DOCSLIB.ORG

2Nd Half FARA Report to Congress Ending December 31, 2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

U.S. Department of Justice

.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Report of the Attorney General to the Congress of the United States on the Administration of the

.

Foreign Agents Registration Act

.

of 1938, as amended, for the six months ending December 31, 2007

Report of the Attorney General to the Congress of the United States on the Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, for the six months ending
December 31, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1-1 AFGHANISTAN......................................................1 ALBANIA..........................................................2 ALGERIA..........................................................3 ANGOLA...........................................................4 ARUBA............................................................5 AUSTRALIA........................................................6 AUSTRIA..........................................................8 AZERBAIJAN.......................................................9 BAHAMAS..........................................................11 BANGLADESH.......................................................12 BARBADOS.........................................................14 BELGIUM..........................................................15 BELIZE...........................................................16 BENIN............................................................17 BERMUDA..........................................................18 BOLIVIA..........................................................19 BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS...........................................20 CAMEROON.........................................................21 CANADA...........................................................22 CAYMAN ISLANDS...................................................28 CHAD.............................................................29 CHANNEL ISLANDS..................................................30 CHILE............................................................31 CHINA............................................................32 COLOMBIA.........................................................36 CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)..............................................38 CONGO (KINSHASA) (ZAIRE).........................................39 COSTA RICA.......................................................40 COTE D'IVOIRE (IVORY COAST)......................................41 CROATIA..........................................................43 CYPRUS...........................................................44 CZECH REPUBLIC...................................................46 DENMARK..........................................................47 DJIBOUTI.........................................................49 DOMINICA.........................................................50 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC...............................................51 ECUADOR..........................................................52 EGYPT............................................................53 EL SALVADOR......................................................54 EQUATORIAL GUINEA................................................55 ERITREA..........................................................56 ESTONIA..........................................................57 ETHIOPIA.........................................................58 FRANCE...........................................................61 GEORGIA..........................................................62 GERMANY..........................................................63 GHANA............................................................65 GREAT BRITAIN....................................................66 GREECE...........................................................70 GRENADA..........................................................71 GUATEMALA........................................................72 GUYANA...........................................................73 HAITI............................................................74 HONDURAS.........................................................75 HONG KONG........................................................76 HUNGARY..........................................................80 ICELAND..........................................................81 INDIA............................................................82 INDONESIA........................................................84 INTERNATIONAL....................................................85 IRAN.............................................................88 IRAQ.............................................................89 IRELAND..........................................................93 ISLE OF MAN......................................................95 ISRAEL...........................................................96 ITALY............................................................98 JAMAICA..........................................................100 JAPAN............................................................101 JORDAN...........................................................115 KAZAKHSTAN.......................................................117 KOREA, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF............................118 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF...............................................119 KUWAIT...........................................................126 LAOS.............................................................127 LATVIA...........................................................128 LESOTHO..........................................................129 LIBERIA..........................................................130 LIBYA............................................................132 LIECHTENSTEIN....................................................133 LITHUANIA........................................................134 LUXEMBOURG.......................................................135 MACEDONIA........................................................136 MALAYSIA.........................................................137 MALTA............................................................140 MARSHALL ISLANDS.................................................141 MAURITANIA.......................................................142 MAURITIUS........................................................143 MEXICO...........................................................144 MICRONESIA.......................................................148 MONACO...........................................................149 MONTENEGRO.......................................................150 MOROCCO..........................................................151 NAGORNO KARABAGH.................................................154 NAURU............................................................155 NETHERLANDS......................................................156 NETHERLANDS ANTILLES.............................................157 NEW ZEALAND......................................................158 NICARAGUA........................................................160 NIGERIA..........................................................161 NORTHERN IRELAND.................................................164 NORWAY...........................................................165 OMAN.............................................................166 PAKISTAN.........................................................167 PALAU............................................................170 PALESTINE........................................................171 PANAMA...........................................................172 PERU.............................................................174 PHILIPPINES......................................................175 POLAND...........................................................176 QATAR............................................................177 ROMANIA..........................................................178 RUSSIA...........................................................180 RWANDA...........................................................182 SAUDI ARABIA.....................................................183 SCOTLAND.........................................................188 SENEGAL..........................................................189 SERBIA...........................................................190 SINGAPORE........................................................191 SLOVAKIA.........................................................193 SOMALI DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.......................................194 SOUTH AFRICA.....................................................195 SPAIN............................................................196 ST. LUCIA........................................................197 ST. MARTIN.......................................................198 SWEDEN...........................................................199 SWITZERLAND......................................................200 TAIWAN...........................................................202 TANZANIA.........................................................208 THAILAND.........................................................209 TIBET............................................................211 TOGO.............................................................212 TRINIDAD & TOBAGO................................................213 TUNISIA..........................................................214 TURKEY...........................................................215 TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS.........................................219 UGANDA...........................................................220 UKRAINE..........................................................221 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES.............................................223 UNITED KINGDOM...................................................229 UZBEKISTAN.......................................................230 VANUATU..........................................................231 VENEZUELA........................................................232 VIETNAM..........................................................233 YUGOSLAVIA.......................................................234 ZAMBIA...........................................................235 ZIMBABWE.........................................................236

