GOE APPARENTLY BACKING DOWN ON DISSOLUTION OF

C O N F I D E N T I A L CAIRO 000786 SIPDIS FOR NEA/ELA AND DRL/NESCA E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/07/2029 TAGS: PGOV PHUM KDEM EG SUBJECT: GOE APPARENTLY BACKING DOWN ON DISSOLUTION OF PROMINENT NGO REF: CAIRO 748 Classified By: A/DCM William R. Stewart for reason 1.4 (d). ¶1. (C) Egyptian Organization for HUMAN RIGHTS (EOHR) Secretary-General Hafez Abu Seada told us May 6 that he recognizes that the Ministry of Social Solidarity (MOSS) has publicly denied any intention to dissolve EOHR, but he noted that EOHR has asked MOSS for written assurances to that effect. Abu Seada said EOHR sent a complaint April 29 through the National COUNCIL of HUMAN RIGHTS (a quasi-governmental HUMAN RIGHTS organization) to MOSS asking that the ministry provide EOHR written assurances that it will not dissolve the organization. Two articles in the independent press May 1 and 3 quoted MOSS officials saying they have no intention of dissolving EOHR. On April 27, EOHR received a letter from MOSS reminding it that the ministry is authorized to dissolve EOHR for receiving unauthorized foreign funding (reftel). ¶2. (C) Abu Seada noted that on May 5 the EOHR board of directors formally committed to taking legal action asking a court to declare that the dissolution of EOHR is illegal if MOSS does not provide assurances within 50 days. According to Abu Seada, EOHR believes that the April 27 MOSS letter constituted the legal start of the dissolution process. EOHR President Hisham Kassem told us May 3 he believes the press reports of MOSS backing down are accurate. He also said EOHR operated from 1985 to 2003 as an unregistered organization, and would be prepared to do so again if MOSS "shut them down." We raised the issue again May 6 with MFA Deputy Assistant Minister for North American Affairs Amin Meleika and provided him the MOSS letter. Meleika said again he would look into the matter. ¶3. (C) Comment: It appears that EOHR's April 30 press release accusing MOSS of threatening to dissolve the organization may have played a role in convincing MOSS to back down. However, it is unlikely that MOSS will agree to provide the written assurances EOHR is requesting, and it unclear whether EOHR's planned legal action will be effective in pressuring MOSS to give the desired assurances. EOHR views the MOSS letter as a provocation and appears determined to press the issue aggressively. SCOBEY