Dream Deferred Essay Contest: 2008 US Winners

The author’s vision of civil rights reform four years in the future displays a keen understanding of the obstacles facing activists - as well as a framework for overcoming them. Resistance from dictators and fundamentalists may obstruct genuine reform, yet the persuasive strategies outlined in the essay suggest a way forward

Sarah Rife, Utah, Age 18
The American - Middle East Civil Rights Project: A Four-Year Retrospective

(DUBAI) - In 2008 a team of legal experts from the United States arrived here to help local reformers from throughout the Middle East create institutions to protect civil rights.  After four years, has this collaboration been successful?  The honest answer must be that the jury is still out; four years is too short a time to permanently transform a society.  The collaboration has had its successes, but the importance and impact of those successes depend to a great extent on the observer.  Further, it is perhaps more important to ask whether the collaboration is still on the right track.

In assessing the work of the collaboration teams, it is useful to remember where they started: the conditions they faced, the resources they had, and the assumptions they brought.  Each of these has shaped the results of the last four years.

The teams essentially set out to enforce the rights stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) using the sort of mechanisms and procedures used by the Western democracies for the protection of civil rights.  The teams quickly learned the difficulties of adapting these procedures to a far more diverse political scope than that of the West, including theocracies, absolute monarchies, and single-party “democracies.”  Many governments felt, accurately, that any expansion of the rights of the citizenry would be at the expense of their own autocratic powers.

The teams and their supporters answered political resistance with political pressure, along with legal leverage.  Citizens were educated on the advantages of having enforceable civil rights, not by Westerners, whose national experiences were obviously far different from the various Middle East nations, but by those who had recently gone through similar experiences, including representatives of former East Bloc countries, like the Czech Republic and Hungary, and traditionally nonaligned countries, like India and Botswana.

With this education, internal pressure for civil rights grew.  Several governments responded heavy-handedly, but they quickly found themselves facing international economic sanctions and even claims before the International Court of Justice.  It was a major coup for civil rights supporters when China and Russia, with civil rights issues of their own, were convinced not to interfere with international pressure and even to support the teams’ efforts so long as they “remained within the bounds” of the “well-established foundations” of the UDHR.  The civil rights supporters had seen that the diplomatic heavy-lifting had been done ahead of time, although exactly what diplomatic capital had to be expended and whether the arrangements will continue are unclear.

The political and economic pressure was effective in forcing governments to allow the civil rights process to proceed, but other institutions were not subject to such pressure.  Notably, many religious leaders fought the expansion of civil rights for a variety of reasons, including opposition to religious pluralism and equal rights for women.  This opposition has proved difficult to overcome and is likely to be the largest obstacle to civil rights for the foreseeable future.

The civil rights movement has had religious difficulties because it has had the unintended consequence of compelling Muslims to decide how they think about Islamic fundamentalism.  As Islamic fundamentalism essentially arose as an often justifiable reaction to Western modernism, and as current notions of civil rights are based on Western modernism, a clash was inevitable.  Religious pluralism, individual rights over communal authority, and equal rights for women are positions the typical fundamentalist cleric will not accept.

The clash has been more complex than such a simple dichotomy, though.  Many fundamentalist clerics have long seen the civil rights movement and its accompanying expansion of democracy as a means of gaining power within regimes they viewed as insufficiently fundamental, and they have continued this tactic.  An even more sophisticated approach has been to set one right against another.  For example a man may claim that his right to exercise his religious freedom to be a fundamentalist is interfered with by any right his wife would try to exercise.

The movement’s political response to religious opposition has been strong, although it will require some time yet.  Teams and supporters have worked on different constituencies, showing each what it has to gain from expanded civil rights.  Merchants and businessmen have seen how curtailing civil rights excludes people from their communities, and excluding people is to exclude their ideas, talents, and capital, thus making the community poorer.  Expansion of civil rights therefore works hand in hand with expansion of commercial interests.  This is not a rapid process, but it is viral; as more people experience the effects of expanded civil rights, they become supporters and pass that support along.

Women have benefited from this political response, but because of the nature of the discrimination against them, they have been more dependent on a legal response.  There has been an increase in shelters, and police and judges have received badly needed training, but few positive laws have been passed.  Even in Europe, where there has finally been a concerted crackdown on honor killings and domestic violence, blatant discrimination is still given a pass ostensibly to avoid interfering with religious rights.  It is little wonder that the collaboration teams have had trouble addressing the “conflicting rights” arguments.  Western democracies have yet to determine how to resolve conflicts of rights in their own systems.  It would seem to be past time that they did, time to acknowledge there is a hierarchy of rights, or else the entire civil rights structure is likely to collapse.

The initial framework for such a resolution need not be terribly sophisticated.  In the husband versus wife example above, a distinction may be drawn between his right to control his own actions and beliefs and any right he may have to control others.  The same distinction can be drawn for the wife, and most people would agree that rights to control one’s self are of more importance than rights to control others.  The fundamentalists likely would not accept this, but acknowledging a hierarchy of rights would provide a point of attack against their “conflicting rights” argument and permit a workable resolution of such conflict.

There is another distinction that may be made between rights.  The purpose of a system of civil rights is to prevent the powerful from taking advantage of the weak.  In virtually any scenario where there are conflicting rights, one party has a power advantage over the other.  If civil rights are to have meaning, one must presume that the weaker party’s rights take priority over the stronger party’s.

The author peddles his own wares in what he calls the “souk of ideas,” recruiting readers of diverse perspectives to help protect free expression as an essential building-block of reform. With examples linking disparate countries from Iran to Morocco, the essay reminds that small steps to support individuals under fire can ultimately yield larger breakthroughs.

