoners who died in the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre of the circumstances of the death of their relatives and give them the remains of their relatives to bury.”
“The authorities must carry out a full and effective investigation and make public the findings. This should be immediately followed by the prosecution of those responsible for the summary execution of those prisoners. Under human rights law, the Libyan government is under an obligation to make reparation and must not pressure the families into accepting compensation instead of pursuing accountability.”
It adds, “The families of prisoners who were killed in Abu Salim have the right to demonstrate peacefully and make demands to the Libyan authorities without intimidation and harassment from the security forces. In addition, in the context of Libya’s increasing political and economic integration in the world community, Human Rights Watch urges all organizations and governments engaging with Libya to ensure that the promotion of human rights in Libya forms part of their relationship.”
Other recommendations to the Libyan Government:
In the area of freedom of expression:
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972, which bans any group activity based on a political ideology opposed to the principles of the 1969 al-Fateh Revolution when Mu’ammar al-Gadaffi led a military coup overthrowing the Libyan monarchy;
· Repeal articles of the penal code that criminalize free expression, including articles 166, 178, 206, 207, and ensure that the new draft penal code is revised to comply with international human rights law;
· Release all individuals imprisoned or detained solely for exercising their right to free expression.
In the area of freedom of association and assembly:
· Allow for the establishment of independent organizations that wish to peacefully exercise freedom of association;
· Revoke the decision to refuse the registration of the Association for Justice and the Center for Democracy, the organizations that a group of lawyers and journalists attempted to establish in 2008;
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972 and related articles of the penal code that criminalize free association and amend Law 19 to allow for the establishment of independent non-governmental organizations;
· Ensure that individuals seeking to establish associations are not harassed by security forces or prosecuted for the subsequent exercise of freedom of assembly;
In the area of legal justice, prisons under the control of the Internal Security Agency should:
· Immediately release all prisoners acquitted by courts; immediately release all prisoners who have served their sentences;
· Implement all legal decisions issued by Libyan courts;
· Allow the Office of the General Prosecutor to conduct investigations regarding detention in Abu Salim and Ain Zara prisons;
· Quash all sentences against and immediately release all political prisoners who are imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of their views or for activities protected by freedom of association and assembly;
· Compensate all who have been arbitrarily detained;
With respect to the State Security Court:
· Clarify the status of the State Security Court in the Libyan legal system;
· Ensure that a right of appeal is available to every defendant and clarify which court is competent to hear that appeal;
· Ensure that defendants have the right to a lawyer of their choice and sufficient access to their lawyers before the court sessions ;
· Ensure that both private and state-appointed lawyers have equal and full access to the case documents;
· Make all decisions rendered by the State Security Court publicly available, especially to the defendant and his family.
With respect to the Death Penalty:
· Order an immediate moratorium on the death penalty;
· Commute all death sentences to terms of imprisonment;
· Eliminate the death penalty as a punishment under Libyan law;
· Become a party to the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which aims at the abolition of the death penalty.
The report also included recommendations to the European Union and the UN Human Rights Council.
As in other Middle Eastern countries currently experiencing political upheavals, economic hardships as well as the human rights deficits are thought to be the major factors driving the uprisings.
The BBC reports that, “After many years when the entire population officially had jobs, Libya is now trying to tackle a growing unemployment problem, as it moves towards a more liberal economy. Previously, everyone who graduated from high school or universities was employed by the state. Officials are struggling to define unemployment and to find solutions for its jobless citizens.”
A Socialist ideology remains deeply entrenched in the mindset of many Libyans.
Over the past decade Libya dramatically transformed its international status from a pariah state under UN, EU and US sanctions to a country that, in 2009 alone, held the Presidency of the UN Security Council, the chair of the African Union and the Presidency of the UN General Assembly.
Libya earned its reputation as a pariah in the world community by attempting to secretly acquire nuclear materials. In 2003, Libya agreed to eliminate all such materials, equipment, and programs resulting in the production of nuclear or other internationally proscribed weapons.
Gadaffi admitted that, in contravention of its international obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Libya had pursued a nuclear weapons program, allegedly to counter the covert Israeli nuclear program. In 2004, the United States and Britain dismantled Libya's nuclear weapons infrastructure with oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Gadaffi's 2003 decision to reveal the true scope of Libya's nuclear ambitions and progress resulted primarily from his increasing desire to regain admission to the international community by renouncing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD); his fear that Libya might be subject to a U.S. invasion, as had Iraq, on the grounds that it possessed WMD; the interception in October 2003 of a ship bound for Libya with a cargo of Pakistani-designed centrifuge parts manufactured in Malaysia; and the promise that long-standing international sanctions imposed because of Libya's terrorist activities would be lifted, leading to economic and other benefits.
U.S. President George W. Bush lifted most of the trade restrictions on Libya, allowing U.S. oil companies to explore Libya’s large oil reserves.
Libya attracted the world’s anger in 1988, with the midair bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, headed for New York, killing all 243 passengers, 16 crew members, and 11 people on the ground.
It was determined that Libyan intelligence agents planned the bombing and one was tried and convicted by Scottish authorities. His release, on humanitarian grounds because of his terminal cancer, drew strong criticism from many world leaders. The Scottish prisoner was greeted as a hero upon his return to Libya and is still alive today.
Less than three years ago, Human Rights Watch handed over to the Libyan Government the 2009 edition of its annual survey, entitled “A Facade of Action -- The Misuse of Dialogue and Cooperation with Rights Abusers.”
The Libyan chapter of the report, like its annual predecessors, made an extensive series of recommendations for ridding the country of its most egregious human rights violations.
The report noted there had been some improvements made in the Libyan human rights environment -- less frequent arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances, greater tolerance of freedom of expression and some progress in addressing gross violations of the past, limited steps toward increased tolerance of dissent, and two new private newspapers and the Internet.
These developments, HRW said, “have created a new limited space for freedom of expression, and some unprecedented public demonstrations have been allowed to take place.”
But HRW found that Libya’s performance in the human rights area was unacceptable. It said the country’s Internal Security Agency “remains responsible for systematic violations of Libyan rights, including the detention of political prisoners, enforced disappearances and deaths in custody.”
Human Rights observers, witnessing the current bloody conflict that many believe could degenerate into a full-blown civil war, are lamenting Col. Gadaffi’s failure to correct these continuing abuses.
HRW lays out the human rights landscape in Libya today. Freedom of expression remains severely restricted by the Libyan penal code. Cracks in the wall that the government has set up against free expression are thin but evident, but there has also been an increase in the number of prosecutions of journalists, although no journalist has been sentenced to prison so far.
HRW found that, “There is no freedom of association in Libya because the concept of an independent civil society goes directly against Gaddaffi’s theory of governance by the masses. Law 71 still criminalizes political parties, and the penal code criminalizes the establishment of organizations that are ‘against the principles of the Libyan Jamahireya system’.”
The report says that Law 19, "On Associations," requires a political body to approve all nongovernmental organizations, does not allow appeals against negative decisions and provides for continuous governmental interference in the running of the organization. The government has refused to allow independent journalists' and lawyers' organizations.
The report notes that Libya’s Justice Ministry has announced plans to reform the most repressive provisions of the penal code. “Yet, despite work to develop a new penal code, an essentially repressive legal framework remains in place, as does the ability of government security forces to act with impunity against dissent.”
HRW adds, “Many trials, especially those before the State Security Court, still fail to meet international due process standards. Overall, unjustified limits on free expression and association remain the norm, including penal code provisions that criminalize "insulting public officials" or "opposing the ideology of the Revolution."
Many relatives of prisoners killed in a 1996 incident at Abu Salim prison are still waiting to learn how their relatives died and to see those responsible punished. The jurisdiction of courts, the duties of government agencies, respect for legal rights of prisoners and adherence to the country’s stated list of human rights often remain murky, erratic and contradictory, the report said.
There are a number of semi-official organizations that do charitable work, providing services and organizing seminars, but none that publicly take critical stances against the government. But Libya has no independent nongovernmental organizations.
The only organizations that can do human rights work, the most sensitive area of all in Libya, derive their political standing from their personal affiliation with the regime. The main organization that can publicly criticize human rights violations is the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (Gaddafi Foundation), chaired by Saif al-Islam al-Gadaffi.
A second organization, Waatasemu, is run by Dr. Aisha al-Gadaffi, Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi’s daughter, and has intervened in death penalty cases and women’s rights issues. The International Organization for Peace, Care and Relief (IOPCR), run by Khaled Hamedi, the son of a member of the Revolutionary Command Council, is the only organization able to access migrant detention centers.
