On his tour to the USA and Canada, awate.com met with Mr. Abdella Adem for an interview regarding his tour and the current events in Eritrea and its neighbors, Sudan and Ethiopia. Ambassador Abdella held meetings with Eritreans in Washington DC; Ontario, Canada; Atlanta, Georgia; Seattle, Washington; Dallas, Texas and finally Oakland, California. On November 6, 2005 Saleh Gadi met with Abdella Adem in Fremont, CA for this interview.

1-Tell me about your current tour to the USA and Canada- in what capacity are you touring?

This tour is a result of a program that was scheduled a while ago. It was initially tied to the activities of the Salvation Front [a coalition of three political organizations, whose leadership is scheduled to merge in December 05.] Therefore, my trip was to meet with the people and talk about the Salvation Front and the process of unity - how it started and what the developments are and at what level it has reached now. So, the objective was to hold meetings in major places where we [Eritreans] reside. This being the main reason of my trip, in addition to that, since I am the vice-chairman of the EDA [Eritrean Democratic Alliance, an umbrella group for a dozen political organizations, including the Salvation Front], the aim was to discuss important issues related to the EDA, because the two are intertwined in the main program. This year, the EDA has been rejuvenated after its formation as an Alliance. I explained the developments of the EDA and what it has achieved so far during the last few months and where it is heading, what its goals are, what it has learned from past experiences and what goals has it set for the future- to explain and to suggest means of how the people can give proper support to the movement- Eritrean Democratic Alliance (EDA). Thirdly, to discuss the situation of the PFDJ [People�s Front for Democracy & Justice, the ruling party in Eritrea] and the developments in our country and what needs to be done to challenge that situation. Finally it is to listen to the people�s view and receive suggestions - and also to listen to any criticism that might be aired. The aim is to learn and to improve the performance of EDA.

All right. I will focus on your capacity as deputy chairman of the EDA- that will be the outline of my interview. You are the vice-chairman of the EDA. Would you describe for me what that position entails, what the responsibilities and power of the position is? Would you explain it to me in a further detail?

The authority of the deputy is similar to that of the chairman. The two offices are not separate offices, they are one. The difference is that the deputy functions under the leadership of the chairman. The position of the vice-chairman involves coordinating activities among the different executive offices; helping and overseeing the execution of tasks being carried out by the executive offices. It also involves the evaluation of performances and accomplishment of tasks in a timely manner to identify points that need to be looked into for correction or improvements. All that is done under the direction of the chairman. If the issues require the attention of the members of the EDA, then they are included on the agenda for a meeting to be decided upon. 

So, as a deputy chairman of the EDA, one of the goals of your meetings was to listen to what the people say.  What did the people say to you?

First, let me clarify one thing: Eritreans live in different parts of the world and they have common concerns and individual concerns related to their situation. For example, the majority of Eritreans in Sudan are refugees whose main concern is going back to their country where they will finally live in peace. Other Eritreans in other parts of the world might have different localized problems related to them. There are also general concerns everywhere mainly regarding the needed change and with the issue of justice and democracy in Eritrea. 

What I have heard from the people in my meetings is that they are anxious to see the EDA move foreword with tangible results. There were views regarding the weaknesses of the EDA and they were not far from the truth. People raised existing weaknesses that are not corrected thus far. Therefore, it is acceptable. They want to see the EDA strong and to have all the opposition forces rallying behind it. I have seen an overwhelming commitment to struggle. So, there were many important inputs that I collected from my meetings. 

But in some instances, there were individuals, PFDJ members who planted themselves in the meetings and raised questions with the aim of creating confusion by arguing the PFDJ position. They would pretend that they are for change in Eritrea and then rule out the struggle for change by claiming that change is not important now because the sovereignty of Eritrea is at stake and that we should first ensure the sovereignty of Eritrea before bringing issues of change and democracy and excuses of that nature�

Let�s forget about them now and accept the same question from me on behalf of our readers: How can you talk of change when the sovereignty of Eritrea is at stake?

