1- Let me first ask you about your abandoning the EPLF-DP (now Eritrean Democratic Party, EDP). Many people I spoke to who have read the program of both EDP and EPM report that they couldn�t find a difference between the two programs. They think the separation from your former colleagues was not a difference of views but a personality clash. They also say that if that is the case, he (meaning you) should have been patient for the sake of the unity of the organization -- even if you had valid reasons for wanting to leave. How would you reply to that?

I was patient and carried through, for a long time. The problem is that I was excluded. We couldn�t get any work done. I couldn�t work. We couldn�t work together. We failed to decide [on issues] together. Our activities lacked transparency. While a few people consulted among themselves, the rest of us were left out of the consultations.

2- But you were very few to begin with?

Yes, though we were few, a few of us were left out of the few. I have seen it before. The transitional leadership included Mesfin [Hagos], Assefaw [Tekheste], Hebret [Berhe], Berekhet [Habteselasse] and myself. Mesfin was the chairman; I was considered [his] deputy. Now, we have differences in some fundamental issues such as those concerning the opposition organization, concerning the war, the hows and whats, the weyanes� agenda, the culture of the EPLF. There were points of differences among us; but I was taking that as a difference of views and never thought it would reach to the extent of isolation. We were excluded. They started to take decisions without our knowledge�

3- For example?

For example, a contact with Ethiopia was established and we were not told. And when I asked why we were not establishing relations with Ethiopia, I was getting other unrealistic replies [explanations].

4- Like what, for example?

Such as what was allegedly said by other people, about [the] popular front or about us, and there were talks that the people in power [PFDJ] having negative views about us, and that estabslishing contacts with Ethiopia is not popular at this time, things like that. The information was� other people were relaying this information. In the end, since I can know that through other means, they told me after they met [with Ethiopian authorities.] That is my conclusion.

5- Who met whom?

Mesfin [Hagos] and Paulos [Tesfaghergis] met with officials from the Ethiopian government.

6- But Paulos is not a leader of the EPLF-DP?

He was not..

7- And he is not a member of EPLF-DP either?

No, that is not true. He is a member.

8- But I have asked him myself and he told me he was not?

You can see that in two ways. It is natural to say he is not a member in relation to his work (do you think this should be published?). He works for an NGO and cannot declare he is a member of political party, because he runs an NGO with his colleagues, but then, he runs Eritrea1.org. Don�t worry; he is everywhere. So� Paulos is a member.

10- All right, you said Mesfin and Paulos met with Ethiopian authorities. Do you know what they talked about, what was discussed or agreed upon?

Up to this time, I haven�t seen a written report. They met in the first week of Gunbot [May] 2002 and we have not read any report. It was verbal and verbal is not reliable. Normally�look I also met [with Ethiopian officials] but I presented written reports.

11- But there is also a complaint against you that you were having a meeting and you were not telling the others about it?

Where? This is a lie. This is being said for defamation. There is written [material] how we should meet them. It is all written; I met them in Khartoum. When I met them in Khartoum, it was the Sudanese who arranged the meeting for me with Ethiopian and Yemeni foreign ministers. I met them. The newspapers reported it. Not only were they informed, but the public at large was also informed. It was in the papers. And that can't be a secret.

12- So you are saying you haven�t conducted secret meetings?

No, I haven�t.

13- Was it all transparent?

It was open.

14- Then did the topics you discuss have any difference from the topics they (Mesfin & Paulos) discussed?

What they discussed, apart from discussing it verbally, there is no written material about it. There is nothing you can quote except that they [Ethiopians] hate the PFDJ and that they say, "you have to distance yourselves from the views of Isaias and from the views of PFDJ"�This was said in the congress. And I responded by saying that this is what we are struggling for. Other than that, I haven�t heard a word detailing what they [Ethiopians] or if they tried to exert any pressure on us. But in the congress, Mesfin related this as an act of pressure.

15- So do you think this "pressure" is hindering the movement from getting involved in regional politics?

We have devised a strategy. A strategy to meet with Ethiopia, Sudan and Yemen. But then they met and made it a secret. Why should it be hidden from us?

16- What do you mean when you say "us"?

Me and Hibret.

17- Was Dr. Tesfai Germatsion with you?

No, he was not.

18- Where is he now?

He started to work with the FAO and since he left, we never met.

