By William Fisher
The civil war in Libya has been an unexpected gift to Saudi Arabia: It has diverted the eyes of the world away from how the House of Saud is dealing with its own version of Arab Spring.
The oil-rich kingdom is pursuing a two-pronged strategy.
The first prong is to provide citizens with financial incentives designed to quell deep frustrations with the regime and keep people off the streets.
On February 23, King Abdullah began implementing that strategy by announcing a $35 billion package of financial assistance to the unemployed and support for first-time homebuyers. Then, on March 18, he announced new assistance totaling $96 billion for similar measures, in addition to creating 60,000 new security sector jobs.
The second prong of Saudi strategy is silence. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), “While King Abdullah announces financial gifts to Saudi citizens, his police arrest those who want more meaningful change.”
And “the scale of arrests has risen dramatically over the past two weeks,” according to Christoph Wilcke, HRW’s senior Middle East researcher in New York.
Saudi’s political prisoners number in the thousands. Some have been imprisoned for years, without charges, lawyers or trials. Others have been swept up by security police for trying to organize “Days of Rage” demonstrations in Saudi cities to advocate for a constitutional monarchy and a more open society. Still others have been jailed for gathering outside prisons to demand the release of political prisoners.
And it is fair to say that, aside from a few mainstream outlets, the media has treated Saudi Arabia like Las Vegas: “What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas.”
Even Saudi’s deployment of more than a thousand troops to neighboring Bahrain – to help the Sunni minority rulers to hold on to power over the Shia majority – drew only passing media interest. On television, most of that interest focused on the visuals: Saudi armored troop carriers lumbering across the 26 km. causeway connecting the two countries.
HRW reports that Saudi Arabia's minority Shi'ites also complain of discrimination, saying they often struggle to get senior government jobs and benefits available to other citizens.
In early March, the Interior Ministry and the Council of Senior Religious Scholars publicly reiterated the government's ban on protests ahead of demonstrations for a Saudi "Day of Rage" that had been called for March 11.
That day, hundreds of people demonstrated in the streets of Qatif and al-Ahsa', calling for the release of nine Shia men held for over 13 years without charge or trial, and dozens of people demonstrated in Riyadh, calling for the release of thousands of Sunni security suspects held without charge or trial, some for over seven years.
Similar protests took place in the Eastern Province on March 17 and 18, and in Riyadh on March 20.
And Saudi’s response? According to HRW, more than 100 people were arrested in the Qatif district, and about 45 in the al-Ahsa' district, both Shia population centers in the kingdom's Eastern Province. A smaller number of people were jailed in the Riyadh and Qasim governorates.
Security forces in the Eastern Province arrested scores of people during protests there on March 11, 17, and 18. They arrested four people on March 25 during small protests in al-Rabi'iyya and al-‘Awwamiyya, towns in the Qatif district, a local activist told HRW.
On March 17, HRW spoke to two people who took part in the demonstration that day. They said that the protests were peaceful, but that at 8:25 p.m. a member of the security forces in civilian clothes drew a pistol and shot two protesters, Ali al-Zayid and Ali al-Saffar, wounding them. The two were among a throng trying to take away the camera of a suspected mabahith (the secret police agency of the Saudi Ministry of Interior) agent.
Security forces then carried out large-scale arrests and transferred the injured protesters to a military hospital, demonstrators and local news sources said.
Saudi Arabia expelled a Reuters correspondent, Ulf Laessing, over his reporting of the incident.
From al-Ahsa' district in the southern Eastern Province, HRW received updated lists of demonstrators arrested in small protests there on March 11 and 18. Police arrested 27 people on March 11, including seven children, and have released only one person, according to a local activist. On March 18, police arrested another 18 people, another local activist said, three of who have since been released. None of them have faced any charges.
These actions by Saudi citizens are not nearly as dramatic as those that took place in Tunisia and Egypt, but in a Saudi context they are momentous.
"Unhappiness with the current situation is something that has brought sworn
enemies together," writes Eman al-Nafjan, a postgraduate mother of three who blogs under the name Saudiwoman. She wrote:
"It's becoming more and more difficult to tell apart the demands of conservatives from those of liberals and the demands of the majority from those of minorities … Across the board, there's a demand for a constitutional monarchy and accountability and the end of corruption in handling the nation's wealth."
Taking to the streets and setting fire to police stations may not be the Saudi
way of protesting but in the last few days a lot of other things have been
happening.
Mohamad al-Deheme, a 24-year-old computer programmer set up a website called shakwa.net (the Arabic word for "grievance") where the public can post complaints directed at government ministries – and already the site has several hundred.
Then there are petitions. One of them, headed "Towards the state of rights and institutions", attracted 1,554 signatures on the Internet before the authorities blocked access to it inside the kingdom.
Another came from the "February 23 Youth" group who are demanding "national reform, constitutional reform, national dialogue, elections and female participation".
Yet another, "from Saudi intellectuals to the political leadership", is headed
"Declaration of national reform". That too was blocked by the Saudi authorities.
HRW reminds us that “to outsiders more accustomed to open dissent, all this petitioning and complaining may look like no big deal. But under an absolute monarchy, even petitioning can get you into serious trouble.”
The organization reports that in 2006, Musa al-Qarni and three other men politely asked the king to form an Islamic debating society that would discuss "freedom, justice, equality, citizenship, pluralism, [proper] advice, and the role of women". The king ignored his request and several months later, Qarni was arrested and carted off to jail after the secret police stormed a villa in Jeddah where several men "widely known for their advocacy on issues of social and political reform" were meeting.
Some of the detainees’ stories collected by HRW are heart-breaking.
In front of the Interior Ministry in Riyadh, police detained Bahiya, Dana, and Badria al-Rashudi and held them for a day, two fellow activists told Human Rights Watch. They are the daughters of Sulaiman al-Rashudi, a 76-year-old former judge and reform advocate arrested in February 2007 and held for years before prosecutors charged him recently, a lawyer for another man arrested and imprisoned with al-Rashudi told Human Rights Watch. Al-Rashudi is prohibited from contacting his lawyers. The daughters were there to demand their father's release.
On the night of March 20, the authorities arrested Muhammad al-Bajadi at his home in Qasim province, a statement from the Saudi Association for Political and Civil Rights said, and another activist confirmed. Al-Bajadi, a member of the association, which the government has refused an operating license, had supported families demonstrating at the Interior Ministry to demand their relatives' release. Mubarak bin Zu'air, a lawyer whose father Sa'id bin Zu'air, and brother, Sa'd bin Sa'id bin Zu'air, have long been detained without charge by the country's domestic intelligence service, was also arrested, as was Abd al-‘Aziz al-Qaffari, demonstrating for the release of his brother.
Professor Abd al-Karim al-Khadr told Human Rights Watch that on March 20 he went from his home in Qasim province to the Interior Ministry in Riyadh to inquire about his son, Thamir, a rights activist detained without charge since March 2010. Police there arrested his other son, 17-year-old Jihad. Al-Khadr did not hear from Jihad until early on March 25, when he briefly saw him at Riyadh's Ma'dhar Police Station. Officers there informed him that their superiors had prohibited communication with those arrested.
Saudi domestic intelligence forces, the Interior Ministry's Directorate for General Investigations (mabahith), which runs its own prisons, also arrested two Syrian nationals over the past month, apparently for their peaceful criticism of political conditions. On February 26, the mabahith arrested Bashar Mihriz ‘Abud at his office in Riyadh, where he recently had started work as an editor of Mobily, the magazine of the mobile phone carrier of the same name, a Jeddah-based human rights activist told Human Rights Watch.
‘Abud had worked for eight years as an editor for the prominent daily newspaper Okaz and continued to write for the publication. His most recent article, written shortly before his arrest, detailed the life of the Syrian filmmaker Umar Amiralay, who died on February 5. Amiralay had been a vocal activist for political change in Syria, signing petitions in 2000 and 2005 calling for an end to emergency rule and the release of political prisoners there. ‘Abud's wife, now in Syria, told Human Rights Watch that she had received a call from her husband on March 19, saying he was in al-Ha'ir prison south of Riyadh, and that his interrogators had finished their investigation about his article.
A member of the eight-person committee of families of detained persons told Human Rights Watch that on March 23, they requested a meeting with the governor of the Eastern Province, Prince Mohammad al-Fahd bin Abd al-‘Aziz Al Sa'ud, to seek the release of more than 110 people detained at protests over the past weeks, including more than a dozen children.
His deputy, Prince Jilawi bin Abd al-‘Aziz al-Jilawi, met with the families, but refused to release the protesters unless community leaders "quieted down the streets," a person present at the meeting told Human Rights Watch. The government has not charged any of the detained protesters, but required the recently released protesters from Qatif to sign a pledge not to participate in future demonstrations.
"By arresting its peaceful critics and refusing any talk of political reform, Saudi rulers are fast becoming the last hold-outs in a region yearning for democratic change," HRW’s Wilcke said.
HRW notes that, “Throwing money around is the customary way for oil-rich Gulf potentates to deal with a problem. That is not a long-term solution and, even as a palliative, all the signs suggest it is becoming less and less effective. It may be enough to placate some disaffected Saudis, as in the past, but many others are saying money is not the issue: they want real change. The question is whether that message will get through to King Abdullah without mass protests on the streets.”
Ahmed Al-Mulla is a Saudi writer and poet. He said: "There are many of the same issues here as in Egypt and Tunisia. About 70 percent of the people are young and frustrated with no rights, no freedoms, no jobs when they graduate. Our women's rights situation is probably the worst in the world. After seeing others protest, people are becoming more aware, more are connecting online… The government is spending money to make people feel better, but it's not about money. The government tries to divide people, Shia or Sunni, but it's not about that. It's about the freedom to speak, it's about the right to protest, it's about human rights.”
HRW’s Wilke agrees. "By arresting its peaceful critics and refusing any talk of political reform, Saudi rulers are fast becoming the last hold-outs in a region yearning for democratic change," he said.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Mubarak Comedy Hour
By William Fisher
I haven’t had this much fun since Grandma let all the cousins, nieces and nephews rummage through her big Brooklyn house in our fierce competition for the title “Scavenger of the Month.”
Well, imagine the sheer glee, the unbridled joy that an unreconstructed scavenger feels when you let him/her loose in the archives of the Egyptian State Information Service website.
The Archives is where the government stores old material, though in this country today, old could be as young as a month.
Much of what we find there could bring on apoplexy. For example, round about 2004-2005 – when Egypt was under a bit of pressure from the US and others to democratize its election procedures – The State Information Service decided to publish a book on, wait for it, Human Rights in Egypt.
Here’s a passage:
“Within the Egyptian pioneering role in approving, consolidating and maintaining human rights, we shall expound the international and regional agreements Egypt has joined, the human rights-related articles provided in the Egyptian Constitution, the authorities and institutions in charge of supporting and protecting these rights in Egypt, and the role played by the Supreme Constitutional Court in interpreting and adopting these rights.”
Pioneering role? Maintaining human rights? At this point the scavenger doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
But, maybe one needs to take a longer view of history, perhaps with just a modicum of forgiveness toward the blow-hard strongman who puts on his game face while trying to look and sound serious while spewing forth volumes of misinformation and disinformation to his faithful subjects.
Here are some choice passages from the SIS book, “Human Rights in Egypt”:
Since the early dawn of life, freedom and right to option God Almighty bestowed upon Adam and Eve have been of the most important options that have determined the human person’s relation with God and with others, and have determined as well the main features and methodology Adam and his descendants have followed to consolidate and safeguard human rights throughout ages.
The divine religions have been revealed to lay down a life system, and to regulate relations among individuals, with each other on the one hand, and with the ruler on the other, on the basis of justice, mercy, cordiality, cooperation and equality. They have been also revealed to renounce discrimination among human beings on the basis of interest, benefit, gender, sex or color, calling for dialogue with the other and respect for all human values.
The US Declaration of Human Rights (1766)* (sic) and The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) are the first charters that have enlisted these rights in national declarations, expressing special experiences of these peoples.
After going through a litany of the human rights-related agreements sponsored by the United Nations and signed by, among others, Egypt – most of which Egypt has arrogantly broken -- this modest volume tells us how happy the country is to be a signatory to these treaties and to wholeheartedly embrace their principals and practices.
En passant, it mentions the National Council for Human Rights. This is the fig-leaf Mubarak invented to “investigate” human rights abuses by agent of the government. And Mubarak was fortunate to able to reach out to the always compliant Boutros Boutros-Galli (who was living in Paris) to be its chairman.
The book recounts “Egypt’s keenness” on boosting the democratic course through introducing amendments into Article No. 76 of the Constitution and the ensuing multi-presidential candidate and parliamentary elections.
The book reviews “Egypt’s efforts for enhancing the right to freedom of opinion and expression, safeguarding women’s rights; including combating discrimination against her and empowering her to contribute to development as well as preserving child rights and the rights to clean environment and to education. Egypt has adhered to all these rights within the context of sustainable development and the Non-governmental organizations in Egypt.”
[Just for the record, dear readers, the Mubarak regime introduced several of the most disgracefully restrictive laws to control NGOs. It’s a wonder any of them have survived!]
“The human rights issue is presently raised as a top priority item on both the local and international agendas,” the book says. “Several human rights organizations were also established with purpose of protecting basic public freedoms. The result was the adoption of a host of international human rights agreements and declarations, to which Egypt is a signatory party.”
The author then takes us on a stroll down old-memory lane. Pharaonic Egypt, he says, was one of the earliest civilizations ever to show respect for human rights. The Ancient Egyptians were the first to acknowledge man’s right to life. A case in point would be that they deferred the execution of a convicted pregnant woman till she gave birth.
Ancient Egypt not only believed in but applied the principle of equality to its entire population. Egyptians were equal before the law, without discrimination between rich and poor, and/or free people and slaves. The Ancient Egyptians also encouraged both men and women to get a proper education.
Under Christianity, Egyptians found salvation from the injustices of they suffered under Roman Emperors.
Islam too preached equality and freed humanity from economic, political and social burdens.
So here, the book tells us, are some of the most important human rights principles that Egypt lives by and enforces:
"Freedom of opinion is guaranteed. "Every individual has the right to express his opinion and to publicize it verbally or in writing or by photography or by other means within the limits of the law.
Self-criticism and constructive criticism is the guarantee for the safety of the national structure."
“Freedom of the press, printing, publication and mass media shall be guaranteed. Censorship on newspapers is forbidden as well as notifying, suspending or canceling them by administrative methods.
"Education is a right guaranteed by the State."
"The State shall supervise all branches of education and guarantee the independence of universities and scientific research centers, with a view to linking all this with the requirements of society and production."
“Sovereignty is for the people alone and they are the source of authority."
"The political system of the Arab Republic of Egypt is a multiparty one, within the framework of the basic elements and principles of the Egyptian society as stipulated in the Constitution. Political parties are regulated by law."
"The State shall guarantee equality of opportunity to all citizens."
"The family is the basis of the society founded on religion, morality and patriotism."
"The State shall guarantee the protection of motherhood and childhood, take care of children and youth and provide the suitable conditions for the development of their talents."
“The State shall guarantee the proper coordination between the duties of woman towards the family and her work in the society, considering her equal with man in the fields of political, social, cultural and economic life without violation of the rules of Islamic jurisprudence."
“The State- shall guarantee social and health insurance services and all the citizens have the right to pensions in cases of incapacity, unemployment and old-age, in accordance with the law."
