By William Fisher
When Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Freedom of Information Act in 1966, he did so kicking and screaming. He wasn’t so much afraid of ‘the people’ getting access to government documents – he doubted they would be interested. He was afraid of the press.
That was back in the days when citizen interest groups were far less numerous and far less powerful. Today, these are the groups that file most of the FOIA requests, while an increasing number of journalists and news organizations find the law virtually useless.
For the media, the main reason is time. It can easily take up to three years to obtain documents through a FOIA request. Frequently, government agencies that hold requested documents claim an exemption or simply refuse to produce them. At that point, the case moves to the courts, where information-seekers can sue the government.
For journalists, the story is usually dead by the time documents appear. That’s one of the reasons so many published quotes these days are attributed to unnamed officials who speak “on condition of anonymity”. Journalists cultivate their own sources. And the need for speed has only been exacerbated by the 24/7-news cycle.
Anonymous sourcing is nothing new (remember ‘Deep Throat’?). But the practice has proliferated exponentially over the past decade.
One reason is the ‘PR-izing’ of government. The number of so-called public affairs officers in the public sector has increased dramatically since the Clinton Administration, and even more under President Bush. Both used pre-packaged ‘news’ to get their messages out, but our current president’s media machine has brought this dubious artform to a new level altogether. Even though the Government Accountability Office has labeled the practice as illegal ‘covert propaganda’, President Bush is relying on other legal opinion and shows no inclination to desist.
But for advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union or People for the American Way or hundreds of other similar organizations, FOIA still represents arguably their only avenue toward disclosure of ‘un-PR-ized’ original information.
But the process can be expensive. The Department of Homeland Security recently told People for the American Way it would cost close to $400,000 for them to compile the requested documents.
The obsessive secrecy of the Bush Administration has triggered a fourfold increase in the numbers of documents categorized as ‘classified’ – and a corresponding spike in FOIA requests.
Most of what we know about the abuses perpetrated by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other numerous locations, has come from unclassified but ‘sensitive’ documents obtained by advocacy groups after FOIA requests. Likewise, whistleblowers, lobbyists, drug companies, detainee renderers, and so forth.
Thus, the organizations that have endured the delays and spent the considerable sums involved in requesting documents and then going to court to get them have themselves become prime news sources for journalists. The interest of the media is to get the news out right away. The interest of the Bush Administration is to stop disclosure altogether or delay it as long as possible.
The current government’s vale of secrecy also generated a virtual cottage industry of ‘open-the-government’ programs, such as the Government Secrecy project of the American Federation of Scientists, OMB (Office of Management and Budget) Watch, and many others. And these too have become news sources for journalists.
Among news organizations, there have been some FOIA exceptions. For example, The Associated Press filed a FOIA request and subsequent lawsuit to compel disclosure of President Bush's Vietnam-era Air National Guard service. Documents made public by the Pentagon in response to a 2003 FOIA request from the St. Petersburg Times, indicate that since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, thousands of pounds of explosives, hundreds of mines, mortars, grenades and firearms and dozens of rockets and artillery rounds have been lost or stolen from U.S. stockpiles and have possibly been misused. And there have been others.
But even if more news organizations were prepared to dig into their deep pockets to file FOIA requests, many consider it to be a fruitless exercise. Given the time it takes them to actually obtain government documents, the story they originally wanted to report goes un-reported – or is reported citing anonymous sources -- and the story becomes the struggle for disclosure.
Given the Bush Administration’s penchant for ‘staying on message’, we shouldn’t expect this media dilemma to go away any time soon.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Thomas Paine's Corner
By Jason Miller
As I opened my inbox today, I was greeted by a notification that "Civil Warrior" had commented on the blog that I founded, Thomas Paine's Corner. "Civil Warrior" directed my attention to a site at http://www.stoptheaclu.blogspot.com/. Being the civil libertarian and devout member of the ACLU that I am, naturally I was intrigued and visited the site. Quickly, I realized that there are some serious misconceptions about our organization and its members. I decided that a more realistic perspective was in order.
Roger Baldwin, Albert Desilver, and Crystal Eastman are generally credited with founding the ACLU in 1920, a period in America's history when civil rights were in a deplorable state. People like Upton Sinclair and Eugene Debs were pressing for the rights of the working class, the poor, and consumers in the face of virtual unbridled corporate avarice and its amoral pursuit of profit. Anti-war activists were jailed. Jim Crow ruled the south. Women had just gained the right to vote through the 19th Amendment, but still faced serious oppression in our patriarchal society. The Supreme Court had not once upheld the First Amendment guarantee to the right of free speech. The times were ripe for the founding of an organization called the American Civil Liberties Union, whose purpose was, and is, to protect the rights of the individual, the minority, the oppressed, the disabled, and the disenfranchised in America, regardless of religion, race, creed, sexual orienation, sex, or economic status.
Surprisingly, the Bill of Rights faced formidable opposition from many of our founding fathers. The Bill of Rights was an after-thought to our Constitution that was discussed in the Constitutional Convention, but not included until several years later. Even James Madison, who eventually bore much of the burden of sorting through the many proposed amendments, winnowing them down, and polishing their language to an acceptable form, was reluctant to add a Bill of Rights. Despite Madison's argument against the tyranny of the majority in Federalist Paper 51, he only wrote and endorsed the Bill of Rights because he knew that not enough states would ratify his beloved Constitution without express guarantees of the rights of the individual. Slavery was accepted by our nation at its inception, so at that time, the Bill of Rights did not even apply to many of our country's inhabitants, including both blacks and Native Americans. As Americans, our individual rights have been subject to attack or denial since our nation's founding. Individual rights in the "land of the free and the home of the brave" have been tenuous and have been applied selectively from the very start of our nation. Americans need the vigilance and protection of groups like the ACLU.
From its humble beginnings in 1920, the ACLU has risen to become a powerful advocate and guardian of the Bill of Rights and the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. 400,000 members-strong, the ACLU engages in approximately 6,000 legal actions each year, and has offices in virtually every state. It is a nonprofit and nonpartisan entity which receives no government funding, and is therefore subject to little or no undue influence (or corruption) by government entities or political parties. The raison d' etre of the ACLU, was, and is, to act to protect the civil liberties of everyone, including groups as difficult to endure as the Ku Klux Klan. Contrary to the rhetoric and belief of many amongst the Christian Right, the ACLU has even defended the rights of Christians to exercise and practice their beliefs.
The courts provide a ready vehicle for the ACLU to work to enforce our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Despite the fact that he was often hostile to the rights of individuals, Chief Justice John Marshall cast the die of judicial power with the landmark decision of Marbury vs. Madison, and thus created an avenue for individuals to pursue their rights. In the 1803 ruling, the Supreme Court flexed its muscles for the first time as they declared a federal law unconstitutional. This set a landmark precedent that has enabled the Judicial Branch to take its place as the third equal partner in the system of checks and balances that comprise our republic, and prevent the Legislative and Executive Branches from becoming tyrannies.
Individuals facing injustices wrought by an imperfect system can turn to the judiciary for relief.
Recently, the Christian Right has spewed much propaganda concerning the "tyranny of the courts". Over the last century, unless one is hostile to freedom of the press, the freedom to worship (or not) freely without state intervention, the freedom to speak and write one's opinion, the freedom to protest government policy, the rights of the accused to due process, the rights of minorities to receive comparable educations to that of the majority, the rights of the disabled, the rights of gays, or freedom from censorship, one could hardly consider the Supreme Court to have acted as a tyrant. In fact, they have overturned many laws and lower court rulings that seriously violated the rights of individuals, and have issued many rulings to support the rights of individuals. The ACLU was involved in a number of these cases. In 1932, the Court held that under the 6th Amendment, Americans have a right to effective cousel (on behalf of indigent blacks in the Jim Crow south). DeJonge vs. Oregon upheld the right to assembly freely (on behalf of the Communist Party). Brown vs. the Board of Education ushered in a new era of civil rights when the Supreme Court declared racially segregated public schools unconstitutional in 1954. The Court ruled in 1964 (New York Times vs. Sullivan) that a public official cannot successfully sue a newspaper for damages to their character without proving "actual malice". The Miranda vs. Arizona ruling in 1966 furthered the rights of the accused by guaranteeing them a right to counsel and the right against self incrimination. The Court ordered former President Nixon to hand over the Watergate tapes in 1974, and thus prevented the President from acting "above the law". Romer vs. Evans, rendered in 1996, determined that the state of Colorado could not use its state constitution to prevent the state or cities from enacting laws supporting gay rights. Romer represented another landmark civil rights decision. These are but a few of many examples of Supreme Court decisions, in which the ACLU has played a role, that have contributed to maintaining and enhancing the social justice of our republic.
The writers on the "Stop the ACLU" blog, and others who disseminate negative propaganda or opinions about the ACLU via the Internet, actually owe the ACLU a significant debt of gratitude for two principal reasons. First and foremost, since their reason for being is to "stop the ACLU", were it not for the ACLU, they would not exist. Secondly, the ACLU was involved in yet another landmark Supreme Court decision that helped to safeguard our civil liberties. In the 1997 Reno vs. ACLU case, the Court eradicated Congress' Communications Decency Act. The law was written to censor the Internet by banning "indecent" speech. Again the First Amendment, which is what gives bloggers their right to exist, was upheld when the Court ruled that "the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship". Those "activist judges legislating from the bench" again rendered a powerful decision that benefited the rights of everyone in our society, not just the "liberals".
