From Ayman Nour, a Question for Obama

By Michael Gerson

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

I last saw Ayman Nour in a dingy Cairo conference room in 2005 while he was running for president against Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's military ruler. During a Middle Eastern trip, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had convened a small group of Egyptian dissidents and civil society leaders to discuss democracy and human rights. Many in the room were encouraged by the greater free expression Mubarak was permitting in Egypt under American pressure. A door, they thought, was opening.

Nour, looking exhausted, spoke last: "This is not an open door, it is a revolving door. It will end up with one conclusion -- a monologue, not a dialogue." Egypt's election laws, he complained, were unclear and unfair. The government was pursuing trumped-up legal charges against him. State security agents followed him everywhere.

Nour's pessimism was prophetic. After the election, he was imprisoned for three years. Now he is banned from practicing law, running for office or appearing on national television. Last week, two unknown assailants using a homemade flamethrower burned Nour's hair and face.

President Obama is entering a nation and a region where such treatment is the normal price of political courage. His Cairo University speech will send a large diplomatic signal: Does Obama honor and support such courage, or de-emphasize and dismiss it in the "realist" pursuit of other ends?

One hopes that Obama and his speechwriters have consulted "The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East," an important new book by Joshua Muravchik. The book profiles seven men and women -- six Arab, one Iranian -- taking impossible risks in the cause of human rights and self-government. They include a Saudi woman protesting the treatment of women as chattel and an Egyptian publisher trying to bring a free, responsible press to an authoritarian society. Most of these reformers have suffered imprisonment or faced threats to their lives and families.

Many of these dissidents, Muravchik told me in an interview, felt "betrayed" during the last few years of the Bush administration, when the containment of Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process seemed to take precedence over democracy promotion (except in Iraq). Reformers in the region generally greeted Obama's election with enthusiasm. But Muravchik says dissidents are becoming "disquieted about the administration's apparent indifference to democracy and human rights abuses."

They should be, in the Middle East and elsewhere. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has bluntly admitted that concern about Chinese human rights abuses "can't interfere with the global economic crisis" -- meaning we can't afford to offend dictators who buy our bonds. The administration talks of reviewing sanctions on Burma's junta. And Egypt's ambassador to the United States enthuses that America has stopped making "human rights, democracy and religious and general freedoms" conditions for better relations.

In this environment, the message of Obama's Cairo speech will be amplified. His Middle East advisers have probably urged him to focus (as they always do) on Israeli-Palestinian peace -- the "real" concern of the region -- instead of discredited democratic idealism. In fact, this sort of realism both reflects and strengthens the strategy that Middle Eastern dictators have pursued for decades -- the strategy of heaping attention on Israel and the Palestinians to draw attention away from their own oppression and economic failure. There is no reason Obama cannot emphasize both a two-state solution and the need for responsible and representative states across the Middle East.

It is also likely that Obama has been counseled to avoid the "d" word -- "democracy" -- in his Cairo remarks. Middle East experts sometimes contend that promoting "justice" and "good governance" is more culturally sensitive than employing such Westernized concepts as "democracy" and "freedom." The argument is common -- and uninformed. "Justice," in this context, implies human rights as the gift of a wise emir or enlightened dictator. But, as Nour and others have discovered, such gifts can be withdrawn on a whim. The next founders in the Middle East are not merely begging for more rights from autocrats; they are seeking freedom from autocracy. They want more than for tyrants to open the door of reform a crack; they want to open the door themselves.

Any presidential speech abroad has multiple audiences. One of them, in this case, is the Egyptian government, whose cooperation is needed on issues that range from proliferation to peace. But another audience will be dissidents and reformers in Egypt and beyond. And a president who does not speak boldly for their political rights -- their democratic rights -- has little useful to say to them.

michaelgerson@cfr.org

Egypt's Ayman Nour claims attack, suffers facial burns

Egypt opposition leader Ayman Nour firebombed

Ayman Nour was attacked Friday evening on his way to a Ghad party meeting

CAIRO (Marwa Awad)

Egypt’s leading opposition figure Ayman Nour survived a bomb attack late Friday in front of his home a day after he vowed to run for elections in 2011.

