Issue No. 598
Home news
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
8 - 14 August 2002 Issue No. 598 Home news |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Democracy versus nationalism
US and Western condemnation of the verdict against democracy advocate Saadeddin Ibrahim has injected the domestic reaction with an element of national indignation. Jailan Halawi reports on the fallout
Last week's State Security Court sentencing of Egyptian-American sociologist Saadeddin Ibrahim to seven years jail time has sparked a fierce campaign in the American press, accusing Egypt of, amongst other things, "consistently [making] the wrong choices".
The American University in Cairo (AUC) professor and prominent NGO figure was convicted of violating military decree No.4, issued in 1992, prohibiting the receipt of funds from abroad without government permission.
Ibrahim is the founder and director of the Ibn Khaldoun Centre for Developmental Studies (ICDS). At the heart of the trial is a documentary produced by the centre and sponsored by the European Union. Meant to encourage citizens to vote, the film's script suggests that voter participation would help deter election day fraud. Prosecutors charged that the reference to fraud, in addition to a report by Ibrahim on another sensitive topic -- friction between Egypt's Muslims and Copts -- had tarnished Egypt's image.
The prosecution also told the court that Ibrahim was using money raised by the ICDS for personal gain and had, along with his staff, embezzled funds received from the European Union (EU).
Domestic and international human rights organisations have expressed their dismay over the verdict, describing it as "politically motivated". Civil rights activists in Egypt said the conviction sets a dangerous precedent and is aimed at silencing human rights organisations. Much of the American press has been singing the same tune, albeit a bit more vehemently.
In an article entitled "Bush's Shame", New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote that the US administration's response to the verdict, "leaves one wondering whether the whole Bush foreign policy team isn't just a big bunch of phonies. Shame on all of them". State Department deputy spokesman Philip Reeker had said that the US was "deeply disappointed" by the Egyptian court's decision.
Both the US and British embassies in Egypt had issued statements expressing their dismay with the verdict, prompting Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher to say that "it is not a political matter and should not be politicised. It is a legal matter. It is out of the ordinary that any particular embassy issues a statement about a court ruling."
The New York Times, meanwhile, charged that "Egyptian courts [are] neither fair nor independent." In a comment entitled 'The Shame of Egypt', the paper suggested that the verdict should be "annulled", and described Ibrahim's prosecution as "an abrogation of the most basic standards of justice".
In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, Egypt's spokesman in Washington, Hisham El- Naqib, defended the verdict. "Egypt, like the United States, is a country that values its sovereignty. Political pressure to change a court verdict is a call for foreign hegemony," he noted.
For its part, The Washington Post, like many other American publications, went as far as challenging Bush to stay true to his promises regarding the "US promoting moderation and tolerance and human rights", by rewarding and supporting governments that make the "right choices".
"In Egypt," the paper opined, "a man who has tirelessly promoted moderation and tolerance and human rights was sent to prison by a regime that consistently makes the wrong choices, yet is supported and rewarded by the United States more than any other in the Arab World. At stake is not just the welfare of a single courageous man but the credibility of President Bush's policy toward the Islamic world."
On Tuesday, prominent Al-Ahram columnist Salama Ahmed Salama denounced the West's criticism of the ruling against Ibrahim. In a column entitled "Off Limits", Salama wrote that "comments made by foreign circles -- whether embassies or governments -- broke diplomatic protocol and came close to contesting Egypt's judicial integrity."
Wafdist MP Mohamed Abdel-Alim Dawoud, meanwhile, submitted a written question to Prime Minister Atef Ebeid and Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher asking them to provide reasons for what he called "the Egyptian silence" in the face of the statements made by the US State Department and the British Embassy in Egypt criticising the ruling.
Meanwhile, Ibrahim's family is expressing deep concern over his health. The 63-year old scholar suffers from a neurological disorder that prevents sufficient oxygen from reaching deeper recesses of the brain. His wife, Barbara, visited him at Torah Prison on Monday after receiving special permission from the prosecutor's office. According to Barbara Ibrahim, her husband appeared to have "recovered" following a three-night transitional stay in another Cairo jail house.
Ibrahim is now back in the cell where he had spent eight months following his first trial. That verdict, in which Ibrahim was also sentenced to seven years, was overturned for procedural reasons.
Ibrahim's lawyers are filing an appeal of his sentence before the Court of Cassation, and, if accepted, Ibrahim will have to be retried for a third and last time.
"We are in a better situation than last year," Ibrahim's daughter Randa, herself a lawyer, told the Weekly. "This time it is the Court of Cassation -- in which we have lots of faith -- that will hear the case. It [the court of cassation] ruled that military decree No.4 issued in 1992 is unlawful. We believe it is so unlikely that it will uphold the verdict against my dad."
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
