Introduction
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005 Released
by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 8,
2006
These reports describe the performance of 196 countries in
putting into practice their international commitments on human
rights. These basic rights, reflected in the UN Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, have been embraced by people of every
culture and color, every background and belief, and constitute what
President Bush calls the "non-negotiable demands of human
dignity."
The Department of State published the first annual country
reports on human rights practices in 1977 in accordance with
congressional mandate, and they have become an essential element of
the United States’ effort to promote respect for human rights
worldwide. For nearly three decades, the reports have served as a
reference document and a foundation for cooperative action among
governments, organizations, and individuals seeking to end abuses
and strengthen the capacity of countries to protect the fundamental
rights of all.
The worldwide championing of human rights is not an attempt to
impose alien values on citizens of other countries or to interfere
in their internal affairs. The Universal Declaration calls upon
"every individual and every organ of society … to promote respect
for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national
and international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance…"
President Bush has committed the United States to working with
other democracies and men and women of goodwill across the globe to
reach an historic long-term goal: "the end of tyranny in our world."
To be sure, violations of human rights and miscarriages of
justice can and do occur in democratic countries. No governmental
system is without flaws. Human rights conditions in democracies
across the globe vary widely, and these country reports reflect that
fact. In particular, democratic systems with shallow roots and
scarce resources can fall far short of meeting their solemn
commitments to citizens, including human rights commitments.
Democratic transitions can be tumultuous and wrenching. Rampant
corruption can retard democratic development, distort judicial
processes, and destroy public trust. Nonetheless, taken overall,
countries with democratic systems provide far greater protections
against violations of human rights than do nondemocratic states.
The United States’ own journey toward liberty and justice for all
has been long and difficult, and it is still far from complete. Yet
over time our independent branches of government, our free media,
our openness to the world, and, most importantly, the civic courage
of impatient American patriots help us keep faith with our founding
ideals and our international human rights obligations.
These country reports offer a factual basis by which to assess
the progress made on human rights and the challenges that remain.
The reports review each country’s performance in 2005, not one
country’s performance against that of another. While each country
report speaks for itself, cross-cutting observations can be made.
Six broad observations, supported by country-specific examples, are
highlighted below. The examples are illustrative, not exhaustive.
First, countries in which power is concentrated in the
hands of unaccountable rulers tend to be the world’s most systematic
human rights violators. These states range from closed,
totalitarian systems that subject their citizens to a wholesale
deprivation of their basic rights to authoritarian systems in which
the exercise of basic rights is severely restricted.
In 2005 the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North
Korea) remained one of the world’s most isolated countries. The
systematically repressive regime continued to control almost all
aspects of citizens' lives, denying freedoms of speech, religion,
the press, assembly, association, and movement, as well as workers’
rights. In December 2005, the regime further receded into isolation
by calling for significant drawdowns of the international
nongovernmental organization (NGO) presence in the country.
In Burma where a junta rules by diktat, promises of democratic
reform and respect for human rights continued to serve as a façade
for brutality and repression. Forced labor, trafficking in persons,
use of child soldiers, and religious discrimination remained serious
concerns. The military’s continuing abuses included systematic use
of rape, torture, execution, and forced relocation of citizens
belonging to ethnic minorities. The regime maintained iron-fisted
control through the surveillance, harassment, and imprisonment of
political activists, including Nobel Laureate and opposition leader
Aung San Suu Kyi, who remained under house arrest without
charge.
In 2005 the Iranian government’s already poor record on human
rights and democracy worsened. In the June presidential elections,
slightly more than a thousand registered candidates – including all the female
candidates –
were arbitrarily thrown out of contention by the country’s guardian
council. The newly elected hard-line president denied the Holocaust
occurred and called for the elimination of Israel. The ruling
clerics and the president oversaw deterioration in prison conditions
for the hundreds of political prisoners, further restrictions on
press freedom, and a continuing rollback of social and political
freedoms. Serious abuses such as summary executions, severe
violations of religious freedom, discrimination based on ethnicity
and religion, disappearances, extremist vigilantism, and use of
torture and other degrading treatment continued.
