These Are Your Reports, Returned to You

By Ayman Okeil

Many countries and entities have started to scrutinize the flawed methodology employed by the US State Department in its annual report on global human rights conditions. This comprehensive report includes country-specific assessments for 200 countries and regions worldwide, encompassing 18 countries in the Middle East and North Africa region, as classified by the report. On April 22, 2024, US State Department announced the release of the annual human rights report, making it accessible to the public, press, and media. As I conducted an initial review of the report, I noticed that it does not dedicate a section to human rights within the United States itself. Additionally, the report, based on its publicly disclosed methodology, neglects to evaluate the human rights implications resulting from the actions or policies of American government or its representatives. It appears that the exclusion of an assessment of these effects may be intentional, allowing the report to sidestep any mention of adverse consequences arising from United States’ unilateral coercive sanctions imposed on various countries, including but not limited to, the Syrian Arab Republic.

Consequently, the report has stirred discontent among group of countries, led by Russian Federation, which criticized its biased methodology. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova denounced the report for its lack of objectivity and highlighted the absence of any mention of the death of American blogger Gonzalo Lira in Ukrainian prisons. Turkey also voiced its criticism, denouncing the report for baseless accusations, false information, and biased comments concerning Turkey. Similarly, India, Pakistan, and other countries expressed their objections to the report issued by the US State Department.

However, Chinese Foreign Ministry’s response was particularly vehement. When asked about the section on China in the report, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin described the US State Department’s report on human rights as replete with lies and bias against China. He further contended that the United States’ attempt to exert hegemony over other countries under the pretext of human rights amounted to blatant selfishness and hypocrisy. Wang advised the United States to scrutinize its own practices, address its internal issues, and cease interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.

Some individuals and experts seized the opportunity not only to critique the report methodology but also to raise concerns about the human rights situation within United States. Certain reports highlighted the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which enables an unprecedented level of firearm ownership among the population. Estimates indicate that the United States possesses more firearms than it has citizens, making it the only country in the world with such a distinction. Additionally, the United States holds the largest incarcerated population globally, with 2.1 million prisoners. Moreover, critics utilized the report as a platform to condemn instances of police violence in the United States, which, according to credible estimates, results in the deaths of over a thousand individuals annually.

However, from my perspective, irrespective of the reactions surrounding the release of the report, I find it riddled with contradictions. One notable example is the report criticism of military support provided by certain countries to armed groups and governments in the Middle East. Surprisingly, the report fails to mention Israel and its actions in the country section on Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. It overlooks the extensive military support provided to Israel by the United States and other Western nations, which includes the export of weapons used in crimes against humanity. Notably, 69% of Israel’s arms imports during the period from 2019 to the end of 2023 were from the United States.

Another apparent contradiction lies in the report criticism of governments of 140 countries for their lack of respect for the right to peaceful assembly. However, the report overlooks the restrictions imposed by Western countries on the exercise of this right. For instance, in the country section on Germany, it is mentioned that the German government respects this right, without acknowledging other incidents where this right was restricted, particularly concerning demonstrations calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. There are documented instances highlighting the restrictions imposed by the German police during the period covered by the report.

In conclusion, I anticipate that in the coming years, the annual report of US State Department will be paralleled by reports from other countries. China and Iran, for instance, have already initiated the practice of issuing annual reports on the human rights situation in the United States. Likewise, Belarus and Nicaragua are considering similar actions. It seems as though these countries are conveying a message to the United States that its reports will be reciprocated. However, I do not oppose the issuance of assessment reports on the human rights situation in countries, provided they are based on the obligations stipulated in international human rights conventions and national strategies, which form part of national legislation. Such reports must rely on credible information and adopt consistent standards applicable to all countries. This approach would allow the US State Department to distance itself from the politicization and gaps evident in the current report, which may suggest a bias against certain countries and contribute to a destructive cycle of mutual accusations.