UN paper by UAE and UK threatens free speech and dissent

The recent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution, calling for member states to recognise and condemn the role of “extremism” and “hate speech” in fuelling conflict, is facing criticism over concerns of potential abuse by governments to limit free speech and political opposition.

Contents

Egypt is an “oasis of peace”Rank hypocrisy?Dangerous interpretation leading to dangerous precedent Serious degradation of human rights Zionism, Chinese concentration camps, Arab dictatorships, and Hindutva nationalism Who has spoken up against the dangerous UN paper?Cover-up of international proportions Also read

The resolution, proposed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in collaboration with the United Kingdom, was unanimously adopted during a meeting organised by the UAE, the current Chair of the Council. The session included speeches by Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, and Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, the Vatican’s Secretary for Relations with States, along with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. [1]

Egypt is an “oasis of peace”

In his opening remarks to the Council, el-Tayeb praised Egypt under the regime of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as an “oasis of peace” and a “home to peace and security”. [2]

The Grand Imam of al-Azhar and former President of al-Azhar University also praised the UAE for its supposed commitment to world peace and the upholding of human rights.

el-Tayeb said of the UAE,

“This Arab, Islamic nation spares no effort in promoting peace among people and strengthening the principles of human fraternity, mutual respect, and coexistence.” [2]

Despite el-Tayeb’s praise, the regime of Sisi since coming to power in 2013 has been condemned by numerous human rights organisations for its oppressive, and often violent, response against political opposition and dissent, as well as the mass imprisonment, torture, and execution of political adversaries, journalists, and human rights activists. [3]

In a statement echoing that of el-Tayeb, Lana Nusseibeh — the UAE’s permanent ambassador to the UN — spoke of her country’s continued commitment to tackling “hate speech” and discrimination of all kinds. Nusseibeh cited the Emirates’ position as the Chair of the Council as proof of the state’s rightful commitment in defending a noble cause.

“We are highlighting that issues such as hate speech, racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, Christianophobia, anti-Semitism, extremisms are root causes … and drivers of conflict.” [4]

Rank hypocrisy?

Nusseibeh’s comments, however, stand in stark contrast with the bleak reality of the UAE and the system of oppression that exists within the oil-rich state.

Abu Dhabi — the largest of the seven component emirates of the UAE — has been condemned for its stifling of dissent and its horrendous treatment of expatriate workers, easily defined as bonded slavery.

Even the royal family are not above the violent auspices of the state, as evidenced by the dramatic experiences of Princess Latifa, daughter of Dubai ruler Shaykh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, who attempted to escape the country multiple times, only to be captured and placed under arrest. [5]

Dangerous interpretation leading to dangerous precedent

Critics argue that the UN resolution’s vague use of the term “extremism” could be manipulated by governments to suppress dissent. The draft resolution had called on member states to acknowledge that “hate speech”, racism, and all forms of “extremism” contribute to conflicts, hindering efforts to address their root causes and prevent resolution.

Jordan Street, Senior Policy & Advocacy Lead at the international NGO, Saferworld, expressed concerns about the resolution’s contradiction with the UN’s practice of equating “extremism” with the term “violent”.

According to Street, the term “extremism” is open to interpretation and as such can be used and abused by states to target anyone they would deem to be “extreme”. [6]

https://twitter.com/jordan_street07/status/1667940999656554499

Serious degradation of human rights

Advocates campaigning against counter-terrorism policies (that are often labelled as counter-extremism) argue that its inclusion within UN debates and discussions — and the growing influence of authoritarian states, such as the UAE and Egypt, within the world body — is leading to a significant deterioration in human rights protections.

Furthermore, it may be argued that positions of leadership granted to authoritarian states within the UN adds a pretence of legitimacy to their acts of oppression at home and abroad.

Just Security, an online forum that analyses international security and foreign policy, said,

“…from Kenya to the Philippines, China to El Salvador, in country after country, counterterrorism has increasingly been used to violate rights and entrench authoritarianism as much, if not more, than to protect and provide security.

“At the same time, in the two decades since 9/11, UN counterterrorism has emerged as a sprawling, highly influential domain of multilateral action and governance over security-related law and policy, from global programmes to prevent violent extremism (PVE) to border controls and the regulation of online content.” [7]

Zionism, Chinese concentration camps, Arab dictatorships, and Hindutva nationalism

In blistering remarks by Islam21c’s Head of Islamic Thought, Dr. Salman Butt—who himself took the British government to court and was successful in drawing an official apology and compensation after being falsely labelled an “extremist” — said,

“The fact that the United Kingdom has proposed this resolution is sadly unsurprising.

“From the dungeons of Arab dictatorships, to the concentration camps of Chinese Communist Party-occupied East Turkestan, to the violent and genocidal ethnonationalism of Hindutva in India, and Zionism in Occupied Palestine, some civil servants and self-titled ‘security experts’ from the UK have unfortunately been touring across the world’s most notorious autocracies while exporting toxic and counterproductive policies like Prevent, as well as the debunked pseudoscience that underlies pre-crime discourses centred around so-called ‘extremism’. [8] [9]

“Not only has this demonstrably shown to lead to violent oppression of political opponents and ‘otherised’ minorities, the overwhelming consensus of the peer-reviewed literature is that it is actively counterproductive to its stated aims.

“In other words, cracking down on so-called non-violent ‘extremism’ increases the likelihood of terrorism and political violence, instead of preventing it.”

Dr. Butt further added,

“While it is heartening that the battle between neocon ideology and empirical reality has largely been won at home — with the Prevent policy and so-called ‘extremism’ discourse all but dead and buried — it is worrying that its cheer leaders, after being made pariahs at home, have been granted asylum in states that have been using pre-crime and ‘extremism’ discourses to give cover to their autocratic and often genocidal tendencies at an industrial scale previously unimaginable.”

Who has spoken up against the dangerous UN paper?

Although the resolution was unanimously passed by the UNSC, there were some members who expressed reservations in regards to its language and how states could use its open interpretation to expand their powers.

The Deputy Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN, Adrian Dominik Hauri, cautioned that the term “extremism” could be arbitrarily interpreted and used to suppress freedom of expression, suggesting that it should only refer to actions rather than ideas. [10]

Moreover, Malta’s ambassador to the UN, Vanessa Frazier, understood the term as specifically related to violent “extremism”, in direct relation to terrorism. [10]

Cover-up of international proportions

These debates are expected to revive discussions around how the UAE exercises its influence as the Chair of the Council to cover up its national and international abuses of human rights.

It also raises concerns regarding how the Gulf petrostate is aiding and perhaps also abetting the alarming rise of Islamophobia in Europe, through its concerted attempts at clamping down on dissent and political opposition.