All are seemingly unrelated items. But let’s look more carefully.
Egypt’s Farouk Hosni has lost a pitched battle for the chairmanship of UNESCO. He narrowly lost in secret balloting in Paris. Egypt was quick to label the loss as Israeli conspiracy to undermine Egypt, Arabs, and Muslims, instigate a North-South dichotomy, and accelerate the clashes between civilizations!
It was also claimed that UNESCO under Hosni would put more emphasis on the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock and that Israel has feared so.
Wow. Clashes of civilizations and North-South dichotomy, and the Dome of the Rock. A mouthful of doomsday scenarios.
The controversy arose because Farouk Honsi, pressed by Muslim brotherhoods MP’s and accused of cultural normalization with Israel, went on a tirade saying that if any Israeli books are found in Egyptian libraries, he will himself burn those books!
The situation begs few questions.
First of all, one has to judge the maturity of cultural minister in Egypt who can go on the record talking of burning books, which is normally associated with restricting freedom of speech. And guess what, Mr. Hosni lost his nerves under attack at the largely domesticated Egyptian Parliament, which is not particularly famous for having a vibrant opposition. One has to question the ability of such a candidate to a high international office that could rapidly disintegrate under questioning in such a setting.
According to Hosni, he did not literally mean that he would burn the books but he was using a colorful exaggerative expression in the Arabic language to indicate his strong conviction that none of these books exist. That could very well be true. However, Hosni, who has lived most of his life in the West and is not known for any Islamic leanings, should have known better of the image of book burning and the feelings such images invoke in the West. This leads to again questioning the judgment of nominating such a candidate.
Now, it is true that Egypt and Egyptians are free to develop strong feelings against Israel and Israelis. It is also the prerogative of the country to ban certain books, despite my personal disagreement with that. It is also safe to say that many things can be said in many political situations in many countries. However, Egypt cannot impose its cultural or political norms on the rest of the world. By the same token, Israel is also free to resist the nomination of someone who has publicly invoked strong images of book burning against that country. One has only to recall the US elections and the painstaking process tht each party goes through to ensure each candidate is vetted properly and has nice ot said in the past anything that could tarnish that candidate’s chances. This is actually called democracy. In the same way you are free to select candidates, other entities are also free to resist that candidate as they see fit and in the end you have to maximize your chances by selecting the appropriate candidate. Therefore, one again has to question the judgment behind selecting Farouk Honsi.
The final straw for me was that Mr. Hosni, while serving as the Egyptian cultural attaché in Paris, engaged in the rotten practice that all Egyptian cultural attaches engage in. That is to write reports to the Egyptian security services on the activities of Egyptian students. I know that Mr. Hosni had no option but to do so since he is a bureaucrat and not an accountable politician. At least, he had to do it to maintain his job. However, as an Egyptian and a former student in a foreign country, I find this practice to be very KGB-esque. I understand that nations may have to secure their students abroad from the influence of other foreign service. I understand certain students may have to be monitored for subversive potential. But I find it horrible that this can be done by a cultural attaché and without a court warrant. This shows that the Egyptian presidency and the upper elite in Egyptian government live in a cocoon of their own fully isolated from the wave of freedom that swept the world 20 years ago!
It is also not factual that no Muslim has been appointed to the UNESCO chairmanship. A Muslim chairman was elected before and served with dignity. In this particular election, most countries had an understanding that the next chairman should be from the Arab block given it is the only block that never had a chairman. These positions are largely ceremonial in nature. Most countries achieve a candidate by consensus. In any case, UNESCO is a lethargic UN institution that is in bad need of reform. It also has little political influence any ways since it reports to the teethless UN secretary general rather than to the general assembly or to the Security Council. Egypt has muscled most Arab countries to accept an Egyptian chairman. It was Egypt’s to lose.
After the first wave of questioning the credentials of Mr. Farouk Hosni, one had to pause and attempt to select an alternative Egyptian candidate. It cannot be there is only one high level bureaucrat in Egypt who can get the post. After all, Mohamed Al-Baradii served as the head of the atomic energy agency without even being ever known in Egypt before and he has never served as a minister. This shows that Egypt has a deep bench of capabilities.
Alas! President Mubarak dealt with the subject as if it was an internal Egyptian politics that can be dealt in his normal stubborn and autocratic way. It is commonly known in Egypt that the more people hate a minister or a prime minister, the more he stays in office since the president views removing him as degrading to his judgment and as a concession to the people. President Mubarak insisted that his namesake must obtain the chairmanship and he threw his lot and the whole Egyptian government machinery behind the other Hosni. As a high level bureaucrat in the Egyptian hierarchy, Hosni complied.