The abuses of human rights and the recommendations for improvement are virtually identical in the 2006, 2009, and 2011 reports.
Amnesty International has also called on the Libyan government to end its clampdown of peaceful political activists after violence erupted at demonstrations in the city of Benghazi following the arrest of activists ahead of a major demonstration Thursday.
“The Libyan authorities must allow peaceful protests, not try to stifle them with heavy-handed repression, said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“Libyans have the same rights as Egyptians and Tunisians to express discontent and call for reform in their own country, and it is high time the Libyan government recognized that and respected it.”
“People should not be locked up simply because they call for peaceful protests. Libyans have a right to expect reforms, not arrests, detentions and further state repression," said Smart.
One of the consequences of Gadaffi’s inaction on the human rights and economic fronts is that, among all the Middle East nations whose leaders are now facing organized opposition, the Libyan response has been without doubt the most aggressive. Libyan soldiers and police are estimated to have killed 200-400 people as of today, February 21. There have been pitched battles between protesters and Gadaffi supporters in the streets of Benghazi and Tobruk, and most recently, these battles have begun to trickle into the capital, Tripoli. Protesters are reported to have taken control of military bases, and their stocks of arms, in provincial cities
Numerous human rights advocates have been weighing in on Libya’s handling of its current crisis. For example, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information has expressed surprise and resentment at Gaddafi’s continuation of what it termed “practices that need psychological treatment,” such as warning Libyans not to use Facebook and arresting some Internet activists because of their support of the democratic revolution in Egypt, and calling on Libyans to make democratic and economic reforms.
Many Libyan Internet activists have declared their support for the pro-democracy movement and change in Egypt, and have created groups on Facebook to call for political and economic reforms in Libya. Libyan Security Services reportedly arrested a number of them.
The Arabic Network also reported that Gadaffi hired agents to attack activists who call for political reform and an end to in Libya.
The Network said that, “following in the footsteps of the Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Security Services arrested the Libyan activist and former prisoner of conscience, Jamal Al-Hajji, over a fabricated charge of a car accident, similar to the accusations that the Tunisian used to fabricate for dissidents and political activists during his hideous ruling.”
The Arabic Network said, “The best thing for Gadaffi is to step down after seizing power against the will of the Libyans for so long. Democracy and freedoms are essential as air, no dictator or security as cruel as they can be could ever deprive people of them.”
The 2011Human Rights Watch report declares, “The steps Libya has taken to address some of its human rights problems do not go far enough in addressing the systemic and legal infrastructure that deprives Libyans of their basic human rights.”
The report continues: “Libya must ensure that it complies with all of its obligations under international human rights law and should immediately implement a number of reforms in policy, law and practice. The General People’s Congress (the legislative assembly) should repeal all provisions of the penal code and other laws such as Law 71 that violate freedom of expression and association, and that any new draft laws are fully in line with international human rights law.”
Specific recommendations arise from HRW’s concern over the country’s judicial and penal systems. HRW says, “The Internal Security Agency should immediately release all prisoners detained for peacefully exercising their right to free expression or association and compensate them for their detention.”
“In addition, Internal Security agents should immediately release the approximately 200 prisoners they are continuing to detain in Abu Salim prison despite the fact that Libyan courts have acquitted them and ordered their release or that they have completed their sentences.”
The HRW report further urges the People’s Leadership Committees to “immediately inform the families of prisoners who died in the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre of the circumstances of the death of their relatives and give them the remains of their relatives to bury.”
“The authorities must carry out a full and effective investigation and make public the findings. This should be immediately followed by the prosecution of those responsible for the summary execution of those prisoners. Under human rights law, the Libyan government is under an obligation to make reparation and must not pressure the families into accepting compensation instead of pursuing accountability.”
It adds, “The families of prisoners who were killed in Abu Salim have the right to demonstrate peacefully and make demands to the Libyan authorities without intimidation and harassment from the security forces. In addition, in the context of Libya’s increasing political and economic integration in the world community, Human Rights Watch urges all organizations and governments engaging with Libya to ensure that the promotion of human rights in Libya forms part of their relationship.”
Other recommendations to the Libyan Government:
In the area of freedom of expression:
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972, which bans any group activity based on a political ideology opposed to the principles of the 1969 al-Fateh Revolution when Mu’ammar al-Gadaffi led a military coup overthrowing the Libyan monarchy;
· Repeal articles of the penal code that criminalize free expression, including articles 166, 178, 206, 207, and ensure that the new draft penal code is revised to comply with international human rights law;
· Release all individuals imprisoned or detained solely for exercising their right to free expression.
In the area of freedom of association and assembly:
· Allow for the establishment of independent organizations that wish to peacefully exercise freedom of association;
· Revoke the decision to refuse the registration of the Association for Justice and the Center for Democracy, the organizations that a group of lawyers and journalists attempted to establish in 2008;
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972 and related articles of the penal code that criminalize free association and amend Law 19 to allow for the establishment of independent non-governmental organizations;
· Ensure that individuals seeking to establish associations are not harassed by security forces or prosecuted for the subsequent exercise of freedom of assembly;
In the area of legal justice, prisons under the control of the Internal Security Agency should:
· Immediately release all prisoners acquitted by courts; immediately release all prisoners who have served their sentences;
· Implement all legal decisions issued by Libyan courts;
· Allow the Office of the General Prosecutor to conduct investigations regarding detention in Abu Salim and Ain Zara prisons;
· Quash all sentences against and immediately release all political prisoners who are imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of their views or for activities protected by freedom of association and assembly;
· Compensate all who have been arbitrarily detained;
With respect to the State Security Court:
· Clarify the status of the State Security Court in the Libyan legal system;
· Ensure that a right of appeal is available to every defendant and clarify which court is competent to hear that appeal;
· Ensure that defendants have the right to a lawyer of their choice and sufficient access to their lawyers before the court sessions ;
· Ensure that both private and state-appointed lawyers have equal and full access to the case documents;
· Make all decisions rendered by the State Security Court publicly available, especially to the defendant and his family.
With respect to the Death Penalty:
· Order an immediate moratorium on the death penalty;
· Commute all death sentences to terms of imprisonment;
· Eliminate the death penalty as a punishment under Libyan law;
· Become a party to the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which aims at the abolition of the death penalty.
The report also included recommendations to the European Union and the UN Human Rights Council.
As in other Middle Eastern countries currently experiencing political upheavals, economic hardships as well as the human rights deficits are thought to be the major factors driving the uprisings.
The BBC reports that, “After many years when the entire population officially had jobs, Libya is now trying to tackle a growing unemployment problem, as it moves towards a more liberal economy. Previously, everyone who graduated from high school or universities was employed by the state. Officials are struggling to define unemployment and to find solutions for its jobless citizens.”
A Socialist ideology remains deeply entrenched in the mindset of many Libyans.
Over the past decade Libya dramatically transformed its international status from a pariah state under UN, EU and US sanctions to a country that, in 2009 alone, held the Presidency of the UN Security Council, the chair of the African Union and the Presidency of the UN General Assembly.
Libya earned its reputation as a pariah in the world community by attempting to secretly acquire nuclear materials. In 2003, Libya agreed to eliminate all such materials, equipment, and programs resulting in the production of nuclear or other internationally proscribed weapons.
Gadaffi admitted that, in contravention of its international obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Libya had pursued a nuclear weapons program, allegedly to counter the covert Israeli nuclear program. In 2004, the United States and Britain dismantled Libya's nuclear weapons infrastructure with oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Gadaffi's 2003 decision to reveal the true scope of Libya's nuclear ambitions and progress resulted primarily from his increasing desire to regain admission to the international community by renouncing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD); his fear that Libya might be subject to a U.S. invasion, as had Iraq, on the grounds that it possessed WMD; the interception in October 2003 of a ship bound for Libya with a cargo of Pakistani-designed centrifuge parts manufactured in Malaysia; and the promise that long-standing international sanctions imposed because of Libya's terrorist activities would be lifted, leading to economic and other benefits.
U.S. President George W. Bush lifted most of the trade restrictions on Libya, allowing U.S. oil companies to explore Libya’s large oil reserves.
Libya attracted the world’s anger in 1988, with the midair bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, headed for New York, killing all 243 passengers, 16 crew members, and 11 people on the ground.
It was determined that Libyan intelligence agents planned the bombing and one was tried and convicted by Scottish authorities. His release, on humanitarian grounds because of his terminal cancer, drew strong criticism from many world leaders. The Scottish prisoner was greeted as a hero upon his return to Libya and is still alive today.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Libya: The Price of Being Tone Deaf
By William Fisher
Less than three years ago, Human Rights Watch handed over to the Libyan Government the 2009 edition of its annual survey, entitled “A Facade of Action -- The Misuse of Dialogue and Cooperation with Rights Abusers.”
