[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
EGYPT AT A CROSSROADS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 16, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-128
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-876 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California Jerseydeceased 3/6/
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 12 deg.
RON PAUL, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California
MIKE PENCE, Indiana ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
CONNIE MACK, Florida RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
TED POE, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DENNIS CARDOZA, California
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
DAVID RIVERA, Florida ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
ROBERT TURNER, New York
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Lorne Craner, president, International Republican
Institute...................................................... 11
Mr. Kenneth Wollack, president, National Democracy Institute..... 20
The Honorable David J. Kramer, president, Freedom House.......... 31
Ms. Joyce Barnathan, president, International Center for
Journalists.................................................... 41
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Lorne Craner: Prepared statement................... 13
Mr. Kenneth Wollack: Prepared statement.......................... 22
The Honorable David J. Kramer: Prepared statement................ 34
Ms. Joyce Barnathan: Prepared statement.......................... 43
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 72
Hearing minutes.................................................. 73
The Honorable Robert Turner, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York: Prepared statement...................... 75
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 77
Questions submitted to the panel for the record by the Honorable
Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 79
Responses from the Honorable Lorne Craner...................... 80
Responses from the Honorable David J. Kramer................... 82
Responses from Mr. Kenneth Wollack............................. 83
EGYPT AT A CROSSROADS
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
After recognizing myself and the ranking member, my friend
Mr. Berman, for 7 minutes each for our opening statements, I
will recognize the chair and the ranking member of the Middle
East and South Asia Subcommittee for 3 minutes each for their
statements, and I would also like the members to give 1-minute
opening statements if they desire.
We will then hear from our witnesses. I would ask that you
summarize your prepared statements to 5 minutes each before we
move to the question and answer period under the 5-minute rule.
Without objection, the witnesses' prepared statements will be
made a part of the record, and members may have 5 days to
insert statements and questions for the record, subject to the
length limitation in the rules.
The Chair now recognizes herself for 7 minutes.
On February 1, 2011, President Obama stated that a
transition process in Egypt ``should result in a government
that is not only grounded in democratic principles but is also
responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people.''
If 1 year ago you had asked U.S. policy makers what kind of
developments they were concerned about in Egypt, they might
have expressed doubts as to how much real power the military
would be willing to give up. They might have indicated concern
about a rush to hold parliamentary elections, a rush that would
benefit a well-organized radical Islamic group like the Muslim
Brotherhood, while leaving fledgling secular political parties
out in the cold.
And they might have said that they were worried that the
new Egyptian Government would follow in the Mubarak
government's footsteps by continuing to restrict the activities
of domestic and foreign non-governmental organizations engaged
in democracy promotion. Unfortunately, all of these fears have
been realized, and then some.
In particular, the Egyptian Government's treatment of pro-
democracy NGOs is in direct contradiction with the democratic
principles and is not responsive to the aspirations of the
Egyptian people. In fact, the Egyptian Government's politically
motivated treatment of these NGOs is actually worse than the
way they were treated by the Mubarak regime.
The government has raided and closed their offices, seized
their assets and funds, launched a media campaign against them,
prohibited their employees from leaving the country, and has
announced that it intends to prosecute 43 of their employees,
including 16 Americans and 14 Egyptians.
Egypt's Minister for International Cooperation--a holdover
from the Mubarak era--is reportedly behind many of these
actions and stated that the government's announcement of
charges against the NGO employees makes clear ``the
government's seriousness about discovering some of these
groups' plans to destabilize Egypt.''
But the activity of these NGOs have nothing to do with
destabilizing Egypt and everything to do with offering the
Egyptian people assistance in their pursuit of freedom, in
pursuit of democratic governance that will uphold and protect
their fundamental human rights and liberties. Hostility to
democracy and human rights is why the Mubarak regime restricted
the operations of these NGOs and refused to process their
applications for registration.
It is the same totalitarian mind-set that is driving the
current Egyptian Government to carry out this crack down.
However, this is not the only issue of concern. Egyptian
religious minorities are facing persecution by the very
extremists that not only have assumed positions of power in the
Parliament, but are now questioning the utility of the Egypt-
Israel Peace Treaty. These are very concerning trends.
If the United States continues to provide assistance to
Egypt, even as our own citizens are persecuted and our taxpayer
dollars are unjustly seized, then we will be sending a number
of unacceptable messages: That we will acquiesce in and
bankroll Egypt's assault on pro-democracy forces and the
isolation of secular sectors; that we will acquiesce in and
bankroll other unacceptable behavior by the Egyptian
Government, including backsliding on the Peace Treaty with
Israel; that we will stand idly by as other foreign governments
that are U.S aid recipients act in blatant contravention of
U.S. values, of democratic standards, and of their
international obligations.
Both the executive branch and Congress must make clear that
to resolve this situation the Egyptian Government must
immediately return all assets and funds that were seized in the
raids of the NGOs and allow them to reopen their offices and
resume their work. It must also end the politically-motivated
investigations and prosecutions of these NGOs and end the media
campaign against them.
The Egyptian Government must also comply with international
human rights standards and provide these organizations with
freedom of operation throughout the country. The Egyptian
Government's actions cannot be taken lightly and warrant
punitive action against certain Egyptian officials and
reconsideration of U.S. assistance to Egypt, for even if this
issue were resolved tomorrow this episode will color the way in
which assistance is provided to Egypt.
While the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces bears
ultimate responsibility for the strain in relations, the
Minister of International Cooperation should not be exempt from
punitive actions. This is not about sovereignty but about
patronage and corruption. Therefore, no further U.S. assistance
should be provided to any ministry that is controlled by the
Minister of International Cooperation.
I yield back the balance of my time, and it is a delight to
yield to my friend Mr. Berman for his opening statement.
Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. On
December 29, Egyptian police raided the Cairo offices of the
NGOs represented before us today and confiscated all of the
cash and materials on hand. As we know, the investigation has
proceeded from there, and numerous employees of the NGOs--
American, Egyptian, and third country--have been put on notice
that they are likely to be prosecuted for the alleged crime of
working with unregistered or ``illegal'' organizations.
And I should note it wasn't only U.S. NGOs that were
raided. The police also went after several Egyptian NGOs as
well as the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation.
The facts of this crisis and the rationale for the Egyptian
action remain somewhat murky. The raids occurred at a time when
by all reports pressure on the NGO community had been easing.
In fact, the Egyptian Government had invited NDI and IRI to
sponsor delegations of international election observers, and
these delegations conducted their work largely without
interference during the two rounds of voting prior to the
raids, and the one round that took place after the raids.
We are here today to listen and learn from these NGO
leaders, all of them experts on building civil society and
democracy. In particular, I would be interested in exploring
the following issues with you. What is the nature of the work
that your organizations do in Egypt, and why are some Egyptian
authorities so concerned about it? What is the current
situation of your employees and your offices? What does the
case against your employee--where does the case against your
employees stand, according to your best information?
And what can you tell us about the way Egypt works that
might have led to this case? In your view, who or what is
driving this case? How hopeful are you that it can still be
resolved without convictions and prison terms? And, lastly,
what are the prospects that your organization's presence in
Egypt can be normalized?
As members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we cannot
ignore the larger context in which this crisis takes place.
Egypt is the largest and most important state in the Arab
world. Its peace with Israel has been an anchor of stability
and U.S. strategy in the Middle East. Egyptian-Israeli wars
used to occur almost like clockwork once a decade. As of now,
there has not been an Egyptian-Israeli war for nearly 40 years.
And as a result, thousands of people are alive today who
probably otherwise would not be.
The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty is a boon for Egypt and
for Israel, but it is also a boon for United States interests.
Our close relationship with Egypt provides us with many
benefits. Most notably, our ships, including vessels critical
to our national security, are able to pass routinely through
the Suez Canal, often on a priority basis.
Our relationship with Egypt began growing close almost
immediately after the 1973 war when Henry Kissinger was
negotiating a cease fire. It was foreshadowed by Sadat's
summary expulsion of Soviet advisors in 1972 and sealed by the
1979 Peace Treaty.
The U.S. and Egypt have been in effect strategic partners
ever since, but it wasn't always so. From the mid-1950s onward,
Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt was stridently anti-Western and
anti-U.S. and a Soviet ally. In fact, Nasser--charismatic and
gifted order that he was--turned much of the Arab world against
the U.S. Nasser died in 1970, and later that decade the U.S.
and Egypt initiated a partnership that could have not been
remotely envisioned during the Nasser years.
This NGO crisis raises the specter that there are perhaps
some in Egypt who would like to see the pendulum swing back to
the bad old days. Egypt is important, and its friendship cannot
be taken for granted, so we have to think carefully as to how
this outrageous action against U.S. NGOs and against civil
society in general fits into the overall bilateral
relationship.
I am a strong supporter of U.S.-Egyptian ties, but I do
know this. We have no more serious responsibility in foreign
policy than that of ensuring that our citizens are not abused.
And one dimension of this current issue cannot be brushed
aside--foreign assistance.
Current law requires that as a condition for the dispersal
of military assistance to Egypt the Secretary of State must
certify that Egypt is implementing policies that protect
freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of
association, and rule of law.
And although the law allows for a waiver, I cannot imagine
the Secretary could either make that certification or waive the
requirement, as long as this NGO case moves forward. And I
would not encourage her to do so.
I thank the chairman for holding this important hearing. I
look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of
witnesses and yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Berman.
I am pleased to yield to Mr. Chabot, the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for
being here today. And thank you for calling this timely and
important hearing, Madam Chair.
Just yesterday the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee
held a hearing which addressed the current challenges in the
U.S.-Egyptian relations, as well as the general state of
affairs on the ground in Egypt. Although the witnesses did not
agree on everything, there was consensus that the current
crisis surrounding the December 29 raids on several NGOs are
deeply, deeply disturbing.
Moreover, since these initial raids, the Government of
Egypt has taken numerous actions which have directly escalated
the situation, calling into question its commitment to the
principles of democratic governance. With each passing day and
each additional escalation, the Government of Egypt makes it
much more difficult to resolve this matter than should be.
Contrary to the belief of many in Egypt, these NGOs pursued
a singular goal--to assist the people of Egypt in advocating
for the protection of their own human and civil rights at this
critical time in their transition. Certain elements of the
current Egyptian Government are, however, using this incident
for their gain in a despicable act of political posturing.
The Minister of International Cooperation, Faiza Abou el-
Naga, who initiated the investigation, has blatantly attempted
to tap into Egyptian nationalist fervor. Referring to the U.S.
funding of NGOs like IRI and NDI, she is reported to have said
just a few days ago, and I quote,
``Evidence shows the existence of a clear and
determined wish to abort any chance for Egypt to rise
as a modern and democratic state with a strong economy,
since that will pose the biggest threat to American and
Israeli interests, not only in Egypt but in the whole
region.''
It is my belief that as the chief agent provocateur in this
ordeal, Abou el-Naga has shown very clearly that she cannot be
trusted as the custodian of American taxpayer dollars. And,
accordingly, U.S. assistance should be conditioned on her
removal as the administrator of our foreign aid.
Despite the current crisis, Egypt has for decades been a
critical ally of the United States in the Global War on Terror
and in the pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace. Hopefully, the
Government of Egypt will take the appropriate de-escalating
measures in the near future.
A refusal to return all seized property, terminate its
travel ban, drop all charges against American and Egyptian NGO
employees, and allow these organizations to operate free of
constraints, will certainly have a most negative effect on the
broader U.S.-Egyptian relationship and will necessitate a
strong reconsideration of U.S. assistance to Egypt.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses here today
about the status of their operations on the ground, and above
all what we can do to help ensure that their staff remains safe
and are freed as soon as possible.
I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chabot, for
your opening statement.
We will now hear from Ranking Member Gary Ackerman on the
subcommittee. Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are here today
because of the NGO prosecution crisis in Egypt. As a friend of
Egypt, I am angry, dismayed, and deeply concerned. I am angry
that some parts of the Egyptian Government have behaved so
shamelessly and with such blatant disregard for their country's
own long-term interests.
