What was your background before you joined the armed struggle?

Watching The Chopsticks

Like many Eritreans I studied in Addis.  The Teferi Mekonen School, a high school in Addis, where many Eritreans studied...People like Gabriel Fassil, Eden Fassil (now the AG in GoE) studied there.  I was 9 or 10 when I went to Addis; I became an Eritrean nationalist in Addis.   When I joined the University College, we belonged to the generation that founded the Ethiopian Students Movement.  I majored in political science, graduated in 1963 (BA Pol Sci) and did my post graduate in Europe (MA in Stockholm University).  Was working on a Ph. D from Stockholm University, Dept of Social Science.  I am ABD [All But Dissertation]...here again, in political science.  My area of research has been ethnicity and issues identity.  Minor identities in human beings, as with all other species, are disappearing.  Democracy must always consider identities. 

How is your view of the role of identity and nationalism in democracy different from what is going on in Ethiopia and do you think the Ethiopian model would work in Eritrea? 

No I don‘t.  It might work for them.  It didn’t work for the USSR.   Before I go there, the ethnic base has not been discussed other than linguistically because Eritrea is a small country.  With the exception of the Kunama and Nara, the rest belong to the racial anthropology of the Kush, Agew, Non-agews...all of which trace their ancestry to the Hemitic (Ham)or Kametic (Kam).  We don’t have identity crisis.  Ethnicity in Ethiopia is politicized.  The ethnic consolations make political demands; this doesn’t exist in Eritrea.  In the Eritrean context, the ethnic question is a cultural question not a political question: it is an issue of Eritrean independence and its continued independence.   It is: “how do we live together now that we have liberated Eritrea?”  Due to the fact that we have accepted Islam and Christianity, not by missionaries--we became Christians in 334 AD and we became Muslims before it spread in the Arabian peninsula and when the holy prophet was alive.  And therefore, they are part of our national make up and they were so before the political idea of independence of Eritrea matured and  before it became a political idea.  So, in Eritrea, these two great religions are not derivative religions.  We can say we were there in the making.  The ethnic question, in its configuration, is cultural one, not a political one.  And there are no cultural questions that are going to be resolved by the “cantonization“ and  “kliliazation” of Eritrea.

Why did you major in political science?

Has to do with my family background.  It goes back to my grandfather, Bairu Oqbit, who was a businessman in Asmara.  Along with the family of Lorenzo Taazaz, Aman Andom and Kentiba Bahta, he was an anti-fascist.  They were drawn to Ethiopia because they were anti-fascist and pan-Africanist, early ones.  He paid for that.  Because of that, he was banished from Asmara to his village Geremi (16 km outside Asmara, near Imba Derho.) 

This environment produced my father who studied in Italy (Florence) and came back.  His first job was a school inspector in Keren.  He was appointed by the Italians as the first principal in Agordat.  Which is where I was born.  It was also because my home was one of the centers of political debate and also due to the fact that my family was exposed to western education. People of the lowlands who visited Asmara visited our home; so, in many ways, the Tigre culture was part and parcel of our family life.  Due to that, the issue of national unity was significant to me from early on.

Tell us about your first involvement in politics.

It was the student union movement of the sixties and seventies.  The students union movement in Addis had grown quickly into a radical movement.  In England, the movement was under the umbrella of the Department of Education.  After the putsch of Mengistu Neway [the failed coup d‘etat attempt against Haile Selassie I], the first mass demonstration in Addis was organized and the initiative taken at Arat Kilo.  This huge demonstration with revolutionary slogans was in support of the coup d’etat.  It was largely influenced by the so-called scholarship students from Africa who taught us about colonialism because until then we were protected and infantile.

I became president of Ethiopian students union in England in 1966.  We hosted the Congress of Ethiopian Student Union, first of its kind.  It severed its relationship with the Imperial Government of Ethiopia and declared its anti-monarchy stand by revolution if necessary.  The movement included people like Hailu Fida,  who eventually became the leader of ME. I. SO. N. [Acronym of a movement to oust Haile Selassie I.]  In its next congress, which was held in France, Haile Fida became the president.  Many Eritreans demanded that the Student Union recognize the Eritrean revolution.  Ethiopians declined and that was why we broke off.  We met in Liege in Belgium and since the Ethiopians had decided in the congress of Montarge, France to decline our request, I decided to join the ELF. 

When did you join the armed struggle?

In 1967, I moved to Damascus.  I had contacts with martyr brother Osman Saleh Sabbe who was then in charge of Foreign Relations.  Sabbe was the most hard working person I have ever met in the Eritrean Revolution.  I became the head of the English version of “Al Sewra” [Arabic for “The Revolution“]--a newspaper which was our main tool of agitation and propaganda.  The Eritrean Revolution had a relationship with the Chinese Government and I requested Sabbe if I could go.  He said no.  He had other purposes for me: he wanted me to be a bridge with the English-speaking world and Tigrigna-speaking Eritreans. 

The ELF of the 1960s

By then, the armed struggle had stabilized itself among the remaining ethnic consolations of Eritrea.  The areas where they lived had become semi-liberated zone for the armed struggle.  But the period was also a period of dissatisfaction with “Al Mejlis Al A’ala” [the Supreme Council] because the “Fifth Zone”, which you might call the Tigrigna zone, was dismantled.  We don’t need to go to the history of that now...The action enhanced, more or less, the artificial cultural, linguistic and geographical divide. 

The sophisticated and accumulated political know-how of Haile Selassie regime played on it quite successfully, actually.  So it was difficult to convince Eritrean highlanders to join.  Sheik Idris Mohammed Adem who was president of Eritrean parliament and one of the founders of the ELF (along with Idris Gelawdios and the rest) said; “look, Hruy, you are located in the Middle East and I doubt whether you can achieve a lot by way of establishing links with Tigrigna-speaking people about the Eritrean case and the Eritrean struggle.”  And so I was sent to Stockholm; because it was known to my family.  My father [Tedla Bairu] was an ambassador and he had been a spokesperson of the ELF there.  So, I was sent to Stockholm. 

For the first time, our group was able to make an opening.  We were formally accepted by the Swedish government of the time.  They accepted Eritrean refugees despite their long-standing relations with Ethiopians.  Our first batches of refugees were from Egypt and that expanded the base of activity in Europe.  A lot of hard work had to be done because Ethiopia was everything to Sweden: many of the advisors to the king were Swedish; the Swedes developed its police force and its air force.  How we did it simple: we put together a film; we sent a journalist of Turkish ancestry; he interviewed people and he came back with pictures.  We then met a prominent journalist who visited Ethiopia and interviewed the emperor as well as Mr. Ketema Yefru (who was then the Ethiopian Foreign Minister) and came back with pictures of Asmara and Massawa.  Then he interviewed me and my father (as representatives of the ELF), my sister (representing the women‘s movement), Isaias Teweldeberhan (the opera singer).  The program was shown to the Swedish public 3-4 times by popular demand...

This was 1968, a period of revolution.  It was during the Vietnam War and Mr. Palme [the Swedish leader] had condemned the US openly for its position in Vietnam and any American draft-dodger found home in Sweden.  The anti-Shah movement [against Iranian Emperor] was strong in Sweden, as well as the Palestinian movement and the famous Student Rebellion in Paris.  The whole atmosphere was revolutionary.  The ideology of the day was Marxism and various born-again branches of Marxism-Leninism and we belonged to that ideological thrust.  It represented one of the signs of the times; we became professional articulators of this ideology-cum-religion until we discovered that it was intellectual laziness because it was ready made, pres-a-porte, and everybody could wear whether there was intellectual substance or not.

Quite early during the struggle, we began to realize the implication of Marxism were too many from the point of view of the great ideological divide of the gigantic Soviet “vaticanization” of Marxism.  We realized this when the leaders of the USSR became the Caliphs of the Soviet Empire and the Defenders of the Faith.

When exactly?

It was clear around 75 and 76 that we were getting into things that were too big for us.   Specially when the Derg came to power and declared the faith as described about.  Then the Eritrean case was treated as if it were a family quarrel among Marxists.

The Labor Party in the ELF

The ELF was led by an openly secret movement known as the Labor Party which was openly Marxist.  Many thought I was one of the founders...it was not true.  It was already founded in 1968 by people like Saleh Iyay, [who moved back to Eritrea in 1992], Ustaz Mahmoud [formerly head of the ELF’s Department of Education, deceased in 1992] and of course the brilliant Azein Yassin. This was the strength of a culture that produced giants.  Until recently, when our friends in power [PFDJ]--one of the things I am very angry about is that they are eradicating culture, tradition.  The individual is much impoverished without his culture.  Traditional societies are very comfortable with their religion; they feel at home with it; it defines their culture, their behavior and more importantly, the most important institution: the family.  An institution without a family only increases the population of prostitutes and tourists, Thailand style.  One of the things we have to fight for is the continuation of our culture; religion should be controlled by religious leaders...The state, especially its security apparatus, has no business to interfere in these beautiful and inherited religions.

Let’s save why you are angry with “our friends in power” until the latter part of this interview.  You are somewhere in Sweden, you are highly educated, you are a Christian and a Highlander and, no doubt, you have heard of the excesses of the ELF leadership by now.  Why did not the message of “Nihnan-Ilamanan Manifesto” appeal to you?

I was in the field at the time.  When I joined the field in 1970, the ELF was neutered of its Tigrigna speakers.  They were 8 or 9 people; one of them the old fighter Gebehiwot Himbirti--who joined the struggle in 1963.  He was an extremely famous fighter...the rest either left the field or joined the PLF.  For us, it was obvious that the solution of splitting was not the obvious solution...

There are conflicting reports on Sryet Addis: the massacre of students who joined the armed struggle from Addis Ababa. Did it happen?

Yeah.  This was attested to by even the leaders.  But it is the conclusion that you draw that it is important...it was a repetition of the 5th Zone phenomenon...Many members from the fourth zone (Red Sea) were jailed. There was a lot of activity in 1970.  In 1969, the ELF leadership had a meeting in Adobha.  Shortly thereafter, as a counterpoint to that, the nascent PLF had its meeting in Sedoha Ela (in Denkalia) and following that, in 1970, there was the famous “Conference of Oman” which was headed by Sabbe and attended by my father, Tedla Bairu (who declined a post he was elected to) and the father of our revolution, Woldeab Woldemariam, who was elected to a post.  We discussed the possibility of forming an organization when I was in Europe because Qyada Ama (Supreme Command) committed major mistakes at the strategic level.  Among other things, they declared that henceforth and until the next Congress, the Foreign Office should not represent the Eritrean Revolution.  In other words, it was a kind of political coup d’etat severely hampering Sabbe which more or less created the congregation of the Oman Congress by Saleh Sabbe.Then there was chaos in the Eritrean Revolution.

When we met in Berlin, there were students from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Demascus (Yahia Jaber, and Dr. Omerein (two Omars) and others) and we assessed that there were errors but we decided that the solution is not an organizational split.  We felt Eritrea was too poor and too inexperienced.  Moreover, the fact that I am from Aqordat maybe I look at things slightly differently...

If Sabbe is the guy that recruited you originally, why didn’t you stick with him?

Somehow we went to different paths.  Sabbe brought money and arms, the staple food of any armed movement and he did it with elegance: he was using his deep knowledge of the Quran and Arabic language...he was also a poet.  He was using his personal qualities.  But then, I am not sure his solutions were always right; he tended to like the splitting type of solutions.  I considered him too traditional....

What led to his split from EPLF or the EPLF to split from him?

The EPLF was created in Seminawi Bahri after the split with Sabbe in 1976.  When he attended the Numeri organized Khartoum Conference, a meeting attended b Bereket Ab Habtelselassie, Abdella Idris and the Father of the Revolution, Woldeab Woldemariam, as well as the entire Revolutionary Council, it created tremors within the ELF.  The conference was supported by Iraq and it was regarded as a Pan Arab movement.  It created political ripples.  It offended even the Red Sea fighters.

Within the PLF, this step was regarded as too drastic and they severed the umbilical cord with him. This break this threw them into the warm embrace of Isaias. Osman Saleh Sabbe dealt without consulting anybody and the step was too big to take without consulting anyone.

You have held various roles in the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF).  Could you briefly tell us what they were?

As I said, in 1968 I was sent as representative of ELF to Stockholm by Sabbe and Idris Mohammed Adem.   I was recalled to the field to be a member of the Congress Preparatory Committee in 1970.  I became the chairman of the committee for the First National Congress.  This was a huge victory for the ELF.  The emperor being a wily politician understood that a congress held in Eritrea by the ELF would go a long way towards legitimizing the struggle.  So he did his best to stop the first congress.

Like what?

In the Sudan it was his security service.  Money was spent liberally to gather information.   The army was there seeking out the ELA [Eritrean Liberation Army].  In a short period of time, there were so many battles from Keren to the Sahel where our congress was held. 

The First National Congress

The congress was successful. It started near the end of 1970 and ended in early 1971. Delegates came from all over Eritrea, including Denkalia.  We stuck together for a whole month.  People got to know each other and members of the ELF.  There I had the honor of presenting the three programs of the ELF; I convinced the ELF to accept all three: the political, organizational and military program.  The congress accepted them as the political document of the revitalized ELF, which enabled Eritreans, regardless where they are, to speak with one voice.  Because of this, the ELF grew by leaps and bounds.

