|
Dr. Yohannes Zeremariam, a graduate of University of Venice (Italy), is a veteran of the struggle for liberation. He is in charge of the International Relations Bureau within the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF).Here is a brief biographical account of Dr Yohannes Zeremariam: 1968 joined ELFs student movement (General Union of Eritrean Students) 1971 joined ELF 1975-1980 head of ELF Foreign Information Center 1983-1988 Vice chairman of ELF 1986 Chairman of National Council of Unified Organization 1995-now Head of ELF International Relations Bureau 
Dr. Yohannes has made some bold statements over the last few months. His statements regarding peaceful struggle has reverberated throughout the Eritrean communities. Although the public perception may be different, Dr. Yohannes claims that those views have always been the views of his organization. In a rare interview, Dr. Yohannes explains his views to awate.com.
Dawit Mesfin interviewed Dr. Yohannes in London on October 26, 2003.
Part I
London 26 Oct 2003 (Published On Nov. 6, 2003)
1 - For a change oriented movement to succeed, I feel it is a must that it should be linked with the people inside the country. The movement outside the country seems to lack that kind of connectivity. How do you see that? It can be said that in this respect the policies of the Eritrean government have succeeded. One of its goals is to shield what is happening inside the country from reaching the outside world, and vice-versa. In this aspect, it can be said that, due to our weaknesses, we made this success possible. We, through our limitations, are supporting the strategies outlined by the regime. Besides, if the struggle inside the country is not linked with the struggle outside the country, then there will not be success. This apparent fault should be corrected right away. We, those of us outside the country, by being in a better situation compared to our people inside Eritrea, are supposed to sort-out matters and become good sources of information to our people. Even at this stage, it is our task to take the initiative and find a medium to accomplish it [take corrective measure] as soon as possible. What we are struggling for is to introduce democratic change inside Eritrea; because it is our people back home who are paying the highest of oppression. Since it is our people who are being subjected to oppression, disease, hunger, terror and all the other bad experiences, and since we [those of us who are in the opposition outside the country] are aiming to work towards the salvation of our people, then it is a must that their hardships be tied to our struggle. In other words, the center of our operations or our focus should be our people and the changes our people need. 2 - Since you mentioned the weakness of the opposition I would like to ask for more clarification here: would it not be better to change strategy and focus more on the changes the opposition itself would require to counter the deficiencies of the ruling system? True, until now, we were concentrating on the weaknesses of the government. Not only would it be better [to focus on ourselves], its time has come and gone. Since we and the world community know the true identity of the Eritrean government, I think from now on we do not need to hold meetings to discuss the sins the government commits for it has little value. First, since we have identified what the problems are we need to develop strategic thinking and ask ourselves what needs to be done in order to bring relief to our people. In a struggle, the easiest thing is to sit back and count the mistakes of others. Having said that, I dont mean that it is easy to change from counting sins to the next level. Secondly, the baggage that we, the opposition, are carrying [from the old times] is enormous. Indeed, the struggle for the independence was bitter. It is unbearable to remember the past conflict that took place between the two factions then. Although the sentiments cannot be easily forgotten, we must recognize that the stage we have reached now is different. Now since Eritrea is sovereign state, we need to drop off the load that we used to carry and move on to work within the internationally known confines of Eritrea. If we cant do this, our struggle may miss its target or be [unnecessarily] extended. It is time that those of us in the opposition outside the country need to examine ourselves. 3 - Following your line of thought, that in order to effect change first we must change ourselves, what do you think should be done to bring about a better and a fast change? Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, it is important to recognize that times (current realities) have changed. Whatever we do or whatever we think of should emanate from one center; and that center is our national agenda. The national agenda is to remove the oppressive system and in its place create a transitional platform. To accomplish this, we should not be dictated by our own organizations interests only; instead we should be better organized and develop a platform that encompasses all. It is important to go through self-examination. All organizations should find answers questions like: can we accept a common agenda that will guide through? Can we think outside our organizational realm of thought and accept a common national view? Are we ready to work with others who have views different than ours? I think it is a sign of maturity to be able to work outside ones own circles. If we cannot get out of our individual circles and develop a common value, it means that we are not ready to be agents of change yet. 4- Bringing about people based change by removing the system is a topic much talked about. Lets discuss about the methods of effecting change for a while. One can argue that some organizations and elements have extreme views on this issue. They say that to effect change we should implement