The sovereignty of Eritrea is not at stake. The sovereignty of Eritrea was confirmed in 1991 after the liberation of all Eritrean territories and again confirmed by the national referendum for independence that was carried out in the year 1993. Eritrea, therefore, is a recognized sovereign country and that fact cannot be reversed.  What we have in Eritrea today are not issues of sovereignty but issue of governance. Eritrea is there. It is occupying its place and no one can erase or change that fact. The current problems related to the border and relations with our neighbors will automatically be solved once the governance issues are solved. To solve such problems, Eritrea needs a legitimate government representing the people. The current government is not capable of solving any political, social, diplomatic or economic problems. In fact it is the cause of the problems and the cause of complicating them. 

All right, let�s go back to the public comments your heard in your meetings�.

Yes. Of course, there were those who have concerns about the inter-organizational bickering and splitting which they do not appreciate.  The weaknesses of the EDA that were commonly mentioned are valid criticisms � not being able to galvanize the support necessary for the EDA and not being able to present tangible and measurable results by the EDA. However, I think we should all take responsibility and push the struggle ahead; each in his or her locality can contribute towards the improvement of the EDA and the opposition. And there are able people who can do this effectively. But I agree with the comments that leadership is important and the EDA should offer better leadership.

What are the weaknesses? Could you explain to me briefly?

Coordination: the inability to coordinate and act in a united manner. That the EDA should mend its issues and move as united force. This is a weakness that was mentioned and that is still not corrected fully. Second, there were criticisms that reiterated that partisan interests should be sacrificed and the higher interest should be the common goals of the EDA. On the other hand, the preparedness of the people to struggle was confirmed to me. They said that they were ready to support and contribute to the struggle. I saw a strong commitment to struggle. Third, there were PFDJ members (And I don�t mean people with views similar to the PFDJ). They would start, for example, by saying, �we believe in change but�� and then they hit the opposition. Their excuse is we should not talk of democracy before the issues of sovereignty.

As I said earlier the issue of sovereignty is already solved with the liberation of Eritrea in 1991 and the referendum in 1993. Eritrea is now a sovereign nation recognized by the whole world and like any other country in the world, occupies its seat in all world organizations. Therefore there shouldn�t be any overbidding on the issue [of sovereignty] of the country. It is a concluded issue. The question now is primarily regarding change, and regarding democracy. The opposition forces� goal is regarding the change that should be accomplished in Eritrea and not regarding sovereignty.

It is because Eritrea is sovereign that we are talking about democracy; if Eritrea was not a sovereign country, we would have been waging a struggle to liberate it from foreign occupation, we would have been fighting for the sovereignty and liberation- we wouldn�t have raised the question of democracy as a major issue in our struggle. Therefore this platform is one of democracy. The question of sovereignty was already accomplished. If it is a question of border, the border problem could become a stalemate for another ten-years or twenty-years similar to the experiences of other countries around the world. Therefore, if the border issue lingers for another twenty-year, it doesn�t mean the question of democracy should wait for another twenty-year. Democracy and change in Eritrea in itself is a guarantee to solve all problems with the neighbors of Eritrea.

You said the EDA should be able to offer leadership.  Why didn�t it offer the required quality of leadership?

This is tied to effective institutions. The EDA, which took over the affairs from the previous umbrella, the Alliance, is relatively new. It is less than a year old. It has identified its shortcomings and is in the process of solving it. Any organization that doesn�t have strong institution and institutionalized activities cannot offer strong leadership. Our priority is the building of strong institutions. The EDA should have a strong media arm and it is getting stronger by the day with radio broadcast added to its activity and able, trained officials running the task. We are building our diplomatic activities and we have made good progress in our initial diplomatic tours. 

How is the situation of the EDA in Sudan as a result of what the PFDJ considered a rapprochement with the Sudanese government after the recent visit to the Sudan by a PFDJ delegation?

