In the lives of nations, there are many dual concepts that arise in public debate and stir much controversy whereby the relationship between them is a zero-sum game. If one issue supersedes, then the other is obliterated.
One such pairing we face today is the dilemma between security and human rights. The former relates to combating terrorism, which is likely to take some time until we ascertain that the country is safe from the threat of extremism.
The latter pertains to human rights in its broader and multi-dimensional sense that starts with the right to life and ends with the highest levels of human dignity and its implications of full freedom in all aspects, whether speech, expression, mobility, organisation and communication with others across borders without disruption or restriction.
It is more of a theoretically ideal condition rather than a realistic one. No matter what they say about societies and countries living this condition, there are restrictions and rules — at least for the sake of regulation — for everyone under normal circumstances.
In extraordinary circumstances, such as wars, existential threats to society and state, and terrorism, it is natural to be resolute in applying these regulatory restrictions. Sometimes the level and frequency is higher when there is a higher goal that must be achieved first: the right to life and the necessary security for this.
We watched and followed events in France, the uncontested hub of freedoms. After it was struck by several terrorist threats since the end of 2014, emergency laws were enforced for a limited time. The constitution was also amended to include clauses allowing emergency laws to combat terrorism, since protecting the existence of individuals and institutions is the highest goal of letting freedom reign, but this could give terrorists an opportunity to threaten the public domain.
It also took strict measures in granting visas for travel, even for Schengen countries. These amendments were not viewed as contradicting France’s heritage of freedom, but were interpreted as a means to protect the French way of life against threats, sabotage and terrorism.
In Egypt, the situation is harsher than in France or any European country where terrorist cells were discovered plotting attacks, and they closed ranks to exchange information and coordinate to stamp out his growing threat. We have been in a real war for more than two years and it remains an open battle despite all successes. Anyone who denies this is beyond ignorant or pretending to be blind.
Thus, the claim in the official letter sent a few weeks ago by human rights groups to the UN that some government agencies are using the war on terrorism as a pretext to impose more restrictions on human rights in Egypt is unfair by all measures. Meanwhile, claims that human rights in Egypt are ideal are also incorrect. What is more appropriate is to say that human rights protections in Egypt are struggling but not hopeless, and that overcoming obstacles requires close understanding and awareness of all conditions in Egypt today. Especially during extraordinary times such as fighting terrorism.
This requires discussion and research on how to end these difficulties while remaining Egyptian in character and concept, and avoiding animosity and foreign pressure, whether from the US or international organisations, such as UN bodies or so-called international NGOs.
This basically means that trying to impose a human rights reality based on the perception that it would be easier if foreign pressure escalates is an absolute delusion.
It is certain that dialogue between government agencies and human rights groups will not be easy, especially due to lack of trust between the two sides and suspicion about the actions of some activists because of lack of transparency. Also, foreign interference that public opinion viewed as unacceptable attempts at guardianship. Nonetheless, there is no alternative to safeguarding everyone except through dialogue and open discussion. This is a joint responsibility of the government, parliament and human rights organisations. A clear example here is a new law that is more meticulous and accepting of NGOs.
It is logical for government and parliament to propose draft legislation that is subjected to public investigation and discussion in order to arrive at a comprehensive legislative construct that meets the interests of the country, organisations, individuals and freedoms at the same time.
It is natural and expected that some human rights and development organisations would also present a draft law or amendments of draft laws presented by the government or some MPs.
It is certain that the law that will be passed in the end would be an expression of a delicate balance between these stakeholders and will not be an absolute victory for one camp at the expense of the other. This is a natural outcome of any democratic approach.
One of the problems of mistrust between officials and some sectors in society, on the one hand, and some human rights organisations on the other, pertains to funding – especially foreign funds. As long as this matter is not transparent and public in every aspect of activities and foreign funding, according to the law, there will not be any support from the Egyptian public.
The foreign relations of a group or figure may succeed in obtaining a strong official reaction from a country or international organisation, but this will never serve the interests of the local organisation or its leaders among Egyptians. On the contrary, amid all the activities sponsored by human rights groups to apply the global concepts of human rights in the Egyptian environment, the general outlook of simple Egyptians is that this is an elitist issue and not a priority for those seeking to put food on the table every day. Also, the issue is tainted with suspicion of unacceptable foreign intervention.
National dialogue is the remedy and only path, with no other alternatives. No matter what is said, international human rights standards are obligations of governments and cannot be abandoned. Applying them in Egypt, like in any other country, requires a domestic environment created by citizens through consent and sacrifice, and not to appease an angry statement or document that the majority knows nothing about.