In Zimbabwe the government maintained a steady assault on human
dignity and basic freedoms, tightening its hold on civil society and
human rights NGOs and manipulating the March parliamentary
elections. Opposition members were subjected to abuse, including
torture and rape. New constitutional amendments allowed the
government to restrict exit from the country, transferred title to
the government of all land reassigned in the land acquisition
program, and removed the right to challenge land acquisitions in
court. The government’s Operation Restore Order, initiated to
demolish allegedly illegal housing and businesses, displaced or
destroyed the livelihoods of more than 700 thousand persons and
further strained the country’s weak and depressed economy.
In Cuba the regime continued to control all aspects of life
through the communist party and state-controlled mass organizations.
The regime suppressed calls for democratic reform, such as the
Varela Project, which proposed a national referendum. Authorities
arrested, detained, fined, and threatened Varela activists and the
government held at least 333 political prisoners and detainees.
China's human rights record remained poor, and the government
continued to commit serious abuses. Those who publicly advocated
against Chinese government policies or views or protested against
government authority faced harassment, detention, and imprisonment
by government and security authorities. Disturbances of public order
and protests calling for redress of grievances increased
significantly, and several incidents were violently suppressed. Key
measures to increase the authority of the judiciary and reduce the
arbitrary power of police and security forces stalled. Restrictions
of the media and the Internet continued. Repression of minority
groups continued unabated, particularly of Uighurs and Tibetans. New
religious affairs regulations were adopted expanding legal
protection for some activities of registered religious groups, but
repression of unregistered religious groups continued, as did
repression of the Falun Gong spiritual movement.
In Belarus President Lukashenko continued to arrogate all power
to himself and his dictatorial regime. Pro-democracy activists,
including opposition politicians, independent trade union leaders,
students, and newspaper editors, were detained, fined, and
imprisoned for criticizing Lukashenko and his regime. His government
increasingly used tax inspections and new registration requirements
to complicate or deny NGOs, independent media, political parties,
and minority and religious organizations the ability to operate
legally.
Second, human rights and democracy are closely linked,
and both are essential to long-term stability and security.
Free and democratic nations that respect the rights of their
citizens help to lay the foundation for lasting peace. In contrast,
states that severely and systematically violate the human rights of
their own people are likely to pose threats to neighboring countries
and the international community.
Burma is a case in point. Only by Burma’s return to the
democratic path from which it was wrenched can the basic rights of
the Burmese people be realized. The junta refuses to recognize the
results of the historic free and fair legislative elections in 1990.
The regime’s cruel and destructive misrule has inflicted tremendous
suffering on the Burmese people and caused or exacerbated a host of
ills for its neighbors, from refugee outflows to the spread of
infectious diseases and the trafficking of drugs and human beings.
On December 16, the UN Security Council held a landmark discussion
on the situation in Burma.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is another example.
When the Korean peninsula was divided, the DPRK and the Republic of
Korea (ROK or South Korea) were at roughly the same economic point,
and both were subject to authoritarian rule. Political and economic
freedom has made the difference between the two Koreas. Today, North
Koreans are deprived of the most basic freedoms, while the regime’s
authoritarian rule produced tens of thousands of refugees. The
government earned hard currency through illicit activities,
including narcotics trafficking, counterfeiting of currency and
goods such as cigarettes, and smuggling. Pyongyang has not heeded
the international community’s repeated calls to dismantle its
nuclear programs.
The Iranian government continued to ignore the desire of the
Iranian people for responsible, accountable government, continuing
its dangerous policies of pursuing a nuclear weapons capability,
providing support to terrorist organizations, and advocating
– including in
several public speeches by the new president – the destruction of a UN
member state. Iran’s deprivation of basic rights to its own people,
its interference in Iraq, its support for Hizballah, Hamas, and
other terrorist organizations, and its refusal to engage
constructively on these issues, have further isolated it from the
world community.
