‘Clear and Present Danger’

I will spare my readers another analysis of PIA’s most recent interview as Voice of Liberty (VoL) and many writers on the web have already raised various burning issues that remained unquestioned and unanswered during the interview.

But one observation that I found most interesting is the conspicuous disappearance of a couple of words out of PIA’s May 24^th speech and during PIA’s most recent interview with EriTV. These words are ‘Warsai/Yekealo project’ – PFDJ’s version of ‘Marshall Plan’ or more like PFDJ’s ‘Great Leap Forward’, which utterly failed. I am just wondering if ‘Warsai/Yekealo’ project has accomplished its objective, and if we have entered the next phase of economic development. Or, is it that Warsais and Yekealos are no longer trusted? Or is it that Warsai/Yekealo has been reborn as ‘the army, the people, and local administration’ before it was unceremoniously banished from PFDJ political language of the day. I believe Sophia has picked up on this long-time ago. It is just that somebody forgot to tell ‘Haddas Eritrea’ that ‘Warsai/Yekealo’ has fallen off PIA’s language.

Regardless, PFDJ’s declared economic successes are analogous to students claiming to have passed their courses at a school where the passing grade is, say, 3% (as opposed to normally 50% or 65%). I have no doubt that everyone else will begin questioning the school’s and the students’ qualifications.

PIA keeps making ‘a mountain out of a molehill’ pertaining to its infrastructure projects. It is true that the government is engaged in some roads and other infrastructure works. One can safely estimate that the total expenditure on government financed projects [out of its own coffers] is no more than $USD 700 Million since independence, with the Hirgigo Electric plant taking up a good portion of this amount. To reiterate, the figure of $US 700 Million in capital expenditure is an outlay either out of government coffers or loans provided to the State of Eritrea, and excludes various bilateral and multilateral donor grants provided to Eritrea for various infrastructure works. This works out to paltry $US 50 Million per year of independence years. As I will discuss later in this article, Eritrea’s unexploited resources can generate income ten times the yearly capital expenditure a year, which could have been used to finance more aggressive infrastructure programs in Eritrea.

Besides infrastructure projects, PIA has correctly placed food self-sufficiency at the top of his agenda. Unfortunately, one can easily learn that the Chinese ‘Great Leap Forward’, which the ‘Warsai/Yekealo’ project is modeled after, led to mass starvation due to crop failures barely two years after its implementation. The PFDJ regime is blaming lack of rain as the reason for crop failures when in fact the real reason is that the PFDJ regime has continuously stripped the countryside bare of able bodies, leading to significant drop in crop production since the end of the conflict with Ethiopia. It is no surprise that ‘Warsai-Yekealo Project’ has unceremoniously fallen off PIA’s vocabulary.

‘Nationalism’ or ‘Eritreanism’?

During a recent annual meeting of Eritrean Ambassadors in Asmara, Mr. Yemane Gebreab stated that the thrust of Eritrean government’s efforts should now be focused to rekindle nationalism in Eritrea. In fact, Mr. Yemane put ‘nationalism’ ahead of economic recovery.

“On the political front, head of the PFDJ political affairs, Mr. Yemane Gebreab, said emphasis had been placed in promoting internal political development, while giving no less attention to economic development programs, guaranteeing the respect of national sovereignty and Eritrea’s involvement in other regional and international affairs. Furthermore, Mr. Yemane underlined that priority will be given in 2005 to the development of nationalism and national consciousness.” [All emphasis added]

Source: shabait.com, Jan. 5^th, 2005 “Asmara hosts heads of foreign ministry overseas mission conference”

This is yet another strange twist in tragic Eritrean drama. Let alone when Eritrea is independent, even during the struggle for nationhood, no other group of people in the world fought for their ‘nationalism’ more than Eritreans. Over 65,000 out of a small population base lost their precious lives for it. No one can lecture, preach, or question Eritreans about their nationalism. It is embedded in our blood and in our genes.

There are no super-nationalists and sub-nationalists in Eritrea. Those who believe that others must be lectured about ‘Eritrean nationalism’ should save their breath and, for a change become productive members of society by delivering economic, social, and legal justice and results. ‘Bread on the table’ and ‘peace of mind’ goes much further to solidify ‘nationalism’ than continuous ‘words’ and ‘hot air’ from well-fed ‘super-nationalists’ to underfed ‘sub-nationalists’.

