Egypt made it on the UN Human Rights Council despite opposition from local and international human rights groups. Gihan Shahine examines how it was done The fact that Egypt has won a seat on the UN Human Right Council, which aims to uphold human rights around the world, despite harsh criticism by local and international organisations of its long record of what some call systematic abuse of human rights, and when more democratic countries like Holland and Denmark were denied membership, has puzzled many. The government, of course, has celebrated the success as an indication that Egypt is taking serious steps towards democratisation and the improvement of human rights conditions, accusing all local and international reports of "exaggeration" and "inaccuracy". Activists, however, insist that elections for UN council membership has nothing to do with Egypt's record of human rights practices but rather with its political weight, balance of power and international relations. Although the council's founding document makes it a condition that election be based on the candidate's "contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights", analysts explained that the vote was marked by a lack of competition within three of the five UN regional groups, which only put up as many candidates as there were seats available. Egypt was elected on the African Group's "closed slate", with just four countries standing for four seats. "It all has to do with the brilliant diplomatic efforts on the part of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry in marketing Egypt and getting as many votes as possible -- but definitely not with Egypt's record of human rights practices," explained Hafez Abu Seada, secretary-general of the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights (EOHR). "After all, countries with even worse records in human rights abuses could similarly win membership on the council," Abu Seada said. Mohamed Zarie, director of the Egyptian Human Rights Association for the Assistance of Prisoners, concurred, saying that voting on the UN council "was all a game of power and mutual interests". Some countries, according to Abu Seada, would agree to exchange votes in various UN councils and, in Egypt's case, it could rally support from three major blocs: Islamic, Arab and African countries. Zarie also thought there was a US role behind the success of Egypt, arguing that, "the US has diplomatic and strategic interests with Egypt." Abu Seada would not rule out that possibility either, especially when knowing that the US has welcomed Egypt's success despite the fact that only a couple of months ago the US Bureau on Democracy issued a highly critical report on the country's systematic abuse of human rights and torture in prisons. Whatever reasons were behind Egypt's election on the 47-member UN council, Zarie insists it was not much of a victory. "The Egyptian regime will be mired in an extremely embarrassing situation since it will have to uncover its human rights record to the world," Zarie said. Once a council member, a country is supposed to "uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights" and "fully cooperate with the council". Zarie said that Egypt will also have to allow visits by, and fully cooperation with, the five council special rapporteurs who have outstanding visit requests dating back as far as 1996 (the special rapporteurs cover torture, human rights defenders, freedom of religion or belief, and the independence of judges and lawyers). Which, Abu Seada says, is more of an advantage than a disadvantage. "This will help enhance the work of non-governmental human rights organisations and will partly compel Egypt to improve its human rights record which will now be exposed to the whole world." Abu Seada, however, may be too optimistic. The Human Rights Council, created in March 2006, was slated to replace the highly politicised Human Rights Commission widely criticised for including countries accused of widespread human rights abuses. "The commission itself issued a highly critical report on human rights conditions in Egypt in 2002, yet that did not seem to affect the country's chances of being a member on the new council's board," Zarie said. Whereas the new council is supposed to embrace new mechanisms that would question the human rights status of its member countries, Zarie is not optimistic that Egypt will take more than a few "cosmetic but not real steps towards democracy, since full-fledged reform would immediately jeopardise the very existence of the regime." There is almost consensus among human rights activists that Egypt is already internationally recognised as a "no free country" with "no free press". Activists mention the recent spate of international reports lambasting Egypt as "the worst" for disregarding human rights as a case in point. Amnesty International, for one, issued a highly critical report on what it described as "the systematic abuses" of human rights in Egypt, committed "in the name of security". It showed how torture in Egypt by security services and police is widespread and that the UN's independent expert on torture has been unable to visit the country despite repeated requests to do so. Earlier this month, a report by two human rights organisations, UN Watch and Freedom House, disqualified Egypt [as well as Belarus, Angola and Qatar] from being a council member for having "authoritarian regimes", "deeply entrenched repression" and "negative UN voting records [on rights issues]." "If these regimes wish to try to prove that they should be considered as potential council members, they must at a minimum take concrete action immediately," Watch said before the elections. Among these actions, the Geneva-based organisation recommended releasing opposition leaders, journalists and bloggers, preserving the freedom of press and strengthening the independence of the judiciary. In the same vein, Human Rights Watch joined a bid by 19 local human rights groups to the UN General Assembly, opposing Egypt's candidacy for UN council membership two days before the elections, saying the government's record was "full of serious human rights violations that have been practised widely for long years." "Incorporating states known for their severe hostility towards human rights, their blatant flouting of international standards and non- cooperation with the UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) would undermine the credibility of the council," a statement from the groups said. "It would hamper its role in improving human rights conditions, not only in the Arab region but worldwide." The independent rights groups, spearheaded by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, explained in a statement sent to the UN General Assembly that the Egyptian regime has been persistent in "brutal torture" in detention facilities. The statement also revealed that, given the continued state of emergency since 1981, cases of arbitrary detention, mistreatment in police stations, restraint of freedom of speech, suppressing the right to peaceful demonstration and assembly, and the referral of civilians to military courts have been widely reported in Egypt and documented by such organisations as Amnesty International and the New York-based Human Rights Watch. The statement also pointed to "the continued rigging of elections and doctoring the returns of representative elections and popular referendums, as well as punishing judges who exposed the rigging." The recent constitutional amendments and the new anti-terrorism law which is slated to replace the current emergency law "will further stifle peaceful political dissent, as well as cement patterns of serious abuses by security forces," Amnesty said. The amended Article 179, which paves the way for a proposed anti- terrorism law, removes all legal constraints and safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, police searches without a warrant and eavesdropping on telephone calls and other private communications, rights groups insisted. "It remains questionable how Egypt will uphold human rights principles in light of such violations," Zarie said.
