Background:
In light of growing rates and allegations of religious persecution, the United States decided to adopt religious freedom as one of the main pillars of its foreign policy in 1998. This piece of legislation, referred to as the Religious Freedom Act, stirred considerable controversy. Cornelis Hulsman along with a group of journalists discussed with Joe Stork of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) the possible implications of such an act.
Side B includes an interview with Ramzī Zaqlāma, a prominent Egyptian Copt and member of the Supreme Board of the liberal Wafd Party in Egypt. Zaqlāma took the initiative to form the Committee of the Wise, a group of twenty persons, Copts and Muslims to discuss problems of Copts in Egypt. Hulsman interviewed Zaqlāma to discuss the situation of Copts in Egypt and in Sudan as well as his views on the Religious Freedom Act.
Side A:
Joe Stork of HRW explained that there were two proposed bills in Congress. He sheds light on the most significant differences between them. Half of the articles concern sanctions on Sudan, but the general articles deal with the persecution of Christians, specifically the persecution on the basis of religious belief.
The first proposed bill only talks about persecution while the second proposed bill discusses persecution as well as discrimination and other human rights violations, making it more comprehensive. In addition, the first proposed bill stipulated that if any named country (including Egypt) where the government commits persecution based on religious belief, sanctions would be automatically imposed on that country; whereas the second proposed bill did not impose automatic sanctions but rather required the president to choose among many steps to take action including resorting to talks, discussions, warnings all the way to sanctions; more gradual punishment. While the first proposed bill entailed automatic punishment, the second only entailed potential punishment. Finally, the first proposed bill clearly stipulated names of certain countries whereas the latter did not name any particular countries.
Stork discussed his reservations regarding the first proposal, including the treating of one human rights violation separately from all other violations; which he believed was unacceptable and was the reason why the HRW did not support the draft bill. He believed that singling out religious freedom would not help and would create a lot of resentment towards Christians; which would worsen the problem rather than solve it.
Side B:
Zaqlāma explains that what was written about the grievances of Copts in Egypt did not provide an accurate representation of the situation, and that the taking up of that matter was colored by fanaticism and lacked objectivity; it is a worldwide international affair not just a local issue. He further discusses how Egyptian Copts stood up to defend Muslims in Bosnia and Afghanistan, and that the attempt to influence the American Congress to take decisions that would result in the material and moral punishment on Egypt was unjustifiable.
He perceived the Religious Freedom Act as a form of “interference” to which he objected; explaining that it could lead to the “Lebanonization” of Egypt. He further stipulated that there was no relation between the US aid to Egypt and the proposed bill which was expected to be approved by Congress; explaining that US aid to Egypt was agreed upon after the Egyptian Economy proved to be functioning in the right direction.
Furthermore, he clarified that his rejection to foreign intervention did not mean that human rights were fully satisfied or that Copts in Egypt were living in the best of circumstances. He explained that while equality was supposedly guaranteed by virtues of the constitution or law, what happened on the ground, spoke against that by all means. Copts were distanced from leading positions such as governmental or parliamentarian posts and extremist tendencies justified the attacks on the lives or properties of Copts.
However, he pointed out that the usage of the term persecution or racial discrimination deviated from reality as the lexical meaning and historical witlessness of those two expressions do not apply to the difficulties that Copts faced. Copts were not outsiders who came to this country; they were the bones of their forefathers which had continuously melted on Egyptian soil for thousands of years, says Zaqlāma. He emphasized on the significance of pursuing a pragmatic way to regain confidence and mutual love and brotherhood through legitimate legal channels.
On the situation in Sudan, Zaqlāma maintained that realistically speaking, Ḥassan al-Turabī would not be able to maintain power over the South even if he wanted to. The popular mood in Khartoum showed that the vast majority of locals wanted to get rid of the South and saw it as a liability. Any other scenario would have to entail asking other Arab countries for assistance to crush the rebellion in the south. Egypt, according to Zaqlāma was the only Arab country capable of such an act, and due to al-Turabī’s alleged hatred towards Egypt, the likelihood of him asking for Egyptian assistance was highly unlikely; leaving him with no choice but to relinquish the South.
