PFDJs Public dialogue, do they really mean what they Say !

Do PFDJians mean what they say ! Read throughly and you will find that what is said is not true!


Public Dialogue: Human Rights in Eritrea (PART II & Final)Translated from Tigrinya by Dr. Gebre Hiwet Tesfagiorgis, Jun 6, 2006

Question. Let us shift from the general, so far under discussion, to the specific issues. At the moment, the main topic happens to be the issue of religious rights. Continuously spreading are reports alleging that outside of the main religions, all other faiths are banned; in particularly, adherents of Jehova Witnesses and Pentecostals are being oppressed and jailed. What is the policy; and how about its implementation?

Br/General Abraha Kassa. There is the allegation that the right to religion is not respected in Eritrea. America has listed Eritrea among eight countries of concern (Eritrea, Sudan, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, China and Vietnam). And America has singled out Eritrea for banning the sale of any military equipment from America. Setting aside the question of whether or not we buy military equipment, what is the link between religion and military equipment? What we believe in, and our ways, are known. The experience and history we have on this issue are exemplary. This population has accepted Christianity, especially Coptic, starting from the 4th Century. Islam was introduced in the 7th Century. And after the mid 19th Century, Protestantism and Catholicism were introduced. These four religions have for more than 100 years coexisted in peace, harmony and mutual respect. People who believe in freedom of religion, tolerance and mutual respect, as the people of Eritrea do, are in fact rare. The good aspect is that the values taught by churches and mosques and the values cultivated by the government of Eritrea are similar. And the government is working through the department of religious affairs to strengthen the relationships between the government and the religious establishments.There are some faiths that have been introduced from Europe and America, especially from America, after the Second World War. They have multiplied after 1998, and have reached nearly 20 now. All of these faiths are funded from outside, are instruments of foreign interests, and have been found working to disrupt the Eritrean society, and weaken Eritrean nationalism. They were given a notice in 2002 to suspend their religious activities until a comprehensive study is conducted. However, they secretly continued their activities, being funded by outsiders, in violation of this notice. And we were obliged to take action in the interest of our national security. Even now, they are still using them to disrupt our unity and weaken our national spirit. And we are taking action. There is no truth to the allegation that 1,900, or sometimes 2,000, have been detained. It is all exaggeration. Most of the youth we detain are national service dodgers. The number is exaggerated because, those detained for failure to report to Sawa [the national service training center] or those detained trying to escape from service are often reported as ‘detained for their belief.’ The number of those detained due to violation of the notice or actual commitment of crime is very small. This is the truth, and we should not be surprised if those who failed to succeed in disrupting our system try to smear our name in the name of religion. There are none detained on account of their religion, except violators of guidelines and laws.
Ato Yemane Gebremeskel. As wedi Kassa [son of Kassa, reference to Br/General Abraha Kassa] has discussed this in detailed, what I am going to address is related to the questions: Who is behind the issue [of religion]? And what have we attempted with them? The initiator of these issues is the American Foreign Relations, especially the Office of Religious Affairs. The actions they took in the last three years include: One, they expelled us in 2003 from what is known as AGOA [African Growth and Opportunity Act], which accords favorable trade terms to agricultural products from Africa. The second country expelled was Swaziland. There is a big difference between Eritrea and Swaziland when it comes to administration and political rights. Later, they denied us the right of credit transfer activities -- which we have been utilizing since the liberation struggle -- under the pretext of post-September 11 regulations, in violation of the Vienna Convention. They broke into our Embassy office and confiscated money amounting to approximately one million dollars. On the border issue, as we constantly remind them to take action on Ethiopia, for violating a binding decision and basic human rights, in their capacity as a member of the Security Council and guarantor of the Algiers Agreement, they take these actions to put us in a bind. There are also some that say, “In order for us to take a stand on the border issue, why don’t you do something in your internal affairs?” Regardless of the type of government in Eritrea, does the Charter of the Unite Nations allow the occupation of Eritrean land by another country? And why apply double standard when it comes to Eritrea? All these bring us to using religious issues as a pretext. The Office of Religious Affairs of America had sent a delegate two years ago that met with religious groups and government officials. The reasons for the actions we took, that in Eritrea both Muslims and Christians face no obstacle in practicing their faith, and that they coexist tolerating and respecting each other, were all explained to them. Is the introduction of foreign-funded new religions because the population has no religion? And if allowed, why should it not be done legally? The issue of religion is being raised because it is their agenda. As they are not fulfilling their obligation to take action under the law, they are raising religious issues to exert pressure on us.

