Sep 28, 2007
“Be careful of the Georgian….he seems to be driven by hate and vile” Lenin’s letter to Kamanev warning about Joseph Stalin
Throughout man kind's history, people have been led or forced to be led and governed by other people commonly called leaders. They have different forms, style of governance, personality, attitude, ambition, state of mind etc
Their action or failure to act can affect the lives of millions both inside and outside their realm of power and sphere of influence. Some leader's action and legacy still haunt and cast shadow on their countrymen way after their death. Stalin and Tito, Siad Barre and Amin are some of the prime examples .Today almost all countries and territories are led by some kind of leaders or leadership. They can have different forms and names. Some are different only in names but quite similar in their way of leadership. Some leaders are quite visionary and loved by many still some are mysterious and of questionable character and state of mind. Few are really funny to the casual observer. The Midget they call dear leader, great leader, beloved father, undestructable comrade etc (the man has thousands of other titles), Kim Jong ILL of North Korea, is a good icon of depravity or fun to those who are fascinated with political farce and travesty.
The purpose of this article is not to comment or scrutinize on the leaders of the world. That would be a mammoth task which requires a huge amount of time and know-how. But I want to say something about two leaders whom I knew and experience well. I want to say a bit about these two individuals who happen to be leaders and their character and the effect it had on me and others .I want to write about these two leaders and their deed and what happens to millions of my countrymen and women, my neighbors and the world at large.
Let me begin from the leader of my country Eritrea, Isaias Afeworki. For many people this name denotes wretchedness and misery, terror and unimaginable repression. The lives of countless people have been scarred for ever largely because of the unbelievably reckless actions of Mr. Afewerki. The name Isaias Afewerki and Eritrea have been intertwined for almost 4 decades now. In fact the term” leader” doesn’t suitably describe Isaias’ style of leadership and who really he is. An absolute despot with more power than many Monarchs, he is the main reason behind all the recent tragedies of Eritreans and their neighbors. A very intelligent person with vindictive mentality, a man of immense energy with vile against his fellow Eritreans, and others, Isaias will be remembered as the fastest destroyer of a nation and its dreams. A charismatic person with high command of several languages, Isaias is one of the few people in history with no moral compass whatsoever. Like Stalin and Saddam the primary motive behind Isaias’ action is hate and insecurity. Many politicians, diplomats, foreign and local observers are baffled by this bizarre personality of Isaias. So far no one explains the rational if any, behind all this psychosis. Isaias Afewerki is one of the extraordinary people who love abyss and hate normalcy.
It is incorrect to put the Eritrean leader with the league of dictators and other autocrats currently or in history. There are clear explanations and even scientific reasoning for all the fanatical and unstable leaders of the past and nowadays. From Romania’s Dracula dictator Ceausescu to all the tyrants of Say, Haiti one can find some cogent and some kind of philosophy behind all the recklessness. Some of them were destroying their homeland ,while they think they are building or forging new society or social order .They were (are) led by some kind of principle, vision or goals, however twisted or unreal as it may be. From Mengistu Hailemariam’s vision of communist Ethiopia, to Castro’s Cuba, one can find some kind of raison d’être and even defend some of the action behind the “action” or the dream however wrong it may be. But there is none what so ever in Isaias and his leadership. Is Isaias a communist? Is he a fundamentalist? What is Isaias’ philosophy or guiding principle? Is he supremacist? Is he fascist? Is he Eritrean ultra nationalist? There is nothing to describe Isaias from the political dictionaries available in the world. The only explanation is PURE AND SIMPLE MADNESS AND HALLUCINATION at its best form!
A leader of one of the poorest nation in the world (even by African standard), dreams of changing the nation in to South Korea or Singapore overnight. Even the devil himself will have a hard time achieving this previously unheard and unseen magic. In a country without constitution and any kind of rule of law what so ever, the “man” hallucinates in to becoming Taiwanese or Korean over night! Even the strongest Cocaine or heroine will not help in becoming high to such degree. The latest hallucination is Sri Lanka (maybe Sri Lanka is a fellow African nation and we all have a responsibility to help our African Sri Lankan brothers).
The daydreams and bizarre actions of Isaias Afewerki are endless. Though it may look funny some times, it is sad to see a nation being destroyed by such reckless person. Hundreds of thousands paid in limb and life to be free and independent. Thanks To Isaias, Eritrea is now one of the worst place in earth to live by…….The only nation in Africa with out free press, the only country with out constitution, the only country with out a functioning Parliament, the only country with out annual budgetary report, the only country where you serve in the national service indefinitely …….The list is too long. The country Eritrea is full of the only country with out this, the only nation with out that! Etc
Today Tens of thousands of Eritreans fled and are still fleeing the oppressive regime of Isaias and his PFDJ thugs. Millions are living in fear and terror back home in Eritrea. The economy is in shambles and there is no hope for Eritreans under Isaias except to flee to what ever country they can. The nation is dying slowly in front of our own eyes and no one seems to care for long time Thanks to a leader whom many Eritreans used to call “wedi Afe” affectionately , Eritrea is on the waiting list to be nominated to the “prestigious” club of “NATIONS WHO SPONSOR TERRORISM! .As an Eritrean, it is excruciating to watch the daily torment of millions of my countrymen .It is also sad to see the world so oblivious for long time, though it seems now almost any one will agree as to how cruel and vicious dictator Isaias is . Many Eritreans and others like the writer of this article are puzzled and even confused by this out of the ordinary personality of Mr. Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea. Meanwhile the damage and carnage went on unabated and only God knows when all this destructive behavior will stop.
