7:11PM
NCHR 1st Annual Report Released (Sort of)
Josh Stacher
Reports abound this morning on the internet by such organizations as Middle East Online, al-Jazeera, and IslamOnline that detail the release of the first annual report by Egypt's 15-month old National Council on Human Rights (NCHR).
The commonality among today's stories is that the report is shocking because the NCHR cites that torture takes place in Egypt. Doubly shocking to these media outlets, the NCHR also is calling for the end of Emergency Law (in place since October 1981, but really since 1967 - the only period that EL has not governed Egypt since 1967 is the 6-month period that Sadat was both PM & President).
So after much flack and criticism by independent Egyptian and English-language newspapers, not too mention practically every activist working in the human rights field, the NCHR has delivered. Or has it?
Well, before everyone gets excited by the NCHR's criticism of the government, lets look at the record.
In regards to viewing the NCHR as a state funded body that turned around and bit the hand that feeds it, consider the fact that the government was supposed to allocate 3-million LE (about 500,000USD) for the council's operations. It received only one-million and was forced to rely on foreign funding. According to one council member, the Danes and the Dutch were the most generous donors. So it was underfunded by its own government in a country where NGOs receiving foreign funding is a big no-no.
Secondly, the NCHR was promised offices which were never supplied by the government. Instead, the NCHR conducts its business from the ruling NDP's downtown headquarters. This does not exactly scream independence and the symbolism is not lost to anyone concerned with HR in Egypt.
This brings us to the report's criticism of torture being employed in Egypt. While no doubt the media was quick to run with this, it should be noted that the Egyptian government more or less acknowledges that it uses torture anyways. Families and victims of torture (not many, but a small minority) have been compensated by courts over being tortured by the police in the recent past. So, in effect, the state knows it uses torture - not that it has ever convicted someone who tortured someone else though. This is not too mention that all human rights group domestically (Nadim Center, EOHR, Hisham Mubarak Legal Center, and LAND to name a few) and internationally (HRW, AI, US State Dept) have been writing for years that torture is systematic and a chronic staple of most police barracks throughout the country. So for the NCHR to point out this fact out is merely stating the obvious. This is not a some incredible revelation that indicates that 'more' freedom is on the march in Egypt this week. Indeed, had the NCHR not pointed out that torture is employed in Egypt, it would of sapped the credibility credit that some critics think has already long run-out.
The second point of interest is that the NCHR called for the government to end the state of Emergency that has existed continuously for a quarter of a century. Well, not to take the wind out of the NCHR's sails but an incident needs to be recalled from this time last year. In April 2004, when Mubarak was hanging with Shrub in Crawford, Boutros Boutros-Ghali -aka BB-G- (yeah, the former UN S-G and president of the NCHR) said the NCHR was going to motion the government to repeal EL. Speculation increased when interior minister, Habib al-Adli, said he would not be opposed to such a measure. At a crucial meeting in late April 2004, the NCHR voted its conscious on the issue. Not only did the council NOT support calling for the end of emergency law, they vetoed discussion of potentially voting on approaching the government to repeal the EL. The vote was 24-3 in favor of NOT discussing the issue (Only Hafiz Abu Sa`ada, Bahey al-Din Hassan, and Hoda Sadaf voted in favor). At the time, BB-G argued that the NCHR had not formulated its final stance on EL while V-P Kamal Abul Magd was unreachable for comment. So in a weird way, we have been down this road once.
A serious disconnect exists between the NCHR's words and deeds. While it speaks boldly on occasion, it rarely acts in a complementary fashion. Consider the fact that the NCHR has failed to comment on the detention of 2,400 residents of northern Sinai governate's al-`Arish and al-Shaykh al-Zuwaid following the Taba bombing last October. Joe Stork (Washington Director of MENA operations for HRW) mentioned at a Cairo press conference in February 2005 that he had met with BB-G and had been informed that the NCHR prefers to handle such incidents "quietly" when approaching the government.
Additionally, there is some controversy over the release of the NCHR's report. The NCHR was scheduled to meet on 12 April 2005 to discuss the final report as well as adopt it before sending it to the president and parliament. With Bahey al-Din Hassan traveling (one of the opposition figures on the council), V-P Abul Magd called a meeting on short notice on 5 April where the report was adopted without discussion and sent to the president. Bahey al-Din Hassan said to me on 7 April that he had neither seen the report nor know of its contents. He felt that there was some funny business surrounding the manner the report was passed. He said he heard that the report would not be made public for some weeks, if not months.
