I.      Sudan-Eritrea Rapprochement

 

Needless to say that the Eritrean people want good relations with all their neighbors.  Many of the Eritrean media outlets and writers have already expressed their views on this latest development.

 

There could be a number of reasons why PFDJ has chosen to mend its diplomatic relations with the Sudanese government.  Although it is politically convenient to blame the PFDJ regime for the initial diplomatic breakdown between the two countries, it was the radical elements within the Sudanese government and foreign nationals in Sudan that created the first crisis among the two countries in 1994 by attempting to impose their Southern Sudan solution on a sovereign nation of Eritrea.  Sometime in 1996, the extremists foreign nationals departed from Sudan.  Later, the radical elements within the Sudanese government were expelled from the government, and later arrested.  After these political developments, the Sudanese government changed its policy towards Eritrea and instead has been seriously pursuing to mend its diplomatic relations with Eritrea for a number of years now.  However, the PFDJ regime didn’t find it in its immediate political interest to receive the extended hands of friendship of the Sudanese government.  The reason has to do with competing for the attention of the sole world superpower.  PIA knew in Dec/2000 in Algiers that the demarcation process needed the full support and pressure of the US government.  PM Meles had the full attention of the US government because of the dangerous power void in Somalia.  PIA needed the same political card to receive his share of the US attention – and la voilà, the Sudan, and more specifically the Southern Sudan and later the Darfur region.  PIA needed the friction with the Sudan, whereas Sudan needed to extend its friendship with PIA to stem down [suspected] support for the various movements within the Sudan from Eritrea.

 

What happened in the past few weeks that the Eritrean government chose to accept the Sudanese government’s hand of friendship after so many years?  We have to look at the latest political developments to speculate as to the possible impetus for PIA’s change of heart,

 

  1. Fast deterioration of an already strained diplomatic relations between PFDJ and the US government as manifested in the past few weeks of,
    1. Expulsion of the US AID,
    2. Arrest of two more employees of the American Embassy in Asmara,
    3. US government’s imposition of the embargo on defense article exports to Eritrea as punishment for the violating Religious Freedoms.  Eritrea is the first country to face such imposition.  The significance of this US embargo is that it indicates Eritrea is no longer of any interest to the US in funneling support to various movements in Sudan if such activity ever existed.

 

  1. The latest development within Sudan no longer requires Eritrean ‘support’ or interference. 
    1. The Sudanese government and the Southern Sudan have reached an agreement,
    2. The Darfur region is now closely monitored by AU peacekeeping forces. 
    3. These latest developments means that PIA feels that his trump card has lost its value as bargaining chip to sway the US government. 

 

Thus, the latest hoopla is designed to send a desperate message to the US government than as any real desire on the part of PFDJ to establish long-term mutual relationship with the Sudanese government.  If PIA’s ever-changing political strategy requires it, PIA will pull back his hand of friendship overnight and we will be back into the same strained relations.  Somehow, Las Vegas Chapel wedding by a Justice of the Peace and only witnessed by the Chapel maid doesn’t inspire confidence in this latest wedding.  This is only our experience of the last few years. 

 

The next point of speculation is whether PIA is extending his hand of friendship to the Sudan with the aim of breaking the ‘Sana’a Axis’.  It appears Yemen has been more of a self-serving member of this alliance, using this axis more to gain fishing rights than using the axis as a geopolitical instrument.  The Sudanese government has been expressing its desire to mend its relations with the PFDJ regime for a number of years while participating in the ‘Sana’a Axis’.  Again, it appears Sudan was using this axis to goad the Eritrean government into mending its diplomatic relations rather as an instrument of grander geopolitical game.  

 

 

 

          II.      Disturbing propaganda against the G-11

 

Voice of Liberty (VoL) and others have already speculated why the regime finds it necessary at this time to re-engage in discredited propaganda against the G-11.  It doesn’t escape anyone that this is yet another sure sign of a regime gasping for its last breath. 