Let me come now to the other leader whose deed or fault affects other countless millions- the leader, Meles Zenawi of the Federal republic of Ethiopia, Prime Minster to be exact. As a Journalist, as a person who spent his formative years in Ethiopia and as a casual observer I have been following Ethiopian politics for some time. Meles, a former Marxist student and rebel leader is one of Africa’s most respected statesmen. Even his ardent opponents can’t help but have a high regard for Mr. Zenawi’s sheer genius and intelligence. A humble person with endless love for books (unusual for horn of Africa leaders), he is gradually transforming one of the poorest nation in the world in to one of African Economic success story. Yes there are still massive problems (both inherited from past and created by Mr. Meles’ Policies), but despite all these, Meles is of the few African Leaders with big heart and tolerance and dedication to growth and alleviation of dire poverty. Ethiopia’s history is full of greedy leaders who don’t really care for their subjects and will not hesitate to wipe even the whole nation just to stay in power. The recent history of Ethiopia is filled with blood shade and mass graves. Today things have changed dramatically, thanks to the wise and resolute leadership of Meles and the Ruling EPRDF party. Many people who came from a visit to Ethiopia, describe of massive political, social and economic change taking place in Ethiopia. Without a doubt a great deal of this is attributed to Meles Zenawi and his responsible leadership.
In today’s Ethiopia, at least people can hope! One can hope to go to colleges and Universities that have mushroomed after EPRDF’S victory in 1991.( In contrast the only University In Eritrea is on the verge of closure ,its sellout president on extended vacation somewhere in the US). Any Ethiopian can hope of launching a business or starting a career, Ethiopians are guaranteed by law of movement anywhere both inside and out side their country. An Eritrean is asked for a special pass even inside the capital city. Any Ethiopian can form and join a political party as long as it is non violent and respect the constitution of the land. Eritreans have no right what so ever and let alone forming political associations, gathering of more than three people is seen as suspicious activity by the security forces of Mr. Isaias. Ethiopians are free to follow and worship any kind of religion and faith with out fear and worry of repercussion by the establishment. A testament to the fine leadership of Mr. Meles Zenawi, millions of Ethiopians freely worship their creator without apprehension of any kind what so ever! From the peace loving Jehovah’s witnesses to the unity seeking Bahais, Muslims to Jews, Ethiopia and Ethiopians are under unprecedented freedom of religion in their history. Meanwhile Eritrean men and women of faith are under the most difficult times in the history of religion. Thousands of people have been arrested, tortured, killed simply because they refused to renounce their God and worship Isaias the modern day Pharaoh. Eritrean dungeons are full of believers and their cry for justice. Atheist Isaias has waged war on Almighty God and his people and just like many before him he will be thrown in to the dustbin of history soon. One can list many illustrations about the hellish life Eritreans are leading under Demagogue Isaias and the many amenities Ethiopians take for granted.
In today’s Eritrea, people are not comparing Isaias with Meles as there is no similarity what so ever but in strange irony of things many Eritreans are longing for the good old days of Mengistu Hailemariam (yes that is true!). Many will tell you either privately or openly-“KABZIS DERGI YIHAYISH ABEY NABEY”. Meaning, “Derg is much better than this regime” As my Eritrean friend said the other day, “Mengistu is mother Theresa when compared with the callous Isaias”.
History will render its judgment on Isaias and Meles. Eritreans have already rendered their judgment on their “killer-son” leader. Many Eritreans begun to awake and realize how horrible things are in Eritrea. They are beginning to denounce the leader who is the source of the entire calamity that befall on little Eritrea. A lot of Eritreans are cursing the unstable leader who made their land a farmer without a farm, teacher without a student, a merchant without a shop and above all the most disturbing of all, mothers without children. Thousands of young Eritreans have perished in many of the adventurous wars and invasions of Isaias. Many innocent souls have died just to satisfy the megalomaniac lust for power and prestige of tyrant Isasias Afewerki. In one of the most cruel and sadistic acts of history, Eritrean mothers are told to dance and ululate because their children have died for the glory and clout of Isaias. Today the world seems to grasp the whole picture of life and tragedy taking place in Eritrea. Many passionate supporters of Isaias have now realized how evil and manipulative he is. I only hope and pray it is not too late and the whole nation is salvageable.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
URGENT APPEAL TO:Department of state
The Honorable Dr. Jendayi Frazer,
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs,
Department of State,
Washington DC
Madam Secretary,
I am writing to you, not representing any political organization, but in my personal capacity, as a concerned American citizen of Eritrean origin. You will remember me, expressing grave concerns about the regime’s record of human rights violations and doubts about the possibility of a change of heart on the part of President Isaias Afwerki regarding the demands for democratic transition and observance of human rights. He has proved that he is not capable of change along those directions, and the victims of his detention centers and torture chambers provide ample evidence for this conclusion.