The fact is, the ACLU is imperfect. All human endeavors and organizations are imperfect. The Judicial Branch, their primary vehicle to promote social justice is imperfect. However, so are the Legislative and Executive Branches. That is why our founding fathers had the foresight to create an intricate system of checks and balances, so that one Branch could not become a tyrant. While the ACLU and the Judicial Branch do not always "get it right", they have done far more to benefit our nation than to contribute to its detriment, and without them, our society would be far more brutal and inequitable. Many examples of social injustices throughout American history pre-dating the Populist movement, which spawned America's progressive social evolution, are testaments to this fact.
It is also a fact that American civil liberties are truly unique and valuable. Those rights are not irrevocable, and are subject to the perpetual assault of the natural corruption, will to power, and greed that evolves within a government (another imperfect human endeavor). The ACLU is the watchdog of these liberties, and over the last 85 years has done an outstanding job helping to preserve and enhance our individual freedoms. I feel grateful that the ACLU exists, and gladly contribute my time and money to help perpetuate its cause. I am also grateful that our independent judiciary exists to interpret the laws and Constitution governing our land. We have many blessings to count in this diverse nation, and the ACLU and the judiciary are two of them.
As I opened my inbox today, I was greeted by a notification that "Civil Warrior" had commented on the blog that I founded, Thomas Paine's Corner. "Civil Warrior" directed my attention to a site at http://www.stoptheaclu.blogspot.com/. Being the civil libertarian and devout member of the ACLU that I am, naturally I was intrigued and visited the site. Quickly, I realized that there are some serious misconceptions about our organization and its members. I decided that a more realistic perspective was in order.
Roger Baldwin, Albert Desilver, and Crystal Eastman are generally credited with founding the ACLU in 1920, a period in America's history when civil rights were in a deplorable state. People like Upton Sinclair and Eugene Debs were pressing for the rights of the working class, the poor, and consumers in the face of virtual unbridled corporate avarice and its amoral pursuit of profit. Anti-war activists were jailed. Jim Crow ruled the south. Women had just gained the right to vote through the 19th Amendment, but still faced serious oppression in our patriarchal society. The Supreme Court had not once upheld the First Amendment guarantee to the right of free speech. The times were ripe for the founding of an organization called the American Civil Liberties Union, whose purpose was, and is, to protect the rights of the individual, the minority, the oppressed, the disabled, and the disenfranchised in America, regardless of religion, race, creed, sexual orienation, sex, or economic status.
Surprisingly, the Bill of Rights faced formidable opposition from many of our founding fathers. The Bill of Rights was an after-thought to our Constitution that was discussed in the Constitutional Convention, but not included until several years later. Even James Madison, who eventually bore much of the burden of sorting through the many proposed amendments, winnowing them down, and polishing their language to an acceptable form, was reluctant to add a Bill of Rights. Despite Madison's argument against the tyranny of the majority in Federalist Paper 51, he only wrote and endorsed the Bill of Rights because he knew that not enough states would ratify his beloved Constitution without express guarantees of the rights of the individual. Slavery was accepted by our nation at its inception, so at that time, the Bill of Rights did not even apply to many of our country's inhabitants, including both blacks and Native Americans. As Americans, our individual rights have been subject to attack or denial since our nation's founding. Individual rights in the "land of the free and the home of the brave" have been tenuous and have been applied selectively from the very start of our nation. Americans need the vigilance and protection of groups like the ACLU.
From its humble beginnings in 1920, the ACLU has risen to become a powerful advocate and guardian of the Bill of Rights and the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. 400,000 members-strong, the ACLU engages in approximately 6,000 legal actions each year, and has offices in virtually every state. It is a nonprofit and nonpartisan entity which receives no government funding, and is therefore subject to little or no undue influence (or corruption) by government entities or political parties. The raison d' etre of the ACLU, was, and is, to act to protect the civil liberties of everyone, including groups as difficult to endure as the Ku Klux Klan. Contrary to the rhetoric and belief of many amongst the Christian Right, the ACLU has even defended the rights of Christians to exercise and practice their beliefs.
The courts provide a ready vehicle for the ACLU to work to enforce our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Despite the fact that he was often hostile to the rights of individuals, Chief Justice John Marshall cast the die of judicial power with the landmark decision of Marbury vs. Madison, and thus created an avenue for individuals to pursue their rights. In the 1803 ruling, the Supreme Court flexed its muscles for the first time as they declared a federal law unconstitutional. This set a landmark precedent that has enabled the Judicial Branch to take its place as the third equal partner in the system of checks and balances that comprise our republic, and prevent the Legislative and Executive Branches from becoming tyrannies.
Individuals facing injustices wrought by an imperfect system can turn to the judiciary for relief.
Recently, the Christian Right has spewed much propaganda concerning the "tyranny of the courts". Over the last century, unless one is hostile to freedom of the press, the freedom to worship (or not) freely without state intervention, the freedom to speak and write one's opinion, the freedom to protest government policy, the rights of the accused to due process, the rights of minorities to receive comparable educations to that of the majority, the rights of the disabled, the rights of gays, or freedom from censorship, one could hardly consider the Supreme Court to have acted as a tyrant. In fact, they have overturned many laws and lower court rulings that seriously violated the rights of individuals, and have issued many rulings to support the rights of individuals. The ACLU was involved in a number of these cases. In 1932, the Court held that under the 6th Amendment, Americans have a right to effective cousel (on behalf of indigent blacks in the Jim Crow south). DeJonge vs. Oregon upheld the right to assembly freely (on behalf of the Communist Party). Brown vs. the Board of Education ushered in a new era of civil rights when the Supreme Court declared racially segregated public schools unconstitutional in 1954. The Court ruled in 1964 (New York Times vs. Sullivan) that a public official cannot successfully sue a newspaper for damages to their character without proving "actual malice". The Miranda vs. Arizona ruling in 1966 furthered the rights of the accused by guaranteeing them a right to counsel and the right against self incrimination. The Court ordered former President Nixon to hand over the Watergate tapes in 1974, and thus prevented the President from acting "above the law". Romer vs. Evans, rendered in 1996, determined that the state of Colorado could not use its state constitution to prevent the state or cities from enacting laws supporting gay rights. Romer represented another landmark civil rights decision. These are but a few of many examples of Supreme Court decisions, in which the ACLU has played a role, that have contributed to maintaining and enhancing the social justice of our republic.
The writers on the "Stop the ACLU" blog, and others who disseminate negative propaganda or opinions about the ACLU via the Internet, actually owe the ACLU a significant debt of gratitude for two principal reasons. First and foremost, since their reason for being is to "stop the ACLU", were it not for the ACLU, they would not exist. Secondly, the ACLU was involved in yet another landmark Supreme Court decision that helped to safeguard our civil liberties. In the 1997 Reno vs. ACLU case, the Court eradicated Congress' Communications Decency Act. The law was written to censor the Internet by banning "indecent" speech. Again the First Amendment, which is what gives bloggers their right to exist, was upheld when the Court ruled that "the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship". Those "activist judges legislating from the bench" again rendered a powerful decision that benefited the rights of everyone in our society, not just the "liberals".
The fact is, the ACLU is imperfect. All human endeavors and organizations are imperfect. The Judicial Branch, their primary vehicle to promote social justice is imperfect. However, so are the Legislative and Executive Branches. That is why our founding fathers had the foresight to create an intricate system of checks and balances, so that one Branch could not become a tyrant. While the ACLU and the Judicial Branch do not always "get it right", they have done far more to benefit our nation than to contribute to its detriment, and without them, our society would be far more brutal and inequitable. Many examples of social injustices throughout American history pre-dating the Populist movement, which spawned America's progressive social evolution, are testaments to this fact.
It is also a fact that American civil liberties are truly unique and valuable. Those rights are not irrevocable, and are subject to the perpetual assault of the natural corruption, will to power, and greed that evolves within a government (another imperfect human endeavor). The ACLU is the watchdog of these liberties, and over the last 85 years has done an outstanding job helping to preserve and enhance our individual freedoms. I feel grateful that the ACLU exists, and gladly contribute my time and money to help perpetuate its cause. I am also grateful that our independent judiciary exists to interpret the laws and Constitution governing our land. We have many blessings to count in this diverse nation, and the ACLU and the judiciary are two of them.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
DEMOCRACY INSHALLAH
By William Fisher
For the first time in the twenty-five year history of American aid to Egypt, the U.S. Government is providing funds directly to organizations advocating for human rights, democracy and fair elections.
The $1 million in grants announced this month is a drop in the ocean compared to the billions the U.S. has contributed to Egypt – second only to Israel as a recipient of American help. It is a baby step.
But its significance should not be under estimated.