The Libyan chapter of the report, like its annual predecessors, made an extensive series of recommendations for ridding the country of its most egregious human rights violations.
The report noted there had been some improvements made in the Libyan human rights environment -- less frequent arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances, greater tolerance of freedom of expression and some progress in addressing gross violations of the past, limited steps toward increased tolerance of dissent, and two new private newspapers and the Internet.
These developments, HRW said, “have created a new limited space for freedom of expression, and some unprecedented public demonstrations have been allowed to take place.”
But HRW found that Libya’s performance in the human rights area was unacceptable. It said the country’s Internal Security Agency “remains responsible for systematic violations of Libyan rights, including the detention of political prisoners, enforced disappearances and deaths in custody.”
Human Rights observers, witnessing the current bloody conflict that many believe could degenerate into a full-blown civil war, are lamenting Col. Gadaffi’s failure to correct these continuing abuses.
HRW lays out the human rights landscape in Libya today. Freedom of expression remains severely restricted by the Libyan penal code. Cracks in the wall that the government has set up against free expression are thin but evident, but there has also been an increase in the number of prosecutions of journalists, although no journalist has been sentenced to prison so far.
HRW found that, “There is no freedom of association in Libya because the concept of an independent civil society goes directly against Gaddaffi’s theory of governance by the masses. Law 71 still criminalizes political parties, and the penal code criminalizes the establishment of organizations that are ‘against the principles of the Libyan Jamahireya system’.”
The report says that Law 19, "On Associations," requires a political body to approve all nongovernmental organizations, does not allow appeals against negative decisions and provides for continuous governmental interference in the running of the organization. The government has refused to allow independent journalists' and lawyers' organizations.
The report notes that Libya’s Justice Ministry has announced plans to reform the most repressive provisions of the penal code. “Yet, despite work to develop a new penal code, an essentially repressive legal framework remains in place, as does the ability of government security forces to act with impunity against dissent.”
HRW adds, “Many trials, especially those before the State Security Court, still fail to meet international due process standards. Overall, unjustified limits on free expression and association remain the norm, including penal code provisions that criminalize "insulting public officials" or "opposing the ideology of the Revolution."
Many relatives of prisoners killed in a 1996 incident at Abu Salim prison are still waiting to learn how their relatives died and to see those responsible punished. The jurisdiction of courts, the duties of government agencies, respect for legal rights of prisoners and adherence to the country’s stated list of human rights often remain murky, erratic and contradictory, the report said.
There are a number of semi-official organizations that do charitable work, providing services and organizing seminars, but none that publicly take critical stances against the government. But Libya has no independent nongovernmental organizations.
The only organizations that can do human rights work, the most sensitive area of all in Libya, derive their political standing from their personal affiliation with the regime. The main organization that can publicly criticize human rights violations is the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (Gaddafi Foundation), chaired by Saif al-Islam al-Gadaffi.
A second organization, Waatasemu, is run by Dr. Aisha al-Gadaffi, Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi’s daughter, and has intervened in death penalty cases and women’s rights issues. The International Organization for Peace, Care and Relief (IOPCR), run by Khaled Hamedi, the son of a member of the Revolutionary Command Council, is the only organization able to access migrant detention centers.
The abuses of human rights and the recommendations for improvement are virtually identical in the 2006, 2009, and 2011 reports.
Amnesty International has also called on the Libyan government to end its clampdown of peaceful political activists after violence erupted at demonstrations in the city of Benghazi following the arrest of activists ahead of a major demonstration Thursday.
“The Libyan authorities must allow peaceful protests, not try to stifle them with heavy-handed repression, said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“Libyans have the same rights as Egyptians and Tunisians to express discontent and call for reform in their own country, and it is high time the Libyan government recognized that and respected it.”
“People should not be locked up simply because they call for peaceful protests. Libyans have a right to expect reforms, not arrests, detentions and further state repression," said Smart.
One of the consequences of Gadaffi’s inaction on the human rights and economic fronts is that, among all the Middle East nations whose leaders are now facing organized opposition, the Libyan response has been without doubt the most aggressive. Libyan soldiers and police are estimated to have killed 200-400 people as of today, February 21. There have been pitched battles between protesters and Gadaffi supporters in the streets of Benghazi and Tobruk, and most recently, these battles have begun to trickle into the capital, Tripoli. Protesters are reported to have taken control of military bases, and their stocks of arms, in provincial cities
Numerous human rights advocates have been weighing in on Libya’s handling of its current crisis. For example, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information has expressed surprise and resentment at Gaddafi’s continuation of what it termed “practices that need psychological treatment,” such as warning Libyans not to use Facebook and arresting some Internet activists because of their support of the democratic revolution in Egypt, and calling on Libyans to make democratic and economic reforms.
Many Libyan Internet activists have declared their support for the pro-democracy movement and change in Egypt, and have created groups on Facebook to call for political and economic reforms in Libya. Libyan Security Services reportedly arrested a number of them.
The Arabic Network also reported that Gadaffi hired agents to attack activists who call for political reform and an end to in Libya.
The Network said that, “following in the footsteps of the Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Security Services arrested the Libyan activist and former prisoner of conscience, Jamal Al-Hajji, over a fabricated charge of a car accident, similar to the accusations that the Tunisian used to fabricate for dissidents and political activists during his hideous ruling.”
The Arabic Network said, “The best thing for Gadaffi is to step down after seizing power against the will of the Libyans for so long. Democracy and freedoms are essential as air, no dictator or security as cruel as they can be could ever deprive people of them.”
The 2011Human Rights Watch report declares, “The steps Libya has taken to address some of its human rights problems do not go far enough in addressing the systemic and legal infrastructure that deprives Libyans of their basic human rights.”
The report continues: “Libya must ensure that it complies with all of its obligations under international human rights law and should immediately implement a number of reforms in policy, law and practice. The General People’s Congress (the legislative assembly) should repeal all provisions of the penal code and other laws such as Law 71 that violate freedom of expression and association, and that any new draft laws are fully in line with international human rights law.”
Specific recommendations arise from HRW’s concern over the country’s judicial and penal systems. HRW says, “The Internal Security Agency should immediately release all prisoners detained for peacefully exercising their right to free expression or association and compensate them for their detention.”
“In addition, Internal Security agents should immediately release the approximately 200 prisoners they are continuing to detain in Abu Salim prison despite the fact that Libyan courts have acquitted them and ordered their release or that they have completed their sentences.”
The HRW report further urges the People’s Leadership Committees to “immediately inform the families of prisoners who died in the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre of the circumstances of the death of their relatives and give them the remains of their relatives to bury.”
“The authorities must carry out a full and effective investigation and make public the findings. This should be immediately followed by the prosecution of those responsible for the summary execution of those prisoners. Under human rights law, the Libyan government is under an obligation to make reparation and must not pressure the families into accepting compensation instead of pursuing accountability.”
It adds, “The families of prisoners who were killed in Abu Salim have the right to demonstrate peacefully and make demands to the Libyan authorities without intimidation and harassment from the security forces. In addition, in the context of Libya’s increasing political and economic integration in the world community, Human Rights Watch urges all organizations and governments engaging with Libya to ensure that the promotion of human rights in Libya forms part of their relationship.”
Other recommendations to the Libyan Government:
In the area of freedom of expression:
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972, which bans any group activity based on a political ideology opposed to the principles of the 1969 al-Fateh Revolution when Mu’ammar al-Gadaffi led a military coup overthrowing the Libyan monarchy;
· Repeal articles of the penal code that criminalize free expression, including articles 166, 178, 206, 207, and ensure that the new draft penal code is revised to comply with international human rights law;
· Release all individuals imprisoned or detained solely for exercising their right to free expression.