I am dismayed that the U.S.-Egypt relationship, which has
served both countries so well for more than three decades, is
being used as a political football and reduced to the size of
one absurdly rigged and politicized show trial. I am deeply
concerned that the cynical demagoguery that has set this legal
farce in motion has already done severe damage to our bilateral
relationship at such an absolutely critical time.
To my friends in Egypt, some of whom seem to believe that
the $1.5 billion we gave them this year alone is theirs by
right, here is a newsflash: The administration will not certify
that you are making progress toward democracy while this
process goes on. They will not issue a waiver either, because
if they did we in Congress would both remove the waiver and
take our money back in record time.
And here is another fact: You are going to be broke soon,
if the Egyptian currency reserves are nearly exhausted and
there is little reason to believe that they could be
replenished without international aid. Who do you think is
going to be essential to you in convincing the international
community to once again consider providing loans after you so
foolishly and bruskly sent the IMF and The World Bank packing.
When you can't pay for wheat, and your public can't get
bread, who do you plan to call? Russia? China? You might as
well call Togo.
Two more facts. More than 10 percent of your economy comes
from tourism. Direct foreign investment is the only way to
rapidly create jobs for the 30 percent of your population
between the ages of 15 and 29. Without the peace and stability
and cooperation in fighting terrorism that have come with
partnership with the United States, how many tourists do you
think will come to see the Pyramids? How many big investments
are you expecting for the international economy deemed to be
too unsafe for American investors? To my friends in Egypt,
these are plagues that you do not need.
There are also a few facts for us to consider. Egypt is
big, very big. If all 22 Arab nations had one 435-seat House of
Representatives, Egypt alone would occupy a quarter of them.
Eight percent of all global maritime trade goes through the
Suez Canal, as do a million barrels of oil every day. And for a
generation, American warships--about a dozen a month--have gone
to the front of the line whenever we have asked, saving us
hundreds of millions of dollars.
And one last thing--prior to the Camp David Accords, and
all of the aid and the special strategic relationship, Egypt
and Israel, nonetheless, went to war, and quite often, too--in
1948, again in 1956, '67, '70, and hopefully for the last time
in 1973, the Yom Kippur War. That war and the threat of Soviet
intervention led the United States to go to DevCon 3, only one
step below the level of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Egypt is big; Egypt matters. It matters a lot to us and to
our key allies in the region as well. Both nations have to get
beyond this NGO crisis and focus on what really matters. I know
we are really ready to work with the authorities in Egypt, but
they have to be willing to work and accept responsibility for
solving that problem as well.
Unto Egypt we say, ``Let our people go, and do it soon.''
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Smith, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa,
Global Health, and Human Rights, is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you
for calling this extremely important and timely hearing and for
inviting such true heroes of democracy and freedom to testify,
especially when IRI has some 14 NDI, 15 Freedom House, 7
International Center for Journalists, 5 in the Konrad Adenauer,
who are not here but here in spirit, people who are being
unjustly held and subjected to prosecution.
I would just say very briefly in the minute that I have,
persecuting the men and women who toil to ensure that human
rights, the rule of law and democracy, are respected in Egypt
is not only unconscionable, but it is absurd. The selfless
people represented by their leadership here today who give of
themselves, who spend countless hours trying to help birth a
freer Egypt where all can participate, is not only--it is
counterproductive, but it is--like I said before, it is absurd.
So, again, I look forward to your testimonies. Looking
through them, as you have all pointed out, you have been open,
you have been transparent in the work that you have done in
Egypt, and it is time for the release of all of these very
brave and courageous people to be effectuated.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Faleomavaega is recognized.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, thank you. And I think there
is no question--we have been well over a year now--that we have
expressed serious concerns about what has happened since the
overthrowing of Mubarak. I do look forward to hearing from our
witnesses this morning, and thank you for holding this hearing.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Royce, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation, and Trade, is recognized.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Madam Chair. The organizations that
we have with us today have been building the infrastructure of
democracy for a long time in some very hostile environments. I
had an opportunity to hear Lorne Craner on the radio recently
saying that the situation in Egypt, in his view, was the worst
that the IRI had faced. Worse than China, worse than Venezuela,
worse than Zimbabwe.
And this is about more than the predicament that these
Americans find themselves in today, because this goes to the
future of Egyptian civil society, and in a way perhaps the
future of the entire region. Elements of the old Mubarak regime
clearly drove this wedge, but leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood
have been speaking out in favor of this NGO crackdown, and they
will soon consider a harsher NGO law in Parliament, I
understand.
So it is encouraging today that many of the 400 Egyptian
NGOs now under scrutiny are stepping up to defend these
American groups, but I think what we have to realize is that
democracy and human rights have many determined and very
ruthless enemies in Egypt.
If we look at the plight of the Coptic Christians, if we
look at the plight of those in civil society struggling to
bring order out of chaos, you realize that this is going to be
a very, very rocky road ahead.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing
today, and I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Royce.
Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, we had a
subcommittee hearing on this topic yesterday, and I guess what
is particularly troubling is that somebody within the fold of
the Egyptian Government, the broader government in transition,
decided consciously to pick a fight with the United States. And
they did it with malice of forethought. One might accuse them
of doing it maladroitly, however, because they actually have
finally united Republicans and Democrats by picking on both.
But it is not a trivial matter, and obviously we want to
move forward with this relationship. As the ranking member
said, this is a very important relationship for the United
States and for Middle East peace. We have got to make it work.
But we can't turn a blind eye to what has occurred with our
non-governmental organizations who are doing, you know, good
work in trying to build democratic institutions all over the
world, including in Egypt.
And so I look forward to the testimony today, and I look
forward particularly to suggestions or recommendations for how
all of us can step back and retrieve the amicable relationship
we must have with Egypt.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Burton, the chairman on the Subcommittee on Europe and
Eurasia.
Mr. Burton. I think, Madam Chairman, that just about
everything that needs to be said has been said. I would just
like to add one little caveat, and that is that I am concerned
not only in Egypt but throughout the entire northern tier of
Africa and the Persian Gulf region we have organizations like
the Muslim Brotherhood and other even more radical
organizations, in my opinion, that are going to be in
leadership positions.
And my colleague mentioned the Coptic Christians in Egypt
and how some of them have been persecuted. And I would just to
say, not only to Egypt but to the entire Muslim world in that
part of the world, that tolerance for religious differences is
something that really needs to be understood, because if we see
religious persecution like we have seen in some parts of that
region, like the Coptic Christians, it could lead to even more
severe problems in the future.
So this is not confined to Egypt, but it is one of my
concerns. And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Sires of New Jersey.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
meeting. And I want to thank you for being here today and the
kind of work that you do and all of the hardships that you go
through in some of these different places.
But for the life of me, I don't know whether this is a
foolish move or a very calculated move to take on these NGOs at
a time when Egypt is going through this transition and we are
practically their best friends who can help them. They have no
money, they have no food, and we will always be there to step
in.
But to me, I don't know how--whether it was foolish or
calculated, because of the extremes that won most of the
elections early on this--to the groups. So I thank you for
being here, and I am looking forward to your comments.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Good question.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I
would like to thank the four organizations for being here
today, and I want to join with my colleague, Congressman Sires,
in that your organizations can be so beneficial for the people
of Egypt. It is to enable the people of that country to truly
impact in a positive manner. I have had a son serve there in
the National Guard, so we know what an extraordinary country
Egypt is.
Also, I am very grateful, Madam Chair, to be an IRI
alumnus. I have even seen Democrats and Republicans work
together with NDI, and it has been real-world to me. I had the
opportunity at the residual of observing the elections in
Bulgaria, and then I had Stefan Stoyanov, a member of the
National Assembly of Bulgaria, observe the elections in the
United States.
And then, just 3 weeks ago, I was grateful, after lecturing
in Slovakia many years ago, the Ambassador Peter Burian from
the Slovak Republic accompanied me on primary day in South
Carolina. We went to 11 precincts, 5 counties, break-neck
speed. He never complained, and of course it was very helpful.
As we would go from precinct to precinct, he would run into
people who had Slovak heritage, and so it was a really
uplifting experience for him, for the people who met him, and
so thank you for the residual effect of what you do.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Millions of
Egyptians put their lives on the line to make a free Egypt, and
so it is hard for a lot of people watching this to understand
that within a year their leaders are behaving in some ways that
is worse than the people that they ousted.
But it is only a year later, and so I am really intrigued
and excited to have this panel before us today, because I don't
think the Egyptian people have forgotten the fact that this
revolution was based on a new government founded on the
principles of dignity and opportunity.
And I don't think it is too late for this country to help
its leaders and its people remember how we got to this point.
The case against NDI, IRI, and Freedom House, and their
Egyptian colleagues, it is not about criminal activity. It is
just about picking a fight with the United States. And I look
forward to this panel showing us a way that we can lead both
the Egyptian Government, but also the people who helped make
this moment possible, a way out.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Turner of New York.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am interested in
hearing what the witnesses have to say on this self-destructive
policy under the Egyptians right now and how the military and
the Salafists have found common cause in creating this chaos.
They should be natural enemies, but in this they seem united.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania.
Ms. Schwartz. Well, thank you, and I also want to just echo
some what has already been said, which is all of us watched
with, you know, just intrigue and also just--enthusiasm may be
too strong a word, but, you know, to see the uprising in the
people in Egypt really demanding a new era and demanding
freedom and democracy and opportunity, and to see a year later
for the government and military to try and damp down the work
you do, not only in Egypt but across the world is really--you
put yourself in harm's way in some ways and seek to create a
more vibrant democracy, or create a democracy.
And we know this is not easy, and a transition to democracy
is not easy--establishing those institutions in a rule of law
and access politically for a group of people who rose up to
demand it but don't have a rich history in knowing how to do it
is really difficult.
And I think as our ally, Egypt is an important--continues
to be a very important ally to us. How this evolves for Egypt
is just enormously important, not only for the people--not only
for the Egyptians but also for the United States and for the
region.
So I want to thank you for your vital work. I also want to
communicate--and I think one of the reasons for this hearing is
to let the Egyptian leadership understand that their alliance
with our nation, being strong allies, our friendship is not
unconditional, that there are consequences.
And so I think we look forward to your comments about what
are appropriate--what might be appropriate in that regard, that
is something you want to talk about, and how we go forward,
again as allies, as friends, but also as people who want them
to do this right. And we want to help them do it right.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Ms. Schwartz.
And now the Chair is pleased to welcome our witnesses. We
will start with the Honorable Lorne Craner, who has been the
president of the International Republican Institute (IRI) since
2004. He previously served as Assistant Secretary for
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, for Secretary of State Colin
Powell.
Mr. Craner joined IRI as vice president for programs in
1993, and served as president from 1995 to 2001. From 1992 to
1993, he served at the National Security Council as a Director
of Asian Affairs, and from 1989 to 1992 was Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs.
Thank you, Mr. Craner.
Our next witness will be Mr. Kenneth Wollack, who is
president of the National Democratic Institute since 1993. He
joined NDI in 1986 as an executive vice president, and before
joining NDI Mr. Wollack co-edited ``The Middle East Policy
Survey.''
Thank you, Ken, for being here.
The Honorable David Kramer is the president of Freedom
House, which he joined in October 2010. He previously served as
a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He
served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human
Rights and Labor, from March 2008 to January 2009. He
previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
European and Eurasian Affairs, as well as a professional staff
member, in the Secretary of State's Office of Policy Planning.
And, lastly, we will hear from Ms. Joyce Barnathan, who is
the president of the International Center for Journalists
(ICFJ). Ms. Barnathan is also the chair of the Global Forum for
Media Development. Previously, she served as the executive
editor for global franchise for Business Week.
Welcome to each and every one of you, and we will begin
with The Honorable Lorne Craner.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LORNE CRANER, PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE
Mr. Craner. Thank you very much. Chairman, Congressman
Berman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.
On behalf of IRI, I want to express my deepest appreciation
to all of you. For those us under fire in Egypt, your
interest--mostly recently symbolized by this hearing--has been
a great source of inspiration. You are all aware of IRI's work
in Egypt, our effort since our arrival in 2006 to gain
registration, the Mubarak regime's tolerance of our war, our
expanded democracy-building efforts after his ouster, doing the
same work we have done for 30 years in a hundred other
countries, and Cairo's heightened interest last fall in our
work, which we decided to respond to with unprecedented
transparency.
