The role of China in maintaining the stability and balanced development of major-country relations

DR.NADIA HELMY
MAY 12, 2024

photo: Unsplash

As the world enters a new period of turbulence and change, relations between major powers are also undergoing new and profound changes. Here, China can play a pivotal role in maintaining the stability and balanced development of major-country relations, especially China is committed to developing friendly relations and cooperation with all countries in light of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. China pursues the process of resolutely safeguarding world peace and development, and better maintains world peace and development through its own development. On March 7, 2024, Member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, Foreign Minister “Wang Yi” attended a foreign affairs press conference of the Second Session of the 14th National People’s Congress, where he answered questions from Chinese and foreign journalists about China’s foreign policy and international relations.

  Establishing a community with a shared future for humanity is a lofty goal pursued by Chinese diplomacy. Chinese President “Xi Jinping” has clarified more than once in his political speeches the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity in all its aspects on various occasions, and he took the initiative to apply the shared values of humanity to build an open, comprehensive, clean and beautiful world in which lasting peace, global security and common prosperity through consultation, cooperation and benefit for all. Chinese President “Xi Jinping” also proposed the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative, respectively, to advance common development, lasting security, and mutual benefit among civilizations for the human community at a deep level, and mobilize the efforts of all countries.

  China is willing as well to strengthen strategic dialogue with developed countries to increase mutual strategic trust, deepen mutually beneficial cooperation, properly address differences, and explore ways to establish and develop a new type of relations with major countries in the world in order to achieve steady, stable and healthy development of China’s relations with these countries.  It adheres to the policy of good neighborliness, partnership and developing friendly relations and cooperation with neighboring countries and other Asian countries.  China is also keen to conduct bilateral and regional cooperation with these countries and work with them to create a regional environment in which peace, stability, equality, mutual trust, and a spirit of cooperation and mutual benefit prevail.  With China’s constant endeavor to strengthen solidarity with the many developing countries, deepen traditional friendship and expand joint cooperation with them, we sincerely support developing countries to achieve independent development through economic aid, investments and other methods. Chinese President “Xi Jinping” stressed in his political discourses on protecting the rights, legitimate interests and common interests of developing countries. China is actively to participate in handling multilateral affairs and global issues, and China bears its required international responsibilities and plays a constructive role in making the international political and economic system more just and equitable.  As China continues to conduct communication and cooperation with other countries at the parliamentary, party and local levels and in the field of civil society and expand popular and cultural communication with abroad to increase mutual knowledge and friendship between the Chinese people and other peoples.

  The “major state diplomacy with Chinese characteristics” aims to maintain world peace and promote common development.  China calls for building a harmonious world of lasting peace and common prosperity, and works with other countries to achieve this as both a long-term goal and an urgent task.  In order to build a harmonious world, China made many efforts to achieve this goal.

   At the political level, the major country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics focuses on the necessity of making the countries of the world treat each other on the basis of mutual respect and equal consultation, and work together to strengthen democracy in international relations.  All countries of the world, whether large or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community and deserve respect from the international community. Chinese state policy also diplomatically emphasizes that all countries must support the central role of the United Nations in international affairs, adhere to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, adhere to international law and recognized rules in international relations, and perpetuate the spirit of democracy, harmony, cooperation and win-win in international relations.  With China’s constant emphasis on the importance of letting the peoples of the world decide the affairs of their countries, while international affairs must be addressed through equal consultation between all countries of the world.  The right of states to participate in international affairs on an equal footing must be respected and protected.

  On the other hand, China links the interests of the Chinese people with the common interests of the peoples of the world, seeks to expand common interests with all parties, and works to form and develop common interest blocs with other countries and regions in various fields and at all levels.  China is committed to promoting the common interests of all mankind, and advocates that everyone should benefit from the fruits of the progress of human civilization. China also calls for the establishment of a new security concept based on trust, mutual benefit, equality and cooperation.

  Regarding enhancing cooperation-based security, China believes that wars and confrontations only lead to a spiral of violence and counter-violence, and that dialogue and negotiation represent the only correct and effective way to resolve disputes.  The countries of the world must strive to achieve peace, security, harmony and harmony through cooperation and opposition to the use of force or the threat of its use for the most trivial reasons.  Here, China bears international responsibility with a positive attitude.  China, as the most populous developing country in the world, believes that managing its affairs well is its most important responsibility towards the world.  China, as a responsible member of the international community, adheres to international law and recognized rules in international relations, and is keen to implement its required international obligations.  China takes a positive stance in reforming the international system, formulating international rules and addressing global issues, supporting development in other developing countries, and working to safeguard world peace and stability.  In light of the varying national circumstances and developmental stages of different countries, all countries must work to bear the required international responsibility in accordance with the principle of reconciliation between international responsibility, rights and national power, and play a constructive role in the international community according to their national capacity, in a way that achieves their interests and the common interests of humanity.  China will assume international responsibility as much as possible as its comprehensive national strength grows.

  China also adheres to the policy of good neighborliness and regional cooperation. China actively works to enhance friendship and cooperation with neighboring countries, and is keen to participate in building a harmonious Asia. China calls on the countries of the region to respect each other, enhance mutual trust, seek common visions while leaving differences aside, and settle differences and various problems, including disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, through negotiation, dialogue and friendly consultation, in a way that achieves peace and stability in the region. The countries of the region must enhance economic and trade exchange and joint cooperation, strengthen the process of regional economic integration, complement existing regional and sub-regional cooperation mechanisms while adopting an open attitude towards other regional cooperation initiatives, and welcome countries outside the region to play a constructive role in supporting peace and development in the region. China does not seek regional hegemony or establish spheres of influence, nor does it seek to exclude any country from regional cooperation. China’s development, prosperity and lasting stability do not constitute a threat to neighboring countries, but rather an opportunity for them.  China will, as always, adhere to the Asian spirit of self-reliance, insist on making further progress with creative ideas, openness, tolerance and cooperation. China is willing to remain a good neighbor, a close friend, and a distinguished partner to other Asian countries forever.