Little does the President know that in a truly free secret ballot, the normal Egyptian government intimidation and methods cannot work.
For example, it was naïve to assume that European Union countries would side with Hosni against their own candidate from Bulgaria, who by the way fought again communism and was imprisoned for her opinions. Egypt got concessions from the Israelis that they will not actively campaign against Hosni. I don’t know how such a pledge from Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu can be verified.
It is speculated that all of Africa, Arabs, and Latin America (except Mexico) voted for Mr. Hosni, while all of the EU voted for their candidate. Of course, one has to wonder how many times Mr. Mubarak went to EU capitals vs. visiting African and Latin American supporters and the return on such investment in his time touring the EU capitals if he truly believed that the Hosni chairmanship is all that important to Egypt. I personally question any benefit that will come to Egypt from a Hosni chairmanship. This after all is another high level bureaucratic position. I cannot put a value on the prestige of Hosni assuming such a position especially with such poor credentials. I would have accepted Mr. Hosni if he was a freedom fighter who will fight for freedom of speech in the Arab world for example. We all know that is unlikely to happen given Mr. Hosni’s history. I would have accepted Mr. Hosni if he was a future contender of Egyptian presidency and such an appointment would make him amass the necessary international recognition and experience. We all know that won’t happen. I would have supported Mr. Hosni if I knew he would fight for the freedom of movement across boarders in the Arab world and between Arab world and Europe as a vehicle to accelerate cultural exchange. We all know that also would have never happened. Finally, I would have supported Mr. Hosni if I knew he would use his position to highlight the plight of Muslim and Christian heritage sites under the Israeli occupation or inside Israel. However, I know that given his tarnished record and given the little power he would have, that is also very unlikely. Quite honestly, a Jewish chairman (as in the Goldstone report) may be better in that regard.
Egyptian and some French newspapers have accused Israel of sending a Mosad contingency to Paris to intimidate the world delegation assembled there to vote. I find this to be laughable. Imagine that I am a delegate representing my country, say Venzuela or Italy, and an Israeli agent whom I do not know called me on the phone and tried to convince me not to vote for Mr. Hosni. What would be my reaction? Of course, the first thing I would do is to tell the head of my delegation and call the secret service of my country to provide protection. I am sure any responsible country in the world would have called the Israeli and made sure they will not do so again. Even more important, let us assume that I listen to the Israeli agent but would I vote against instructions from my own country? These voting decisions are normally taken in the capitals of each country. The problem is that many Egyptians lack international experience and assume such a fantasy could actually happen. Of course, Israel doesn’t need to send a Mosad delegation. There are much more subtle ways to influennce the decisions of those capitals particularly that many of these countries have a significant and powerful Jewish minority who are connected to the upper echelon in those counties ,which by the way, there is nothing wrong with that and is a normal part of democracy in any country.
It is possible that Israel has sent Mosad agents to monitor the voting pattern and understand the directions of each of the voting countries. This is actually called intelligence and is the role of an intelligence agency.
Of course, the United States did not escape the criticism. Egyptian newspapers accused the US of masterminding the conspiracy to dislodge Mr. Hosni. It is certainly possible that the US played a role in influencing the voting patterns given the strong Jewish lobby in the US.
Had Mr. Mubarak senior been seasoned in democratic methods, he could have selected a different candidate and saved us all the headache.
Few days afterwards, the United States lost its bid to host the summer Olympics in a secret ballot in Copenhagen. President Obama flew to Copenhagen for few hours to make the final pitch on behalf of his native city of Chicago. I yet to see the US accusing Rio or Brazil of an international conspiracy against the United States. Quite honestly, hosting the Olympics is much more visible than the UNESCO chairmanship particularly when the President of the United States himself and few other Kings and Queens throw their lot behind their own countries in such a visible manner. I would like you to admire the differences in attitude and draw your own conclusions.
Losing elections is part of life in the world. For the Egyptian president and his entourage, this fact did not dawn on them yet unfortunately. You just have to try, put the right candidate to maximize the chances, learn the influence game, and try again.
A full circle back to where we started. It was the clash of civilization, the North-South relationship, and anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, anti-Egyptian conspiracy. Mr. Mubarak can only blame himself. Egyptians still see Israeli and American conspiracy under each stone. Egyptian government use that as a scapegoat for its own failures. Millions are wasted on useless prestige projects that are sequestered by being patently out of touch. Egyptian population continue to be isolated from the rest of the world and insulated inside the cocoon amplified by the Egyptian government that pits Islam against the rest of the world. It is that same cocoon that led an Egyptian minister to say things he is not supposed to say and led his president to be stubborn. Unfortunately, the niqab issue now is not but another episode of reinforcing the cocoon.
