A Tale of Two Abdullahs

Look at that face. Look how benevolent he looks.

As world leaders including Pres. Obama streamed into Riyadh this weekend to pay their respects to the late Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, the obituaries and op-eds that emerged painted two very different pictures of the deceased monarch. On the one hand, world leaders and some foreign policy analysts called the king a reformer who sought “discreet” changes for women including a pledge to allow them to vote and run in 2015 municipal elections, and who sought “stability” in the region as a whole. In such analyses, Abdullah was a benevolent dictator whose moderate policies struggled to find a place in a conservative society.

On the other, Abdullah’s less-publicized regressive policies come to the fore as examples of his autocratic tendencies and refusal to make real changes in the lives of most Saudi citizens. Despite some advances for women during his rule, his policies towards female rights and activism remained woefully medieval. Four of his 15 (or so) daughters have been held under house arrest since 2002 for speaking out about the deplorable state of women’s rights in the Kingdom. Women continued to be prosecuted and cruelly punished for personal indiscretions such as (alleged) adultery, divorce, and even having a boyfriend. The country’s large population of foreign domestic workers and stateless people enjoy virtually no rights, and yet are often held to account under Saudi law by the regressive justice system that is almost certain to find them guilty of alleged crimes. Countless activists, bloggers, human rights lawyers, LGBT citizens, and stateless people have been arbitrarily detained, tortured, and executed in brutal fashions (although one could argue that all execution is brutal) under Abdullah’s rule. While Abdullah’s publicists did a very good job lauding his “reformist” policies, surely the examples to the contrary outweigh his supposed reforms, many of which were largely window dressing on a dictatorship that insists on the suppression of any hint of dissent.

Human Rights Day 2013

In leading up to Human Rights Day on December 10^th, recent news seems to mask any progress: UN-authorized French troops intervene in CAR in response to the latter’s spiraling bloodshed; the revelation that the NSA collects 5 billions phone records daily from Americans and non-Americans alike; and the Libyan parliament passed legislation recognizing Islamic law as the centerpiece of its country’s laws and institutions. Not exactly leaps forward in protecting the rights to life, privacy and personal liberty, respectively.

Because we don’t regularly hear about human rights triumphs or human rights defenders of celebrity-like status, most of us miss a crucial progression: human rights situations across the globe have improved—in some cases dramatically so—over the past several decades, and those suffering human rights abuses, and their advocates, have never been louder or better organized.

Bread over Bombs: Why the US Should Not Strike Syria

Over the last week, The Global Atlas’s metaphorical lights have been off as the three lead contributors were either out of town, dealing with Allston Christmas, and starting the new school year and the flood of students and work that comes with it. In that week, Pres. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have raised the decibel level on the rhetoric surrounding the Syria crisis. Both have confirmed their belief that a chemical attack took place in late August, possibly followed by another; both have pointed the finger at Syrian President Bashar al-Asad; and both have hinted that military strikes will begin soon, but only with congressional approval. The likelihood of a strike increased this morning with the State Dept. ordering all of its non-emergency personnel out of Beirut, and issuing travel warnings for Turkey and Lebanon.

I’ve been pretty vocal in my criticism of the handling of the Syrian crisis, and I’m not about to change now: bombing Asad’s forces would be a huge mistake. It could have the allegedly unintended effect of toppling Asad; it could also very well prevent the use of chemical weapons by either side or others in the future, which of course is a desirable outcome. Yet its other effects would be so negative and detrimental to finding a sustainable peace in Syria that they would vastly outweigh any positives that could result from such a strike. As I have written before, the time for a military intervention has long passed, and toppling Asad without a negotiated settlement in place leaves us with unsavory choices for his replacement.

USAID: Global Reach to Build Civil Societies Big and Small

GHANA—In a remote village hours from Tamale, USAID worker Valerie DeFillipo and her colleagues arrived to a warm welcome from the small town’s 200 inhabitants. Villagers greeted the team to show gratitude and support for a USAID-funded Planned Parenthood of Ghana clinic, the village’s only source of medical care. Dozens of locals came to hail the clinic as a fixture of community wellness and women’s empowerment and health, by providing a

fusion of family planning and other education and health services. Today, the small clinic continues to educate, heal and empower community members.

USAID’s activities in isolated communities such as the one DeFillipo visited challenge the notion that foreign aid should be reserved for and has the greatest impact on governments and large-scale programs. Of the agency’s 2,642 projects across more than 170 countries, many function in remote areas that have little or no infrastructure, health facilities nor the human and financial basis to sustain economic development. 