Zach Dorfman, California, Age 24
Revitalizing the Marketplace of Ideas in the Middle East

Americans, unfortunately, often regard the Middle East as monolithic, enigmatic, and foreboding. Fear and “orientalism” have, more often than not, dominated America's recent view of the region. We see a plethora of dictators, "backwards" and repressive societies, and places defined by energy reserves and a foreign faith. While some aspects of this cursory analysis are true – like the number of autocrats in the region, for instance – the notion of a monolithic Middle East couldn't be farther from the truth.

There are some dominant American attitudes regarding the Middle East.  Isolationism is a perennially popular sentiment, and stems from the idea that the Middle East, so inherently “other” in its culture and politics, is best left alone. Some isolationists proclaim that the assertion of the universality of the liberal democratic ideal is a form of imperialism.  In contrast to isolationism, many Americans view the Middle East with a kind of fear and trembling, and subsequently advocate a heavy-handed, militaristic – and I would add unduly cynical – approach. In this case, doubts toward the region manifest as a will to dominate, subdue, and control. These different attitudes, however, reflect a basic belief that the Middle East is radically different from the West, a true terra incognita. This betrays, at best, a willful ignorance and at worst, a self-reinforcing delusion. It is imperative that we simultaneously advance and assert human rights as universal rights as well as work with and through our cultural differences.

Freedom is, to say the least, an elusive concept. Its glories are sung by many but its enablers are few. While a common definition of freedom is perpetually in dispute, I believe that it possesses some objective qualities: freedom of speech and freedom of press. The lack of a free press is no small obstacle. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, truth emerges from the free interplay of ideas, in the marketplace – or should we say souk? – of ideas. The road to political freedom in the Middle East – and an improved American understanding about the region – will be born from nothing else.

The lack of free speech in the Middle East is deeply troubling. In Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index for 2007, many Middle Eastern countries rank near the bottom of their index of 169 countries and territories. Take, for instance, Yemen (143), Tunisia (145), Egypt (146), Saudi Arabia (148), Syria (154), Libya (155), Iraq (157), the Palestinian Territories (158), and most ignominiously, Iran (166).

But the repressive tactics employed by these governments have failed to deter domestic journalists and bloggers all over the Middles East. In Iran, the journalist Akbar Ganji diligently reported the murder of dissent authors in the late 1990's, and was subsequently arrested and jailed for his work, serving a six-year prison sentence that ended in 2006. In Morocco in February 2008, 27-year-old Fouad Mourtada was issued a 3 year prison sentence for creating a fake Facebook profile lampooning Prince Moulay Rachid, causing a chilling effect in Morocco's blogosphere, but also spurning a movement to insure his freedom. In an impressive show of solidarity, some Moroccan bloggers went on time-limited "strikes" to protest Mourtada's jailing, but refused to stop writing altogether. In response to the mounting international and domestic pressure, Mourtada received a royal pardon after spending 43 days in prison.

Organized opposition movements have also been building. The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, for instance, has launched the Initiative for an Open Arab Internet, which details the state of Internet freedom in Arab countries, releasing well-researched, academic reports that delineate government repression. They also provide a plethora of links to Middle Eastern civil society groups. Another organization, the Working Group on Press Freedom in North Africa (WGPFNA), was formed in the summer of 2006 in order to link dissident journalists and activists from all over the Maghreb together, as well as to organize solidarity campaigns in the case of besieged journalists.  Unfortunately, in early March of 2008, the president of the WGPFNA, Sihem Bensedrine, and her husband, journalist Omar Mestiri, were detained and beaten in their native Tunisia, a potent symbol for the state of press freedom in the Middle East.

Thus we can see opposing pulls of repressive censorship regimes in places like Morocco, Tunisia, and Iran, and the growth of nascent civil societies. These burgeoning groups have increasing levels of organizational sophistication, and are aided by developments in networking technology. Perhaps most importantly, though, they are simply unwilling to live in a society where constricted discourse is the norm, rather than the exception.

Supporting free speech movements in the Middle East will help foster free and democratic societies that evolve on their own terms. There is no substitute for local discourse: it engages people to act as citizens, encourages them to become involved in the important issues facing their communities, and to speak truth to power.  A vibrant local media allows for the expression, acceptance, and in some cases, rejection, of political and social currents. Organic discourse cannot occur under conditions of state censorship, nor can it occur from without, as in the case of the U.S. government-sponsored Middle East Radio Network (MERN). We need to support these regional free speech organizations, and can do so by providing material as well as moral support. While the former step is necessary, it is far from sufficient: sustained grassroots pressure aimed both at home and abroad can force civil rights offenders to back down from their most heinous acts. This kind of action is the only reason why, for example, Fouad Mourtada is a free man.

Third Place (3 winners):

The essay’s striking title sets the scene for a brass-tacks proposal for tackling the festering problem of ordinary individuals denied citizenship in countries across the Middle East. While these “bedoons” may lack nationality papers, the author has a clear plan to advocate effectively on their behalf. May it soon be implemented

D.A., Florida, Age 23
People of Nonexistence

As I walked down the streets of Kuwait, there was a girl approximately six-years-old glaring at me. Her eyes filled with sadness, shame, and fear. When I approached her, she begged for money. Feeling the disparity and sorrow in her voice, I had goose bumps as a reached in my purse to give her money. My hands were shaking uncontrollable because I was in complete awe. Due to me trembling, the change fell all over the floor from my wallet. Then a crowd of children came rushing for it. They acted as if they stumbled upon treasure. I asked the children in Arabic, “Why are you living like this?” They responded, “We are bedoon.”

