Photo Credit: Jonathon Fickies/ Bloomberg via Getty Images

Egypt’s National Association for Change (NAC), a broad coalition of pro-democracy groups led by Mohammed ElBaradei, criticised U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson‘s comments regarding the Egyptian Army and the mass opposition protests scheduled for June 30 after the ambassador spoke at Cairo’s Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies on Friday. The ambassador was speaking to several Egyptian NGOs and political parties when she mentioned that the United States “would not welcome [the Egyptian] army’s return to power if President Morsi [is] forced out by 30 June protests,” according to Ahram Online. NAC spokesperson Ahmed El-Noqr called Patterson’s statements “blatant interference” in Egyptian internal affairs and called upon Egypt’s foreign ministry to ”warn her against repeating [her statements] again [and] tell her she would be considered unwelcome in the country if she did.” He also called the Egyptian army a national institution “that belongs to the people and does not receive orders from abroad.”

The U.S. State Department did not respond to the criticism, however, the speech and comments come four days after the U.S. House of Representatives adopted 6 amendments to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act sponsored by Congressmen Gerry Connelly (D-VA), Frank Wolf (R-VA), and Brad Schneider (D-IL), which “expands an existing report to include information on how the Egyptian military is supporting the rights of individuals in civil society and democratic promotion efforts.” The amendments come in response to the Egyptian government’s conviction of 43 NGO workers, “including 17 Americans, for their involvement in pro-democracy groups.” Representatives Connelly and Wolf are also circulating a bi-partisan letter to Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi “to immediately reconsider the court action and permit the NGOs to continue their work.” 55 Congressmen have signed the letter so far.

Photo Credit: Ikwhan Web.com

Amr Darrag, Senior Muslim Brotherhood member, professor of engineering at Cairo University, and recently appointed Minister of Planning and International Cooperation, commented on the goals of the controversial proposed NGO law in a conversation with the Middle East Institute’s Ursula Lindsey, saying, “On the one hand we’d like to empower civil society and allow innocent funding for different activities to get through. On the other hand we don’t want the country to be open to financing that supports something that does not benefit the country.” Darrag professed the Egyptian government’s need to regulate funding for foreign NGOs, arguing that if ”someone is financing a group of demonstrators that is using violence by throwing Molotov cocktails, this is something that must be illegal. You cannot say that [the group] is an NGO and that funding has to be free.”

In addition to his assertion that Egypt’s ruling Freedom and Justice Party is an “independent organization” from the Muslim Brotherhood, he described Egypt’s demand for a new style of engagement with the United States. In his words, “the relationship between the United States and Egypt under Mubarak was a one-way relationship. Mubarak did what the United States wanted. We are interested in having a good and balanced relationship with the United States, which means fostering mutual interests and mutual respect. We do not want one party to dominate this relationship.”

The United States has consistently condemned the contents of Egypt proposed NGO law, with Secretary of State John Kerry calling the bill “incompatible with the transition to democracy.” The Secretary did, however, waive the conditions on Egypt’s democratic development before authorizing the United States’ $1.3 Billion of military aid to Egypt. The decision, however, came “well before” 43 NGO workers (including 16 American citizens) were convicted in Egyptian courts.

For full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

In his opening remarks, Frederick Wehrey, senior associate in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, discussed the perception among policymakers in the wake of the 2011 Arab uprisings that the Gulf remained a stable region immune to change. He noted that the exceptionality of the Gulf region in this regard was often attributed to factors such as oil rents, small and homogeneous populations, robust security forces, and high levels of wealth. However, Wehrey pointed out that another body of scholarship had been devoted to predicting the collapse of the Gulf regimes, focusing on factors such as the involvement of new social and political actors, an increasing youth population questioning the social contract, the diminishing returns of subsidies, increasing sectarianism, and the changing dynamics of global partnerships with external actors.

