On the US-Egypt NGO debacle
Issandr El AmraniFirst US, German and Egyptian NGOs were raided in late December, and now US personnel that has been unable to work in Cairo because their equipment has been confiscated are barred from leaving the country, prompting outrage in the US. Congress is now putting emphasis again on the need for conditionality on US aid to the military, and the likes of Senator Patrick Leahy now say “But we no longer have a blank check for the Egyptian military.” A high-level delegation is now coming from Washington to defuse tensions.
There is a lot at stake in this first major spat between the US and Egypt since Mubarak is overthrown, and it’s gotten a lot more complicated than when it was just about Egyptian reticence to allow uncontrolled foreign funding and getting a bargaining chip over the military aid issue. Whether it is the real cause of the travel ban, there is a judicial process in the works, a real issue of sovereignty for Egypt. And there is what is interpreted an attempt by SCAF to cast activists as foreign-funded, distract from Gulf financing which may be overlooked (very few of the NGOs under investigation are Gulf-funded ones, despite widespread knowledge of millions being channeled to Islamic charities). NDI and IRI’s quasi-governmental aspect (they receive much of their funding through the National Endowment for Democracy and the US government) is one aspect of the problem, but so is the general legal limbo they have operated under for several years (it is true they are unregistered, but that’s because they were not allowed to so yet tolerated), as well as their more aggressive funding posture since the revolution and a certain amount of tone-deafness to Egyptian officials’ concerns about sovereignty.
This is a difficult issue because, as much as democracy-promotion might seem beyond reproach, the sovereignty issue is real: as an American (or Moroccan) I certainly wouldn’t want uncontrolled foreign government funding of charities and NGOs, particularly politicized ones. But Egypt’s rules of the game for foreign NGOs are patently unfair. An ideal resolution to this crisis would be a better NGO law in Egypt and more transparent operations from the US government (which perhaps should focus on institional-building, state-to-state developmental aid and let the more politically sensitive aid to others). That would take engaging Egyptian stakeholders, such as new MPs, towards this end: they should have a voice in this just as much as Egypt’s caretaker, military-controlled government.
Sheila Carapico has an excellent, nuanced piece on the whole debacle, highlighting that many Egyptians – not just the government – are cautious about organizations and political activism funded by foreign governments:
During last winter’s eighteen-day intifada, rumors were planted about foreign provocateurs. The international English-language press unwittingly fed these allegations. Their reports that Western democracy promoters nurtured fledgling democrats, sending a handful of young activists to study nonviolent resistance with the Serbian organization OPTOR, were recycled in the Arabic-language media.
Complicating matters, London and Washington decided to fast-track small grants to liberal groups, skirting labyrinthine Egyptian channels for the distribution of foreign aid. The Obama administration earmarked some $65 million for quick direct support to NGOs working on initiatives like training election monitors, educating voters and documenting human-rights violations. Mubarak-era bureaucrats cited sovereignty in defense of their patronage pyramids and clientalistic licensing procedures. Over the summer, the minister of international cooperation asked military prosecutors to investigate the “unauthorized” transfer of nearly $48 million to fourteen American organizations (including those besieged in December) and $6 million to twelve Egyptian groups not accredited by the Ministry of Social Solidarity.
…
The Arab Spring of 2011 inflamed sentiments on this polarizing issue. Even on the front lines, many were of two minds. Strangulating laws of association, expression and assembly were among the grievances against the old regime. The armed invasion of premises where the only weapons used were words defied international and even municipal legal norms. For ministerial and military establishments reliant on foreign largess to cry foul over small political projects seemed hypocritical to many and foolhardy to others. Liberal Egyptians working for international organizations saw how the crackdown on Western organizations diverted attention away from another outside influence: the funds flowing from Gulf monarchies to conservatives and counterrevolutionaries in the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi movements—and perhaps the military as well.
And yet many sophisticated Egyptians reason that Western political projects are ultimately more attuned to NATO security interests than Western ideals. Lots of patriots bridled at foreign meddling, including both foreign support of Mubarak after the fraudulent elections of late 2010 or, as some now insisted, in fomenting mass rebellion. Revolutionaries were insulted by the insinuation that in order to depose Mubarak they should learn from Serbs, who joined a NATO-backed campaign to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic.
