The PFDJ has just discovered the meaning of evidence the way a serial murderer discovers the virtue of mercy.   Hold off on the premature celebration because both adhere to the adage of “it is better to receive than to give.”

Until now, it was difficult to hear the word evidence chibti escape the lips of the PFDJ, except as a word of scorn and contempt.  All those arrested in Eritrea are guilty—guilty of crimes so heinous that the government is doing us a favor from exposing us to the depravity of the crimes. If you asked a simple question like, “Thank you for your concern, but my virgin ears can handle it. What and where is the evidence?” you had to be prepared for a scene from The Treasure of Sierra Madre:  just replace the word “badges” with “evidence.”  Evidence!? We ain't got no evidence. We don't need no evidence! I don't have to show you any stinking evidence!

But now, with the shidda on the other foot, chibti is all the rage.

And so it was that a guest on VOA was making a demand of his government (the American government) that it produce evidence which shows that a man (from a neighboring country) hosted by his government (the Eritrean government) is, indeed, a terrorist. e. You have funded the Somali insurgents.  Chibti! You are arming the Somali insurgents. Chibti!  You are hosting a man, Aweys, who is on the US, UK, UN and Canadian list of wanted terrorists.  Chibti!  The demand for Chibti on Aweys was not to prove that he was hosted in Eritrea: there is no more compelling evidence than a photo. No, the PFDJ was demanding proof from the US, the UK, the UN and Canada that Aweys is a terrorist.   

Now, that is commitment to chibti.

Our friend made no similar demands of his government (the Eritrean government) that it produce evidence against many men and women (his own compatriots) who have been languishing in prisons some for over a decade.  But they are only Eritreans, some of whom helped invent this very thing called Eritrean.  Just when you were picking up your jaw about the double standards of our old friend, he decided to top it: it appears that the state media of his country (USA) edited his interview, thereby censoring (gasp!) his right to unfettered access to the media so he can air his disagreement.  But he makes no similar complaints about the state media of his country (Eritrea) which refuses to give a hearing, period, to anybody who disagrees with its views.  But they are only Eritreans and he is an Eritrean-American.

This, too, is also a commitment of sorts, a commitment to the call made by a famous revolutionary from Sal, of the importance of “struggling against our own weaknesses.” To the Marxists and all ideologues, chief among these weaknesses is the annoying conscience which insists on common decency and an alert mind which demands consistency.  Patria O Muerte, Venceremos!

Sure it is hypocritical of a magnitude that can only be described by the pen of Flannery O’Conner.  But hypocrisy is small stuff; it only attracts our attention because it is so conspicuous. Consider this: some men give all they are to help a cruel man to inflict his cruelty on their compatriots. If it is their turn to be subjected to cruelty, and they condemn all things cruel, is the worst thing we can say about them that they are “hypocrites”?  Does that not trivialize their cruelty? So, yes, PFDJ supporters are hypocrites; but worse than that, they are cruel.

Hypocrisy is a small sin; cruelty is infinitely worse. To be hypocritical is to be human—a flawed human, with compromised integrity, but still human.  To indulge in or to give moral support to cruelty, to explain it and rationalize it and lie about it, is to put in doubt your very humanity.

When fascism arrives in America, it will appear draped in a flag and carrying a cross, warned a wit.  How will it come in Eritrea? The clips Asmarino is showing now on the making of a dictator (since 1993) tell us we will be too busy applauding, beating drums and dancing to notice it: we will probably grasp it only in retrospect.  Somewhere in the Dahlak Archipelago, our own Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is chronicling it as we dance and try to fill our void with whatever it is that is bigger than ourselves. For some, like the Organization of Eritrean Americans, that means inventing elaborate costumes for the emperor with no clothes. 

Give Me My Tom Toms

On the subject of placing Eritrea as a state sponsor of terrorism, many of my fellow travelers feel that the arguments presented by Alnahda (and the Pencil and Negarit) in the last edition were a bit emaciated. They ask many questions, which I hope to get to in greater detail, time permitting.  For now a summary of my arguments: (1) the whole designation of State sponsor of terror is flawed, not just for Eritrea but all the ones named thus far. Police states are adept at exploiting xenophobia and hypernationalism. More accurate and equally devastating to the PFDJ would be the approach the world is using on Mugabe.  Name the man; if you want to expand it, name his organization.  But not the State, which is his victim; (2) once placed on the list, the factors that contributed to a State being placed on the list are not the sole factors used to remove it from the list. (Hint: why is Sudan still on the SSoT after the factors used to add it to the list are completely removed?); (3) the US is too big to be bothered by a “postage stamp sized” state like Eritrea and it will designate an emissary state in the Horn to take care of the nuisance.  And the emissary will not be Switzerland or Kenya or Djibouti. It will be a nation from across our southern border: a  nation who ruling class has a bottom list of demands, a nation that loves to extract concessions every chance it gets.   

But for now I will just answer one question: Are you not concerned that your stand will be used by the coddlers of tyranny to try to elongate its life? “All Eritreans, including the opposition and state enemies, oppose the proposed policies of the United States…”

Not to be unduly arrogant, but I wouldn’t lose sleep about the OEA and its fifteen sister organizations’ ability to influence US policy.  It is hard to influence people when you spend most of your waking time insulting the policy makers or supporting the policies of a tyrant who will undercut your arguments while you are making them.  

How seriously will the State Department take a group that feigns to educate them on who is a terrorist and who is not?  How seriously will the State Department take a group who, if shown incontrovertible evidence that proves that Isaias Afwerki and his cronies were and are engaged in terrorism, would cry in unison “forgery!” and then rush to condemn the State Department for slandering “the government and people of Eritrea”? How seriously will the State Department take a group whose debate level has not risen above “Noooooo, you din’t!”

Eritrean-Americans have no less rights thaa native-born Jack, Jill and Harry. But we don’t have more.  If our elected government (America) declares an individual, a group, or a country a terrorist, based on a broad criteria (defined in Executive Order 13224), then Jack, Jill and Harry do not have a right to ask for evidence why # 25 is listed.  Neither do Eritrean Americans.  They may ask for evidence why they are accused, but by what criteria do Eritrean Americans ask for evidence why a Somali is accused?  If we have taken an oath to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, (and we have), there is precious little the Secretary can do to help if she has taken an oath to defend the constitution and its laws (and she has.)   I am sure this is all clear to the group which claims, “we are 100% behind your administration in the fight against global terrorism.”  100% means 100%. Which begs the question: then why are they doing it?

It is the philosophy of "betrey habuni zeHmiqo aleni." They dare not go to the tyrant and ask, “what the hell are you doing?” so they will meet with the US to ask the same question. The same question may get them a condescending smile at the State Department but may get them jail terms in the State of Eritrea. Can you blame them, really?
- 

It is hard to make the case that you have an exemplary government in Eritrea on Monday morning when you have scheduled an appointment to come back on Tuesday to ask for an asylum hearing for your cousin because he risks torture and death if he returns to Eritrea. A bit tricky, no?

The fact of the matter is that just as the Eritrean opposition had nothing to do with the US’ decision to consider placing Eritrea in the SSoT list, the OEA and its affiliates will have nothing to with sparing it or, more accurately, him. It will follow a well-defined process of the Treasury, the State and the Attorney General reviewing Chibti. So why the fanfare?  Because they were given direct orders by the dictator to do it.  And one thing they have acquired great expertise in is, to quote the afore-mentioned African revolutionary, “beating the tom-toms when your house is burning.”

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