 

World politics and international laws have changed significantly since the collapse of the Eastern bloc some twenty five years ago.  In the  Cold-War era, leaders and their sidekicks escaped justice for crimes they committed against their own people and still found safe refuge in their benefactors’ countries.  Things have changed now.  It is wise for the sidekicks within the PFDJ to dig into the latest international laws if they have any intention of avoiding spending the rest of their lives behind bars.

 

PIA may choose to live out the rest of his life in rogue states such as Libya or Zimbabwe.  Of course, Gaddafi’s revolutionary mentality may not be shared by his son, Seif Islam, who has shown a keener interest to turn Libya into a fully respected member of the world community.  Whether the son will be willing to cough up a controversial refugee in his country if extradition request is made will remain to be seen.  It would be even more ironic if PIA ends up in Zimbabwe, living next door to his old arch-nemesis.

 

However, we have equal interest in those cronies who are aiding and abetting the regime in subverting law and justice in Eritrea.  The majority of these cronies will seek to live in the West – falling right into our laps.  We only need to see where Mr. Naizghi resides now.  They hope to live off the ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ they saved up from their Nfa 3,000/month salaries.  Magic trick!  Many have already padded their foreign bank accounts and installed their wives and family in safe countries.  But are they safe as they think they are?

 

Fortunately for the Eritrean people, or unfortunately for the cronies, the abuse of human rights in Eritrea has been well documented.  Mr. Mussie Ephrem’s excellent work in the form of complaints lodged with the African Union’s Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, CPJ, international religious organizations, international labor organizations are only but few of the respected international organizations that will become credible witnesses.  We will fully appreciate Mr. Mussie Ephrem’s actions in years to come.  The US government has its own Eritrean experience of the abuse of human rights in the form of its four Embassy employees in Asmara  imprisoned incommunicado and without any basic rights of those detained.  The Swedish government has issues with the PFDJ regime over its citizen – Dawit Issak.  The Italian government may have issues over Mr. Bandini, the US government over Mr. Yamamoto, and the EU parliament over the imprisoned Eritrean parliamentarians.   One can safely say that as long as the post-PFDJ government, and more importantly a competent Eritrean judicial body or even a competent ad-hoc judicial body considering the collapse of the current Eritrean judicial body, make official requests to these foreign government, the next Eritrean government will only find willing cooperation.      

 

The question is, can the cronies claim the old and discredited defense that they were only carrying out instructions?  I ask our many experienced Eritrean lawyers in Diaspora who have exposures to international law to enlighten us on this subject.  I will only express my layman’s understanding of this issue.

 

Other than the issue of extradition agreements between two countries [parties], the foreign country will only oblige to abide with the extradition agreement if the indictable offense in the requesting country is also indictable in the foreign [extraditing] country.   The usual holdout in extraditing a criminal is differences in punishment, i.e. for example countries that have banned capital punishment may refuse sending a criminal to a country that still carries out capital punishment, or may seek assurances that such punishment will not be levied against the extradited criminal.  Another requirement for extradition might be that the criminal act be serious in nature – normally indictable offense with minimum sentence of one-year.

 

  1. Generally under the normal course of justice, it is not only those who actually commit a crime that are held accountable for their actions.  Anyone that organizes, offers support, acquiesces, and aids and abates in anyway in committing criminal offense – which includes the miscarriage of justice, abuse of human rights, embezzlement, fraud – are equally held liable for their acts.  

 

  1. For instance, if PFDJ leaders organize and pursue a campaign through their cadres against the G-11 to commit extra-judicial actions, and the act is carried out, these leaders and cadres will find themselves liable for their acts, not only in Eritrean courts of justice but anywhere in the world they may decide to hide.

 

 

What should the opposition camp do to fight back the abuse of human rights in Eritrea? 

 

1.      Ms. Elsa Chyrum, EDHR-UK, EMDHR, NECS-Europe and other organizations and individuals are already doing a tremendous job in attempting to expose the abuse of human rights in Eritrea and to assist Eritreans in Diaspora.