The six recipients, all non-governmental organizations (NGOs), will conduct programs with such titles as “Promoting Transparent Elections in 2005 and Beyond”, “Promoting Democracy within Egyptian Political Parties”, “Empowering Youth in Old Cairo”, and “Political and Electoral Rights”. These organizations deserve to be rewarded: They have struggled for years against an authoritarian regime and an absurdly repressive NGO law.
The grant-winning programs were chosen by the NGOs themselves and submitted competitively to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Cairo. The American Ambassador said the Egyptian Government had been consulted and was on board.
But if there is a government more disliked than their own or Mr. Sharon’s, it’s ours. Which might help to explain why some of Egypt’s better known human rights groups declined to participate for fear of being seen to be too closely associated with the U.S.
Nonetheless, it would be reasonable to ask, “What’s going on? Why now?”
As is always the case in the Middle East, a number of complex and sometimes contradictory forces are at play.
Egypt’s President, Hosni Mubarak, said he would alter the nation’s constitution to permit multiple candidates to run in the forthcoming presidential election. The 76-year-old Mubarak, the country’s longest-serving leader, has been reelected by plebiscite for the past 24 years as the only candidate on the ballot.
Inexplicably, soon thereafter, the speaker of the People’s Assembly, Egypt’s parliament, who is among key legislators working on the constitutional amendment, said the Assembly plans to criminalize political parties and NGOs receiving foreign funding to monitor presidential and parliamentary elections or fund election campaigns.
Earlier, there was President Bush’s pledge to ‘bring freedom’ to the neighborhood through his Greater Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI). MEPI is supposed to focus on supporting “vital sectors such as education, NGOs, democracy and governance”. But the idea was received with scorn by governments in the region as “democracy imposed from outside”, and little has yet been accomplished.
Then came the Wilsonian rhetoric of the president’s second Inaugural Address – freedom was mentioned too many times to count – followed soon afterward by Condoleeza Rice’s confirmation to be the new Secretary of State.
Then, as if to leave no doubt about who has the power, Mr. Mubarak, the ‘new democrat’, jailed Ayman Nour, the leader of the “Tomorrow” opposition political party. At which point Secretary Rice abruptly cancelled her trip to Egypt. The diplomats in the State Department insisted it had nothing to do with Mr. Nour, but policy watchers saw Dr. Rice’s action as the proverbial ‘stick in the eye’ of Mr. Mubarak.
It would be too easy – and not at all Middle Eastern – to see all these factors coming together logically in some kind of ‘perfect storm’. But, knowing how things work in this part of the world – and knowing the glacial pace of the USAID grant-making process -- the NGO competition would have to have been in the pipeline for some time.
So perhaps there is a more plausible assessment of how these mini-grants emerged from the delicate donor minuet the U.S. has always done with Egypt. It is that the Americans, buoyed by the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, finally summoned up the confidence to use the leverage that comes from having shelled out billions in aid. Whether it took a war to build such confidence is arguable; giving billions gives you leverage without wars. What was missing was the will to use that leverage.
The democracy-oriented grants, however welcome, are not without irony. One of them goes to the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, whose founder, Dr. Saad Eddin Ibhrahim, was jailed by Mubarak on patently trumped-up charges in 2001 and spent a year behind bars before he was exonerated in his second high profile trial in 2003. More irony: The program for which the Khaldun Center won its USAID grant is eerily similar to the one for which its founder was jailed.
Another stick in the eye?
Perhaps, but that’s not really important. What’s important is that that these grants have happened. And in the Middle East, sometimes it’s best not to try to figure out why things happen, or why they happen when they happen. Maybe we need to be satisfied with ‘Inshallah’ – if God wills it.
Since these grants are a ‘first’, they can hardly been called a trend. But who knows? Six little NGOs have been empowered to do important and potentially seminal work. Americans, unlike Egyptians, know the power of NGOs. These grants might just be the first steps toward teaching the Egyptian people the same lesson.
Inshallah!
For the first time in the twenty-five year history of American aid to Egypt, the U.S. Government is providing funds directly to organizations advocating for human rights, democracy and fair elections.
The $1 million in grants announced this month is a drop in the ocean compared to the billions the U.S. has contributed to Egypt – second only to Israel as a recipient of American help. It is a baby step.
But its significance should not be under estimated.
The six recipients, all non-governmental organizations (NGOs), will conduct programs with such titles as “Promoting Transparent Elections in 2005 and Beyond”, “Promoting Democracy within Egyptian Political Parties”, “Empowering Youth in Old Cairo”, and “Political and Electoral Rights”. These organizations deserve to be rewarded: They have struggled for years against an authoritarian regime and an absurdly repressive NGO law.
The grant-winning programs were chosen by the NGOs themselves and submitted competitively to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Cairo. The American Ambassador said the Egyptian Government had been consulted and was on board.
But if there is a government more disliked than their own or Mr. Sharon’s, it’s ours. Which might help to explain why some of Egypt’s better known human rights groups declined to participate for fear of being seen to be too closely associated with the U.S.
Nonetheless, it would be reasonable to ask, “What’s going on? Why now?”
As is always the case in the Middle East, a number of complex and sometimes contradictory forces are at play.
Egypt’s President, Hosni Mubarak, said he would alter the nation’s constitution to permit multiple candidates to run in the forthcoming presidential election. The 76-year-old Mubarak, the country’s longest-serving leader, has been reelected by plebiscite for the past 24 years as the only candidate on the ballot.
Inexplicably, soon thereafter, the speaker of the People’s Assembly, Egypt’s parliament, who is among key legislators working on the constitutional amendment, said the Assembly plans to criminalize political parties and NGOs receiving foreign funding to monitor presidential and parliamentary elections or fund election campaigns.
Earlier, there was President Bush’s pledge to ‘bring freedom’ to the neighborhood through his Greater Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI). MEPI is supposed to focus on supporting “vital sectors such as education, NGOs, democracy and governance”. But the idea was received with scorn by governments in the region as “democracy imposed from outside”, and little has yet been accomplished.
Then came the Wilsonian rhetoric of the president’s second Inaugural Address – freedom was mentioned too many times to count – followed soon afterward by Condoleeza Rice’s confirmation to be the new Secretary of State.
Then, as if to leave no doubt about who has the power, Mr. Mubarak, the ‘new democrat’, jailed Ayman Nour, the leader of the “Tomorrow” opposition political party. At which point Secretary Rice abruptly cancelled her trip to Egypt. The diplomats in the State Department insisted it had nothing to do with Mr. Nour, but policy watchers saw Dr. Rice’s action as the proverbial ‘stick in the eye’ of Mr. Mubarak.
It would be too easy – and not at all Middle Eastern – to see all these factors coming together logically in some kind of ‘perfect storm’. But, knowing how things work in this part of the world – and knowing the glacial pace of the USAID grant-making process -- the NGO competition would have to have been in the pipeline for some time.
So perhaps there is a more plausible assessment of how these mini-grants emerged from the delicate donor minuet the U.S. has always done with Egypt. It is that the Americans, buoyed by the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, finally summoned up the confidence to use the leverage that comes from having shelled out billions in aid. Whether it took a war to build such confidence is arguable; giving billions gives you leverage without wars. What was missing was the will to use that leverage.
The democracy-oriented grants, however welcome, are not without irony. One of them goes to the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, whose founder, Dr. Saad Eddin Ibhrahim, was jailed by Mubarak on patently trumped-up charges in 2001 and spent a year behind bars before he was exonerated in his second high profile trial in 2003. More irony: The program for which the Khaldun Center won its USAID grant is eerily similar to the one for which its founder was jailed.
Another stick in the eye?
Perhaps, but that’s not really important. What’s important is that that these grants have happened. And in the Middle East, sometimes it’s best not to try to figure out why things happen, or why they happen when they happen. Maybe we need to be satisfied with ‘Inshallah’ – if God wills it.
Since these grants are a ‘first’, they can hardly been called a trend. But who knows? Six little NGOs have been empowered to do important and potentially seminal work. Americans, unlike Egyptians, know the power of NGOs. These grants might just be the first steps toward teaching the Egyptian people the same lesson.
Inshallah!
Friday, March 25, 2005
ABOUT THE 'GOOD PEOPLE' OF KANSAS
The following article is by Jason Miller. He is a 38 year old father of three boys, who works as an account representative for a finance company. He has a degree in liberal arts, and is active in the ACLU as a member and volunteer. In his free time, he engages in activism through writing, and through maintaining his blog, "Thomas Paine's Corner".
I remember a time when I felt exasperation when a New Yorker would ask me how Dorothy, Toto, and the tornadoes were. Not anymore. Somebody please razz me about being from the Land of Oz. I need to hear that so I can forget that Kansas has become a hotbed of bigotry, homophobia, and Christian fundamentalism.
To peer into the depth of Kansas' hatred, look to the example of Kansas City, Kansas. Recently, it looked inviting enough that it came very close to becoming the new world headquarters of the Aryan Nation, one of the most vile and potentially dangerous hate groups in America. Topeka is the home to the "Reverend" Fred Phelps, whose website is www.godhatesfags.com, which speaks volumes about his repulsive way of being. Sam Brownback, one of our US Senators, is a social fundamentalist of the first order who is spearheading the conservative agenda to turn back the clock on many of the progressive gains we have made over the last century.