Professor Asmerom Legesse. The actions taken by America are amazing. It is important to ask why though. America views religious right above everything else. And the reason is that many of the people who migrated from the various European countries and settled in America did so due to religious oppression. Even then, they should not have resorted to exaggerated reactions.

The other question that comes to mind: Have all these new religions that are now being closed committed crimes? And have all their members committed crimes? The issue must be examined case by case. Those who committed crimes should be identified and made legally accountable and punished, but it should not be indiscriminately. Some of the religions described as new, like the Seventh Day Adventist Mission, are age old rather than new.

Br/General Abraha Kassa. When viewed in relation to the four big religions in our country, [the ones described as new] are religions that expanded especially after the Second World War. They have not all been subjected to the same treatment; and they have not been told that they are closed. As some questionable activities have been discovered, they were told to suspend their activities until a study is conducted. Some of them, however, were secretly conducting their activities, being financed from outside, and still continue to do so. And action is being taken on those violating laws and regulations.

Ato Yemane Gebremeskel. It was stated that Americans view religious right in relation to their historical experience. However, America is also a country that struggled for self-determination against British colonial oppression. And self-determination is one of the corner stones of American policy. As I previously mentioned, when they came here, we posed: “Why do you view issues in isolation? The suffering of people resulting from the lack of border demarcation is more severe than the exaggerated issues of religion. And how do you view this?” Their response was that what concerns them was religious issues only.For our own sake, and because we believe in rights, it is good to examine our activities. As we understand why they exert pressure on some, while they show leniency on others, we should not speculate about what we should or should not have done. If everyone implicitly and explicitly goes against us, however, it seems to me, it is appropriate to ask the question, what comes next?

Question. The extension of the national service, and the participation of armed forces in development, described as “uncompensated labor,” are also listed among the violations of human rights in Eritrea. Related to those, the actions taken on dodgers and their parents, and denial of freedom of movements also are mentioned. How do you view these issues?

Ms. Fawzia Hashim. First, we have to consider the situation in which we find ourselves. Our situation is such that, on the one hand, we strive to secure our sovereignty, and on the other, we conduct productive activities to exist as human beings. What placed us in this situation is the failure of timely implementation of the border decision reached on the basis of the Algiers Agreement. There is no such a thing as forced or unforced labor. We know our responsibility to our youth. We also know what colonial systems did, before independence, to weaken the spirit of our youth in work, education and other areas. The campaign about which we hear now has a similar purpose. Thus, it is our responsibility to produce healthy, responsible, hard working and educated citizens.In our present war situation, to say that the youth should be confined to the war front, with arms in hand, divorced from production, is not right. Under the given situation, what is the problem if the youth combines both, working for its own and the people’s benefits? Those who claim to be sympathizers and advocates, if they are truly concerned, why don’t they work towards effecting the agreement of which they are guarantors so that rule of law is respected? What we give priority to is the national question. And the question of national survival is a question of right. We are working to ensure that the youth works for the interest of its country and people, in unity and strength, and to ultimately become the beneficiary of the country’s resources. There is more peace in Eritrea than in any of our neighboring countries. With all the challenges we face, thanks to our efforts to become self-sufficient, no Eritrean is dying of hunger. However, this does not mean that there are no shortcomings. Other than problems created by our current situation, we do not have problems that are deliberately committed. The question of democracy is also often raised. What kind of democracy though? At any rate, in the past years, we conducted a referendum [for independence], we drafted a constitution through a commission. In addition, we drafted laws, albeit interrupted by the Woyane invasion. Even then, undaunted by the current situation, we are striving to expand a democratic system. This includes self-administration of villages, the establishment of regional (Zoba) assemblies, etc. In short, struggling for survival, to strive to improve one’s living conditions should not be linked to human rights.

