Third, the virus of extremism has spread from Muslims to Copts, generations of whom have grown up in isolation from society, and some Copts are implicated in the same discourse of extremism and hatred. The best-known is Father Zakaria Boutros, who is dedicated to contesting Islam and insulting Muslims (I have no doubt the Church could silence him immediately if it wanted to). The Church has undertaken to protect the Copts but it has made them more isolated and has changed from being a spiritual authority into being a political party that negotiates in the name of the Coptic people (think about the significance of that expression). Out of fear at the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood the Church has announced, though its senior officials, that it fully accepts the idea of President Mubarak passing on the presidency to his son, Gamal. This attitude, besides being incompatible with the great patriotic record of the Church, does the greatest damage to the Copts because it gives the impression that they are working for the Egyptian regime against the rest of the Egyptians. Similarly, some diaspora Copts have apparently learned none of the lessons of history and have decided to throw all their weight behind foreign powers that have never wanted good for Egypt and that have always raised the slogan of protecting minorities as a pretext for their colonial ambitions. Diaspora Copts have demands, most of which are just, but unfortunately they are completely sectarian, in the sense that they want to solve Copts’ problems in isolation from the problems of the nation. Diaspora Copts today are doing the opposite of what their illustrious ancestors did when they rejected proportional representation in 1923. They are not demanding justice and freedom for all Egyptians but insist on obtaining sectarian privileges for themselves alone, as though they were telling the Egyptian regime: “Give us Copts the privileges we demand, then do what you want with other Egyptians. That’s none of our business.”
There’s only one way to see the horrific massacre at Nag’ Hammadi: Egyptian citizens were killed on a religious holiday as they were coming out from prayers. The innocents who were killed as they exchanged holiday greetings were Egyptians like me and you. They lived with us, fought alongside us, and defended the country with their blood. They were Egyptians who speak, think, and dream, just like us. They are us, and those who killed them are not those who pulled the triggers. What killed them was a corrupt and despotic regime that subjugates Egyptians, plunders their wealth, and drives them to despair, extremism, and violence.
Democracy is the solution.
January 11, 2010
Can President Obama Save the Copts?
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom is visiting Egypt this week. The commission consists of nine members, all of them prominent figures in the defense of freedoms. The U.S. president chooses three members, congressional leaders from the ruling party choose two members, and leaders from the other party choose the remaining four. The mandate of this commission is to monitor freedom of religion, thought, and belief, as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It does not impose sanctions on countries that violate public freedoms but it does issue recommendations that are supposed to be taken into account in formulating U.S. foreign policy. According to newspaper reports, the commission’s visit to Cairo had already been organized but it takes on special importance now, in the aftermath of the horrendous Nag’ Hammadi massacre in which six innocent Copts and a Muslim policeman were killed at random as they were coming out of church on Christmas Eve. In fact the commission’s visit at this time raises more than one issue.
First, any investigation or inquiry by a government commission from another country is a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the country where the inquiry takes place. Egypt, at least officially, is not a U.S. state or possession, so the commission cannot grant itself the authority to investigate in Egypt. We wonder what would happen if the Egyptian parliament set up a commission to investigate the war crimes U.S. troops commit in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo. Would the U.S. administration agree to receive the Egyptian commission and allow it to carry out its inquiry? Unfortunately the answer is obvious. The sad thing is that the Egyptian government plays the national sovereignty card selectively and tendentiously. When Egyptians call for independent international election observers so that elections are not rigged in the usual manner, the Egyptian government forcefully rejects the idea on the grounds of national sovereignty. When the Egyptian government joins Israel in besieging one and half million people in Gaza and the people under siege try to cross into Egypt to save their lives by buying basic needs, the Egyptian government blocks them and orders troops to open fire on them, again on the grounds of national sovereignty. Then Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit shouts out, “If a Palestinian crosses the border, I’ll break his leg.” But in the case of the U.S. freedoms commissioners, who are now touring Egypt freely from north to south and making inquiries into Egyptian affairs, neither Aboul Gheit nor anyone else can say a single word objecting to their presence.
