At their prime, all dictators look and live like they will rule forever.  Their embattled citizens come to believe this as an article of faith and they dismiss all suggestions to the contrary as hallucination and daydreaming.  Of all citizens, none believes more in the immortality of the dictator than the dictator himself.  Experts at the art of survival, and having survived multiple odds against them, they come to believe that they will rule until death.  Then one day, one fateful day, when they least expect it, they are swept away to sudden death or a life of exile where they tell whoever will listen of their great accomplishments and how they will return.

What about the people?  The people that the dictators always trot out to demonstrate how beloved and adored they are?  Talking about the people of Iraq, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had this to say in a recent DoD news briefing:

� the people in that country would be foolish to stand up and oppose the regime until they were convinced that force would be used, or that the leader would leave. And at that moment where they are convinced of that, where the center of gravity of their conviction moves from expecting that Saddam Hussein will always be there, over to concluding that he very likely will not be there, at that moment you will see a good deal of movement. And knowing what combination of things would lead to that conviction on people inside. But think of how fast Iran moved from the Shah of Iran to the ayatollah. And the small clerics. Think how fast it could change back. Think of Romania. Think of East Germany. Think of how surprising it was that, when you look externally, something looks firm and solid and real. And then in minutes, hours, days it just dissipates. It collapses.

How true.  And what is true for one dictator is true for all dictators.  The Eritrean people, like the Iraqis, are not foolish: they are not going to make moves against a ruthless dictator until and unless the momentum shifts and they come to the conclusion that the dictator will be gone.  Once they do, things will change in "minutes, hours, days."

The momentum was shifting against the dictator when (1) the Eritrean opposition began to merge and present itself as a potentially formidable force and (2) when three neighboring countries announced (officially!!) that Isaias Afwerki is a menace to the neighborhood and a source of instability.  The convergence of these two events  is (was?) a unique opportunity that, given the fluid nature of geopolitical relationships, may not come about again. 

We will not  address the EPLF-DP because we are trying to locate them. Maybe they think it is 1960 and they are going underground. They are lost. If anyone hears of them, please drop us a line.

The last Pencil was an angry editorial, which may have been long on letting off steam and short on analysis.  Here we will attempt to explain the reasons because we owe our readers that much.

The positions of the ELF-RC and the ENA are as follows:

• The ELF-RC stated its objection to the developments in Addis (and its reasons for walking out) because, it said, it had heard from some of the participants, including the future-elect, Mr. Herui Tedla Bairou, that the decision on whom to elect was directed by external forces.
• The ENA says that the above claim is not substantiated and until the ELF-RC presents a written apology for its accusation, its membership is suspended.

We have a problem with both parties because we believe that both parties have placed the interests of their organizations over that of Eritreans. 

To those who present the ELF-RC position as principled and support the decisions taken by the ELF-RC, we invite them to ask themselves the following questions and then take their time in answering them (honestly):

Supposing the un-named members of the Alliance had approached the ELF-RC delegation (Mr. Seyoum Ogbamichael and Mr. Ahmed Mohammed Nasser) and said, "we are going to vote for YOU because foreign countries are pressuring us to do so", do you think the ELF-RC would have protested?  Do you think they would have walked out? Do you think they would have said, "we are not interested"? 

To those who present the ENA's insistence on written apology as pre-condition for lifting the suspension, we invite them to ask themselves the following question and then take their time in answering them (honestly):

Could you point to a single incident, in the entire history of the Eritrean political struggle, where one party has apologized to the other?  Could you find a single document in the entire archive of Eritrean history where one political organization has apologized to the other?  If not, was the ENA's request a genuine attempt to start a new chapter in Eritrean history or was it an effort to embarrass and humiliate?

Three months after the Addis Debacle, we do not think that the ELF-RC and the ENA appreciate the magnitude of the damage they have caused to the resistance movement:

(1)    The PFDJ accused the Alliance of being agents of foreign powers.  By its blanket accusations, the ELF-RC has said the equivalent of "Yes, Mr. President, you are right.  Mostly right, because all the members of the Alliance, except us, are willing to compromise Eritrea's sovereignty.  They were not willing to compromise Eritrea's sovereignty between 1999-2002 (when Eritrea and Ethiopia were at war) and that is why we worked closely with them; but beginning in October 2002, we agree that they are willing to allow foreign countries to dictate Eritrea's internal matters."

(2)    The PFDJ accused the Alliance of being unrepresentative of the Eritrean people: that it is made of religious fundamentalists and extremists.   After ELF-RC's walkout, the Alliance elects its leadership, which is almost entirely composed of Muslims, thereby providing easy ammunition to the PFDJ.  "Yes, Mr. President, you and your front are the only ones capable of bringing together Christians and Muslims."

