Margot Wallstrom, the Swedish foreign minister, ignited a diplomatic war when she publicly criticized the Saudi Arabian regime. Wallstrom, a left-wing politician who had campaigned on the promise of implementing a feminist foreign policy on behalf of Sweden, recently expressed her outrage at the Saudi subjugation of women, as well as at the regime’s punishment of blogger Raif Badawi, sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes. According to Wallstrom, the punishment amounted to “medieval methods” and a “cruel attempt to silence modern forms of expression.”
From a human rights stand point, Wallstrom is certainly correct. Saudi Arabia ranks poorly in terms of its human rights record, and even more poorly in terms of its respect for women’s rights. The Saudi regime often imprisons, harasses and convicts peaceful political protesters and dissidents, and detainees, including children, routinely face violations of due process rights, including arbitrary arrest and torture and ill-treatment in detention. The Saudi system treats women distinctly as well: it forbids women from obtaining a passport, marrying, traveling, or accessing higher education without the approval of a male guardian. Women are also not allowed to drive, cannot unilaterally ask for a divorce and are often discriminated against in child custody proceedings. Such governmental practices amount to violations of multiple human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Right of the Child. Wallstrom did not state anything that most human rights attorneys and activists did not know already. Moreover, Wallstrom’s comments fit neatly into her feminist foreign policy agenda and should not have been unexpected from a politician of her profile and conviction.
The Wallstrom Affair is amazing, however, for the political backlash that it provoked, and for the lack of serious media attention that it received throughout the world. First, Wallstrom sparked an uproar both in Sweden and in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. Wallstrom followed her criticism of the Saudi regime by calling for Sweden to cease its military co-operation with Saudi Arabia. Sweden is the world’s 12th largest arms exporter, and its total exports to Saudi Arabia amounted to $1.3 billion last year. Swedish businessmen, likely fearful of losing the Saudi market, penned a letter arguing that breaking the arms trade agreement with Saudi Arabia would thwart Sweden’s reputation as a trade and strategic partner. Even Swedish King Carl XVI Gustaf stepped in and asked Wallstrom to compromise. Moreover, the Swedish government has been concerned that Wallstrom’s comments may alienate and anger the Swedish Muslim minority population, and it would not be surprising if Wallstrom were asked to back down. Saudi Arabia, on its end, recalled its ambassador to Sweden and stopped issuing business visas to Swedes; the Kingdom also blocked Wallstrom from speaking at an Arab League event. The Saudis framed their disagreement with Wallstrom by accusing her of attacking their sovereignty and Islam. According to Saudi officials, Wallstrom comments represent an attack on the entire concept of sharia law, which forms the basis of the Saudi legal system. Arab League foreign ministers, as well as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, issued similar statements, criticizing Sweden for passing moral judgments on sharia and defending sharia as a guarantor of human rights. In light of such immense economic and political pressure, it appears that Wallstrom may have to capitulate and retract her criticism of Saudi Arabia.
Second, the Wallstrom Affair, despite the diplomatic war between Sweden and Saudi Arabia that it has provoked, has received scant western media coverage. Most western media outlets outside of Sweden seemed uninterested in covering this conflict, and most western regimes unwilling to defend Margot Wallstrom. Although Wallstrom’s characterization of the Saudi regime is legally correct and should have been embraced enthusiastically by all regimes that pride themselves as human and women’s rights defenders, no “je suis Margot” slogans have appeared anywhere in the western world.
I cannot help but conclude that the backlash against Wallstrom, coupled with the lack of enthusiasm in the west to defend her, signal that, sadly, human, and women’s, rights, almost always lose out to more potent political and business interests.
Now, remind me, which country is it in the Middle East where the people elect their own legislators and have in fact recently done so?
There is only one. It could rename itself MED, Middle East Democracy, and there would be no confusion.
In response to your last paragraph – not always. I was recently freed from 77 days judicial remand with the torture option while successfully deferring the extra-judicial execution of India’s longest serving political prisoner Irom Sharmila Chanu. The British Government followed the standard approach what they call humility ie don’t do anything that might hamper the arms trade. But I am guessing Sweden like Ireland doesn’t have a massive arms trade industry to nurture. So I would look to the positive. My conditions improved in prison once an Indian Ministry of External Affairs inquiry began into my allegations of mistreatment. And that happened because Irish politicians pressed the Indian Government who in turn put pressure on the State Government of Manipur and their corrupt officials began scurrying about trying to put the blame on the lowest peon. I will try to contact HE Margot Wallstrom to see if she will lobby for the safety of Irom Sharmila Chanu. With other politicians I would have to argue that because I am a European Citizen and have some rights and I was punished unlawfully protecting my fiancee that they had a duty of care to intervene in this matter. But presumably I won’t have to argue with Foreign Minister Wallstrom that this woman acquires fundamental inalienable human rights only because of her relationship to a male european citizen whose rights nobody questions. Sharmila has been imprisoned and kept in long periods of illegal isolation for over 14 years to break her spirit. She is campaigning following the non-violent satyagraha of the Mahatma Gandhi Father of the Indian Nation. In addition to threats to have her killed off quietly this year via quasi-legal fig leaves her brother who had made honor killing threats against her is now being sponsored by Human Rights Groups to replace on her death. And no one comments. If I can get a letter to Shri Margot Wallstrom there is a possibility she might intervene to protect Sharmila. And the one thing she will find if she does when it comes to India and Manipur. Those who clearly violate human fundamental rights in India will back down if a foreigner shines a torchlight on them. It’s not that you are wrong in your last paragraph. More that given there are potent political and business interests in many human rights conflicts where countries have more freedom to act ethically they should be encouraged to do so. I am alive and well because the Irish intervened. I am not asking any European to risk their life or to endure torture to protect Irom Sharmila Chanu. I am saying I will go back and take all the risks. I am just hoping that if more genuine support can be engendered anywhere in the world beforehand for her I might be able to support her on the next visit to Manipur without pubic beatings on torture in the MI room of Sajwa Jail, which I’d much prefer. Thank you for highlighting her action as you say it didn’t make mainstream news.
Nope I got a reply from one of her secretaries Actuellement Margot Wallstrom n’est pas Margot Wallstrom.
Message for Margot WALLSTROM …URGENT
Would you please check our new play on women empowerment which quotes some of your ideas. Play is on http://www.crelearning.com called The new amazons and THEVWEAKER sex.
Kindest, Dr Boland in Geneva