The Congress also elected its leadership and adopted programs.  The Executive Committee (EC) was elected directly by the Congress.  The four member committee had Idris Mohammed Adem as president; myself as the first VP and head of political office and president in absentia; Saleh Iyay, who was in Demascus and couldn’t attend the session, was elected to be in charge foreign relations; and Abdella Idris was elected to head the military office.  These four people were directly elected.  The reason we selected this organizational structure was to stop the dissolution of the ELF.  Despite Eritrea’s size and excellent transport facilities, because the Tigrigna did now know a lot about the Tigre and vice versa; despite the two religions being there since inception, more or less, these two reservoirs of culture were not known to each other.  The nationalities were as if they were non-existent.

The rest of the leadership--the Central Committee--were elected only as individuals but not for specific posts.  Among them they had to decide who gets whom, which would force dialog and compromise.  This is why there was continuous changes in posts and personnel. 

The success of the congress was this: for the first time, Eritreans were able to legitimize their struggle through a national congress, including internationally.  They could speak through the collective will, the resolutions of the congress.  It was a tremendous step towards the legitimizing of the struggle in the International Arena.  Militarily, we were able to move from the liberated zones to the outskirts of Asmara.  This opening which was made by the ELF may have created the emergence of the EPLF.

The Years between the Two Congresses (1971 - 1975)

The ELF made a breakthrough militarily.  After the Derg took over [overthrow of Haile Selassie I in 1974], despite the fact that the PLF [later EPLF] was touted as a progressive organization and the ELF was one for the Muslims, it was evident that the assumptions were in the mind of their makers.  The proof: when the Imperial System in Ethiopia collapsed, 5000-7,000 Eritreans joined the ELF; only about 1,000 joined the EPLF.  As far as errors and mistakes are concerned, I am not going to wash my hands and claim they are clean.   In politics, the “I am holier than thou attitude” is to be shunned, I think.

Tell us about “the Errors and Mistakes”

The first error was made, I believe, when we did not assess our situation properly.  We were slightly blinded; we were victims of our own success.  We saw the large number of Eritreans who joined us; the entire institution of Ethiopian imperialism--the civil service, the police, the army, the air force, even great sportsmen, musicians joined the ELF.  This blinded us and gave us the impression that the Garden of Eden was only a stone throw away from us.  And it seems that we were staking claims on this Garden of Eden.   

By that I mean, we did not assess what the situation was like in Ethiopia properly; we did not assess our situation internally; how to deal with the new: was it a threat? Was it a blessing?  Were we sufficiently prepared to assimilate a new element in large doses into our organization?  We failed, actually, to use the opportunity provided by the second congress to solve these opportunities, these problems which confronted us in 1975.  I don’t think we assessed the challenge by the EPLF because the ELF covered the huge middle ground; its support came not only in Eritrea but also from Eritreans in Ethiopia.  Also, because the traditions of the ELF in the international arena were highly developed, we did not depend on our own Hafash.  We did not collect money from our Eritrean communities.  It was help that came from our friends in our region.  The tradition of international relations was quite advanced; we had the language, we had the formulations we inherited from leading lights from Osman Sabbe who was an excellent example of how diplomatic relations should be conducted with charm and culture. 

You did not depend on Hafash?

Of course the armed struggle depended on Hafash: the boj-boj [meals provided by Eritrean civilians] is a perfect example.  I am talking about collecting money.  But there were contradictions within the ELF and the more contradiction within the ELF, the more the opportunity within the EPLF to grow.  And the fascist-Marxist regime in Addis was concentrating on our internal squabbles.  The organization unity was sacrificed at the altar of believing that the Garden of Eden was a stone throw away.

Which takes us to the Second National Congress.  Given the success of the First National Congress and the growth of the ELF between 1971 to 1975, why, in your opinion, were you not elected in ELF's Second National Congress?  By the way, was the 2nd congress held on schedule?

It was held 1975.   It was a scheduled congress. It was supposed to be after 3 years; it was one year behind--given the unexpected elements of the struggle, it was in time. It was peculiar; it wasn’t a split with the ELF; it was a split within the Labor Party. 

Meaning Direction?

Our contradiction within the Labor Party had gone so far we started mistrusting each other.  Party members who were inside the battlefield had their own assessments of the major players within the party.  There was an element of mistrust and ill-feeling...

Is this typical political maneuvering?

I think the new element--the new comers--had a role to play.  Tigrigna and many of them educated...it changed the balance of roles and roles of personalities.  Quite naturally, this created mistrust on motives.  We did not know how to handle them. 

All the leadership was in the Labor Party?

I think the most important players were in the Labor Party.  The ideological split was a consequence of the realization that there was a Marxist-Leninist movement [The Labor Party] within he ELF.  This necessitated the creation of the adherents of the Ba’ath Party, the Qoumiyeen, and Ahmed Ismail’s (who was in the Revolutionary Council) Islamist movement. Ahmed Ismail felt that within the linguistic and culture hierarchy, Islam was not getting a good deal.  That was an element.  There was a second element...

THE SECOND ELEMENT

The second element was just as influential in creating rancor.  After our military success around Asmara (in 1975), Isaias [President Isaias Afwerki] and I met in a village called Ametsi (not far from Asmara)....

So, the rumor of your stealth meeting is true?

Actually, that wasn’t the first time.  We [representatives of the Labor Party and the PLF] had been meeting in Aden [Yemen] from 1972 onwards under the umbrella of the progressive (actually, Marxist/Maoist) regime of Aden.   Saleh Iyay and myself representing the Labor Party/ELF and Bahdouri [now Eritrean Ambassador to UN], Woldenkiel Gebremariam (a member of the PLF office in Aden) representing the PLF.  At a certain stage, the negotiation was taken over by the prominent revolutionary Ramadan Mohammed Nur.  By 1974, the PLF decided to send us Mr. Isaias Afwerki.  We were in Aden because the Yemenis would not let us take our arms from Yemen under the guise that a civil war was raging in Eritrea.  Numeri [formerly President of Sudan] had closed everything in Sudan.  Eventually, four boats of arms were secured; two were routed to Denkalia, two via Sudan.

In any event, we met with Isaias and we concluded an agreement, under the auspices of the Yemenis, in the presidential palace, documents were signed and related ceremonies were conducted. 

What was the agreement about?

Basically that we the progressives should unite first; then the Eritrean fronts could merge at a later date.

I took the trouble to give you the details of the signing ceremony because, at a certain stage, it was announced by Isaias Afwerki, that a meeting had taken place between the ELF and PLF.  But he said that the meeting was held in Baghdad, not Aden. 

This was regarded as living proof by non-labor party ELF members for suspicion.  Because it was seen not just an ideological union, but a meeting of Tigrigna speakers because there were two high profile Tigrigna speakers in the meeting.   This sent negative tremors within the ELF. 

The Ametsi deal, my meeting with Isaias, was a confirmation of the suspicion. Except now the “Tigrigna connection” was more pronounced than the “Marxist connection.” 

What was the real reason for meeting Isias at Ametsi in 1975?

The Ametsi deal was this: the two organizations should not return to status quo ante: organizational confrontation.  Each should go to its congress and emphasize unity and cooperation.  And then, probably a military strategy to engage the enemy wherever he has the upper hand...

OK, Back to the drama of the Second Congress...

The Second Congress was a divided congress.  The main axis was within the labor party.  My intentions were suspect and to remove me from the leadership became critical.  This was strongly supported by Abu Ala [from Iraq’s Baath Party].  Many of the ballots voting for me were thrown.  Nevertheless, I felt it was best to leave the ELF in peace.  Then I could concentrate on Labor Party work.

Now here is the organizational error: Unlike the First Congress, in the Second Congress the Executive Committee was not elected by direct vote. The revolutionary council was elected which in turn elected the Executive Committee.  And so, instead of stabilization of the ELF; politicking and polarization started.  And these polarizations contributed to its downfall.  This was avoided in the First Congress because the Executive Committee was elected directly.  The Second Congress was warned of this danger mainly by me. I don’t want to take credit for this; it was a matter of conviction and I don’t want to attach a degree of prophecy to it.  Simply put, I was convinced in a different kind of organizational structure...

The “Gedim” vs “Mustejid” [veteran fighter vs new recruit] polarization continued.  And there was always a regional/religious/ethnic baggage to it.

The MaMaGu Movement

Within the ELF, I created another organization: “Makelawi Marxiawi Gujle” (Ma.Ma.Gu.)  The reason we did that and the reason we called it Ma.Ma.Gu was to show that this was an ideological split and not a spit within the ELF.  Meaning, if the elements which wanted to take military steps to solve contradiction approached us, we would tell them we are Ma.Ma.Gu.   When the military step was taken...

When?

In 1977, with battalion 149.  It was a step taken by Abdella Idris. I should avoid talking about this, because it would not be fair to talk about things from my perspective which would have different interpretation by others...we decided to change Ma. Ma. Gu to Eritrean Democratic Movement (EDM).  We formally rejected much of Marxism-Leninism (this was in 1977) and the emphasis became democracy.

What was EDM calling for?

It was calling for a speedy congress--an extra congress--to resolve the contradictions of the ELF.  When the military steps were taken, we suggested that we should move to Hazemo [in the Senafe/Adi Keyh zone of the Eritrean highlands] and be stationed as far away as possible from centers of confrontation.  The religious element was lurking was there, the kebesa metahit [highland/lowland] was there...it was very hard to define because it resulted in a very polarized ELF...at the personality level, there were contradictions, also...The ELF was not itself.

At the time, the EPLF which used to prophesize “Ama ktHaQiQ iya”[ELF will dissolve away] had the right to say...and it did say...aybelnando [we told you so]?

Yeah.  But the “aybelnan do” attitude was expressed much earlier by Isaias; as early as “nhnan ilaman.”  The new element who had not joined PLF/EPLF, joined them after the contradictions emerged. 

THE FALLUL MOVEMENT

That was the EDM.  What about the Fallul Movement?

They are one and the same!  The guys in Kifli Zena [the Information and Propaganda Section of the ELF] were looking for a term that would describe this explosion to the rank and file and mostly to the new recruits (the “mustejdin“)  They borrowed a term from the political vocabulary of Addis: a moniker the Derg used to apply to the EPRP [Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party] who were described as anarchists.  The Kifli Zena picked up the word and translated it to “Qeydi Betek” [Rein Breaker].  But that was a compound word and there was an element of liberation to the phrase so they chose a word they thought would have a negative connotation: “fallul.”   It shouldn’t have a negative connotation because “fallul kede gobezai” is the adventures of a young man. 

Fallul was the EDM.  I was one of its founders and its general secretary.  Our main aim was to stop the disintegration of the ELF and we thought Abdella Idris was playing a negative role...

Because?

Throughout his career he opted for the quick solution which was the military solution.  My friend Burhan Blata [now in the Eritrean Parliament] did not like the military solution; Ibrahim Mohammed Ali [now leader of the Eritrean Alliance Movement] did not like the military solution.

Why has Ibrahim Mohammed Ali grown to be so militant of late, then?

I hear so nowadays...but my experience with him was very positive. He is an extremely decent human being...my experience with him is an extremely positive one....

If your “main aim was to stop the disintegration of the ELF”, isn’t it ironic the Fallul is seen as THE cause for the disintegration of the ELF?

The philosopher Carl Popper, whose work had a profound influence on me, a man who fought Marxism intellectually, the articulator of the Paradigm Shift and developer of “the falsification theory“, had this to say in “The Open and Closed Society“: Truth can be sought only by the process of falsification.  

Unfortunately, if you look at things from the “consequence” point of view--which is the difference between the experienced and inexperienced politician who concentrates on blueprints, planning without concentrating on deviations--if one looks at things from the “consequence“ stand point, I wouldn’t blame people who blame the EDM with the disintegration of the ELF.  As a result of what took place, ELF was neutered of thousands of its people: as a result of self-defense and political choice, the well armed, well-trained members of the ELF chose to join the EPLF.  And this process continued...The presence of the EDM was a continuous challenge to the ELF and the ELF was forced to make choices.   EDM’s platform was a continuous condemnation of the ELF.  So, yes, if you look at it from the tail end of it, one can say “gedifomna indiyom keydom” [they abandoned us].

In reality, the exodus was caused by the leadership of the ELF.  They shoot to kill, and they hit your ear and then they blame the victim for surviving the assassination attempt.  Instead of crying over spilt milk, just don’t spill the milk.

The ELF was removed from the armed struggle.  The central distinction between EDM and the other organizations is that the EDM came during the life of the ELF and the others came after the demise of the ELF.  EDM was a genuine organization within the bosom of the ELF. 

Sometime between 1982 and 1984, while I was in Baghdad, some of the cadres of the EDM had a meeting.  The EDM split into two: because of their alliance with TPLF, some felt they had to form a new party.  They added the obligatory “P” to “EDM” and became “EPDM.”

“P” for Popular or “P” for People?

“P” for People.  For reasons known only to themselves, while we the EDM went to Asmara, they, the EPDM went to Addis.  I think this is a fair assessment of the split.

You mean they developed pro-Ethiopia tendencies?

I do not care to judge.  But let the facts speak for themselves.  In reality while we moved towards Asmara, they moved to Addis. 

Sort of like the Saghem movement?