Reader Comments (12)
To create a thriving Egypt, we need to improve Democracy. Egyptians want jobs and a thriving economy. Let the businessmen in Egypt vote first and place this vote on the general ballet. Businessmen create jobs. This will attract candidates that will create an environment for job creation.
Haha! @ Ed Wachtel: what on earth are you on about?
While the sovereignty argument makes rationale sense on some levels, I do not buy it. Like it or not interfering with the domestic affairs of other states is one of many foreign policy tools. Moreover, I see little difference between SCAF paying the Livingston Group $90,000 a month to lobby Congressmen on its behalf and Washington funding democracy promotion groups in Egyptian society. Whether their actions are justifiable or not is a debate requiring much more space than a mear comment, but the fact remains that both states are violating the sovereignty of the other. SCAF has merely latched onto the sovereignty argument because it NGOs' violation of Egyptian society threaten SCAF's interest and support its favorite narrative of foreign (mostly western) hands manipulating Egyptian domestic politics.
Chris is right its not about sovereignty per se.
SOVEREIGNTY OR ESPIONAGE - Both Major US NGOs overlap in personnel with Israeli interests inside Washington, and they are open in their allegiance to Israeli interests supercedes their interestin Egyptian democracy,with the Israeligovernment and neocon interests going so far as to say Democracy is not appropriate for Arab states.Since Israel has attacked Egypt, taken land, and recently killed its border police, this isnt about sovereignty so much as it is about espionage from a hostile enemy nation.
ILLEGAL UNDER US LAW -These NGOs were found to have huge amounts of cash on hand to dispense without documentation to agents "promoting democracy"inside Egypt duringits revolution. If these NGOs indeed went beyond technical election training and supported violent or nonviolent opposition to the US government, then this is illegal under both Egyptian and US Law: Moreover by hindering the execution of law preventing foreign funding of NGOs, these groups would face twenty years under US Law forseditious conspiracy:
§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, .. the Government.[or] . to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
and so on.
FOREIGN LOBBYINGIS NOT SEDITION - Government to Government lobbying is permitted under US Law and is neither sedition nor espionage as long as the lobbying group is registered as a foreign agent (Why the Neocon Republican groups skirt this law's application is a result of corruption of the law not its inapplicability).
§ 2386. Registration of certain organizations
An organization is “subject to foreign control” if:
(a) it solicits or accepts financial contributions, loans, or support of any kind, directly or indirectly, from, or is affiliated directly or indirectly with, a foreign government or a political subdivision thereof
RECOMENDATION
write a new NGO law which is literally consistent with US law on foreign controlled organizations engaged in political activity and then apply it consistently and fairly. Make some effort to reach the American public opinion on this topic and no one can claim that this is anti-democratic.
But you have to remember that these NGOs do not perceive themselves as carrying out lobbying, would never claim to be doing so, and neither do the local organizations that work with them want them to do so (they are not lobbyists being hired to defend the US point of view).
I would like to make three points regarding this issue and obviously they are somehow interconnected and they obviously are in the way I emotionally feel about this, but I'll try to separate them one by one:
I Sovereignty
Yes, I agree, there is sovereignty issue here. However, I disagree about pretty much everything else regarding the sovereignty issue. The idea that the Westphalian model as it is taught abstractly in universities, is actually applicable in real-life, is absurd. The gist of the Westphalian idea is that if I am in your country my actions are guided by your laws and my country can't go around your country telling people to break these laws. Political activism on the other hand is alright. After all, embassies are organizations completely funded by foreign countries with a clear political agenda.
And then, what exactly is political anyway? Are the activities of the Goethe institutes really not political? Especially in Egypt where Goethe runs the Tahrir lounge? What about scholarship programs? Cultural exchange? Actually, I would argue that running school and hospitals in a foreign country might be more undermining of sovereignty, as it is a take-over of government tasks by a foreign entity, than paying money to a human rights organization.
It would be a slightly different case if the countries in question were at war, but if they are, at least on paper, partners, this sort of exchange is not only normal, it is something we should support, defend and strive for, as it deepens relationships between countries etc.
Of course, the parliament has the right to make a law which would forbid the activities of organizations like the NDI or like the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. However, I would hope, parliament would first discuss what types of activities specifically they object to because they are bad for Egypt. Any bucket categories like foreign funding or political activities are bound to be misused, whenever the government feels like making a point against someone.