APPENDIX A - REGISTRANT INDEX .................................. A-1 APPENDIX B - SHORT FORM INDEX .................................. B-1

Foreword

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled:

On behalf of the Attorney General, I have the honor to report on the administration of the
Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, pursuant to Section 11 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 621), which requires the Attorney General to report every 6 months to the Congress concerning the administration of the Act, as well as the nature, sources and content of informational materials disseminated and distributed by agents of foreign principals registered under the Act. This report covers the administration and enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act for the 6 months ending December 31, 2007.

The text of this report lists, according to geographical area or nationality field, all agents who were registered at any time during the second 6 months of 2007, or who reported for the first time in that period activities, receipts or disbursements for the previous period. It includes the identities of the agents and their foreign principal(s), a description of the agent’s activities, a total figure for monies received, a description of any informational materials disseminated, and a listing of all individual agents.

Improvements continue to be made to the Foreign Agents Registration Act computerized records system and Internet website, http://www.fara.gov/. This report will be made available through the website.

I - 1
The principal purpose of Congress in enacting the Foreign Agents Registration Act was to ensure that the Government and the people of the United States would be informed of the identity of persons engaging in political activities for or on behalf of foreign governments, foreign political parties and other foreign principals, so that their statements and activities could be appraised in the light of their associations.

Registration under the Act does not imply recognition by the United States Government of the legitimacy of any particular foreign government, or foreign political party. Furthermore, registration does not indicate approval by the United States Government of the activities of any registered agent or the content of any informational materials they disseminate.

Statistical Summary

During the 6-month period ending December 31, 2007, the Department received 27 new registration statements and terminated 38 registrations. A total of 405 active registrations, representing 563 foreign principals were on file during the period of July 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. Individuals acting as officials or employees or rendering assistance to a registrant for or in the interests of the latter’s foreign principal filed 344 new short-form registration statements under the Act, bringing the total short-form registrations to 1,910 during the period of July 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. There were 79 new agreements with foreign principals reported by agents under the Act during this period.

I - 2
Pursuant to P.L. 102-395 enacted on October 6, 1992, which authorized the Attorney
General to establish fees to recover the cost of administering the Foreign Agents Registration Act, $169,425.00 in fees was received during the 6-month period ending December 31, 2007. A total of $6,917,878.80 has been collected since the program was initiated through December 31, 2007.

Respectfully submitted, Brian A. Benczkowski Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legislative Affairs

I - 3

LISTING ACCORDING TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OR NATIONALITY FIELD OF
REGISTRANTS WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE IN ACTIVE STATUS AT ANY TIME
DURING THIS SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT

(T) (t)
Indicates registration terminated during this six month reporting period. Indicates foreign principal terminated during the six month reporting period.

The dollar figure included for each registrant represents the total amount of money received in the United States in furtherance of the agency purpose by agents working on behalf of the foreign principal. This information is based on the registrant’s reporting period rather than the calendar year.

The list is compiled alphabetically by country; however, it necessarily will include foreign principals which have no association with the government.

The report sets forth the name, address and registration number of the registrant, the identity of the foreign principal, the nature of their activities, and the amount of monies received, if any.

AFGHANISTAN

  • DLA Piper US LLP
  • #3712

500 8th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004

0

Interim Government of Afghanistan, Embassy Nature of Services: Legal and Other Services/Lobbying The registrant contacted the Afghan Embassy and congressional staffers regarding appropriations, and the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act. The registrant also contacted a U.S. Government official regarding counter-narcotics.