Nothing has changed. Everything is as it was. There is an understanding and agreement on regional issues, on the vision, between the EDA and the Sudanese government. In general, our relation with the Sudan, after the visit of the PFDJ delegate is as it was before the visit. Nothing has changed.

But Lam Akol, the Sudanese vice president, said that the opposition would be disarmed and sent to refugee camps, or something along these lines.  What is your comment on that?

I heard of that from people who say that they read it somewhere; I haven�t heard that was officially communicated to the EDA. I also do not have proof that Lam Akol has actually said that. At any rate, I don�t think that is the view of the Sudanese government. But if Mr. Lam Akol made such statements, all I can say is that no one has the right to disarm the Eritrean opposition and put its members in refugee camps or decide where a national opposition organization goes. This is an Eritrean opposition matter and can only be decided by Eritreans themselves. We are in the opposition of our own free will and our own decision; we are not opposing the PFDJ because someone told us to do so. It is our country and our affairs and we are its owners. Our opposition will not stop because we have the support of the Sudan or any other country and it doesn�t stop because the Sudan or others decided to stop support. We have a cause and a goal and the opposition will continue until it realizes its goal. The support of the Sudan and the support of others to our struggle are positive and we appreciate it. But it is not decisive because [the opposition] is based on a cause- if Sudan improves relations with [the Eritrean Government] that will not determine the continuity of the opposition. The opposition will continue. Regardless.

But it is not whether Lam Akol has right to do that or not, it is rather about the ability to do that or not. And Sudan has done such a thing in the past. Can�t that happen again?

The only thing the Sudan can do is stop its cooperation with the opposition but nothing will effect the continuation of the opposition because it was not initiated by the Sudan to be stopped by the Sudan. It is an Eritrean decision and will only end when the problems that cause the opposition are solved. In short, it is the members of the Eritrean opposition who decide their fate. We fully understand that the Sudanese government�s priority is the interest of the Sudan. We also understand that the Sudan can take any decision that it deems necessary to preserve that interest.

How about the situation in Ethiopia? The PFDJ seems to be supporting the Ethiopian opposition parties. What can you tell me about the situation in Ethiopia and the relations of the PFDJ with CUD?

We have witnessed something unique in the recent political crisis in Ethiopia- in the whole world we haven�t seen an open official sponsorship of the CUD but by the PFDJ. This shows that the PFDJ regime and the CUD have a unified approach and all activities were coordinated [between the two]. All the steps that the PFDJ took lately- curtailing the movement of the UNMEE; pulling forces from the Sudanese border and moving those forces to the border with Ethiopia; threatening that it will start a war; or threatening by saying �that we will solve the problem ourselves�-- all of this is coordinated and the aim and the plan was similar to that of the CUD. It was coordinated and planned and is not a coincidence. The goal of the PFDJ regime was to create a strong opposition and shake the Ethiopian government and then when the system loses control, the [PFDJ] takes military steps. But lately, the violent movement Ethiopia was brought under control and the government controlled the situation. The threats of the PFDJ remained just a threat. 

You indicated to me earlier that one of the campaigning points of some of the CUD parties was in case there was war they would retake Assab. First, how does the PFDJ support a force that targets the very sovereignty of Eritrea? Second, if by some means the CUD comes to power, how would the EDA react?

Firstly, when the PFDJ supports the CUD by offering all its resources and money, the goal was not only on the wishes that CUD takes power, they calculated that if CUD took power, a civil war will ensue in Ethiopia and that was their goal. Because the goal was based on the conviction and calculation that once a civil war ensues and the political parties clash against each other, there would be chaos and anarchy in Ethiopia. The PFDJ knows the campaign points of the CUD and their goals of reoccupying Eritrea or taking Assab but nevertheless it was pushing them towards civil war for the sake of chaos that would enable the PFDJ to do whatever it likes with Ethiopia. The important question is: how is it that the PFDJ allies itself with groups that raise anti-Eritrean slogans similar to that of Haile Sellasie rule and do not believe in the existence of Eritrea as a sovereign state? That needs to be studied.

