Now that the US has explicitly linked his case to a halt in additional economic aid to Egypt, Egyptian-American sociologist Saadeddin Ibrahim is caught in the middle more than ever before. Jailan Halawi reports US President George W Bush's decision to oppose new aid to Egypt in protest against the recent sentencing of human rights activist Saadeddin Ibrahim has fueled already simmering anti-US sentiments in Egypt. Political parties, unions, and human rights groups have taken a united stand in condemning Washington's decision, describing it as an attack on Egypt's sovereignty. Ibrahim, an Egyptian-American sociology professor at the American University in Cairo (AUC), was sentenced last month to seven years in jail following a retrial on charges of receiving foreign funds without official permission, in violation of military decree No.4. His charges also include tarnishing Egypt's image abroad by publishing false reports about the domestic situation. The White House's 15 August announcement will not affect existing aid programmes to Egypt, which amount to almost $2 billion a year in economic and military assistance. It will, however, prevent Cairo from receiving the $130 million it had been seeking in parallel to an Israeli request for $200 million to fight terrorism. Egypt traditionally receives aid equaling two-thirds of any new aid the US gives Israel. Condemnation of Washington's new position was fast and furious, with political parties and other groups describing it as "a return to the cowboy era", "direct colonialism" and "an assault on Egypt's sovereignty". Some quarters called on the Egyptian government to adopt immediate measures to achieve "independent development freeing Egypt from foreign pressure". The Wafd Party, for instance, called on the government to "announce its rejection of US aid, in order to free its will from American pressures". No'man Goma'a, the party's chairman, called on President Hosni Mubarak "to consult with officials and financial experts to establish a programme so that Egypt could dispense with US aid". Western criticism of the Ibrahim affair was certainly not new. In the two years since the prominent sociologist had been arrested, and especially after the last verdict had been pronounced against him, the government had been subjected to wave after wave of local and international criticism, describing the case as "politically" motivated. The American media went as far as challenging Bush to intervene in defence of human rights. When he did, it was the direct linkage of US money to the case that rubbed commentators the wrong way. Political pundits interviewed by Al-Ahram Weekly warned that such blatant interference in Egypt's internal affairs, using aid as an instrument of pressure, would only heighten sentiments of nationalism while actually undermining the cause of democratisation in the country. They also feared that Bush's decision would be used by fundamentalist groups in Egypt to incite greater anti-American feelings among the public. Since the Palestinian Intifada was launched nearly two years ago, public sentiment in Egypt has witnessed a dramatic resurgence of anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment on the Egyptian street. The wave of mass demonstrations in solidarity with the Palestinians, which engulfed the whole country in the wake of the Israeli invasion of the West Bank in late March, was inevitably an occasion for burning American, as well as Israeli, flags. Calls for the boycott of American brand-names and fast-food chains drew a wide response. Both on the street and in opposition and state-owned media alike, Washington has been lambasted for its "flagrant bias" in favour of Israel and its complicity in the Sharon government's repression of the Palestinians. In this context, Washington's announcement that it would withhold aid to Egypt in protest against the jail sentencing of one man, while consistently condoning Israeli atrocities and brute repression against millions of Palestinians, only added insult to injury. Even those who had been critical of the court's decision prior to the US's announcement, now had an about-face. The Bar Association, which has long criticised the very laws under which Ibrahim was sentenced, went so far as to praise "the Egyptian judiciary, its fairness and integrity". At the same time, it strongly condemned "Western reactions to Ibrahim's sentence". The leftist Tagammu Party said in a statement that although "Ibrahim's trial was conducted on the basis of laws that run counter to general liberties and human rights," it emphasised that "a legal civilian trial was held and the verdict can still be appealed." The Nasserist Party described the US decision as "a multi-layered message for the whole region. It used Ibrahim as a tool to mould Egyptian policies on issues that are of critical importance to Arab interests, such as Sudan, Iraq and Palestine." The Muslim Brotherhood, who are on the receiving end of a government crackdown, chose to overlook their grievances and announced their support of Cairo's refusal to submit to American pressures. Speaking to the Weekly, leading Muslim Brotherhood activist Essam El-Erian denounced the US statement and said "it will only worsen Ibrahim's position and lead to Egyptian intransigence." He believes the US is only using Ibrahim's case as a pretext to pressure Egypt on other regional issues. "Tracing the history of US foreign policy, it is obvious that when Washington advocates reform [in any country], it is only to serve its own interests," he said. Genuine reform, Erian insisted, should express the 'national will', which in the case of the Arab world is also aimed at "strengthening the nation's resilience against American dictates". El-Erian stressed that nations "should be seeking reform for their own good and not according to directives dictated to them by the US". And why, wondered El-Erian, did Washington fail to react when members of the Brotherhood were being arrested and sentenced by military tribunals, in spite of the fact that the group has long upheld a policy of non-violent, political opposition. "They are not defending human rights, they are only trying to force their will upon other nations," he said. Although not against the principle of using international pressure to achieve certain democratic goals, Secretary General of the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights (EOHR) Hafez Abu- Sae'da told the Weekly that he denounces international pressure when there are "double standards" in applying it. He emphasised that while the US has the right to defend Ibrahim as an American citizen, it should not use aid as a tool to pressure countries, "especially since Israel enjoys the support and assistance of the US despite its flagrant violations of international human rights law". "The victim here is Ibrahim," Abu-Sae'da said, echoing the Brotherhood's El-Erian. "He is the one caught in the middle. The Egyptian government does not succumb to foreign pressures. Besides, changing its stance after this fierce attack on its system would be embarrassing." Abu-Sae'da explained that the US has fueled Egyptian nationalist sentiments, especially since "we are a country that has struggled for years to achieve independence from colonial domination. We paid a very high price and would in no way allow foreign countries to dictate to us what to do." Bahieddin Hassan, head of the Cairo Centre for Human Rights studies, was similarly critical of the US's new stand, but for a different reason. Especially in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks, Hassan explained, the US's "war on terrorism" has come at the expense of civil liberties, leading to "a set back in democracy world wide". Thus, "it is impossible for any human rights activist to accept the US as an advocate of democracy. The US could have refused to grant us more aid under any circumstances." Hassan interpreted Bush's decision as having more to do with the current budget deficit in the US, with Bush merely trying to "gain favours and please public opinion" than anything else. Meanwhile, at least one political pundit spoken to by the Weekly proferred a radically different view of the situation. Mounir Fakhri Abdel-Nour, a Wafdist member of parliament, a good friend of Ibrahim and one of the sociologist's defence witnesses, described the national reaction to the US decision as "foolish" and "lacking wisdom". He believes that the US is sending a very clear message to the "[Egyptian] government, using Ibrahim as a symbol. We have to first of all grasp the message, the balance of power and hence our bargaining position," he said. He explained that the Egyptian government wanted to send a message to Ibrahim, "which he understood". Now the US is sending a message back to Egypt, "which I hope they will understand". Abdel-Nour called upon the Egyptian government to send a message showing willingness to change and be more open to new ideas. Distancing himself from the position adopted by the Wafd leadership, Abdel-Nour described their statements of doing without US aid as "absolutely ridiculous". Abdel-Nour does not regard the US decision as interference in Egypt's internal affairs, but rather, a way of "voicing their opinion on a court verdict that is perceived as being unjust, and that looks as if the whole issue has been politicised, which I believe it was".
