Interviews with Eritrean Opposition Leaders:
Is Eritrea A Terrorist State?
In the wake of the latest escalation of actions and counter-actions between the USA and the PFDJ government, we contacted several opposition leaders to gauge their reaction. We decided to limit the interview to the possible inclusion of Eritrea in the State Sponsor of Terror list. The interviews were carried out by telephone via calls to Addis Ababa, Khartoum and Frankfurt. We have interviewed two leaders each from Block1, Block2, and organizations outside the EDA. Though we wanted to include as many leaders as possible, it was not possible logistically and our efforts to get in touch with some leaders were not fruitful. We believe the responses in the interviews represent a cross section of all the opposition’s views. In alphabetical order, the individuals interviewed were: 1) Abdella Adem 2) Adhanom Gebremariam 3) Hassen Salman 4) Mesfin Hagos 5) Mohammed Tahir Shengeb and 6) Tewelde Gebresselasse. The interviews were conducted in Tigrigna and/or Arabic, transcribed and then translated to English. As always, every effort was made to present a faithful translation but if there are errors, we are responsible for them.
1. ABDELLA ADEM: [Eritrea’s former ambassador to Sudan, Abdella Adem is the chairman of the Eritrean National Salvation Front (ENSF) which is a member of one of the EDA block that includes 3 organizations.
Q1- Lately the relation between the USA and the PFDJ government has been deteriorating. On August 17, Dr Jednaye Frazer, the [US] assistant secretary of state indicated that the USA is considering putting Eritrea in the list of state sponsors of terrorism. A few days before that, the PFDJ consulate in Oakland was ordered closed. Apart from a few responses, there has not been a significant reaction [by the opposition] to the development. Why is that and can that be considered indifference?
A1 We do follow such developments and we have been following it with interest. However, our reaction was a mixture of indifference and disappointment. The USA-Eritrean relation has been fluctuating between bad and worse until it reached the worst ever type of relation as of late. But you have to consider that the relations worsened because of issues related to the situation in Somalia; it is primarily because it involves the USA regional interest; it is not because of the serious situation inside Eritrea. Even now, since the issue is Somalia, we are afraid that American threat may not be that serious. Does it mean if the Eritrean regime’s stand in regards to Somalia is resolved the USA will not have a problem with the Eritrean regime? We don’t have a clear answer for that.
Our disappointment is because of the fact that such actions should have been taken against the Eritrean regime a long time ago because of its violation of human rights in Eritrea; because it doesn’t allow freedoms; and because of its brutal rule--not only because of its actions in Somalia.
There is no government in the whole of Africa that has openly and publicly attacked the USA in the manner the Eritrean regime does. Yet, the USA seemed to lose tolerance only when the Eritrean regime was involved in Somalia. Therefore, we see the recent reaction as one that arose because of American regional interest and not because of Eritrean internal situation.
It is frustrating to us to see the weak response of America in regards to the internal issues and violation. There are grave human rights violations in Eritrea. For example, Eritrean high level officials with whom Americans had working relations when they were officials of the Eritrean government have been rotting in jail and we don’t know their situation. The American reaction was very weak. We believe that such violations, and many other violations like it, were enough reason to take action against the Eritrean government; and we didn’t see serious actions from the American administration in that regard.
Q2- But how would you remedy the situation?
A2: We would like to convince the American administration to recognize the fact that the current regime in Eritrea is not capable of bringing peace to the region. Whatever hope they might still have left for this regime to reform, we wish they would reconsider because it will never happen. Isaias truly believes that the USA wants to depose him through a coup d’etat and he is not a person who would give up his ambitious dictatorial projects. This is what we would like to convince the American administration with. Importantly, we want the regional interest of the USA not to be on the expenses of the suffering of Eritreans internally. We wish the American administration would avoid fruitless betting on the regime that has been exposed to the bone. This we have been explaining in our meetings with American officials and we will keep explaining it.
Q3- But how would you use the political developments to your advantage?
A3: Our strategy is to call for a serious deliberation with the American administration so that we can objectively evaluate the situation together and have a serious discussion- regional as well as internal. We would like to see both our interests coordinated; and we are ready to cooperate.
Q4- Do you have a clear view on what and how this cooperation should be carried out?