Coup-ocracy: Why the Ousting of Morsi Isn’t a Good Thing

Over the past few days, I’ve heard a lot of people congratulating Egyptians on toppling their president for the second time in two years. This time, the president was a democratically elected one, selected by over 10 million Egyptians with a respectable voter turnout at 54% in the first phase. At the time, it seemed like the fundamental rights fought for by so many Egyptians were finally materializing, primarily the right to vote for and elect a leader of their choosing. With Mubarak gone, there seemed to be no limit to what a democratic, politically mobilized Egypt could achieve.

Fast-forward two years to 2013, and many Egyptians have discovered that democracy had not brought with it many of the changes they had longed for. The economy remains stagnant (actually, it's now pretty much in a free-fall), lawlessness abounds, and sexual harassment is more pervasive than ever. In a move to force a new constitution through, Pres. Morsi consolidated his executive power, taking sweeping rights away from the judicial branch and giving them to himself. He has been called “the pharaoh” and “worse than Mubarak,” and many feared that he would become just another dictator hiding behind the title of president. Instead of waiting for the presidential elections in 2015, millions of Egyptians took to the streets en masse this week, prompting the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) to depose and detain Pres. Morsi.

The Two-State Dissolution

The last round of negotiations in 2010. State Department Photo by Michael Gross

An entrenched stalemate persists between Israelis and Palestinians concerning a just and comprehensive two-state solution. The Intifadas, Oslo Accords and their shortfalls, Jewish and Palestinian terrorism, and domestic exhaustion place a potential agreement in uncertain waters. Recent developments in Israel and Palestine* suggest that the parties are not even close to reaching conditions for meaningful negotiations. Yet although the prospects of a two-state solution are slim at the moment, the case for a settlement is stronger than ever. Precarious as the situation is, both sides need to take bold steps to find middle ground before the floor disappears beneath their feet.

Our Human Right to Freedom of Expression and Privacy

The main chambers of the United Nations Human Rights Council

We’ve all been there: you’re immersed in another culture—either physically or conversationally—and you find yourself putting more thought into your words than usual. You don’t want to offend anyone, and you hope no one says anything that you yourself would find offensive. For the most part, this kind of cross-cultural communication can serve to build mutual understanding and trust, but oftentimes there’s that awkward feeling of self-censorship we impose because of who’s in our company. As awkward as that may feel, it’s a good kind of awkward, one that makes you more reflective about word choice, mannerisms and idiosyncrasies that might put off others who grew up with vastly different cultural practices and guided by diverse value systems. Feel free to break free from the social and cultural norms, or to utter a phrase you know your counterpart will revile, but don’t be surprised if you get more than a few dirty looks.

Burma Rising?

Since 1962, the large Asian nation alternately known as Burma and Myanmar for complex political reasons has lived under a brutal military junta responsible for ethnic cleansing/genocide, the use of child soldiers in ongoing civil conflicts, mass rape, child and slave labor, human trafficking, and a complete lack of the freedom of speech. Since 2011 when the ruling military began easing its grip on economic and political life, the country has quickly improved its relations with longtime foes in the West, especially in the realm of trade. Many have hailed the apparent Burmese turn-around, especially when pro-democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest and hundreds of political prisoners were granted amnesty. In December 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became the first Secretary to visit Burma in more than half of a century, followed by Pres. Barack Obama this month, the first president to visit Burma since its independence.

A Kachin Independence Army soldier (the military of one of the provinces fighting the government) patrols the jungle.

These marks of progress should not be belittled at the same time as they should not be hailed as complete victories for human rights. Within the so-called “Tourism Triangle” that contains Burma’s ruling ethnic groups and cities, life certainly appears a bit rosier. Former political prisoners have been allowed to return home from prison and exile abroad; people speak openly if cautiously about their government; elections were held in 2010, and while their fairness is questionable their existence is laudable; Pres. Thein Sein has made statements committing to reining in the military and fostering democracy.

Yet for all of this progress, outside of the “Tourism Triangle,” at least 11 ethnic military groups are battling the military for autonomy or independence. The human rights violations occurring in these areas are matters of speculation since foreigners are not allowed outside the Triangle. Reports of rape, extrajudicial executions, torture, the use of child soldiers, and the reliance on forced labor to supply the military are a common thread.

Pres. Obama has expressed “deep concern” to the new leader about the ongoing violence, but in reality Pres. Sein has few options. A member of the former military junta himself and a high-ranking general, he is unlikely to introduce any form of system to bring those responsible for human rights violations to justice. The military also remains outside of his control under the Constitution, and he has a limited ability to control the decisions of officers.

As massacres and human rights abuses continue to occur throughout Burma, even longtime political hero Aung San Suu Kyi has come under fire from her former supporters. Her close relationship to the military establishment and unwillingness to speak up against human rights abuses of ethnic minorities has confused, hurt, and enraged those that stood by her during her imprisonment.