In the area of freedom of association and assembly:
· Allow for the establishment of independent organizations that wish to peacefully exercise freedom of association;
· Revoke the decision to refuse the registration of the Association for Justice and the Center for Democracy, the organizations that a group of lawyers and journalists attempted to establish in 2008;
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972 and related articles of the penal code that criminalize free association and amend Law 19 to allow for the establishment of independent non-governmental organizations;
· Ensure that individuals seeking to establish associations are not harassed by security forces or prosecuted for the subsequent exercise of freedom of assembly;
In the area of legal justice, prisons under the control of the Internal Security Agency should:
· Immediately release all prisoners acquitted by courts; immediately release all prisoners who have served their sentences;
· Implement all legal decisions issued by Libyan courts;
· Allow the Office of the General Prosecutor to conduct investigations regarding detention in Abu Salim and Ain Zara prisons;
· Quash all sentences against and immediately release all political prisoners who are imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of their views or for activities protected by freedom of association and assembly;
· Compensate all who have been arbitrarily detained;
With respect to the State Security Court:
· Clarify the status of the State Security Court in the Libyan legal system;
· Ensure that a right of appeal is available to every defendant and clarify which court is competent to hear that appeal;
· Ensure that defendants have the right to a lawyer of their choice and sufficient access to their lawyers before the court sessions ;
· Ensure that both private and state-appointed lawyers have equal and full access to the case documents;
· Make all decisions rendered by the State Security Court publicly available, especially to the defendant and his family.
With respect to the Death Penalty:
· Order an immediate moratorium on the death penalty;
· Commute all death sentences to terms of imprisonment;
· Eliminate the death penalty as a punishment under Libyan law;
· Become a party to the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which aims at the abolition of the death penalty.
The report also included recommendations to the European Union and the UN Human Rights Council.
As in other Middle Eastern countries currently experiencing political upheavals, economic hardships as well as the human rights deficits are thought to be the major factors driving the uprisings.
The BBC reports that, “After many years when the entire population officially had jobs, Libya is now trying to tackle a growing unemployment problem, as it moves towards a more liberal economy. Previously, everyone who graduated from high school or universities was employed by the state. Officials are struggling to define unemployment and to find solutions for its jobless citizens.”
A Socialist ideology remains deeply entrenched in the mindset of many Libyans.
Over the past decade Libya dramatically transformed its international status from a pariah state under UN, EU and US sanctions to a country that, in 2009 alone, held the Presidency of the UN Security Council, the chair of the African Union and the Presidency of the UN General Assembly.
Libya earned its reputation as a pariah in the world community by attempting to secretly acquire nuclear materials. In 2003, Libya agreed to eliminate all such materials, equipment, and programs resulting in the production of nuclear or other internationally proscribed weapons.
Gadaffi admitted that, in contravention of its international obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Libya had pursued a nuclear weapons program, allegedly to counter the covert Israeli nuclear program. In 2004, the United States and Britain dismantled Libya's nuclear weapons infrastructure with oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Gadaffi's 2003 decision to reveal the true scope of Libya's nuclear ambitions and progress resulted primarily from his increasing desire to regain admission to the international community by renouncing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD); his fear that Libya might be subject to a U.S. invasion, as had Iraq, on the grounds that it possessed WMD; the interception in October 2003 of a ship bound for Libya with a cargo of Pakistani-designed centrifuge parts manufactured in Malaysia; and the promise that long-standing international sanctions imposed because of Libya's terrorist activities would be lifted, leading to economic and other benefits.
U.S. President George W. Bush lifted most of the trade restrictions on Libya, allowing U.S. oil companies to explore Libya’s large oil reserves.
Libya attracted the world’s anger in 1988, with the midair bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, headed for New York, killing all 243 passengers, 16 crew members, and 11 people on the ground.
It was determined that Libyan intelligence agents planned the bombing and one was tried and convicted by Scottish authorities. His release, on humanitarian grounds because of his terminal cancer, drew strong criticism from many world leaders. The Scottish prisoner was greeted as a hero upon his return to Libya and is still alive today.
Less than three years ago, Human Rights Watch handed over to the Libyan Government the 2009 edition of its annual survey, entitled “A Facade of Action -- The Misuse of Dialogue and Cooperation with Rights Abusers.”
The Libyan chapter of the report, like its annual predecessors, made an extensive series of recommendations for ridding the country of its most egregious human rights violations.
The report noted there had been some improvements made in the Libyan human rights environment -- less frequent arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances, greater tolerance of freedom of expression and some progress in addressing gross violations of the past, limited steps toward increased tolerance of dissent, and two new private newspapers and the Internet.
These developments, HRW said, “have created a new limited space for freedom of expression, and some unprecedented public demonstrations have been allowed to take place.”
But HRW found that Libya’s performance in the human rights area was unacceptable. It said the country’s Internal Security Agency “remains responsible for systematic violations of Libyan rights, including the detention of political prisoners, enforced disappearances and deaths in custody.”
Human Rights observers, witnessing the current bloody conflict that many believe could degenerate into a full-blown civil war, are lamenting Col. Gadaffi’s failure to correct these continuing abuses.
HRW lays out the human rights landscape in Libya today. Freedom of expression remains severely restricted by the Libyan penal code. Cracks in the wall that the government has set up against free expression are thin but evident, but there has also been an increase in the number of prosecutions of journalists, although no journalist has been sentenced to prison so far.
HRW found that, “There is no freedom of association in Libya because the concept of an independent civil society goes directly against Gaddaffi’s theory of governance by the masses. Law 71 still criminalizes political parties, and the penal code criminalizes the establishment of organizations that are ‘against the principles of the Libyan Jamahireya system’.”
The report says that Law 19, "On Associations," requires a political body to approve all nongovernmental organizations, does not allow appeals against negative decisions and provides for continuous governmental interference in the running of the organization. The government has refused to allow independent journalists' and lawyers' organizations.
The report notes that Libya’s Justice Ministry has announced plans to reform the most repressive provisions of the penal code. “Yet, despite work to develop a new penal code, an essentially repressive legal framework remains in place, as does the ability of government security forces to act with impunity against dissent.”
HRW adds, “Many trials, especially those before the State Security Court, still fail to meet international due process standards. Overall, unjustified limits on free expression and association remain the norm, including penal code provisions that criminalize "insulting public officials" or "opposing the ideology of the Revolution."
Many relatives of prisoners killed in a 1996 incident at Abu Salim prison are still waiting to learn how their relatives died and to see those responsible punished. The jurisdiction of courts, the duties of government agencies, respect for legal rights of prisoners and adherence to the country’s stated list of human rights often remain murky, erratic and contradictory, the report said.
There are a number of semi-official organizations that do charitable work, providing services and organizing seminars, but none that publicly take critical stances against the government. But Libya has no independent nongovernmental organizations.
The only organizations that can do human rights work, the most sensitive area of all in Libya, derive their political standing from their personal affiliation with the regime. The main organization that can publicly criticize human rights violations is the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (Gaddafi Foundation), chaired by Saif al-Islam al-Gadaffi.
A second organization, Waatasemu, is run by Dr. Aisha al-Gadaffi, Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi’s daughter, and has intervened in death penalty cases and women’s rights issues. The International Organization for Peace, Care and Relief (IOPCR), run by Khaled Hamedi, the son of a member of the Revolutionary Command Council, is the only organization able to access migrant detention centers.
The abuses of human rights and the recommendations for improvement are virtually identical in the 2006, 2009, and 2011 reports.
Amnesty International has also called on the Libyan government to end its clampdown of peaceful political activists after violence erupted at demonstrations in the city of Benghazi following the arrest of activists ahead of a major demonstration Thursday.
“The Libyan authorities must allow peaceful protests, not try to stifle them with heavy-handed repression, said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“Libyans have the same rights as Egyptians and Tunisians to express discontent and call for reform in their own country, and it is high time the Libyan government recognized that and respected it.”
“People should not be locked up simply because they call for peaceful protests. Libyans have a right to expect reforms, not arrests, detentions and further state repression," said Smart.
One of the consequences of Gadaffi’s inaction on the human rights and economic fronts is that, among all the Middle East nations whose leaders are now facing organized opposition, the Libyan response has been without doubt the most aggressive. Libyan soldiers and police are estimated to have killed 200-400 people as of today, February 21. There have been pitched battles between protesters and Gadaffi supporters in the streets of Benghazi and Tobruk, and most recently, these battles have begun to trickle into the capital, Tripoli. Protesters are reported to have taken control of military bases, and their stocks of arms, in provincial cities
Numerous human rights advocates have been weighing in on Libya’s handling of its current crisis. For example, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information has expressed surprise and resentment at Gaddafi’s continuation of what it termed “practices that need psychological treatment,” such as warning Libyans not to use Facebook and arresting some Internet activists because of their support of the democratic revolution in Egypt, and calling on Libyans to make democratic and economic reforms.
Many Libyan Internet activists have declared their support for the pro-democracy movement and change in Egypt, and have created groups on Facebook to call for political and economic reforms in Libya. Libyan Security Services reportedly arrested a number of them.
The Arabic Network also reported that Gadaffi hired agents to attack activists who call for political reform and an end to in Libya.