A4: I am saying this despite the fact that we are a bit disappointed by the latest statements starting with that of Dr. Jendayi Frazer. Throughout her speech she didn’t even acknowledge the existence of an Eritrean opposition. We are living organizations and we have been struggling and continue to struggle against the regime that has been wreaking havoc in Eritrea long before it stepped on American toes. We wish the American administration would consider this and publicly recognize the existence of Eritrean political opposition groups. We think the task of confronting the Eritrean regime is a task we can accomplish because it is our turf. We are also willing to cooperate with anyone whose interest intermingles with the interest of the Eritrean people. Cooperation with the USA is vital and we have been pushing for it for a long time. I wish the USA would reciprocate our wishes.
2. ADHANOM GEBREMARIAM [Adhanom Gebremariam is the chairman of the Eritrean People’s Movement (EPM), which is not part of any of the EDA coalition blocks. Adhanom Gebremariam was Eritrea’s ambassador to Nigeria and is one of the 15 senior officials (known as G-15) of whom 12 have been in jail without charges since September 18, 2001.]
Q1- Lately the relation between the USA and the PFDJ government has been deteriorating. On August 17, Dr Jednayi Frazer, the [US] assistant secretary of state, indicated that the USA is considering putting Eritrea in the list of state sponsors of terrorism. A few days before that, the PFDJ consulate in Oakland was ordered closed. Apart from a few responses, there has not been a significant reaction [by the opposition] to the development. Why is that and can that be considered indifference?
A1: We did issue a statement. We have a stand and we support the decision of the USA. That is speaking on behalf of my organization. You can ask the others to respond on their own. Truly, we really don’t want to cause any hindrance to the struggle and we don’t want also to offend others; but honestly, the problem is the absence of clarity in our vision and our inability to see the difference between tactics and strategy. That deficiency is taking us to a chaotic situation. At this moment, Eritrea is owned by a few, and the rest of the Eritrean people have become slaves without any rights and even with no food or peace of mind. People cannot plough their land and harvest it; people cannot work freely and earn and enjoy the fruits of their labor. So, which people will be hurt if Eritrea is designated a Terrorist State? Maybe the regime’s diplomats could be hurt because their movements will be curtailed- be it transfer of funds or the like. I can say this from experience, diplomats will not be paid and other problems will ensue. The regime will crumble easily. But that will not have adverse actions against the people. And that is why we support the move.
Q2- Have you conveyed this stand to the concerned parties?
A2: We have written an open letter to Jandayi Frazer. It is published in the Internet and we have even sent a copy to awate.com but you didn’t publish it. We have clarified our position in the open letter which supports the US stand.
Q3- Is there a possibility or and effort to have a combined stand from the opposition regarding this situation?
A3: We have to take this opportunity of the incident and use it to our advantage.
Q4- How? Do you just watch or you can give me specific steps on how to take advantage of it?
A4: We have a political goal. That goal can be summarized in the introduction of democracy. We have fought for a political goal in the past, a struggle for self- determination which has resulted in an independent Eritrea. That struggle had many facets. The current situation gives us the opportunity to step up our diplomatic struggle among others. It helps us to isolate the regime diplomatically. It is one aspect of a struggle and we have to be able to use it properly. If the international community offers us an advantage or a support though not direct, we have to use the incident fully and direct it towards strengthening our internal [opposition] unity and achieving our overall goals.
But unfortunately, we are unable to clarify our strategy. Whatever steps we take should enhance our tactic and not contradict that tactic. If strategy and tactics contradict, we lose but if they are in harmony, we can bring about a qualitative change within ourselves and in our struggle. Many people have identified the regime as a terrorist regime since a long time ago and we have been trying to convince others, including the USA, that the regime is a terrorist regime. Now, all have recognized the nature of the regime and the severity of the case. They have heard us or they have come to the same conclusion that we have reached a long time ago- where is the contradiction?
We have been saying and we are still saying that the regime is a terrorist regime. It can neither live in peace internally nor can it live in peace externally. We now have an opportunity in front of us and there is a debate: how would it affect the Eritrean people? If Eritreans were having the opportunity to work freely and make a living, that is a fair concern. But the people are living a life of an animal. They do not have rights of self expression or any other basic rights. The decision will not affect the people and that is why we have to unequivocally support it. It will only hurt the regime that controls everything in Eritrea.
