MONTREAL — Amin Meleika is 49 years old, a 26-year career diplomat who became Egyptian consul general to Montreal – after previous postings in Ethiopia, the Netherlands, The Hague, Hong Kong and Geneva – about a month before history took over in Cairo’s Tahir Square, where the uprising led to the peaceful ouster of longtime president Hosni Mubarak and contributed to continued upheaval in the Arab world.
Amin Meleika
The CJN spoke by telephone with Meleika on April 14.
CJN: It might be a good idea to begin with your overall impressions about the recent historic, tumultuous events in Egypt.
Amin Meleika: I was appointed here in Montreal – to be precise I came on Dec. 10 – just a little over a month before things started. You will meet today Egyptians or others who say they could see it coming – things were getting worse, etc. – but I don’t think anybody expected it to happen on such a scale, including my own self. So, like everyone else, I was quite taken by surprise, but I could see that Egypt was ready for a change, a transformation.
A lot of people talk about the ‘Arab spring,’ the domino effect, and [say] that Tunisia probably gave it a spark, but I think that [given] the internal situation, Egypt was ready for a change. People are now hearing about what was going on, and they are appalled by the amount of corruption and nepotism and all kinds of wrongdoings that were taking place.
CJN: So you do see all this as a positive development for Egypt.
Meleika: Yes, [but also] in the sense that it happened “smoothly.” Of course I realize that there were some events that were not so small, but in general, when you think about the number of people who came out in the streets – over one million, sometimes over two million – just wanting to restore their dignity and respect, not wanting to be marginalized anymore, wanting to have a part in decision-making, and the way the regime responded, in the sense that ex-president Mubarak got the message.
Of course he took some time before making up his mind, but still he decided to go and to hand over the power to the military, who themselves have pledged that they would hand over the power to a civilian government as soon as their six-month mandate is over.
A referendum took place in March about modifications in the constitution that would allow for parliamentary elections in September, and, hopefully, presidential elections before the end of the year. So in the sense that people needed to change, they changed. In the sense that the government responded in a civilized way and the military did not confront the people, they accepted that this was a fair and legitimate demand that people were making. Considering some incidents that are taking place in neighbouring countries, I would think we did it well.
CJN: Is it the hope of the Egyptian people and yourself that Egypt will become a society that embraces pluralism and democracy?
Meleika: Definitely, because after so many years of political repression, you would want it to evolve into a multi-party, democratic system based on fairness and the rule of law. This is everyone’s hope of course.
CJN: How is all this affecting the Israel-Egypt dynamic?
Meleika: As you know, the military council announced it is committed to honouring the peace agreement, which was even welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So I think the worry that this change will somehow affect the relationship in terms of respecting our regional and international commitments has been decreased, because the military made it a point to stress this [direction] from the beginning.
The peace between the two nations is a strategic choice that Egypt made in the true belief that there’s only one way to solve our problems in the region, which is through negotiation and diplomacy based on the formula of, “land for peace.” This is an initiative that Egypt took, and gradually it was adopted in 2003 by the Arab peace initiative. So it is not only an Egyptian conviction today, but also in many ways, a collective Arab conviction.
Also, with the new government that will form in this new, democratic atmosphere, public opinion will be an important part of the decision-making process. And there is still the problem of not having reached a settlement on the Israeli-Palestinian track.
This still causes a lot of stir in the region, and even though we have open connections with the government of Israel and we have direct talks, it’s in the interest of both Israel and the Palestinians to find a quick settlement because this also reflects on the whole region in the way the people of the region – rightly or wrongly – see the role of Israel.
Some polls that were taken recently showed that 90 per cent of Egyptians saw Israel as one of the two nations that were the greatest threat to them. And as you know, the majority of the Jewish public in Israel fears an Islamic regime will lead the revolution and threaten the peace treaty.
Another poll showed 70 per cent of Jewish respondents think that the chances of a democratic regime emerging in Egypt are low. So there is a lot of the psychological factor going on there – not that these reflect the truth, just a lot of mutual distrust at the people-to-people level. Which is why it is important to quickly find a way to revive the Palestinian-Israeli track and find a compromise.
This will benefit Israel’s security and chance to live as a secure state within its borders, while giving the Palestinians the right to establish their own statehood or ambitions of statehood and to cut short this psychological mistrust. From Egypt’s point of view, there is no going back on the peace with Israel, but this [current] situation only benefits the radicals and those who do not actually want to see the region live in peace or see Israel secure in its borders.
CJN: Israel, of course, has been worried mostly about two things: Egyptian stability without Mubarak there and the fear that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood will come to power.
Meleika: I understand this concern. I remember a statement by Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak after the events, [saying] that Israel, ‘must monitor the situation’ and upgrade its long-term security in the context of preparing for a worst-case scenario. But what I believe is that many Egyptians do believe that even though this revolution opens the door to all kinds of parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, the advantage of this democratic experience, or this transparent kind of exercise, is that other parties are also emerging, that it’s not only the Muslim Brotherhood that is the existing alternative. And that’s giving people a choice.
Plus, you know that in this revolution, the people did not really invoke religion when they started it. It was not a revolution based on religious ideology. It was mostly a patriotic kind… I mean, it’s hard to say that the people were actually demanding secularism, but what they were saying is that they were not seeing Islam as a political ideology as a basis of the revolution. It was not to prepare for an Islamic kind of regime or system.
I read in an interesting article [where one academic] called it a ‘post-Islamic’ revolution, saying that this new generation is not interested in ideology. Their slogans are pragmatic and concrete and did not invoke Islam as the old generations did. Mainly, it’s been people expressing their rejection of corrupt dictatorships and demanding democracy.
CJN: But Israel is worried that if the Muslim Brotherhood did come to power, even in a democratic election, that might be the last democratic election Egypt would see.
Meleika: That’s a concern that also existed in Egypt, and partly why the Mubarak regime was so slow in reforming, because that was their fear – or sometimes they used it as an excuse to postpone [reform], and that was the cause of many problems. There is a belief that the Muslim Brotherhood, mobilized as it is and with the base that it has, will have a part of the political pie, but it is not believed that it will be the dominant one or that it will control government. This is the general feeling. Even during the revolution, people were surprised by their low profile and pragmatism so far.
CJN: What was it like for you to be here in Montreal and to watch on CNN and Al-Jazeera what was unfolding in Tahir Square?
Meleika: I was amazed, you know. I couldn’t believe this was happening in my own country. To see Egypt 24/7 on TV, I felt very concerned. You didn’t know if Mubarak was actually going to leave, and if he didn’t, what would happen. I had, here at the consulate, Egyptians demonstrating almost every day. I relayed what they expressed back home but it was, in the end, a proud moment to see things changed in a peaceful way. It was a bit weird to take his portrait off my desk. Since I started in the foreign service, he was the president.
CJN: Have you had occasion to be in contact with the local Jewish community?
Meleika: Yes. I took an initiative to get in touch with all Egyptians and managed to find out about the Egyptian-Jewish Association. We met and decided to continue meeting. The idea is that they are at least culturally Egyptian. They are people who loved Egypt, and despite some who had a difficult ending there, have a good memory of the country. I want them to feel that this consulate also belongs to them.
