On the 29^th day of May 2008, the renowned Egyptian commentator and analyst, Mohammed Hassanain Heikel, was invited to be a  guest speaker to the Egyptian judges in their club in Cairo. The forum took the form of predictions and projections of what may happen in the next few years in the Arab world and the changes expected. His predictions, in the aftermath, drew extensive attention and responses, mostly positive, from different media outlets. The Arabic based websites where rife with news and comments about the forum and the predictions made by the guru there. But, from the fewer negative reviews the forum received, it was the Sudanese websites and newspapers which were most excited and critical of the man. Why were the Sudanese unhappy? What does his prediction about Sudan tell us about Eritrea—and what can, and should, we do to prepare for it?   

It is worthwhile to note here, that Mr. Heikel is not a light-headed young journalist in search of a journalistic scoop.  He has a professional reputation beyond reproach and he has lived to see many of his predictions of the past materialize.  So when he speaks, people pay attention. 

Heikel’s Prediction

Mr. Heikel indicated and argued that Sudan is now entering into a stage of a series of painful surgical operations. His words:

“I am sorry to say it, but the crisis in Sudan is one of complexity which was left for long with no serious attempts to solve, because the state there believed that ethnic and national divisions can be solved through the use of military subjugation, and this, simply, was not correct. Problems were neglected for long decades.  Due to this and other factors, the Sudan cannot possibly survive in its current geopolitical form, especially if we take into account that Sudan was created by forcing and stitching together inherently discordant and jarring constituents to form the hinter land of the aborted Egyptian Nile Empire of Mohammed Ali, the 19^th century Pasha and ruler of Egypt.”

Mr. Heikel further predicted that Sudan is heading towards a dark future and will break up into four parts: the Arab North will be appended to Egypt, he said; the West to Chad; the South to Kenya and Uganda and the East to Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Of course, the anger expressed by the Sudanese is understood, given the predictions and the shock it carries with, including the perceptions associated with abrupt changes and upheavals, a state which can be described only as staring into the eyes of the abyss. However, it seems that the Sudanese critics focused on the man rather than examining or pointing weaknesses and faults in the reasoning which leads to his predictions. It also seemed that they were only expressing the fact that they hate what he said regardless of its validity.

What If Heikel Is Right?

Only time will tell if events will unfold as predicted by Mr. Heikel, yet, the ideas he presented deserve a think-over by interested Eritreans which may seem to some as only an intellectual exercise, while, in reality, it is a ventage to peep through on a possible future among other possibilities for the entire region.  

To many, what is written here-above may look far-fetched, like a fairy tale, but before thinking ill of it, one may well do visiting few universities’ websites--to the ones who take interest in the Horn of Africa and are addicted to preparing geopolitical blue prints which magically emerge to life, somewhere ahead in time. Only then, you may see how very realistic this may look.

If what Mr. Heikel predicted comes true in the manner he described, then this may be distressing and paradoxical to Eritrea, as it will find itself at the focus point of three competing nationalistic movements with universal claims: The Eritrean National Movement, The Greater Tigrai National movement, and the Beja National movement. The only way these movements may coexist is only in a confederation, I would think, but, such an arrangement may only be a dream, a Nirvana of sorts.

Who Benefits?

There is also, here, another effect which could be, as well, a possible motivational source for the predictions of the pundit.  It is possible that he was expressing (consciously or otherwise) the wishes and dreams of an Empire, himself being part and parcel of the imperial past of Nasser’s regime.  Egypt’s imperial ambitions were broken down on the Sinai peninsula some forty years ago, when the Egyptian army, in a lightning strike by the Israelis, lost what is now dubbed as the six days war. That war effectively brought an end to Egyptian ambitions eastwards to the oil fields of Arabia and the Gulf where other, more powerful interests, emerged victorious and favored reducing Egypt to what you may call now an empire in tatters.

Throughout history, it was demonstrated, time and again, going as far back as ancient Egypt, that when ways to the east are blocked on the face of this Imperialism-yearning country, it takes upon itself to compensate for that, by facing south towards the sources of the Nile and the never-ending failure of Empire building is repeated. In the nineteenth century, this dream was killed and buried under the hills and plains of Gundet and Gura’a  in present day Eritrea, when the Egyptian army of Ratib Pasha, led by American mercenaries and veterans of the American civil war, was annihilated by Yohannes IV of Ethiopia and the crown prince of Egypt had literally to run for his life.

But that did not stop Egypt’s facing south to the Nile sources in the Ethiopian highlands and the lake regions of central Africa. It was in this context that Sadat, early in 1980, provided weapons and even sent his Air Forces later in intervention for the benefit of the regime of Mobutu in the Zaire.

Thus, the all-winning party in Mr. Heikel’s scenario, though he didn’t say it, is Egypt.  It will have extended itself south towards its Imperial dreams bringing it in direct border tangency with Ethiopia at the foot of the water tower in an era where wars of water and resources are becoming the all-too-common-wars, and escalating. It would bring Uganda and Kenya to the same fate in the shadows of the Empire, so close to the lakes region. This will be even more probable that the population of Egypt will cross 110 million.

If it is decided at one point of time that such an outcome is for the benefit of Eritrea and its deliverance, then when its time comes, Eritreans should push towards the objective, seeking and achieving what is the the best for them only.  After all, we must have, by now, learned from our Sudanese brethren the principles of pragmatism.  Adopt or perish: it is the game of life and death.

And Who To Befriend?

Related to this matter but in an indirect fashion, is the question that this writer is haunted with: why is it that the tyrant of Eritrea, in all his clumsiness, wins diplomatically in places where the opposition parties are supposed to excel? The answer to this, but one is not sure, is that the dictator’s approach is that of creating alternatives to any option he wants to take.   He is expert at creating such dire and frightening alternatives that choosing him appears to be the most prudent. Why can’t we do that?  We can do it even much better and more efficient. Why can’t we learn from the despot himself?

The Eritrean Democratic alliance is now required to re-invent itself. It is required to come up with new visions.  What, for instance, prevents our democratic alliance of approaching the Israeli state, assure them of our goodwill and court for their neutrality if not friendship? No venue should be left for the tyrant’s monopoly, it is only pragmatic, and Eritreans should not fail in that, if they want to survive the tyrant.