19- How about Haile Menkerios: didn�t he start the movement with you?

Well, yes he pushed us in the beginning, but due to his work, he can�t be involved actively because he works for the UN.

20- There is one thing I want to ask. We hear, "we didn�t meet with Ethiopia�.They/he met with Ethiopia, etc" and meeting with Ethiopia is considered a big issue and, with some people, it has become a reason for getting closer or drifting apart. It is a litmus test how "patriotic" an Eritrean is. Why is that?

All of this is not right. We have to meet. The bad thing is to meet and treat the meeting as a secret. If you meet, you have to inform the Eritrean and Ethiopian people, including the members of your organization, openly. We certainly have to meet with Ethiopia. The meeting is not the problem but meeting and not disclosing what was discussed is the problem� this culture [of transparency] should be promoted. But in regards to considering such meeting as a litmus test, it is because, on one hand, some see enmity towards Ethiopia within the people--we just came out of a war and there is bitterness--and there is an apprehension of losing support from the people. On the other hand, they want to meet. But you see, they want to own the meetings, alone. You see, someone informed me--and I talked about it in the congress--it was said that Ethiopia should meet with Mesfin and the communication should be through him only and that I should not meet with them.

21- This was said in the congress?

No, I heard it before that but I mentioned it in the congress; I didn�t mention the name [of the person who informed me]. I didn�t dwell on it; I just mentioned it. You see, after going this far, if there is no trust, I don�t know. We have struggled long and I think the idea of trying to control meetings is not good.

22- It is a known fact that in any negotiation, each party advances its interest. When you meet with neighboring countries, say with Ethiopia, they are certainly meeting you with the objective of advancing their own interest. For any negotiation to be fair, the parties must have equal strength and leverage. Therefore, when you meet with the Ethiopians, as a weak movement, what kind of understanding or fairness do you achieve?

Look, our meetings didn�t even go beyond exploratory meeting. The meeting that I had didn�t go beyond that. The strategy was that our neighbors could help us in our struggle. But this�we didn�t take it beyond exploratory and was not carried to another level. Now, the congress decided that we have to meet with Ethiopia even by going there. I was in Ethiopia after the congress. That was after we parted, and even that was exploratory.

23- Then what did you discuss?

Issues like� their admittance that the deportation was wrong and that it should not be repeated; that we should have harmony as neighbors; we shouldn�t be bitter and should try to repair relations for the interest of the people. That the mutual interest of the people, cooperation and communication, should not be hindered. The fact that the two countries, living in a no-war-no-peace situation is not good and that war is destructive�. Even when I talked to Meles this is what he repeated, that they do not want war�

24- Do you believe him, that he doesn�t want war?

You see..

25- Do you believe him, don�t you suspect that he would want to take advantage of the weakness of Eritrea, governance and all, and would want to exploit the opportunity?

This is not about believing or not believing, but they have said it. If it is from their heart, it remains to be seen in practice and if it is not from their heart, it remains to be seen in practice as well. The issue is that I am telling the Eritrean and Ethiopian people that they said this.

27-With those members of the opposition who were flocking to welcome you and you were giving them cold shoulders?

Regarding the group who allegedly participated [on the side of Ethiopia] in the war, we had clear differences and we debated that at length. I maintained a view but then I was defeated on the vote and a decision was made. But then, at that time, we decided against those "organizations that participated in the war� those who bled us or those who were considered collaborators." The decision was not to have any relations with them. The organizations that were mentioned could be one or two organizations. But during the war, for one reason or another, since there is another information indicating that the Kunama had entered through the Gash and the ELF had entered in the surroundings of Goluj etc. One way or another, we have to make sure whether this is true or not.

Then, it is only the people who can determine if that was a crime or not. If we become judges at this moment, we cannot work with the opposition. You can�t be in two positions. You can�t be an opposition and at the same time reject the opposition. But this doesn�t mean that all the opposition, whether in program or other aspects, are flawless. What we have to believe, before, now and in the future is that those opposition groups have a democratic question. To what extent they are democratic is another question. But they have democratic questions and as an opposition group you have to entertain those questions.

