When 9-11 happened, the profile of the terrorists showed that they were all (a) from the Middle East; who were (b) Muslims of the (c) Sunni branch. Whereas responsible governments the world over have tried to show that this is a very simplistic approach to identifying enemies and friends, dictatorships, particularly those who believe their very legitimacy is contingent on support from the United States, have been working overtime to show that they, too, suffer from the new Bad Guys.

When it comes to the Eritrean dictatorship, four examples of gratuitous pandering to this misguided analysis can be cited of how the Isaias regime and its satellite organizations tried to align themselves with the "you are with us or against us" declaration of President George Bush by showing that they share the same enemies:

(1) On July 26, 2002, the "Eritrean Defense & Development Committee" of Washington, DC (which actually is just an extension of the Eritrean Embassy in Washington, put together for the purpose), issued a press release entitled "Eritrean Community To Rally Against Jihadists and Enemy Agents." The press release, which was issued to explain the group’s rationale for its counter-demonstration against Eritreans opposed to the PFDJ clique, stated that the "primary purpose of the rally" was "to express its strong support for Eritrea's fight against terrorists, both homegrown Jihadists as well as foreign agents who masquerade as Eritreans." Every other word in the press release was "terrorist", "jihadist" or "Bin Laden." One of the most destructive outcomes of this press release was the breaking-up of one of Eritrea’s strongest opposition forces, the ELF-RC, which attempted to distance itself from any perception that it is an Islamist organization by initiating closed consultations at its highest levels to present a more Western-acceptable face of leadership.

(2) On July 29, 2002, the so-called Organization of Eritrean Americans, OEA (another of PFDJ's trojan horses), sent a letter to the Department of State to explain that the "makeup of the Eritrean population is about 50% Christian and 50% Muslim. Neither group is said to dominate the other" but then continued to assure the United States where real power resides using a clever denial "…charges have been heard that Christians tend to dominate because the top leadership the last half-century has been largely from that side."

(3) On September 21, 2002, the UN representative of the Isaias regime, Ahmed Baduri, addressed the UN General Assembly. His address included the following: "Terrorism is not a new phenomenon to my country. The State of Eritrea has lived it since its formal independence in 1993 as the youngest country in Africa. The Eritrean Islamic Jihad Movement and the so-called Eritrean Popular Islamic Conference who have been created and sponsored by Al-Qaeda and other regional and international Islamic groups to perpetrate subversive acts in Eritrea for the last ten years."

(4) On April 29, 2003, the Eritrean Embassy to the US issued a press release in response to accusations that it is violating the religious rights of its citizens. The press release disclosed that Islam was "established around 1000-1100 A.D." in Eritrea and elaborated further that Eritrean Muslims were Sunnis.

An eternity ago (November 6, 2003), President George W. Bush, in an address to the National Endowment for Democracy, said:

One of the questions that had been supposedly answered conclusively was this: do you nudge, plod, beg, wait for and incentivize dictators to change or do you help to create environments that will force them to change or to pack and leave? The Bush Doctrine had, it appeared, decisively opted for the latter. But now, perhaps because the burden of unilateralism is unbearable or perhaps because the Eritrean agenda is so low in the list of priorities it is almost invisible, it appears that US foreign policy (State and Defense) has opted for coddling a dictator. For liberal democratic (small d) Eritreans, it appears that Eritrea is stuck in the never land between the foolish persistence of the State Department, the ill-informed ideology of the Defense Department and the naiveté of some journalists.

The Foolish Persistence of The State Department

If there is one person who was uniquely qualified to understand the fact that Isaias Afwerki is no more than a common and unrepentant tyrant, it should have been the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs who himself has been subjected to the whims of the dictator. But it appears that dicatators have their charm and the coddling never stops. Some examples:

1-  Voice of America: In many parts of the world including Eritrea, the VOA is the voice of America—figuratively the spoken word of the president of the United States. The contrast between Voice of America and Radio Free Europe is dramatic: whereas the latter was an advertisement for freedom, Voice of America is just another stop on the short wave dial. When it comes to Eritrea, its Tigrigna service is virtually indistinguishable from Eritrea’s state radio. It steers clear of anything the Eritrea government considers taboo —opposition leaders, opposition websites, opposition topics, human rights violations. To the extent it conducts any interviews with public figures they are almost always apolitical fluff pieces. One of the most shameful things Voice of America did—or did not do—is in dealing with its own arrested stringer. For days, it did not report his arrest. And after he was "released" from prison, it has avoided any mention of him.

VOA has perfected avoidance into an exact science. When the mouthpiece of the most powerful nation in the world refuses to speak the truth—the persecution of believers, the arrest and disappearance of citizens, the intimidation of ordinary people—it ceases being Voice of America. Perhaps it should rename itself SOA—Silence of America.

