Below is the editorial by Sahib Mustaqim
Bleher in
issue 30 of Common Sense on the topic of:
Middle
East Democracy: A Myth - A case study of Death on the Nile
Freedom and
Democracy are the buzz words by which Western governments, foremost
the USA and the UK, justify their interference in the internal
affairs of other countries. Humanitarian Rights is another
frequently given reason, yet the application of these principles is
highly selective. In Algeria, Western nations were instrumental in
ensuring that the democratically elected government would not take
office because it had an Islamic leaning. Democracy was cancelled,
allegedly to protect democracy, for the people had made the wrong
choice. An Islamic government would plunge the state into chaos and
disrespect human rights. Since then, Algeria has suffered a wave of
vicious unrest and massacres of whole sectors of the population,
usually blamed on Islamic terrorist groups by the military
government. A newly published and very extensive "Inquiry into the
Algerian massacres" presents a convincing historical and empirical
case that the junta is anything but innocent. As Noam Chomsky
observes in his foreword:
"The fundamental issue examined in this
careful and judicious inquiry is the one that is left open in the
preceding words: Who are the agents of the 'incredible violence'
that has followed the consolidation of the military victory of the
incumbent authorities? The answer provided by the victors is that
Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are exacting grisly and mindless
vengeance on a society they have been unable to conquer. A similar
version is offered by Western power, including the beneficiaries of
a curious phenomenon noted by foreign observers and in this inquiry:
that the resource-rich regions of Algeria that are of primary
interest to foreign states and corporations have been spared the
violence, to a remarkable degree."
One possible answer then to "who
is behind this violence" may lie in the question "who
benefits?"
Western power
is quite happy to cooperate with dictatorial regimes, whether
nominally Islamic or not, as long as the West's strategic interests
and access to cheap resources are being guaranteed. Whilst there is
often a lot of praise for the "model democracy" of the Middle East
fighting for survival amidst a sea of undemocratic regimes, i.e. the
racist apartheid state of Israel, no Western government seriously
wants to encourage democratic movements in the Muslim world.
However, Egypt is often presented as the exception: a maturing
democracy deserving of Western assistance, probably because of its
willingness to break ranks with other Arab states and make peace
with Israel when nobody else dared to do so. Whilst we occasionally
are treated to news about Muslim attacks on tourists or Christian
communities, we hear nothing about the Egyptian government's
strong-arm tactics in controlling the legitimate ambitions of its
own people. Once the West's ally, Egypt is beyond criticism.
In this issue
we intend to expose the myth of democracy, and this editorial will
concentrate on so-called democracy in Egypt which died its Death on
the Nile when a state of emergency was declared in 1981. For almost
two decades the country has been ruled by marshal law and through a
severe violation of human rights, whilst Western governments and
media conveniently turned a blind eye.
The typical
joke about partisan government in Egypt used to be that president
Mubarak was asked to mastermind the presidential elections in the
United States, because he was so successful in gaining landslide
victories in his own country. President Clinton was pleased to hear
that Mubarak had ensured a hundred percent turnout in the elections
and that not a single opposition vote was cast, but disappointed
when he further learnt that the American people had not voted for
Clinton, but for Mubarak. However, truth is often stranger than
fiction. If Britain was run along the lines of Cairo, Ken Livingston
would have been arrested for subversive opposition to the
government, and William Hague would find himself behind bars for
having books on capitalism on his library shelves.
In a letter of
January 5, 2000, the assistant managing editor of the Middle East
Times, Paul Schlemm, confirmed that there is no freedom of
expression in Egypt when he explained the procedure for newspaper
publishing:
"The Middle East Times goes through a pre-printing
process of censorship whereby the censor's office receives advance
copies of the newspaper's contents and then calls up with any
modifications before printing. If their modifications are not made,
the entire issue would then be confiscated and not distributed on
the newsstands."
Articles lost in this way can only be viewed in the
"Censored" section on the Middle East Times website (www.metimes.com)
Political
groups are banned from forming political parties, conferences are
regularly stopped, publications are banned. Those who do not
cooperate or daer to criticise the government and its law
enforcement agencies, or who are unfortunate enough to be suspected
of belonging to or supporting outlawed organisations will find
themselves taken in for preventive detention. Such arrests have
included parliamentary candidates and former MPs. They are usually
taken from their homes in the early hours of the morning and
eventually dealt with by military court, provided they have not
disappeared in the process. Those who cannot be found are put under
pressure through the arrest of members of their families including
women and children. Since 1992 118 death sentences were passed, and
no appeal is permitted. According to a report by a UN committee
against torture "torture is systematically practiced by the Security
Forces in Egypt, particular by State Security Intelligence" during
interrogations. To stop complaints about the situation, even the
secretary general of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights,
attorney Hafez Abu Se'da and his colleague Mustafa Zidan were
arrested after publishing a report on human rights violations in
December 1998, thereby providing additional proof for his claims.
One should
think that, given the Blair governments "ethical foreign policy",
Britain would have cut off all support and aid to Egypt and
protested vehemently against such practices as well as against the
arrest of leading trade union members in Egypt. After all, article 7
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel inhuman or
degrading punishment"
and article 2 of the Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment declares:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever,
whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political
instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a
justification of torture."
The British
government seems content that Egypt ratified those conventions in
1982 and 1986 respectively. The Egyptian legal code contains similar
provisions. Article 42 of the Egyptian constitution states:
"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."
Amnesty International has
lent its voice to the observation that these laws are gathering dust
on paper, saying that:
"in the name of 'fighting terrorism',
indefinite detention and torture become systematic."
Notwithstanding
those facts, British aid payments to Egypt are substantial:
government figures for 1997/98 show a sum of £7,246,000,00 or
accounting for 91% of all the aid payments to the North of Sahara
region of Africa and over 1.5% of aid payments to the whole of
Africa. That is more than the amount given to Rwanda, for example,
and not because Egypt suffered from any kind of disastrous
affliction other than her tyrannical government. There are only 12
African states altogether which receive more in aid than Egypt. The
reason is not humanitarian, but strategic, a reward for Egypt's
pro-Israeli and pro-Western line on foreign policy.
Of course,
there are dissenting voices who are not contend with a verbally
"ethical" policy. During a mock trial of members of the Muslim
Brotherhood a number of British organisations worried about the lack
of justice available to the defendants sent observers to signal to
the Egyptian government that there abuse of the legal system does
not go unnoticed - amongst them John Platt-Mills, QC, and Sayeed
Mohyedeen, QC, both founder members, and the latter the present
director of, Justice International, Elizabeth Lawson, QC, a deputy
High Court Judge, Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham, David Musa Pidcock,
leader of the Islamic Party of Britain, and Kenneth Palmerton, Vice
Chairman of the Christian Council for Monetary Justice. They jointly
held a press conference in Cairo before returning to the UK and
followed it up with a meeting in Moses Room of the House of Lords
hosted by Lord Ahmed. The intention is to keep up the pressure both
on the Egyptian and the British governments. During their time in
Egypt they also managed to gather further evidence from a former
police chief at risk from the Egyptian regime for having blown the
whistle on some of their unsavoury practices, particularly the
condition under which prisoners are being held. Limited as such
efforts to put the spotlight on the human rights abuses of the
Mubarak government are, they are indispensable. As David Pidcock
pointed out during the Cairo press conference: "All that's necessary
for the triumph of evil is that good men remain
silent."
Author: Sahib
Mustaqim
Bleher |
Date Published:
June
2000 |
Back To Top
|