In Conversation With: Ambassador (AMB) Mokhles Kotb

Contributed by Sarika Arya

Ambassador (AMB) Mokhles Kotb is a former ambassador and currently serving as Secretary General for the National Council for Human Rights (NCHR) in Egypt. His work has taken him on a long professional journey from North Korea to Tunisia, passing by the office of Yasser Arafat. Council members look to him as a Godfather who arrives at his office everyday at 7AM. Bright and early, he sat down with the Journal for about an hour, people running in and out of his office asking him questions, handing him papers, but all the while he remained focused, eager to share 40 years of experience and knowledge.


AMB: When you ask me your questions, you should take into consideration that I was serving as an ambassador until 2000 and the issues of human rights were not what we feel now. The issues of human rights started to emerge at the end of the last century, and did not concern many countries as they do now. This should be between parentheses.


Q: To which countries have you been the ambassador? What do you do exactly?

AMB: First of all I was in the diplomatic field for 40 years, and I served in so many countries. For example, I worked in Pyongyang, in the years of '75 to '76 with Kim Jong-il there (and in China was Mao Zedong, the Historical Chief of China), only to give and compare the life there. The government- the Egyptian authority- gave us only one day every month to go to China. It looked like a paradise in comparison to Pyongyang; this is just to give you a general idea of how our life was there. At that time I got married and had two little daughters. The problem was that there were no schools except in the Russian embassy. So it was very difficult; our life there was very difficult. My wife had to teach my two daughters until I finished work in the embassy. All the foreigners at the time were around 50% of the people and most of them were either diplomats or ambassadors, especially because there were 13 embassies and some communist ambassadors. The diplomatic community was no more than 50%; therefore, it was quite common to have a diplomatic club where you can find some billiard tables and a small place for dinner and that is it. It was quite normal that one driver from one embassy would explain the billiard game to the Russian ambassador.


After that, well… according to the tradition of diplomatic work in Egypt we should go 4 years abroad and 2 years in the country of origin, in order not to have any roots in any country. Then, I was appointed to go to Paris, then Brussels, and later I returned back for a second term to Paris. The first time I was in Paris was '83 and '84, I was in Brussels from '87 to '91, and Paris another time from '92 to '95. During this time I served as the head of the delegation in France due to the death of the ambassador. Additionally, I served in Tunisia for 7 years as an ambassador and dean of the diplomatic mission. When I came back to Egypt, I became the President of the Foreign Affairs’ Relations. Thereafter, Dr. Boutros Ghali appointed me to work in the National Council for Human Rights. For your information, Dr. Boutros Ghali was my professor at my university in the faculty of economics and political science twice: once when I was an undergraduate pursuing my bachelor and the second time when I was studying for my masters degree. After I came back from Paris, I worked in his cabinet from '84 to '87. I remember he was a candidate for the parliament in Egypt and I was his director of his campaign to be elected. I always remember when we had to go to visit these little streets and poor districts in order to meet with our constituencies. I used to work with Dr. Boutros Ghali for so many years, so when he was nominated as Chairman of the National Council for Human rights (NCHR), he proposed to appoint me as the Secretary General, then automatically the board approved his request, and I started my work from February 2004 till now.

So this was the professional part, but my experience goes back to the Egyptian defeat by Israel in 1967. At that time, I was still an undergraduate pursuing my bachelors degree at the university. Then, later, I had to do my military service, as it was the norm in Egypt for all young people. Normally, it was one year, 12 months, however, due to the prevailing circumstances, I had to stay in my conscription for 7 years, getting promoted from being a soldier to a corporal, and finally to a sergeant.


Q: Did you serve in the October 1973 War?

AMB: Yes, I did. After the defeat in 1967, Egypt had two small areas in Sinai, where I had to spend more than 3 to 4 years. It was a very hard time for me, especially because I had already gotten married and had had my two little daughters by the time when I was in Sinai. I was obliged to stay there for 25 days per month and then to come back to Cairo to stay with my family and daughters. Frankly speaking, it was a very hard time for all my generation. That is why we are all convinced of peace when we speak about it. For us, peace is neither a choice, nor a strategy, nor a principle. It comes at a price for all those who suffer in severe circumstances, and is a valid motive to struggle for. All my generation is convinced that war should never take place again, there must be peace, and they have to struggle to keep such peace and maintain stability. As I said before, “No more war.”

At this point in the interview, he showed me all his decorations and honors in his time as ambassador. Trinkets, medals, and gold stars from past presidents of America and France (among others), and a remarkable photo of him alone with President Arafat –“This is my life,” he said, as he sat back at his desk.


Q: Did you see Obama speak?

AMB: Yes, I did. Actually, we were all invited to attend his speech at Cairo University; but unfortunately, it was very difficult for everyone in the council to attend since it is impossible to have no one in the office.

Q: What did you think about his speech?

AMB: Do you want to speak very frankly?


(Q): Yes.

AMB: First of all, I noticed from his inaugural speech as well as his first speeches after being nominated as President that he didn’t mention anything related to the Palestinian- Israeli conflict; although I knew later that he had spoken on the phone with President Mubarak and with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas. However, being an ambassador and after working in the diplomatic field, I can tell that President Obama has avoided mentioning the Palestinian- Israeli conflict; despite the fact that he has to make some phone calls from time to time to both parties.

Second, I didn’t get his point when he directed his speech to the Muslim world. I don’t understand the idea behind splitting the world into Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. He should have spoken about states and states’ relations or even international relations among states. By referring to the Muslim world, this can generate many problems in terms of differentiating between Muslims in different regions in the world like, for example, Muslims in Indonesia, in Mauritania, and in Egypt. I think from a personal perspective this is a very controversial issue.

My third observation about his speech is the path that the US will follow to solve the Palestinian- Israeli conflict. The notion of the two- state solution for achieving peace between the two conflicted parties is not a new policy, but the problem is in the course of action of the US towards Israel. We already know that the bonds between the US and Israel are unbreakable and this is what the speech has emphasized and confirmed, but on the other hand, President Obama has also mentioned that Israeli settlements have to be stopped and banned. Concerning the Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas,” I noticed that nothing was mentioned about it. Specifically, whether it is a terrorist organization or not. We already know that Hamas is on the list of known terrorist organizations. Ultimately, I think that Obama is eager and keen to change and improve the world’s perception vis-à-vis the United States. He also has the goodwill to achieve such a challenging goal.

Q: Do you think that it’s good or bad he didn’t refer to Hamas as a "terrorist organization"?

AMB: Actually, this issue is very ambiguous and America must be crystal clear while determining a policy. From my perspective, I think there must be a dialogue with Hamas to reach a mid-point in order to end the segregation between the West Bank and Gaza Strip and to fill the gap between the Palestinian authority and Hamas. I think it is now time to have one Palestinian state and to reunite all Palestinians together. Hamas also has to declare its full support with the establishment of one strong and effective state that works for the benefit of the Palestinian citizen. The mutual talks between Hamas and Fatah were recently restored and negotiations have taken place between the two in the aim of reaching a final solution, which is possible in the sense of supporting the two-state solution- as long as both parties continue to be united.


Q: Do you think that peace is possible in your life time?

AMB: Definitely, as I mentioned before, all my generation has suffered a lot in the wars from 1948 till 1973. If you ever thought of visiting every single village in Upper Egypt, you might find that there is at least one who died or became handicapped in almost each family. Everyone has suffered in this period of time. That is why, we believe in peace as the real strategy and we should accept it.

Second, due to many economic problems, I think we have to save our money for our needs in order to achieve a certain level of welfare for the Egyptian population that reaches, based on the latest statistics, to 80 million citizens. Welfare in Egypt requires us to build new schools, advanced hospitals, as well as to provide more food stuff and economic assistance. Therefore, peace is not only a strategy, but it has a psychological aspect entrenched in the life of all Egyptians. Egypt still needs the incoming flux of tourists that visit the country each year and the huge amount of revenues that comes into our economy as a result, representing 9 billion dollars each year. Egypt needs stability to save such foreign income as well as the Suez Canal revenues. If we couldn’t maintain our stability, Arab labor wouldn’t be able to work in the country and send their remittances back to their families. That is why peace and stability are necessary for our lives.

Q: In the past what capacity, in your role as ambassador, did you deal with human rights?

AMB: As I mentioned before, in the past human rights were not on the list of priorities. That is why it is difficult when we talk with the Americans about such issues. Because all of your history is 233 years. For us, it is 7000 years. For us, the concept of time is very different. So we need time to struggle towards democracy, to move for democracy. We need this time. It is relative. The concept of time is very different. That’s one thing.

Also, the main problem in Egypt is mentality. The lack of mentality for human rights culture. You know? The problem is the lack of mentality to grasp the culture of human rights. I am totally aware that it is a critical issue because in the West it is easier to find a job or solve your problems than here in Egypt. The Western mind can easily comprehend the culture of human rights, and better than us.

One of our main problems in Egypt, which represents the main task of the council, is the promotion of a human rights culture. As our first step, we started by analyzing and gathering information about the actual status of human rights in school curricula and in television programs. We had to refer back to our already established independent committees to help us in analyzing the curricula that may affect the human rights culture in Egypt. These independent committees have spent only three years to purify and eliminate all the curriculum materials that may negatively affect the culture of human rights. During the three years, we have studied 100 curricula and, to our surprise, the government has accepted our study and encouraged us to proceed in our way and improve what we can change.

So, what we are doing now is changing. This process will take another three years in order to finish the 100 curricula. The process of changing consists of eliminating what is against human rights values and adding some new values like citizenship. This process is expected to be finished by the end of 2012. This study is targeting the new generation starting from the primary level passing by all grades including the elementary and secondary levels. To take effect will require another 15 years, when the coming generation grows up.

Parallel to this we have a good broadcast of radio. Because, as you know, the newspapers are not that good for the public opinion since we can only publish 2.3 million. For television, 95% of the families in Egypt have TV so it is very influential. So we have analyzed a lot of the radio and TV also to understand the problems of the human rights culture. For this, I was invited to be Secretary General of a board [relating to media] and to be President of the Committee on Human Rights and Citizenship to see what is right and what can be better. It is a very long process.

What do we target? We target the mayor of the villages. It’s not like your country where there is a mayor of a big city. No. We have 40,000 villages and each village has a mayor. So the mayor has his traditions and so on and so forth. The mayor is very important and very influential in his village. If you prepare a good mayor, you will have a good village. You will have more percentage of the people going to elections and respecting human rights and so on and so forth. So it is one of the things we target, and also it [takes] a very long time for us.


Q: Can you tell me more about what you found in the curricula that violated human rights?

AMB: In resume, we find like this, that the boys are better than the girls. This is always indirect in character. Always in the books, you have two characters: there is Samir [the boy] and his sister is Samira [the girl]. Always in this book Samir takes the hand of his sister to cross the street. Always. Always Samir. Never Samira. Always Samir and Samira go to school and come back to the house. Samira goes directly to her mother to help her wash the dishes, and so on and so forth. Never Samir is doing dish washing. Okay? So, from this very young generation, there is always this discrimination or superiority of Samir. So if you are six years old and have this character for Samir, you should, by definition, well- you will be, superior to the girl. Okay. Another thing, if we have something bad it's related to black. It means that the black dog always bites Samira. The black dog. Never the white dog. Only the black dog. So it is also another kind of discrimination.

Also, another discrimination, indirectly, is that Samir is a very good boy: he goes to make his prayer in a Muslim way, in a good Muslim way. So, always a Muslim is better than the others. So that too is discriminatory: man and woman, black and white, Muslim and others.


Q: So the idea is that if you are a boy, fair-skinned, and Muslim, you’re superior?

AMB: Well, so, this is from years of special education from ’71 of Sadat until now. We have this way, that Muslim way of Sadat, to encourage the Muslims. And so we have the results.


(Q): It’s amazing that you were able to find the seeds of human rights violations in such tiny details. It’s very small.

AMB: It’s very very important. As I told you, it was an independent high level committee they took 3 years to study this.


(Q): You know, in the states, we have similar distinctions in textbooks between boys and girls, and especially black and white. But you never think that the black dog biting someone’s hand, instead of the white one, can contribute to human rights violations in the future.

AMB: Yes, yes. Well, you can see the results.


Q: How do politics influence human rights – not only in Egypt, but also in the Middle East?

AMB: You know in the Middle East, we always need a good government, or ministers, or presidents that are very influential. Because normally, the public opinion, normally, comes after what the president says and so forth. Not the other way. Always the government influences the public opinion. Normally at least. So it is important that the government takes the important, the necessary steps, to build human rights education and human rights culture and so forth. That is very important.

The problem in the third world, and Egypt, and some other Arab countries, is the lack of human rights culture actually. This is the main problem. You can change the laws and consider or even establish some human rights legislation. Okay. But to practice it is another thing. The way to practice it is another thing. So if you have this mentality, this difference between man and woman – I’ll give you an example: If a man is in the commissary of the police and at night a lady comes and says, “I was robbed by a thief,” when he sees this lady he wonders, “Why was this woman at 12 o’clock in the streets? At midnight?” There is an idea that if she was a good woman she must be in the house. It cannot be that she is working or that she is going home: she is stuck in this world and it is possible that she will be accused. It is a problem. We need more of a human rights culture.


Q: Why do you think there is a lack of human rights culture in this part of the world?

AMB: The cultural system, educational system, the television system. All of this is a real problem.


Q: What are the challenges of being a quasi-governmental organization that does human rights work, rather than an NGO?

AMB: You know, as I told you, this lack of mentality of human rights, it affects also the work of the NGOs. And some NGOs are not doing good work, according to the public opinion. Some public opinion sees the NGOs as just taking money away from donors or something like this. Other communities and people have a lack of culture of human rights, and the thing is, it is not that all NGOs are working in the human rights field. No. We have 20,000 NGOs in Egypt: some of them are good NGOs, some of them are NGOs that are looking just to make benefits. So, in the traditional culture of the Egyptian, it is not a good way to work. There is mistrust of NGOs. The knowledge and culture of NGOs takes time. And some NGOs give bad examples, and give themselves a negative idea.

Concerning our council, it was the result of the United States and was established in a meeting in Vienna in 1993 and it must be a 100% independent of the government. The public opinion doesn’t accept this. They think this building, the NCHR, is dictated from abroad, dictated from Bush, or that it is a façade of the government so that it looks like they care about human rights- is a piece, or it is just a performance.


Q: So, if you change the curriculum you can affect people when they are very young to have a human rights culture?

AMB: Yes, yes.


Q: But, how do you change the minds of government officials and older people?

AMB: So we are working in parallel. We work with the youth and we work in parallel with others in a special training course or a special course with the government. It should be taken into consideration that we now have our fifth report. Before this, no one took the care and no one was concerned with human rights. And now that we have published this report, now we are in a dialogue with the government and the public opinion, and the government should reply according to this report.

We have a special committee headed by ministers and each minister should send his reply to his prime minister: agriculture, education, everything in all fields. And we are waiting the comment of the government now. It means that [there is] something new in the government. Something new is coming now. Something new. For five years the NCHR has been working concerning human rights. But it is not one way: the government should give reply to our concerns and observations in the report. This is something new concerning human rights that has never been done before in Egypt since these five years. So something is going in a good way – it is not a fast track as Americans always have. (They work fast, always fast.) Instead, it will take time.


Q: What difficulties have you had with the government when you give them your report, and how do you deal with these difficulties?

AMB: Well, our difficulties, if I should be very clear, our difficulties are with the public opinion, NGOs, and populations. This gap of human rights culture is our main difficulty. The government now has the report and should reply. It is very easy to work with government, but not so easy with the public opinion.


