« Mostafa Tabatabainejad should have been clubbed with a nightstick | Main | On the lookout for domesticated, peace-loving Muslims »
Free Abdelkarim Soliman and all the rest, too
By yaman | March 3, 2007
A look at the case of Abdelkarim Soliman, the disingenuous media attention surrounding it, and the implications this has for human rights activists in the Middle East.
Abdelkarim Soliman, also known as the blogger Kareem Amer, is just one of the many hundreds of innocent people who have suffered at the hands of Western ally Hosni Mubarak’s regime. His case is unique to these in two ways: it is the first known case involving a the crime of blogging, and it has drawn much attention around the world, including that of the right-wing democracy evangelists in the United States.
But why was so much press coverage drawn to Soliman’s unjust situation, when less than a week before his verdict the arrest of 75 civilian members of the Muslim Brotherhood was largely ignored, enraging few outside of Egypt? If Soliman’s imprisonment was indeed an example of a reactionary Islamic government, as those right-wing pundits like to claim, then how in the same week could such a reactionary government effectively shut down a popular religious social organization?
It is peculiar that the same government should shut down a man for insulting religious sensibilities on the one hand, while accusing others of being religious extremists on the other. But the situation is not so puzzling if one looks at these arrests in their natural political framework rather than trying to force a religious lens over them, as the right-wing likes to do precisely because it views a monolithic “Islam” as its enemy. Both Soliman and those members of the Muslim Brotherhood pose a political threat to Mubarak’s regime, because both vocally criticize it. But while the Muslim Brotherhood is inspired by Islamic principles, Soliman gained popularity in the West precisely because he had denounced Islam.
What does this discrepancy mean for those who seek justice for both Soliman and the hundreds of others languishing in Egyptian prisons, including the modest taxi driver Imad al-Kabir who was arrested after being sodomized with a broomstick by Egyptian police?
It means, for one, that international acclaim, support, and popularization cannot be taken for granted. Some believe that all pressure is good pressure, that all attention is good attention–but such “good-will” does not occur in a vacuum, and those activists pressing for Soliman’s release cannot expect to control it or its effects. Activists should be wary of the reasons for the “support” of international representatives, journalists, or organizations–after all, would Soliman had gained so much support if he hadn’t been writing against Islam?
Would the West have sympathized with Soliman, for example, if he had been calling for a state and constitution inspired by Islam? Even though, by liberal standards, we theoretically have the right to make such a call (perhaps not implement it, according to the orthodox model) if we desire, chances are that the world would have let that news slide out of its two-minute memory rather quickly if it hadn’t altogether embraced it–like the case of the Muslim Brothers who according to Human Rights Watch (which by the way is not perfect) will be facing military tribunals because the civilian criminal courts acquitted them contrary to the wishes of the regime. HRW called for the release of the Muslim Brothers, correctly asserting their rights to freedom of expression and association.
These cases will never earn the false sympathies of Michelle Malkin or the so-called Arab liberals who have the curious habit of supporting liberal standards only when they apply to liberal victims, or others that are tenuously allied to them. These people only make political pronouncements and denouncements when they happen to coincide with their own interests and political agendas.
And yet, those cases must earn the sympathy and attention of those who think themselves supporters of human rights and proponents of just societies, at all times. Otherwise we run the risk of being tools, willingly or unwillingly, rather than catalysts for change.
International “solidarity”
And what of those protests that have come from those outside of Egypt? It is easy to denounce a government that is not your own, especially if you have nothing to fear from it. What is not so easy is to consider doing the same when your own government has committed similar injustices.
While much clamor regarding Soliman’s case has originated in the United States, few have managed to remember that Egypt is in fact a close ally in the Middle East, receiving the largest amount of annual foreign aid second only to Israel. In this sense Soliman’s arrest at the hands of Egypt has been completely disconnected from Egypt’s own obeisance to the US–perhaps because drawing a connection between the two could potentially weaken a relationship which benefits both the Egyptian regime and the ambitions of the US.
At the same time, those who have been the loudest about Abdelkarim Soliman have managed to remain silent regarding the case of Professor Sami al-Arian, a Palestinian-American academic who has been in prison since 2003, despite being acquitted of all but two charges in 2005, the other two voted on by the jury 10-2 in favor of his innocence. All of this, in America.
Or, what of the solidarity posts by the Syrian blogger community “condemn[ing] the arrest and sentencing of [an] Egyptian blogger… for the peaceful expression of his dissenting views?” This support is appreciated, of course, but one must wonder: when and if the first Syrian blogger is arrested, will we still be willing to organize condemnation in the same way? Or even more frankly, since this petition is about freedom of expression, not freedom to blog: what about the many political prisoners already in detention for that very reason, including Omar al-Abdullah, a second-year philosophy student who is close to Soliman in age?
The long-term dangers of politicized solidarity
These shortcomings should not delegitimize or weaken the campaign that has been working tirelessly to free Abdelkarim Soliman. In fact, in the immediate view, they may only have a positive effect in terms of actually securing his release. But Soliman is not the only political prisoner in the world or the Middle East, and these shortcomings will weaken the campaigns that are focusing on the rest.
For one, the international and partisan component of these campaigns make it very easy for domestic opposition movements to be accused of the regimes of being pawns of foreign governments. As a new study on the Syrian opposition by Joshua Landis and Joe Pace notes, most opposition figures in Syria, for example, have been forced to explicitly and categorically reject foreign assistance and interference. While now-political prisoner Michel Kilo stated that “we are not enemies of the regime” but “want to fix [it] through a large national effort to protect the country especially against America,” other opposition figures like Hassan Abdul Azim went one step further proclaiming that anybody who accepts foreign assistance will have an “unqualified position [taken] against them.” Andrew Tabler notes in “Democracy to the Rescue” that the signatories of the Damascus Declaration even turned down $5 million from the U.S. State Department, with Abdul Azim clarifying that “support by international powers for democratic change in Syria is welcome” but that foreign funding “means subordination to the funding country.”
Even Abdelkarim Soliman’s case provides plenty of such examples. As the Free Kareem blog notes, Soliman’s own father “accused human rights organizations that stood by Kareem of corrupting him.” Of course, it is absurd to suggest that Soliman or anybody else is incapable of making an opinion without being “corrupted” by foreigners–but such accusations make it very easy for Soliman’s case to be disregarded, and foreign human rights workers and monitors to be harassed and discredited. More ominously, they could provide a future pretext for the Egyptian government to place further restrictions on their activities, as well as the activities of the Egyptian opposition.
Discard the rest of the world, then?
Does this mean that international support for political prisoners should be altogether rejected and discouraged? No, absolutely not. However, it does suggest that all international support is inherently political, and thus has ramifications that must be considered. More importantly, it must be scrutinized before being embraced to determine whether or not it is genuine support, or manipulation.
While Abdelkarim Soliman’s case has been given air time in the Western media, I have already expressed doubts that this would have been the case had he not been critical of Islam–indeed, it was not the case for political prisoners from the Muslim Brotherhood.
We can extend this further even to the realm of opposition movements: would persons like Khairi Abaza from the Egyptian New Wafd Party be paraded around college campuses by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, if his party’s politics did not happen to coincide perfectly with the ambitions of a certain pro-American, pro-Israeli clique in Washington? Or, as As`ad AbuKhalil wonders, while members of the opposition-in-exile from Syria (and previously Iraq) are always welcomed in Washington, would that same government ever give an audience to Saudi or Libyan opposition groups?
These should not be considered simply to delineate our own motives from those of the ostensible “supporters.” Rather, we should realize that their motives do have effects that can be detrimental to our entire movement. Thus, if not out of principle (which it should be), then out of pragmatism these elements should be avoided as well as explicitly condemned.
For activists, these discrepancies mean that the mobilization of international support or solidarity should not be considered a success or an end in and of itself. In fact, it seems that international solidarity–especially when it comes from foreign governments or others with vested interests–only complicates their situation. It has other motives attached to it and is liable to change with the political whims and interests of those abroad.
Indeed, it seems to be an unpredictable liability that we cannot afford.
Topics: Comment |
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Very good point Yaman.
It is easy to jump on the bandwagon of supporting the West’s darlings. But that doesn’t mean we should forget everyone else imprisoned for their beliefs. There is no simple divide between West and Arab or pro and anti, and some people should become a bit more mature and recognise that. It is very easy, for example, to be anti-America and pro-Michel Kilo…or even pro-Bashar and pro-Kilo.
Simplifications like good versus evil only benefit the neo-cons and neo-colonialists.
Sasa, the Syria News Wire.
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
[...] This article is cross-posted to my personal blog. Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
It’s very simple - Kareem has active friends. And we spent hours per day for months getting his case across the entire world until we made sure that each mainstream paper got a hold of it.
If you think people just knew about his case because Kareem was any more “important” than the others - then you are wrong. As Kareem’s friend I can tell you that right away. Most media outlets weren’t even aware of Kareem’s existence before this happened, why or how would they otherwise find out? Why would they pick him to write about instead of all the others?
Again, Kareem has active friends. Others don’t. Sheer luck I suppose.
This is what I have a problem with.
People question too much, they say “why don’t you campaign for this person, that person, and the other person?”
I’ll tell you why - lack of support for such people from friends, family, and activists.
Kareem’s case is huge not because Kareem was particularly important.
But because he had us by his side this whole time and none of us gave up or stopped working for his sake.
Why don’t others do it for the people they think were wrongly imprisoned?
Seriously. It bothers me when others wonder too much, “what about the others?” My reply is, “do something about it!”
This applies to the people who criticized our Free Kareem campaign because they found it unfair that we’re doing it for Kareem and not the others. While we regret what happened to the others, it is THEIR responsibility just as much as it is ours to start a campaign for them and express their opinions regarding such cases.
Clearly you are misunderstanding this case.
You are drawing this conclusion unfairly because of the support we got from the few right-wing bloggers that you were exposed to.
Please check our sources - plenty of Arabs and Muslims are making their cases heard and it is for our benefit, it is for the benefit of Arab and Muslim societies in general.
It is NOT because of what Kareem said against Islam.
It is NOT due to bias in most cases.
I personally spoke to many media outlets and made sure that they emphasized the fact that we at the Free Kareem Coalition are mainly composed of Muslims, and they did that.
And finally, if Arabs and Muslims were silent at the time and we were receiving a great amount of attention due to outside support, do you really blame us for accepting their help?
I don’t care WHAT this makes us look like. At this point, we are humans siding with each other for the sake of a young man who has been imprisoned for practicing his basic rights, I refuse to make this about “conservatives” and “anti-Muslims” and “Westerners vs. Islam” or any of the above. They gave us help, we took it. And because of that, we are gaining the help of thousands of other Muslims as well, but that came as a reaction to the outside support.
And SO what?!
Look, this is a really silly mentality that Arabs in general have. We must make this about East vs. West, where we don’t accept anything Western because it must be biased and they all must have an agenda.
Well guess what?
I met these people. I know them personally. I know their organizations very well and I’ve even worked for them. They want to help, is that so wrong? And in Kareem’s case, they helped us a great deal, I don’t see anything wrong in accepting and appreciating their help and concerns. They are non-profits, they are not affiliates of the U.S organization nor are they tools for Zionist agents, for as long as Arabs have this mentality that anything Western must be ideologically corrupt, we will get nowhere. Why increase the gap between East vs. West? If my nation isn’t contributing enough, why not turn to another and have them help me network and increase my connections to the global media?
Wrong again!
I don’t think you even realize how much work we put into this.
It’s SO easy for you to sit back and claim that this is all because of what he said, instead of what others did for him. But I am heavily involved in this campaign, in fact I am the Director of this campaign and I consider these claims to be baseless accusations of things that aren’t there.
It’s due to hard work, it’s not due to what he said.
It’s hard work and it’s work that we sacrificed and risked a lot for, and I appreciate it if people realize that Kareem’s campaign is huge not because he is any more important than the rest of the imprisoned activists, but because he was lucky enough to have us, and we are also making a powerful statement through this campaign which indirectly speaks for all of those imprisoned, not just Kareem.
As you can see I am passionate about this case and I really dislike all of the implications in this post.
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Esra’a, I am not questioning the intentions or the hard work put into this campaign by courageous people like yourself. I know the risk that you are putting yourself in, and that others have put themselves in. What I am questioning is why people outside of Egypt have been listening to this case, as opposed to others, and while some of this may be because of the efforts you have made to get them to listen, I don’t think this is entirely the case. My question is not “Why don’t you campaign for the others?” it’s “Why doesn’t [any group of people here] listen to those campaigns?”
And yes, the main thing I am saying is that the people who are working on his behalf–what they are ultimately doing–is of course for the benefit of Arab societies in general!
I want to clarify that my post is not against the Free Kareem campaign, it’s not against freeing Kareem, and it’s not against people helping to Free Kareem. It’s about questioning the way Kareem’s case has been treated around the world in a larger sense. Sorry if this was not clear.
March 4th, 2007 at 2:30 am
Excellent post, i agree with your argument completely.
and if i may say something to Isra’a:
From what i understood from the post, the author does not focus on the Arabs RECEPTION of Kareem’s case, but rather the Westerns’ including their human rights’ organization RECEPTION of Kareem’s views; to be an atheist doesn’t necessarily to be an Islam-hater. Or, to speak against Islam doesn’t necessarily means to speak against the religion itself but, as in Kareem’s case, he speaks against Azhar and Muslim Brotherhood understanding of religion.
We should question the West’s interests in Kareem’s particular case. The reason i think this is important is because the west is using Kareem’s views AGAINST himself!
So while the author is supporting Kareem’s campaign, he is suspicious of the international support of this particular campaign and not another.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
It’s nice to see a demonstration of the disingenuousness of Michelle Malkin articulated like this. Although, I’m sure you’re also referring to others whose disingenousness is a little less obvious than Malkin’s.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Yaman,
As the author of the Kareem solidarity statement circulated among Syrian bloggers, I completely agree with you. However, the involvement of some Westerners with questionable motives should not detract from the legitimacy of the call to free Kareem. Also, the fact remains, that Western human rights organizations are much more effective in moblilizing public support. I would like to see a day when citizens across the region can get past their inertia and fear and make themselves better heard. This is why I have particular admiration for Esra’a activism on Kareem’s behalf.
You are right that this is not about Kareem alone, and it is not about Michel Kilo alone. That is why in past posts I have taken the time to find and list the names of as many Syrian prisoners of conscience as I could find
March 6th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Hi Abu Kareem, first of all, I want to clarify that I am not criticizing the support of human rights organizations all around the world for these issues, in the least bit. This is not the support I speak of when I criticize “Western support;” I am talking about the way politicians, partisans, and the media treat the subject. Second, in general I don’t think there is anything wrong with the statement (it’s quite clear and very well put together), but I felt that I could not, on a personal level, reproduce it unless I put it in the context of the rest of my views. And yes, I completely agree: Esra`a’s efforts are very admirable, I support them 100%.