The Network said that, “following in the footsteps of the Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Security Services arrested the Libyan activist and former prisoner of conscience, Jamal Al-Hajji, over a fabricated charge of a car accident, similar to the accusations that the Tunisian used to fabricate for dissidents and political activists during his hideous ruling.”
The Arabic Network said, “The best thing for Gadaffi is to step down after seizing power against the will of the Libyans for so long. Democracy and freedoms are essential as air, no dictator or security as cruel as they can be could ever deprive people of them.”
The 2011Human Rights Watch report declares, “The steps Libya has taken to address some of its human rights problems do not go far enough in addressing the systemic and legal infrastructure that deprives Libyans of their basic human rights.”
The report continues: “Libya must ensure that it complies with all of its obligations under international human rights law and should immediately implement a number of reforms in policy, law and practice. The General People’s Congress (the legislative assembly) should repeal all provisions of the penal code and other laws such as Law 71 that violate freedom of expression and association, and that any new draft laws are fully in line with international human rights law.”
Specific recommendations arise from HRW’s concern over the country’s judicial and penal systems. HRW says, “The Internal Security Agency should immediately release all prisoners detained for peacefully exercising their right to free expression or association and compensate them for their detention.”
“In addition, Internal Security agents should immediately release the approximately 200 prisoners they are continuing to detain in Abu Salim prison despite the fact that Libyan courts have acquitted them and ordered their release or that they have completed their sentences.”
The HRW report further urges the People’s Leadership Committees to “immediately inform the families of prisoners who died in the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre of the circumstances of the death of their relatives and give them the remains of their relatives to bury.”
“The authorities must carry out a full and effective investigation and make public the findings. This should be immediately followed by the prosecution of those responsible for the summary execution of those prisoners. Under human rights law, the Libyan government is under an obligation to make reparation and must not pressure the families into accepting compensation instead of pursuing accountability.”
It adds, “The families of prisoners who were killed in Abu Salim have the right to demonstrate peacefully and make demands to the Libyan authorities without intimidation and harassment from the security forces. In addition, in the context of Libya’s increasing political and economic integration in the world community, Human Rights Watch urges all organizations and governments engaging with Libya to ensure that the promotion of human rights in Libya forms part of their relationship.”
Other recommendations to the Libyan Government:
In the area of freedom of expression:
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972, which bans any group activity based on a political ideology opposed to the principles of the 1969 al-Fateh Revolution when Mu’ammar al-Gadaffi led a military coup overthrowing the Libyan monarchy;
· Repeal articles of the penal code that criminalize free expression, including articles 166, 178, 206, 207, and ensure that the new draft penal code is revised to comply with international human rights law;
· Release all individuals imprisoned or detained solely for exercising their right to free expression.
In the area of freedom of association and assembly:
· Allow for the establishment of independent organizations that wish to peacefully exercise freedom of association;
· Revoke the decision to refuse the registration of the Association for Justice and the Center for Democracy, the organizations that a group of lawyers and journalists attempted to establish in 2008;
· Repeal Law 71 of 1972 and related articles of the penal code that criminalize free association and amend Law 19 to allow for the establishment of independent non-governmental organizations;
· Ensure that individuals seeking to establish associations are not harassed by security forces or prosecuted for the subsequent exercise of freedom of assembly;
In the area of legal justice, prisons under the control of the Internal Security Agency should:
· Immediately release all prisoners acquitted by courts; immediately release all prisoners who have served their sentences;
· Implement all legal decisions issued by Libyan courts;
· Allow the Office of the General Prosecutor to conduct investigations regarding detention in Abu Salim and Ain Zara prisons;
· Quash all sentences against and immediately release all political prisoners who are imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of their views or for activities protected by freedom of association and assembly;
· Compensate all who have been arbitrarily detained;
With respect to the State Security Court:
· Clarify the status of the State Security Court in the Libyan legal system;
· Ensure that a right of appeal is available to every defendant and clarify which court is competent to hear that appeal;
· Ensure that defendants have the right to a lawyer of their choice and sufficient access to their lawyers before the court sessions ;
· Ensure that both private and state-appointed lawyers have equal and full access to the case documents;
· Make all decisions rendered by the State Security Court publicly available, especially to the defendant and his family.
With respect to the Death Penalty:
· Order an immediate moratorium on the death penalty;
· Commute all death sentences to terms of imprisonment;
· Eliminate the death penalty as a punishment under Libyan law;
· Become a party to the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which aims at the abolition of the death penalty.
The report also included recommendations to the European Union and the UN Human Rights Council.
As in other Middle Eastern countries currently experiencing political upheavals, economic hardships as well as the human rights deficits are thought to be the major factors driving the uprisings.
The BBC reports that, “After many years when the entire population officially had jobs, Libya is now trying to tackle a growing unemployment problem, as it moves towards a more liberal economy. Previously, everyone who graduated from high school or universities was employed by the state. Officials are struggling to define unemployment and to find solutions for its jobless citizens.”
A Socialist ideology remains deeply entrenched in the mindset of many Libyans.
Over the past decade Libya dramatically transformed its international status from a pariah state under UN, EU and US sanctions to a country that, in 2009 alone, held the Presidency of the UN Security Council, the chair of the African Union and the Presidency of the UN General Assembly.
Libya earned its reputation as a pariah in the world community by attempting to secretly acquire nuclear materials. In 2003, Libya agreed to eliminate all such materials, equipment, and programs resulting in the production of nuclear or other internationally proscribed weapons.
Gadaffi admitted that, in contravention of its international obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Libya had pursued a nuclear weapons program, allegedly to counter the covert Israeli nuclear program. In 2004, the United States and Britain dismantled Libya's nuclear weapons infrastructure with oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Gadaffi's 2003 decision to reveal the true scope of Libya's nuclear ambitions and progress resulted primarily from his increasing desire to regain admission to the international community by renouncing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD); his fear that Libya might be subject to a U.S. invasion, as had Iraq, on the grounds that it possessed WMD; the interception in October 2003 of a ship bound for Libya with a cargo of Pakistani-designed centrifuge parts manufactured in Malaysia; and the promise that long-standing international sanctions imposed because of Libya's terrorist activities would be lifted, leading to economic and other benefits.
U.S. President George W. Bush lifted most of the trade restrictions on Libya, allowing U.S. oil companies to explore Libya’s large oil reserves.
Libya attracted the world’s anger in 1988, with the midair bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, headed for New York, killing all 243 passengers, 16 crew members, and 11 people on the ground.
It was determined that Libyan intelligence agents planned the bombing and one was tried and convicted by Scottish authorities. His release, on humanitarian grounds because of his terminal cancer, drew strong criticism from many world leaders. The Scottish prisoner was greeted as a hero upon his return to Libya and is still alive today.
Democracy? Not So Fast: Address Culture of Police Brutality
By William Fisher
Eleven days before he finally resigned, Hosni Mubarak may have had a chance to reverse his fortunes. Suddenly filled with a spirit of peace-making and reconciliation, the president offered up a smorgasbord of “reforms” he promised to make.
Among them was amending several articles of the Egyptian Constitution. Calls for these amendments had been going on for years. So central were they to the political well-being of the Egyptian people, that foreign powers – principally the United States –had intervened privately and publicly -- to persuade its most dependable Middle East ally to actually get something done.
But it was too late. The crowd in Tahrir Square didn’t believe their President. They had heard it all before. Mubarak was through.
So, days later, the task of re-writing the Constitutional amendments fell to a committee appointed by the Military Panel now governing Egypt.
Why is this important? Because over the years, the Mubarak regime created amendments to the Constitution. Their purpose was to make it virtually impossible to become a candidate, become a recognized political party, and have competent and independent monitoring of all elections.
Writing these new Constitutional articles is a modest assignment. The committee is not mandated to rewrite the entire Constitution; that may come later. But the Committee’s work is nonetheless critical. For it will be addressing the articles that, more than any others, have promulgated one-man rule in Egypt, kept the opposition from forming legal political parties, and thus effectively marginalized all candidates not named Mubarak.
The committee will work to be responsive to the leaders of the Tahrir Square opposition. They want the constitutional changes to reflect clearer separation of powers, strengthening of an independent judiciary, and less power for the president. That won’t all happen by writing a few amendments, but it’s a start.
And unless the committee finishes its work and the public votes ‘yes’ in a scheduled April referendum, it will be impossible to hold a presidential election in November.
Here, with thanks to Reuters, are the Articles the Committee is working on:
Article 77 of the suspended constitution allowed the president to seek re-election indefinitely. After specifying the length of the president’s term, the article says he “may be re-elected for other successive terms.”