Background

One could imagine that the every individual has the right to proclaim existence on this earth, but that is unfortunately not the case. In most societies paperwork can dictate a human being’s daily livelihood. An individual who does not have proper documentation for nationality is denied inalienable rights of health care, education, and mobility. Many countries in the Middle East violate the right of existence for a substantial amount of their inhabitants. Countries throughout the region only grant children citizenship based solely on the father’s nationality.  In addition, the Gulf region includes those who are nonexistent, the “bedoons.” Bedoon is translated literally as “without,” implying that those individuals are stateless. How can a human be born on this earth and be rendered stateless? 

Case Study: Kuwait

Kuwait is a notable country for the bedoon crisis. According to Kuwait’s Ministry of Planning, there were 104,424 bedoons in 2006 (Kuwait, 2007). However, the number of stateless inhabitants is immeasurable since there is no objective manner of attaining full statistical data. The bedoons are denied essential rights such as education, medical care, employment, and the ability to travel. Lacking citizenship causes families to live in a stagnant situation of poverty. They do not have access to government-sponsored benefits, such as the right to education, medical care, and governmental housing, as granted to official Kuwaiti citizens. This means to maintain the basic necessities of an average household, they must have higher salaries than Kuwaiti citizens. It is interesting to note that the level of salary is relative to a worker’s nationality. Therefore, those of prosperous states retain higher salaries than citizens of less developed countries.

What does this mean for the bedoons? Their salaries are at the whims of employers - if they are even fortunate enough to find employment. This issue has a cause and effect relationship similar to a “domino effect.” If one cannot work without residency, then one cannot afford necessities such as food and shelter. Of course, it does not stop there. With elevated stress comes the need for medical attention and the lack of income does not allow for treatment. Furthermore, the children of bedoons are not able to attend public school and in the majority of cases cannot afford a private education. In addition, bedoons are prone to be abused because their lack of status.

The implications are not bound to materialistic challenges, but also include negative psychological stress. Knowing that you are categorized as nonexistent creates social complications. In tribal societies such as Kuwait marriage partners are usually selected based on religious sector, family name, and categorical wealth. Also, due to the restrictions enshrined by Kuwait’s National Law 15/1959, children are prohibited from gaining citizenship from their mothers (Bidouns of Kuwait, 2006), leaving women with no choice but to marry those with citizenship. However, there are cases in which Kuwaiti women married bedoons and suffered the consequences. This causes these women to live in a state of regret, watching their children grow up not even as second-class citizens, but as “nonexistent” citizens.

Regional Assessment

The issue of stateless inhabitants is not only the case in Kuwait, but throughout the Middle Eastern region. The United Arab Emirates has a comparable situation of approximately 20,000 bedoons (United Arab Emirates, 2007). Qatar has between 1,200 and 1,500 stateless persons (Qatar, 2007). In a different context, according to a study implemented by the NGO Refugees International, there are approximately 300,000 stateless Kurds in Syria (Syria, 2007). Throughout the region, when fathers that abandon their families, children become categorized stateless. In addition, if the mother attempts to pursue citizenship for her children she is viewed as a “fornicator”, which is socially unacceptable. Many choose to live in suffering without citizenship rather than face such accusations.

Action Plan

Though one may be overwhelmed by such issues, nothing is irresolvable. Furthermore, any challenging accomplishment is not resolved on its own, but requires proactive movement and persistence. The first step is to educate society about the existence and suffering of these stateless persons. Once awareness is spread, then advocacy should occur. In the meantime, assembling resources and outlets for these stateless individuals should be advanced.

Creating Awareness

Sir Francis Bacon once said “Knowledge is power.” It is therefore necessary to develop a strategy to dissipate the truth. There are several methodologies for creating awareness.

Strategy #1: Website
The Internet is an inexhaustible source. Creating a website solely for the cause of stateless people with empirical data and statistics revealing the seriousness of the situation would establish international awareness. Ensuring that pictures of their abhorrent lifestyle and suffering are posted would allow for a realistic understanding of the situation. This website should not merely be an informative one, it should be interactive. Articles, updates, action items, and discussions should be posted. Also, a section for donations to the victims would help in short-term betterment.

Strategy #2: Written Work
Developing a newsletter or writing articles in sources such newspapers and community magazines is a valuable means of communication.

Strategy #3: Public Relations
Creating a documentary and posting it on YouTube  is a powerful way to create awareness. Other social networking websites such as Facebook and My Space would assist in marketing the cause. Local Radio shows such as WMNF (http://www.wmnf.org/) are willing to broadcast international causes.

Advocacy 

Developing strategies to market the cause is only half of the solution. Knowledge may be power, but applied knowledge is the ultimate power. It is necessary to establish an advocacy scheme that can expand as a grassroots movement.

Strategy #1: Organizational Development
The fastest method of creating a growing organization with minimal resources is via the development of university chapters. One way of doing this is to contact all university Arab Student Associations or human rights organizations and present the cause to share with all student bodies. In addition, activists can involve existing human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Eventually, there should be the establishment of a tax exempt 501c3 nonprofit corporation to ensure donations are tax exempt, and the development of a central headquarters. 

Strategy #2: Interaction with Middle Eastern Students
Targeting international students from Middle Eastern countries studying in the United States would spread awareness and also enable these future leaders return home sensitized to the situation.

Strategy #3: Collecting Charity
Collecting funds to alleviate the suffering is a vital step; without the proper resources the campaign would be extremely difficult to carry out.  Allowing donations through the website is one route. If a pool of money is already established, then having a fundraising banquet dinner with prominent speakers and wealthy guests is another approach to collect donations. An additional method is to have one wealthy individual, such as a surgeon, invite colleagues to their house for a fundraising presentation. There are other outlets to collect funds as well. It is a matter of creativity and initiative.

