Egypt Scuttles Final Declaration of the Forum for the Future
by Jennye Greene

The Forum for the Future, taking place November 11-12 in Manama, Bahrain, was organized as an opportunity for local civil society groups, business leaders, and BMENA and G-8 governments to sit down together as partners working towards greater democracy and prosperity for the region. The meeting, however, failed to produce a final declaration as result of Egypt's adamant insistence on language that would have restricted the broad access of local NGOs to grants from the newly formed Foundation.As the hosts not only aspired to have unanimity but also felt it imperative to have the most populous Arab country on board, Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit's dissenting position thus rendered impossible the publication of anything more than an executive summary.

The Egyptian government insisted that funds only be given to legally registered and approved NGOs, claiming that otherwise the money might end up in the hands of radical Islamists. Clearlythough the government's true agenda is to prevent the rise of any nascent and potentially important sources of opposition by controlling the flow of resources. Additionally, the Egyptian position may have been motivated by the deep-seated enmity the government feels for Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, whose presence, as he described it, sitting there with them at the same table, was hard for the Egyptian Government to swallow. The proposed modifications would have notably excluded the Ibn Khaldun Center (which operates as a private corporation precisely to avoid the web of bureaucratic domination the Ministry of Social Affairs casts over legally registered NGOs) from receiving grants from the Foundation. And indeed, the government would surely jump at any occasion, if not to altogether remove this thorn from its side, at least to narrow its resource base.

That the conference concluded without a public, unanimous declaration came as a great disappointment toWashington, which was no doubt counting on the success of this meeting as a key componeAnt of its new initiative to spread democracy and stability to the BMENA region. It must also have been particularly dismaying that the sole dissenting voice came from a long-time ally and the number two-ranking recipient of American foreign aid (after Israel). What could have possibly pushed Cairo to so boldly cross Washington on an issue it well knew was important to U.S. interests in the region?

A likely explanation lies in the fact that the Egyptian regime, unlike the Gulf monarchies which can control civil society through alliances with tribal communities, is more vulnerable to destabilization via civil society pressures. Egypt does not have the tribal tradition of rule by consensus and shura council but rather has historically been one of the most centralized and hierarchical civilizations in the world. As such, grassroots mobilizations pose a greater threat to the regime. Also unlike the regional monarchies, the planned succession of the Egyptian executive office could be threatened by increased mass participation. Finally, it must not be forgotten that the Egyptian government is particularly sensitive to such concerns after this year's shocking ground-swell of civil society activity (notably from Kefaya and the Muslim Brotherhood).

For all these reasons, Egypt felt itself to be toeing the line of real political opening and was thus willing to accept the moral consequences of its actions in Bahrain, consequences which Dr. Ibrahim had the pleasure of handing to them directly. Upon exiting the closed-door meeting, Dr. Ibrahim, always an advocate of transparency, took the initiative to "Name and Shame" them as he announced that it was the Egyptian government alone that was responsible for scuttling the final declaration.