Yeah.  Actually, when Saghem was split; “Saghem-Qetsil” allied itself with EPDM which, as I said, was allied with TPLF...

[The EDM with a P is known by its Tigrigna accronym as De.Ma.Ha.E.]  What was the agenda of DeMaHaE besides wanting to go to Addis?

The agenda of DeMaHaE has not been declared, in all fairness.  The only thing we know is that around 1982-84, they identified their enemies which was the EPLF and the leader of the EDM, Herui,  whom they regarded as a feudalist.  And they identified their friend as the TPLF.   

Is one of the founders, Gebrehan Zere, presumed dead?

That is what we hear.  Dead men don’t talk.

One of the common criticisms of the “Gedim” [old establishment] ELF was that the EDM was a product of “highland chauvinism” and that you exploited these raw passions of new recruits.  What is your response?

I can understand how people would say that because of the nature of the large influx to the ELF.  THE ELF organization at that time was not prepared to accommodate such an influx in such a short time and also the quality of the influx from the point of view of quality, education and experience.  It really unsettled the traditional views of recruitment, central organizational formulation in the armed struggle.  The old ELF recruited by testing loyalty, staying power, and motives.  But now, in 1974-75, a number of reasons caused by the sudden changes in Ethiopia actually caught the ELF by surprise.  And so, unfortunately for us, it came during the preparation for the Second Congress.  And already between the First and the Second Congress, there had developed ill-feelings between the Labor Party and the Conservatives of the ELF and the Pan- Arab Movement (such as the Ba’ath, Qewmiyeen the Islamist..)

Who were the Conservatives?

People like Ibrahim Idris,  Hamid Turki [now in jihad]; the Baathist were led by Jaffer Assad.    All the Labor Party leadership including myself was regarded as political opponents by the conservatives.   And the “new element” [new recruits] were from the highlands and they were Tigrigna speakers.

Then, actually, ELF felt threatened by this influx who identified only one name which was my name.  Only my name was recognizable to them [the new recruits.]  And there was a challenge from the EPLF.  The conservatives felt our organization is being taken away from us.  And this is being organized around the personality of Herui, no amount of denial could free me from the allegation being made. 

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, which is to say, this:  In 1975, when groups were splitting from ELF, I remained with ELF.  I was only one of  9 or 10 [of the Gedim Highlanders] who stayed.  That was the time to be a “Tigrigna Chauvinist” when new organizations were being formed opposed to the traditional leadership of ELF.

During the congress itself and before it, the polarization within the Labor Party became quite obvious.  And so we had an agreement within the labor party itself that in order to win the election we needed the support of the influx [the new recruits] to the advantage of the Labor party and I was tasked with working out a list [of potential leaders from the new recruits] who would be acceptable to the central committee members of the Labor Party .  We floated a separate list [of candidates] which was known to the Central Committee of the Labor Party but not to the general membership of the Second Congress. And even then, there were contradictions within the central committee.  Despite that fact that there was a deal between us [Herui and the rest of the leaders of the Labor Party], it appeared that a split occurred on the basis of Tigrigna and non-Tigrigna.   The representatives of Libya, Sudan and especially Iraq gave an ultimatum: if you wish to have our support,  if you wish our finances, get rid of this guy [Herui.].  

That was the beginning of the end of the ELF. What is your opinion of the various ELF offshoot organizations that have sprang since 1981?

Of course, we have to take these organizations individually.  The way the contradictions emerged within the ELF is important.  The polarization within the field developed between the security forces represented by Melake Tekle and Abdella Idris.  We can assume the Gedim/Jedid, the linguistic, traditional elements of Eritrean disunity was there.  Whenever there is contradictions, these elements arrange and rearrange themselves.  It is up to us democrats to resolve these issues once and for all.

Under pressure of the EPLF and the TPLF (the external element to the equation), it became impossible for the organization to survive in its old form and they withdrew to the Sudan.  It is when they withdrew that the real wild dogs pf the ELF appeared in their true selves.  By that I mean, Abdella Idris with some of the armaments, created his own post and he tried to bring the others into it and imprisoned many including Ahmed Nasser.  People were trying to liquidate each other, the entire thing became bloody especially in Tehadai Kerokon [Sudan]. 

Speaking of liquidating each other, there was an assassination attempt on you during that period, right?

It was about the time Osman Ajib [leader of the pro-Ba’ath organization within the ELF] was assassinated.  We were about to make an alliance with Legnat A’sewra [Revolutionary Council]

Who was behind the assassination attempt?

The Sudanese authorities asked me the same question.  We said it could only be the Derg [Ethiopian Government] authorities.  Later, we heard it was the security services of the ELF.  But this is pure speculation and it is not fair...it is not fair.....

Sorry I brought it up...let’s continue...

People went to their primordial in the absence of a political organization that would keep them together by their bootstraps.  The element of unity were discarded and the element of disunity became king: regional, religious, linguistic and geographic affiliation. 

All the organizations that were created after that reflect the disunity.  You wouldn’t assume these organizations reflected the ELF.  (1) Saleh Iyay allied with Osman Sabe; (2) the revolutionary council continued with the Labor Party which continued with Ahmed Nasser and Ibrahim Mohammed Ali;  (3) Zemihret and Dr. Giorgis (the “Saghem” people) decided “let’s pick a traditional leader” and they picked Ibrahim Totil; (4) Abdella Idris became himself which is Beni-Amer oriented.  And they continued this way.  They tried to come to the field but once it was dominated by the EPLF/TPLF alliance it was impossible for them to reassert themselves in the armed struggle again.

And then they lived their lives separately floating in the Diaspora community.  Some in Saudi Arabia and the Revolutionary Council in Germany and the West.  And then during the national independence period, for reasons which are not self-evident, they decided not to participate in the referendum.  With the exception of Abdella Idris...

Abdella Idris did participate in the referendum?

He did.  Being a tactician of considerable vintage.  At least he voted and he encouraged his followers to participate in the referendum...

It so appears now and it appears then they denied themselves legitimacy and they became Diaspora politicians.   And legitimate power was left in the hands of EPLF and later PFDJ.  At least to the casual observer, it appears they lived a life of political lamentation in the Diaspora.  And over the years, there was an element of political decay and disappointment until revitalization took place when the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia broke out.  This drastic event brought the various organizations of the alliance together.  Although I don’t know the exact nature of their association with the Ethiopian government and what the justification is, it seems that they decided to retain the autonomy of the various organizations while at the same time agreeing on the bare minimum which is the replacement of, as they call it, “the EPLF Government” by this or the other means.

Here in Sweden, during the recent conference we held, when I was interviewed, they asked me whether I should condemn the alliance.  I was surprised by this question.  The first thing I wanted to know was whether they were condemned by the Eritrean government.  They told me “no.” My response was: “ how can an individual condemn them when the government hasn’t?”   The government cannot just condemn them, it should make its case in a court of law where they can be charged and they can defend themselves.  I am not in the business of smear casting when evidence is not evident. But nobody can take their birthright or their right to participate in the politics of their country.  And also, they have the right not only to defend themselves in a court of law but they have the right to formulate accusations even against the government.

All this goes into the luggage of citizenship.  From this point of view, I encourage them in the democratic demand, which is being made by the Eritrean people.  That is why at the Stockholm Conference probably the most important resolution passed was that a historic compromise must be achieved and a massive reconciliation drive must be undertaken because you can call people fifth columnist and they can defend themselves.  But you don’t have the right to call entire regions west of Adi Tekelezin as Fifth Columnist...who the hell are you to depict half of Eritrea as Fifth Columnist?

You took a different path from the ‘Alliance.’  You joined the EPLF after the liberation of Massawa?  Why?  Did you consult with your followers before you did?

We were talking to each other closely before that. At the liberation of Massawa, what happened was the two organizations (EDM and EPLF), instead of negotiation between two organizations, actually became one.  The word is “tesenbiren”.  We joined EPLF and became full members.  We became ordinary fighters.

And what was your new position with the EPLF?  

A simple soldier.  And yes, I absolutely consulted with my people...with the exception of EDM with a P.

You are associated with so many Eritrean organizations.   Is the reason you set up so many of them that you get bored easily?

How many organizations have I set up?  The truth of the matter is: I was a member of ELM/Haraka [Mahber Showate] and the founders of that organization are known.  I was a member of the ELF and you know the founders.  I was merely a member.  And then the Labor Party which we mentioned.  It was already set up in 1968- 69.  The only organization which I was involved [in its creation] was Ma.Ma.Gu and later EDM [aka Fallul.]  And we brought the EDM to its natural organization and it lived up to its natural conclusion.  So the only organization I set up was not left or abandoned but brought to its natural conclusion.  Now, several decades later,  with literally thousands and thousands of Eritreans, we are linking hands to save our country and people from total disaster.   And this movement for salvation of Eritrea and implementation of democracy was not started by me but by literally thousands of Eritreans. The present movement has not been set by me.

Speaking of organizations, can you assume any position in an organization except that of a leader?

In African politics, we use vintage terms.  And you can be easily misled and you can think into believing you are making realistic political organization.  We are talking through our hats and we think we are talking politically but we are actually talking beyond each other.  The safest one is to use the most neutral ones as used in political circumstances.  Such as:  that a political movement is a project, like a business project.  The central is idea is that it is put up, it is being financed, it is a project, and then competent people in prominent roles are carefully selected and then execute the plan, etc, etc.  Putting up a political party is like putting together a business project.  So, usually, those who propose  such a project are best employed as its managers.  Otherwise, a process of family [nepotism] might follow.  If the [right] combination is not made, unexpected errors follow and the project might collapse. 

The myth was spread that this [the Herui family] was a power mongering family by the same propaganda machine knowing full well in the past decade, although I was expressing my views in the parliament and outside the parliament, I have never tried to set up an organization which could or might be construed as illegal by the government.  I could have been a “yes man” and accepted any position in the ministry or built an opposition party which would have led to jail terms , etc.  That would have been the definition of power mongering.  Leadership post without a meaningful project has never been of interest to me.

Eritrea was liberated in 1991.  What was your role--political or otherwise-- between 1991 and 2000?

I was a member of the Assembly until 1994. 

Elected?

Actually, selected.  Along with people like Saleh Iyay, Seid Naud, Mohammed Nur Ahmed, Zahra Jaber and Burhan Blata. 

Does the Baito meet?

Yes, that is where I used to formulate my opinion which I understand we will talk about later. We met no less than 6-7 times; a minimum of  twice a year.  the presidents’ museum. 

The Baito is not at the same place that your father and the Eritrean Assembly of the 1950s met, is it?

Actually where my father [and the Assembly ]met is now the Ministry of Education. 

So what did you do after 1994?

With the exception of Zahra Jaber and [her husband] Mohammed Nur Ahmed, all the non-EPLF nationalists (like Naud, Iyay and myself) were not nominated to the Baito after the EPLF Congress.  In my case, there was no post offered after 1994.  I decided to be a private citizen and went into business for myself.  The first business that I, in conjunction with an expatriate Sudanese of Syrian origin, started had to do with Gum Arabic.    And it became very successful and we created employment; we created a market.  We were growing at a tremendous speed.  At the end of 1994 or 1995, I traveled to Sweden to visit my family.    [While there], I got a call from my Sudanese friend who told me that the government had notified him to leave the country within 48 hours.  And so, he said, “ I am going to fly to Addis.”   I flew there and I inquired as to the background of the whole story.  He said he was in the dark.  He said, “since I am not a diplomat, I don‘t understand.  Expulsion requires certain diplomatic steps; I should have been kept in prison until I was accused of something of definite and proven guilty.  Now, I cannot give you a definite answer as to why I was kicked out.”

I went back to Asmara to find out.  To make the story short, nobody was able and willing to give me an explanation.  And today there is no export of Gum Arabic.  We used to clean it and pack it and give it an Eritrean nationalism.  Unfortunately this business died.  I went into debt; the business  collapsed:  bankruptcy.  [In bankruptcy], people under you become unemployed.  We employed 80 - 100 people per day; 5 administrative positions in Asmara;  20 in Tesseney.

Let’s talk about something sensitive.   You are accused of having been an excessive drinker while you were in Asmara in the late 1990s.  To an extent that you used to attend Bayto meetings under the influence of alcohol.  Would you like to comment on that? 

This is usually...That doesn’t usually merit an answer.  Who is accusing whom? Let’s talk about the issues I raised at the Assembly and let your readers judge:

(1) Why isn’t Arabic our official language.  I stated that Arabic is an Eritrean national language and should be declared so; (2) What is our foreign policy.  Their response of  “national interest” as if other nations did not exist is not sufficient and I said so; (3) What is our economic policy.  Etc, etc.

So all the questions I raised were central to the unity and development of our country.   Do you think these kinds of questions would be raised by someone who is....I am sorry to say that this is nothing but a cheap vilification campaign.   It is their way to vilify and blacken. 

What is your view of the PFDJ?