Nour, one of Egypt’s best known political dissidents, was admitted to a Cairo hospital late Friday for first degree facial burns after a motorcyclist firebombed his car.

The attack took place 300 meters (984 feet) outside of Nour's home in the upper-class neighborhood of Zamalek. A youth in his late teens rode up to Nour, who had his car window rolled down, and sprayed flammable liquid in his face and lit a fire simultaneously.

“I had my window rolled down and he came up to me within a distance of one meter. He sprayed a liquid that ignited into a ball of fire that covered my face and head and I was immediately rushed to the hospital,” Nour told Al Arabiya in his first comments since the accident and declined to disclose the name of hospital he where he is being treated.

His driver was unhurt and immediately took Nour to the hospital. Nour said he suffered first degree burns on half his face and 20 percent of his hair. Doctors told him they expect to release him within two weeks with the possibility of minor plastic surgery. “We are in the process of filing a statement of criminal assault to the Abdel Maguid Mahmud the Attorney General to initiate an investigation into this crime,” Ehaab al-Khoury, head of the Ghad Party, told Al Arabiya. “We will also issue an official statement condemning such an act and demanding justice.” Osama Abdel Menem, attorney with al-Ghad party told Al Arabiya he will file the criminal assault report Sunday. Nour did not know who his attackers were, but said he believed the attack was in response to a speech he gave Thursday in Port Said announcing his resolve to run for the presidency for a second time in 2011. However managers at Alfa market and Hardee's in Zamalek, two businesses located near the alleged attack, were unaware of any incidents around that time. Zamalek police said no report of criminal assault was filed by Nour or the Ghad party on Friday.

" I had my window rolled down and he came up to me within a distance of one meter. He sprayed a liquid that ignited into a ball of fire that covered my face and " Ayman Nur, Ghad Party founder Nour, a 44-year-old diabetic, formed a political party and mounted an unprecedented challenge against veteran President Hosni Mubarak during the 2005 presidential election, coming a distant second. He was then imprisoned on charges of forging signature to found his party, which his supporters believe were trumped up, and sentenced to five years in prison. He was released in February. “There are many who could have done this criminal act, especially after my visit to the city of Port Said and the speech I gave there,” Nour said, adding that he remains resolved to carry on with his political activities and “will not succumb to any obstacles.” Nour called the attack “unfair play outside of all norms of decency and legitimacy,” maintaining that ever since his release in February of this year, he has been periodically assailed in ways that sought to damage his political and social standing and hinder any progress on his political reform efforts. “A series of distractions and obstacles were set in my path since my release. Attempts on my life of this illegitimate sort outside of the political arena try to disable the party’s development and progress,” Nour explained.

Al Ahram weekly : Case continues

The fate of imprisoned opposition leader Ayman Nour is still unsettled, reports Mona El-Nahhas

The Administrative Court announced on Tuesday that any decision on whether Al-Ghad Party leader Ayman Nour will be released must wait until 26 June, when official medical reports into the opposition leader's state of health -- asked for on 22 May -- are due to be issued. Meanwhile, the court ruled that Nour's defence counsel -- who had complained of procrastination in preparing the official report -- could present evidence from independent medical specialists regarding their client's health.

The court ruling means that if the official report, prepared by the Forensic Medicine Department, is not presented within two weeks then the court will rely on independent assessments of Nour's health in delivering its ruling, raising hopes among supporters of the 43-year-old Nour that his 18 months behind bars might soon come to an end.

The judge presiding over the appeal for Nour's release stressed the court would not swayed by national or international calls for Nour's release, and the decision would be based entirely on the state of Nour's health. The former presidential election candidate suffers from diabetes, heart problems and hypertension and last year underwent heart surgery while in prison.

Nour's lawyer, Amir Salem, said the court's decision was a "historical ruling", adding it represented "a severe blow to administrative bodies used to ignoring court requests".

Nour's wife Gamila Ismail told reporters she had never expected the medical report to be made available to the court panel, which was why she was treating the court ruling as a victory.

But while Salem sounded upbeat, saying any ruling in Nour's favour must be implemented immediately, Ismail sounded a more cautious note, saying she feared US pressure for her husband's release could make the regime more stubborn about the case.