And you know the details of the armed raids on our offices,
the subsequent hours-long interrogations of our staff--
Egyptians and Americans--our discovery of a No Fly list
confining our staff to Egypt, and now the referral of this very
political case against our employees for trial.
What I want to talk about today is some of the broader
context of these events. First, it is important to understand
that the assaults on our organizations were just part of a
general assault against Egypt's civil society. We have been on
the front pages because we are Americans' organizations, but we
are just the tip of the iceberg.
On December 29, it was not just American and a German
organization, Konrad Adenauer, that was raided. A number of
Egyptian organizations were also the subject of raids. And it
is not just foreign organizations that are the subject of
political investigations. Four hundred Egyptian NGOs, mostly of
the liberal variety, are also having their employees questioned
and likely referred to trial.
This is important not only to understand--not only to
separate these raids from anti-Americanism or xenophobia, but
also because it gives us an idea of the trajectory of Egypt's
democratic development. Those Egyptian organizations most able
to report on and to influence human rights issues for the
better are being forced instead to defend themselves against a
political assault.
A second part of the broader context--underlining that this
is not just an Egyptian-American issue--is that your concerns
about these events in Egypt are being reflected overseas.
Egypt's neighbor across the Mediterranean--Europe--has been
intensely interested in the transition over the past year.
For example, in 10 months of training over 12,000
Egyptians, IRI was joined by trainers and staff from Serbia,
Germany, Macedonia, The Netherlands, the Czech Republic,
Slovakia, and Norway. And since the raids in December,
condemnation has come from across Europe in statements from the
European People's Party; from the foreign ministers of Spain,
Bulgaria, The Netherlands, and Georgia; the Deputy Foreign
Minister of Poland; and the summoning of Egyptian Ambassadors
in Slovakia and Belgium.
The point is that other nations are as concerned as we
about the assault on civil society in Egypt and what it means
for the future of the country's democracy.
A third element that I want to bring to your attention is
what other authoritarian nations may be learning. Those of us
on the front lines of helping democrats in Russia, China,
Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and other authoritarian states fear what
rulers in those countries are planning as they watch Cairo so
far interrogate, charge, and confine our citizens on political
grounds with impunity.
A fourth element--it would be hard enough to build
relations with a government divided between conservative and
extremely conservative Islamists, and a military alternately
out of country and cowed by the Islamists in a country where
Copts are being attacked and NGOs are raided. There are 20
issues more worthwhile, as has been pointed out, for our
leaders to discuss than NGOs--economics and politics within
Egypt, the situation with Iran, relations with Israel, events
in Libya. The list goes on. But Egypt has chosen to make the
NGO issue the central concern in America, Europe, and
elsewhere. And the longer this issue goes on, the more
difficult it becomes to unravel, and the more it poisons any
new partnership we might be able to form with Cairo.
So I appreciate your initiative in calling this hearing as
you consider next steps to resolve this matter. I look forward
to answering your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Craner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wollack.
STATEMENT OF MR. KENNETH WOLLACK, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DEMOCRACY
INSTITUTE
Mr. Wollack. Madam Chairman, Congressman Berman, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today about the source of the disagreements between the
United States and Egypt that have embroiled a group of non-
governmental organizations in a political maelstrom not of our
own making.
Egypt is a key leader in the region, and reasons remain for
a strong partnership between the government and peoples of
Egypt and the United States. Egypt's democratic transition,
which was advanced by three successful rounds of parliamentary
elections, will be important not only for its own people but
will no doubt influence democratic development far beyond its
borders.
NDI has been proud to have played a small role in
supporting Egyptian efforts in this regard. We recognize that
this is a very complicated period in the Egyptian transition
process, and the outcome is not assured. At the same time, we
remain optimistic about prospects for the country's democratic
future. For the international community, we have to exercise
patience and remain engaged.
As experience has shown elsewhere, overcoming years of
autocratic rule is not always quick or automatic. This has been
an extraordinarily difficult and perplexing 7 weeks, since on
December 29 Egyptian investigative officials, accompanied by
armed men, entered 17 offices of 10 non-governmental
organizations and took computers, documents, and money.
Since then, the situation has regrettably deteriorated
rapidly and markedly. None of our property has been returned. A
number of our employees are forbidden to leave the country,
some have been subjected to hours of interrogation, and
investigative judges have recommended that charges be brought
against 15 of our Egypt-based employees--five Americans, four
Egyptians, three Serbians, two Lebanese, and one Romanian.
It is our understanding that some 400 Egyptian
organizations are also under investigation. The charges are
that we ``received and accepted funds and benefits from a non-
Egyptian organization,'' that being USAID and the Department of
State, and that we established and operated without a license
from the Egyptian Government.
One of the supporting pieces of evidence is that we draft
the reports that were sent to our Washington office. These, of
course, were the program reports required of all grantees. Many
other sensational and false accusations have appeared in the
media and are recorded in testimony by government officials and
used as evidence.
NDI believes our non-partisan activities were actually
authorized. We fulfilled all of the legal requirements for
registration through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2005,
shortly after we opened an office in Cairo. And I was
personally told by the then-Foreign Minister that our
registration would be granted in a matter of weeks.
Clause 6 of the relevant Egyptian law states that if a
registration application is not formally rejected within 60
days, it will be considered approved. NDI's application has
never been rejected. While we are still waiting for formal
recognition, I believe that we are making some progress. On
February 13, our renewed registration application was approved
by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It now moves to the
Ministry of Social Affairs for the issuance of a license.
We have always been open and transparent, informing
officials of our activities and updating our paperwork. Not
once were we asked to cease work or close our office until
December 29.
In fact, NDI and IRI were invited by Egyptian authorities
to witness the country's parliamentary polls for which our
institutes organized international delegation, with observers
from more than 19 countries. We have maintained a bank account,
and its staff members are legally employed and pay their taxes.
Our non-partisan programs have supported participation in
the very political process designed by Egyptian authorities and
approved in last year's national referendum. Since April we
have conducted some 700 training sessions from more than 13,000
participants across the country. And more details are included
in an attached statement, attachment document to my statement.
These programs have included the sharing of international
experiences on democratic transitions, working on political
party development with participants from parties that are now
represented in the new Parliament, and assisting civil society
groups conducting election monitoring, civic education, and
non-partisan border education.
Egypt Government has said repeatedly that the investigation
is being conducted by the country's independent judiciary and
cannot be influenced by the government, yet the actions to date
from the armed raids and the nature of the interrogations to
public pronouncements by Egyptian authorities have not
resembled a normal or fair judicial process.
While the motivations for the investigation remain unclear,
one issue may be a conflict over who controls U.S. foreign
assistance. The Egyptian view is that such assistance should be
used only for programs and groups sanctioned by the government.
By providing assistance more directly and widely to support
the aspirations of the Egyptian-led revolution, the U.S. has
sought to assist the emergence of a vibrant civil society and
political parties to help lay the foundation for a functioning
Egyptian democracy.
Since NDI's founding nearly 30 years ago, our staff members
have repeatedly overcome the challenges of working in difficult
and sometimes hostile environments. But the challenges we have
faced in Egypt are unprecedented, where many of our staff face
possible trial, fines, and a prison sentence.
We have also received many expressions of concern and
support from friends and partners inside Egypt. They want to
make sure our staff is safe, want to speak on our behalf, ask
what else they can do to defend us. We also care deeply for
their safety and their ability to contribute freely to Egypt's
democratic process.
I would like to thank the many Members of Congress,
including those on this committee and officials in the
administration who have worked tirelessly to help resolve the
current crisis. We also appreciate those on the Egyptian side
who would also want to diffuse tensions over these issues.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wollack follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kramer.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID J. KRAMER, PRESIDENT, FREEDOM
HOUSE
Mr. Kramer. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Berman, members of
the committee, thank you very much for holding today's hearing.
I know for a fact that there are many Egyptians watching this
hearing today, and the concern and interest that you are
showing is extremely important. I appreciate that.
What happened on December 29 constituted an unprecedented
assault by Egyptian security forces and government agencies on
international civil society organizations and our local
counterparts. Not even under Hosni Mubarak did we and our
partners face such attacks. Nowhere else in the world have any
of our offices been treated the way they have been and continue
to be, as they are right now in Egypt.
Our organizations and staffs of course are the ones in the
headlines these days, but we can't forget that there are
hundreds of Egyptian organizations that are facing similar
pressure and charges, but have no Americans or foreigners on
their payroll. Some 400 Egyptian organizations have been under
investigation and face relentless pressure from the government.
And in seeking a resolution to the current stalemate, it is
critically important that we not forget about those many
Egyptians and their organizations that are facing similar
harassment, persecution, and pressure from the government.
I, too, as many of you have said, am endlessly impressed by
the determination and commitment and courage of our Egyptian
staff members under extraordinarily adverse conditions, and
want to support their country's transition to democratic rule
and the fight against these spurious charges.
Let me state clearly that we do not view this situation as
a legal matter involving rule of law, nor do 29 Egyptian
organizations who issued a statement yesterday in Cairo. And if
I may, I would like to refer to it. They refer to this whole
harassment against human rights organizations as politically
motivated.
They talk about the raids that were conducted as a crime
for which the law was sacrificed. They talk about even before
the trial has begun, the Ministry of Justice, other government
parties, and the two investigating judges have been conducting
a one-sided trial in the media for the last 5 months, making
vague accusations against groups and persons via press leaks,
with the goal of smearing civil society, especially human
rights organizations, and painting them as collaborators with
foreign agendas and conspirators against the country's
stability.
These organizations say that this is a flagrant violation
of the law and investigation rules which require investigators
and others connected to the case to maintain the
confidentiality of the proceedings and findings.
They go on to say, of the lies told by the government,
perhaps the biggest is the claim that the funding of human
rights groups is political, similar to funding given to
political parties during elections in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Yet as is all well known, rights organizations do not support
one political party over another.
During elections or at any other time, their activities in
this field are limited to raising citizens' awareness of the
political rights without discrimination based on political or
partisan affiliation, as well as monitoring elections to ensure
transparency, fairness, and freedom of parties in the process.
They conclude by saying the unethical conspiring against
Egyptian civil society is in no way a national objective or in
the national interest. Countries around the world advance by
emancipating civil society, not by suppressing it. Parliament
should make it a priority to achieve this goal by adopting NGO
law proposed by civil society organizations.
Madam Chair, we have been fully transparent with Egyptian
authorities about our activities. We have cooperated fully with
officials in the Egyptian Government, including when we
submitted our registration application 3 days before the raids
were conducted. We have made every effort to conduct our
activities in line with Egyptian law and in a transparent
manner.
We don't fund or support political parties or politicians.
Instead, we work to strengthen civil society and bolster human
rights activists. Freedom House and similar organizations are
in Egypt--and this is critically important--to respond to the
indigenous demand and interest for the kind of trading and
expertise that we provide.
If there were no local interest in what we do, we would not
be there. There are Egyptians and organizations that want to
benefit from the kind of support and training that Freedom
House and other organizations represented here today offer.
The main accuser, as has been mentioned, is the Minister
for Planning and International Cooperation--Faiza Abou el-Naga,
who is a holdover from the Mubarak days. But at the same time,
the Military Council has created an environment of distrust and
of attacks against so-called foreign hands, and they cannot be
absolved of responsibility in this current situation.
Each day that passes in which our offices remain closed
only makes the situation worse. We need to be allowed to
reopen. We need to get our confiscated equipment back. We need
to be allowed to register with no strings attached. And we need
to see a state campaign in the media brought to a halt, so that
people's lives are not put in danger. We cannot be given
special treatment--``we,'' American organizations--while
Egyptians are left to fend for themselves.
There are major implications for the United States. And let
me close by offering a few suggestions on a way forward,
because how we respond, as Lorne Craner said, will have an
impact not just on the situation in Egypt but elsewhere around
the world.
The United States cannot certify Egypt under the current
circumstances, and it seems to me that we need to take a strong
stand and make it clear to the Egyptian authorities that
certification is not possible, nor would a waiver be tenable.