Finances: None Reported

  • English, Otilie
  • #5413

4141 North Henderson Road Apartment 603 Arlington, VA 22203

0

Islamic State of Afghanistan Nature of Services: Lobbying Activities: None Reported Finances: None Reported

AFGHANISTAN

Page 1 of 236
Printed as of: October 27, 2008

ALBANIA

  • Ridge Global, LLC
  • #5868

1101 16th Street, NW Suite 308 Washington, DC 20036

1

Government of Albania (t) Nature of Services: Lobbying The registrant contacted members of Congress to introduce the Foreign Minister of Albania and to discuss various reforms undertaken by the Government of Albania to comply with NATO and EU requirements. The registrant also provided advice on a number of matters including homeland security and NATO membership.

$479,973.00 for the twelve month period ending August 31, 2007

ALBANIA

Page 2 of 236
Printed as of: October 27, 2008

ALGERIA

  • Foley Hoag, LLP
  • #4776

1875 K Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006-1238

1

Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, Embassy Nature of Services: Legal and Other Services/Lobbying The registrant contacted members of Congress and congressional staffers to discuss the right to self determination for the people in the Western Sahara.

$106,041.82 for the six month period ending September 30, 2007

ALGERIA

Page 3 of 236
Printed as of: October 27, 2008

ANGOLA

  • OIC Services, Inc.
  • #5481

12337 Jones Road Suite 301 Houston, TX 77070

2

Conselho Nacional De Carregadores De Angola (C.N.C.) Nature of Services: Promotion of Trade The registrant issued loading certificates to the shippers or its agents, collected fees from shippers or its agents and transferred same to the C.N.C. in Angola. In addition, the registrant processed the cargo manifest and kept records.

$1,555,682.91 for the six month period ending November 30, 2007

  • Samuels International Associates, Inc.
  • #4848

1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 950 Washington, DC 20036 Government of Angola

2

Nature of Services: Promotion of Investment and Trade/Lobbying The registrant contacted U.S. Government officials and rendered miscellaneous services and counsel to the foreign principal in order to develop effective government-to-government relations.

$100,000.00 for the six month period ending August 31, 2007

ANGOLA

Page 4 of 236
Printed as of: October 27, 2008

ARUBA

  • Aruba Tourism Authority
  • #2987

100 Plaza Drive, FL 1-1 Secaucus, NJ 07094-3677

3

Government of Aruba Nature of Services: Promotion of Tourism Activities: None Reported Finances: None Reported

  • MITA Group, Inc.
  • #5741

1101 30th Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20007 Government of Aruba

3

Nature of Services: Public Relations The registrant performed public affairs services, including contacting members of Congress and their staffs and executive branch personnel to advocate for the interests of the foreign principal.

$90,000.00 for the six month period ending September 30, 2007

ARUBA

Page 5 of 236
Printed as of: October 27, 2008

AUSTRALIA

  • Bockorny Group, Inc.
  • #5819 (T)

1101 16th Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036

3

Commonwealth of Australia, Embassy (t) Nature of Services: Lobbying The registrant will contact members of Congress and congressional staffers regarding the Australia farm bill study outlining key messages on agriculture reform, possible options, and experience of Australia and others in moving towards a market oriented farm policy.

Finances: None Reported

  • Development Counsellors International
  • #4777

215 Park Avenue South 10th Floor New York, NY 10003 Tourism Tasmania

333

Nature of Services: Promotion of Tourism The registrant promoted travel and trade by disseminating informational materials on behalf of the foreign principal. $49,000.00 for the six month period ending September 30, 2007

  • Tourism Australia
  • #1032

6100 Center Drive Suite 1150 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Australian National Travel Association

Nature of Services: Promotion of Tourism Activities: None Reported Finances: None Reported

  • Tourism New South Wales
  • #4450

6100 Center Drive Suite 810 Los Angeles, CA 90292 New South Wales Tourism Commission (Government of New South Wales)

Nature of Services: Promotion of Tourism The registrant contacted travel industry representatives, placed advertisements and participated in trade shows to promote tourism to New South Wales.

$162,672.75 for the six month period ending December 31, 2007

AUSTRALIA

Page 6 of 236
Printed as of: October 27, 2008

AUSTRALIA

  • Tourism Queensland
  • #4146

6100 Center Drive Suite 1150 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Tourism Queensland

3

Nature of Services: Promotion of Tourism The registrant promoted tourism to Queensland by participating in travel conferences and disseminating travel information.

$430,507.13 for the six month period ending November 30, 2007

AUSTRALIA

Page 7 of 236
Printed as of: October 27, 2008

AUSTRIA

  • Austrian Tourist Office, Inc.
  • #495

120 West 45th Street 9th Floor New York, NY 10036

3

Austrian National Tourist Office Nature of Services: Promotion of Tourism The registrant engaged in marketing and public relations activities, and provided travel information to tourists, travel agents, airline representatives and tour operators.