Br/General Abraha Kassa. The National Service was proclaimed in 1995, long before the starting of the war [of 1998]. The basic belief, the objective, was to raise productive citizens, to accelerate development projects, to cultivate a generation capable of defending the country, and in the main, to make the burden of national defense and of national development the responsibility of the whole society. Thus, every citizen must complete the national service. The proclamation states that a citizen that reaches age 18 has an obligation to fulfill a national service for 18 months, which can be extended if situations warrant. Accordingly, those who served in the first to fourth rounds were released. The Woyane invasion occurred one month before the release time of the fifth round participants. The extension of national service was thus dictated by the situation. In addition, the proclamation contains a provision to the effect that any citizen, until the attainment of age of 50, can be considered as a potential member of the armed forces. This means, any person can be called and trained within a period of six months or a year. This practice is not unique to Eritrea; it is practiced in countries like Israel and others. [According to the proclamation], failure to participate in the national service is punishable by a two-year jail term or 3,000 Nakfas [the Eritrean currency]. Anyone who disappears after undergoing training is subject to a five-year jail term, revocation of license, and denial of any land allocation.The measures that are being taken now, though should have been taken earlier, are not outside of the law or the proclamation. Any deserter to be detained, any aiding parent to be accountable are allowed by law and by the proclamation. I would not say there are no shortcomings in the implementation, but they can be corrected in the process. If Eritrea is to belong to all of us, we all have to participate in both good times and trying times. Dodging from national service and aiding and abetting sons/daughters to escape cannot entitle one to rights, and should not go unpunished.The engagement of national service participants in productive services has not only been described as “uncompensated work,” but also as “servitude” by those engaged in smear campaign. The work is done for the benefit of the country -- construction of roads, erection of bridges and dams, and development of agriculture. All of this is for the development of the country. The development so far accomplished would not have been possible without the national service initiative.Freedom of movement was raised [in the question]. We also believe that any citizen has the right to freely move anywhere, any time he desires. It is provided in our constitution and in our laws. And we had been observing it until 1998. After the Woyane invasion, conditions changed; and it was natural to introduce some limitations. As the proclamation considers anyone under age 50 a potential member of the armed forces, to place some limitation on movements of people under age 50 is allowed by law and by the proclamation. To say all under age 50 should be free to go anywhere they desire is equivalent to saying the country should be without the manpower needed to defend it. It is equivalent to saying, “do not strive to safeguard your rights and your sovereignty.” When it comes to movement, the government is handling things according to the situation. People have been excused and released from national service on account of health or other legitimate reasons. Women who fulfilled their national service obligation in particular have had their movement-related cases quickly resolved.

Ato Yemane Gebremeskel. As things have already been explained in detail, let me add a brief one. It is amazing that the participation of armed forces in production is considered as a violation of human rights. Participation of armed forces in production is not unique to us; it is practiced everywhere. For example, when an earth quake struck Pakistan, not only the Pakistani armed forces, also NATO’s, participated [in rescue and aid efforts]. The UNMEE, stationed in our country, participates in small projects. Similarly, the participation of the American armed forces stationed in Djibouti in digging wells and other activities is often reported in the press. Thus, the participation of armed forces in development is normal. Why does that become a topic of discussion when it comes to our case? If a citizen deserts, it is legal to make that individual legally accountable. If there is a problem in the process of implementation, that is another issue. Besides, war impacts every one, the burden of this war is on the shoulders of everyone. During the invasion, members of the armed forces were paying additional taxes. Citizens residing in foreign countries have been paying reconstruction tax for a long time. There was a time when people in business were asked for contributions. All this is not different from the normal conduct of affairs. It is not unique to us either. But, why is it viewed differently when it comes to us?