Kristen Diwan began her discussion by noting that describing the Gulf as “dynamic” pushed back against a “strong meta-narrative” that the Gulf is an “island of stability,” and added that it was important to acknowledge the changes taking place in the region. One of the major changes she identified is the overall form that activism takes. Traditionally, activism in the Gulf states occurred through organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and emphasized hierarchy, recruitment, education, da’wah, and a group mindset. However, Diwan noted that recent social changes, such as the rise of consumerism, have created an environment that is more individualistic, attune to personal preferences, and less exclusive. This phenomenon is also creating more opportunities for engagement and interaction. As a result, the old model of engagement used by organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood is no longer effective in rallying youth. New structures of activism, Diwan said, are not nearly as top-down, and are rooted more in volunteerism which allows activists to pursue individual strengths and interests. This new model also relies more on technology. These changes are important because they force us to take another look at who is influencing the younger generation, and reflect the frustration that young people are feeling with the formal government structure.

Jane Kinninmont re-emphasized the dynamism of the Gulf, noting that even if we are not seeing changes in formal political structures, we are seeing changes in informal politics and activism. Kinninmont said that although political grievances and demands over time have had common themes, the form that these grievances take has changed. She noted that since 2011, even Gulf countries with established parliamentary systems have grown dissatisfied with formal political structures. One of the newer forms this dissatisfaction has taken is the emergence of “leaderless” protests. This structure is beneficial to protesters because having no leadership makes it difficult for the government to suppress protests by arresting the top tiers of leadership, or to co-opt the leadership by giving them jobs. However, having no clear leadership makes it difficult to hold negotiations between the government and the opposition. Kinninmont also pointed out that the ideological basis for activism has changed substantially over time—from nationalism, to pan-Arabism, to political Islam—and noted that observers should question what ideological basis will follow Islamism. Next, Kinninmont discussed aspects of activism that were genuinely new developments. The involvement of women in political spaces is a recent development she said, pointing to a generation of young women that are involved in the government and in protests. “That generation of women wants something in return,” she said; however, women remain lacking in representation, and even those women in parliamentary structures are a very small minority and are largely pro-government. Another new factor impacting activism, Kinninmont said, is the access to international and social media, and the increased availability of information. She concluded by noting that it was important to remember that activism was not always necessarily “oppositional” in nature, and urged the audience to question what happens to people when they become “newly politicized” as those in the Gulf are.

Ahmed al Omran pointed to three activist movements that had been present in Saudi Arabia since the 2011 Arab uprisings. The first was the Shi’a movement in the eastern province; the second was the movement of the families of prisoners; and the third was the Saudi women’s movement for the right to drive. He noted two commonalities between these three movements. The first was that much of the activism took place on the streets, which was a rare occurrence until very recently. Al Omran pointed out that Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarchy, and that the people had no tradition of challenging the government. Furthermore, the Saudi regime often used religion to mollify protesters, imploring the religious establishment to issue fatwas against protesters. Secondly, al Omran emphasized the role of social media in providing a means through which to organize and hold debates. However, he noted that “these tools are agnostic,” and explained that the Saudi government eventually adopted social media as a way to promote their own agenda and counter the narratives of activist movements. He concluded that although protests had been limited, social media had encouraged new forms of criticism and debate that “are not just talk.” He added, “At some point, these people begin to convert these words into action.”

In response to a question from the audience about how youth in the Gulf felt about U.S. policy in the region, al Omran responded that, although the groups often claim that they are not waiting for our expecting U.S. support, there has been frustration that the U.S. has largely been ignoring government crackdowns on protests. Kinninmont added that youth tended to be critical of U.S. policy in Israel, Iraq, and Syria, and noted that the U.S. was “caught between a rock and a hard place” because, while the people in the Gulf see the U.S. as siding with their governments, the governments are sensitive to language from the U.S. encouraging democracy. Another audience member asked about the role of Gulf students educated abroad in the changing dynamics of activism. Kinninmont replied that students educated abroad were a major factor in driving change, but added that many came back to work for the government rather than to challenge it. Al Omran disagreed, noting that many returning graduates were unable to find employment, even with the government. He said this only served to further frustrate youth, and cautioned that Saudi Arabia might face a “brain drain” in the coming years.

On Wednesday, June 13, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing titled “American NGOs Under Attack in Morsi’s Egypt.” The Honorable Lorne W. Craner, President of the International Republican Institute, Mr. Charles W. Dunne, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Freedom House, Ms. Joyce Barnathan, President of the International Center for Journalists, and Mr. Kenneth Wollack, President of the National Democratic Institute, testified. The committee’s chairman, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), presided.

