PIA’s recent visit to Brussels for talks with EU’s development commissioner Louis Michel raises a number of moral and legal responsibilities EU must bear in mind in its pursuit of undefined relations with a repressive regime.
It should be clear from the outset that whatever EU may do to entertain PIA won’t change the fundamental questions occupying Eritrea and the horn in general. Complicated issues can’t be addressed through wishy-washy policies. It can’t be lost with EU and its development commissioner that the Somali issue is being complicated due to the stalemate over Eritrean-Ethiopian border demarcation process. Without EU’s firm position over the border demarcation process, which may bring it into conflict with the US policy in the region, EU’s wishy-washy position over secondary issues won’t yield any results. If EU’s commissioner wants to be seen as ‘doing something’ in the region to justify his job, he must equally examine his and his organization’s legal and moral obligations to take account of the deteriorating human rights and social conditions brought about through unrestrained dictatorship in Eritrea.
We should reject EU’s ‘flavor of the month’ politics. EU can’t say, ‘Oh, it is September so let EU parliamentarians write a letter to the Eritrean leader asking for their release. Oh, it is May so let us invite PIA and pat him on the back. Oh, it is …’ Instead, the issues and questions that should be posed to EU are the followings,
EU parliamentarians are fully aware of the plights of Eritrean parliamentarians and yet have done nothing to secure their release. In fact, by writing their annual ritual one-page protest letter to PIA, inadvertently, EU parliamentarians are exposing their moral and legal obligations over their failures to address the gross human rights violations in Eritrea. By writing these protest letters, EU parliamentarians can no longer claim ignorance over the plight of the Eritrean parliamentarians and the overall human rights situation in Eritrea.
Amnesty International, CPJ, Religious organizations and many other human rights organizations have well documented the systematic and gross human rights violations in Eritrea. The EU commissioner and his colleagues can not possibly claim ignorance over the human rights conditions in Eritrea.
From Mr. Bandini to EU’s current Ambassador to Eritrea, Mr. Geert Heikens, have expressed their unequivocal understanding of the PIA regime as unabashed dictatorship, not only flaunting its disrespect for the rule-of-law in Eritrea but even breaching legal agreements with its donors. At a time when Mr. Geert Heikens and other analysts were expecting EU to ask for redress over this breach, instead EU is proceeding by promising to provide additional humanitarian assistance.
Barely few months ago, Eritrean Anti-tyranny Global Solidarity delivered a petition signed by 5,000 Eritreans asking for help in addressing the gross violations of human rights in Eritrea. Among a number of requests, one request was for banning High Eritrean government officials from traveling to the West. EU and its development commissioner seem oblivious to the requests of Eritrean people.
In reality, EU is playing double standards. The Council of European Union Decision 2002/148/EC imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe because “European Union considers that democratic principles are still not upheld in Zimbabwe and that no significant progress has been achieved by your country’s government in the five fields …” What are the five fields?
End of politically motivated violence,
Free and fair elections,
Freedom of the media
Independence of the judiciary
End of illegal occupations of farms.
The sanctions include “the Council also issued travel bans and a freezing of funds and other financial assets for Mugabe and 19 of his colleagues, who were deemed guilty of serious violations of human rights, freedom of opinion, and freedom of association and peaceful assembly in Zimbabwe. The EU was keen to emphasize that the sanctions imposed are designed to affect only those against whom they are imposed, and should not penalize the “ordinary citizens” of Zimbabwe.”
The question that should be posed to EU is whether their diplomatic acts are simply wishy-washy politics or acts based on certain principles. If EU’s acts are guided by certain principles, ‘what is good for the goose is good for the gander’, thus what is good for President Mugabe is good for PIA. In fact, most Eritreans and various international human rights organizations would say that President Mugabe’s treatment of its political opposition is infinitely more humane that PIA’s treatment of its political opposition. Recently, President Mugabe beat up two opposition leaders and yet the opposition leaders were free afterwards to speak to the world media and to seek medical treatment in South Africa and return to Zimbabwe. It can’t be lost with the development commissioner the most inhumane treatment our opposition and prisoners-of-conscious are receiving.
The purpose of this article or any of my other articles isn’t to engage in political debate with those we disagree. If we reduce our discussions to simply political debates, the ones with sticks and money would probably win every time. Political debates are grey areas. As activists, our role is to convert those political debates into moral and legal questions. By doing so, we force the wishy-washy domestic and foreign political players to take unequivocal position on certain fundamental principles.