“The national economy shall be organized in accordance with a comprehensive development plan which ensures raising the national income, fair distribution, raising the standard of living, eliminating unemployment, increasing work opportunities, connecting wages with production, fixing a minimum and a maximum limit for wages in a manner which guarantees lessening the disparities between incomes."
“Every citizen shall have a share in the national revenue to be defined by the law in accordance with his work or his unexploiting ownership."
All citizens are equal before the law. They have equal public rights and duties without discrimination between them due to race, ethnic origin, language, religion or creed."
“Individual freedom is a natural right and shall not be touched.”
“Any person arrested, detained or his freedom restricted shall be treated in the manner concomitant with the preservation of his dignity. "No physical or moral harm is to be inflicted upon him.
He may not be detained or imprisoned except in places defined by laws organizing prisons. If a confession is proved to have been made by a person under any of the aforementioned forms of duress or coercion, it shall be considered invalid and futile."
“The State shall guarantee the freedom of belief and the freedom of practice of religious rites.”
“The right to political asylum shall be guaranteed by the State for every foreigner persecuted for defending the peoples’ interests, human rights, peace or justice. "The extradition of political refugees is prohibited.
“The creation of syndicates and unions on a democratic basis is a right guaranteed by law, and should have a moral entity. "The law regulates the participation of syndicates and unions in carrying out the social programs and plans, raising the standard of efficiency, consolidating the socialist behavior among their members, and safeguarding their funds. "They are responsible for questioning their members about their behavior in exercising their activities according to certain codes of morals, and for defending the rights and liberties of their members as defined in the law."
“Citizens shall have the right to vote, nominate and express their opinions in referendums according to the provisions of the law."
"Their participation in public life is a national duty."
A suspect assumed innocent proven guilty: “Any defendant is innocent until he is proved guilty before a legal court, in which he is granted the right to defend himself.
"Every person accused of a crime must be provided with counsel for his defense."
Perhaps, just for a chuckle, let me mention again The National Council for Human Rights,” which was set up on June 12, 2003 under law No. 94 of 2003. Operating under the Shura Council, it aims at promoting and protecting human rights, and safeguarding public freedom.
As noted earlier, The Council is chaired by Dr. Boutros Ghali, former Secretary-General of the United Nations, with Dr. Ahmed Kamal Abul-Magd as Deputy-Chief and 25 public figures as members.
The Council’s goals are to serve as a tool to enhance democracy, ensuring public freedom and safeguarding human rights. And, for an avid scavenger this piece of carrion is a true find.
The Council was founded during the years I lived in Egypt. As an official of USAID I made it my business to follow its work closely, or at least at any part of Egyptian government allows you to follow it closely.
I found, among the ranks, many people who were not Mubarak cronies, people who cared deeply about the abuses they were finding, and people who were profoundly frustrated by their inability to reverse injustice, or even to get a hearing.
One could only feel sympathy for these men and women. They were NOT part of the problem.
So how, we ask, could a state so totally committed on paper to all the rights, duties and privileges of being human so degrade itself as to provoke deep disgust among free people everywhere?
How is it that a state that guarantees free expression of opinion and ideas, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to health care and a decent education – how is it that such a litany of social goods degenerate into a gruesome tale of cavalier disregard for law, imprisonment without charge, torture and death in detention, men and women with three and four-year-old master’s degrees who have never had a job!
Small wonder that, as The Times Tom Friedman wrote today, “the lids are coming off.”
* = The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, not the U.S. Declaration of Human Rights. The author evidently meant the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was approved by the United Nations in 1948.
I haven’t had this much fun since Grandma let all the cousins, nieces and nephews rummage through her big Brooklyn house in our fierce competition for the title “Scavenger of the Month.”
Well, imagine the sheer glee, the unbridled joy that an unreconstructed scavenger feels when you let him/her loose in the archives of the Egyptian State Information Service website.
The Archives is where the government stores old material, though in this country today, old could be as young as a month.
Much of what we find there could bring on apoplexy. For example, round about 2004-2005 – when Egypt was under a bit of pressure from the US and others to democratize its election procedures – The State Information Service decided to publish a book on, wait for it, Human Rights in Egypt.
Here’s a passage:
“Within the Egyptian pioneering role in approving, consolidating and maintaining human rights, we shall expound the international and regional agreements Egypt has joined, the human rights-related articles provided in the Egyptian Constitution, the authorities and institutions in charge of supporting and protecting these rights in Egypt, and the role played by the Supreme Constitutional Court in interpreting and adopting these rights.”
Pioneering role? Maintaining human rights? At this point the scavenger doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
But, maybe one needs to take a longer view of history, perhaps with just a modicum of forgiveness toward the blow-hard strongman who puts on his game face while trying to look and sound serious while spewing forth volumes of misinformation and disinformation to his faithful subjects.
Here are some choice passages from the SIS book, “Human Rights in Egypt”:
Since the early dawn of life, freedom and right to option God Almighty bestowed upon Adam and Eve have been of the most important options that have determined the human person’s relation with God and with others, and have determined as well the main features and methodology Adam and his descendants have followed to consolidate and safeguard human rights throughout ages.
The divine religions have been revealed to lay down a life system, and to regulate relations among individuals, with each other on the one hand, and with the ruler on the other, on the basis of justice, mercy, cordiality, cooperation and equality. They have been also revealed to renounce discrimination among human beings on the basis of interest, benefit, gender, sex or color, calling for dialogue with the other and respect for all human values.
The US Declaration of Human Rights (1766)* (sic) and The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) are the first charters that have enlisted these rights in national declarations, expressing special experiences of these peoples.
After going through a litany of the human rights-related agreements sponsored by the United Nations and signed by, among others, Egypt – most of which Egypt has arrogantly broken -- this modest volume tells us how happy the country is to be a signatory to these treaties and to wholeheartedly embrace their principals and practices.
En passant, it mentions the National Council for Human Rights. This is the fig-leaf Mubarak invented to “investigate” human rights abuses by agent of the government. And Mubarak was fortunate to able to reach out to the always compliant Boutros Boutros-Galli (who was living in Paris) to be its chairman.
The book recounts “Egypt’s keenness” on boosting the democratic course through introducing amendments into Article No. 76 of the Constitution and the ensuing multi-presidential candidate and parliamentary elections.
The book reviews “Egypt’s efforts for enhancing the right to freedom of opinion and expression, safeguarding women’s rights; including combating discrimination against her and empowering her to contribute to development as well as preserving child rights and the rights to clean environment and to education. Egypt has adhered to all these rights within the context of sustainable development and the Non-governmental organizations in Egypt.”
[Just for the record, dear readers, the Mubarak regime introduced several of the most disgracefully restrictive laws to control NGOs. It’s a wonder any of them have survived!]
“The human rights issue is presently raised as a top priority item on both the local and international agendas,” the book says. “Several human rights organizations were also established with purpose of protecting basic public freedoms. The result was the adoption of a host of international human rights agreements and declarations, to which Egypt is a signatory party.”
The author then takes us on a stroll down old-memory lane. Pharaonic Egypt, he says, was one of the earliest civilizations ever to show respect for human rights. The Ancient Egyptians were the first to acknowledge man’s right to life. A case in point would be that they deferred the execution of a convicted pregnant woman till she gave birth.
Ancient Egypt not only believed in but applied the principle of equality to its entire population. Egyptians were equal before the law, without discrimination between rich and poor, and/or free people and slaves. The Ancient Egyptians also encouraged both men and women to get a proper education.
Under Christianity, Egyptians found salvation from the injustices of they suffered under Roman Emperors.
Islam too preached equality and freed humanity from economic, political and social burdens.
So here, the book tells us, are some of the most important human rights principles that Egypt lives by and enforces:
"Freedom of opinion is guaranteed. "Every individual has the right to express his opinion and to publicize it verbally or in writing or by photography or by other means within the limits of the law.
Self-criticism and constructive criticism is the guarantee for the safety of the national structure."
“Freedom of the press, printing, publication and mass media shall be guaranteed. Censorship on newspapers is forbidden as well as notifying, suspending or canceling them by administrative methods.
"Education is a right guaranteed by the State."
"The State shall supervise all branches of education and guarantee the independence of universities and scientific research centers, with a view to linking all this with the requirements of society and production."
“Sovereignty is for the people alone and they are the source of authority."
"The political system of the Arab Republic of Egypt is a multiparty one, within the framework of the basic elements and principles of the Egyptian society as stipulated in the Constitution. Political parties are regulated by law."
"The State shall guarantee equality of opportunity to all citizens."
"The family is the basis of the society founded on religion, morality and patriotism."
"The State shall guarantee the protection of motherhood and childhood, take care of children and youth and provide the suitable conditions for the development of their talents."
“The State shall guarantee the proper coordination between the duties of woman towards the family and her work in the society, considering her equal with man in the fields of political, social, cultural and economic life without violation of the rules of Islamic jurisprudence."
“The State- shall guarantee social and health insurance services and all the citizens have the right to pensions in cases of incapacity, unemployment and old-age, in accordance with the law."
“The national economy shall be organized in accordance with a comprehensive development plan which ensures raising the national income, fair distribution, raising the standard of living, eliminating unemployment, increasing work opportunities, connecting wages with production, fixing a minimum and a maximum limit for wages in a manner which guarantees lessening the disparities between incomes."
“Every citizen shall have a share in the national revenue to be defined by the law in accordance with his work or his unexploiting ownership."
All citizens are equal before the law. They have equal public rights and duties without discrimination between them due to race, ethnic origin, language, religion or creed."
“Individual freedom is a natural right and shall not be touched.”
“Any person arrested, detained or his freedom restricted shall be treated in the manner concomitant with the preservation of his dignity. "No physical or moral harm is to be inflicted upon him.
He may not be detained or imprisoned except in places defined by laws organizing prisons. If a confession is proved to have been made by a person under any of the aforementioned forms of duress or coercion, it shall be considered invalid and futile."
“The State shall guarantee the freedom of belief and the freedom of practice of religious rites.”
“The right to political asylum shall be guaranteed by the State for every foreigner persecuted for defending the peoples’ interests, human rights, peace or justice. "The extradition of political refugees is prohibited.
“The creation of syndicates and unions on a democratic basis is a right guaranteed by law, and should have a moral entity. "The law regulates the participation of syndicates and unions in carrying out the social programs and plans, raising the standard of efficiency, consolidating the socialist behavior among their members, and safeguarding their funds. "They are responsible for questioning their members about their behavior in exercising their activities according to certain codes of morals, and for defending the rights and liberties of their members as defined in the law."
“Citizens shall have the right to vote, nominate and express their opinions in referendums according to the provisions of the law."
"Their participation in public life is a national duty."
A suspect assumed innocent proven guilty: “Any defendant is innocent until he is proved guilty before a legal court, in which he is granted the right to defend himself.
"Every person accused of a crime must be provided with counsel for his defense."
Perhaps, just for a chuckle, let me mention again The National Council for Human Rights,” which was set up on June 12, 2003 under law No. 94 of 2003. Operating under the Shura Council, it aims at promoting and protecting human rights, and safeguarding public freedom.
As noted earlier, The Council is chaired by Dr. Boutros Ghali, former Secretary-General of the United Nations, with Dr. Ahmed Kamal Abul-Magd as Deputy-Chief and 25 public figures as members.
The Council’s goals are to serve as a tool to enhance democracy, ensuring public freedom and safeguarding human rights. And, for an avid scavenger this piece of carrion is a true find.
The Council was founded during the years I lived in Egypt. As an official of USAID I made it my business to follow its work closely, or at least at any part of Egyptian government allows you to follow it closely.
I found, among the ranks, many people who were not Mubarak cronies, people who cared deeply about the abuses they were finding, and people who were profoundly frustrated by their inability to reverse injustice, or even to get a hearing.
One could only feel sympathy for these men and women. They were NOT part of the problem.
So how, we ask, could a state so totally committed on paper to all the rights, duties and privileges of being human so degrade itself as to provoke deep disgust among free people everywhere?
How is it that a state that guarantees free expression of opinion and ideas, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to health care and a decent education – how is it that such a litany of social goods degenerate into a gruesome tale of cavalier disregard for law, imprisonment without charge, torture and death in detention, men and women with three and four-year-old master’s degrees who have never had a job!
Small wonder that, as The Times Tom Friedman wrote today, “the lids are coming off.”
* = The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, not the U.S. Declaration of Human Rights. The author evidently meant the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was approved by the United Nations in 1948.
Post-Mubarak Law Would “Criminalize” Protests that Brought Mubarak’s Downfall
By William Fisher
Pro-democracy protesters filled Tahrir Square in central Cairo and an estimated 2000 gathered outside the State Radio and TV headquarters in the Maspero section last week to express their anger over a new law approved by the Egyptian cabinet that would criminalize demonstrations that "disrupt society or business."
The demonstrations in Tahrir Square and many other locations did result in widespread disruptions to virtually every aspect of Egyptian life. It is unclear whether these demonstrations would have been banned under the new law.
Enactment of such a measure again raises the question of whether the country’s interim military rulers are on the side of the pro-democracy movement or the thousands appointed to positions of power by Mubarak. That group includes every member of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.
The law imposes heavy fines and possible prison sentences on those who defy the ban and also provides for harsh punishments for calling for or inciting sit-ins. The maximum prison sentence one year and fines of up to half a million Egyptian pounds.
A step in the wrong direction and a threat to the forces that brought about the revolution is the way Opposition groups are characterizing the law. Workers’ groups have promised that protests will continue until the military’s ruling Supreme Council opens a dialogue with workers, business owners and civil and political organizations.
The Youth Coalition called on the Council to reject the law and instead abolish the Emergency Law that has been in effect in Egypt for more than thirty years. The Emergency Law gives the government broad rights prohibited by the Egyptian constitution and allows police and state security agents to arrest and detain citizens without due process or access to lawyers or family and to try civilians in military courts.
Shady Ghozali, a member of the Youth Revolution Coalition, told the newspaper Ahram Online "I'm against it [the law], this is against human rights; peaceful demonstrations are amongst the basic human rights."
News of the law drew instant heated reaction on social media sites like Twitter that disseminate calls for demonstrations, now deemed a criminal act. "Where is Essam Sharaf who said my legitimacy is from Tahrir Square and I will return to the street with you if I can't implement your demands," said blogger Amr Ezzat.
Essam Sharaf was appointed by the Egypt’s military rulers to be Prime Minister of the country after the fall of long-time strongman Hosni Mubarak.
Wael Abbas, activist and blogger, commented on the relatively small turnout in Tahrir Square and said that more people would have come out but were frightened of the anti-protest law.
He fumed: “It has scared people and made them worried that they would be slammed with a jail sentence if they come out today. Even Mubarak wasn’t able to pass such a law, so how could they do it?”
Fellow activist Amr Ezzat, said that the low turnout could also be due to the fact that many students are preoccupied with demonstrations within their university campuses.
Ezzat added that the army approved the anti-protest law to try to avoid accusations that they arrested and abused protesters in Tahrir Square on March 9.
The protesters are also voicing their dissatisfaction with the trials of the former ministers and businessmen who prospered during the Mubarak regime. They have dubbed the court cases “imaginary,” and have called for swift and efficient trials for all, including Mubarak and his family, arguing that the former president used to accuse people and put them in jail quickly, and the same should be done to him.
In Maspero, an up-market section of Cairo that was the site of the burning of the Two Martyrs Coptic Church, Copts are protesting the new law but also the failure to arrest the criminals behind the fire.
