This is the full version of a speech delivered on Sunday July 6, 2008 at a meeting organized by Eritreans in Toronto, Canada.

The Need For Dialogue

The main thing that differentiates humans from animals is their ability to reason, from which we derive our ability to communicate. Talking.

To talk is to be human, and dialogue, a noble principle in noble politics, is based on talking. When we dialogue, we use what God had given us, the ability to talk.

History is full of violent stories; conflicts that could have been avoided had the parties of the conflict believed in dialogue. But let's not forget that for a dialogue to be productive, it has to be genuine.

People are predisposed to defend their rights. When people are wronged, they complain, they scream, they try to explain their grievances. When they are given a deaf ear, they seek their predisposed ability, mostly violent means.

This transition from meek complaint to violent eruption can take a day, a week, a month, a year or years depending on the situation. The longer the sense of grievance lingers, the more violent the reaction would be.

Throughout the Eritrean experience, Simret, Wehda, has been an important goal and an emotional slogan. We are almost unanimous on the need for unity. We are not unanimous on the need for dialogue. We are unanimous on the need for peace, we are not on dialogue. Neither of the two can be achieved without dialogue. And there lies our national problem.

Dialogue and the Eritrean Regime

By now, it is evident that the Eritrean regime is not fond of the idea of dialogue. It has never been practiced in its policies. Rejecting the idea of reconciliation, it has given us orders to obey and follow. Many had obliged in the past. Some still oblige. Those who pursue fair justice have rejected servitude at a very high cost. You all know what that cost is.

Let me give you a glimpse of my experience:

In 1996, when a few others and I were actively campaigning for reconciliation (which starts with dialogue), the attack on us was very vicious. I personally saw the regime's arrogance totally adopted by its supporters. The catch phrase then was "Nefer-Neferen"- (one or two people) Abdella Jabir had said that belittling the opposition to the regime. That phrase was picked by the supporters of the regime – some didn't even know what it meant. To me it was a lesson I wish was not true.

.

Does this mean the regime would only deal when faced by large numbers? Maybe if it were faced with a serious armed group, Abdella Jabir would not have said that. I was disappointed at that: the independence struggle had created aggressive monsters who are taking my country to the abyss. That lesson turned out to be true. The regime was provoking the opposition into facing it violently- how many times have you heard, "Sre enteleken Sahel Kedken tewaga'a"?

How many times have you heard belittling such as, "bzey zereba intay aleken"?

This is a testimony that the regime believes in force and not dialogue; but Eritreans have been patient and never resorted to violence. The regime and its supporters would continue to paint its opponents as violent - even when they are not - as if it is a peaceful dove.

In the last 17 years, we have not witnessed the regime solve its national or international problems through dialogue- its record is violent, unjust and aggressive. It has never entertained the idea of reconciliation and dialogue. Its diplomacy has been abysmal.

So, how long do we wait for the regime to improve its performance and be just? When do we decide the regime is never going to listen and move to an alternative struggle? Do you keep begging the regime to respect the rights of citizens, without result, indefinitely?

I am saying this to establish that we as Eritreans have a task to accomplish; the free Eritrean patriots are not going to watch idly when this regime is spoiling Eritrea’s relations with its neighbors and damaging the peaceful social co-existence of our people. We will push for reconciliation with those who wish to reconcile; those who don't, they will find their opposites. But at the end, the nation will lose if this regime is not stopped.

My colleagues and I have been promoting the principle of dialogue and reconciliation for long. With the inception of awate.com, we have carried this belief to the next stage and we have acted on it. Dialogue is the main tool that takes a nation towards reconciling its differences so that equality, social justice and stability can be achieved. But the main player, the ruling regime, was always a hindrance: it was advancing anti unity group-thinking; creating conflicts; promoting division; nurturing suspicion; and diligently working to militaries the nation. These all are ingredients that hindered reconciliation.

In a militarized state, people do not believe in dialogue but in power.

They don't believe in trusting others but on suspicion.

They don't challenge the regime's action because it thinks for them.

They don't think in peace because they are immersed in conflicts.

They don't come together to solve their problems because they are divided.

I believed, and still believe, the root cause of our problems is the ruling regime and it must be discarded. I have no qualms about that.

But why haven't we made inroads in this aspect? Why have we not succeeded in achieving reconciliation?

First, we cannot achieve much on our own. What we do is a tiny portion of what is needed. The lofty goal of dialogue for reconciliation requires the participation of all sectors of our population. It needs the participation of a critical mass. Getting a critical mass to be active or at least be vocal, is a goal that we might be achieving lately- and we are getting closer.

The second reason is that there is a well-established and entrenched, stubborn and paranoid government culture in the Middle East and Africa, and Eritrea is part of those two regions. Let’s see the recent mayhem in Kenya as an example.

The whole world knows that the Honorable Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela are icons who have established themselves as men of peace. Their honesty, integrity and long struggle for peace and justice is well known and they have acquired moral authority and credentials to promote dialogue.