I have followed your thinking on the tragic situation in my homeland, including your latest remarks that sanctions are being considered as an option. From what I understand of your policy pronouncements so far, it seems that the basic rationale is that imposition of sanctions will induce change in the behavior of President’s Isaias in regard to his involvement in Somalia. His regime’s destabilizing activities in the Horn of Africa region is defined as an act of terrorism. What about the terrorism the regime has been perpetrating on its own population? Would that be forgotten if, for the sake of argument, Isaias decides to play by the rules of the game and stopped helping terrorist groups in Somalia and elsewhere?
As you are aware, the Eritrean government under President Isaias Afwerki has been committing serious violations of human rights over the past few years. At the risk of telling you what you already know, I must mention the fact that several appeals have been made by both Eritrean nationals and members of the international community addressing the following:
1. President Isaias ordered the arrest of many citizens, including former Ministers and generals of the national army. The detainees have been held incommunicado for six years, without charge. No one knows where they are, no lawyer or medical doctor of their choice can see them; their families are not allowed to visit them. Every time attempts are made to inquire into the reason for their arrest, the President and his spokesmen say that they committed acts of treason and sabotage without adducing evidence to support the claim. If there were any element of truth in the charge, the detainees would have been rushed to court and indicted immediately. Meanwhile the regime periodically unleashes a systematic hate campaign against them in order to have them condemned in the “court of public opinion.” But the public is not convinced of their guilt; far from it. Hence the decision of the government in not bringing them to court.
2. President Isaias has frustrated the democratic will of the people by suspending the implementation of the Constitution, using “the war with the Weyane” (Current Ethiopian government) and a “Weyane threat” as an excuse. With the suspension of the Constitution, the President has instituted an undeclared military government. All the civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution have been jettisoned, and the President rules by decree, using a captive “Parliament” to rubberstamp his decrees. And he dismissed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for pointing out that there was undue interference of the executive branch in judicial matters.
3. President Isiaias abolished the Private Newspapers that had made a promising beginning. He also arrested all their editors and principal reporters.
4. President Isaias has suppressed religious freedon and illegally deposed the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church.
5. In the most destructive move, the unelected President instituted a “national service” ordering an entire generation of Eritreans (the nation’s future) to be placed in military camps and trenches for an indefinite period of time. This is a most disruptive measure that is costing the nation immeasurably in wasted lives and squandered opportunities; hundreds of thousands of young p people (male and female) who could use their time to study and help their families and otherwise participate in the productive effort of a country have been forced to conditions of servitude without recourse and relief thus becoming demoralized. This we consider as an attack on our nation’s future. Thousands of youth have fled to neighboring countries, and beyond, at immense risk to their life. Indeed many have perished in the deserts of Libya and drowned at sea.
6. Being desperate for foreign exchange, the government has been confiscating hard currency brought by visiting members of their family who live in the Diaspora. The government has also been selling public land including to its bond-holders when the latter demanded the return of their money upon the maturation of the bond issued during the 1998-2000 war with Ethiopia. Such is its desperation, which has been aggravating its draconian measures and continued violation of human rights.
In view of the above, and considering the arrogant rejection by the government of Mr. Isaias Afwerki to all appeals, we have no alternative but to insist on requisite measures to sanction this lawless government. Without prejudice to your right to take or recommend sanctions that your government considers appropriate, I urge that the following measures be taken against the government of President Isaias Afwerki by the government of the United States:
1. A diplomatic boycott on President Isaias Afwerki and members of his cabinet of Ministers and other high-ranking members of his government, including refusal to issue visas.
2. Suspension of development aid, pending the implementation of the Constitution, the reinstatement of the Free Press and the release of all political prisoners.
3. Prohibition of all investments by American companies in Eritrea.
4. Causing the freezing of Eritrean assets in foreign banks.
5. Diplomatic campaign in support of the above-mentioned steps, especially in the European Union and its member governments.
I am confident that you will give this matter the attention it deserves. .
Respectfully,
Bereket Habte Selassie (Distinguished Professor)
The University of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill.
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs,
Department of State,
Washington DC
Madam Secretary,
I am writing to you, not representing any political organization, but in my personal capacity, as a concerned American citizen of Eritrean origin. You will remember me, expressing grave concerns about the regime’s record of human rights violations and doubts about the possibility of a change of heart on the part of President Isaias Afwerki regarding the demands for democratic transition and observance of human rights. He has proved that he is not capable of change along those directions, and the victims of his detention centers and torture chambers provide ample evidence for this conclusion.
