This Sunday, 43 people, at least 16 of which are Americans, will be put to trial in Egypt for allegedly operating democracy programs without a license and transferring foreign funds to opposition groups.
The funny thing is that the groups these people work for, including DC-based IRI, NDI and Freedom House, were largely left alone during the Mubarak regime. Only now, after the dictator was ousted, are they under siege _ “a very disturbing sign”, in the words of Thomas Friedman, that “tells you how incomplete the ‘revolution’ in Egypt has been and how vigorously the counter-revolutionary forces are fighting back”.
Many say that it is the US-Egypt relationship that will be on trial. The situation has certainly strained their ties. A delegation of politicians, headed by senator John McCain, will arrive in Cairo on Monday to put some pressure on Egypt.
Although from most accounts it seems that the push for the trial comes from a handful of old Mubarak cronies, from the outside it appears that the government as a whole is adamant on pursuing the workers. According to Bloomberg, “Egyptian officials have increasingly gone public with their accusations, garnering particular praise from the Islamist parties that control Parliament [Muslim Brotherhood included] and the state-owned media. An editorial in one such publication, Al-Gomhuria , opined that now is the right time ‘to correct the course of Egyptian-American relations so that they are based on parity, a respect for sovereignty and the achievement of joint interests’”.
Other newspapers in the region are joining in that opinion, for example in Kuwait.
Some disagree. In a different Egyptian newspaper, columnist Amro az-Zanat, aiming at the Muslim Brotherhood, wondered “from where did the groups operating in the area of political Islam get their money” and why weren’t these funds, presumably supplied by foreign countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, subject to similar ‘NGO’ investigations.”
Meanwhile, some surveys offer interesting perspectives on the impact this discussion might have on the public of both countries. One such survey conducted by Zogby in Egypt last September shows that when asked about their political priorities, Egyptians ranked first employment, education, health care, and ending corruption at the top tier; democracy- related concerns appeared lower on the list. That is not surprising at all, given that most people in any country are primarily worried about bread-and-butter issues, but it is worth mentioning that the list of priorities is the same as it was before the revolution.
Another survey was conducted by ZRS last summer and showed that only 5 percent of Egyptians held a favorable view of the U.S., while with 89 percent said that American policies do not “contribute to peace and stability in the Arab World.” Americans are then an easy prey.
The last survey I wanted to mention was conducted in the US this January by jzanalytics for NYU Abu Dhabi. It shows a dramatic turn for the worse in American views of Egypt. “Now only 32 percent of Americans have a favorable attitude toward Egypt, with 34 percent holding a negative view (and 33 percent saying they are ‘not sure’)”, notes James Zogby at the Huffington Post.
I shall want to see what happens to those numbers if the American democracy workers are convicted.
Even if that happens, I will be surprised if Washington really freezes the US$ 1.3 billion in aid per year to Egypt. Assured by the Camp David Accord, Cairo is betting that it won’t. But it will not come as a shock if all of this leads to a rebalancing of the ties between the two countries. Perhaps that was inevitable anyway.
Weary about bringing the Taliban to the table? If you were a humanitarian worker in Afghanistan, perhaps you would be more worried about not bringing the Taliban to the table. While many discuss what a reduced American presence will mean for Afghanistan’s security from 2014 on, it seems aid workers are already finding it increasingly hard to move around the country and provide their services.
Humanitarian personnel have been talking to the Taliban and other parties in conflict in order to gain access to certain regions of Afghanistan for quite a while. It is interesting -in a bad way- to notice that humanitarian negotiations with armed groups are getting more difficult lately, to the point of making the job impossible.
Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, has been warning that in the past year UN workers are facing growing limitations on the areas they can deliver assistance. Certain parts of the country that were previously accessible are now off limits. Two years ago they could travel around provinces; six months ago it was only possible to move around a city; now they are lucky to reach some neighborhoods.
This affects not only service delivery but also data collection in Afghanistan.