“We are out today for a symbolic protest to show that we have strength in the street and that we still insist on our earlier demands,’ says Rola Sobhi, one of the Coptic protesters.
Maspero protesters are also calling for the removal of all media personalities associated with the old regime, and the replacement of all editors of national papers..
The protesters chanted, “The people want to free the media.”
“They want to give legitimacy to their actions and this law gives them that legitimacy,” says Ezzat.
Justice Minister Counselor Mohamed Abdel Aziz Al Guindi said the new measure will abort attempts by those affected by the ouster of the former regime to hinder public order and production, the minister told the Egyptian state television.
He cited factional protests that involved sabotage, vandalism and disorder.
Al Guindi noted that there is no ban on demonstrations and protests that are organized in line with the law. He said factional demonstrations are not prohibited on vacations and after the working hours.
However, the minister pointed out that these demonstrations should not be held in a manner that interrupts economic and commercial activity or traffic movement.
He said the new regulations prohibit factional protests in the working places, organizations, public and private banks.
Dr. Yahya Jamal, professor of constitutional law and vice president of the Council of Ministers, has said that the law will have no impact on peaceful demonstrations. But the Youth Coalition called upon the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to reject the law and abolish the emergency law.
The new measure has also drawn attention from overseas human rights activists. Among them is Chip Pitts, a Lecturer in Law at Stanford University Law School and Oxford University.
Pitts told The Public Record, “: Although supposedly targeted at protests that stop work or destroy property, measures which countries are allowed to take temporarily under international law in order to maintain public order and ensure stability for economic and political development, the fact that the Egyptian Cabinet in the current circumstances would enact such criminalization provides further evidence of how ‘fragile and reversible’ (to borrow from the US’s repeated characterization of Afghanistan) the Egyptian gains remain.”
He added, “Clearly, such laws could be a mask for repressing even wholly peaceful, non-disruptive speech, and seem singularly inappropriate given the historic peaceful protests at the very foundation of the Egyptian renaissance. The law demonstrates both the continued fear of genuine reform within the Egyptian establishment, and incomplete commitment to the democratic rights sought by the protesters. Almost certainly inspired by the crackdowns and retained repressive power in countries like Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, this should and will be taken as yet another direct Mubarakist affront to the “Spirit of Tahrir Square” and resisted to the utmost by the Egyptian people.”
The new law has also drawn the ire of another US-based human rights advocate, Human Rights Watch (HRW). The group said the new law violates international law protections for free assembly and should be reversed immediately.
The cabinet’s claims that this law is an exceptional measure under the country’s emergency law, which is still in effect, is a reminder of the need to revoke the emergency law immediately, HRW said. An end to the state of emergency was one of the primary demands of the protesters who gathered in Tahrir Square.
“This virtually blanket ban on strikes and demonstrations is a betrayal of the demands of Tahrir protesters for a free Egypt, and a slap in the face of the families whose loved ones died protesting for freedom,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW” Middle East and North Africa director.
“Any genuine transition toward democracy must be based on respect for the basic rights of the people, including their right to demonstrate,” she said.
HRW said the provisions to criminalize demonstrations that harm public order or public funds are of particular concern because of the sweeping arrests over the past few weeks of protesters accused of disrupting public order and destroying property. On February 25, March 6 and March 9, army and military police officers arrested peaceful demonstrators, detained them, in some cases tortured them, and brought them to trial before military courts that do not meet minimal due process standards.
The military apologized for the excessive use of force against protesters on February 25, but has not issued an apology for the abuses against demonstrators on other occasions, nor has it investigated the cases of torture associated with these arrests. At least 100 protesters remain detained after sentences by military tribunals under the new transitional government. The military has justified these practices based on its stated need to crack down on “thugs” who are disrupting public order.
In the published minutes of the March 24 cabinet meeting, the cabinet justified passing the law by saying that it was responding to a number of requests received “though legal channels.”
The minutes also say that the government was studying how best to “address demands with regards to wages and labor conditions,” referring to the ongoing strikes in various sectors of the economy over the past weeks. It went on to say that it “understood all of the demands by different sectors of society,” but that “the country was currently undergoing a critical period that required protecting its economy and security from manipulation in order to overcome the current crisis and to respond to the legitimate demands of different sectors of society.”
“Concerns about the economy or the security situation are no justification for repressive laws and no substitute for responsible policing and sound economic policies,” Whitson said. “Economic difficulties are no excuse for limiting people’s rights.”
Egypt has been under a state of emergency since 1981, which has allowed for the indefinite detention of thousands of people without charge or trial. In May 2010, then-President Hosni Mubarak renewed the state of emergency for another two years, despite having promised to end it in 2005.
Pro-democracy protesters filled Tahrir Square in central Cairo and an estimated 2000 gathered outside the State Radio and TV headquarters in the Maspero section last week to express their anger over a new law approved by the Egyptian cabinet that would criminalize demonstrations that "disrupt society or business."
The demonstrations in Tahrir Square and many other locations did result in widespread disruptions to virtually every aspect of Egyptian life. It is unclear whether these demonstrations would have been banned under the new law.
Enactment of such a measure again raises the question of whether the country’s interim military rulers are on the side of the pro-democracy movement or the thousands appointed to positions of power by Mubarak. That group includes every member of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.
The law imposes heavy fines and possible prison sentences on those who defy the ban and also provides for harsh punishments for calling for or inciting sit-ins. The maximum prison sentence one year and fines of up to half a million Egyptian pounds.
A step in the wrong direction and a threat to the forces that brought about the revolution is the way Opposition groups are characterizing the law. Workers’ groups have promised that protests will continue until the military’s ruling Supreme Council opens a dialogue with workers, business owners and civil and political organizations.
The Youth Coalition called on the Council to reject the law and instead abolish the Emergency Law that has been in effect in Egypt for more than thirty years. The Emergency Law gives the government broad rights prohibited by the Egyptian constitution and allows police and state security agents to arrest and detain citizens without due process or access to lawyers or family and to try civilians in military courts.
Shady Ghozali, a member of the Youth Revolution Coalition, told the newspaper Ahram Online "I'm against it [the law], this is against human rights; peaceful demonstrations are amongst the basic human rights."
News of the law drew instant heated reaction on social media sites like Twitter that disseminate calls for demonstrations, now deemed a criminal act. "Where is Essam Sharaf who said my legitimacy is from Tahrir Square and I will return to the street with you if I can't implement your demands," said blogger Amr Ezzat.
Essam Sharaf was appointed by the Egypt’s military rulers to be Prime Minister of the country after the fall of long-time strongman Hosni Mubarak.
Wael Abbas, activist and blogger, commented on the relatively small turnout in Tahrir Square and said that more people would have come out but were frightened of the anti-protest law.
He fumed: “It has scared people and made them worried that they would be slammed with a jail sentence if they come out today. Even Mubarak wasn’t able to pass such a law, so how could they do it?”
Fellow activist Amr Ezzat, said that the low turnout could also be due to the fact that many students are preoccupied with demonstrations within their university campuses.
Ezzat added that the army approved the anti-protest law to try to avoid accusations that they arrested and abused protesters in Tahrir Square on March 9.
The protesters are also voicing their dissatisfaction with the trials of the former ministers and businessmen who prospered during the Mubarak regime. They have dubbed the court cases “imaginary,” and have called for swift and efficient trials for all, including Mubarak and his family, arguing that the former president used to accuse people and put them in jail quickly, and the same should be done to him.
In Maspero, an up-market section of Cairo that was the site of the burning of the Two Martyrs Coptic Church, Copts are protesting the new law but also the failure to arrest the criminals behind the fire.
“We are out today for a symbolic protest to show that we have strength in the street and that we still insist on our earlier demands,’ says Rola Sobhi, one of the Coptic protesters.
Maspero protesters are also calling for the removal of all media personalities associated with the old regime, and the replacement of all editors of national papers..
The protesters chanted, “The people want to free the media.”
“They want to give legitimacy to their actions and this law gives them that legitimacy,” says Ezzat.
Justice Minister Counselor Mohamed Abdel Aziz Al Guindi said the new measure will abort attempts by those affected by the ouster of the former regime to hinder public order and production, the minister told the Egyptian state television.
He cited factional protests that involved sabotage, vandalism and disorder.
Al Guindi noted that there is no ban on demonstrations and protests that are organized in line with the law. He said factional demonstrations are not prohibited on vacations and after the working hours.
However, the minister pointed out that these demonstrations should not be held in a manner that interrupts economic and commercial activity or traffic movement.
He said the new regulations prohibit factional protests in the working places, organizations, public and private banks.
Dr. Yahya Jamal, professor of constitutional law and vice president of the Council of Ministers, has said that the law will have no impact on peaceful demonstrations. But the Youth Coalition called upon the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to reject the law and abolish the emergency law.
The new measure has also drawn attention from overseas human rights activists. Among them is Chip Pitts, a Lecturer in Law at Stanford University Law School and Oxford University.
Pitts told The Public Record, “: Although supposedly targeted at protests that stop work or destroy property, measures which countries are allowed to take temporarily under international law in order to maintain public order and ensure stability for economic and political development, the fact that the Egyptian Cabinet in the current circumstances would enact such criminalization provides further evidence of how ‘fragile and reversible’ (to borrow from the US’s repeated characterization of Afghanistan) the Egyptian gains remain.”
He added, “Clearly, such laws could be a mask for repressing even wholly peaceful, non-disruptive speech, and seem singularly inappropriate given the historic peaceful protests at the very foundation of the Egyptian renaissance. The law demonstrates both the continued fear of genuine reform within the Egyptian establishment, and incomplete commitment to the democratic rights sought by the protesters. Almost certainly inspired by the crackdowns and retained repressive power in countries like Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, this should and will be taken as yet another direct Mubarakist affront to the “Spirit of Tahrir Square” and resisted to the utmost by the Egyptian people.”
The new law has also drawn the ire of another US-based human rights advocate, Human Rights Watch (HRW). The group said the new law violates international law protections for free assembly and should be reversed immediately.
The cabinet’s claims that this law is an exceptional measure under the country’s emergency law, which is still in effect, is a reminder of the need to revoke the emergency law immediately, HRW said. An end to the state of emergency was one of the primary demands of the protesters who gathered in Tahrir Square.
“This virtually blanket ban on strikes and demonstrations is a betrayal of the demands of Tahrir protesters for a free Egypt, and a slap in the face of the families whose loved ones died protesting for freedom,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW” Middle East and North Africa director.
“Any genuine transition toward democracy must be based on respect for the basic rights of the people, including their right to demonstrate,” she said.
HRW said the provisions to criminalize demonstrations that harm public order or public funds are of particular concern because of the sweeping arrests over the past few weeks of protesters accused of disrupting public order and destroying property. On February 25, March 6 and March 9, army and military police officers arrested peaceful demonstrators, detained them, in some cases tortured them, and brought them to trial before military courts that do not meet minimal due process standards.
The military apologized for the excessive use of force against protesters on February 25, but has not issued an apology for the abuses against demonstrators on other occasions, nor has it investigated the cases of torture associated with these arrests. At least 100 protesters remain detained after sentences by military tribunals under the new transitional government. The military has justified these practices based on its stated need to crack down on “thugs” who are disrupting public order.
In the published minutes of the March 24 cabinet meeting, the cabinet justified passing the law by saying that it was responding to a number of requests received “though legal channels.”
The minutes also say that the government was studying how best to “address demands with regards to wages and labor conditions,” referring to the ongoing strikes in various sectors of the economy over the past weeks. It went on to say that it “understood all of the demands by different sectors of society,” but that “the country was currently undergoing a critical period that required protecting its economy and security from manipulation in order to overcome the current crisis and to respond to the legitimate demands of different sectors of society.”
“Concerns about the economy or the security situation are no justification for repressive laws and no substitute for responsible policing and sound economic policies,” Whitson said. “Economic difficulties are no excuse for limiting people’s rights.”
Egypt has been under a state of emergency since 1981, which has allowed for the indefinite detention of thousands of people without charge or trial. In May 2010, then-President Hosni Mubarak renewed the state of emergency for another two years, despite having promised to end it in 2005.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Morocco and Turkey: Templates for MidEast Democracy?
By William Fisher
Such is the state of U.S. cable news and most other traditional media that when two big stories happen at the same time the rest of the world might just as well not exist.
Journalists and their editors are currently preoccupied with Libya and Japan, one caused by man-made hubris, the other triggered by natural disasters.
But as important as these stories undoubtedly are, there are other important events taking place and are largely going uncovered or under-covered by the so-called mainstream media.
So the American public might be forgiven if it didn’t know that dictators in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle East autocracies are banning demonstrations, violently breaking up gathering of protesters, and using paid mercenaries, snipers and its own security services to kill its own people.
Yemen is important to the U.S. because it is the home of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; US forces work with the Yemeni government to locate and snuff out the terrorists.
Bahrain is important to the U.S. because it is important to Saudi Arabia, a supplier of oil. Sunni Bahrain, just down the causeway from Sunni Saudi Arabia, sent in 2,000 troops to help Bahraini forces to help the king hang on to power. Bahrain and the Saudis are worried about the restiveness among the country’s Shia majority, and that majority, largely in the Eastern part of the tiny country, finding common cause with Saudi’s Shias, just across the bay. There have been a number of deaths in the past few days perpetrated by government soldiers and police.
In Saudi Arabia itself, the country’s aging king is attempting to “buy off” the protesters by sinking huge amounts of money into job-creating and training programs, plus giving each Saudi family a substantial cash gift.
In Syria, often thought to be the least likely target of pro-democracy forces because of the iron grip of President Basher al-Asad, demonstrations have grown larger and larger over the past few days and the Syrian military and police are accused of killing many demonstrators. Syria is said to be important to the U.S. because of its prospective role in peace talks with Israel.
And while this enormous ferment is going on, the United States is remaining virtually mute because it says these countries share strategic interests with Washington. Yemen holds the key to the defeat of Al Qaeda. The U.S. Fifth Fleet is housed in Bahrain. Saudi Arabia provides the U.S. with some 12 per cent of its oil; and countries in its sphere of influence account for a market share many times 12 per cent.
Libya is an oil-producer too. But it is ranked 17th in terms of world oil production and produces only about two per cent of world supply. Its oil is sold largely into Europe. Arguably it has zero strategic interest to the U.S., thus making it far easier to decide to proceed with the UN-endorsed, multi-nation “no fly” program on “humanitarian grounds.”
You may have seen snippets of reports on all these happenings during last week or so, and a lot more than snippets if you were watching Al Jazeera or the Real News Network via McClatchy Newspapers.
But what you almost certainly did not see or read much about is what might qualify as “good news” in the Middle East and North Africa.
Some of that hopeful news concerns Morocco. In the March 18 issue of Politico.com David Avital and David Halperin report that Morocco’s King Mohammed VI has established “a foundation for reform.”
Avital and Halperin recommend that the U.S. look to Morocco as a template. “While seeking to curb extremists from taking advantage of the unrest, Washington must change its habit of blindly supporting friendly autocrats, who favor stability over freedom. The U.S. must also work with its regional allies on reforms to create a blueprint for the model modern
Muslim state.”
The authors acknowledge that the Moroccan “model has yet to emerge.” Avital is an executive committee member of Israel Policy Forum. Halperin is a policy analyst at Israel Policy Forum and the Center for American Progress.
Morocco’s progress in recent years, they say, has been significant. “Since
becoming king in 1999, Mohammed VI broke away from his father’s brutal
policies during the ‘Years of Lead’ and immediately began a series of
liberalizing reforms.”