Democracy is a messy process that takes decades to take root, and even when it does it is naturally imperfect. It has only been two years since the “Opening” of Burma, and already the improvements have been significant. With greater economic development and opportunities for all of Burma’s people, it could be that democracy will continue its slow march, human rights abuses will decline, and the military’s influence will wane. To a person from an ethnic minority in Burma, however, these words are small comfort in the face of slaughter.

LGBTQ Rights Worldwide: A Love Story

The Global Atlas of late has been consumed by the tragedy in Boston that affected all of our contributors directly. Yet while many bad things were happening in the world, there have been distinctly positive developments on the world stage. In one realm of human rights where many feared there would never be progress, especially in more conservative religious societies, major gains were made just in the last week: France and New Zealand each legalized gay marriage nationwide, bringing the total number of countries with legalized same-sex marriage to fourteen. Fourteen out of nearly 200 countries isn’t great, but consider this: it is a 1,300 percent increase in just the last ten years. At the beginning of this century, not a single country had legalized equal marriage rights. Not a single US state had legal same-sex marriage. Not. One. Now nine have fully recognized equal marriage as well as the District of Columbia. So 2013, with 14 countries and 9 US states having legalized equal marriage rights, marks a sea-change from the world in which we were living not even 15 years ago.

Protests in favor of equal marriage rights in January in Paris. Courtesy of AFP/Thomas Samson

UN Arms Trade Treaty Overwhelmingly Approved

In the summer of 2012, I wrote an article on the failure of the international community to reach a voting consensus on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), despite the almost 10-year lobbying effort to get the treaty signed into international law. Various problems with the treaty came to the fore back in July 2012, mainly that the U.S. and Russia claimed they didn't know how the treaty would affect their domestic laws. It was a frustrating end to what could have been a monumental addition to international law; a treaty designed to regulate trade worth $70 billion annually. Good news came roughly 9 months later: two days ago, the Arms Trade Treaty was brought to a majority vote and received overwhelming international backing. Only three countries in the UN General Assembly voted against it (North Korea, Iran and Syria) while great power arms manufacturers China and Russia abstained. Despite a few small issues, the treaty may very well prove to be a guiding law in future policy discussions, especially concerning the three conspicuous nations that voted against the measure.

United Nations General Assembly chamber. Photo by Chris Erbach.

At Bagram Prison, US leaves behind legacy of cruelty

On the tail end of Pres. Obama’s trip throughout the Middle East, Secretary of State John Kerry made his first trip to Afghanistan in his new position, during which he announced the turnover of Bagram Prison (or Parwan Detention Center, as it’s now known) to Afghan control. The detention center has been a hotspot in US-Afghanistan relations since President Karzai began his repeated demands for the prison and associated air base to be placed under Afghan jurisdiction during President Obama’s first term. Yet during Pres. George W. Bush’s terms in office, Bagram was infamous for more than causing political tensions: it was known as the “Afghan Guantanamo,” a stopover spot for suspected terrorists to be vetted before they went to Cuba. Allegations of torture and other inhumane treatment abounded from prisoners, many of who were later cleared of any wrongdoing.

Prisoners and guards inside Bagram. Source: AP

The New York Times brought national attention to the mistreatment of prisoners in Bagram when it published a 2005 investigation into the 2002 deaths of two detainees: Habibullah and Dilawar. Both men suffered extreme beatings at the hands of US service members who were both undertrained and undersupervised as they reached beyond the bounds of acceptable interrogations. Their methods of full-body suspension, threats with attack dogs, sleep deprivation, peroneal strikes, and more would later turn up in the case files at Abu Ghraib. In many ways, Bagram appears to have been the staging ground for many interrogators' later careers in the Gulf. While Habibullah was almost certainly guilty of supporting terrorists, Dilawar turned out to be a hapless taxi driver who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and died for it. Several US military personnel were charged for the deaths, yet if the torture was systemic (as it appears to have been), it will take more than uprooting a few bad seeds to fix the problem.

Wrongful Deaths: Saudi Arabia’s Execution Policies

Saudi Arabia executed seven young men this morning for the crime of robbery. That might seem a bit extreme, but in the Kingdom, there is no official Penal Code that outlines crimes and their associated punishment. Thus death sentences are handed down by judges based upon their subjective interpretation of Shari’a law. While the most infamous punishment for simple theft in the country is the removal of the offending limb, executions are incredibly common in Saudi Arabia, earning the condemnation of the international community. 345 people were beheaded publicly between 2007-2010 and a person was executed on charges of “sorcery” as recently as 2012. The human rights situation in the country is dismal all around: torture abounds in places of detention, unfair trials using forced confessions as the sole piece of evidence are widespread, and arbitrary detention is commonplace for any criticism of government policies. Yet the use of the death penalty as a final solution to get rid of people the government views as “unwanted” is perhaps the most disturbing.

Protests against the use of the death penalty in KSA, courtesy of EuroNews