For Reto Stocker, ICRC head of delegation in Afghanistan, one of the problems is that “armed groups and other parties to conflict seem to be proliferating”. “In our experience, it is easier to reach people in a given place when you have only two or three distinct parties to negotiate access with than when you have a different armed group for each region, district or even village”, said Stocker in an interview a little over a year ago. At the time, however, he believed that a great part of the problem of access for humanitarian agencies was tied to impartiality. When they adopted an approach that integrated humanitarian activities into the overall military and political strategy of stabilization and reconstruction, they were no longer viewed as neutral and lost the trust of the population. The roads closed down.
Whatever the reason for lack of access, humanitarian assistance is ever more needed. Ferris points out to increasing civilian casualties (the UN and NATO disagree on the data collection here) and displacement since last year. The number of refugees returning is declining; from the 6 million who did come back from exile since 2002, the vast majority never went back to their communities and became internally displaced people, adding to problems in larger cities.
“If the signs aren’t good with all this international assistance, what does the future look like when the troops are withdrawn and the Afghan government is faced with its fundamentally responsibility of protecting and assisting its own people? [It is] actually quite troubling when you look at the humanitarian dimension of what’s happening in Afghanistan”, Ferris said in a Brookings panel last week.
The UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) does not hide their fears for the country either, saying loud and clear that “the planned withdrawal of ISAF from Afghanistan over the next three years risks disrupting local economies and adversely affecting humanitarian and development action”.
Afghans do not have many alternatives. Unlike insurgent groups in other countries, the Taliban was never in the business of providing basic services –on the contrary, they let public services deteriorate. Maybe from the outside Afghanistan looks like a black hole for foreign resources, and it probably is. But for now help has to come from the government or from international assistance, and this topic has not been given the attention it deserves so far.
It is a sad day when we hope the Taliban will come for dinner.
Amidst rising tension, Egyptian leaders seemed to have changed their minds about the presidential elections, advancing it a month to the end of may, but are still stubbornly set on prosecuting american and other foreign democracy workers in the country, in spite of all sorts of pressure coming from Washington.
Anyone still think it is a bluff? Recent news stories tell a different tale, and the frantic activity in the DC offices of the organizations involved – IRI, NDI and Freedom House – show how serious the situation is. Other democracy organizations, meanwhile, are following developments closely, trying to figure out how to help and what this means for the safety of their own activities. However, with the exception of the targeted programs, thankfully nobody seems to be putting anything on hold.
The IRI just released a fact sheet about their work in Egypt that I think it is worth sharing:
Facts on IRI’s Work in Egypt and the Crackdown on NGOs
The International Republican Institute’s (IRI) offices in Alexandria, Cairo and Luxor were raided on December 29, 2011, by Egyptian authorities. The raids were conducted as part of an investigation opened by the Ministry of Justice at the urging of the Ministry of International Cooperation. The raids were an aggressive action that ironically was never taken against IRI under the former regime of Hosni Mubarak. The actions taken by the Egyptian government following the raids against IRI and other organizations have intensified.
The Ministry of Justice has conducted 20 interrogations of 17 IRI staff since December 2011. The grounds for the overall investigation were politically motivated and instigated by a Mubarak-era holdover attempting to stifle the voices of civil society organizations in post-revolution Egypt. During interrogations, staff were asked to respond to assertions made by the Minister of International Cooperation that the IRI had conducted political activity in Egypt in violation of the Egyptian law.
During the raids, the government of Egypt took hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of cash, equipment and documentation from offices in Alexandria, Cairo and Luxor, none of which has been returned to IRI. The Cairo offices have remained sealed since December 29. Much of the cash was for an official election observation mission that the Egyptian government invited IRI to undertake in support of the country’s people’s assembly elections.
IRI’s Country Director, Sam LaHood, was prevented leaving the country on January 21, 2012. LaHood was not notified that he was on a no exit list until he attempted to leave the country on a routine trip. IRI has learned that the government of Egypt has officially barred nine IRI staff from leaving the country. The government has also issued detention warrants upon arrival for five expatriate staff currently outside of Egypt.
The raids have been followed by rumors and statements from the Ministry of Justice that 43 staff from IRI, the National Democratic Institute, Freedom House, the International Center for Journalists and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation will face trial as a result of the findings of the investigations.