  Chinese wisdom promotes world peace, and China, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is committed to constructive participation in resolving international hot issues. Adhering to non-interference in internal affairs, as the Chinese side continues to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the countries concerned, and plays the role of mediation according to the needs and desires of the countries concerned, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. For a long time, the Chinese side has always led the voice of the countries of the Global South to search for development paths independently, and has also always supported the countries of the South, especially African and developing countries, to solve regional security problems in unity and solidarity.

  Accordingly, we understand that China’s economic growth and development play a major role in promoting global development and maintaining global economic stability.  China defends the issues of developing countries in international forums, and also plays active roles in important international groups such as the G20, the BRICS, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. All of this indicates China’s strong relationship with supporting the cause of development in the world. Chinese initiatives, such as the recently launched “Global Development Initiative” and the “Belt and Road Initiative”, reflect China’s contribution to global development and support for developing countries and emerging economies, thus contributing to achieving global stability.

Dr.Nadia Helmy

Associate Professor of Political Science, Faculty of Politics and Economics / Beni Suef University- Egypt. An Expert in Chinese Politics, Sino-Israeli relationships, and Asian affairs- Visiting Senior Researcher at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES)/ Lund University, Sweden- Director of the South and East Asia Studies Unit

 

Can A Religion Other Than Islam Ever Be Accepted? – OpEd

 May 12, 2024 

By Rabbi Allen S. Maller

Has Islam been the one religion acceptable to God since the days of Prophet Muhammad? Does Islam claim to replace Christianity and Judaism, the way Christianity claimed (until recently) to have replaced Old Testament Judaism? 

One does frequently hear extremist, and even some non-extremist Muslims, quote the Qur’anic verse: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers.” (Qur’an 3:85) That sounds pretty exclusive.

But the Qur’an also states, and then repeats: “Verily, those who believe, and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians; whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous deeds; shall have their reward with their Lord. On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”  (Quran 2:62 & 5:69)

And the Qur’an goes even further, proclaiming that religious pluralism is the will of Allah. “If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (God’s plan is) to test (each group of) you in what He has given you: so compete in all virtues as in a race. The goal of you all is to (please) Allah who will show you on judgment day the truth of the matters which you dispute.” (Qur’an 5:48) 

This means that religious pluralism is the will of God. Thus, we will never know “the truth of the matters which you dispute” until judgement day. What we can know is who is the kindest and most charitable among us.Yet for centuries many believers in one God have chided and depreciated each other’s religions, and some believers have even resorted to forced conversions, expulsions, inquisitions and massacres to spread their faith even though monotheists all pray to the same God, and all prophets of monotheistic faiths are inspired by the same God.

The two Quran verses above (Quran 2:62 & 5:69) place Jews, Christians, and Sabians alongside Muslims; and say that any one among them who “believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”.

Although these two verses (Quran 2:62 & 5:69) seem to be completely contradictory to the first verse (Qur’an 3:85), and it is possible that one view abrogates the other, there is a much simpler explanation. 

There are two meanings for the word “Islam”. First, there is basic, fundamental, Islam (submission to God) which was the religion of all the prophets from Adam to Muhammad.

Second, there is the special and unique religion, or more accurate, way of life of Islam taught by Prophet Muhammad.

The two verses quoted above refer to basic, fundamental, Islam and not to the special and unique religion of Islam. In today’s terms; basic Islam should be spelled ‘islam’ without a capital letter ‘I’, and special and unique Islam should be spelled with a capital ‘I’. The same is true for Muslim, a member of a special and unique community, and ‘muslim’ referring to one who follows the fundamental “religion” of living in obedience to the commandments of the one God as taught by Moses, Jesus, or any other prophet of the one God.

Thus, “And whoever seeks a religion other than (monotheistic) islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers.” (Qur’an 3:85) includes Jews, Christians, and Sabians (whoever they are) but does not include atheists on one hand, and polytheists on the other hand. 

The Qur’an and Judaism by Reuven Firestone 2020, Oxford Handbook of Qur’anic Studies says: The Qur’an itself reflects a consciousness of association with Jewish and Christian scripture, thought, and practice. The Qur’an states: ‘Surely it (the Qur’an) is a communication sent down from the Lord of the worlds (God), which the trustworthy spirit (Gabriel) has brought down on your heart (Prophet Muḥammad) so you will be one of the warners (Prophets) in a clear Arabic tongue. It is most certainly in the scriptures (Torah and Gospels) of the ancients. Is it not a sign for them that the learned among the Children of Israel (Rabbis) know it?’ (26:192–7)

Religious pluralism as the will of God is very different from religious, moral or cultural relativism. Relativism teaches that all values and standards are subjective, and therefore there is no higher spiritual authority available for setting ethical standards or making moral judgements. Thus, issues of justice, truth or human rights are, like beauty, just in the eye of the beholder. Most people, especially those who believe that One God created all of us, refuse to believe that ethics and human rights are simply a matter of taste. Religious pluralism as the will of God is the opposite of cultural or philosophical relativism. 

The fundamental idea supporting religious pluralism is that religious people need to embrace humility in many areas of religion. All religions have always taught a traditional anti self centered personal egoism type of humility. Religious pluralism also opposes a religious,  philosophical, and self righteous intellectual egoism that promotes a tendency to turn our legitimate love for our own prophet and Divine revelation into universal truths that we fully understand and know how to apply. 

Religious pluralism teaches that finite humans, even the most intelligent and pious of them, can not fully understand everything the way the infinite One does. This is true, for every human being, even for God’s  messengers themselves. When prophet Moses.”who God spoke with face to face, as a person speaks with a friend” (Exodus 33:11) asks to see God face to face, he is told, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see My face and live.” (33:20)  

Similarly, in the Qur’an prophet Jesus admits to God, “You know everything that is within myself, whereas I do not know what is within Yourself”. (7:116) In  the New Testament when prophet Jesus is asked, in private, by his disciples, “What will be the sign for your coming (back) and the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3) Jesus warns his disciples about all kinds of upheavals and false Messiahs that will come. Then Jesus concludes by saying, “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the son: only the Father”. (24:36) 

A similar statement was made by prophet Muhammad when he was asked, “Tell me about the Hour”. Muhammad replied: “The one questioned about it knows no better than the questioner.” (Muslim book 1:1&4)  Prophet Muhammad taught the general principle of epistemological humility to his followers when he said, “I am no novelty among the messengers. I do not know what will be done to me, or to you.” (Qur’an 46:9)

The famous Qur’an verse (2:255)  called Ayat Al-Kursi, the “Throne verse” is known for its profound meaning and its inspiring message. Allah is well described, and we are informed that the knowledge of Allah is incomparable to our own humble efforts. The Throne verse begins: “Allah! There is no god but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Supporter of all.” and ends: “They shall not encompass any of His knowledge except as He wills. His Throne/dominion extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving   them. For He is the Most High, the Supreme in glory.” And the very next verse states: “There shall be no compulsion in (acceptance of) the religion (Islam).” (2:256) because all humans have limited knowledge and no one should force anyone else to believe what is knowable only to Allah.