the use of force. Since this is different than what you stated above; how do you see this? Is a change that comes by the use if force genuine change? In free Eritrea, meaning an Eritrea that is recognized by the world, and in todays Eritrea, a change that comes by the use of force is no change. The democratic change that we want to see in Eritrea should come through our common wishes and efforts. Let me explain this part further because many take this view to unnecessary level of argument. First, when we say we will bring about change by force, it means we will engage in a civil war. Since civil war causes wounds that leave blemishes on the society the effects are considerable. Civil war produces physical and moral injuries, therefore, this method should be avoided. Second, we remember of the fact that a few months ago, when the names of our Eritrean youth who were killed in the 1998-2000 war was announced, all opposition organizations issued public statements [messages of condolences] that shared the grief of those who lost their children in the war. The messages stated that the regime wasted Eritrean youth in a war that was not necessary. Having said that, how would the mothers understand it today if we say that change will be effected by force? How is it possible for me to say, when it was only yesterday that I sympathized with the parents of those who lost their loved ones, to allow the remaining [children] to go to another war? Thirdly, we want to build a country. The first step in building a nation is to heal the wounds. We have to work hard to heal the wounds that were left by the civil war of the past. We have to work hard to reach those who are inside Eritrea and bring them to our side by the power of reasoning. The present army is not PFDJs army; it is the army of Eritrea. What would be the use of telling this army that we will fight it in order to effect change? We are one people; therefore, we should not waste our own people in order to achieve change by force. 5 - You are a member of the ELF. ELF is a member of the ENA. A few months ago, the Secretary of the ENA made a statement saying that the military wing of the ENA is in preparations to take actions. Is what you are saying not in contradiction with what was said? Maybe it is just the way it was put. At this time, if any of those organizations/groups that are within the ENA or outside it, are moving with the goal of bringing about change by force, even if it is for propaganda purposes, I cant say they have properly evaluated the situation. Even if there are some elements within the ENA that believe in bringing about change by force, we will continue to struggle that they review their positions. 6 - Is this your individual views or your organizations? Do your colleagues, people like Abdella Idris or others, support it? Last month in London when our organization held its meeting and when this view was put forth, many people asked: are you saying we should disarm? Similar to your question, there were those who asked, is this your view or the view of your organization? This is the view of our organization. Actually, the prevalent stance in the past was, we were armed to defend ourselves and we had a clear stand that we will not use our arms for offence. The difference might seem fine, but there is a difference between defence and offence. 7 - Since we mentioned brother Abdella Idris, how is his situation? Brother Abdella is sick; he is still under medical care. His situation is improving. Our expectation is that he returns to his post and resumes his activities. 8- Lets discuss the activities of the Alliance; why is it at this time the alliance repeatedly holding its meetings in Ethiopia? Why not in the Sudan? At this time, whether it is in Sudan, Yemen, or Europe, it is possible to get places that offer facilities for a meeting. But the issue regarding Ethiopia [as a meeting place] should be seen differently. This question has been repeatedly raised since the last war between Ethiopia and Eritrea (1998-2000). Why are the opposition groups operating from Ethiopia? Certainly, they cannot operate from Eritrea because the government doesnt allow such operations. In order to wage their struggle against the oppressive regime, they were literally forced to operate from outside Eritrea. The best alternative is to wage their struggle from the neighboring countries. In a situation that arose, that is when Ethiopia and Eritrea went to war, it is natural to ask what should the opposition groups do? Is there any means other than to condemn Ethiopia and then struggle alongside the regime that you want to change? First, when the sovereignty of Eritrea is put in danger, it is quite natural that all citizens should rise to defend our country. On the other hand, we should keep an eye on the wars that the government ignited in order to extend its stay in power. It is important to relate the struggle to the new realities that are developing. Second, the situation between Eritrea and Ethiopia needs special focus because the two countries had already developed strategic relations before the war -- they were toying with the thoughts of confederation, and there plans to fuse their economies in a developed manner. Though it was expected that such plans would crumble after the outbreak of war, [the regime], with its strong propaganda campaign, is trying to trash the opposition for harboring similar plans. In order to denigrate [the opposition groups] and belittle their struggle, [the regime is] disseminating lies by stating that they are collaborating with the enemy. Third, when the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea broke out, we basically opposed the war. It is important to note what kind of reaction this created on Ethiopias side. No matter what we will always remain Eritreans; and we have to take it for granted the sentiments of Ethiopians towards us. Since we are Eritreans, they