Saudi Arabia: World’s Human Rights Sewer
Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/September 21/15
Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, sentenced to be crucified, was accused of participating in banned protests and firearms offenses — despite a complete lack of evidence on the latter charge, and he was denied access to lawyers. Al-Nimr is also alleged by human rights groups to have been tortured and then forced into signing a confession while in custody.
Not only are the Saudi authorities preparing to crucify someone — in 2015 — whom they tortured into making a confession; they are preparing to crucify someone who was a minor at the time of arrest.
Alas not a week goes by without Saudi Arabia demonstrating to the world why they retain their reputation as one of the world’s foremost human rights sewers.
Crucifixion is a punishment which, it would appear, is not only Sharia-compliant but also — we must assume — Geneva-compliant.
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva is an organization that may be easy to critique, but it is very hard to satirize. Ordinarily, if you told anyone that there was a place in Switzerland where Sudan, Iran and others of the world’s worst dictatorships and human rights abusers have their views on human rights treated with respect and deference, you would assume the script was written by Monty Python. Idi Amin would make an appearance at some point to share his views on how to improve equal conditions for women in the workplace. Pol Pot would crop up in order to castigate those countries where living standards had not been sufficiently raised in accordance with global averages.
Everything that happens in Geneva is beyond satire. But last week provides a demonstration, outrageous even by the standards of the UN. For this week, it came out – thanks to the excellent organization UN Watch — that Saudi Arabia has been appointed as the head of a key UNHRC panel. This panel selects the top officials who shape international standards in human rights; it is intended to report on human rights violations around the world. The five-member group of ambassadors, which Saudi Arabia will now head, is known as the Consultative Group and has the power to select applicants to fill more than 77 positions worldwide that deal with human rights issues. It appears that the appointment of Saudi Arabia’s envoy to the UNHRC, Faisal Trad, was made before the summer, but that diplomats in Geneva have kept silent on the matter since then.
That this appointment had to leak out months after the event raises the possibility that the UNHRC, contrary to popular perception, actually does have some sense of shame. Otherwise, why not shout from the rooftops that Saudi Arabia has won this prestigious position? Why not distribute a press release? After all, Saudi Arabia — and by extension the UNHRC — have nothing to be ashamed of, do they?
Alas not a week goes by without Saudi Arabia demonstrating to the world why they retain their reputation as one of the world’s foremost human rights sewers. Saudi Arabia may have beheaded more people in the last year than ISIS, but only rarely do any of these cases get more than a flicker of international attention. Occasionally a case breaks above the waves of public opinion. One such case is that of the jailed blogger Raif Badawi, sentenced last year to 10 years in jail and 1000 lashes for “insulting Islam.” The plight of Raif Badawi, who has already been served the first 50 lashes, and is being held in prison while awaiting the rest, has garnered international attention and condemnations of Saudi Arabia. The kingdom’s response has been strongly to denounce “the media campaign around the case.”
But the glare of international opinion clearly disturbs the Saudi authorities — a fact well worth keeping in mind. And it is not as though they have nothing to hide. This week brings a case that should get at least as much attention as that of Raif Badawi.
Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was just 17 when he was arrested by the Saudi authorities in 2012, during a crackdown on anti-government protests in the Shia province of Qatif. He was accused of participating in banned protests and firearms offenses — despite a complete lack of evidence on the latter charge. Denied access to lawyers, al-Nimr is alleged by human rights groups to have been tortured and then forced into signing a confession while in custody. Campaigners say that it seems he has been targeted by authorities because of his family association with Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, the 53-year-old critic of the Saudi regime who is his uncle. The Sheikh has also been convicted and sentenced to death. After the confession and “trial,” his nephew was convicted at Saudi’s Specialized Criminal Court and sentenced to death. The trial itself failed to meet any international standards. Al-Nimr appealed against his sentence, but this week that appeal was dismissed. It now seems likely that he and his uncle will now be executed. Because charges include crimes involving the Saudi King and the state itself, it seems likely that the method of death will be crucifixion.
If this were in any way to cause a flicker of concern among other participants in the UNHRC farce going on Geneva, they have at least some consolation. For in Saudi Arabia crucifixion is not what it used to be. Indeed, in Saudi Arabia crucifixion begins with the beheading of the victim and only then the mounting of the beheaded body onto a crucifix, to make it available for public viewing. This is a punishment which it would appear is not only Sharia-compliant but also — we must assume — Geneva-compliant.
Of course, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr counts as having been a juvenile at the time of his arrest, so not only are the Saudi authorities preparing to crucify someone — in 2015 — whom they tortured into making a confession – they are preparing to crucify someone who was a minor at the time of arrest. Perhaps the authorities at the UNHRC in Geneva do indeed blush when they appoint Saudi officials to head their human rights panels. But it does not seem to affect their behaviour. Just as Saudi authorities think it is “international attention” rather than flogging people to death or crucifying them after beheading that is the problem, so the UNHRC in Geneva seems to think it is public awareness of their grotesque appointments rather than the appointments themselves that are the problem.
The international attention paid to the case of Raif Badawi has not yet seen him released, but it seems to have delayed the next rounds of lashes. Which suggests the Saudi authorities have the capacity to feel some shame. This should in turn be a cause for some hope among everyone who cares about human rights. It should also provide a reminder to everyone to increase global attention on the case of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr and the many others like him who suffer under a government and judicial system that should utterly shame the world outside Geneva, even if it cannot shame the UN.