The Qur’an refers to Prophet Abraham as a community or a nation: “Abraham was a nation/community [Ummah]; dutiful to God, a monotheist [hanif], not one of the polytheists.” (16:120) If Prophet Abraham is an Ummah then fighting between the descendants of Prophets Ishmael and Isaac is a civil war and should always be avoided.

If all Arabs and Jews can live up to the ideal that ‘the descendants of Abraham’s sons should never make war against each other’ is the will of God; we will help fulfill the 2700 year old vision of Prophet Isaiah: “In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt, and the Egyptians to Assyria. Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. On that day Israel  will join a three-party alliance with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing upon the heart. The LORD of Hosts will bless them saying, “Blessed be Egypt My people, Assyria My handiwork, and Israel My inheritance.”…(Isaiah 19:23-5)

Share

Rabbi Allen S. Maller

Allen Maller retired in 2006 after 39 years as Rabbi of Temple Akiba in Culver City, Calif. He is the author of an introduction to Jewish mysticism. God. Sex and Kabbalah and editor of the Tikun series of High Holy Day prayerbooks.

 

Modi’s Policies Give Fresh Lease Of Life To Dravidian Movement In Tamil Nadu – Analysis

Location of Tamil Nadu in India. Source: Wikipedia Commons.

 May 12, 2024  

By P. K. Balachandran

The North-South and Brahmin-non Brahmin divides have again come to the fore but Tamils hope that the INDIA alliance will blunt the BJP’s brutal centralization and divisive Hindu nationalism.       

The on-going elections to the Indian parliament are being fought in various States and Union Territories of the country on the basis of a multiplicity of issues varying from State to State. 

These issues could be caste, farmers’ problems, unemployment, oppressive taxation, political malfeasance, dictatorial tendencies, excessive centralization, financial discrimination against the better performing States, social justice and communalism, especially persecution of Muslims.    

In Tamil Nadu, where polling for all the 39 seats was held in the very first phase on April 19, the over-riding issue has been the danger posed to the time honoured values of the Dravidian movement which stands for federalism, secularism, equalitarianism and justice for the socially and educationally backward classes, Dalits and tribals.

All parties in Tamil Nadu, barring the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led by Narendra Modi, are sworn to protect and foster the ideology of the Dravidian movement which is under an unprecedented threat posed by the BJP which is identified with brutal centralization and an extremist brand of political Hinduism encapsulated in the term Hindutva.   

Not all parties in Tamil Nadu brand themselves as “Dravidian”. The Congress and the Muslim League in Tamil Nadu are not Dravidian parties per se, but they are as committed to the ideals and goals of the Dravidian movement as the branded ones. In fact, no party which is not committed to the ideals of the Davidian movement can strike roots in Tamil Nadu’s soil.

Indeed, some outstanding leaders of the Congress and the Muslim League are considered as part of the Dravidian pantheon. The outstanding examples are K. Kamaraj of the Congress and Mohammad Ismail of the Muslim League. 

Kamaraj is hailed by the Dravidian movement as Perun Thalaivar or the Great Leader of the Tamils. In return, the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee recognises the founder of the Dravidian Movement Periyar E.V.Ramaswamy Naicker as one of its earliest State level Presidents, and has a portrait of his in the party office in Chennai. 

Mohammad Ismail is recognised as a votary of the Tamil language. In fact, in the Constituent Assembly in 1947, Ismail had advocated the recognition of Tamil as one of the official languages of the Union of India. After partition in 1947, Ismail became an ally of the Congress but later shifted to the Dravidian parties as these were more accommodative of the Muslims. The Tamil Nadu Muslim League has since been promoting the Muslim interest within the Dravidian ideological framework.

The BJP, on the other hand, is seen as the quintessential anti-thesis of Dravidian ideals, a representative of the upper caste and upper class Hindus. More precisely, it seen as representing the Brahmins, against whose historic hegemony the Dravidian movement has been fighting since the 1920s. No wonder then that today, the staunchest supporters of the BJP and the RSS both in Tamil Nadu and among Non-Resident Indian Tamils are Brahmins.   

While the Dravidian movement considers Sanatan Dharm as an ideological justification of the caste system, the Brahmins and North Indian Hindus see Sanatan Dharm as a set of liberal values even considering caste as division of labour rather than a system of invidious social system of discrimination based on birth. But the Dravidian movement thinks that this interpretation is utterly false.  

When the Tamil Nadu Sports Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin said that Sanatan Dharm has to be eradicated, Hindus in the North and Brahmins in the South condemned him. The Congress party’s silence on the issue was exploited fully to show the Congress and the DMK as anti-Hindu. 

However such a portrayal did not wash in Tamil Nadu because Tamils do not identify Hinduism with the Sanatan Dharm. Tamil Hinduism, which is what is practiced in Tamil Nadu by the masses, is egalitarian, based as it is on the Bhakti cult. 

The North-South and Brahmin-non Brahmin divide came into the open when a leading Carnatic vocalist, T.M.Krishna, was given the Madras Music Academy’s top award of Sangeetha Kalanidhi and was to preside over the next annual session of the Academy. Through his  concerts, speeches and writings, Krishna had been castigating the caste biases in the Carnatic music echo-system. He has been including Islamic and Christian themes in his concerts. But the Brahmin lobby saw Carnatic music as Hindu music.     