I have followed your thinking on the tragic situation in my homeland, including your latest remarks that sanctions are being considered as an option. From what I understand of your policy pronouncements so far, it seems that the basic rationale is that imposition of sanctions will induce change in the behavior of President’s Isaias in regard to his involvement in Somalia. His regime’s destabilizing activities in the Horn of Africa region is defined as an act of terrorism. What about the terrorism the regime has been perpetrating on its own population? Would that be forgotten if, for the sake of argument, Isaias decides to play by the rules of the game and stopped helping terrorist groups in Somalia and elsewhere?
As you are aware, the Eritrean government under President Isaias Afwerki has been committing serious violations of human rights over the past few years. At the risk of telling you what you already know, I must mention the fact that several appeals have been made by both Eritrean nationals and members of the international community addressing the following:
1. President Isaias ordered the arrest of many citizens, including former Ministers and generals of the national army. The detainees have been held incommunicado for six years, without charge. No one knows where they are, no lawyer or medical doctor of their choice can see them; their families are not allowed to visit them. Every time attempts are made to inquire into the reason for their arrest, the President and his spokesmen say that they committed acts of treason and sabotage without adducing evidence to support the claim. If there were any element of truth in the charge, the detainees would have been rushed to court and indicted immediately. Meanwhile the regime periodically unleashes a systematic hate campaign against them in order to have them condemned in the “court of public opinion.” But the public is not convinced of their guilt; far from it. Hence the decision of the government in not bringing them to court.
2. President Isaias has frustrated the democratic will of the people by suspending the implementation of the Constitution, using “the war with the Weyane” (Current Ethiopian government) and a “Weyane threat” as an excuse. With the suspension of the Constitution, the President has instituted an undeclared military government. All the civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution have been jettisoned, and the President rules by decree, using a captive “Parliament” to rubberstamp his decrees. And he dismissed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for pointing out that there was undue interference of the executive branch in judicial matters.
3. President Isiaias abolished the Private Newspapers that had made a promising beginning. He also arrested all their editors and principal reporters.
4. President Isaias has suppressed religious freedon and illegally deposed the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church.
5. In the most destructive move, the unelected President instituted a “national service” ordering an entire generation of Eritreans (the nation’s future) to be placed in military camps and trenches for an indefinite period of time. This is a most disruptive measure that is costing the nation immeasurably in wasted lives and squandered opportunities; hundreds of thousands of young p people (male and female) who could use their time to study and help their families and otherwise participate in the productive effort of a country have been forced to conditions of servitude without recourse and relief thus becoming demoralized. This we consider as an attack on our nation’s future. Thousands of youth have fled to neighboring countries, and beyond, at immense risk to their life. Indeed many have perished in the deserts of Libya and drowned at sea.
6. Being desperate for foreign exchange, the government has been confiscating hard currency brought by visiting members of their family who live in the Diaspora. The government has also been selling public land including to its bond-holders when the latter demanded the return of their money upon the maturation of the bond issued during the 1998-2000 war with Ethiopia. Such is its desperation, which has been aggravating its draconian measures and continued violation of human rights.
In view of the above, and considering the arrogant rejection by the government of Mr. Isaias Afwerki to all appeals, we have no alternative but to insist on requisite measures to sanction this lawless government. Without prejudice to your right to take or recommend sanctions that your government considers appropriate, I urge that the following measures be taken against the government of President Isaias Afwerki by the government of the United States:
1. A diplomatic boycott on President Isaias Afwerki and members of his cabinet of Ministers and other high-ranking members of his government, including refusal to issue visas.
2. Suspension of development aid, pending the implementation of the Constitution, the reinstatement of the Free Press and the release of all political prisoners.
3. Prohibition of all investments by American companies in Eritrea.
4. Causing the freezing of Eritrean assets in foreign banks.
5. Diplomatic campaign in support of the above-mentioned steps, especially in the European Union and its member governments.
I am confident that you will give this matter the attention it deserves. .
