Human Rights in the Middle East

The major thesis of this chapter is that rights are local in origin and application and therefore not normally seen or accepted by states as natural or universal. Thus, there has always been a real-life difference between the application of rights (which in practice is almost always a local affair) and assertion of human rights (which can be a universal claim). One can see this when analyzing the precedents usually cited for our contemporary notion of human rights. For example, the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights (1791) were all, despite occasional language to the contrary, local and specific in their intent and application. That is they were promulgated for the benefit of some humans, and not all humans.

The debate over compatibility of Islam and human rights has raged among theologians, scholars, intellectuals, and the public at large for generations in the Muslim World as well as in the West. This discourse, however, has become more intense since the proclamation of 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). That declaration pronounced that all human beings are born free and are equal in dignity and rights.¹ Article 2 of the UDHR stipulates: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” The rights entailed in the UDHR are indivisible and inalienable and include wide-ranging civil-political, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights. These universal rights include such rights as to life, liberty, and security of person; freedom from slavery and servitude; freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; right to education; right to work; right to a nationality; and right to own property. According to the UDHR, all people are entitled to these rights by virtue of their humanity.

The Middle East has undergone significant sociopolitical change since the end of the Cold War. In particular, the geostrategic map of the region has changed since the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The Iraqi Kurds have gained a measure of political freedom that had eluded them for much of their recent history, and the Kurdish struggle in the rest of the region continues unabated. The notion of universal human rights has gained increasing currency as a pillar of the obligations that nation-states have come to accept since the end of World War II when the codification of these rights began to challenge the state-centric focus of international law. This chapter examines the modalities of enhancing the human rights of the Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey and examines the complexities of issues involved in this process.

There have been serious concerns raised both internally and externally about human rights violations in Iran over the past 30 years. Is there any reason to believe there will be an improvement in the protection of human rights in the future? Risse and Sikkink have suggested that states can be socialized to improve at least part of their human rights record. They argue that Western states, advocacy networks, and international norms can have a positive impact on rights of personal integrity in most if not all non-Western developing countries.¹ Will Iran be socialized to improve its human rights record? This chapter examines both the progress on and the violations of human rights in Iran over the past 30 years. I want to explain why the Islamic regime has restricted the basic rights of its citizens, as well as what accounts for the progress made on some second generation rights. To see further improvements in the protection of human rights this chapter suggests that minimizing threats is a necessary step for further progress. Therefore, this chapter examines Iran’s human rights record in the framework of the interplay of international human rights norms and perceived threats.

Subordination of women in Muslim communities and states has been problematized by many, ranging from Muslim Feminists who focus on sociohistorical factors to Orientalists who essentialize religion and berate Islam. However, the secularist and republican regime of the predominantly Muslim-populated Turkey has been treated as an exceptional case. Although some improvements in the status of women in Turkey is undeniable, the country is far from granting equal rights to women and approaching gender equality (Arat 1994 and 1998). Major political actors have subscribed to traditional gender notions, and women face all forms of discrimination and human rights violations.

To better understand the history and the heritage of ethnic and sectarian divides in the Middle East, it is essential to grasp the unity and diversity of Islam, as well as the region’s cultural mosaic. The issue of sectarian and ethnic divides lies at the heart of marginalized communities. Virtually all Middle Eastern countries have minority groups. Some are religious minorities; others are ethnic-linguistic minorities; and still others are a combination of both. Some minorities in the Middle East have aspired for a separate national home (the Kurds in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey), while others are content with grants of equal rights within a country (the Copts in Egypt, the Druze in Lebanon). That some minorities have been overrepresented in power hierarchies helps explain their support for the maintenance of the status quo (the Sunnis in Iraq prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion).¹ Although broadly speaking all groups are minorities no matter who rules, in some countries minorities rule, such as the Maronites in Lebanon and the Alewites in Syria.

Migrant workers have lived in the Arabian Peninsula for more than two centuries. Starting in the 1970s, however, the dynamics of migration flows to the Persian Gulf region took a new twist with the rise in oil prices and the development boom in the region’s newly independent countries. These changing dynamics were most notable in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).¹ In 1968, the population of the UAE was 180,000, of which two-thirds were nationals and one-third migrants.² By 2005, the UAE’s population had risen to 4.1 million, of which about 80 percent were migrants.³ The changing dynamics of migration flows to the region have triggered a debate over labor conditions and practices that violate the rights of migrant workers and subject them to modern day exploitation and abuse.

The linkage between human rights and health rights has been well established and documented. A consensus position has emerged that insists on the inextricability between health promotion and the protection of human rights. Violations of basic health rights are now considered violations of human rights. Within the larger global context of human rights violations, the occupation and colonization of Palestine stand out as an egregious example of how the denial of health rights can lead to devastating consequences. This chapter will describe the current context of human rights violations in Palestine and the impact of these violations on health rights. Special emphasis will be afforded to the siege and invasion of Gaza and its aftermath.