His "glorious"efforts include his strong support of the "Constitution Restoration Act", which would grant judges the leeway to mete out biblical punishments, and would legally define god as the ultimate source of US law in lieu of our Constitution. Social fundamentalists will not rest until they have manipulated the Judicial system to reflect their view of how things "should be" in America. Fortunately, the Restoration Act did not pass in 2004, but our "Good Sam" will make another run at it in '05. Count on it!
Last night, my wife and I attended a forum on Kansas' most recent display of bigotry and ignorance. On April 5, we will go to the polls to vote on an amendment to the Kansas constitution to ban gay marriage. It is not enough that Kansas state statutes define marriage as a right reserved for heterosexuals. Now the fundamentalist hate-mongers need to take it to the next legal level, where the law will be virtually impossible to modify or strike down without the intervention of a federal court. On April 5, the "good people" of Kanas will probably vote to amend our constitution to ban gay marriage, and while voting on that same ballot, will probably stock public school-boards with folks whose "good Christian values" include book-banning and teaching Intelligent Design as a "rival theory" to Evolution. I am not a defeatist, but this is Kansas after all.
Reverend John Tamilio III from the Colonial Church inn Prairie Village spoke as the voice of reason and moderation as the forum evolved into more of a debate than a discussion. His assertions that homosexuality is neither a sin nor a choice were welcome to my ears. It was the first time I had heard such a statement from the clergy. Tamilio reminded us that Christ spent much of his time with the pariahs of society, and that one of his commandments was to "love thy neighbor". Kansans' push to deny gays their civil rights certainly does not qualify as a loving act.
Tamilio was highly critical of a literal interpretation of the Bible because the Bible was written by men (making it subject to errors), was passed down through oral tradition before it had been written, and it has been translated so many times into several different languages. Being bilingual, I recognize how much can be lost or altered in simply translating a Spanish text into an English text (or vice versa) due to cultural and idiomatic differences. Tamilio took exception to the Christian fundamentalists' assertion that they are biblical literalists. In reality, they only interpret the Bible literally when it suits or furthers their agenda. When it comes to biblical passages that endorse selling daughters, wives being property, stoning non-virgin brides, compelling rape victims to marry their rapists, and woment being the spoils of war, the Christian Right loses its zeal for literal interpretation.
My blood boiled as I listened to the sophistry of Reverend J.K. Warren of the College Church of the Nazarene in Olathe. Bigotry and homophobia were incarnate on that stage and were cleverly veiled under a cloak of "Christianity". Soft-spoken, calm, and polished in his speech, Warren "schooled" the audience with his piercing insight into the "scriptural proof" that homosexuality is a sin. He advised us that one must interpret the Bible literally, and that numerous scriptures throughout the Bible reference homosexual behavior and decry it as a sin. According to Warren, since science has not found a gene responsible for homosexuality, homosexuality is a lifestyle and a choice. He argued that gays and lesbians are capable of choosing to convert to heterosexuality, and that if they embraced God, He would lead them there because that was where He wanted them to be. The line of questioning from the audience, and the level of applause for each pastor at the end, strongly indicated that this particular group of people (at the local community college in a large Kansas suburb of Kansas City) heartily disapproved of Warren and his message. Unfortunatley, I believe that many Kansans would have given him a standing ovation.
Warren represented a growing movement of Americans who yearn to inflict their Christian morals on our secular public school system and society. Evolution is under siege in the schools by an "opposing theory" called Intelligent Design, which is supported by few serious scientists, and little or no evidence. Legislators want to bring God into the Judicial system through the Constitution Restoration Act.
Bush's faith based initiatives violate the Establishment clause of the Constitution by breaking the wall between the separation of church and state. Ironically, the good Reverand Warren tried to convince the audience at the forum that the Establishment clause was written into the Constitution solely to protect the church from state domination. If one believes that, one has not studied their American history very well. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and some of the other key founding fathers were quite concerned with the potential tyranny of religion over our government and the people. Our Evangelical citizens might feel "warm and fuzzy inside" living in a theocracy, but our founding fathers shed their blood and risked their lives to avoid it.
One of the key strategies of this movement has been to use gays as a scapegoat and a way to motivate their "faithful" to vote and donate money. Christian fundamentalist and social fundamentalist leaders are sacrificing homosexuals at the holy alter of the dollar, and they are pocketing the dollars. They mobilize their minions with Gideon's trumpet call to stamp out the evil hordes of gays in our midst.
Dutifully, Kansans respond with money and votes. Those homosexuals must be stopped before they destroy the fabric of our society!
Not surprisingly, the Christian conservatives' twisted arguments lack scientific merit. In the forum, Reverand Warren suggested that homosexuality is a choice and that gays can change their sexual orientation by "coming to God" and changing their behavior. The American Psychological Association has determined that sexual orientation results from a variety of factors, including environmental, cognitive, genetic and hormonal, and that its exact causes vary from person to person. Their position is that sexual orientation manifests itself in early adolescence (prior to sexual experience) and is not a choice. Acting on one's sexual orientation, or not, is a choice, but then again some heterosexuals choose to remain asexual or even experiment with homosexuality. The American Psychological Association takes a very skeptical view of alleged "conversion" therapies touted by the vile group called Focus on Family and James Dobson, its demagogue.
As a critical thinker, I find it very difficult to imagine people accepting the beliefs of Christian fundamentalist and social conservatives, whose "evidence" consists of a literal interpretation of a book that was written thousands of years ago in a different language, over that of an organization representing professionals who have devoted their lives and careers to the study of human behavior.
What I find almost amusing about the gay marriage debate, and I emphasize the word almost, is that the Christian conservatives make virtually all of their arguments based on the assumption that "everyone" is a Christian who believes that the Bible is the source of absolute truth and law, and that somehow their religion and morals trump all others. I am a deist. I believe in a Higher Power of my understanding. While I deeply respect Christ as a historical figure, and regard him as one of the ultimate liberals, I do not embrace him as my god. I see much wisdom contained in the Bible, but I do not look to it as my sole guidance for moral conduct. Contrary to Bush's belief, and that of many of the Christian right, we are not a Christian nation. The Constitution does not mention God, and was crafted over a period of years by a diverse group of people, including deists and freemasons (whose principles strongly embrace religious diversity). Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of whom were instrumental in shaping our nascent country, shared a signficant skepticism of religion and its potential for tyranny. Our government was intended to be secular. Many of our citizens embrace religions other than Christianity, or are atheist. While a majority of Americans happen to embrace the Christian faith, there are many non-Christian Americans, and one of our key Constitutional principals is that our government will not establish a national religion.
The Christian Right needs to study history, demographics, sociology, psychology, and Constitutional law to a much greater depth if they hope to ground their arguments in reality. However, if they studied too deeply, they would find that their position is absurd, and would ceast to exist as an ideology. Ignorance can be bliss!
On April 5 Kansans will vote. This is one Kansan who is predicting that the "faithful" will come out in droves to vote to "preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman". Hopefully, my prediction will ring hollow, and sanity will prevail, but in the land of Oz, almost anything can happen.....
I remember a time when I felt exasperation when a New Yorker would ask me how Dorothy, Toto, and the tornadoes were. Not anymore. Somebody please razz me about being from the Land of Oz. I need to hear that so I can forget that Kansas has become a hotbed of bigotry, homophobia, and Christian fundamentalism.
To peer into the depth of Kansas' hatred, look to the example of Kansas City, Kansas. Recently, it looked inviting enough that it came very close to becoming the new world headquarters of the Aryan Nation, one of the most vile and potentially dangerous hate groups in America. Topeka is the home to the "Reverend" Fred Phelps, whose website is www.godhatesfags.com, which speaks volumes about his repulsive way of being. Sam Brownback, one of our US Senators, is a social fundamentalist of the first order who is spearheading the conservative agenda to turn back the clock on many of the progressive gains we have made over the last century.
His "glorious"efforts include his strong support of the "Constitution Restoration Act", which would grant judges the leeway to mete out biblical punishments, and would legally define god as the ultimate source of US law in lieu of our Constitution. Social fundamentalists will not rest until they have manipulated the Judicial system to reflect their view of how things "should be" in America. Fortunately, the Restoration Act did not pass in 2004, but our "Good Sam" will make another run at it in '05. Count on it!
Last night, my wife and I attended a forum on Kansas' most recent display of bigotry and ignorance. On April 5, we will go to the polls to vote on an amendment to the Kansas constitution to ban gay marriage. It is not enough that Kansas state statutes define marriage as a right reserved for heterosexuals. Now the fundamentalist hate-mongers need to take it to the next legal level, where the law will be virtually impossible to modify or strike down without the intervention of a federal court. On April 5, the "good people" of Kanas will probably vote to amend our constitution to ban gay marriage, and while voting on that same ballot, will probably stock public school-boards with folks whose "good Christian values" include book-banning and teaching Intelligent Design as a "rival theory" to Evolution. I am not a defeatist, but this is Kansas after all.