In the first article that I wrote in the process of our democratic debate, I said I believe we need to make a distinction between EPLF and PFDJ.  The “Hafash” movements (hafash wdbat) of the EPLF were dismantled without notification around 1988.  During Atlanta [the Carter sponsored peace talks held in Atlanta] and Afabet [the liberation of Afabet], when Eritrea was moving towards victory, they [the mass organizations] were expected to close shop.  This was regarded as very strange, a tremendous amount of bitterness ensued.  The leadership felt it was the best time to do it to prevent a power struggle.  And the second step was ERA [Eritrean Relief Association] was dismantled.  Its old structure was changed in Khartoum and the liberated zones.  ERA had played the role of the foreign office.  Many of the educated Eritreans partook in it; they were the international link of the EPLF in the old organization form.  Petros Ba’atay (of “G-13“ fame ) was removed and replaced by Tekie Beyene [now the governor of the Central Bank of Eritrea].  ERA was requested to function from Sudan and later from the field.   After independence, the process of gradual dismantling of EPLF was continued.  In the end, at the Third Congress [of EPLF], the people elected were the new guys, not the old fighters, the old legends, but the ones who reaped the highest votes were the people associated with books and pens rather than heroic feats in the battlefield.  And, a new power base emerged.  The old EPLF was being  swallowed by PFDJ.  And gradually, the power center of PFDJ was reduced to no more than 3, maximum 5 people.  None of them, with the exception of the President of the Republic, were old fighters of EPLF vintage.   One could clearly see the difference between the blue and white....

Which was Blue and which was White?

It doesn’t matter; I am comparing it with the Nile River, one river from two difference sources.   The point is that this seems to have strengthened the hands of the President of the Republic to the detriment of the leading figures of the EPLF which, I believe, is the reason for the crack or structural crisis right now.

Which takes us to the present.  Why is your political activity centered in Europe and not Eritrea?

The first question people ask you is “how come people like Herui are staying abroad for more than 7 months and plunging into the political debate not in Eritrea?”    There [in Eritrea], you have a media which is totally dominated not only by the party but the President of the Republic himself.  He is the lead player in Eritrean politics, economy and everything else.  And the crystallization of ideas needed to be done from abroad.  But no movement is worth its salt unless it is planted inside the country . We are laying the preparation ground for the new political language and infrastructure inside Eritrea.  What is said from abroad is going to be the staple in Eritrea.  The leaders of the government know it.  The political parties, however they try to stop it, will mushroom in Eritrea.  We have reached the stage where nobody is scared of imprisonment of anything worse. But we are not going to be pushed to making a political agenda which is not our own.  We will make one when we are good and ready.

You are now politically active in Sweden, exactly where you were 33 years ago.  The UN is involved in defining the future Eritrea, exactly what it was doing 55 years ago.  Does this give you a sense of Deja vu?

There is an element of deja vu but this is far more serious.  We never expected to fight a war with Ethiopia; neither the government, nor the people.  With the exception of some political observers, nobody expected a war.  The worsening of the relationship with the Sudan was not expected. Whereas in 1968 I was sent by the high council to Sweden to organize Eritrean intellectuals who were avoiding the Jebha (ELF), now we are facing a situation where the Tigrignas dominate the politics of Eritrea and I am not sure that is going to help the unity of Eritrea.....

Let's go to 1998: the breakout of war between Eritrea and Ethiopia.  This has been discussed ad nausea so I want you to approach it from a different angle.  Could you talk about the war in the context of an old ELF book "The Strategy For Victory ." (1974).  You wrote that, right?

Actually, yes, I wrote it.  Here is the summary of the book:

Our armed struggle will reach a point when it will be sufficiently developed to meet the Ethiopian force in Dien Piam Phu type of war.  Taking into consideration, the justness of Eritrean case, the heroism of the Eritrean people, the preparation, Eritrea can win this type of war.  Eritrea can establish a government.

Since Ethiopia is not only a representative of African independence but a victim of the fascist axis and, as a result, the Emperor was regarded in line with people like Tito--people who survive nazi-fascist onslaught on civilization and small nations of the world.  And so, in the new post-war international rearrangement as reflected in the UN, Haile selassie was an important personality.  He was also a key player in the Cold War, especially because of Kagnew, etc, etc. 

An independent Eritrea will not have a chance. It will be possible for the Ethiopian army to organize itself for a 2nd engagement.  The question is raised: Can Eritrea win?  Of course it can.  But it cannot win endlessly taking the resource of Ethiopian demographics and international relations.  Unless....

Unless Eritrea secures support from the region and full support from at least one nation.  And what we had in mind was the Middle East supporting Eritrea and the full support coming from the Sudan. 

This was the strategy for victory.  And it worked for us; and that is how the Eritrean people achieved Eritrean independence.

Now, from this strategic point of view, look at our relationship during the recent engagement with Ethiopia.  Our relationship with the Sudan was severed and an element of survival from a possible onslaught was missing.

Yemane Gebreab, the political director of PFDJ, and Advisor to the President, was in the Oakland area a couple of weeks ago.  During the Q & A session, he said the equivalent of Eritrea’s mending of relationship with its neighbors will be dictated only by national interest.  In the context of the Sudan, he said that this meant we should not expect Eritrea to have the type of relationship of excessive love we used to have [in the 1980s.]

Political calculation is less important than our organic interest. If we have a strong national unity, how can we fear our region?  We fear it only if we are at odds with each other; if we are not united.   We have to avoid being drawn the so-called “Tigrigna cultural complex” (Tigrai/Tigrigna) or the so-called  “Arab-Muslim” complex.  Both threaten and put an end to the Eritrean identity.  If we have a covenant to what the Eritrean identity is, then we have a conflict-free relationship with our region.  Our national interest requires an organic relationship with our brothers and sisters in the region, not vice versa. 

Which takes us to the realm of “could have, would have, should have.” Let’s say you are the president of the Republic of Eritrea.  And you had been the president since 1991.  What would you have done differently?

First, allow me to remove the presumptuousness in my answers because natural humility requires it.

Like all Eritreans, I have an idea. If the resolutions of the Stockholm Conference are anything to go by, I share the ideas embedded in those resolutions.  But to focus, for good management, national unity is very important.  And so, national unity is important because we cannot live in a nation where the inhabitants of the nation feel threatened by each other or live in a nation where they feel like they are second class citizens.  So, let’s discuss, a few of the dimensions of national unity. 

First of all, a full fledged sovereign state, especially a new one, like our country, needs to have an official language or languages.   Now, strange as it might seem, we don’t have one.  Precisely because it was a ruse by which the acceptance of the Arabic language as one of the official languages could be avoided..  So we are given the story of the nine nationalities who speak different languages and a laissez fare ideology giving equal opportunity to develop freely and the process of development will show us which one will be that national language of Eritrea.  But, I think any good old Eritrean can recognize the cynicism behind this formulation.  Because they don’t have the freedom touted by the advocates of mother tongues vs official languages  because, already, Tigrigna is the champion before the word go.

Second, is the idea that religious affairs are controlled by the state.  Worse, they are controlled by the security branches of the state.   So the state appropriates the monopoly of religious faith, the morality and ethics that ensues from it, the ethos of shaping an Eritrean family.  This has tended to stifle Eritrean unity.  It is quite possible that many Muslims regard this as an instrument of limiting their cultural space.  And that is a very important dimension.

Third, there is the relationship between unity and economy.  You cannot declare all land the property of the government and give the real or imagined feeling that many areas that belong to the nationalities of the western lowlands are being taken away from them and given to the highlanders.  This is the conventional wisdom in Eritrean politics.  And the fact that the Eritrean economy is dominated by the party state has distorted the market and is quite possible that the trade merchants of Eritrea are deliberately being excluded from the Eritrean market.   This has to do with the idea of equal opportunity.

I think the list could be widened.  Consider the geopolitical relation in our area.  If we accept that unity in Eritrea is central, then we have to accept the relationship in our region is organic and not a matter of political calculation.

Because of its limited resources, democracy is central to the unity of Eritrea.  We cannot have a situation, an absurd situation fermented by the propaganda machine of the PFDJ, where the Tigrigna became “anti-democracy” and the non-Tigrigna became “pro-democracy.”  And this is a horrible, disgusting and I cannot find a word to describe such an artificial dichotomy among Eritreans.  In actual fact,, democracy is important for both. They are trying to give the impression that democracy is some sort of jihad.  the democratic idea is NOT jihad!  Please convey this message to our people...

Final Question: Who is your hero?  Who did you look up to as a young person?  Why?

Hmmm.  Am I allowed to name my father as a hero?

I consider my father my hero.

Then my hero is my father.  Absolutely. 

Are you aware of what PFDJ insiders are saying?  “Tedla Bairu messed around with our first constitution; now, his son, Herui Tedla Bairu, wants to mess around with our new constitution...”

Maybe they are right!  At least someone has a sense of humor!

[End of Part 1, To Be Continued...]

Part 2

GOALS of ELECTIONS 2001

Let’s begin with the Goals of December Elections 2001.  In the Stockholm Conference, you said that it is really about 4 elections:  elections at the county, provincial, administrative zone level; elections at the municipal level local; elections to the national parliament and elections to the presidential office.  Are you saying these “should” be the Goals of Election 2001 or are you saying these “are” the goals according to your understanding? 

I am saying the above “should” be the Goals of December Election 2001.   Remember, we advocated that in August 2000, months before the Government of Eritrea announced that elections would be held in 2001. There were two ways of dealing with the democracy issue.  The rules of the game of democracy are, of course, elections and the rules that guide the electoral process.  Not so much the content or philosophy--which is the “why”-- but the mechanics, the “how.”  And this is the minimalist approach to the aim.  As many thinkers have approached the subject matter, a Parliament of Independents cannot be an end in itself because the assumption would be the individual members would carry their individual ideas and programs to the parliament whereas these ideas are supposed to coalesce in the parliament around central issues.  In fact, for a modern democracy to function, the parliament must be the result of party competition.   But in the Eritrean situation, a new country was established and therefore a new legitimacy should be established.   

Had the liberation organizations been there in the achievement of the liberation together, without contradictions, another form of parliamentary process, a less antagonistic one, would have evolved.  But, in our case, because of the contradictory nature of the ELF and EPLF and other minor organizations, it appears that legitimacy was monopolized by the victorious front.  And so, then, the power that was achieved by the barrel of the gun continued without actually asking the ordinary people to participate in it.  

And so, the political struggle, from the political/ideological point of view, became a quarrel between the ELF and EPLF, at least in the mind of ordinary Eritreans.  And so, the necessity of creating the Third Way or the Third Path, which is the path of the Eritrean people as such, is the objective of the Stockholm Conference.  In other words, in order for the people to take what is really there from the mid-wife role of the Armed Struggle, then a parliament made of independents at three levels was necessary so that political parties free from the mental and physical and intellectual control of the divided proponents of the armed struggle could emerge.    That was the basic intention of the Parliament of Independents and not, as many think, the idea of doing away with the instrumentality of political parties.  

So the Parliament of Independents is a forerunner to a Parliament of Political Parties?

Yes, that is it.  This is the whole idea.  As I pointed out in my first article, for any parliamentary democracy to succeed there should be more than two parties represented in it.  

A minimum of three?

A minimum of two.  At least two.  But we have to take into consideration that the one does not exclude the other.  By that I mean, the intention of creating political parties afresh from issues that might spring up in the parliament does not exclude the fact that there should be a law that governs the creation of political parties.  

All of us have recently read that the government is considering, you know, the idea of a parliament of independents.  And so, many people are wondering whether the government has accepted the goals of the Stockholm Conference.  It is difficult to claim that this is true.  But it should be commented that in order for the goals to be accepted, then all the ideas that are represented in the two articles that are there regarding democracy in Eritrea--published in August 8 and August 25 of 2000--must also be considered.  By that I mean, the principle of residence is an important component of this type of electoral package.

Could you explain what you mean by the “principle of residence”?

The idea behind the “principle of residence” is that an individual candidate, a potential candidate for office, must satisfy a basic condition: residence in a given area for two years.  Here is where the misunderstanding lies because people think this [residency requirement] can be achieved only by “origin.”  But, there are two ways to meet this condition: origin or adoption.  

Supposing, I belong to a village X or the Village V.  One way to approach the villagers is to say: “I’d like to be a representative because my forefathers have lived here for x number of years...” and then in accordance to the rules of residency, the inhabitants of my village would respond, “yes, we know that you are from our village.” But they may also say, “but we don’t know you; you haven’t lived amongst us.”  But let’s say someone whose forefathers haven’t lived there and are not originally from the area in question but he has lived there for at least 2 years.  The villagers would then say, “yes, although your origin is not from our village, you are acquainted with our village and therefore we accept your candidacy.”

At this point, I can imagine our readers are going to say, “aye Herui, a real felasfa!  What an unrealistic philosopher!  He doesn’t know the Eritrean village.”  They will say that at the “Adi” level, people do not necessarily make decisions rationally based on their best interest but rather on sentimental, primordial, ethnic, and feudal reasons.   So the guy who really didn’t live there, or barely lived there but has famous ancestors, has a leg up because the villagers would say, “izi’ko kusto wedi questo iyu”, or “fulan wed fulan” [this is the son of so-and-so], It will be “aboKa merq, aboKa r’gem.” [bless your genes, curse your genes]

I am always fascinated when Eritreans are presented as being so mature and so nationalistic when we analyze the success of our armed struggle; but they are always presented as backward and irrational when we talk about democracy.