Recommended publications
  • A Revolution, a Change of Regime and 4 Rulers: Egypt’S Journey Through Washington’S Lobbies During the Decade of the Arab Spring

    A Revolution, a Change of Regime and 4 Rulers: Egypt’S Journey Through Washington’S Lobbies During the Decade of the Arab Spring

    A revolution, a change of regime and 4 rulers: Egypt’s journey through Washington’s lobbies during the decade of the Arab Spring Part 1 SPECIAL REPORT Middle East Monitor is a not-for-profit media research institute that provides research, information and analyses of primarily the Palestine-Israel conflict. It also provides briefings on other Middle East issues. Its outputs are made available for use by journalists, academics and politicians with an interest in the Middle East and North Africa. MEMO aims to influence policy and the public agenda from the perspective of social justice, human rights and international law. This is essential to obtain equality, security and social justice across the region, especially in Palestine. MEMO wants to see a Middle East framed by principles of equality and justice. A revolution, a change It promotes the restoration of Palestinian rights, including the Right of Return, a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and with democratic rights upheld. It also advocates a nuclear-free Middle East. of regime and 4 rulers: By ensuring that policy-makers are better informed, MEMO seeks to have a Egypt’s journey through Washington’s lobbies greater impact on international players who make key decisions affecting the during the decade of the Arab Spring Middle East. MEMO wants fair and accurate media coverage of Palestine and other Middle Eastern countries. Translated from SasaPost Title: A revolution, a change of regime and 4 rulers Cover Image: Flags of Egypt and the US Published: March 2021 © MEMO Publishers 2021 [translation]. Original Arabic by Sasapost MEMO Publishers All rights reserved.
  • The Political Economy of the New Egyptian Republic

    The Political Economy of the New Egyptian Republic

    ﺑﺤﻮث اﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮة ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻠﻮم اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ Hopkins The Political Economy of اﻹﻗﺘﺼﺎد اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻰ the New Egyptian Republic ﻟﻠﺠﻤﻬﻮرﻳﺔ اﳉﺪﻳﺪة ﻓﻰ ﻣﺼﺮ The Political Economy of the New Egyptian of the New Republic Economy The Political Edited by ﲢﺮﻳﺮ Nicholas S. Hopkins ﻧﻴﻜﻮﻻس ﻫﻮﺑﻜﻨﺰ Contributors اﳌﺸﺎرﻛﻮن Deena Abdelmonem Zeinab Abul-Magd زﻳﻨﺐ أﺑﻮ اﻟﺪ دﻳﻨﺎ ﻋﺒﺪ اﳌﻨﻌﻢ Yasmine Ahmed Sandrine Gamblin ﺳﺎﻧﺪرﻳﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﺒﻼن ﻳﺎﺳﻤﲔ أﺣﻤﺪ Ellis Goldberg Clement M. Henry ﻛﻠﻴﻤﻨﺖ ﻫﻨﺮى إﻟﻴﺲ ﺟﻮﻟﺪﺑﻴﺮج SOCIAL SCIENCE IN CAIRO PAPERS Dina Makram-Ebeid Hans Christian Korsholm Nielsen ﻫﺎﻧﺰ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻴﺎن ﻛﻮرﺷﻠﻢ ﻧﻴﻠﺴﻦ دﻳﻨﺎ ﻣﻜﺮم ﻋﺒﻴﺪ David Sims دﻳﭭﻴﺪ ﺳﻴﻤﺰ Volume ﻣﺠﻠﺪ 33 ٣٣ Number ﻋﺪد 4 ٤ ﻟﻘﺪ اﺛﺒﺘﺖ ﺑﺤﻮث اﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮة ﻓﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻮم اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ أﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﻞ ﻻ ﻏﻨﻰ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻘﺎرئ اﻟﻌﺎدى واﳌﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﻓﻰ ﺷﺌﻮن CAIRO PAPERS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE is a valuable resource for Middle East specialists اﻟﺸﺮق اﻷوﺳﻂ. وﺗﻌﺮض ﻫﺬه اﻟﻜﺘﻴﺒﺎت اﻟﺮﺑﻊ ﺳﻨﻮﻳﺔ - اﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺼﺪر ﻣﻨﺬ ﻋﺎم ١٩٧٧ - ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺒﺤﻮث اﻟﺘﻰ ﻗﺎم ﺑﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﺣﺜﻮن and non-specialists. Published quarterly since 1977, these monographs present the results of ﻣﺤﻠﻴﻮن وزاﺋﺮون ﻓﻰ ﻣﺠﺎﻻت ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ واﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎدﻳﺔ واﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ واﻟﺘﺎرﻳﺨﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺮق اﻷوﺳﻂ. ,current research on a wide range of social, economic, and political issues in the Middle East وﺗﺮﺣﺐ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﲢﺮﻳﺮ ﺑﺤﻮث اﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮة ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﻻت اﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻬﺬه اﻟﺎﻻت ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺪى ﺻﻼﺣﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ. وﻳﺮاﻋﻰ ان ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﺒﺤﺚ .and include historical perspectives ﻓﻰ ﺣﺪود ١٥٠ ﺻﻔﺤﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺗﺮك ﻣﺴﺎﻓﺘﲔ ﺑﲔ اﻟﺴﻄﻮر، وﺗﺴﻠﻢ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻧﺴﺨﺔ ﻣﻄﺒﻮﻋﺔ وأﺧﺮى ﻋﻠﻰ اﺳﻄﻮاﻧﺔ ﻛﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ (ﻣﺎﻛﻨﺘﻮش Submissions of studies relevant to these areas are invited. Manuscripts submitted should be أو ﻣﻴﻜﺮوﺳﻮﻓﺖ وورد). أﻣﺎ ﺑﺨﺼﻮص ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ اﳌﺮاﺟﻊ، ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ان ﺗﺘﻮاﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﳌﺘﻔﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻰ ﻛﺘﺎب ”اﻻﺳﻠﻮب ﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ around 150 doublespaced typewritten pages in hard copy and on disk (Macintosh or Microsoft ﺷﻴﻜﺎﻏﻮ“ (The Chicago Manual of Style) ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻜﻮن اﻟﻬﻮاﻣﺶ ﻓﻰ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻔﺤﺔ، أو اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﳌﺘﻔﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻰ Word).
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Egyptian

    UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Egyptian

    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Egyptian Urban Exigencies: Space, Governance and Structures of Meaning in a Globalising Cairo A Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Global Studies by Roberta Duffield Committee in charge: Professor Paul Amar, Chair Professor Jan Nederveen Pieterse Assistant Professor Javiera Barandiarán Associate Professor Juan Campo June 2019 The thesis of Roberta Duffield is approved. ____________________________________________ Paul Amar, Committee Chair ____________________________________________ Jan Nederveen Pieterse ____________________________________________ Javiera Barandiarán ____________________________________________ Juan Campo June 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my thesis committee at the University of California, Santa Barbara whose valuable direction, comments and advice informed this work: Professor Paul Amar, Professor Jan Nederveen Pieterse, Professor Javiera Barandiarán and Professor Juan Campo, alongside the rest of the faculty and staff of UCSB’s Global Studies Department. Without their tireless work to promote the field of Global Studies and committed support for their students I would not have been able to complete this degree. I am also eternally grateful for the intellectual camaraderie and unending solidarity of my UCSB colleagues who helped me navigate Californian graduate school and come out the other side: Brett Aho, Amy Fallas, Tina Guirguis, Taylor Horton, Miguel Fuentes Carreño, Lena Köpell, Ashkon Molaei, Asutay Ozmen, Jonas Richter, Eugene Riordan, Luka Šterić, Heather Snay and Leila Zonouzi. I would especially also like to thank my friends in Cairo whose infinite humour, loyalty and love created the best dysfunctional family away from home I could ever ask for and encouraged me to enroll in graduate studies and complete this thesis: Miriam Afifiy, Eman El-Sherbiny, Felix Fallon, Peter Holslin, Emily Hudson, Raïs Jamodien and Thomas Pinney.
  • Playing with Fire. the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian

    Playing with Fire. the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian

    Playing with Fire.The Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian Leviathan Daniela Pioppi After the fall of Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) decided to act as a stabilising force, to abandon the street and to lend democratic legiti- macy to the political process designed by the army. The outcome of this strategy was that the MB was first ‘burned’ politically and then harshly repressed after having exhausted its stabilising role. The main mistakes the Brothers made were, first, to turn their back on several opportunities to spearhead the revolt by leading popular forces and, second, to keep their strategy for change gradualist and conservative, seeking compromises with parts of the former regime even though the turmoil and expectations in the country required a much bolder strategy. Keywords: Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood, Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, Arab Spring This article aims to analyse and evaluate the post-Mubarak politics of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in an attempt to explain its swift political parable from the heights of power to one of the worst waves of repression in the movement’s history. In order to do so, the analysis will start with the period before the ‘25th of January Revolution’. This is because current events cannot be correctly under- stood without moving beyond formal politics to the structural evolution of the Egyptian system of power before and after the 2011 uprising. In the second and third parts of this article, Egypt’s still unfinished ‘post-revolutionary’ political tran- sition is then examined. It is divided into two parts: 1) the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF)-led phase from February 2011 up to the presidential elections in summer 2012; and 2) the MB-led phase that ended with the military takeover in July 2013 and the ensuing violent crackdown on the Brotherhood.
  • Approaching Rule of Law in Post-Revolution Egypt: Where We Were, Where We Are, and Where We Should Be*