Reverend John Tamilio III from the Colonial Church inn Prairie Village spoke as the voice of reason and moderation as the forum evolved into more of a debate than a discussion. His assertions that homosexuality is neither a sin nor a choice were welcome to my ears. It was the first time I had heard such a statement from the clergy. Tamilio reminded us that Christ spent much of his time with the pariahs of society, and that one of his commandments was to "love thy neighbor". Kansans' push to deny gays their civil rights certainly does not qualify as a loving act.
Tamilio was highly critical of a literal interpretation of the Bible because the Bible was written by men (making it subject to errors), was passed down through oral tradition before it had been written, and it has been translated so many times into several different languages. Being bilingual, I recognize how much can be lost or altered in simply translating a Spanish text into an English text (or vice versa) due to cultural and idiomatic differences. Tamilio took exception to the Christian fundamentalists' assertion that they are biblical literalists. In reality, they only interpret the Bible literally when it suits or furthers their agenda. When it comes to biblical passages that endorse selling daughters, wives being property, stoning non-virgin brides, compelling rape victims to marry their rapists, and woment being the spoils of war, the Christian Right loses its zeal for literal interpretation.
My blood boiled as I listened to the sophistry of Reverend J.K. Warren of the College Church of the Nazarene in Olathe. Bigotry and homophobia were incarnate on that stage and were cleverly veiled under a cloak of "Christianity". Soft-spoken, calm, and polished in his speech, Warren "schooled" the audience with his piercing insight into the "scriptural proof" that homosexuality is a sin. He advised us that one must interpret the Bible literally, and that numerous scriptures throughout the Bible reference homosexual behavior and decry it as a sin. According to Warren, since science has not found a gene responsible for homosexuality, homosexuality is a lifestyle and a choice. He argued that gays and lesbians are capable of choosing to convert to heterosexuality, and that if they embraced God, He would lead them there because that was where He wanted them to be. The line of questioning from the audience, and the level of applause for each pastor at the end, strongly indicated that this particular group of people (at the local community college in a large Kansas suburb of Kansas City) heartily disapproved of Warren and his message. Unfortunatley, I believe that many Kansans would have given him a standing ovation.
Warren represented a growing movement of Americans who yearn to inflict their Christian morals on our secular public school system and society. Evolution is under siege in the schools by an "opposing theory" called Intelligent Design, which is supported by few serious scientists, and little or no evidence. Legislators want to bring God into the Judicial system through the Constitution Restoration Act.
Bush's faith based initiatives violate the Establishment clause of the Constitution by breaking the wall between the separation of church and state. Ironically, the good Reverand Warren tried to convince the audience at the forum that the Establishment clause was written into the Constitution solely to protect the church from state domination. If one believes that, one has not studied their American history very well. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and some of the other key founding fathers were quite concerned with the potential tyranny of religion over our government and the people. Our Evangelical citizens might feel "warm and fuzzy inside" living in a theocracy, but our founding fathers shed their blood and risked their lives to avoid it.
One of the key strategies of this movement has been to use gays as a scapegoat and a way to motivate their "faithful" to vote and donate money. Christian fundamentalist and social fundamentalist leaders are sacrificing homosexuals at the holy alter of the dollar, and they are pocketing the dollars. They mobilize their minions with Gideon's trumpet call to stamp out the evil hordes of gays in our midst.
Dutifully, Kansans respond with money and votes. Those homosexuals must be stopped before they destroy the fabric of our society!
Not surprisingly, the Christian conservatives' twisted arguments lack scientific merit. In the forum, Reverand Warren suggested that homosexuality is a choice and that gays can change their sexual orientation by "coming to God" and changing their behavior. The American Psychological Association has determined that sexual orientation results from a variety of factors, including environmental, cognitive, genetic and hormonal, and that its exact causes vary from person to person. Their position is that sexual orientation manifests itself in early adolescence (prior to sexual experience) and is not a choice. Acting on one's sexual orientation, or not, is a choice, but then again some heterosexuals choose to remain asexual or even experiment with homosexuality. The American Psychological Association takes a very skeptical view of alleged "conversion" therapies touted by the vile group called Focus on Family and James Dobson, its demagogue.
As a critical thinker, I find it very difficult to imagine people accepting the beliefs of Christian fundamentalist and social conservatives, whose "evidence" consists of a literal interpretation of a book that was written thousands of years ago in a different language, over that of an organization representing professionals who have devoted their lives and careers to the study of human behavior.
What I find almost amusing about the gay marriage debate, and I emphasize the word almost, is that the Christian conservatives make virtually all of their arguments based on the assumption that "everyone" is a Christian who believes that the Bible is the source of absolute truth and law, and that somehow their religion and morals trump all others. I am a deist. I believe in a Higher Power of my understanding. While I deeply respect Christ as a historical figure, and regard him as one of the ultimate liberals, I do not embrace him as my god. I see much wisdom contained in the Bible, but I do not look to it as my sole guidance for moral conduct. Contrary to Bush's belief, and that of many of the Christian right, we are not a Christian nation. The Constitution does not mention God, and was crafted over a period of years by a diverse group of people, including deists and freemasons (whose principles strongly embrace religious diversity). Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of whom were instrumental in shaping our nascent country, shared a signficant skepticism of religion and its potential for tyranny. Our government was intended to be secular. Many of our citizens embrace religions other than Christianity, or are atheist. While a majority of Americans happen to embrace the Christian faith, there are many non-Christian Americans, and one of our key Constitutional principals is that our government will not establish a national religion.
The Christian Right needs to study history, demographics, sociology, psychology, and Constitutional law to a much greater depth if they hope to ground their arguments in reality. However, if they studied too deeply, they would find that their position is absurd, and would ceast to exist as an ideology. Ignorance can be bliss!
On April 5 Kansans will vote. This is one Kansan who is predicting that the "faithful" will come out in droves to vote to "preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman". Hopefully, my prediction will ring hollow, and sanity will prevail, but in the land of Oz, almost anything can happen.....
Thursday, March 24, 2005
PREPACKAGED ‘NEWS’
By William Fisher
Despite a rising chorus of criticism from journalists and media critics, the Bush Administration shows no sign of abandoning its distribution of taxpayer-funded ‘news’ to U.S. newspapers, radio and television stations.
Free press advocates are up in arms about what they see as the covert dissemination of propaganda by government agencies. For example:
Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit, Armstrong Williams, $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and through his newspaper column and to urge other black journalists to do the same. Two other journalists, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus, have also been accused of receiving money to endorse Bush administration programs.
Since 2001, the Army and Air Force Hometown News Service has fielded 40 reporters, producers and public affairs specialists to create ‘good military news’ to be beamed to home audiences via local news stations. The service's "good news" segments have reportedly reached 41 million Americans via local newscasts, in most cases, without the station acknowledging their source.
More than 20 different federal agencies used taxpayer funds to produce television news segments promoting Bush administration policies. These "video news releases," or VNRs, were broadcast on hundreds of local news programs without disclosing their source.
And the Pentagon will soon have its own TV outlet. The Pentagon Channel will be available to Americans via every satellite and cable operator. The Free Press organization says “This is just one piece in the array of Pentagon propaganda designed to infiltrate the U.S. news system.”
Regarding the VNRs, President Bush said the government's practice of sending ‘packaged news stories’ to local television stations was legal and he has no plans to cease it.
His defense of the packages, which are designed to look like television news segments, came after the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog agency, called them a form of covert propaganda.
But the Bush Administration said, “Executive Branch agencies are not bound by GAO's legal advice” but should be guided by the views of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), part of the Executive Branch.
The GAO said that publications that are "misleading as to their origin and reasonably constitute 'propaganda' within the common understanding of that term" qualify as forbidden "covert propaganda." GAO’s definition of propaganda included “Covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties."
Last week, two influential media advocacy groups, Free Press and the Center for Media and Democracy, filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging Chairman Kevin J. Martin to investigate broadcasters who distribute government-sponsored news reports without identifying their source.
Nearly 40,000 concerned citizens have already signed a petition circulated by the two groups last week calling on the FCC, Congress and local broadcasters to "stop fake news", the organizations reported.
Free Press is a nonpartisan organization working to increase informed public participation in media policy and promote more public-interest-oriented media. The Center for Media and Democracy publishes PR Watch, a newsletter that investigates the public relations industry and other professional propagandists.
According to Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, the petition calls on the FCC to “take quick action to investigate and eradicate news fraud and enforce the existing laws against payola. Congress must enact new laws that will stop government-funded fake news from airing without a disclaimer."
Other media critics were equally vocal.
Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy for the American Federation of Scientists, said, “The Administration practice of clandestine support for commentators and video press releases reinforces the nagging suspicion that much of what passes for news nowadays is actually bought and paid for in order to advance a particular agenda. Paying journalists to write positive stories is part of a pattern of secrecy and manipulating the public that undermines our safety and our democracy.”
Rick Blum of OpenTheGovernment.org, another pro-transparency advocacy group, charged that “The public expects journalists are credible and independent, free of government money and conflicts of interest.” He cautioned, “Government actions should stand the scrutiny of an enterprising, independent press. Using tax dollars to literally write the news about government programs, new drug approvals, consumer protection programs, and security efforts robs taxpayers of an effective watch on how their tax dollars are spent.”
