Despite U.S., Israeli Pressure, Arab Human Development Report Faults Occupations

By Ian Williams

PERHAPS ONE of the greatest contributions the United Nations Development Program made to development was when, in 1990, it began to issue its Human Development Report, challenging the neoliberal idea that a nation’s progress could be measured simply by gross national product.

The Human Development Index, which included elements like mortality and literacy rates, not only revealed a more accurate picture, but also gave leverage to development agencies and well-meaning governments to boost spending on health, education and similar budget items often dismissed as part of allegedly extravagant spending. In the end, the World Bank—which, with the IMF, had previously caused more social mayhem than al-Qaeda—was turned around as well, so that, nominally at least, people had precedence over numbers.

Almost as refreshing was the release three years ago of the first Arab Human Development Report, which mercilessly explored the frequent shortcomings and all-too-infrequent successes of the Arab world. Written by Arabs, it could not easily be dismissed as Western or Zionist propaganda, and its authors were careful to set it all in a strong Arab cultural and intellectual context. Sadly their excellent message was somewhat blunted when George W. Bush selectively quoted some parts of it.

Unfortunately, that gave many equally expedient Arab critics a stick with which to beat the authors of the previous reports, which was unfair. They happen to be serious about Arab democracy, while Bush, of course, is only kidding.

The third study, however, “Arab Human Development Report 2004,” met with united opposition from American and Arab governments, and its publication was held up from last October to this past April reportedly because the U.S. and Israel were upset at the report’s suggestion that the respective occupations of Iraq and Palestinian territories were not good for any potential Arab renaissance or reformation. It is almost an absolute confirmation of American interference when both parties deny the charge as strenuously as they did. Inadvertently—but not for the first time—Washington’s reported opposition has boosted the report’s prestige in the Arab world, to some extent rescuing it and its authors from the suspicion of being Western agents!

American opposition, however, was bolstered by Arab governments, not least Egypt, who objected to the unflatteringly accurate depictions of their institutions and behavior. There were discussions of having the report published independently, but in the end UNDP again issued it, with disclaimers that the final version represented the views neither of the organization, the United Nations, nor of the member states.

UNDP administrator Mark Malloch Brown tactfully described it in his introduction as an “authentic reflection of views and analysis of many of the most thoughtful reform-minded intellectual figures in the Arab region,” reflecting as well the “real anger and concern” in the region.

That anger clearly was not welcome to White House ears. Citing estimates of 100,000 dead from the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the report says, “As a result of the invasion of their country, the Iraqi people have emerged from the grip of a despotic regime that violated their basic rights and freedoms, only to fall under a foreign occupation that increased human suffering.”

It adds that a “U.S. report showed that by the end of October 2004, the occupation authority had spent only US$ 1.3 billion on reconstruction out of the US$ 18.4 billion allocated for this purpose by the U.S. Congress,” and maintains that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine, American occupation of Iraq, and Arab terrorism have “adversely influenced” human development in the region.

Since (despite disclaimers) it is a U.N. report, it addresses the organization’s rapidly diminishing prestige in the Middle East. “The U.S.’s repeated use, or threat, of veto, has limited the effectiveness of the Security Council in establishing peace in the region,” it finds. “Such marginalization has been among the factors contributing to continuing or increased human suffering and to the creation of new facts on the ground, such as the establishment of new settlements by Israel in the occupied territories and the construction of the separation wall that incorporates additional Palestinian land, all of which militate against a just and lasting peace. This has pushed many people in the region to lose hope of obtaining justice from global governance.”

The authors themselves responded briskly to Arab critics who thought that publishing critical reports on the Arab world provided ammunition for the enemy: “It assumes that others have sought to interfere in the region’s affairs in response to self-criticism by Arabs and not because of their own interests.”

The “others” themselves put a brave face on the report, since to condemn its publication not only would appear “undemocratic” but perhaps also invalidate earlier administration invocations of its message. “I’m not going to pretend that we embrace everything in this report,” declared U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, “but when it sticks to the job at hand, and that’s to try to diagnose and identify the impediments to development in the Arab world and the things that can and should be done in the Arab world in terms of reform and change…we think these reports have made a very important contribution and we look forward to reviewing this one in that regard.”