Professor Asmerom Legesse. There was an interview I gave when the national service was proclaimed. At the time, Eritrea had stated that as a small country, it is appropriate to mobilize its population to meet challenges directed from its enemies. The example, I mentioned was not Israel’s but Switzerland’s. Switzerland mobilizes all of its citizens and gives them military training. Because of that, while neighboring countries, like Holland and Norway, were invaded during the Second World War, Switzerland was not. After the military training, however, the trainees return to civilian life. And they are recalled every year for a two-week refresher military training. In our case, however, those once recruited are in the military for a long time. They are no able to lead a normal life. Thus, it is important to create a situation where our national service is aligned with civilian life. And we have to accept the views expressed on this issue.

Br/General Abraha Kassa. Although it is good to learn from other countries, each country has its own unique situation. It is obvious that if the national service is too long, it can result in social problems. And it is possible to conduct a study to determine what we need to do to avoid social problems. But, it is not feasible to disperse the armed forces by shortening the national service hoping doing so will prevent the occurrence of social problems. What can happen should be obvious to all of us. When you mobilize people, you take into account not only your own situation, but also that of your enemy. And it is for this reason that the government did not release members of the forces, except the ones who were resettled. War is not something that should be left to the armed forces only. It is because of he participation of the whole population that we succeeded. And at the present situation, everyone is contributing to the extent of his/her capacity to national defense. If a 60-year old woman ululates to encourage her children, if a 60-year old man fetches water, that means they both are participating, as they are contributing moral and material support. In time of war, the people, the armed forces and the government are in unison.

Comments from the Participating Audience

Ato Fitsum Tesfatsion (University of Asmara). Although the emergence of the concept of human rights is based on Western philosophy, the basic source of the rights center on the question: what rights should a human being be endowed with or acknowledged as entitlement? The rights are relevant to all societies and peoples of the world. Some of the rights, although stated incorporating the term, “individual,” I think are implemented in the form of groups or communities. For example, in the right to participate in politics, it is by organizing into groups, associations or organization, and not individually, that participation is possible. Even though countries establish their own laws, they also come together and collectively establish international laws. At any rate, a person is entitled to certain fundamental human rights. Generally, the mere existence of laws on paper is meaningless; it seems to me that rights should be respected at individual, government and other levels for rule of law to prevail.The interference of America and other countries was mentioned. In my view, however, a country should uphold human rights for the sake of its own people and not to appease others. I do not think that upholding or violating human rights in a given country should be measured by what other countries’ practices on human rights are. What is important is the measures a given country takes to uphold human rights.

Ato Binyam TeKle (Ministry of Justice). Is our discussion centered on the response needed to counter the criticisms coming from outside or on the human rights of the people of Eritrea? At the outset, we described human rights as dominated by liberal interpretation. If we are rejecting human rights because of that, can we survive by doing so? If there are competing interpretations to the liberal, which one have we adapted? And have we fully grasped it, and do we have the capacity to use it? In the final analysis, human rights should serve us, not vice versa.

Ato Zemehret Yohannes. Let me give a brief view on the issue just mentioned. First, I do not think one can say that liberal interpretation is the only correct way of interpreting or that it is the only way that prevalent. There can be no debate without competing views. As the liberal interpretation itself is the outcome of a certain society, culture, ideology and interest, other societies can develop their own views that reflect their own cultures, experiences and interests. We cannot take this as the final view. Thus, a reference was made to the dominance of liberal interpretation at this time, and not as the only one without any substitute. Second, the way the question was posed for debate was in itself problematic. Indeed, most of the questions were posed in a “reactive” fashion, as the question of human rights in Eritrea, in the main, is connected with foreign powers, foreign policies and foreign policy stands. To speak the truth, however, and as the participants also alluded to, whatever we do should not be to appease or please foreign powers or to be patted on the shoulder, but because the issue is of interest to us -- it is the issue of our people, of our lives, and of our future. For us, the question of human rights is primarily the question of the people of Eritrea, and our internal question. We will come to questions related to these aspects later. Even though the question was posed in terms of what is being said about us by outsiders, and in published reports, etc., the issue is primarily our internal issue.