Norman Soloman, a syndicated columnist on media and politics and founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy, said, “The ‘video news releases’ put out by the U.S. government are pernicious because the TV broadcasts often do not tell the viewers that the government is funding and controlling those supposed ‘news’ reports.”
And Martin Kaplan, head of the Lear Center at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication, scolded, “It's bad enough that the Bush Administration is disseminating domestic propaganda. But the consequence of their injecting fake news into the media mainstream may be even worse than poisoning public debate on specific issues. It undermines the legitimacy of all news. It corrodes the ability of real journalism to do its job”.
The federal government's practice of sending "packaged news" to media outlets began under the Clinton Administration. President Bush has not only continued the practice, he has doubled the amount of federal tax dollars that are used for this purpose, spending $254 million in his first term.
Free Press and the Center for Media and Democracy are also working with local groups to establish "citizen agreements" with local stations, under which broadcasters pledge to clearly identify or label pre-packaged reports produced the government.
Soon after the Armstrong Williams scandal broke, Melanie Sloan of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to 22 federal agencies. She is seeking evidence of similar arrangements between the executive branch, PR firms and pundits.
FOIA was signed into law by President Johnson in 1966 to increase public access to federal government records.
Since President Bush entered office, the report says, there has been a more than 75% increase in the amount of government information classified as secret each year. There has been a corresponding explosion in the number of requests for information under FOIA.
"Yet an even more aggressive form of government information control has gone un-enumerated and often unrecognized in the Bush era, as government agencies have restricted access to unclassified information in libraries, archives, Web sites, and official databases," says Steven Aftergood.
Despite a rising chorus of criticism from journalists and media critics, the Bush Administration shows no sign of abandoning its distribution of taxpayer-funded ‘news’ to U.S. newspapers, radio and television stations.
Free press advocates are up in arms about what they see as the covert dissemination of propaganda by government agencies. For example:
Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit, Armstrong Williams, $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and through his newspaper column and to urge other black journalists to do the same. Two other journalists, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus, have also been accused of receiving money to endorse Bush administration programs.
Since 2001, the Army and Air Force Hometown News Service has fielded 40 reporters, producers and public affairs specialists to create ‘good military news’ to be beamed to home audiences via local news stations. The service's "good news" segments have reportedly reached 41 million Americans via local newscasts, in most cases, without the station acknowledging their source.
More than 20 different federal agencies used taxpayer funds to produce television news segments promoting Bush administration policies. These "video news releases," or VNRs, were broadcast on hundreds of local news programs without disclosing their source.
And the Pentagon will soon have its own TV outlet. The Pentagon Channel will be available to Americans via every satellite and cable operator. The Free Press organization says “This is just one piece in the array of Pentagon propaganda designed to infiltrate the U.S. news system.”
Regarding the VNRs, President Bush said the government's practice of sending ‘packaged news stories’ to local television stations was legal and he has no plans to cease it.
His defense of the packages, which are designed to look like television news segments, came after the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog agency, called them a form of covert propaganda.
But the Bush Administration said, “Executive Branch agencies are not bound by GAO's legal advice” but should be guided by the views of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), part of the Executive Branch.
The GAO said that publications that are "misleading as to their origin and reasonably constitute 'propaganda' within the common understanding of that term" qualify as forbidden "covert propaganda." GAO’s definition of propaganda included “Covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties."
Last week, two influential media advocacy groups, Free Press and the Center for Media and Democracy, filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging Chairman Kevin J. Martin to investigate broadcasters who distribute government-sponsored news reports without identifying their source.
Nearly 40,000 concerned citizens have already signed a petition circulated by the two groups last week calling on the FCC, Congress and local broadcasters to "stop fake news", the organizations reported.
Free Press is a nonpartisan organization working to increase informed public participation in media policy and promote more public-interest-oriented media. The Center for Media and Democracy publishes PR Watch, a newsletter that investigates the public relations industry and other professional propagandists.
According to Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, the petition calls on the FCC to “take quick action to investigate and eradicate news fraud and enforce the existing laws against payola. Congress must enact new laws that will stop government-funded fake news from airing without a disclaimer."
Other media critics were equally vocal.
Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy for the American Federation of Scientists, said, “The Administration practice of clandestine support for commentators and video press releases reinforces the nagging suspicion that much of what passes for news nowadays is actually bought and paid for in order to advance a particular agenda. Paying journalists to write positive stories is part of a pattern of secrecy and manipulating the public that undermines our safety and our democracy.”
Rick Blum of OpenTheGovernment.org, another pro-transparency advocacy group, charged that “The public expects journalists are credible and independent, free of government money and conflicts of interest.” He cautioned, “Government actions should stand the scrutiny of an enterprising, independent press. Using tax dollars to literally write the news about government programs, new drug approvals, consumer protection programs, and security efforts robs taxpayers of an effective watch on how their tax dollars are spent.”
Norman Soloman, a syndicated columnist on media and politics and founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy, said, “The ‘video news releases’ put out by the U.S. government are pernicious because the TV broadcasts often do not tell the viewers that the government is funding and controlling those supposed ‘news’ reports.”
And Martin Kaplan, head of the Lear Center at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication, scolded, “It's bad enough that the Bush Administration is disseminating domestic propaganda. But the consequence of their injecting fake news into the media mainstream may be even worse than poisoning public debate on specific issues. It undermines the legitimacy of all news. It corrodes the ability of real journalism to do its job”.
The federal government's practice of sending "packaged news" to media outlets began under the Clinton Administration. President Bush has not only continued the practice, he has doubled the amount of federal tax dollars that are used for this purpose, spending $254 million in his first term.
Free Press and the Center for Media and Democracy are also working with local groups to establish "citizen agreements" with local stations, under which broadcasters pledge to clearly identify or label pre-packaged reports produced the government.
Soon after the Armstrong Williams scandal broke, Melanie Sloan of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to 22 federal agencies. She is seeking evidence of similar arrangements between the executive branch, PR firms and pundits.
FOIA was signed into law by President Johnson in 1966 to increase public access to federal government records.
Since President Bush entered office, the report says, there has been a more than 75% increase in the amount of government information classified as secret each year. There has been a corresponding explosion in the number of requests for information under FOIA.
"Yet an even more aggressive form of government information control has gone un-enumerated and often unrecognized in the Bush era, as government agencies have restricted access to unclassified information in libraries, archives, Web sites, and official databases," says Steven Aftergood.
BUILDING BRIDGES?
By William Fisher
America’s acute shortage of Arabic speakers is in danger of crippling the nation’s efforts to counter terrorist threats, communicate with prisoners, and build bridges to the Muslim world.
The numbers of Arabic language students in U.S. universities has skyrocketed since the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. But it still ranks behind classical Greek, Latin and even American Sign Language.
The shortage has spurred an aggressive campaign of recruiting – including generous sign-on bonuses -- by all U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the State Department (DOS), the Defense Department (DOD), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The CIA has taken out ads in local newspapers that feature a photo of the Statue of Liberty with the words: "For over 100 years, Arab Americans have served the nation. Today we need you more than ever." The agency is offering bonuses of up to $25,000 for new hires who are fluent in Arabic and other crucial languages.
And last year’s intelligence reorganization law authorized the agency to study so-called ‘heritage communities’ such as metropolitan Detroit’s Arab populations with foreign language abilities. It also earmarked money for a pilot program to recruit foreign-language speakers into a civilian linguist reserve corps.
All U.S intelligence services report substantial increases in employment applications. But the ratio of applications to job offers remains low. One reason is the high standards set by these agencies. Another is the unwillingness of many Arab and Muslim-Americans to apply to agencies they see as having contributed to creating an ‘Islamophobic’ environment. Still another is the security clearance process, which can take up to a year or longer.
One result of the shortage is that analysts at the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) are awash in untranslated gleanings of intelligence in Arabic. Nor are there enough interpreters to handle detainees in Iraq.
The FBI says that since Sept. 11, the agency has processed 30,000 applicants for jobs as linguists in Arabic, Farsi, and other tongues. But it points out that "out of 20 applicants, we'd be lucky to get one or two." The FBI now has more than 1,200 linguists, an increase of 50 percent since September 11th.
The shortage is having no less an effect on U.S. efforts in public diplomacy.
A Pentagon advisory panel known as the Defense Science Board reported recently, "The United States today is without a working channel of communications to the world of Muslims and Islam."
And the bipartisan U. S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy appointed by President Bush concluded late last year that the American campaign to communicate its ideas and ideals, particularly to Muslim audiences, was “uncoordinated and underfunded, and risks sending contradictory messages about U.S. intentions.” It said that one successful initiative -- exchange programs between U.S. and foreign students -- has been burdened by ''redundant" security measures and ''excessive" visa fees.
Adam Clayton Powell III, Visiting Professor and Senior Fellow at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, told IPS, “There are only a half dozen or so U.S. spokesmen who have a sufficient grasp of the Arabic language to appear on radio or television in that part of the world. That means the U.S. is not even part of the dialogue there.”
The language situation appears to be improving, but for a number of reasons it can only improve slowly. One of them is that, for Americans, Arabic is one of the most difficult languages in the world.
