Free Abdelkarim Soliman and all the rest, too

by

This post is a look at the case of Abdelkarim Soliman, the media attention surrounding it in the West, and the implications this has for human rights activists in the Middle East.

Abdelkarim Nabil SolimanAbdelkarim 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.

Imad al-KabirWhat 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.

Omar al-AbdullahOr, 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.

Michel KiloFor 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.

This article is cross-posted to my personal blog.