These include permitting the return of political exiles, holding legislative elections, enhancing investing to alleviate poverty, modifying the criminal code and setting up the first truth and reconciliation commission in the Arab world to help mend the wounds of the past and set a new course, they write.
An article by Intissar Fakir, a special assistant to the Deputy President of the National Endowment for Democracy, published in the Arab Reform Bulletin, notes that King Mohammed VI’s March 9 pledge to sponsor broad constitutional reforms following moderately-sized protests on February 20 distinguishes him from other leaders in the region, most of whom have “offered too little in terms of reforms and offered them too late in the process of uprisings to make a difference. On the surface, King Mohammed’s proposed reforms are significant.”
But the lack of specifics about the depth of these reforms creates doubt in view of past experiences, the article says, adding:
“King Mohammed announced in a televised speech a process of constitutional change that will be put to a popular referendum. Proposed reforms would increase the parliament’s powers in unspecified ways, create a more independent judiciary, and grant elected officials executive powers at the provincial and local level within a decentralization scheme first introduced in 2010.
“Decentralization will redistribute power from an appointed governor to new regional representatives to be elected by the people. Under the reforms, the prime minister would have greater executive powers, and the revised constitution would contain greater assurances of political and civil liberties and human rights.
“A commission headed by constitutional law expert Abdelatif Mennouni is tasked with consulting with representatives of labor unions, political parties, civil society, and other interest groups to discuss the scope of these reforms over the coming months.
“The 18-member commission will include representatives from professional syndicates and human rights groups (such as Amina Bouayach of the Moroccan Organization of Human Rights), political activists, judges, as well as technocrats such as Omar Izziman and Lahcen Oulhaj (who represents Amazigh/Berber interests). The committee’s recommendations will be reviewed in June and then put to a national referendum. The king indicated that as soon as these reforms are ratified, they will be implemented.”
But despite the reform-minded agenda of its King, Human Rights Watch has reported that Morocco's security forces have sometimes dispersed large demonstrations “with considerable violence.”
But today (Feb. 20), says Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, “the security forces allowed Moroccan citizens to march peacefully to demand profound changes in how their country is governed.”
“Thousands of Moroccans in cities across the country demonstrated in favor of political reform on February 20, 2011. Mostly peaceful demonstrations and marches took place in towns and villages largely without interference from police, who in some areas were barely in evidence,” she said.
HRW said Morocco's demonstrators encountered none of the deadly force utilized by the security forces against protesters in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen.
“The partnership between the United States, Morocco and the Moroccan people,” Burns said, “is a very high priority for President Obama and Secretary Clinton. It’s never been more important than at this moment.”
Seizing this moment requires the United States to work with Morocco on a blueprint for systematic political and economic reforms that proactively respond to the region’s spreading unrest. A U.S. effort to help Morocco achieve a balance between these reforms and reverence for its own history and religious tradition would be a crucial symbol for the developing Middle East — and its growing ties with the West, HRW says.
Even more important, a U.S.-supported program to encourage greater media freedom, economic development and open political debate could jumpstart a path for Morocco to realize its leadership as a model for re-shaping the Arab world.
Others have suggested that Turkey offers a more reliable template for real change in the Middle East because, while it is still a work in progress, many of its reforms have come to fruition as a result of the governance process.
On the other hand, according to HRW, “Well-founded concerns persist in Turkey about politically motivated prosecutions. Prosecutors and judges have pursued unwarranted cases against journalists and editors, human rights defenders, individuals participating in demonstrations, and those engaged in legal pro-Kurdish political activity.”
The trial of Pınar Selek is an example. It is what HRW calls “a perversion of the criminal justice system and abuse of due process. The pursuit of this case for 12 years violates the most basic requirements for a fair trial. These baseless charges should be dropped once and for all.”
According to Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey researcher at Human Rights Watch. (Istanbul), “The third attempt to convict the human rights activist and writer Pınar Selek on allegations that she was involved in a 1998 deadly explosion is a travesty of justice.”
Here’s the background: In 1998, Selek, then 27, had been working on a street art project in Istanbul when she was arrested. A 19-year-old youth, Abdülmecit Öztürk, was also arrested. The case against them was based on the repeatedly contested claim that the explosion was caused by a bombing and on an allegation of Selek's guilt made by Öztürk during interrogation. He later retracted his allegation in court, saying he had been coerced into making the accusation under torture by police. Selek also alleges she was severely tortured in police custody.
On February 9, 2011, Selek was scheduled to stand trial for her alleged involvement in a 1998 explosion in Istanbul's Spice Bazaar that killed seven people and injured more than 100. It is the third attempt to convict her for carrying out a lethal bombing, despite substantial evidence that there was no bombing and that the explosion was the result of a gas leak.
The court where the third round of this trial will be held, Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 12, has acquitted Selek and her former co-defendant twice on the same charges, in 2006 and 2008. The prosecutor appealed each time.
Despite the evidence from multiple expert bodies showing that the explosion was caused by a gas leak, Turkey's top court of appeal, the Court of Cassation, ordered her retrial again on February 9, 2010, saying that the explosion was a bombing she carried out on behalf of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Selek's co-defendant, who later testified that he did not know her, had originally made a false confession under police torture, implicating Selek. While he was acquitted of all charges, and his acquittal upheld, the inadmissible evidence in the form of this confession remains the sole basis of the case against Selek.
The Court of Cassation's most recent ruling calling for the third trial said that Selek should be retried under article 125 of the previous Turkish Penal Code (law no. 765), which deals with crimes against the integrity of the state, including armed attacks by outlawed separatist groups. She would face a sentence of aggravated life imprisonment, a life sentence without the possibility of release.
Selek is a sociologist who has campaigned and written extensively on human rights issues in Turkey, including issues of gender, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights as well as Kurdish and other minority rights. Her trial is one of the most striking instances of this pattern of unfair trials that appear politically motivated, Human Rights Watch said.
"The 12-year-long campaign to convict Selek for something that the evidence has repeatedly demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that she could not have done, shows that Turkey has a long way to go toward upholding fair trial standards and ensuring judicial independence," Sinclair-Webb said.
Police reports initially discounted a bombing and suggested the explosion was caused by a gas leakage. While the prosecutor who indicted Selek and Öztürk labeled the explosion a bombing, this was later refuted by three separate reports from experts in different university departments. Autopsy reports from the Forensic Medical Institute's First Special Department and later its General Board did not find any evidence that the deaths were caused by a bombing.
When Öztürk was acquitted on all charges, which the Court of Cassation upheld, the original trial court ruled that his statement was inadmissible as evidence against Selek. No other evidence, testimonial or forensic, was ever offered to establish any link between Selek and the explosion.
A written statement purportedly made by Öztürk's aunt in which she allegedly identified Selek as having visited her home was shown to have been fabricated when it became clear in court that his aunt spoke only Kurdish, not Turkish, and she testified that the police had forced her to sign a paper whose contents she did not know. In court, both Öztürk and his aunt stated that they had never even met Selek.
I have another misgiving about Turkey as a template for Middle East democracy. It is that country’s absurd treatment of the Orthodox Christian Church.
In an August 2010 episode of ‘60 Minutes,’ the audience heard one of the world’s most important Christian leaders say he feels ‘crucified’ living in a country which is Muslim-dominated. With as many as 300 million followers world wide Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew feels that the future of the Church in Turkey is threatened as there have been attacks over the years on the Christian properties as well as anti-Christian movements.
The episode showed that empty churches and lack of recognition of the minority religion by the government is almost threatening to destroy the very foundations of Christendom. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who is the leader of 300 Million of the world’s orthodox Christians, said that he is adamant to stay in Turkey because he felt that the orthodox Christians loved the country they were born in and want to die in. At the turn of the century there were as many as 2 million orthodox Christians but now there are merely 4000 left.
Observance of the rights of the minority – especially the religious minority – should be a litmus test for any country claiming to govern democratically. On this score, Turkey fails miserably.
And both Turkey and Morocco will have to have a lot more actual achievements to demonstrate before anyone should be comfortable about hailing them as examples of positive change in the MENA region.
We should applaud them for how far they’ve come. And we should be prepared to help them form more perfect unions – if and when we’re invited.
Such is the state of U.S. cable news and most other traditional media that when two big stories happen at the same time the rest of the world might just as well not exist.
Journalists and their editors are currently preoccupied with Libya and Japan, one caused by man-made hubris, the other triggered by natural disasters.
But as important as these stories undoubtedly are, there are other important events taking place and are largely going uncovered or under-covered by the so-called mainstream media.
So the American public might be forgiven if it didn’t know that dictators in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle East autocracies are banning demonstrations, violently breaking up gathering of protesters, and using paid mercenaries, snipers and its own security services to kill its own people.
Yemen is important to the U.S. because it is the home of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; US forces work with the Yemeni government to locate and snuff out the terrorists.
Bahrain is important to the U.S. because it is important to Saudi Arabia, a supplier of oil. Sunni Bahrain, just down the causeway from Sunni Saudi Arabia, sent in 2,000 troops to help Bahraini forces to help the king hang on to power. Bahrain and the Saudis are worried about the restiveness among the country’s Shia majority, and that majority, largely in the Eastern part of the tiny country, finding common cause with Saudi’s Shias, just across the bay. There have been a number of deaths in the past few days perpetrated by government soldiers and police.
In Saudi Arabia itself, the country’s aging king is attempting to “buy off” the protesters by sinking huge amounts of money into job-creating and training programs, plus giving each Saudi family a substantial cash gift.
In Syria, often thought to be the least likely target of pro-democracy forces because of the iron grip of President Basher al-Asad, demonstrations have grown larger and larger over the past few days and the Syrian military and police are accused of killing many demonstrators. Syria is said to be important to the U.S. because of its prospective role in peace talks with Israel.
And while this enormous ferment is going on, the United States is remaining virtually mute because it says these countries share strategic interests with Washington. Yemen holds the key to the defeat of Al Qaeda. The U.S. Fifth Fleet is housed in Bahrain. Saudi Arabia provides the U.S. with some 12 per cent of its oil; and countries in its sphere of influence account for a market share many times 12 per cent.
Libya is an oil-producer too. But it is ranked 17th in terms of world oil production and produces only about two per cent of world supply. Its oil is sold largely into Europe. Arguably it has zero strategic interest to the U.S., thus making it far easier to decide to proceed with the UN-endorsed, multi-nation “no fly” program on “humanitarian grounds.”
You may have seen snippets of reports on all these happenings during last week or so, and a lot more than snippets if you were watching Al Jazeera or the Real News Network via McClatchy Newspapers.
But what you almost certainly did not see or read much about is what might qualify as “good news” in the Middle East and North Africa.
Some of that hopeful news concerns Morocco. In the March 18 issue of Politico.com David Avital and David Halperin report that Morocco’s King Mohammed VI has established “a foundation for reform.”
Avital and Halperin recommend that the U.S. look to Morocco as a template. “While seeking to curb extremists from taking advantage of the unrest, Washington must change its habit of blindly supporting friendly autocrats, who favor stability over freedom. The U.S. must also work with its regional allies on reforms to create a blueprint for the model modern
Muslim state.”
The authors acknowledge that the Moroccan “model has yet to emerge.” Avital is an executive committee member of Israel Policy Forum. Halperin is a policy analyst at Israel Policy Forum and the Center for American Progress.
Morocco’s progress in recent years, they say, has been significant. “Since
becoming king in 1999, Mohammed VI broke away from his father’s brutal
policies during the ‘Years of Lead’ and immediately began a series of
liberalizing reforms.”
These include permitting the return of political exiles, holding legislative elections, enhancing investing to alleviate poverty, modifying the criminal code and setting up the first truth and reconciliation commission in the Arab world to help mend the wounds of the past and set a new course, they write.
An article by Intissar Fakir, a special assistant to the Deputy President of the National Endowment for Democracy, published in the Arab Reform Bulletin, notes that King Mohammed VI’s March 9 pledge to sponsor broad constitutional reforms following moderately-sized protests on February 20 distinguishes him from other leaders in the region, most of whom have “offered too little in terms of reforms and offered them too late in the process of uprisings to make a difference. On the surface, King Mohammed’s proposed reforms are significant.”
But the lack of specifics about the depth of these reforms creates doubt in view of past experiences, the article says, adding:
“King Mohammed announced in a televised speech a process of constitutional change that will be put to a popular referendum. Proposed reforms would increase the parliament’s powers in unspecified ways, create a more independent judiciary, and grant elected officials executive powers at the provincial and local level within a decentralization scheme first introduced in 2010.
“Decentralization will redistribute power from an appointed governor to new regional representatives to be elected by the people. Under the reforms, the prime minister would have greater executive powers, and the revised constitution would contain greater assurances of political and civil liberties and human rights.
“A commission headed by constitutional law expert Abdelatif Mennouni is tasked with consulting with representatives of labor unions, political parties, civil society, and other interest groups to discuss the scope of these reforms over the coming months.
“The 18-member commission will include representatives from professional syndicates and human rights groups (such as Amina Bouayach of the Moroccan Organization of Human Rights), political activists, judges, as well as technocrats such as Omar Izziman and Lahcen Oulhaj (who represents Amazigh/Berber interests). The committee’s recommendations will be reviewed in June and then put to a national referendum. The king indicated that as soon as these reforms are ratified, they will be implemented.”
But despite the reform-minded agenda of its King, Human Rights Watch has reported that Morocco's security forces have sometimes dispersed large demonstrations “with considerable violence.”
But today (Feb. 20), says Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, “the security forces allowed Moroccan citizens to march peacefully to demand profound changes in how their country is governed.”
“Thousands of Moroccans in cities across the country demonstrated in favor of political reform on February 20, 2011. Mostly peaceful demonstrations and marches took place in towns and villages largely without interference from police, who in some areas were barely in evidence,” she said.
HRW said Morocco's demonstrators encountered none of the deadly force utilized by the security forces against protesters in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen.
“The partnership between the United States, Morocco and the Moroccan people,” Burns said, “is a very high priority for President Obama and Secretary Clinton. It’s never been more important than at this moment.”
Seizing this moment requires the United States to work with Morocco on a blueprint for systematic political and economic reforms that proactively respond to the region’s spreading unrest. A U.S. effort to help Morocco achieve a balance between these reforms and reverence for its own history and religious tradition would be a crucial symbol for the developing Middle East — and its growing ties with the West, HRW says.
Even more important, a U.S.-supported program to encourage greater media freedom, economic development and open political debate could jumpstart a path for Morocco to realize its leadership as a model for re-shaping the Arab world.
Others have suggested that Turkey offers a more reliable template for real change in the Middle East because, while it is still a work in progress, many of its reforms have come to fruition as a result of the governance process.
On the other hand, according to HRW, “Well-founded concerns persist in Turkey about politically motivated prosecutions. Prosecutors and judges have pursued unwarranted cases against journalists and editors, human rights defenders, individuals participating in demonstrations, and those engaged in legal pro-Kurdish political activity.”
The trial of Pınar Selek is an example. It is what HRW calls “a perversion of the criminal justice system and abuse of due process. The pursuit of this case for 12 years violates the most basic requirements for a fair trial. These baseless charges should be dropped once and for all.”
According to Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey researcher at Human Rights Watch. (Istanbul), “The third attempt to convict the human rights activist and writer Pınar Selek on allegations that she was involved in a 1998 deadly explosion is a travesty of justice.”
