[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 12112-12113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       A BLANK CHECK FOR MUBARAK

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, May 11, 2009

  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues an editorial that appeared in The Washington Post last week. 
The United States should not continue to give unconditional foreign 
military financing to the Egyptian government, as long as the regime 
continues to disregard the fundamental principles of human dignity. 
This undermines not only our values as a nation, but our credibility as 
a global leader on issues such as human rights and democracy.

                [From the Washington Post, May 7, 2009]

                           No Questions Asked

       Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates earned modest headlines 
     in the United States this week for playing down the 
     possibility of a ``grand bargain'' with Iran after a meeting 
     with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. But al-Jazeera, the 
     leading media outlet of the Arab Middle East, focused on an 
     entirely different piece of news out of Mr. Gates' Cairo news 
     conference. Asked whether U.S. aid to Egypt would be linked 
     in the future to democracy or human rights, the Pentagon 
     chief answered that ``foreign military financing'' for Mr. 
     Mubarak's autocracy ``should be without conditions. And that 
     is our sustained position.''
       The Obama administration, which has rushed to embrace 
     Egypt's 81-year-old strongman, would do well to consider why 
     al-Jazeera--not known for pro-American sympathies--would 
     choose to trumpet that report. The Obama administration's 
     policy assumes that the Bush administration's attempts to 
     promote democratic reforms in Egypt produced yet another case 
     of damaged ties and bad public relations to remedy, such as 
     Guantanamo Bay or the war in Iraq. So Mr. Gates, like 
     Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton before him, heaped 
     praise on Mr. Mubarak while making clear that the new 
     administration will not trouble him about his systematic and 
     often violent repression of the country's liberal 
     politicians, bloggers and human rights activists.
       Yet, as al-Jazeera well understands, Mr. Mubarak and his 
     fellow Arab autocrats are widely despised across the region--
     and the United States is blamed for unconditionally propping 
     them up. In fact, Mr. Bush won credit from many Egyptians for 
     pressing for democratic change; he was criticized because he 
     failed to follow through. Now, Arabs around the region are 
     learning that the Obama administration is returning to the 
     old U.S. policy of ignoring human rights abuses by Arab 
     dictators in exchange for their cooperation on security 
     matters--that is, the same policy that produced the Middle 
     East of Osama bin Laden, Hamas and Saddam Hussein.
       The pullback is not only rhetorical. Funding for democracy 
     promotion in Egypt has been slashed from $50 million to $20 
     million this year. The State Department has agreed to 
     Egyptian demands not to use economic aid to fund civil 
     society organizations not approved by the government. As a 
     result, U.S. funding for pro-democracy and human rights 
     groups will drop by about 70 percent. Meanwhile, Democrats on 
     the House Appropriations Committee this week inserted $260 
     million in fresh security assistance for Egypt

[[Page 12113]]

     into a supplemental appropriations bill, along with $50 
     million for border security. No conditions were attached.
       What will all this appeasement buy from Mr. Mubarak? The 
     Egyptian ruler continues to pledge to stop arms trafficking 
     to Hamas in Gaza, and to fail to do so. He keeps a cold peace 
     with Israel, withholds an ambassador from Iraq and, as Mr. 
     Gates tacitly acknowledged, opposes any broad rapprochement 
     between the United States and Iran. He is grooming his son to 
     succeed him, a step that could entrench Egypt's autocracy for 
     decades more--or maybe produce an Islamic revolution. Does 
     all that really merit unconditional U.S. support?

                          ____________________