The term of the Presidency is six Gregorian years starting from the date of the announcement of the result of the plebiscite that is used to decide the winner. The opposition has frequently called for a two-term limit on the president. This is a customary practice ion many democratic countries.
Article 88 cancelled the direct supervision of elections by the judiciary. Replacing it in 1977 was the Supreme Electoral Commission, of which the opposition has been widely critical for its lack of independence. Parliamentary elections were largely controlled by the Ministry of Interior.
The opposition has always called for constitutional changes to deter election rigging, a widespread practice for many decades. Supervision of selections by the relatively clean-handed judiciary was seen by the opposition as a deterrent to vote rigging. This practice has resulted in election results that were patently fraudulent and which earned Egypt the disrespect of many of its most important allies.
Article 93 dictates that the eligibility of its members can be decided only the People’s Assembly. The ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) majority has used this article to ignore court rulings invalidating election results.
Article 179, which will be eliminated, allowed the president to refer any terror related case to any judicial body, which gave him the right to use
military courts.
Article 189 says the president can ask parliament to approve an amendment or parliament can propose its own amendments. But all amendments must be approved in a referendum.
Heading the Committee is retired judge Tareq al-Bishry, reputedly respected in legal circles for his independent views. Marwa Al-A'sar of Egypt’s Daily News reports that Al-Bishry has been a strong supporter of an independent judiciary, though legal experts have said the Egyptian judiciary was subjected to increasing political meddling during Mubarak's 30-year rule.
Many in the opposition are voicing criticism of their new military bosses for not acting quickly to lift the so-called Emergency Law, which has been in effect continuously, with one brief hiatus, for thirty years. The emergency powers were implemented in 1981, after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat.
Mubarak made numerous promises to repeal these laws, but never followed through. In the last few years, the Mubarak regime introduced a set of 34 new constitutional articles, meant to be a substitute for the emergency laws.
But Mubarak’s critics say the amendments would have enabled a replacement of emergency laws with something just as authoritarian - but permanent.
The 34 new articles were approved by a vote in parliament, which was dominated by members of the ruling National Democratic Party. They would have written into permanent law emergency-style powers that, according Amnesty International, would have been used to violate human rights.
A week later they were put to a popular vote. Government officials said they were approved by more than three-quarters of voters, although the turnout was low - 27% according to official figures, much lower by other independent groups.
The opposition, led by independent supporters of the banned Muslim Brotherhood movement, boycotted the vote, saying the lightening referendum did not give them a chance to mount a proper "No" campaign.
The 34 new articles never became part of the Constitution.
But, in whatever form, the emergency laws have been used to trash the human rights of thousands of people who found themselves in conflict with the police and the security services. Capricious detentions. Incommunicado imprisonment. Torture. Police impunity. Denial of legal and family visits. Deaths in detention.
It is clear that democracy cannot flourish when laws like these are on the books and are being widely used. So hopefully the new military leaders will lift the emergency laws even before the April referendum.
But that moment is down the road a bit.
The first order of business now is the composition of four or five constitutional articles. And, even at this early stage, the hand-over of the rewriting to a committee has not gone without criticism. Thirty-one human rights organizations have criticized the amendment committee constituted by the military.
Rights groups say that committee membership is tilted toward particular ideologies, that it includes former Mubarak officials, and that it is a male-only group, despite the presence of many qualified women.
The organizations also charged that, in 2005 and 2007, some committee members belonged to legislation committees under the former regime, where they helped prepare flawed legislation and constitutional amendments.
The Rights groups also said that the committee lacked constitutional law experts who were independent and trusted by the public. Nor did it reflect Egypt's political and social diversity, they declared.
They said it looked like a coalition between members of the former regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michele Dunne, a senior Middle East analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Truthout that the drafting committee has adopted “a very fast process.” But she adds, “We should also bear in mind that the articles to be amended were very controversial and lawyers and NGOs had already done a lot of spade work on how they should be amended, so perhaps some of that work will be used now.”
But even if the committee completes its work on time and an April referendum overwhelmingly approves the new constitutional articles, the new Egypt will have simply taken another of many baby steps toward democracy.
The Emergency Law must be addressed. Some new rules will have to be written regarding Parliamentary elections and Parliamentary power. Someone or some body is sooner or later going to have to take a look at the opaque web of business and economic interests spun by the military’s crony-capitalism . The issue of corruption probably does not require any new laws, rather the implementation of laws already on the books.
The former Mubarak ministers now charged with corruption were charged as a last-gasp distraction by Mubarak. Their guilt or innocence will be decided by a court, but there is nothing to suggest that they would have been charged with anything at any time absent the Mubarak crisis.
How much of such an agenda the military will welcome with open arms is questionable. Every senior military man now on the ruling council owes his appointment – and in many case, his prosperity -- to Mubarak.
Arguably, the most important next step for Egypt beyond amending the constitution, is the emergence of a leader. Many in the country are calling for a leader capable of exercising “adult supervision” over the incredibly diverse souls who slept in Tahrir Square. Just as many others are saying that only the youth of the country can carry the spirit of the uprising from Tahrir Square into the Presidential Palace.
Notes of caution have been delivered to the folks in the Square by thousands of commentators inside and outside Egypt. They have been cautioned about euphoria. They have been told that “democracy is not a plan.” They have been warned about faux leaders, about running too fast, about trying to get everything absolutely perfect.
That’s not possible, and is it undisputed that these young people and their elders are going to make mistakes along the way. Expect them and undoing them can be easier.
And follow the advice of Rami Khoury, Lebanese-born, American-educated journalist and policy wonk:
“It takes time and energy to re-legitimize an entire national governance system and power structure that have been criminalized, privatized, monopolized and militarized by small groups of petty autocrats and thieving families.
“Tunisia and Egypt are the first to embark on this historic journey, and other Arabs will soon follow, because most Arab countries suffer the same deficiencies that have been exposed for all to see in Egypt.
“Make no mistake about it, we are witnessing an epic, historic moment of the birth of concepts that have long been denied to ordinary Arabs: the right to define ourselves and our governments, to assert our national values, to shape our governance systems, and to engage with each other and the rest of the world as free human beings, with rights that will not be denied forever.”
Eleven days before he finally resigned, Hosni Mubarak may have had a chance to reverse his fortunes. Suddenly filled with a spirit of peace-making and reconciliation, the president offered up a smorgasbord of “reforms” he promised to make.
Among them was amending several articles of the Egyptian Constitution. Calls for these amendments had been going on for years. So central were they to the political well-being of the Egyptian people, that foreign powers – principally the United States –had intervened privately and publicly -- to persuade its most dependable Middle East ally to actually get something done.
But it was too late. The crowd in Tahrir Square didn’t believe their President. They had heard it all before. Mubarak was through.
So, days later, the task of re-writing the Constitutional amendments fell to a committee appointed by the Military Panel now governing Egypt.
Why is this important? Because over the years, the Mubarak regime created amendments to the Constitution. Their purpose was to make it virtually impossible to become a candidate, become a recognized political party, and have competent and independent monitoring of all elections.
Writing these new Constitutional articles is a modest assignment. The committee is not mandated to rewrite the entire Constitution; that may come later. But the Committee’s work is nonetheless critical. For it will be addressing the articles that, more than any others, have promulgated one-man rule in Egypt, kept the opposition from forming legal political parties, and thus effectively marginalized all candidates not named Mubarak.
The committee will work to be responsive to the leaders of the Tahrir Square opposition. They want the constitutional changes to reflect clearer separation of powers, strengthening of an independent judiciary, and less power for the president. That won’t all happen by writing a few amendments, but it’s a start.
And unless the committee finishes its work and the public votes ‘yes’ in a scheduled April referendum, it will be impossible to hold a presidential election in November.
Here, with thanks to Reuters, are the Articles the Committee is working on:
Article 77 of the suspended constitution allowed the president to seek re-election indefinitely. After specifying the length of the president’s term, the article says he “may be re-elected for other successive terms.”
The term of the Presidency is six Gregorian years starting from the date of the announcement of the result of the plebiscite that is used to decide the winner. The opposition has frequently called for a two-term limit on the president. This is a customary practice ion many democratic countries.
Article 88 cancelled the direct supervision of elections by the judiciary. Replacing it in 1977 was the Supreme Electoral Commission, of which the opposition has been widely critical for its lack of independence. Parliamentary elections were largely controlled by the Ministry of Interior.
The opposition has always called for constitutional changes to deter election rigging, a widespread practice for many decades. Supervision of selections by the relatively clean-handed judiciary was seen by the opposition as a deterrent to vote rigging. This practice has resulted in election results that were patently fraudulent and which earned Egypt the disrespect of many of its most important allies.