What if Ethiopia goes into a chaotic situation?

Chaos in Ethiopia! That is not to the interest of neither Ethiopia nor the region or Eritrea. Chaos in Ethiopia would not only place Eritrea at risk, it will put the whole region at risk. From this view, we do not support chaos. Also, since CUD doesn�t recognize the sovereignty of Eritrea, we do not support it as an opposition force.

I see a few Eritreans from the opposition who tend to be restless about the open-ended timeframe of the struggle. Do you have a time frame, an assumption of time, or when do you think change will occur in Eritrea? Do you envision a solution soon or it is just open ended?

You can estimate a time limit to it but how can you be definite about a specific date? The journey of the type of our struggle is usually long. However, it is always decided by what efforts are exerted to achieve what you want to achieve.  Now, the situation is suitable. The factors that determine the success of our struggle are all fulfilled. The system has trampled on all democratic rights of the people and has established a totally dictatorial system and has made the country a military administration. The system has made a choice and is moving on with its final choice; and there is opposition from the people to that choice- be it inside the country or outside. Because of the military dministration, the livelihood of the people has reached its worse stage. This has become a major issue for the suffering and discontent of the people. On the pretext of �unresolved border case� the people have been thrown in a pit and are being stepped on. The fact that the youth are being forced to go to Sawa with the intent of creating more soldiers is one of the reasons the people are bitterly opposing it. On the contrary, the regime, as if that is not enough, is holding the parents responsible and imprisoning them because their children�s objection to conscription or because their children managed to escape outside the country. This has also caused anger among the people. These are the social and economical situation of the country. And the opposition has shifted from defensive to an offensive posture.

You are saying that the opposition has shifted from defense to offensive?

Yes. Now it is on the offensive. You can�t even call what was happening a defensive posture, it was not defensive. But you can say it was a journey in a missed direction. That was happening until recently. Now the direction is clear and [the opposition] is moving towards offensive steps. And the regime, has taken note of this shift in strategy. On top of trying to create chaos in Ethiopia, it is instigating the border issue, its provocation of the UN and the USA and meddling with the Ethiopian opposition, is all in order to divert the offensive of the opposition and it is a reaction of what the regime is feeling. It wants an exit from the chock it finds itself in.

Earlier we talked about the lack of coordination and what could be termed as disagreements on certain issues between the member organizations of the EDA. For example- one organization takes a certain action and another organization condemns that action taken from a sister organization within the EDA. What do you think is the cause of these differences?

I don�t understand your question?

All right. Let me give you an example: a few months ago, Al Islah, a member of the EDA, took responsibility for attacking a convoy of the Eritrean government army. Then, EDP [Eritrean Democratic Party] condemned the actions. My question is: does the EDA have a conflict resolution mechanism whereby disagreements and differences within the member organizations are addressed and solved? Why is any difference escalated to a public confrontation instead of solving the problems through an internal mechanism, if such a mechanism exists in the first place?

When we formed the EDA, we adapted a policy of resolving inter-organizational issues in a democratic and peaceful means. We can say that this policy was adapted and in fact applied on certain issues. If we see the past experiences of the old Alliance, there were a lot of confrontations among organizations, especially in the Internet. But lately, we can say that such [open confrontations] are very limited and we can say it has greatly decreased. But that didn�t prevent a few problems from arising. For example, the responses and counter-responses between Islah and EDP. On our part, and on the part of the EDA in general, that is not encouraged. Regardless of whether what one said was right or what the other said was wrong, still when a stand is needed we contact the concerned organization to study the matter. Beyond that, if the issue is something that should be looked at by all organizations, we keep it as a pending question for further discussion. Meanwhile, we initiate a dialogue about it in order to reach a conclusion. That is how we saw it and that is how we are going to address issues in the future. 

Tell me who within the EDA has armed wings and who doesn�t? And how would you handle the disparity or how are you going to bring the armed wings under a central command?

