Is the displacement of Copts a presage to the more ominous division of Egypt?
Earlier this month saw the Copts of the town of Rafah on the Egypt Gaza border in Sinai pack and prepare to leave town following menacing threats against them by militant jihadists in Sinai. They were later obliged by the authorities to stay when word got around of their forced eviction, but they stayed on in fear and terror and had to send their children away to relatives or friends outside Rafah for fear for their safety.
Some eight weeks ago, the Copts of the Giza town of Dahshur had to leave town in the wake of what started as a trivial dispute over a burnt shirt, and escalated into a three-day full-scale looting and destruction spree against the homes and businesses of the town Copts. When the 110 Coptic families in Dahshur went back home a week later under police protection, they found all their property and belongings destroyed.
I visited Dahshur and reported in Watani on the homecoming of the Copts to the ruins of their homes and shops. Their anguish at the loss of their homes and livelihoods, and their life work and savings, was so distressing that I found sleep difficult for a few nights afterwards. But what was especially alarming was that not a few of them, finding that they faced total ruin, decided voluntarily to leave town, this time for good.
The matter raised several questions in my mind. Can the displacement of the Copts be branded ‘forced’ or ‘voluntary’—given that the decision to leave came under duress?
I decided to reach out to the expertise of Adly Anis, Professor of Human Geography at Cairo University, to investigate the question of displacement, and whether it could be a possible prelude to the division of Egypt—a hypothesis that has recently been brought to the surface.
Watani : First, what is the origin of the term ‘displacement’?
Dr Anis: We must clearly understand the difference between migration and displacement. Migration is the movement of a person or an entire group from one place to another, and can be either internal, within the country, or external, meaning outside the country. It can be permanent or temporary and usually occurs willingly—in most cases owing to difficult economic factors.
Displacement too involves moving from one place to another, but in this case the movement is forced. It occurs to comply with the order of a certain authority, such as the government or a party or even individuals, to displace a certain group of people to serve religious, ethnic or economic purposes.
In Iraq, the Shi’ites used their Mahdi Army militia to evacuate the Sunnis from Baghdad and thus remove them from the circle of decision-making. Also in Iraq, the Kurds were displaced to the Iranian border and had their land and houses confiscated.
What about displacement in Egypt?
Egypt has witnessed a wave of displacement following the 1967 Six-Day War. At that time and until the 6 October War in 1973, a ‘war of attrition’ was taking place: a series of almost daily battles between Egyptian forces west of the Suez Canal and the Israeli forces in Sinai, east of the canal. The Suez Canal vicinity was for all practical purposes a battleground; the population of the towns along the Suez Canal—major among which were Suez, Ismailiya, and Port Said—was thus forced to move out to other places in Egypt for their own safety.
There was also the displacement of the Nubians, which was undertaken in intervals since the building of the first Aswan Dam in 1902 and until the building of the Aswan High Dam in 1963.
Today, in the case of the Copts, I think that the concepts of migration and displacement sometimes overlap. In my opinion, Coptic emigration from Egypt is some disguised displacement. It usually takes place under the pretext of searching for better livelihoods, whereas in reality it is a kind of compulsive escape that follows sectarian strife and assaults on their churches and homes.
After the 25 January 2011 Revolution, the rise of hardline Islamists was behind several incidents of forced displacement of Copts in villages such as Sol, Amriya and most recently Dahshur and Rafah.
What are the consequences of displacement?
The danger of displacement lies in the consolidation of the idea of division. ‘The other’ is rejected; people refuse to be his neighbours; even his homeland rejects him… All this is considered a clear throttling of the principles of citizenship and belonging. When the Nubians were repeatedly displaced, a large portion of them called for secession from Egypt. Nobody can deny that stories are circulating of plans already underway for the division of Egypt. Regardless whether or not such stories are true, the mere fact that they are being circulated reflects latent fears.
From the geographical point of view, is the division of Egypt possible?
Geographically, the flat landscape of Egypt can preclude its division. The unity of language, race and culture, which are factors of strength in the Egyptian entity, stand against division. The main factor which favours division, however, is religious extremism. Christians in Egypt are a minority striving to survive amid the rising power of radical Islamic groups; this obviously threatens the cohesion of the demographic pattern in Egypt.
Another factor favouring division is economics. A society plagued by high unemployment and uneven distribution of wealth is the perfect environment for the spread of radical ideas. The attacks against the Copts occur mainly in areas that suffer from educational and social decline and, in many cases, where the Copts are among the wealthier portion of the population.
Does the demography of Egypt favour the division conspiracy?
The Egyptian population is a clear intermingling between the Copts and Muslims. Even though a few exclusively Coptic villages exist in places such as Minya in Upper Egypt, including the villages of Deir Abu-Hinnis or Deir al-Malak; or an exclusively Muslim town such as Rosetta; these are due to special historical factors related to each site. As to neighbourhoods with a high Coptic population such as Shubra in Cairo, these are usually small conglomerations located far from each other.
What can drive the Copts to conglomerate in the same area?
When sectarian attacks such as in Amriya and Dahshur continue to occur, and when out-of-court settlements that force Copts to relinquish their legal rights take place, especially with the ascent of Islamist currents, it is normal for the Copts to feel threatened, and physically to stick together.
So can we say that the division of Egypt is a viable possibility?
Of course it is possible if notions of extremism and racism get rooted in the community. The idea may be difficult to grasp now, but if the flow of displaced Copts continues under the oppression of radical Islamists, the disguised displacement could turn into disguised ethnic cleansing. It is scary to think that the scenarios of Amriya and Dahshur could be a rehearsal for ultimate division. Even more alarming is the fact that many nations that had originally rejected and condemned division ended up resorting to it. Examples include Sudan and India, now divided into India and Pakistan, which had a pattern of geographic distribution similar to that of Egypt. Therefore, all State institutions must be aware of this danger and must uphold the principle of actual citizenship for all Egyptians without discrimination.
Is there a role for the Copts to play today?
Despite the difficult conditions that the Copts are going through, there is no other alternative but to hold on to their land and their country. The only hope is built on their fellow citizens, the moderate Muslims who also reject the concept of Egypt’s division.
WATANI International
21 October 2012