Less known is John Kofi Agyekum Kufuor, the president of Ghana and, until this year, the chairperson of the AU. He was elected president of Ghana in a contest election; he is well respected. He and Desmond Tutu worked their heart out to reconcile the Kenyan government and opposition to no avail---hundreds kept getting killed, thousands were displaced and there was much damage to Kenya's properties, not to mention its tourism industry. But, as Michela Wrong reported in The Statesman, when the British and the US demanded (with a  diplomatically worded threat) that the fighting Kenyan parties form a unity government, they did exactly what they were told. We Africans dialogue only when we are told to do so by powerful foreign governments.

The question is this: do you think there are no responsible Kenyan citizens who asked for a dialogue and resolving the situation in their country?

Of course there were- only they were powerless. Most of those who were empowered by the parties were on rampage and too busy to think of dialogue. They just received instructions from their parties to fight, and they wreaked havoc; when they were told to be peaceful, they threw their machetes and blended with the rest of the population. It took the threat of Britain and the US to force the two parties to sit down and dialogue. And there is another extreme to this formula.

When the Eritrean regime and its likes feel that they are not wanted anymore by the powers that be, they rebel. They do not want to abdicate even if their abdication would usher peace and stability.

They do not have an interest in stability if the result would result in them losing their power. Therefore, they become defiant and take their nations to the kind of predicament that face Mugabe's Zimbabwe and Isaias' Eritrea. They advertise their defiance to the West in a childish manner; their supporters get a kick out of that and portray their idols as heroes. If the West would seriously pressure them to form a unity government, without them losing power, you would see them transform into an obedient puppy overnight. Otherwise, they do not entertain any solution that costs their power and they perpetuate a state of war.

We have a similar situation with Ethiopia.

The supporters of the regime are just following instruction. And they are surprised when we reject the regimes' instructions to hate and be militants. They ask, "Isn't our government still not reconciled with the Ethiopians?" or "Aren't we supposed to rally behind our government in times of war?"

First they forget we have been in war since we gained independence-- with only a few years of relative stability. Then, we are not supposed to rally behind any government that does not represent us. Still, we are not supposed to equate an unelected government with the nation.

.

So, at awate.com, we believe in dialogue and we have, with our modest means, acted on our belief.

You might remember that we offered our mediation during the ELF-RC crisis. We did the same during the EPM crisis – two of them and we are still working on its residuals damages on the personal levels – that is just a few examples. We have never heard of a conflict between the opposition organizations that we have not offered to mediate and reconcile. Given the political culture in Eritrea, a culture of "winner takes all", we always knew that our chance for success would be negligible; but we always try because we are determined to promote the culture of dialogue. Sometimes, the squabbling forces have accused us of siding with this or that party or organization. This is the other legacy of our political culture: loyalty tests. "Either you are with me or against me!" But that is the price of trying to mediate. It is just like someone wanting to break a fight between two people and in trying to do so, gets a few jabs and bruises by one or the other fighter. It is the price of mediation and reconciliation. It's our principle.

The Perception of Aya

There is a corrupt perception that EVERYONE has to have an AYA, a sponsor if you will. Mainly, it is the supporters of the regime that write us nasty e-mails (anonymous most of the times) accusing me and my colleagues to be serving the Weyane. I understand their mind-set which is always focused on extremes: friend or enemy. Of course, what would they say when they see us calling for dialogue between the Eritrean and Ethiopian governments?

What would they say when they see us calling for dialogue between Eritrean and Ethiopian intellectuals?

What would they say when they see us calling the Eritrean and Ethiopian public, religious leaders and professionals to dialogue?

To them, dialogue can only be initiated by a government. If Isaias would tell them to dialogue with Ethiopians today, you will hear lectures on how we are culturally the same people and that we have died and bled together, etc. Until then, they will display their perverted form of patriotism, one that is not based on love for country, but hate of another country. What patriotism is based on hate anyway?

The sane will understand patriotism to mean the love of one's country not the hate of another.

I believe our problems with Ethiopia (the border) can be solved in many ways. Some will work, some won't.  Of those that work, some will take months, others may take decades.

For the purposes of dramatizing, let's take only two examples: legal and political.

Legality is rigid. It is not flexible. If a woman with five young children kills her drunk and abusive husband, the court may sentence her to death. Justice would be served. But I doubt if fairness would be served, especially for the children who would be orphaned. Such legal dilemmas have solutions in traditional wisdom, in justice that doesn't lose its sense of fairness. That is why in our tradition there are provisions of blood money, marriage and other arrangements.

I have to warn you though, the above is just an example to enable me to explain a concept and does not necessarily translate into either Ethiopia or Eritrea being understood as the wife or the husband in the example.

I am trying to say that there is an EEBC ruling and it is not implemented because Ethiopia puts conditions on its implementation. And the Eritrean regime doesn’t want to explore alternatives or creative solutions. We are at a dead-end. Eritrea has now been a hostage of that situation for a decade.

The question is: what do you do about it?  Some say: it is a legal matter; stay with the law.  What if the enforcers of the law are not calling for its implementation?  Stay with the law.  What if the law enforcers say, we have washed our hands, you, the parties to the dispute deal with it.  Stay with the law.  Those who say, "Stay with the law" are the same kind of people who have generational disputes with their relatives about a 2-meter house in Eritrea that they inherited from their grandfather. You have heard of mothers arguing with their daughters, fathers with their sons, brothers with their sisters, each one waving a document, each one convinced the law is on their side...and they spend tens of thousands of nakfas trying to recover something worth a fraction of that.

