Introduction
International agreements such as UN conventions involving human rights present Arab states (and the Islamic countries more generally) with a dilemma. On one hand they are reluctant to accept the principle of universality, arguing for exceptions to be made on cultural or religious grounds, while on the other they feel a need to demonstrate that Islam respects human rights by signing up to UN conventions
[see table].
Becoming a party to the various human rights conventions
gives respectability without necessarily creating any serious obligations in terms of compliance – firstly because the conventions themselves lack effective enforcement mechanisms and secondly because the parties to a UN convention can often choose to ignore parts of it simply by registering their “reservations”.
In some cases these reservations can be so sweeping as to negate the essential substance of the agreement. Liesbeth Lijnzaad, in her book,
Reservations to UN Human Rights Treaties: Ratify and Ruin? sums up the problem thus:
By making reservations to human rights treaties, states frequently undermine essential rules, and indeed essential human rights guarantees … The impression is that many states, when ratifying, at the same time ruin the treaty. Reservations restrict the potential domestic effect of the human rights treaty, and a large number of reservations made by a great many states will turn a human rights instrument into a moth-eaten
guarantee.
In theory, reservations which are “incompatible with the object and purpose” of a UN convention are not allowed but in practice they can be difficult to prevent. When North Yemen acceded to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 1989 it declared reservations “in respect of article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii)”. In effect, it was claiming the right to discriminate on racial grounds with regard to political rights, marriage rights, inheritance rights and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion.
This was obviously incompatible with the aims of the convention and Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom all lodged formal objections. However, their numbers fell well short of the two-thirds of states-parties required to block the Yemeni
reservations, and there was little that could be done about it except patiently cajole: seventeen years later, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was
continuing to repeat its “recommendation” that Yemen should “consider withdrawing its
reservation”.
Meanwhile Saudi Arabia, despite operating what is probably the world’s most comprehensive system of institutionalised discrimination against women, is a party – together with
17 other Arab states – to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The kingdom rationalises this seemingly irreconcilable position, after a fashion, by saying it does not consider itself bound by any part of the convention that conflicts with “the norms of Islamic
law”.
Among the other Arab countries, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Syria and the UAE have also
lodged reservations based on Islamic law.
Citing “Islamic law” in the context of international treaties is especially problematic because no one can be sure what it means. The shari’a is not formally codified, there are various methods of interpretation and scholars can sometimes reach wildly differing conclusions. As Denmark noted in its objection to Saudi Arabia’s reservations, the references to the provisions of Islamic law were “of unlimited scope and undefined
character”.
The key point, though, is that religious principles are a convenient vehicle for excusing all manner of abuse. In reality, the abuses usually have more to do with local customs and practice than religious doctrine but invoking religion removes any need to account for them or try to justify them. Since religious belief demands respect and tolerance from others, dressing up unsavoury practices in religious garb becomes a way of silencing critics. The overall effect of dragging Islamic law into human rights debates, then, is to lower standards rather than raise them, as Ann Elizabeth Mayer demonstrates in her book,
Islam and Human Rights – Tradition and
Politics. “Distinctive Islamic criteria have consistently been used to cut back on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by international law, as if the latter were deemed excessive,” she writes. “The literature arguing that Muslims may have human rights, but only according to Islamic principles, provides the theoretical rationales for many recent government policies that have been harmful for
rights.” [page 3]
Although there are many points of contention between the concept of universal rights and Islamic law (as variously conceived), the principal ones are in the areas of women’s rights, freedom of religion, and the treatment of non-Muslims.
This is not to suggest that Islam is incapable of accommodating modern concepts of universal human rights. Individual freedoms are a relatively undeveloped area of Islamic law and Mayer suggests this is largely for historical reasons:
Since the pious Muslim was only supposed to understand and obey the divine law, which entailed abiding by the limits that God had decreed, demands for individual freedoms could sound distinctly subversive to the orthodox mind …
The aim of Islamic law was generally conceived to be ensuring the wellbeing of the Islamic community, or umma, as a whole, in a situation where both the ruler and the ruled were presumed to be motivated to follow the law in order to win divine favour and avoid punishment in Hell. In consequence, shari’a doctrines remained highly idealistic and were not elaborated with a view to providing institutional mechanisms to deal with actual situations where governments disregarded Islamic law and oppressed and exploited their subjects.
Scholars of Islamic law did not traditionally address issues like what institutions and procedures were needed to constrain the ruler and curb oppression; rather, they tended to think of the relationship between ruler and ruled solely in terms of this idealised scheme, in which rulers were conceived of as pious Muslims eager to follow God’s
mandate. [pp. 53–54]
Arguments about universality versus cultural relativism
are often a red herring – a part of the political game. Arab states
often invoke relativist arguments in an international context when they
talk about "traditions", “the norms of Islamic law”, etc,
but they rarely apply relativist principles within their own countries. In
other words, they tend to espouse cultural relativism or universalism as
and when it suits them.
This is very similar to the way western governments
often behave when they that claim to uphold universal rights but champion them more strongly among enemies than allies. The Arab states, through their membership of the UN and other bodies, are willing members of the international community; they accept the principle of international law and, along with other countries, play a part in formulating it. They are also among the first to complain about human rights abuses and infringements of international law where Israel is concerned.
