How to Seize the Moment in Egypt Blueprint for Congress and the Obama Administration Released April 2011 About Us Human Rights First believes that building respect for human rights and the rule of law will help ensure the dignity to which every individual is entitled and will stem tyranny, extremism, and violence. Human Rights First protects people at risk: refugees who flee persecution, victims of crimes against humanity or other mass human rights violations, victims of discrimination, those whose rights are eroded in the name of national security, and human rights advocates who are targeted for defending the rights of others. These groups are often the first victims of societal instability and breakdown; their treatment is a harbinger of wider-scale repression. Human Rights First works to prevent violations against these groups and to seek justice and accountability for violations against them. Human Rights First is practical and effective. We advocate for change at the highest levels of national and international policymaking. We seek justice through the courts. We raise awareness and understanding through the media. We build coalitions among those with divergent views. And we mobilize people to act. Human Rights First is a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. To maintain our independence, we accept no government funding. This report is available for free online at www.humanrightsfirst.org. © 2011 Human Rights First. All Rights Reserved. Human Rights First New York Washington D.C. 333 Seventh Avenue 13th Floor New York, NY 10001-5108 100 Maryland Avenue, NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002-5625 Tel.: 212.845.5200 Fax: 212.845.5299 Tel: 202.547.5692 Fax: 202.543.5999 www.humanrightsfirst.org Introduction Popular protests continue to shake the Middle East and North Africa from Morocco to Iran. Forced to endure decades of repressive, corrupt, and unresponsive government, people across the region are rising up to demand a better life. Protesters have many motives, from lack of economic opportunity to police brutality to unchecked official lawlessness. But central to all the protests is the demand for governments that respect human dignity—that is, for governments that uphold human rights. In his “Address to the Muslim World” in Cairo on June 4, 2009, President Obama underlined his commitment “to governments that reflect the will of the people.” He promised that the United States would support human rights “everywhere” and identified them: “the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.” This is a reasonable encapsulation of the demands of the protesters. The United States, a longtime supporter of repressive regimes in the region, bears its share of responsibility for the suffering there. The damage inflicted by these corrupt and sometimes brutal regimes will now have to be remedied by emerging governments that will need support from the international community, not least from the United States. The protests have forced the removal of two of the regions most established authoritarian rulers, Tunisia’s Zine ElAbedine Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, creating the possibility of fundamental reform. The United States now has an invaluable opportunity to support the push for democracy and in so doing to overhaul its approach toward the region. This is the ideal moment to place a commitment to human rights at the center of its Middle Eastern policy. Events of the past three months have demonstrated that the old paradigm for U.S. policy—trying to maintain stability in the region through close relationships with autocrats—has suffered a blow; a fatal blow, we hope. The stability engendered through repression has long been largely illusory. Since the end of the Cold War, there has been little stability in the Muslim World, and the region has provided more than its fair share of threats to U.S. strategic interests. The United States has fought three major wars and is still embroiled in two of them, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military intervention has been contemplated in other countries, and is currently under way in Libya. Israel has not enjoyed peace with its neighbors, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process is stalled, oil prices have fluctuated alarmingly, and security concerns about the threat of Islamic extremism and nuclear proliferation continue to mount. At the risk of being wise after the event, one is tempted to ask, what stability? In recent years, authoritarian leaders like Mubarak and Ben Ali found it politic to mask their dictatorial ways with a pretense of democratization and promises of reform that never came. This option of winking at sham reform while benefiting from cooperation in key strategic areas will now carry a heavier price for U.S. policymakers. The choice going forward will be between unseemly alliances with unmasked dictators and new partnerships with sovereign, democratic governments. The United States should make clear that it will have a new approach to its allies in the region based on building mutually supportive alliances with sovereign, democratic states. The United States will seek the stability it needs to protect its interests through the promotion of democracy and human rights, not through abetting autocrats and dictators. While change is inevitably unsettling, there is no reason for pessimism, which could be self-fulfilling. There is, however, a need for a new approach, and the patience to see it through. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 1 President Obama noted in Cairo that governments that support human rights are more stable, successful and secure. They make better strategic partners than the despots the U.S. government has supported for so long. It is precisely in the countries where the United States has a long history of providing financial assistance and cultivating close military and security cooperation that it now has the greatest opportunity to shape new relationships. These close relationships that have for decades been placed in the service of repression and authoritarianism, earning the United States the distrust and enmity of people in the region, are now potential assets in promoting a peaceful transition to democracy in Egypt, the regional trendsetter, and Tunisia. Instead of the discredited reliance on alliances with autocrats, there is a need for a new paradigm that builds genuine stability on the basis of responsive government, respect for the rule of law and adherence to international human rights standards. Core U.S. interests and strategic concerns in the region have not changed. Maintaining access to a reliable supply of oil and other energy resources, combating terrorism and the threat of religious extremism, containing the influence of Iran, preventing nuclear proliferation, and ensuring Israel’s security all remain high on the U.S. policy agenda. These interests have been imperfectly served by the stability-through-repression approach and will be better served by an approach that champions government of the people, by the people, for the people as the desirable norm for America’s regional allies. Indeed, such an approach would take as its model the mutually beneficial relationships the United States enjoys with its closest democratic allies in Europe and around the world. The benefits of this new approach could be considerable: instead of U.S. alliances with dictators in the region becoming a rallying call for Al-Qaeda and other violent anti-American extremists, partnerships with democratic allies would improve the popular perception of the United States and thereby serve its interests. Desired Outcomes in Transitional States Tunisia and Egypt have already embarked on a path towards democratic transition. Not only have presidents been removed, but entire cabinets have been dismissed and once monolithic ruling parties have been dissolved, in the case of Tunisia, or severely weakened in Egypt. This is stunning, rapid change, but in both countries the new governing structures and the legal framework in which they will operate are still under construction. It does not take a mass popular uprising to implement democratic change. A desirable change that is already emerging across the region is for authoritarian governments to announce and begin to implement political reform programs, thereby preempting the need for disruptive and risky mass protests. It should not be forgotten that hundreds of people were killed in the “mostly peaceful” Egyptian uprising, and any situation where large crowds of protesters are confronting armed members of the security forces can easily degenerate into confrontations in which many people are killed. Such reform programs have been announced in Jordan and Morocco and are in the balance in Bahrain, which stepped back from violent repression of protesters under U.S. pressure, but then reverted to repression once more. The mass protests have established a desirable context in which authoritarian rulers have a strong incentive to put in place meaningful reform programs that will better protect human rights. U.S. policy should be focused on ways to capitalize on this rare favorable moment for advancing human rights in the region, by developing coordinated strategies across the U.S. government designed to ensure that governments make good on their pledges to reform. The constituent elements of democratic society are well known: protection of basic rights and freedoms; respect for the rule of law and the fair and equal administration of justice; representative and responsive government that is accountable to the people. These are the broad goals of democracy promotion that take on specific content and form in each new setting. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 2 Given its position as a leader within the Arab world, but a leader whose influence waned under the oppressive rule of President Mubarak, Egypt is the logical focal point for U.S. human rights and democracy promotion policy in the region. Egypt has attributes and characteristics that make it wellsuited for this role. It has: A dynamic civil society already strongly engaged in issues of human rights and democracy; Professional organizations with a long history of struggling against state control; An independent media sector that was finding its feet even before the uprising; and A broad array of organized political forces that, within a short period of time, should be able to provide a real choice of political alternatives to the Egyptian electorate. Egypt is also potentially well-served by its state institutions. The higher reaches of the judiciary jealously guarded its independence under the old order and has the capacity now to lead the Egyptian judiciary to be a force for stability and the rule of law and a check on tyranny in the new Egypt. The Egyptian military, long the dominant element in the Egyptian state has, since the mass protests began on January 25, used its influence to support the democratic aspirations of the protest movement, while also having a legacy of being major beneficiaries of the previous regime. However, there are real questions over the extent they will be willing to be the midwife to a genuine democratic system that in the end would curtail its traditional privileges. The long-standing and rich bilateral U.S.- Egyptian relationship is another factor that points to Egypt as the natural priority target country in promoting democratic transitions in the region. For that to happen, U.S. policymakers should establish clear benchmarks for what constitutes real progress towards human rights and democracy in Egypt and evaluate their success by the extent to which such changes are being achieved in practice. Key Human Rights Benchmarks in Egypt Military Willingness to Share Executive Power The ruling military council in Egypt, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) is an element of continuity from the former regime. Since the 1952 Free Officers revolution the Egyptian military has been the power behind the throne in Egypt and former military officers have filled the office of the presidency from Nasser to Sadat to Mubarak. Under Mubarak, the military has enjoyed many privileges as well as developing private business interests. The military now controls one of the biggest business empires in Egypt with little or no public scrutiny over its activities. It therefore has ample reason to seek to ensure that it emerges from the transition with its privileges as intact as possible. On the other hand, the military is one of the most respected institutions in the country and, as a conscript army, many millions of Egyptians have direct experience with it through their own service or that of their relatives. In a state where many institutions were undermined or weakened by an overbearing authoritarian ruler, the military has the capacity to hold the country together through the transition process and to be the midwife of the emergence of a more representative government. In order for that to happen the military must be willing eventually to submit to civilian oversight by an elected government. In this transitional phase, the military could indicate its willingness to share executive power by bringing credible civilian figures, not tainted by previous association with the Mubarak regime, into an interim executive council that would rule through the elections for a parliament and a new president, and would set in place an inclusive, transparent process for revision of the constitution. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 3 While there appears to be broad popular support for the role of the military as a force for stability in uncertain times there is concern that in pushing through a compressed timeline for the transition process the military may be seeking to protect its own interests by ensuring that political forces likely to push for real change will have insufficient time to organize to secure strong representation in parliament or to identify a broadly supported opposition candidate to run for the presidency. The forces most likely to benefit from an accelerated timetable for elections are those that were organized in the previous regime: the remnants of the formerly ruling National Democratic Party and the Muslim Brotherhood. Repeal of Repressive Legislation On March 28, the Supreme Council announced that the holding of parliamentary elections would be postponed until September 2011, giving more time for new political parties to coalesce and become organized. The council also repeated its pledge to hand over power to an elected civilian government as soon as possible. These are both welcome statements, but concern remains that a purportedly democratic revolution headed by an unelected military council is a contradiction. Broadening the ruling council to include independent civilian figures would put additional substance behind the council’s statements. Comprehensive reform of the constitution and other laws that restrict basic freedoms will not happen until new, elected governing authorities are in place, as a minimum several months from now. Nonetheless, for elections to take place in any kind of atmosphere of freedom and fairness debilitating constraints on peaceful political activity must be removed. Even at this stage, Egypt’s rulers should publicly commit to the formation of a representative, pluralistic constituent assembly to undertake the task of rewriting the constitution. A troubling indication of the military’s willingness to exercise its absolute powers has been seen in the use of military police to break up peaceful protests, as happened in Tahrir Square on March 9, and against Coptic protesters outside the main television building in Cairo on March 14. The use of military courts to try protesters and others accused of “thuggish behavior” is another worrying sign of the military exercising unchecked powers. Some of the protesters detained on March 9 have reported that they were beaten and tortured while held in military custody. Women have reported that they were subjected to forced virginity tests. These abuses must be independently investigated and those responsible held accountable for their actions. An important indicator of the integrity of the reform process will be legislative change. Egypt has a very broad array of repressive legislation specifically designed to curtail basic freedoms of expression, assembly, and association and to stifle pluralistic politics. Fundamental reforms are needed in laws related to the functioning and registration of political parties and laws that undermine the independence of professional association and non-governmental organizations. The Emergency Law, law number 162 of 1958, has developed into a catchall measure that negates rights and freedoms provided for in the constitution and elsewhere in Egyptian law. In a positive development, the Supreme Council announced a new political parties’ law on March 28. The old Political Parties Committee, through which the ruling National Democratic Party exercised control over its potential rivals by denying permission to new parties to register or by dissolving parties, has been replaced by an independent committee of judges. Moreover, new registration procedures are not burdensome; parties are automatically granted legal status 30 days after submitting their application, unless the judicial committee objects. Disputes are to be settled by the administrative courts. The Supreme Council has also underlined its intention to repeal the Emergency Law ahead of planned elections. Real change in Egypt will require the actions of the military, from upholding public order to its economic activities to its treatment of its citizens, to be made transparent and for mechanisms of accountability to civilian authorities to be firmly established. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 4 An End to Arbitrary Detention and Torture Arbitrary detention and torture of detainees were common practices under the Mubarak regime. Political opponents, including nonviolent government critics, were sometimes targeted for this kind of abuse, but its use was also random and intimidatory, designed to deter dissent. Criminal suspects were also commonly brutalized and abused while in police custody. These abusive practices became the hallmark of Mubarak’s authoritarian regime, undermining public confidence in the police and making a mockery of the rule of law. Public dissatisfaction with the arbitrary and often brutal treatment people received at the hands of the security forces was one of the underlying causes of the unrest that led to the overthrow of the president. In this regard, the murder by police of Khaled Saeed outside an Alexandria internet café in June 2010 became a symbol of police brutality and a focal issue for mobilization in the months leading up to January 25, 2011. It is vital that Egypt’s post-Mubarak rulers uphold public security through policing methods that abide by the rule of law and respect the rights and freedoms of the people. If abuses occur, and there have been troubling reports of continuing abuses by military personnel in this transitional period, they must be independently investigated and those responsible held to account. It is very encouraging that the new Minister of the Interior, General Mansour al-Essawy announced the dissolution of the State Security Intelligence Services on March 15, responding to opposition protests against one of the most abusive and unaccountable of the branches of the security services. Activists are able to read the files that were compiled against them, revealing both the extent to which their rights were violated and a window onto how the security services operated. It is vital that this welcome step should be just that, one step on the way to comprehensive reform of the security sector, and that the practices and wide-ranging abuses of the past should be exposed, with those responsible for crimes held to account. An End to State Domination of Broadcast Media and Monopolistic Control over the Telecommunications and Internet Service Provider Sector Freedom of expression was curtailed in Mubarak’s Egypt by state domination of terrestrial broadcast media and of the largest, most widely available newspapers. These were the sources from which most Egyptians received their news. Small independent newspapers and magazines, independent websites and blogs, and satellite television entered the media marketplace in recent years diversifying the information available to Egyptians. At the same time, the authorities managed news content by detaining and abusing bloggers who criticized government policy and exposed violations, or by prosecuting journalists and editors who crossed “red lines’ of acceptable news reporting. Despite these restrictions, new communications technologies such as cellphones, blogs and social networking sites became important tools in sharing information and organizing opposition to the government. So effective did these communications platforms become for the opposition that the government notoriously took the draconian step of closing down access to the Internet almost completely and disrupting cellphone service throughout the country. Monopolistic state control over the media is not conducive to the development of a pluralistic democratic environment. The brazen interference with and interruption of Internet access and cellphone connectivity showed the absence of a law-governed framework for the provision of these basic services, and the protection of the right to freedom of expression and access to information that they provide. Egypt’s new government needs to prioritize a more pluralistic model for media ownership and control and establish the legal and regulatory framework to permit the functioning of essential communications platforms in a transparent and law-governed manner. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 5 Pitfalls and Dangers U.S. efforts to promote successful, peaceful transitions to democracy in Egypt and Tunisia face many challenges if they are to result in successful outcomes. These include: An increasingly complex regional situation The Tunisian uprising set off a region-wide chain of events that continues to develop in unexpected and often challenging ways for U.S. policy. Protests against authoritarian rulers in different countries provide different opportunities and complications for U.S. policy. At the rhetorical level, senior U.S. policymakers have established a consistent message that the way for governments throughout the region to respond to protests is through meeting the legitimate demands of people for more representative government and more freedom. President Obama can point to the fact that this was a message he communicated early in his presidency, in his Cairo speech in June 2009, which he has built on as events have developed. Problems come when the U.S. government is forced by events to put its rhetorical commitments into practice. In Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia the limits of the reach of U.S. policy, for a variety of reasons, are being exposed and popular movements for reform are facing authoritarian retrenchment while the United States is left standing on the sidelines. In Libya, the administration has supported multilateral U.N. Security Council backed military intervention to protect the civilian population—a demanding, resource-intensive, and politically controversial policy with uncertain outcomes. Each of these country situations can have negative implications, obviously for human rights conditions within each country, but also from the continuing influence of unreformed authoritarian holdout rulers on the region as a whole. In the case of Libya, which borders both Egypt and Tunisia, the violent suppression of the uprising was contributing to mass flight from Libya of refugees and migrants who seek refuge in neighboring states, thereby creating large humanitarian challenges in states that are dealing with their own transition problems. It appears at this point that this pressure has been averted in the shortterm, but it remains a threat. Moreover, the disruption to the Libyan economy will further damage the already weakened economies of Egypt and Tunisia, which previously benefited from remittances from migrants working in Libya. The complications and setbacks suffered by reform movements, and the challenges such setbacks provide for U.S. policy, should serve to underline the importance of U.S. policy capitalizing on the opportunity presented by the democratic transitions under way in Tunisia and Egypt. Even if reform movements are frustrated or defeated in other countries, further progress in Tunisia and especially Egypt will, over time, turn the tide in the region away from authoritarianism towards more responsive governments and greater respect for human rights. For decades, the Arab world has been a contiguous block of resistance to human rights and democracy and, probably not coincidentally, a source of instability and threats for U.S. policy. Supporting the democratic forces within this block would change this regional dynamic, and is a policy objective worth pursuing energetically and patiently, but above all strategically. Sectarian Tensions The final years of the Mubarak regime were marred by troubling incidents of long-simmering sectarian violence between Egypt’s majority Muslim population and the minority Coptic Christians, exacerbated by institutionalized discrimination against Christians and lack of progress in official investigations into high-profile acts of violence against Christians. The Mubarak regime also fueled popular antisemitism. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 6 In the last days of the Mubarak presidency, his supporters appeared to pursue a deliberate policy of provoking unrest and instability to demonstrate that the country needed firm leadership and to sow a fear of change. Inflaming sectarian tensions is a tried and tested way of provoking civil unrest in Egypt. Clashes that followed the burning of a church in Helwan, provoked by rumors of a crosssectarian romance, led to the deaths of 13 people in Cairo in early March, showing the continuing potential of tensions to flare up. The new visibility in public life of so-called Salafi activists, religious extremists who claim to be pursuing a purer, more authentic version of Islam, is already further exacerbating sectarian tensions. Salafis have seized on such issues as the alleged abduction by church authorities of a Christian woman who is claimed to have voluntarily converted to Islam to seek to stir up anti-Christian sentiment. Salafism also has the potential to fuel intraMuslim conflict within Egypt. There are already reports of Salafis attacking popular shrines that are viewed as unIslamic by the ultra-orthodox. Egypt’s Christian minority has legitimate demands that must be met by the government: to be treated to equal representation in senior government positions and the security forces; to uphold the right to build and repair churches with the same conditions as apply to the building and repair of mosques; and to be protected by the state from acts of violent bigotry and sectarian hatred. In the meantime, senior officials in the transitional authorities must send a clear message that sectarian violence will not be tolerated. The military leadership responded positively by dispatching a team of military engineers to rebuild the burned church. Political Islam The fear that the democratic transition in Egypt might be hijacked by anti-democratic religious extremists is never far from the surface of discussions about U.S. policy options in the region. These fears were heightened by the prominent role played by the Muslim Brotherhood in the campaign in favor of the constitutional amendments passed by referendum on March 19. This campaign at times took on a religious tone with leaflets and banners proclaiming a vote in favor as a religious obligation for Muslims. Even though several high-profile secular, liberal activists campaigned against the constitutional amendments, there are reasons, other than latent sympathy for the Brotherhood and its political program, why the majority of voters supported the amendments. For example, it is understandable that after a tumultuous few months many voters should want a return to normality—which the amendments appeared best suited to provide. It may also be the case that some of those who voted in favor of the amendments saw the speedy transition away from military rule as the best available choice, despite the risks of empowering pre-established political forces, like the Brotherhood, through an accelerated electoral calendar. Others may have simply decided to follow the military´s lead as a force for continuity and stability. Given its organizational strength, it is to be expected that the Muslim Brotherhood, in the form of the new political party it has announced, the Freedom and Justice Party, will win a sizeable proportion of seats in the parliamentary elections. In the 2005 parliamentary elections, Brotherhood candidates running as independents won 88 out of the 444 seats decided by voting, so the Brotherhood’s ability to win parliamentary seats is not in doubt. The new political landscape presents challenges and uncertainties for the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood has operated for decades as a clandestine and formally banned organization. Its political program has been obscure, and since it has never had a realistic chance of exercising political power, a message that it was not the ruling party and that it was pious was enough to make it a suitable vehicle for opposition sentiment. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 7 Operating in a more open political environment, in which it will be challenged by a number of opposition parties, is unknown political territory. It is already becoming clear that it will not have the banner of political Islam to itself. Former Brotherhood Guidance Bureau member, Abdel Moneim Abouel Fotouh, has announced his intention to form a political party, Nahdat Masr (Egypt’s Renaissance), for example. The Al-Wasat (Center) party, previously denied permission to register, is led by activists who were associated with the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood itself has internal divisions that may become more apparent in an open political environment. Already younger activists are demanding a greater say in the leadership of the organization. These activists took part in street protests during the overthrow of President Mubarak while the Brotherhood’s leadership hesitated before supporting the protesters, and then quickly resumed its usual practice of seeking accommodation with the authorities through backroom deals. The Brotherhood is not primarily a political organization. It sees its role as being primarily one of encouraging greater piety and inculcating its religious values into the broader population. Having to compete openly for political power may, over time, come in conflict with that mission. These considerations aside, in what is likely to be a highly splintered field of political parties, the discipline and cohesiveness of the Brotherhood will probably work to its advantage. It remains to be seen how maximal its pursuit of political power may turn out to be. The Brotherhood has already stated that it does not intend to field a candidate in the presidential election and it is also likely that it will contest only a proportion of parliamentary seats so even if it wins most of them, it would not have a parliamentary majority. It also remains to be seen what the political program of the Freedom and Justice Party might be. It would be uncharacteristic for the Brotherhood to propose policies that go beyond the Egyptian political mainstream, and it is likely that it will seek alliances with other political parties that may increase its chance of becoming part of a governing coalition, but would also involve compromise. Speculation aside, the best defense against antidemocratic forces, within the Brotherhood or elsewhere, lies with institutional safeguards and checks and balances built into the emerging Egyptian political system. The new political parties’ law retains a prohibition on parties based on religion. Under the new law, the supervisory judicial committee can bring a complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court calling for the dissolution of any party that violates Egyptian law. Political parties in Egypt will operate within a constitutional and legal framework that will outlaw political violence, discrimination, and other anti-democratic practices; strong enforcement of safeguards for political freedoms provided for by law will be required. The military authorities will remain a strong presence in the Egyptian political system, even after the promised resumption of civilian rule. The military will seek to exercise strong control over security policy, especially as it relates to the military and security relationship with the United States. For these reasons, it is highly unlikely that the military would permit any government to break existing treaty agreements with Israel, and with U.S. encouragement, security and economic cooperation between Egypt and Israel is likely to continue. Whether it improves is another open question. Ultimately, an open pluralistic political environment will police itself, and given Egypt’s sophistication, it will tend to be self-correcting. Egypt’s democratic institutions were weakened under Mubarak, but they now have the opportunity to play the role they were intended to. Support for these institutions, like the judiciary, the National Human Rights Council, and institutions that regulate the media and communications networks, should be a high priority for U.S. policy in the months and years ahead, so that Egypt’s democratic political system matures and gains strength. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 8 Potential Vectors of Influence for U.S. Policy U.S. Foreign Assistance Over more than three decades since the Camp David Accords, the U.S. government has provided the Egyptian government with over $50 billion in foreign assistance, the great majority of this in the form of military assistance. In FY 2010 and FY 2011 the level of aid has been $1.56 billion, with $1.3 billion of that directed towards military assistance (FMF). FMF is a package of grants and loans for Egypt to purchase weapons, military equipment, and training from the United States, and it will remain relevant to the new Egypt. Of the $250 million in civilian aid (ESF), some $25 million was earmarked for programs related to democracy, human rights, and governance programs. It is worth noting these programs were funded at double these levels under the Bush Administration between FY 2006 and FY 2008. There are at least two important factors to consider in the allocation of the aid package: first, the concrete goals and outcomes that each specific outlay is intended to achieve; and, just as importantly, the political message sent by the way the funds are allocated. The Obama Administration ran into criticism for slashing the funds allocated to democracy and human rights, not because there were good projects that went unfunded, but because of the perceived message that the Obama Administration cared less about human rights and democracy than its predecessor. Sending an unequivocal and clearly understood message of support for a democratic transition in Egypt must be one of the highest priorities for the administration at this time and adapting the foreign assistance package would be one of the clearest ways to do that. Democracy and governance assistance should not only be in the form of direct support for independent civil society, there is also a need for support to be provided to state institutions essential to the functioning of a democratic system. These include resources for the judiciary, the police, and for bodies that failed to fulfill their potential under President Mubarak but may now have a chance to flourish, like the National Human Rights Council. Egypt is at the beginning of a daunting series of elections for members of parliament and for a new president. Several U.S. government-supported institutions have great expertise in the technical and logistical aspects of holding free and fair elections. Such institutions must be adequately funded so as to provide needed support to state institutions, nascent political parties, and to civil society organizations involved in voter education and election monitoring. Each phase of the electoral process should be supported by an independent, international election monitoring initiative, to which the U.S. government should contribute. Beyond contributing directly to strengthening the infrastructure of democracy in Egypt, the U.S. government should also develop trade and other economic incentives that will serve to strengthen democratic forces within Egyptian society, and if implemented will reap mutual benefits to both Egypt and the United States. Senators Kerry, McCain, and Lieberman introduced S. 618 on March 29, 2011, a bill to strengthen the private sectors in Egypt and Tunisia by re-creating the enterprise funds that were helpful in the development of the Central European economies. There needs to be a parallel effort to focus resources on the promotion and protection of human rights. S.618 is an exemplary start. However, additional and more dramatic efforts are needed if human rights, prosperity, and stability are to “win” in Egypt. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 9 Recommendation The events in the Middle East and North Africa over the past three months are so momentous and present so many opportunities that the U.S. government should respond with a carefully crafted reprogramming of foreign assistance for Egypt, Tunisia, and other states on a credible path to reform leading to more representative government and better respect for basic rights and freedoms. This should include: 1. Direct grants to support the infrastructure of democracy in state institutions including: police and other security sector reform, support for building greater accountability into the functioning of ministries, training for legislators in serving as elected representatives of their constituencies, and support for strengthening the judiciary and building the rule of law; 2. Support for efforts to gather information about crimes and violations committed by the previous regime, and to implement effective accountability mechanisms; 3. Support for the holding of free and fair elections at all phases of the electoral process, including election monitoring by domestic groups; 4. Support for the reform and reinvigoration of the Egyptian National Human Rights Council; 5. Support for governments and independent nongovernmental organizations for the creation of credible regional and subregional human rights institutions; 6. Support for NGOs and independent civil society organizations, and for state structures that regulate and register NGOs without impairing their ability to operate free from state interference and control. A second aspect of this reprogramming of assistance should focus on creating economic incentives to strengthen the transition