Almost all the member organizations have military wings. The EPM doesn�t have military wing and also the EDP. But generally, the majority of the member organizations have a military wing- regardless of the numbers. What we have agreed upon now, and is on our plans, is that all forces should come into one fold and operate under a central command. Having separate military entities is not suitable for the struggle. Having uncoordinated military operations, each organization doing things on its own is not a proper means of struggle and cannot achieve the desired result. There would also come the issue of how to use the military wing, it should be a centralized national force and operate in under a central command. At any rate, we will reach to a decision and a resolution of this issue in the coming meeting of the EDA.

What is the planned strategy of the army? Would the armed forces be used on offensive strategy or a defensive one?

Basically, when you form a military wing, it is not for defensive purposes but for an offensive purpose. We are on the offensive in all aspects of our struggle- be it on the political aspect of diplomatic aspect. Therefore, the presence of an armed force is tied to that. 

What is the offensive strategy?

We have to identify what we mean by offensive strategy. We have also to identify what we want to attack, within the system. Its pillars.

Can you elaborate a little; what is that you consider the pillars?

The pillars of the system? Its security apparatus; its economic apparatus; and its political apparatus. These are the ones that keep the [system] standing. These should be hit

How about the military apparatus?

Military apparatus should also be put into consideration. But that means, we have to see the differences. Of course, the military is a pillar that supports the system, but the target is the military structure. We should be able to hit its structure. We have to clarify what we need to hit. When this is clarified, when the goal and the strategy is clear, force should be used. 

When we say structure, if it was the forces, it would be face-to-face confrontation with the army, wouldn�t it? But you are emphasizing on the structure of the army. Now command and control is a structure. Senior officers or administrators of the army are another structure. Is that what you mean? 

Yes. All that is part of the structure. But such decisions are not taken haphazardly. What within the military structure is a specific target is a decision that should be taken by the responsible entity or the leadership. But military structure is considered a target. However, we do not consider the forced conscripts a target. On the contrary, we believe they are part of the oppressed Eritreans and ultimately they are allies of the opposition. We will have the right to defend ourselves from any armed force that comes to attack us, but we will not go out of our way to attack oppressed conscripts traveling from one place to another when we know they are just as oppressed as the rest of the population. When it comes to senior officers, it is a different story.

Are you targeting senior officers of the army?

As I mentioned earlier, what is a specific legitimate target and what is not is a decision that the collective leadership of the EDA should make.

We hear of news that there are thousands of Eritreans who abandoned the forced conscription and fled to the Sudan and Ethiopia. Have you seen those people? And what can you tell us about their situation?

Those are the kind of people I was talking about. I had traveled to a camp in Ethiopia and visited the young Eritreans there. There are about ten thousand in the camps in Ethiopia. And I believe there are far more than that number in the Sudan because unlike in Ethiopia, the refugees in the Sudan are spread across the whole nation and it is difficult to know their number. But those in Ethiopia are registered by the UNHCR and live in camps. Unlike before, Eritreans in Ethiopia now carry IDs and are registered.

Now that Eritreans in Ethiopia are registered, can you give us the number of Eritreans or Ethiopians of Eritrean ancestry?

No I don�t have a number but it is a very big number.

Thank you Abdella, I have finished my questions. Do you have any concluding remarks?

Yes, I want to talk about something I have been emphasizing during my tour. The people should rise up. In order to oppose [the regime] one doesn�t have to be a member of a specific organization. The opposition is against the regime and one doesn�t necessarily need to be a member of an organization. But the people need to be organized on the level of opposing the regime. Membership to an organization is a personal choice; one can be a member of this or that organization. But opposing the regime is a must. Therefore, there is a difference between being a member of an organization because you like its program and between recognizing this regime as a dictatorial, oppressive and a regime that tramples over the civil rights of the people- to wish the demise of regime on the national level. These are different. I believe the people should move based on this thinking. I just want to remind the people that they should have a place in the popular opposition against the regime.

Thank you    

Comments: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it