While the non-Brahmins hailed Krishna’s efforts, the Brahmin lobby which has a stranglehold over the Music Academy, flew into a rage. Musicians Ranjani and Gayatri withdrew from the December Music concerts. They accusing Krishna of singing the praise of Dravidian movement’s founder, Periyar Ramaswamy Naicker, who, according to them, proposed the “genocide” of Brahmins repeatedly and referred to Brahmin women using “profanity”.

Other Brahmin artistes followed suit with condemnation of Krishna. North Indian BJP leaders and North Indian Youtubers interviewed the dissenters to portray Krishna, the DMK and even the Congress as anti-Hindu.

Issues such as Sanatan Dharm and T.N. Krishna were incubating in a climate of a Centre-State/North-South conflict over the devolution of finances from the Centre to the States. Tamil Nadu and other Southern States had been protesting against the Central government’s policy of punishing them for performing well on the population control and economic fronts. The finances devolved to them did not at all match their contribution to the Centre’s kitty, while it was the other way round in the case of the poorly performing North Indian States. Leaders of the Southern States even sat on a dharna in New Delhi to draw the attention of the Modi regime.   

The other issue that was bothering Tamil Nadu and other South Indian States was the proposal to redefine parliamentary constituencies based on a new population count. That could lead to the further dilution of the South’s representation in parliament as the Southern States’ populations are under control in contrast to those of the Northern States.

The explosion of Youtube news and discussion outlets have made all these issues, including the ones thrown up in the on-going elections, subjects of comment and debate involving the common man, experts and politicians. These programs have started getting lakhs if not millions of viewers of all classes as the smart phone is ubiquitous these days.

So far, these Youtube outlets have been encouraging only sober debate not slanging matches which are standard fare in the mainstream TV channels. 

What one observes in the new media in Tamil Nadu is the attempt to highlight the history and culture of the Tamils with the help of scholars and litterateurs. A new pride in being a Tamil is being instilled, pride which had dimmed in the balmy era of Gandhi and Nehru. The secular nationalism and the accommodative ethos of Gandhi and Nehru had eroded aggressive Tamil nationalism.

In the face of the challenge from the intolerant and oppressive nationalism based on Hindutva, promoted by Modi’s BJP, there is a revival of aggressive Tamil nationalism on the Youtube 

However, the new Tamil nationalism is not separatist. It is based on an explicitly stated hope that under the Congress-led INDIA alliance, the ideals of the Indian constitution will be reinstalled as the guiding star of modern India and that India’s unity will be re-established and strengthened. 

Hence the wish in Tamil Nadu that the DMK-led INDIA alliance will sweep the current elections winning all the 39 seats and help rein in or replace Modi’s BJP at the Centre.

P. K. Balachandran is a senior Indian journalist working in Sri Lanka for local and international media and has been writing on South Asian issues for the past 21 years

Tunisian lawyers call for strike over colleague’s arrest for sarcastic TV quip

A Tunisian lawyers association on Sunday called for a nationwide strike after hooded police raided Tunisia’s bar association headquarters and arrested a prominent lawyer as authorities escalated a broad government crackdown that has ensnared political dissidents, non-governmental organizations and Black migrants.


Issued on: 12/05/2024 

A demonstrator at a protest demanding the release of imprisoned lawyers, journalists, activists and opposition figures in Tunis, Tunisia, May 12, 2024.

 © Jihed Abidellaoui, Reuters

By: FRANCE 24

Sonia Dahmani, a prominent critic of the government, was arrested Saturday night after making sarcastic remarks about Tunisia on a local television programme last week and charged with distributing false information and disrupting public order.

She was the latest dissident to be charged under the country’s controversial Decree 54, an anti-fake news law that the government has used to pursue critics of President Kais Saied.

The Tunisian Lawyers Council on Sunday called for a nationwide general strike to be held by all lawyers.

Dahmani’s advocates had gathered at the bar association Saturday to protest a warrant for her arrest when police stormed the building.

FRANCE 24's French language reporter was live on air from Tunis when hooded police officials arrived at the bar association to arrest Dahmani.

Masked police forced FRANCE 24 to stop broadcasting after tearing "the camera from its tripod" and briefly detaining the cameraman.

FRANCE 24 has condemned the "brutal intervention by security forces that prevented journalists from practising their profession as they were covering a lawyers' protest for justice and in support of freedom of expression".

'What extraordinary country are we talking about?'

The incident was the latest in a series of arrests and investigations targeting activists, journalists and civil society groups critical of Saied and the government.

The move reinforces opponents' fears of an increasingly authoritarian government ahead of presidential elections expected later this year.

Dahmani was arrested after she said, on a TV show last week, that Tunisia is a country where life is not pleasant.

During a show on the Carthage Plus TV channel, Dahmani responded to another panelist's claim that sub-Saharan migrants were seeking to settle in Tunisia.

"What extraordinary country are we talking about?" she asked sarcastically.

She was commenting on a speech by Saied, who said there was a conspiracy to push thousands of undocumented migrants from Sub-Saharan countries to stay in Tunisia.
'Attack on the Tunisian legal profession'

The bar association has long carried “symbolic power” in Tunisia, so much so that authorities didn’t enter its doors under its pre-Arab Spring dictator, Fadoua Braham, a Tunisian lawyer, told The Associated Press.

“Today we are seeing hooded individuals using force and taking away a lawyer by force because of, quite simply, a matter of opinion,” she said, noting that those who arrested Dahmani were not clearly identifiable as law enforcement officers.

Other civil society organisations expressed concern and said the arrest contributed to an ongoing crackdown on human rights defenders, activists, journalists and opposition leaders.

The Tunisian General Labour Union, the country’s most powerful workers’ group, joined other civil society organizations, activists and lawyers at the bar association headquarters on Sunday.

The group said it “strongly condemns this blatant and unprecedented attack on the Tunisian legal profession and considers it one of the preludes to establishing a state of violations and tyranny, especially since it came after a wave of incitement, promotion of hate speech, division and treason.”

'Fake news' decree

Also on Saturday, broadcaster Borhen Bssais and political commentator Mourad Zeghidi were arrested for making critical comments, lawyer Ghazi Mrabet told AFP.