Legal sources say there is a possibility the Interior Ministry will ignore any ruling in Nour's favour, using the struggle between several legal bodies, including Prosecutor-General Abdel-Meguid Mahmoud's office, over who has the right to judge the case. While some observers worry about the negative consequences of US pressure for Nour's release, others point to the case of academic and pro-democracy activist Saadeddin Ibrahim. Sentenced by a state security court in 2001 to seven years in prison for receiving foreign funds without government permission, Ibrahim was released in 2003 following enormous US pressure.

Ahead of Tuesday's hearing session international calls for Nour's release increased.

During a short visit to Egypt this week a delegation from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe talked with Egyptian officials about Nour's health.

"We are following Nour's case, and we are waiting for the court verdict, expected to be passed on Tuesday," said Sarah Ludford, a member of the European parliament.

During a conference on democracy held in the Czech Republic last week US President George W Bush called directly for Nour's release. "I look forward to the day when conferences like this one include... Ayman Nour of Egypt," Bush said.

The point was subsequently underlined by the US State Department.

"We believe that Nour should be released. We hope this could be achieved. We'll leave it to the Egyptian government to define the way by which it expresses its reactions," said Tom Cass, deputy spokesman of the US State Department.

"What Bush said concerning Egypt is an unacceptable intervention in our internal affairs," insisted Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit following Bush's speech.

The National Council for Human Rights (NCHR) also weighed in with its disapproval. "Bush's statements concerning Nour's case place Egypt under no obligation," said NCHR Secretary-General Mokhles Qotb. "The law defines the legal channels that are pursued in this and similar cases."

Following a meeting of the Al-Ghad Party's higher committee a statement was released on Friday condemning Bush's statements and any external intervention in the case.

The Trials of Ayman Nour

By Joshua Muravchik | Wall Street Journal

The year 2006 has reverberated with sobering reminders--Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority--that democracy's progress in the Middle Eastwill be no easy thing.

While the million marchers in Beirut demanding Syrian exit from their country were the most dramatic symbol of last year's hopeful "Arab spring," it was the promise of presidential elections in Egypt--the political, cultural and demographic center of the Arab world--that gave the moment its weight. The year 2006, alas, has reverberated with sobering reminders--Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority--that democracy's progress in the region will be no easy thing. None of the setbacks echoes more loudly than President Hosni Mubarak's decision to take the one truly independent candidate who had the temerity to run against him and clap him in jail.

That candidate was Ayman Nour, a long-time advocate of human rights and a maverick parliamentarian. Mr. Nour pried a small opening in Egyptian politics late in 2004 when he succeeded in securing legal status for his al-Ghad (Tomorrow) Party. One of the hallmarks of Egypt's authoritarianism has been its peculiar party system. A plethora of official "opposition" parties, all of them long since suborned or neutered by the government, are formally licensed, a status which genuinely independent parties are consistently denied.Such was the initial fate of al-Ghad, but Mr. Nour was unusually persistent. Another hallmark of Egypt's system--which is authoritarian but not totalitarian--is that the judiciary, particularly at its highest levels, has always retained some independence. So Mr. Nour doggedly used the courts to force the regime finally to grant the license. No sooner had the regime bent to Mr. Nour's legal tactics, however, than it announced his arrest.

The charge? Forgery. Its plausibility? Nil. The government alleged that Mr. Nour had faked some of the signatures on the petitions submitted to license his party. But the legally required number of signatures was 50, and al-Ghad had submitted 2,000. The government never claimed that he had faked all of them. Why would he, a lawyer by profession, have committed forgery just to boast an excess of signatures? More curious still, the government did not allege that he had carried out the forgeries himself, but rather that he had ordered them carried out by a handful of al-Ghad volunteers whom he barely knew. These men, all with shady pasts, came forward to accuse Mr. Nour.

When the case came for first hearing, one of the accusers recanted on the witness stand, declaring that he had never received or carried out any such instructions. He said he had been fed the whole story by state security agents who coerced him, by threatening to harm his family, to make false accusations. This would have been more than enough to have the case thrown out of any American court, but instead it was carried over, enabling Mr. Nour to run in the election.

It was scarcely a level playing field. No campaigning was allowed outside of the specified period of 19 days before election day. Meanwhile, and naturally, the news media, mostly government-run, were replete with daily paeans to President Mubarak. Moreover, to be eligible to vote, a citizen had to have registered almost a year in advance, before it was announced that there would be a presidential election.