    Approaching Rule of Law in Post-Revolution Egypt: Where We Were, Where We Are, and Where We Should Be*

    !"#$%&'(%)(*(+&(,-#"./%#0%1'$(,%2*,3.3. !""#$%&'()*+,-./+$0+1%2+()+3$456,/7$.-5($)+8*9"5 !! !!" $ !% "! ! $ #! &$ 314758-TEXT.NATIVE.1350535652.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 10/17/2012 9:48 PM ! U.C. DAVIS JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLICY VOLUME 18 SPRING 2012 NUMBER 2 ARTICLE APPROACHING RULE OF LAW IN POST-REVOLUTION EGYPT: WHERE WE WERE, WHERE WE ARE, AND WHERE WE SHOULD BE* Ahmed Eldakak** ABSTRACT Partial absence of rule of law was a central reason for the Egyptian Revolution in 2011, and the Revolution provides a golden opportunity to establish full rule of law in Egypt. Using a substantive approach to interpreting the rule of law doctrine, this Article analyzes the aspects of absence of rule of law before the Revolution. The former regime disregarded the rule of law by amending the constitution to promote the rule of the president, issuing laws that served the interests of the president’s entourage, not enforcing judicial decisions, restricting freedom of speech, and concentrating the power in the hands of the president through the disreputable emergency law. The period following the Revolution witnessed an increasing trend toward respecting the rule of law, through changes such as enforcement of judicial decisions, trying the former president and his entourage before courts of law, and increased promotion of freedom of expression. However, several serious obstacles to promoting rule of law remain after the Revolution: the current constitutional mess, the state of emergency, and the military trials for civilians. Ultimately, this Article seeks to provide a roadmap to establishing full rule of law in Egypt, recommending the 314758-TEXT.NATIVE.1350535652.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 10/17/2012 9:48 PM 262 University of California, Davis [Vol.
  • Introduction

    Introduction

    Notes Introduction 1. Maye Kassem. 1999. In the Guise of Democracy: Governance in Contem- porary Egypt (London: Ithaca Press); Eberhard Kienle. 2001. A Grand Delusion: Democracy and Economic Reform in Egypt (London: I. B. Tau- ris); Eva Bellin. 2002. Stalled Democracy: Capital, Labor, and the Paradox of State- Sponsored Development (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press); Jason Brownlee. 2007. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); Lisa Blaydes. 2011. Elections and Distributive Politics in Mubarak’s Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press); Ellen Lust-Okar. 2004. “Divided They Rule: The Manage- ment and Manipulation of Political Opposition,” Journal of Democracy 36(2): 139– 56. 2. Barrington Moore. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston: Beacon); Charles Moraz. 1968. The Triumph of the Middle Class (New York: Anchor); Eric Hobsbawm. 1969. Industry and Empire (Har- mondsworth: Penguin). 3. Bellin. 2002. 4. Nazih Ayubi. 1995. Over-Stating the Arab State: Politics and Society in the Middle East (London: I. B. Tauris). 5. Samuel Huntington. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press), p. 67. 6. Ray Bush. 2012. “Marginality or Abjection? The Political Economy of Pov- erty Production in Egypt,” in Marginality and Exclusion in Egypt, ed. Ray Bush and Habib Ayeb (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press), p. 66. 7. Bellin. 2002. 8. Amr Adly. 2009. “Politically- Embedded Cronyism: The Case of Egypt,” Busi- ness and Politics 11(4): 1– 28. 9. Bellin. 2002. 10. Adly. 2009. 11. The only Policies Secretariat meeting that Gamal Mubarak missed since the establishment of the Secretariat in 2002 was in March 2010 when he was accompanying his father in Germany for treatment.
  • Egypt's Uncertain Departure from Neo-Authoritarianism

