Tunisian human rights activist Mohamed Abu al Nashit has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison for publishing an article on-line about torture in Tunisian prisons. Meanwhile, al Jazeera reports that the Tunisian opposition is complaining that the authorities are using foul means to prevent their candidates from competing in local elections next month. Nasty place, Tunisia.
Last February, George Bush met with Tunisia's president bin Ali in the White House, From the press release:
They reviewed issues of regional concern, including Iraq, Middle East peace, cooperation in the global war on terrorism, and positive developments in Libya. They also exchanged views on President Bush's vision for the Greater Middle East, and prospects for greater economic and political opportunities for all Tunisians. The President welcomed the establishment of a Middle East Partnership Initiative office in Tunis. Tunisia has made great strides in ensuring equal participation by women in all sectors of society, and social and economic progress in Tunisia could give it a leading role in regional reform if this progress is now followed by needed political reform. The President emphasized to President Ben Ali his desire for Tunisia to move ahead in areas such as press freedom, the rights of Tunisians to organize and work peacefully for reform, the need for free and competitive elections, and equal justice under law. The United States is committed to working with Tunisia and all the countries of the Greater Middle East to achieve progress in these areas.
On February 28, 2005, the State Department released its 2004 human rights report for Tunisia:
The Government's human rights record remained poor, and the Government continued to commit serious abuses; however, the Government continued to demonstrate respect for the religious freedom of minorities, as well as the human rights of women and children. There were significant limitations on citizens' right to change their government. Members of the security forces tortured and physically abused prisoners and detainees. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals. International observers were not allowed to inspect prisons, and lengthy pretrial and incommunicado detention remained a serious problem. The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights. The Government continued to impose significant restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press. The Government restricted freedom of assembly and association. The Government remained intolerant of public criticism and used intimidation, criminal investigations, the court system, arbitrary arrests, residential restrictions, and travel controls (including denial of passports), to discourage criticism by human rights and opposition activists. Corruption was a problem.
So, just curious - since the Tunisian government is demonstrably not "mov[ing] ahead in areas such as press freedom, the rights of
Tunisians to organize and work peacefully for reform, the need for free
and competitive elections, and equal justice under law," does the Bush administration have anything to say?
In January 2004, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher described Tunisia as such:
"Tunisia has been a voice for moderation. Tunisia has been a voice for regional harmony. Tunisia has been a voice for putting effort and resources into development rather than wasting them on arms races or conflict or weapons of mass destruction."
That's pretty hard hitting. What about more recently? In a press conference linked to the release of the human rights report mentioned above, the briefer was asked directly why Tunisia was ignored by the United States when Middle Eastern democracy and human rights came up. His answer?
"Tunisia -- my former boss, Lorne Craner was out there, I think, a couple of times. We have programs in Tunisia to try to help journalists and so on who are oppressed by the government. The space in that country is very, very limited and we're trying to open it up."
That's nice. At least he doesn't claim that "we publicly criticize Tunisia all the time," since that would be demonstrably untrue. But what about, say, a high level statement by Secretary Rice? A google site search comes up empty for "Rice" and "Tunisia" for 2005, as does a White House site search for "Bush" and "Tunisia", but I'm sure I could be missing something.
At any rate, as long as the regional office of the Middle East Partnership Initiative is located in Tunis, and Tunisia continues to be a nasty, repressive place, and Tunisia gets no serious American pressure or criticism over its being a nasty, repressive place, it's going to be hard for anyone to take the MEPI seriously. So let's hope that the administration takes the opportunity of Mohamed Abu Nashit's sentencing and the opposition's complaints about interference in municipial elections as an opportunity to say something, anything, which might suggest that America cares.
Sorry mate, but really this is off in the wilderness.
Tunisia a nasty place? If you're in opposition, perhaps, but otherwise the country delivers real economic growth year on year, and has generally made the lives of Tunisians far, far better than its neighbors.
This is not Cairo or any of the other basket case governments, and while I agree Ben Ali is a mean bastid who should move on, the government at least delivers. Bush gets lots wrong on MENA, but not taking a whack at Tunisia is not one of them.