28- When it is said that the opposition entered Eritrea with the Weyane, what exactly is the accusation? Was Ethiopia lacking troops and they supplied them with troops? Was Ethiopia lacking trained soldiers and they covered the shortage? Was Ethiopia lacking in military strategists and they led the war? Was it that the Weyane didn�t know the terrain of Eritrea and they showed them the way? What is it exactly, what is it that they committed?

You present it as a multiple choice question and you forgot to put "none of the above." That is the answer: none of the above. If you were in their position at that moment, they shouldn�t have done that. But they found a chance to enter and might have entered. The accusations are many: they tried to create administrations and public assemblies. The accusations are many. It might be true or it might not. But it is not right at this moment to present yourself as an accuser. Therefore, if we take that as an issue, they were banned from entering their own country; they are Eritreans and they are strugglers. They were told, �nay wdbat Hshewya�� and were prevented from entering their country. They were being hunted everywhere in Ethiopia. In collaboration with Weyane, we have pushed the ELF to Sudan. All that with all the unpleasant history of our armed struggle, the wrongs committed among ourselves, this has to be seen within that context; you can�t see it in isolation of that history. What was needed is wisdom on how to handle such issues.

29- It was not tackled properly?

No it was not..

30- Going to yet another subject, I would like to ask you about sovereignty. What is "sovereignty?" How do you, Adhnom, describe sovereignty?

To tell you the truth, neither Ethiopia nor Eritrea has sovereignty- those are countries that live on charities, by begging.

31- I mean the conventional view of sovereignty?

Yes. That is what the people say but these countries have rulers: the IMF, World Bank, and Donor Nations. These are countries moving on the assistance of those entities. If we were to say those countries have sovereignty, simply because they have borders and there are governments or groups governing the country�. The people should be freed from poverty. If they are to be freed from poverty, if they are to claim sovereignty and a proud life, there should be peace. There should be peace. There should be trade; movement of labor and capital should be there. That is when they can say we are free.

32- I understand your explanation but I will try to bring this within context. I will narrow it down for you. There was a border war between the two countries and many people lost their lives and the jury is still out on who won and what they won and it seems the region is preparing for yet another war. With this in mind, there is much talk about violation of sovereignty, violators of sovereignty and protecting sovereignty, etc.. This has become another vague measurement of patriotism. So what is sovereignty in this context?

First, the war was never started because of the border. There were other causes. There were issues, some of which we don�t know clearly, between the two allies. And there are other causes that we know about such as economic issues, monopoly, political� the interference of Isaias, the contraband activities of Isaias brought us to the war. However, I don�t accept the claim that they, the Ethiopians, are not a party to the problems.

But let�s talk about ourselves, about our own house. Our relations with our neighbors and beyond was not satisfactory. It has an aggressive nature of solving conflicts. We didn�t have a policy of how to coexist peacefully and we entered into conflict with all of them. Therefore, the cause [of the war] was not the border issue. Concerning the border, we have a border that we believe is ours and they have theirs. This issue of the border, even when used as a pretext, should have been solved peacefully. Yes, it is presented as a pretext.

33- Adhanom, are you a regionalist, with Akele Guzai sentiments?

I don�t know what that means but I understand your question. This has history to it. It starts from the days of the meka�e. A reform movement within the old EPLF was branded a "regionalist movement" made up of combatants from Akele Guzai despite the fact that those who were in the movement were from different parts of the highlands of Eritrea. To this day, people are confused about it. When they planned to purge the combatants they called them menka�e and after a campaign of vilification, they were called many names and accused of many unsubstantiated crimes. Even Romadan Mohammed Nur gave them a description.

34- How did Romadan describe them?

He described the movement as �Left wing communism and infantile disorder�. When they discovered that this was not cutting it, Isaias followed up and described it as a regional movement. Since it was described as a movement initiated by combatants from Akele Guzai, he liquidated the educated elements of Akel Guzai. Then, when he wanted to eliminate the educated combatants from the region of Hamassien, he branded them, Yemeen [Arabic for Right Wing], a regional movement of Hamassien where people like Solomon Weldemariam were targeted. That is how the rumors and propaganda were spread. Such defamation and division is the ideology of the clique.

35- You mean elements from Hamassien were eliminated?

They were finished. They were cleaned out. They liquidated them. Then�

36- For the benefit of our readers, when was this?