    Egypt's Uncertain Departure from Neo-Authoritarianism

    MEDITERRANEAN PAPER SERIES 2011 TRANSITION TO WHAT: EGYPT’S UNCERTAIN DEPARTURE FROM NEO-AUTHORITARIANIsm Daniela Pioppi Maria Cristina Paciello Issandr El Amrani Philippe Droz-Vincent © 2011 The German Marshall Fund of the United States. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the German Marshall Fund of the United States GMF. Please direct inquiries to: The German Marshall Fund of the United States 1744 R Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 T 1 202 683 2650 F 1 202 265 1662 E [email protected] This publication can be downloaded for free at www.gmfus.org/publications. Limited print copies are also available. To request a copy, send an e-mail to [email protected]. GMF Paper Series The GMF Paper Series presents research on a variety of transatlantic topics by staff, fellows, and partners of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of GMF. Comments from readers are welcome; reply to the mailing address above or by e-mail to [email protected]. About GMF The German Marshall Fund of the United States GMF is a non-partisan American public policy and grantmaking institu- tion dedicated to promoting better understanding and cooperation between North America and Europe on transatlantic and global issues. GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working in the transatlantic sphere, by convening leaders and members of the policy and business communities, by contributing research and analysis on transatlantic topics, and by pro- viding exchange opportunities to foster renewed commitment to the transatlantic relationship.
  • Monopoly: the Case of Egyptian Steel

    Monopoly: the Case of Egyptian Steel

    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Monopoly: The Case of Egyptian Steel Selim, Tarek The American University in Cairo September 2006 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/101417/ MPRA Paper No. 101417, posted 07 Jul 2020 07:15 UTC MONOPOLY: THE CASE OF EGYPTIAN STEEL Tarek H. Selim, Assistant Professor, Economics Department, The American university in Cairo [email protected] Abstract The local steel industry in Egypt has been protected by high tariffs which were relaxed lately. The market is segmented according to steel type and there is a dominant steel producer acting as a monopoly in the market. Due to barriers to entry in the short run and the dominant market position of the monopoly, price elasticity became more demand inelastic. However, the dominant market player carries an innovative edge over his competitors. Introduction Markets behave according to rational economic incentives and policies. The Egyptian steel industry is an interesting case to analyze because it is a strategic source of raw material for other industries (such as construction) and comprises a large portion of Egyptian industrial GDP. It is characterized by market segmentation, a dominant market position, and efficiency elements. There is, however, an interesting tradeoff between market monopoly and market efficiency as the local industry is constrained by barriers to entry and international factors. Short run and long run implications of this case are of crucial importance to economic analysts and decision makers alike. International Market Steel is largely dependent on three big end users: construction, packaging and car manufacturing. China is the world's largest crude steel producer (2003) with around 220 million tons of steel production comprising 23% of world production, the latter estimated as 960 million metric tons.
  • Scientific Paper Youth Political Engagement During The

    Scientific Paper Youth Political Engagement During The

    Youth political engagement during the Arab Spring: Egypt and Tunisia compared Scientific Paper Youth political engagement during the Arab Spring: Egypt and Tunisia compared Bahgat Korany AUC Forum Mostafa El Sayyad AUC Forum 1 Youth political engagement during the Arab Spring: Egypt and Tunisia compared Abstract This Scientific Paper aims at highlighting youth political engagement during the Arab Spring – the peak of explicit, direct and mass “youth involvement in politics”. This exceptionally high involvement did not continue to be institutionalised. In fact, the earlier mass political participation contrasts at present with a certain political marginalisation of former activists/youth leaders. The logical research question is then: what accounts for such two extremes? To analyse this evolution from one extreme to the other, this paper adopts a comparative approach between the two seemingly similar cases of Egypt and Tunisia. These two countries are different in some respects: Egypt has nine times the population of Tunisia, for example, and the two countries’ recent colonial past has been influenced by different sociopolitical traditions: Anglophone and Francophone. However, for the subject of this paper they share the status of being the pioneers of the Arab Spring. To carry out its comparative methodology and especially to decode the youth political participation problematic from one extreme to the other, the paper utilises the SAHWA Project data 2015/16, both qualitative and quantitative. Since these data have to be situated within each country’s national context, the paper uses also some other sources, when required. In terms of organisation, the paper’s 22 tables reiterate the primacy of the “youth bulge” that the two countries share: the available data unequivocally shows for instance that unemployment is number one as a cause of concern.
  • The Making of the Egyptian Revolution