Respectfully,
Bereket Habte Selassie (Distinguished Professor)
The University of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
ዘበነ ዓገብ
Friday, 07 September 2007
ዘበነ ዓገብ
ዘበነ ዓገብ ዶ በጺሕካ
ትማሊ ዓገብ ዝበሉኻ ዊሒጥካ
ብትዕቢት ትምክሕቲ ከምዘይተዛረብካ
ዝናዓቕካዮ ህዝቢ ሓገዙ ኣድልዩካ
ኣበይ እሞ ሕጂ ከድሕነካ
ጭራ ነብሪ እንዲኻ ዓትዒትካ
ጫማ ኣግፊሕካ ጠፊኡካ ዕቅንካ
ኣተርክሶ ጭሕምኻ ተማሃር ካብ ብጾትካ::
ጉድ እኮ ኢና ክንሰምዕ
ዓገብ ንዝበሎ ዘጥፍእ ዝበልዕ
ምልኪ ንምዕቃብ ብሃገር ዝጣላዕ
ክንዲ ዝስተር መሊሱ ይቕላዕ
ንብዓት ሓርገጽ ዘይፈልጥ ሪኢናዮ ክነብዕ::
ናቱስ ከኣ ደሓን ንስልጣኑ
ገደደ ናይቶም ንዕኡ ዝኣምኑ
ዝበሎም ክገብሩ ማይ ዝሓቕኑ
ናብ ዘይሰምዖም ደብሪ ዝደኑ::
ሓባል መጠመቲኣ ከም ትኩሓል
ዝጸቕጠካ እምኒ ንምንታይ ትፍንቕል
ትማሊ ከይዘራእካ ሎሚ ክትጉልጉል
ፍረ ትምክሕትኻ ሃየ በል ተቐበል::
ኻልድ ዓብዱ
ዮንሾቢንግ, ስዊድን
06/09/2007
ዘበነ ዓገብ
ዘበነ ዓገብ ዶ በጺሕካ
ትማሊ ዓገብ ዝበሉኻ ዊሒጥካ
ብትዕቢት ትምክሕቲ ከምዘይተዛረብካ
ዝናዓቕካዮ ህዝቢ ሓገዙ ኣድልዩካ
ኣበይ እሞ ሕጂ ከድሕነካ
ጭራ ነብሪ እንዲኻ ዓትዒትካ
ጫማ ኣግፊሕካ ጠፊኡካ ዕቅንካ
ኣተርክሶ ጭሕምኻ ተማሃር ካብ ብጾትካ::
ጉድ እኮ ኢና ክንሰምዕ
ዓገብ ንዝበሎ ዘጥፍእ ዝበልዕ
ምልኪ ንምዕቃብ ብሃገር ዝጣላዕ
ክንዲ ዝስተር መሊሱ ይቕላዕ
ንብዓት ሓርገጽ ዘይፈልጥ ሪኢናዮ ክነብዕ::
ናቱስ ከኣ ደሓን ንስልጣኑ
ገደደ ናይቶም ንዕኡ ዝኣምኑ
ዝበሎም ክገብሩ ማይ ዝሓቕኑ
ናብ ዘይሰምዖም ደብሪ ዝደኑ::
ሓባል መጠመቲኣ ከም ትኩሓል
ዝጸቕጠካ እምኒ ንምንታይ ትፍንቕል
ትማሊ ከይዘራእካ ሎሚ ክትጉልጉል
ፍረ ትምክሕትኻ ሃየ በል ተቐበል::
ኻልድ ዓብዱ
ዮንሾቢንግ, ስዊድን
06/09/2007
(Eritrea and Terrorism) Terrorism: in the Nature of the PFDJ
Terrorism: in the Nature of the PFDJ
05 Sep, 2007
Yosief Ghebrhiwet
(Eritrea and Terrorism)
If one is to understand the nature of terrorism that the Isayas regime sponsors, one has to primarily look at the nature of the PFDJ itself, especially those factors that make it unique among terrorism sponsoring organizations; for, in this case, the nature of the problem recommends its own solution. Two factors are often mentioned as to why the Eritrean state ought to be included in the state sponsors of terrorism list: for conducting domestic terrorism against its own people and for sponsoring regional terrorism. But there is a third one we haven’t looked so far: it is in the nature of PFDJ to conduct its affairs through confrontation only; as a dysfunctional entity, it knows no other way to relate itself to others. In assessing PFDJ’s “personality”, one has to look at its behavioral past, the principle that guides that behavior and the way it translates that principle on the ground.
The brand of terrorism that PFDJ espouses cannot be seen differently from the nature of PFDJ itself. First, the only “ideology” that explains almost every action that this organization has taken since its inception (as Shaebia) – that of “vulgar pragmatism” – also happens to explain best its brand of terrorism. Second, the “terrorism variable” permeates and dominates almost every aspect of decision taken in its domestic, regional and foreign policies as no other variable does; that is, the terrorism policy has attained an overarching status. And third, the terrorism we are witnessing today simply happens to be the logical extension of its confrontational past, where it used to get things done through force only. Although aspects of these three factors are to be found among the terrorism-sponsoring states, it is only in the Eritrean case that they converge in their unadulterated forms. Lets now look at these three factors in detail.
Vulgar pragmatism at work
Shaebia’s overarching “principle,” one that guides it in whatever it does, has been its vulgar pragmatism. The vulgar twist in its pragmatism is explained by the fact that it is guided by NO other higher economic, social, political, ideological or moral principle. The single objective of this pragmatism always remains the same: “Self-preservation of the regime above everything else!” The means of achieving this objective is: “Whatever it takes!” The only inhibiting question that it asks in pursuing its objective is: “Can I get away with it?” And particularly now, at a time when the PFDJ believes that the only “weapon of choice” it has for enforcing its domestic, regional and foreign policies is terrorism, this “pragmatic” choice turns out to be a fait accompli.