Similarly, the government of Syria refused international calls to
respect the fundamental freedoms of its people and end its
interference in the affairs of its neighbors. Syria continued to
provide support for Hizballah, Hamas, and other Palestinian
rejectionist groups and did not cooperate fully with the UN
International Independent Investigative Commission on the
assassination in Beirut of former Lebanese Prime Minister al-Hariri.
The Chief Investigator’s reports concluded that evidence pointed to
involvement by Syrian authorities and made it clear that Syrian
officials, while purporting to cooperate, deliberately misled the
investigators.
By contrast, in the Balkans, a marked overall improvement in
human rights, democracy, and the rule of law over the past several
years has led to greater stability and security in the region.
Increasingly democratic governments are in place, more war criminals
are facing justice, significant numbers of displaced persons have
returned home, elections are progressively more compliant with
international standards, and neighbors are deepening their
cooperation to resolve post-conflict and regional problems. Many
countries of the former Yugoslavia have made progress in bringing
persons accused of war crimes to trial in domestic courts, which is
important to national reconciliation and regional stability. At the
end of 2005, however, two of the most wanted war crimes suspects,
Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, remained at large.
Third, some of the most serious violations of human
rights are committed by governments within the context of internal
and/or cross-border armed conflicts. The Sudanese
government’s 2003 attempt to quell a minor uprising of African
rebels in Darfur by arming janjaweed militias and allowing
them to ravage the region resulted in a vicious conflict. The
Department of State in September of 2004 determined that genocide
occurred in Darfur. It continued in 2005. By the end of 2005, at
least 70 thousand civilians had perished, nearly 2 million had been
displaced by the fighting, and more than 200 thousand refugees had
fled into neighboring Chad. Torture was widespread and systematic in
Darfur, as was violence against women, including rape used as a tool
of war. There were reports of women being marched away into the
desert; their fate remained unknown. The Comprehensive Peace
Agreement signed by the Sudanese government and the Sudan People's
Liberation Movement opened the way to adopt a constitution in July
and form a government of national unity to serve until elections in
2009. The African Union deployed seven thousand troops to Darfur,
where their presence helped curb some but not all of the violence.
At the end of 2005, government-supported janjaweed attacks
on civilians continued.
Nepal’s poor human rights record worsened. The government
continued to commit many serious abuses, both during and after the
February-April state of emergency that suspended all fundamental
rights except for habeas corpus. In many cases the government
disregarded habeas corpus orders issued by the Supreme Court and
often rearrested student and political party leaders. The Maoist
insurgents also continued their campaign of torturing, killing,
bombing, conscripting children, kidnapping, extorting, and forcing
closures of schools and businesses.
The political crisis in Cote d’Ivoire, which continued to divide
the country, led to further abuses in 2005, including rape, torture,
and extrajudicial killings committed by government and rebel
security forces. There were fewer reports of rebel recruitment of
child soldiers, and many were released. Violence and threats of
violence against the political opposition continued. Despite
continued efforts by the international community and the African
Union, the political process to establish a power-sharing government
remained stalled. By the end of September, little work had been
completed to prepare for the scheduled October 30 elections, and
disarmament of the New Forces rebel group had not begun. On October
6, the African Union decided to extend President Laurent Gbagbo’s
term in office by up to one year.
In Chechnya and elsewhere in Russia’s Northern Caucasus region,
federal forces and pro-Moscow Chechen forces engaged in abuses
including torture, summary executions, disappearances, and arbitrary
detentions. Pro-Moscow Chechen paramilitaries at times appeared to
act independently of the Russian command structure, and there was
been no indication that the federal authorities made any effective
effort to rein them in or hold them accountable for egregious
abuses. Antigovernment forces also continued to commit terrorist
bombings and serious human rights abuses in the North Caucasus. The
year 2005 saw the continued spread of violence and abuses throughout
the region, where there was an overall climate of lawlessness and
corruption.