I also spoke to Hafiz Abu Sa`ada (on 9 April) who told me that al-`Arish was discussed in the report and that it would be public after the president and parliament had a chance to review the NCHR's recommendations. Surprisingly then the Reuters managed to get a copy of the report on April 10th. How did they do this, you ask? They called and asked for a copy and were given one.
Before we start hailing the NCHR, let us remember that the only power it has is to make recommendations and request cooperation between ministries/agencies. Should the government ignore its recommendations or various ministries refuse/forget to cooperate, the NCHR has not legal recourse to call on them to account.
So yeah, the reports out. Is it worth the paper it is written on?...we'll see. Does this mean that anyone is listening?...not likely, they don't have to.
The shock is not what was the report said - it is that the press is covering it from such an angle, which makes the NCHR look unexpectedly more independent than it really is.
The commonality among today's stories is that the report is shocking because the NCHR cites that torture takes place in Egypt. Doubly shocking to these media outlets, the NCHR also is calling for the end of Emergency Law (in place since October 1981, but really since 1967 - the only period that EL has not governed Egypt since 1967 is the 6-month period that Sadat was both PM & President).
So after much flack and criticism by independent Egyptian and English-language newspapers, not too mention practically every activist working in the human rights field, the NCHR has delivered. Or has it?
Well, before everyone gets excited by the NCHR's criticism of the government, lets look at the record.
In regards to viewing the NCHR as a state funded body that turned around and bit the hand that feeds it, consider the fact that the government was supposed to allocate 3-million LE (about 500,000USD) for the council's operations. It received only one-million and was forced to rely on foreign funding. According to one council member, the Danes and the Dutch were the most generous donors. So it was underfunded by its own government in a country where NGOs receiving foreign funding is a big no-no.
Secondly, the NCHR was promised offices which were never supplied by the government. Instead, the NCHR conducts its business from the ruling NDP's downtown headquarters. This does not exactly scream independence and the symbolism is not lost to anyone concerned with HR in Egypt.
This brings us to the report's criticism of torture being employed in Egypt. While no doubt the media was quick to run with this, it should be noted that the Egyptian government more or less acknowledges that it uses torture anyways. Families and victims of torture (not many, but a small minority) have been compensated by courts over being tortured by the police in the recent past. So, in effect, the state knows it uses torture - not that it has ever convicted someone who tortured someone else though. This is not too mention that all human rights group domestically (Nadim Center, EOHR, Hisham Mubarak Legal Center, and LAND to name a few) and internationally (HRW, AI, US State Dept) have been writing for years that torture is systematic and a chronic staple of most police barracks throughout the country. So for the NCHR to point out this fact out is merely stating the obvious. This is not a some incredible revelation that indicates that 'more' freedom is on the march in Egypt this week. Indeed, had the NCHR not pointed out that torture is employed in Egypt, it would of sapped the credibility credit that some critics think has already long run-out.
The second point of interest is that the NCHR called for the government to end the state of Emergency that has existed continuously for a quarter of a century. Well, not to take the wind out of the NCHR's sails but an incident needs to be recalled from this time last year. In April 2004, when Mubarak was hanging with Shrub in Crawford, Boutros Boutros-Ghali -aka BB-G- (yeah, the former UN S-G and president of the NCHR) said the NCHR was going to motion the government to repeal EL. Speculation increased when interior minister, Habib al-Adli, said he would not be opposed to such a measure. At a crucial meeting in late April 2004, the NCHR voted its conscious on the issue. Not only did the council NOT support calling for the end of emergency law, they vetoed discussion of potentially voting on approaching the government to repeal the EL. The vote was 24-3 in favor of NOT discussing the issue (Only Hafiz Abu Sa`ada, Bahey al-Din Hassan, and Hoda Sadaf voted in favor). At the time, BB-G argued that the NCHR had not formulated its final stance on EL while V-P Kamal Abul Magd was unreachable for comment. So in a weird way, we have been down this road once.
A serious disconnect exists between the NCHR's words and deeds. While it speaks boldly on occasion, it rarely acts in a complementary fashion. Consider the fact that the NCHR has failed to comment on the detention of 2,400 residents of northern Sinai governate's al-`Arish and al-Shaykh al-Zuwaid following the Taba bombing last October. Joe Stork (Washington Director of MENA operations for HRW) mentioned at a Cairo press conference in February 2005 that he had met with BB-G and had been informed that the NCHR prefers to handle such incidents "quietly" when approaching the government.