It is, indeed, hard to understand how the United States could
provide taxpayer assistance to an Egyptian military leadership
that prevents NGOs from implementing democracy and human rights
projects supported by the same U.S. taxpayers.
Beyond that, as some have suggested, we should immediately
end any relationship with the Ministry for Planning and
International Cooperation. Minister Abou el-Naga has lost any
credibility to handle any assistance funds in a constructive or
an accountable manner and forfeited any right to oversee those
funds. Moreover, I would recommend an audit of the funds that
she has overseen, so that we can find out how those monies have
been spent.
Senior U.S. officials, including President Obama and on
down, as well as many Members of Congress, have weighed in with
authorities in Cairo, so far, unfortunately, without success.
That leads me to think that, unfortunately, we don't have an
option but to suspend military aid to the Egyptian authorities,
so that this current situation does not get worse.
In closing, let me just say that it has been very
heartening to see the response we have from people inside
Egypt, including from those who signed the statement that I
made mention of. We are there to help provide support to Egypt
to move in a democratic direction.
We, of course, cannot want this more than Egyptians do. But
I do want to say that it is Egyptians whom we want to support
that are moving in a democratic direction, and we have an
obligation to continue working with them as they strive for a
better future for their country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kramer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Ms. Barnathan.
STATEMENT OF MS. JOYCE BARNATHAN, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL
CENTER FOR JOURNALISTS
Ms. Barnathan. Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, Congressman Berman,
and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on our distressing situation in Egypt.
The International Center for Journalists runs programs in
Egypt--and around the world--that are aimed at accomplishing
two key goals--raising professional standards and skills.
Journalists, media managers, and, increasingly, citizen
journalists worldwide say they benefit from what we have to
offer, which is practical, hands-on journalism training. We aim
to marry the best professional standards with the latest
digital innovations.
ICFJ is a non-governmental and non-profit journalism
organization, no more, no less. We do not take political
positions. We do not fund political activities, including
protest movements, or support political parties or candidates
running for Parliament or the Presidency. Of course, the
journalists we train may cover such events.
We are not an advocacy group, except to advocate for good
journalism. For nearly three decades, we have helped
journalists provide accurate, contextual, responsible reports
whether on government, business, the arts, or health. We are
funded mainly through private funds, but we receive about a
third of our funding from the U.S. Government. We cherish our
integrity and maintain autonomy in every program. If there are
strings attached, we aren't interested.
Our view is that no matter who produces the news, or what
platform is used to disseminate it, journalists must uphold the
highest standards. And our role is increasingly important as
the players and channels for news multiply.
In this cacophony of information, we arm today's
journalists--both professional and citizen--with the skills
needed to provide responsible, ethical coverage, so that
citizens can make the best decisions in their lives. This is
the case in Egypt. This is the case everywhere we work.
For this reason, we are dismayed by recent events. We have
never faced charges like this anywhere--and we have worked in
180 countries. We have always been transparent with the
Egyptian Government about our activities. As recently as
November, we informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about all
our programs as part of the registration process. Last year,
our local lawyer told us that to get registered Egyptian law
required us to open an office and show activity, which we did.
Now we are faced with indictments that charge five
individuals--three Americans, who work in the U.S., and two
Egyptians--with opening an office and sending in funds without
being registered. The charges falsely claim that funds were
used for conducting political activities in a manner affecting
Egypt's sovereignty and national security.
We are especially concerned about the welfare of the two
Egyptians who work with us. Our recently hired, young program
officer, who simply does clerical work, is facing the most
serious charges of all. Both Egyptians are falsely accused of
accepting nearly $1 million from us. In fact, they received a
total of $74,000 to cover salaries, office rent, furniture, and
laptops.
The indictment against us says nothing specifically about
our programs. Right now, we have two U.S. Government-funded
programs in Egypt. One is an initiative to help citizen
journalists produce quality local news, and the other program
helps journalists throughout the region develop multimedia,
public-service reporting projects.
We are proud of our programs in Egypt. Journalists we have
mentored have produced award-winning stories on the
environment, health, and corruption. We have developed a guide
to the best practices for blogging and a handbook on how U.S.
and Arab journalists can improve coverage of one another's
society. The Egyptian Government has even officially registered
a National Association of Citizen Journalists that formed as a
result of our recent program.
In Egypt, we signed contracts with strong partners for all
our programs. These partners ranged from the state-run
newspaper, Al-Ahram, to Ahram Canadian University. The vast
majority of our trainers are highly regarded Arab journalists,
and we are very heartened by the strong support we have
received from many of the journalists we have worked with in
Egypt and beyond.
As always, we will refrain from engaging in politics over
this or any issue. We don't tell governments, political
parties, or candidates what to do in Egypt, the U.S., or
anywhere.
Of foremost concern is our staff in Egypt, while not
arrested, as you can imagine they are under tremendous duress.
We want to make sure that any resolution includes the most
vulnerable people on the ground, and we hope that a resolution
can be found as quickly as possible.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barnathan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Excellent
testimony. We thank each and every one of you for being here
today.
I wanted to ask you a few questions to anyone who would
care to answer. Was the crackdown initiated by one person
within the government? Is it now a state-sanctioned initiative
in your view?
Also, some excused the crackdown by saying it was
spearheaded by holdovers of the Mubarak regime. Do you agree?
And does this justify the crackdown?
And, lastly, yesterday the Muslim Brotherhood released a
statement praising the crackdown, stating that it supported
their nationalist position, and yet also stated that USAID
should continue to flow to Egypt unconditionally. What is your
reaction to this statement? Anyone who would care to make a
comment.
Mr. Kramer. Madam Chair, if I may, there is certainly--the
Ministry for Planning and International Cooperation, and the
Minister, Faiza Abou el-Naga, has certainly been the most
public face for the campaign against civil society.
There are various theories about whether the Military
Council knew about the raids. Most indications suggest they
were surprised, but there are clear indications that they were
able to end the raids on that day. They made a phone call to
the raiding party at one of our offices, and it put an end to
the raid, and, accordingly, NDI's office was not sealed. Our
offices were waxed and sealed.
To me that suggests that if the Military Council wishes to
flex its muscles in a positive way, and wishes to bring this
campaign and these investigations to an end, it can do so. So
far it has chosen not to do so.
Faiza Abou el-Naga has been front and center in a number of
press conferences and public statements. You have seen I think
the charges that have been leveled against us in which he makes
some pretty outlandish accusations. And as many Egyptians, as
well as we all believe, these charges don't stand up under
scrutiny.
So I do think that there is one person who has certainly
been the most public about this, but this isn't about one
person. This is about a more concerted campaign against civil
society that is either being condoned by or allowed by the
military leadership to take place, and it is not healthy for
Egypt, as many civil society organizations have made clear.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Lorne?
Mr. Craner. I think we can safely said that Faiza Abou el-
Naga started this, but I think it has gotten out of control
since then. I think she has managed to whip up nationalism. And
with her lies about our activities, she has managed to convince
some in the military that we were doing nefarious things. I
don't think, obviously, that the Brotherhood's buying into this
is at all helpful.
I did want to just quote. We have an unofficial
translation. You ought to ask the State Department for the
official. But from the Government of Egypt, Ministry of
Justice, Office of the Investigating Judge, list of prosecution
evidence.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We shall do so.
Mr. Craner. This is Faiza Abou el-Naga talking. She is
talking about promoting democracy. ``Such issues have always
been linked to Israeli interest, since the U.S.A. has been and
is still managing Egyptian-American relations to satisfy
Israeli interests in the area.'' And then, she goes on to talk
about funding for democracy-building. She said, ``The U.S.
could pedal the fact that direct funding was given to American-
Egyptian civil society organizations,'' et cetera, et cetera,
``to improve its relations with the U.S. Congress, Jewish
lobbyists, and American public opinion.''
She continues: ``The U.S.A. employed all of its capacities
to contain the developments in Egypt and steer them toward
serving U.S. and Israeli interests for the purpose of thwarting
the historical chance for Egypt and the Egyptian people by
creating chaos in order to give time to international and
regional anti-Egyptian powers to allow for rearrangement with
post-revolution Egypt,'' including, by the way, we are
apparently guilty of inciting religious tensions between
Muslims and Copts. So you get a sense of her rational.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Lorne, let me just go to
Mr. Wollack a second.
Mr. Wollack. I would say, too, when you look at the
judicial proceedings thus far, which began with a number of
interrogations before the raid on December 29, when they came
in with AK-47 rifles, they huddled everybody in one room for
about 6 hours, they refused to issue warrants, they refused to
identify themselves, and they refused to take inventory for the
equipment, the cash, and the documents that they seized.
It was sadly ironic that the cash that was removed from the
Cairo office was to support the international observer
delegation that was arriving the next day.
Then, when you go into looking at the questions that were
asked during the interrogations, many of these were highly
political questions. They had very little to do with legal
issues--questions to the effect that, do you realize, based on
the charges by government officials, including the Minister,
that you are depriving the poor of Egypt of development
assistance through your programs?
And then, when we look at the press conferences that have
been held, the individuals that have been charged have not
received officially yet any charging documents, and yet press
conferences have been held, ``evidence'' has been revealed. I
put ``evidence'' in quotes. And the press has been given a
great deal of information and inflammatory accusations and
false accusations.
So when one looks at an impartial and fair judicial
process, this has been anything but, up until this point.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Thank you for
those questions.
Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Just a few--get the specifics of the current
situation. No indictments have yet issued, either Americans or
Egyptian nationals or third country people. Is that correct?
Mr. Kramer. As far as we know, that is correct.
Mr. Berman. Right. But none have been served or publicized
at this point.
Mr. Kramer. Sorry. Not formally, but through press leaks.
Mr. Berman. A statement of intention to indict is pretty
clear.
Mr. Kramer. Exactly right.
Mr. Berman. Yes. What is the current status of your offices
and other facilities in Egypt? Are all your facilities closed?
What percentage of your U.S., Egyptian, and third country staff
have not been indicted but are facing these criminal charges?
Can you----
Ms. Barnathan. Our office remains closed. We are not--and
we have two employees on the ground right now who are free to
operate, but, as I said, under tremendous duress.
Mr. Kramer. Congressman, our office also remains closed,
waxed, and sealed. Nothing has been returned that was
confiscated on December 29. We have five Egyptian staff on the
ground, four of whom have been mentioned as facing possible
charges. I am sorry. We also have three others. None of those
three is in Egypt. One is in Jordan, and two are here in the
United States.
Mr. Wollack. We have three offices in Egypt--one in Cairo,
the second in Alexandria, and the third in Assiut in upper
Egypt. The Assiut and the Alexandria offices were sealed. The
Cairo office, those who raided the office left before sealing
it, so people can come and go into the office, but the office
is not operating.
We have 15 people who have been charged--supposedly
charged, but it is an opaque process--including both local,
third country nationals, and Americans.
Mr. Craner. All of our offices remain sealed. We have 14
people who are being charged--10 are foreign and 4 are
Egyptian.
Mr. Berman. In my remaining two, 2\1/2\ minutes, could you
describe the kinds of things you think would constitute a
satisfactory solution, and in addition to what has been done up
until now, and the chairman scheduling this hearing, ways in
which Congress could be helpful? Actually, Mr. Kramer has made
a few suggestions on that issue.
But what would be, given where we are now, a satisfactory
solution in your mind?
Mr. Wollack. I would just make two points. First and
foremost, we care about the safety of our staff members--their
physical safety, the dangers of arrests, of a trial and
imprisonment. And so their personal safety is paramount, and
this includes the Americans, the third country nationals, as
well as the Egyptians.
And, second, we have in good faith resubmitted our
registration. We have been meeting frequently with the Foreign
Ministry, our lawyers, and our staff, and we are trying to
seek, again, something we began in 2005--to be legally
registered in Egypt.
And so, therefore, we are going through that process once
again, so hopefully we are working to try--and I think the
administration has been working to try--to maintain the safety
of the staff, and secondly to begin about a process that would
allow us to continue these non-partisan activities and
legitimate programs to support Egyptian efforts to sustain a
democratic system in the country.
Mr. Berman. Anything to add to that, Mr. Craner?