    The Making of the Egyptian Revolution

    IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Business Management (IMPACT: IJRBM) ISSN(E): 2321-886X; ISSN(P): 2347-4572 Vol. 4, Issue 1, Jan 2016, 1-36 © Impact Journal THE MAKING OF THE EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION HALA EL ZAHED Research Scholar, Cairo University, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Doc-Euromed Studies, Egypt ABSTRACT The image represents a message transmitted of one individual to another. It can be about gender, minorities or ethnic groups or countries. Image or reputation describes the way in which a country and its policies may be perceived by others. Images are powerful political statements… they may be transmitted by the use of words. ( 1) “The image of a person needs to be recognized as a positive one. So are countries which are made up of people and are run by political elites. Historically, political leaders have recognized that images matter.”( 2) This study endeavors to discuss how Western press portrays the Egyptian Revolution and accordingly affect policy-making. Imperatively, the majority of the people have no chance to personally see what a foreign country is like but they see images of these countries in the media. Mass media have always been responsible for image building and formulating public opinion. Particularly, newspapers have constantly been labeled for their authenticity and; hence, they affect people’s attitudes concerning a country’s local and international affairs. Newspapers do not only transmit information, but they have also become a tool directing people and creating their ideological, political and social dispositions. Newspapers play a pertinent role in shaping, formulating and impacting public opinion and, consequently, a country’s decision-makers’ policies.
  • World Bank Document

    World Bank Document

    Public Disclosure Authorized The Politics of Partial Liberalization: Cronyism and Non-Tari Protection in Mubarak's Egypt∗ Ferdinand Eiblyand Adeel Malikz Public Disclosure Authorized Abstract This paper provides one of the rst systematic empirical assessments of the impact of political connections on trade protection. Based on a unique compilation of sector-level data on non-tari measures (NTMs) and politically connected businessmen in Mubarak- era Egypt, we explore the within-sector variation in NTMs over time, and show that sectors populated by politically-connected businessmen witnessed systematically higher non-tari protection. To establish causality, we take advantage of the across the board Public Disclosure Authorized cut in taris induced by the EU-Egypt free trade agreement in 2004 to show that sectors with prior exposure to crony activity were compensated signicantly more through new NTMs than non-crony sectors. JEL codes: F13; F14; O24; O53; P26 ∗The authors gratefully acknowledge a small grant from ERF, Cairo, under its research programme on the Political Economy of the Private Sector Dynamism in the Middle East. The authors also wish to thank Philippe Aghion, Ricardo Hausmann, Anthony Venables, Fabrice Defever, Ishac Diwan, and Djavad Salehi Isphahani for their detailed feedback on the paper. We are also grateful to seminar participants in the ERF Workshop at St Peter's College, Oxford; the EBRD conference in London; the Comparative Political Economy seminar at LSE; the Trade Seminar at Oxford University; and the Harvard University's Growth Lab Seminar. The usual disclaimer on errors and omissions applies. Public Disclosure Authorized y King's College London. zCorresponding Author.
  • Transitional Justice Vs. Authoritarianism Prof. Dr. Mehdi Zakerian *

    Transitional Justice Vs. Authoritarianism Prof. Dr. Mehdi Zakerian *

    Establishing Political Accountability in the Post-Mubarak Era: Transitional Justice vs. Authoritarianism Prof. Dr. Mehdi Zakerian * Faculty of Law & Political Sciences, IAU, Sciences & Research Branch, Tehran,Iran.. Prof. Dr. Seyed Razi Emadi ** IAU. North Branch, Tehran, Iran. Abstract Two parallel but contradictory trends have come to characterize the early decades of the twenty-first century. On the one hand, the traditional principles of international law highlighted in the UN Charter, such as the principles of state sovereignty, non-intervention, and the state officials’ immunity, have become considerably weaker norms. The dimension of moral sovereignty of governments, by contrast, has gained much traction, as more and more states tend to prioritize the protection of internal jurisdiction over the promotion of human rights. However, at the same time, the notion of the responsibility to protect (R2P) and transitional justice in practice have cast their specter over countries’ internal developments, misconduct, and human rights violations, holding them accountable to domestic and international laws. These conflicting trajectories have come to a head during and in the aftermath of the 2011 Arab uprisings. Charged with human rights violations, the ruling elites of Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt faced trials—both locally and internationally by the International Criminal Court. The UN Security Council authorized applying R2P to protect Libyan people and International Criminal Court issued the arrest warrants against Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, Saif al- Islam Gaddafi, and Abdullah Gaddafi. In Tunisia, an absentee trial for the deposed President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was held. In Egypt, however, the IV trial of Hosni Mubarak and those associated with his regime bypassed the so- called transitional justice model, while following the all too familiar pathway to promoting stability under the guise of national reconciliation.