 

2.      Beyond that, the significant number of well-experienced pool of Eritrean legal professionals in Diaspora can begin to enlighten us on what can be done to,

 

a.       Inform ordinary Eritreans on what avenues are available today and in the future to pursue legal actions against those individuals who abuse human rights in Eritrea.  For instance, to-date, it is only Mr. Mussie Ephrem, as an individual, who brought a ground-shaking legal action against the Eritrean government in the international arena.  Where are the organized opposition groups? 

b.      Indirectly inform, i.e. through internet and radio media discussions, the cronies in the PFDJ regime that they can’t simply skip a country and hope to gain refuge in safe country.  Inform the cronies that washing their hands clean is not as simple as claiming that one was carrying out orders.  From the Nuremberg trials to Augusto Pinochet, to Sadam, to Yugoslavia and Rwanda ad-hoc committees, international law keeps breaking new grounds.  International laws are changing from the 1980s to the 1990s to today.  Let us inform the legal implications and precedence to the PFDJ cronies.

c.       What kind of judicial body can be installed immediately after the collapse of the regime to give confidence to the extraditing countries that such extradition request is not a witch hunt, but that these Eritrean judicial bodies are highly competent?

d.      This discussion will be used as the groundwork to speed up the necessary legal action against the cronies in post-PFDJ Eritrea. 

e.       In the meantime, there might be some legal recourse that allows the opposition camp to lodge complaints against specific PFDJ cronies with various immigration departments of the Western countries.  The purpose of this action is to delay their refugee hearings, pending future actions by a post-PFDJ government, and more importantly by some competent post-PFDJ judicial body.

 

3.      The opposition camp must be brought into the 21st century of a sophisticated world where the world has shrunk into a village.  ‘Armed struggle’ conflicts of the Cold-War are now replaced with sophisticated game of somewhere between international politics and international law.  Petty politics of a forgotten era and political decisions made in the Eritrean Diaspora opposition cocoon world doesn’t advance our cause one bit.

 

For anyone curious to understand PIA’s modus operandi, one only need to study Mao’s life and philosophies.  Mao was an avid reader who believed that others shouldn’t read books because books corrupt people.  Mao engaged in systematically dismantling the Chinese judicial system, encouraged people to participate in public denunciation meetings, and engaged in socio-economic experiments that cost the lives of millions of Chinese people.  Over 38 millions Chinese starved to death while Chinese food production was being sent to the Soviet Union.  ‘Warsai Yekealo’ is nothing more than regurgitation of the ‘Great Leap Forward’ which was discredited barely two years after it was implemented due to large drop food production and the subsequent starvation. 

 

 

 

       III.      Method of Struggle

 

There is a tendency to portray peaceful struggle as if one is attempting to romance a brutal regime, and ‘armed struggle’ as if Rambo will storm into the palace and slay the monster.  No one has told us what the ‘armed struggle’ will look like thus we will leave that for future events.  Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to note that the recent rapprochement between Sudan and Eritrea only makes it that much more difficult to engage in such method.  The question is, ‘what is the point of endorsing such method of armed struggle if one doesn’t have the capacity to carry it out?’.  After all, having given up the moral authority, aside from all the other adverse political and legal implications, if EDA can’t use this method, hasn’t it put itself in double jeopardy over a method of struggle that it is incapable of using?    

 

One must commend ELF-RC for at least coming out in public to defend the political resolutions of the second leadership meeting.  Where are the other EDA members who supported these resolutions?  From what I gather the only ones that have supported this method in public recently are  Mr. Hirui who supports ‘armed struggle’ as sole means of struggle, and ELF-RC which views this method as an alternative method of method.  Of course, EDA as an organization, but which acts more like a hideout for many political organizations and leaders, is supposedly the sponsor of this decision.  But where are the Chairman, the Secretary General, Head of Foreign Relations, and others?  You see, these are not individuals and organizations that circle the wagon.  When ELF-RC disseminated its views to the public, other advocates for such method should have followed up and come out in support of RC’s statement.  But nobody wants to go on record because they all know that it may come back to hound them.  The significance of RC’s statement is that RC is saying ‘yes, our organization is willing to take responsibility for this action.’   Although I totally disagree with this dangerous method of struggle – a method which we Eritreans have plenty nasty experience of - I respect RC’s statement and willingness to take responsibility.  RC has accepted joint and individual responsibility for any ‘mishaps’ and any other political and legal ramifications.  That is leadership!

