The way to Washington
The “Problems on Hold” file which I opened back in July 2002 is still open. Last week saw the 109th episode
in this series of problems which registers in the major part the curtailed citizenship
rights of Copts in
I
was always convinced that acknowledging the problems—some of which were the
outcome of flawed legislation, and most the product
of the sick attitudes and practices that gave religious loyalties precedence over national ones—was a precondition
to any remedy. I took pains to emphasise, however, the very
obvious difference between diagnosing the ailment and
prescribing the remedy. While I presented the former with absolute transparency
inside and outside Egypt, I was outspoken in my commitment to finding answers for the latter solely within the context
of a national dialogue. I was careful
not to be washed away in the current
which advocated foreign pressure—whether political or economic—on the Egyptian government
in order to force it to tackle the curtailed
citizenship rights of Copts.
With this in mind,
I was always vocal on the problems of Egyptians in general and Copts in particular
regarding democracy and citizenship rights. I realised it was futile to conceal or beautify facts in the transparent, well-connected world of today, and it was
equally absurd to claim that Coptic grievances
were a mere domestic issue in order not to tarnish Egypt’s image. This argument especially
only served to fortify the syndrome, since it established
the concept that no ailment mattered as long as the outward image was proper. It
strongly—and bitterly—brought to mind the adage of “People who condone vice but fear scandal.”
Time
and again, it was proved
that candour, disclosure, and the refusal to falsify the truth,
together with insisting upon a national dialogue,
holding on to our partners
in the homeland, and rejecting all forms of foreign intervention, earned the understanding and respect of all—especially outside Egypt. It is an attitude which harmonises with the outlook of the majority of workers in the political, diplomatic, and human rights
domain. In these circles, matters are realistically reported with no attempt at beautifying or obscuring them, and peaceful co-existence, acceptance of the other, and rapprochement are encouraged as the only substitutes to violent
struggle. It is also self-evident that international relations follow
mutual interests and strategic alliances, and can never
be subject to the aspirations of some local minority, no matter how severe its grievances.
Admittedly, there has been in every relevant convention extremist,
raucous elements which clamour to mobilise foreign forces against Egypt, claiming thus to pressurise the Egyptian government into enacting the
long aspired reforms. I always believed it was neither
wise nor patriotic to merely condemn such repulsive
attitudes and refrain from participating, since this would practically
leave the field wide open for them to trifle with our cause. And it has always
been highly rewarding that the presence
of wise, moderate Muslim and Christian Egyptians—myself included—acted as a safety valve against blowing up the cause, and ensured that
the sound of reason and patriotism
was heard—and followed. Egyptians
and foreigners as well appreciated and respected my
insistence that Coptic grievances could only be
solved through the spirit of brotherly
love and fellowship between Muslims and Copts, and
certainly not through any foreign imposition.
There has been so far no Egyptian initiative for the
national dialogue we so
long for. Political and party leaders stubbornly insist there is
no problem in the first place. Legislative
discrimination between Copts
and Muslims persist, and practices that differentiate between then according
to their religious identity abound. To say nothing of the recent blow
directed to Copts by the political leadership and ruling party,
both of which refused to lift a finger towards acknowledging or solving Coptic grievances, and sufficed by announcing there was no difference
between Copts and Muslims. In view of which something
had to be done to keep the
Coptic cause in the light—whether at home with our partners
in the homeland or abroad with other Egyptians
and non-Egyptians—without giving up on our convictions. We did not fall prey
to the rabid condemnation campaigns in our media and streets
against any convention which plans to discuss our citizenship rights, since these
merely aim at bringing us to our knees, to surrender
and patiently await a solution—nonetheless not
on the horizon—to our problems.
Thus was my
decision taken to participate in the Washington conference on citizenship rights scheduled for next week.