may put us in harms way. By considering such matters we should be able to assess our advantages and disadvantages. In that respect I do not thing that we, as an opposition, gained much. When I say we are not gaining much, it is because we gave the regime in Asmara ammunition [to vilify us]. By referring to us as traitors, [the government] managed to put a wedge between us and our people inside Eritrea; and since we couldnt confront this properly, one can say we have lost a great deal. On top of that, when over 100,000 of our people were expelled from Ethiopia we, even though we had offices in Addis Ababa and managed to talk to the Ethiopian government, couldnt save them. This is also a loss. Our wish is to have a pleasant relation which is based on mutual benefits with our neighbors. If we must work together, they would have to respect our sovereignty and territorial integrity and move along with us. If they cannot do this, how is our friendship going to develop in the future? Therefore, by considering [the strength] government propaganda, if this issue is not examined in depth, then the relations with Ethiopia could be portrayed as something negative. In our diplomatic activities, we want to improve our relations with our neighbors by weighing all aspects of our relationships. That is to say, we want them to support us in the struggle that we waging but we dont want them to be the main actors. 9- These days, there is a hot issue which is being debated in Eritrean circles. The is to do with the border demarcation process. Ethiopia has rejected the agreement that it entered and has reversed the issue. What is your view in that? Also, a related question, why is it that the Alliance has not taken a clear stand regarding this issue?
I will start with the second question. I think the National Alliance has given a reply regarding this. Since the issue revolves around Badme, the Chairman of the Alliance (Abdella Idris) in a seminar in Australia, during question and answer session he was asked to give his views regarding this issue; he clearly stated that Badme is Eritrean. But there is something that should be cleared here: the pressure being exerted by the regime, stating that if one doesnt make his stand that Badme is Eritrean, then he is a traitor, is out of place. The opposition groups, by relying on their own strategies, knowledge and presentation, have made their own decisions; it has been said that Eritrean borders should not be violated. Our borders that are known by the international community will not be violated; and we will struggle so that it will not be violated. If we go back to history, there were sacrifices made [to free] Badme. It is possible that there could be whimsical claims, but there is no whimsical ownership; neither can ownership be asserted through a war. There is a law that the world abides by, and if there is any [territorial] claim, then one has to pursue that legally. When Eritrea and Ethiopia stopped the war, they agreed to abide by the Algiers agreement. They are bound by that agreement. And if one party doesnt abide by the ruling then the international body should use its rule-enforcing mechanism to oversee it. To answer your question, we the opposition, the ELF, and others, are in opposition to the regime in Asmara and nothing else. Therefore, the sovereignty of our country should not be tampered with. 10- Is it possible for the Alliance to tell Ethiopia that the propaganda it has embarked on is wrong? It is possible; why cant it be possible? When we see a mistake we should be able to say it is wrong. The issue should be dealt with by its proper mechanisms. Either propaganda or preparations for war is not a solution. The solution is to respect the agreement that both countries signed. When the law is violated, then this is how we say WRONG.
Part II
London 26 Oct 2003 (Published On Nov. 14, 2003)
Dr. Yohannes explains his views to awate.com on: - Religious and Ethnic calamities
- National Conference;
- Constitution;
- Change of leadership;
- Reconciling with GoE;
- Relations with Mesfin Hagos;
Presented by Dawit Mesfin 11 - One can say that these days there is a new development within our societies. We are witnessing rising sentiments within the religious, ethnic and other circles. Since the problem is there, I think we should address it. Some, by mixing up those sentiments with the ongoing movement, are influencing it rather negatively. It is also obvious that the regime is exploiting those sentiments. Can you give me your views regarding those sentiments?
I don't think religion and ethnic groupings pose problems as such. However, we have ample examples in history where religion and ethnicity were used as political tools; in fact, they were also used in our surroundings and amongst ourselves. Now what is important is the weight we attach to them; therefore, we must consider their magnitude in relation to the struggle that we are waging for a democratic change. If we look back in our history, before the occupation, religion and ethnicity played big roles in the formation of our identity. Later on, as our identity blended with the struggle that we waged against the occupation forces, we began to nurture a more developed national identity. One can argue that during the armed struggle, we almost eliminated religious and regional sentiments [by substituting our localized identities]. But sometimes, the organizations themselves [the liberation fronts] were seen operating on some religious basis. For example, Osman Sabbe, not that he was religious, used to operate in the [Arab world] via religious rationalizations. Of course, many combatants opposed his method of approach [at that time]. It is also to be remembered that the Ethiopian government used this tactic to isolate us [from the world community] -- it argued that the Arabs were behind our rightful movement; but of course, that campaign did not succeed.