Second, the purported objectives of this commission are fine and noble but, as always happens with U.S. foreign policy, there is a vast gap between the mission statement and its implementation. The president of the commission, Felice Gaer, is one of the biggest and most prominent supporters of Israel in the United States and has a long history of defending Zionism, to the extent that she has accused international organizations, including the United Nations, of pursuing unjust and biased policies against Israel. I really cannot understand how Ms. Gaer can reconcile her defense of human rights with her defense of Israeli policies. What does she think of burning children with phosphorus, cluster, and napalm bombs? Israel has committed such crimes continuously, starting with the Bahr al-Baqar massacre in Egypt, the Qana massacre, and to the recent massacre in Gaza. Does Ms. Gaer think that burning the skin of Arab children with internationally prohibited weapons is compatible with the principles of the human rights she defends in her commission?
Third, if the commission is interested in the persecution of Copts in Egypt, we ask whether the commissioners are interested in Copts in defense of human rights or because Copts are Christians. If it is in defense of human rights, then we would remind you that tens of thousands of young Islamists in Egypt have been living for years in the dark depths of detention camps without trial or charge, and many of them have received several court rulings in favor of their release, which the Egyptian government has not carried out and never will. Why doesn’t the commission defend the right of these detainees to justice and freedom? Do they not have the same human rights as the Copts? And what does the commission think of the crimes—rape, killing of civilians, and torture—attributed to U.S. soldiers in Iraq? Has it had time to investigate these crimes? I advise the freedoms commission to travel immediately from Cairo to Nigeria, where reports say sectarian massacres have led to the deaths of dozens of innocent people, mainly Muslims. Here I will cite a report by a respected impartial international organization, Human Rights Watch, which says:
Groups of armed men attacked the largely Muslim population of Kuru Karama around 10 a.m. on January 19, 2010. After surrounding the town, they hunted down and attacked Muslim residents, some of whom had sought refuge in homes and a local mosque, killing many as they tried to flee and burning many others alive.
What does the distinguished commission think of this massacre? Is it compatible with human rights?
Fourth, can one take a fragmentary approach to defending human rights? Can one defend only the rights of Christians in a country governed by a despotic regime through an emergency law, rigging elections, repression, and detention camps? The answer is obvious. Human rights are never divisible, but U.S. foreign policy as usual is contradictory and hypocritical. The U.S. administration, in order to protect its interests and the interests of Israel, provides complete backing to the worst despotic rulers in the Arab world and turns a blind eye to the crimes they commit against their own people, but at the same time it sends commissions to investigate the persecution of Copts.
Fifth, what happened on C
hristmas Eve in Nag’ Hammadi was a horrendous sectarian massacre that shook all of Egypt, and Copts have a right to be angry and to demand everything that would prevent its repetition. But they have to remember two things. First, the Egyptian regime that has failed to protect Copts is the same regime the Coptic Church supports with all its strength, to the extent that Pope Shenouda and senior church leaders have clearly announced more than once that they would welcome President Mubarak passing on the presidency of Egypt to his son, Gamal (as though Egypt were a poultry farm). Second, it is natural and legitimate that Copts inside Egypt and abroad should protest against the massacre, but to call in western countries and ask them to intervene is unacceptable conduct that could push Coptic anger beyond its legitimate limits. I do not believe that the conscience of any Egyptian patriot, whether Muslim or Christian, would allow him or her to invite foreign powers to intervene in Egypt, however grave the injustices Egyptians suffer and however much they oppose the regime in power. Egyptians are all persecuted. Millions of poor people in Egypt are deprived of freedom, justice, dignity, and the rights to work, housing, and healthcare. It is true that the Copts suffer a double injustice, once as Egyptians and again as Copts, but the legitimate demands of Copts cannot be met separately from the demands of the nation. We cannot demand justice for Copts alone, excluding other Egyptians. Those Copts who seek protection through foreign powers are committing a serious mistake that will tarnish the image of all Copts and suggest that they are agents of foreign powers. However much some Copts seek the help of President Obama or other western leaders, they will never obtain their rights through foreign intervention, because what governs western policy is interests rather than principles, and the history of western states is replete with examples of total political iniquity. One might recall the shah of Iran, who lived his whole life as a servant to the interests of the United States, yet the U.S. abandoned him in one day and left him alone to face his destiny in the deluge of the Iranian revolution.
