Shopworn Excuses From Egypt

January 30, 2008:

Are international human rights agreements worth the paper they are printed on? Recent statements by the Egyptian government with respect to its human rights commitments under the Association Agreement it signed with the European Union in 2004 might seem to suggest that such agreements have little meaning.

The Egyptian government reacted furiously to a resolution passed by the European Parliament on January 17 criticizing Egypt for human rights violations. Even though the resolution contained nothing that the Egyptian government hasn’t heard many times before, the foreign ministry denounced the vote and the Speaker of the Egyptian parliament, Fathi Sorour, protested what he characterized as interference in Egypt’s domestic affairs. Sorour promised retaliatory action and sure enough, the Egyptians canceled a scheduled meeting of the EU-Egypt subcommittee on political affairs, the channel for dialogue between the EU and Egypt on human rights issues.

It seemed to matter little to the Egyptian government that as recently as March 2007 it had agreed to make a priority in its talks with the EU: “enhancing the effectiveness of institutions entrusted with strengthening democracy, the rule of law and the promotion of human rights in all their aspects.” One is bound to ask how canceling the meeting where human rights issues are supposed to be discussed equates with promoting human rights.

I recently had the opportunity to ask a group of leaders of Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party about their views on human rights promotion in Egypt and some of the violations, like the closure of human rights organizations, mentioned in the EU resolution. I was a bit perplexed to receive three different answers, but none of them were as vituperative as those prompted by the EU resolution. One official assured me that the party was committed to human rights and the rule of law and while violations might still occur, this was not the result of any policy. Another took a different tack, pleading for more time and arguing that it was unfair to hold Egypt to “western standards.” A third was more combative. He suggested that “there is another side” and advised me to be more considerate of the need to combat the threat of terrorism and Egypt’s many contributions to combating this threat.

Sorour’s fulminations about foreign interference constitute a fourth approach and while his remarks might be singled out for their absurdity and their somewhat sinister appeal to chauvinistic nationalism, none of these responses provide any reason for confidence in the Egyptian government’s adherence to its commitments to promote human rights.

Governments enter into solemn human rights commitments and then proceed to violate them brazenly, while making threadbare excuses and pleading special circumstances. It was ever thus, and it would be wrong to suggest that the Egyptian government is exceptional in its delinquency.
Nonetheless, there is a growing tension between ever more precisely targeted human rights agreements entered into by governments, of which the EU association agreements are among the prime examples, and the continuing failure of parties to these agreements to implement them. This lack of implementation brings human rights themselves and the institutions designed to promote them into disrepute, especially among people who are suffering from protracted deprivation of their basic rights and freedoms, like the people of Egypt.

This mounting tension creates obligations on both sides. Governments, like Egypt, that freely enter into such agreements should take their obligations more seriously –– no one is suggesting that human rights promotion is always easy, but these types of shopworn excuses undermine any effort to work together to achieve mutually agreed upon goals. Institutions, like the EU, responsible for the integrity of mechanisms created under their auspices, need to find more ways to encourage governments to abide by their commitments, and to deter them from shirking their obligations.