From Fikra Forum:
When the activists charged in the “foreign funding” case entered the prisoners dock on February 26, the relationship between Egypt and the United States entered a new phase, about which “complicated and tense” will likely be the most prominent headline.
This case will not end with the pending acquittal or conviction of the accused American activists; rather, its impact will extend over the next ten years in the two countries’ bilateral relationship. This relationship could have been based on respect and mutual interests, as it derives its legitimacy from the January 25 revolution that overthrew the regime of former president Hosni Mubarak. But this case is even more important for its internal Egyptian political implications.
The Legal Context
According to the indictment issued by the commission of inquiry, which was intentionally leaked to most Egyptian newspapers, prosecutors have leveled two principal charges: first, that the accused foreign international organizations opened and operated headquarters without obtaining a license from the Egyptian government, and second, that it involves "the funding of many natural persons unauthorized to work nationally or in the field without the permission of the Egyptian government, constituting a violation of the sovereignty of the state, in which foreign funding is considered illegal.”
Many lawyers specializing in this type of case explained to me that after reading the details of the indictment, it became clear that the commission of inquiry’s report seems to be in a state of confusion, jumbling many of the included issues. For example, the indictment claims that the offices of the Republican and Democratic Institutes contained “maps” that were considered evidence of the organizations’ aim “to divide the Egyptian nation.” It was later revealed that these maps depict the three stages of the parliamentary elections, which both Institutes monitored by the official invitation of the Egyptian government.
So, according to legal experts, the situation is not as bad as depicted by the Egyptian media; some of which have portrayed the case in terms of espionage, implying that some of the detainees could be charged with “high treason.”
The first charge -- that the organizations opened and operated headquarters for unlicensed foreign organizations -- is first and foremost an administrative offense. Defense counsel Najad al-Baraey regards the referral of this charge to the criminal court as an exaggeration that seeks to discredit civil society organizations.
I do not understand why the investigations failed to mention that these organizations have been operating in Egypt since 2005. I have made many attempts to obtain and examine their requests for government licenses -- which, in accordance with the requirements of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, included lists of the respective organization’s activities as well as local partners, among them members of the dissolved National Democratic Party, and for that matter, some of the national newspapers.
Last October, the Egyptian government invited two of these organizations to monitor the parliamentary elections, despite the fact that Article II of Resolution No. 20 of 2011 issued by the president of the high commission for elections states that it is not permissible for non-Egyptian civil society organizations to monitor the electoral process until after the presentation of “notification of permission from the Foreign Ministry to initiate this activity in Egypt.”
As I understand it, that permission, whether limited to the activity of election monitoring or not, confers legitimacy on the work of the authorized organizations such that the permission for a specific activity requires establishing a priori the legitimacy and legality of its existence in Egypt, or at least recognition that these organizations do not work in “secret” or plan “to undermine the authority of the Egyptian government at home.”
The second charge, the charge of the illegal receipt of foreign funding, remains ambiguous in that the organizations which received approximately 44 million dollars are American organizations, accepting funds from American bodies. The American bodies did not give money directly to Egyptian groups. Although the indictment states that the headquarters of both the Republican and the Democratic Institutes transferred large amounts of funds to the personal accounts of Americans working in their respective headquarters, this is not a crime, according to Egyptian law, and the evidence for foreign financing remains unclear.
Underlying Motives
Now we must place the facts in their proper context. The Egyptian government has a deliberate intention to launch an attack against civil society organizations, as evidenced by the fact that it has never prevented these organizations from operating in Egypt since the beginning of their operation in 2005 with the knowledge of the Egyptian government. It is necessary to affirm that the Foreign Ministry did not officially inform these organizations that their requests for licenses had been denied, and did not demand that they close their offices and leave Egyptian territory. On the contrary, the government invited these organizations to monitor the parliamentary elections, and for that matter, the constitutional amendments referendum that took place last March. It would seem that at some point in time, the government gave these organizations the green light to conduct their activities.
The fabrication of imaginary battles with other nations is a tactic to distract attention from the political crisis that the country is experiencing, and to deflect attention away from the failure of the Egyptian government to hold accountable the real criminals who killed hundreds of Egyptian youths over the past year. This policy does not serve any national goal; rather it fulfills the interests of specific political groups, which do not seek anything but the monopolization of power.
There may be real problems between the United States and the Egyptian government, but Egyptian civil society organizations should not pay the price of this by being represented as treasonous and unpatriotic.