For full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

In her opening statement, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen called the Egyptian transitional government’s response to pro-democracy groups, as well as groups supporting free press, “in direct contradiction with the principals of democracy and incongruous with the goals of the revolution.” She called the verdict “politically driven” and said that it was an “indictment on the Morsi regime’s assault on freedom, human rights, democracy, and the Egyptian people themselves.” She said that sending unconditional aid to the Morsi regime was no longer acceptable, and introduced HR416, The Egypt Accountability and Democracy Promotion Act. This bill would make U.S. aid to Egypt conditional upon the protection of freedom, human rights, rule of law, civil society organizations, and the upholding of the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. She added that to continue to give aid in light of recent events would send a mixed message to Egypt and to other countries in the region, and said, “We cannot afford to send a mixed message at this delicate juncture. We must send a strong, unified signal, if we are to see Egypt realize the goals of the revolution.” She called on the U.S. to insist that all 43 individuals affected by the verdict be pardoned, and that the NGO offices be allowed to reopen “without further harassment from government authorities.”

In his opening statements, Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) added that the recent events in Cairo were “not just a test for Egypt, but a test for the United States,” and called upon the U.S. to show as much concern for the Egyptian employees of the affected NGOs as they would “were an American on trial.” He called the U.S.-Egyptian relationship “a critical one,” saying “outcomes there matter.” He referred to the verdicts a “huge impediment…in…our ability to partner with the Egyptian government.” He concluded by emphasizing that “the tolerance for this here in the United States Congress, on a bipartisan basis, is next to nil…and…there will be strong reactions here on both the military and the economic front and in every aspect of our bipartisan relationship until and unless this issue is addressed forthrightly by the Morsi government, and reversed.”

The Honorable Lorne Craner was the first to testify. He opened by saying that the Egyptian transition at this point could only be described as “a mess,” noting that although having a long-term mindset with regard to the transition was important, it was also key to focus on milestones along the way. He compared Egypt’s transition to that of Tunisia, pointing to Egypt’s continued failure to protect the rights of women and minorities, decision to place the executive above judicial review, and restrictions on freedom of expression and civil society as indicators of Egypt’s lack of progress. With regard to the verdict, Craner outlined the charges faced by the members of the NGOs in question. These charges included not being registered organizations in Egypt, despite efforts to do so since 2006, and that they did not use the type of bank account available to registered organizations. He pointed to the testimony of the person who “started this sad saga,” Faiza Abu Naga, who claimed that the NGOs were “engaged in a neocolonial plot, at the behest of Israel, to divide Egypt.” Craner continued that this testimony “became an integral case of the prosecution’s case in court,” despite their lawyers’ attempt to enter a defense “based on the merits of the charges.” In conclusion, Craner said, “For our partnership with Egypt to endure, we must have a willing partner…it is difficult to ignore the consistent failure by Egypt to make the positive steps toward building a democracy.” He called on the Obama administration and Congress to make a “clear, continued commitment” to those working for a democratic Egypt.

Mr. Charles Dunne began by noting his personal connection to the NGO verdict, saying “for the past year and a half, I was defendant number 30.” He discussed the political motivation behind the charges and the verdict, which he said was confirmed by the statement released by the judges to the Egyptian public last week, which relied on “worn-out, nationalist conspiracy theories, with a heavy dose of anti-Israel sentiment thrown in.” Dunne asserted that “politics, not the law, were what drove and decided this case,” saying that we could therefore not expect to come to a solution by “further legal proceedings” and that the only feasible solution would be a political one. He called on the U.S. government and Congress to put pressure on the Morsi government to “wipe the slate clean” for all of the 43 convicted individuals. He pointed to the conditions on military aid to Egypt that Secretary of State John Kerry waived last month, which required Egypt to implement policies that would protect free expression, association, religion, and due process. Dunne said that because Egypt has clearly failed to meet these conditions, this money should not be transferred under the current circumstances. He called on the U.S. government to take three clear steps in order to get Egypt’s transition back on course: first, the U.S. should reconsider the delivery of aid to Egypt until all 43 NGO workers are cleared and the organizations allowed to reopen; second, there should be a “top to bottom” review of the U.S.-Egypt relationship, including the assistance package and support for the IMF loan, “before any further money is appropriated”; finally, the U.S. should consistently “speak with a louder voice” in favor of political and civic rights and condemn abuses, and make clear that it will continue to support organizations that promote civil society. Dunne pointed out that Egyptian NGOs had condemned the verdict, and said that it was clear that “despite Egyptian government propaganda, our organizations do have willing partners.” He concluded by noting the human cost of the verdict to both U.S. and Egyptian organizations.