Thus, Mr. Mubarak's victory was assured. But the regime was desperately eager for Mr. Nour not even to come in second, perhaps fearing that this would position him to effectively challenge Mr. Mubarak's son, Gamal, as his successor. Mr. Nour's campaign faced all manner of harassment; and Noman Gomaa, the well-known head of the Wafd Party, entered the race to divide the liberal vote. When asked why he ran, Mr. Gomaa, 72, responded with disarming frankness--the government had asked him to. But Mr. Nour was clearly Mr. Mubarak's main opponent, and he managed to run second even in the official count, which gave him 7%. (His supporters claim it was much more.)

Soon, he was hauled back before the court and convicted. The penalty for this first "offense," a "forgery" from which it was not alleged that he reaped any benefit? Five years at hard labor--an ominous sentence for a diabetic dependent on daily insulin.

Mr. Nour, however, has appealed to the court of cassation, which is known for its independence. It was this court that threw out the conviction of dissident Saad Edin Ibrahim in 2003, albeit not before Mr. Ibrahim's health had been permanently damaged by his prison conditions. Fearing that Mr. Nour's appeal will succeed, the regime has filed 19 new charges against him. Several of these are for various forms of lèse majesté. It used to be a crime to insult the king; after the monarchy was overthrown, the law was changed to apply instead to the president. Mr. Nour, in short, faces prosecution for criticizing Mr. Mubarak while campaigning against him for president.

Clouds shadow Mr. Nour's appeal, scheduled to begin on May 18. The judge named to preside is deeply enmeshed in some related political battles. A majority of Egypt's judges are in rebellion against the regime, demanding full judicial independence. Although less widely noted outside the country, this may prove to be a more important landmark on the road to democracy than last year's elections. Following the parliamentary elections, which were under the supervision of the judiciary, several judges accused others of fixing results on behalf of the regime. No action has been taken against the accused, but the accusers have summarily been stripped of immunity and are facing prosecution for "insulting" their colleagues. The judge appointed to "investigate" them (perhaps because of loyalty to the regime) is the same one who will preside at Mr. Nour's appeal. And two of his attorneys have been summoned for questioning and threatened with charges for insulting the president.

Nor is this all. Mr. Nour's most active defender and the person who keeps his party alive is his wife, Gamila Ismail. She, too, is now facing prosecution. Slender and pretty, she is accused of "assaulting" mammoth security officers on two different occasions. Last month she was also accused of writing a bad check, another tale that speaks volumes about the Egyptian system. When Mr. Nour was first imprisoned, Ismail sought to take an ad in the popular government-owned newspaper, Al Akhbar, proclaiming his innocence. The paper refused the ad on the grounds of "security," but also refused to return Ms. Ismail's check, promising to send a refund. The refund never came, and then, 13 months later, when Ms. Ismail's account balance dipped below the amount of the check apparently for the first time, suddenly Al Akhbar put it through, and it bounced. Hence, the "bad check" charges. So much for the independence of government newspapers and the privacy of the banks.

The story gets worse. This month, Mr. Nour was transferred to the prison hospital where he was placed, with too little sanitary isolation, amid patients suffering from HIV and scabies. The deputy warden issued a statement claiming, without basis, that Mr. Nour was suicidal, which he takes as a veiled threat against his life. His writings have been confiscated, including political writings and legal memoranda arguing that many aspects of his treatment violate the Egyptian constitution (including, ironically, the confiscation of his writings). At one court appearance last month, his two young teenage sons, who have joined their mother in campaigning on his behalf, were roughed up by state agents.

It is not only the Nour family that will have much at stake when his appeal is heard; so, too, will Egypt--where Mr. Mubarak, contrary to his campaign promises, has just extended the repressive emergency law--and the whole Middle East. And so, too, will the U.S., in terms of seeing democracy sprout in the region. The Egyptian government will claim that U.S. pressure regarding this case is inappropriate and pointless, on the grounds that the judicial process is independent. But if this were true, the judges would not be in rebellion. And were it true, Ayman Nour would never have been prosecuted.

http://www.aei.org/article/24328