The scenario you speak of, I doubt it very much that it would happen.  And this has to go back to the experience of the people, in relation to the armed struggle.  In other words, they accepted the guidance of members of the major organizations during the armed struggle without raising the question of let’s say ethnic, sentimental, feudal or other considerations.    Even today, the villagers are dominated not so much by, let’s say by the inhabitants whose forefathers are originally from the village or the other alternative by individuals who have become members of the village by adoption but rather by the cadre ship of the PFDJ who have nothing to do with the two principles that are being discussed...

As the Tigre proverb has it, “HaQo y’tHamreget....”

I don’t know about that.  The two-year residency requirement, either by origin or adoption, would get the totalitarian nature of PFDJ rule out of the process and give back the political lever to the inhabitants of the village.  This is the intention behind the Principle of Residency.  And so, the juxtaposition is not between the original villager and the adopted villager because both will preserve Eritrean culture and traditions whereas the cadre of the totalitarian PFDJ would like to renew or reshape it in accordance with its likes.  That is where the struggle is.   And what Eritreans are saying--whether by origin or adoption--is we do not like the reshaping of Eritrea from the reshaping blueprint of the PFDJ Social Engineering Board.

Are we talking here about the re-designation or renaming of the traditional provinces?

No.  No.  Here we are talking about the grand social engineering idea of the PFDJ which says that we must impose the revolutionary ideas that evolved during the armed struggle and that we must create “Hadash Eritrea.”  Or “Eritrea Nova” in the “Asmarino” idiom.  So that the Eritrea that everybody fought for is not the Eritrea that one gets.  So, what you see is not what you get, as the song goes.

OFFICIAL LANGUAGES AS UNIFYING FORCE

Can you give examples of the “social engineering”, whether it has succeeded or failed, that is contrary to the wishes of Eritreans?

Absolutely.  One, and this is a very important point at the level of languages, is the fact the two languages of Eritrea have not been made official.  By that I mean: how do we communicate with each other.  If we can imagine...let’s imagine a situation just for a moment where Tigrigna and Arabic were adopted as official languages, they would have been the languages of Eritrean schools.  Today, Eritreans who were born 10 years ago, would have spoken fluent Arabic and Tigrigna.  And the so-called “cultural gap” would have vanished or we would have taken a tremendous step towards it.  But instead, and very expensively I must add, the party is enhancing the idea of mother tongues as an alternative to the idea of official languages thereby making it impossible for the members of the various ethnic communities to communicate with each other at a higher level.  And by higher level I mean the fifth grade.  And if this process continues, it means that Eritrean nationalism might be limited to the level of the 5th grade.

This should be avoided.  There is no dichotomy between having our national languages made official and the development of our mother tongues.   The question of “mother tongues” is a local problem to be faced at the local level: the village level or the “awraja” level, perhaps.  [This can be done] by levying special taxes to be raised by the speakers of the mother tongue at the civic level; by organizing support groups for the development of the mother tongue and international solidarity.  These two approaches re-enforce each other rather than the opposite.

The other thing about culture, another example I can give you has to do with the song and dance traditions of the Eritrea nation.  These traditions are being “routinized” and “standardized” and “homogenized” by state dance troupes.  These are, more or less, salaried artists whose goals, as it has been described by prominent members of the PFDJ, are in order to invent a new culture similar to the samba festivities of Brazil or the Marti gras of New Orleans.  And so, for every festive occasion, these nationalists dressed as guys and dolls come to perform.

This is very wrong because culture belongs to the people and not to the state and certainly not to the party.

These two points should be understood by the supporters of the traditional EPLF because the EPLF is a heroic and nationalistic organization.  It is one of the most powerful centers of Eritrean nationalism and, most certainly, the constituency of the EPLF were great supporters of the democratic idea...

Let’s say I am a long-time supporter of the EPLF.  And I hear you raising the issue of national languages.  Isn’t it true that the EPLF really never, ever supported the idea of Arabic and Tigrigna being official languages and, therefore, they can say: “to the victor goes the spoils of war. The ‘mother tongue’ vs ‘official languages’ is really an EPLF vs ELF debate and since EPLF won decisively, therefore, why should we adopt ELF’s platform?”

This is a very good question and I like the way you formulated it.  But I need to point out that such a debate has never been consummated as final in any of the congresses of the EPLF except the last congress, the third, where it was raised.  But a formal decision in the form of a resolution was not taken.  And so, in fact, the tactical position of the PFDJ is never to raise this issue but rather leave it in the cupboards to die its natural or perhaps unnatural death.  The question of languages has nothing to do with ELF/EPLF dichotomy...

Well...

I know how it was discussed within the two organizations.  It has to do with the Federation that the Eritrean people accepted at the beginning of the 1950s.  When we fought for independence, we fought it based on history and colonialism, yes.  But, thirdly the fact that they had in fact a government and a constitution which functioned on the basis of the official Tigrigna and Arbic languages.  It was in our constitution! We cannot erase this fact and this achievement.  We can only build on it.

Someone can say...if the argument is, let’s at least go back to the 1950 constitution until we develop a better one,  the officials language were put there as a compromise formula by the UN commission and do not necessarily reflect the wishes of Eritrea of the 1990s or “Hadash Eritrea” to be short.  One can say the people arguing for Arabic are a loud minority whereas the people accepting the “no official languages” are the silent majority...

Well, the proponents of this argument have to realize that the acceptance of Arabic/Tigrigna as official languages was not the result of compromise but the result of struggle.  By that I mean, the “Bloco Independza”[Independence Bloc], at least “Rabita Islamia” [Islamic League, member of the Independence Bloc], made a definite demand on behalf of its membership which was extremely large indeed and not necessarily silent.  And so, the Arabic language was not the result of compromise but rather the result of struggle.  They think it was a gift by the UN commission.  No, it is not!  It was the result of clear-cut political platform....

Let’s address this from an area of your specialty, which goes to the issue of identity.  One concern expressed by the opponents of official languages (which is to say the opponents of making Arabic the official language because I’ve never heard any one argue against Tigrina, but I have heard plenty against Arabic), one concern is the issue of identity.  Would the elevation of Arabic to official status, although Arabic is the indigenous language of a tiny minority, reducing Eritrean Identity to that of an “Arab nation wannabe”?

This argument is a very familiar one.  It is really a recycling of the old argument which was based on an old and deliberate fallacy.  Let’s take them one by one.  First, it [making Tigrigna and Arabic the official languages] was not a gift.  Let‘s take Tigrigna: the Unionist did not say “Since we want the unity of Eritrea and Ethiopia, we are willing to forgo one of our national languages.”  They didn’t request the replacement of Tigrigna by Amharic.  One of the reasons why the Tigrigna speakers and the proponents of Arabic as an official language joined the “Haraka” [the Eritrean Liberation Movement (ELM), precursor to the Eritrean Liberation From (ELF).  ELM was also known as “Mahber Showate”] was precisely because both these official languages were replaced by Amharic.  In fact, more Tigrigna speakers ended up joining the ELM than Arabic-speakers.  The language issue was one of the unifying nationalistic factors which led to the independence of Eritrea.  Now, see what is happening with the language issue!  

We are told Tigrigna and Arabic are the “working languages” of Eritrea but not the “official languages” of Eritrea.  Nobody so far has told me the difference between a working language and an official language.  What is the difference?

It is a simple one.   The same PFDJ formulator who claims that party building was permitted in the constitution and when challenged says, “oh, by ‘organization’ we mean ‘political parties’” is the same one who you are asking your question. When it comes to language, there isn’t a difference between “official” and “working.” Usually, totalitarian parties have specialized party obfuscators.  They are professional confusers of the political conversation.  Simply put, Eritrea is a sovereign state and one of the most important dimensions of sovereignty is the possession of official language or languages....

But the US, a sovereign state, does not have an official language.  It is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.  Of the 50 states, I believe only New Mexico has it in its state constitution.  In fact, there was a movement to make English the official language but it is largely considered an anti-Spanish, anti-immigrant and quasi-racist movement....

The American constitution did not to have to raise the language issue because it was assumed.  The constitution itself was written in English; all the discussions were conducted in English...

The Eritrean constitution is written in Tigrigna and Arabic. Should we assume it then just as the Americans did, that they are the official languages?

But then the obfuscators will tell us they are the “working languages.”  

Here’s another argument: what evidence is there that a Saho, or Blin, or a Kunama, etc,  would opt for Arabic in lieu of, say, Tigre....

Then ask them!  How simpler can it be? But asking people’s opinion on issues that affect them is a democratic principle and in an environment when democracy is being equated with ‘jihad’ it is not likely to happen! As you can see, the central issue is being trivialized.  It is presented as a minor, insignificant side issue when it really is exceedingly important to national unity. It should be given the dignity it deserves.  The Arabic language is not a new visitor to the Eritrean culture.  It has always been there.  It may not have been there everywhere but it was certainly there in many parts of Eritrea. How do you think the kings of Dbarwa and the representatives of the Ottoman Empire communicated with each other...

ELECTIONS TO THE PRESIDENCY

You proposed that the election to the presidency should be SEPARATE from election to the other offices. Why?

Because, if we are going to have a President of the Republic, we do not want him to emerge through the political tunnels of this PFDJ.  We want a straightforward confrontation between the candidate and the people...

In other words an amendment to the constitution...

No, this has nothing to do with the constitution.  That power has been surrendered to the present parliament.  Before we can talk about the constitution, we need to create the First Parliament.  Strangely enough, the framers of the constitution surrendered the power of establishing the parliament to the present party.  This has nothing to do with the constitution.  The constitution is written for tomorrow and days after tomorrow but it doesn’t address what needs to be done today.

Well, then, give us your vision.

My vision is since the electoral laws have not become part and parcel of the 1997 ratified constitution, since the framers of the constitution left the power of preparing for the establishment of the parliament to the PFDJ parliament, we are not dealing with the constitution.  This is like cheating; it is lying.  The arguments in my articles make that very clear indeed.  It must be understood clearly if election 2001 is going to take place at all, it has to take place properly.  In other words, any preparatory committee which is intended for the election of the coming national parliament, whether in the form of Parliament of Independents or Parliament of Political Parties must include all Eritreans and must include all political forces.   If this parliament is not representative of all cultural, geographical and other features of Eritrea and does not represent the existing or even new political forces, then such a committee will be regarded as a veil intended to give legality to the totalitarian regime of the PFDJ.   The President, in his wisdom, should consider the fact that 2/3 of Eritrea cannot be regarded as “Fifth Columnist”. This may be regarded as declaration of civil war against the Eritrean people.  The President is experienced enough to understand that this is something that should certainly be avoided.

ELECTIONS TO THE MUNICIPALITIES

How about elections to the municipalities.  What is your program on that?

Eritrean towns do not belong to the so-called Eritrean by origin.  They are communities that belong to Eritreans by origin and acquisition of citizenship.  Communities which are not Eritreans by origin have ample opportunities to be elected to Eritrean towns and cities. The detractors of the goals of December 2001 have tried to argue as if this favors  Eritreans by origin.  This is what you might call dirty propaganda.  

Do you have reservations on the manner in which Eritrea is currently organized in a system of “Zoba” and “sub-Zoba”?   

Absolutely.  The first objection is a legal issue.  This is a matter best left to an elected parliament.  The ruling party does not possess the legitimating power to tackle an issue which has to do with national unity at that level.  It is really one aspect of the social engineering of the ruling party in order to establish its control.  The argument has been made that this withdrawal of the features of the Eritrean face by plastic surgery was essential because Eritreans are naturally drawn to regionalism.  This is not true.  This is a self-fulfilling prophecy by the social engineer.  

During Eritrea’s Armed Struggle, the words “Adi”, “Awraja” became synonymous with “Awrajenet”[regionalism] and prejudice.  By bringing these words back to the lexicon, don’t you run the risk of people saying: “Herui wants to take us back to the bad old days of regionalism.”  There are people who believe that without a strong authoritarian central government, Eritreans, if left to their own devices, would resort to regionalism, would resort to religious antagonism, would...

Would cut each other’s throat....

Yes, would even cut each other’s throat.    If not war, at least resort to blatant favoritism.  Can you give an example from Eritrea, recent or ancient history that refutes this concern?

Refute?  History is a big witness.  Nowhere in Eritrean history, with the exception of the British period....  Throughout its history, no one can point to a war conducted between lowland or highland, amongst any other cultural divide, regional divide or any other divide.   In other words, history shows a tremendous amount of tolerance between the various divides of Eritreans because the unifying aspects of Eritrea were stronger than the divisive ones.  

One can easily point out to the Christian-Muslim confrontations during the British period.  But this was really artificially created by, let’s say, the political competition, and outside influences.  On the unionist side, the assassination and the terrorism that was conducted was by Ethiopia; and then on the Independence League, the British/Sudanese or the Sudanese soldiers that were in the British colonial army played their part. But Eritrean history is devoid of armed confrontation between Muslim and Christian communities.  It never existed.  

Now we come to the period of federation.  That is when Haile Selassie launched the process of piecemeal annexation and regionalism was formalized as a political divide and rule instrument which, ultimately, led to some kind of nepotism and artificially fomented regionalism.  I say “regionalism” advisedly because even that was largely practiced mostly by the “Asmarinos.”  By “Asmarinos”, I don’t mean the “Hadish Adi” element but also the “Kebabi” [Environs of Asmara] element who made up the “Asmara urban complex.”  So, if you remember in football, one of the instruments of urban Asmara was “HAMA!” etc.  All these were instruments of divide and rule.  