(3)    The PFDJ accused the Alliance of being an amalgamation of people who have nothing in common, people who are incapable of working together and who will turn against each other.  The ENA and the ELF-RC said, "Yes, Mr. President, right again."

It seems that the ENA and the ELF-RC are in a competition to validate every single accusation of the PFDJ: that they are extremists, incompetent, quarrelsome, and willing to compromise Eritrea's sovereignty.   And as long as they remain unable to resolve their differences and reach an amicable resolution, they will make it easier for the PFDJ to convince people of every fabricated lie against them and, indeed, against the entire resistance movement.  That is the damage.  That is why the dictator now talks and acts like he is invincible. 

If the ELF-RC and the ENA were hoping that they will win a war of attrition, that once the people are told "the truth" they will all flock to them, they need to give up that illusion.   The evidence is right under their nose, in the charter.  We don't have over a dozen political organizations in the Alliance because there are over a dozen different political agendas and visions for Eritrea.   We have them because there is not sufficient trust that Party A will protect the interests of Constituency B.  The promise of the Alliance Charter was "you don't have to give up your base to work together, until we build enough trust to come together as one unit."   With their myopic arguments, the ENA and ELF-RC have taken all Eritreans who believe there should be a better alternative to an Isiaisista organization, back to 1981.

FREE YOUR MIND

No doubt, the resistance movement has faced a hurdle.  But there is no doubt that it will prevail because it is fighting a just cause: to liberate Eritrea from oppressive dictatorship.   To those who compare Isaias with the opposition and still think that Isaias is at least a patriot, at least competent, at least charismatic and at least accountable, at least a unifier, we ask you to consider the following:

Patriotism:  There is no worse type of treason than to endanger the lives of your citizens by throwing them to wars and then to be grossly negligent on equipping them properly to face a well-armed, well-trained enemy. There is no worse type of treason than for a chief commanding officer to put his pride and his personal interest above that of the soldiers he commands.  There is no worse treason than for a government, which is supposed to protect and serve its people actually trying to convince host nations that its own citizens are terrorists. The opposition didn�t do that; Isaias Afwerki did.

Incompetence:  How about a government that cannot feed its citizens; a government that has made no progress towards improving the lives of its citizens; a government whose citizens live in a hyper-inflationary market, indefinite servitude, spiraling prostitution, and no prospects for the future? A government that makes some Eritreans look favorably to the dreaded Derg administration nostalgically?  The opposition doesn�t head that government; Isaias Afwerki does.

Charisma:  How about a government that is at odds with every human rights organization; has fought with virtually every donor nation and organization and is in a virtual state of war with three of four neighbors?  The opposition doesn�t head that government; Isaias Afwerki does.

Accountability:  How about a government that calls a situation where one third of undisputed Eritrean land is under UN trusteeship, after its armed forces were evicted from every disputed area, where, in two years, it lost the lives of almost a third of the lives lost over thirty years of armed struggle a �victory� just to avoid questions of accountability and responsibility?  How about a government that has no independently audited financial statements? How about a government, which mixes party and government funds, one which is un-elected, one which reports to no-one? The opposition doesn�t head that government; Isaias Afwerki does.

Unifier:   According to the definition of unity as per Isaias, there are two classes of people in Eritrea.  Those who support the PFDJ are called Eritreans.  Those who do not support the PFDJ are called traitors, regionalists, defeatists, fundamentalists, terrorists, agents.   Isaias does not believe in unity; he believes in uniformity.  For over 35 years now, he has not been in an environment where he has had a minority view; an environment where he was not the boss; an environment where he has to co-exist, show tolerance and make concessions.  This is what every citizen who lives in a diverse society is expected to do.  In contrast, the opposition has lived the life of a citizen and, thus, can govern better than Isaias. 

The opposition is far from perfect.  It is disorganized, it is distrustful of one another; it is not consulting with the Eritrean people as much and as often as it should and its pace leaves much to be desired.  But the opposition still remains a vast improvement over the wicked, brutal, incompetent and treasonous government of Isaias Afwerki.    

As we see it, the main strategic task of the opposition is to convince a critical mass number of Eritreans that it is a credible and ready-to-govern opposition.  It will do this when it forms a united front.  It will do this when it nurtures and builds on its relationship with influential countries.  It will do this when it demonstrates ability to solve problems and meet challenges.   Once it does that, there will be enough Eritreans�in the army, civil servants, students-- who will believe,  that, in the words of Rumsfeld, the �center of gravity� has shifted and Isaias is a goner.  How long will Isaias remain in power after that?   "Minutes, hours, days."

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