The Great Lakes region of central Africa, encompassing the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda,
has been plagued by civil war, large-scale interethnic violence, and
severe conflict-related human rights abuses for well over a decade.
However, there was less violence overall in 2005, and the human
rights situation improved markedly, encouraging tens of thousands of
displaced persons, particularly Burundians, to return home. Burundi
concluded its four-year transitional process, and there were
historical electoral advances in the DRC. Governments in the Great
Lakes region made significant progress in demobilizing thousands of
child soldiers in their military forces and those belonging to
various rebel groups. At the same time, various armed groups based
in eastern Congo continued to destabilize the region and compete
with one another for strategic and natural resources, despite
UN-supported Congolese military operations to disband armed groups
in the DRC. Thousands of rebels from Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi,
including Rwandan rebels who led the 1994 Rwandan genocide,
continued to oppose the government of their respective countries,
attack civilians in the DRC, and commit numerous serious abuses,
particularly against women and children. The governments of Rwanda
and Uganda reportedly continued illegally to channel arms to armed
groups operating and committing abuses in the eastern DRC.
In Colombia, human rights violations related to the 41-year
internal armed conflict continued. However, the government’s
concentrated military offensive against illegal armed groups and
ongoing demobilization of paramilitary groups led to reductions in
killings and kidnappings. Colombia also began a four-year process to
implement a new adversarial accusatory-style criminal procedures
code. However, impunity remained a major obstacle, particularly for
officials accused of committing past human rights abuses, as well as
for certain members of the military who collaborated with
paramilitary groups.
Fourth, where civil society and independent media are under
siege, fundamental freedoms of expression, association, and assembly
are undermined. A robust civil society and independent media help
create conditions under which human rights can flourish by raising
awareness among publics about their rights, exposing abuses,
pressing for reform, and holding governments accountable.
Governments should defend – not abuse – the peaceful exercise of fundamental
freedoms by members of the media and civil society even if they do
not agree with their views or actions. Restrictions that are imposed
by law on the exercise of such freedoms can only be justified to the
extent they are consistent with a country’s human rights obligations
and are not merely a pretext for restricting such rights.
When states wield the law as a political weapon or an instrument
of repression against civil society and the media, they rule by law
rather than upholding the rule of law. The rule of law acts as a
check on state power, i.e., it is a system designed to protect the
human rights of the individual against the power of the state. In
contrast, rule by law can be an abuse of power, i.e., the
manipulation of the law and the judicial system to maintain the
power of the rulers over the ruled.
In 2005, a disturbing number of countries across the globe passed
or selectively applied laws against the media and NGOs. For example:
The Cambodian government utilized existing criminal defamation
laws to intimidate, arrest, and prosecute critics and opposition
members over the course of the year.
China increased restrictions on the media and the Internet,
leading to two known arrests.
The Zimbabwean government arrested persons who criticized
President Mugabe, harassed and arbitrarily detained journalists,
closed an independent newspaper, forcibly dispersed demonstrators,
and arrested and detained opposition leaders and their
supporters.
In Venezuela new laws governing libel, defamation, and broadcast
media content, coupled with legal harassment and physical
intimidation, resulted in limitations on media freedoms and a
climate of self-censorship. There continued to be reports that
government representatives and supporters intimidated and threatened
members of the political opposition, several human rights NGOs, and
other civil society groups. Some NGOs also charged that the
government used the judiciary to place limitations on the political
opposition.
In Belarus the Lukashenko government stepped up its suppression
of opposition groups and imposed new restrictions on civil society.
There were politically motivated arrests, several independent
newspapers were closed, the operations of others were hindered, and
NGOs were harassed.