Strategy #4: Allocation of Funds
The funds should be allocated for long-term alleviation of difficulties facing stateless inhabitants of the Middle East. The key target should be education. Creating endowment scholarship funds would allow the children to afford private schools and a college education. This would be a major empowerment. As for short term assistance, the purchase of food and basic necessities are also important. In addition, money should be budgeted for all supporting resources for the campaign.

Strategy #5: Lobbying            
A huge aspect of social activism is the process of lobbying the domestic government. In the current era, the United States maintains the hegemonic presence in the world. Therefore, attempting to influence Congressmen is a key approach in reaching the core of the problem: Middle Eastern governments. Writing letters, meeting with officials, and creating marketing packets for the legislature would have an immense impact. With the assistance of other American citizens pressuring the legislature, there is a high likelihood this pressure would flow to the Middle Eastern governments.

The world is indeed flat when a student from the Midwest finds herself at a women’s leadership conference in Dubai. Yet while the city’s skyline may be shooting upwards at breakneck pace, architectural growth cannot hide civil rights stagnation. What is ultimately at stake, the author concludes, is a women’s right to choose.

Alexandra Duggins, Florida, Age 22
Because I Choose To

My skin was prickly, walking down the street in Bur Dubai. It was a hot day, a busy street, with no sense of danger, yet I have never been so unsettled.  I stopped and looked around; counting the bodies striding past me.  I could see at least 30 or 40 people on the block.  I was the only woman.

I was in Dubai for a conference on women’s leadership. This being my second trip to the city, I was thinking less about the novelty of my situation and more about the significance of it. Before my trip in 2006, I had never even been outside of North America. If I had been forced to guess I would have said my first international travel would be to France or England, or maybe Italy. But I ended up in Dubai, dazzled by the unreal glamour, the scale of this city, and I didn’t know why. What was it about this place?  How did I end up here in the first place and why was I back?

The growth bowled me over. Everything seemed to be happening so fast.  New buildings, new projects, new investments; it seemed unstoppable. I could only think of the years it can take for a project at home to get off the ground. In comparison the US seemed almost stagnant. I was convinced.  This was a place of importance, of global significance. The influx of money, the population shifts – the whole region could not help but change.  Riding in a cab past the armies of construction cranes, I could close my eyes and imagine myself in America 100 years ago, when industry was taking off, when the railroads were being built, when immigrants were flooding into the country.

That was how I felt first time. But the second time around I think more about what is ahead. I think of the civil rights battles we have fought in the United States: for immigrants, for former slaves, for women.  For such a diverse place, with its population of immigrants and expatriates, Dubai’s growth lacks diversity.  It is single-minded in its need to impress with size and with splendor.  I become a little scared of this one-sided growth that stems from the perspective of such a limited demographic part of the country’s population, which has little regard for the rights of other human beings.  I wonder what the expatriate workers with no legal rights would build if it were up to them.  I wonder what the women would build.  Would they build the world’s tallest building before the train system? 

So why should we help civil rights reformers in the Middle East?  Because a society that disregards the voices of many of its members is a bit of a ticking time bomb.  Dubai and many other places in the Middle East are becoming increasingly important on a global stage.  The UAE may be the US’s economic and business partners, partners in sporting and cultural events. We cannot ignore them. If I, a broke college student from the Midwest can end up in the United Arab Emirates, the world cannot be that small.  The ignorance of civil rights in any society can only be to the detriment of that society.  From a purely pragmatic standpoint we are far too inter-connected for another society’s failures not to affect us in the United States.  We have much to offer in this struggle, a history of fighting for our civil rights. And it is to the benefit of Americans and human beings everywhere to share and assist in the fight for human rights. 

It seems obvious that we should help.  It is the right thing to do, but there are a lot of things that are the right thing – and we don’t do them.  But I think about being the only woman on the street, and I realize why I went back to Dubai.  I wanted to know this culture, these women who live here. I wanted to have a real dialogue with them.  Yet it is something of a failed realization.  I cannot talk to them.  The gulf is so huge, the frame of reference so different, that even on the rare occasion I am face to face with another woman we look like aliens to one another.  I refuse to believe it is because we are different at our core. Rather I think it is because I am free and she is not.  She is in university only by the grace of her father.  I had to ask no one’s permission.  She is escorted to the store by her older brother.  I am in a foreign country alone.  It seems we must think about life just a little bit differently.  I wonder if we dream differently. 

Understanding, empathy, a sense of kinship, we need these things in our world.  There is a great divide between cultures – between the United States and the Middle East – a divide full of mistrust and misunderstanding, an overwhelming sense of foreignness. But as long as we continue to approach each other on different planes, free and un-free, I do not think it possible to bridge the gulf.  Encouraging civil rights in the Middle East will encourage understanding, and thereby goodwill and peace, between our cultures.  It is a fight Americans understand and a passion we can relate to.  But it is hard, and will take everyone’s efforts, so we had better lend a hand.

“Many Americans view Middle Eastern civil rights as an oxymoron,” the author of this essay wryly observes, after noting the basic civil rights he enjoys every day. Behind the essay’s simple style is a pulsing moral argument for young Americans to see the freedoms they have inherited as a precious gift that must be shared.

Andrew Wong, Maryland,  Age 18
Civil Rights: A shared Responsibility

My day begins when I attend a school that is integrated with young men and women of every imaginable race and religious belief. I am taught curriculum that I have the right to challenge. I then go to church and worship my God how I so choose. Later I pick up a newspaper or turn on the television and am informed by an independent press.