The rumored charges against IRI:
IRI was not legally registered to work in Egypt. IRI applied for official registration in 2006 with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to which the government of Egypt never responded. At the request of Egyptian authorities, IRI resubmitted registration paperwork in 2011 and is awaiting a decision from the ministry. IRI was not asked to close it offices and Egyptian authorities were thoroughly briefed on IRI’s work.
IRI gave money to political parties. In accordance with U.S. law, IRI does not give
money to political parties in Egypt, nor does it show any bias to any single political
entity. IRI training activities were conducted with a spectrum of political parties,
regardless of faith or party ideology. IRI has held workshops on candidate preparation
and registration, Election Day poll-watching and on the use of survey research in election
IRI conducts polling in violation of Egyptian law. IRI has conducted several public
opinion polls in Egypt in 2011 to gauge citizen perspectives on the political, social and
economic environment since the revolution. Poll results have been shared with the public
and with political parties to inform their party platforms and election campaign strategies.
Data for IRI’s public opinion polls was collected by a licensed Egypt-based marketing
firm. IRI has shared poll results with Egyptian officials.
IRI staff receive funds illegally from abroad. As is standard practice, IRI’s Washington
headquarters procures all funding for its programs abroad. IRI’s Egyptian and expatriate
Egypt-based staff did not sign any grant agreements in Egypt on IRI’s behalf.
IRI had a map in its Cairo office that showed it wanted to divide Egypt. IRI used
Internet-generated maps that displayed Egypt’s four natural geographic regions: Greater
Cairo, Upper Egypt, the Canals and the Delta. The maps were used to prepare for IRI’s
international election observation of the people’s assembly elections to show where IRI
would be deploying observers. Egypt’s Higher Elections Commission officially invited
IRI to witness the elections and gave official accreditations to all foreign witnesses.
Regarding the general situation in post-revolution Egypt:
IRI and other organizations believe that Egypt’s repressive law number 84 on
nongovernmental organizations seeks to control and repress civil society. The Egyptian
government continues to instill fear among Egyptian civic groups that carry out activities
or take funding not specifically authorized by the government. In the U.S., registered
nongovernmental organizations do not have to seek approval for funding or activities
from the federal government if they remain within their mandated mission, and they can
accept foreign funding, including funding from foreign governments.
The investigations carried out by the Ministry of Justice mirror politically-motivated
detentions and/or charges brought against Egyptian activists who have criticized the
Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in recent months. This suggests that there is a
well-coordinated plan to limit the space for political and civic activism in Egypt.
In accordance with the annual State and Foreign Operation Appropriation Bill, U.S.
democracy and human rights programming “shall not be subject to the prior approval by
the government of any foreign country.”
Although dependent on it, people in the development field are always discussing the problems of aid and how it generally fails in lifting communities out of poverty. Countering that disseminated notion, there is a recent story on the Huffington Post about the success of international aid in Rwanda.
According to Hugh Evans, who wrote the story (and of course is interested in it since he is Co-Founder and CEO of the Global Poverty Project), “Rwanda may be on track to become one of the most compelling case studies in favor of foreign aid since South Korea emerged as an economic powerhouse late last century”. He mentions data such as 12% decrease in the population classified as poor (to 45%) and a drop from 6.1 to 4.6 in the national fertility rate between 2006 and 2011.
The Rwandan president himself can be seen thanking partners like the World Bank and the EU and had his Finance minister write about it for in the Wall Street Journal. “We have been heartened, to say the least, by the courage displayed by our partners in their unwavering commitment to our country and continent during a period of great fiscal constraint”, he says.
I do not know enough of the particulars here to explore these numbers, nor do I know how much money was spent in Rwanda specifically on these issues. I hear from friends who have been there that Rwanda nowadays is organized and has notably functioning institutions compared to the rest of the region. That foundation is crucial if aid is to get anywhere. But one thing is certain: Evans was on the right track when he said that “where the political will exists, (…) results are achievable for all developing nations”.
Controversial American investigative journalism is usually limited to things like Michael Jackson interviews. And when our reality television toes the line, it’s because of Fear Factor episodes where contestants come into contact with disagreeable animal byproducts. Sure, political arguments get heated; sometimes, even, we end up doing it live. But our media, in no small part thanks to the power wielded historically by the FCC, generally self-regulates. For better or for worse.