Here’s the background: In 1998, Selek, then 27, had been working on a street art project in Istanbul when she was arrested. A 19-year-old youth, Abdülmecit Öztürk, was also arrested. The case against them was based on the repeatedly contested claim that the explosion was caused by a bombing and on an allegation of Selek's guilt made by Öztürk during interrogation. He later retracted his allegation in court, saying he had been coerced into making the accusation under torture by police. Selek also alleges she was severely tortured in police custody.
On February 9, 2011, Selek was scheduled to stand trial for her alleged involvement in a 1998 explosion in Istanbul's Spice Bazaar that killed seven people and injured more than 100. It is the third attempt to convict her for carrying out a lethal bombing, despite substantial evidence that there was no bombing and that the explosion was the result of a gas leak.
The court where the third round of this trial will be held, Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 12, has acquitted Selek and her former co-defendant twice on the same charges, in 2006 and 2008. The prosecutor appealed each time.
Despite the evidence from multiple expert bodies showing that the explosion was caused by a gas leak, Turkey's top court of appeal, the Court of Cassation, ordered her retrial again on February 9, 2010, saying that the explosion was a bombing she carried out on behalf of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Selek's co-defendant, who later testified that he did not know her, had originally made a false confession under police torture, implicating Selek. While he was acquitted of all charges, and his acquittal upheld, the inadmissible evidence in the form of this confession remains the sole basis of the case against Selek.
The Court of Cassation's most recent ruling calling for the third trial said that Selek should be retried under article 125 of the previous Turkish Penal Code (law no. 765), which deals with crimes against the integrity of the state, including armed attacks by outlawed separatist groups. She would face a sentence of aggravated life imprisonment, a life sentence without the possibility of release.
Selek is a sociologist who has campaigned and written extensively on human rights issues in Turkey, including issues of gender, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights as well as Kurdish and other minority rights. Her trial is one of the most striking instances of this pattern of unfair trials that appear politically motivated, Human Rights Watch said.
"The 12-year-long campaign to convict Selek for something that the evidence has repeatedly demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that she could not have done, shows that Turkey has a long way to go toward upholding fair trial standards and ensuring judicial independence," Sinclair-Webb said.
Police reports initially discounted a bombing and suggested the explosion was caused by a gas leakage. While the prosecutor who indicted Selek and Öztürk labeled the explosion a bombing, this was later refuted by three separate reports from experts in different university departments. Autopsy reports from the Forensic Medical Institute's First Special Department and later its General Board did not find any evidence that the deaths were caused by a bombing.
When Öztürk was acquitted on all charges, which the Court of Cassation upheld, the original trial court ruled that his statement was inadmissible as evidence against Selek. No other evidence, testimonial or forensic, was ever offered to establish any link between Selek and the explosion.
A written statement purportedly made by Öztürk's aunt in which she allegedly identified Selek as having visited her home was shown to have been fabricated when it became clear in court that his aunt spoke only Kurdish, not Turkish, and she testified that the police had forced her to sign a paper whose contents she did not know. In court, both Öztürk and his aunt stated that they had never even met Selek.
I have another misgiving about Turkey as a template for Middle East democracy. It is that country’s absurd treatment of the Orthodox Christian Church.
In an August 2010 episode of ‘60 Minutes,’ the audience heard one of the world’s most important Christian leaders say he feels ‘crucified’ living in a country which is Muslim-dominated. With as many as 300 million followers world wide Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew feels that the future of the Church in Turkey is threatened as there have been attacks over the years on the Christian properties as well as anti-Christian movements.
The episode showed that empty churches and lack of recognition of the minority religion by the government is almost threatening to destroy the very foundations of Christendom. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who is the leader of 300 Million of the world’s orthodox Christians, said that he is adamant to stay in Turkey because he felt that the orthodox Christians loved the country they were born in and want to die in. At the turn of the century there were as many as 2 million orthodox Christians but now there are merely 4000 left.
Observance of the rights of the minority – especially the religious minority – should be a litmus test for any country claiming to govern democratically. On this score, Turkey fails miserably.
And both Turkey and Morocco will have to have a lot more actual achievements to demonstrate before anyone should be comfortable about hailing them as examples of positive change in the MENA region.
We should applaud them for how far they’ve come. And we should be prepared to help them form more perfect unions – if and when we’re invited.
Egypt: For Now, Euphoria Trumps Details
By William Fisher
Millions of Egyptians turned out in record numbers, proud and euphoric, to vote in a referendum that will help determine important next steps in Egypt’s democratization.
For most, Saturday’s vote was the first they had ever cast in a poll that was not suspected of being rigged and fraudulent. They were proud that it was their spirit and perseverance that brought down the regime of Hosni Mubarak and made this referendum possible. And they were euphoric – though perhaps still a bit unbelieving – that they now had the opportunity to create a government they would be proud of.
But results of the referendum confirmed that there are deep divisions between the various groups that comprised Egypt’s spectacular version of The Arab Spring, which brought down a 30-year dictator in xmxm DAYS.
Of the approximately 18 million men and women who turned out to cast their ballots, 14.1 million (77.2 per cent) voted to approve the nine constitutional amendments. Four million (22.8 per cent) voted against them.
The turnout – 41 per cent of the country’s 45 million eligible voters – was the largest in Egypt’s history.
In announcing the results, Mohamed Ahmed Attia, the chairman of the supreme judicial committee, which supervised the elections, said, “We had an unprecedented turnout because after Jan. 25 people started to feel that their vote would matter.”
In general terms, the liberal wing of the Tahrir Square protesters, voted against approving the amendments. Their principal objection was that the military government did not allow the people enough time to organize political parties and build effective “get out the vote” programs. They also objected to having to vote for all nine amendments as either ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Those who voted to accept the amendments were largely influenced by groups that had built “get out the vote” programs, i.e. The Muslim Brotherhood and the remnants of the National Democratic Party, which was the party of deposed President Hosni Mubarak.
These parties are older and relatively well-established, despite the fact that for many years the Muslim Brotherhood has been outlawed. Its members ran for office as “independents” and the Mubarak regime turned a blind eye until 2010, when the government arrested many MB candidates to keep them from running. In the 2005 election, the Brotherhood won 20 per cent of Parliamentary seats but failed to secure a single one in 2010.
Preliminary analysis of the votes suggested that most of the ‘no’ votes came from Egypt’s urban areas, with ‘yes’ votes carrying the country’s provincial governorates.
Many expert observers were surprised by the outcome. For example, Joel Beinin, professor of Middle East history at Stanford University and a contributing editor at Middle East Report, said, "The Revolutionary Youth Coalition, after an internal debate, has decided to reject the constitutional amendments. Polls, while not entirely reliable, indicate that a majority of Egyptians likewise reject the amendments. The reason is that the amendments address only a few articles relating to election procedures and leave the rest of the highly undemocratic 1971 constitution intact. Many believe that the first step in constructing a democratic Egypt is to convene a committee of experts to draft a democratic constitution which would be submitted for a referendum."
The ruling military council, uncomfortable with the job of governing, was responsible for the short notice given before the Saturday referendum. The referendum triggered a rapid process that will see legislative elections in June and a race for the Presidency in August.
Over the years, the Mubarak regime had created various amendments to the 1971 Constitution. Their purpose was to make it virtually impossible to become a candidate, become a recognized political party, impose term limits, and have competent and independent monitoring of all elections.
If the process proceeds according to the timetable proposed by the military council, the new constitutions will be written by the Parliament that’s elected in June.
If candidates from the Muslim Brotherhood do well in the parliamentary election, they will be in a position to exert heavy influence on the language of the new constitution.
The Brotherhood “will hijack the revolution, and they will not listen to us,”
said Wael Biltagi, 40, an owner of a plastics factory, told the New York Times. “They are stubborn and nobody knows their real intentions. They think they are right and everybody else is wrong. But that is not what the revolution is about.”
While many political players advocated for a complete re-write of the constitution, the committee appointed by the interim military rulers was mandated only to write amendments.
The government said the committee’s work would be responsive to the leaders of the Tahrir Square opposition. They want the constitutional changes to reflect clearer separation of powers, strengthening of an independent judiciary, clear rules governing establishment of political parties, and less power for the president.
But there appeared to have been little consultation between the drafting committee and the opposition as preparation of the amendments progressed. The amendments were announced on Feb. 25 after virtually no public discussion by an 11-member committee of experts chosen by the military. This lack of opportunity for input angered many of the more liberal Tahrir Square groups.
The Arab Reform Bulletin (ARB) reported that because of the huge turnout, more than 1.5 million additional ballots had to be printed in order to accommodate voter turnout.
“Lines stretched for more than one mile in some places, as thousands were lined up outside the polling stations. High numbers of women were seen voting, and the lines for the polling stations were extremely diverse with regard to age, religion, and background. Observers and monitoring groups have reported that the process has unfolded smoothly across the country, with minimal security disruptions.”
The ARB said the Egyptian Coalition for Monitoring the Referendum issued a preliminary report of the referendum, citing scattered issues including some stations failing to open on time, votes being cast outside of the regulatory curtains, some ballot boxes without locks, the un-washable ink on voters' fingers coming off, and a large number of voting forms being unstamped.
The report also mentions that Muslim Brotherhood members have been telling people to vote 'Yes' as they queue.
The referendum came in for criticism by four human rights groups, who filed complaints with the higher judicial committee alleging some irregularities during the voting.
The groups, including Observers without Borders, the New World Foundation for Development and Human Rights, said members of the National Democratic Party and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Salafists tried to influence voters during voting held for the constitutional amendments.
Even officials at polling stations attempted to convince voters to vote "yes",
they said. They also alleged that there were no judges at several polling stations.
There was little violence, despite the small numbers of police and soldiers around polling places. In Mubarak’s time, the army was normally present in significant numbers and often interfered with those who were voting or queuing up to vote.
But in one well-publicized incident, presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei was pelted with rocks and struck with batons, and his car’s windscreen was shattered. It was later asserted that the attack came from a paid mob of criminals, paid by Islamists, though no one has yet produced any evidence.
Another aspect of the referendum is providing a cause for concern among the pro-democracy supporters. The Christian Coptic turnout was a major disappointment to many who thought a heavy Coptic vote could help turn the tide toward a “no” note. But the Copts – 10 per cent of Egypt’s population or 85 million citizens -- more or less sat on their hands. Many Copts evidently thought their vote would be meaningless.
In the months preceding Mubarak’s ouster, relations between the Copts and the government were extremely troubled. Long discriminated against in a host of ways, churches and homes were burned by, it is believed, Islamists who want to establish a Muslim theocracy. This is one of dozens of issues not addressed in any of the amendments.
For a host of other reasons, many Egyptians simply had a tough time making up their minds about which way to vote. Radio talk show host Samar Dahmash Jarrah told The Public Record, “I have had many different Egyptians on our live radio show, True Talk, in Tampa. Most were active participants in the Jan. 25 revolt and all have voted differently on the referendum! Both sides have their own reasons on why they voted ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ and none of these reasons had to do with religion or being conservative or liberal. Many Egyptians who voted ‘Yes’ did so because they want to move on and pay attention to the larger issues that Egypt faces like poverty, Education and Tourism.”
She adds, “My very own family who lives in Egypt voted ‘No’ and ‘Yes!’ One household couldn’t agree on one vote and I guess this is what democracy is after all and this is what counts.”
My old friend Herb Williamson has lived in Egypt for more than twenty years. We worked together when I lived in Egypt. Herb, an American expat, is an Agri-business Development Consultant working on an international donor-funded project. I think his view of the referendum pretty well sums up the way most Egyptians see it.
“In my very humble opinion,” he says, “I think the long term (i.e., six months) consequences of the ‘yes’ decision puts pressure on the less organized political groups to get their act together very quickly if they want to compete successfully against the more established and better organized groups - e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).”
He adds: “Having said that, I think MB will have to work very hard in the upcoming parliamentary elections as many who voted ‘yes’ were simply voting for stability rather the perceived instability a ‘no’ vote would have brought. For example, my housekeeper voted ‘yes,’ because she wants stability. She has no interest in MB. I look forward to the coming six months as they will be full of great debates and arguments as Egyptians progress further down the path of democratic reform!!!”
And he concluded: “The good news is that Egyptians, both those who voted ‘yes’ and those who voted ‘no’, are still savoring last Saturday as it was the first time they had ever voted!!!”
“The first time they had ever voted” – that’s the beauty part. I can understand people raising objections to this or that infraction at the polling places. I can understand that it might have been better for people to be able to vote on each amendment separately.
And I can even understand the Army being uncomfortable with the job of governance; armies are not trained to govern. And they are particularly not trained to govern democratically. They are guided by discipline, hierarchy and the chain of command. They are good at war-fighting, not so good at peace-making.
That said, it’s unfortunate that the generals felt they had to depend only on their own internal resources for guidance. Egypt is home to a host of professionals, experienced in consensus-building. Had any of these men and women been consulted, their first bit of advice would have been: Be transparent; let your constituents know what you’re doing and why; invite their thoughts and incorporate the good ones; share your work as it progresses, not simply the final product.
While there was little consultation with constituents, there was a lot more than would have been the case under the Mubarak regime. The Army met with 25 leaders of political parties, in addition to the Muslim Brotherhood, to discuss the constitutional amendments and mechanisms for impending elections. But no one will argue that a single meeting satisfies the need for transparency.
Still, it is very early days for democracy in Egypt. We shouldn’t be surprised that the army has made some mistakes. Be thankful that none of them seems to be life threatening.
However, down the road, what will be a lot more worrying will be a democratically elected president and his (or her) government making the same mistakes.
Millions of Egyptians turned out in record numbers, proud and euphoric, to vote in a referendum that will help determine important next steps in Egypt’s democratization.
For most, Saturday’s vote was the first they had ever cast in a poll that was not suspected of being rigged and fraudulent. They were proud that it was their spirit and perseverance that brought down the regime of Hosni Mubarak and made this referendum possible. And they were euphoric – though perhaps still a bit unbelieving – that they now had the opportunity to create a government they would be proud of.
But results of the referendum confirmed that there are deep divisions between the various groups that comprised Egypt’s spectacular version of The Arab Spring, which brought down a 30-year dictator in xmxm DAYS.
Of the approximately 18 million men and women who turned out to cast their ballots, 14.1 million (77.2 per cent) voted to approve the nine constitutional amendments. Four million (22.8 per cent) voted against them.
The turnout – 41 per cent of the country’s 45 million eligible voters – was the largest in Egypt’s history.
In announcing the results, Mohamed Ahmed Attia, the chairman of the supreme judicial committee, which supervised the elections, said, “We had an unprecedented turnout because after Jan. 25 people started to feel that their vote would matter.”
In general terms, the liberal wing of the Tahrir Square protesters, voted against approving the amendments. Their principal objection was that the military government did not allow the people enough time to organize political parties and build effective “get out the vote” programs. They also objected to having to vote for all nine amendments as either ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Those who voted to accept the amendments were largely influenced by groups that had built “get out the vote” programs, i.e. The Muslim Brotherhood and the remnants of the National Democratic Party, which was the party of deposed President Hosni Mubarak.
These parties are older and relatively well-established, despite the fact that for many years the Muslim Brotherhood has been outlawed. Its members ran for office as “independents” and the Mubarak regime turned a blind eye until 2010, when the government arrested many MB candidates to keep them from running. In the 2005 election, the Brotherhood won 20 per cent of Parliamentary seats but failed to secure a single one in 2010.