It was after the organizational congress [summer 1977] that they were detained but I don�t know when they were killed. Then, Isaias became almost god until 2000 when some leaders wanted reformation and asked to clean the organization. This movement [G-15] was also branded a regional movement. To attack people using the regionalism card is an ideology of the PFDJ. Therefore, accusing me of regionalism is an old trick. It is coming when the tactic is overused and exposed. It is �Habal Belya keytqdmeki� [Tigrigna proverb: call her cross-eyed before she calls you the same, which you are.]

I was never corrupted. I struggled for law and justice. I didn�t hurt anybody. I didn�t wrong anyone and my conscience is clear. But I wonder, especially on the educated class. I return the question to you. What is regionalism? What are the factors that determine one to be a regionalist? What are the effects of that? What are the measurements for that?

First, to describe someone as regionalist, if he is in power and he brings people from his region only, then you can call him that. It is when people from his region benefit and he works to benefit them. I am not in any power to be accused of that.

Take for example the DP: It is said in some quarters that the majority of the members of DP were from Akele Guzai. When they were members of DP, they were not branded Akele Guzai but now that they opted to join EPM, they are being branded as regionalists!

We have to see the views that are being presented, without looking into where they originate. The question should be: Are the ideas that they are presenting for Eritrea right or wrong? We have to debate that instead of throwing empty accusations. But branding people negatively and the defamation campaign is a continuation of the ideology of PFDJ and through that to alienate the movement from the people and to sabotage the struggle. Therefore, I don�t worry much about this nonsense. This accusation, coming from the enemies of the people and from people who committed much wrongdoing, or those whose hands are soaked in blood, makes me proud to be called regionalist. What else can one expect from enemies? Also, this accusation that doesn�t have any shape or substance is aimed at confusing the thoughts of Eritreans and controlling the minds of Eritreans in order to cripple the struggle. And it will not succeed.

38- I am asking because you told me that regionalism and the like was a tool that the EPLF used. Was this tool used in the creation of such reality?

Well, I cannot talk and analyze of what happened before I joined. But one thing I know is that this clique, the clique that is led by Isaias now holding power, in order to continue to stay in power, has always used its dividing ideology that it perfected by dividing and weakening any existing front by using the card of regionalism and sectarianism.

The clique is only interested in holding power and doesn�t care if the country disintegrates in the protection of its power. Just like we are witnessing now, the fact that the clique has polarized the people, it has always been doing the same in the past. It doesn�t mean we didn�t know that earlier. But as we grew older and wiser, we looked at the bigger picture. We were struggling to push the enemy out and achieve freedom. So, we were just patient and let it go. We believed this would be corrected along the way. And we let it pass; but it was becoming deeply rooted.

Also, such destructive acts were always covered up with progressive-sounding ideologies. All the decisions were taken with the pretext of class struggle. It was a combatant killing a combatant like him; a national was killing a national like him. But it had cover up.

39- Let�s go to your call of national salvation. In your program, the EPM program, you have made the call for national salvation as one of the main points. Other opposition groups had repeatedly made such calls before. Isn�t your call a duplication of past calls or is it meant to replace the existing calls or is it a parallel call? While you were in the EPLF-DP, you called for a roundtable discussion while other calls existed. There was neither a roundtable discussion nor a rectangular table discussion. The call is very confusing and it seems it is going nowhere. The question is: wouldn�t your call be a repetition of the DP�s call for round table that goes nowhere? If so, don�t you think the multiple calls will just confuse the opposition arena and enthusiasm might die out before any such activity takes place?

When we called for a round table, we didn�t present any agenda. We just called for a meeting to explore what our points of agreement and points of disagreement were. We haven�t declared the points that we disagree on or agree on. But now, we are approaching that task with clarity. There are calls for a national conference. But what are you going to discuss in a national conference? It is a meeting just like the proposed round table. It is a call for a meeting to explore our issues and then take action, decisions on them. We are calling for a meeting and we are proposing that we have two points to agree on: peace and democracy�.

40-But don�t we know the stubbornness of the Eritrean political culture? It was said that "there is no invitee or invitor", but there is no meeting that takes place unless someone calls and invites for it, an initiator. Even culturally, in a wedding setting, the inviting is coordinated either by the bride�s family or the bridegroom�s family. Now that there is a call for national salvation floated by the ELF-RC [now ELF-RC and ELF-NC], there is a call for national congress floated by the ENA and there is a roundtable call, presented by the EDP and now we have the EPM�s call for national salvation. How do you streamline all these calls?