Mrabet said the judiciary on Sunday placed both under a "48-hour detention warrant and (they) will have to appear before an examining magistrate".

He said Zeghidi was being pursued "for a social media post in which he supported an arrested journalist", Mohamed Boughalleb. He was sentenced to six months in prison for defaming a public official and over "statements made during television shows since February".

Arrest warrants were issued for Bssais and Zeghidi for disseminating "false information... with the aim of defaming others or harming their reputation", Tunis court spokesperson Mohamed Zitouna told AFP.

Mrabet said Bssais was detained under Decree 54, which punishes the production and dissemination of "false news".

The law, signed by Saied in September 2022, has been criticised by journalists and opposition figures who say it has been used to stifle dissent. Since it came into force, more than 60 journalists, lawyers and opposition figures have been prosecuted, according to the National Union of Tunisian Journalists.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP, AP and Reuters)

Three Tunisian pundits arrested over critical remarks: lawyers

Since the 'false news' law came into force, more than 60 journalists, lawyers and opposition figures have been prosecuted

| AFP |

Tunisian lawyers chant slogans during a protest at the bar association headquarters in Tunis. 

Photo: AFP

Tunisian authorities ordered Sunday the arrest of two political commentators over critical comments, a lawyer told AFP, a day after security forces stormed the bar association and took a third pundit into custody.

Sonia Dahmani, also a lawyer, was arrested late Saturday after criticising the state of Tunisia on television, her attorney Dalila Msaddek said in a Facebook post.

Msaddek said there was a "police attack" on the bar association headquarters in Tunis, with "lawyers assaulted and the abduction of colleague Sonia Dahmani to an unknown location".

Also on Saturday, broadcaster Borhen Bssais and political commentator Mourad Zeghidi were arrested for making critical comments, lawyer Ghazi Mrabet told AFP.

Mrabet said the judiciary on Sunday placed both under a "48-hour detention warrant and (they) will have to appear before an examining magistrate".

He said Zeghidi was being pursued "for a social media post in which he supported an arrested journalist", Mohamed Boughalleb. He was sentenced to six months in prison for defaming a public official and over "statements made during television shows since February".

Arrest warrants were issued for Bssais and Zeghidi for disseminating "false information... with the aim of defaming others or harming their reputation", Tunis court spokesperson Mohamed Zitouna told AFP.

Mrabet said Bssais was detained under Decree 54, which punishes the production and dissemination of "false news".

The law, signed by President Kais Saied in September 2022, has been criticised by journalists and opposition figures who say it has been used to stifle dissent.

Since it came into force, more than 60 journalists, lawyers and opposition figures have been prosecuted, according to the National Union of Tunisian Journalists.
'Extraordinary country?'

Dahmani was also arrested under Decree 54, media reported, saying she was detained while seeking safety at the bar association.

The event was filmed live by news channel France 24, which said masked police forced it to stop broadcasting, had "torn the camera from its tripod" and briefly detained the cameraman.

France 24 condemned what it called a "brutal intervention by security forces that prevented journalists from practising their profession as they were covering a lawyers' protest for justice and in support of freedom of expression".

The bar association condemned an "invasion of its headquarters and blatant aggression", demanded Dahmani's immediate release and announced a regional strike starting Monday.

Msaddek said Dahmani had been summoned to court on Friday to explain her remarks but refused to appear. A court then issued a warrant for her to be brought before the investigating judge.

Islam Hamza, another lawyer on Dahmani's defence team, confirmed her arrest to AFP.

Dahmani told journalists before being arrested that she refused to appear "without knowing the reasons for this summons".

On the Carthage Plus television channel on Tuesday, she responded to another pundit's claim that migrants from sub-Saharan African countries were seeking to settle in Tunisia.

"What extraordinary country are we talking about?" she asked sarcastically, triggering angry reactions from some social media users.
'Police state'

Tunisia is a key departure point for thousands of migrants who risk perilous Mediterranean crossings each year hoping for a better life in Europe.

But the situation of sub-Saharan African migrants in Tunisia has worsened, particularly since a Kais speech last year in which he painted "hordes of illegal migrants" as a demographic threat.

On Monday Saadia Mosbah, head of the Mnemty anti-racism association, was detained and investigated over money laundering, media reported.

Her arrest came just hours after Saied lashed out at organisations that defend migrant rights, calling their leaders "traitors and mercenaries".

Tunisian authorities have raided several encampments in recent weeks, tearing down tents and expelling migrants.

Saied was elected president in 2019 but has ruled by decree since he orchestrated a sweeping power grab in July 2021.

A demonstration on Sunday in Tunis, organised by the opposition National Salvation Front (NSF) coalition to demand "free and fair elections" by the end of the year, drew a crowd of some 300 people, AFP correspondents reported.

The protesters chanted "Stop the police state" and "Down, down with Kais Saied", they said.

Veteran politician and NSF co-founder Ahmed Nejib Chebbi condemned what he called a "freedom-killing system".

"All freedoms have been attacked. Today, it is absolute personal power which subjugates all of the instruments of state to stifle rights and freedoms."

Statehood in the Arab Levant Faces a Miserable Fate


Opinion
Hazem Saghieh
Sunday - 12 May 2024


Let us remember what happened in Beirut in 2002 for a moment. Despite over two decades having gone by, recalling this juncture remains useful for understanding the present. Not only has the past not truly passed, it has become more present and painful with time, and its meanings have become more transparent.

That year, during an Arab Summit, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, who would later become king, put forward what came to be known as the "Arab Peace Initiative.” The tragedy of 9/11 in the United States and the Second Intifada in Palestine were propelling a major shift in the "Middle East crisis" and its resolution.

The most prominent dimension of this initiative was its announcement that Arab states were prepared to recognize the State of Israel in exchange for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights it had taken from Syria.

Then Israeli Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon prevented Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from traveling to Lebanon to attend the summit in which his cause would be discussed. For his part, Arafat complied with the decision for fear that if he went to Beirut, the Israelis would prevent him from returning to Ramallah.

In turn, Emile Lahoud, then President of Lebanon, who is known for being a subordinate of Damascus and Tehran, denied Arafat’s request to deliver a speech at the summit via satellite. The pretext for removing the speech from the conference's agenda was scandalous: "fears Israel would interfere and distort the speech."