 

Some will say that Mr. Adhanom and Mr. Abdella did come out in support of this method.  Mr. Adhanom’s answer is found in his latest interview.  Mr. Adhanom’s initial answer was very brief, that the regime won’t collapse by wind only.  The interviewer had to ask again to clarify this statement.  This is a sign of a leader who wants to sit on the fence on this issue, unlike his answers with convictions, for instance, on Min. Ali Seid’s past.    Similarly, Mr. Abdella’s interview sounded comments of someone unable to support such method with full conviction.  After stating that the regime can’t be brought down with diplomatic and peaceful actions only, and then proceeded to  a very quick passing remark suggesting armed struggle, and then went back to extended comments that the opposition camp must strengthen its peaceful actions – a method of struggle he downplayed only a couple of sentences earlier.  It sounded as if the ‘armed struggle’ is not an issue that opposition leaders defend or advocate with any conviction. 

 

So why make decisions on this method of struggle in the second leadership meeting?  I would like to believe that it was done for the benefit of those rank-and-file opposition members who advocate for pursuing ‘armed struggle’.  But this is also a disturbing sign for EDA.  Instead of attempting to engage in wider debates and attempting to build bridges – not only among themselves, but more importantly with the general public – EDA attempts to incorporate every conflicting ideas into its alliance.  In the end, it will only fail to pass the first hurdle that comes across it.

 

EDA is calling upon the various political organizations with ‘military wings’ to bring their resources under one ‘unified’ command.  It took almost four years to bring together a very loose opposition alliance, which has not reached its level of comfort yet.  It is even questionable if it will ever find its level of comfort.   And yet, the call to unite at the ‘military wing’ when the ‘political wing’ is still in a very uneasy state of affairs appears betting on a long-shot.   Instead, EDA’s resources should be exerted on efforts that are realizable in the shorter run and have longer-term benefits as well.

 

Opposition organizations such as EDP that advocate for peaceful and popular movement based changes should remain engaged within EDA.  The principle of ‘Dialogue’ is based on continuous direct ‘engagement’.  The most important reason for continued ‘engagement’ is that the biggest risk to Eritrea today remains PFDJ and not necessarily the political misjudgments within the opposition camp.  As such, the opposition camp must remain united, and hopefully by strongly debating these issues that we can convince one another. 

 

We should not also lose sight of the fact that those opposition leaders who advocate for ‘armed struggle’ have today a possible shot at leadership position in Eritrea because of the valiant efforts of those men and women who believe in peaceful resistance.  The PFDJ regime is today gasping for its last breath because of the peaceful resistance of thousands of Eritreans.  The PFDJ regime finds itself shunned from its own people and the world because of the bravery of these fallen and imprisoned men and women.   Some arguments that peaceful resistance is a sign of weakness and that ‘armed struggle’ is necessary to remove the regime is simply hogwash.  Facts don’t bear this out.  In reality, peaceful resistance is hundred times more effective than any kind of ‘armed struggle’.    What remains is to deal the last blow by tightening the noose, which should be delivered by the same method that has brought the PFDJ’s regime down to its last breath today – peaceful resistance.  Instead of disillusioning themselves with ‘armed struggle’, the opposition camp must organize itself into effective organization with coherent platform.  There are other equally effective peaceful means which we in the opposition have not yet began to exploit.  But again, today’s Eritrea needs people like Mr. Mussie Ephrem and members of EMDHR, and doesn’t need men whose world is still formulated from their experiences during the Cold War and the liberation struggle. 