Boucher preferred to ignore the report’s ascription of the several occupations in the Arab world as major impediments to development.

In substance, the report makes a measured and carefully phrased case for the importance of freedom and civil liberties, and addresses many things that local rulers would rather not hear about. To take but one: “In Darfur, violations of minority rights continued. Conflict and human suffering increased, despite the cease-fire agreement.”

This writer may have overlooked any references to the Moroccan occupation of the Western Sahara, but it is far more likely that the authors did.

Looking over their other shoulders, as in previous editions, the authors go out of their way to stress the indigenous Arab and Muslim tradition of human rights and freedom, with appropriate quotations from impeccable authorities larding the text on the importance of holding the ruling authority accountable, such as this one from Al-Kawakibi: “Government, of any sort, is not absolved of being described as oppressive as long as it escapes rigorous oversight and is not made to answer for its actions without fail.”

It is a text, of course, that applies to Washington as well as to Cairo.

While denouncing terrorism as as much of an impediment to human development as occupation, the report again stresses how local regimes have enthusiastically jumped on the U.S.-driven anti-terrorist bandwagon. “There have been unprecedented numbers of arrests. Legal safeguards have been violated, and people have been deprived of their liberty and, in many instances, tortured and ill-treated in prisons, camps and detention centers where their personal safety is uncertain. Perhaps one of the greatest menaces facing any Arab citizen is the frequent disappearance of suspects in detention.”

The authors couple this with the prevailing declarations of alleged “emergencies” which give legal cover to governments ignoring constitutional safeguards. But then it mercilessly shows how those safeguards have been regularly ignored in practice, even without the excuse of emergencies.

The report also offers some perceptive comments on the “Rentier State”—in this case, one living on income from natural resources rather than taxes—caused by oil reserves. “The dominant role of oil in the advanced economies made continued supplies at reasonable prices the chief concern of global powers. Additionally, as vested interests in Israel grew, some global powers, especially the U.S., increasingly took any Arab country’s attitude toward Israel and its practices as one of the most important yardsticks by which to judge that country. Consequently, major world powers tended to gloss over human rights violations in their Arab client states so long as the countries concerned did not threaten these interests. Thus indulged, the Arab despots of the day ruled oppressively, restricting prospects of their countries’ transition to democracy.”

The existence of a steady stream of government income that did not depend on taxes from the citizenry also has distorted development, according to the report, since “where a government relies on financing from the tax base represented by its citizens, it is subject to questioning about how it allocates state resources. In a rentier mode of production, however, the government can act as a generous provider that demands no taxes or duties in return. This hand that gives can also take away, and the government is therefore entitled to require loyalty from its citizens invoking the mentality of the clan.”

The report necessarily is imprecise about the mechanisms for effecting change in the Arab world, but it implicitly supports “certain groups [who] hold that the ideal form of foreign intervention to promote democracy would be to stop supporting dictatorial regimes in the Arab world.”

By abjuring the self-censorship and doubtlethink of much official Arab discourse on internal regional affairs, and the hypocrisy of Washington’s posturing, the Arab Human Development Report is essential reading for anyone interested in the future of the region. Available in Arabic, English or French at a cost of $10 for a downloaded electronic version or $24.95 in hardback, the report can be ordered at <http://www.rbas.undp.org/ahdr2.cfm?menu=12>.

Envoys

In the absence of any progress on Middle Eastern peace, Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been busy appointing envoys. Firstly, he appointed former World Bank president James Wolfensohn as his special representative for the Gaza pullout. This could be promising. Wolfensohn has not let his Jewish origins hinder him from trenchant criticisms of Israeli malpractices, and has the stature to highlight any egregious acts of bad faith.

To replace Terje Roed-Larsen as the U.N. representative to the Quartet, Annan appointed Alvaro de Soto, a former Peruvian diplomat who did sterling work in peace settlements in Central America, before being sent off to less successful missions in Cyprus and Western Sahara.

In other appointments, Kamal Dervis, a former Turkish finance minister and World Bank official, was appointed to head the United Nations Development Program—making history by being the first non-donor national to do so. While UNRWA’s Peter Hansen has finished after years of battling Israeli intransigence, there is no news yet of his replacement in a position that is fraught with political difficulties.

Ian Williams is a free-lance journalist based at the United Nations.