There are at least a couple of definitions of ‘nationalism’ but I will use the most common meaning and which I surmise is the message Mr. Yemane wants to convey which is ‘the love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it’. Mr. Yemane’s tired message is that Eritreans must fulfill their duties without asking for their rights, which is tantamount to calling Eritreans to submit to perpetual slavery.

The correct message should be to advocate for ‘Eritreanism’ which can be defined as follows,

‘Eritreanism’ = ‘Nationalism’ + ‘Our Traditions and Values’

But what are our traditions and values; something we have been blessed with for thousands of years? For anyone with even the most casual observation of our history will learn that our traditions and values consist of,

Rule-of-Law - which our forefathers have followed for centuries, and which remains as true today as thousands of years ago,
Compassion - which is to show forgiveness and kindness towards members of our community and beyond, and even to our foes,
Consensus - which is to listen and form mutual understanding among members of community and society,
Self-sacrifice – to forego one’s comfort and even one’s life so that others in one’s community could bear the fruits of our sacrifice,
Respect – for elders, for disadvantaged, for women, for children,
Hard Work – the vast majority of Eritreans strive to succeed in their endeavors.

According to my reckoning, the ones needing serious lectures on ‘Eritreanism’ are the hardcore PFDJ members. Surely, Eritreans do not need a lecture from hardcore ‘higdefites’ who are padding their retirement account through their Bay Area operations.

PFDJ’s Mission

Especially in modern times, it is normally assumed that a regime resorts to most oppressive rule of a nation only as a short term solution (as a bridge) until such time that some other viable and long-term solutions, bordering on miracle, are found that will rescue the regime and the nation. Dictators are perpetual gamblers who hope that the wind of international politics will dramatically shift putting them out of the doghouse and into the main house. Many also hope that some rich natural resource (or riches) is discovered, which then the dictator as the benevolent leader and out of his/her goodwill shares the wealth with the people. Everybody will be happy.

But PFDJ’s and particularly PIA’s behavior contradicts rational reasoning. PFDJ’s mission appears to be MAD ( mutually assured destruction of itself and the nation). If PFDJ had any intention of self-preservation it would have done , for instance, the followings,

Internationally,

§ PIA would have released the two American embassy staff and removed the single biggest friction between PFDJ and America, and more specifically the State Department,

§ PIA would have refrained from prosecuting various religious groups. PIA could have achieved the same purpose by using ‘National Service’ or other reasons to illegally pursue some of these people. Instead, the fact that PIA has chosen to pursue confrontational approach, with a world superpower at that, does not jive with a leader who has any intention of staying in power too long,

§ It is suffice to say that some 68 members of the US Congress called upon to release Mrs. Aster Yohannes. What has PIA gained by imprisoning a mother, other than to intentionally shoot itself in the foot or worse?

§ The same international game of hardball with Sweden (Mr. Isaak) will only further erode PIA’s position with EU. The West protects its common interest by ensuring that should the interest of one member is compromised that every one of the other nations will circle the wagon. Outside politicians or nations [other than possibly the US], and especially an African nation, can not play a divide-and-rule politics against the West.

§ International investors in mining and oil sectors were given orders to desist from their work without any kind of explanation. At a time when the PFDJ regime badly needs hard currency, and by all rational arguments, at a time when PFDJ should cooperate with international investors to expedite the exploration and mining of Eritrean resources, what does PFDJ do – issue an order to desist. This is not a rational behavior of a regime that intends to ensure the survivability of its organization and the nation. The latest news that a couple of the mining companies have been granted an order to resume their operations does not reverse the damage. An old adage says, ‘Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.’ The West, and more pointedly Western economic prowess, was not born out of political and economic gullibility.

Locally,

§ Eritrea is blessed with rich natural resources. For instance, it has rich marine resource that is begging to be exploited. Yet fourteen years after independence, this resource remains unexploited. Of course, Egyptians and now the Yemenis have been given rights to fish in Eritrean waters at a minimal level, but the payments from these fishing rights is used as pocket money for PFDJ. One can safely bet that the Bank of Eritrea can not enforce its authority to question this type of ‘hard-currency’ transactions. A rational dictator would have put all other agendas aside and pursued to develop the over US$500 Million per annum marine resource sector, and thus freeing itself from having to extract hard currency from Eritreans in Diaspora and or having to beg for it elsewhere. Despite PFDJ’s claim to have brought fishing trawlers to begin exploiting this sector, it will take more than pieces of machinery to turn around not only the marine sector but the entire economy in general. It is possible that the fishing trawlers that are claimed to have been bought is for the simple purpose of putting naval officers in equal footing with army officers who are accumulating immense personal fortunes through reckless commercial farming – using slave labor.