Excellent. Let the ideas flow first, then people will decide�

41- But the people need to have a structure to decide.  With what structure, how do you want the people to judge and make a decision?

One has just to present ideas and if the ideas are accepted and that is how a program fits to administer the affairs of the country. We are talking about program-related points. We are calling for all to agree on those two points, peace and democracy. Eritrea is in dire need of peace at this time, peace internally within itself and peace with its neighbors.

42- But is there anyone who doesn�t agree on these points?

That is the point; we are presenting those points because we believe everybody agrees on them. We are calling to work on those points that all agree on. Second, we are presenting democracy and all agree on that. Let�s agree on those two points and formalize the agreement. Then, we can pursue our foreign activities in one voice; we approach our people in one voice and we approach the friends and foes with one voice. We are presenting clear points and that might be the only difference.

43- You think the other calls are not clear enough?

You tell me, what is clearly stated? Did anyone specify the points that we need to agree on?

44- Well, I remember that the ELF-RC has a standing call for national salvation for about four years now. The call briefly called for a meeting to plan the way out of our crisis and for the future of the country.

We are not saying let�s meet to identify points; we are just presenting our views. If there is anyone that wants to add more points, we agree, all of us. But basically, we are presenting a program�

45- All right. I am asking about the practicality of the process. If an entity has already made that call, wouldn�t it be better for you to approach that entity and propose the points that you want to be added or make a new call and ask the entity to come forward with its response?

No. We have already agreed that a call for national salvation is needed and we have agreed to it. Even the call for national congress is accepted; what we are doing is going beyond that. There is nothing that can be done before a meeting.

46- So the calls are accepted by you?

Of course. There is nothing that can be done before a meeting, be it a national congress, a conference, a seminar or another. Regardless of its naming, the ideas have to mature. But we are clearly calling to be bound by our commitment to peace and democracy because we all know that there are ethnic issues, religious issues, the charter issues and other issues. We know there are many issues within the opposition camp. We are presenting practical views. If someone says that we are erring and there are additions to be made, merhaba, it is welcome. But at a minimum, we have moved one step ahead. In the past two years we have seen the issues. Myself, representing EPLF-DP, have met with many organizations and we talked. We have talked about the next step following the national salvation. Even the three [neighboring] countries have expressed their support for a national conference, but what next? What will we do in the congress? We are saying let's hold a meeting, be it a table or anything else. DP didn�t present a plan. Now we are transparent. We are open. We have stated that this can get us closer in a minimum�

47- Why don�t you tell me in brief what you consider the plan, the headlines, per-se?

The plan of national salvation is a call for us to meet on two points: peace and democracy. What we have talked earlier. When you say peace, anything is solved peacefully�

48- But look, so far, I have talked and met many leaders of the opposition and have not met anyone who doesn�t believe in peace and democracy�

Good�

49- Does that mean the story is ended?

These are the minimums. Considering the fragmentation that we have� the disconnected existence� let�s start with those�

50- But don�t you think that what you are expecting has already started because the conviction is there and since there is no organization that doesn�t believe in them? What next?

Let�s start with those points in practice: let�s carry out our activities, lobbying, diplomatic tasks, and information activities based on those two points, by being one force and one voice. Let�s take those points as a start. That will grow because even when we say democracy, what we are presenting is elementary; because it is elastic. Then if the people are convinced... you see, we haven�t penetrated the people. We are still water and oil. The people have hated the PFDJ, but yet, the opposition forces are not regarded as an option. Therefore, let�s make those two points household commodities in any Eritrean family. Then the people will increase their demands from the camp. Here, those who want reform and those who want total change will agree. The movements are there and we will be saved from the merry-go-round.

51- When you see the programs of the opposition groups, and I am sure you have studied them all, who do you think has a program closer to that of the EPM?

All the organizations that have secular programs� it is almost similar. But, it is not the program only; one has to consider the historical developments. Even the composition of the ethnic organizations is what it is because they have serious unresolved problems, democratic question.

52- Let me give you this hypothetical exercise: for one minute, consider yourself Isaias. You have absolute power to do whatever you please. The catch: you are a democrat, just and fair. And to make it interesting, let�s assume there is already a decision to allow multi-party politics in Eritrea. Now your task is to give your permission to those organizations that you consider should be granted permission and to ban others. Who among the opposition would you grant permission and whom would you ban? And remember, you are acting Isaias?