3. HASSEN SALMAN: [Hassen Salman is the co-founder and chairman of the Eritrean Islamic Congress which is not part of any of the EDA coalition blocks.]
Q1- Lately the relation between the USA and the PFDJ government has been deteriorating. On August 17, Dr Jednayi Frazer, the [US] assistant secretary of state indicated that the USA is considering putting Eritrea in the list of state sponsors of terrorism. A few days before that, the PFDJ consulate in Oakland was ordered closed. Apart from a few responses, there has not been a significant reaction [by the opposition] to the development. Why is that and can that be considered indifference?
A1: In general, the reason why Eritrea is being considered as terrorist state is a result of its involvement in Somalia. In our judgment, Eritrea is not being added to the list in a more general sense: oppressing and exiling the people; hindering democratization and combating patriots, etc. But in general, taking such steps is an American role, or at least the role of human rights organization and a role for the big countries.
The regime has to be treated in a serious manner in such a way that, in the end, it will be forced to recognize freedoms and to be open. For a long time now, we have considered the state a police state. And its actions in the local, regional and international levels are a natural outcome of its actions in the local public spheres.
The oppression of the people, denial of rights, hindering constitutionalism, the emergence of the single icon and the one-man-rule is what resulted in all this: the state is decreased to the level of this man. The whole Eritrean state has been decreased and dwarfed to be equal to the person of Isaias Afwerki. Therefore it is natural for him to engage the region the way he does on his own. He has become the giver and the denier. He supports, as he wishes, organization that at least affect the regional security. In general, we say, regardless of the motives of the country that designated [the regime as a state sponsor of terror] the actions of the Eritrean regime emanate from the political nature of the country- a unitary political system; and it is just natural [to see such results]. We believe that democratization, the establishing of security and recognition of rights is needed to save the Eritrea people.
Q2- Is the role of the Eritrean opposition going to be that of a spectator, and how are you going to inter-act with the American decision? And how are you going to deal with it once the decision is passed?
A2: We are afraid that the Eritrean opposition does not react to this decision properly. If we do not take advantage and benefit from this decision, at least politically, the result will be the disintegration of the state. If the state is added to the list of state sponsors of terror, if the opposition is still not united and strengthened and the political rhetoric is not planned, we believe that the country will risk disintegration.
We call for the speeding up of a national dialogue congress; assuring the international community that there is a strong political entity that has offered itself as a replacement to the tyrannical and dictatorial regime. After a national dialogue conference convenes, we should communicate to the outside world from the conference assuring the world that the political forces and civic societies of the Eritrean people are able to device a replacement for the regime in Eritrea.
We should all take direct and practical steps towards this end. The opposition should prepare itself to replace the regime. Truly, though, the current situation of the opposition doesn’t help us in capitalizing on the developments and assuring the international powers to take actions to support the transformation to democracy. For now, all are convinced that the regime has failed and the Eritrean state is a failed state but there is weak confidence on the opposition. In our opinion, the opposition is required to prove that it is fit and qualified political replacement and that at least it can guarantee stability of the political situation in Eritrea and doesn’t sponsor any groups that might become a risk to the security of the region.
Q3- Are there practical steps taken in regards to the theory that you explained?
A3: In our judgment, the last [EDA] meeting where splits happened should have instead been an introduction to what I explained. Unfortunately, we walked backwards; the meeting should have decided on important decisions; it should have taken us to the natural step in resolving the current crisis. Convening of the national dialogue conference should be the meeting point for all the opposition be it block 1 or block 2 and other outside the blocks. It is a central issue on which all the opposition agree. This was also the decision of the EDA before the February 07 incident. I think if all sides agree to form a preparatory committee for such the dialogue conference, it will be a good step because it will attract all opposition elements towards one goal and it will be a great jump to overcome our current problems that were caused by the splitting.
Q4- Tell me how do you reconcile the American stand which is a position primarily taken because of regional reasons, the involvement of the Eritrean regime in Somali affairs and the opposition’s position that mainly focuses on internal issue?
