Problems on hold

In its 20 August issue, Watani carried the headline “In Minya: 15 closed churches and 70 villages without churches”. The headline of the following issue of 27 August ran: “Ezbet al-Furn’s Copts in Abu-Qurqas hold prayers in the street to celebrate the feast of the Assumption of the Holy Virgin”.
For a very long time, Copts in Egypt have been deprived of their constitutional right to pray, worship and practise religious rites. This gave rise to a pile-up of Coptic bitterness and sense of indignity that amounts to a ticking time bomb. I believe officials must understand the gravity of the situation, which obviously escapes many.
In August 2013, Islamist Muslim Brotherhood (MB) terrorists targeted some 100 churches and Coptic institutions, looting and burning. Copts realised then that it was not they who were being targeted; rather, it was Egypt in her entirety. It was the Islamist revenge against Egyptians who in their millions rose and got rid of the MB regime that came to power in the wake of the 2011 Arab Spring. So the Copts, as the true Egyptians that they are, and fully realising they were being cruelly used to undermine the nation, kept their peace and never complained; Pope Tawadros made his by-now famous declaration: “A homeland with no churches is better than churches and no homeland … if they deprive us from praying in churches we will pray in the street.”
Deprivation from prayer, however, was nothing new to Copts. In that lone incident in 2013, it was used to target all of Egypt, but prior to and following that incident it has been an ongoing pain in the hearts and souls of Copts. It peaked last month in Minya where the Copts were banned from praying; worse, those who banned them from praying were not the extremists, fanatics or fundamentalists, but members of the local government and security apparatus. Officials in these apparatuses bury their heads in the sand to evade the fact that they have no qualms with closing already existing churches, under the pretext of security reasons. They delay reopening them or legalising their status in accordance with the Law for Building and Restoring Churches and its bylaws, and impede the licensing of new churches. Then they rise to defend the Constitution and law, claiming it is their responsibility to ban Copts from worshipping in non-licensed places. Oh yes?! Do Copts resort to praying in unlicensed places because they enjoy violating the law? Do cities, towns, villages and hamlets include adequate numbers of licensed churches that Copts should pray in houses, streets, or courtyards?
Administrative and security apparatuses have exercised efforts and might to pursue Copts, besiege them, and prevent them from practising their religious rites. They would have done infinitely better had they employed this effort to write political and security reports that advise the imperativeness of opening closed churches and the dire need to license new churches to fulfil Copts’ needs in accordance with the Constitution and law. Or do these apparatuses only remember the Constitution and the law when they decide to crack down on Copts?
Should it take a new incident of vicious sectarian violence in Minya for President Sisi to take notice that Coptic sentiments in Minya are running high with bitterness at the injustice and indignity they suffer at the hands of local State apparatuses for the mere desire to exercise their right to worship? Will he then calm the Copts down with his honeyed talk, and expect Pope Tawadros to contain their anger with patriotic declarations? Will he give orders to the relevant authorities to open churches and protect worshippers? Does Minya have to burn in order for us to realise the magnitude of the crime taking place there and the injustice inflicted upon Copts? This time, the injustice is not owing to terrorism, fanaticism or extremism. Watani’s reporting has made it eminently clear that it is security officials who, under the lame pretext of preserving social peace and not provoking Muslims, are objecting to Coptic worship. Does the Constitution in any way demand of Copts to succumb to tyranny for the sake of allegedly not provoking Muslims?
It is time President Sisi and his aides realise that Minya is boiling over, and that the Coptic sense of injustice, bitterness and despair has peaked. More than a year ago I wrote under the title “Minya Independent Islamic Republic” of violations committed against Copts by Muslim extremists. This time round, the heading points fingers to local government and security officials. [http://en.wataninet.com/opinion/editorial/minya-independent-islamic-republic/16955/].

Watani International
3 September 2017

Problems on hold

The US’s recent decision to cut or withhold more than USD290 million of its aid to Egypt gave rise to controversy aplenty among Egypt’s politicians and media circles. To begin with, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) issued a calm, balanced statement that described the US decision as “reflecting poor judgment of the strategic relations that have bound the two countries for decades,” and as reflecting “a lack of careful understanding of the importance of supporting the stability and success of Egypt in facing security and economic challenges.” The statement said Egypt was hoping the US administration would look at the aid programme as a vital means to achieve the interests of both countries and to preserve their strong, strategic relations.
The MFA statement expressed awareness of the political responsibility it shoulders, and revealed that it would not draw Egypt into political conflict or hostility with the US. Given that the magnitude of strategic relations and interests that bind the two nations far exceeds the US aid cut, the decision ought to be handled wisely and sensibly in order to contain its consequences. The scene should be adequately set for negotiations regarding it, rather than slipping into an uncalled for diplomatic rift. Political and media circles must realise that this is a national security issue that involves top national considerations which go far beyond the aid cut.
The Egyptian official stance refrained from making a big issue of the US decision, and let it pass. This made very good sense in light of the nature of the decision making circles in the US administration, especially given that when decisions are issued, reversible measures are usually pondered in parallel, with the aim of preserving the strategic interests between the US and its allies.
I believe that the political and media circles in Egypt should not have slipped into frantic campaigns that overstated and denounced the US decision, oblivious to the repercussions this might have regarding the charging of public opinion against Egypt-US relations. In so doing, the strategic relations that bind the two countries were discounted. Some voices called for renouncing US aid to Egypt, be it economic or military. One intellectual commented, “If Egypt wishes no one to interfere with her domestic affairs, she should accept no aid from anyone, and should work to achieve economic strength, in order to go back to the glories of the 1960s as a rich State, itself a giver of aid for Arab and African countries.” Another media professional suggested that Egypt should diversify its sources of arms in order to gain military independence from the US and put an end to its need to US military aid. To add insult to injury, a former ambassador with MFA suggested that Egypt should retaliate by withholding the special privileges that the US ships and planes enjoy in Egypt, with the aim of prompting the US administration to review the decision of the aid cuts.
I see that all these opinions did not address the crisis correctly—if there is a crisis in the first place. The suggestions jeopardise US-Egypt relations and propel Egypt into a state of hostility against and faceoff with the US, which could have serious consequences. Fortunately, there were other opinions that elected to exercise patience and deliberation in evaluating the situation, in order to be able to allow the Egyptian leadership to handle the situation for the best of Egypt’s strategic interests. I was drawn in this context to an article published in the daily State-owned Al-Ahram on 1 September under the tile “Notes on US aid to Egypt” by Muhammad Megahed al-Zayyat. Here are excerpts of Dr Zayyat’s opinion:
• US official circles justified the aid cut to Egypt on account of human rights concerns and Egypt’s NGO law. Other US circles leaked additional reasons that relate to Egypt’s refrain from participating in the US blockade against North Korea. It is obvious that this decision reflects the stance of the US State Department, and is in line with the stance of a number of Congressmen who hold antagonistic views against Egypt. This reflects that there is no clear, unanimous policy among US decision-making circles regarding Egypt. It is obvious that there is a state of confusion, duality and contradiction between the declarations issued by US President Trump and other institutions such as Congress, the State Department and the Pentagon.
• Mutual interests govern US aid to Egypt, whether economic or military. Both States have benefited from this aid, part of which is a consequence of the Camp David Accords of which Egypt and Israel are signatory. We must realise two things; first, the amount withheld through the recent US decision, USD290 million, does not exercise a great negative impact on Egypt, but is rather symbolic; it does not threaten a strategic change in the US policy towards Egypt. Second, US military aid to Egypt constitutes a strategic interest and benefit for the US.
• It is imperative that we deal with the US recent decision calmly and reasonably. We must be keen to control any disruption in the relations between Cairo and Washington, in order to cut the road before any remnant of the old US administration which was antagonistic to Egypt. Egypt must strive to contain the negative aspects of the US stance, and to avoid slipping into any diplomatic crisis; it should work for a strategic dialogue that aims at preserving its interests.
I agree with Dr Zayyat on his assessment of the situation, and on giving confident space to the Egyptian administration and leadership to deal with the issue of US aid and the entire US-Egypt relations.