 

Tightening the noose around the PFDJ is similar to Operation Anaconda.  Anaconda has an interesting way of sucking life out of its preys.  Anaconda wraps its body around its preys but doesn’t crush them with its own strength.  Instead, as all living creatures must breath, as the creature/prey exhales air its body [lung/chest] volume shrinks.  Anaconda then only squeezes enough to fill that shrinkage.  The creature must breath and thus desperately exhales again, which the Anaconda further squeezes.  After a couple of exhales, the Anaconda has fully wrapped its body around the prey, thus sucking life out of it. 

 

We should not lose another important lesson.  There is a tendency in politics, which  is not unique to Eritrean politics, in that politicians believe that they can impose their ‘will’ on their organizations and their people and that after brief public outcry that people will give up criticizing or will eventually come to accept their acts.  For example, after disseminating the 2nd regular leadership meeting communiqué containing such controversial issue, politicians hoped that by maintaining low profile on this issue that public criticism will die-down quickly.  Similarly EDA politicians continue to duck other defining issues because they hope that all will blow over like yesterday’s news.  As ordinary Eritreans we should remain cognizant of such dangerous politics.  When we disagree over certain issues with our politicians, we should not allow such issues to come to pass.  We should continue to harp on them.

 

 

        IV.      Mr. Adhanom’s recent interview

 

Although I respect those leaders who make their views public, naturally, it has its downside – facing criticism.  If we only criticize those who speak their mind in public, we will only be encouraging them to button up.  That we don’t want to do!  Despite the following criticisms of Mr. Adhanom’s interview, I respect Mr. Adhanom more than the vast majority of EDA leaders, whose existence is only revealed to us on EDA’s organizational papers.  Leadership is about being front and center, not about hiding from the public.  In fact, one of my strongest criticism of EDA is based on this phantom leadership.  These phantom leaders don’t inspire us, nor impart wisdom to us, nor offer professional skill to build an effective and systematic organization, nor are able to formulate coherent platform and strategy to wage effective campaign against the regime.   Can anyone enlighten us exactly what their functions or skills or of special value to us are?  In my humble opinion, Mr. Adhanom only needs to taper down his excess ambition, avoid putting his fingers into too many pies, and build his political base on legal and coherent policy and platform.   

 

Returning to this topic, it is obvious Mr. Adhanom is a consummate politician.  In fact, if politics was done through polling as we have in the West, Mr. Adhanom could have played it most ably than any other EDA leader.   Personally, I believe that political  leaders must make decisions based on polls [opinions] in democratic societies.   I may vote for Mr. Adhanom in peaceful and democratic Eritrea. 

 

Mr. Adhanom’s interview contained disturbing comments and political dramas.

 

1.      On Min. Ali Seid Abdella – every Eritrean knows that Min. Ali Seid Abdella betrayed our very ideals of independence.  Granted!  But there was no need for Mr. Adhanom to denigrate a dead man.  It is in poor taste and such comments don’t add value to the opposition camp!   For all we know, Min. Abdella’s conscious got the better of him.  Instead, if Mr. Adhanom is in fighting mood, there are plenty living PFDJs to take potshots at.

 

2.      Mr. Adhanom has a tendency to portray himself as a ‘victim’ in every political mishaps.  Mr. Adhanom attempts to portray himself as a ‘trusting’ man who is being taken advantage of by other cunning and untrustworthy politicians. 

 

Somehow this ‘trusting’ guy image has been fully milked by PIA.  PIA tells us that he trusted the Woyanes, and that he trusted his colleagues who then betrayed him.  PIA portrays himself as someone who was forced into leadership position, although he wants to live a normal life like all of us.   PIA portrayed himself as someone who seeks what is best for everyone – for Eritreans, for our neighbors, etc… But that is all a façade of a consummate politician.  These politicians feed on our good-natures and sympathy for victims and underdogs.  We trusted PIA not because we knew what he was like deep down, but just because he talked right.  Yet, when we evaluate his performance, he has delivered to us everything that is the opposite.

 

In forming EPM, Mr. Adhanom tells us that he trusted his opposition colleagues.  They betrayed him!  This is from a politician who has years of experience.  This is from a politician who advocates for negotiating with Woyanes over sophisticated border issue.  Similar question is, would the border negotiation be undertaken by trusting the Woyanes too?