In partially exempting themselves from international standards, the Arab states are not so much arguing for cultural relativism as for a form of cultural selectivity. What they are actually seeking to protect is not the sum-total of authentic local tradition but an imagined, officially-approved version of it which in some cases has to be imposed on reluctant citizens – for example, through the policing of dress codes and the closure of shops at prayer time. The Islamic “norms” that Saudi Arabia waves in international forums are not those of the country as a whole but of the Wahhabi sect, which happens to have become dominant through its political alliance with the royal family.If Arab governments really believed in cultural relativism as a principle they would surely also apply it within their own countries by insisting on respect for the different norms and traditions of whatever distinctive religious, ethnic or regional groups may be found within their own borders. Mostly they do not.
Source: What's
Really Wrong with the Middle East, by Brian Whitaker (Saqi Books,
2009).
Useful links:
Human
rights
A compilation of recent articles by the Arab Reform Bulletin.
Human Rights Watch
See reports and press releases on the Middle
East and North Africa
Amnesty
International
United
Nations Commission on Human Rights
The Arabic
Network for Human Rights Information
Euro-Mediterranean
Human Rights Network
US State
Department
Human rights section
UK Foreign and
Commonwealth Office
Human rights section
Algeria
Algeria-Watch
A compilation of information about human rights in Algeria
Human Rights Watch - Algeria
Amnesty International - Algeria
Wikipedia - Algeria
Bahrain
Human Rights Watch - Bahrain
Amnesty International -
Bahrain
Wikipedia - Bahrain
Comoros
Human Rights Watch - Comoros
Amnesty International -
Comoros
Wikipedia - Comoros
Djibouti
Human Rights Watch - Djibouti
Amnesty
Internationaln - Djibouti
Egypt
Human Rights Watch - Egypt
Amnesty International - Egypt
Wikipedia - Egypt
Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights
Egyptian
Initiative for Personal Rights
Freedom
of association and human rights in Egypt
EMHRN, 1999
Iraq
Human Rights Watch - Iraq
Amnesty International - Iraq
Wikipedia - Iraq
Jordan
Human Rights Watch - Jordan
Amnesty International - Jordan
Wikipedia - Jordan
Refugees
also have rights
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan. EMHRN, September 2000
Kuwait
Human Rights Watch - Kuwait
Amnesty International - Kuwait
Wikipedia - Kuwait
Lebanon
Human Rights Watch - Lebanon
Amnesty International - Lebanon
Wikipedia - Lebanon
Refugees
also have rights
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan. EMHRN, September 2000
Libya
Human Rights Watch - Libya
Amnesty International - Libya
Wikipedia - Libya
Mauritania
Human Rights Watch - Mauritania
Amnesty International - Mauritania
Wikipedia - Mauritania
Morocco
Human Rights Watch - Morocco
Amnesty International - Morocco and Western Sahara
Wikipediai
- Wikipedia
Wikipedia - Western Sahara
Derechos organisation
On
human rights in Morocco and Western Sahara (English and Spanish)
Moroccan
human rights organisations
(Ministry of Communication - in French)
Association
Marocaine des Droits de l'Homme
A non-governmental organization
Conseil
Consultatif des Droits de l'Homme
A governmental human rights body
Oman
Human Rights Watch - Oman
Amnesty International - Oman
Wikipedia - Oman
Palestine/Israel
Human Rights Watch - Israel and the occupied territories
Amnesty International - Israel and the occupied territories
Amnesty International - Palestinian Authority
Wikipedia - Israel
Wikipedia - Palestinian Territories
B'Tselem
(Israeli human rights organisation)
Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group
Independent Commission for Human Rights
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
al-Mezan Center for Human Rights
See also: Wikipedia
Human
rights review on EU-Israel
EMHRN, 29 May 2005
Tightened
spaces for human rights - Palestinian NGO work
EMHRN discussion paper, March 2004
Migrant
workers in Israel - a contemporary form of slavery
EMHRN. August 2003
Qatar
Human Rights Watch - Qatar
Amnesty International - Qatar
Wikipedia - Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Human Rights Watch - Saudi Arabia
Amnesty International - Saudi Arabia
Wikipedia - Saudi Arabia
Saudi Human Rights Centre
Human
rights in Saudi Arabia (Wikipedia)
Somalia
Human Rights Watch - Somalia
Amnesty International - Somalia
Wikipedia - Somalia
Sudan
Human Rights Watch - Sudan
Amnesty International - Sudan
Wikipedia - Sudan
Syria
Human Rights Watch - Syria
Amnesty International - Syria
Wikipedia - Syria
Trial of Syrian human rights activist Aktham Naisseh
EMHRN, 16 Aug 2004
Trial of Syrian human rights activist Aktham Naisseh
EMHRN, 26 July 2004
Tunisia
Human Rights Watch - Tunisia
Amnesty International - Tunisia
Freedom
of expression, freedom of association and unfair trials in Tunisia
EMHRN,
2001. English The
Tunisians prisons seen from within
Report by Khémais Ksila. EMHRN, 2000.
French The
state of lberties and human rights in Tunisia
EMHRN,
1999.
English, French Torture,
arbitrary detention and unfair trial in Tunisia
The trial of Radhia
Nassraoui and 20 co-defendants. EMHRN, 1999. English, French
United Arab Emirates
Human Rights Watch - United Arab Emirates
Amnesty International - United Arab Emirates
Wikipedia - United Arab Emirates
Yemen
Human Rights Watch - Yemen
Amnesty International - Yemen
Wikipedia - Yemen
Executions in Yemen
(1998-2001)
The human rights system in Yemen
Dr Salah Haddash
(Yemen Times, 10 August 1998)
|