Ms. Joyce Barnathan began by reiterating Dunne’s claim that the verdict was politically motivated, and also by emphasizing the human toll that the verdict had taken on her colleagues. She noted that for ICFJ, the verdict was particularly painful because “we are not a political organization, and we do not take political positions, or offer political advice.” Barnathan added that her organization had been working in Egypt since 2005 “with the complete knowledge of the government,” and said that they had applied for registration several times and had formal contracts with partner organizations that were legally registered. “The decision to convict all of the NGO workers is a politically motivated move and it does not reflect the work of ICFJ in Egypt,” she added, “The draft of a new NGO law, by many accounts, including the State Department’s, is onerously restrictive. There is a chilling effect that has frozen the hopes of the Arab Spring in Egypt.” She explained that the Egyptian Minister of International Cooperation was “angered” that the U.S. had been providing funds to NGOs rather than her ministry and described the sentiment among judges that NGOs undermine “Egypt’s national security” and are a “new form of soft imperialism.” She concluded by urging Congress to act swiftly to obtain a pardon.

Mr. Kenneth Wollack said that those convicted should be “praised, not prosecuted, for the work they did to support Egyptian democracy.” He explained that the proceedings were instigated by a “holdover cabinet member from the Mubarak regime,” and that the central issue was a dispute over who controlled U.S. assistance to Cairo. He added that the National Democratic Institute had completed a registration application which was never formally rejected in any way. “Yet the actions to date — from the armed raids and the nature of the interrogations of staff members, to the public pronouncements by Egyptian authorities and last week’s verdict — were not influenced by facts or by law. They were driven by politics and an unshakable opposition to democratic development,” said Wollack. He reiterated Barnathan’s concerns regarding the more restrictive NGO law under review by the Shura Council and added, “We hope the international community will not give up on a democratic transition in Egypt. The issues it presents and Egypt’s place in the world are too important.”

In response to a question from Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) about the future of democracy in Egypt and what U.S. funding priorities in Egypt should be, Dunne responded by describing the democratic transition in Egypt as “suspended” and explained that secularists and liberals should not be overlooked and that the democratic transition would be a long process that would require continued external support. “We have… no expectations of the legal process including a pardon, we are hopeful that one will be granted,” he concluded. Craner added that the transitions in the Middle East would take several years but that this was not an encouraging start for Egypt. He expressed concern about the Egyptian economy and urged continued engagement from the West to ensure that “the Egyptian people do have choices when they want them.” Mr. Wollack expressed concern about “elements… that represent a throwback to another era,” and reiterated that continued U.S. engagement is necessary.

Congressman Connolly (D-VA) expressed concern about a pardon as it would be “conceding the basis of the conviction” and welcomed observations. Barnathan reiterated that short of a “very imperfect appeals process,” a pardon is the only option and added that “a pardon will not materialize out of thin air… it was a political decision, we need a political solution.”

Congressman Yoho (R-FL) noted that under the Mubarak regime, the United States could anticipate what it would receive in exchange for its aid to Egypt then asked what the panelists believed would happen to the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace agreements. He also asked what the future of U.S. foreign aid to Egypt should be and why Tunisia seemed to be outperforming Egypt in its democratic transition. Mr. Dunne explained that the Egyptian leadership has no interest in violating the peace treaties and added in response to Rep. Yoho’s second question, that Freedom House believes that aid should be suspended. He explained that in contrast to Egypt’s leadership, the al-Nahda party in Tunisia seeks more consensus than the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Craner added that Tunisia began with a more liberal base than Egypt. Mr. Wollack also explained that because of the need for a coalition government in Tunisia, the political process had taken a more inclusive trajectory there.