Additionally, there is some controversy over the release of the NCHR's report. The NCHR was scheduled to meet on 12 April 2005 to discuss the final report as well as adopt it before sending it to the president and parliament. With Bahey al-Din Hassan traveling (one of the opposition figures on the council), V-P Abul Magd called a meeting on short notice on 5 April where the report was adopted without discussion and sent to the president. Bahey al-Din Hassan said to me on 7 April that he had neither seen the report nor know of its contents. He felt that there was some funny business surrounding the manner the report was passed. He said he heard that the report would not be made public for some weeks, if not months.
I also spoke to Hafiz Abu Sa`ada (on 9 April) who told me that al-`Arish was discussed in the report and that it would be public after the president and parliament had a chance to review the NCHR's recommendations. Surprisingly then the Reuters managed to get a copy of the report on April 10th. How did they do this, you ask? They called and asked for a copy and were given one.
Before we start hailing the NCHR, let us remember that the only power it has is to make recommendations and request cooperation between ministries/agencies. Should the government ignore its recommendations or various ministries refuse/forget to cooperate, the NCHR has not legal recourse to call on them to account.
So yeah, the reports out. Is it worth the paper it is written on?...we'll see. Does this mean that anyone is listening?...not likely, they don't have to.
The shock is not what was the report said - it is that the press is covering it from such an angle, which makes the NCHR look unexpectedly more independent than it really is.
Reader Comments (15)
Yes, the report isn't an earth shattering revelation but I think that's missing the point slightly. The council is pretty much a government attempt at a nose job on a three-eyed dwarf BUT the report is a credit to those people on the council who would not be shocked and awed by the prospect of an anger-spitting government.
The report is at least two months late which is down to the infighting. The government doesnt give it the money it promised and its in the NDP building but despite that it published a report that actually bears a fair resemblance to reality instead of the govt-sponsored whitewash that everyone expected. Everyone was waiting for a rosy caricature of a report, so why not give them some recognition for not doing that.
I'm with you on their flip-flopping (as that term still useable?) on the emergency law but in the end, they came out publicly against it even though the law is on the "do not question" shelf of the govt's discussion list.
What are they able to do? Well, nothing really but then who can? The judiciary maybe, but that would be another issue altogether. But by taking a critical public position towards state actions, they have turned their relationship with the state into a giant whooppee cushion right under the state's bloated, aid-happy ass. I mean, you know you have problems when your poodle turns against you, right?
I would also say that the government doesn't exactly say it uses torture (it doesnt even more or less say that). It says torture is not a policy. But when it does happen, it is in isolated situations and is "prosecuted to the full extent of the law". I'm sure a line it lifted of the website of the L.A police department or something. Also I think the Nadim Centre could actually give u names of policemen prosecuted for torture. To be accurate, the problem includes the definition of torture (beatings for information ... so a random bout of electric-shock therapy would not stand in court as torture). This is mentioned somewhere in the report.
Liam, thanks for your comments but we are going to have to disagree over the significance of the NCHR calls for ending EL and citing torture in Egypt. I am not entirely sure this is a case of the poddle biting the master. At any rate, your comments were good.
Just made some phone calls....
There have been no torture prosecutions of State Security since 1986
There have been no torture prosecutions of Cairo Vice-Squad.
There have been no prosecutions over torturing anti-war demonstrators in 2003.
There have been no torture proscutions over the al-Arish case of the past six months.
The ministry of interior consistantly argues that victims make false allegations. HRW had a meeting with the minstry in 2004 and was told that 19 cases of police officers were investigated and that 8 of those received penalties between a fine and five-years.
This is of course a small step in the right direction but it doesn't deal with the magitude of the problem. Between February 2002-February 2004, 17 people died in custody (3 of which died in State Security custody between September 2003-February 2004).
Josh, the figures are damning, no doubt about that and offer a glimpse of the scale of the human rights problem in Egypt. The prosecutions of the policemen mentioned by HRW are the scapegoats but do show that the state does prosecute its officials for torture. I just wanted to point that out because, if left out when talking to the govt it's the kind of thing that's thrown back in your face. So it's better to acknowledge it first and put it into its proper context.