After independence, we hoped religious and ethnic sentiments would go away; unfortunately, they are still there. It is evident that the current regime, in order to extend its reign, has whetted such sensitivities in a clever way. Also, instead of filling the cracks within the society, we see it is widening them. Therefore, [I believe] that is the source of religious and ethnic radicalism in Eritrea. In conclusion, the problem is not religion or ethnicity, I would say it is the atmosphere surrounding both entities. We can keep in check those calamities if our people see through the regime's tactics that are polluting the atmosphere. There will be a way out when we accept our religious and regional identities as part and parcel of the Eritrean reality; if we acknowledge that attribute then [I am sure] we will feel proud of our heritage. I believe it is possible that extremist elements could be tamed if they live among moderates who would influence them to gradually develop a more nurturing, tolerant and inclusive attitude. [I believe] it is only then that a good solution can be found.
12 - When we evaluate the sentiments of our people, we come to realize that there are reservations pertinent to religion. These are sentiments we have to face. For example, there is a question that surfaces again and again. And that is to do with the religion-based groups that exist within the Eritrean National Alliance. How can those reservations be confronted?
Of course, there are reservations. First of all let's see how those reservations came about. I know that the Christians in our society have reservations about the two Islamist organizations within the Alliance. If we look at the issue from the Muslim perspective we should ask ourselves why those two organizations decided to establish such organizations. [I say] that it is the policies of the government that caused the development of such sentiments in some parts of our society and the refugee camps [in the Sudan]. Many Muslims, due to government incompetence [in handling sensitive issues], believe that the Eritrean government is a Christian government. [The Government] implicates Islam when any form of conflict arises; and the social rights of Muslims are not properly protected. With its reproachful tactics, the government has made the Muslims feel as if they are criminals. [The regime] has also used different tactics to defame the names [of many Muslims] in order to have the rest of the people develop a negative attitude towards them. We cannot disregard the fact that the closure of Islamic schools, the jailing and disappearances of teachers of Koranic schools [have dented] our Muslim populations' [confidence]. Those are [the causes] why Islamist organizations came to being.
On the other hand, there are new developments within the Christian social domain. Our youth, in order to escape government oppression are increasingly finding solace in religion. By repressing the Jehovah witnesses, it is creating more Jehovah witnesses; and the same thing is happening with the New Churches. Therefore, [I say] that it is this system itself that is radicalizing religion in Eritrea.
The organizations within the Alliance accept the democratic principles and [applicable] methods. We can take the Charter of the Alliance as an example. The Charter, seen from all aspects, is secular and it can be considered impartial and fair. The two Islamist organizations have accepted [the Charter]. Therefore, although there are different approaches within the Alliance, one can say there is enough confidence [within organization]. In order to do away with radicalism, we in the opposition camp need to introduce a better solution -- one that embraces and treats all [citizens] with fairness, and a system that bestows equal rights to all, and [most of all] one that broadens our common values.
13 - As you know, most of the times politics emanates from the exploitation of certain situations. It is clear that the games the government plays are designed to extend its existence and at the same time they denigrate and belittle the opposition. As you have already explained it, after the government's prompting of the rise of religious extremism, it turns around and exploits it some more. By presenting its "there you have them" argument, it is fracturing our social fabric. In other words, the government is exploiting the creation of Islamist movements quite strongly. Don't you think that the Muslim groups need to see this government scheme and exercise care?
True, the government is exploiting this problem. Not only that, it also goes around terrifying people by saying, "look, if I am not there, you better know on whose hands you will fall; they will finish you off, they will slaughter you" etc. Yes, we need to exercise prudence and confront this issue with caution. Nevertheless, we cannot pressure Islamist organization to be and act this way or that, and we shouldn't. What is needed is, and it is the responsibility of all, for Islamist organizations to struggle within a democratic framework with more fervor. To continue the struggle by being part of a bigger opposition body can always abort the tactics the government is using. However, better results can also be achieved if our Muslim citizens are fully engaged within [and outside] the Islamic groups.
