The Myth of a Moderate Tunisia

Beneath the modern trappings of President Ben Ali's regime lies just another repressive dictatorship.

BY RASHA MOUMNEH | APRIL 26, 2010

When Tunisian Foreign Minister Kamel Morjane arrives in Washington on April 26, he will most certainly present himself as the representative of a "moderate" Arab state that is friendly to the West. As a representative of Human Rights Watch, however, I recently witnessed another side of this supposedly "modern" regime.

My organization released a report last month detailing the Tunisian government's treatment of political prisoners, and a group of us planned to hold a press conference in Tunis to announce it, in the hopes of sparking a dialogue that would lead to change. This was an approach we had tried in 2004, when we released a report on the situation of political prisoners, and in 2005, when we published a study on Internet freedoms in the region. Both releases occurred without incident. This time, however, we found our path blocked at every turn: All of the hotels we contacted stated that they lacked the space to accommodate us, and the room we eventually rented was mysteriously flooded while we were at dinner. The government banned journalists from our news conference and physically barred those who tried to attend. State security agents followed us wherever we went.

Under President Zine el Abidine Ben Ali, who has held office since 1987 and was just reelected in 2009 for a fifth term, even the most minor dissent is treated as a serious threat. Independent journalists, human rights organizations, union organizers -- anyone who raises concerns about the government's actions -- find their actions tracked and their outspokenness punished.

Tunisia often attempts to cover up its repressive measures behind a thin veneer of legality, hoping to convince the West of its relative liberality. The government contends, for example, that there are no political prisoners in Tunisia. Of course, that may be true under the government's strict interpretation of what constitutes a political crime. Following that line of reasoning, there have been few, if any, people prosecuted under laws that criminalize political activity or opinion during Ben Ali's multiple terms -- hence, no political prisoners. The government prefers to prosecute its critics using trumped-up charges of common crimes.

Taoufiq Ben Brik, a dissident journalist who has been a favorite target of the regime, is a case in point. In October 2009, Ben Brik was charged with "violating public decency," "defamation," "assault," and "damaging another person's property," allegedly for assaulting a woman. He claims the victim was actually a state security agent and maintains that it was she who in fact assaulted him as he was on his way to pick up his daughter from school. The government carefully crafted a scenario that not only landed Ben Brik in jail, but also called into question his moral standing.

I personally witnessed the same atmosphere of intimidation in March, when I visited Tunisia to research union organizing efforts in various parts of the country. During my visit, I found that independent unionists suffered the same fate as journalists and local human rights activists. As with the repression of political dissidents, the government's anti-union activities are rarely explicit: Under Tunisia's liberal law of association, in fact, those who wish to form a union or a non-governmental organization are simply required to inform the government of their intention. If the Interior Ministry does not object within 90 days, the new union or NGO is considered legal. How then -- despite a robust human rights community -- are there only two legally recognized human rights organizations and only two labor unions in the entire country?

Here's where the smoke and mirrors come in. To halt the legalization of a new union, the government needs only to claim that it never received its application. For this reason, it never provides the applicants with a receipt that they can use as proof of their submission. This legal loophole allows the government to assert that all activities of the newly formed union are illegal.

ABDELHAK SENNA/AFP/Getty Images

 

Rasha Moumneh is a Middle East and North Africa researcher for Human Rights Watch.

 

BURNINGCHROME

2:52 AM ET

April 27, 2010

HRW can't be taken seriously

Robert L. Bernstein the founder HRW, has denounced the HRW.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html

Once you are caught out lying everything that follows is suspect.

 

NADA RAJHI

9:29 AM ET

May 3, 2010

When Eric Goldstein, Sarah Leah Whitson and Moumneh Rasha

Definitely between the great principles and small calculations, Eric Goldstein, Sarah Leah Whitson and Moumneh Rasha have still much evil to slice. From untruths to inopportune judgments, they still do not manage to resist their exercise of favorite style concerning the situation of the human rights in Tunisia: the indictment.

With an underhand and vicious spirit, the representatives of Human Rights Watch (HRW) continue to show an interest inordinately interested in cases of former prisoners of common law who tried to put in crisis the assets of modernity and the national State. Perhaps, it is HRW manner of satisfying the request of its silent partners and of adopting the posture of virtuous lecturers of freedom.

Tunisians, in any case, do not recognize themselves in the country that the representatives of HRW drew the picture which cannot be credible because tendentious and excessive. The representatives of HRW would have been much better inspired and certainly much more credible to look for other references more reliable such as the United Nations Council on human rights and Committee on human rights as well as a number of their fellow-members respectful of deontology and truth. Moreover, has not Tunisia just been classified as the best country in the world as for the index of human development since the year 2000, which entitles it to carry out the U.N. Objectives of the millenium for development? But the representatives of HRW do not have cure of it!

Faithful to their way of distorting facts, the representatives of HRW let themselves go to claim that “any one who raises concerns about the actions of the government finds his actions followed and his outspokenness punished”. However, these representatives of HRW could have consulted the newspapers of the opposition parties and the private press to note the diversity of opinions and intellectual sensitivities as well as the critical views towards the government.

The easiness of lies and untruths cannot justify, and even less, to excuse indecency, when the representatives of HRW make of themselves the dedicated relay of a discourse which morals reject and ethics condemn.

Today Tunisia accumulates the assets of a pluralistic democratic experience. First, it translates a real boost of the democratic life with a freedom of tone and a freedom of expression which the majority would envy us and which would be, undoubtedly, a source of frustration for some. Then, this experience continues to bring day after day sincere and spontaneous testimonies of support and adhesion of Tunisians to the society project initiated by President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

It is legitimate, today, to ask the representatives of HRW to review their attitude with regard to a country like Tunisia. Would they do it? The credibility of their organization and its impartiality are at stake. It is a moral requirement.

 

GUYVER

9:10 AM ET

April 27, 2010

Funny activist

Who said the label "moderate" had anything to do with human rights?

 

F1FAN

4:43 PM ET

April 27, 2010

I'm sure it's all true.

I have no doubt that all of the assertions in this article are most likely true. Tunisia is probably trampling on the rights of it's citizens and intimidating and arresting activists. That certainly is not a stretch to believe. The question is: Okay, so what?

What exactly should President Obama do? Invade like in Iraq? Apply sanctions like in Iran? Coerce and cajole like in North Korea?

None of those things work unless the people in each country wants change. We in the US simply need to learn that it is none of our business. Throughout time dictators have been 'voted out' by the people they rule. How is foreign intervention going to change anything?

If the people of Tunisia want a change, they ca change it, but I'm guessing they at least have security, employment and enough comfort that they don't want to endanger it with a brutal civil war. That is their choice. Not every country has to be a democracy, and democracy may not always be the answer.

I'm sure this article is truthful, but so what? What would Human Rights Watch and RASHA MOUMNEH suggest that anyone should do?

 

SMCI60652

4:38 PM ET

April 30, 2010

Seriously

What the hell are we Americans supposed to do?

No one is propping up Ben Ali. If the people of Tunisia want change, they need to make the sacrifices necessary to bring it about.

Sanctioning dictators doesn't stop their repression. In fact, anything shy of physically forcing them out won't do a damn thing. And the American people have no appetite to go on adventures like that at this point.

So what exactly do you want from us? A condemnation? Admonishment? Public calls for more democratization?

I guess our President can swing that. But the question remains... what will it accomplish?