Watani International
10 September 2017

Problems on hold

This is not the first time I write calling upon the Coptic Church to revive Coptic legislation that treats men and women as equals regarding inheritance. I repeatedly wrote urging the Church to seize the opportunity granted by Egypt’s 2014 Constitution which stipulates in its third article that: “The principles of Christian and Jewish doctrines are the main sources of legislations to govern the personal status issues, religious affairs, and selection of spiritual leaders of Egyptian Christians and Jews respectively.” I wrote a series of articles in which I went through the Christian doctrinal principles of inheritance where men and women are concerned; I also tackled the history of Egyptian legislation in this regard. I called for a revival of the spirit of the doctrines and legislation which once applied to Copts, and in which men and women inherited equal shares, revival that conformed with the context of the modern civic State that Egypt today is. I tackled this issue in the editorials of 6 July 2014, 8 February 2015, 15 February 2015, 28 June 2015, 20 March 2016, 27 March 2016, 3 April 2016, 10 April 2016, 3 July 2016, 13 November 2016, and 15 January 2017.
All through, I was keen to highlight that my call for gender equality in inheritance was founded on Christian-based legislation and on an old Coptic legacy of equality between men and women in inheritance. I even dared to hope that one day, once equality is applied in Christian legislation, it would eventually serve as a role model for Egypt in her entirety where inheritance is concerned. So far, inheritance laws in Egypt grant a man double the share of a woman, according to Islamic sharia; this is applied to Christians as well as Muslims.
The inheritance issue resurfaced last month when, on Tunisian Woman Day, President Beji Caid Essebsi called for legal amendments to the Tunisian inheritance law to ensure equal rights for men and women. He said his call was based on the convictions reached by the human race through ages of conflict, struggles, and sacrifices. In our modern times, he said, these convictions have metamorphosed into rights and laws that do not contradict the spirit of Islam. Following the fierce attack by Muslim scholars and conservatives against his declarations which they branded as “contradictory to Islamic sharia”, the Tunisian President explained that his call was never intended to strike at religious legislation, rather it was a call for communal dialogue against the backdrop of modernity and civic nature of the Tunisian State today.
The call by Tunisia’s President was no surprise; Tunisia has to its credit a rich balance of a firm will to establish the foundations of a modern civic State. This history goes back to Habib Bourguiba who helped Tunisia gain independence from the French occupation in the 1950s, and set the country on the path to modernism. In this it contrasted with Turkey which started off with modernity at the hands of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk then lost it to the Justice and Development Party and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In its path to modernity, Tunisia outdid other States such as Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria, which have behind them old, deep-rooted civilisations but lag behind in modern-day avant-gardism.
On 3 July 2016, I wrote “Kudos for Tunisia”, hailing the then legislative initiative in the Tunisian Parliament to amend the inheritance law and bring it in line with the gender equality embedded in the Constitution. I wrote, “this should have been no surprise; as far back as 1956 Tunisia put in place a family law that granted women rights such as banning multiple wives and restraining men’s absolute, unilateral right to divorce; recently, women were allotted half the seats in parliament… The recent Tunisian legislative initiative stipulates equal inheritance shares between men and women unless there is a clear written agreement between the inheritors stating otherwise… Even during her liberal phase, Egypt in 1941 legislated inequality as a base when it allowed a man to inherit double a woman’s share, then as an exception granted non-Muslims the right to special agreements that went against this principle. Even this was retracted in later years when Islamic sharia was applied to non-Muslims.” To date, this has remained unchanged.
I feel sadness in my heart when I look at the Tunisian experience and compare it to Egypt’s stance on inheritance. I feel proud of Tunisia, and sorry that Egypt should have taken the lead in this regard but hit the wall with considerations for strict religious legislation. What excuse, however, does the Coptic Church have, given that neither Christian doctrines nor Coptic past legislation reject gender equality in inheritance? To say nothing of the fact that, today, neither Egypt’s Constitution nor Family Bylaws stand in the way.

WATANI International
17 September 2017

Problems on hold

The Bibliotheca Alexandrina (BA), which celebrates its 15th anniversary on 16 October 2017, is the modern-day Library of Alexandria that was established to emulate its namesake in the Greco Roman era (332BC to 640AD). The ancient library was built some 2500 years ago by Alexander the Great’s successor in Egypt, Ptolomey I, and acted as a beacon of knowledge and the epitome of intellectual and scholarly activity in the world throughout more than six centuries. The modern BA came under the directorship of Ismail Serageldin when it opened 15 years ago, and continued as such till May 2017 when he resigned his post. Throughout his tenure, Dr Serageldin worked to regain the magnificent reputation the ancient library enjoyed of civilizational, intellectual, scholarly and enlightenment achievement. In this, he fulfilled his role to perfection.
Yet Dr Serageldin has been handed a three-year prison sentence by an Alexandria Misdemeanours Court on charges of money squandering and negligent management. This left Egyptians stunned with horror.
Watani too was among those stunned and horrified. But we kept silent, since we strongly adhere to the principle of refraining from comment on court rulings, and given that the case against Dr Serageldin is being now seen by a higher court. So there appeared to be no grounds for any comment on the ruling, especially that the legal reasoning behind it had not yet been made public. But we cautiously contemplated the issue: the stature of the BA, and the paradox that it should submit to bureaucratic legislation that goes against its very raison d’être, that of enjoying the necessary freedom to fulfil the civilizational, scholarly, and enlightenment goals required of it. We realised that the judges had looked into the case within the framework of the legislation that currently applies. The question, however, is whether such legislation serves the purpose of fostering and protecting the freedom of decision and movement required by liberal institutions that thrive on creativity and free thought.
This is not the first time honourable Egyptian figures are fettered with bureaucratic legislation that brings them under retribution of the law. The BA is an internationally acclaimed entity directly affiliated to the President, and managed by a Board of Trustees that includes public and intellectual figures of exceptional calibre from all over the world. Yet it has no law specific to it that would give an honourable director a freer hand in decision-making.
The problem thus has nothing to do with the judiciary or the ruling; the problem is that current Egyptian legislation does not provide the freedom that would shield a great achiever such as Dr Serageldin from legal pursuit and conviction, and that would instead shower him with the accolades he deserves.
As Watani explored the predicament, this is what we found:
• BA staff insisted Dr Serageldin was a figure of value and integrity. “We worked under him for 15 years during which the BA gained international stature. All he did was intended for public benefit; it was not ‘money squandering’.”
• Prominent writer and intellectual Youssef al-Qaeed said: “Ismail Serageldin diligently strived for the advancement of the BA till it earned a prestigious ranking among world libraries … He even gave up his salary, so how can he be accused of squandering public funds?”
• Former Media Minister Durreya Sharafeddine said: “I thought the BA had its own administrative rules that should be different from those governing any governmental administration. How could it have advanced while burdened with constraints that impede progress? Predicaments as this have driven many of Egypt’s creative, resourceful children to leave the country; they flourished and bloomed on other freer soils.”
• Former Culture Minister Gaber Asfour said: “The BA was founded in 2002 upon a presidential decree that entitled its secretary-general (director) to prerogatives that allowed him to assume the library’s managerial responsibility. Following the 2011 Arab Spring uprising, laws and provisions issued by President Hosni Mubarak, who stepped down on account of the Arab Spring, were repealed. The BA director thus became subject to the provisions of normal laws that do not provide for administrative freedom. Dr Serageldin never committed any violations; he fell prey to legislative amendments that constrained his work.”
• Constitutional and legal expert Shawqy al-Sayed said that there was no criminal intention of squandering public funds in Dr Serageldin’s case. The violations attributed to him, Mr Sayed said, were not with the intention of violating the law or profiteering. His intention was to bypass the red tape in order to achieve progress. Such intention carries weight in court and is normally given due consideration.
As the popular saying goes, in every cloud there is a silver lining; Dr Serageldin’s case sounds an alarm for us to start working on providing a set of special bylaws to govern the management of entities of exceptional character, that by definition should be run by outstanding individuals, free of personal whim or corruption. Such individuals should be provided with the freedom needed to creatively advance the institutions they run, without a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads and threatening to bring them to ruin or disgrace.

The Law for Building and Restoring Churches was passed in August 2016, mainly to regulate the process of licensing the building of new churches and the restoration and renovation of already existing ones. The law, however, also made provisions for legalising the status of non-licensed churches and Church-affiliated buildings, and set the deadline for application for legalisation a year after the law went into effect. That deadline was 28 September 2017.
Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Law for Building and Restoring Churches focus on the legalisation of unlicensed churches. This feature in the law is definitely no minor objective, since it addresses a heavy legacy of long decades of ‘crisis era’ for Copts, during which approvals and licences to build new churches were almost impossible to get. The result was that many much-needed churches and Church-affiliated community centres were built without licence. Their presence was no secret; they served as de-facto places of worship, and local authorities were fully aware of their presence and role. These buildings were assigned official security guards and, on various religious occasions, were visited by local State officials who extended good wishes to the congregation. But the fact remained that they were illegally constructed and needed to be legalised.
According to Article 8 of the Law for Building and Restoring Churches, the legal representative of each sect should present the lists of and applications by those churches and affiliated buildings which require legalisation, and which comply with Articles 9 and 10 of the law, to the special committee formed to decide on that matter. This committee comes under direct supervision of the Cabinet. But Article 8 also includes a significant text which reads: “In all cases, practising religious rites and activity in any of the afore mentioned buildings or annexes may not be hampered or halted under any circumstances.” Deplorably, this text is time and again overlooked or violated by local administrative and security authorities that insist on closing down de-facto places of worship or impeding the practice of religious rites in them under irrelevant pretexts, as though they never read the law. But this is another story I plan to raise some other time; today my focus is: what after 28 September?
Article 9 of the law stipulates that any building which stood on the day the Law for Building and Restoring Churches went into effect, 28 September 2016, and where Christian religious rites are practised, is considered licensed, as long as a report by a consultant construction engineer registered with the Engineers’ Syndicate approves its structural soundness. Article 10 stipulates the same measures in the case of any Church-affiliated building, community centre or retreat home, as long as the building in question is owned by the Church and answers to the conditions and regulations stipulated in Article 9.
In accordance with the law, Prime Minister Sherif Ismail issued a decision on 26 January 2017 to regulate the procedure of legalising already-existing unlicensed churches and Church-affiliated buildings, and set the deadline 28 September 2017 for submitting the required applications and documents to the relevant committee. The PM’s decision decreed that the committee should convene at least once a month, issue its decisions, and present a monthly report to the Cabinet for the necessary on-the-ground measures towards official legalisation. I expect this monthly report to be publicised, in order for the public to follow up on the outcome and on the ease or complication with which the law is applied.
In its current issue, Watani is printing a roundup of the churches and Church-owned buildings that submitted legalisation applications before the deadline of 28 September 2017. Nationwide figures stood at: 2,600 buildings that belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church, 110 to the Catholic Church, and 1,020 to the Evangelical Church, making a total 3,730 cases awaiting legalisation. If anything, the figures reflect the scale of bitter legacy of the ‘crisis era’. Watani takes it upon itself during the upcoming months to follow up on and publish the reports issued by the Cabinet in this regard, hoping that the process would be conducted with all due seriousness and transparency.