Mr. Craner. No, I would like my people to be able to leave,
and I would like to operate in Egypt without being hog-tied.
Mr. Kramer. Could I just add, dropping of all charges,
ending of all investigation? Not just against our four
organizations, but against all Egyptian organizations that have
this Sword of Damocles hanging over them, and allowing us to
operate in an unfeddered manner.
Thank you.
Mr. Berman. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Good questions,
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Smith, chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa.
Mr. Smith. Thanks very much, and thank you for your
extraordinary testimony on behalf of those that you care, and
we all care so deeply, for.
Let me just say at the outset, one of the conditions in the
foreign aid budget for this year is religious freedom. And both
sides of the aisle, we are all deeply concerned about minority
religions, especially and including the Coptic Christians.
I chaired a hearing in July, and we heard from Michele
Clark, who used to be the OSCE Director for Trafficking, who
has chronicled--and the protection project at Johns Hopkins,
who has chronicled, beyond any reasonable doubt, that thousands
of women, young teenagers, Coptic girls, are abducted and
forced into Islamic marriages. And I would call on the U.S.
administration to investigate this, all human rights-concerned
parties to do so. It is an absolute outrage.
Now, to the concerns that you have raised so ably today.
Let me just ask you, since your computers and contacts have
been confiscated, are there any reports of participants at
training sessions, for example, or the network of NGOs with
whom you have worked with being interrogated and arrested?
Secondly, do you have any information whatsoever as to whether
or not other people with whom you have networked with, to just
have free and fair elections, and do election monitoring, have
been tortured or degraded or treated cruelly, as would be
defined in the Torture Convention?
As you know, Egypt is a signatory to the Torture
Convention. My hope is that that expert treaty body will be
very vigilant, hopefully sending one of its representatives to
investigate. Has the Human Rights Council done anything? Has it
been raised at the Human Rights Council?
All of your individual members who have been arrested,
coupled with others who you work with, indigenous Egyptians?
And has the Security Council done anything either? Have we in
the United States, or any of the members of the Security
Council, raised this issue?
It seems to me that with the Arab League and others, the
OIC having such influence, particularly on the Human Rights
Council, that would be a very, very important place. If it has
not been raised, it ought to be raised immediately on behalf of
your personnel and those with whom you have worked so well
with.
Mr. Craner. Sir, we are very, very careful with our lists
of trainees, and so I don't think that very much was recovered
in that raid in terms of the contacts we had had over the
years. I do know the people who work with us have been
questioned, but I cannot tell you they have been tortured. And
no, as far as I know, this has not been raised in any U.N.
organ.
Mr. Smith. Would you call on the administration to do so?
Mr. Craner. I think every effort that can be exerted would
be helpful.
Mr. Wollack. I think throughout the interrogations people
were treated well, although the interrogations went on for
many, many hours, and oftentimes employees were called back for
a second and third round of interrogations.
What was most disturbing was not the treatment of people,
because they were treated well, but it was the questions that
were being asked--that these employees somehow were being
charged with undermining the sovereignty of the country,
charged with depriving the poor of Egypt of needed development
assistance.
So it was the types of questions that were being asked that
were not particularly relevant to a fair and normal legal
proceeding, but they were treated quite well.
Mr. Smith. Was there any difference between how U.S. and
international personnel were interrogated and locals?
Mr. Wollack. No.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Mr. Kramer. Congressman Smith, on your point about
religious freedom, which I think is critically important, civil
society, as you know, can play a very important role in trying
to prevent conflict between different religious or ethnic
groups. And the smothering of civil society is only bound to
stir up religious conflict in Egypt, or anywhere else for that
matter.
Our partners, I, too, am not aware of any who have been
tortured. The questioning hasn't been the friendliest, though.
And when reminders are dropped pretty regularly that the people
being interrogated could be in jail doesn't create a very
hospitable environment. I, too, am not aware that the HRC or
the U.N. has taken this up.
I agree that this would be a very appropriate issue for the
Human Rights Council. The Security Council, I can't imagine,
would ever take this up. The Russians and the Chinese would not
allow it.
But there is also another mechanism that Freedom House is
part of, which is the embattled NGO Fund, or the Lifeline Fund,
where there are 13 governments that provide funding. That is
also supposed to be an advocacy effort as well, and this is
something I think that is prime for the NGO Fund to take on.
Thank you.
Ms. Barnathan. The people affected are the two individuals
that I mentioned earlier, and that seems to be the scope of the
interrogation. As far as we know, none of our participants have
been interrogated or involved in this.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Ackerman is recognized.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you. I am trying to look at the bigger
picture, the implications of our relationship and U.S. foreign
policy and our successes and failures. In the general scheme of
things, with the size of our relationship with Egypt, you are
but a very tiny, tiny, tiny piece.
But I was thinking, if you take a little 10-foot roadblock
on a 1,000-mile highway, and look at it from a birds-eye view,
it is really a small piece, but it is a heck of a showstopper.
That is what we are looking at here.
I am trying to understand the implications of, with all of
the aid and assistance that we have provided, with all of the
help that we have given, why is our image so bad? We used to
have a joke in part of my community that went something like
``Israel is the only country in the world that likes us,
despite the fact that we give them money.''
You know, I mean, even Scrooge, Ebenezer Scrooge, looked a
lot more friendly when he was helping, you know, Bob Cratchit.
You know, why aren't we looking any better to the people in
Egypt? And I think as politicians we understand what is
happening here with one political player and others falling in
line trying to throw red meat to the crowd that has a
predisposition not to be fond of us, and everybody is trying to
get to the right or left, depending on your perspective of each
other, and falling in line and feeding into this thing.
And then, I started to think about it as I was thinking
about it, and I said to myself, ``This is happening almost all
over the world.'' We had a big relationship with a lot of
countries, financial relationship, including Iran at one point,
including a lot of other countries, especially with Egypt,
which gets a lot of our largesse.
Why is not the good collateral happening? A lot of good
stuff is happening. A lot of important stuff has happened. We
have gotten a lot for our investment. But why aren't we liked
at the same time? And I think part of the answer is the people
in those countries aren't the beneficiaries of our largesse.
And, ironically, they are the direct beneficiaries of what you
are trying to do with your tiny budgets compared to the
billions of dollars that we have given.
We have given so much money to the military, but the
military is seen as the Mubarak regime that has been the
oppressor. You know, gosh, why didn't we see that before? The
people don't like us because we are propping up a regime. The
people in Iran, my God, why are we surprised that we were
shocked when we are in business with the Shah and he was
overthrown? We were his ally.
So it is a natural thing to look at it--to how can we do a
better job with our help? It is not that we were buying off the
military and should have been buying off somebody else. We have
had a good, important relationship that has helped to fight
terrorism, preserve the peace in an important part of the
world, and benefitted us tremendously in so many ways.
Maybe if we reverse the budget and how much we spent where,
the people would have a direct understanding of what we are
trying to do. You are the good guys. We have been propping up
somebody that they didn't like, and yet you are taking the
brunt of it because you are the point of the spear representing
us in the eyes and minds of the street. How do we fix that?
Mr. Kramer. Congressman Ackerman, both the Bush
administration and the Obama administration have acknowledged
that the policy pursued by the United States for decades in the
Middle East--not just in Egypt--where we counted on
authoritarian regimes without looking at human rights issues or
promotion of democracy, actually wound up hurting us. It hurt
our interest, it hurt our reputation, it hurt our standing in
the region.
I was in Cairo in December 2010, so right before the
revolution happened. I was struck by the level of frustration
among Egyptians, both toward the Mubarak regime but also toward
the United States. Then, when the uprising occurred, I was
equally struck that the United States had nothing to do with
it. What happened in Egypt and in Cairo was not about the
United States. It also wasn't about Israel, by the way. It was
about Egypt and the way that the Mubarak government had treated
its own people.
What has happened since then is you rightly pointed out
that the assistance we provided did not go to the people of
Egypt. It went to a small group that benefitted. And for some
very good legitimate reasons. I am not suggesting that it was
wasted money, but to the average Egyptian it didn't have any
impact.
What we are seeing now is certain Egyptian politicians
playing the anti-American card. And as you rightly point out,
this is not unique to Egypt. We are seeing this in Russia with
Vladimir Putin playing the anti-American card as he leads up to
the March 4 election there.
This is a problem, and we do need to push back on it, I
would say, aggressively and not let it stand, because if we do
then certain regimes view that as weakness on our part. And we
also leave in danger people on the ground with whom we work and
with whom we try to support.
Mr. Ackerman. It seems that the world's super power also
bears the burden of being the world's super scapegoat. And we
have been puzzled by that, and I think we should be aware that
there is an inadequacy on our part. I mean, I think, you know,
if we look at the words of the Scottish poet Robert Burns, who
said in a very beautiful stanza, ``O would a gift the giftie
gie us to see ourselves as others see us.''
We don't understand why people are viewing us in this way
while we are trying to do the best thing that we see possible
and maybe we are not.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Burton, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and
Eurasia, is recognized.
Mr. Burton. First of all, I appreciate all of the hard work
that you folks do. My questions deal with the religious
intolerance that is taking place. I started reading through my
notes here, and the elections that took place recently, the
Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood, won a great
many seats. And the Salafist Party won a number of seats. And
so the majority of the Parliament that has been elected is the
Muslim Brotherhood or those who have a more radical view of
Islam.
And as a result, they are committed, from everything I have
seen, to Sharia law. And the Coptic Christians in Egypt have
suffered greatly over the past several years, and I have got
example after example after example where they have blow up
churches, killed or injured a couple hundred people, burned
their houses, cut off a fellow's ear because of something that
he said or did, just a whole host of things. And they are too
numerous for me to go into right now.
And I guess my concern is, under Mubarak and prior to that,
we had the Camp David Accords where there was peace between
Egypt and Israel and some stability in that part of the world.
Now we have more radical elements who believe in Sharia law
that are obviously at some point in the future going to take
over that government, in my opinion.
And I am concerned about what that portends for the future.
There are between 8 and 12 million Coptic Christians and other
minorities in Egypt, and I just wonder, is this kind of
religious persecution going to continue? Is there any chance
that the new government will be more tolerant? And you can also
talk about the Camp David Accords, whether or not those will be
supported, and whether there will be peace between Israel and
Egypt in the future with the new government.
Now, I know these are questions that you probably normally
don't deal with, because you deal with other things regarding
democracy. But the thing that concerns me about democracy here
is we got rid of a bad guy in Mubarak. We really don't know
what we have got yet because of the elections and because they
are moving toward Sharia law.
And I would just like to get your assessment on what the
situation is now and what it looks like in the future, any one
of you.
Mr. Wollack. Could I, if I could, Congressman, offer a
little more hopeful view of the situation.
Mr. Burton. I am always looking for hope.
Mr. Wollack. And I think if one looked at the political
constellation that exists in the Parliament, I think there is
room for hope. The last Parliamentary elections were in 2010,
November 2010, in which the ruling party, the NDP, virtually
swept the Parliament in a fatally flawed election process that
did not reflect the will of the people.
Today you have a Parliament of which 30 percent of the
popular vote went to so-called liberal secular political
parties, that today have 100 seats in a nearly 500-seat
assembly. And if somebody would have said that those political
parties between the Islamist parties and the NDP would secure
30 percent of the popular vote, and 100 seats in a 498-seat
assembly, in 2010, that would have been seen as a revolution.
Secondly, I think the Freedom and Justice Party is not made
up solely of Muslim Brotherhood adherence. There is a
percentage that joined that coalition that does not necessarily
adhere to the Muslim Brotherhood.
And, third, the Brotherhood and the Freedom and Justice
Party have sought to seek coalitions with many of those other
political parties. So I think that there are real opportunities
when it comes to issues where coalitions have to be formed
between the Freedom and Justice Party and many of the other
more liberal secular parties--that there will be grounds for
cooperation. And certainly that is what the Brotherhood has
been saying.
Mr. Burton. You don't anticipate that government will be
moving toward Sharia law and that there will be more radical
approaches to governance.
Mr. Wollack. Well, I think that ultimately in a more open,
democratic process, people--parties want to be reelected. And
ultimately they will try to pursue policies that the majority
of the people want.