For example, Arabic has its own alphabet and is written from right to left. Written Arabic differs from the many dialects spoken on the streets of Arab countries, and people from different Arab countries often have a hard time understanding one another. To master Arabic takes significantly more time than Romance languages such as Spanish or French, which are more closely related to English.
The U.S. State Department rates Arabic, along with Chinese and Korean, as a "superhard" language, a designation formalized late last year.
Colleges in the United States report rising demand from Americans to study Arabic, and are attempting to beef up their curricula to accommodate the surge. More schools are adding programs and hunting for teachers, but that is a challenge because many of the U.S. professors who specialize in Arabic and fields related to the Arab world are at or nearing retirement age.
Nonetheless, "Today we have more teachers of Arabic than we had students 10 years ago," says Michael Lemmon, dean of the U.S. State Department's School of Language Studies.
But the 10,584 students who were studying Arabic in 2002 are still a tiny group compared with those studying Spanish, Italian, French and other languages.
Another problem with recruiting Arabic speakers is that many of the students who graduate with proficiency in the language choose not to teach it. And working for the U.S. government is by no means the sole motivation for many students of Arabic.
Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan and a fluent Arabic speaker, told IPS, “Not everyone studying Arabic is thrilled with U.S. policies in the Middle East. Many students are critical of certain U.S. policies toward the Middle East, especially regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” he added. “If the Feds want more Americans to study Arabic, they should give money for undergraduate scholarships. “
Cole says government funding for the study of Arabic by graduate students “has fallen dramatically since 1980. The Reagan administration zero-budgeted the program every year in the 1980s, but Congress put the money back. But the program has not kept up with inflation. In 1984 the University of Michigan was giving out nearly 20 awards to grads every year. I don't think they can support more than three or four graduate students with the current Federal grant. It is pitiful.”
The acute shortage of Arabic speakers needs to be viewed not only as a critical piece of the counter-terrorism agenda, but also as an absolutely indispensable component of America’s public diplomacy effort. President Bush has nominated one of his closest advisors, Karen Hughes, to lead those efforts at the State Department. But, to paraphrase Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s famous remark, “You go to war with the army you’ve got, not necessarily the army you want.”
How Karen Hughes – or any of the U.S. intelligence and security agencies – can successfully fight their wars with ‘the army they’ve got’ remains a mystery. And remains to be seen.
America’s acute shortage of Arabic speakers is in danger of crippling the nation’s efforts to counter terrorist threats, communicate with prisoners, and build bridges to the Muslim world.
The numbers of Arabic language students in U.S. universities has skyrocketed since the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. But it still ranks behind classical Greek, Latin and even American Sign Language.
The shortage has spurred an aggressive campaign of recruiting – including generous sign-on bonuses -- by all U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the State Department (DOS), the Defense Department (DOD), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The CIA has taken out ads in local newspapers that feature a photo of the Statue of Liberty with the words: "For over 100 years, Arab Americans have served the nation. Today we need you more than ever." The agency is offering bonuses of up to $25,000 for new hires who are fluent in Arabic and other crucial languages.
And last year’s intelligence reorganization law authorized the agency to study so-called ‘heritage communities’ such as metropolitan Detroit’s Arab populations with foreign language abilities. It also earmarked money for a pilot program to recruit foreign-language speakers into a civilian linguist reserve corps.
All U.S intelligence services report substantial increases in employment applications. But the ratio of applications to job offers remains low. One reason is the high standards set by these agencies. Another is the unwillingness of many Arab and Muslim-Americans to apply to agencies they see as having contributed to creating an ‘Islamophobic’ environment. Still another is the security clearance process, which can take up to a year or longer.
One result of the shortage is that analysts at the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) are awash in untranslated gleanings of intelligence in Arabic. Nor are there enough interpreters to handle detainees in Iraq.
The FBI says that since Sept. 11, the agency has processed 30,000 applicants for jobs as linguists in Arabic, Farsi, and other tongues. But it points out that "out of 20 applicants, we'd be lucky to get one or two." The FBI now has more than 1,200 linguists, an increase of 50 percent since September 11th.
The shortage is having no less an effect on U.S. efforts in public diplomacy.
A Pentagon advisory panel known as the Defense Science Board reported recently, "The United States today is without a working channel of communications to the world of Muslims and Islam."
And the bipartisan U. S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy appointed by President Bush concluded late last year that the American campaign to communicate its ideas and ideals, particularly to Muslim audiences, was “uncoordinated and underfunded, and risks sending contradictory messages about U.S. intentions.” It said that one successful initiative -- exchange programs between U.S. and foreign students -- has been burdened by ''redundant" security measures and ''excessive" visa fees.
Adam Clayton Powell III, Visiting Professor and Senior Fellow at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, told IPS, “There are only a half dozen or so U.S. spokesmen who have a sufficient grasp of the Arabic language to appear on radio or television in that part of the world. That means the U.S. is not even part of the dialogue there.”
The language situation appears to be improving, but for a number of reasons it can only improve slowly. One of them is that, for Americans, Arabic is one of the most difficult languages in the world.
For example, Arabic has its own alphabet and is written from right to left. Written Arabic differs from the many dialects spoken on the streets of Arab countries, and people from different Arab countries often have a hard time understanding one another. To master Arabic takes significantly more time than Romance languages such as Spanish or French, which are more closely related to English.
The U.S. State Department rates Arabic, along with Chinese and Korean, as a "superhard" language, a designation formalized late last year.
Colleges in the United States report rising demand from Americans to study Arabic, and are attempting to beef up their curricula to accommodate the surge. More schools are adding programs and hunting for teachers, but that is a challenge because many of the U.S. professors who specialize in Arabic and fields related to the Arab world are at or nearing retirement age.
Nonetheless, "Today we have more teachers of Arabic than we had students 10 years ago," says Michael Lemmon, dean of the U.S. State Department's School of Language Studies.
But the 10,584 students who were studying Arabic in 2002 are still a tiny group compared with those studying Spanish, Italian, French and other languages.
Another problem with recruiting Arabic speakers is that many of the students who graduate with proficiency in the language choose not to teach it. And working for the U.S. government is by no means the sole motivation for many students of Arabic.
Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan and a fluent Arabic speaker, told IPS, “Not everyone studying Arabic is thrilled with U.S. policies in the Middle East. Many students are critical of certain U.S. policies toward the Middle East, especially regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” he added. “If the Feds want more Americans to study Arabic, they should give money for undergraduate scholarships. “
Cole says government funding for the study of Arabic by graduate students “has fallen dramatically since 1980. The Reagan administration zero-budgeted the program every year in the 1980s, but Congress put the money back. But the program has not kept up with inflation. In 1984 the University of Michigan was giving out nearly 20 awards to grads every year. I don't think they can support more than three or four graduate students with the current Federal grant. It is pitiful.”
The acute shortage of Arabic speakers needs to be viewed not only as a critical piece of the counter-terrorism agenda, but also as an absolutely indispensable component of America’s public diplomacy effort. President Bush has nominated one of his closest advisors, Karen Hughes, to lead those efforts at the State Department. But, to paraphrase Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s famous remark, “You go to war with the army you’ve got, not necessarily the army you want.”
How Karen Hughes – or any of the U.S. intelligence and security agencies – can successfully fight their wars with ‘the army they’ve got’ remains a mystery. And remains to be seen.
DEMOCRACY – UNDER THE RADAR
By William Fisher
President Bush has taken a baby step toward fulfilling his pledge to spread democracy in the Middle East by giving grants totaling $1 million to six civil society organizations in Egypt, including perhaps the most controversial in the country – the organization whose leader spent a year behind bars on trumped-up charges.
The grants, which went totally unnoticed in the U.S. mainstream press, were announced in Cairo by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). While the agency has provided grants and training to other non-governmental organizations over the past five years, most of the recipients were trade-related or community support groups.
This is the first time USAID funding has gone directly to Egyptian organizations dedicated to political and electoral reform. The influential Egyptian newspaper, Al Ahram, called the grants “a bombshell”.
An international development expert familiar with USAID’s programs in Egypt siad,“This is the first time that USAID has directly supported Egyptian organizations with an explicit democracy focus. Not only has USAID Egypt not supported Egyptian democracy organizations -- it's never supported the main American ones either.” He spoke on condition of anonymity,
The grants come on the heels of the announcement by Egypt’s President, Hosni Mubarak, that he would alter the nation’s constitution to permit multiple candidates to run in the forthcoming presidential election. The 76-year-old Mubarak has been reelected by plebiscite for the past 24 years as the only candidate on the ballot.
They also appear to be in sharp contrast to recent statements from the speaker of the People’s Assembly, Egypt’s parliament. Speaker Fathi Sorour, who is among key legislators working on the constitutional amendment, said that the People's Assembly plans to criminalize political parties and NGOs receiving foreign funding to monitor presidential and parliamentary elections or fund election campaigns.
The founder of one of the recipient organizations, Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, spent more than a year in prison before being exonerated in 2003 on charges related to election monitoring activities. The incident sparked a crisis in Egyptian-U.S. relations, with Washington withholding $350 million in assistance. Dr. Ibrahim was accused of accepting a grant from the European Union without permission and misusing the funds. He was acquitted after two high profile trials.