Ato Alemseged BeKuretsion (Assembly of Maekel Zoba). Some rights, such as freedom from search, were raised. If a situation that tests national security arises, you would be obliged to take such measures. Had such a measure been taken during a normal situation, it would have been described as a violation. What is important here is the message. Those who are given the responsibility to implement, take questionable actions that go beyond the bounds of what was intended. So, why don’t we properly train them or give them proper advice? There are issues of concern in the way we handle things. It was stated [human rights] is a question of spirit; that is good. Our treatment of prisoners of war [during the armed struggle] with 100% observance of rights was not to gain global recognition or to implement the Geneva Convention; it was because of our principled belief. Participation of armed forces in production is good. However, it is also good to provide incentives to those who works. Although the education and knowledge they gain are significant incentives, offering something different would have been helpful. One also hears rumors that raise concern. Who is benefiting from the fruits of the participation in productive services? If, as sometimes rumored, individuals are benefiting, it certainly is a violation of human rights.There were some points Wedi Kassa mentioned about the national service. He said, “We did not implement the provisions of the proclamation until recently.” However, the activities were still going on. Some people were even brought to court. But, the commanders were not satisfied with either the charges filed by the attorney general or the decisions rendered by the military court. So, they were taking their own actions instead. That religious issues have been getting out of hand, starting in 1998, has even been brought to the attention of the government. This was pointed out at EPLF meetings. It is true that some have used religion as a means to escape from one’s responsibilities, and others as a means to fatten their pockets. Beyond that, for example, there were some that refused to fire shots, claiming to obey the commandment, “don’t kill.” To the one who comes to “feed” you fire, you don’t reward him with bread! When hurling grenades, they were doing so wishing and praying each grenade falls on stones or empty grounds. By contrast, there were some who fought courageously. Thus, the government should not have waited until 2002.

Ato Tahir Ibrahim (National Association of Eritrean Youth and Students). There are some citizens jailed whose crimes have not been officially revealed. They are people some of whom were jailed in September 1991 and some in December 1994. They should have been charged as a group. But, their case has not yet been resolved, and their families are left in a state of limbo. This case deserves legal resolution.

Ato Meles Woldeselassie (author/writer). I admire the manner in which the youth were cultivated and guided in the field [reference to the period of armed struggle]. At this time, however, I think the nature, effectiveness and manner of handling things have been slanted. We need our youth; we need to be flexible. We must be able to compete with our adversaries. Let us not say, “We don’t make mistakes.” We should embrace the view that mistakes lead to corrections. We need to send citizen representatives to international organizations to publicize the true image of our country to the international community.What I would like to mention here is that in our current situation, our economy must develop and production in general must grow.

As Professor [Asmerom] was saying, as war goes hand-in-hand with economy, we must device a way for returning the youth to civilian life. Let me tell you about a Turkish poem that is 700 years old. It goes as follows: To sustain a country, there must be a huge army and many horses. To administer those, you need money. To obtain money, the people must become prosperous. And for people to become prosperous, there must be law. If one of the four is missing, however, none of them exists.I have full confidence in the leadership of EPLF; they have been flexible, they have been patient. But, the world is against us. The threats and smear campaign conducted by the international media, like the BBC, is disappointing. Thus, there is no reason why we cannot be like in the past [restore our positive image]. We preserve our unity not only by combating sectarianism, but also solving our economic and social problems.