But, there is nothing wrong whatsoever if someone from Keren, Dekemhare, Adi Keyh feels a certain attachment or pride of his hometown.   It is an antidote to cultural homogenization. When Massawa was liberated, we [EDM] were there to dissolve our organizations.  I was disappointed because I didn’t see Massawans with their Sederia and special Uma.  Instead what I could see was a majority of Tigrigna attire and their Chira.  I said where have the Massaween gone.  I said to myself:  “how much have we lost?  How much has this struggle for liberation cost us.”  

This scare tactic and the red herring of “regionalism” is being used by the ruling party for self-fulfilling prophecy.  If there ever was nepotism and favoritism, it is practiced now because if you don’t belong to the PFDJ, you might find it very difficult to earn a livelihood.

It is a pill given to cure an alleged illness but there is no illness? It is a placebo; a “keremela desta?”

Absolutely.  It is quackery.

FIFTH COLUMNISTS

In part 1 of this interview, you spoke of the danger of treating entire regions west of Aditekelezan as “Fifth Columnists” as a danger to the Republic.  In your Stockholm Conference, you wrote, and I quote, “the democratic project, and an open market, can not be expected to succeed when a large part of Eritrea (inhabited by a sizeable part of the Eritrean population) is excluded from national participation on the grounds of so-called ‘fifth columnist’ loyalties.”  Could you please elaborate?

Usually, when you start labeling, you start with individuals.  Then organizations.  And then to the areas that are, or used to be, influenced by them.  

Let me give you an example.  Today, the Italian Communist Party is not an influential party, not the powerhouse it used to be.  When it was, traditionally, the areas of Italy “North of Bologna” were the “Red Area.” Here is the point, even today, when the Italian Communist Party has no influence, North of Bologna is still regarded as a “Red Area.”  

Now in Eritrea.  All areas where the ELF was influential, traditionally, has become, through the years, “Fifth Columnist” areas.  And this is something that is very dangerous.  Because it has become part of the political culture of the new generation.

So you are saying, the drafting of the electoral laws, the drafting of the party laws, the preparation committee should...

...Should be inclusive of all the various features of Eritrea and its political forces.  It cannot be monopolized by the PFDJ any longer.  An attempt to do so would be regarded as tantamount to declaring civil war on the Eritrean people.

I also want to point out this is not necessary.  With all the appeal I can muster, I want to say that national unity is so important for the Bruised Eritrean Nation which is coming out from one war and getting into another one.  And I am confident that the President of the state of Eritrea, together with all of us democrats and nationalists, will join in establishing the foundations of democracy.  And we encourage him to do so.

ARE WE READY FOR DEMOCRACY?

Is there, in you opinion, a pre-requisite to democracy?

There is no prerequisite to democracy; it is inbuilt to human dignity.   Democracy is the praxis of human dignity.  It ensues from it.  Since we assume the Eritrean nation is a dignified one, we also assume we don’t need any pre-requisites.

What about the argument that demanding of the Eritrean Government to hold elections when the nation’s infrastructures are not prepared is like asking a toddler to run a marathon...

What they forget, of course, is that the basis for everything, including for the toddler to grow up and ran the marathon, is that he needs democracy.  Without democracy, neither the toddler nor the adult can run a marathon.  It is a condition to run a marathon, to build an infrastructure, a viable economy, a dynamic and interactive open market, a living culture; the basis for all that is the Democratic Womb.  Without Democratic Womb, there is neither toddler nor adult.  The argument is being reversed deliberately by those who wish to retain power by all available means.  And by that I mean non-democratic means.  What we are saying is: “let’s establish the democratic womb so that a healthy child is born and can grow into a full-fledged adult.”

The democratic movement which is growing, thanks to Awate.com, Asmarino.com, the Stockholm Conference, etc. is a promising and patriotic movement.  The entire democratic movement has only one slogan and that is “Election 2001!” And it will make the demands which have been articulated in the democratic debate which was initiated by people like you and Dr. Tekie. All these things are flowing into one huge flood...going towards election 2001.  Many, many political tendencies are joining this flood, not because they have the same nuances, or agenda.  No.  But because for economic development to take root in Eritrea, we must have a democratic womb.  That is why at least about 90 percent of the Eritrean people are moving towards Election 2001.  The opponents of this, the Third Path, the Path of The Eritrean People should know it is not monopolized by anyone.  At least until the last day of the election, there will be dialog...

I heard the following from some thoughtful Eritreans as soon as the PFDJ announced a timetable for elections: “All you ‘Democracy Now!’ folks have really done it now.  Because now, the PFDJ will win and if you thought the PFDJ without legitimate power was authoritarian, try the PFDJ after it has been elected!”  

The fear is that we would legitimize the totalitarian regime. But these are the rules of the game.  As defined in the programmatic proposals and further elaboration and the goals of December 2001 and resolutions of the Stockholm Conference that shall guide us, if the PFDJ plays in accordance to the rules of the democratic game, then they have the right to lead Eritreans.  But they have to satisfy the conditions of the democratic rules of the game. Otherwise it is going to be a sham election.

And, as I have said, this time it is going to be serious.  The third way movement would like to participate until the last day of election.  If the PFDJ is playing a game of hide-and-seek with democracy, the masses will simply abstain from participating in the elections.  After the critical mass has been achieved, they will say, “Dear PFDJ, thank you, but no thank you.”

So, in the end, the power of the people is the power to abstain?

Yes, for now.

What if they pass a law that says voting is mandatory? A “civic duty”, a “patriotic duty.” They do that in some Latin American nations, I think, not to mention the authoritarian police states like Syria, Iraq...

It cannot be mandatory.  It is like demanding that everybody should pray every night to go to heaven.  The idea of the secret ballot makes mandatory elections absurd. It makes it redundant.  It is only the articulators that push that; the citizens simply will not go the ballot box and they will need an army to take them there.  And more importantly, they will have to call the entire Eritrean nation “fifth columnist” and declare civil war against it.  Very difficult, eh?

END PART 2

DEMOCRACY & PEACE

The first Resolution of the Stockholm Conference states that peace is linked to democracy, which “suppresses jingoist barrenness.” This seems to be based on the truism that in the histories of democracies, two democracies have never gone to war.  If you want peace, you have to have democracy, right? 

This is it; at least you should have the conditions of democracy.  Involve the masses on whether they want to enter war or avoid it.  And the involvement of the people in waging peace or war will make war less likely because decision is not made above their heads.  Representatives of government and opposition figures are likely to debate it and the various points of view are thoroughly hashed out.  We can say it is less likely that democracies go into war rather than the opposite.

The famous example or a famous exception is of course, WWII, which was started by a democratic state--a duly elected and popular government in Germany—and eventually involved virtually every democracy in the world.  So democracy doesn’t necessarily cure the urge to war, does it?

Yeah.  It certainly doesn’t argue against self-defense. Again, of course, exceptions have to be examined closely because they question the conventional wisdom of accepted notions.  In Germany, we had the takeover of Hitler’s Nazis by a virtual political coup d’etat followed by the gradual “nazification” of democratic Germany.   And a number of conditions made this--the emergence of a non-democratic, but democratically elected force--possible.  We can mention two decisive things: (1) the humiliating Versailles Treaty in post WWI Germany and (2) the economy of Germany.  It is easier for a non-democratic political force to use the intervention of the state for the amelioration of the economy of a country by creation of jobs, for example.  The reverse of the theorem is that bad peace treaties and bad internal conditions weaken the conditions for democracies to succeed.  That’s why we need a good peace treaty with Ethiopia.

Did we get a good peace treaty with Ethiopia?

Yeah...The acceptance of colonial boundaries as the basis for the peace treaty in itself bodes well.   On the other hand, peace treaties can easily be politicized.  Which means that bad blood might provoke the delay or even the distortion of the peace package.  It is therefore important for the Eritrean government to participate earnestly in the establishment of a democratic system.  If the government is elected, then it can genuinely say it is speaking in the interest of the people....

Political Pluralism & Stability

You said that democracy requires multitudes of parties, at least two.  There are many who have learned the following lesson from our armed struggle:  Jebha [the ELF] was accused of practicing “sidi democracy” [disorderly democracy]; it was decentralized, fractionalized and thus, it is no more.   On the other hand, the EPLF was highly centralized; some would say it dealt harshly with any attempt to fracture the movement.  Now, EPLF won; ELF lost.  And therefore, to wish for a multi-party system is to wish to bring back the “anarchy” and the fractured and frail and failed political system of the past.  What is your response?

It is certainly true to say that during the armed struggle phase, a tightly knit leadership is a very important precondition.  And the condition for that within the ELF, at least within the Labor Party, existed.  The so-called open-ended political culture of the ELF came about during the great influx of 75-76.  The organization was not prepared for the influx, as I mentioned in Part 1 of this interview.  And so, it was the attitude, the discipline, or lack of it, of the new recruits and the unorganized debate within the ELF which gave the impression of “sidi democracy”, that is, an  “idiosyncrasistic”, chaotic democracy.  Because the ELF was intensely accused of being a “Muslim organization”, “anti Tigrigna”, “anti-Christian”, and had a tendency to eliminate Tigrigna and Christians, it had to live down a certain tradition.  And the leaders of the ELF were very mindful that such an idea would not catch on especially during 74-75-76...

So, they over compensated to make up for their bad reputation?

You could say that.   Once a certain faction within the leadership has gone out of hand, the old style discipline was required...that is why the Fallul phenomenon was not handled correctly.  What I am trying to say is, during the armed struggle, democracy is based on a united leadership, on maintaining secrecy and all that paraphernalia but without being oppressive towards the base and without over-discipline, if possible.  But then if you go into history, how much was paid to retain the discipline in the EPLF...

Are you saying that the EPLF had similar problems and they are not well known?

I have no idea and I am not in the business of speculation.  I have a clear idea on something, though.  The official organs of the EPLF find it necessary to beautify their experience

To clean up a checkered past?

To present it as if it was beautiful from birth.  But things like that are best left un-discussed in this interview.

FOREIGN POLICY: “Organic” vs “National Interest”

In the first part of this interview, you contrasted an international relationship based on “national interest” [as advocated by PFDJ] and one based on “organic relationship” [as advocated by you.]  Could you define the difference between the two especially as it relates to Sudan and Ethiopia?  

We are contiguous with each other.  To communicate with each other, we do not need jet planes; we can walk.  All of them are within walking distance as we are to them.  We are intermarried.  And culturally, if you talk about the two languages that used to be our official languages, one takes us to North Ethiopia and the other to the Sudan; indeed, the entire region.  If you take religion, as mentioned in the first interview, the linkage with Islam was established in Eritrea before it spread in present-day Saudi Arabia.  In fact, Islam was in Eritrea before the Battle of Beder, if I am not mistaken. [Battle of Beder happened in 623 A.D.] If you take Eritrean Christianity, it is part and parcel of Oriental not western Christianity.  As you know very well, Christians in the Middle East are Arabic speakers, as in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.  And the position taken by the Catholic Church in Eritrea is to be admired because they do not use Latin, they use Ge’ez.  You can go on and discuss economy, political stability, and geo-politics.  And each item confirms organic linkage.  

On the other hand, the idea of “national interest” is an extension of the days of “balance of power” in European politics.  And so, it is a diplomatic idea of the past.  It is not a very modern idea.  

It is an idea developed when war was a way of life?

Absolutely.  At least an important element of diplomacy.

The PFDJ has taken a different approach to foreign policy and relationship with donor nations.  Instead of the traditional African approach of showing how much token progress a nation has made towards democracy and respecting human rights, what PFDJ seems to be selling is efficiency and clean government: Give us money and we will put it to good use.   But then we have a different version of trickle-down-economics; i.e., since efficiency can only come as long as the PFDJ in power, then it is in the interest of Eritrea to retain PFDJ at the helm because that is the only way to ensure flow of funds and cheap commodities to “Hafash.”  And if PFDJ goes away, everything goes away.  

I’ve heard this argument but we need to add more.  Very often leaders of our government were asked, “how come everything is going well?” And our leaders used to say, “Because we have peace.  In Eritrea, an elderly citizen or a child might roam the streets without being accosted.    Plus we are incorruptible and efficient.”

Now, you know what has happened to our peace.  It is not there anymore; and I hope it is returning.  Losing peace, unfortunately, is like losing teeth because once you lose a tooth, you can only replace it artificially.  Secondly, if we are so incorruptible, how come the jails of Eritrea are filled with economic culprits?  Half of the population of the Red Sea Corporation are lingering in jail.  If that happens at that level, probably we are looking at the tip of the iceberg.  Who knows; I cannot comment on it in crystal form.  I don’t think efficiency, self-reliance, and such like high ground morality claim is good economics or a basis for durable foreign relationship.

PRINCIPLE OF RESIDENCY vis-a-vis DIASPORA COMMUNITY

Let’s revisit the “Principle of Residency” and Election 2001 in the context of Eritreans in Diaspora.  What do you do with the large Eritrean presence in foreign countries, especially in the Sudan?