Watani International
1 October 2017

Problems on hold

Last week, Egypt’s House of Representatives commenced its third legislative round after it had adjourned for summer recess, and Egyptians—the public, media, and official bodies—went back to keenly following parliament’s performance in its legislative and supervisory capacities. Parliament is the spine of the democratic system, and its own maturity and grasp of the bases of the modern civic State determine the quality of its performance.
No one can deny the scale of legislative achievement the House of Representatives realised during its first two sessions, and of which the Speaker of the House and the MPs are so proud. However, the generally tense mood that pervaded parliamentary life and characterised debate under the dome leave a lot to be desired. It came as no surprise, however, given the confused political stances in parliament, which owe to party fragmentation and the blurred lines between parliamentary blocs. All this took its toll on the performance of the House; edginess and chaos ruled, violence and clashes were the answer to conflicting opinions, and hysterical verbal fights that bordered on slander replaced debate. Occasionally, matters got out of hand to the point of physical skirmishes. It is no secret that the responsibility of avoiding or managing such situations falls mainly on the House Speaker whose political and parliamentary savvy should allow intervention at the nick of time, before violations exacerbate. He should act as a safety valve; at times armed with the House’s bylaws, and at others with shrewdness and prudence.
It is sad that any comparison between the current House Speaker, Ali Abdel-Aal, and his predecessor of the pre-Arab-Spring Mubarak times Ahmed Fathy Surour strongly favours Dr Surour. In fact, successive former speakers of Egypt’s parliaments brilliantly succeeded in establishing traditions of respectful dialogue and conflict-management mechanisms, through conventional wisdom, reason and thoughtfulness.
More important, however, is that if the House of Representatives is serious about correcting its performance, it must firmly address the issue of political fragmentation within its members. I am aware that the current party scene which includes numerous political currents yet feeble blocs, devoid of identity, is behind the fragmentation. This was especially obvious during the parliamentary elections two years ago when parties and political blocs lacked clear-cut platforms, and independent individual candidates swamped the scene. Voters found themselves at a loss, therefore resorted to voting for individuals who promised them services they needed, or were public figures or heads of clans. The outcome was the absence of political platforms and blocs that constitute the right, centre, and left under the dome. Parliamentary performance thus drifted away from majority and minority considerations, and became subject to personal whims; hence the tension, hysterics, and chaos that ruled the floor.
The current parliament has three rounds ahead of it before its term expires. Can there be any hope for an initiative that emanates from within the House to invite MPs to align themselves into strong political blocs with clearly defined convictions? Is it at all possible for the MPs to reorganise themselves into three blocs: right, centre and left; and to accordingly formulate clear political visions for each bloc? Such a move would rectify parliamentary performance, spell the end to political fragmentation on the party scene, and ensure healthy parliamentary elections in the future.
As for the legislative agenda of the House during its third parliamentary round, Dr Abdel-Aal recently gave an interview to the daily Sate-owned ++al-Ahram++, in which he mentioned a number of the bills awaiting discussion. He cited bills governing criminal procedures, consumer protection, local administration, work, labour, professional syndicates, youth, protecting persons with disability, regulating the press and media, and others. It caught my attention that Dr Abdel-Aal made no mention of the family law for Christians which the Constitution stipulates in its third article. I am fully aware that this bill has been drafted and is now with the government awaiting presentation to parliament. But I do not feel really sorry that it was not mentioned among the legislative agenda; I still hold hopes that the bill would be amended to include provisions for equal inheritance for men and women, before it finds its way under parliament’s dome.

Watani International
8 Ocotber 2017

Problems on hold

Last week I wrote about Egypt’s House of Representatives as it embarked on its third round in the five-round parliamentary term. I proposed suggestions to improve the House’s legislative and supervisory performance which, sadly, leaves a lot to be desired. My aspiration is that the House could achieve a mature, robust democratic experience through strong political parties.
Until political maturity becomes a reality on the ground, I cannot help feeling sorry that Egypt’s 2014 Constitution decided against bicameral legislature, in which legislators are divided into two separate houses. The House of Representatives would have formed the lower house, and the Shura (Consultative) Council the upper house. The system is not new to Egypt; Shura councils played significant roles during the country’s modern history. They included among their ranks a fine Egyptian intellectual élite who rose above electoral conflict, promoted dialogue, and tolerated different opinions, generating thus a respectable balance of perspectives that worked in the best interest of Egypt. This made many, myself included, keenly aspire that the 2014 Constitution would maintain bicameral legislature, so that the Shura Council would effectively act as a safety net that would protect against any blunder or misjudgement by the lower house. Sadly, however, and under what I see as the ridiculous pretext of evading redundancy and waste of funds, the Constitution decreed a unicameral parliament. This reflected lacking awareness of the need for a safety net, as well as an absence of expenditure control in parliament. Ironically, the current House of Representatives has incurred unprecedented runaway expenses that could have covered the expenditure of both houses had there been a will to have two.
Egypt’s experience in bicameral legislature is neither a blimp nor a lone model among those of the great democracies in the world; we are all familiar with the British Parliament and its House of Commons and House of Lords; and the US Congress with its House of Representatives and the Senate. We all witness the effective roles these upper houses play, and the prerogatives they hold in order to fulfil their roles as legislative safety nets, not mere political decor or waste of funds.
For those who do not grasp the significance of the Shura Council, let me outline it here:

• Criteria for public representation based on population distribution over Egypt’s governorates, as well as conditions for fair representation and parity, have produced a House of Representatives that includes 600 MPs—a huge number by all standards. In the absence of much-needed political and party coalitions, they engage in frequent struggles and skirmishes. True, the President has used his authority to appoint a number of superbly-qualified and intellectual figures to the House, yet these only constitute 5 per cent of the elected MPs; their impact pales beside that of the elected majority. Predictably, the final word is with the majority which made it to parliament through notorious clan and family loyalties, purportedly owing to the absence of strong parties. Given all that, it becomes obvious that there is urgent need to create a counter-balance through the Shura Council. Its members should make no more than 20 to 25 per cent of the number of members of the House of Representatives, and should include public figures of hefty weight. These should come from among scholarly, literary, intellectual, judiciary, and professional circles: including heads of judiciary authorities, universities, research centres and syndicates, as well as cultural and media figures, and other figures who possess the intellectual worth that could serve legislative and political endeavours but would remain above electoral conflict. They should be selected according to standards that do not involve the ballot box.
• The Shura Council is in charge of studying and discussing draft laws, in parallel with the House of Representatives; it should be able to knowingly evaluate a draft law once the House of Representatives completes drafting it and refers it to the Upper House. Once the Shura approves a draft law, it returns it to the lower House to pass as law. However if the Shura finds any flaws—hence the legislative safety net—it returns the bill, together with the relevant remarks, to the House of Representatives to review and resolve before the law can be passed.
• Although the Shura Council can be strictly charged with the legislative role, it can also be assigned a safety-net supervisory role over the executive authority, in order to support the work of the House of Representatives on that front. This would ensure that supervision of the executive authority does not run out of control and slip into party rivalry.
I am fully aware that our current Constitution makes no provision for a Shura Council. Yet I remain persuaded that bicameral legislature would serve Egypt better than the current unicameral one. But this would obviously have to wait till and if Egyptians decide to amend their Constitution.

Watani International
15 October 2017

Problems on hold

Last week I tackled the urgent issue of the imperativeness of restructuring the map of political parties in Egypt as I broached the topic of the nomination of President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi for a second presidential term. As it currently stands, the party map includes more than 90 parties; 17 among them have seats in parliament.
Predictably, most of these parties are small and feeble, with redundant political views and objectives; none strong enough or including calibres sufficiently savvy to lead a nation. I believe that instead of this bloated, fragmented, feeble scene, we need—through party mergers and coalitions—a few robust parties that possess the capacity of effectively communicating and interacting with the public, and that can produce patriotic political figures worthy of shouldering the responsibility of power, and smoothly handing over that power when the time comes. Only then can Egypt ensure proper power rotation.
Article 74 of the Constitution gave Egyptians the right to form parties by notification alone; hence the 93 parties currently jamming Egypt’s party map. A few of these parties have deep roots and long histories of political work, large memberships, and well-defined political programmes. The majority of the others are marginal, ineffective and fragile, with meagre memberships and no specific political programmes, so much so that they have been called “cartoon” or “paper” parties.
The diversity in form does not represent an added value to the political scene; rather, it is a liability. I believe that the bloated scene stems from a feeling among Egyptians of having long been deprived of the full freedom to form political parties. This right is now secured; parties are formed by notification without any regulation pre- or post-formation. The Parties Committee does not even periodically review the memberships of the parties or their effectiveness on the political scene.
Watani has taken it upon itself to promote the call for re-forming the party scene, a call adopted by President Sisi himself and which, if achieved, would go down as his most significant accomplishment during his second term. Admittedly, however, President Sisi cannot be the sole moderator for this mammoth task; all those concerned with the future of this nation must put in an effort.
It thus gave me great comfort to be able to print in Watani’s last issue: “Al-Tagammu [a leftist party that has been active since the 1970s] strives to form a coalition that would include all leftist parties”. I hope the al-Tagammu move would be emulated by other parties.
I am reminded here of the road trodden by Egypt some two decades ago in reforming its banking system. At the time, experts noticed that too many Egyptian banks and branches of foreign banks had appeared on the scene. Most of them were small entities that competed in direct banking operations without really contributing to economic development or to funding projects. Legislation was enacted requiring, within a certain time frame, smaller banks to increase their capital to a specific minimal sum or to merge with other banks. The result was the creation of fewer banks, but they were robust and capable of competing with the old, well-established ones that had been there since the early 1900s.
Today, Egypt is in dire need of emulating the reform of its banking sector in its political party sector. It is normal to start with a voluntarily call for parties to converge and unite into groups with common political views. Here comes the importance of the primary categorisation of coalitions into right, centre and left, all the while keeping the door open for the formation of other coalitions under other names. In all cases, there must be agreement that for a party to exist it should have a distinctive political vision and a minimum number of members for it to gain legitimacy.
Re-forming the party map is imperative, and can no longer be put off. It would achieve a serious qualitative leap in party work, moving it from the stage of adolescence to maturity. It would reassure Egyptians that their will for effective, smooth power rotation, instead of the interminable power they suffered from for long decades, could translate into a reality on the ground.