Preliminary analysis of the votes suggested that most of the ‘no’ votes came from Egypt’s urban areas, with ‘yes’ votes carrying the country’s provincial governorates.
Many expert observers were surprised by the outcome. For example, Joel Beinin, professor of Middle East history at Stanford University and a contributing editor at Middle East Report, said, "The Revolutionary Youth Coalition, after an internal debate, has decided to reject the constitutional amendments. Polls, while not entirely reliable, indicate that a majority of Egyptians likewise reject the amendments. The reason is that the amendments address only a few articles relating to election procedures and leave the rest of the highly undemocratic 1971 constitution intact. Many believe that the first step in constructing a democratic Egypt is to convene a committee of experts to draft a democratic constitution which would be submitted for a referendum."
The ruling military council, uncomfortable with the job of governing, was responsible for the short notice given before the Saturday referendum. The referendum triggered a rapid process that will see legislative elections in June and a race for the Presidency in August.
Over the years, the Mubarak regime had created various amendments to the 1971 Constitution. Their purpose was to make it virtually impossible to become a candidate, become a recognized political party, impose term limits, and have competent and independent monitoring of all elections.
If the process proceeds according to the timetable proposed by the military council, the new constitutions will be written by the Parliament that’s elected in June.
If candidates from the Muslim Brotherhood do well in the parliamentary election, they will be in a position to exert heavy influence on the language of the new constitution.
The Brotherhood “will hijack the revolution, and they will not listen to us,”
said Wael Biltagi, 40, an owner of a plastics factory, told the New York Times. “They are stubborn and nobody knows their real intentions. They think they are right and everybody else is wrong. But that is not what the revolution is about.”
While many political players advocated for a complete re-write of the constitution, the committee appointed by the interim military rulers was mandated only to write amendments.
The government said the committee’s work would be responsive to the leaders of the Tahrir Square opposition. They want the constitutional changes to reflect clearer separation of powers, strengthening of an independent judiciary, clear rules governing establishment of political parties, and less power for the president.
But there appeared to have been little consultation between the drafting committee and the opposition as preparation of the amendments progressed. The amendments were announced on Feb. 25 after virtually no public discussion by an 11-member committee of experts chosen by the military. This lack of opportunity for input angered many of the more liberal Tahrir Square groups.
The Arab Reform Bulletin (ARB) reported that because of the huge turnout, more than 1.5 million additional ballots had to be printed in order to accommodate voter turnout.
“Lines stretched for more than one mile in some places, as thousands were lined up outside the polling stations. High numbers of women were seen voting, and the lines for the polling stations were extremely diverse with regard to age, religion, and background. Observers and monitoring groups have reported that the process has unfolded smoothly across the country, with minimal security disruptions.”
The ARB said the Egyptian Coalition for Monitoring the Referendum issued a preliminary report of the referendum, citing scattered issues including some stations failing to open on time, votes being cast outside of the regulatory curtains, some ballot boxes without locks, the un-washable ink on voters' fingers coming off, and a large number of voting forms being unstamped.
The report also mentions that Muslim Brotherhood members have been telling people to vote 'Yes' as they queue.
The referendum came in for criticism by four human rights groups, who filed complaints with the higher judicial committee alleging some irregularities during the voting.
The groups, including Observers without Borders, the New World Foundation for Development and Human Rights, said members of the National Democratic Party and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Salafists tried to influence voters during voting held for the constitutional amendments.
Even officials at polling stations attempted to convince voters to vote "yes",
they said. They also alleged that there were no judges at several polling stations.
There was little violence, despite the small numbers of police and soldiers around polling places. In Mubarak’s time, the army was normally present in significant numbers and often interfered with those who were voting or queuing up to vote.
But in one well-publicized incident, presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei was pelted with rocks and struck with batons, and his car’s windscreen was shattered. It was later asserted that the attack came from a paid mob of criminals, paid by Islamists, though no one has yet produced any evidence.
Another aspect of the referendum is providing a cause for concern among the pro-democracy supporters. The Christian Coptic turnout was a major disappointment to many who thought a heavy Coptic vote could help turn the tide toward a “no” note. But the Copts – 10 per cent of Egypt’s population or 85 million citizens -- more or less sat on their hands. Many Copts evidently thought their vote would be meaningless.
In the months preceding Mubarak’s ouster, relations between the Copts and the government were extremely troubled. Long discriminated against in a host of ways, churches and homes were burned by, it is believed, Islamists who want to establish a Muslim theocracy. This is one of dozens of issues not addressed in any of the amendments.
For a host of other reasons, many Egyptians simply had a tough time making up their minds about which way to vote. Radio talk show host Samar Dahmash Jarrah told The Public Record, “I have had many different Egyptians on our live radio show, True Talk, in Tampa. Most were active participants in the Jan. 25 revolt and all have voted differently on the referendum! Both sides have their own reasons on why they voted ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ and none of these reasons had to do with religion or being conservative or liberal. Many Egyptians who voted ‘Yes’ did so because they want to move on and pay attention to the larger issues that Egypt faces like poverty, Education and Tourism.”
She adds, “My very own family who lives in Egypt voted ‘No’ and ‘Yes!’ One household couldn’t agree on one vote and I guess this is what democracy is after all and this is what counts.”
My old friend Herb Williamson has lived in Egypt for more than twenty years. We worked together when I lived in Egypt. Herb, an American expat, is an Agri-business Development Consultant working on an international donor-funded project. I think his view of the referendum pretty well sums up the way most Egyptians see it.
“In my very humble opinion,” he says, “I think the long term (i.e., six months) consequences of the ‘yes’ decision puts pressure on the less organized political groups to get their act together very quickly if they want to compete successfully against the more established and better organized groups - e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).”
He adds: “Having said that, I think MB will have to work very hard in the upcoming parliamentary elections as many who voted ‘yes’ were simply voting for stability rather the perceived instability a ‘no’ vote would have brought. For example, my housekeeper voted ‘yes,’ because she wants stability. She has no interest in MB. I look forward to the coming six months as they will be full of great debates and arguments as Egyptians progress further down the path of democratic reform!!!”
And he concluded: “The good news is that Egyptians, both those who voted ‘yes’ and those who voted ‘no’, are still savoring last Saturday as it was the first time they had ever voted!!!”
“The first time they had ever voted” – that’s the beauty part. I can understand people raising objections to this or that infraction at the polling places. I can understand that it might have been better for people to be able to vote on each amendment separately.
And I can even understand the Army being uncomfortable with the job of governance; armies are not trained to govern. And they are particularly not trained to govern democratically. They are guided by discipline, hierarchy and the chain of command. They are good at war-fighting, not so good at peace-making.
That said, it’s unfortunate that the generals felt they had to depend only on their own internal resources for guidance. Egypt is home to a host of professionals, experienced in consensus-building. Had any of these men and women been consulted, their first bit of advice would have been: Be transparent; let your constituents know what you’re doing and why; invite their thoughts and incorporate the good ones; share your work as it progresses, not simply the final product.
While there was little consultation with constituents, there was a lot more than would have been the case under the Mubarak regime. The Army met with 25 leaders of political parties, in addition to the Muslim Brotherhood, to discuss the constitutional amendments and mechanisms for impending elections. But no one will argue that a single meeting satisfies the need for transparency.
Still, it is very early days for democracy in Egypt. We shouldn’t be surprised that the army has made some mistakes. Be thankful that none of them seems to be life threatening.
However, down the road, what will be a lot more worrying will be a democratically elected president and his (or her) government making the same mistakes.
Egypt: ‘Virginity Tests’ For Women Protesters?
By William Fisher
I know this sounds like something out of Torquemada in the 15th Century or Mengele in the 20th. But it’s neither. It’s post-Mubarak Egypt in the second decade of the 21st Century.
Amnesty International has today called on the Egyptian authorities to investigate serious allegations of torture, including forced ‘virginity tests’, inflicted by the army on women protesters arrested in Tahrir Square earlier this month.
After army officers violently cleared the square of protesters on March 9, at least 18women were held in military detention. Amnesty International has been told by women protesters that they were beaten, given electric shocks, subjected to strip searches while being photographed by male soldiers, then forced to submit to ‘virginity checks’ and threatened with prostitution charges.
‘Virginity tests’ are a form of torture when they are forced or coerced.
"Forcing women to have ‘virginity tests’ is utterly unacceptable. Its purpose is to degrade women because they are women," said Amnesty International. "All members of the medical profession must refuse to take part in such so-called 'tests'."
Twenty-year-old Salwa Hosseini told Amnesty International that after she was arrested and taken to a military prison in Heikstep, she was made, with the other women, to take off all her clothes to be searched by a female prison guard, in a room with two open doors and a window. During the strip search, Hosseini said male soldiers were looking into the room and taking pictures of the naked women.
The women were then subjected to ‘virginity tests’ in a different room by a man in a white coat. They were threatened that “those not found to be virgins” would be charged with prostitution.
According to information received by Amnesty International, one woman who said she was a virgin but whose test supposedly proved otherwise was beaten and given electric shocks.
“Women and girls must be able to express their views on the future of Egypt and protest against the government without being detained, tortured, or subjected to profoundly degrading and discriminatory treatment,” said Amnesty International. “The army officers tried to further humiliate the women by allowing men to watch and photograph what was happening, with the implicit threat that the women could be at further risk of harm if the photographs were made public.”
Journalist Rasha Azeb was also detained in Tahrir Square and told Amnesty International that she was handcuffed, beaten and insulted.
Following their arrest, the 18 women were initially taken to a Cairo Museum annex where they were reportedly handcuffed, beaten with sticks and hoses, given electric shocks in the chest and legs, and called “prostitutes.”
Azeb could see and hear the other detained women being tortured by being given electric shocks throughout their detention at the museum. She was released several hours later with four other men who were also journalists, but 17 other women were transferred to the military prison in Heikstep.
Testimonies of other women detained at the same time collected by the El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence are consistent with Azeb and Hosseini’s accounts of beatings, electrocution and ‘virginity tests’.
“The Egyptian authorities must halt the shocking and degrading treatment of women protesters. Women fully participated in bringing change in Egypt and should not be punished for their activism,” said Amnesty International. “All security and army forces must be clearly instructed that torture and other ill-treatment, including forced ‘virginity tests’, will no longer be tolerated, and will be fully investigated. Those found responsible for such acts must be brought to justice and the courageous women who denounced such abuses be protected from reprisals.”
All 17 women detained in the military prison were brought before a military court on March 11 and released on March 13. Several received one-year suspended prison sentences.
Hosseini was convicted of disorderly conduct, destroying private and public property, obstructing traffic and carrying weapons.
Amnesty International opposes the trial of civilians before military courts in Egypt, which have a track record of unfair trials and where the right to appeal is severely restricted.
This latest report of barbaric behavior by members of Egypt’s armed forces raises serious questions about the people who are running the country and its services during the present interim period until elections can be held this summer.
The women’s complaints follow testimonies from dozens of male Tahrir Square demonstrators that they were arrested, detained, and abused by the Army as they attempted to make their way across Tahrir Square at night.
The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information reported that “hundreds of thousands” of Egyptians demonstrated in Tahrir Square on Friday in protest the continuation of Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik in office. The group said the protestors demanded the dissolution of the state security apparatus and the release prisoners of conscience.
Despite their continued cheers in support of the army, army units assaulted the protesters, beating and chasing them on the streets of Cairo using electric batons that led to many casualties, the organization charged.
One of the abused demonstrators, whose name is being withheld for his safety, blogged the following first hand account of what occurred:
“We were a little less than 150 people [in Tahrir Square] that night [February 25]. At around 11:30 in the evening of the 25th of February, army soldiers formed a cordon around us without violations; one of my friends thinks this might have been their way of kettling us and making sure our numbers don’t grow around the ministerial cabinet.
They dismantled their human cordon at 15 minutes past midnight of the 26th of February. At around that time we started hearing news of the sit-in in Tahrir being violently dispersed. And at around 1:30 am that very night, the army started using electric batons to disperse the sit-in and of-course we ran. They continued to push, beat and kick at us, until they managed to disperse us.
“And then I was arrested…As I ran, I came across a fallen protestor, and stopped to check on him. An officer grabbed me and started to push and beat at me and I said to him “Don’t hit! Just arrest me!” They pulled me into a garage in the ministerial cabinet; and this is where the physical and moral torture began.
“In the ministerial cabinet’s garage…I was shocked at the numbers of army personnel beating up protestors in the garage. At first I thought these must have been thugs, but before I had a chance to finish the thought, I was pulled very roughly and ordered to squat on the ground. With that they started to kick at every part of my body; I tried to cover my face to protect it, but one of the officers pulled my arm away and stepped on my face pushing it to the ground, while they tied my hands behind my back. They – Lieutenants, First Lieutenants and a row of officers and soldiers -- then proceeded to kick at my face as if my head were a soccer-ball.
“Others around me were much worse off. One was stripped bare in the cold and sprayed with water and beaten, while another was beaten until his shoulder was dislocated, while others were electrocuted with the electric batons. One protestor called out to declare he had a heart condition; and they shouted back at him to ask what he was doing in a protest if he had such a condition, as they proceeded to pull his hand away from his heart, and kick him where it was.
“Twice we heard what sounded like a high-ranking officer giving an order to end the beating “No one hit any of them anymore!”. But as soon as he would leave, the beating would start again; it was difficult to tell if they really weren’t following orders, or if the whole thing was just theatrical. For the beating never ceased.
“What was said in the Garage…What was worse than the beating and the insults, were the accusations that the officers and military personnel were throwing at us while we were in there. When I first got in they played the old reel of accusations related to treachery and our being spies; I could even hear an officer shout as he beat a protestor “And you’re getting 50 Euros to insult president Mubarak?
“And while we were all hearing variations of this, each of us was specifically asked to say “Long live Hosni Mubarak”, and those who refused got a fresh course of beating. It was clear to us that they didn’t think they were dealing with thugs, but believed they were dealing with paid security threats.
“And one of the personal violations that I could note is their occasional calling out that “We’re in Abu Ghareeb [Abu Ghraib] here,” as they piled protestors on top of each other and beat them.”
It remained unclear why the government soldiers assaulted the demonstrators. The Military has apologized for the beatings, according to Muhammed Tolba, Executive Secretary of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies. The apology was confirmed by one of those who were abused, he said.
This brings back the unanswered question: Can the Egyptian people trust their Army?
Dr. Mostafa Hussein of the Nadeem Center for Victims of Torture in Cairo thinks not.
Dr. Hussein is a psychiatrist and a doctor at the Task Force Against Torture, which brings together non-profits, bloggers and activists highlighting the continuation of torture in post-Mubarak Egypt on a new web page (http://against-torture.net).
Dr. Hussein said today: "The army is engaging in massive and brutal torture. Civilians, many of them pro-democracy activists, are being detained and beaten. Then, many of them have been brought before military courts. These courts are conducted in secret, limit access to lawyers and do not allow appeals.”
Dr. Hussein adds, “People are getting sentences of three to five or even seven years for 'thuggery.' These civilians are sometimes shown on the nightly news on state TV in an apparent attempt to intimidate the public and ensure 'order.' We have testimony of people being beaten, electrocuted, whipped and seeing others beaten to death.”
"Perhaps most distressing, the media in Egypt, even the independent newspapers, are largely ignoring army torture and abuse. The army is a red line. If we're going to have a meaningful democracy in Egypt, this has to change. It's critical that outside media now cover this.”