Not the case in Pakistan. Two weeks ago, a reality television show where participants act like Saudi mutaween, accosting couples appearing together in public, debuted on a major TV network. For an hour, a pack of women chased teenagers and young adults through the streets of Karachi in true religious police fashion. The New York Times writeup, one of many that have cropped up over the past week, describes the show which, most incredibly, was broadcast live, the best:
Panting breathlessly and trailed by a cameraman, the group of about 15 women chased after — sometimes at jogging pace — girls and boys sitting quietly on benches overlooking the Arabian Sea or strolling under the trees. The women peppered them with questions: What were they doing? Did their parents know? Were they engaged?
Some couples reacted with alarm, and tried to scuttle away. A few gave awkward answers. One couple claimed to be married. The show’s host, Maya Khan, 31, demanded to see proof. “So where is your marriage certificate?” she asked sternly.
This hourlong spectacle, broadcast live on Samaa TV on Jan. 17, set off a furious reaction in parts of Pakistan. Outrage sprang from the Internet and percolated into the national newspapers, where writers slammed Ms. Khan’s tactics as a “witch hunt.”
“Vigil-aunties,” read one headline, referring to the South Asian term “aunty” for older, bossy and often judgmental women.
We’ve given an exorbitant amount of credit to citizen journalists in the wake of the Arab Spring. In addition to funding technologies which will increase their effectiveness and safety, the United States is actively training whistleblowers around the world as part of democracy promotion programming. These are the individuals, proponents of this spending say, who hold the key to democratic transition in places we previously overlooked.
Americans and Westerners seem to love it when media is used “for good.” But is that truly a reasonable expectation in places, like Pakistan, where media self-regulation away from extremism is almost incomprehensible? A show such as this one in Pakistan seems like no more than a logical and cultural extension than the United States’ own To Catch a Predator, which, for those not familiar, lures purported sexual predators into police sting operations using decoys posing as underage teenagers.
When the United States encourages a “gotcha” culture of new media soundbites, live feeds, and citizen activism, what more do we really expect? Journalists using new trends and technologies to enforce the moral code of a society should not surprise anyone.
Email Subscription to D&S and Blog
Posts by Region
Posts by Topic
- June 2014 (1)
- May 2014 (3)
- April 2014 (4)
- March 2014 (10)
- February 2014 (16)
- January 2014 (12)
- December 2013 (5)
- November 2013 (8)
- October 2013 (12)
- September 2013 (14)
- August 2013 (13)
- July 2013 (13)
- June 2013 (15)
- May 2013 (13)
- April 2013 (13)
- March 2013 (19)
- February 2013 (21)
- January 2013 (16)
- December 2012 (12)
- November 2012 (14)
- October 2012 (21)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (8)
- July 2012 (13)
- June 2012 (17)
- May 2012 (6)
- April 2012 (9)
- March 2012 (16)
- February 2012 (20)
- January 2012 (13)
- December 2011 (10)
- November 2011 (14)
- October 2011 (19)
- September 2011 (25)
- August 2011 (10)
- July 2011 (16)
- June 2011 (14)
- May 2011 (14)
- April 2011 (16)
- March 2011 (20)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (24)
- December 2010 (16)
- November 2010 (24)
- October 2010 (27)
- September 2010 (17)
- August 2010 (42)
- July 2010 (40)
- June 2010 (65)
- May 2010 (72)
- April 2010 (38)
- March 2010 (18)
- February 2010 (32)
- January 2010 (46)
- December 2009 (45)
- November 2009 (38)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (24)
- August 2009 (11)
- February 2009 (1)
Who we like
- AfPak Channel
- CIPE Blog
- Countries at the Crossroads
- Cyrus Samii
- Democracy Arsenal
- Democracy Dialogue
- Democracy Digest
- Democracy Resource Center
- EITI Blog
- Fruits and Votes
- Global Voices Online
- One Blog
- Open Budgets Blog
- Open Democracy
- Policy and Power
- Progressive Realist
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Blogs
- Space for Transparency
- The Coming Prosperity
- The Democratic Piece
- The International Jurist
- The Kaufmann Governance Post
- United Nations Democracy Fund