 

3.      Mr. Adhanom revealed some interesting information on Mr. M. Taha Tewekel.  Basically, Mr. Adhanom told us that Mr. Taha doesn’t have much influence in Addis but that Mr. Taha is connected to the Sudanese security.   This sheds light on what happened in late 2004 when the Khartoum group were initially refused entry into the Sudan.  It is interesting to read Mr. Tewekel portraying himself as advocate for democracy.  The second question is, did the Addis group, including Mr. Adhanom and Mr. Abdella, nudge Mr. Tewekel to use his influence over the Sudanese security to refuse the Khartoum group entry into the Sudan?  If so, is this the kind of act we expect from our politicians who advocate for democracy?   Or, is this simply a dirty political game that we should expect and accept, or should we advocate for democracy that is based on the participation of opposing views?   I raise these points so that my readers remain cognizant of these tendencies.  Tomorrow’s Eritrea can only be built on a truly democratic foundation if we are able to detect small signs at a very early stage.   We should keep track of these signs.

 

 

 

           V.      What EDA must do to attract public support

 

We are told that as various opposition groups have formed an alliance that the rest of the public must join it to remove the regime.  If EDA was formed specifically to remove the PFDJ regime, no one doubts that the entire nation would have joined it.  In reality, EDA aspires to form the next government.  As such, it changes the whole dynamics.  Now, people ask not only about EDA’s strategy to remove the regime but what to expect from EDA in post-PFDJ Eritrea if people offer support to it.  EDA is offering us a packaged deal, and as such we must evaluate the entire package.  

 

EDA’s Charter is formulated to meet the ‘minimum program’ of the various opposition groups.  Some critics have pointed out that this portrayal is not correct in that some opposition groups have been allowed to join based on their ‘maximum program’.  A very valid point to be left for discussion in the future.

 

The point I would like to raise is that EDA’s Charter is based on its members’ political platforms, and doesn’t in anyway explicitly respect the Rights and Freedoms of the vast majority of Eritreans.  In other words,  the opposition politicians tell us that we should trust them because they are truly committed to ‘democracy’ and are proponents of Basic Rights & Freedoms – and yet they didn’t find it worthy enough to be enshrined in their Charter.  After the experience of the past few years, we should be wary of anything that is not enshrined on paper – and more importantly our suspicion of these opposition politicians can only be allayed if they forcefully argue for such enshrined Rights and Freedom.  As stated earlier, the opposition camps tolerance for views that opposes them  was manifested when certain groups attempted to impede the meeting of Khartoum group late in year 2004.  This act wasn’t unintentional or misunderstanding, and has significant implication for democracy in Eritrea if some of these men are allowed to form the next government.   Although this incident was quickly swept under the rug for the sake of the bigger task of removing the regime, nonetheless, it remains a black-mark on many within the opposition camp.   

 

If we evaluate the current struggle to remove the regime, the current struggle to remove the regime is being effectively waged based on the relentless efforts of the independent Eritrean Media organizations and human rights advocacy groups.  And yet, nowhere in EDA Charter do we see the protection of their rights and freedoms so that these independent groups are allowed to operate in post-PFDJ Eritrea without any legal impediments.  In fact, based on EDA’s timetable, private media will be allowed to operate in Eritrea probably after three or more years after [if and when] assuming power.    Human rights organizations may not be accorded these basic rights to operate either.  Other concerns are over the freedom of assembly and other related issue.  My Hamelmalo News Service will not have the Constitutional guarantee for at least three years [and realistically 5 years] to operate in Eritrea, and thus must continue to express its opinion from the Diaspora even after the fall the PFDJ regime.  Should I support EDA?  Should EDA expect me to support them?  Can EDA realistically say that the public is not following/joining them when EDA doesn’t see it fit to address the public’s concerns?

 

The question is, ‘alright the various opposition camps have made their political pacts.  Dinki! What is EDA’s pact with the Eritrean public?  What guarantee is there our Rights and Freedoms will be protected other than EDA’s request for us to trust their word of honor?’  Unfortunately, in the world of PIAs, we have learned that ‘trust’ needs to be earned.