Article 93 dictates that the eligibility of its members can be decided only the People’s Assembly. The ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) majority has used this article to ignore court rulings invalidating election results.
Article 179, which will be eliminated, allowed the president to refer any terror related case to any judicial body, which gave him the right to use
military courts.
Article 189 says the president can ask parliament to approve an amendment or parliament can propose its own amendments. But all amendments must be approved in a referendum.
Heading the Committee is retired judge Tareq al-Bishry, reputedly respected in legal circles for his independent views. Marwa Al-A'sar of Egypt’s Daily News reports that Al-Bishry has been a strong supporter of an independent judiciary, though legal experts have said the Egyptian judiciary was subjected to increasing political meddling during Mubarak's 30-year rule.
Many in the opposition are voicing criticism of their new military bosses for not acting quickly to lift the so-called Emergency Law, which has been in effect continuously, with one brief hiatus, for thirty years. The emergency powers were implemented in 1981, after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat.
Mubarak made numerous promises to repeal these laws, but never followed through. In the last few years, the Mubarak regime introduced a set of 34 new constitutional articles, meant to be a substitute for the emergency laws.
But Mubarak’s critics say the amendments would have enabled a replacement of emergency laws with something just as authoritarian - but permanent.
The 34 new articles were approved by a vote in parliament, which was dominated by members of the ruling National Democratic Party. They would have written into permanent law emergency-style powers that, according Amnesty International, would have been used to violate human rights.
A week later they were put to a popular vote. Government officials said they were approved by more than three-quarters of voters, although the turnout was low - 27% according to official figures, much lower by other independent groups.
The opposition, led by independent supporters of the banned Muslim Brotherhood movement, boycotted the vote, saying the lightening referendum did not give them a chance to mount a proper "No" campaign.
The 34 new articles never became part of the Constitution.
But, in whatever form, the emergency laws have been used to trash the human rights of thousands of people who found themselves in conflict with the police and the security services. Capricious detentions. Incommunicado imprisonment. Torture. Police impunity. Denial of legal and family visits. Deaths in detention.
It is clear that democracy cannot flourish when laws like these are on the books and are being widely used. So hopefully the new military leaders will lift the emergency laws even before the April referendum.
But that moment is down the road a bit.
The first order of business now is the composition of four or five constitutional articles. And, even at this early stage, the hand-over of the rewriting to a committee has not gone without criticism. Thirty-one human rights organizations have criticized the amendment committee constituted by the military.
Rights groups say that committee membership is tilted toward particular ideologies, that it includes former Mubarak officials, and that it is a male-only group, despite the presence of many qualified women.
The organizations also charged that, in 2005 and 2007, some committee members belonged to legislation committees under the former regime, where they helped prepare flawed legislation and constitutional amendments.
The Rights groups also said that the committee lacked constitutional law experts who were independent and trusted by the public. Nor did it reflect Egypt's political and social diversity, they declared.
They said it looked like a coalition between members of the former regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michele Dunne, a senior Middle East analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Truthout that the drafting committee has adopted “a very fast process.” But she adds, “We should also bear in mind that the articles to be amended were very controversial and lawyers and NGOs had already done a lot of spade work on how they should be amended, so perhaps some of that work will be used now.”
But even if the committee completes its work on time and an April referendum overwhelmingly approves the new constitutional articles, the new Egypt will have simply taken another of many baby steps toward democracy.
The Emergency Law must be addressed. Some new rules will have to be written regarding Parliamentary elections and Parliamentary power. Someone or some body is sooner or later going to have to take a look at the opaque web of business and economic interests spun by the military’s crony-capitalism . The issue of corruption probably does not require any new laws, rather the implementation of laws already on the books.
The former Mubarak ministers now charged with corruption were charged as a last-gasp distraction by Mubarak. Their guilt or innocence will be decided by a court, but there is nothing to suggest that they would have been charged with anything at any time absent the Mubarak crisis.
How much of such an agenda the military will welcome with open arms is questionable. Every senior military man now on the ruling council owes his appointment – and in many case, his prosperity -- to Mubarak.
Arguably, the most important next step for Egypt beyond amending the constitution, is the emergence of a leader. Many in the country are calling for a leader capable of exercising “adult supervision” over the incredibly diverse souls who slept in Tahrir Square. Just as many others are saying that only the youth of the country can carry the spirit of the uprising from Tahrir Square into the Presidential Palace.
Notes of caution have been delivered to the folks in the Square by thousands of commentators inside and outside Egypt. They have been cautioned about euphoria. They have been told that “democracy is not a plan.” They have been warned about faux leaders, about running too fast, about trying to get everything absolutely perfect.
That’s not possible, and is it undisputed that these young people and their elders are going to make mistakes along the way. Expect them and undoing them can be easier.
And follow the advice of Rami Khoury, Lebanese-born, American-educated journalist and policy wonk:
“It takes time and energy to re-legitimize an entire national governance system and power structure that have been criminalized, privatized, monopolized and militarized by small groups of petty autocrats and thieving families.
“Tunisia and Egypt are the first to embark on this historic journey, and other Arabs will soon follow, because most Arab countries suffer the same deficiencies that have been exposed for all to see in Egypt.
“Make no mistake about it, we are witnessing an epic, historic moment of the birth of concepts that have long been denied to ordinary Arabs: the right to define ourselves and our governments, to assert our national values, to shape our governance systems, and to engage with each other and the rest of the world as free human beings, with rights that will not be denied forever.”
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Revolutionary Residue: Political Prisoners
By William Fisher
Major international human rights groups are demanding that Egypt’s new military rulers immediately release all political prisoners, or charge them with a criminal offense, bring them before an independent judge, and try them before a court that meets international fair trial standards.
On February 13, 2011, the ruling High Military Council ordered the suspension of the constitution and the dissolution of parliament, and promised free and fair elections, but said nothing about prisoners and their fate.
There are thousands of political prisoners in Egypt’s jails. Of these, 1500-2000 were taken into custody during the pro-democracy demonstrations. Egypt has released 34 of these in Cairo and 16 protestors who were arrested in North Sinai province.
The release of the 34 political prisoners was ordered by the newly appointed Interior Minister, Mahmoud Wagdi. These prisoners were among those turning themselves in to the authorities after escaping from custody during the wave of prison-breaks sparked by a state of lawlessness after the massive demonstrations that started on January
25. Thousands of prisoners reportedly escaped from jails amid the nationwide uprising.
Pro-democracy protesters arrested by the police of the Ministry of the Interior told journalists of the serious abuse they suffered in custody. They were eventually turned over the Military Police.
Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch said that "Protesters initially greeted the military as their protector from the abuses of the interior ministry. While the military may have promised not to shoot protesters, it must also respect their right to freedom of assembly and their right not to be arbitrarily detained."
“The first priority of Egypt’s military authorities should be to create a government that respects human rights and establishes the rule of law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “A good place to begin would be for the Higher Military Council to end the state of emergency and demonstrate zero tolerance for the abusive practices of the past.”
T. Kumar, Amnesty International’s Director of International Advocacy, told us, “The military council needs to release these prisoners immediately or charge them with a crime. If they simply hold them incommunicado, they will be doing exactly what President Mubarak did.”
He added that Amnesty has been demanding an honest penal system for years under Mubarak’s rule. “We’re not saying anything different now.”
In its communiqué number five on February 13, the Higher Military Council announced that it was setting up a committee to draft a new constitution to be submitted to referendum. Human Rights Watch urged the council to ensure that all bodies tasked with drafting the constitution and planning the transition to democracy are inclusive, credible, transparent, and accountable.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) recommend that military authorities should take the following six steps “to build confidence.”
· Immediately release all detainees still in military custody or charge them with a recognizable criminal offense under the regular criminal law, bring them immediately before an independent judge, and try them before a court meeting international fair trial standards;
· Ensure an independent, thorough, and transparent investigation of all credible allegations of torture by the military police over the past two weeks, including six cases reported to Human Rights Watch;
· Repeal the Emergency Law that gives the Interior Ministry broad powers to arrest and detain people arbitrarily and that limits the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly;
· Ensure the right to freedom of assembly by allowing for peaceful public protests as well as the right of workers to organize independent trade unions and conduct peaceful strikes;
· Publicly announce a policy of zero tolerance regarding torture or ill treatment and enforced disappearance by State Security Investigations and other ministry of interior officers as well as military officers. Instruct all security forces and members of the armed forces to refuse to obey any order to carry out such abuse and warn that they will face criminal prosecution;
· Instruct the Public Prosecutor to initiate investigations against ministry of interior officials, including senior officials, who have ordered, condoned, or carried out torture in the past, and in particular investigate State Security Investigations officers who allegedly “disappeared” detainees and subjected them to torture.