What happened was even worse: Hamas carried out a terrorist attack in Netanya during the summit, which coincided with the Jewish holiday of Passover, resulting in the deaths of 30 Israeli civilians.

Sharon and his government found in the attack an opportunity to ignore the Beirut summit and avoid engaging with the offer it presented. Sharon’s dismissal of the summit was reinforced by the fact that it refused to address (let alone condemn) the terrorist operation because of pressure from Syria and rejectionist Arabs.

Nothing attests to the collusion of Israel and Iran in undermining Palestinian statehood and the notion of peace in general - albeit from a position of enmity - more compellingly than this incident. Mind you, the war against the Oslo Accords also spoke volumes about this same collusion: the Israeli right assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, and rejectionist Palestinian factions planted explosives among civilians.

In addition, we add nothing novel in mentioning what happened after the Hamas coup and takeover of Gaza in 2007, which left the Israeli right happy and reassured. It was thus impelled to come to the aid of Hamas and to bolster its authority financially, not necessarily out of love for Hamas but out of hatred for the prospect that any kind of Palestinian national structure could take shape.

Both Israel and Iran sought to destroy Palestinian statehood and prevent it from evolving. Tel Aviv believed that perpetuating the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip was crucial to achieving this end, while Tehran believed that nothing less than fragmenting the Arab Levant and preventing its stabilization into a system of statehood was necessary.

The birth of a Palestinian state leads to two undesirable outcomes:

On one hand, it deprives rejectionists of a useful flammable element, as well as proving that solving this obstinate problem is possible.

On the other hand, the creation of such a state would be a celebration of statehood and evidence of the state system's success in the Arab Levant. The reality, as many of our experiences have shown, is that the existence of a Palestinian state has become tied to the question of whether the state system is viable or absent and unachievable in the region.

Both sides, in any event, do not want the problem to be resolved, leaving it to remain a "cause." They prefer the project of promoting the turn towards militias that hinders the formation of states and spreads social decay.

Completing the picture, Assadist Syria saw itself as a partner in the Iranian effort to fragment the Levant and foster its militarization, provided that this fragmentation excluded Syria and allowed it to control the process. However, it soon fell into the hole it had dug for its "brothers" in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine. Thus, there was no longer any exception to this Levantine rule, and the Iranians and Israelis were the only ones left on the field. The former tosses us in the air like a ball and the latter kicks it.

Now, with October 7 and the war on Gaza, it can be said that the push to nip Levantine nationhood in the bud has been successful, starting from and building on its success in Palestine. Anyone looking for regional stability that could foster statehood will find nothing but a war that springs from Gaza and does not end there. It will likely be multipronged and complex, albeit while taking various forms.

And anyone looking for autonomous forces in the Levant capable of benefiting from the Israeli-Iranian conflict will find only increasing fragmentation accompanied and aggravated by rival communal and centrifugal groups fighting among themselves. The continued population drain, brain drain included, attests to the impossibility of building on demographic solid grounds, while the defeat of revolutions and reform movements in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq show that dynamics needed to bring about positive change will remain pending for a period that is difficult to predict.

As for the influential global powers in our region, their footprint remains overwhelmingly linked to military and security matters that overshadow their minimal political presence and role in shaping a vision for the future. What was that? “Future”?

Why Isn’t the U.S. in Libya?

May 12, 2024
Frederic Wehrey

Outside powers take a growing interest in this oil-rich African state where the U.S. Embassy has been closed since 2014.

Success in diplomacy, like success in life—to borrow from an old cliché—largely depends on showing up. But for over half a decade, the United States hasn’t been showing up in Libya, at least not in a way that is sustained and meaningful. It speaks to a U.S. State Department approach to the country that is often more akin to sloganeering and wishful thinking than implementable policy.

Caught in the crossfire of inter-militia fighting that raged throughout the Libyan capital of Tripoli in summer 2014, U.S. diplomats shuttered their villa-based embassy and evacuated to Tunisia. They have yet to return, even as conditions in Libya have become considerably safer in the past years and other foreign embassies have either reopened or are in the process of doing so.

Their absence is due in part to the politicized legacy of the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, which killed then-Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and unleashed a flurry of Republican scapegoating in Congress that has yet to fully abate. That tragic episode has also made Biden administration officials unusually risk averse in signing off on the embassy’s return to Libya.

Earlier this month, though, there were signs for guarded optimism that this may be changing. At a March 22 hearing of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, Secretary of State Antony Blinken testified that his department was “actively working on” reestablishing a permanent U.S. diplomatic presence in Libya, though he declined to go into specifics about what steps the State Department was taking, or a timetable.

The State Department has included funds for the return of the embassy to Tripoli in its budget request to Congress—a good thing—but it’s not clear if this funding will clear the Republican-dominated House of Representatives, or if and when Blinken will move forward with the reopening.

Without a physical presence in the country, the U.S. diplomats working on Libya will continue to be based at the U.S. embassy in neighboring Tunisia. But, as I’ve seen firsthand during extended fieldwork in Libya over the years, many of the Libyans who matter are unable or unwilling to make that trip, often for financial or political reasons.

As a result, U.S. diplomats are unable to build trust with, understand, and possibly influence key Libyan players. Half-day in-and-out stops by senior U.S. officials to heavily fortified airports or ministries in Libya are hardly a viable substitute for continuous visibility and interaction.

These deleterious effects have only compounded as Libya’s security and energy importance has grown in recent years and a bevy of outside powers have taken a growing interest in the oil-rich African state.

Russia deployed thousands of Wagner Group mercenaries, regular personnel, and advanced weaponry in 2019-20 to support a military bid by eastern Libya-based warlord Khalifa Haftar. Haftar sought to topple the internationally recognized government in the capital. Though that effort failed because of Turkish military intervention, Russia continues to enjoy a spoiling influence in Libya. Most notably, it is propping up Haftar’s armed coalition, the Libyan Armed Forces, giving him the means to maintain his grip over vast swathes of Libyan territory and to block the export of Libyan oil—as he did from April to July 2022, precisely when crude prices were skyrocketing because of the Russia-Ukraine war. That self-serving act harmed ordinary Libyans, European states that receive Libyan energy exports, and the global economy, while conveniently benefiting the Kremlin.