A4: We should welcome it because the interests are overlapping and Eritrea is a place where regional and international interests have always been overlapping. This is a historical fact. Since the creation of the Eritrean entity and Eritrean state, we observe that there were always overlaps of local, regional and international factors on all major decisions regard Eritrea. Any politician in this region has no other choice but to recognize and deal with this fact.
Now there is a regional interest and an international interest that agrees with the local Eritrean interest as far we Eritreans are concerned. It is because all these interest are injured by the regime. In the past, we were lone voices trying to explain that the regime is a risk to us and that it was an oppressor and dictatorial. But now, it actions have overflowed. In the past, the regime’s involvement was at least limited to immediate neighbors, but now is has expanded to far places. The Red Sea is an international waterway and it affects the national security of many countries. Therefore, we think we should deal with this issue maturely. We need to show great flexibility and consider this an opportunity that we should grab and we should overcome our bitterness and problems so that we don’t miss this it. And if the opposition misses this opportunity, maybe we will be sorry that we didn’t invest in it.
Q5- Have you tried or are you trying to contact the American administration to coordinate over this decision?
A5: Basically, we don’t have any problem in relation to this decision, none. In our last congress we decided that we should push towards this matter. The issue should be addressed regionally as well as internationally. We do have strong relations with entities that do have channels with the American administration, but as an organization we haven’t developed such channels. We believe our role is to encourage and support such channels through our allies who have such channels. We also believe there should be a combined political message from the whole opposition that expresses a positive impression and not a negative one: there should be a voice that expresses the views of the combined opposition. There are other political entities that have talked to the American administration and carried the voices of the opposition, but this will not be enough until we have one voice that expresses our combined views.
4. MESFIN HAGOS: [Mesfin Hagos, who has held a number of key posts in the Eritrean government including that of Defense Minister, is the chairman of the Eritrean Democratic Party (EDP) which is a member of one of the EDA block that includes 3 organizations. Mesfin Hagos is also one of the G-15.]
Q1- Lately the relation between the USA and the PFDJ government has been deteriorating. On August 17, Dr Jednayi Frazer, the [US] assistant secretary of state indicated that the USA is considering putting Eritrea in the list of state sponsors of terrorism. A few days before that, the PFDJ consulate in Oakland was ordered closed. Apart from a few responses, there has not been a significant reaction [by the opposition] to the development. Why is that and can that be considered indifference?
A1: We are concerned that the ordinary Eritrean citizen would be victimized. We are for further isolation of the regime but extra care should be taken not to subject the Eritrean citizens to more sufferings to the already bad state they are in. We, especially those of us who live in foreign lands, experience the victimization every day- we don’t want to see Eritreans picked on at airports or wherever they go. We don’t want Eritreans to be treated like outlaws because of the misdeeds of the regime when they are the main victims of the regime.
All the punitive measures included in the State Sponsor of Terror package can be executed in such a way that it will not victimize the Eritrean people. We encourage punitive measures focused on the regime and we support it fully. We hope for a careful approach by the USA and not a blanket condemnation of the whole of Eritrea and its people. We are all living like refugees and a blanket action would hurt the common person more than the regime. Imagine how many families would suffer if money transfers to Eritrea are stopped! Children would go hungry because many live on assistance they receive from relatives working and living outside Eritrea. Imagine shortages of medicine. We believe the USA is capable and in a position to take any punitive measure without causing sufferings to the people and we hope it does that. Eritrea is a small nation and the regime is putting it in direct conflict with America; I even ask why it took the USA this long to take punitive measures against the regime!
Q2- Why do you think they haven’t taken action?
A2: Maybe they didn’t consider the Eritreans regime’s actions that serious and maybe they are preoccupied with other major crisis, like Iraq for example. Maybe they ignored Eritrea because it is a small nation. We kept saying that if the actions of the regime are neglected and ignored, it will someday develop into a bigger and more serious problem. We have been warning about such development because we saw it coming from the beginning. Our advice was not heeded to and time has proved the natural development of the crisis. But still we have to work hard to remind the American government of the plight of Eritreans repeatedly. It is an opportunity for the opposition to combine forces and work effectively and in unison to take advantage of the situation. This is the time for a combined effort to influence the USA, EU, UN and other world bodies to support the struggle of the Eritrean people to bring about change in Eritrea. We should knock all doors, and more doors, to make our voices heard.
Q3- But what is preventing you from doing that?