My life, and the inherent freedoms within it, is shared by many Americans. On a daily basis we question, interpret, analyze, argue, and decide things for ourselves. We exercise our right to free choice. This right has become so natural to us as a nation that we sometimes lose sight of how important it is and how others must struggle with its explicit infringement. We forget that all around the world and specifically in the Middle East millions exist with their civil rights robbed from them. As a people with such amazing personal freedom we must understand the necessity of that same independence for others.

I had not given much thought to the rights of those in the Middle East until I had a conversation with an Iranian classmate. One day during a discussion about the Iranian Revolution I asked her how she could respect Ayatollah Khomeini, a man who so blatantly violated the freedom I mistook for a given. She quickly replied that what I called “freedoms” were no more than American political ideas.

Incredulous, I asked her if she really believed that free-choice was nothing more than an American invention. She quickly explained that Iran is an Islamic republic that will not answer to any Western values. This dialogue led me to ask many questions: “Is free-choice exclusively a Western right?” “Does someone’s faith exclude them from civil rights?” And perhaps most importantly “Should it be my responsibility to ensure the rights of others?”

The conclusion I have come to demands that Americans promote civil rights in the Middle East because, contrary to what my classmate said, a government does not have the authority to pick and choose what inalienable rights people retain. These rights by their very nature cannot be amended, abridged, or withheld; regardless of faith, cultural views, or social expectations. They are rights; belonging to people who are American as well as Iranian, Christian as well as Muslim, and men as well as women. The severe lack of civil rights in the Middle East offends the values we hold dear as a people, an effrontery we cannot look past.

I see Middle Eastern civil rights as a vital responsibility of the U.S. because if we do not take a stand and push for real change, no one else will. The United States holds a unique position of authority within the Western world. We wield real credibility and can initiate movements that will build in strength and see through true progress. However as the leader in international politics we must also take the first step, a daunting action especially amid such skepticism about progress in the Middle East. Many Americans view Middle Eastern civil rights as an oxymoron, and the sad state of affairs in many Middle Eastern nations serves only to solidify their views. Still there are distinct examples of progress in the Middle East that should spur us on to further promotion of civil rights.

In 2005 Kuwaiti women won the right to both run and vote in elections. While this may be seen as only a minimal victory to some, the real story is that the women of Kuwait won their political efficacy through the democratic process – proving once and for all that governments in the Middle East can work for the people. Kuwaiti women did not win this right unopposed; the final vote in parliament decided in their favor 35-23. The same opposition to civil rights can be expected in many countries, but in the Middle East just as in Kuwait I believe people can change their governments, not with coups or coercion, but with free choice.

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

A sharp reading of censorship in the Middle East gives birth to an innovative idea for promoting both free expression and cultural exchange

Guilia Mazza, Illinois, Age 19
Spoken and Heard: Civil Rights Reform Through Film

Process is everything. It’s convenient to imagine that a single powerful catalyst can result in a desired effect, and indeed these are often the “tipping points” that initiate chain reactions leading to an inescapable conclusion. Yes, Gavrilo Princip marked the start of World War I, one of the bloodiest conflicts in history, with a single shot; but he was backed by decades of seething hostilities in the region and delicate power balances between imperialist empires. Change, whether destructive or constructive, requires context; at the cost of erring into abstraction, one may imagine a plant, which may grow and bear fruit only if the necessary elements (fertile soil, water, sun) are present at inception.

Civil rights, therefore, cannot be seen as achievable overnight, especially when they are conveniently deemed to be “privileges” rather than “rights” by those in power, who withhold them, and the common man, who doesn’t dare to fight for them.  Of all civil rights, freedom of speech and expression is the most vital, because it so often exposes the oppression that limits other rights, making reform-minded protest possible. It can take many forms, from the printed word, to art, to music: but the one with the most direct, intuitive impact is film. People you can see and hear are people you can empathize with, who can inspire you to speak out yourself, or support the reform they propose. Such candid speech also inspires subjective feelings for the individual making the statements: of independence, of dignity, of worth. When a person can speak their mind, and expect to be heard, the demand for other civil liberties will soon follow.

Yet freedom of speech in many Middle Eastern countries is severely restricted. In America, where capitalism seems more of a governing body than elected officials, sponsors’ sensibilities can shape the content of programs; in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, it is kings and religious leaders that influence or outright control what information is accessible. Sites like twitter.com, which provides a free social networking and micro-blogging service, are blocked in the UAE for content “inconsistent with the religious, cultural, political, and moral values of the United Arab Emirates”. Just in recent weeks (as of 3/29/08), Yemen's government has intensified its oppression of the media, banning the distribution of several publications, blocking a website and arresting a number of journalists.

Even Al-Jazeera, the most popular satellite news channel in the Middle East, which regularly features controversial debates and interviews of political dissidents (including Osama bin Laden), is not exempt from tampering. Founded and funded by the Qatari royal family, it remains heavily swayed by Qatari policies, though its programming does not appear to be influenced by specific foreign policy objectives.

While governments have the advantage of military and monetary support, their sprawling bureaucratic nature can make them clumsy when compared to the anonymous individual with, say, Internet access. Information can be spread all across the world, instantly, with the mere use of a laptop and wireless connection, and access is growing steadily in the Middle East. Blogging is a promising outlet for expression, but it is limited by the literacy levels of participants, as well as the incentive for readers to sift through pages and pages of text. Film, on the other hand, only requires a laptop with webcam, and the willingness to express opinion.

I envision “interview hubs” in liberal-minded colleges and universities, where one-person cubicles guarantee privacy. Participants can choose whether or not to reveal their faces, though it should be encouraged. The psychological reasoning behind this is two-fold: firstly, by taking responsibility for their statements, they inflate their self-esteem, and provide an example to others. Secondly, the simple process of talking to a non-judgmental listener (a therapist in Freudian psychology; the “confessions camera” in reality TV) can have a liberating effect, making the interviewees more comfortable voicing their opinion in increasingly compromising and public venues.