The demands of the Copts must be national, not sectarian. The proper place for the Copts is not at all in the corridors of western foreign ministries. Their proper place is here, in Egypt, with their Egyptian brothers, fighting for justice and freedom. When the despotic regime disappears and all Egyptians wrest back their natural right to choose their rulers freely, when emergency law, election rigging, repression, and torture come to an end, only then will all Egyptians, Muslims and Copts, obtain the rights they have been denied.
Democracy is the solution.
January 25, 2010
Egypt Awakened
Although the Egyptian government officially ignored the arrival of Mohamed ElBaradei in Egypt, it did in fact send a clear message to Egyptians when the Interior Ministry detained several young people simply for urging Egyptians to go out and welcome him. The security agencies also made it clear that they would not allow Egyptians to rally to greet ElBaradei at the airport and announced they had mobilized eight thousand riot police to deal with anyone who gathered there. These unofficial statements were leaked and some ‘independent’ newspapers published them on their front pages in the same form on the morning ElBaradei arrived in Egypt. I read these reports as I was preparing to go to the airport and I was certain that, given this campaign of intimidation, Egyptians would naturally be reluctant to go and welcome ElBaradei. It’s true that greeting someone at the airport can never amount to a crime, even under the emergency law by which President Mubarak has governed Egypt for the past thirty years, but since when have the Egyptian police needed a charge to arrest anyone they want? Egyptian citizens know well the extent of the abuses committed by the security agencies. On many previous occasions the security agencies have not flinched from committing horrendous crimes to suppress demonstrators: beatings, detention, sexual abuse of protesters, and hiring thugs and calling in convicted criminals to shed protesters’ blood while policemen look on without intervening. I knew that, and I told myself that although it is true that Egyptians like and support ElBaradei, it is also true that fear is a human instinct we have to understand. I braced myself not to be disappointed if only a meager number turned out. But as soon as I reached the airport I was taken by surprise by hundreds of Egyptians, who soon became thousands, all of whom had come to greet ElBaradei. They were not frightened by the government’s terrorism or the threats of the security agencies. They wanted to prove to the whole world that they would support Mohamed ElBaradei and would work with him to recover the rights they have lost. The vast and impressive popular reception that Egyptians organized for Mohamed ElBaradei’s return to Egypt conveys several important messages:
First, from now on no one can accuse Egyptians of being passive, submissive to injustice, disengaged from public affairs, or any other of those claims that no longer reflect the reality of Egypt. The thousands of Egyptians who conquered their fear and gathered at the airport to welcome ElBaradei were not professional politicians, and most of them did not belong to political parties. They were very ordinary Egyptians, like our neighbors or our colleagues at work, and they came from different provinces and different social classes. Some of them came in luxury cars and many came by public transport. They included university professors, professionals, students, farmers, writers, artists, and housewives, Muslims and Copts, women with and without veils and some wearing niqab. These Egyptians, different in every way, all agreed on change, on serious work to restore justice and freedom. Egyptian public opinion, once a hypothetical term, has now become a real popular force whose influence is growing day by day. That force revealed itself in all its strength on the day of the reception for ElBaradei.
