A loose coalition of religious leaders, politicians, and intellectuals are crying foul over the 20-24 March visit by a delegation from the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) as part of a regional tour that includes Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Occupied Territories. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the visit blanketed all other news and became the order of the day, with the majority opposed to the commission and a cautiously neutral minority.

News of the commission’s visit spread like wildfire, fueled by opposition newspaper headlines that screamed "A New American Campaign to Intervene in Egypt’s Domestic Affairs," (18 March Al Wafd), "Season of Playing the Coptic Card before Mubarak’s Visit to America," (14 March Sawt Al Umma), and "American Bombing of Egypt with Al Kosheh Missiles" (18 March Al Arabi).

Opposition MPs submitted a request for clarification to the prime minister seeking more information about the visit and its scheduled activities; several petitions were circulated asserting that Egypt’s problems can only be solved by its own citizens working together; columnists penned protests against the "US Inspection Committee"; several prominent Coptic public figures have spoken out against accepting foreign patronage; and Al Hayat of 19 March reported that a group of intellectuals would go to the US Embassy with a protest memo in hand.

The controversy started when Al Osboa printed an item in its 12 March issue claiming that the commission was formed by Congress after the Kosheh II events last year and was heading to Egypt on a fact-finding mission about the country’s Copts.

In fact, USCIRF was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 27 January 1998, which also established an ambassador at large for International Religious Freedom within the State Department. Three of the nine commission members are appointed by the president, three by the speaker of the house, and three by the president pro tempore of the Senate. The mandate of the Commission is to advise the American executive and legislature on issues of religious freedom around the world and recommend policies to promote it. Its first annual report was issued in May 2000.

According to an 18 March US Embassy press release, the delegation visiting Egypt consists of USCIRF Chairman Elliott Abrams (see briefly), President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center; Vice-Chairman Firuz Kazemzadeh, Senior Advisor for the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of the United States; and Commissioner Laila Al-Marayati, M.D., founder and past president of the Muslim Women’s League, and two commission staffers.

The visit’s critics run the gamut from liberals to Nasserists to Islamists and include Copts of all political persuasions. The substance of the criticism, too, ranges from hysterical cries of an American conspiracy to undermine national unity to more considered opinions on the effects the commission will leave in its wake. Despite the press release’s description of USCIRF as "an independent, bipartisan body," many were especially incensed by the official capacity of the commission.

"If this were an NGO coming to find out more about the status of Copts, then that would be fine and we’d welcome them," argues TV screenwriter Osama Anwar Okasha. "But since it’s an official group, then it must be part of a protocol between the two countries and we should be able to send a fact-finding mission on the conditions of Mormons in the state of Washington, for example."

Though the controversy was due in no small part to inaccurate press reports about the make-up of the commission and the visit’s purpose, the diffidence of both governments to impart information is equally to blame. The US embassy press release was issued only two days before the commission’s visit and did not indicate any scheduled press events, though a US Embassy spokesperson stated one day before the commission’s arrival that members were considering holding a press event. Similarly, Mounir Fakhri Abdel Nour, a prominent Copt and head of the Wafd’s parliamentary bloc who led the parliamentary inquiry about the commission, said the Egyptian government first claimed the commission was not coming, then it reluctantly gave MPs some bare bones information when they persisted.

"Their visit is a blatant intervention in Egypt’s domestic affairs and will only complicate things. We absolutely must boycott the commission, any cooperation will give it legitimacy and mean we accept it," said Abdel Nour.

Calls for a boycott have come from other quarters as well. The Muslim Brothers issued a press release on 19 March calling on all citizens and political groups to boycott the commission. "It’s unacceptable that US visits turn into investigative commissions that result in punitive actions applied by the US Congress against independent governments and peoples," the statement said.

Muhammad Morsi, leader of the Muslim Brother MPs in parliament affirmed that he and his 16 colleagues would not be meeting with the commission even though he received a phone invitation from the US embassy. "In principle, we have nothing against meetings to discuss human rights and liberties but a monitoring commission emanating from Congress to investigate the so-called persecution of Copts is unacceptable," he said.

"We’ll meet with them, yes, because our Egyptian hospitality requires this, but we will ask them what can you do for us?" says Bishop Morqos of Shubra Al Kheima. "We can solve problems ourselves within Egypt, the foreigner has his own interests in mind."

Whether one was for or against the commission’s visit hinged on how one perceived the issue of religious freedom. Some argue that like human rights, it has become an international concern that transcends national borders. "It’s important for us to meet with this commission and explain and clarify the Coptic situation so we don’t look like we’re hiding anything," says lawyer Mamdouh Nakhla, head of the Word Center for Human Rights.

American University in Cairo sociology professor Saadeddin Ibrahim, who’s long been concerned with the issue of minorities in the Middle East, says those leading the campaign against the commission haven’t made any proposals as to what should be done about the problems of Copts in Egypt and haven’t put forth any assessments of what the government, NGOs, and other relevant parties are doing. "This argument that we should solve our problems domestically becomes a pretext for not solving them at all," he says.

According to the Interna-tional Religious Freedom Act, the recommendations the commission may make to US governmental bodies include official protests, condemnations delivered in multinational forum such as the UN, cancellations of cultural or scientific exchanges, and most importantly for Egypt, the reduction or termination of US aid and the imposition of trade sanctions.

While supporters of the commission argue that the US is free to spend its money as it likes–or withdraw it if it sees fit–critics argue that there is considerable ambiguity in the term "religion freedom" as defined by the Religious Freedom Act.

Samir Morqos, researcher on citizenship issues and author of The West and the Religious Question in the Middle East (in Arabic), explains the historical roots of foreign patronage of religious minorities in the Middle East and gives credence to critics’ suspicions that religious freedom is a newfangled expression for US foreign policy objectives.

"My research shows that the Religious Freedom Act of 1998 was passed by Congress as a result of intense lobbying by fundamentalist Protestant Evangelical groups who send missions abroad to proselytize and seek unhindered freedom of movement for their missionaries," Morqos told the Cairo Times. He added that the text of the act was lifted almost verbatim from a "Statement of Conscience" circulated by a campaign of the National Association of Evangelicals in 1996 entitled "The global persecution of Christians."

In an interview with the Middle East Quarterly (Winter 2001), Abrams said, "A coalition of Evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews coalesced on this issue, making possible the passage of the Act."

Morqos says that he personally is opposed to the commission’s visit on the grounds that it does more harm than good for the nation’s Copts. "The commission is coming with the preconceived notion that Copts are a minority to be protected," Morqos said. "But the most effective way to claim your rights is not as a Copt, but as a citizen."