Watani International
29 October 2017

Problems on hold

Police closes down churches awaiting legalisation

The Law for Building and Restoring Churches went into force in September 2016. Articles 8, 9 and 10 outline the course to be followed in order to legalise the status of unlicensed churches. The law stipulates that the Prime Minister should issue a decision to form a committee that would investigate the files of these de facto churches and accordingly approve their legalisation. The committee was formed by order of the PM on 26 January 2017, following which and until the deadline of 28 September 2017, it received 3730 applications filed by the Coptic Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical Churches in Egypt to legalise the status of non-licensed churches or Church-affiliated buildings.
Once the file examination process started, everyone was optimistic that the agony surrounding unlicensed churches would come to an end, and that Copts would finally enjoy the legitimacy to practise their religious rites in these buildings as stipulated by the Constitution, and claim citizenship rights equally to their fellow Muslims.
Article 8 of the Law for Building and Restoring Churches reads: “In all cases, practising religious rites or activity in any of the buildings or annexes mentioned in Articles 9 and 10 may not be hampered or halted under any circumstances.” Article 9 stipulates that any building which stood on the day the Law for Building and Restoring Churches went into effect, and where Christian religious rites are practised, is considered licensed, as long as a report by a consultant construction engineer registered with the Engineers’ Syndicate approves its structural soundness. Article 10 stipulates the same measures in the case of any Church-affiliated building, community centre or retreat home, as long as the building in question is owned by the Church and answers to the conditions and regulations stipulated in Article 9.
It is common knowledge that the committee would not have accepted the 3730 files had they not complied with the conditions stipulated by the law. Accordingly, there is absolutely no room not to empower Article 8 that renders it illegal to hamper or halt the practice of religious rites or activity in any of these buildings, under any circumstances.
As we sing the praises of the law, however, officials in State administration and security authority flagrantly defy it under flimsy pretexts, oblivious to the fact that in so doing they shatter State prestige, mock the law, and fail to perform their duties. More seriously, they reward extremists and fanatics by allowing them to get away with their terrorist crimes.
We had imagined that the 2014 Constitution and the law for building and restoring churches and legalising their status would have put an end to the decades-long practice of security reports used to close down churches, whether licensed or not, under the pretext that “they [the churches] pose a threat to social peace and stability”. Curiously, these reports never dared describe the fanatics who attacked the churches as “posing a threat to social peace and stability”; rather they were allowed to bask in the glory of their deeds while the churches were closed for threatening social peace and stability. We thought this used to happen under a bygone ‘crisis era’ when it was near impossible to build licensed churches. Today, this ‘era’ is being reborn in a new form. Rather than claim that “churches threaten social peace and stability”, a new cliché is applied: “we fear for the safety of Christians from the extremists”. This was the case with three de facto churches in Minya and one in Sohag when recently, in the span of two weeks, security authorities closed them down to appease extremist Muslims. All four had applied for legalisation, and thus should not have been closed, nor should religious rites have been halted in them or hampered under any circumstances.
Copts are Egyptian citizens who passionately love their country and, together with their fellow Muslims, endure the blows of the terrorism that strike Egypt. They stand firm against all fanatic attempts to create a rift between them and their Muslim fellow citizens, and always defend their nation in local and global circles. They deserve to feel that the State supports them, protects them, and upholds their legitimate rights. They are entitled to see the State fight extremists not fear their terrorism.
The State’s defence of its dignity, the rule of law, and Coptic citizens is no less a feat than its war against the terrorism that plagues Egypt.

Watani International
5 November 2017

Problems on hold

The recent visit by an Egyptian parliamentary delegation to Washington DC involved meetings with congressmen and the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. According to the daily State-owned al-Ahram in its 3 November issue, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi enquired of the Egyptian delegation about the Copts’ conditions in Egypt. To which the Egyptian delegation, especially Coptic MP Marianne Azer, said there was no discrimination against Egypt’s Copts, and that all Egyptians, Muslims and Christians, lived under the umbrella of the nation, equal in rights and freedoms without any discrimination on any front.
I would like to comment on this story and underline a few basic points:
• It does not at all matter to me what information the US or any other country has concerning Egypt’s Copts. Nor do I count on any foreign country adopting a policy or taking measures intended to supposedly alleviate the grievances of Copts. Admittedly, many Copts aspire to that and thus make sure news of our suffering is exported to the rest of the world. I insist, however, out of a firm patriotic conviction, that there can be no alternative to resolving the Coptic predicament inside Egypt, with our fellow-Egyptians, under the umbrella of the Egyptian Constitution and law.
• If disseminating the Coptic predicament outside Egypt is pointless, and it is unacceptable that the US or any other country should defend the curtailed rights of Copts in Egypt, there can be no excuse to falsify facts in official international circles. When the question of the Coptic situation is raised in official meetings with foreign bodies, the Egyptian side must handle the matter with courage and candour, asserting that these are internal problems to be dealt with by Egyptians inside Egypt; no other party may interfere. Egyptians can thus preserve their dignity and patriotism, instead of falsifying the truth, covering up facts, and resorting to hollow rhetoric that underestimates the intelligence of their interlocutors who are surely aware of the details of the topic they brought up.
• If al-Ahram published in full what took place regarding the question raised by Pelosi, leaving no part out, we should realise that the US side decided to swallow the Egyptian reply out of mere courtesy, knowing as they do the truth of the matter. But there is another possible and more ominous scenario: did the American side challenge the Egyptian reply, using the information they have about the plight of Copts in Minya and Sohag vis-à-vis their right to worship. If this were the case, then we are before an Egyptian media that selects which part of the news to convey to the public and which to withhold, making it no different than the western media we constantly point fingers at for biased, selective, negative coverage on Egypt.
• Let me remind you that for a very long time under the Mubarak regime, we used to candidly talk about Coptic grievances with foreign institutions, most of them American. We knew for a fact that they did not count on Egyptian official sources for correct information; they had to resort to independent institutions for the truth. This used to embarrass us a great deal, because it discounted the credibility and dignity of our Egyptian State. But now, after the 30 June 2013 Revolution and following the crucial changes in Egyptian policy that endowed the administration with professionalism and respect, why should Egyptians, Copts especially, gamble with credibility? And how can they think that by covering up facts and beautifying—not to say falsifying—the on-the-ground-reality, others will believe it? Wouldn’t it be more dignified if the truth is acknowledged with courage, coupled with a firm demand to be left alone to handle our affairs our way?
I hereby record my dismay at the situation. And I present to the Egyptian parliamentary delegation, as well as to all officials concerned, Watani’s meticulous account of the suffering of Copts in Minya and Sohag on account of being deprived of their right to pray and practise religious rites. I am not referring here to old incidents that some might claim to be bygone; I am talking about current on-going suffering that has taken a turn for the worse. Copts in Minya and Sohag are today suffering not only from the hatred, extremism, threats, terror and assault of fundamentalist Muslims; they also have to deal with the failure of State authorities to protect them, empower the law, and ensure them their constitutional rights. Officials have acted with disgraceful feebleness in front of fundamentalists and fanatics, so much so that they closed down churches under the pretext of ‘protecting Christians’. Whereas these same authorities did not move a finger against the fundamentalist roars of “no matter what, we’ll bring the church down”.
In an attempt to justify their deed, and in order to save face, the security authorities alleged that they closed down the churches because they possessed no license for practice of religious rites. I would like to offer them my last Watani editorial, dated 5 November 2017, under the title “Defying the law”. I wrote that the law stipulates that no building in possession of the required legal documents and where prayers are held may be closed.
Finally, to those who go abroad and brag that our Constitution establishes equal citizenship rights for all Egyptians without any discrimination, let me offer the following lines, written by a fellow Muslim. He wrote: “What equality are you talking about? As Muslims, we enjoy total freedom to pray in any place, be it a home, work place, open air space, or roadside; we neither require any licence, nor are we bothered that in praying so we might obstruct traffic or delay business. How can some of us then protest if our fellow Christians who are denied licence to pray in a church, opt for praying inside a community building or even a home?”
Indeed, what citizenship rights or equality do you give yourself the right to brag about?