§ As I had stated earlier, the significant drop in food production in Eritrea can be directly tied to the failed Warsai-Yekealo project. Any self-preserving regime, or more importantly nation, would have bent backwards to ensure that all is done to ensure self-sufficiency in food production. Eritrea’s ‘Great Leap Forward’, a lesson in history, can only bode unhealthy intentions.

§ The biggest health threat, AIDS, remains at epidemic level. The biggest breeding ground for AIDS remains the failed ‘Warsai/Yekealo Project’. A nation will only dissipate if it allows its young to be destroyed for the sake of a political game that surely can not be won.

One can add many more evidences of the self-destructive nature of PFDJ’s economic, social, and political actions. One can speculate forever as to ‘why’ PFDJ would pursue such policies. But the question of ‘why’ is not important; but rather one should simply abhor the results – the destruction of everything ‘Eritrean’. This is not acceptable under any reasons given under ‘why’.

For this reason, PFDJ unequivocally is ,

‘Clear and Present Danger’

to the survival of the Nation of Eritrea and ‘Eritreanism’ as we know it. This is much more than the border issue; an issue which has become a pawn in a game of hostage politics.

On different BUT RELATED Issue

Border Issue

It is interesting to note a recent article that appeared in the Baltimore Sun (source Associated Press and which I quote from sun-sentinel.com dated January 6, 2005) titled “North Korea issued orders to prepare for war against U.S.”

“North Korea has ordered its citizens to be ready for a protracted war against the United States, issuing guidelines on evacuating to underground bunkers with weapons, food and portraits of leader Kim Jong Il.

… [Analysts] said the guidelines were also meant to whip up a sense of crisis among its 22 million people, reportedly growing discontent amid economic hardship. … The United States has cooked up suspicion over our nuclear programs and is escalating an offensive of international pressure to strangle and destroy our republic, … If this tactic doesn’t work, it plots to use this [nuclear] problem as an excuse for armed invasion.”

As King Solomon said, ‘Nothing is new under the sun.’ What PIA, Castro, Kim say is derived from the same old school of political thoughts on how to maintain an iron grip on power.

The latest BBC report (January 13, 2005) stating that PM Meles wants border changes should not come as any surprise to fellow Eritreans. Many Eritreans have already understood that Ethiopia’s border political games have much more to do with its [Ethiopia’s] own internal politics, and has much less to do with Eritrea and next-to-none with Eritrean opposition groups influence on the Ethiopian government. It is counterproductive to attempt to shape or to fine-tune our position towards Ethiopia based on their outwardly whimsical and ever-shifting declarations towards the border issue. It is more critical and more productive to understand the social, economic, and political factors that must play out in both countries in order to ensure the finalization of the border demarcation process.

As someone who tries to analyze all angles of an issue before advocating a certain position, i.e. without compromising our basic principles, to this day it escapes me why anyone would want to wage their struggle against PFDJ from Ethiopia (as a primary base). This may appear to be a condemnation, but it is not! Rather it is a ‘real’ difference of policies with potentially real consequences. If solutions are to be found within the opposition camp, differences should be openly discussed and debated; which will only help us to close the policy gaps. This is one reason why I advocate for open opposition meetings, regardless who they are, and to make us understand through their debates the merits of each policy and position. ‘We know what is good for you’ mentality, as manifested by closed door meetings, should be viewed with the greatest degree of suspicion.

We, Eritreans, must keep reminding ourselves that there are two ways of resolving the border issue, i.e. through force or war, or through peaceful and legal means. Other than extremely few Eritreans who will not be affected by the consequences and thus advocate for force, nearly all Eritreans agree that resorting to force to implement the border decision will only result in human and property catastrophe, and in the end will only further complicate the finalization of the border issue.