Among the terrorism-sponsoring states, what commonly holds true is that they at least share the “cause” of the terrorist groups they sponsor, be it religious fundamentalism, ethnicism or communism. That is not the case with Eritrea. True to its vulgar pragmatism, the Isayas regime’s terrorism policy has no “higher” religious, racial, ethnic, political, humanitarian or ideological principle that guides it. When it supports the Islamic fundamentalists in Somalia, it is not because it shares their religious zealotry. When it supports the South Sudanese, it is not because it sympathizes with them in their racial grievances (against the Arabs in the North). When it supports disgruntled Tigray elements, it is not because of ethnic solidarity. When it supports the Darfur cause, it is not because of the humanitarian disaster that has been unfolding in that region. When it supports many “democratic” elements from Ethiopia, it is not because it shares their concern for democracy. A good evidence that it doesn’t give a damn about the “causes” of these rebel groups is the fact that at the moment anyone of them fails to fit in its calculation of the survival game it pursues ruthlessly, it drops it nonchalantly with no qualms at all; the Sudanese story is a case in point.
The fact that the terrorism policy of the Isayas regime has an enduring pragmatic twist shouldn’t be confused for it being less pernicious than the ideologically driven ones, for it is precisely the lack of a higher guiding principle that makes it an enduring and ubiquitous phenomenon in whatever it does. It is probably instructional to notice that, odd as it may seem, there is something central to what they do that terrorism-sponsoring states and terrorism-fighting states share in common: an appeal to a higher cause. The former appeal to their fundamentalist ideologies for guidance. The latter appeal to liberal democracy for motivation to fight back. In the hands of the principle-less Shaebia though, terrorism becomes an extension of its confrontational past, a pragmatic tool of choice. And as such, while it keeps dropping one “cause” and adopting another, what remains invariable is the tool itself: terrorism. It is a habit instilled in it through decades of confrontation, one that it cannot wean itself out of, short of its final demise. In short, terrorism has become part of what it is, something that it cannot hold apart from itself.
The PFDJ’s confrontational past
There is something foolhardy, yet consistent, about PFDJ’s confrontational past in that it fails to discriminate among its “enemies,” irrespective of their weaknesses or strengths. It adopts the same confrontational stance in solving its “problems” against defenseless individuals (the elderly mediators, parents of deserters, handicapped veterans, etc.), influential foreign diplomats (ex: Ambassador Bandini), indispensable NGOs (ex: USAID), international media (BBC, Reuters, etc.) prestigious world institutions (Red Cross, UN, etc.) giant neighboring countries (Yemen, Sudan and Ethiopia) and mighty world powers (US and EU). In enforcing its domestic terrorism policy, it puts helpless elderly mediators and aging parents of deserters and draft dodgers behind bars. In pursuing its regional policy, it picks fights with all the neighboring countries and turns itself into a hub of all types of disgruntled elements. In enforcing its confrontational foreign policy, it bullies the UN (constraining their movement, shutting off their information outlets, selectively expelling their staff, etc.), harasses NGOs (constraining their activity, possessing their vehicles, expelling them out of the country, etc.) and antagonizes foreign diplomats (expels Ambassador Bandini, arrests American embassy employees, constrains the movements of Western diplomats, etc.). There is not a single major case in its past, where this organization (as PFDJ or as Shaebia) has solved its problem through peaceful means only. If this is not a well-established behavior of a dysfunctional entity whose confrontation-oriented worldview drives it to solve all of its perceived problems through confrontation only, nothing is. Thus, the Isayas regime’s excursion into easily identifiable form of terrorism (identifiable by the world body) is simply a logical extension of its confrontational past.
On first impression, it seems that this well established track of confrontational past of the regime goes against the pragmatism we are attributing to it, however vulgar it may be. But this needn’t be so, for Shaebia’s pragmatism has no inbuilt mechanism that warns it of impeding disaster. Its corrective mechanism works only after the fact; the only time it becomes aware of danger is when it is in the midst of it. It doesn’t allow itself any margin of error in whatever it does. It lacks eyes that warn it of an impeding wall ahead of it; the only way it would come to know about it is by bashing its head on it. The history of its mieda past is full of such wailing walls. That is why Shaebia’s history is a history of repeatedly coming back from the edge of disasters. And this phenomenon, instead of instilling caution in its behavior, has created a false sense of invincibility. The belief that it would eventually come out of any danger triumphant is the primary stuff out of which the true believers’ “Book of Miracles” is made. Now, it seems it has jumped into a quicksand where, unlike a wall, no bouncing back is ever possible.
Terrorism as a state policy
As a central policy for its survival, the PFDJ has been using terrorism as its main and only card in pursuing its domestic, regional and foreign policies. This record is unmatched by any other state sponsor of terror. Except for North Korea, none treats its own people the way the PFDJ does. And when it comes to outside its territory, North Korea’s terrorist threats have no bite at all.
