I wrote something light about technology and human interaction today and posted it on LinkedIn. Click here and have a read.
Wednesday 28 September 2016
Monday 6 June 2016
Of Dogs & Slaves: An Ex-Diplomat’s Perspective on the Egyptian Minister’s Comments
I wrote an article about the despicable language used by an Egyptian Minister at a recent African Union conference. It was published today by MuslimARC, a group that focuses on education and awareness about racism, particularly amongst Muslims.
The article can be read below or here.
The news broke on May 31st of an incident at a United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) held in Nairobi where the Egyptian Minister of Environment called Africans “dogs and slaves”. Egypt currently holds the Presidency of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN). African countries were justifiably outraged and a statement dated May 29th was issued by Yvonne Khamati, chairman Africa Diplomatic Corps Technical Committee (ADCTC), condemning Egypt’s behaviour and calling for an apology. The statement also requested that Egypt does not negotiate or take any leadership position on behalf of Africa and that the country should resign as president of AMCEN with immediate effect.
In response, and unsurprisingly, the Egyptian Government took an adversarial stance. The Egyptian Foreign Minister denied that the abhorrent language had been used and instead attacked Ms Khamati, accusing her of committing excesses in her statement.
This incident does not shock me in the least. I met and worked with a number of Egyptian diplomats in my fifteen year Foreign Service career. I want to offer some context to this incident so that it is not viewed as an isolated slip of the tongue but rather understood within the prism of how certain segments of Egyptian society operate.
Egypt is located in Africa but as a whole Egyptians identify themselves as Arab and Muslim and not African. However, in the world of multilateral affairs where countries form different alliances to advance their interests, Egypt finds it convenient to claim its African background and developing country status. It thus straddles various negotiating blocs within the United Nations system, with the Group of 77 and China, the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group, the Arab Group, and the Organisation of Islamic Conference being the main ones. They play a leadership role in most of these groups and in particular the African Group. They exert a significant level of influence amongst African countries and from my perspective, often time their behaviour in leading the African Group bordered on the patronising. I often observed the African Group, at the urging of Egypt, adopt blanket positions on issues that were not necessarily in their interest. While repeatedly making claims of being African, I never in 15 years saw an Egyptian diplomat who was dark-skinned. The same can certainly be said of other North African countries like Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.
The issue of Palestine is used by Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries as a convenient tool and one constantly sees Egypt making an elaborate show of championing pro-Palestinian resolutions. The fact is that the Egyptian government along with the Palestinian Authority are the main enforcers of Israeli apartheid. There is an inherent contradiction in Egypt taking the floor at the United Nations to criticise Israel and table resolutions on Palestine when it allies with Israel in blockading Gaza. A key component of this Egyptian facade is lobbying within the negotiating groups it belongs to in order for its resolutions to win bloc support. At the United Nations, bloc sponsorship provides the perception of popular backing. When their petitioning efforts fail, they are incredulous and particularly at those “weaker”, “smaller” or “lesser” countries whose support for the more enlightened Egyptians should be unconditional. It appears that something similar happened at the UNEA meeting in Nairobi where Egypt was unable to obtain the collaboration of all African countries for a position concerning Gaza.
I remember quite vividly an incident that occurred when I was working at my country's Permanent Mission to the UN in New York. The Egyptians wanted the states of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to agree to a collective position on a report of the Human Rights Council (HRC) because one issue of many in the report related to Palestine. I was negotiating on behalf of the Caribbean Community countries (CARICOM) and refused to give our backing because we viewed a common NAM policy on the report of the Council as outside the mandate of the group. The Egyptians were furious and accused us of betraying Palestine. My Egyptian counterpart then accosted me and berated me for forgetting my roots. This is nothing as reprehensible as calling Africans “dogs and slaves”, but her behaviour stemmed from a similar place of feeling superior towards “those” African people. In accusing me, a non-black Muslim of abandoning my roots, the underlying questions being asked were: how can you small islands, many with populations predominantly of African descent, have the audacity to differ with Egypt; and furthermore, how dare you, a non-black person and a Muslim, not stand with your Arab brothers.
Egyptian diplomats are overwhelmingly from the country’s secular elite and clearly disconnected from the average Egyptian. The make-up of their government and diplomatic core is a reflection of the rigid social stratification of Egyptian society centred on skin colour and class. My views were only reinforced by what I witnessed when I spent a few months in Cairo- the class structure, the way the elites behave and live, the manner in which skin colour is closely linked with class, wealth and standing, etc.