Thus, our question to the EU development commissioner and EU in general should be,
1. What are the principles applied to deal with different dictators? If EU is leaning hard on those dictators that affect its organizational interests directly and softly on those dictators that don’t affect its organizational interests directly, then EU doesn’t have principles but is playing politics to pursue its own socio-economic and political interests at the expense of certain fundamental principles. The answer to this question has wider ramifications. For instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is the brainchild of the European governments, would lose its credibility if EU is perceived as playing politics to advance its own interests. ICC’s credibility doesn’t emanate from the court itself but the world’s general perceptions towards European governments and EU themselves.
2. According to Mr. Heikens, Eritrea is responsible for restitutions on donated food ‘deemed’ sold to Eritreans. Instead of rectifying this issue, if EU donates more food and PIA continues with his unpunished behavior, who will be ultimately responsible for breach of contract? My fellow readers, you know what wishy-washy donors do, they will continue donating food to the regime although fully aware that the regime is breaching food donation contracts, and then when a democratic government is elected, wishy-washy donors begin flexing their muscles on the democratic government threatening to withhold funding unless the democratic government compensates the donors for breach of contracts under the ousted dictators. This has been donor’s curse for Africa. Instead, EU should withhold any humanitarian assistance until PIA has made restitutions, and then proceed with providing additional humanitarian assistance. If EU fails to enforce its contracts immediately, future Eritrean governments have no moral or legal obligations to compensate for contract breaches committed under previous regimes.
3. If EU decides to resume providing development assistance, the EU development commissioner should be made fully aware that he and his organization are stepping into legal liability. Donors have legal responsibilities to ensure that their project assistances are implemented according to certain human rights codes and worker safety standards. EU can’t extend financial assistance for development projects and pretend or assume that its assistance is being implemented in accordance with EU’s own, and not PFDJ’s, labor and work standards. For instance, if EU provides financial, material or expertise assistance for drinking water project somewhere in Eritrea and if PIA uses slave labor to undertake that project, does EU bear responsibility for the use or condoning the use of slave labor? Absolutely! EU can’t claim ignorance over this issue because the use of slave labor is well documented by international human rights organizations. EU can’t use PIA’s definitions to determine if slave labor is being used in Eritrea. EU has legal obligations to define slave labor according to its own social, legal and political standards. If EU provides as much as one cent for development assistance, EU becomes legally liable for the use of slave labor. We have to make sure that the development commissioner is fully aware of the implications, and more importantly, that we will pursue this issue.
It is not lost with anyone that EU imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe because white farmers are involved. The British government leaned on the EU, and voila EU imposed a sanction. EU’s indirect statement is that black parliamentarians and tens of thousands of innocent Eritreans in PFDJ Dungeons are expendable. This is condescending attitude. But as black Africans, and especially as Eritreans, we should always remember that our traditional African societies have lived under advanced social standards and harmony, and rule of law for centuries while Gauls, Vikings were jumping around from one tree-to-another, and their Roman kin were slaughtering and enslaving their own and the rest of the world. The various dynasties from China to Russia to Europe created the most miserable conditions for their own people and their subjects for centuries, while we Africans lived in relative peace for centuries. We don’t need any condescending attitude from anyone. EU must address issues based on principles, as it claims, and not simply on politics.
Opposition’s Reply?
What happened to opposition’s non-existent foreign relations? PFDJ’s diplomatic skills is somewhere between weak and belligerent. The opposition camp’s diplomatic skill is non-existent. I don’t know which one is worse. If the development commissioner had an ounce of respect for Eritrean opposition and the Eritrean public, he would have put out a statement saying that he discussed regional issues with PIA and that he raised the issue of gross human rights violations in Eritrea with PIA. This would have been an indirect acknowledgment to the Eritrean people in general and the opposition camp specifically that EU considers human rights violations as a serious issue. The fact that Mr. Louise Michel didn’t bother to raise this issue demonstrates that the organization he leads has no respect for Eritreans. The opposition camp should have quickly replied to such condescending attitude.