The most effective safeguard is when we Eritreans fully understand that Islam and Christianity are part of our own identities. Islam does not belong to Muslims only; and Christianity does not belong to Christians only. Both religions belong to the citizens of Eritrea. We Eritreans are Muslims and Christians; those two religions are our heritage and to accept them as such is our responsibility. Since we all have a common Eritrean identity, Muslims should support Christians and Christians should support Muslims. When Christians take Islam as an Eritrean reality and when Muslims take Christianity as an Eritrean reality many problems would be alleviated; and the government wouldn't have a chance to meddle. Based on such views, the Islamist movements become national movements. But when the government continues to marginalize and oppress them then they become more radical.
14 - Let's move on to a different topic. Over the past few months Eritreans have been debating over a burning issue - that of national conference. As an individual, as part of the ELF and thirdly, as a member of the Alliance, what is your take on the subject?
I would like to describe the concept of national conference as a tool that the opposition, as a united and coordinated organization, uses as the last thrust to effect change. Therefore, we have to have a full and clear understanding of what national conference means. When someone [casually] starts to talk about "national conference" it is as if it represents the whole nation. It means, even the government is included in that conference. In other words, when we refer to holding a national conference, it means we have already fulfilled the prerequisites and entered [a particular phase] [that of change]. I think this is one of the explanations of national conference. I think there is another explanation as well. When national conference is explained within the context of the opposition camp, it does not only mean the coming together of opposition groups but it also means that necessary preparations, coordination, certain reforms and all encompassing leadership is in place and a common work plan is ready.
Today, because the opposition is growing stronger both internally and externally, at the same time as the government is growing weaker, and also as the international community has come to know the real situation of our country very well, [one can argue that] the importance and urgency of the national conference has come to the fore. But the most important thing is how to make it a success. It is prudent to prevent the national conference from simply becoming a cloth under which we cover everything. It is important to know that national conference is a true transitional stage.
15 - How does the National Alliance view that?
As explained earlier, the national alliance has formed a committee entrusted with the task of national conference. It has already been made clear that the committee, as was explained by the leadership of the alliance later on, was not tasked to call for national conference but to communicate with other organizations and create a favorable platform and to create a preparatory committee.
16 - Before calling for a national conference, wouldn't you say there are some unresolved issues [to be addressed]? Or you believe the time has come to hold a national conference?
The time has come to hold a national conference. But, have we fulfilled all the factors the national conference requires? No we have not. Of course, there are issues that have been omitted. At least there are issues regarding better communication (based on tolerance) and the clearing of our conscience. We can say that discussions over the past and to find remedies for our wounds may take months. So, has the time for a national conference arrived? Yes it has. Are those things I mentioned fulfilled? They are not fulfilled yet.
17 - Then how is it possible to call for a national conference when the requirements are not met?
First I want you to explain to me what are the requirements for a national conference?
18 - As you have elucidated, there are some issues that were omitted. These issues hinge on processes that have not been fulfilled. You are explaining the process in terms of the results; so how can the result be achieved if the requirements are not met?
We want to use the national conference to combine the mechanisms of all opposition groups to change the system and introduce a democratic form of government. But before we go into a conference, we would like to flush out all points of disagreements and get rid of all apprehensions. In order to make the national conference a success, it is our wish to iron out all differences immediately and to go to the next stage.
19 - Let's change the subject and move on to another important and controversial issue; that is the issue regarding the Eritrean Constitution. Despite the fact that those who oppose the government are strongly advocating for the implementation of the Constitution, the traditional opposition groups do not support this case. What are your feeling and views about this issue?
Indeed, when the opposition calls for the implementation of the constitution we also support that call. Since Eritrea needs a constitution, [we are of the opinion] that all of us, in the future transitional government of Eritrea, have to reach an agreement on how to find ways to deal with this issue. If the issue is to do with the constitution that was drafted and approved a few years ago, then we should note that the constitution itself is not there. Eritrea is a country without a constitution. Many argue that the constitution which has already been drafted should be implemented. If we are talking about the already drafted constitution and the need to amend and then implement it then ELF's views are not very far from this. When we say let's debate the constitution what we mean by that is to debate the principles of the constitution. We view the value of the process of the constitution as equal to the value of contents of the constitution. Since all of us are the beneficiaries of the constitution we will all live and be governed by it. Therefore, it is our opinion that all of us should agree that we should establish it together in order to make it more dynamic and representative.