Watani International
12 November 2017

As a firm believer in the Right of Reply, I am publishing here a letter sent to me by MP Marianne Azer in reply to my Editorial published on 12 November 2017, under the title “If disgraceful, why do it?” and which was based on news published by the daily State owned al-Ahram in its 3 November issue. Al-Ahram attributed to Ms Azer declarations during a recent visit to Washington by an Egyptian parliamentary delegation which included MP Azer. The question to Azer concerned the conditions of Copts in Egypt. [http://en.wataninet.com/opinion/editorial/if-disgraceful-why-do-we-do-it/21897/]

Ms Azer wrote:
“Sadly, untrue declarations were attributed to me, and were published and circulated by a number of official papers and websites, regarding the visit of the Egyptian Parliament’s delegation to the US Congress. I was a member of this delegation, and I would like to make a few points clear. In reply to a question by the American side about the condition of Copts in Egypt, I said that Copts face problems owing to an erroneous cultural legacy, in addition to ignorance and poor education. I said that, on the official level, there were serious attempts to deal with the situation and contain it on national basis. The American side showed understanding and appreciation of the information I gave.
“I call upon the media and digital networks to accurately check the facts instead of rushing to obtain information from non-reliable sources.”

WATANI International
17 November 2017

Problems on hold

Egypt hosted the World Youth Forum (WYF) from 4 to 10 November in the charming South Sinai resort of Sharm al-Sheikh. Egyptians at large eagerly and proudly followed the forum’s activities, and were especially impressed with its meticulous organisation. The WYF ended with a list of substantial, ambitious decisions that covered a range of issues on the local and international levels. During the final session, President Sisi demanded that the recommendations drawn up by youth participants in a day-long simulation of the United Nations General Assembly, which took place as part of the forum, would be presented to the international body in New York. I am particularly keen to see how this step will come along.
The WYF represented a commendable effort by Egypt to initiate a great cultural-civilisational move that recognised the weight and worth of youth. Egypt offered young people the opportunity to express themselves and take part in managing the present and creating the future. Although the WYF closed some 10 days ago, it still extensively preoccupies the media which is obviously not yet done with documenting and analysing it. That significant event has worked to create ripples in the stagnant waters of our national awareness and movement.
Watani reporters are still actively monitoring the effect of the WYF on the political, economic, touristic and cultural fronts, also the pulse of the Egyptian street vis-à-vis the forum. I am personally urged to tackle the experience and outcome from a different perspective: how the forum managed to create a human pot which united and fused different youth, prevailing over their dissimilarities in gender, language, colour, culture or faith. The Forum did not merely overlook these differences or treat them with tolerance; it rather valued the rich diversity and invested its creative outcome into benefitting the human community. I believe that our focus as Egyptians should centre on this diversity and its benefits, rather than merely boasting of the Forum as an exceptional event that took place on our land. We must contemplate how to institute a new, refined vision for diversity in our lives.
For years on end, we preached “acceptance of the other” as we strove on our national effort. More often than not we flopped; in a few incidents we succeeded but it was only a partial, lame success. The acceptance achieved was reluctant and superficial, and never went deep enough to achieve true coexistence, intermingling and communal empowerment. It only served to embellish a political or social image; the ‘other’, be it woman, Copt, youth, opposition, or anyone different from the mainstream or overbearing majority, remained marginalised.
President Sisi did well to acknowledge the right of every human being to his or her own particularity, convictions, and belonging, while respecting the particularity, convictions and belonging of ours. No one should pre-require that the other give up his or her particularity to be accepted. I believe that we Egyptians are in dire need to reconsider several attitudes persistent in our life, and re-arrange our house accordingly. We ought to contemplate the experience of the WYF, and reflect on the participating youth’s magnificent, expansive spirit and remarkable capacity to override differences, in addition to their admirable enthusiasm for interaction, coexistence and joint effort. The outcome was a wonderful, spontaneous, fruitful fusion.
Egypt has ahead of her a long arduous road to tread before she reaches true fusion among the different sectors of her people: a great challenge in integrating girls and boys, women and men, Muslims and Copts, clergy and laity, majority and minority, any one and the other. Only then could every one fuse and melt into a one-nation Egypt.

[For extensive coverage of the WYF, visit www.wataninet.com

“We need to talk”

http://en.wataninet.com/features/youth/world-youth-forum-closes-on-note-of-hope/21905/]

Watani International
19 November 2017

Problems on hold

Either there is a deliberate intention to drag Egypt into a series of problems that concern churches and the right of Copts to worship; or there is official apathy, indifference, and inaction regarding the harm inflicted upon churches by local authorities in defiance of the law.
Two weeks had barely passed on the police closure of churches in the southern provinces of Minya and Sohag when another church, in the north Cairo district of Shubral-Kheima, was targeted for closure by the police. As in case of the Minya and Sohag churches, the non-licensed de facto church in Shubral-Kheima, in which prayers and services have been regularly held for some two years, had officially applied for legalising its status according to the 2016 law that regulates the building of churches. Throughout centuries, Copts had taken to worship in non-licensed churches, since obtaining licence to build a church was arduous, humiliating, and near impossible.
Last week, the church of Pope Kyrillos was abruptly subjected to a power cut by the Electricity Authority in Shubral-Kheima. No official reason was given for the power cut, nor had the church committed any violation that would warrant that.

As in case of one of the Minya churches that had been closed by the police, the clergy and congregation of Pope Kyrillos’s rushed to their church and sat-in there, for fear that the power cut signalled an intention by the local authorities and police to close the church down or demolish it. The sit-in involved an outburst of angry protest which threatened sectarian strife of dire repercussions. Matters would have got out of hand had not Anba Morqos, Bishop of Shubral-Kheima, urged self-restraint and ordered a halt to worship in the church until he probed the issue with the local officials.

So we are before a seemingly criminal plot to induce sectarian strife in Egypt. We see an irresponsible, unfathomable, illegal rush by local administrations to inflict harm on churches seeking official legalistation of their status. In every case, it falls upon the Copts themselves to handle the problem and calm their rage, whereas local administration and security officials get away with their deeds without being held accountable. With every incident, Coptic religious leaders are made to succumb to the injustice in order to uphold national interest and abort attempts at sedition in Egypt. But the closed churches are not opened, nor is the procedure of legalising their status speeded up.

This hateful scenario brings to mind the proverb, “Don’t ask the victim not to cry, ask the offender to stop striking”. Sadly, it appears that Egyptians have no qualms about asking the victim not to cry; since they fear the cries would be heard outside Egypt and would work to tarnish the country’s image. As for the offender, there are also no qualms about his getting away with his offence.
I present the case of Subral-Kheima church to the Prime Minister and the ministers of interior and local development. I ask them to add it to the cases cited in the briefing submitted by MP Nadia Henry to the Speaker of the House of Representatives’ regarding the closure of churches in Minya. MP Henry demanded an official explanation, and that this issue be referred to the House’s Committee of Defence and National Security. I hope the response would not be in the customary honeyed clichés of the type: “Egypt is going through intricate conditions and has a priority issue with terrorism. It is thus not appropriate to raise sectarian tensions that are exploited by enemies.” Or: “these are individual incidents that do not touch on the majority of Copts who enjoy their freedom to worship”. Or perhaps: “Egypt is keen to uphold principles of citizenship and establish diversity and acceptance of the other.” Such ambiguous talk cannot make one overlook the fact that there are hotspots in Egypt where rampant religious fundamentalism is met by official apathy. We must bravely acknowledge that we have problems on this front, and rise to meet the challenge. Any problem facing any Egyptian group no matter how small, in any spot in Egypt no matter how remote, is a problem that needs to be courageously addressed.

I hope the House of Representatives does not send any delegation abroad soon, nor receive any foreign delegation visiting Egypt, lest we again fall into the pitfall of having to discuss Copts and their churches. Obviously, the issue generates ‘political embarrassment’, since we find ourselves forced to beautify our image by obscuring the fact. When a bold Coptic MP spoke of the Coptic issue candidly and patriotically, the Egyptian media misrepresented her words, so much so that she found herself forced to issue a correction.
The entire official stance brings to mind the saying: “They don’t fear the immorality; they fear the scandal”.