Mr. Burton. I know my time has expired, but that really
didn't answer my question. I just wanted to get your
assessment. Do you think that the future Governments of Egypt
will be governed by those who support and want Sharia law?
Mr. Wollack. Not necessarily, because of coalitions that
have to be formed.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Thanks.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I do want
to thank our witnesses for their testimony this morning.
I want to follow up on the--I thought it was a very
insightful observation by my colleague, Congressman Ackerman,
with his understanding also of the situation. It seems to me
that, if I read the supplements of the information here, that
this Military Council is in coalition with the Islamic
political parties. And I have a list here of 26 political
parties. All had representation at this 500-member Parliament.
We can't even get--you know, we make sure that there are
only two political parties in our system. We make it so
difficult that to allow a third party, even in our Presidential
elections, there is still a question about whether there is
validity that we should have a third party candidate running
into this.
But we have 26 political parties involved here, and I
happen to agree that the--I think the NGOs have become pawns as
Egypt struggles to find its soul. Now, what I mean by ``soul''
is that after 30 years of Mubarak's authoritarian rule, I think
we have to understand or appreciate the perception I think
among many different factions within Egyptian society.
The so-called elections, as you all know, Mubarak has held
for the last 30 years, is a sham. A hundred percent of the
people vote for him because there was only one candidate for
President. I think we all understand that. And then, for 30
years, our country has given the aid supposedly to help the
Egyptian people. And if I am correct, actually all of these
billions and billions of dollars that we keep giving to the
Egyptian Government actually went to the benefit of Mubarak and
his family and his close friends and associates.
At the same time, we have also established a very close
working relationship with Egypt's military structure, to the
extent that we trained them, we provided them with all of the
equipment and everything that was necessary, and this very
close relationship.
At the same time, for 30 years, there is now--what
happened, Twitter comes along. And because of the high
unemployment, as I understand it, was the cause that gave rise
to the Arab Spring situation in Egypt, the fact of the high
unemployment.
Correct me if I am wrong on this, in what I have read in
the observation here, but I also note here the supplement
saying that both groups--and I assume this is the coalition
between the Military Council and the 26 political Islamic
parties--both groups oppose Western concepts of democracy. And
you come along and here the situation is, ah, they are all pro-
Western, pro-American, and in every way or form.
What about understanding and appreciating these Egyptian
people who have been ruled so terribly by Mubarak for the last
30 years? It seems that this is part of the frustration, as I
would sense, why we are having this situation now, as we are
faced with in Egypt.
And I would--please, if any of you care to comment, if my
observation has been totally inaccurate and tying along with
what my friend from New York has just shared with us, the big
picture. And as you have said, yes, the NGOs and involvement is
actually a very small part, and actually going into the real
heart of the matter that we are discussing this morning.
Mr. Kramer. Sir, if I may, military groups and
organizations aren't very good at running countries, and the
sooner Egypt turns power over to a citizen government,
accountable government, representative government, the better I
think things will be. That is number one.
Number two, I don't particularly care whether the Egyptians
move toward a Western model of democracy. My interest is that
they respect the fundamental elements of democracy that are
universal in nature, that aren't necessarily Western.
And those include freedom of expression, freedom of
association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom
of the press, independent institutions, rule of law. Those are
the elements that I think we need to see develop. Whether it is
based on a Western model or any other model, those are
fundamental in nature in the universal declaration of human
rights. And I think that is the criteria that we need to judge
Egypt's development as it hopefully moves in a more democratic
direction.
When Mubarak was there, there was no hope or possibility
for Egypt to move in a democratic direction. The same was true
with Ben Ali in Tunisia, with Qaddafi in Libya. The same is
true----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I am sorry, because my time is
running, but this is----
Mr. Kramer. I am sorry.
Mr. Faleomavaega [continuing]. This is also what was noted
by Congressman Ackerman's earlier statement. It is part of our
legacy of the Cold War efforts that we made that we actually
went and supported these dictators, including the Shah of Iran.
We didn't care about democracy, as long as they were pro-
Western. At the height of the Cold War, you are either with us
or you are with the Soviet Union Bloc. I mean, that was
basically what was going on.
And I think this is also what happened as part of the
situation among the Arab countries. And I think my time is up.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you for your extraordinary leadership of this committee.
And it is, again, exciting for me personally that all four of
you are here. Because of my experience, particularly working
with IRI, I know this can be so mutually beneficial for where
you are hosted by encouraging people around the world to become
involved in the democratic process, to learn other cultures.
It has been so exciting for me out at my visits with IRI to
Bulgaria and Slovakia that I have had a number of students, I
have had mayors, I have had government officials, visit here in
Washington, visit my home state of South Carolina. I have had
the opportunity to visit a number of times, back in Bratislava
also, and Sofia and Brno.
It is just extraordinary what you do and the opportunities
you provide, and of course to see it evolve from the Cold War
of the Warsaw Pact to now, countries that are significant and
very important allies of the United States and friends. And
that is why it is so disappointing to me that there has been
these detentions. Of all things, whether it be NDI or IRI, just
know that what is being done is positive for the people of
Egypt.
And so the question I would have for each of you, have any
of your employees been detained in similar manner in other
countries where your organizations exist? And we will begin
with Ms. Barnathan.
Ms. Barnathan. No.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Wow.
Mr. Kramer. No.
Mr. Wollack. There have been instances in one country in
Eurasia and one country in Southern Africa. A local employee of
ours was imprisoned in the Eurasian country for working with
civil society organizations and served for 6 months. And in
southern Africa, an employee, for helping civic organizations
verify the official results through what is called a parallel
vote tabulation, was detained for nearly a week and
interrogated. Those were the only two incidences before this,
but that certainly was not on the scale of what is happening in
Egypt.
Mr. Craner. No, never had an office raided over 30 years,
never had people hauled in for questioning like this, never had
people on a no fly list, and never had people charged for a
trial.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. And that is startling
information you have just provided, how tragically unique this
is. For each of you, what kind of messages would be sent within
Egypt and abroad if persecution of domestic and foreign NGOs
continue?
Mr. Craner. If it continues without any consequence, it is
open season, I think, on all of our organizations in places
like China and Russia and Ukraine and Zimbabwe and Venezuela,
and many other places around the world, on those who advocate
for democracy.
Mr. Kramer. Can I just add, folks elsewhere around--or
governments elsewhere around the world are watching this very
closely. And they are wondering if Egypt, a country that gets
such a significant amount of money, assistance from the United
States, can get away with this kind of behavior and treatment,
then I am sure they are calculating they can, too. And so how
we respond to this is critically important.
Ms. Barnathan. All I can say is right now it clearly has a
chilling effect.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. And those of us in Congress
also have a personal interest in that it is the son of our
former colleague Ray LaHood, who so many of us have such a high
regard for, and I just know the LaHood family has only the best
interest for the people of Egypt. I can't imagine.
Mr. Kramer, your written testimony discusses the fact that
the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces aimed their oppressive
tactics toward the most liberal political forces in civil
society. Can you discuss which of those tactics have affected
the party's ability to participate successfully in the
electoral process?
Mr. Kramer. Sure. There have been restrictions imposed on
the more liberal-minded candidates for the parliamentary
elections or who might even be thinking about running for the
Presidential election coming up. And what worries me is that we
have seen a situation where the Military Council has
neutralized the more liberal moderate parties, leaving what I
would argue is a false choice between them, the military,
representing stability and security, versus the more extremist
parties.
And I don't think we should--we should try to avoid falling
into a trap that that is the only future that Egypt holds. So
there has been--the pressure has been applied much more
strongly against the more liberal-minded parties.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. And as you conclude, that is
sad, too, because the military has a reputation, and the people
who serve in the military, a reputation of being professionals.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Oh, sorry. Let us give the gentleman
an opportunity.
Mr. Connolly. I would yield, certainly.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Wollack. I would just like to make one comment with
regard to your question, Congressman. And undoubtedly there
could be negative consequences in a number of countries. But,
again, something Lorne said earlier, we have received an
outpouring of support from government officials, political
party leaders, civic activists, all around the world.
And one such endorsement came from a very interesting
source. A government that has not always been receptive to
outside assistance sent a letter to me 2 weeks ago noting NDI's
excellent reputation and rich experience in the field of
election monitoring and the promotion of democracy, and invited
us to observe their upcoming elections.
So in some places people have rallied around the work of
our organizations, and so we are seeing sort of a mixed
reaction to what has taken place.
Mr. Berman. Was that Venezuela?
Mr. Wollack. No.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Thank you very much. So
Mr. Connolly is now recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And, again,
welcome to our panel. Let me ask Mr. Wollack and Mr. Craner
first, I said in my brief opening remarks somebody made a
decision consciously to do this. This was not an accident. They
didn't stumble into it.
And I would be interested in your views, having been, both
of you, representing organizations that have been in Egypt for
awhile, I would assume, why? What is going on here? Is this
purely domestic politics in Egypt? Mr. Craner?
Mr. Craner. Every Egypt analyst I talk to has a different
answer. I think there is a couple of things going on here. I
think there was an amount of money withdrawn from Faiza Abou
el-Naga's check that she had gotten annually for 10 years with
very little oversight. That was given to us and NDI in 2003. It
was put back into her account in 2009. And then, with the
elections coming up, it was taken back out of her account. So I
think that is one of the issues she is having.
I don't want to personify this, but clearly she is a ring
leader. But I think it has gone way beyond her, and now you
have--the military will not fix this, the Brotherhood has
expressed support for her, so now it has become a much bigger
problem. But I do think she started it in the beginning, and I
read earlier some of her statements to the judge about her
outlook on the world.
I have to question, given the chairman's thought about
withdrawing money from any ministry she heads, if this is the
kind of person you want receiving hundreds of millions of U.S.
taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Wollack?
Mr. Wollack. I have to believe that it began over this
notion of who controls U.S. assistance. And I think that for
the 6 years in which we had been operating in Cairo, carrying
out programs, communicating with the Egyptian authorities,
including state security which we would meet periodically,
nobody ever said, ``What you are doing is wrong.'' What they
said was, ``The approval of your registration application is
forthcoming, it is pending, it will happen soon.''
The only criticism we had received last year was in a
meeting with the Egyptian authorities in which they said we are
to tell you that you are not supposed to work so hard, but you
are doing important work. And so there were many friends in the
Government of Egypt who knew what we were doing.
Our institute submitted written documents to them detailing
all of the activities and all of the programs that we are
conducting, demonstrating that these were non-partisan
activities, and, ironically, supporting the very process that
they had designed.
I think, however, because of the sums that were probably
larger than they were in the previous years, that this notion
of who controlled U.S. money going into the country reached a
level in which some people in the government felt that they had
to intervene to establish their control.
Mr. Connolly. It reminds of the expression, you know, when
they say it is not about the money, it is always about the
money.
If I can ask one more question of you to in particular, and
I wish I had more time to engage the other members of the
panel, and maybe they would like to comment. But pivoting to a
more political science question, particularly for you two, one
of the concerns sometimes about U.S. foreign policy is that we
align with a particular strong leader for various reasons.
Let us take the Shah of Iran. He was going to be our
surrogate in the Persian Gulf. He was going to be a stalwart
against Soviet encroachment. And, yes, we had to turn a blind
eye to certain civil liberty niceties, but, you know--but, as a
result, we acquiesced in turning--no new political space
created, and what happens after him.
And it looks like here we are again in Egypt, post-Mubarak,
critical for Camp David, critical for Middle East peace
process, critical ally, military alliance, and so forth, but
post-Mubarak we now face this chaotic space, because we didn't
sort of tend to the store a little more carefully, delicate
though that is.
Just wondering from your respective vantage points, how far
is that critique?
Mr. Craner. Extremely fair. I think in a sense history
repeated itself. In Egypt, I think the government decided to go
after the more liberal middle, and then they were able to say
to us, ``Look who is coming, if not me.'' We weren't able to
work as we would have liked to have done with that middle, and
this is what you see.
I think the question moving forward is, are we going to be
able to do that? And are there going to be future fair
elections in Egypt where those people can compete?