The grants were announced at a press conference by U.S. Ambassador David Welch, who has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State. He said they were offered in response to Egyptian ideas for democracy-building activities, which the six civil society NGOs had submitted to the US Embassy. He added that the Egyptian government had agreed to the grants.
In addition to the Ibn Khaldun Center, other NGOs receiving grants include the United Group, the Egyptian Association for Developing and Disseminating Legal Awareness, the Egyptian Association for Supporting Democracy, the New Horizons Association for Social Development, and the Alliance for Arab Women.
Projects awarded USAID funding are "Promoting Transparent Elections in 2005 and Beyond;" (The United Group); "Promoting Democracy within Egyptian Political Parties;" (The Egyptian Association for Developing and Disseminating Legal Awareness); "Future Leaders Workshops and Community Meetings;" (The Egyptian Association for Supporting Democracy); "Empowering Youth in Old Cairo;" (The New Horizon Association for Social Development); "Political and Electoral Rights Program;" (The Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies); and "Combating Terrorism through Community Participation" (The Alliance for Arab Women).
Welch said the new grants were geared towards achieving what President George W. Bush said about Egypt being "the great and proud nation... which showed the way towards peace in the Middle East... now show[ing] the way towards democracy," according to Al Ahram.
The project planned by the Ibn Khaldun Centre is similar to the activity that led to Ibrahim's jailing in 2000. Last December, Ibrahim announced that his Centre planned to monitor parliamentary and presidential elections in 2005, whatever the legal cost. He has also said he plans to run against President Mubarak.
Welch reportedly told Al-Ahram the U.S. decision to provide grants to Egyptian NGOs had “absolutely no link” to the arrest of Ayman Nour, head of the political party, “Tomorrow”. However, Welch said the U.S. has strong concerns about the opposition leader's arrest, which "we have expressed to the government.”
Nour, a member of the People’s Assembly, was jailed by Security Service police in late January on suspicion of forging signatures on the petitions he presented to the government in order to register his political party. He was released on bail on March 14 and then led a parade through downtown Cairo.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice cancelled a scheduled visit to Egypt after Nour’s arrest, but U.S. authorities have dismissed the idea that the cancellation of Rice’s visit to Cairo was a protest against Nour's arrest.
Twenty human rights NGOs told Reuters earlier this month that they would be monitoring Egypt's parliamentary and presidential elections this year.
The NGO grants are part of a systematic American effort to implement the U.S. president's Greater Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI). "The events of 11 September led to more active US involvement in Egypt and the region," according to the USAID/Egypt Strategic Plan Update for Fiscal Years 2000/2009, which required adjusting the focus of USAID/Egypt on “vital sectors such as education, NGOs, democracy and governance”.
USAID funds will be directed to providing citizens with more avenues to participate in political life via improving the legal environment governing political activities, and that electoral system assistance would go towards improving voter registration, training of candidates, and other interventions deemed necessary for this purpose. USAID programs will also target reform-minded leaders, promote knowledge of democratic practices such as model parliaments, and facilitate joint democracy programs between American and Egyptian universities.
Since early 2000, USAID/Egypt has funded an NGO Service Center to strengthen the capacities of Egyptian NGOs. Most of the organizations signing up for training are community development and business support groups.
The impact of the constitutional amendment permitting multiple candidates to run for president remains unclear, as the People’s Assembly works to craft its language. Political parties require permission from the Assembly in order to enter candidates, and the Assembly is heavily dominated by Mubarak’s own political party. Mubarak has not yet announced whether he will stand for another term as president. He took office in 1981 after Anwar Sadat's assassination and is Egypt’s longest-serving head of state.
President Bush has taken a baby step toward fulfilling his pledge to spread democracy in the Middle East by giving grants totaling $1 million to six civil society organizations in Egypt, including perhaps the most controversial in the country – the organization whose leader spent a year behind bars on trumped-up charges.
The grants, which went totally unnoticed in the U.S. mainstream press, were announced in Cairo by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). While the agency has provided grants and training to other non-governmental organizations over the past five years, most of the recipients were trade-related or community support groups.
This is the first time USAID funding has gone directly to Egyptian organizations dedicated to political and electoral reform. The influential Egyptian newspaper, Al Ahram, called the grants “a bombshell”.
An international development expert familiar with USAID’s programs in Egypt siad,“This is the first time that USAID has directly supported Egyptian organizations with an explicit democracy focus. Not only has USAID Egypt not supported Egyptian democracy organizations -- it's never supported the main American ones either.” He spoke on condition of anonymity,
The grants come on the heels of the announcement by Egypt’s President, Hosni Mubarak, that he would alter the nation’s constitution to permit multiple candidates to run in the forthcoming presidential election. The 76-year-old Mubarak has been reelected by plebiscite for the past 24 years as the only candidate on the ballot.
They also appear to be in sharp contrast to recent statements from the speaker of the People’s Assembly, Egypt’s parliament. Speaker Fathi Sorour, who is among key legislators working on the constitutional amendment, said that the People's Assembly plans to criminalize political parties and NGOs receiving foreign funding to monitor presidential and parliamentary elections or fund election campaigns.
The founder of one of the recipient organizations, Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, spent more than a year in prison before being exonerated in 2003 on charges related to election monitoring activities. The incident sparked a crisis in Egyptian-U.S. relations, with Washington withholding $350 million in assistance. Dr. Ibrahim was accused of accepting a grant from the European Union without permission and misusing the funds. He was acquitted after two high profile trials.
The grants were announced at a press conference by U.S. Ambassador David Welch, who has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State. He said they were offered in response to Egyptian ideas for democracy-building activities, which the six civil society NGOs had submitted to the US Embassy. He added that the Egyptian government had agreed to the grants.
In addition to the Ibn Khaldun Center, other NGOs receiving grants include the United Group, the Egyptian Association for Developing and Disseminating Legal Awareness, the Egyptian Association for Supporting Democracy, the New Horizons Association for Social Development, and the Alliance for Arab Women.
Projects awarded USAID funding are "Promoting Transparent Elections in 2005 and Beyond;" (The United Group); "Promoting Democracy within Egyptian Political Parties;" (The Egyptian Association for Developing and Disseminating Legal Awareness); "Future Leaders Workshops and Community Meetings;" (The Egyptian Association for Supporting Democracy); "Empowering Youth in Old Cairo;" (The New Horizon Association for Social Development); "Political and Electoral Rights Program;" (The Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies); and "Combating Terrorism through Community Participation" (The Alliance for Arab Women).
Welch said the new grants were geared towards achieving what President George W. Bush said about Egypt being "the great and proud nation... which showed the way towards peace in the Middle East... now show[ing] the way towards democracy," according to Al Ahram.
The project planned by the Ibn Khaldun Centre is similar to the activity that led to Ibrahim's jailing in 2000. Last December, Ibrahim announced that his Centre planned to monitor parliamentary and presidential elections in 2005, whatever the legal cost. He has also said he plans to run against President Mubarak.
Welch reportedly told Al-Ahram the U.S. decision to provide grants to Egyptian NGOs had “absolutely no link” to the arrest of Ayman Nour, head of the political party, “Tomorrow”. However, Welch said the U.S. has strong concerns about the opposition leader's arrest, which "we have expressed to the government.”
Nour, a member of the People’s Assembly, was jailed by Security Service police in late January on suspicion of forging signatures on the petitions he presented to the government in order to register his political party. He was released on bail on March 14 and then led a parade through downtown Cairo.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice cancelled a scheduled visit to Egypt after Nour’s arrest, but U.S. authorities have dismissed the idea that the cancellation of Rice’s visit to Cairo was a protest against Nour's arrest.
Twenty human rights NGOs told Reuters earlier this month that they would be monitoring Egypt's parliamentary and presidential elections this year.
The NGO grants are part of a systematic American effort to implement the U.S. president's Greater Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI). "The events of 11 September led to more active US involvement in Egypt and the region," according to the USAID/Egypt Strategic Plan Update for Fiscal Years 2000/2009, which required adjusting the focus of USAID/Egypt on “vital sectors such as education, NGOs, democracy and governance”.
USAID funds will be directed to providing citizens with more avenues to participate in political life via improving the legal environment governing political activities, and that electoral system assistance would go towards improving voter registration, training of candidates, and other interventions deemed necessary for this purpose. USAID programs will also target reform-minded leaders, promote knowledge of democratic practices such as model parliaments, and facilitate joint democracy programs between American and Egyptian universities.
Since early 2000, USAID/Egypt has funded an NGO Service Center to strengthen the capacities of Egyptian NGOs. Most of the organizations signing up for training are community development and business support groups.
The impact of the constitutional amendment permitting multiple candidates to run for president remains unclear, as the People’s Assembly works to craft its language. Political parties require permission from the Assembly in order to enter candidates, and the Assembly is heavily dominated by Mubarak’s own political party. Mubarak has not yet announced whether he will stand for another term as president. He took office in 1981 after Anwar Sadat's assassination and is Egypt’s longest-serving head of state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