A3: We were and are doing that. And we keep saying that any action should not be a blanket action but a selective one. The best thing is to have an indirect response: we should organize ourselves and forget our differences. We have to seriously ask: what are the points of differences? I don’t see any. It is just personal, not even political. That being our weakness, don’t forget other problems that we have to deal with. We have to face problems everyday and we are too much consumed by the hindrances that come our way. This is consuming our meager resources and energy.
Q4- Like what?
A4: Many problems that are not related to your subject.
Q5- Then why do you think the USA has taken the action now? And do you agree with defining the regime as a terrorist regime?
A5: Now they are almost divorced from each other- America and the regime. We think this has come after a long delay, though it is a natural outcome. The action is driven by American interest which is again a natural reaction because the regime’s involvement in Somalia. But we believe that the regional involvement of the regime is driven by internal factors- the regimes’ involvement in Somalia, and before that in Sudan and Ethiopia are all involvements driven by internal factors- efforts so that the regime can stay in power indefinitely. It is a wish to be an invincible power-center in the Horn of Africa so that it can stay in power indefinitely. In carrying out this project, the cost and suffering was borne by the Eritrean people who paid for it dearly. The regional problems are a result of the regime’s internal problems inside Eritrea. Yes, I consider the regime a terrorist regime first and foremost on internal issues before I even delve into regional issues.
5. MOHAMMED TAHIR SHENGEB: [Mohammed Tahir Shengeb, aka Abu Shaker, is Chairman of the People’s Congress (EPC), known by its Arabic name Almu’etemer alsha’ebi al’eritree, which is a member of one of the EDA block that includes 7 organizations.]
Q1- Lately the relation between the USA and the PFDJ government has been deteriorating. On August 17, Dr Jednayi Frazer, the [US] assistant secretary of state indicated that the USA is considering putting Eritrea in the list of state sponsors of terrorism. A few days before that, the PFDJ consulate in Oakland was ordered closed. Apart from a few responses, there has not been a significant reaction [by the opposition] to the development. Why is that and can that be considered indifference?
A1: We have a problem there. As you know, after the Addis Congress, we were preoccupied with our internal issues and we became blocks – each moving on his own and each trying to prove that it is the most qualified, the vanguard of the struggle, etc. and we have been trying to find ways to overcome that. But as you mentioned, the current events are important and people should have attended to them seriously. But we haven’t fully come out of the internal crisis that we are trying to resolve. If we don’t solve our internal problems, we will not be able to come out with a clear vision [to respond to events]. I think that is the reason.
Q2- All right, how do you intend to use this event to your advantage and how do you see the events I mentioned earlier?
A2: The events are beneficial to the opposition’s interest. We all have been saying in different meetings, press releases and other occasions that the [Eritrean] regime has become a risk to Eritrea and the neighboring countries alike- that it is threatening the security of the whole region. People were saying that the international community should take note of this and pay attention— we tried to inform the public opinion to be aware. Now the UN issued a report about the involvement of the regime in Somalia and that it is disrupting the security of the region. And the latest statement from the USA is along the same line- basically confirming what the opposition was saying for too long; the super powers and international organizations came to the same conclusion regarding the regime on their own.
The statements complement the stand of the opposition. We should move to further isolate the regime from the world, international organizations and NGO’s. This is an opportunity and the opposition should take advantage of it. But lately, the organized opposition is almost frozen; even the conventional activities are negligible. In the coming few days, or the near future, things will change and you will see more activities. Since the actions being taken by the UN and the USA uplifts the morale of the people and the opposition, it is already having a positive impact.
Q3- Can you tell me your view regarding the consideration of putting Eritrea in the State Sponsor of Terrorism list?
A3: Of course, the definition of terrorism varies--everyone has his own definition. As far as we are concerned, terrorism is represented by the suppression inside [Eritrea]: prisons and prisoners whose fate are still unknown; violations of human rights; forcing the youth into endless service with the pretext of national service; putting the youth in camps, endless services and wars when they should be learning and acquiring knowledge; the isolation of citizenship rights and other basic rights, and the fact that people are escaping the country. I don’t think there is bigger terror than this and the regime is practicing it against its people and its neighbors. If the regime is considered terrorist because of what it does in the region, I primarily consider it a terrorist because of what it is practicing internally. The regime has become a problem, a threat and risk to Eritrea and its neighbors. The whole region is endangered by this regime. We believe the branding of the regime as a terrorist regime is appropriate.