First of all, the only Eritrean refugees living in refugee camps are living in the Sudan.   So, strictly speaking, when we talk about refugees, we are talking about Eritreans in the Sudan.  Nowhere else in the world do Eritreans live in refugee camps.  After independence, one would have expected that refugee camps would be dismantled.  It says a lot for the policies of the Eritrean Government that they are not.  It reflects a great deal that the government of independent Eritrea still has refugee camps in a neighboring nation.  It is a shame.  It is a shame that cannot be lived down.  The least that can be done is to allot parliamentary seats at all the levels, the four levels including municipalities.  Their representation is essential and so is the representation of Eritreans in Diaspora, especially if you can avoid the legal twists that accompany it.  

Another thing is that the parliamentary seats are assumed to be 150 as if by command of God.  We have to reconsider this.  And that is why the committees that should be established must be representative of all the features of Eritrean body politic.  This is one area where monopoly by the ruling party cannot be accepted at all.   The ruling party cannot deny us our Eritrean-hood and the rights that accompany them.  This should be understood loud and clear.  

National Unity

Here is the challenge of unlimited inclusiveness for the sake of national unity.  Where does one draw the line and say, “sorry, we are not THAT inclusive”? The ELF (Abdella Idris faction) has its own constitution (written by Mewael Mebrahtu) that assumes that the Eritrean fissures are so great, they must be institutionalized in a Constitution, like the Lebanese model which assigns quotas to ministerial portfolios by religion, etc.   We have two or three members of the Alliance calling for some sort of Federation—ethnic or regional.  At what point do we say, “no!”

I don’t wish to comment on this.  What we can say is this: we need democracy, which brings people together from all walks of life.  Eritreans whose intellectual development has been shaped in Arabic language, they have been isolated at the highest level.   If we don’t initiate democratic dialogue, discussion on democracy will be discussed at the lowest level by Christian Jihadist or Muslim Jihadist.  Everything should be discussed but at an elevated level.   Then, those who accepted and respect the democratic idea can discuss issues like religion without reservation and find democratic solutions for them....

But there has to be a line drawn somewhere.  Non-violence, acceptance of unity...where do you draw the line?

We have to talk about the building blocks of unity.  First of all, the true counter culture counterparts--eg “Tigrigna” and “Arabic”--belong to the same nation but are using different political vocabularies.  And they need to meet to iron out usage of political vocabulary so that their political conversations become fluent.  Avoiding talking through one’s hat or beyond each other’s idea.

So, candor is the only answer?

Absolutely.   But at a civilized level, at an elevated level, devoid of emotion. Otherwise, we will be victims of lower level politicians who direct their arguments to emotion and not rational imperatives.  To the calculus of national unity.  It goes into the definition of citizenship.

Citizenship: Rights vs Duties

Let me talk about citizenship.   There seems to be this widespread view, which is encouraged if not championed by the PFDJ and accepted as common sense by many people that citizenship rights are not a birthright, but rather they are a quid pro quo for duties rendered to the state or the party.   No duty, no rights.

Absolutely.  And this is really the problem of “legitimization” in the parlance of political science.  It is a very important issue.  Unfortunately, the proponents of the ruling party were working under the assumption of “Finders Keepers.”  We found this piece of gold and therefore we shall keep it.  We liberated Eritrea and therefore we own it  

For example, as you know very well, land in Eritrea has never been owned by feudal lords.  It belonged to the village.  The Emperor of Ethiopia was the head of a feudal totalitarian system, but even he never collectivized Eritrean private property.  And under the guise of liberating Eritrea, the ruling party declared that all land belongs to the government for the first time in Eritrean history.  Can you imagine that! Can you imagine distributing land here and there in the Kunama territory and at the same time selling land for a fistful of dollars?  This is, this is a frightening experience!  But it is really an extension of the philosophy of finders keepers.

What do you think of the following theory:  this culture of Duty Over Rights, of overturning the concept of citizenship, was really a widely spread phenomenon during the Armed struggle and was practiced by all--ELF, EPLF, ELF-PLF, etc--organizations.  For example, if you wanted “tesriH” [permit] to go from Kassala to Khartoum, you’d go to your friendly political organization and the first thing they asked was: have you paid you dues?  And this culture of “what have you done for me lately” never stopped and it has grown to be, some allege, an extortion racket. If this is the case, how do we reverse it?

That is a very good question.  During the armed struggle, it was necessary indeed.  Here, we are talking about comparing contributions to services rendered by people ready to lay life and limb.  The survival of the armed organization and its continuation and the fact that it should continue to struggle made it RIGHT and it was a DUTY.  The problem, after independence, is that the people duty-bound to pay should have been relieved.  After independence the rules of the game changed.  I think the Eritrean nation is one of the very few, certainly the only one I know, which is dependent on its Diaspora community more than it is in establishing regular international relations: at the state to state level, or other forms of institutional relationships.  Diplomacy, as we know it, seems to be absent.  Because it is through diplomacy that you in fact get international support for your development and schemes

The Challenge of “Jihad” To Secular Democracy

We have a movement, actually two, that have said we want to bring about, by violence if necessary, “Uma Islamia” in Eritrea, at least in Western Eritrea.  How does even a faithfully implemented pluralistic, democratic society deal with this or at least minimize its dangers?  

That is a very difficult question.  

Let’s say we are dealing with a mono-religious society either of Muslims only or Christians only.  In this context, if you raise the religious dimension for let’s say political purpose, it means you are the new Caliph who will purify the nation-state.  

Now, let’s say you are dealing with a nation that is partly Christian and partly Muslim.  You add another dimension to that.  You wish to Islamize the Christians or Christianize the Muslims in order for you to be the Caliph, the New Pope or the Defender of the Faith, in order to purify them.  

In Eritrea we have a situation where we belong to the second category.  So, a jihad of both categories--Christian and Muslim---will have to say we will Islamize the Christians or vice versa in order to purify the Eritrean community because all this is done in the name of God, you see.  Again this is a declaration of civil war.  First of all, you have to proselytize the Christians...those who are in the same faith you are proselytizing in have to be baptized again.  And then there is the historical element which needs to be emphasized and that is: Eritrea is not a land where jihad can be conducted because we as a nation were acquainted with Islam through the direct message of the prophet himself through Saidna Jafer and we don’t need any latter day Muslim Adventist to tell us how to become good Muslims by force of arms or any Born Again Christian to tell us how to become good Christians.  

So, this is not something democracy can solve?

It IS something democracy can solve!  Because for anyone to Islamize us or Chrisianize us, let him operate at the civil society level and not at the political party level.   This is a very different theoretical distinction.  At the civil society level anyone can preach, it is up to me to accept or reject.  But at the political level, he is declaring war on the entire Eritrean society.  So, let them preach; that is where the solution lies...at the civil society level.  Let them show us the way to heaven without political parties. Religious organizations should never be controlled by the state...

A lot if not all the grievances raised by the Eritrean Jihad movement deal with issues you have talked about:  land policy, language, religious freedom, cultural space, refugees in the Sudan.  If your name were not “Herui” but, say, “Mukhtar”, you probably would have been suspected of harboring Jihad sentiments…

And I take it as my duty to speak about issues maybe others cannot.  The country has been independent for 10 years and we have refugee camps.  Can you imagine that?  Can you imagine that??  Can you imagine that??

Do you think this is the result of a typical PFDJ rigidity in dealing with the UN or, as some allege, is it a deliberate attempt to change the demographics of Eritrea?

I really do not know.  At my level, I try to avoid speculations.  But it is so strange it makes many people angry and I must say I am one of them.   

Land Policy & Impact On Development

Moving on to a subject you have broached, the resolution is critical of Eritrea’s land policy.  Could you talk about that?

There are two aspects to the land question.  First of all, land policy is the basis of the nation’s well-being including its economy.  The first question, then is, does the formulation “Land belongs to the government, and thus, to the party” mean that the basis of the Eritrean economy is based on collective property?  The first thing we have to clarify is we have adopted some communist system of collective ownership by giving it other names.  My belief is that the economy of our country, including assets like land, should be based on private ownership and the first step towards the materialization of this policy is to take into consideration the lowlands of Eritrea.  Just as the Italians assumed that the Lowlands were Terra Dominale, the Eritrean Government does too; and this should be reverted.  Just as in the highlands, the villages in the lowlands must have a land which they own.  Otherwise, their territories will be “project territories” and an Eritrean variant of “Go west, young man!” gung ho message will emerge.  This is both bad economics and bad politics.  

And the third aspect of the land has to do with the Sea Coast.  Certain legislation regarding land around the seacoast is needed in order to stabilize Eritrean communities in this very important sector of the Eritrean economy.  

Let’s say the government is totally and completely out of the picture.  Here’s the reality.  You have a land in the west that is owned by people with nomadic/pastoral lifestyle.  You also have a situation in Eritrea where the arable land is estimated at, what, 4%?  Don’t you have a responsibility to achieve some kind food security for your people?  How do you do that?

Again, you bring me into the area of collectivist approach to economics.  The past 2 or 3 winters, the government used its tractors and mobilization techniques of unpaid work in order to raise the level of production and thus go towards food security.  This is a good idea.  But this is a “latifunda”[landed estate, from Roman era] approach to economics, where a certain lord, in this case the government, uses available, unpaid machinery and labor in order to improve the level of production, isn‘t it?  The reverse should be the case for Eritrea.  Land should belong to the people first and the people should ask, if necessary, for various forms of subsidies.  Ownership is a very important aspect of citizenship and national consciousness.  

So, you believe, the right to property is as important and absolute, as the right to freedom of assembly and speech?

It is the basis.  The other rights are based on the right of livelihood, which is the right to private ownership.

The criticism is that this is an alien, European idea because in Eritrea, the concept of “private property” is not as extreme as that of industrialized Western nations.  In Eritrea, and much of Africa, the concept of the “commune” trumps that of “individual” rights...

As was already mentioned in my two articles--and attempts have been made to distort the concept of “Adi”--but the term “Adi”  is the equivalent to the term “commune”.   Land in Eritrea used to be owned by the “Adi” not by the kings or feudal lords.   The concept of private property in Eritrea has a very long history, indeed, and it is deep-rooted.  When I say “private property”, I mean individual ownership and commune—Adi--ownership.  But not government ownership, and certainly not party ownership.

As you know, the issue of land proclamation is very complex.  The PFDJ, after much study and fanfare, dropped its own land reform policy.  One of the challenges, which is probably more of a challenge in the highlands than the lowlands, is this: you have a situation of an ever increasing population and a limited resource of land.   What is absent in Eritrea but present in nearly all African countries including Ethiopia, is migration from the villages to the capital and the emergence of squalor and shantytown.  Doesn’t unrestrained private ownership of land threaten to make this a reality in Eritrea?

If you go into the “Adi” strategy, it answers the question of the growth of shantytowns.  In other words, you are permitting the growth of the village communes, the “Adi“, as an anti-dote to third world type shantytowns.  Because each village will have its owns parliament, or commune-council and will solve housing problems within its confines.  Those who are willing to stay in the village as farmers may do so. In other words, it creates a new economic condition in order to respond to new economic and new cultural needs.   And the citizens do not become prisoners of the piece of land they own.  So what I am saying is privatization frees a very large part of the population which is tied down to the village as a means of survival.  Dynamic businessmen, dynamic farmers who are not original members of this commune but who become so by virtue of their interest will move in.  There will be a continuous flux and the conditions of development will continuously change.

You have this farmer whose ancestors have been there for hundreds of years. Due to this dynamic economy, his land is the only thing worth anything.  He sells the land to the so-called “dynamic businessmen”, he moves out and he has no means of providing for his family...  

It is his choice, isn‘t it?  He may make something of his commerce, as I think will happen in the majority of cases, or he may be an alcoholic and destroy his family life.  In the end, in a free society, it is about individual choice. What privatization invites is the dynamic sector of the Eritrean economy to move into these villages on the basis of their interest calculus.  A richer form of citizenship will grow out of it.

If you have a government that has a paternalistic view towards the citizenry and sees them as either victims or potential victims, and a citizen who views the government as the cradle-to-grave provider of services and security, you can imagine how they’d scare them to death of this “privatization scheme”, don’t you?

Let’s take them one by one, as the situation is right now.  Let’s take the lowlands.  Since the land belongs to the government, it is the government which is distributing projects to Eritreans and non-Eritreans and taking away the right of ownership of people who live there. Here, the “dynamic businessman” with unchecked powers is the government. Then we go into the highlands.  Who is selling land?  Is it not the government that is selling land now by claiming that it owns the land?

Is it leasing or selling the land?

Call it leasing, call it selling, call it usufruct, they are selling it.  But who is selling it? So this is a dubious argument.  If you take the Housing Projects of the Government, which is centered, around the big cities, especially Asmara, it is creating congestion.  At least during the Haile Selassie period, the villages around the big cities, mainly Asmara, were given two plots of land for housing.  One, which they could sell and with which [the proceeds] they could build their abodes on the second plot.  So, making that kind of argument borders on the cynical, I think.   

Elections 2001: Role of Media

Let’s talk about Freedom of Expression and how its exercise will affect the December Elections.  You have the Press Proclamation, which we are told is being revised now.  But we are also told that even after it is revised, the right to ownership of electronic media--radio and TV--will be the monopoly of the State or the Government.  Is this a good idea?

Of course it is a bad idea.  Because in the world in which we live, it is a world of IT:  information technology.  People, who are left behind in this process, are left behind to a great disadvantage, even putting to question national survival.  This is a global thing.   Such an instrument of enlightenment cannot be controlled by a party or government or, just as bad,  by licenses which are sold by the party to favored party-business men.  A board is usually established for such things under the control not of one party but several parties with governments having no direct influence on their workings.