The topics touched upon could range widely in nature, but should all be correlated by a common theme: frank discussion of the limitations they feel encumber their freedom. These personal accounts could be stored in a database and uploaded en-masse to online video distributors like YouTube or GoogleVideo, organized by site of origin, or shared subject matter. They might all further be categorized, for increased ease in retrieval, under a project name such as “Spoken and Heard”.

The “Heard” part, of course, is where distribution comes into play. This process should have a dual direction: towards the West, for informative purposes, and within the Middle East, for morale and inspiration. The struggle for civil liberties in this region can only work if there is support from inside and outside – one providing the man-power and spirit, the other, a framework for success based on their own past endeavors. In a simple, friendly exchange, institutes in the Middle East communicate to each other as well as foreign universities explaining the program.

This could be done at the highest level, dean-to-dean; in this scenario, one might imagine a campus film-festival where all, or a selection of, the videos could be shown, perhaps in conjunction with cultural awareness programs in Western colleges. A more intimate solution, however, might be to incorporate the project at class-room level, in Political Science or Arabic Studies courses; if this curriculum-based approach proved successful, one might even venture an attempt to put students on both sides in contact with each other, forming forums on message boards such as www.FreePowerBoards.com.

The first to take advantage of such a system would probably be students and, perhaps, faculty; but even with the publicity borne from word-of-mouth, ordinary citizens with webcams and Internet access might well join in the chorus of protest, for personal relief, desire to inform, or other reasons. Assuming “Spoken and Heard” gained momentum, the “hubs” could be set up at other public locations as well, such as women’s centers, malls, hospitals, etc. Anthropology and Sociology classes in Middle Eastern universities could organize themselves locally and make day-trips to film citizens from rural areas for their particular personal accounts.

While lamenting the sorry state of civil rights in Iran and the ruling regime’s dangerous impact on the larger Middle East, the author invokes Persia’s pioneering civil rights efforts centuries ago to inspire young Iranians and Americans alike.

A.A., Virginia, Age 24
The Power of Ideology

Over twenty-five hundred years ago, Cyrus the Great carved from the ancient world an empire of terrific proportions. Like many kings before him, he commanded a fearsome army, and with it besieged the disparate kingdoms of the Middle East. Even Babylon, the greatest empire of its day, fell before his might. The people of antiquity had much to fear from him; every emperor prior had exacted terrible punishment upon the conquered. So it was with no small amount of anxiety that the inhabitants of Babylon awaited the arrival of their new ruler.

 But Cyrus did not come as a conqueror. Instead, he brought with him freedoms hereto unimagined. He abolished slavery, thus ending the Jewish captivity, and penned the Cyrus Cylinder, the first universal declaration of human rights in the history of mankind. Under its auspices, Cyrus declared that all men possessed the inherent right to live and worship freely, under a leader of their own choosing. While he proclaimed himself a Zoroastrian, and therefore a monotheist, he defended vigorously the freedom of those under his rule to worship as they pleased, seeking to respect local customs and cultures, rather than supplant them.

For the next three hundred years, the empire that Cyrus founded would uphold the ideals he espoused. His vision kept countless peoples free when they would have been enslaved, and protected their right to worship. Even after the Achaemenids fell to Alexander's armies, Cyrus's beliefs lived on, eventually resurfacing under the Parthian and Sassanid kings, although never quite as nobly. The thousand years of history that followed Cyrus's death was profoundly influenced by his ideology.

Cyrus provides the perfect example of how powerful ideology can be, and how long-lived its effects truly are. That his beliefs concerned the sanctity of individual rights makes his story all the more relevant, as the very same country that birthed him--Iran--now struggles to reassert his legacy. It is imperative that American citizens join this struggle, and do everything in their power to help it succeed: just as the victory of Cyrus's ideology ushered in centuries of liberty and religious freedom for people far beyond Iranian borders, so could its defeat today begin an age of terrible oppression and suffering.

Still reeling from a revolution that began as a desperate cry for democracy and individual freedoms, Iran has since become a state gripped by tyranny, governed under the auspices of Islam. This facade of religious zealotry has done much to alienate Americans, characterized as it is by unspeakable violence and ruthless despotism. The twenty-some odd years of vitriol between Iran and America's governments does little to countermand the impression that the people of Iran are hopelessly lost, consumed by hatred. But nothing could be further from the truth, for underneath the surface of Iranian theocracy lies an embattled movement for reform, in desperate need of support from within and without. There are powerful allies within Iran for the reformists: Mohammad Khatami and Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, both respected theologians and ardent advocates of democratic reform. Shirin Ebadi, the only Iranian and only Muslim woman to ever receive a Nobel Prize, continues to struggle valiantly for civil rights (especially those of women), despite threats of imprisonment. These thinkers are the key to reversing the overwhelming apathy and hopelessness that has gripped both America and Iran. They are articulate, passionate, and unapologetically Muslim, openly defying the presiding belief that Islam cannot produce champions of civil rights.