“The Egyptian military command says they intervened to guarantee the wishes of the people,” Roth said. “The paramount desire of a people who had long suffered under authoritarian rule is to uphold the rule of law and protect fundamental human rights.”
But the Council refused, for now, demands to release political prisoners and overturn Egypt's state-of-emergency law, “a legal measure [ousted President Hosni] Mubarak relied on for three decades to arrest dissidents.”
Before Mubarak’s resignation, Vice President Omar Suleiman appeared to have won the blessing of both the Mubarak and Obama administrations as the leader of a political transition toward democracy in Egypt.
But the New York Times reported that “human rights advocates say that so far Mr. Suleiman, who also is in charge of Egyptian intelligence, has shown no sign of discontinuing the practice of extra-legal detention of political opponents — a hallmark of President Hosni Mubarak’s nearly 30-year rule that is a central grievance of the protesters in the streets.”
The Military also appeared to gain widespread approval from the protesters, though many knowledgeable observers pointed out that the military police had committed more than their share of brutality and abuse of prisoners in detention.
The Guardian newspaper reported that “the Egyptian military has secretly detained hundreds and possibly thousands of suspected government opponents since mass protests against President Hosni Mubarak began, and at least some of these detainees have been tortured, according to testimony gathered by the newspaper.”
It went on to say, “The military has claimed to be neutral, merely keeping anti-Mubarak protesters and loyalists apart. But human rights campaigners say this is clearly no longer the case, accusing the army of involvement in both disappearances and torture – abuses Egyptians have for years associated with the notorious state security intelligence (SSI) but not the army.”
Who are Egypt’s “political prisoners”?
Several hundred are believed to be demonstrators who were arrested during the Tahrir Square demonstrations. The UK’S Guardian newspaper reported that journalists, human rights defenders, and youth activists were arrested “to intimidate reporting and undermine support for the Tahrir protest.”
The paper noted that “These arrests and reports of abuse in detention are exactly the types of practices that sparked the demonstrations in the first place.”
Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch, said the Egyptian government tortured at least five of them.
He added that, in the cases Human Rights Watch has documented, those detained, who have since been released, said that they were held incommunicado, did not have access to a lawyer, and could not inform their families about their detention.
Among the political prisoners still in detention are bloggers, journalists and political activists. Many have been convicted for insulting the president or writing articles that would negatively affect Egypt’s “image.” Both are crimes under Egyptian law.
But the majority of political prisoners are thought to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Among those, there are several hundred who were arrested in the period immediately preceding the Parliamentary election, which was held in November and December of 2010. The election has been widely condemned inside and outside Egypt as having been rigged.
Major international human rights groups are demanding that Egypt’s new military rulers immediately release all political prisoners, or charge them with a criminal offense, bring them before an independent judge, and try them before a court that meets international fair trial standards.
On February 13, 2011, the ruling High Military Council ordered the suspension of the constitution and the dissolution of parliament, and promised free and fair elections, but said nothing about prisoners and their fate.
There are thousands of political prisoners in Egypt’s jails. Of these, 1500-2000 were taken into custody during the pro-democracy demonstrations. Egypt has released 34 of these in Cairo and 16 protestors who were arrested in North Sinai province.
The release of the 34 political prisoners was ordered by the newly appointed Interior Minister, Mahmoud Wagdi. These prisoners were among those turning themselves in to the authorities after escaping from custody during the wave of prison-breaks sparked by a state of lawlessness after the massive demonstrations that started on January
25. Thousands of prisoners reportedly escaped from jails amid the nationwide uprising.
Pro-democracy protesters arrested by the police of the Ministry of the Interior told journalists of the serious abuse they suffered in custody. They were eventually turned over the Military Police.
Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch said that "Protesters initially greeted the military as their protector from the abuses of the interior ministry. While the military may have promised not to shoot protesters, it must also respect their right to freedom of assembly and their right not to be arbitrarily detained."
“The first priority of Egypt’s military authorities should be to create a government that respects human rights and establishes the rule of law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “A good place to begin would be for the Higher Military Council to end the state of emergency and demonstrate zero tolerance for the abusive practices of the past.”
T. Kumar, Amnesty International’s Director of International Advocacy, told us, “The military council needs to release these prisoners immediately or charge them with a crime. If they simply hold them incommunicado, they will be doing exactly what President Mubarak did.”
He added that Amnesty has been demanding an honest penal system for years under Mubarak’s rule. “We’re not saying anything different now.”
In its communiqué number five on February 13, the Higher Military Council announced that it was setting up a committee to draft a new constitution to be submitted to referendum. Human Rights Watch urged the council to ensure that all bodies tasked with drafting the constitution and planning the transition to democracy are inclusive, credible, transparent, and accountable.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) recommend that military authorities should take the following six steps “to build confidence.”
· Immediately release all detainees still in military custody or charge them with a recognizable criminal offense under the regular criminal law, bring them immediately before an independent judge, and try them before a court meeting international fair trial standards;
· Ensure an independent, thorough, and transparent investigation of all credible allegations of torture by the military police over the past two weeks, including six cases reported to Human Rights Watch;
· Repeal the Emergency Law that gives the Interior Ministry broad powers to arrest and detain people arbitrarily and that limits the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly;
· Ensure the right to freedom of assembly by allowing for peaceful public protests as well as the right of workers to organize independent trade unions and conduct peaceful strikes;
· Publicly announce a policy of zero tolerance regarding torture or ill treatment and enforced disappearance by State Security Investigations and other ministry of interior officers as well as military officers. Instruct all security forces and members of the armed forces to refuse to obey any order to carry out such abuse and warn that they will face criminal prosecution;
· Instruct the Public Prosecutor to initiate investigations against ministry of interior officials, including senior officials, who have ordered, condoned, or carried out torture in the past, and in particular investigate State Security Investigations officers who allegedly “disappeared” detainees and subjected them to torture.
“The Egyptian military command says they intervened to guarantee the wishes of the people,” Roth said. “The paramount desire of a people who had long suffered under authoritarian rule is to uphold the rule of law and protect fundamental human rights.”
But the Council refused, for now, demands to release political prisoners and overturn Egypt's state-of-emergency law, “a legal measure [ousted President Hosni] Mubarak relied on for three decades to arrest dissidents.”
Before Mubarak’s resignation, Vice President Omar Suleiman appeared to have won the blessing of both the Mubarak and Obama administrations as the leader of a political transition toward democracy in Egypt.
But the New York Times reported that “human rights advocates say that so far Mr. Suleiman, who also is in charge of Egyptian intelligence, has shown no sign of discontinuing the practice of extra-legal detention of political opponents — a hallmark of President Hosni Mubarak’s nearly 30-year rule that is a central grievance of the protesters in the streets.”
The Military also appeared to gain widespread approval from the protesters, though many knowledgeable observers pointed out that the military police had committed more than their share of brutality and abuse of prisoners in detention.
The Guardian newspaper reported that “the Egyptian military has secretly detained hundreds and possibly thousands of suspected government opponents since mass protests against President Hosni Mubarak began, and at least some of these detainees have been tortured, according to testimony gathered by the newspaper.”
It went on to say, “The military has claimed to be neutral, merely keeping anti-Mubarak protesters and loyalists apart. But human rights campaigners say this is clearly no longer the case, accusing the army of involvement in both disappearances and torture – abuses Egyptians have for years associated with the notorious state security intelligence (SSI) but not the army.”
Who are Egypt’s “political prisoners”?
Several hundred are believed to be demonstrators who were arrested during the Tahrir Square demonstrations. The UK’S Guardian newspaper reported that journalists, human rights defenders, and youth activists were arrested “to intimidate reporting and undermine support for the Tahrir protest.”
The paper noted that “These arrests and reports of abuse in detention are exactly the types of practices that sparked the demonstrations in the first place.”
Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch, said the Egyptian government tortured at least five of them.
He added that, in the cases Human Rights Watch has documented, those detained, who have since been released, said that they were held incommunicado, did not have access to a lawyer, and could not inform their families about their detention.
Among the political prisoners still in detention are bloggers, journalists and political activists. Many have been convicted for insulting the president or writing articles that would negatively affect Egypt’s “image.” Both are crimes under Egyptian law.
But the majority of political prisoners are thought to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Among those, there are several hundred who were arrested in the period immediately preceding the Parliamentary election, which was held in November and December of 2010. The election has been widely condemned inside and outside Egypt as having been rigged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