The fear is that in a nation, which is 70% -80%, illiterate, the newspapers can be privatized (which means, it doesn’t matter because they won’t be read much anyway) but the radio stations and the TV stations (which can be seen and heard even by illiterate people) will be under the control of the government…

Under the control of the party, which is worse.  And party authorized businessmen.  

…But, the other fear is that if you allow privatization, then one individual or a few individuals could have power far in excess to what is healthy for a democracy.  Some kook who happens to have loads of money can come in, buy or build 4-5 radio stations, and completely own or corrupt whatever budding democracy there is, as has happened in Russia.

That is why I said it should be controlled by a Board.  Where all political forces are represented....  

Like the VOA [Voice of America]?

Or the BBC.  The board protects the media from the government and private businessmen and it makes sure it represents the interest of the people.  But in the 2001 Elections, we are really talking about access to the media, mainly to the available mass media, meaning TV time and radio time in order to put across the views of potential opposition parties.  And in that, we have to relate it to the commissions that are preparing for the elections themselves where all Eritrean political forces need to be represented otherwise it is going to be a farce.

Election 2001: Role of EDF

You talk about “de-linking” the Eritrean Defense Force, the Eritrean army, from the PFDJ.  That the army should take a pledge of oath to protect the constitution.  How do “Warsai” and “Yka’alo” transition from an era where pledges were given to “bitsai” and “comrade” to a piece of paper?  How do you do that?

The first error that was made, from a constitutional point of view, was that the services--military and civil--were not left as autonomous institutions.  Because it is on both these services that national unity can be based.  

If these two institutions are autonomous and available to all Eritreans, looking behind your back and feeling left out as a second-rate citizen are removed.    But now what we have is a continuation of the tradition of the Heroic Liberation Army which belongs to a heroic government.  Both are true.  The EPLF, EPLA is heroic indeed.  But on the other hand, the legitimization process cannot be based on this heroism alone.  Because those who have never been members of this process will be a less legitimate aspect of Eritrean society and they will be tolerated only on sufferance.  And that is why we have in the constitution that we will swear in the name of the martyrs. Of course, we respect our martyrs because they are part of us and we should remember them in every possible way; but we should do it without having to swear to national constitutional issues in their name.

I thought that oath was removed from the draft constitution when the constitution was ratified.

I Think it is still there...

How do you get Warsai, and Yka’alo to see a civilian, and someone who may never have served his country in the military, someone who was not part of the hero-building process,  as his boss…

The "boss" doesn't have to be a civilian.....

But he could be a civilian…  

We have to do what Kamal Ataturk did.  He put the army under the constitution and made it the protector of the constitution so that whenever there is a crisis, which threatened the constitution, the army intervened to restore peace and stability, and then went back to the barracks.  So the army must be a volunteer but professional force.  And one way to do is to create a military college where this idea is instilled.  Achieving it becomes a question of effort.

So, do you support the idea of mandatory national service?

National service is good.  But it should be supplementary to a national army.  The heroism should not be a basis of legitimacy otherwise we diminish the roles of others.  But National Unity must come above everything else, including national service.

Election 2001: Role of PFDJ Mass Organizations

You also call on the PFDJ to “loosen the reins” on its membership.  What do you mean by that?

The Women’s associations, the Youth association, the Workers association, all of these organizations are controlled by the party.  Unless they are freed from party control, the danger lurks, exists, they may vote in accordance with instructions they are given.  It is easy to apply economic and political terror in order to subvert the right to work in accordance with one’s consciousness and political choice.  They could believe, for example, “If I don’t do what the party tells me, I might not be able to share in the subsidies the government distributes to us, in the form of food, the form of job security, etc.”  No to PFDJ may mean No zeyti, no Harich.  

But as with all socialist/communist organizations, these women’s, youth, workers’ organizations are not just members of the PFDJ, they are groups who historically have seen themselves as the “vanguard” of EPLF/PFDJ.  Why would they want to be free of the reins, if they see themselves holding the reins?  

Even the vanguard of these mass organizations must be tested by the popular vote because they have never been tested by the popular vote.  They are there on the basis of party loyalties.  And if they do not toe the line, they are exposed to losing the privileges of power.  They induce stress, which leads to alcoholism, diabetes, and other health complications.  With sufficient terror, it is easy to create a zombie. The other potential parties, once the terror of party control is removed, will have to address the individual as a citizen and not a member of a party or organization

Election 2001: Role of PFDJ Congress

One of the resolutions of the Stockholm Congress is directed towards the upcoming congress of the PFDJ and your fear that its resolutions might “pre-empt other versions with the purpose of declaring them illegal.”  Could you explain?

I hope the coming conference of PFDJ will not be a victim of a political straitjacket denying itself room for movement in order to respond to demands by this huge flood being directed to Election 2001.  I hope in their congress they will leave room to change in accordance with new developments and I hope they won’t come out with papal encyclicals. It is about time the leaders of PFDJ understood that the Eritrean people, this time, are serious.  Everybody must participate for the simple reason that the PFDJ does not have the monopoly of Eritrean citizenship and cannot deny Eritreans their citizenship and cannot deny all the rights, which go with citizenship...

Isn’t it true that the EPLF institutionalized the acceptance of a multi-party democracy, after great debate, at its 2nd congress in 1987?

Yes, indeed.  Indeed.  And then all of a sudden we find that the PFDJ first usurped and then distorted the national and democratic idea within the heroic ranks of the EPLF.  In fact, one of the aims of this discourse was to warn the great gatekeepers of the national and democratic idea within the EPLF that the values for which they fought for are being usurped and distorted…

At its next congress--which keeps being postponed and now we hear it is in March or April, the PFDJ will have to choose a direction.  It could choose to remain a giant party competing with dwarfs or it could break off or morph into a main party with various satellite organizations and a franchise.   What do you think?  

You are raising possibilities and I am speaking now hypothetically.  The first possibility of PFDJ continuing in the same old way is not accepted by all concerned.  We need not go into that.  The PFDJ being fractured into several groups and being assembled under one umbrella organization like “La Leagua” (The Muslim League) is unlikely because the League was a party, actually, whereas the “Bloco” (The Independenc Bloc) was a front.  So, it means then that a strong part, a faction of the PFDJ, most likely the president’s faction, playing the role of RabiTa and the smaller versions or smaller factions joining the Mother Ship in the form of a Bloco.  Again, this is recycling of the same old organizational form, isn’t it?  If they attempt to do this, the Eritrean people will suffer for a while but it will be a total catastrophe for the PFDJ and its runaway factions. It is a weak solution because the president’s party, which will grow of the split, will have national stature whereas the others, even including a group of prominent people who emerged during the struggle, and I am sure their contributions have been great, but they are not political figures in the national political platform as the president is.  

But all this is mere speculation.  For all Eritreans who wish to participate in the democratic process, it is the formulation of the rules of the game, which we insist should be the outcome of the participation of all Eritrean political parties, which is central.   

[One of the rules of the game should be that] a national political party needs to show that it has the support of at least 3 - 4% of the voting age Eritrean population.  If it cannot show 3% support, in what way can it be regarded as a national political party?  I don’t think these little offshoots of the PFDJ would represent 3% of Eritrean voters.  Secondly, even if by some kind of miracle they manage to represent 3% of the Eritrean population, then they would have to jump the second hurdle, don’t they?  Which is: is this support spread throughout Eritrea or concentrated in one linguistic area? In one religious area? In one geographic area?  In which case, it cannot be regarded as national party.  

So, there is only one way to test future political party and that is to invite all political forces to prepare themselves for Election 2001.  And I feel that the movement of the people, The Third Path, which is not a party, which does not have a specific ideology today, whose objective is represented only in making December 2001 a success, can, if all conditions are fulfilled, surmount all the conditions for party formation at a national scale.  It can satisfy the requirement of 3% and equitable distribution of representation in all the regions of Eritrea, cutting across cultural and religious barriers.  In fact, I feel it is precisely because of this fear, that obstacles have been put in front of the Third Path movement.

What kind of obstacles?

Well, although the Stockholm Conference represents only one aspect of the Third Path or the Third Wave, the Eritrean Embassy here has been terrorizing the Eritrean community so that people do not come to a seminar organized by me (of which the video is a product distributed widely).  Worse than that, at the beginning of the seminar, which was prepared by NEPE [Network of Eritrean Professionals in Europe], NEPE was, under pressure from the staff of the embassy, forced to withdraw their support.  And the second group, which supported the organization of the seminar, also faced the same stress but resisted the pressures of the embassy and the seminar was held and attended by at least 700 people, a seminar which lasted more than four hours.  Nevertheless, the impact was so strong, that the terror tactics of the embassy did not quite succeed.   At the seminar, a resolution was passed that the seminar should be followed by a conference.  The Stockholm Conference was a result of that.  And even today, there is such intensive campaign against the result of the Conference.  

But somehow, I have to admit to you, here I noticed, it was not so much an official campaign from the Eritrean government’s part.  Many people here feel it is conducted by a faction within a faction within the government.  Now this is very strange.  How can a party be created out of a group of people who take government salaries, are government ministers and ambassadors, are dependent for their positions on the president himself but continue to claim to be able to create a full-fledged opposition party?  That would be laughing in the face of a multi party system.  

So, a real party can emerge at the grassroots level only by the Third Path movement which is growing via conferences, dialogues, seminars and which are getting closer to each other by the day.

There are all sorts of claims about the video you put out.  We hear the Eritrean Government is censoring it; we hear you are censoring it.  What is the deal?

Yeah, the video is being distributed widely and is being distributed even in Eritrea, I have heard.  Well, I’ve also heard what you heard: it is being censored in such a way for us to view it in a negative light.  For example, the distortion of the “adi” strategy.  Only recently I heard here in Stockholm that in one of the local Eritrean community TV stations, somebody was saying the video of the seminar was censored by the association of Eritreans in Sweden.

Let me take up the idea of censorship: censorship is an instrument that dictatorial governments use for thought control purposes.  The Stockholm Conference, in which I lectured, was not sponsored by the government.  It was in fact presented by me and the government did not censor it (at least not in Stockholm; they may have in Asmara.)  What they are intimating is those who prepared the video cut out certain sections.  First of all, the video was not prepared by the Eritrean Association in Sweden but when it was ready it was bought and distributed to Eritreans by it.  And secondly, anybody who is a professional in film editing knows that a seminar of four hours cannot be a video of four hours. And therefore, it is the central message of the lecture that needs to be disseminated.  This is one of the terror campaigns here in Sweden, but all democrats face them everywhere.  But the threat is not necessarily from the government but factions within it who see themselves as a potential opposition party.

And these people see you as a potential rival?

Yes.  Or at least someone who formulates things openly to the detriment of the ruling party.

What if you find out, in one week, that two PFDJ committees, having met in closed sessions for weeks, have, voila, come up with the Electoral laws and party formation laws.  What then?

I think the Third Path will move on to Election 2001 while pointing out that what has been done is unacceptable and demanding that changes should be made.  To the last day.  To the last day.  We are for the elections but changes should be made.  Remember, these days, elections are international.   In today’s world, they are discussed by the media and the international institutions.  We are not in the liberated or semi-liberated zones anymore.  The world is watching and especially our neighbors who are extremely interested in the internal political development of Eritrea and are bound to listen to all voices including the voices of the Third Path...

The  “Third Path”, “Third Way”, “Third Wave”. Sounds like a name of a potential party.

There are too many elements...It is about the Democratic Womb.

Actually the Democratic Womb isn’t too shabby either...

“MaHtSen ade Gura Gura.”  [The womb of the mother is (carries)multi-colored children.]

Election 2001: Role of Eritreans

We know your platform.  “Elections 2001”—your slogan—is less than twelve months away.  How do you execute all these plans?  What is the tool?  What is the mechanism?

The Stockholm Conference needs to be complemented by two other steps.  One is that we need a conference for people who accept the principle that Eritrea should have official languages and that these languages are Tigrigna and Arabic.  Two, that intellectuals and democrats whose intellectual development has been shaped by the Arabic language and education (whether they are Christians or Muslims is irrelevant) need to discuss the democratic platform formulated at the Stockholm Conference in order to achieve both a political and cultural fit.

The second conference we need, probably at a minor level, is a Reconciliation Conference.  I have to point out this is not an invitation to organizations but individuals.  They are going to be open conferences, individuals need to present relevant papers and the papers presented at these conferences provide the intellectual base for the Resolutions that will emerge from these conferences.  And I think if we achieve these two steps, we can say the Eritrean people will be ready for Election 2001.  Otherwise, other things being equal, Eritreans are ready to abstain en masse from Election 2001 if the ruling party tries to play hanky-panky with the destiny of the Eritrean people.  And so I appeal to all Eritreans of means to raise the necessary funds to achieve this stage, whether in the Middle-East, Australia, Europe, America, wherever they are.  And the sooner, the better.   And I hope that our Eritrean websites will profile these ideas until we achieve these goals.  This would be the basis of the new legitimacy.  

You are not running for office.  You are not forming a political party.  Is your role then to be the Big Cheerleader and Ombudsman of Election 2001?

Well, here, I am going to say something I haven’t said during this entire interview: No comment!

Thanks for your time.

Thank you very much.