EDA should understand that nobody cares whether they amend their article 1 or 10 or 50. These are issues that will be addressed by the vast stakeholders in post-PFDJ Eritrea. Over two years to address a couple of articles, while in the end parting their ways, indicates that we remain severely challenged in tackling today’s issues. If EDA was addressing article 4 or 5 while actively engaged in other opposition campaigns, we would have respected their overall efforts. Whether they agree on a couple of articles on issues that can only be addressed in the future doesn’t excuse their lackluster performance today.
If we evaluate the opposition camp, the overwhelming productive opposition efforts are being exerted by non-political organizations. If we examine opposition news organizations, human rights organizations, rallies, petitions, writing campaigns and every other effort has been organized and delivered by these non-political groups, not the political organizations. It escapes me what the function of the political groups is – to amend article 4 and 5 over 10 years?
EDA’s [former] leader popping up on Al-jazeera when the news network probably had no news to broadcast a couple of years was announced to us as a major achievement. Eritrean opposition shouldn’t become news fillers for news broadcasters. Instead, Eritrean opposition must be able to persuade, and if necessary coerce, news networks to give air time to the opposition. When PIA is on Al-Jazeera one day, opposition must strive to be on Al-Jazeera the following day.
Some will say, ‘easier said than done’. Whether Al-Jazeera agrees to opposition’s request to appear on their news program is secondary. The important thing is for the opposition to do things for the sake of doing by proceeding in the following steps,
1. Soon after PIA’s appearance on Al-jazeera, the opposition should make written request to appear on Al-jazeera.
2. If Al-Jazeera doesn’t reply or give a negative reply, the opposition camp would publicize its efforts to the Eritrean public.
3. Never acquiescing to rejections, from time-to-time, the opposition camp would make persistent request to appear on their program and failing to receive a positive reply then to write articles criticizing Al-Jazeera and making sure that a copy of our request and Al-Jazeera’s replies are posted on Eritrean opposition websites. At the very least we could be nuisance and they should believe that when things change around in Eritrea, that they could be left out. No one should ever think that we are too polite because otherwise everyone will shoo us away. They will only call us when they want us, never the other way around.
The approach with EU or others would follow the same steps. Write letters requesting why Mr. Michele didn’t address the oppositions’ concerns. If the development commissioner fails to reply or gives negative reply, immediately send the same information to Eritrean opposition websites. Don’t tell the development commissioner how bad PFDJ is because he knows that already. Tell him what his moral and legal obligations are in a stern but diplomatic language. Use international rights organizations and possibly diplomats such as Mr. Bandini to personally deliver those letters to the development commissioner. When we make a lot of noise, we give more clouts to people like Mr. Bandini. The critical factor is to continually publicize our efforts.
We shouldn’t judge our efforts by end results only. Instead, our efforts are judged by simply doing something and by remaining active. Never discount the power of being just nuisance. We should learn to do something for the sake of doing something. I assure my readers that results will surely follow. If we simply convince ourselves that EU, Al-Jazeera, etc…won’t respond to us because we are insignificant, then we have failed as opposition and as aspiring leaders without even trying.
Failure is part of life. Failure isn’t about falling down, but about not getting up after falling down. Failure is about not learning from one’s mistakes. Failure is about being afraid to try new ways. The opposition camp is replete with individuals who are so sure about their views and “their truth”, yet they have served us failure after failure because they believe that political leadership is about heaping dirt on the other guy, and yet have not provided one iota of positive activism.
