Playing defence

US-based expatriate Coptic activist Michael Mounir spoke to Salonaz Sami during a recent, highly controversial, visit to Egypt

---

Michael Mounir is an Egyptian- American politician who left Egypt almost 15 years ago for the United States, where he currently lives. In 1992, he established the US Copts Association, a lobby group mainly concerned with contentious issues pertaining to Egypt's Coptic community. The group, which has sponsored controversial conferences in Zurich and Washington featuring outspoken criticism of the way Copts are treated, has come under intense fire in Egypt and amongst the expatriate Coptic community. Mounir's visit to Cairo last week, and the meetings he held with top officials here, stunned many observers.

What is the driving force behind the controversial conferences you have held?

The US Copts Association is only one of the conference organisers. We are basically trying to bring together like- minded thinkers, human rights activists, and intellectuals from both sides of Egyptian society -- Muslims and Christians -- as well as international advocates for democracy and human rights, to study the situation in Egypt and provide recommendations, plans and workshops [which will help] move Egypt's democracy [forward]. We all know that the country is going through a lot of changes right now and we want to make sure that we are contributing to these changes positively.

Why didn't you consider holding these conferences in Egypt?

Our request to hold this conference in Egypt was ignored by the Egyptian government.

What are the main problems affecting Egypt's Copts?

The major problem is the lack of equality in all areas of life; [part of that problem] is the direct responsibility of the government -- the lack of political representation for Copts, and the lack of a unified law to govern the building of religious institutions or places of worship like mosques and churches. Any government's responsibility is to insure that all of its citizens' needs are attended to equally.

Were your conferences able to come up with practical solutions for those problems?

One of the things I liked about the first and second conferences were the resolutions that we came up with; the committee that actually drafted the resolutions was made up of Muslims and Christians. Because having Muslims participate helped us tone down some of the Coptic demands. But will the conference be able to solve all these problems? No. Will it draw attention to these problems? Absolutely. Will it create a plan of action to continue to push for democracy and equality in Egypt? Absolutely.

And where is the church's role in all of this?

The government has not allowed any civil Coptic leaders to stand up and voice their concerns without being harassed and jailed. The government has also pushed the church into [being] the leadership of the Coptic [community] because the government knows that at any given time, it can force the church into one position or another. This combination [has made] the Copts themselves extremely negative in recent years; [with] the rise of Islamic fundamentalism they saw their government [unable to] protect their rights. They end up becoming more and more intimidated, and more afraid to take on the challenges they took on in the 90s.

So Copts themselves are also to blame?

Of course. Copts are also to blame because they allowed themselves to be intimidated by the climate. But we also have to keep in mind the lack of opportunities, because they are -- after all -- a minority that can't take on the threats and harassment they are experiencing. I mean if you look at the National Democratic Party (NDP) and see how many Copts they nominated in the past few elections, you will see that the number is really poor, and that those they actually nominated are the same people we hear about all the time like Gamal Asa'ad and Nabil El-Bibawi.

Why didn't you invite any church officials to participate in the conferences?

The church has its place in society, and the Pope is obviously respected and loved by all of us, but in the political arena the Copts [had] better have a political leader who speaks of their concerns without regard for anything else. It is not fair for Copts to continue being represented by the church. They need to be represented by a political leader who can speak on their behalf and advocate their causes. That's why we didn't ask the church to participate, although we received several requests from priests and bishops who wanted to participate under their own names. We said no because we didn't want the conference to have any religious affiliations.

But wasn't holding this year's conference in the US congress just asking for controversy?

Of course. The media described us as a right-wing Coptic conference hosted by congress. And this is not true; congress hosts a lot of conferences, and our organisation has a long-standing working relationship with members of congress, and with the Egyptian embassy, and we thought it would be a good place for some of our Egyptian brothers to come and see how congress works, as well as a good opportunity for members of congress to get educated about some of the concerns that we have about the future of the country.

There has been a lot of speculation about your surprise visit to Egypt and the reasons behind it. Why are you here just a month after the conference?

My visit to Egypt is totally personal. I [never said] I was here on behalf of the conference or my organisation. I am just visiting my family who live here. And the rumor about my visit being about a deal between the Egyptian government and my organisation is totally not true.

Did you think about starting a dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood while you were here?

Starting a dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good thing that we are actually thinking about, but unfortunately we have no idea where it will take us and whether the results of this dialogue will be positive or negative. [After all,] they rally around religion and we Copts don't want that.

Do you think the president's decree easing restrictions on the building of churches is a positive step towards improving the Muslim-Christian relationships?

One of our main demands was that the antiquated 19th century Hamayouni decree be abolished. It is inconceivable to require that the president of Egypt must approve permits to build a church or even to repair a church toilet. Mosques in Egypt are being built with no restrictions. But I don't think that this decree changed anything because it transfers the power to grant church construction and maintenance permits from the presidency to the country's 26 governors. So it is more or less still the same.