Q4- The American position as stated lately is based on the regime’s interference in Somalia though the internal violations were mentioned sometimes; and the American stand is built based on regional involvement, in Somalia, but you are stressing on internal violations and suppression. How do you see that and how do you explain the difference and agreements of those two positions?
A4: Somalia has only become a backdoor for the regime. The Eritrean-Ethiopian border conflict was exported to Somalia- a new ground which somehow became the unusual conflict ground for the regime. Then the region attracted international and regional powers because of its interests in the region where strategies were put in place to settle issues. Here, Eritrea entered in direct conflict with many regional and international interests- in direct conflict with the interest of powers regarding the settlement of the Somali issue and the pacification of the region.
The [Eritrean] regime entered in this conflict with very narrow calculations. I believe the regime should lift its hands [off Somalia] and if there are problems with Ethiopia, it should be solved in other ways. Instead of trying to resolve the border issue with Ethiopia, with whom Eritrea has a contested border where there are armies, and frozen and unimplemented agreements, and instead of trying to persuade the international community to help resolve this issue, it opened a new door that complicated the issue. I see the difference: on the one hand, we as opposition and as Eritreans are concerned about the issues of our country where oppression, marginalization and exclusion is practiced. On the other hand, the international community has sensed that the actions of the regime are threatening the security of the region. In my view the two positions are in agreement; and we agree with any entity that sees Eritrea as causing anxiety and instability in the region because of its interferences. This is a correct accusation and we agree with it.
I just watched [Isaias’] interview with AlJazeera where a Somali journalist was asking him questions and he was acting as if he was the president of Somalia considering those in Somalis as traitors and aggressively defending his position [involvement in Somalia]. The interference of the regime is an uncalled for provocation. He is willing to enter into confrontation in order to escape from the internal problems. He wants to appear in the political map and give the impression that Eritrea has the ability and can move issues in Somalia or Darfur or other places.
We agree with the entities that consider Eritrea as hampering the stability of the region. And though we are focused in the issues of our country, we are concerned of the security of Somalia and Eastern Sudan and the border areas between Eritrea and Ethiopia. We are not isolated from all of that. But our main concern is the safety and security of Eritrea and by extension the safety and security of the whole of the Horn of Africa. If conflicts and agitations continue, in any part of the region, it will engulf the entire region. We see signs of dialogues and agreements in the Sudan, in the South, in the West and the East. There is a reconciliation process in Ethiopia and there are initiatives for dialogues and for democratization and political involvements, the Somalis are also headed in that direction. The only odd one out is Eritrea: there is no sign that the government is even considering any of that. Therefore, a government that is not able to solve its own government is not going to be able to solve the problems of others. On the contrary, it contributes to the complications of the political situation in Eritrea and the in the region. Truly, the regime has become a risk to the Eritrean opposition, to the neighboring countries, and the Eritrean people as a whole.
Q5- What is your message to the American administration?
A5: I believe the American administration should play a positive role; this is a good opportunity. There are entities that are trusted by the administration whether it takes their reports into consideration or not. The State Department has issued reports. As an Eritrean, I am in pain because of what is happening in Eritrea, and pained by the negative role that Eritrea, though a new state is playing in the region. This is happening when there are uncountable internal problems: half the population is exiled or imprisoned.
We always hope that super powers like America, regional and international organization would play a role in the development of Eritrea, but unfortunately, things arrived to the picture that we see. In my opinion, America and the international community should strive to help in solving this problem. First, there must be a resolute stand in facing the regime and showing it its limits. America is an influential country and influences the countries of the whole region. The [Eritrean] regime should be stopped from interfering in the region, oppressing Eritreans and curtailing freedoms. If not, it should face consequences. I would like to see concrete steps taken not just more reports.
The regime should be pressured- or forced - towards internal reformation and to stop interferences in the issues of others. This should be supported by serious decision and punitive measures like those imposed on rogue states that violate international decisions and threaten international security. I think the American decision should not be limited to threats only if the regime doesn’t comply. I think there is an abundance of reports that incriminate the regime; reports from the State Department, Human Right Watch, and many other human rights organizations coupled with the official stand of the American administration- now is the time for practical steps. But we should play an important role in convincing the international community to pursue this decision.