2.  American Embassy to Eritrea: There is a fine line between subtlety, the lingua franca of diplomats, and acquiescence, the language of timidity, and the American embassy to Eritrea has crossed over that line repeatedly. This is, apparently, based on a premise—a hopelessly misguided one—that the regime of Isaias Afwerki is not responsive to pressure and the best approach is "quiet diplomacy." Let’s consider two recent high-profile cases that demonstrate the futility of this policy:

a. The Expulsion of USAID: The regime of Isaias Afwerki expelled USAID in July 2005 and it took until August 24 for the US embassy to Eritrea to disclose this. Why? Because, explained the ambassador, the US wanted to "avoid any precipitous actions on our part that could lead to misunderstandings about our relationship." This was in the hopes that the Isaias regime would reverse its ill-advised decision. You’d think that the US would have learned that its hush policy and its false flattery ("the responsibility for the welfare of the people of this country rests with your government, and I am sure it takes those responsibilities seriously") were useless when it comes to appeasing dictators, but the appeasement did not stop:

b. The Arrest of US Embassy Employees: The Isaias regime arrested two US embassy employees, Fitwi Gezae and Biniam Girmay in August 2005. Yet, it wasn’t until late September when the US government, using a mealy-mouthed language, protested the arrest of its own employees. It is as if the US accepted that in Eritrea arrests and disappearance, like the seasonal drought, are natural events that should be stoically endured by the citizens.

Recall that this was after the Isaias regime repayed the United States government for its tireless, two-year engaged efforts to avert the escalation of the Eritrea-Ethiopia war by accusing it of trying to overthrow his government.

If the US State Department exemplifies the cautious, go-slow, never-give-up-on-dictators approach of US Foreign policy that results in wooing tyrants long after they have been categorically rejected by their people, the US Defense Department was supposed to be populated by thinkers and analysts that have a clear reading of the facts on the ground.

But here, too, the results are not impressive. On December 10, 2002, Donald Rumsfeld had a press conference following his visit to Eritrea. Asked about the incarceration of political dissidents in Eritrea and how this will impact US-Eritrea relations, Rumsfeld responded, "a country is a sovereign nation and they arrange themselves and deal with their problems in ways that they feel are appropriate to them. By the same token, other countries looking at how those arrangements are make their judgments as to how they feel about it and how they can interact with such countries." At a time when moral clarity was needed, Rumsfeld gave an on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand apology that was music to the dictator’s ears. He went on to intensify the disappearances, arrests, and exile of his people by exponential margins.

More recently, the DoD issued the briefings of its assessment of the Horn of Africa that show a shocking level of ignorance about the area. You can read the details here:

To begin with, the level of inaccuracy in the transcripts and the maps is disturbing, almost farcical, for a superpower with massive resources. But more importantly, the maps do not show at all whether any given political area is a potential ally or hostile territory.

If one sees the Horn of Africa as a Sea of Sunni Islam and, further, if one sees Sunni Islam as hostile to American interest, then one is likely to conclude a very simplistic and hopelessly wrong conclusion that empowering only those who are neither Muslim nor Sunni is in the best interest of the United States. But things are more complicated: in the entire Middle East, the only democratic Muslim country is the one that is run by Islamists—Turkey. On the other hand, Ethiopia which has since time immemorial packaged itself as an Island of Christianity, has never known democracy in its long history.

Since its formation in the 1970s, Eritrea’s ruling party has benefited greatly from two kinds of journalists—the True Believers who were looking for socialist nirvana in Africa and the mini-Hemingways who were looking for an adventure. Since 2000, most of the True Believers have learned that they had been taken for a long ride of providing glowing reports that were based not on facts but descriptions, promises and wishful thinking. They confused communist-style "mass organizations" for "participatory democracy"; they confused a politbureau with a parliament and authoritarianism for discipline.

What is curious is that, right on cue, there are a new class of True Believers who are stepping in to package the Isaias regime attractively. Given his brutish nature, they can’t very well say that he is a liberal democrat or an enlightened leader. So they are reduced to selling a potential, again expressing their wishful thinking. His three potentials are said to be his "principled" admiration of Israel; his "incorruptibility", and his ability to take on the "terrorists." They are wrong on all counts.

First of all, there is nothing principled about his gravitation towards Israel—the EPLF, like all leftists organization, has mouthed its share of "anti-zionism and anti-imperialism" slogans. His appeal to Israel is primarily of his open contempt for Arabs whom he derides at every opportunity—when he is not asking them for grants, loans and markets. Israel may find it in its national interest to have unfettered access to and a foothold in the Red Sea and Isaias may prove a useful idiot in this endeavor—but Israel should remember that all of this is being done without the knowledge and consent of the Eritrean people—a recipe for disaster.

Secondly, political corruption is an even worse crime than economic corruption--and when it comes to political corruption, few can match Isaias Afwerki's level. He surpasses even the Mugabes of the world who, for the record, have a sembelance of a private press and an opposition.

Thirdly, if arresting every "suspect" simply because they resemble Islamists were a good credential, then there are many Arab leaders who would win that award hands-down. For every suspected would-be "terrorist" that Isaias arrests, it is safe to assume hundreds of innocents are being arrested, killed and exiled simply because there is no rule, no law, no institutions in Eritrea, except for the whim of the dictator. As for the mini-Hemingways who kept writing about the "Israelis of Africa" and the "battle tested Eritrean army", they should consider the possibility that there is a relationship between these accolades and the Eritrean dictator’s propensity to jump from one conflict to another, creating orphans and widows in his wake.

America has true allies in Eritrea—they are those who advocate its ideals, its Bill of Rights and its market economy. But they are not in positions of power—they are exiled, arrested, disappeared, and killed. It would be in America’s and Eritrea’s interest if the United States were to recognize its allies and its enemies, to remind itself, once again, that the attempt to barter liberty for stability gets you neither and then take bold steps to disassociate itself from the tyranny of Isaias Afwerki and a meaningful engagement with the Eritrean opposition groups and civil groups. In other words, it is long overdue for America to speak using its own voice--unmuffled, and without regard to the opinions of dictators.