Dr. Hussain claims she has “translated video and testimony from individuals" who were abused.
The Army is now running just about everything in Egypt, including the government. Every member of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces was appointed by deposed President Hosni Mubarak. Many have lucrative business interests facilitated by Mubarak. During the debate about the amendments to the Constitution, the Supreme Council sided with the Muslim Brotherhood and the remnants of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP) that the referendum should be held sooner rather than later, and elections for parliament and the presidency, correspondingly earlier than the more liberal Tahrir Square movement advocated.
The Armys role in the democratic revolt has been anything but transparent. They were lauded by activists for not taking sides between anti- and pro-Mubarak demonstraters. They were further praised when they came to the rescue of pro-democracy demonstraters, who were being attacked by gangs of arms thugs hired by Mubarak’s political cronies. But then they attacked peaceful protesters walking across Tahrir Square, arrested them, tortured many, and detained more.
For that kind of double-dealing, an apology is hardly sufficient. Thus far there is no serious sign that the military is inmvestigating or that it plans to file charges against the miscreant soldiers.
So the sooner a president and a legislature can be elected the sooner the Army can go back to what armies are supposed to do.
The question at that point is: Will the Military willingly report to civilian control?
Watch this space.
I know this sounds like something out of Torquemada in the 15th Century or Mengele in the 20th. But it’s neither. It’s post-Mubarak Egypt in the second decade of the 21st Century.
Amnesty International has today called on the Egyptian authorities to investigate serious allegations of torture, including forced ‘virginity tests’, inflicted by the army on women protesters arrested in Tahrir Square earlier this month.
After army officers violently cleared the square of protesters on March 9, at least 18women were held in military detention. Amnesty International has been told by women protesters that they were beaten, given electric shocks, subjected to strip searches while being photographed by male soldiers, then forced to submit to ‘virginity checks’ and threatened with prostitution charges.
‘Virginity tests’ are a form of torture when they are forced or coerced.
"Forcing women to have ‘virginity tests’ is utterly unacceptable. Its purpose is to degrade women because they are women," said Amnesty International. "All members of the medical profession must refuse to take part in such so-called 'tests'."
Twenty-year-old Salwa Hosseini told Amnesty International that after she was arrested and taken to a military prison in Heikstep, she was made, with the other women, to take off all her clothes to be searched by a female prison guard, in a room with two open doors and a window. During the strip search, Hosseini said male soldiers were looking into the room and taking pictures of the naked women.
The women were then subjected to ‘virginity tests’ in a different room by a man in a white coat. They were threatened that “those not found to be virgins” would be charged with prostitution.
According to information received by Amnesty International, one woman who said she was a virgin but whose test supposedly proved otherwise was beaten and given electric shocks.
“Women and girls must be able to express their views on the future of Egypt and protest against the government without being detained, tortured, or subjected to profoundly degrading and discriminatory treatment,” said Amnesty International. “The army officers tried to further humiliate the women by allowing men to watch and photograph what was happening, with the implicit threat that the women could be at further risk of harm if the photographs were made public.”
Journalist Rasha Azeb was also detained in Tahrir Square and told Amnesty International that she was handcuffed, beaten and insulted.
Following their arrest, the 18 women were initially taken to a Cairo Museum annex where they were reportedly handcuffed, beaten with sticks and hoses, given electric shocks in the chest and legs, and called “prostitutes.”
Azeb could see and hear the other detained women being tortured by being given electric shocks throughout their detention at the museum. She was released several hours later with four other men who were also journalists, but 17 other women were transferred to the military prison in Heikstep.
Testimonies of other women detained at the same time collected by the El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence are consistent with Azeb and Hosseini’s accounts of beatings, electrocution and ‘virginity tests’.
“The Egyptian authorities must halt the shocking and degrading treatment of women protesters. Women fully participated in bringing change in Egypt and should not be punished for their activism,” said Amnesty International. “All security and army forces must be clearly instructed that torture and other ill-treatment, including forced ‘virginity tests’, will no longer be tolerated, and will be fully investigated. Those found responsible for such acts must be brought to justice and the courageous women who denounced such abuses be protected from reprisals.”
All 17 women detained in the military prison were brought before a military court on March 11 and released on March 13. Several received one-year suspended prison sentences.
Hosseini was convicted of disorderly conduct, destroying private and public property, obstructing traffic and carrying weapons.
Amnesty International opposes the trial of civilians before military courts in Egypt, which have a track record of unfair trials and where the right to appeal is severely restricted.
This latest report of barbaric behavior by members of Egypt’s armed forces raises serious questions about the people who are running the country and its services during the present interim period until elections can be held this summer.
The women’s complaints follow testimonies from dozens of male Tahrir Square demonstrators that they were arrested, detained, and abused by the Army as they attempted to make their way across Tahrir Square at night.
The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information reported that “hundreds of thousands” of Egyptians demonstrated in Tahrir Square on Friday in protest the continuation of Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik in office. The group said the protestors demanded the dissolution of the state security apparatus and the release prisoners of conscience.
Despite their continued cheers in support of the army, army units assaulted the protesters, beating and chasing them on the streets of Cairo using electric batons that led to many casualties, the organization charged.
One of the abused demonstrators, whose name is being withheld for his safety, blogged the following first hand account of what occurred:
“We were a little less than 150 people [in Tahrir Square] that night [February 25]. At around 11:30 in the evening of the 25th of February, army soldiers formed a cordon around us without violations; one of my friends thinks this might have been their way of kettling us and making sure our numbers don’t grow around the ministerial cabinet.
They dismantled their human cordon at 15 minutes past midnight of the 26th of February. At around that time we started hearing news of the sit-in in Tahrir being violently dispersed. And at around 1:30 am that very night, the army started using electric batons to disperse the sit-in and of-course we ran. They continued to push, beat and kick at us, until they managed to disperse us.
“And then I was arrested…As I ran, I came across a fallen protestor, and stopped to check on him. An officer grabbed me and started to push and beat at me and I said to him “Don’t hit! Just arrest me!” They pulled me into a garage in the ministerial cabinet; and this is where the physical and moral torture began.
“In the ministerial cabinet’s garage…I was shocked at the numbers of army personnel beating up protestors in the garage. At first I thought these must have been thugs, but before I had a chance to finish the thought, I was pulled very roughly and ordered to squat on the ground. With that they started to kick at every part of my body; I tried to cover my face to protect it, but one of the officers pulled my arm away and stepped on my face pushing it to the ground, while they tied my hands behind my back. They – Lieutenants, First Lieutenants and a row of officers and soldiers -- then proceeded to kick at my face as if my head were a soccer-ball.
“Others around me were much worse off. One was stripped bare in the cold and sprayed with water and beaten, while another was beaten until his shoulder was dislocated, while others were electrocuted with the electric batons. One protestor called out to declare he had a heart condition; and they shouted back at him to ask what he was doing in a protest if he had such a condition, as they proceeded to pull his hand away from his heart, and kick him where it was.
“Twice we heard what sounded like a high-ranking officer giving an order to end the beating “No one hit any of them anymore!”. But as soon as he would leave, the beating would start again; it was difficult to tell if they really weren’t following orders, or if the whole thing was just theatrical. For the beating never ceased.
“What was said in the Garage…What was worse than the beating and the insults, were the accusations that the officers and military personnel were throwing at us while we were in there. When I first got in they played the old reel of accusations related to treachery and our being spies; I could even hear an officer shout as he beat a protestor “And you’re getting 50 Euros to insult president Mubarak?
“And while we were all hearing variations of this, each of us was specifically asked to say “Long live Hosni Mubarak”, and those who refused got a fresh course of beating. It was clear to us that they didn’t think they were dealing with thugs, but believed they were dealing with paid security threats.
“And one of the personal violations that I could note is their occasional calling out that “We’re in Abu Ghareeb [Abu Ghraib] here,” as they piled protestors on top of each other and beat them.”
It remained unclear why the government soldiers assaulted the demonstrators. The Military has apologized for the beatings, according to Muhammed Tolba, Executive Secretary of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies. The apology was confirmed by one of those who were abused, he said.
This brings back the unanswered question: Can the Egyptian people trust their Army?
Dr. Mostafa Hussein of the Nadeem Center for Victims of Torture in Cairo thinks not.
Dr. Hussein is a psychiatrist and a doctor at the Task Force Against Torture, which brings together non-profits, bloggers and activists highlighting the continuation of torture in post-Mubarak Egypt on a new web page (http://against-torture.net).
Dr. Hussein said today: "The army is engaging in massive and brutal torture. Civilians, many of them pro-democracy activists, are being detained and beaten. Then, many of them have been brought before military courts. These courts are conducted in secret, limit access to lawyers and do not allow appeals.”
Dr. Hussein adds, “People are getting sentences of three to five or even seven years for 'thuggery.' These civilians are sometimes shown on the nightly news on state TV in an apparent attempt to intimidate the public and ensure 'order.' We have testimony of people being beaten, electrocuted, whipped and seeing others beaten to death.”
"Perhaps most distressing, the media in Egypt, even the independent newspapers, are largely ignoring army torture and abuse. The army is a red line. If we're going to have a meaningful democracy in Egypt, this has to change. It's critical that outside media now cover this.”
Dr. Hussain claims she has “translated video and testimony from individuals" who were abused.
The Army is now running just about everything in Egypt, including the government. Every member of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces was appointed by deposed President Hosni Mubarak. Many have lucrative business interests facilitated by Mubarak. During the debate about the amendments to the Constitution, the Supreme Council sided with the Muslim Brotherhood and the remnants of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP) that the referendum should be held sooner rather than later, and elections for parliament and the presidency, correspondingly earlier than the more liberal Tahrir Square movement advocated.
The Armys role in the democratic revolt has been anything but transparent. They were lauded by activists for not taking sides between anti- and pro-Mubarak demonstraters. They were further praised when they came to the rescue of pro-democracy demonstraters, who were being attacked by gangs of arms thugs hired by Mubarak’s political cronies. But then they attacked peaceful protesters walking across Tahrir Square, arrested them, tortured many, and detained more.
For that kind of double-dealing, an apology is hardly sufficient. Thus far there is no serious sign that the military is inmvestigating or that it plans to file charges against the miscreant soldiers.
So the sooner a president and a legislature can be elected the sooner the Army can go back to what armies are supposed to do.
The question at that point is: Will the Military willingly report to civilian control?
Watch this space.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Obama: Get Out of Jail Free For Saudi Arabia and UAE in Bahrain
By William Fisher
President Barack Obama said on Friday that he was “deeply concerned by reports of violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen.” He said the United States condemns the use of violence by governments against peaceful protesters in those countries and wherever else it may occur.”
Then he went on to say, “ We express our condolences to the family and friends of those who have been killed during the demonstrations. Wherever they are, people have certain universal rights including the right to peaceful assembly.”
He concluded: “The United States urges the governments of Bahrain, Libya and Yemen to show restraint in responding to peaceful protests, and to respect the rights of their people.”
But many observers said there was something missing from this picture: There was not a word about Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), whose troops earlier this week rumbled over the 26 km causeway separating Saudi Arabia from Bahrain, to help Bahrain’s ruling family to maintain its grip on power in the face of growing protests and demands for economic democracy.
In what has lamentably become characteristic Obama behavior, the President ignored the two 900-pound gorillas in the room. One of those gorillas, Saudi Arabia, is said to be close ally of the U.S., a major supplier of its oil, a recipient of much U.S. military aid, and a steadfast partner in the so-called “war on terror.”
The other gorilla is Bahrain itself, thought (until very recently) to be a reliable U.S. ally, like Saudi Arabia, an intrepid warrior on terror, and home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet. The United States provided around $20 million in military aid to Bahrain in 2010. The slap on the wrist Bahrain received from the American President today is not likely to require medical attention.
Prior to the “Arab Spring,” the U.S. viewed Bahrain as a reasonably enlightened Arab state. During a visit to Washington in December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raved, "Bahrain has demonstrated that multi-ethnic, multi-confessional societies can address their challenges through peaceful reform and representative institutions."
Cables by US diplomats claimed that King Hamad "understands that Bahrain cannot prosper if he rules by repression." Several of the 2009 cables from the U.S. Embassy in Manama characterize King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa as an enlightened and deeply pro-American ruler who, since assuming the throne in 1999, has fostered reconciliation with the Shi'ite Muslim majority and has undertaken serious political and economic reforms,” Reuters reports.
As for The House of Saud, it evidently gets a pass on Obama’s assertion that “people have certain universal rights including the right to peaceful assembly.” In Saudi Arabia they have no such right. And the country’s aging king is currently in the process of trying to buy off his people with announcements of massive appropriations for job creation and job training, plus substantial individual money gifts for every Saudi citizen.
So far, that strategy appears to be working -- despite some announcements and preparations for a “Day of Anger” in the Kingdom, and some minor skirmishes between police and would-be democracy demonstrators.
Should that strategy show signs of weakening, there is little doubt about what the Saudis would do to quell any rising sentiment for a more equitable, representative government.
Meantime, Reuters is reporting that Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy asked the State Department to probe whether Bahrain had broken a U.S. law that prohibits aid to foreign security forces who violate human rights. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, is the author of that legislation.
Bahrain is now under a state of martial law, after fresh violence left as many as eight people dead.
Amnesty International revealed evidence of the Bahraini security forces’ systematic use of excessive force in cracking down against protesters. In a new report, “Bloodied but Unbowed: Unwarranted State Violence against Bahraini Protesters,” the organization documents how security forces used live ammunition and extreme force against protesters in February without warning and impeded and assaulted medical staff trying to help the wounded.
The report, which is based on first hand testimonies given to an Amnesty International team in Bahrain, comes as the country is gripped by further violence, after Saudi Arabian and UAE forces entered the small Gulf state three days ago and Bahrain's King declared a national state of emergency.
"It is alarming to see the Bahraini authorities now again resorting to the same tactics that they used against protesters in February but on an even more intensive scale,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“It appears that the government has decided that the way to deal with protests is through violent repression, a totally unsustainable position and one which sets an ominous example in a region where other governments are also facing popular calls for change," he said.
Dr. Hani Mowafi, a US medical doctor who was part of the Amnesty International team, found a pattern of fatal and serious injuries during February’s violence showing that the security forces used live ammunition at close range, and apparently targeted protesters’ heads, chests and abdomens.
They also fired medium-to-large caliber bullets from high-powered rifles on 18 February.
The worst violence before today took place early on the morning of 17 February, when five people were killed. Witnesses told Amnesty that, in scenes that would be repeated on 16 March, tanks blocked access to the Pearl Roundabout as police used shotguns as well as tear gas, batons and rubber bullets to disperse protesters, many of who were camping there.
One witness told Amnesty International that on 17 February riot police were shooting from different angles, including from a bridge over the roundabout, while protesters desperately ran for cover.
Among the injured were people clearly identifiable as medical workers, who were targeted by police while trying to help wounded protesters at or near the roundabout.
"All the actions of the security forces against protesters since February must be fully and independently investigated. Those responsible for ordering and unleash lethal force against peaceful protesters must be identified and held to account.”
"There must be no impunity for unlawful killings, assaults and other abuses against both protesters and medical staff."
Amnesty says it has identified some of the ammunition found in the aftermath of the raid on Pearl Roundabout on 17 February. It includes US-made tear gas canisters, US-made 37mm rubber multi-baton rounds, French-made tear gas grenades, and French-made rubber “dispersion” grenades, which fragment into 18 pieces and produce a loud sound effect.