At the risk of deviating from my topic, let me interject one thought about shameful politics on the part of Deqebat.com. This response is partially sparked by part 13 of an interview with an elderly Eritrean politician. But in my last article (‘Back to Tribouli’), i.e. even before part 13 of the interview, I alluded to this series of interviews by complaining that these ‘politicians’ begin by stating their principles and then proceed by engaging in the worst form of rumor-mongering thus negating their principles. I included that portion because deqebat.com’s interviewee was engaged in salacious rumors about PIA’s background although claiming at the beginning of his statement that he isn’t comfortable discussing these type of issues. I find such duplicity as the most dangerous type of politics that weakens democracy. We campaign on principles and values – never on rumor mongering or irrelevant issues. The King’s Court intrigues in an age of internet must be refuted with our every ounce of our energy. It is destructive! PIA is hundred times the man deqebat is. Gen. Mesfin is one thousand times the man deqebat is. PIA is a dictator but we know from which angle he is coming. Even more dangerous are those who strive to scratch more wounds while pretending to possess wisdom and pretending to stand by certain principles. Every Eritrean with one iota of blood is Eritrean. Eritrea belongs to anyone that loves it and wants to nurture it. Eritrea doesn’t need those, even those claiming to be deqebat, who try to sow weeds and the seeds of discord. ‘Deqebat’ itself is a medieval concept. In today’s world, migration has changed the face of the world. The victor of the presidential election in France, possibly the second or third most powerful nation in the world, a couple of days ago is born from a Hungarian father who immigrated to France. Deqebat lives in Europe owning or asking to own European citizenship and yet campaigning to dispossess others of their Eritrean identity. My response to deqebat’s continuous destructive politics – at one time on religious issues, and now back to individual politics – would have been muted if deqebat wasn’t the official website of the League of Eritrean Democratic Forces (LEDF) which includes Tesfa Network and Eritrean Congress Party. If this is what LEDF considers as positive politics, then there is something major amiss in their politics. If deqebat and LEDF believe that they are engaging in ‘smart’ politics, I can assure those who are pursuing this destructive political strategy that the rest of us can be equal to the task. We don’t need to engage in destructive politics to engage deqebat but to reveal to our common readers the dangerous path deqebat is pursuing.
Dissention within EDP
In the last two-and-half years, I have tried to address every issue as I understood them. I have criticized almost every political organization. I make no exception to EDP. In writing this portion of my article, my readers should understand that I am not an insider and do not possess any more information than most of my fellow readers. However, I can’t possibly pass up an opportunity to address organizational challenges.
We have heard and read the dissenters views on certain issues. It is difficult to address issues by listening to one side only and without possessing an organization’s bylaws and resolutions passed during its congresses.
The dissention can be examined at various levels, including the overall handling of the dissent and the question of organizational rule-of-law.
Ø Organizational rule-of-law
I will start with this topic because we need only examine technical issues. Unfortunately, the dissenters haven’t quoted any specific sections in EDP organizational laws in arguing their cases. I can’t neither support nor argue against the dissenters without specific information. But one may discuss from general observations.
Even if leadership violates any of the organizational laws or provisions, there is always a mechanism for calling organizational meetings (i.e. extraordinary meeting) at each level: executive, central committee and congress. Dissenters who make up less than the minimum required to call extraordinary meeting at any level can’t force a meeting without the minimum requirements regardless of how serious the violations are.
It is understandable the frustration in gathering membership petition in Diaspora politics. The only means available to the dissenters is to propagate their views through the public medium in order to reach out to other members and to the public beyond that. Based on the number of open supporters for the dissenting views, it appears that they may not have enough votes to call extraordinary meeting.
The dissenters themselves have responsibilities to abide by the organizational laws. If they can’t garner enough votes to call extraordinary meeting, they have two choices: resign or to wait until the next congress [which I hope there is a requirement to meet on periodic basis and is not left to CC’s discretion only]. The dissenters don’t have rights to declare organizational laws as void just because they felt leadership breached an important issue. The dissenters have equal if not more legal responsibilities to ensure that their accusations are backed by facts. In general, accusers have greater legal responsibility. Failing to state the facts and possibly making false accusations is tantamount to engaging in slanderous and libelous acts. One must differentiate between dissent and slanderous statements.
The other question I have is what are the organization rules for replacing central committee members?
Ø The Subjective Analysis
Again, it is difficult to analyze on the basis of publicly available information only. The dissenters accused the Chairman of ignoring them and even engaging in deriding them. Observing our overall Eritrean attitude and poor communications skills, I may be able to deconstruct what may have led to the foul moods on both sides. The dissenting side felt deliberately excluded from an important decision on travel to Ethiopia. The dissenters may have expressed their views in strong terms to the Chairman and they may have even questioned the integrity of the Chairman and the leadership in general. The Chairman, like every other human, felt offended by the remarks and accusations and refuses to meet with them. In addition, leadership takes one step further and flushes them out.
I fully understand the dissenters’ frustrations and possibly leadership’s harsh response. I can imagine the dynamics that leads to communication breakdowns leading to ill-will. Both sides have responsibilities to engage in positive communication, but failing so, in general, leadership has a higher moral responsibility to reason out with the dissenters regardless of the dissenters’ anger which may stifle communication.