Having agreed that the border is to be resolved peacefully and legally, this means that

§ Eritrea can not consider the use of force as an option to evict Ethiopia out of the disputed area,

§ Eritrea can not remain in a state of military readiness until the resolution of the border conflict which will surely take years if not decades to resolve. Eritrea, and Ethiopia for that matter, can not remain in heightened state without ruining their economies with grave consequences,

§ The border decision can only be brought to its logical conclusion through Eritrea’s diplomatic skills, which still leaves much to be desired. Eritrea will develop this skill under a democratic government over a number of years,

§ It is worth to note that it would be easier for the Ethiopian government, and especially for PM Meles or any other ‘Tigrayan-dominated’ governments, to hand over the disputed areas only once the border issue falls off the headlines from both countries. It is only politically palatable if disputed areas are settled legally [i.e. per the border decision] between two friendly and mutually dependent neighbors than between two warring states.

§ It is also worth to note that negotiation on the border decision is not a viable alternative, lest we rush to open ‘a can of worms’. PIA, PFDJ, opposition groups do not have the authority nor the mandate to finalize the border dispute through negotiation. Although the ultimate right of decision as to whether to resolve the border dispute through negotiation remains vested in the people of Eritrea, the most workable and least divisive resolution of the border conflict is to NOT tinker with the border decision. By all rights, and it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that if the border decision was to be based purely on colonial border, Eritrea would have been entitled to much more land than awarded to it. These include the towns of Zelambessa, Alitena, much areas around Tsorona, in Bada and in Denkelia. The border decision is wholly unfair to Eritrea. This is why negotiation would only serve to complicate issues. If the border decision was to be left to negotiation, it would be naïve to think that negotiation will be based on Ethiopia’s claims only. This will only put us back to square one, back to war footing. The overwhelming majority of Eritreans have accepted the border decision as a gesture of goodwill and as a respect of the [international] ‘rule-of-law’. The government and the people of Ethiopia must swallow hard as Eritreans are prepared to do.

The most political and diplomatic tactful way of resolving the border issue is to seek rapprochement between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Unfortunately, the government of Eritrea has not pursued creative means to resolving the issue to the detriment of Eritreans and Eritrea. If PIA is pursuing hidden agenda that will pull the rabbit out of a hat, in the meantime nobody can justify that the Eritrean people should be held hostage to his politics.

This is where the opposition groups must step in and play mature and sophisticated game of politics which the Eritrean government has abandoned. The opposition groups, as possible successors of PFDJ regime, must begin and continue exploratory meetings with the Ethiopian government and lay the groundwork for resolving the border issue through mutual understandings.

In my past articles, I had clearly advocated that the opposition leaders must meet with Ethiopian leaders in order to synchronize their thinking towards the border issue. However, I continue to advocate for meetings between the opposition groups and the Ethiopian leaders to take place outside Ethiopia (as EDP has done). However, one must discern the big difference between the political implications of traveling to Addis Ababa versus basing one’s political campaign from Ethiopia. In addition, we, Eritreans, must remain cognizant of the difference between engaging in tactful political and diplomatic dealings versus being perceived as dependent on the Ethiopian government. In other words, the challenge to the opposition leaders is how to positively engage the Ethiopian government without sending the wrong message to it. These messages [to the Ethiopian government] must come not only in ‘words’ but more importantly in ‘deeds’. On the other extreme, disengaging from any kind of rapprochement with Ethiopia until the border decision is implemented may seem the ‘most justifiable and righteous’ course of action but the result would be destructive if one believes in resolving the border issue legally and diplomatically.

It is for this reason that I welcome Mr. Mesfin Hagos’ and Mr. Mohammed Nur Ahmed’s recent direct meeting with PM Meles and FM Seyoum Mesfin. I mention EDP more because it was the most holdout of the major opposition groups of engaging the Ethiopian government directly. In my opinion, the Khartoum group’s balanced policy of approaching the Ethiopian government without sending the wrong signals will be to the benefit of both countries – now and in the future. The second advantage of basing opposition struggle in Sudan is, as most of us are already aware of, is that PFDJ has been deprived of exclusively justifying its existence as the vanguard of Eritrean sovereignty and the border decision, which remains one of the most important issues to all Eritreans. As a result of the Sudan group’s strategy, PFDJ is forced to address and defend other internal issues to its own political detriment. PFDJ’s tired but potent strategy of polarizing ‘sovereignty’ and ‘border’ politics has been largely neutralized.

As I had stated [directly or indirectly] in a number of my articles, the Khartoum group should lobby the Ethiopian government to rescind its ‘Declaration of War’ rather than putting the finalization of the border issue as a pre-condition, which would not be tenable. The skill or art of rapprochement is not about tackling the most difficult issues first, but rather it is about taking confidence-building measures, based on give-and-take [ or reciprocity].