Egypt’s Farouk Hosni has lost a pitched battle for the chairmanship of UNESCO. He narrowly lost in secret balloting in Paris. Egypt was quick to label the loss as Israeli conspiracy to undermine Egypt, Arabs, and Muslims, instigate a North-South dichotomy, and accelerate the clashes between civilizations!
It was also claimed that UNESCO under Hosni would put more emphasis on the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock and that Israel has feared so.
Wow. Clashes of civilizations and North-South dichotomy, and the Dome of the Rock. A mouthful of doomsday scenarios.
The controversy arose because Farouk Honsi, pressed by Muslim brotherhoods MP’s and accused of cultural normalization with Israel, went on a tirade saying that if any Israeli books are found in Egyptian libraries, he will himself burn those books!
The situation begs few questions.
First of all, one has to judge the maturity of cultural minister in Egypt who can go on the record talking of burning books, which is normally associated with restricting freedom of speech. And guess what, Mr. Hosni lost his nerves under attack at the largely domesticated Egyptian Parliament, which is not particularly famous for having a vibrant opposition. One has to question the ability of such a candidate to a high international office that could rapidly disintegrate under questioning in such a setting.
According to Hosni, he did not literally mean that he would burn the books but he was using a colorful exaggerative expression in the Arabic language to indicate his strong conviction that none of these books exist. That could very well be true. However, Hosni, who has lived most of his life in the West and is not known for any Islamic leanings, should have known better of the image of book burning and the feelings such images invoke in the West. This leads to again questioning the judgment of nominating such a candidate.
Now, it is true that Egypt and Egyptians are free to develop strong feelings against Israel and Israelis. It is also the prerogative of the country to ban certain books, despite my personal disagreement with that. It is also safe to say that many things can be said in many political situations in many countries. However, Egypt cannot impose its cultural or political norms on the rest of the world. By the same token, Israel is also free to resist the nomination of someone who has publicly invoked strong images of book burning against that country. One has only to recall the US elections and the painstaking process tht each party goes through to ensure each candidate is vetted properly and has nice ot said in the past anything that could tarnish that candidate’s chances. This is actually called democracy. In the same way you are free to select candidates, other entities are also free to resist that candidate as they see fit and in the end you have to maximize your chances by selecting the appropriate candidate. Therefore, one again has to question the judgment behind selecting Farouk Honsi.
The final straw for me was that Mr. Hosni, while serving as the Egyptian cultural attaché in Paris, engaged in the rotten practice that all Egyptian cultural attaches engage in. That is to write reports to the Egyptian security services on the activities of Egyptian students. I know that Mr. Hosni had no option but to do so since he is a bureaucrat and not an accountable politician. At least, he had to do it to maintain his job. However, as an Egyptian and a former student in a foreign country, I find this practice to be very KGB-esque. I understand that nations may have to secure their students abroad from the influence of other foreign service. I understand certain students may have to be monitored for subversive potential. But I find it horrible that this can be done by a cultural attaché and without a court warrant. This shows that the Egyptian presidency and the upper elite in Egyptian government live in a cocoon of their own fully isolated from the wave of freedom that swept the world 20 years ago!
It is also not factual that no Muslim has been appointed to the UNESCO chairmanship. A Muslim chairman was elected before and served with dignity. In this particular election, most countries had an understanding that the next chairman should be from the Arab block given it is the only block that never had a chairman. These positions are largely ceremonial in nature. Most countries achieve a candidate by consensus. In any case, UNESCO is a lethargic UN institution that is in bad need of reform. It also has little political influence any ways since it reports to the teethless UN secretary general rather than to the general assembly or to the Security Council. Egypt has muscled most Arab countries to accept an Egyptian chairman. It was Egypt’s to lose.
After the first wave of questioning the credentials of Mr. Farouk Hosni, one had to pause and attempt to select an alternative Egyptian candidate. It cannot be there is only one high level bureaucrat in Egypt who can get the post. After all, Mohamed Al-Baradii served as the head of the atomic energy agency without even being ever known in Egypt before and he has never served as a minister. This shows that Egypt has a deep bench of capabilities.
Alas! President Mubarak dealt with the subject as if it was an internal Egyptian politics that can be dealt in his normal stubborn and autocratic way. It is commonly known in Egypt that the more people hate a minister or a prime minister, the more he stays in office since the president views removing him as degrading to his judgment and as a concession to the people. President Mubarak insisted that his namesake must obtain the chairmanship and he threw his lot and the whole Egyptian government machinery behind the other Hosni. As a high level bureaucrat in the Egyptian hierarchy, Hosni complied.
Little does the President know that in a truly free secret ballot, the normal Egyptian government intimidation and methods cannot work.