Watani International
26 November 2017

Problems on hold

Egypt and the world shuddered at the gruesome terror crime which took place on Friday 24 November during noon prayers in al-Rawdah mosque in the village of Bir al-Abd, 40km west of al-Arish in North Sinai. The attack, waged through gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades, left 305 worshippers dead and 128 injured. Now that terrorists have failed to defeat the Egyptian army and police, and have found Copts out of arm’s length once security was stepped up around churches, they have turned their vile attention to Egypt’s Muslims and struck them as they worshipped in a mosque. The gunfire took the defenceless worshippers by surprise, instantly killing some and injuring others; the terrorists even blew up the exit door to which the crowds inside the mosque impulsively rushed for their lives.
Terror has exposed its ugly face; the last fig leaf has fallen off. No point now for terrorists to rant about religious teachings as a pretext for their crimes: they had constantly categorised the military and police as apostates, and the Copts as polytheists deserving death. What now? How can they explain off killing defenceless Muslims, as a means of avenging themselves against the State that they were unable to bring down? Will Egypt in her entirety be penalised for rejecting fundamentalism and extremism, violence and terror? The bitter answer is: yes. Egypt is embroiled in a war against terror; a war that dwarfs regular wars which respect a code of honour that strives to keep unarmed civilians out of harm’s way. It appears to be Egypt’s fate to gear up for a gruesome war against terror, and to go through it single-handedly.
Why should Egypt fight this war on her own? President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi spelt out the reason in the address he gave to the nation following the heinous crime at the mosque. “What is going on is an attempt to impede our efforts to confront terror, and to shatter Egypt’s will to foil the criminal plot to destroy what is left of the region,” President Sisi said. Yes, this is the bottom line: Egypt is cruelly targeted because she did not succumb to the plot that brought down other countries in the region: Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Egyptians firmly believe that Egypt was miraculously saved from the gruesome fate that befell her neighbours; she was saved by the grace of God and by the strong fusion among her people, leadership, army, and police.
Egypt is fighting terrorism all on her own because the evil forces that wish to bring her down supply funds to pawns who sneak into her land through borders and tunnels, strike terror, then unashamedly talk of ‘respect of the sovereignty of States’. The evil forces are known to the entire international community, and to those who themselves suffer from terrorism and allege their support of Egypt in her battle against terror. None of these forces, which point fingers at one another for creating and funding terror groups, have lifted a finger to support Egypt; their only support comes in the form of honeyed talk. These States are governed by their strategic interests and have no qualms sitting with the mighty perpetrators of terrorism while maintaining silence over the sources of its funds, and offering safe havens for its leaders. They then shower Egypt with crocodile tears and hollow words that condemn the terror inflicted by the terrorist groups they created and nurtured. Here are a few examples:
• The UN Security Council (UNSC), among whose members are protectors of terror groups, condemns the terror attack and offers condolences to the families of the victims and the Egyptian government, “reaffirming that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security”. It appears the UNSC too has adopted powerless lip service. Kindly note the ‘too’.
• In Washington, US President Trump expresses deep sorrow for the “horrible and cowardly” attack. “The world cannot tolerate terrorism, we must defeat them militarily,” he says. This is the US President who inherited American policies deeply involved in fragmenting the Middle East, and whose Secretary of State assiduously attempts to win over Qatar.
• In London, Prime Minister Theresa May condemns the attack which she describes as “sickening”. She calls President Sisi for condolence. But she mentions not a word about her country being a safe haven for the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group heavily involved in terrorist activity.
• In Moscow, Russian President Putin sends a note of condolence to President Sisi, and confirms Russia’s willingness for increased cooperation with Egypt to fight terrorism. Yet he forgets or overlooks the fact that he just concluded a summit with the Iranian and Turkish presidents, in which he certainly discussed mutual interests and cooperation, without going into curtailing the terror-fostering role of Iran and Turkey.
• Ahmed Abul-Gheit, Secretary-General of the Arab League, strongly condemns the terror attack, and offers condolences to Egypt’s leadership and people. But he is careful not to ruffle feathers with Qatar or Hamas.
Is it clear now why I said UNSC ‘too’ has resorted to lip service?
Let Egyptians fully realise they will wage the war against terror on their own … totally on their own.

Watani International
3 December 2017

Problems on hold

Last week, former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik, who is also a former Air Force officer, announced through Reuters his intention to run for the 2018 presidential election in Egypt. He made the announcement from the United Arab Emirates where he had taken residence some five years ago when he lost the 2012 presidential election to the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Muhammad Mursi.
Mr Shafik was not the first politician to spring upon his countrymen, from outside the country, a major decision that intimately concerns the people. Nobel Peace laureate and former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei did that in 2011, right after President Mubarak stepped down, when he announced from Europe that he would run for Egypt’s presidency; he had been abroad for more than 20 years. And last month, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri announced from Saudi Arabia, where he was on a visit, his resignation from office.
Mr Shafik was exercising his constitutional right to run for President, but he managed to match Baradei and Hariri in underestimating his people and doing himself a disservice. Leading positions such as president or prime minister require those who fill them or intend to run for them to be among the masses and feel their pulse. A figure that fills such a post, or intends to, cannot afford to exude superiority or detachment from the people; and certainly not to inform the people of pivotal decisions while away from the country. I cannot assume that Mr Shafik’s intention to run for president came on the spur of the moment, or was announced without due consideration or discussion with his close circle and aides. So why was it announced that way, spurring countless questions and raising bewilderment, even denouncement?
Why did Mr Shafik address his people from abroad through a statement that was released by a news agency, acting as if he were in exile? How could the poised, balanced Shafik, a well-heeled leader and politician, have missed the point so drastically? Would it not have made more sense for him to come back to Egypt, engage with various political platforms, mingle with the public then announce his intention to run? Or was he banned from entering Egypt? Was he bogged down with any legal obstacles? Why did he act like a fugitive? And do fugitives run for presidents?
It appears that Mr Shafik and his consultants—if indeed he has any—were taken by surprise at the general speculation of why he did not return to Egypt to announce his intention to run for president. His response was weird in form and in content: adding insult to injury, he appeared on al-Jazeera channel to declare that he could not return to Egypt since he was banned form leaving the UAE. Egyptians were stunned. They found it difficult to believe that the UAE, which had granted Mr Shafik a safe haven when he needed one, was now holding him captive. And they wondered: al-Jazeera of all channels! A channel notorious for its hostility to Egypt and the endless fake news it airs about the country! Mr Shafik chose to make his declaration not through Reuters as he did earlier, but through al-Jazeera, a channel loathed by Egyptians and Emiratis.
I cannot imagine how Mr Shafik could have thought that such behaviour would earn him credit with Egyptians, let alone put him in a position to contest the presidential race? The shocking start is bound to work against him, no matter how qualified he is.
In its Articles 141 and 142, the Egyptian Constitution spells out conditions for candidacy for the presidential. Article 141 stipulates that a presidential candidate must be an Egyptian born to Egyptian parents, and neither he nor his parents or spouse may have held any other citizenship. He must enjoy civil and political rights, must have performed the military service or been exempted of it by law, and may not be less than forty years old on the Gregorian calendar on the day he registers his candidacy. The law should stipulate any other candidacy requirements.
I believe Mr Shafik already fulfils these requirements, as proved by his running for president against Mr Mursi in 2012.
Article 142 says that, to qualify for the presidential race, a candidate must secure endorsements from at least 20 elected members of the House of Representatives, or the support of a minimum 25,000 eligible voters from at least 15 governorates, with a minimum 1000 supporters from each governorate. In all cases, no one could support more than one candidate, as regulated by the law.
Now that Mr Shafik is back in Egypt after the UAE ‘set him free’, I imagine he would form his electoral campaign team which should work on completing all the candidacy requirements, including endorsements or support.
No question, Mr Shafik is entitled to run for president. I pity him, though, for his poor start; choosing to inform Egyptians of his intention while outside the country was self-defeating at the very outset.

Watani International
10 December 2017

Problems on hold

Trump: Jerusalem capital of Israel

The people’s wrath boiled over…inside and outside the Arab World. President Trump had just made an announcement that the US recognised Jerusalem as capital of Israel and would accordingly move its embassy there from its current place in Tel Aviv. The US President’s declaration was nothing new; it put into effect a 1995 Congress decision eschewed for 22 years by three former US presidents: Clinton, Bush and Obama. In Egypt, newspapers headlines reflected the shock, anger, and resentment that vibrated in the streets; “Trump the non-owner gives the non-deserving”, “A century between the Balfour Declaration and Trump’s declaration” and “Slap of the century on the face of the sacred city”. But is this enough to change the reality on the ground created by the US President’s decision?
As soon as Trump made his announcement, waves of wrath set off demonstrators howling, denouncing the US decision and describing it as treacherous and ruinous for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Demonstrators burned US and Israeli flags and effigies of Trump. Will this change anything?
If we in the Arab World are serious about becoming doers rather than mere responders to what others do, we must first contemplate the facts. The wrath of the masses is understandable and justified since they are helpless to do anything but express their anger. But governments and ruling regimes must do more than denounce or reject the US decision, or export news of their people’s angry protest against it. They should instead adopt political stances and decisions that would demonstrate to the US and its President the magnitude of their wrongdoing. This cannot be achieved through demonstrations or the burning of effigies and flags. We must realise that the US is driven by its strategic interests and national security; this was what made three former US presidents persuade Congress to put off the 1995 decision going into force, in order to avoid anticipated escalation in the Middle East crisis. The three former presidents chose to stabilise the peace process before igniting the spark of a new crisis by moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
So what has changed today? We must admit that the last 22 years have seen the weight of Arab and Islamic States dwindle, also the clout of oil States. Arab States became increasingly fragmented, and they failed to attain any form of regional unity that would have transformed them into a politico-economic bloc to be reckoned with. The Palestinians, riddled with internal divisions, compromised their cause as they indulged in conflicts and questionable alliances that stocked them with funds and arms. They gave the Israelis the perfect pretext to walk out of peace negotiations; they claimed they could not know who to talk to: Ramallah’s Palestinian authority or Gaza’s Hamas. The Palestinians compromised their own case even before the US, which has long bragged that it fostered the peace process, did. Egypt, for its part, repeatedly attempted to achieve Palestinian conciliation but did not succeed because of non-ending Palestinian procrastination and stalling. The Palestinian people’s dream to settle down in a State of their own was effectively dashed.
What now? Will we swallow Trump’s decision to the last bitter drop? Will we merely curse our incapacity and make do with burning effigies and flags? This will definitely be our fate if we do not wake up, review our positions, and rise above personal interests and conflicts. Arab countries ought first to sit to their own negotiation table and come up united in one hefty politico-economic bloc that would impose itself on the world according to well-recognised measures. The Arab League must rise from its sleep—not to say its death—and take decisions that would make the US and its President realise that their recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel comes at a very high cost of US interests and national security. We cannot make the world listen to us and take us seriously unless we attain this and achieve Palestinian conciliation.
I go back to an editorial I wrote seven months ago under the title “Amman Summit: embellishment, ranting, incapacity”; it accentuates my frustration and helplessness. In that editorial I presented and analysed the resolutions of the summit and the Arab capacity at evading the issues and challenges that face Arab States. When it came to the Palestinian cause, there was nothing but the customary clauses of denouncements and rejection, decrying Israeli attempts to change the legal and historical situation of Jerusalem. Again, members of the Arab League appealed with world States not to move their embassies to Jerusalem. However, the summit did not decide how its member States would proceed if Israel persists in its violations, or if any State moved its embassy to Jerusalem. No one dared remind the Arabs of the Arab League’s 1991 decision to sever ties with any State that moved its embassy to Jerusalem; the decision which was only applied to El Salvador. No one dared ask what if the US does it? If the Palestinian cause was compromised by the Arabs, why are we surprised that the US compromises it too? Will the Arab States recall their ambassadors from the US? Will they sever relations with the US? Or will they find it enough to burn effigies and the US and Israeli flags?