These activists are the bridge through which Iranians and Americans can unite. The civil rights movement of the 1960s gained prominence in America because it was thrust into the life of the average American. As interest in the struggle grew, so did its media coverage, until the entire nation was consumed by the movement and its leaders. In similar fashion, the struggle for civil rights in Iran needs to become a focal point of American discourse. This begins with engaging the leaders of the Iranian reform movement, and is as simple as reading their works. By discussing, critiquing, and responding to the struggle for freedom in Iran, we lend those reformists invaluable support: the ensuing dialogue would both embolden them and strengthen their resolve. Perhaps more importantly, it would do much to assure Iranian citizens that Americans genuinely valued their desire for individual rights. In the face of such open and animated discussion, how could Iranian hardliners assert that Americans should be ignored because they don't care? And finally, the dissemination of progressive Muslim thought in America would do wonders for the level of discourse concerning Islam today, providing a direct and powerful counterbalance to the overwhelming impression of Iranians and Muslims as largely hostile people.

The benefits, should we lend our strength to their struggle, are manifold. The economic rewards are immediately evident: democratic and free countries are always more prosperous and productive than autocratic ones. Iran is ripe for investment and development, and it occupies a strategic location in global trade routes. Its intellectual capital is also largely untapped: in a study conducted by the IMF in 2006, Iran had the highest "brain drain" out of the 90 countries it measured. More than 150,000 college graduates attempt to leave Iran each year, unable to find employment despite their advanced education. This is largely due to the draconian policies regulating business and expression in the Islamic Republic; just imagine the explosion of creativity and entrepreneurship that would occur in the wake of civil liberty! Finally, the cultural and artistic heritage of Iran is extraordinarily rich, offering some of the most beautiful works of art in antiquity. Rather than continuing their isolation from the global community, a free Iran could enthusiastically share its inheritance with the world, adding its own flavor to the world's intricate tapestry.

The consequences of failing them are dire indeed. Khomeini's bloody victory over his secular allies in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 dramatically empowered the ideology of extremism in the Middle East. Despite fundamental differences in doctrine, both al-Qaeda and the Taleban looked to Iran's model for their respective movements. Had Khomeini's Republic not provided a blueprint of how to orchestrate an Islamic Revolution, it is likely that the mujahedeen of Afghanistan would have never dreamed that they could bring a similar vision to their native country. Many people do not realize that the terrorism of the Middle East, prior to the Iranian Revolution, was largely secular. It was not until Khomeini's ideology took root among the dissidents of the Middle East that terrorism took on a decidedly Islamic bent. The attacks of September 11th were orchestrated by men inspired by the Islamic Republic, notwithstanding their divergent theological beliefs. If Americans do not embrace and promote the reformist movements in the Middle East, we risk further enabling the dictators currently in power, with assuredly disastrous results.

Much as Cyrus's ideology shaped the course of history following him, so shall these struggles for individual rights today profoundly influence our future. Should a free and democratic Iran emerge, it will shine as a beacon to the rest of the world, as America has done for so many years. A free Iran ultimately means a peaceful Iran, and American support for Iran's beleaguered reformists would gain us a powerful ally. The seeds of this reform have already been planted, and it is ultimately the responsibility of Iranians to nurture and tend them. But as Americans, we must do all we can to ensure that those reformers are not silenced. By standing in solidarity with them, we proclaim that it is their ideology that must win this battle, and shape the lives of their posterity for generations to come.

Dr. King once famously declared: "We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands." I can think of no nation to whom this applies more fittingly than Iran

An ordinary morning yields an extraordinary insight: the basic rights a young American takes for granted are denied to her counterparts in Saudi Arabia

Emily Cummins, Illinois, Age 18
Constitutional Commitment

This morning, I looked in the mirror and could not decide whether to leave my hair down or pull it into a ponytail. In Saudi Arabia, an eighteen-year-old girl like me is forced to put on a hijab. I put on my “going-to-work” make-up. A Saudi woman would be arrested for such an action. I get dressed; and, deciding it’s too warm for long sleeves, I put on a tank top and a knee length skirt. Wahhabi code dictates that women must wear an abaaya, a black, all encompassing cloak, as soon as they get their period. I hop in my car and drive toward my friend’s house. The Saudi government decided women should not be permitted to drive cars.

My friend runs out the front door, she has to serve as a witness in court for a traffic accident, and her car’s getting repaired. Saudi court will not accept a woman’s testimony because they believe women are unable to form their own opinions. As I sit in the lobby of the court house, waiting for my friend to get her claim settled. I recognize the guy across from me. He is in my Environmental Science Class. According to the article “Saudi women complain of discrimination, abuse: UN official” on the website France 24, a Saudi businesswoman was arrested for sitting in a coffee shop with a male colleague. And female students do not get to take class with men in Saudi Arabia. Universities are segregated, so they take classes from women professors or watch a video of a male professor’s lecture.

I sit there in the courthouse, looking around at all that we have accomplished. This very building was won by the sweat and blood of rebels. America was founded by people who realized that their rights as individuals were being violated. I can sit in this building only because when they sat down to write the constitution, the Founders recognized the sanctity of basic rights. Looking back at them, over two hundred years later, they were extraordinarily revolutionary thinkers.   But they had a foundling nation behind them; therefore their ideas, by some twist of fate, succeeded. As a country, we profess to uphold every individual’s inheritance to certain rights. These ideas dominate every crevice of our political thought, so much so that we laid them as the first pages of the foundation of our government. Our well-aired sense of liberty generously extends these ideas to every human being on the planet, in theory and thought at least.

Today, in Saudi Arabia, the government treads upon a huge section of what we hold as an essential right. The royal family of Saudi Arabia upholds Wahhabism, a strict sect of Sunni Islam, as the sole acceptable religion for all occupants of their kingdom. Any soul that shows any devotion to any other religion within Saudi borders is arrested, abused, and humiliated. When the Founders wrote “freedom of religion” as part of the revered “Bill of Rights”, were they dictating that only people living in America deserve to choose what religion they follow?        