It is for this reason that I continue to advocate for Ethiopia to rescind its ‘Declaration of War’. The issue of ‘Declaration of War’ has as much or more legal and symbolic significance than the border dispute, and yet rescinding it is palatable enough to be used as a confidence-building measure. Until such time the ‘Declaration of War’ is in effect, the State and Citizens of Eritrea, not just PFDJ, are considered enemies of Ethiopia. Its symbolism, along with its legal implications, is too immense to ignore. Therefore rescinding this declaration will be perceived as,

ü A sign of firm and concrete commitment not to militarily interfere in Eritrea,

ü A sign of goodwill towards Eritrea and Eritreans, and the removal of legal barrier towards Eritreans traveling and staying in Ethiopia. One can argue that the current permission allowing Eritreans to travel and live in Ethiopia is more administrative in nature rather than a truly legal acceptance of Eritreans as citizens of non-warring country.

Rescinding the ‘Declaration of War’ will also make it that much more difficult for PIA to justify his state of military readiness against Ethiopia. In fact, as a result of this action, internal resistance may increase in Eritrea against PFDJ.

Once Ethiopia has rescinded its ‘Declaration of War’, there is no legal (and symbolically which is just as important) barrier for the Sudan group to increase its direct and indirect contacts and dealings with the Ethiopian government. After rescinding the declaration, in my opinion, the Sudan group should consider opening an office in Addis Ababa, while maintaining their headquarters in Sudan. This is give-and-take politics, one that is based on confidence-building measures.

US and the Border Issue

I have already discussed this issue in my previous article and thus would not bore my readers by repeating it here. American government’s withholding of its endorsement of Ethiopia’s five-point peace proposal weeks after Ethiopian government’s announcement remains a source of speculation.

It is suffice to say that in a world where America is the sole super-power, the American government views a stable and democratic Eritrea, which is located in the heart of the world hot spots of Middle East and North and Eastern Africa, as a long-term ally of the West. There is no pressure on America to abandon the wishes and aspirations of Eritrean people for their democratic rights and freedoms and to embrace a despotic regime. There would have to be some political tsunami in the region that will turn PIA into another Pervez Musharef; and Sudan is not nearly one of them.

More Important Issue

It is my sincere belief that it is more important to learn about ourselves, as will be manifested in the broad opposition groups meeting this weekend. It would be much relief to all of us if the opposition groups can bridge their wide-ranging differences. However, a ‘united’ opposition should be pro-active one, not just a ‘united’ but passive one for the sake of maintaining ‘unity’. This will only lull us to sleep [at least those who are free to do so].

As I had stated in my previous article, I look forward to examining how the opposition groups agree to resolve their differences as much as resolving difficult issues themselves. The question will be, are they being creative in finding solutions which will reveal their capacity and sincerity to find solutions? The capacity and the sincerity to find solutions through mature, open, and skillful political process within the opposition groups will foretell their capacity to govern and rebuild a war-torn and psychologically damaged country.

I remain convinced that the only solution to factionalism within the opposition groups, as is true to what we say about PFDJ, is to open up the political process and involve the general public on whose name propaganda is being waged. Closed door meetings, regardless of its justifications, only breed suspicions and failures. If we can not learn that from our years of experience, then that may foretell a lot about our abilities to learn as a nation. Open up the political process, do not restrict meetings to members only but in fact make it available on internet, radio and other media, allow the public to analyze and debate issues raised by their politicians (which they heard with their own ears rather than rumors and propaganda) – and we will have political miracles. The strange political reality is that the public will appreciate the openness of the political process more than whether difficult issues were tackled.

Openness leads to public consensus way before consensus among (aspiring) politicians, forcing politicians to act in congruence with the public’s views and stands. This time proven experience is which we, Eritreans, must learn before we see any political progress.

It is with this view that I welcome Nharnet’s editorial titled ‘A Broad Coalition, a Winning Formula – Implementation of the Border Ruling as Significant as Ever’. I also encourage my fellow compatriots, who have not already done so, to read Nharnet’s “Eritrea’s Transition Phase – From Dictatorship to Democracy” [13/01/2005]. It is my hope that many more articles will appear on the public domain helping all of us to understand the various challenges of today and tomorrow; and to involve us in finding solutions through lively and OBJECTIVE debates that only address issues and their merits only.

Berhan Hagos

January 16, 2005