Normalization of relations with Israel could bolster efforts to balance Iran’s growing regional clout.
“In the Middle East, everyone at some point realizes that there is a bigger enemy than the big enemy.” – Israeli official.
But in the Middle East, reason does not always overcome holiness.
Israel-bashing and the systematic fueling of anti-Semitic behavior have become a Turkish political pastime since Turkey downgraded its diplomatic ties with Israel in 2010. There has been, though, relative tranquility and reports of a potential thaw since June 7, when Turkey’s Islamist government lost its parliamentary majority for the first time since it rose to power in 2002.
In August, a senior Hamas official, apparently hosted for some time by an all-too affectionate Turkish government, vanished into thin air. Saleh al-Arouri, a veteran Hamas official and one of the founders of its military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, was forced to leave Israel in 2010, after serving more than 15 years in prison. After his release, he was believed to be living in Istanbul. In August 2014, at a meeting of the International Union of Islamic Scholars in Istanbul, al-Arouri said that Hamas was behind the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank, an incident that triggered a spiral of violence in Gaza and Israel that summer.
A year later, Turkish diplomatic sources said that “Arouri was not in Turkey” although they did not confirm or deny earlier reports that Turkey had deported him.
Earlier than the news about Arouri, top diplomats from the two countries had secretly met in Rome. Dore Gold is Israel’s Foreign Ministry Director-General, and his Turkish counterpart was Feridun Sinirlioglu, then the Turkish Foreign Ministry’s undersecretary. Sinirlioglu is a career diplomat, not an Islamist political appointee. Between 2002 and 2007, he served as Turkey’s ambassador to Israel.
On June 24, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu confirmed ongoing talks with Israel, aimed at reaching some form of rapprochement, while suggesting that undue emphasis should not be placed on the gatherings.
Fast-forward to August: Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu forms an interim cabinet to take the country to snap elections on Nov. 1, and Sinirlioglu becomes Turkey’s new Foreign Minister. One of the first to send his congratulations to Sinirlioglu was Dore Gold.
In early September, Gold, a long-time advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said: “I have to say that many people in different capitals asked about the Rome meeting and … I heard the highest praise whether I was in a European capital or speaking to American officials about his diplomatic skills …Turkey is very lucky to have him [Sinirlioglu] as foreign minister. He is a first-class diplomat.”
The Israeli press reported in June that Israel’s Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold (R) held a secret meeting in Rome with Feridun Sinirlioglu (L) Turkey’s then Foreign Ministry Undersecretary (today Foreign Minister).
Apparently, reason had gained a bit of the upper hand after Turkey’s parliamentary elections in June. It is, no doubt, in the best national (and rational, too) interests of both countries, which once were best regional allies — before the Islamists rose to power in Turkey in 2002. A normalization of relations with Israel could bolster efforts to balance Iran’s growing regional clout. It could as well help keep Gaza relatively peaceful, stable and economically more viable.
But in the Middle East, reason does not always overcome holiness. Israel, Jews, Hamas and “our Palestinian brothers” remain a few of the most popular themes in Islamist election rallies — the best ones to exploit a Muslim voter base.
Things between the two countries look relatively calm these days, but a fresh round of attacks from Turkey’s Islamist politicians during election rallies are not unlikely.
An Israeli official was right when he told this author recently: “In the Middle East, everyone at some point realizes that there is a bigger enemy than the big enemy.”
Turkey and its best regional (Sunni) ally, Qatar, may have come to understand that they are paying a price for unconditionally supporting Hamas, and sometimes abusing this support. Apparently, there are some signs of a potential change in the Turkish-Qatari solidarity with Hamas. But caution is required. No one is sure yet if those signs indicate a medium-term policy change.
Jerusalem is not unaware of the risks of reaching premature conclusions about any normalization with Turkey. Prime Minister Netanyahu has every reason not to trust Turkey’s dominant pro-Sunni, pro-Hamas and anti-Israel Islamist polity. He knows that any normalization may collapse in a matter of months if the Turkish Islamists decide to start a new fight with Israel. Both countries would look ridiculous if they have to withdraw their ambassadors once again two months, say, after they were appointed. Turkish behavior in the event of normalization would be unpredictable. But it would also depend very much on the election results on November 1.
If, as in June’s elections, PM Davutoglu’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) fails to win a parliamentary majority, it will be forced into a coalition government with one of the three opposition parties, with the social-democratic Republican People’s Party (CHP) appearing as a likely prospective partner. The AKP will have to compromise on its Islamist policies, including foreign policy — particularly in the Middle East. The AKP would be reluctant to surrender foreign policy entirely to any coalition partner but may be lured into a compromise in which someone such as Sinirlioglu (the experienced diplomat and presently interim foreign minister) may be the solution satisfying everyone.
But the opposite is also true. In case of a landslide AKP victory on November 1 and a single-party government, all Middle East policy, including relations with Israel, could have to be reset to the Islamist factory settings.
Perhaps the headline in Zaytung, an online humor magazine and a Turkish response to The Onion, explains it all: “The Foreign Ministry, which has neglected its routine work due to civil strife in the country, gave signs of a return to normality when it condemned Israel.”
Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