Responses from the Panelists

Ato Yemane Gebremeskel. The point of discussion here is not what human rights should exist in Eritrea. That has been answered. It is in our Charter; it is in our Constitution. Here the questions have been raised: As a concept, what does the International Bill of Human Rights entail? And what limitations does it have? We have to answer them. As was previously mentioned, the International Bill of Rights focuses on individual rights, and not on group or community rights. Rights of peoples were incorporated much later. The commissions on economic and social rights or the rights commission of the United Nations itself, other than giving notice, are not enforcing bodies. The rules themselves are such that one can make exceptions. And several countries do so.The People’s Front struggled for the independence and liberation of the Eritrean people. If it does not ensure human rights of the people of Eritrea, independence alone has no meaning. When [EPLF] says our policy is to expand social justice and balanced development, it is to ensure these rights. Our response [to the allegations of violations of rights] should not sound like justifying our actions in the light of violations of other countries. We all hear the baseless reports broadcast over the Voice of America and the BBC. To this, we definitely must respond. Especially if these reports originate from certain angles, we must expose their biases. We must be able to know whether they are doing this out of genuine concern for human rights or to further another agenda. I am singling out American and European because we ought to know what their intentions and their actions are in situations like ours. About the Warsai Yikealo [national service] campaign, issues were raised related to its effectiveness, administration and incentives. However, as these questions are related to administration, and not human rights, they are issues that can be raised some other time. Related to accounting, for example, there is the Auditor General. It should not be mixed with the topic of human rights.

Professor Asmerom Legesse. It is proper to give group rights their rightful place. And I think individual rights should also be given equivalent emphasis. Let me give you an example. Those of us who were residing in foreign countries were given permission to bring in property free of excise tax. It was rescinded because traders took advantage of it. When my property arrived, which was already en route [i.e., before the ban], I was told that it will be treated just like the rest. My case should have been treated as an exception. I appealed my case, and as a result, directives were given to treat things on a case-by-case basis. I raised this issue to point out that it is not good to treat things indiscriminately. Perhaps caution should be exercised so that individual treatment does not lead to corruption. But, to insist on approaching things only collectively is to slight individual rights and individual questions. And with such approach, individual rights cannot be respected.

Wzo/ Fawzia Hashim. We have never claimed we never make mistakes or that we have perfect institutions. We have to consider in our views the stage we are in, the challenges we are facing, and the fact that we are young as a country. Our desire is one thing, but our capacity is another. With all the challenges we face, we try to examine things case-by-case. That means, there is a distinction between ensuring rule of law and operating within the law. Ensuring rule of law means, to work according to the law once established. However, to abide by the law, it seems to me, is to apply as situations demand.Another issue, let us take corruption. It may have changed its form now, but we had fully controlled it at one time. Basically, struggling against corruption requires the participation of every body. Anyone who claims to be a victim should be able to legally redress the wrong. If he attempts to do this outside of the law, however, he is forfeiting his rights. Rights are not things that are given or denied at will. We all should understand that rights are earned through struggle. There is no reason why a government authority should not examine the uniqueness of cases and appeals presented to him, and resolve them. If one is confident about his work, he can accomplish them. And if there is some one who claims his case or appeal has not been heard, let him come forth.

Br/Genral Abraha Kassa. There is a point that I have heard being repeated that bothers me. And that is, if we are considering the Derg [former Ethiopian military dictatorship] and the Woyane regimes as upholders of human rights and admired by intellectuals, we are making a big mistake. The truth is the opposite. There are more skilled Eritreans who love their country than Ethiopian intellectuals who admire the Woyane. Second, it is not because Woyane is more effective or more persuasive in its appeal or has engaged larger human resources. What is hurting us is the taking of side [by the West], which we already have discussed. The reason why the Woyane is not facing any complaint or pressure while jailing and killing innocent civilians is not because the regime is effective in diplomacy or other areas. It is because they [Western media] close their eyes and turn deaf ears to the suppression and crimes committed by Woyane. Had we committed similar acts, it would have been a different story.As in the past, it is if we work with the participation and cooperation of our intellectuals, farmers, herders, etc. that we can succeed.END
© Copyright 2001-2005 Shaebia.org