Mr. Wollack. I think that there was a time where U.S.
policy pursued the issues the way you describe them,
Congressman. I think that there were two important events,
though, that took place. The first was the snap elections in
the Philippines in 1986, and then the presidential plebiscite
in Chile in 1988.
And there I think a realization came about that the two
extremes--Marcos and the Communist insurgencies, Pinochet and
the Communist insurgency in Chile--had a symbiotic
relationship, and they both needed each other and they drew
strength from each other. And the democratic middle, from
conservative to left, were squeezed out in that process.
But once the political system opened, and allowed for that
broad democratic center to emerge, it provided some hope for
stability for the people of those countries. And so, therefore,
the notion that an authoritarian ruler provided stability is
short sighted. They always provide stability until stability
ends. And those two events, I think, changed a lot of minds--
that there was something in the middle between these two
extremes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it very
much. Thanks for calling this very important hearing, and I
want to thank, of course, the presenters for doing an
outstanding job. Thank you for your public service. And also,
we have a better appreciation of your staffs, what they do
around the world to make the world a better place, the risks
that they take. So please thank them for me.
The crisis in Egypt has hit home with me because my former
communications director, John Tomaszewski, is over there. He is
one of the 16 Americans. I am outraged and have spoken to the
Ambassador about this, at least a couple times, expressing my
alarm. So I do have a couple questions.
Please tell me what you think we can do to not only protect
these staffers but enhance the ability of the NGOs to operate
freely and safely. What can we do to ensure that their
activities will not be constrained by the current or
transitional government? For the entire panel.
Mr. Craner. I have said a couple of times, if the Egyptians
are able to do this without consequence, clearly that is going
to be bad for my staff, including JT. And it is not going to be
good for my programming.
I am not going to talk about cutting off military and all
that, but I do--again, I do like the chairman's idea of
redirecting assistance, should we continue it; and, secondly, I
would add auditing what has already gone through would be
viewed in Egypt as a price they are paying.
Mr. Bilirakis. Please.
Mr. Kramer. Congressman, I mentioned earlier we need to
have these investigations closed down. We need to have the
charges dropped, even though they haven't been formally leveled
against us. We need to be allowed to register without any
strings attached.
And we need to be able to engage with Egyptians who want to
engage with us. That is why we are there--because there is
local interest and demand for the kind of support, training,
and advice that we provide, so that none of them worries that
they might wind up in jail because they are associated with us.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Thank you. Next question, I have
spoken out, again, about the plight of the Coptic Christians
and the heightened persecution that they have been facing. Can
you say specifically if your groups were working to help the
plight of the Coptics? If so, do you believe you were targeted
because of your assistance?
Mr. Wollack. We were not involved in those programs, but
there is an interesting anecdote about this. One of the pieces
of evidence that has been released is that--and this does not
have to do with any of these groups--that photographs were
taken of churches and mosques, and so this was evidence that
somebody was trying to divide the country between Muslims and
Christians.
In fact, the pictures that they referred to were pictures
from another organization that used them in their religious
tolerance programs in the country, showing that there is a long
history in Egypt of religious tolerance. They show slides of
churches and mosques that are located nearby. That was the
purpose of those pictures, and yet in the release of the
evidence they tried to portray them in some nefarious manner.
Also, maps have been released claiming that we have divided
the country in different parts, when in fact those maps were
the electoral maps showing the three stages of the Egyptian
election process. And these were not maps that were produced by
our organizations. These were maps that were produced by the
High Election Commission.
Mr. Bilirakis. Anyone else? Please.
Mr. Kramer. I don't think we were targeted because of any
work we do with the Coptic community. But certainly civil
society can play a critical role in trying to facilitate
dialogue between the Muslim community and the Coptic community.
And whether our organizations do that directly or not,
civil society in Egypt, there are a number of organizations who
are focused on trying to promote better understanding and
better dialogue, so that we don't see the kind of outbreak of
violence that we saw last fall.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Mr. Craner. Well, I don't think like David that we were
targeted because of the work we do, because of work we would
have done with Copts, but I do think we are getting blamed in
part for religious strife in Egypt, ironically.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, please.
Ms. Barnathan. Similarly, I don't think that is an issue
that we deal with. We are a journalism training group. I can
say that we have a wide variety of participants who are in our
programs, but this is--we have nothing to do with that issue in
particular.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Well, thank you very much, and I yield
back, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Sherman, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade.
Mr. Sherman. Just about all of the mainstream questions
have been asked, so I am going to go a bit outside the
mainstream and focus on, why are we giving aid to Egypt,
particularly to the Egyptian military?
Now, it is said that this is some sort of obligation of the
United States out of Camp David, but I believe you gentlemen
are as dedicated to the rule of law in the United States as you
are to the rule of law abroad. Are any of you aware of any
treaty ratified by the Senate that commits us to spend over $1
billion a year in aid to the Egyptian military? I assume there
is not.
And so the Egyptians may believe that somehow they have a
right, never existed under U.S. law, to tax the people in my
district, and others, for the benefit of their military. Even
if that were true, it may have been terminated by this latest
outrage.
The Egyptian army is not always a force for good in the
world. Does anybody have a comment on what would happen if it
received, say, about $1.3 billion less from the United States?
Mr. Craner? I realize you focus here on democracy, and the rule
of law, and there are other aspects to this as well.
Mr. Craner. I think one of the things we need to recognize
is we had a partner in Egypt, and he is gone. And the
partnership was based, not unlike some--you know, as some
people have noted here, we have had with other countries.
So our policy was based on having that particular
partnership, and I think that using old templates to guide our
new relationship may not work for the very reasons Mr. Ackerman
cited. They have not earned us gratitude in Egypt, neither for
our military nor our civilian ESF assistance.
Mr. Sherman. Now, if we were to cut the military aid, is
money fungible and that cost would be spread over the entire
cost of the Egyptian Government? And would this pretty much be
a reduction in the resources available exclusively in the
military? Does anyone here have enough insight into the current
opaque Egyptian Government to see what the effect would be on
its various ministries?
Mr. Kramer. Congressman, the $1.3 billion, as I understand
it, constitutes about 25 percent of Egypt's military budget. So
it is a significant sum of money.
Mr. Sherman. Yes.
Mr. Kramer. I will be honest with you--and I am the one
perhaps who has been most vocal and outspoken about suspending
aid in light of the situation--I would not be issuing such a
call if there weren't this attack on civil society. I would say
that Egypt is critically important for what happens in the
region, in the Arab world, the relationship with Israel, and
for the United States.
We all--and this is why the charges against us are so
absurd--we want to see Egypt succeed. We want to see----
Mr. Sherman. I think we all want to see Egypt succeed. I
just don't know whether giving $1.3 billion to their military
enhances the chance of that success. The military's sole
actions over the last decade have been on the streets of Cairo
and other Egyptian cities, not always for good.
It is hard for me to identify what I want the Egyptian army
to be able to do that they need $1.3 billion of U.S. taxpayer
money to do. Does anybody else have a task, an idea, a reason
that a reduction in the capabilities of the Egyptian army would
be harmful?
Mr. Kramer. Well, I would just say I think one thing they
could do, and hopefully they will move in this direction, which
is getting out of the business of running the country.
Militaries aren't good at running countries, and the Egyptian
military----
Mr. Sherman. I am not at all sure that the $1.3 billion
pushes them in the right or the wrong direction on that,
although you could say that they run economic enterprises for
the purpose not only of lining their own pockets perhaps but
also of taking care of the military.
So I would hate to think that we are giving them $1.3
billion because otherwise they would go get it from corruption.
But other than that, I haven't heard anybody in the room come
up with a reason why that $1.3 billion is helping the United
States.
I yield back. But I think this takes a lot more thought
than what we can give it in 5 minutes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Sherman.
Excellent question.
Mr. Royce, chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation, and Trade.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much for holding
this hearing. I want to ask a question of Mr. Craner.
We often hear the leaders of the Brotherhood movement in
Egypt argue that they are no different than the ruling party,
the AKP, in Turkey. But Turkey is a far different country than
Egypt. We had a columnist last week point out that the AKP
inherited a situation where Western reforms had been instituted
in the 1920s in Turkey, and we are going to see I guess how
much longer those reforms last in Turkey.
But, you have a situation there where the military and the
press and the judiciary have been checks against the more
radical Islamist leanings of the AKP. And in the Arab world you
have a situation where these checks and balances are largely
absent.
And so you don't have those balances; you don't have the
prerequisites for engendering economic success and economic
growth. And without those checks, and without a stronger civil
society, the question is, will we be in a situation where we
see Islamist parties make certain argument to the voters about
their intentions? But then, once they are in government, see
them sort of morph into the type of governance that we have
seen in Gaza, or the types of governing that we have seen in
Iran? Is there that risk? Let me just get your perspective on
it.
Mr. Craner. I think you listed a couple of reasons why the
Islamist government in Turkey has governed relatively well,
though you also noted some of the freedoms they have cut back
on. One thing you didn't mention that I also think was
important was the magnet of the EU, and that especially over
the last 10 years a lot of their laws and practices have been
changed out of a desire to get into the EU.
You do not find that in Egypt. You don't find any of the
things you were talking about about their founding, about the
original ideas behind how the country would be ruled. And you
certainly don't find an EU for the Egyptians to wish to get
into.
So it remains to be seen how they will govern the country,
but none of the elements you are talking about exist. I repeat
what I said before that if there are not--if we do not push
very, very hard for future elections in Egypt, what you are
talking about, the possibility of it going badly, it goes much
higher.
Mr. Royce. I have another concern, and that goes to the
issue that people say U.S. aid to Egypt is going to be
leverage. It will be leverage for us to move things forward.
But in the budget released this week, the administration
proposed another $770 million for something called the Middle
East Incentive Fund.
We don't have a lot of details on this, but it essentially
seems to be cash to encourage reforms. Is it really the case
that we need to place money in front of these regimes, in front
of these governments? Is that the takeaway from this? Because I
have got sort of the opposite observation, but I will ask you
for your thought on this.
Mr. Craner. I think that is a very good question. I think
in this case, with Egypt, if our current level of aid to them
is insufficient to work into their calculations about 16
Americans, you have to ask if on issues that are much, much
bigger, which have been raised at this hearing this morning,
whether our assistance would then provide sufficient leverage.
Mr. Royce. And, lastly, about the Copts, I met recently--I
have had a series of meetings with Copts. I see the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom has recommended
that Egypt be put on the Country of Particular Concern List
because of the religious--well, it goes mostly to the Salafists
and the type of pain that they are inflicting on the Coptic
Christian community.
I just wanted to ask you, what has been the engagement on
this issue by the administration?
Mr. Craner. I can't speak to the administration, what they
have done. I can tell you that the Copts in Egypt are a lot
more fearful than they were under Mubarak, and they were
fearful at that time.
Mr. Royce. My time has expired, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Royce, for
those questions.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Craner.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks, the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, let me thank all
of you for your testimony. I was in my office trying to do some
other things, but got riveted to listening to your answering
questions and your statements and decided that I had a need to
come down and just make some further inquiries.
But I want to say at the outset, the work that NDI, IRI,
and Freedom House is doing in helping democracy, in helping
government and institutions stand on its feet, you know, you
all need to be applauded for that. And the work that you do I
think is just so valuable to all of us as this globe gets as
small as it is getting. So I want to thank you.
And in listening, the first thing I heard Mr. Sherman--some
of Mr. Sherman's questions to you in regards to the amount of
money that we give, and giving to the military, et cetera. And
I don't know if I missed it or not, but my first question would
be, what happens if we didn't give? I mean, and I hear--and I
have heard most say that we shouldn't cut off aid, et cetera.
And I don't believe that we should either.
But just to answer the question, what kind--you know, what
do you think would take place if we did cut off aid? Would that
help us or hurt us? And how so?
Mr. Kramer. Congressman Meeks, I would--the only reason I
am arguing for suspension--and I would use the word
``suspension,'' to put it on hold until the current situation
is fixed--the only reason I am suggesting that is because of
the attack that we are seeing against civil society, including
against our organizations, but against many Egyptian
organizations.