It is not to appease Ethiopia that we call for a dialogue, but to get out of the dead-end to enable Eritrea to live like a healthy nation not a nation obsessed with enmity and paralysis.

The Eritrean regime is obsessed with winning and not solving a problem. We cannot afford to have our youth in trenches indefinitely. We cannot afford to have our economy ruined forever. We cannot afford to live with one issue centered around the village of Badme when the whole nation is bleeding. Eritrea deserves to live and not be a toy of a clique consumed by grudge. This is happening because the Eritrean regime is adamantly demanding a rigid legal solution to the border problem.

This cannot work because although Eritrea is special to us, it is not so special to the rest of the world. There are tens of such border situations all over the world and we have to learn. Why do we want to have a Kashmir, a Golan, A Halaib and any other border impasse repeated in our nation? We call for a dialogue because this impasse should be resolved. Eritrea cannot afford to live like this forever.

Dialogue among governments is political in nature. Most of the time, the outcome of dialogue is positive, even if one side gives in – for the interest of the other, it should be understood that it is done for the sake of a greater good for a nation. We are Eritreans and we are concerned with Eritrea. We care about Eritrea and that is why we emphasize on what Eritrea should do. But repeating Final & Binding, day in and day out when it is not working, instead of trying to find alternative solution to a problem, is not patriotism as the supporters of the regime are trying to convince us.  For some reason, those who have made it their hobby and duty to give patriotism certificates think that to promote a dead end path is more patriotic than to come up with a solution.

Why don't we learn from the experience of other nations?  Even Israel, with its own Final and Binding version, is talking to Hamas through Egypt, in Syria. We will have to talk and we might as well do it now instead of waiting a decade, two or three decades. Why not now? Why don't we learn from others and go out of our stubbornness?

The last example I would like to give you is the new political star, Barrak Obama. You may remember that he declared his intention to talk, without precondition, to Iran and other countries at loggerheads with the USA once he is in the White House. Every poll that was taken shows that the American people support Barrack Obama’s brave move.  But those who shape public opinion, the intellectuals, the ideologues and powerful entities have attacked Obama so much that he seems to be retracting from his bold stand.

Dialogue without condition is a perfect solution. Imagine if the Eritrean regime had dialogues with its citizens, the G-15, the Mayhabar victims, the islamists, the elders, the priests, the Kunama people, the Affar people and others. Don't you think we would have been a peaceful, prospering nation? I do.

Finally, I will close by addressing a complaint that I heard form many.

I was criticized by some that in the interview that I conducted with Meles Zenawi, I didn't ask him about the border. I will be honest with you, I went to Ethiopia with a goal of breaking a taboo. A convenient taboo established by the PFDJ that dictates that Eritreans cannot talk to Ethiopians or others unless the Eritrean regime gives them permission. I was telegraphing a message that I don't take any permission ticket from anyone, neither should you. That we talked was more important to me than what I talked about.

I and my colleagues work for a goal: Inform. Inspire. Embolden. My purpose was to help create a new reality. In time, enough people will be emboldened to go, and that will include professional journalists who will ask all the questions that you dream of asking. But first they have to be emboldened to go. They have to ask themselves: why is talking to foreign governments and people being perceived as the domain of politicians only? Why should politicians monopolize talks- especially when they are not elected?

Our type of regime is willing to talk to foreigners and not their citizens. To elaborate this, let me give you an example: you must have read or watched on TV that Isaias frequently goes to Italy (unofficial, without the knowledge of the Italian government, by the way). He is received at the airport by his ambassador, on a limousine, and taken to a secluded location. He then meets with the chamber of commerce in small towns of Italy. He meets with Italian civil societies and NGOs. But he has never met with the Eritrean chamber of commerce in Asmara. See, he badmouths African leaders but he is worse than them all, he never talks to his citizens.  He lectures us, but he never talks, and never ever listens. He talks to foreigners only. Why should Africans, Eritreans, consider this normal?

In democracies, where the government represents the people-- is elected by them-- it would be understandable that citizens would fight whomever their governments fights. Americans don't go to Cuba because the government they elected was elected partly on declared policies towards Cuba. So electors obey the government that they elected. That makes sense. But undemocratic governments have no right to require obedience from unrepresented citizens and to echo the ruler’s party line. On what basis does the Eritrean regime want me to obey and follow it? It has never done anything on my behalf. It has never protected my interest as a citizen. It never went to war based on my consent. In fact I didn't recognize it at all: its war, its peace or any other thing it did or undid.

I have not given my consent. Wars should not be waged in my name. And I would like all Eritreans to say: Not in my name

And that, really, is how change will come. When enough Eritreans stand up and tell the Eritrean regime: not in my name.
.

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

NB: my next edition will be a report on the Keren Secondary School reunion in Toronto (July 4-6, 2008). Stay tuned.