II Xenophobia
The reason why this move by the government worries me are not necessarily the short term consequences. SCAF will transition its powers, the parliament will take different decisions. We might even eventually end up with an NGO law which allows NGOs. The thing which worries me, is that these activities are increasing the general distrust in society of one to another, also between Egyptians and it really increases the levels of xenophobia. The fact that this worries me as a foreigner living in Egypt, is obviously self-serving. But I believe that there is a second dimension here. I believe that this distrust and xenophobia won't just go away once SCAF is gone. These deep emotions will stick around for a while. And distrust within a society and xenophobia are both bad for business –actually, literally, they are bad for the economy. Xenophobia will become increasingly an issue in regards to tourism, but more than that, it will become an issue for foreign investors. Cairo in theory has the opportunity to become the place where international companies move their Middle East headquarters. Some already are here, but others are for various reasons in Dubai and other places. A democratic (a slightly better governed) Cairo could become the undisputed economic center for companies like these, but xenophobia could be a major hindrance.
Because of these points, I am slightly disappointed how little public outcry there was. Yes, Muslim Brotherhood, I am looking at you.
III SCAF's move
Now, I would actually argue that this move had nothing to do with the sovereignty issue, which I discussed in my first point. Yes of course, we can discuss what might be relevant in this regard, but we should judge SCAF here by its actions and not our analysis of the greater implications.
I would argue that this was primarily a publicity stunt and secondarily some personal vendetta of Abu Naga. Why?
Exhibit A: The US and in a similar period Germany decide to give more money to the party linked foundations as a result of the Arab spring. This is a perfectly public decision and SCAF knows about it, after all, the MFA works pretty well. What do they do? They say, ah yes, sure, good to know. A month or two later the money arrives with the organizations and they start certain activities. Again, this is a public event which is marked by various press conferences and so on. SCAF knows about it and says, ah yes, good to know. Then suddenly a couple of weeks later when there are some major demonstrations they shout, look at these foreign bastards, they did something illegal.
Exhibit B: The way the raid was communicated clearly was directed towards the pro-SCAF and anti-revolution public. After all Abu Naga claimed that these organizations had misused the chaos of the revolution to establish a foothold in Egypt and then to support anti-state activities. At least for the Konrad Adenauer Foundation this is nonsense. The KAF was active in Egypt for decades, is actually registered and has pretty much always had the same type of political activities.
Exhibit C: Germany like the US has multiple party related organizations and multiple of these are actually active in Cairo. The activities of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation are also very clearly political, they are funded in exactly the same way as the KAF and nevertheless KAF was raided and FES was not. The only logical conclusion is that it was specific activities of KAF which Abu Naga objected to, however this was never explicitly said.
I leave the conclusions to you.
PS
The travel ban for US officials reminds me of Gadaffi's hostage taking of a Swiss business man, more than any proper legal procedure.
Thanks for the great comments on this post!
Yes, those NGOs do not consider themselves as lobby groups, but does that really matter?
Legally any type of "political activity funded by foreign countries" should be managed by the same laws and regulations, no matter if they are registered as NGOs, as lobby firms or something completely different.
The day to day activities of the targeted NGOs are more or less transparent - ask the locals that work for them - or indeed ask the NGOs. The day to day activities of SCAF and the Military are not transparent. Neither are their investigations into this or anything else. Until processes become transparent only a few will know what is going on, what is not going on, and who is lying or bending the truth. Do you want to live in a country that is only Egyptian or do we want to enrich our nation by welcoming people (not governments) from across the world. Clearly those that can afford to travel, absolutely love the rest of the world and always seem to bring home wonderful stories. Let us connect without paranoia!
One question about this issue that I haven't quite found an answer for yet: is there one or another reason why these NGO shut-downs (and now proposed arrests of NGO workers, as per the New York Times front-page article on January 30) are happening *right now*? Is the militaristic Egyptian government merely choosing to take these actions in order to diffuse attention away from itself at this particular time?
I just can't quite figure out why this is happening at this moment. First anniversary of the protests, maybe?
@Moritz, fantastic post.
This article and the posts are very informative.
I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT - SCAF IS USING THE "FOREIGN ELEMENTS" STRATEGY TO DEFLECT AND TO CREATE FEAR THAT REQUIRES "PROTECTION". BUT WHO WILL PROTECT US FROM SCAF AND THE MOI?