In its domestic policy, the PFDJ gets things done through terror only. No consultations or legal proceedings are ever taken. If it wants land, it grabs it without any compensation. If an enterprise suddenly becomes profitable, it monopolizes it by bankrupting the “competing” merchants or businessmen. If it wants recruits for its army, it conducts giffa. If it wants to build a road, it uses slave labor. If it wants to stop desertion, it takes parents hostage. If it doesn’t like a religion, it throws its members into prison. That is how the government “communicates” with its subjects; it doesn’t know any better. That is how it is; violence is in its very nature.
The terror under which the Eritrean masses have been living is aptly summed up by a commentator by the name of Sereke who describes the nation as “the biggest open prison in the world.” That renders statements like “There are tens of thousands of prisoners in Eritrea” an understatement. To comprehend the labyrinthine prison system in Eritrea, think of a Warsai recently released from a prison, only to end up in “agelglot,” a huge prison in the wilderness, where hundreds of thousands of adults are quarantined for years without end. And if by any chance he succeeds in escaping from this hell-hole of never-ending slavery, he ends up somewhere in Eritrea where he has to remain hidden in fear – sometimes for years – until he either makes it to the neighboring countries or is fetched back by PFDJ authorities to repeat the same cycle of horror (if he is lucky). Probably, it is this state of a “prison within a prison within a prison” that describes the domestic terrorism in Eritrea the most. Imagine this system as being made of three concentric circles, one embedded in the other. In the outermost circle, we find four million inmates (the whole Eritrean population); in the middle circle, we finds the hundreds of thousands inmates (those in the military service); and in the inner most circle, we find the tens of thousands officially recognized prisoners. The misery index of a citizen is measured by how deep into this system of concentric circles he finds himself in.
PFDJ conducts its regional policy with the same ruthlessness and “pragmatism”. Eritrea’s neighbors (for instance, unlike North Korea's neighbors) are very susceptible to terrorism for various reasons. Ethnic, clan, religious, regional, racial and political strife is to be found in the region in abundance. With a willingness to arm, train and amply provide disgruntled elements, it is easy to exploit simmering antagonisms that have been there for decades and turn them into full blown confrontations. And that is what Eritrea has been doing; it has turned itself into a haven for all types of terrorists that are stocking the neighborhood. There is almost no armed movement in the region that at one time or another has not been supported by the regime. The despot’s intrusive hands are to be traced in all the recent terrorist undertakings in the region, including the hostage taking of the British and Ethiopian subjects in Afar and the on-going war in Somalia. Whatever the despot wants to achieve in the region is done through terrorism only; he cannot think of any other peaceful means to conduct his regional policy.
PFDJ’s confrontational foreign policy defines the relationship that it has had with three foreign entities that have been playing essential roles in the nation’s short history: NGOs, the UN and US (and EU). NGOs have played a vital role in staving off one disaster after another, beginning from Shaebia’s days in mieda to the border war; in the process, saving hundreds of thousands of lives from starvation. The UN, with its heavy presence in the TSZ, has been the sole guarantor of peace in the region for seven years; without its presence, we would have undergone many rounds of war by now. And the US and EU are two indispensable world powers who have helped the young nation economically more any other country in the world. Yet, in every single case, confrontation has been the only mode of communication that the dysfunctional government uses. Now there are no NGOs in the country; almost all of them have been expelled. It has also been abusing the UN from day one, as if it is some kind of foreign occupation force. And when it comes to the US, it has been stoking the embassy for years before it turned into a full blown opponent of American policy in the region.
The case of Sudan contains elements from the three terrorism policies mentioned above: domestic, regional and foreign. So lets take a closer look at it.
Blackmailing Sudan
The Sudanese case is a good example of how terrorism has evolved into the sole means through which the Isayas regime conducts its regional policy, one that is inextricably tied with its domestic and foreign policies. And not incidentally, the despot’s vulgar pragmatism seems to inform all the “diplomatic” maneuvers he takes in every turn of events.
Eritrea’s ever-gyrating relation with Sudan is a reflection of how the Isayas regime has been using the terrorism card “pragmatically,” for pragmatism demands that one be in accord with the varying, unfolding events. A few years back, the Asmara regime was the main supporter of all the rebel movements in South, East and West Sudan. With the peace agreement in South Sudan and with the newly found oil-wealth in the country, the Asmara regime realized that its chances of destabilizing Sudan to the extent it had aspired was getting slimmer by the day. Besides, the tension on its Ethiopian border was getting worse. So the despot decided to abruptly switch alliance, and dropped the “Darfur cause” and “convinced” the Eastern rebels to sit down at the peace table. After that, he became an ardent supporter of Sudan in the Darfur case, to the point of officially opposing “the UN interference in Sudan’s internal affair”.