Congressman Connolly then asked whether the panelists believed that Secretary of State Kerry’s waiver of the conditions on aid to Egypt was harmful. Mr. Dunne agreed that the waiver was harmful because it signaled a return to “business as usual,” and added that policy had to be aligned with rhetoric.

With that, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen adjourned the hearing.

Photo Credit: AFP

The Bahrain Interior Ministry announced that it had identified members of the February 14 movement who have alleged links to “a string of crimes committed over the last few months.” It named 11 arrested suspects as well as 13 individuals “who were leading the coalition from abroad, some of whom are based in London.” The government has stressed that the group’s members “frequently travel between Iran, Iraq and Lebanon to obtain financial and moral support as well as weapons training,” as well as communicate with leaders in Iran ”to receive direct financial support and field instructions…” The Iranian government continues to deny taking any role in Bahrain’s uprising.

The 13 overseas suspects included Bahraini national Saeed Abdulnabi al-Shahabi, “who is responsible for coordination with Iranian leaders.” Shahabi has since been tried in absentia, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. Bahrain’s Interior Ministry also announced that it was still searching for other members of the group. As the statement read, “The information presented shows the active role in incitement and terror acts and the support that is provided by extremist religious and political leaders from outside and inside Bahrain.”

The United States has not officially commented on this development, however, earlier this week, 20 Democratic members of the United States Congress sent a letter to King Hamad bin Issa Al Khalifa in which they expressed their “concern and disappointment that United Nations Special Rapporteur Juan E. Mendez will not be permitted to visit Bahrain” to investigate allegations of the government’s use of torture. The letter decried Bahrain’s violation of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry’s (BICI) recommendation “that torture allegations be independently investigated, which your government agreed to implement.”

Photo Credit: AFP

The Working Group on Egypt, a bipartisan group of foreign policy experts, has released a letter to President Barack Obama urging “a more robust public response on the part of the United States” regarding the recent verdict handed down by an Egyptian court against 43 NGO workers.  The letter says that the conviction, “calls into question whether President Mohamed Morsi, whose government receives more than $1 billion in U.S. aid each year, values good relations with the United States,” and it adds the verdict “has troubling implications for the treatment of non-governmental organizations all over the world.”

The letter urges President Obama to “convey directly to President Morsi, in public and in private, that this matter has harmed relations with the United States and to insist that he clearly demonstrate his commitment to international standards and norms for civil society freedom.” Additionally, it recommends that the president “begin a bottom-up review—a long-overdue step—of the Egypt-U.S. relationship. All forms of U.S. assistance (including economic aid, military aid, and support for an International Monetary Fund loan sought by Egypt) should be on the table should President Morsi refuse to address U.S. concerns.” Finally, the letter calls on President Obama to “direct Secretary of State John Kerry and his team of diplomats to make coordination of these efforts with European countries, particularly Germany, a top priority in the transatlantic dialogue.”

The group, which is co-chaired by Michele Dunne of the Atlantic Council and Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, states, “Until President Morsi takes meaningful steps to rectify the harm caused by this and other actions against independent civil society, he should not receive the full support of the United States.” Other signatories of the letter include Stephen McInerney, executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy; Tamara Cofman Wittes , director of Brookings’ Saban Center for Middle East Policy; Robert Satloff, executive director of the The Washington Institute; and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, among others.

For full event notes continue reading, or click here for the PDF.

