U.S. to Resume Assistance to Egypt?

Middle East and North Africa

On April 22, the Obama Administration announced plans to partially resume military assistance to Egypt. The partial resumption will include the release of ten Apache helicopters and $650 million in previously withheld FY2014 Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds. According to State Department and Department of Defense press briefings, the helicopters will help support counterterrorism operations in the Sinai while the released funds are authorized solely for the payment of existing FMF contracts that support counterterrorism, border security and nonproliferation activities. A full resumption of the $1.5 billion annual assistance package to Egypt, predicated among other conditions on a certification that the interim government holds elections and governs democratically, has yet to be approved by the administration. However, even the partial release of the $650 million is in question, as Congressional leaders have pledged to place a hold on this assistance until Egypt demonstrates a commitment to the rule of law.   

U.S. assistance to Egypt was officially suspended on October 9, 2013, months after the deposition of former President Mohammed Morsi. Included in the suspension were “certain large-scale military systems and cash assistance to the government,” such as the aforementioned Apache helicopters, F-16 fighter jets, M1 Abrams tanks, Harpoon anti-ship missiles and $260 million in cash transfers from the Economic Support Fund (ESF). Any resumption of assistance to Egypt, as stipulated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, also known as the omnibus budget, is based on four subsections of Section 7041. Subsections 1(a) and 1(b) declare that any FY2014 funds cannot be released until the Secretary of State certifies that Egypt is “(A) sustaining the strategic relationship with the United States; and (B) meeting its obligations under the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty.” Subsections 6(a) and 6(b) provide a more detailed accounting of the conditions necessary for the release of two separate tranches of U.S. assistance:

(A) up to $975,000,000 may be made available if the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that the Government of Egypt has held a constitutional referendum, and is taking steps to support a democratic transition in Egypt; and (B) up to $576,800,000 may be made available if the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that the Government of Egypt has held parliamentary and presidential elections, and that a newly elected Government of Egypt is taking steps to govern democratically.

The partial resumption of U.S. military assistance, as noted in readouts of both Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s conversations with their Egyptian counterparts, follows a certification that Egypt has met the conditions required under subsections 1 (a) and 1(b). And while the qualifications presented in subsection 6 have not been met, the budget legislation also included a “security exemption” that makes the release of these funds possible. According to subsection 5, regardless of the other restrictions on assistance to Egypt outside of subsection 1(a) and (b), funds “may be made available for counterterrorism, border security, and nonproliferation programs in Egypt, and for development activities in the Sinai.” As such, U.S. officials believe this certification paves the way for the release of the 10 AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters, held since last summer, and the $650 million in FMF funds.

A full resumption of assistance based on the conditions of subsections 6(a) and 6(b), as made clear by both Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel, is not yet possible. According to the State Department, “[t]he Secretary noted that he is not yet able to certify that Egypt is taking steps to support a democratic transition.” Thus, deliveries of the other suspended items have yet to be released. Army Col. Steven Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said, “[b]ecause we’re not yet able to certify that Egypt is taking the proper steps to support a democratic transition, we have withheld other equipment: F-16s not released, M1 tanks not released, Harpoon missiles not released.”

Reactions to the announcement were mixed. Amy Hawthorne, a Middle East expert at the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East at the Atlantic Council, told The Washington Post that “[r]esuming the delivery of some of these weapons without noting the original reasons or any progress on human rights cheapens [President] Obama’s words and weakens U.S. credibility.” Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX), Chair of the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign aid, said in a statement that she approved of the resumption of assistance and the relationship between Egypt and the United States: "As Egypt continues its transition toward a new democratic government, the United States must work with the government of Egypt and support the Egyptian people.” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the State Department and Foreign Operations, released the following statement, putting a hold on the attempt to resume assistance to Egypt:

I am extremely disturbed by the Egyptian Government’s flouting of human rights and appalling abuse of the justice system, which are fundamental to any democracy. I am not prepared to sign off on the delivery of additional aid for the Egyptian military until we have a better understanding of how the aid would be used, and we see convincing evidence that the government is committed to the rule of law.

At this point, it is unclear how the partial resumption of assistance to Egypt will proceed. The Administration will likely attempt to negotiate a full release of the funds with Senator Leahy, and perhaps other Appropriations Committee members. Aides say that that the delivery of the Apache helicopters is not subject to legislative approval. If Leahy refuses to agree to the release of the $650 million figure proposed by the Administration, the administration can technically override the hold, though there is no precedent for doing so.