The State of Eritrea is in a state of crisis because of internal and external problems. The internal crisis deals with the way that the nation is being governed and the external problem, though multi-sourced, is primarily the relationship with our southern neighbors, Ethiopia. For each problem, an alternative has been presented. And each time, the alternative has been dismissed because "the alternative could be worse." We believe the alternative to the alternative is infinitely much worse. In this editorial, we will make the case why the alternative is infinitely more preferable to the "alternative-to-the-alternative" which, in some cases, happens to be the status quo.
The Alternative To Our Internal Problem
In its simplest explanation, the crisis of Eritrea is not unlike any other one-party state: the party (which, as with any other one-party state, means the head of the party) is a poor leader. Either due to incompetence, shortsightedness or obsession with power, the ruling party has continuously made wrong choices resulting in a nation that is one of the poorest, war-ravaged, de-populated, demoralized nations in the world.
In the face of this reality, the citizens of the suffocating one-party states have choices to make. Some choose to simply bide their time and wait for an act of God to bring about change. This is the case in Syria, Libya and in North Korea. Others wait for a superpower to take things into its own hands (Nicaragua, Iraq.) Others take tentative steps to form internally-grown opposition parties which are either peaceful (Iran, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia) or violent (Ethiopia, Sudan.) Still others choose to launch Diaspora opposition parties based in neighboring nations (Eritrea, Sudan) or distant nations (Khoumeini in France.) The point is that there is no unique formula for bringing about change; each one is unique to the circumstances involved.
In the case of Eritrea, we have opposition parties based in Sudan, Ethiopia, Europe and America. Where should they be based? Should they be armed or peaceful? Should they be from the fronts or from a new generation? These are legitimate questions--if the intent is to speed up the pace of change in Eritrea. If, on the other hand, the only purpose for asking these questions is to confuse people or to stall the process because those asking it have made calculations that it advances their organizations interest to press pause while they figure out their next move, then it is wrong and unforgivable.
Some of our compatriots are using creative categories to create a niche for their organizations. We are told that some organizations are "traditional" and some are "democratic." Some are "violent" and some are "peaceful." When it comes to relations with Ethiopia, some are "reckless" and others are "guarded." Some are "splinters", others are "whole." Some are "transparent", others are "secretive." Some are run by "democrats", others by "warlords."
The labels people give themselves are always self-serving and the labels they bestow on their opponents always derogatory. It is too bad that we havent risen above our history. Those who are on the receiving end of derogatory labels shouldnt be too eager to bestow them on others.
Lets be modest. Remember those who kept the torch of opposition alive for all these decades? Even as it meant that they would deny themselves seeing a country they helped liberate? Even when it meant they would be called names--Jihad, fifth columnist, separatists, etc? Even when it meant manyincluding those now in the oppositionconsidered them "sour losers"? Yet, they retained their identityELF, ELF-RC, Islamic Salvation, etcand, yes, they refused to surrender and join Eritrea as "individuals." They deserve our gratitude, not our scorn, again. We, especially those who were blind to the injustice of the PFDJ, need to be humble and not so quick to pass derision. Let's check out our ego for a minute and review our role in instituting injustice in Eritrea before we lecture others on how to bring about justice in Eritrea.
While we are in a mode of self-reflection, remember Eritreas multiple attempts at forging a united organizations? How many were attempted and how many failed? It is a fact that the failures outnumber the successes. One of these rare successes is the Eritrean National Alliance. Successful not for its record of achievements, but measured by its ability to hold together organizations representing secular, Islamist, ethnic, national agendas. The diversity of Eritrea. Successful measured by its ability to have the government of Eritrea take the opposition seriously, for the first time. Successful measured by its ability to get the support of the neighboring nations of Ethiopia, Yemen and Sudan. This is significantly more than what the other opposition members--old or new--have managed to do independently.
The Eritrean National Alliance is the alternative that Eritrea has now. It is far from perfect and there is a huge room for improvement. But its improvement does not necessitate its destruction. Right now, the alternative to this alternative is in the "lets talk about it" stage. The alternative to this alternative is individuals who speak on behalf of fictitious organizations. Until there is another coalition of organizations, all we have is promises. To destroy the alliance and then to wait for this mirage of a marriage of other organizations to materialize or worse to wait for the cyber organizations with no apparent constituency to take root is a march of folly. Which is to say, the alternative to the alternative is even worse.
The Alternative To Our External Crisis
The government of Eritrea is preparing for war because it believes the government of Ethiopia is about to unleash war. The government of Ethiopia is preparing for war because it believes the government of Eritrea is preparing for war. The international community believes both nations are preparing for war and it is telling the world they are both arming and preparing for war. Such is the logic of war, and such is the status of our external crisis.
There is an alternative to this. It is called negotiation. It is dialogue. It is face-to-face give-and-take. It is a process of exhausting all possible venues of peace, which is the only means of resolving a conflict, specially for a nation as war-weary as Eritrea.
The stubborn position of the Eritrean government is hardly surprising because the PFDJ considers war as the venue of first resort and it vastly overestimates its capabilities. It respects the EEBC ruling not because it is good for Eritrea, but because it had a hand in it. The PFDJ does not judge treaties based on their merits; it judges them based on whether it had a hand in them. For example, there is no difference between the Oslo Accords for Palestine/Israel and the Machakos Plan for Sudan. Yet, President Isaias Afwerki never passes an opportunity to insult the former and praise the latter because he had a hand in the latter. He praises the Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration Agreement and the Eritrea-Ethiopia Arbitration agreement not because either one was good for Eritrea (the former resulted in massive loss for Eritrea), but because he had a role in them. Look at his views of the AU vs IGAD and it is always the same: if I had a hand in it, it is good; if I didn't, it is bad.
The PFDJ is delusional enough to believe that Eritrea, in its current status, can win a war, reclaim its land and, in the process, overthrow the Ethiopian government. In its spare time, it will resolve the situation in Darfur. This is sad, but typical of PFDJ miscalculation.
What is most surprising is the position of some elements of the opposition, specially when they know better. They know that the way the Eritrean government behaved in 1998 was a monumental blunder. They criticized the government for not exhausting all peaceful venues for resolving the conflict. They know that, in 2004, Eritrea is not in a position to engage in war. They know that the international community is not going to push Ethiopia to accept the final and binding EEBC ruling. They know that Eritreagovernment and the oppositiondo not have the diplomatic influence to prevail on the international community to change its mind. (The opposition doesnt even have the influence to stop Eritreans from being deported and facing certain torture.) In short, they know that their continuous insistence on "final and binding,"which is the alternative to the alternative--will inevitably lead to war and deprivation. Yet, for self-serving and myopic reasons, they persist in sloganeering "final and binding" even as they know that it wont change the mind of Ethiopia, it wont change the mind of the international community and, given the war-mongering nature of the PFDJ, and their own non-existent influence, it will lead to war, which will devastate Eritrea and Eritreans.
What do you call pursuing and supporting a policy when you know that it will lead to war and you know what the outcome of the war will be? When the people ask what did you do to stop the war, what will you say: I did nothing to stop your pain, but I share your pain? Is that leadership?
The alternative to the alternative is infinitely much worse because it happens to be identical to the policy pursued by the trigger-happy and delusional PFDJ.
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