I read somewhere that there are something like 6 cases (but, of course, not necessarily prosecutions), for at least 600-odd complaints a year. not sure which branches this refers to.
sorry to go on about this:
It's gonna be interesting to see how the govt responds to the report. The govt can't accuse a govt body of "advancing a foreign agenda", actually, you never know, it might just happen. Council members unwittingly falling for conspiracies? Or maybe the government will say, "See, our own bodies criticise us, that's how open we are". The last option sounds most savvy, but it would necessitate aknowledgement and a corresponding effort to fix the problem. Or at least an effort that looks like its aimed at addressing the problem. The govt will and can worm away all it wants, but this just changes the playing field up a (little) bit and that's interesting.
Somebody should give Senator Leahy's office a copy of this report. He follows Egyptian human rights issues, I believe.
Better yet send a copy to Mich McConnell. He will raise hell and well he should (US tax payer money used to prop up governements that torture and abuse human rights, etc...).
MM
Mitch McConnell, is that you?
Gamal Fahmy has a great column in this week's Al Araby called "Special offer...21 jokes for the price of one." One of the jokes goes:
Says one person to another: We have a state security, central security, terror fighting teams, units for criminal investigations, supply investigations, public fund investigations, morality and tourist police, traffic police, and what else?
Replies the second: And the National Council for Human Rights.
OK, Praktike, you got me!!
MM
From today's http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2005/44664.htm" rel="nofollow">State Dept. press briefing:
QUESTION: Yeah, Tom, two days ago there was a report issued by a government-appointed human rights panel in Egypt that was actually very critical of Egypt's human rights performance there, including, if I'm right, that they're against the emergency laws. How do you see this, this panel and this work? And also, as a more general question, do you see Egypt making more progress there to sort of ease the tensions that led the Secretary to postpone a visit last month?
MR. CASEY: Well, let me address the report first. First of all, we do view the release of this report as a positive step in Egypt's political reform process. As you know, the report documents a number of things, including a number of the human rights violations that we've talked about in our annual State Department 2004 Country Report on Human Rights and Practices and it makes a number of recommendations to the Government of Egypt on how to address that.
I have to be honest, we have not done a full and complete review of the report yet. We are continuing to look at it. But we are encouraged that this organization, which was created on the instruction of President Mubarak and has been supported by the Egyptian Government, including funded by the Egyptian Government, has presented such a frank assessment of Egypt's human rights problems.
And we do think that this bodes well for more open political dialogue and discourse in Egypt and is an example of how Egypt can move forward in its reform process.
QUESTION: And now about the second part of the question, because there was widespread reports that the Secretary had actually canceled or postponed a trip to Cairo because of the Nour case there. Do you think that the ensemble of what's going on in Egypt has made a better climate there so that you're starting to think about rescheduling the trip?
MR. CASEY: Well, I think Richard and Adam have both addressed the subject of the Secretary's change in travel plans, and I don't think they presented it in quite that way and I'd refer you back to what they said on that issue.
I do think that anything that can be done to promote greater openness, greater political reform in the Middle East or in the broader Middle East is extremely important and something we're supportive of. The Secretary spoke to that a little bit this afternoon in terms of the context of the importance of internally generated reform in the Middle East to the administration and to the President's agenda.
QUESTION: So no comment on trip rescheduling --
MR. CASEY: Again, I don't have anything new to add to that. I'd just refer you back to what's been said previously by the spokesmen.
Where can i find the report, considering that the state dep and reuters where able to get their hands on it, it has be out there somewhere. Does NHCR have a website ? Havent been able to find it. Thanks for a great blog -mena
Where can i find the report ? Considering that the state dep has it and
Ursula Lindsey is doing a story for Cairo Magazine this week. She spoke with Hafiz Abu Saada and Kamil Abul Magd who said an Arabic version of the 358-page report is being distributed. It is currently being translated into English and French and should be available in a few weeks.
Whether this is true or not, Allahu `alim.
As with most things regarding this council, there are about 10 conflicting versions of the story being circulated - each one correct if you listen closely to the techincalities they include when speaking to the press.
Oh and sorry to include this...
But no Mena, there is no website for the Council.
By the way, we should be careful in calling for the end of Emergency Laws, because it is possible the govt. will simply change existing Egyptian law to suit their needs and then stop EL, claiming they have done what is needed (they have been doing similar deceptions since Sadat's time). What should be clearly opposed is the contents of EL, for instance holding suspects without charge indefinitely... etc.