Sarah Morgan began by asserting that Egypt’s draft NGO law, which is currently being passed on from the Shura Council to the General Assembly, was “antithetical to the ideals of the revolution.” She noted that although the law was subject to many different interpretations, most of them were “quite restrictive” and “discretionary.” She noted that the law sought to curb freedom of association, and was “replete with administrative and bureaucratic hurdles” that would make it difficult for NGOs to operate even if they did receive approval. Morgan declared the law “falls so short of Egypt’s human rights obligations,” not only to the international community, but to Egypt’s own constitution. Among her concerns were the arbitrary limitations on NGO funding, including foreign funding. Additionally, the draft calls for the formation of a Coordination Committee that would have the authority to approve requests for foreign funding, and would require organizations to submit an Annual Report detailing all decisions made within the organization. The Coordination Committee would have the ability to reject decisions made by the internal governing body of the organizations. Morgan emphasized, “governments should not have a place in regulating the internal operations of an NGO.” She expected that, despite the problems she mentioned, the law would be adopted within a matter of weeks, and identified several courses of action with which the international community could respond. She expressed that the conversation with Egypt needed to be about more than the economy and the IMF, saying that putting human rights at the center of dialogue would be a “critical articulation of how we see the whole package” of U.S.-Egypt relations. Finally, she noted that the U.S. should consider incentivizing human rights reform using the security aid they are obligated to provide under the Camp David Accords by shifting how the funds are allocated.

In her presentation, Nancy Okail addressed the implications of the NGO law and explained what the law would actually mean in practice for Egyptian civil society. She said the law would have an impact on two major types of organizations: those working on development and economic issues, and those working on human rights and democracy issues. Okail noted that the government in Egypt, along with the other Arab governments undergoing democratic transitions, often makes the appeal for economic aid rather than for democracy assistance. However, she pointed out that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) lists several criteria for effective development projects. One of these criteria is country ownership of the project, whereby people within the country identify and determine their own needs and priorities. Okail noted that this requires a needs assessment survey of the civil society, and access to local information and budgets in order to determine a framework under which the project can be conducted. Thus, in order to conduct an effective economic development project, Okail argued, it is necessary to work with civil society. Egypt’s NGO law would place restrictions on these organizations’ ability to operate. Secondly, she pointed out that the laws would not only impact those organizations established to assist with Egypt’s transition, but also organizations that work on daily legal and rights issues in Egyptian society. She expressed concern that the NGO law would be seen as a “green light to crack down on the rest of local organizations in Egypt.” Okail concluded, “This law does not put an end to civil society only, but also an end to the revolution.”

After the main remarks, Sebastian Graefe from the Heinrich Boll Foundation commented that the German government was “very concerned” about Tuesday’s NGO verdict. Jen Psaki, spokesperson for the State Department, said that the State Department was “outraged” by the verdict and would be releasing a more detailed statement on Monday. Julie Hughes, Egypt Country Director at the National Democratic Institute, said that a conversation needed to be had about what sort of minimum standards would be mutually acceptable to both Egypt and the international community. She declared that Egypt was “too big to fail.” A representative of the Egyptian embassy responded to comments made during the main remarks. He said that the NGO verdict was issued by a court of law, and that the lawsuit was raised by a different government under a “law we are trying to change.” He noted that claims that the verdict was politicized directly contradicted claims that the Morsi government and judiciary were at odds with each other, saying, “I fail to understand how these pieces are put together.” Finally, he said that “at the end of the day, we believe in the separation of powers” and noted that there would be restorative justice options for those affected by the verdict “if the law is on their side.” He noted that the law was “only a draft” and would be open to revision and discussion by many different stakeholders. He also refuted the earlier claim made by Morgan that, under the law, a Coordination Committee would have the power to reject funding from NGOs, saying that no committee could make a decision itself to banish funding; rather, this decision had to be made through a court of law. Seelye and audience members pressed him on this point, asking if he meant that decisions made by a Coordination Committee could be appealed in a court of law under the draft NGO law. The representative insisted on his reading of the law, leading Seelye to note that one of the perceived problems with the draft law was that it was open to several different interpretations. In response to the comments made by the Egyptian embassy representative, Okail expressed concern that the draft law would be signed into law before an adequate discussion had been had. Morgan reinforced the notion that the draft law should be the subject of further debate, saying “that’s what a draft is for—for conversation.”

Photo Credit: Matt York/AP

The U.S. House of Representatives referred a resolution yesterday that called “for free and fair elections in Iran, and for other purposes” to the House Foreign Relations Committee. H.Res.252 was sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and co-sponsored by 16 others, including 13 Republicans and 3 Democrats. The text of the bill criticized the Iranian government for “[disqualifying] candidates based on their political views; [its elections'] absence of credible international observers; surveillance, and disruption of telecommunications, and the absence of a free media; widespread intimidation and repression of candidates, political parties, and citizens; and systematic electoral fraud and manipulation.”