I am, frankly, not in a position to say whether the U.S.
should continue the $1.3 billion in assistance to the military
or not. As an observer, I would be--unless there was a reason
beyond the civil society issue that we have been talking about,
I would be mindful of what the implications could be of such a
step and the reaction that we could see from the military, if
we did not have something that we were asking for in return.
I am suggesting that this is the price to be paid for
treating civil society organizations, including those of our
own organizations, the way that they have been.
Mr. Meeks. Part of my--and I don't know whether--I know a
lot of our money is military, but it seems to me, from what I
have heard, their institutions are weakening, because even--and
maybe you could tell me--I know when you were--there were two
investigative judges in their judicial system who seemed to
be--made political statements to the press, for example,
showing that there is no independency between the judicial
system and the politics weakening the institutions.
And I don't know, suspending money, cutting off money, does
that further weaken the institutions, or what we can do to
further engage to strengthen institutions? Because democracy is
messy. I mean, they have had elections. I agree that we need to
make sure that there continue to be elections.
But can you--about their institutions, judicial in
particular, what is your thoughts on that?
Mr. Craner. You know I used to work for Colin Powell. I was
looking at his old autobiography the other night, and I ran
across something. He was talking about Iran. He had been a
colonel who visited Iran in 1979, and he said, ``All our
investment in an individual, rather than in the country, came
to naught. When the Shah fell, our Iran policy fell with him.
All of the billions we had spent there only exacerbated
conditions and contributed to the rise of the fundamentalist
regime implacably opposed to us.''
I mentioned before that our policy in Egypt was similar in
that it was based on a person. And the policy being based on a
person, I think the aid decisions probably flowed from them.
And without arguing for lessening money or increasing money, or
whatever, to Egypt, I don't think a review of the money that is
going to Egypt would be misplaced, given that we will have to
have a different policy because there is a new--not only a new
government, a new type of government in Egypt. But a review of
the type you are talking about would not be out of place.
Mr. Ackerman raised, why are people so essentially
ungrateful in Egypt? And the answer is, because they never saw
any of the money. It was going to the military, and it was
going through Faiza Abou el-Naga's international cooperation
ministry. When they do see the money, as Africans have with
HIV/AIDS money, thanks to Presidents Clinton and Bush and
Obama, then they think much more highly of the U.S. And maybe
because our policy is changing that should occasion a review of
our aid to Egypt.
Mr. Wollack. I would say, Congressman, that when you have
one center of power in a country, whether it is in Egypt or any
other country, decisions are made between officials of that
center of power and our Government in a more democratic and
more open Egypt. There is already the emergence of other
centers of power in the country, and this is why it is a very
complicated period in the transition process.
You have a Parliament now that was elected and reflects the
will of the people. You will have a President being elected at
the end of May. And so today you will have a military
relationship that I assume will continue because of certain
interests. You will have a Parliament that will have enhanced
powers; it will no longer be a rubber stamp Parliament. And you
will have a President and a Cabinet.
And so, therefore, I think all of the issues on aid will be
debated and discussed by these varied centers, different
centers of power. And I think it will influence the type of
assistance, and it complicates, obviously, the relationship.
Sometimes it is easier to deal with one center of power, but
ultimately I think it will reflect the views of the people.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this
hearing. I am going to ask a simple question. I would like a
yes or no.
I understand there is complexities, we are not sure of the
trajectory, depends on certain--changing of fluid
circumstances. Should we suspend aid to the Egyptians? Yes or
no.
Mr. Kramer. If they don't resolve the current situation,
yes. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. Everybody, please.
Ms. Barnathan. We are an organization that helps
journalists. We tell them to be fair and balanced. We tell them
not to make political statements, and that is in our DNA is
just not to take political sides, whether here or in Egypt.
Mr. Fortenberry. I understand. Here is the problem----
Ms. Barnathan. This is not something we would comment on.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. We have a decision to make
that could potentially benefit you, yes or no. So we have to
make a decision, yes or no, not depending upon fluid
circumstances and all of that.
Mr. Wollack. We have been greatly appreciative of efforts,
both public and private, to resolve these issues. And hopefully
those efforts can continue. But as an organization that is
dedicated to democracy and human rights overseas, we have
avoided taking a position on U.S. legislation in specific. So,
you know----
Mr. Fortenberry. All right. Let me get to the next----
Mr. Wollack [continuing]. We won't take a position on
those specific issues.
Mr. Craner. And my board has asked the same of me.
Mr. Fortenberry. All right. All right. I figured I had put
you in an--all of you in an unworkable position. I may have
answered the same.
Let me point to you a potential conspiracy theory here in
regards to this outrageous detention of Americans who are
actually there to try to simply help the Egyptian people, that
it might lead to the suspension of American aid, which then
gives those who have a decided preference for undoing the
Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty a context for doing so, in that
the United States is no longer living up to its obligation.
Would you place some credibility in that type of theory?
Mr. Craner. I think the way this started I would not. I
would not----
Mr. Fortenberry. It is too random?
Mr. Craner. Yes. It is----
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, that is inconsistent, though, with
what Mr. Connolly was suggesting, that this just didn't happen
by somebody's outage, that there seems to be forethought and
planning.
Mr. Craner. Well, I think it started over money, but it was
much smaller amounts of money. And I think it has gotten much,
much bigger. But I wouldn't buy that theory, that it started
because of that reason.
Mr. Fortenberry. Will it then be used, though, for those
purposes? Will the incident then be used by those who may have
such considerations in mind?
Mr. Craner. If somebody would start a war for $1.3 billion,
they would probably start it for a lot less. That is not much
money to start a war over.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, you see the dilemma with the aid,
and I have been one who has been firm in advocating for the
continuance of Egyptian aid up to this point, because it always
occurred to me that if you--there was tremendous sacrifice on
both sides that went--on three sides--the Israeli, the
Egyptian, and the United States--to get a peace treaty in order
that has held. It has been sort of a cold peace, but it has
held.
So to let go of the hand of friendship of the Egyptians, at
certain points a few years when this was more dynamically being
debated, seemed to me to be imprudent for the reasons that you
want to work through the periods of transition and give rise to
some new, emerging stability that is rooted in human rights.
And without our ability to leverage anything in that
regard, you may end up with worsening consequences, such as the
unraveling of a peace treaty. But now here we are, and can you
condone, as you are suggesting, Mr. Kramer, by--can you in
effect condone the behavior by continuing the current status of
the relationship?
Mr. Kramer. Well, Congressman, if I could, we have--by
``we,'' the United States, the President of the United States,
the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. Ambassador, have done
everything they can to try to persuade their Egyptian
counterparts that this course they are on with civil society is
a mistake.
The reason I am suggesting that we look at suspension of
military aid--and I want to be clear, military aid--is because
I fear whoever is making these decisions in Egypt believes
there is not a price for the actions we are taking.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, you may be interested, a high-
ranking military delegation was in the United States a week or
2 ago. We were trying to meet with them, as I normally do each
year. Apparently, they got up and left town pretty quickly,
because their reception here was that cold, that rugged. So
there is very strong sentiment here that this behavior cannot
be gone, cannot be condoned in some sort of passive way by
continuing the relationship as normal.
With that, though, there come complexities here that go
beyond just reacting to this tragic circumstance and this deep
injustice that has been inflicted upon Americans that impact
the geopolitical situation that has been held onto for 30
years.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Our former committee colleague, Ms.
Jackson Lee, joins us today, and I ask unanimous consent that
she be allowed to question our presenters. Ms. Jackson Lee, 5
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Madam Chair, I thank you for your
courtesy, and that of the ranking member and members of this
committee, and to the members that have made their
presentation. Thank you very much for long-standing service. I
have seen you in places throughout the continent of Africa, and
it has been a valuable contribution to democracy.
First, I would like to just ask Ms. Barnathan about, how
vigorous is the Egyptian Press Corps or the journalist
community in Egypt? And are they writing about this story, of
the incarceration of foreign nationals?
Ms. Barnathan. I would say that Freedom House does a huge
job of looking at the state of the Egyptian media, and they do
lots of studies on this in particular. So you might want to
direct your question to him.
But I will say that there are different types of media in
play in Egypt right now. We have the state-run media, we have
the privately-run media, and we have citizen journalism and the
whole internet----
Ms. Jackson Lee. So they are vigorously--there is a media--
--
Ms. Barnathan. There is a vigorous media.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Body politicking. Have you
any knowledge of whether they are reporting on this incident
publicly?
Ms. Barnathan. Oh, they certainly are, and there are a
diversity of voices, but----
Ms. Jackson Lee. They are.
Ms. Barnathan [continuing]. We think that in Egypt the
strongest voice is probably being heard by the state-run media.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Let me--to the gentlemen in particular who have
representatives from their organization, let me indicate to you
our great concern. And I am going to ask the question, are they
in good health? Is there anything, aside from the negotiations
that we are involved in, that we should be concerned about? Or
not concerned about, because I know that will be a private
matter, but that we should be dealing with in terms of their
status? Both gentlemen.
Mr. Wollack. From our perspective, the staff is in good
health. I will say that they have a range of emotions at any
given moment, at any given hour in a given day. But they are I
think very courageous. They are very determined. They know they
have done nothing wrong, and so they are committed to defend
themselves and to maintain the relationships with thousands of
Egyptians that they have developed over the past 6 years.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Mr. Craner?
Mr. Craner. I think the most important thing, the most
important encouragement for all of them, is what you have done,
what the Congress has done, and what the administration is
doing. They feel a great deal of backing. And, therefore, they
feel that this will be resolved favorably.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I am going to say a few words, and then
yield to you for an answer. First of all, I feel a great deal
of pain for many of us who have engaged with Egypt. Beyond the
very positive relationship with Israel, I feel a great deal of
pain. I won't characterize it as anger, but dismay,
disappointment, sadness.
I, too, spoke to the Egyptian Ambassador because many of
our friends are there, from staff members to family members of
Cabinet members, and we want to be sensitive to that. We know
that they raided non-foreign but Egyptian organizations, NGOs,
some 400. They are under pressure.
So, frankly, this makes--it is very difficult for me, but I
do call for the suspension of funds. I think it is very good to
isolate those as to military funds.
But what I would ask is you have said it over and over
again, but I would ask--I would like to go to each of the three
gentlemen for a succinct, pointed, immediate response. We have
spoken to the Ambassador. He says that he is conveying his
words to whatever the government is. I am looking for a
positive response.
The President has said, as early as February 2011, we want
to see the transition to be democratic and fair and just. I am
concerned that we are in the worst collapse that we could ever
see for Egypt that had the greatest potential because of the
great exposure of their military to the U.S. exchange that we
have had with them for a number of years.
So we are stymied, and I don't like being stymied, not
because we are large, but because our values are such that we
believe in democracy.
So, gentlemen, if you would quickly say one pointed thing
that you think that we should leave this hearing with and on
our mind that we could be doing. Mr. Craner?
Mr. Craner. If there is something between the President and
Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, et cetera, calling
and suspending assistance, as has been called for, I would love
to see it.
I think two good ideas have come out today--I think the
idea, again, of moving assistance away from Ms. Faiza Abou el-
Naga's ministry, and I would say have an audit of the billions
that have gone through her ministry for the last 10 years, find
out why the Egyptian people, by and large, didn't see any
benefit from that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Wollack?
Mr. Wollack. Well, all I would say is I think beginning on
January 26, after the revolution, and after the departure of
President Mubarak, there was a great hope that a new Egypt was
emerging. And I think in the long term a new Egypt will emerge
from a number of crises that have beset the country.
And we have seen over the past year a proliferation of
political parties, civic organizations, and citizens who for
the first time are talking to one another and engaging----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Wollack [continuing]. In the country's political
process. And I think we have to understand and recognize that
there are tens of thousands of Egyptians who believe deeply in
their country's future, and want to work with the international
community, believing there is something----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And we are out of time. Thank you so
much to excellent panelists, and I am sure that when they say
``gentlemen'' they meant it in a generic way. Gentlelady as
well. Twice that happened.
And the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\ts\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\
statt\
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert Turner, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\
\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\s
aaa\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Re
sponses
from
Craner deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Re
sponses
from
Freedom
House deg.
Responses from the Honorable David J. Kramer, president, Freedom House
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Re
sponses
from
Wollack deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