Watani International
17 December 2017

Problems on hold

As we bid 2017 goodbye, I wish Egypt and her people a happy, peaceful 2018 full of progress. We welcome the new beginning with hope and hard work; we have before us huge challenges till we could attain the reform, development and stability we aspire for. I feel optimistic about the future, and confident that we are on the right track. The great efforts exerted politically, democratically and economically are all-too-obvious; to say nothing of the courageous, relentless war spearheaded by our army and police against terrorism, fundamentalism and extremism.
However, I am not equally optimistic on other fronts such as education, enlightenment, and citizenship rights. It disconcerts me that the State appears to drag its feet on reforms needed in these fields, and on implementing the Constitutional requirements regarding them.
In this context, I would like to shed light on the issue of the constitutional right of Copts to worship and hold religious rites, which appears to be placed on hold. We started off 2017 with much hope in this regard but closed the year with confusion and disillusionment. With an eye to being objective, I will begin by mentioning the positives points which, nonetheless, ought not eclipse the negatives.
To begin with, I applaud the passage of the long awaited Law for Building and Restoring Churches on 28 September 2016. I extend my gratitude to the State for honouring its pledge to rebuild, restore and open for prayers all the churches that were bombed, burned, destroyed, plundered or damaged at the hand of [Islamist] terrorists, notorious among them were the 84 churches and Christian establishments nationwide—that were destroyed at the hand of the Muslim Brothers on 14 August 2013. [http://en.wataninet.com/coptic-affairs-coptic-affairs/coptic-affairs/us-congress-bill-on-coptic-churches-irrelevant-and-irrational/18456/].
I also stand in pride and awe before the commendable almost-miraculous feat of building the new administrative capital’s cathedral, in keeping with the promise made by President Sisi in person to the Copts last Christmas. The momentous work to get that cathedral ready for Midnight Mass on Coptic Christmas Eve, 6 January, is of almost incredible proportions. Watani has been closely monitoring it and will continue to report on it.
Now that I have cited the positives, I can move on to the negatives, which are mainly as follows:
• Throughout 2017, Watani repeatedly covered cases of churches attacked by Muslim fundamentalists, especially in Upper Egypt. Here I do not refer to attacks by terrorists; I mean attacks by Muslims motivated by hostility to Christians. Such Muslims gather in mobs to assault, destroy, loot and burn simple buildings that have for many years been used by their fellow Christian villagers or townspeople as non-licensed de-facto churches, seeing the near impossibility of obtaining official licence to build a church, whereas there exists a dire need for one. Now, with the new church-building law in force, these de-facto churches have applied for legalisation of their status. The Muslim mobs attack these churches because they object to Christian prayers and rites being held in their neighbourhoods; they scream cries against Copts and churches, a famous one being: “No matter what, we’ll bring the church down”. The Copts have repeatedly sought help from the police to protect them and secure their legal and constitutional rights, but were constantly met with quivering security officials who froze the law and preferred to close down churches and overlook the crimes against the Copts, under the pretext that in so doing they maintain ‘social peace’ and ‘protect’ the Copts from assault.
• When officials decide to take action and put an end to hostilities, they more often than not do so in a scandalously disgraceful manner that compromises State dignity and sidelines the law. Under the outrageous pretext of ‘making peace’ and in notorious ‘conciliation’ sessions, the Coptic victims are pressured, even threatened, into ‘conciliating’ with their attackers, dropping thus any claims against them and altogether relinquishing their legal rights. This is done in exchange for granting Copts a semblance of their right. In frustration, fear, and defeat, the Copts give in to that flagrant blackmail once they find that the State officials are incapable of protecting them or implementing the law, and rather prefer the easy way out by appeasing the fundamentalists. In the process, the community’s civic right that culprits be brought to justice, regardless of conciliation with the victim, is foregone.
• The State addressed the case of the Copts of Koum al-Loufi in that exact catastrophic, disgraceful approach. Coptic-owned houses in Koum al-Loufi in Samalout, Minya, some 250km south of Cairo, were burned in June 2016 because rumours had circulated in the village that the Copts intended to turn one of the houses into a non-licensed church. The Muslim villagers refused to allow the 2000-strong Coptic population of Koum al-Loufi to worship in the village, let alone build a church. The State imposed on the oppressed Copts an out-of-court conciliation, and forced them to drop their legal claims. The Copts’ and the community’s right that justice should be served has been thrown to the wind. All this because the Copts, after much bargaining, surrendered their right and accepted to be allowed to build themselves a church on the outskirts of the village—not inside the village, mind you. This is typical of how the State compensates fundamentalists by appeasing their rejection of a church in their midst, and allowing them to escape justice.
• The Koum al-Loufi case reveals the behavioural model followed by fundamentalists and extremists across Egypt to intimidate the State and bypass the law. Last week, that same model was replayed in the village of Kafr al-Wassleen in Etfeeh, Giza, where Muslim fundamentalist villagers stormed the village church and destroyed it upon rumour that the church intended to install a bell. The bitter question: Will the State again resort to its by-now customary behaviour?

Watani International
31 December 2017

Problems on hold

For Egypt’s Copts, 2018 started on a hopeful note. On the evening of 6 January—Coptic Christmas Eve—they celebrated Midnight Mass at the new Cathedral of the Nativity of Christ, partially opened to host the celebration. One year earlier, on 6 January 2017, President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi had visited St Mark’s Cathedral in Abbassiya before the start of Midnight Mass to wish Pope Tawadros and the Coptic congregation a happy feast; there and then the President announced that Egypt’s largest cathedral would be built alongside its biggest mosque in the new Administrative Capital. He promised the Copts that the next time they celebrate Christmas Midnight Mass it would be at the new cathedral. The President lived up to his promise.
The morning of that same day, 6 January 2018, had seen another move that gave rise to comfort and hope to Copts, since it related directly to one of their major grievances: that of church building and freedom of worship. For centuries on end, Copts had found it next to impossible to obtain official licence to build a church or renovate an existing one. Given the growing population and the dire need for churches, Copts resorted to worshipping in de-facto churches with no licence. Finally, in September 2016, a law for building churches went into effect, with the promise of easing the licensing of new churches and legalising the status of already existing non-licensed churches. The law included an explicit provision that churches applying for legalisation may not be closed. On the ground, however, this did not materialise; Copts continued to suffer the injustice and pain of having their churches attacked by fundamentalists while the police failed to protect them or secure their right to worship, and of having churches closed by the police to appease the fanatics and allegedly maintain social peace.
It was thus with huge comfort that all Church leaders received a circular from the Ministry of Housing on 6 January 2018 to the effect that, according to the 2016 Law for Building Churches, no unlicensed church that has applied for legalisation of status may be closed for any reason. The circular, which was addressed to Father Mikhail Antoun, representative of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the Cabinet’s Committee for legalising unlicensed churches, read:
“With reference to Law 80 of 2016 for Building and Restoring Churches, concerning legalisation of status of churches, and regarding your request, we have addressed 14 governorates with directions not to halt religious rites in churches that have filed applications for legalisation of status to the [Cabinet] committee charged with that. Attached are copies of these letters.”
For the past two years Watani repeatedly reported on cases in rural and Upper Egypt where Christian worship was impeded and churches closed by the police. This came in response to attacks waged against these churches by fundamentalists; under the pretext of maintaining peace, local authorities preferred to appease the fanatics rather than protect the Copts and enforce the law.
We are all well aware of the difference between terror attacks and strikes by fundamentalists. Terror attacks target Egypt in its entirety and hits Egyptians indiscriminately; the State exerts huge efforts to abort and confront such attacks. Attacks by fundamentalists, however, flagrantly defy the law by attempting to ban Copts from worship. Fundamentalists resent the very existence of a church in their neighbourhood. It has reached the point where Copts are attacked on the mere suspicion that a Christian who builds or renovates a house intends to convert it into a church. This brings on destruction and collective punishment against the Copts.
The State’s failure to defend Copts and its giving in to fundamentalist pressure by closing down churches to allegedly ‘preserve social peace’ and ‘protect Copts against attack’ has left Copts pained and embittered. Copts are deprived of their basic citizenship right of protection, State dignity and authority are compromised, and the law is defeated. Coptic humiliation is complete when the fundamentalists, backed by local security and political officials, pressure and threaten the Copts into acquiescing to traditional out-of-court ‘conciliation’ with their attackers, meaning the Copts have to give up their legal rights in the process. The criminals effectively escape non-scathed, and the community’s civic right to exact justice is thrown to the wind.
The sorry state of affairs continued to plague Copts even after the 2016 law went into effect. Closed churches were not opened even after applying for legalisation, and others were additionally closed in the wake of attacks by fundamentalists. Local officials flagrantly defied the law; it is painful that their defiance was never taken to account.
The 6 January 2018 directive by the Housing Ministry is meant to reverse the injustice against the Copts and their churches. If enforced, it would be a blessing that would lead to the reopening of many churches and the empowerment of Copts to exercise their constitutional right to worship. But it would be toothless if local authorities continue to successfully defy it.
Watani will continue to follow up on the matter. The real test is in the on-the-ground application of the directive.