In Russia raids on NGO offices, registration problems,
intimidation of NGO leaders and staff and visa problems for foreign
NGO workers had a negative effect, as did the parliament’s adoption
of a new restrictive law on NGOs. The Kremlin also acted to limit
critical voices in the media. The government decreased the diversity
of the broadcast media, particularly television, the main source of
news for the majority of Russians. By the end of 2005, all
independent nationwide television stations had been taken over
either by the state or by state-friendly organizations.
Fifth, democratic elections by themselves do not ensure that
human rights will be respected, but they can put a country on the
path to reform and lay the groundwork for institutionalizing human
rights protections. Democratic elections are, however, milestones on
a long journey of democratization. They are essential to
establishing accountable governments and governmental institutions
that abide by the rule of law and are responsive to the needs of
citizens.
In Iraq 2005 was a year of major progress for democracy,
democratic rights and freedom. There was a steady growth of NGOs and
other civil society associations that promote human rights. The
January 30th legislative elections marked a tremendous step forward
in solidifying governmental institutions to protect human rights and
freedom in a country whose history is marred by some of the worst
human rights abuses in the recent past. In an October 15 referendum
and December 15 election, Iraqi voters adopted a permanent
constitution and elected members of the country’s new legislature,
the Council of Representatives, thus consolidating democratic
institutions that can provide a framework for a democratic future.
Although the historic elections and new institutions of democratic
government provided a structure for real advances, civic life and
the social fabric remained under intense strain from the widespread
violence principally inflicted by insurgent and terrorist elements.
Additionally, elements of sectarian militias and security forces
frequently acted independently of government authority. Still, the
government set and adhered to a legal and electoral course based on
respect for political rights.
Although deprived of basic human rights for years, Afghans in
2005 continued to show their courage and commitment to a future of
freedom and respect for human rights. September 18 marked the first
parliamentary elections in nearly three decades. Women
enthusiastically voted in the elections, which included 582 female
candidates for office. Sixty-eight women were elected to the lower
House in seats reserved for women under the 2004 Constitution.
Seventeen of the 68 women would have been elected in their own right
even without the set-aside seats. In the upper House, 17 of the 34
seats appointed by the president were reserved for women; the
Provincial Councils elected an additional 5 women for a total of 22
women. The September 18 parliamentary elections occurred against the
backdrop of a government still struggling to expand its authority
over provincial centers, due to continued insecurity and violent
resistance in some quarters.
In Ukraine there were notable improvements in human rights
performance following the Orange Revolution, which led to the
election of a new government reflecting the will of the people. In
2005 there was increased accountability by police officers, and the
mass media made gains in independence. Interference with freedom of
assembly largely ceased, and most limitations on freedom of
association were lifted. A wide variety of domestic and
international human rights groups also generally operated without
government harassment.
Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim majority country,
made significant progress in strengthening the architecture of its
democratic system. Through a series of historic local elections,
Indonesians were able directly to elect their leaders at the city,
regency, and provincial levels for the first time. There were
improvements in the human rights situation, although significant
problems remained, and serious violations continued. A critical
development was the landmark August 15 peace agreement with the Free
Aceh Movement ending decades of armed conflict. The government also
inaugurated the Papuan People's Assembly and took other steps toward
fulfilling the 2001 Special Autonomy Law on Papua.
Lebanon made significant progress in ending the 29-year Syrian
military occupation and regaining sovereignty under a democratically
elected parliament. However, continuing Syrian influence remained a
problem.
Liberia emerged into the international democratic arena with its
dramatic step away from a violent past and toward a free and
democratic future. On November 23, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was
declared the winner of multiparty presidential elections, making her
Africa’s first elected female head of state and marking a milestone
in the country's transition from civil war to democracy. The
transitional government generally respected the human rights of its
citizens and passed legislation to strengthen human rights. However,
police abuse, official corruption, and other problems persisted and
were exacerbated by the legacy of the 14-year civil war, including
severely damaged infrastructure and widespread poverty and
unemployment.
