A New Strategy to Combat Terrorism and Advance Human Rights

The recent terrorist attacks in Sinai came as a reminder that the world, not only Egypt, needs to adopt a whole new strategy to combat violent extremism. 

The tragic number of casualties – 305 dead and 120 wounded – reminds us of the September 11 attacks in the United States, which marked a dramatic shift in international affairs. The appalling situation in Sinai today makes it a necessity to review the currently adopted policies and attempt to find new, creative ways to deal with the issue.

One first step outside the box is to reevaluate the too many theoretical debates defining the scope of effect of terrorism and its claimed correlation to idealist humanitarian values like human rights.

Over the past few years, we have been listening to world leaders talking about the two topics – human rights and violent extremism – as if they are two ends of the same spectrum. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued several fact sheets explaining the link between human rights and terrorism. Consequently, the topic has been debated intensively in several UN main sessions and side events. Analysts from think tanks and academia have issued a tremendous number of papers on the so-called “interdependent relationship” between fighting terrorism and advancing human rights.

Their arguments usually deal with fighting terrorism and advancing human rights as a zero-sum game. Pursuing more of one side should necessarily mean losing more on the other side, so they argue. If you want more security and success fighting terrorism, you have to stop achieving progress on human rights, and if you want more progress on human rights, then you have to drop speaking about terrorism as a threat to human security and be more lenient on fighting violent extremists out of fear of being “Islamophobic” or not “respecting others’ religion.” Even worse, some analysts have gone as far as making excuses for terrorists by claiming that their activities stem from a lack of human rights in their home countries.

In practical reality, such arguments have been proven wrong. We have seen French, British and American citizens turning into terrorists despite the fact that they grow up in liberal democratic nations which cherish individual freedoms and respects human rights. Likewise, we have seen state officials abusing the state of fear arising from the threat of terrorism as a justification to practice political repression on their own citizens or launch military attacks on other nations.

This approach of adopting one of the two extreme strategies has led to nothing but infinite loss and unbearable damages over decades.

Based on my over 10 years of experience as a human rights activist and researcher on Islamic extremism, I believe that linking human rights and terrorism in the way we are doing today is a fatal mistake. By playing the game of fighting terrorism versus advancing human rights, we lethally empower terrorists while tying the hands of nation states, thus making it impossible to put an end to terrorism or achieve any tangible progress on human rights.

Advancing human rights and fighting terrorism are like water and oil. They are two substances from two different spheres. They are neither interdependent nor even linked to each other. On the one hand, human rights is, at the core, a set of international laws codifying idealistic goals human beings have been desperately trying to realize for decades, and have not fully realized – yet. National states abide by international human rights law. Nation states are obliged to take all necessary measures to guarantee those rights for the humans (citizens) living under their governance.

On the other hand, terrorism is a criminal act that requires an immediate and equal reaction. Terrorism is committed by non-state actors who do not conform to any laws or rules that dignify human life and well-being.

Terrorists do not have a common identity or an organized body capable of committing them to any agreement or international treaty of any kind.

Killing human beings and destroying nation states is their ultimate goal and only rule.

Nation states can sometimes fail at advancing human rights or guaranteeing a space for open democracy. This is a shortcoming that can be rectified by time, experience and proper amount of pressure from local citizens and the international community. However, nation states do not have the luxury of trial and error when it comes to fighting terrorism. Failure is not an option here, because it means the end of the state itself.

The “Arab Spring” revolutions and their unfolding consequences in each country could serve as an example. All these revolutions were launched by ordinary citizens, who were eager to end dictatorships and start a new era of liberal democracy where they can enjoy their hard-won human rights and civil freedoms. As the majority of these revolutionaries were so civil and sincere, there were also masked terrorist groups preying on the power vacuum created by toppling dictators.

In countries like Egypt and Tunisia with stable and independent military institutions that already have strong bond of trust with the citizenry, it was possible to keep violent extremism within its limits, and subsequently preserving the wholeness of the state and put the nation’s feet on the right track toward liberal democratization. In countries like Syria and Libya, the situation went out of control because preserving the well-being of the state was not a priority, and this created the perfect opportunity for terrorists to flourish.