In American news, when we catch a story about civil rights violation, we shake our heads and continue to listen to our public radio or read our privately-run newspaper. We fail to grasp the value of the treasure we have been given. If we truly understood how precious our freedoms are, wouldn’t we want to make sure that every fellow human being had the same access to these rights? Yet, we continue to pour money and give honors and subsidies to governments that are clearly ignoring the values we recognize as decent and humane treatment.  Are we going back on our ideals? Are they too costly to uphold all the way?

Some of the more apathetic citizens would argue that it is just the way they are, they decided to make religion supreme, it was their choice. Whose choice are we talking about? When a monarchy declares a state religion and enforces it with special police, the people have very little say in what they want to believe. It may be the religion of the majority, but what about all the minorities who want to pursue separate religious interests? Did the constitution proclaim Freedom of Religion, so long as one conforms to the majority belief? Americans honor the right to worship as each one sees fit, not as the majority dictates.

A well-written argument for why and how Americans as individual citizens can make a unique and mutually-beneficial contribution to the Middle East civil rights movement

Bonnie Lucero, California, Age 21
America's Ultimate Test

The presence of the United States in the Middle East is controversial today, especially as it fights an unpopular war in both Iraq and Afghanistan under the auspices of the spread of democracy, freedom, and civil rights. Some claim that the US has no right or business intervening in the Middle East. Others suggest that the Middle East’s only hope at achieving the freedom and prosperity enjoyed in many Western countries is with the help of the United States, often called the Cradle of Democracy. Neither of these views captures the complexities and plurality of the Middle East, its people, political systems, needs, and desires, or the United States, its agendas, missions, and interests in the region. However, government intervention must be distinguished from individual participation by citizens. American citizens, who have witnessed and experienced first hand the struggles and shortcomings as well as the successes and achievements of our own civil rights movements, can play an important, yet limited role in the struggle for Civil Rights in the Middle East.

There are many reasons that Americans should engage with and assist civil rights reformers in the Middle East. First, as human beings, and citizens of the global community, we all have certain irrevocable and unquestionable rights, and these must be established, protected, and maintained in all parts of the world. Second, as Americans, we offer the experience, positive and negative, of our own historic and ongoing struggle to attain civil rights and social justice for the multitude of diverse communities within our country. Third, and finally, Americans can afford to learn much about the process leading to civil rights, allowing us to turn a critical eye on our own society and improve our communities, laws, and perspectives based on the successes and challenges witnessed in the Middle East. These three factors make Americans the ideal partners for Middle Eastern reformers, and this relationship will facilitate the foundation of a stronger cultural and social bond between our two peoples.

Human rights have been the subject of much debate, especially recently as the crisis in Darfur escalates and as the international community turn its eyes toward China, as the key supporter of a brutal genocidal regime. China’s position, which principally advocates economic, social and cultural rights over civil and political liberties, illustrates the complexities of human rights today. The specific protections of universal human rights are in dispute, as is the notion of the existence of such a universal ethical code. As countries and societies across the world disagree on the fundamental components of human rights, the debate on foreign assistance in the struggle for civil liberties becomes the subject of controversy.

Despite fundamental disagreements in which rights should be universal, and which ones are simply elements of Western cultures that have been unilaterally imposed on other cultures, the situation in the Middle East represents a caveat to this debate. The successes of Middle Eastern reformers in making their voices heard in their countries and on the world stage and their open solicitation of American assistance mitigate the controversy over America’s unilateral action and cultural imperialism in the region. An opening for Americans to support the development and progress of the Middle Eastern civil rights has been created, and the role that we chose to play in the movement represents a critical test in international politics. By acting as a supporter, rather than the dominant force in the struggle for civil rights, the United States can assist in the quest for universal standards of human rights.

The United States’ turbulent and long-lived civil rights movements, in which citizens mobilized to oppose antiquated ideas about gender, race and most recently sexuality, makes its people ideal partners for Middle Eastern reformers. Because of our historical and continued dedication to civil rights, we can contribute the wealth of their life experiences and political struggles to Middle Eastern rights leaders. By reflecting and learning from our history, the challenges that we faced and the successes that we gained, we can provide useful council and support for our Middle Eastern counterparts, who may face similar challenges, and who wish to emulate the modest successes of our ongoing efforts. Moreover, US citizens, as individuals and subjects of the central government place a high value on civil liberties, perhaps because of the sacrifices made during our movements to attain these social gains. This passion that mobilizes us to achieve further progress in our own country will facilitate a strong partnership, and further encourage and motivate reformers in the Middle East.

At the same time as Americans contribute their experience and passion to their Middle Eastern partners, we can also learn a great deal from the path that they choose to take. Our society, far from perfect, still suffers from high levels of injustice, inequality, and social problems. In our efforts to support civil rights in the Middle East, we can learn from their unique successes, and utilize these observations to improve our own society. By observing the successes and challenges, as well as the methods and strategies used in the struggle for civil rights in the Middle East, Americans can gain a great deal of insight and practical experience, as well as innovative ideas. These ideas can be reflected onto our own society, the experience serving as further motivation for social progress in the United States, and in other places that solicit American support for attaining civil rights.

Deadline
January 31, 2009
Please read the rules section before writing your essay. Failure to meet the guidelines will disqualify your essay.

Links:

• Essay Questions
• Celebrity Judges
• Rules
• Submit Your Essay

Prizes:
$10,000 in total prize money: One grand prize winner in the Middle East and one in the US will receive $2,000. One second place winner in the Middle East and one in the US will receive $1,500. Three runners up in the Middle East and three in the US will receive $500 each. 50 book prizes will be awarded to additional outstanding essays.

• 2008 Winning Essays
• 2007 Winning Essays
• 2006 Winning Essays