Egypt doesn't object to being subject to admonitions about the slow pace of political reform. But criticism is being done in the wrong way, writes Gamal Nkrumah There was a time when Western nations talked about applying some economic balm to ease Egypt's economic and social ills. There was much appreciated goodwill. There appears to be a new, bellicose and more belligerent manner in which the Europeans and Americans reprove Egypt. There is a new emphasis on the need for speed. The onus is on a hurried momentum for change. Does the West really have Egypt's interests at heart? The end result seems designed to kick the legs out from under the democratisation process. Egypt, after all, cannot afford a blotched handling of the political reform process. Coincidences and developments in the political life of a country such as Egypt fascinate Western officials and that in itself could be considered something of a compliment. It is a proof that the country is of vital strategic and political importance. However, if Westerners loudly deride the slow pace of democratisation and political reform in the country, Egyptians could just sneer at the curious coincidence of the current Western barrage of criticisms with its own notion, not entirely apropos, of political reform. Why is Egypt under such scrutiny? Is it because the country enjoys tremendous influence in the African and Arab spheres? The speaker of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, visited Cairo this week to tackle issues relating to human rights with top-level Egyptian officials, among them the speaker of the People's Assembly, Fathi Sorour. Egyptians are wondering what exactly is the purpose of such debate. At a press conference held jointly with Sorour and Minister of State for Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Moufid Shehab, Pöttering declined to retract the European Union (EU) resolution criticising the state of human rights in Egypt. He said the resolution was based on "accurate and verified information." Egyptians -- both the public and government officials, yes, and in that order -- are acutely aware of the critical importance of reforming the status quo. This is not the time for tough talk that might engender unintended consequences. The drawing of inaccurate historical parallels with Europe smacks of paternalism and is most inappropriate. The Egyptian political establishment has long appealed to history to justify its legitimacy, and the July 1952 Revolution has been the bedrock on which the entire raison d'être of political action has been based. History is a powerful tool. Yet many Westerners blame the inability to resonate beyond what they claim to be a few cosmetic changes on the intransigent sticking to tradition. There has been systematic and scathing Western criticism of the country's emergency laws, which have been in force for 27 years. The European Parliament's criticism of Egypt's human rights record continues to cause a commotion among parliamentary representatives in Egypt. The public, too, do not take kindly to what it views as gross interference in the domestic affairs of the country. The People's Assembly and Shura Council decided to boycott meetings of the parliament, as well as of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly set up within the framework of the Barcelona Agreement between Egypt and other southern Mediterranean countries and the EU. It only grudgingly agreed to attend. "Breaking off ties between partners is never a solution," Pöttering insisted. There is something to be said about doing good quietly. Appearing incompetent rather than diabolical might not be a particularly praiseworthy accolade. Manipulating history might even prompt its tragedies to recur. The EU would like to see less of the core values of the revolution being implemented and more effort put into modernisation and reform. True, there have been some radical changes in the past few years, especially in the field of citizenship and civil rights. This might be something of a Pyrrhic victory for rights activists in the political scheme of things as far as the West is concerned. There is also progress on the ground which has reaped the praise of institutions such as the World Bank. But political reform is the bone of contention. There is a consensus that the country cannot be closed off. Yet, there is the determination by the powers that be to control and to regulate the pace of reform. Meanwhile other factors are at work. There is the popular perception in the Arab and Muslim worlds that Western nations are deliberately provoking sensibilities. A prime example is when 17 Danish newspapers last week decided to reopen wounds by reprinting the same 12 offensive cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Mohamed that were first published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in late 2005, sparking uproar among Muslims worldwide. The timing is odd, and the entire exercise provocative. Ibrahim Eissa, writing in the daily independent Al-Dostour, recommended ignoring the Western slights and scoffed at the impulsive colonialist baggage and crusader attitude of the West. "Among our priorities is that the West respect us. We do not want the West to fear us -- to fear us for being potential or actual terrorists. We want the West to appreciate that we are trying to overcome the many challenges that face us," Eissa explained. It can be argued that mishaps over human rights violations have not yet dragged the country seriously off course. Western officials truly concerned about Egypt's welfare would be better to keep this in mind. Mohamed Salmawy, president of the Egyptian Writers' Union, speaking on behalf of 25 Egyptian trade unions protested against the selection of Israel as "guest of honour" at both France's Salon de Paris in March and Italy's International Book Fair in celebration of the 60th anniversary of Israel. He said, "we are appalled to see the world of culture take the side of those who methodically operate to annihilate Palestine and the Palestinians." This is just one of countless examples of Western insensitivity to any conceivable notion of human rights. Shall the pot call the kettle black? (see p.4)
