The external relations of the Arab human rights movement.

• Author: Awad, Ibrahim

In the 1970s the first arab non-governmental organizations (ANGOHRs), active in the field of the defense and promotion of human rights, were created. In 1983, the establishment of the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) was a watershed and became a driving force that encouraged a number of citizens, from different Arab countries, to engage in committed action in the field of human rights. Thus, human rights organizations were established in a number of countries and, since the late 1980s, an Arab human rights movement was certainly in existence. Parallel to this process, cut off from the rest of the Arab World, human rights activism developed in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. Eventually, Palestinian human rights groups joined other ANGOHRs and became integrated into the Arab human rights movement.

The fact that there was an Arab human rights movement did not mean that it had the means to subsist. In fact, the movement could be said to have been a weak, physically handicapped infant at birth. This weakness, especially during the initial part of the Arab Human Rights movement, had two major sources: 1) overall lack of solid relationship with the state, 2) conservative and protectionist position of leaders toward international connections.

The first source of weakness varied for each ANGOHR in gaining legal legitimacy and public support. Some ANGOHRs which failed to obtain legal recognition as civil society associations from public authorities, were relegated to the status of de facto organizations, thus their existence was left tenuous. Another category of ANGOHRs were able to acquire legal status as NGOs but were still subject to the whim of local authorities and were undermined by hostile attitudes of some officials toward them.

The lack of popular and financial support, as well as lack of trained human resources, further constrained the ability of emerging ANGOHRs to carry out their functions, and realize the objectives which they set for themselves. Since public authorities denied them due recognition, the general society was unable to provide them with necessary financial resources. Moreover, most of the citizens interested in the defense and promotion of human rights did not have the financial means that would allow them to support ANGOHRs. Additionally, the hostile attitude adopted by public authorities with respect to these organizations deterred interested and financially capable citizens from providing badly needed support. Besides, past or present authoritarian regimes had done away with whatever practices of participation in public life that had previously existed. As a result, training for effective, professional undertaking of Human Rights functions was lacking for these emerging ANGOHRs.

In the process of establishing their organizations, the founding members of ANGOHRs were aware that the international institutional system of human rights was accessible to them. Therefore, it was only legitimate for them to join the network of institutions which, by different means, supervise, monitor and promote the norms and values of Human Rights. This article considers that in the 1970s and 1980s, state relations and internal difficulties directly lead to the ANGOHRs' integration into the international system of human rights. The less internal strength and support these emerging NGOs had, the greater was their degree of integration with the international Human Rights structure.

Finally, differential integration into the international system by various emerging ANGOHRs was influenced by the ideological backgrounds and cohort experiences of the leaders of the movement. Arab Nationalists and Islamists, who had been active in Arab governmental politics in the 1960s, were often reluctant to engage in a comprehensive manner with international Human Rights bodies. In contrast, younger founders and activists who had leftist backgrounds, especially with liberal values, were more disposed to greater integration in the international system. To clarify, in the early 1990s, Human Rights activists, in their twenties, thirties, or forties, were seen to be more open to the idea of full participation in the international Human Rights system than their colleagues in their sixties or seventies. In sum, a leader who is aged 25 to 50 and holds liberal ideas will be the most open to the idea of strengthening and broadening international connections and integration.

This essay intends to test the propositions mentioned above. First, it will examine the international institutional system of human rights and the legitimacy of ANGOHRs joining it. Second, it will examine the reasons for the differential integration into the international Human Rights system. Finally, the article will briefly review and assess the activities of the ANGOHRs in question. It is argued that the main benefits for those ANGOHRs who have integrated into the international system has been the furtherance through both horizontal expansion or vertical deepening of human rights work in Arab countries.

To explore these propositions, we will focus particularly on three ANGOHRs; the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR), the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS). It will also refer to the Palestinian human rights organization al-Haq. It will occasionally provide contrast to these examples by noting cases of ANGOHRs who have been legally recognized and have successfully maintaining positive relations with authorities in their countries.

THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The question of the legitimacy of joining the international institutional system of human rights has been repeatedly raised in different Arab countries. The greater the integration into the international system of the concerned ANGOHR, the more intense was the questioning. This questioning sometimes reached outright public denunciation and accusations of betrayal. This article will therefore begin this discussion by exploring how an international institutional system of human rights came into being, in order to later examine the benefits of joining it.

In recognition that the state is often the perpetrator or silent partner in any infringement on Human Rights, the need for NGOs to protect individual and group rights on an international level historically came to be recognized as being extremely important. Although many states recognize the importance of such a protective function, each state is also jealous of its sovereignty prerogatives. Therefore, guarantees of rights have traditionally been almost solely a subject of domestic jurisdiction. Any effective international means for the implementation of Human Rights monitoring is revolutionary and inherently threatening. The Charter of the United Nations has marked, as an area appropriate for international concern, the beginning of this revolutionary expansion of human rights to the global level.(1)

Implicit in the historical origins of the Charter is the belief that human rights are rights which every person should have by virtue of his or her humanity.(2) Today, there are numerous institutions concerned with the promotion and protection of human rights. These institutions are based on clear conceptualizations of ideal normative and procedural expectations for states concerning the treatment of all individuals and groups regardless of nationality. From such expectations, it may also be said that there has come into being a world society which includes in its membership individuals, NGOs, and states. As a result of this emerging world society, old principles of 'international society', like sovereignty and non-intervention, are no longer clear-cut.(3) Thus, the Charter may be considered revolutionary because it was at the origin of the establishment of a new paradigm of world society.

On the road from the former 'international society' (pre-Charter) to 'world society', several indicators of the extent to which human rights have become entrenched may be identified. First is the support given by states to the various conventions. A second indicator is the extent to which individuals have been able to make headway with complaints against the states who are UN members. (The basis for these cases lies in the United Nations Commission of Human Rights Resolution 1503 Procedure, which asserts that communications from individuals reporting any consistent pattern of violations can be acted upon,(4) as well as the individual complaint mechanism regulated by the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).

The most reliable indicator of an emerging world society is the degree of development of Human Rights focussed non-governmental organizations. It is ideally in the NGO domain that individuals and groups are able to approach the question of the rights of their fellow human beings unencumbered by a duty to protect this or that political or economic interest. The underlying idea is that an offence to the rights of anyone anywhere is ultimately an offence to humanity. Non-governmental organizations acting on this principle might therefore be interpreted as both expressing the existence of world society and visibly buttressing it.(5)

Johan Galtung has elaborated on this perspective. He sees modern society as having three components: state, capital, and people (the last organized in associations that add up to civil society). At the international level, these three components are reproduced as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), (in a hierarchy with the UN at the top); as transnational corporations (TNCs), (in an informal hierarchy according to assets); and as international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), (in an informal hierarchy according to size of membership, like states). The people's organizations (PO's) which Galtung includes in the third level are here replaced by non-governmental...