There is an issue different to what was mentioned above; the issue revolves around an argument that maintains the implementation of the existing constitution; and another one [that argues] amendments can ensue later. In the ensuing stage, when the time comes to implement the constitution, that is when the Assembly approves it or when it is approved through a referendum, or when some other method was used to approve it, that means the demands that the other parties placed are being [automatically] fulfilled. Therefore, I think bringing the issue of the constitution and presenting it as either a point of difference or agreement is not right. The two sides, a side that wants to amend and implement and the other that wants to endorse the constitution, will converge during the implementation stage. And I don't think that will cause problems.
20 - Excuse me, would you please clarify your response once again? Apart from the method through which the government and those who drafted it used, do you think the constitution, content-wise, is acceptable?
As I have already explained it, I don't think it is important to speak about the constitution by emphasizing its contents only. This is so because the process is very important to us. Since a constitution is the responsibility of all citizens, the best choice is for all to participate [in it]. As the drafters, supporters, and those who ratified it, have already stated the fact that it needs amendments, then perhaps [these amendments] are tied to the process and the method that was used. [As you know] an assembly does not draft a constitution; few people do. The important point is that the Assembly, representing the people, debates the constitution and then approves it. The constitution that is prepared can be a starting document and part of the next constitution.
21 - Allow me to take you back to where we started. Since we started this interview with the topic of change, allow me to take you back to a change related topic. One aspect of change is tied to leadership. A leadership, good or bad, plays either a positive or negative role. I believe the leadership of the opposition has a big role in the change that we want to be introduced. Could the existing leadership -- one that has not yet injected new blood in its ranks --, realize the change that we want to come about?
[First of all] a leader who struggles to bring about a democratic change must be democratic enough. Accountability, accepting change of leadership that emanates from congresses [that the opposition groups hold] should be a normal [political] culture. Accountability and the introduction of change are some of the characteristics of democracy. [According to me] the current leadership of the opposition carries a big historical responsibility; it should create a body that will replace it. Let alone in groups and organizations, even household units become extinct if there is no replacement. If this leadership is truly struggling to bring about a democratic change, it must understand that, in order to accomplish the goal -- to introduce democratic principles and processes as well as having continuity -- it must prepare the stage for the newcomers.
22 - Certainly, the present and the future generations have roles to play in the national [affairs of the country]. However, those individuals who were in leadership during the armed struggle and post-liberation period are still there. Do you think this is right?
Truly, this is one of the points of contentions with the PFDJ government; and since the opposition camp is not happy with this outcome it has not introduced such changes itself. That indicates there is a problem [within the opposition camp]. But there is one point we need to point out here, the opposition camp is not a government. And since it does not have enough tools and resources, and since its members are volunteers, there are limited individuals who are be prepared to take over. The members wage their struggle on part-time basis. And the rest of the concerned citizens have families to feed and cannot be expected to work full time and assume responsibilities. Therefore, there is a serious problem in bringing change within the leadership; but this doesn't mean change is not needed. On the contrary, the leadership must find a solution to this problem. Calling for change and not working hard enough to bring about change is something to be frowned upon.
23 - Allow me to ask you a hard question that many would not address. It is related to the issue of reconciliation. When reconciliation is mentioned, any passer-by asks you, "Who would reconcile with whom?" I think this needs an explanation: How do you face an enemy who tells you that he has made the necessary changes and calls upon you to reconcile? Let's say the Eritrean Government approaches you by saying it has made all the necessary changes and invites you to come home. How would you respond to that?
The opposition groups, be it the old or the new, be it Eritreans organized under different groups or are mere individuals, those who were with the system and have now left the system, have all repeatedly called for the introduction of change in the past and they are still calling. All have expressed their wishes for the renewal and re-construction of an Eritrea that embraces all [its citizens]. If this current system has reached a stage in which it is capable of making such a call, then it means the situation [in the country] has really changed. If such a call is made [under such circumstances], all opposition parties should accept the call, enter into [a dialogue] and appropriately confront the call. We have always to be prepared for such a dialogue. Since it is possible to arrive at a lasting solution through dialogue, and since our people want a solution, whether we like it or not it is a must to fulfill the wishes of the people.
24 - Let me ask you one last question. Last month in London, you met with Mesfin Hagos, the leader of the EPLF-Democratic Party. What was the reason for your meeting?
Indeed, I met with Mr Mesfin Hagos. The reason for the meeting was first to get to know with each other, and then to exchange views on what has is happening in our country. Our meeting was very useful and we will have a follow-up meeting in the coming month.
On behalf of Awate.com I thank you for taking time for this interview.
Comments:
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
|