Watani International
21 January 2018

Problems on hold

Together with many Egyptians, I welcomed news that President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi would be running for a second presidential term in the upcoming election next March. Given the achievements Egypt has accomplished under President Sisi, his running comes as both reasonable and inevitable. The President announced his candidacy in the recent conference titled Hikayet Watan (Story of a Homeland), in which he offered the Egyptian people an account of the achievements attained during his first four-year presidential term from 2014 to 2018. And what an account! The list runs long with great feats achieved not only by President Sisi but also by all of Egypt: her people, army, and institutions.
I felt pride and gratification as I followed on the successes of the last four years, successes which came in answer to momentous challenges in the fields of reform, development, battling corruption, and fighting terrorism. Mega projects have been executed, and infrastructure upgraded and modernised to set the stage for a future of abundance. This went hand in hand with the tough task of opening up to the outside world in its full diversity, working to attain vibrant communication with all, achieve conciliation where there had been discord, revive and strengthen relations with old allies, and gain new friends from the international community.
President Sisi has masterfully succeeded in leading and modernising Egypt during his first term. His accomplishments set a record in what could be achieved in four years’ time. If he has more ambitions for the upcoming four years, I trust he will embark on them backed with his admirable credit. Add to it the commendable credit of Egyptians’ love, confidence, and support, and this makes him undoubtedly the winning horse on the presidential race. True, everyone concerned with Egypt’s democratic experience would have infinitely preferred to see more presidential candidates with solid platforms; nonetheless, we must admit that President Sisi has deservedly earned an estimably high ranking on the race.
I feel no anxiety regarding the result of the presidential contest but, as President Sisi himself said, the turnout is what should really count. Egyptians should be keen on interacting with all candidates, listening to them, assessing their platforms, granting them equal opportunity to campaign for themselves, then going out in droves to the ballot box. This would constitute a significant step towards democratic maturity, and would also relay a good image of Egypt to the world which will be closely watching. Some may watch objectively to assess the political will of Egyptians; others may watch to find fault, and twist and fake the facts.
On the threshold of the presidential election, I draw attention to a problem of major importance that has been placed on hold. This is the political party map in Egypt, which needs urgent reform. It should come up on the platforms of presidential candidates, since its reform is of no less significance than reforming the economy, education, and healthcare; creating job opportunities, empowering women and young people, and upholding citizenship concepts. In all these fields, the wheel of reform is already rolling and I am confident it will roll further till our ambitions are achieved. But reform of the political party scene in Egypt has not even begun; and it is what I see as the real challenge ahead. The party scene is plagued with inaction, disability, and confusion, and it requires swelling the waters in which it stagnates. Our purpose should be to train and prepare robust political blocs capable of vigorous political and party practice, and of producing leadership figures that would shoulder the responsibility of power rotation.
I hope that President Sisi, or whoever is elected President of Egypt, would give priority to the file of the political party scene. It needs to be handled with the force and enthusiasm with which President Sisi has handled national mega projects. Because this is our only hope for a healthy, democratic Egypt that would safely emerge out of the dark tunnel of long-time presidential authority. President Sisi himself repeatedly said that he aspires for the more-than-100 Egyptian political parties to merge into a smaller number of political blocs with strong, varying platforms that cover the full political spectrum from far left to far right, and everything in between. As such, they would be able to compete to attract the Egyptian public, and in the process produce leaders fit to lead the country.
I will not recall the texts I had repeatedly written on that topic, but I will definitely be visiting it again and again as I follow up on development on that front, whether during presidential campaigns or with the upcoming president.

Watani International
28 January 2018

Problems on hold

Where Coptic issues are concerned, Egypt’s House of Representatives notoriously persists in hiding its head in the sand, refusing to acknowledge that on the ground Copts are victims of oppression and discrimination, and that their grievances need to be addressed with courage. Instead, the House insists that Copts have always lived under exemplary conditions. It selectively recalls mellower situations from the past and cloaks them in honeyed, flowery rhetoric to project an image of Copts living peacefully in Egypt; all the while burying stories past and present that point to the contrary. Recently, the House adopted that attitude in the face of a US Congress report that criticised Egypt for the oppression and harassment Copts are subjected to, not at the hands of terrorists, but inflicted by fundamentalist and extremist Muslims. It does not help that officials look the other way and fail to implement the rule of law to defend the rights of Copts.
The House appears to imagine that those outside Egypt, who criticise the situation of Copts in Egypt, are either unintelligent or have no access to correct information. It seems to think that they can be silenced with the mention of carefully selected incidents of the distant past, glazed-over with rhetoric on current constitutional principles and laws that are mere ink on paper. On 12 November 2017, I wrote in this context: “Why would Parliament resort to such flawed behaviour? It is enough to admit our weaknesses with courage and candour, and to insist that these are internal problems to be dealt with by Egyptians inside Egypt; no other party may interfere under the pretext of rectifying matters or resolving problems.”
The Copts’ patriotism, despite their suffering, is time honoured. Last December, we Copts were joined with our Muslim fellow citizens in utterly rejecting the memo presented to the US Congress criticising the situation of Copts in Egypt, not because it was not true but because we firmly believe our problems should be resolved inside Egypt, by Egyptians alone. Last month, the Coptic Church, as did the Cairo-based Islamic institution of al-Azhar, refused to meet US Vice-President Mike Pence on his visit to Egypt, in protest against the US decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
This time round, however, how did the House of Representatives respond to Congress’s criticism of the situation of Copts? On 23 January, under the title: “In reply to US Congress’s claims… the House of Representatives: Egypt never changed its national fabric since the dawn of history”, the State-owned daily al-Ahram published the reply sent by the House of Representative’s Foreign Relations Committee to Congress. Here are excerpts from this reply; the exclamations are my own.
The reply said that Egypt never changed her national fabric since the dawn of history [!!], and has over the ages maintained national harmony among all her children, Muslims and Copts [!!] Through her civilisation and human heritage, Egypt has absorbed all cultures and religions without discrimination between Muslim and Christian [!!] Her land embraced the breadth of intellect and faith, and ensured safety and security to all [!!] No Christian was forced into Islam. During the 1919 [nationalist] Revolution, the Crescent embraced the Cross, and the slogan of “Religion is for God, and nation for all” reigned supreme. [In Egypt] The sanctity of Muslim and Christian places of worship is guarded, and highlights the significance of citizenship and firmness of national unity [!!] Keen to apply citizenship rights, Egypt in 2016 passed the Law for Building Churches, following which it has witnesses a renaissance in the building of churches and the legalisation of status of more than 4,000 churches [!!!!] The House of Representatives is about to discuss an anti-discrimination bill. The State is keen for Copts to take leading posts in cabinet ministries and State authorities and institutions [!!] The Committee cited Article 53 of the Constitution, which stipulates that all citizens are equal before the Law; equal in rights and freedoms, and that the Constitution has made discrimination and incitement of hatred crimes punishable by law [!!] The Committee did not overlook the heartfelt participation of President Sisi with Copts in their feasts and celebrations.
However, the Foreign Relations Committee—which was under no obligation to give this historical, selective, wobbly reply—did not mention the on the ground extremism and discrimination that Copts suffer at the hands of fundamentalist and extremist Muslims in regions such as Giza, Minya, Assiut, and Sohag, where they are attacked, terrorised and banned from worshiping. Local officials and security authorities fail to defend the Copts; they bypass the law by holding unofficial, traditional conciliation sessions between the victims and their attackers, imposing on the Coptic victims unjust terms and penalties that include forced displacements and closing down churches. The attackers, on the other hand, get away with their crimes unscathed. When the House of Representatives acts as though blind to these facts, it squarely acknowledges its intention of doing nothing about Coptic suffering. The tragedy is that instead of rejecting foreign interference in Egypt’s affairs, and promising to rectify matters, the House stuck to a lame reply that evades reality, imagining that Congress would swallow it.
I would like to draw your attention to an article written by Murid Sobhy and published by al-Ahram on 27 January, under the tile “What the Pope did not say”. Commenting on Pope Tawadros’s historic visit to Al-Ahram on 23 January, Mr Sobhy wrote:
“A warm-hearted dialogue flowed on a purely national backdrop. Some admitted to the existence of discriminatory practices against Copts here and there, and the Pope replied in his habitual calm that we have just embarked on the road to Coptic rights, and have yet to reach its end. What the Pope did not say, however, in regard to his sagacity and the sensitivity of his position as head of Church, is that the time has come to firmly implement the law where Copts are concerned. This means that all discrimination or incitement of hatred against them, failure to apply the Law for Building Churches or to impede the legalisation of unlicensed churches, should be brought to justice. Claims of apostasy or deriding religion [Islam] that are used [against Copts] should be confronted. It is time to implement full citizenship rights in action not in words.”
What does the House of Representatives’ Foreign Relations Committee think about Mr Sobhy’s view? And what does it say about the pages upon pages in Watani that report in detail on incidents against Copts? True, we owe the US Congress no reply to their criticism; Coptic problems fall squarely among our Egyptian affairs. But this means that we must candidly and courageously acknowledge them, confront them, and come up with the remedy.

Watani International
4 February 2018