Mohamed Abdelbaky is an Egyptian journalist who specializes in democracy and human rights.
This case will not end with the pending acquittal or conviction of the accused American activists; rather, its impact will extend over the next ten years in the two countries’ bilateral relationship. This relationship could have been based on respect and mutual interests, as it derives its legitimacy from the January 25 revolution that overthrew the regime of former president Hosni Mubarak. But this case is even more important for its internal Egyptian political implications.
The Legal Context
According to the indictment issued by the commission of inquiry, which was intentionally leaked to most Egyptian newspapers, prosecutors have leveled two principal charges: first, that the accused foreign international organizations opened and operated headquarters without obtaining a license from the Egyptian government, and second, that it involves "the funding of many natural persons unauthorized to work nationally or in the field without the permission of the Egyptian government, constituting a violation of the sovereignty of the state, in which foreign funding is considered illegal.”
Many lawyers specializing in this type of case explained to me that after reading the details of the indictment, it became clear that the commission of inquiry’s report seems to be in a state of confusion, jumbling many of the included issues. For example, the indictment claims that the offices of the Republican and Democratic Institutes contained “maps” that were considered evidence of the organizations’ aim “to divide the Egyptian nation.” It was later revealed that these maps depict the three stages of the parliamentary elections, which both Institutes monitored by the official invitation of the Egyptian government.
So, according to legal experts, the situation is not as bad as depicted by the Egyptian media; some of which have portrayed the case in terms of espionage, implying that some of the detainees could be charged with “high treason.”
The first charge -- that the organizations opened and operated headquarters for unlicensed foreign organizations -- is first and foremost an administrative offense. Defense counsel Najad al-Baraey regards the referral of this charge to the criminal court as an exaggeration that seeks to discredit civil society organizations.
I do not understand why the investigations failed to mention that these organizations have been operating in Egypt since 2005. I have made many attempts to obtain and examine their requests for government licenses -- which, in accordance with the requirements of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, included lists of the respective organization’s activities as well as local partners, among them members of the dissolved National Democratic Party, and for that matter, some of the national newspapers.
Last October, the Egyptian government invited two of these organizations to monitor the parliamentary elections, despite the fact that Article II of Resolution No. 20 of 2011 issued by the president of the high commission for elections states that it is not permissible for non-Egyptian civil society organizations to monitor the electoral process until after the presentation of “notification of permission from the Foreign Ministry to initiate this activity in Egypt.”
As I understand it, that permission, whether limited to the activity of election monitoring or not, confers legitimacy on the work of the authorized organizations such that the permission for a specific activity requires establishing a priori the legitimacy and legality of its existence in Egypt, or at least recognition that these organizations do not work in “secret” or plan “to undermine the authority of the Egyptian government at home.”
The second charge, the charge of the illegal receipt of foreign funding, remains ambiguous in that the organizations which received approximately 44 million dollars are American organizations, accepting funds from American bodies. The American bodies did not give money directly to Egyptian groups. Although the indictment states that the headquarters of both the Republican and the Democratic Institutes transferred large amounts of funds to the personal accounts of Americans working in their respective headquarters, this is not a crime, according to Egyptian law, and the evidence for foreign financing remains unclear.
Underlying Motives
Now we must place the facts in their proper context. The Egyptian government has a deliberate intention to launch an attack against civil society organizations, as evidenced by the fact that it has never prevented these organizations from operating in Egypt since the beginning of their operation in 2005 with the knowledge of the Egyptian government. It is necessary to affirm that the Foreign Ministry did not officially inform these organizations that their requests for licenses had been denied, and did not demand that they close their offices and leave Egyptian territory. On the contrary, the government invited these organizations to monitor the parliamentary elections, and for that matter, the constitutional amendments referendum that took place last March. It would seem that at some point in time, the government gave these organizations the green light to conduct their activities.
The fabrication of imaginary battles with other nations is a tactic to distract attention from the political crisis that the country is experiencing, and to deflect attention away from the failure of the Egyptian government to hold accountable the real criminals who killed hundreds of Egyptian youths over the past year. This policy does not serve any national goal; rather it fulfills the interests of specific political groups, which do not seek anything but the monopolization of power.
There may be real problems between the United States and the Egyptian government, but Egyptian civil society organizations should not pay the price of this by being represented as treasonous and unpatriotic.
Mohamed Abdelbaky is an Egyptian journalist who specializes in democracy and human rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment