U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

72–876PDF 2012

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/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

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

(1)

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 RosLehtinen (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 wellorganized 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 treatVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 Apr 18, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\021612\72876 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

ment 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. 

3

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. 

4

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 

5

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. 

6

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 inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 Apr 18, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\021612\72876 HFA PsN: SHIRL
7

viting 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. 

8

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 

9

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. 

10

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 

11

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. 

12

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:]

13


72876a-1.eps
14


72876a-2.eps
15


72876a-3.eps
16


72876a-4.eps
17


72876a-5.eps
18


72876a-6.eps
19


72876a-7.eps
20

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 Egyptbased 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 thenForeign Minister that our registration would be granted in a matter of weeks. 

21

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 

22

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:]


72876b-1.eps
23


72876b-2.eps
24


72876b-3.eps
25


72876b-4.eps
26


72876b-5.eps
27


72876b-6.eps
28


72876b-7.eps
29


72876b-8.eps
30


72876b-9.eps
31

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 elecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 Apr 18, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\021612\72876 HFA PsN: SHIRL
32

tions 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. 

33

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:]

34


72876c-1.eps
35


72876c-2.eps
36


72876c-3.eps
37


72876c-4.eps
38


72876c-5.eps
39


72876c-6.eps
40


72876c-7.eps
41

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 

42

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:]

43


72876d-1.eps
44


72876d-2.eps
45


72876d-3.eps
46

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 

47

Egyptian-American relations to satisfy Israeli interests in the 

area.’’ And then, she goes on to talk about funding for democracybuilding. 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. 

48

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, 21⁄2 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. 

49

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. 

50

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. 

51

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 EgypVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 Apr 18, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\021612\72876 HFA PsN: SHIRL
52

tians, 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 

53

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 

54

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 

55

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 WashVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 Apr 18, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\021612\72876 HFA PsN: SHIRL
56

ington, 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 

57

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? 

58

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 

59

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 

60

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 

61

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. 

62

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 

63

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. 

64

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? 

65

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. 

66

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 

67

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. 

68

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 conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 Apr 18, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\021612\72876 HFA PsN: SHIRL
69

cerned 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.] 

(71)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

72

f


72876n.eps
73


72876m-1.eps
74

f


72876m-2.eps
75

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


72876e-1.eps
76

f


72876e-2.eps
77


72876f-1.eps
78

f


72876f-2.eps
79


72876i.eps
80


72876g-1.eps
81


72876g-2.eps
82

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE DAVID J. KRAMER, PRESIDENT, FREEDOM HOUSE


72876h.eps
83

Æ


72876j.eps