The organization called on governments who supply weapons to Bahrain to immediately suspend the transfer of weapons, munitions and related equipment that could be used to commit further human rights violations, and to urgently review all arms supplies and training support to Bahrain’s military, security and police forces.
Following the Bahraini security forces’ use of unwarranted force against protesters, the UK government revoked some licenses for arms exports to Bahrain, and the French authorities have suspended the export of security equipment to Bahrain.
Amnesty’s report charges that “mass peaceful protests demanding political reform have shaken the Gulf state of Bahrain since mid-February. In response, the security forces initially sought to suppress the protests with brutality, killing seven protesters, injuring hundreds of others and assaulting paramedics.”
It adds, “Proper, transparent investigations that ensure accountability and justice for the victims, and a strong government commitment to respect human rights are needed now.”
Bahraini protesters today told Amnesty of bloody scenes on the streets as government security forces stepped up their violent crackdown on demonstrations and blocked access to hospitals. Government forces also surrounded hospitals and attacked doctors trying to help the wounded.
At least six people were reportedly killed in the capital Manama amid continuing protests as the army used tanks to flatten the peaceful protest camps set up in recent weeks to demand reform in the Gulf state.
"The distressing reports and images coming out of Bahrain today provide further evidence that the authorities are using lethal and other excessive force to crush protests, with reckless disregard for human life," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Director.
"Wounded protesters have also been prevented from accessing medical attention by government forces. The Bahraini authorities must immediately put a stop to this bloodshed," he said.
Security forces attacked the mainly Shia protest camp at Manama’s Pearl Roundabout camp early on Wednesday.
Family members of those wounded at the roundabout and people trying to approach the area told Amnesty International that the army opened fire on them without warning.
"I was walking towards the Pearl Roundabout… We were 5km from the roundabout when we were shot with live ammunition - one shot came one meter away from me. There were two tanks in the street and a helicopter above us," said Nabeel al Rajab, director of the banned Bahrain Center for Human Rights.
Amnesty is also receiving testimonies from medical staff who were prevented from treating the victims of violence. For example:
"We are waiting to do something and the army is not allowing us. We know there are hundreds injured and they are not allowing them to come here," said one doctor at the central Salmaniya hospital who did not wish to be named due to safety fears.
"A doctor went to the gate this morning trying to come in and the army beat him. They also threw tear gas and another type of gas at the emergency entrance of the hospital."
In a funeral procession today to mourn a dead Bahraini pro-democracy demonstrator, anti-government participants shouted, "down with King Hamad." The crackdown that killed this activist was targeted to mainly Shi'ite protesters, which angered Iran.
Bahrain’s ruling family are Sunni Muslims, while a large majority of its people are Shia. The Shia majority contends it is discriminated against in terms of funds for public works projects and government jobs.
Virtually all reputable human rights organizations are condemning Bahrain’s violent military crackdown against pro-democracy protesters.
Neil Hicks of the New York-based Human Rights First group, said “The militarization of the conflict in Bahrain will lead to further violence and violations of basic rights and freedoms. It will not address the underlying causes of the unrest – institutionalized sectarian discrimination, the absence of representative government and the lack of legal protections for basic freedoms of assembly, and association. ”
“Suppression of dissent in Bahrain with the backing of the Gulf Cooperation Council runs the risk of extending unrest to other countries in the Gulf region with sectarian tensions, including Yemen and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia,” Hicks said.
The organization called on U.S. government officials to condemn the use of violence against unarmed protesters and urge the Bahraini government to initiate wide-ranging negotiations to implement necessary political reforms.
“In light of disturbing reports that security forces are blocking medical treatment for the injured, that interference in the provision of necessary medical treatment should stop immediately. In addition, the U.S. needs to intensify its outreach to the government of Saudi Arabia to make clear its objection to the violent suppression of dissent in Bahrain or anywhere in the Gulf region,” the organization said.
Hicks concluded, “Inflaming sectarian tensions in Bahrain will not ensure stability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
For the past decade Bahrain has promoted itself as a liberal state in an
authoritarian neighborhood, on the basis of reforms by King Hamad al-Khalifa, who took power in 1999. These reforms included holding elections - though for a parliament that lacked authority - and largely abolishing torture.
The Bahraini government insinuates whenever possible that its Shia citizens, upwards of 65 percent of the population, would turn Bahrain into an Iranian client state if so allowed.
But independent observers have for several years been raising concerns about the country's return to the dark practices of the past.
In February 2010, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting the revival of torture. A trove of reports by government doctors backed up victim accounts that security forces were again suspending detainees by their arms and legs and using electro-shock devices.
In August, the government instituted a crackdown that began with arrests of opposition activists on charges of being part of a "terror network" and soon extended to the arrests of hundreds more, including children, many on vague or non-existent charges.
The government dissolved the board of a human rights group that had suggested detainees should not be abused.
Authorities blocked websites of opposition parties, including Al Wefaq, which won a majority of votes in the October elections.
As for the "terror network," the testimony of government agents regarding
information allegedly provided by unnamed sources made clear that the defendants were being tried for political opinions rather than for any criminal acts.
Authorities denied these defendants access to counsel or their families, and
most defendants alleged that security officials abused them to elicit confessions.
The government denied these allegations, but hasn't explained the defendants' wounds displayed in open court.
President Barack Obama said on Friday that he was “deeply concerned by reports of violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen.” He said the United States condemns the use of violence by governments against peaceful protesters in those countries and wherever else it may occur.”
Then he went on to say, “ We express our condolences to the family and friends of those who have been killed during the demonstrations. Wherever they are, people have certain universal rights including the right to peaceful assembly.”
He concluded: “The United States urges the governments of Bahrain, Libya and Yemen to show restraint in responding to peaceful protests, and to respect the rights of their people.”
But many observers said there was something missing from this picture: There was not a word about Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), whose troops earlier this week rumbled over the 26 km causeway separating Saudi Arabia from Bahrain, to help Bahrain’s ruling family to maintain its grip on power in the face of growing protests and demands for economic democracy.
In what has lamentably become characteristic Obama behavior, the President ignored the two 900-pound gorillas in the room. One of those gorillas, Saudi Arabia, is said to be close ally of the U.S., a major supplier of its oil, a recipient of much U.S. military aid, and a steadfast partner in the so-called “war on terror.”
The other gorilla is Bahrain itself, thought (until very recently) to be a reliable U.S. ally, like Saudi Arabia, an intrepid warrior on terror, and home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet. The United States provided around $20 million in military aid to Bahrain in 2010. The slap on the wrist Bahrain received from the American President today is not likely to require medical attention.
Prior to the “Arab Spring,” the U.S. viewed Bahrain as a reasonably enlightened Arab state. During a visit to Washington in December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raved, "Bahrain has demonstrated that multi-ethnic, multi-confessional societies can address their challenges through peaceful reform and representative institutions."
Cables by US diplomats claimed that King Hamad "understands that Bahrain cannot prosper if he rules by repression." Several of the 2009 cables from the U.S. Embassy in Manama characterize King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa as an enlightened and deeply pro-American ruler who, since assuming the throne in 1999, has fostered reconciliation with the Shi'ite Muslim majority and has undertaken serious political and economic reforms,” Reuters reports.
As for The House of Saud, it evidently gets a pass on Obama’s assertion that “people have certain universal rights including the right to peaceful assembly.” In Saudi Arabia they have no such right. And the country’s aging king is currently in the process of trying to buy off his people with announcements of massive appropriations for job creation and job training, plus substantial individual money gifts for every Saudi citizen.
So far, that strategy appears to be working -- despite some announcements and preparations for a “Day of Anger” in the Kingdom, and some minor skirmishes between police and would-be democracy demonstrators.
Should that strategy show signs of weakening, there is little doubt about what the Saudis would do to quell any rising sentiment for a more equitable, representative government.
Meantime, Reuters is reporting that Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy asked the State Department to probe whether Bahrain had broken a U.S. law that prohibits aid to foreign security forces who violate human rights. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, is the author of that legislation.
Bahrain is now under a state of martial law, after fresh violence left as many as eight people dead.
Amnesty International revealed evidence of the Bahraini security forces’ systematic use of excessive force in cracking down against protesters. In a new report, “Bloodied but Unbowed: Unwarranted State Violence against Bahraini Protesters,” the organization documents how security forces used live ammunition and extreme force against protesters in February without warning and impeded and assaulted medical staff trying to help the wounded.
The report, which is based on first hand testimonies given to an Amnesty International team in Bahrain, comes as the country is gripped by further violence, after Saudi Arabian and UAE forces entered the small Gulf state three days ago and Bahrain's King declared a national state of emergency.
"It is alarming to see the Bahraini authorities now again resorting to the same tactics that they used against protesters in February but on an even more intensive scale,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“It appears that the government has decided that the way to deal with protests is through violent repression, a totally unsustainable position and one which sets an ominous example in a region where other governments are also facing popular calls for change," he said.
Dr. Hani Mowafi, a US medical doctor who was part of the Amnesty International team, found a pattern of fatal and serious injuries during February’s violence showing that the security forces used live ammunition at close range, and apparently targeted protesters’ heads, chests and abdomens.
They also fired medium-to-large caliber bullets from high-powered rifles on 18 February.
The worst violence before today took place early on the morning of 17 February, when five people were killed. Witnesses told Amnesty that, in scenes that would be repeated on 16 March, tanks blocked access to the Pearl Roundabout as police used shotguns as well as tear gas, batons and rubber bullets to disperse protesters, many of who were camping there.
One witness told Amnesty International that on 17 February riot police were shooting from different angles, including from a bridge over the roundabout, while protesters desperately ran for cover.
Among the injured were people clearly identifiable as medical workers, who were targeted by police while trying to help wounded protesters at or near the roundabout.
"All the actions of the security forces against protesters since February must be fully and independently investigated. Those responsible for ordering and unleash lethal force against peaceful protesters must be identified and held to account.”
"There must be no impunity for unlawful killings, assaults and other abuses against both protesters and medical staff."
Amnesty says it has identified some of the ammunition found in the aftermath of the raid on Pearl Roundabout on 17 February. It includes US-made tear gas canisters, US-made 37mm rubber multi-baton rounds, French-made tear gas grenades, and French-made rubber “dispersion” grenades, which fragment into 18 pieces and produce a loud sound effect.
The organization called on governments who supply weapons to Bahrain to immediately suspend the transfer of weapons, munitions and related equipment that could be used to commit further human rights violations, and to urgently review all arms supplies and training support to Bahrain’s military, security and police forces.
Following the Bahraini security forces’ use of unwarranted force against protesters, the UK government revoked some licenses for arms exports to Bahrain, and the French authorities have suspended the export of security equipment to Bahrain.
Amnesty’s report charges that “mass peaceful protests demanding political reform have shaken the Gulf state of Bahrain since mid-February. In response, the security forces initially sought to suppress the protests with brutality, killing seven protesters, injuring hundreds of others and assaulting paramedics.”
It adds, “Proper, transparent investigations that ensure accountability and justice for the victims, and a strong government commitment to respect human rights are needed now.”
Bahraini protesters today told Amnesty of bloody scenes on the streets as government security forces stepped up their violent crackdown on demonstrations and blocked access to hospitals. Government forces also surrounded hospitals and attacked doctors trying to help the wounded.
At least six people were reportedly killed in the capital Manama amid continuing protests as the army used tanks to flatten the peaceful protest camps set up in recent weeks to demand reform in the Gulf state.
"The distressing reports and images coming out of Bahrain today provide further evidence that the authorities are using lethal and other excessive force to crush protests, with reckless disregard for human life," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Director.
"Wounded protesters have also been prevented from accessing medical attention by government forces. The Bahraini authorities must immediately put a stop to this bloodshed," he said.
Security forces attacked the mainly Shia protest camp at Manama’s Pearl Roundabout camp early on Wednesday.
Family members of those wounded at the roundabout and people trying to approach the area told Amnesty International that the army opened fire on them without warning.
"I was walking towards the Pearl Roundabout… We were 5km from the roundabout when we were shot with live ammunition - one shot came one meter away from me. There were two tanks in the street and a helicopter above us," said Nabeel al Rajab, director of the banned Bahrain Center for Human Rights.
Amnesty is also receiving testimonies from medical staff who were prevented from treating the victims of violence. For example:
"We are waiting to do something and the army is not allowing us. We know there are hundreds injured and they are not allowing them to come here," said one doctor at the central Salmaniya hospital who did not wish to be named due to safety fears.
"A doctor went to the gate this morning trying to come in and the army beat him. They also threw tear gas and another type of gas at the emergency entrance of the hospital."
In a funeral procession today to mourn a dead Bahraini pro-democracy demonstrator, anti-government participants shouted, "down with King Hamad." The crackdown that killed this activist was targeted to mainly Shi'ite protesters, which angered Iran.
Bahrain’s ruling family are Sunni Muslims, while a large majority of its people are Shia. The Shia majority contends it is discriminated against in terms of funds for public works projects and government jobs.
Virtually all reputable human rights organizations are condemning Bahrain’s violent military crackdown against pro-democracy protesters.
Neil Hicks of the New York-based Human Rights First group, said “The militarization of the conflict in Bahrain will lead to further violence and violations of basic rights and freedoms. It will not address the underlying causes of the unrest – institutionalized sectarian discrimination, the absence of representative government and the lack of legal protections for basic freedoms of assembly, and association. ”
“Suppression of dissent in Bahrain with the backing of the Gulf Cooperation Council runs the risk of extending unrest to other countries in the Gulf region with sectarian tensions, including Yemen and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia,” Hicks said.
The organization called on U.S. government officials to condemn the use of violence against unarmed protesters and urge the Bahraini government to initiate wide-ranging negotiations to implement necessary political reforms.
“In light of disturbing reports that security forces are blocking medical treatment for the injured, that interference in the provision of necessary medical treatment should stop immediately. In addition, the U.S. needs to intensify its outreach to the government of Saudi Arabia to make clear its objection to the violent suppression of dissent in Bahrain or anywhere in the Gulf region,” the organization said.
Hicks concluded, “Inflaming sectarian tensions in Bahrain will not ensure stability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
For the past decade Bahrain has promoted itself as a liberal state in an
authoritarian neighborhood, on the basis of reforms by King Hamad al-Khalifa, who took power in 1999. These reforms included holding elections - though for a parliament that lacked authority - and largely abolishing torture.
The Bahraini government insinuates whenever possible that its Shia citizens, upwards of 65 percent of the population, would turn Bahrain into an Iranian client state if so allowed.
But independent observers have for several years been raising concerns about the country's return to the dark practices of the past.
In February 2010, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting the revival of torture. A trove of reports by government doctors backed up victim accounts that security forces were again suspending detainees by their arms and legs and using electro-shock devices.
In August, the government instituted a crackdown that began with arrests of opposition activists on charges of being part of a "terror network" and soon extended to the arrests of hundreds more, including children, many on vague or non-existent charges.
The government dissolved the board of a human rights group that had suggested detainees should not be abused.
Authorities blocked websites of opposition parties, including Al Wefaq, which won a majority of votes in the October elections.
As for the "terror network," the testimony of government agents regarding
information allegedly provided by unnamed sources made clear that the defendants were being tried for political opinions rather than for any criminal acts.
Authorities denied these defendants access to counsel or their families, and
most defendants alleged that security officials abused them to elicit confessions.
The government denied these allegations, but hasn't explained the defendants' wounds displayed in open court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