 

For most of us, we feel at least that much reassured if EDA was to enshrine in its Charter that it will adopt the ratified but not yet implemented Eritrean Constitution and then amend it as necessary through the democratic process.  After all,  the Eritrean Constitution doesn’t serve its purpose and the public rejects it, the Constitution can’t be imposed on Eritrean people and that if the people demand change that there is no force in the world that will stop it from being changed.   But the consequence of delaying the implementation of the Constitution because of political wrangling which  we are predicting based on what we are witnessing today, will have disastrous effects on our evolution towards establishing a viable and stable democratic Eritrea.  Even worse, is a hodge-podge Constitution, that attempts to be good to all, and yet satisfies no one.  The current EDA hodge-podge Charter and solutions are simply predictors of what is to come.   Under EDA’s leadership, the Constitution will take years to formulate, if ever, and will be hodge-podge.  In the meantime, Eritreans will live without their basic rights and freedoms.

 

You see, there is no disconnect between what we are witnessing today and what we should expect in the future.  Nothing appears out of nowhere.   When the opposition camp tells us they intend to undertake certain actions in the future, we must be able to relate it to their acts today.  If it ain’t here today, it won’t be there tomorrow – simple!  No need look into the crystal ball!

 

 

 

        VI.      WANTED!

 

An opposition political organization with clear and prudent platform and strategy, and believes in

 

1.      The official Eritrean flag,

2.      Includes women and youth in its leadership, and not just promises that it will have some in the future,

3.      Visible organization through continues public engagements, and effective communication to Eritreans in Eritrea,

4.      Believes in the principle of ‘peaceful resistance and popular participation’ to bring about change,

5.      Believes in implementing and guaranteeing basic rights and freedoms immediately in post-PFDJ Eritrea without any preconditions or holding this issue as hostage for other political bargaining,

6.      Believes in refraining from traveling to Ethiopia until certain legal and moral barriers are removed,

7.      Believes that the border decision should be implemented without any tinkering with it and executed down to its last dot. 

 

Eritreans, esp. those in Diaspora, must first articulate their political views and then go out shopping for political organizations that reflect their views.   When one goes shopping for, say, a pair of shoes, one already has an idea the type of shoes one wants to buy.  One will say I will buy a pair of sneakers, or dress shoes, and brown color that matches this cloth, and price range of this.  If one just goes to shoe store without any idea, one will most likely be confused as to which pair of shoes to buy. Even if you end up picking a pair of shoes by chance, one may find out later it does not match your cloths.  A wasted effort!

 

 

     VII.      Commendation

 

Finally, I would like express our continued appreciation and support of the following organizations,

 

1.      Independent Media Outlets – Awate.com, Meskerem.net, and Asmarino.com.  Asmarino.com continues to show that it has the thickest skin [of rhino] in the way it keeps raising its campaign against the regime notch higher every time.  Congratulations and you are what peaceful resistance is all about.  You are absolutely effective!

 

2.      Advocacy Groups:  Ms. Elsa Chyrum is an inspiration for all us.  EHDR-UK and NECS-Europe continue to show how effective non-political organizations can be.  It is not necessary for all Eritreans to join political organizations if they don’t see it fit.  Eritreans in Diaspora should as importantly join advocacy groups.  Samuel and Tekle are exemplary. 

 

3.      Above all - EMDHR, South Africa – these are the future of Eritrea, who have been through so much, and who still experience the hardships of unsettled life, and yet advocate for the most prudent methods of change.  That is foresightedness on the part of our youth way beyond their years.   Their professional meetings and above all transparency is lesson for others.  To me, they give me inspiration and sense of purpose.  I strongly believe that the rest of us have a lot to learn from them – throwback to the days of our youth, raw energy and deeply ingrained beliefs, which we have lost in the rough-and-tumble world without any compensating wisdom gained.   The future of Eritrea is safer in their hands, let us leave it to them.  Keep up the good work!

 

 

Berhan Hagos

October 23, 2000