In fact, there is a political culture we must change. There is a tendency in Eritrean communities and organizations’ leaderships to believe that the general public or general membership must be kept in the dark until the last minute and only told to accept a fait-accompli. I think this is taking advantage of the good-natured behavior of most people. In the short-run, leadership may avoid internal discord, but in the medium-to- long-run it creates mistrust. Every unpleasant act we attempt to avoid now will come back to hound us in vengeance.
While adherence to organizational rule-of-law remains unequivocal, policies can change with evolving realities. What glues together the rule-of-law on one end and polices at the other end is credibility and integrity. EDP’s leadership may have followed proper procedures to address the dissenters’ issue, but what binds an organization together is not only adherence to legalities but also that efforts be made to make every member feel that he/she is included in the decision making of critical issues. EDP’s credibility would be tarnished by ‘even appearing’ to antagonize any dissenters even if leadership followed proper legal procedures to address issues. The best approach would have been for EDP to allow the dissenters to post on its own website, say, one open letter expressing their dissent over leadership’s decision over the said issue and even allowing them to petition for extraordinary meeting in the same open letter. Even better would be to respond to their dissents both on legal issue and at public relations level. These members shouldn’t be made to feel that they are expendable or that they are troublemakers for dissenting or for trying to petition. They expressed their legitimate concerns. Any dissenter who has strong feelings towards certain issues has a duty to address them. They should not have been made to contact meskerem.net or deqebat.com, which must have been very emotionally difficult for them to do so, but felt they had no other choice. If the dissenters sent their protest letters to asmarino or awate or any other independent opposition news media but they decide to suppress them, then these news organizations have failed to do their jobs. EDP, RC, ENSF or any other political organizations are not immune from criticisms. However, the news websites have to ensure that their posting guidelines are followed and to ensure that the dissenters’ messages aren’t libelous. As for EDP, if it doesn’t want to publish their protests on its own website, EDP should have arranged for asmarino, awate, nharnet or other respectable websites to post their protests. Even if the dissenters have already decided to leave the organization, they should feel that their dissents received fair treatment. Even better would have been if EDP would throw a little reception for the departing members thanking them for their services, giving them certificates of appreciation and for them to keep struggling against the regime in their ways. Deep down, EDP’s leadership may feel angry of what the dissenters may have done to it, as the dissenters feel same towards leadership, but the day we are able to swallow our pride, ego and the need for vindication, if we can overcome that feeling, then we would have won the world. We have to force our mouths to smile even when our stomach is burning. This isn’t insincerity but opening up the way for the healing process. After all, Eritrea has a very small population and everyone counts. This is not necessarily about being nice, but about being fair. We will never agree on all issues, but as long as people feel that they are treated fairly, we can attain our democracy in record time. Human courtesy and respect is above all issues. During these difficult times it won’t be political intrigues that will save Eritrea, but our unequivocal beliefs towards human respect. We can return to political mud-slinging once we have reached political stability in Eritrea. In the meantime, let everyone know that we have unshakeable respect for everyone. If any one believes that our good natured behavior is a weakness, let them cross the line and test our wrath.
EDP carries greater organizational responsibility within the opposition camp than all other opposition parties because it may have the inside track if a sudden change takes place in Eritrea. Other political organizations and individuals may have greater apprehensions towards EDP – thus the continuous political and personal attacks against it. I have supported EDP for its positions on many issues. In the last couple of years, positive developments have allowed the political views of EDP, ENSF, RC and even Mr. Adhanom’s EPM to begin merging which is very encouraging by itself. As important policies are, it is even more important to cultivate trust and credibility. Let the other parties respect your organization even if they disagree with your policies. At the end of the day, on most issues and policies, we rely on trust and credibility we place on our leaders to address many of the issues and policies than each one of us trying to drive from the backseat. In return, leadership should strive to maintain that trust through ‘good-faith’ practices.
Dissent is at the core of our democratic values. The dissenting EDP members have exercised their God-given rights to dissent and have nothing to be concerned about. I respect them for their convictions. My only advice is to be careful in making their public statements and to ensure that they have their legal facts and organizational rules correct. Otherwise they will be committing the same mistakes that they are accusing others of doing. When we dissent, we have to hold ourselves and the people we accuse to higher standards.
Berhan Hagos
May 8, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment