20/08/2014 HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk.

Do Christians have a future in the Arab world?

It's a question raised with a new sense of urgency

as an extraordinarily violent brand of jihadi extremism sweeps through

Syria and Iraq.

Tens of thousands of Christians, along with other minorities,

have been forced from their homes, hundreds murdered.

Right across the region, Christians are fearful.

My guest is Bishop Angaelos of the Egyptian Coptic Church.

What can the outside world do to protect

the Arab Christian tradition?

Bishop Angaelos, welcome to HARDtalk.

Thank you.

I have referred to what is happening in Iraq and Syria today.

Has that engendered a new level of fear amongst Christians

across the Middle East?

It presents a different dynamic.

Christians throughout the centuries have faced challenges.

In particular, over the last few months, it has reached a new level.

But is it qualitatively different?

We have seen political Islam for decades in different forms

in the Middle East.

Is there something qualitatively different

in what is happening today?

We haven't seen an exercising of a caliphate in recent history.

We haven't seen the direct imposition of jizya

in recent history and I think the formalisation

of those, unless they are reacted to, will create viable models to be

replicated throughout the region.

You talk about the jizya, the taxation or the demand that

if taxes are not paid, Christians must flee or face death

in certain circumstances.

What we have learnt about the treatment of Christian

communities and, it should be said, other minorities like the Yazidis

too, is so horrific, so shocking, that I come back to this point.

If you are a Christian living, say, in the West Bank or in Egypt today,

are you looking at what is happening there and are you thinking,

"I need to be worried about this"?

Throughout the region, Egypt has a specific dynamic.

Because the vast bulk of Christians are in Egypt,

we are talking about millions, the dynamic is less intense.

But when you look at countries like Syria, Iraq, the West Bank,

throughout the Middle East, people must be worried.

You have referred in the recent past to the incredible

silence of the international community in the face of persecution

of minorities in the Middle East.

It is a damning statement.

When we look at Iraq hitting the headlines in the last few weeks,

people don't realise that Mosul was overtaken in June and for a long

time, no one was saying anything.

I was happy last week to see, suddenly, the spotlight cast on it.

But whether it was in Mosul or earlier in Syria in certain areas,

or even what happened in Egypt one year ago, in August, when churches

were burnt and attacked, there has been an incredible silence.

The problem is, so much is happening in the region that we tend to have

a single focus on a single area.

Once something happens, it moves to the next area.

We don't address the past any more and it becomes

the past very quickly.

It has become an active debate in the Christian community in the UK.

The Bishop of Leeds very recently wrote a letter to

Prime Minister David Cameron, saying that we in Britain don't seem to

have a coherent or comprehensive approach to Islamist extremism.

I am sure that you saw those words, do you think they were correct?

I saw the Bishop's letter, as I saw the Prime Minister's letter

this week.

In which he talked about a generational struggle.

He said "A generational struggle against a

poisonous extremist ideology".

He seemed to be saying "I get it".

Do you think politicians in the West, in nominally Christian

countries, get it ?

They get it when it is a risk to their own countries.

But as long as it is at arm's length, elsewhere, less so.

That is understandable.

Politicians' primary objective is the securing of their own nations.

But when you look at the global community, looking at the needs

of places, for instance, in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, where people cannot

represent themselves, I am not talking about boots on the ground as

we spoke about or even about intervention,

I am speaking about saving, "This is wrong and something needs

to be done" and having, as you say, a coherent and holistic approach.

You cannot have policy on one hand, humanitarian aid on another,

interreligious dialogue on the third and then have no

correlation between them.

Isn't this where church leaders, Christian church leaders,

get into a tangle?

In the recent past, the Church has made a strong stand

against military interventions, led, I suppose, by the Pope and

the Vatican, who have stuck to this idea for years that, "Never again,

war", which has been their mantra.

Now that Christians are specifically being targeted, it looks as though

some Christian leaders, maybe even the Vatican too, are revisiting

whether the mantra should always apply, particularly when Christians

themselves are in direct danger.

I know

for a fact and I speak about Egypt because that is what I know most

about, I would never have asked for external military intervention

because that won't work.

Unless you have a solution from within.

Sometimes, when innocent civilians, in this case, civilians targeted

because of their religion, which happens to be Christian in

this case, what else is there but military intervention to protect?

First and foremost, we need to protect them by moving

them and securing where they are.

I am not a military strategist.

It might be necessary sometimes.

It isn't something I would ask for as a first port of call.

If there is a peaceful solution, won by reconciliation, bringing

people together to understand...

Coming to my opening question on the qualitative difference

when we look at the Islamic State movement, what kind of dialogue,

negotiation, could there be with the Islamic State?

From what I read and see, I think they are making it clear that there

is no realm for reconciliation or reaching out because

the perspective becomes narrow, it isn't just Christians or

minorities, it is other Muslims who are being targeted.

Unless you fit into the tight mould of what they see Islam should be

in the area, even if you are Muslim, you will be targeted.

Isn't this where you, and I know that you have travelled

the world preaching reconciliation and interfaith dialogue, isn't this

where you come up, with your high-minded Christian values, run

into reality and reality doesn't work in the way you would like it

to?

I would say of course there is that reality but also, we

would live with the ideal of peace.

It's not up to me to advocate for war.

I present a peaceful solution.

The war solution is for other people.

I am always the one who presents a different solution.

You risk the danger of failing your people if you say that you represent

dialogue, talk, reconciliation as a solution and yet in the same breath

you recognise that people you are dealing with are not interested in

that, you run the risk of fundamentally

failing your community.

The realism is that dialogue and reconciliation only happens

when all parties are open, you can't have dialogue with one party

alone, it only works when everyone wants to come to the table.

Dialogue and reconciliation only happens when there is conflict.

Unless people want a solution about conflict, then if they have burnt

those bridges, and the final...

Which they have.

The final solution is that now we are securing territories

and the politicians decide to have a military intervention,

that is within their prerogative.

You are washing your hands of giving any commentary upon it, though you

are suggesting sort of that there are circumstances in which military

intervention has to happen.

I am not washing my hands, I am commenting on where I can,

my remit is not on military intervention but on representing

peace and giving that option.

I also understand that within any state, there are various arms.

Religion and politics shouldn't mix.

Interesting you say that, because I will interrupt you to put

the words of the Pope, Pope Francis, to you, because he is wrestling

with this as you are too.

He said, where there is an unjust aggression, I can only say

that it is licit, his word, licit to stop the aggressor.

I underscore the word stop.

I can't comment.

You and he are falling short of what most ordinary people

listening to that would think ought to be said, which is that in certain

specific circumstances, military intervention is the only way.

Countries have armies and there is military intervention

when it is needed.

No one is saying there should never be military intervention.

What we say is that it shouldn't be a primary or

even secondary approach.

When people are being targeted and they need to be secured, then they'd

need to be secured at whatever cost.

Let's flip this around and think about this from the point of view of

decision-makers in Western capitals, Washington, DC, London as well.

Do you think that there is some sort of extra obligation upon Western,

nominally Christian countries, to look out for, to intervene and to

protect Christians in dire straits as in Iraq or Syria today?

There is an obligation to apply principles we

are supposed to live by, whether it is for Christians...

You make no distinction between what is happening to Christians or

other minority sects,

or indeed she at pot

You say that there is no special relationship case between Western

Christian countries and Christian communities in trouble in the Middle

East? I don't think so.

First of all, a Christian country, that term, doesn't make sense.

Countries cannot be Christian or Muslim.

They might have a Christian ethos or background,

but if we apply Christian principles, then they don't look

at anyone with a specific lens.

Christianity looks at everyone equally and the protection of human

rights and civil liberties equally.

Interesting you say that, because I am thinking in my mind as you speak

of the attitude taken over many decades by the Israeli government

when it comes to the persecution of Jews, when we think

of the Israeli state in the 1940s, the government was extraordinarily

interventionist in trying to protect and indeed rescue Jews

in various Arab countries who were facing direct persecution.

They saw it as a duty to bring these people in and to save them.

France, today, has talked about its willingness to take, through the

asylum system, Christians from Iraq.

But you are saying that you don't see

there is an obligation for Christian countries to take that step?

I struggle with the term Christian countries.

Countries in the West, with the possibilities

of taking asylum seekers, they should open their doors to anyone

with a credible case to come in.

Of course, you put priority on where the

priority is greatest.

In the Middle East, it is obvious and irrefutable that the major

persecution is on Christians.

So you would give them more assistance

and open the doors more because we need to remember that

in the past years, when Christians were persecuted in a Middle Eastern

country, they moved to another.

Again, controversial subject amongst Christian communities in the UK.

The Bishop of Leeds in his letter to David Cameron said

he was very uneasy about the increasing silence about

the plight of tens of thousands of Christians who have been displaced,

driven from their homeland.

He says they seem to have fallen from consciousness in the UK and I

wonder why, he asked.

Why is it their plight appears less regarded than that of others?

We have become desensitised and I think that we sometimes have almost

a positive discrimination, because of a post-colonial mindset, where

we see ourselves as a Christian country, we see if we stand up for

Christians, it is almost something that is inappropriate, so we stand

up for other minorities.

If we took off those glasses and looked at need...

There is a difference between opening doors to refugees

and some people calling for getting all of the Christians

out of the Middle East, which I think would be a fundamental flaw.

Do you? The Anglican canon who has spent a lot of time with Anglican

communities in Baghdad, Andrew White, said it was time to recognise

that the Christian community in Iraq was totally finished and that

20-30,000 Iraqi Christians would jump at the opportunity to be

rescued, airlifted out of Iraq today and given asylum in the UK.

You're telling me that they oughtn't be given that chance?

They are a neutralising and reconciling future as well.

To get them out destabilises them, because if they are...

What if they want to get out?

What if they feel they are in danger?

If they want to do that, they should be.

But we should not be trying to get people out.

If people feel the need to get out, if they don't feel they can protect

their families and their livelihood, then they have a human right to live

in a secure and protected setting.

It seems to me this is an incredibly important debate

for somebody like you, who represents a minority religious

group in a vast country like Egypt.

You have to decide at what point it is no longer viable to maintain

the community and its massive historic tradition

in situ, and to what extent you are prepared to contemplate running

risks to keep your traditions and your community going.

The Church does not make those decisions, people do. If it was

the desire of every Coptic Christian to leave Egypt, during the past few

years when there were incredible struggles, they would have done so.

Yet, what we see...

They can't, can they? Many couldn't get

permission to settle in

another country, they wouldn't have the economic wherewith

to settle in

another country.

I am very mindful of the words of an Iraqi cleric in Lebanon,

who said just the other day, that France was making

a terrible mistake, indicating it would take Christians seeking asylum

from the terrible troubles in Iraq.

He said, telling questions they have no other option

but to emigrate was absolutely the wrong thing to do, and it

threatened to destroy historic communities in the Middle East.

I think there is a difference between

a country graciously opening its doors, because I

think that is a good thing.

And telling people that if you want to come, come.

Rather than saying to them, you have no hope, you must leave.

I think if we said to them, you have no viable existence, that is very

different to saying our doors are open if you don't think you can

sustain yourself in security there.

We have talked about Iraq but I want to press you

more on the situation of Coptic Christians in Egypt,

which is your main area of concern.

It seems to me there is one difficult area that Christians have

had to tread in in Egypt recently.

Your community has been for years supportive of and relatively close

to the authoritarian regime of Hosni Mubarak, and after he fell,

and now that General al-Sisi has become President al-Sisi,

very supportive of al-Sisi too.

Do you think that has been a mistake for Coptic Christians

to line up so supportively behind authoritarian military government?

I think it is important to find out why people support

whoever they support.

Whether they support a military government or a socialist

setting, it is because that's where they think their interests are.

That is where they are best protected, is that right?

It is not just Copts, it is everyone. It is very difficult to

establish who supported Mubarak

and who didn't.

I think it is oversimplistic to say that the Christians did,

because the whole country pretty much stood where the Christians

stood, and where the Muslims stood, everyone stood.

You may say that, but I think in the words of your current Coptic

Pope, when he very specifically refused to describe the military

takeover, the toppling of the Muslim Brotherhood government in 2013 as a

coup, he refused to use that word.

He hailed General al-Sisi as a hero and a saviour.

Again, they weren't the words of the Pope himself.

I think I would still struggle with the word coup.

A coup is the military takeover to have military rule.

That is pretty much what you had.

You also had the locking up of the democratically elected government.

I don't want to step into the position of speaking

for the military.

I am asking you to speak for the Coptic people.

I am wondering whether it is wise and continues to be wise for Coptic

Christians to be seen to be so close to that brand of governance.

I don't think it is just the Coptic Christians.

I think what happened in the past two years flagged up

that the problem in Egypt is not Coptic Christians, it is a Muslim

presence that marginalised a large hulk of the Egyptian population,

Christian and Muslim alike.

What happened was not only Christians.

When the Pope spoke, it was because we didn't have in Egypt a safeguard.

of what happened in Egypt, there would be safeguards around him.

There is Parliament, there is a judiciary, there are

things that would stop that.

In Egypt, there was nothing, when the people called out, had there

been an alternative to the military to lead that step, they would have

followed that alternative.

It seems to me the basis of what you are saying is

that the Arab uprising, which frankly,, we can now say brought

terrible disorder to the Middle East, has been deeply damaging to

Coptic Christians, and what Coptic Christians

and other minority communities in the Middle East need is order,

and if it is Hosni Mubarak for Bashar al-Assad, or General al-Sisi,

then Christians will move towards that sort of order, am I right?

I would like to speak in a new paradigm.

That is that we should stop singling out Christians or Muslims otherwise.

If we speak about Egyptian citizens, all of them, across-the-board,

they will all want stability, whether they are Christian, Muslim,

even secular or religious.

Whatever leadership provides that should be followed.

The problem we have had is that we have had leaderships that have

followed particular sections of society,

and not advocated for the whole.

That is where people find it difficult to know who to follow.

I suppose post-Arab spring, what Arabs fear is popular uprising

and democracy in the Middle East, because it is bad for them.

Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

We have been selling democracy as a wonderful, necessary thing

for people to become civilised.

Whereas, democracy is only a vehicle to bring forth

representation, security, stability, and if what we wanted to push as

democracy then didn't provide those things, then it failed.

What we need to do is look for a model that provides those

things for all those people.

Is it too late for those people?

100 or more years ago, roughly 20% of

the Arab population was Christian, now it is in the low single digits.

Is it too late?

I don't think it is ever too late.

I have a perspective as a Christian, if you look at the seventh

century, with the introduction of Islam to Egypt, what we are seeing

now gives us a very small picture of what was believed in the centuries.

If we are able to outlive those, we will outlive this one.

The thing is, we need to outlive it for

the purpose of the whole country.

I want us to stop looking at Christians as Christians as a

whole, but look at the whole world.

If we don't protect each other, if we don't get Muslim leaders

standing up and saying, this is wrong, and if we don't get Christian

leaders standing up and supporting them, then no one will win.

We have to end there, but thank you very much.

Bishop Angaelos, thank you very much.