Wagner fighters have also ensconced themselves around oilfields and inside airbases across southern and eastern Libya, from which they’ve ferried personnel and material into African states in the Sahel. Here, they’ve presented themselves as an appealing alternative to what locals perceive as an overbearing French—and American—neocolonial order, offering autocrats a suite of services, ranging from military training and counterinsurgency to propaganda and personal protection, while committing horrific abuses in the process.

It is a measure of just how seriously the Biden administration views Libya as a springboard for Russian power projection, as well as a potential source of illicit financing—Wagner personnel are already said to be tapping into Libyan oil revenues—that it recently dispatched two high-level emissaries to eastern Libya to meet with Haftar.

CIA Director William Burns traveled to Benghazi in January, followed by Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf in March. The details of their full discussion with the famously obdurate Haftar remain unclear, but it likely centered on his support for planned elections in Libya later this year and a mix of pressure, warnings, and incentives to compel him to cut his ties with Moscow and eject Russia’s mercenaries from Libyan soil.

But herein lies the longtime problem with Washington’s policy toward Tripoli—a problem that a sustained diplomatic presence may diminish but certainly can’t remedy completely.

U.S. officials from successive administrations have historically viewed Libya through the singular lens of some other U.S. policy priority, assigning it the role of a supporting actor a larger strategic drama:

(a) the quest for energy security,

(b) the fight against terrorism—especially the Islamic State, which set up a powerful affiliate in Libya—and now

(c) the United States’ rivalry with so-called great powers that many in Washington see playing out across the African continent and in the Middle East.

As a result, the United States and its allies have pursued contradictory policies in Libya that have empowered an array of venal Libyan personalities and let the country more fragmented.

Relatedly, U.S. officials have often sacrificed the North African state on the altar of other, more pressing policy imperatives in the Middle East—namely, Iran and the Arab-Israel conflict—when they believe the United States requires the support of key Arab states such as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, two habitual interferers in Libyan politics.

According to this calculus, transgressions by these Arab partners in Libya, including breaking the arms embargo, enabling Haftar’s illegal bid for power and war crimes, and killing civilians in drone strikes, did not merit the expenditure of U.S. diplomatic capital in the form of a firm rebuke or pushback.

The United States’ distance from and disinterest in Libya has also produced a myopic reading of the country’s complex challenges.

The current fixation on a “Libyan-led” process toward parliamentary and presidential elections is a case in point. Holding those elections by the late fall or winter of this year is the centerpiece of an ambitious roadmap unveiled by the new U.N. envoy to Libya, the veteran Senegalese diplomat Abdoulaye Bathily. The United States and other Western states say they are enthusiastically backing this plan, but it is fraught with pitfalls, lacking in details, and seems destined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

There’s no question that the Libyan people want and deserve a legitimate, elected executive authority after more than a decade of ineffective appointed transitional governments and rump legislative bodies. But as it is currently construed, Bathily’s plan cedes too much control over the convening of elections to a coterie of avaricious Libyan politicos and militia bosses who benefit from the frozen status quo and are exploiting the election’s procedural and legal questions—over candidate eligibility, sequencing, and the powers of the presidency—to stall, obstruct, or otherwise shift balloting in their favor.

With so much subterfuge underway, it is nearly impossible that voting will occur on schedule, and if by some miracle it does it is likely to be marred by insecurity or violence, boycotting, and lack of free campaigning and ballot counting. In one of many worst-case post-election scenarios, Haftar might claim to win the south and east and accuse the other districts of fraud, leading to the further dissolution of the country—something that the elections are intended to avert.

All of this suggests that U.S. policymakers, following the United Nations’ lead, seem to have unrealistic expectations about what voting by itself will accomplish, especially when Libya’s political, financial, and military institutions remain so fragmented and leading figures have escaped accountability for past crimes.

As in the past, elections seem to be an end to themselves, with little forethought given to the day after voting.

For many Libyans, then, and for those of us foreigners on the ground in Libya during the previous elections in 2012 and 2014—when nationwide voting didn’t put an end to Libya’s conflicts and divisions but merely reconfigured them—and in 2021, when another United Nations plan didn’t produce elections at all, Bathily’s roadmap elicits a sinking feeling of familiarity.

To be clear, U.S. development assistance policies toward Libya at the local level have been commendable and comprehensive, focused on bolstering civil society; promoting human rights, justice, and peace building; training journalists; running workshops for elected municipal governments; and helping Libyan citizens adapt to the looming challenges of climate change. But none of this important work can be effectively done from outside the country or even from the confines of a fortress-like embassy—a truism that Stevens recognized and put into practice during his time as ambassador. And while he may have pushed the limits of person-to-person diplomacy, much has changed in the past decade in how the State Department deals with risks and protects its diplomats abroad.

Sensibly applying these improved security measures to Libya when reopening the U.S. embassy—while avoiding quick-fix solutions and grounding U.S. policy in local Libyan realities—is the best way to honor Stevens’s legacy and help Libyans achieve the future they deserve.

***

Frederic Wehrey, a senior fellow in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Libyan Patriarchal Customs Deny Women Their Rights to Inheritance (2)



Maher Al Shaeri


The law protects the women’s rights

Musa Al-Qunaidi, a specialist in public law and lecturer at Misrata University, says, “When we talk about law in this context, we are talking about Law No. 6 of 1959, regarding the protection of women’s right to inheritance. Article 2 stipulates that it is impermissible to withhold payment of the share of inheritance to which a woman is entitled. And Article 5 stipulates that anyone who violates the provisions of this law shall be punished by imprisonment as well as being made to pay the woman the share of the inheritance to which she is entitled.”

Ahmeed Al-Mourabit Al-Zaydani, head of the Victims Organization for Human Rights, agrees. He says that depriving women of inheritance constitutes violence against them. Based on Article 2 of Law No. 6, he argues that it is impermissible to withhold from a woman her rightful share of inheritance, or to prevent her from benefiting from it or disposing of it.