For example, it was naïve to assume that European Union countries would side with Hosni against their own candidate from Bulgaria, who by the way fought again communism and was imprisoned for her opinions. Egypt got concessions from the Israelis that they will not actively campaign against Hosni. I don’t know how such a pledge from Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu can be verified.
It is speculated that all of Africa, Arabs, and Latin America (except Mexico) voted for Mr. Hosni, while all of the EU voted for their candidate. Of course, one has to wonder how many times Mr. Mubarak went to EU capitals vs. visiting African and Latin American supporters and the return on such investment in his time touring the EU capitals if he truly believed that the Hosni chairmanship is all that important to Egypt. I personally question any benefit that will come to Egypt from a Hosni chairmanship. This after all is another high level bureaucratic position. I cannot put a value on the prestige of Hosni assuming such a position especially with such poor credentials. I would have accepted Mr. Hosni if he was a freedom fighter who will fight for freedom of speech in the Arab world for example. We all know that is unlikely to happen given Mr. Hosni’s history. I would have accepted Mr. Hosni if he was a future contender of Egyptian presidency and such an appointment would make him amass the necessary international recognition and experience. We all know that won’t happen. I would have supported Mr. Hosni if I knew he would fight for the freedom of movement across boarders in the Arab world and between Arab world and Europe as a vehicle to accelerate cultural exchange. We all know that also would have never happened. Finally, I would have supported Mr. Hosni if I knew he would use his position to highlight the plight of Muslim and Christian heritage sites under the Israeli occupation or inside Israel. However, I know that given his tarnished record and given the little power he would have, that is also very unlikely. Quite honestly, a Jewish chairman (as in the Goldstone report) may be better in that regard.
Egyptian and some French newspapers have accused Israel of sending a Mosad contingency to Paris to intimidate the world delegation assembled there to vote. I find this to be laughable. Imagine that I am a delegate representing my country, say Venzuela or Italy, and an Israeli agent whom I do not know called me on the phone and tried to convince me not to vote for Mr. Hosni. What would be my reaction? Of course, the first thing I would do is to tell the head of my delegation and call the secret service of my country to provide protection. I am sure any responsible country in the world would have called the Israeli and made sure they will not do so again. Even more important, let us assume that I listen to the Israeli agent but would I vote against instructions from my own country? These voting decisions are normally taken in the capitals of each country. The problem is that many Egyptians lack international experience and assume such a fantasy could actually happen. Of course, Israel doesn’t need to send a Mosad delegation. There are much more subtle ways to influennce the decisions of those capitals particularly that many of these countries have a significant and powerful Jewish minority who are connected to the upper echelon in those counties ,which by the way, there is nothing wrong with that and is a normal part of democracy in any country.
It is possible that Israel has sent Mosad agents to monitor the voting pattern and understand the directions of each of the voting countries. This is actually called intelligence and is the role of an intelligence agency.
Of course, the United States did not escape the criticism. Egyptian newspapers accused the US of masterminding the conspiracy to dislodge Mr. Hosni. It is certainly possible that the US played a role in influencing the voting patterns given the strong Jewish lobby in the US.
Had Mr. Mubarak senior been seasoned in democratic methods, he could have selected a different candidate and saved us all the headache.
Few days afterwards, the United States lost its bid to host the summer Olympics in a secret ballot in Copenhagen. President Obama flew to Copenhagen for few hours to make the final pitch on behalf of his native city of Chicago. I yet to see the US accusing Rio or Brazil of an international conspiracy against the United States. Quite honestly, hosting the Olympics is much more visible than the UNESCO chairmanship particularly when the President of the United States himself and few other Kings and Queens throw their lot behind their own countries in such a visible manner. I would like you to admire the differences in attitude and draw your own conclusions.
Losing elections is part of life in the world. For the Egyptian president and his entourage, this fact did not dawn on them yet unfortunately. You just have to try, put the right candidate to maximize the chances, learn the influence game, and try again.
A full circle back to where we started. It was the clash of civilization, the North-South relationship, and anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, anti-Egyptian conspiracy. Mr. Mubarak can only blame himself. Egyptians still see Israeli and American conspiracy under each stone. Egyptian government use that as a scapegoat for its own failures. Millions are wasted on useless prestige projects that are sequestered by being patently out of touch. Egyptian population continue to be isolated from the rest of the world and insulated inside the cocoon amplified by the Egyptian government that pits Islam against the rest of the world. It is that same cocoon that led an Egyptian minister to say things he is not supposed to say and led his president to be stubborn. Unfortunately, the niqab issue now is not but another episode of reinforcing the cocoon.
No comments:
Post a Comment