The premise of my argument is that people have a fundamental right of revolt when the covenant they made with their government is broken. The covenant could be in the form of a constitution or a promise.

People are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights that can't be infringed upon under any circumstances. Even in a democracy, the right of the majority is not a license to do whatever the majority wishes. The rights that are inalienable are inalienable and that is why it is absolutely necessary to recognize that the individual is the logic of democracy. When a government tries to undermine these "inalienable" rights, it unilaterally declares war on its citizens, and the people have the right to revolt.

The regime in Asmara has unilaterally declared war on the Eritrean people and it is crucially important that we determine how we exercise our fundamental right of revolt.

I'm an advocate of the non-violent approach not because all avenues of a peaceful resolution of our conflict have not been exhausted. First, it is factually not true. Many of the organizations that trace their pedigree to the ELF, have been waging a non-violent, political struggle for over a decade, and it is only right that we acknowledge their sacrifice and devotion to the cause of Eritrea. Second, the idea that force must be used as a last resort implies that it is necessary that we pay a down payment to mortgage our inalienable rights. It is simply idiotic and so undignifying to the fundamental worthiness of mankind. The idea that force must be used as a "last resort" is enshrined in the tradition of a just war doctrine, but that tradition does not negate the right of survival when one side unilaterally attacks the other. The tradition also assumes that both parties to the conflict would minimally adhere to the rules of engagement. It is a legal and moral tradition that presupposes legality and morality; something that "higdef" is completely devoid of. "Higdef" is a rouge regime that believes in the law of the jungle (to borrow one of "higdef's" favorite phrases).

The Eritrean people have certainly the option of using force to eradicate the nightmare in their midst, if they choose so. Acknowledging that right, however, does not mean that I want the Eritrean people to spill more blood. To the contrary, I want the Eritrean people to embark on a less traveled road where the pay-off and reward for the living and posterity is far greater than would be otherwise. Mine is a utilitarian and practical argument that seeks the greatest good for all. The non-violent approach is an approach that kills two birds with one stone: regime change and democratization.

Saying that the end justifies the means is not a mark of wickedness or mischief, but calling a spade a spade. We're, however, at a juncture in our history where we can't divorce the means from the end. The eradication of the regime in Asmara is an event, in itself, worth celebrating, but it is not enough and it would not do us much good if we wear the same garb with a different dye. I might be guilty here of pessimism, but I can't suppress the pessimism of my experience. There is overwhelming evidence in Africa, third world and elsewhere, where the violent overthrow of a regime does not usher in democratization. I admit there are exceptions to the rule, but the odds against us are overwhelming. We can't afford to bet the future of our next generation. It is prudent that we choose an investment with the least risk and with the highest return.

We've to ensure an inverse relationship between the weakening of dictatorship and the strengthening of democracy. As we remove the weeds of tyranny, we must plant the seeds of democracy. The two are inseparable and must be carried out simultaneously.

As we declare our war against tyranny, it is vitally important that we assess the strength and weaknesses of the regime and develop strategies that would yield us maximum reward.

I believe that waging a non-violent struggle would yield us the greatest reward with a relatively minimum loss. It is important to note that the non-violent struggle is a struggle that would require tremendous sacrifice and it is not, unfortunately, blood-free. The natural reaction of the regime to the non-violent struggle is always to try to thwart it and nib it in its bud. The regime would use whatever force at its disposal to scrap it off from the political landscape of Eritrea. Subsequently, there would be martyrs, casualties, prisoners and refugees, but the loss would be relatively much lower. The active defiance of our people would, of course, instill in all of us unshakable faith in the ability to rule ourselves. It is unfortunate that the belief in self-governance is at its lowest in Isaias-owned Eritrea.  It is sad and pitiful to see so many people arguing that Isaias is the only one who can govern Eritrea. This cult of personality is the manifestation of a deeper political poverty. There is a shortage of public self-esteem and self-confidence. The people must be made to believe in themselves and their ability to rule themselves. This is a political malady that requires a political remedy.

It is very important that we discuss how we wage this twofold strategy of destroying dictatorship and replacing it with democracy. I would first start by showing the futility of using force to change the regime in Asmara and then proceed to show the virtues and blessings of the non-violent political defiance.

In any endeavor, it is not only wise, but also necessary to clearly define your mission and accordingly develop strategies. From the onset, I've clearly spelled out that the aim of the new struggle in Eritrea is to get rid of tyranny and replace it with democracy. The two are an integral piece of each other and the ensuing strategies should reflect this symbiotic relationship. Regime change and democracy are important in themselves and independently of each other, but together they are far more important.

Our mission is what guides and determines our strategies. Our strategies, however, must be grounded in reality. Our strategies must be effective and efficient. We need to attain our goals in a reasonable time frame and with a minimum and necessary cost. We can't afford the language of yester years "qalsina newiHyu: awetna nay gdn". In the long run, we'll all be dead.

We need to first assess our own resources and the resources of the regime. The idea should be to hit the regime where it would make the biggest impact. Our struggle is definitely the fight of David against Goliath. David knew exactly the strength of his opponent and his own strength. The traditional thinking King Saul wanted to arm David with a sword, but David declined the offer and used his sling instead. David hit Goliath where it matters most, his Achilles' heels. (In Greek mythology, Achilles can't be killed in war because his mom dipped him in divine water by holding him with his heels. The parts of his body that was wet with that divine water were protected, but not his heels. A clever soldier who knew about Achilles' heels eventually hit him at his heels and Achilles died, and so goes the expression "Achilles' heels".)

In our fight for regime change and our quest for democracy, it is crucially important that we identify "higdef" Achilles' heels. The non-violent struggle has identified "higdef's" Achilles heel and I'd talk more about that when time permits.

I know Burhan and Ahmed have criticized us for talking about a non-existent movement. True, the movement is in its embryonic age but it is slowly gaining momentum and surely would reach a critical mass sooner than what most of us think.

In deference to those who in an unprecedented act of heroism, willingly chose to go jail, I say the movement is alive and kicking. In deference to those who are still going to jail for reasons of non-collaboration, I say the movement is alive and kicking. For those students in South Africa who are leading the way, I say the movement is alive and kicking. For those many Meharis that help our political prisoners escape, I say the movement is alive and kicking. In admiration of our youth in Australia who are spreading the message of courage, compassion and commitment, I say the movement is alive and kicking. For those many Eritreans who are boycotting "Higdef's" enterprises, I say the movement is alive and kicking. In solidarity to those Eritreans in Toronto who are actively defying "higdef" I say the movement is alive and kicking. In appreciation of the mushrooming civic societies in Europe and America, I say the movement is alive and kicking. In solidarity and sympathy to those Eritreans that are braving the heats and deserts of North Africa and Mediterranean Sea, I say the movement is alive and kicking. Above all, in gratitude and respect to those leaders in the opposition that are exercising maximum restraint, I say the movement is alive and kicking. 

As always, I welcome your comments, please contact me at: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it