If I were a democrat and if I were to deny others the right to exist� Without going too far, the Islamist organizations say that if the Eritrean people accept the Sharia�a rule then they would implement it. We have debated that so many times. It is their democratic right to propose, but it is not feasible. Considering the structure of our society, it is not feasible. With the historical development of the country, it is not feasible. That is what you can say. But if democracy is allowed, it is the right of everyone to explain his thoughts.

54- If their grievances were brought to a national forum and if people accept their grievances, at least the grievances that they recognize as being just, do you think their problems would be solved?

It would be solved. They are nationalists and they have struggled for Eritrea. Ask how many Affars were martyred heroically, and others? We had a referendum and the highest percentage of people who voted were from Affar. Considering these points, the grievances should be responded to properly. There is chauvinism and we have to consider it.

56- How do you see power sharing? If you were to establish a just and fair society, how would you share power?

It should be based on studies. There are two ways to power. One is the legal way and is based on elections. But given the situation of our country, fairness should also be put into consideration. Those who are considered minorities should have something to claim as theirs. They should be able to feel their interest and able to say that this is my country and I share it and I am an equal partner. �

57- Are you proposing affirmative action?

Yes, affirmative action. They should feel that it is the best choice to coexist with the rest of the country; they should feel that they are respected and that their rights are respected. This can be solved in the process and if handled with honesty, there is nothing that cannot be solved.

58- In the last few days, the EFDM [Eritrean Federal Democratic Movement] has talked about your program positively but has indicated its reservation on a few points including your land policy, the constitution and others. They criticized you on your land policy and asked where do you get your legitimacy and authority to decide on the land of the people. What do you say?

Unfortunately, I haven�t seen it as of now. But they have all the right to criticize our policies. We have declared our view and we do not have the legitimacy or authority to enforce it. But it is our right to propose and declare our views on what we believe and that is what we stated. On the constitution, there are two views: to accept the existing [PFDJ-drafted] constitution or to draft another constitution. This can be tackled and decided upon in the meetings and enlarged fronts but we need to agree that we need a constitution.

59- How about dialogue with the regime?

Dialogue is a principle. If the regime calls for dialogue, it is good to dialogue and solve our problems. But this regime doesn�t believe in dialogue. If that happens, the regime can only dialogue with a committee formed by all the opposition groups� and that is if, by a miracle, the regime calls for a dialogue. Secondly, if we are to talk of a dialogue, we have to see signs: prisoners should be released, the special court should be dismantled, the youth living in trenches should be demobilized. If the government shows such signs, then there can be talk of dialogue.

60- Then it is a conditional dialogue?

Is this a condition? This is not a condition. Let me ask you, how can you dialogue without seeing such signs? Dialogue on what? The release of prisoners?

61- What if the regime says it has killed the prisoners?

(Laughs loudly)

62- Don�t laugh, the regime might tell you they are dead like the many unknown who have disappeared?

Then, can you dialogue with the Shifta, a bandit system? I don�t think so. The solution would then be something else.

63- Like what?

Look, a killer is a criminal and should be imprisoned.

64- Then you imprison the regime and then start dialogue with it?

In this situation, your target is to imprison the criminal: to apprehend it and present it to a court. That is how you start. You don�t start with an aim of dialogue.

65- Therefore, you want the regime to fulfil those conditions and then you want to see about the dialogue..

I see it as an Eritrean opposition force, what else?

67- We read and hear statements that portray the ENA as a terrorist organization and an extreme Moslem fundamentalist organization. And in order to balance such a perceived Moslem force, there are calls for a parallel alliance that would be controlled by Christians. How do you see this?

It is destructive and the intention is to weaken the opposition force. There are differences and the opposition camp should be able to solve them. If they can�t be solved, the opposition should be able to devise a way to confront the regime.

68- You spent about two years forming the EPLF-DP and now you are beginning to form EPM. Many people accuse the opposition in general and the ENA in particular as incompetent. What do you think is the cause of the incompetence, if you believe it is there?

This is a weakness that we all share. It is been quite sometime since we [ex-EPLF members] were in it [the opposition camp]. I can talk of my own weaknesses but I am not prepared to talk of weaknesses of others.

