Middle East Transparent	23 August 2004	شفــــاف الشــــرق الأوســــط
Shireen Ebadi’s Brave New Ideas By Pierre Akel In a Middle East where, too often, « our » dead are « martyrs » while « their » dead are just « numbers », it is encouraging to read, in the interview given by Shereen Ebadi to the “al-Hayat” of London (August 22), that “my heart bleeds for both parties, for the Israeli young people who die because of the selfishness and arrogance of their government and my heart bleeds for the Arab young people who are obliged, since their tender age, to live with arms, death and brutality”. Such talk is most unusual “for both parties”, Arabs and Israelis alike. Shereen Ebadi evokes other “sensitive” issues for the region. Calling on the Iraqi people to reunite and to constitute a government representing the majority of the Iraqi society, she warns that “the new government could not rule as it pleases. A majority government is limited by due respect to the rights of minorities and to Human Rights”. This radically differs from both the “nationalistic” and “religious community” type of “demographic” so-called democracies, prevalent in the region. It is a totally new concept in the Middle East. To the best of my knowledge, the principle of the “rights of minorities” has never been adopted, whether implicitly or explicitly, by any political parties or thinkers in the Arab-Islamic region. In a region where every single country has important religious, national or ethnic minorities, and where majority-minority struggles could easily turn into civil wars, the principles of “respect of minority rights” and of “respect of internationally recognized Human Rights” are not only morally desirable but could prove to be the best “self defence” mechanism to avoid bloodshed and secessionist tendencies. That, not to forget that “democracy” is supposed to be based on the free choices of “individuals” and not on “demographic” statistics which tend to obliterate the fact that people from the same religious community could- and should- make totally different choices. In the perspective of a just peace with Israel, it would, also, be difficult to convince the Israeli people that Arab countries could respect the obligations of a peace treaty, in particular the principle of “E extends the principle of “limited” majority rights to another sensitive domain, that of “national sovereignty”. To her, the United Nations, which represents “the collective mind” (of Humanity) could have decided that the Iraqi people “after long years of repression did not have the force to topple Saddam without external help” and, thus, “could have voted to change the Iraqi regime”! This “new thinking” had been anathema in the Middle East. National sovereignty was supposed to be absolute and foreign interventions were viewed as Imperialist plots. The principle of “humanitarian intervention”, at the expense of national sovereignty, was applied in Iraq 12 years ago to prevent Saddam’s forces from exterminating the Kurdish people. It is only unfortunate that the US-British war against the man who had exterminated 3 million Arabs, Iranians and Kurds had not been, openly, in the name of Democracy and Human Rights. The fig leaf of WMD was unnecessary and meaningless in the eyes of peoples of the region. In the age of intercontinental ballistic missiles, it is time to review the principle of absolute national sovereignty in favour of an international duty of intervention in situations where local or regional forces lack restraint or where regional conflicts could prove too dangerous for Humanity as a whole. This could become the case in Darfour. It could also be the case for the 56 years old Arab-Israeli conflict. In the name of this same logic, we had been, as many Arab individuals and organisations, in favour of the US and European Reform Initiatives in the Middle East. Notwithstanding our patriotism and our attachment to the independence of our countries, we do realize that the peoples of the Arab region are too weak, “after years of repression” to achieve Reform by their own means. Only dictators (and fools) could say no to Reform if it comes through external pressures. Even when expounding her new thinking in international affairs, Shireen Ebadi had some shocking reminders of the situation of women in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thus, we discovered that any female Iranian is considered as an “adult” at 9 years, from the point of view of the Penal Code, while a male remains “under age” until 15. This means a 9 year old girl could be condemned to prison or even to death. This could be “legal” in Iran but it would still be “illegitimate” from the point of view of International Law and Universal Human Rights. The plausible explication for this unbelievable anomaly is that the Prophet had taken a 9 years old girl for wife more than 14 centuries ago. Still, no Islamic country had adopted such a draconian interpretation of the Prophet’s marriage to an under age girl. Neither Egypt, Indonesia, or even Saudi Arabia. Such a dogmatic interpretation of religion is the toll of Iran’s subjugation by a theocratic government. It should be reminder that, in the Arab Middle East as well, for the first time in 14 centuries, the class of Ulemas (mostly Sunni Ulemas but inspired by the successes of the Shiite Khomeini and of the Afghan Mulla Omar) is making attempts to seize power for itself. This is the core of the fundamentalist program (even when proclaimed by the “Shiite” Motqtada Sadr). It is the case in Saudi Arabia, where two prominent princes* had, two years ago, to remind Ulemas that they are supposed to be “advisors to the Rulers” and “not Rulers”! It is, also, the case for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood which still confounds the “president of the republic” with the “grand Imam”!** * The ex Director of Saudi Intelligence, Prince Turki al Faysal in the London “Sharq al Awsat” (January 20, 2002) and the “reformer” Prince Talal bin Abdul Aziz (“Sharq al Awsat”, January 29, 2002). ** see the interview published on this website, in Arabic, with one of the most “liberal” leaders of the Brotherhood.
Your Comments
w.hasan w.hasan@virgin.net Shireen Ebadi’s Brave New Ideas Mr Pierre Akel, Please accept my heartiest felicitations on writing such a nice piece. Keep it up. May your god bless you. ws