People do not rise against repressive regimes in order to be martyrs; they rise because they refuse that their lives be destroyed by regimes that oppose the people, writes Ayman El-Amir* Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has called for national dialogue as his tanks and artillery shelled peaceful protesters in 20 cities and towns, killing an estimated 850 civilians over the past two months. It is reminiscent of the Soviet tanks rolling into Budapest in 1956 to crush the Imre Nadgy revolution, or into Czechoslovakia to stamp out the Prague Spring of 1968. The Syrian regime of Al-Assad is replaying the 1982 scenario of the Hama massacre where 10,000- 20,000 civilians of the northern Syrian city were killed by the Syrian army in trying to quell a revolt against the ruling Alawite minority of former president Hafez Al-Assad. The Baath Party, which has held the reins of power in Syria for the past 47 years, is a relic of the former communist parties in Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, in Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh has called for debate but ordered his few army loyalists, and snipers, to fire on protesters demanding his ouster in two-dozen cities. It is like a thug holding a gun to your head and graciously talking about dialogue. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, who after 42 years of atrocious dictatorship is tottering to his demise, would also rather divide the country and sink it into civil war than abdicate. These regimes do not only emulate the communist systems in the former Soviet Union and East European countries in their open brutality, but also in their methods of subterfuge. First, they lie to their own people. They speak through their own media in the name of the people whom they detain, torture, impoverish and kill. Hosni Mubarak claimed that the interests of the poor classes of Egypt were always in the forefront of his mind, while his family and business predators devoured the country's assets in broad daylight. Second, they paint their opponents as naïve saboteurs, a misled minority, or outright traitors. Third, they build a power base of cronies, single party political loyalists and opportunists that soon melts away as soon as the rulers lose power. Fourth, they appoint a battery of propagandists that sing the praise of their fictitious achievements. They promulgate legislation that ensures their absolute power and their continuity in office until death do they part. Other laws ensure that they rule virtually unopposed while they boast of their democratic institutions, respect for human rights and the free will of the people, which they routinely manipulate. Finally, they advocate bogus reforms that are only meant to placate the people and divide them. On the international scene, the performance of Arab autocracies is even more scandalous. The Syrian regime has been nominated for the chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Council, and is not ashamed of seeking it. In 2003, Libya assumed the chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Commission, which eventually led to the termination of that UN organ and its replacement by the present Human Rights Council. Egypt, under the Mubarak regime, got nearly a clean bill of health following the review of its human rights record at the council in 2009-2010. How such countries got off with accolades for their wretched records of human rights speaks volumes on the cynical work practices of these international organs. It is based on coalition building among likeminded partners who seek to defend their indefensible interests. This phenomenon is symptomatic of the partnership the former Soviet bloc built with developing countries that maintained autocratic rule. The Soviet bloc voted to defend the abuses of one developing country or another in the face of censure and, likewise, expected developing countries to back up the Soviet Union or any member of the Soviet bloc whenever they were confronted with condemnation on human rights issues. The Arab bloc, made up of dictatorships that came to power either by royal inheritance or military coups, had an identity of interests with the Soviet bloc. Members of each group voted as a bloc, creating what former US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a one-time US permanent representative to the UN, once called "the tyranny of the majority". This phenomenon should have ended with the collapse of the former Soviet Union. However, Arab dictatorship outlived the Soviet system with some, like the Gaddafi's reign of terror, running for 42 years. For decades, UN institutions and organs have failed to instil and enforce the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms they were originally set up to promote. Dictatorships around the world, particularly during the Soviet era, created a conflict between the standards of international monitoring and enforcement of human rights and national sovereignty. Additionally, in the Cold War environment, big powers protected surrogate states in their spheres of influence. The demarcation lines between international obligations to respect and promote human rights and the exercise of sovereignty were deliberately blurred in favour of totalitarian rule. There were few exceptions. NATO's 1999 air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to stop its murderous shelling of Sarajevo and to loosen former president Slobodan Milosevic's grip on Kosovo was one example. However, this was not sanctioned by a UN mandate. NATO took it upon itself to carry out the action because Russia would have blocked a decision by the UN Security Council if the case had been presented to it. There would have been no UN authorisation. The second is the current bombing campaign of Libya in support of the people's uprising against Colonel Gaddafi. These two examples have established that no single dictator or autocratic regime can hide behind national sovereignty to massacre the people of the country. In Libya, NATO has said it is acting under UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, prompted by the request for intervention from the Arab League. It would have been doubtful that the Arab League, particularly its Gulf Arab States members, would have backed the same action in the case of Yemen, let alone Bahrain. However, to leave such decisions and actions in the hands of NATO, albeit with token participation from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, makes it the arbiter of justice and protector of human rights, which is not right. Although the decision was first approved by the multifarious European Union, it is hazardous to entrust such international action to a regional organisation with a specific military agenda. This reflects the weakness of UN institutions and the lack of genuine commitment of its membership to the universal principles on which it was founded. One has only to go back to the invasion of Iraq, or the Vietnam War, to learn what a single-minded agenda can inflict on a whole nation. Arab uprisings have deeply changed the situation in Tunisia and Egypt and will probably liberate Libya too. The Yemeni situation should have been resolved much sooner if the Gulf Arab States, particularly Saudi Arabia, were less wary of the consequences for their own regimes. Arab regimes have failed their peoples' post- independence aspirations for freedom, democracy and development. A minority of countries is cushioned by oil and gas wealth, but the majority is not so lucky. However, the roots of the Arab uprisings go far deeper than material needs. In an open world where free exchange of information is now dominant, people in Arab countries cannot find plausible answers to questions as to why the rest of the world is moving forward while they are condemned to live in abysmal conditions of the Middle Ages. People do not risk their lives in rising against autocratic regimes because they want to be heroes or martyrs. They will do so when they lose hope in their own government and in international institutions that speak only of sublime principles while protecting their worst offenders. And that is what is happening in the Arab world. * The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington DC.
