Leonard Doyle John Sweeney and Peter Beaumont
Algeria is the winner of an alternative world cup – for the worst abuser of human rights. The garland of dishonour emerges from findings in The Observer’s Human Rights Index, launched to mark the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
With the backing of a panel made up of internationally recognised human rights campaigners, including Ramos Horta, leader of the Timorese resistance movement, and Desmond Tutu, chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and following extensive research, the first comprehensive league of countries according to their respect for human rights has been compiled.
The Mail & Guardian’s sister paper, The Observer, compiled the index, which aims to name and shame the world’s worst human rights abusers and map out the relationship between economic development and oppression.
Human rights organisations tend to avoid ranking countries according to their record on human rights. But Pierre San, secretary general of Amnesty International, said that he was “heartened” by the latest campaign against the violation of human rights around the world.
The worst abusers, according to research, are countries with huge natural resources – usually oil – and corrupt lites who deal with the West’s businesspeople. British oil and arms companies are well represented among the commercial operations still trading with abusers.
“The exploitation of natural resources in certain countries has very often paved the way towards gross injustices,” San said.
“It is time the international business community recognised its responsibility for protecting human rights around the world.”
Algeria’s place at the head of the abusers’ list was earned through its record for torture and extrajudicial killings – numbering 80 000 since the military junta cancelled democratic elections in 1992.
Behind Algeria come North Korea, Burma, Indonesia, Libya, Colombia, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia and China. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Nigeria follow closely. South Africa is ranked 71st. The “loser” – the country where recorded abuse of human rights is the lowest – is Tuvalu.
So small that researchers had to look it up on the map, it turns out to be a Rorschach- test of seemingly idyllic islands in the South Pacific.
They sell postage stamps to make a living, and do not do anyone any harm. But nowhere is perfect, even islands. In the traditional culture of Tuvalu, women occupy a subordinate role.
The index is a snapshot. Under diplomatic and economic pressure, countries move to placate their critics.
Indonesia has removed its dictator, Suharto; hopes are rising for a better deal in East Timor, but the treatment of the Chinese minority in the recent riots was regressive.
Since the death this month of military dictator Sani Abacha, Nigeria has moved to end its pariah status.
The index has been constructed by careful deliberation, defining abuses of human rights in 12 categories: the use of torture; scale of disappearances; use of the death penalty; denial of free speech; political rights; abuse of political prisoners; denial of free movement, child rights; religious freedom; fair trial; minority rights; and women’s rights.
The total for each country was then multiplied by its score on the human development index, as defined by the United Nations.
The logic is simple: the richer the country the more one would expect the freedom to exercise human rights.
It would be unfair to compare the impoverished Rwanda with oil-rich Algeria without placing the human rights records of both countries in their economic context.
Iraq, for example, scored only two points out of 10 on denial of women’s rights because of its secular attitude towards women. It scored 10 out of 10 on denial of majority rights because of gassing the Kurds.
A country with a wretched record of human rights abuse could score a maximum total of 190. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq proves the winner of the unmodified list – which measures human rights abuses outside their economic context – with an unadjusted score of 155.
International sanctions and the legacy of Saddam’s two wars against Iran and the United Nations over Kuwait, which have crippled Iraq, give it a low rating on the UN’s human development index. Iraq’s new-found impoverishment catapults it down the list, leaving Algeria in poll position.
The UN’s human development index is a means of simplifying a complex reality. It captures as many aspects of human development as possible in one composite index to produce a ranking of countries according to their level of development.
Marrying human rights abuses to economic ranking allows a judgement of all the world’s countries on an equal basis.
Of course, the index is not free of flaws. The unique aspect of The Observer index is that it is not politically driven.
For example the European Union, dependent on Algeria’s oil and gas, has consistently declined to identify its ruling junta as a major abuser of human rights.
The index does not have to show any fear or favour.
In the years to come, the index will be refined and modified but the basic thrust will remain a simple one: if a country abuses its own people then it will be damned in the eyes of the world.