Sixth, progress on democratic reform and human rights is neither
linear nor guaranteed. Some states still have weak institutions of
democratic government and continue to struggle; others have yet to
fully commit to the democratic process. Steps forward can be marred
with irregularities. There can be serious setbacks. Democratically
elected governments do not always govern democratically once in
power.
In 2005, many countries that have committed themselves to
democratic reform showed mixed progress; some regressed.
The Kyrgyz Republic’s human rights record improved considerably
following the change in leadership between March and July, although
problems remained. President Akayev fled the country after
opposition demonstrators took over the main government building in
the capital to protest flawed elections. The July presidential
election and November parliamentary election constituted
improvements in some areas over previous elections. However,
constitutional reform stalled and corruption remained a serious
problem.
In Ecuador, congress removed democratically elected President
Lucio Gutierrez in April following large scale protests and public
withdrawal of support by the military and the national police
leadership. Vice President Alfredo Palacio succeeded Gutierrez, and
elections were scheduled for 2006.
Although the transitional government of the Democratic Republic
of Congo postponed national general elections until 2006, the
country held its first democratic national poll in 40 years. Voters
overwhelmingly approved a new constitution in a largely free and
fair national referendum, despite some irregularities.
In June, the Ugandan parliament approved a controversial
amendment to eliminate presidential term limits, clearing the way
for President Museveni to seek a third term. However, citizens voted
in a national referendum to adopt a multiparty system of government,
and the parliament amended the electoral laws to include opposition
party participation in elections and in government.
The Egyptian government amended its constitution to provide for
the country’s first multiparty presidential election in September.
Ten political parties fielded candidates, and the campaign period
was marked by vigorous public debate and greater political awareness
and engagement. Voter turnout was low, however, and there were
credible reports of widespread fraud during balloting. Presidential
runner-up Ayman Nour, his parliamentary immunity stripped away in
January, was sentenced in December on forgery charges to five years’
imprisonment after a six-month trial that failed to meet basic
international standards. The November and December parliamentary
elections witnessed significant gains by candidates affiliated with
the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. These elections were marred by
excessive use of force by security forces, low turnout, and
vote-rigging. The government refused to admit international
observers for either the presidential or parliamentary elections.
The National Council for Human Rights, established by the Egyptian
parliament, issued its first annual report, frankly describing
government abuses.
During the Ethiopian parliamentary elections in May,
international observers noted numerous irregularities and voter
intimidation. Scores of demonstrators protesting the elections were
killed by security forces. Authorities detained, beat, and killed
opposition members, NGO workers, ethnic minorities, and members of
the press.
Azerbaijan’s November parliamentary elections, while an
improvement in some areas, failed to meet a number of international
standards. There were numerous credible reports of local officials
interfering with the campaign process and misusing state resources,
limited freedom of assembly, disproportionate use of force by police
to disrupt rallies, and fraud and major irregularities in vote
counting and tabulation. Thus far, additional actions taken during
the postelection grievance process have not fully addressed the
shortcomings of the electoral process.
Kazakhstan showed improvements in the pre-election period for the
December presidential election, but overall it fell short of
international standards for free and fair elections. The
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Office of
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights noted serious limitations
on political speech that prohibited certain kinds of criticism of
the president, unequal access to the media for opposition and
independent candidates, and violent disruptions of opposition
campaign events. Legislation enacted during 2005, in particular the
extremism law, national security amendments, and election law
amendments, eroded legal protections for human rights and expanded
the powers of the executive branch to regulate and control civil
society and the media. But the Constitutional Court deemed
unconstitutional a restrictive NGO law.