On the question of substituting a financial reward for the rightful inheritance, Al Zaydani says that, as long as this is done with the woman’s complete consent, and there is no coercion or fraud involved, then there is no problem with such a substitution, provided the woman has full legal capacity and is over the age of eighteen. The compensation must also equal the real value of the inherited property or possessions.

However, if the compensation is made under coercion – seizing her share of the inheritance, and forcing her to accept financial compensation under the pretext that the inheritance from the property will go to a stranger (her husband) – then this is not permissible and is a violation of the text of Article 2. Some women were able to obtain judicial rulings on their inheritance rights and were forced – under threat – to give them up. Others were pressured to accept small sums of money or even remain silent about their rights without any of the “consolation” amount they are sometimes given

Holding on to traditional customs and norms

Muhammad Al-Ghaithi, a member of the Committee of Elders and of the Dispute Resolution Committee, sees no objection to the fact that assets and property are inherited by male heirs only. He says that this is common practice in the eastern region and even in all of Libya. For Al-Ghaithi, the reason is that “across Cyrenaica, the prevailing practice is that a person owns a particular plot of land that belongs to him entirely and exclusively.”

According to Al-Ghaithi, splitting up land means it will be wasted, and divided between tribes, “What we are seeking usually is for the entire land to be ours as one family; this is the main reason.” Al-Ghaithi points out that some people do not have much money to pass on when they die, but do have a lot of property. So, males who inherit are not able to compensate female heirs financially for their share in the property. They therefore take full possession of it. He says, “We know that this is forbidden by law, but the brothers who inherit are not able to price the land and give money in compensation.”

What happened to the law?

Today there is much discussion and back and forth about the law – now in its 65th year – as the country waits for a “new” constitution, which is in the process of being drafted. In 1973, the Libyan state suspended the constitution, established in the 1950s, on orders from Muammar Gaddafi, who ruled Libya from September 1, 1969 until February 2011. Gaddafi ordered the abolition of all laws and regulations in force in Libya, and so the state has no constitution. The majority of laws today are those that were in force when Libya was a kingdom under the country’s founder, King Idris al-Senussi.

Maryam Hussein, a member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA), explained to us about how women are deprived of rights to inherit and how the CDA sees this. Article 49 of the draft Libyan constitution stipulates that “the state is committed to: supporting and caring for women and enacting laws that guarantee their protection and raise their status in society; eliminating negative culture and social customs that detract from their dignity; prohibiting discrimination against them; guaranteeing their right to representation in general elections; and providing them with opportunities in all fields, while all necessary measures will be taken not to prejudice or harm rights women have acquired and to support them.”

Custom rules

Only discussing laws and constitutions does not get to the heart of the problem, though. The issue is not that easy, according to Dr. Salma Al-Shaeri, a specialist in contemporary social issues. She says that for Libyan women to demand their inheritance through the courts and judicial system is considered shameful by society and damaging to a family’s reputation. This in turn leads to more persecution and oppression of women and the harnessing of all means to prevent them from gaining their rights. “In fact, things have gotten to the stage where some families have stolen the identity of women so as to waive the right to inheritance in their name. This case recently happened in the city of Derna,” she says.

Even though the constitution remains suspended, laws are still in force. The author of this report has managed to obtain a complaint filed by two women in one city against their brothers. The men had categorically refused to give them the inheritance due to them from their father, who left properties worth millions, forcing them to go to court.

When the men appeared before the judge and were faced with the legal documents, they promised to give their sisters what was rightfully theirs. The two women therefore concluded that the matter had been resolved. But the men did not keep their promise, showing that social custom in Libya can even prevent judicial rulings being implemented. The brothers have gone as far as threatening that their sisters will be killed if they make any further complaints.

“Women are intimidated or persecuted if they make a complaint against their brothers to obtain their rightful share of the inheritance. Lack of knowledge leads some women to sign documents giving up their rights to an inheritance in return for a symbolic sum of money, which is paid just to silence them.” Some women have even faced death threats.

“If the case comes to court, social customs remain a stumbling block for women when trying to secure their rights to inheritance” Musa Al-Qunaidi argues that when it comes to punishment, this is a matter for judges not legislators. Every crime has its appropriate punishment, and the judge has the right to sentence people to between one day and three years in prison, according to the law.

Back to pre-Islamic times

“Depriving women of inheritance is a remnant from pre-Islamic times. Women had no inheritance rights until Islam came and removed this injustice against them.”

So says Dr Salma Al-Shaeri, a specialist in contemporary social issues. She points out that the problem goes beyond depriving women of their rightful inheritance and has devastating social effects, including stoking hostility and hatred between a sister and her brothers. It can affect sons and daughters on both sides, while some women may resort to taking some action in revenge, which would harm the reputation of the family.

Dr Al-Shaeri also argues that depriving women of a large portion of their property inheritance creates an economic disparity between them and their brothers, who alone benefit from the returns on the property, while the women remain economically inferior.

Women are the answer

The public prosecution service cannot initiate a criminal case on its own, explains Musa Al-Qunaidi, but needs first to receive a complaint from an inheritor claiming her rights from brothers or other relatives. Only after that can the prosecution proceed with the case.

Al-Qunaidi believes that the problem comes down to the fear that women have, and their failure to act against those who withhold their rights from them. Alongside this are customs and traditions and the failure of the executive agencies of government to carry out their duties once the matter reaches court.

Ahmeed Al-Mourabit Al-Zaydani, head of the Victims Organization for Human Rights, agrees. He says that depriving women of inheritance constitutes a violation against them, according to Article 2 of Law No. 6. He believes that it is impermissible to not give a woman the share of the inheritance to which she is entitled, or to prevent her from benefiting from it or disposing of it.

“Women can be intimidated or persecuted if they make a complaint against their brothers. Lack of knowledge leads some women to sign documents giving up their rights to an inheritance in return for a symbolic sum of money, which is paid just to silence them. But then they say they were forced into it,” says Al-Qunaidi. Women can sometimes even face death threats. “Money makes people lose their minds,” as the popular saying in Libya has it.

Fathia used to lower her head whenever she passed by the building which she believed should be hers, in full or in part, according to Islamic law. But today she is more determined than ever to obtain what is due to her, and thereby become an example to other women in working to obtain their legitimate inheritance rights.