Q: You said that the government is not the problem, that the public opinion is. In working with the Council, I’ve noticed that there are some human rights issues that the Council takes a unique stance on that are more in line with the government: What is the council's feelings on the death penalty, freedom of expression, and the State of Emergency? Are certain human rights issues undermined or tabled?

AMB: It is very difficult to speak with public opinion and it needs time. Concerning what you mention, from day one we asked to finish with the emergency state and if there would be a new law against terrorists it must have this balance: it must have freedom between persons and citizens and security of the country. This has always been our position and we’re struggling to do this. Also we say to the government that we’re not too convinced to continue this emergency state, and so they should put it to an end. And according to the government, they will do this by 2010. They should present the anti-terrorist law to finish with this by May 2010 because according to the government the emergency law is only to contain terrorists, and crime organizations, or gangs. So, we told them that we should finish this. And we hope that in May…we’re waiting to see something more democratic… a new proposal to have all the means to protect human rights.

Concerning the expression of speech. I don’t know… You can go to the streets and see 15 opposition papers accusing everyone, even insulting them. So it will take some time. And also, we should have a norm for freedom of expression. It doesn’t mean that I should insult and you insult me. We are in a code of conduct, we are in a period of transformation: it will take time… we are going in the main stream of this.

Concerning the death penalty, we have a point of view in the council that we should put an end to this. But still there is opposition in the public opinion according to some organizations, Islamic organizations, and so on. So the first step is to eliminate the crime number to 2 or 3 before we finish this – I mean, according to the current law, there are 70 possible crimes that are punishable by death. Even if you’re in a gang. I know that this never actually leads to death, but it is there. But, we are in dialogue. We should change: first to eliminate these crimes by 2 or 3, before complete elimination. As you know, in your country there are many states that are struggling to eliminate it. We are struggling with you to eliminate it.


Q: What I find really interesting you are right that in the states you can see the same human rights problems: the terrorist laws, freedom of expression, and the death penalty that face Egypt also effect the USA. So there are more similarities between your state and mine.

AMB: Yes, but in the states you are a very sophisticated country, you have many rights. Here, you can go to poorer states and districts, you go to the poorer areas, and who cares about human rights issue? They want to work and eat. They do not even have clean water. Even if we receive 20,000 complaints this year, we can say 70% are complaints concerning socioeconomic problems. The population needs to work, to eat, to fetch jobs. This is the real problem for human rights. For this I say that stability and peace is a must for Egyptians and the area. For the Palestinians, Israelis, and Jordanians also we need a means to go to in order to make some progress in the daily lives of the population.


Q: Why have you devoted so much of your life to diplomacy and human rights? What’s the appeal for you?

AMB: You know, well as I told you, according to my generation we were forced to go into obligatory military service for 7 years. I have a brother who was an officer in 1956 who was shot by planes… was shot by Israeli planes. So you know, all this generation who suffered from war and problems, we need, for the sake of our population, for Egyptians, for the sake of our families, we need stability, we need peace. So I say, in every single village we know how the population suffered from this, from the war. All of us we know this. For this we are trying to work with peace. Peace is a must for us. If we have peace and stability, then the standard of life of the Egyptian will get better. So it is related. Peace is a very important base for human rights action. Because, if we’re faced with any terrorist action in Sinai, Israel, in Jordan, if a very horrible accident happens, it will directly affect the tourism in this country. As I told you the profits of tourism are 9 billion dollars. So 9 billion dollars: it will give me a job, it will give my daughters a good means of education, it will give hospitals... If you have lack of such money, how do you promote human rights in the widest idea: to give jobs, buildings, hospitals, and so on? So human rights are related in our area with stability. So when we struggle to have peace and stability, we protect and defend human rights.


Q: What have your meetings with Palestinian and Israeli leaders been like?

AMB: [I have an Israeli friend] from Tunisia. He was the head of the first Israeli commission office in Tunisia. He speaks Arabic very well! And French and so on. He is my friend. We have met many times with Israeli officials... I have met with Perez… I have met many Israelis officials.


Q: I know the in these areas have many strong opinions about the conflict. And after the Gaza war in December, their opinions became more extreme. What are the views like in Egypt, and how can we make them more conciliatory to peace?

AMB: As I met with the Israelis I met also with the Palestinians: Arafat, Abbas, I met with many of the leaders. When they had problems they came to the headquarters in Tunisia and all of them, including Arafat, were convinced of peace. And I can say this, in the name of God, all of them want peace.

The problem with this is that Arafat and the others have some difficulties in the camp: they have some extremists here, and at the same time they are faced with the problems with Israelis. This is a real problem: when you have a good Israeli leader, and then something goes bad. But we have many steps to solve the problems. And when you put the problems of Israelis and Palestinians side-by-side, if you go into the details, 95% of all the problems (concerning settlements, Jerusalem, and so on), 95% of the problems have been discussed and have a good resolution. But sometimes one comes likes this and bombs like this- like what we saw in Gaza this past winter. When Mr. Netanyahu says “I will not face the settlements,” well I know he is in his camp and facing problems from his own people. I know this. But this is a narrow view and we must look beyond this view and develop an open mind set.

Defending human rights in instability is zero. You cannot understand this in the US or in your country. Because if you have stability you have human rights: right to food, right to eat, right to go to school, right to education, right to special needs. All this you have. The Palestinian crisis will be resolved with stability. We hope with the new area, with Obama in the states, we can have a practical steps: we can convince all the sides to say and to speak.


Q: What do you think is the greatest obstacle standing in the way of protecting human rights is around the world?

AMB: Poverty: in the sense that it can lead to a lack of awareness of human rights, where people care more about the economy than greater human rights issues. What I mean is that poverty can hurt human rights when it creates other problems like lack of education and a lack of healthcare. As a poor person, I don't care about human rights: I just want to live. So these human rights issues don't matter. I fail to see the connection between human rights and poverty, and human rights abuse continues. And we also have with this, the economic crisis. We have faced a real problem defending and concerning human rights: there is a third world, the population wants to eat, they never have good schools. For us it is a dream that you have rights like you have in your country. For the citizens in the third world to have water, to eat, to go to school, hospitalization. This is a dream. This, I think is it. Poverty, economic crisis, and how to deal with these problems. It means if I am a leader I will not go on an adventure and have war with Libya and Syria. We need stability, to feed the poor...

Consider America's debate around climate change. That is very specific to a developed country. I know in America they are very proud of biogas. Yes it was very good for the climate, but there are many thousands of poor that need this wheat and rye to eat. I know this is a contradiction to live in a good environment while others haven’t a right to eat. So you must remember this in dealing with the third world: we must make this balance. We need a world more democratic. You ask for a democracy in Egypt and Sudan, but we ask for an international democracy in the organization of the world. We need, all of us, to think together for the sake of the world.


Q: Most of the readers of the blog are students with an interest in activism and human rights and are seeking to make a sustainable change: not just to go somewhere and build a well, hoping that few more people have water, but actual sustainable and structural change in government and positions of power. What message, as someone who has done this already, do you have for those people?

AMB: It’s very difficult because I am not the Messiah or Jesus Christ, or even Obama. What I can tell all this generation is to know better about the others. Americans know about America but they do not know about Egypt, Chad, Senegal- you may not even know we have the Nile here, and what that means for our livelihood. For instance, you don’t know we are one of the poorest countries in water. We are 80 million people. Normally not to be the poorest in water, we need 1,000 cubic meters of water for each citizen. We need water, we need our means to have cooperation to change our way of life, to have water even though we are 95%, to use clean power like sun and wind – to have clean electricity. So I ask our young generation to understand more: to understand the reality and life of the others in the third world. And if they have a practical idea in this dialogue with the third world, then come here and implement it. It can help. Shukraan. [Thank you.]