In that sense, we should understand that terrorism is not a threat to human rights, but a threat to human existence. If humans are killed, there won’t be human rights. For humans to practice their rights, they need to exist in a safe context first. Terrorism is only one of many obstacles in the way of progressing human rights. Yet, terrorism is not an equivalent to human rights, i.e., one is not dependent on the other.

Human rights are not a luxury, they are a necessity, that cannot be realized under terrorism. But at the same time, human rights should not be used as an obstacle in the way of fighting terrorism. This vital distinction could be a game-changer for how the world deals with the threat of terrorism in the next decade.

Originally published on Jerusalem Post on November 28th, 2017.

Barbie in Hijab Represents Oppression or Empowerment?

Last week, Mattel’s newest Barbie doll was released, as part of the Barbie Sheroes collection. The new pretty Barbie is dressed in a fencer’s suit, got a brown skin, and wears hijab. She is created this way to celebrate the accomplishment of Ibtihaj Muhammad; the American 31 years-old Olympic fencer.

I got very excited to see the new Barbie because it simply acknowledges the women who do not conform to the strict standards of the so-called “western” beauty. Imagine how this little doll can inspire millions of young girls in Muslim families, not only in the United States but all over the world, to realize their utmost potential when they grow up, regardless of what they look like or the way they choose to dress. 

But, Maureen Callahan, a columnist at the New York Post, who is also a woman and an American – just like Ibtihaj – was offended by the new Barbie for having dark skin and modest hijab! Rather than celebrating the accomplishment of Ibtihaj as an American woman, she just wrote a long article attacking Ibtihaj and her background as a Muslim woman! Unfortunately, she was the only one to do the attack in American media. 

In this short video (watch above), I am trying to explain to Ms. Callahan, and all those who think like her, what hijab really is and how a piece of cloth cannot create or implicate oppression. 

I hope you find it useful and I look forward to your comments and discussions. You can always contact me on my email HERE, comment under the video on Youtube, or visit my pages on Facebook or Twitter.

  

Terrorism and Human Rights; What is the Link? (Hint: There isn't any!)

In this video, I am trying to answer the burning question on the relationship between advancing human rights and fighting terrorism, based on my experience as a human rights activist and researcher on fighting Islamic extremism since 2006.

It has become a trend! Over the recent few years, we have been listening to world leaders talking about the two topics – human rights and violent extremism – as if they are two ends of the same spectrum. 

The United Nation’s office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights issued several fact sheets explaining the link between human rights and terrorism. Several analysts from think tanks and academia have issued a tremendous number of papers on the so-called “interdependent relationship” between fighting terrorism and human rights. 

Their arguments usually deal with fighting terrorism and advancing human rights as two ends of the same spectrum. Pursuing more of one side should necessarily mean losing more on the other side, so they argue. If you want more security and success on fighting terrorism, you have to stop achieving progress on human rights. Vice versa, if you want more progress on human rights, then you have to stop speaking about terrorism as a threat to human security and be more lenient on fighting violent extremists out of fear of being “islamophobic” or not “respecting other’s religion!” Some analysts have gone as far as giving excuses to terrorists by claiming that they adopted terrorism as a reaction to not have enough human rights in their countries. 

In practical reality all those arguments have been proven wrong. We have seen French, British, and American citizens turning into terrorists despite the fact that they grow up in liberal democratic nations, which cherish individual freedoms and respects human rights. 

I do believe that linking human rights and terrorism in the way we are doing today is a fatal mistake. By playing the spectrum of fighting terrorism versus advancing human rights, we lethally empower terrorists over national states; and thus making it impossible to put an end to terrorism or achieve any tangible progress on human rights. 

Advancing human rights and fighting terrorism are like water and oil. They are two objects (or topics) from two different spheres. They are neither interdependent on each other nor linked to each other, despite the fact that they can exist and develop at the same time and the same place. 

On one hand, human Rights, in its essence, is an international law of idealistic goals that human beings have been trying to realize for decades, and have not fully realized, yet! National states are abiding by the international human rights law. National states are obliged to take all necessary measures to apply those rights on the humans (citizens) living under the governance of those national states. 

On the other hand, terrorism is a criminal action committed by non-state actors, who are not committed to any laws or rules that dignifies human beings. They do not have a common identity or an organized body to force to commit to any agreement of any kind. Killing human beings and destroying national states is their ultimate goal. 

National states can sometimes fail on advancing human rights. This is a mistake that can be corrected by time and cooperation with other states or with the United Nations. We have seen countries, especially in my Middle East region, turning from authoritarian dictatorships into open democracies. 

However, National states do not have the luxury of trial and error on fighting terrorism. Failure is not an option here, because it means the end of the national state. Syria, Yemen, and Libya are clear examples on this. Fighting terrorism is a criminal action that requires an immediate reaction, while advancing human rights is a process that takes years if not decades to be accomplished.    

In that sense, we should understand that terrorism is not a threat to human rights, but a threat to human existence. If humans are killed, there won’t be human rights. For humans to practice their rights, they need to exist in a safe context first. Terrorism is only one of many obstacles in the way of progressing human rights. Yet, terrorism is not an equivalent to human rights. i.e., one of them is not interdependent on the other. Likewise, Human rights are not a luxury but at the same time, human rights should not be used as an obstacle in the way of fighting terrorism. This distinction is extremely important to consider, while looking at how national states should be handling terrorism and terrorists. 

I hope this video and blog post initiate an international conversation on the lack of interdependence between advancing human rights and fighting violent extremism, in a way that ends the current state of polarization that is pre-occupying our world, today.

I look forward to hearing from you. Write m your comments or questions under the video on Youtube. Or, drop me an email by clicking here.

خطوة بسيطة جداً لو فعلها المصريون ستصبح مصر أجمل - من وحي منتدى شباب العالم 2017

ما هو أهم درس يمكن أن نخرج به كمصريين من منتدى شباب العالم 2017؟ أن نتقبل اختلافاتنا ونسمو عليها... شاهد الفيديو لتعرف كيف نفعل ذلك، وما النتائج التي يمكن أن تعود علينا. 

How Helen Hunt inspired thousands of youth at World Youth Forum?

A handful number of Egyptian so-called activists, who merely exist on social media, went on Twitter, earlier this week, frying Oscar winner Helen Hunt for speaking at World Youth Forum (WYF) opening ceremony on Sunday! They accused her of "whitewashing" Elsisi's regime and claimed that the whole World Youth Forum is a "PR circus to whitewash" the Egyptian regime!

Well! That is pure nonsense, if not insanity... why?

1. The unique and inspiring Helen Hunt came to Egypt's WYF to honor 3500 young people from 113 nations, who are participating in the forum, not to "whitewash" Elsisi in his own country among his own people, as those so-called activists are claiming!

2. Helen Hunt's beautiful speech on women's rights inspired thousands attending the ceremony and millions watching on TVs. In her speech she did not even mention President Elsisi in any way. She spoke about Egypt as a country, not about Elsisi as a president. 

3. By claiming that WYF is created to "whitewash" Elsisi's regime, you are insulting thousands of young activists and officials who joined the forum, not only Helen Hunt.

4. 3500 participants from 113 nations including the inspiring Helen Hunt didn't come to WYF to "whitewash" but to interact and progress in real world context.

5. 3500 participants from 113 nations including world leaders, youth activists, entrepreneurs, and famous movie stars like Helen Hunt can't be underestimated to a "whitewashing" tool! 

As a participant in WYF, I highly appreciate Helen Hunt's participation. She is just too amazing to be called a PR tool to whitewash a regime! Stop this nonsense!

Why Egypt's World Youth Forum could save our world?

This is my very first video blog from the World Youth Forum in Sharm Elshiekh, Egypt. In this three minutes video, I am trying to explain why creating a space for young people to meet in the real wold, away from the illusion of social media is a first huge step towards ending political polarization and having realistic perceptions on how to make our world a better place. 

This is my first attempt on video blogging. The main goal of my video blogs is to give the world an insider point of view of the progress of human rights and liberal democratization in Egypt. That is an insider perception that could be, in many ways, different from what you read in mainstream media. I hope you find it useful and come back for more :-)