Uzbekistan’s human rights record, already poor, worsened
considerably in 2005. A violent uprising in May in the city of
Andijon led to disproportionate use of force by the authorities and
a wave of repressive government actions that dominated the remainder
of the year. The uprising started after a series of daily peaceful
protests in support of businessmen on trial between February and May
for Islamic extremism. On the night of May 12-13, unidentified
individuals seized weapons from a police garrison, stormed the city
prison where the defendants were being held, killed several guards,
and released several hundred inmates, including the defendants. They
then occupied the regional administration building and took
hostages. On May 13, according to eyewitness accounts, government
forces fired indiscriminately into a crowd that included unarmed
civilians. resulting in hundreds of deaths. In the aftermath, the
government harassed, beat, and jailed dozens of human rights
activists, journalists, and others who spoke out about the events
and sentenced numerous people to prison in trials that did not meet
international standards. The government forced numerous domestic and
international NGOs to close and severely restricted those that
continued to operate.
In Russia, efforts continued to concentrate power in the Kremlin
and direct democracy from the top down. To those ends, the Kremlin
abolished direct elections of governors in favor of presidential
nomination and legislative approval. In the current Russian context,
where checks and balances are weak at best, this system limits
government accountability to voters while further concentrating
power in the executive branch. Amendments to the electoral and
political party law amendments, billed as intended to strengthen
nationwide political parties in the longer term, could in fact
reduce the ability of opposition parties to compete in elections.
This trend, taken together with continuing media restrictions, a
compliant parliament, corruption and selectivity in enforcement of
the law, political pressure on the judiciary, and harassment of some
NGOs, resulted in an erosion of the accountability of government
leaders to the people.
Pakistan’s human rights record continued to be poor, despite
President Musharraf’s stated commitment to democratic transition and
"enlightened moderation." Restrictions remained on freedom of
movement, expression, association, and religion. Progress on
democratization was limited. During elections for local governments
in 2005, international and domestic observers found serious flaws,
including interference by political parties, which affected the
outcome of the vote in parts of the country. Police detained
approximately 10 thousand Pakistan People’s Party activists in April
prior to the arrival for a rally of Benazir Bhuto’s husband, Asif
Ali Zardari. The security forces committed extrajudicial killings,
violations of due process, arbitrary arrest, and torture. Corruption
was pervasive throughout the government and police forces, and the
government made little attempt to combat the problem. Security force
officials who committed human rights abuses generally enjoyed de
facto legal impunity.
Despite hard realities and high obstacles, there is an increasing
worldwide demand for greater personal and political freedom and for
the spread of democratic principles. For example, in the Broader
Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) region, recent years have
witnessed the beginnings of political pluralism, unprecedented
elections, new protections for women and minorities, and indigenous
calls for peaceful, democratic change.
At the November 2005 Forum for the Future held in Manama,
Bahrain, 40 leaders representing civil society organizations from 16
BMENA countries participated alongside their foreign ministers. The
civil society leaders outlined a set of priorities with a particular
focus on rule of law, transparency, human rights, and women's
empowerment. Among those serving on this civil society delegation
were representatives from the Democracy Assistance Dialogue (DAD),
who presented the outcomes of discussions and debates held over the
course of the year between civil society leaders and their
government counterparts on the critical topics of election reform
and the development of legitimate political parties. The growing DAD
network includes hundreds of civil society leaders from the BMENA
region. To better support growing reform efforts in the region, a
Foundation for the Future to provide support directly to civil
society and a Fund for the Future to support investment in the
region, were also launched at the Forum. The level and depth of
civil society participation at the Forum for the Future was historic
and positive and set an important precedent for genuine dialogue and
partnership between civil society and governments on issues of
political reform.
The Forum for the Future is just one of the many mechanisms
through which the United States, other Group of 8 countries, and
regional governments support the indigenous desire for reform in the
broader Middle East and North Africa.
The growing worldwide demand for human rights and democracy
reflected in these reports is not the result of the impersonal
workings of some dialectic or of the orchestrations of foreign
governments. Rather, this call derives from the powerful human
desire to live in dignity and liberty and from the personal bravery
and tenacity of men and women in every age and in every society who
serve and sacrifice for the cause of freedom.
|