The unfortunate reality is that this furore will blow over because in international affairs, principle and ethics are more often than not trumped by interests. The countries involved will for the sake of mutual convenience “make up” and the usual order will continue. Moreover, with the fast pace at which news stories become stale, some other matter will overtake this in prominence. Unless of course, we as Muslims concerned about the racism being espoused and practised by our own, raise our voices, speak out and take action.
The news broke on May 31st of an incident at a United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) held in Nairobi where the Egyptian Minister of Environment called Africans “dogs and slaves”. Egypt currently holds the Presidency of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN). African countries were justifiably outraged and a statement dated May 29th was issued by Yvonne Khamati, chairman Africa Diplomatic Corps Technical Committee (ADCTC), condemning Egypt’s behaviour and calling for an apology. The statement also requested that Egypt does not negotiate or take any leadership position on behalf of Africa and that the country should resign as president of AMCEN with immediate effect.
In response, and unsurprisingly, the Egyptian Government took an adversarial stance. The Egyptian Foreign Minister denied that the abhorrent language had been used and instead attacked Ms Khamati, accusing her of committing excesses in her statement.
This incident does not shock me in the least. I met and worked with a number of Egyptian diplomats in my fifteen year Foreign Service career. I want to offer some context to this incident so that it is not viewed as an isolated slip of the tongue but rather understood within the prism of how certain segments of Egyptian society operate.
Egypt is located in Africa but as a whole Egyptians identify themselves as Arab and Muslim and not African. However, in the world of multilateral affairs where countries form different alliances to advance their interests, Egypt finds it convenient to claim its African background and developing country status. It thus straddles various negotiating blocs within the United Nations system, with the Group of 77 and China, the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group, the Arab Group, and the Organisation of Islamic Conference being the main ones. They play a leadership role in most of these groups and in particular the African Group. They exert a significant level of influence amongst African countries and from my perspective, often time their behaviour in leading the African Group bordered on the patronising. I often observed the African Group, at the urging of Egypt, adopt blanket positions on issues that were not necessarily in their interest. While repeatedly making claims of being African, I never in 15 years saw an Egyptian diplomat who was dark-skinned. The same can certainly be said of other North African countries like Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.
The issue of Palestine is used by Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries as a convenient tool and one constantly sees Egypt making an elaborate show of championing pro-Palestinian resolutions. The fact is that the Egyptian government along with the Palestinian Authority are the main enforcers of Israeli apartheid. There is an inherent contradiction in Egypt taking the floor at the United Nations to criticise Israel and table resolutions on Palestine when it allies with Israel in blockading Gaza. A key component of this Egyptian facade is lobbying within the negotiating groups it belongs to in order for its resolutions to win bloc support. At the United Nations, bloc sponsorship provides the perception of popular backing. When their petitioning efforts fail, they are incredulous and particularly at those “weaker”, “smaller” or “lesser” countries whose support for the more enlightened Egyptians should be unconditional. It appears that something similar happened at the UNEA meeting in Nairobi where Egypt was unable to obtain the collaboration of all African countries for a position concerning Gaza.
I remember quite vividly an incident that occurred when I was working at my country's Permanent Mission to the UN in New York. The Egyptians wanted the states of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to agree to a collective position on a report of the Human Rights Council (HRC) because one issue of many in the report related to Palestine. I was negotiating on behalf of the Caribbean Community countries (CARICOM) and refused to give our backing because we viewed a common NAM policy on the report of the Council as outside the mandate of the group. The Egyptians were furious and accused us of betraying Palestine. My Egyptian counterpart then accosted me and berated me for forgetting my roots. This is nothing as reprehensible as calling Africans “dogs and slaves”, but her behaviour stemmed from a similar place of feeling superior towards “those” African people. In accusing me, a non-black Muslim of abandoning my roots, the underlying questions being asked were: how can you small islands, many with populations predominantly of African descent, have the audacity to differ with Egypt; and furthermore, how dare you, a non-black person and a Muslim, not stand with your Arab brothers.
Egyptian diplomats are overwhelmingly from the country’s secular elite and clearly disconnected from the average Egyptian. The make-up of their government and diplomatic core is a reflection of the rigid social stratification of Egyptian society centred on skin colour and class. My views were only reinforced by what I witnessed when I spent a few months in Cairo- the class structure, the way the elites behave and live, the manner in which skin colour is closely linked with class, wealth and standing, etc.
The unfortunate reality is that this furore will blow over because in international affairs, principle and ethics are more often than not trumped by interests. The countries involved will for the sake of mutual convenience “make up” and the usual order will continue. Moreover, with the fast pace at which news stories become stale, some other matter will overtake this in prominence. Unless of course, we as Muslims concerned about the racism being espoused and practised by our own, raise our voices, speak out and take action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)