Second, I congratulate Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei on the trust Egyptians have in him at the same time as I realize the weight of the responsibility thrown on his shoulders. The thousands of Egyptians who stood all day to greet him are in fact representative of the millions of Egyptians who like him and trust him. I was standing in the middle of the crowd when an old woman came up to me and asked to speak to me in private. I took her aside and in a low voice she asked me, “Do you think the government will do anything to harm Dr. ElBaradei?” When I assured her that this was most unlikely, she sighed with relief and said, “May God protect him.” For millions of Egyptians Mohamed ElBaradei has become a symbol of hope for change in every sense. Perhaps the deafening chants at the airport—“Here are the crowds, ElBaradei; there’s no going back, ElBaradei”—clearly reflect how much Egyptians trust ElBaradei and that they are confident, as I am, that he will never let them down.
Third, the truly exhilarating aspect of this reception was the great work done by thousands of young people of both genders, most of them university students or young graduates. These people form the power base of support for Mohamed ElBaradei, the unknown soldiers in organizing this historic reception. They set up Facebook groups to support ElBaradei, some of which attracted seventy thousand members, and they prepared well for the reception, using their technical expertise to set up an extensive and effective communications network on the Internet. Several days in advance they prepared and distributed everything necessary: maps of the airport and specific instructions on how to get there by public transport or by car. They even drew up an emergency plan in case the police prevented them from entering and set up a dedicated hot line for people to call if they were detained. The names of the organizers should be recorded on a roll of honor: poet Abdel Rahman Youssef, Heba Elwa, Ahmed Maher, Amr Ali, Bassem Fathi, Nasser Abdel Hamid, Abdel Moneim Imam, and dozens of their colleagues, who really set a high standard for bravery and orderly and systematic national action.
Fourth, from the start the security forces decided not to block people because the international media were all present at the airport and would have caused a major scandal, which the regime did not want, if security had attacked ordinary citizens who had come to greet a respectable public figure who is well-known internationally. Another reason is that the security agencies were confident that Egyptians would be frightened off by the t
hreats and the detentions and that the number of people at the airport would be insignificant. The security agencies did not interfere with the people already inside the airport, but when the number had grown to several thousand, police officers began to harass people just arriving. They kept out all those carrying banners in support of ElBaradei and anyone they suspected was coming to greet him. When ElBaradei’s plane landed, the arrival hall was chock full of people chanting slogans and singing songs. But security prevented ElBaradei from coming out, and closed the gate on the pretext of maintaining his safety. The fact is that security could easily have protected ElBaradei but the decision to keep him back was basically political, because to have ElBaradei emerge surrounded by thousands of chanting supporters in front of the western media was more than the regime could tolerate. Security officials took ElBaradei out through another gate, far from his supporters, but he sent them a message through his brother, Dr. Ali ElBaradei, saying he would come to greet them. The thousands stood around waiting until ElBaradei’s car appeared and he saw for himself the people’s genuine enthusiasm for him.
Friday was a wonderful day in my life because I truly felt I belonged to a great nation. I will always remember the atmosphere of sincerity and enthusiasm I experienced. I will not forget the sight of the thousands of people chanting “Long live Egypt” or singing the national anthem. Some of them could not control their feelings and wept. I will not forget the people eagerly discussing what ElBaradei should do now that he is back in Egypt. They were speaking with the affection and intimacy of friends, though they were meeting for the first time. I will not forget the man who came with his wife and their pretty little girl with two plaits, who sat on his shoulders carrying a picture of ElBaradei. I will not forget the people who gave out mineral water and cold drinks to those present. I will not forget the dignified woman in the hijab, the good-hearted Egyptian mother who brought with her several packets of fine dates. She opened them one after the other and started to give them out to people standing around that she did not know. When someone said, “No, thank you,” she gave them an angry look, then smiled and said, “You must eat something. You’ve been on your feet all day and you must be hungry. Please have some.”
On the State of Egypt: A Novelist's Provocative Reflections Page 15