Q6- Have you tried to convey this message to the American administration?
A6: We didn’t have the opportunity to convey this message directly. But we wish to have an opportunity to convey it; I hope also this would be conveyed through your medium and we will work towards getting an opportunity to convey it first hand.
6. TEWELDE GEBRESELASSE: [Tewelde Gebreselase is the chairman of Eritrean People’s Democratic Front (EPDF), better known by its original name, Sagem. Sagem is a member of one of the EDA block that includes 7 organizations.]
Q1- Lately the relation between the USA and the PFDJ government has been deteriorating. On August 17, Dr Jednayi Frazer, the [US] assistant secretary of state indicated that the USA is considering putting Eritrea in the list of state sponsors of terrorism. A few days before that, the PFDJ consulate in Oakland was ordered closed. Apart from a few responses, there has not been a significant reaction [by the opposition] to the development. Why is that and can that be considered indifference?
A1: Basically we see the following: first, when we talk about the regime in Eritrea, we have always said that it engages in governmental terrorism and we have identified it as a terrorist regime since a long time ago. All the actions that the regime engages in are of illegal nature and cannot be done by an individual. So, the regime is naturally engaged in a governmental act of terror. That is speaking locally without even delving in what the regime does when it engages in the region outside Eritrea. Second, when you observe what the [regime] engages in externally, in the region for example, you see that it has been dealing with those who engage in terrorism in the region--it has been a breeding ground and training camp for groups that cause chaos in other countries. Therefore, we don’t see the designation as a terrorist state as something new. We have stated that a long time ago.
Q2- All right but the recent developments are considered important, the events are like no other events before and we didn’t see your reaction and that is my question- why?
A2: We have a channel to communicate with the concerned parties, there are many things happening. But to explain to you - we have issued a memo- in that memo we have said, regarding the regime, and I am reading from the memo: The terror regime in Eritrea has become a main terrorist regime in the region: it supplies arms and provides training ground for various groups and various agendas and making the country available as a breeding ground and training camps for terrorists of the region. The regime has been engaged in aggravating internal conflict in the region, especially in Ethiopia and Somalia….
Q3- Tewelde, I can’t hear you well because the line is very bad; please don’t read the memo; just tell me your replies briefly… if you want you can e-mail to me your statement for inclusion….
A3: What I want to tell you briefly is how we have been identifying the regime and how we see it. That is one point. In number two, we say that [the USA] says that primarily it will impose sanctions [on Eritrea]. This is basically what was said, as their stand. Our stand on this issue is that without considering what the regime is doing outside Eritrea, we are convinced that such steps should have been taken based on what the regime was doing inside Eritrea. For a long time, when we are touring [countries] on diplomatic missions, we were saying that all the support the regime gets is being used to oppress and subjugate the Eritrean people.
Q4- Are you saying that you have already conveyed your position to the USA?
A4: We have plans; ongoing plans to meet... there are many such plans in a detailed form. We will meet [to discuss] more comprehensive issue. It is planned.
Q5- All right. In your view, if Eritrea is included in the State Sponsor of Terrorism list, what do you think the effect of that will be on the Eritrean people?
A5: It is two things. There are actions that will not affect the people. For example, they have mentioned arms [embargo]. Also mentioned is foreign assistance; import and credits; certain controls over some items—all these do not reach the people. What should reach the people is the economic assistance which they must direct themselves. There are things that directly affect the regime and others that don’t. What affects the government is in its place [we support it]; but what affects the people, such as humanitarian assistances, we believe they should reach the people directly [by the donors]. That is because if it goes through the regime it will use it [to feed] its army and other entities affiliated with it. We have been calling for sanctions against the regime and we support the steps fully.
Q6- Do you as opposition groups have a combined view on this issue?
A6: We will issue some [positions] soon- that is what I mentioned earlier regarding our contacts and deliberation. We have some problems here to attend to before we meet extensively to convey our positions. Soon we will hold meetings among ourselves to study the issue in detail and then we will have broader meeting with them. Also we are trying to find a solution that will unite the opposition- those on the other block and those outside the EDA.
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