69- I am not asking you to criticize others but since you are a player in the opposition camp, I want your views on that. What are the general weaknesses? Why is it that there is not much accomplished?

I think we couldn�t penetrate the people as needed. The opposition failed in mobilizing the people and winning their hearts and minds. Worst, mutual defamation and internal conflicts were given priority. When some truths are expected to be said, one has to state them. But I don�t think it is right to go to the extent that our differences would benefit the regime that we all oppose.

70- Do you believe in a peaceful struggle or a violent one?

At this moment, our people want to see all problems solved peacefully. They are tired of war and the winds of war. They want to stop the wars that have been raging for decades. They want to see their children and are praying for peace. They hate war among us. They are watching while PFDJ is disintegrating the country. Until now, our people have not given up on peace. Therefore, it is an obligation for us to take the peaceful mode of struggle as a tactic, not as a strategy.

But if the people said that this regime is disintegrating the country, if they said the regime is anti-unity, it is anti-democracy and anti-rule of law, it is anti-development and they are going to destroy the country and if, as a consequence, the people stand up to remove the regime even by carrying arms, it is the choice of the people. There should be a flexible tactic.

71- But how is the will of the people manifested? At the end of the day, isn�t this the decision of the opposition that claims to struggle for and speak for the people?

Many youth are abandoning the regime; they hate it. They have been in difficult situation: they were imprisoned and suffered a lot and now that they are out, but they are not willing to carry guns and fight. That is the manifestation. When it reaches the extent that the people are ready to defend their rights by carrying guns, that is when you can talk about it. But at the moment, the peaceful way should be persued.

72- What can you tell me about those who are escaping to the neighboring countries? How many are they, according to your estimation? Can you give me your views?

In Ethiopia, at least eight to nine people arrive daily at the refugee camps. There are also many others that do not go to the camps but disperse among the people in different cities and towns.

73- How many are all those who were in the armed forces and abandoned it to escape through the border?

I estimate at least around twenty people arrive daily to the two countries [Sudan and Ethiopia], based on my observation during the time I was there.

74- So we are talking of thousands per year then?

Yes.

75- Adhanom, I heard that when you withdrew from the DP, you boasted that you would march to Eritrea with tanks. Do you have tanks?

It is all a lie. It is part of the defamation exercise. They know that the people are in need of peace. To alienate me and the movement as a whole from the people, they have to say, "he is planning a civil war�."

76- I also heard that you carried bags of money from Addis Ababa, given by the Weyane, and that you are now wealthy. Are you rich now, Adhanom?

(Laughs.) Well, you at Awate are also said to be rich with that money and that Asmarino is also wealthy from the money they get from the Weyane. We even heard of 15 million or 40 million dollar that they said was bought to us [DP] through Menkerios. Such cheap talks are better ignored.

77- Next time you go to the region if someone gave you a bag for Awate or Asmarino, please don�t forget to send it over�.

(Adhanom laughs)

78- But when such "cheap talks" are ignored, don�t you think history will repeat itself? I mean, we all know of how Sabbe was accused of channeling millions of dollars for his personal use. Don�t you think there is a danger of something being believed through sheer repetition?

The PFDJ are experts on such defamation. This is purposely spread to confuse. They accuse all those they want to imprison of having taken public money. The regime is one of thieves. You can�t live with the regime unless you steal. The generals are living by stealing money. This is exploiting the mentality of our people. Our people�s hate of stealing is what is being exploited. The jailed are accused of stealing; the merchants and traders are accused of corruption and so on.

I understand your concern about not ignoring even outrageous claims. Regarding funds from Ethiopia, we haven�t seen a single cent from Ethiopia, be it when I was with DP or now. But the Sudan has offered some assistance.

79- The Sudanese are generous?

Well, I am not saying we were living comfortably, it is relatively speaking. For six months, I was living on one bread and a cup of tea or milk. And everybody in our branch office there knows that.

80- How about here, how do you live? And who supports you?

The rent for the flat is paid by the members. As for my personal expenses, I live on what friends and relatives offer me. For the first three months, I received $300 dollars per month. But then we faced shortage and I am barely surviving and that is how I am living until now

81 � Thanks for this conversation, Adhanom.

You are always welcome, Saleh.