to democracy. These may include: 7. Investment funds to stimulate private investment in businesses in Egypt and other transitional states; 8. Trade concessions working towards a free trade agreement with a reformed Egypt and other states that meet criteria for transparency, adherence to the rule of law and good governance; 9. Direct assistance to sectors of the Egyptian economy damaged by the upheavals of the transition period. The existing $1.5 billion annual aid budget should be reviewed and adapted to ensure that it responds to these needs. In addition, the administration and Congress are encouraged to prioritize this opportunity with the creativity and vision it demands. Other Financial Resources to Support Transition Although tight federal budgets may limit U.S. cash outlays to Egypt at this time, there are other ways the U.S. government can enable the Egyptian authorities to gain access to needed funds at the right time. These include: 1. Providing assistance to locate and repatriate funds stolen or misappropriated under the previous regime. There have been rumors of very large sums of money, in the tens of billions of dollars, existing in offshore accounts, real estate, and other assets linked to the Mubarak family and their associates. The veracity of these reports must be checked, but if it is established that such funds exist then they could become a significant resource to support the transition process and economic reconstruction in Egypt. The United States should provide technical assistance and political support to the Egyptian authorities investigating these funds and seeking their repatriation. 2. Concessionary trade arrangements: Egypt already benefits from a variety of concessionary trade arrangements with the United States, including socalled Qualified Industrial Zones (QIZ), designed to encourage Egypt-Israeli cooperation, that permit the tariff-free import to the United States of goods produced in QIZs, located in Egypt, employing Egyptian workers that include a certain percentage of Israeli-produced materials in their manufacture. The new Egyptian government will face elevated expectations and strong pressure to create jobs to meet the demands of unemployed and underemployed young people. Trade agreements designed to HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 10 stimulate growth in Egypt will be an important element in any U.S. economic assistance package. Such agreements can be designed that would have a minimal demand on public funds, but would stimulate private sector investment and, in the long term, would provide mutual benefit for both the Egyptian and the American economy. 3. Stimulate private investment. The U.S. government should arrange for U.S. business leaders in relevant sectors to visit Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries engaged in a genuine transition process. Increased investment would benefit Egypt, but could also benefit U.S. businesses. 4. Debt forgiveness is a major demand of Egypt’s transitional leaders in their meetings with U.S. policymakers. Egypt is burdened by tens of billions of dollars in foreign debt, part of it to the United States. The United States should lead an international effort, including the international financial institutions, if appropriate, to consider debt forgiveness or restructuring. Appoint a Responsible Official to Coordinate U.S. Government Support for Democratic Transitions in the Middle East. U.S. government response to the transitions underway is complex, involving the State, Defense, Treasury, Commerce, and Homeland Security departments, among other agencies and programs. The president should appoint a high-profile, experienced individual, with standing in Washington and internationally, to lead and coordinate this major effort. This would achieve maximum efficiencies and effectiveness, and a high-profile appointment would also be an important signal of sustained U.S. support for the transition process. Proactive Approach to Human Rights Defenders Recommendation The U.S. government wants to maintain its leadership of human rights, including as a leading supporter of human rights activists and defenders in Egypt. The aim should be to influence the new Egyptian authorities to carry out their obligations towards human rights defenders (HRDs), and to protect them from attacks and threats from state and non-state actors. The overall objective should be to bring about an environment where human rights defenders can operate freely. The United States should publicly stress— through statement and action—the importance it attaches to the protection of human rights defenders. There are many avenues it must take. For example, as is becoming practice throughout the world: 1. When senior U.S. officials visit Egypt they should as a matter of course include meetings with human rights defenders. 2. Political dialogues between the U.S. government and the Egyptian authorities should include a discussion of the situation of human rights defenders. 3. The United States should raise individual cases of concern whenever necessary. 4. The U.S. government should seek to ensure that human rights defenders in Egypt can access resources, including financial, from abroad. 5. It should declare publicly its commitment to HRD protection and promotion, and publish a list of duties in this area it expects its embassies to perform. 6. The United States should be publicly seen to be working closely with other like-minded countries with similar views on defender issues, at the U.N. Human Rights Council, the U.N. General Assembly, and elsewhere. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 11 In addition, the United States should encourage and support national human rights institutions, like the Egyptian National Council for Human Rights, for the promotion and protection of human rights, in accordance with the Paris Principles. It should also promote the strengthening of existing regional mechanisms for the protection of human rights defenders, such as the focal point on human rights defenders of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. In the rest of the region it should energetically support the creation of similar mechanisms. In particular, U.S. Embassy personnel in Cairo and other representatives of the U.S. government in Egypt should: 1. Establish and maintain contacts with human rights defenders. They should invite them to the Embassy and visit them in their offices, and where possible help them publicize their work; 2. Appoint liaison officers to develop relationships with HRDS; 3. Observe trials of human rights defenders where appropriate; 4. Coordinate closely with other like-minded governments on their analysis and information about the situation of HRDs, including those at risk; 5. Promote networking between local activists and activists in the region and internationally, including by facilitating meetings of human rights defenders; 6. Address the situation of human rights defenders in their reporting to the Department of State and other parts of the U.S. government, noting in particular any threats or attacks against human rights defenders; and Encouraging the Development of an Independent Internet and Telecommunications Sector The January 28 shutdown of the Internet and telecommunications sector generated uncertainty and widespread economic damage that must be addressed to help ensure a smooth democratic transition. The sudden and arbitrary disruption of Internet service, and the interference and blocking of cellphone services should serve as a wake-up call to the business community that an unstable business climate in which companies are forced to submit to government fiat, without legal redress or mediation, is an untenable basis on which to build a modern economy. The independent business sector, and especially in this case telecommunications and technology companies, have a clear interest in a business environment governed by law in which the powers of government, the obligations of companies, and the rights of users would all be clear. Democracy and human rights activists depend on Internet, mobile phone, and social media platforms to organize, communicate, and to network with supporters and experts outside Egypt. They have experienced continuing difficulties in using these services since the shutdown, including service disruption, service degradation, and hacking and surveillance. Their experiences prior to and during the uprising demonstrate their vulnerability to state repression. In a new Egypt they must receive legal protection of their right to freedom of expression. 7. Offer support for human rights defenders in the safe and effective use of communications technologies in human rights promotion. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 12 There are two major threats to the integrity and security of the information and communications technology (ICT) sector in Egypt—the continuing Emergency Law and the existing National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA), both of which provide sweeping powers to the executive authority, currently the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), to order service interruptions, and which provide severe penalties—prison sentences, fines, license revocation and physical disabling of equipment—for noncompliance. The lack of an independent regulatory authority, or transparency surrounding government demands to limit ICT services in ways that limit freedom of expression and leave users vulnerable to official reprisals, is a significant threat to democracy. The establishment of an independent regulatory framework that promotes the free flow of information, protects users, and safeguards freedom of expression will take time. However, there are several immediate steps that could address the ongoing uncertainty and threat to ICT services. Recommendation First, the SCAF should mandate independent judicial review of its powers to suspend or disrupt ICT services. Second, the SCAF should take immediate steps to promote greater independence and transparency of the NTRA. The NTRA’s charter provides that its governing board will include three citizen representatives. The NTRA should work with civil society to identify and seat representatives who can bring the perspectives of the prodemocracy movement to the table, and help to curb any tendencies to curtail services in ways that limit freedom of expression in this critical transition period. The NTRA charter also provides for the establishment of user and company committees. These committees should be reconstituted with representatives from civil society and ICT sector companies affected by the January 28 shutdown. This would further ensure a helpful and necessary counterweight to existing unaccountable authorities, and promote a more balanced and transparent approach to decisions affecting the stability and integrity of service during the transition and beyond. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other U.S.-based technology platforms have played a vital role in enabling civil society to organize and to make their voices heard. Companies that operate in environments where user rights are at risk should conduct risk assessments and consider changes to current policies and procedures to address those risks. This could include policies to identify and respond to government demands in ways that do not curtail freedom of expression, and transparency with users about their decision-making processes. Google has made a commitment to these policies through its membership in the Global Network Initiative. Its transparency tool identifies areas of the world where service is impaired for technical as well as government-ordered reasons. (The tool does not provide information on the reasons for government requests to limit service, nor does it describe how those requests are handled, both of which would be useful in addressing ongoing threats to users.) Facebook has been one of the cornerstones for the pro-democracy movement, and its ease of use and mulitfunctionality has enabled a variety of campaign activities. However, as activists have made clear, the public nature of the service has put them at risk of surveillance, hacking, and blocking of pages and accounts. The U.S. government has an important role to play. It should work with European allies to promote interim steps that would address concerns about the integrity and stability of ICT services, through a repeal of draconian laws and transitional governance of the sector to include civil society and affected companies; meet with U.S. technology providers to discuss ongoing challenges that users face and to identify solutions; and sponsor regular embassy convenings with users to identify and address ongoing challenges. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST BLUEPRINT—HOW TO SEIZE THE MOMENT IN EGYPT 13 New York Washington D.C. 333 Seventh Avenue 13th Floor New York, NY 10001-5108 100 Maryland Avenue, NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002-5625 Tel.: 212.845.5200 Fax: 212.845.5299 Tel: 202.547.5692 Fax: 202.543.5999 www.humanrightsfirst.org
© Copyright 2024