Posted by: collounsbury | April 29, 2005 at 12:39 PM
C - I know it's not a bad place for tourists or for businessfolks, but it's a *very* bad place for Tunisian journalists (opposition or not). Guess it comes down to whether you buy the Singapore model that's all the rage with "modernizing" Arab governments - economic development from the top down, hold the political freedoms and human rights. Kind of what Jordan wants to be when it grows up.
Posted by: the aardvark | April 29, 2005 at 12:53 PM
Aardvark: I grant readily it's not a great place to be a journo, but there are limited resources in the world, and I'd rather the cluster of whinging incompetent morons in Washington take on the disaster waiting to happen in Cairo than Tunis. Some noises to manage the hypocrisy angle a bit are fine.
I rather admire what Tunisia has done over the past decade and while it could be better, and probably needs to transition out of the Singa model as you rightly put it, it's still a better place to be born as an ordinary Mohammed than any of its near or middling neighbors.
Posted by: collounsbury | April 29, 2005 at 01:18 PM
One day Col will get over his Attaturk-methodology soft spot.
Posted by: matthew hogan | April 29, 2005 at 01:29 PM
Bah.
I like economic growth. Makes people richer.
I do admit that I have short changed the Aardvark's note on MEPI, but then the last time I met MEPI twits they were blithering on about setting up some ludicrous "entrepreneurship training center" and "enabling SME finance." Clueless gits. No clue about the region, no clue about the economies, no clue about anything. Rather like my old CPA idjits.
Posted by: collounsbury | April 29, 2005 at 02:37 PM
As counterpoint to Mr. Cruel Businessman and Laissez-Faire's paen to Tunis, this is what I learned in Le Monde's archives today:
In the October 2004 elections, International Media Support measured for an 8-day period radio and tv news concerning the campaign. State media consecrated 70.44% of airtime to Ben Ali's party, the RCD, vs 0.7% to the Ettajid opposition movement. There were also two "alibi candidates" put up by Ben Ali: Mohamed Bouchiha and Mounir Beji who got 13% and 12% of newscast airtime, respectively. The Democratic Initiative's candidate, Mohamad Ali Halwani, got 1% of that airtime.
As to the economy, the review Confluences Méditerranée gave Tunisia a poor report card and there has been none of the democratic transition promised after the riots of 1988.
Benali's Ministry of the Interior has penetrated the street, the schools, the neighborhood, business and sports. There are commissaires and spies every
Al Hayat has been outlawed since 1998.
All newspapers have to deliver daily 6 copies of their daily edition to the Interior Ministry's censors before distribution to newsstands. In 1992 there were six opposition papers--today there are two.
In December 2003, Colin Powell praised Tunisia for "its remarkable advances in the domaine of human rights."
During the US Presidential campaign of 2004, all publications were ordered "from on high" to refrain from printing photos of Democratic challenger John Kerry "to please the Bush administration" and from printing any criticism of Bush's occupation of Iraq.
Recalcitrant journalists are imprisoned in a "house arrest" arrangement (not their houses) in the south of the country so far away that their families cannot afford the visit.
Posted by: Nur al Cubicle | April 29, 2005 at 04:46 PM
Collounsbury makes perfect realist sense.
But that's not the line the Bush administration is pushing, is it?
Please, bring back Brent Scowcroft, and deliver us from neocon "idealism", which is really just a way of putting fancy clothes on a policy of "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
Posted by: Dave L | April 30, 2005 at 10:39 AM
Well, Cubicle Light, I really don't see a refutation to my note. You've reiterated what I readily grant, Tunisia has a lousy record in regards to opposition politics and journalism generally. One party state with all the confidence of.... well a one party state.
However, no refutation on the economics, a hand waving cite to some journal without any meat, and slide over to the journo angle. Hint, want to refute the economics, you need the economics.
The reality is the economic data, while not perfect, is pretty good for Tunisia over the past ten and even fifteen years. The country has made serious progress economically. Better than impoverishment.
Else, yes the Bush Admin. shows precious little realism. A lot of fuzzy thinking.
Posted by: collounsbury | April 30, 2005 at 02:53 PM