Calling into attention the last presidential election in 2009 “[which] was recognized around the world as neither free nor fair,” the resolution further condemned the Iranian government’s “large-scale campaign of politically motivated violence, intimidation, and repression, including acts of torture, cruel and degrading treatment in detention, rape, executions, extrajudicial killings, and indefinite detention” in response to the “peaceful protests” that followed. If the resolution passes, the House of Representatives  ”reaffirms the commitment of the United States to democracy, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, including the universal rights of freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of association,” as well as calls upon Iran to do the same.  It also urges “the President, the Secretary of State, and other world leaders o express support for the universal rights and freedoms of the people of Iran, including to democratic self-government, to broaden engagement with the people of Iran and support efforts in the country to help promote human rights and democratic reform, including by providing support to civil society organizations for democracy and governance activities and to condemn elections that are not free and fair and that do not meet international standards.”

Update: Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) also sent a letter today to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew to designate Iranian Presidential Candidates Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and Saeed Jalili as “Specially Designated Nationals” under Executive Order 13553. The designation would prohibit them from conducting business with American citizens and permanent residents. Casey called for the action arguing that “these candidates history of brutally repressing dissent is a threat to the safety and security of the Iranian people.”

Photo Credit: AAP

Cairo Criminal Court released details of the NGO trial verdict and defended its ruling as a stand against external interests, arguing that foreign funding of civil society organizations is a form of  ”control, predominance and soft imperialism practiced by donors to destabilize, weaken and dismantle beneficiary countries.” The ruling also claimed that the United States’ interests are best served by dictatorships rather than democracy in foreign countries and that the goal of foreign funding for the NGOs aimed to “undermine Egypt’s national security and lay out a sectarian, political map that serves US and Israeli interests.”

Meanwhile, Robert Becker, the only American to remain in Egypt to stand trial, left Cairo on Tuesday saying that the decision to leave was difficult. He added that “this case was political from the start, and political where it ended. And the only people getting hurt here are Egyptians.” Becker also expressed his frustration at the U.S. response to the trial and its verdict.

Despite congress’ outrage, however, Josh Rogin explains that Secretary of State John Kerry secretly waived restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance to Egypt that would ensure that the Egyptian government is “supporting the transition to civilian government including holding free and fair elections; implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association, and religion, and due process of law.” Edgar Vasquez , spokesman for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department, claimed that Kerry waived the law in the interest of national security. Still ““it’s very alarming that no public statement was made by the secretary or the Department of State more broadly in conjunction with the waiving of these conditions. The waiving of these conditions isn’t something that should be done lightly or quietly, said Stephen McInerney, POMED’s Executive Director .

Photo Credit: DPA

Dr. Hans-Gert Pöttering, Chairman of the Konrad-Adenauer Foundation (KAS), made a statement regarding the verdicts in the NGO trials and said that his foundation did not expect the verdicts. “We are shocked and outraged, because it is a blow to the rule of law and civil society in Egypt,” he said. Pöttering also expressed confusion at the recent turn of events, explaining that KAS was included in a cultural agreement made by President Morsi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in January. Pöttering said that the foundation would appeal the ruling on the basis that they had been given the authority to operate under the cultural agreement between the two nations. 

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said that Germany is “outraged and highly disturbed by the harsh sentences imposed on employees of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in Cairo and the order to close its offices” and added that his government would support the foundation in its appeal. Catherine Ashton, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, also expressed concern saying that the verdict “expressed a negative signal regarding the work of civil society.”

Meanwhile, in the United States, Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) alluded to U.S. conditions on assistance packages to Egypt in a letter, saying that “a certification that the government of Egypt is implementing policies to guarantee these pillars of a free society, as required by law, seems impossible under the present circumstances.” Tamara Cofman Wittes writes that despite arguments to the contrary, the U.S. should not give up support for civil society in Egypt for three central reasons: they are essential to social progress, have become a partner in U.S. diplomacy and are central to Egypt’s transition to democracy. Wittes also suggests that the United States should engage in joint action with international actors on projects that reflect local concerns and make support for projects desired by the Egyptian government contingent upon support for civil society.