The despot’s peace overtures to Sudan by no means indicate a change of heart in his terrorism policy. To the contrary, his professed eschewal of terrorism against Sudan is meant to pave the way for three other forms of terrorism, all dictated by changing times. First of all, in the case of Sudan itself, the tyrant has not abandoned terrorism as a weapon; he has only SUSPENDED it. It still exists in its potent form as a THREAT. He has left his options open by retaining an amiable relationship with most of the former rebel groups, in case he will need them sometime in the future. Eritrea’s dogged insistence to sit on the peace table – as a primary peace broker – in all the peace settlements that relate to Sudan is designed to keep its contact and influence with the rebel groups alive. The Sudanese government (another rogue state) realizes that it is being blackmailed. But at this point in time, with the ongoing conflict in Darfur and with all the fragile peace agreements still pending, it cannot afford to antagonize the Asmara regime. The Sudanese are no fools; they are only biding their time. And with their newly found wealth, it won’t be long before they turn the tables to their favor. For now though, they cannot but do Isayas’ bidding.
By successfully blackmailing Sudan, the despot has paved the way for two other forms of terrorism. One has to do with the domestic one. The Sudanese government has not only denied all opposition forces a foothold in its territory, it is also making life difficult for the Eritrean refugees; round-ups and threats of deportation have become daily reality to many of the refugees. It also gives a blind eye when the Eritrean army pursues deserters deep into its territory; and consequently, the military feels comfortable in ruthlessly implementing its shoot-at-sight policy on the Sudanese border. One of the main objectives that Isayas had in mind when he made peace with Sudan was to stem the flow of deserters, an alarming phenomenon that has been depleting the army at a fast rate (according to UNCHR, since 2003, more than 20 thousand refugees has made it to Sudan). Since Sudan has been the favorite destination for most of the escapees, that the despot saw a dividend in his rapprochement with the Sudanese government is only understandable. We could then easily see how regional terrorism (in its blackmail form) is used to foster domestic terrorism, which in turn would be used to extend the lifespan of the regime.
The other dividend that Isayas foresaw in the rapprochement was a safe passage to Ethiopia, one that would be used to transport all types of ethnic rebel movements that he has been grooming. With the TSZ spanning all along the Ethiopian-Eritrean border and with heavy militarization on both sides of the border, it has become next to impossible for Eritrea-based rebels to infiltrate Ethiopia through Eritrean territory. As soon as the Asmara regime made peace with Sudan, it began in earnest to transport these rebel elements through the Sudanese route. Given the long ragged borderline that Sudan shares with Ethiopia, this indeed makes strategic sense. The Sudanese are furious, but they have been giving it a blind eye for fear of jeopardizing the fragile peace treaties they had so laboriously clobbered together recently.
And last, we can even see how the tyrant is exploiting the situation in Sudan to conduct his foreign policy. His ambivalent stand on the Darfur conflict, supporting Sudan in its stand against the UN and the US while leaving his options with the rebel groups open, is an effort to make himself indispensable in the region; his message being that without him, the US would find it very difficult to make any peace agreement hold. In other words, he is attempting to blackmail the US into siding with him (at least, in not siding with Ethiopia), foolish as this endeavor may seem.
Conclusion
The purpose of this article has been to show that terrorism is in the nature of PFDJ. To talk about the PFDJ is to talk about its confrontational past, its vulgar pragmatism and its confrontational policy. First, in Shaebia’s past, there isn’t a single case where it has resolved a crisis through peaceful means; that, by itself, talks volumes. Second, the only “ideology” that this organization has been beholden to is that of vulgar pragmatism, where the end – the regime’s survival – justifies the means. And third, its domestic, regional and foreign policies are all conducted through terrorism, be it in its active or latent form.
If the above characterization of the PFDJ is true, the idea that it could be talked into changing its behavior is naïve. It is true when the despot has been cornered with his back on the wall; he is known to have momentarily relented, but only to revert back to his old confrontational habit once the pressure is lifted off him. That is to say, no weight should be given to his word, even if he is willing to suspend his activities in Somalia. He won’t rest until he finds ways of circumventing whatever restrictions are put on him.
We know that the US is currently considering to put Eritrea in the state sponsors of terror list. This article has been written with one single objective in mind: that, in its assessment, the US should pay enough attention to the dysfunctional nature of the PFDJ. It is not for nothing that one’s criminal records are always brought up in matters of importance, be in court or in employment. Similarly, PFDJ’s past, how it conducts its business and the ideology that guides its behavior are as good as anything in predicting its behavior in the future. This is an organization beyond redemption, and it should be treated as such.
05 Sep, 2007
Yosief Ghebrhiwet
(Eritrea and Terrorism)
If one is to understand the nature of terrorism that the Isayas regime sponsors, one has to primarily look at the nature of the PFDJ itself, especially those factors that make it unique among terrorism sponsoring organizations; for, in this case, the nature of the problem recommends its own solution. Two factors are often mentioned as to why the Eritrean state ought to be included in the state sponsors of terrorism list: for conducting domestic terrorism against its own people and for sponsoring regional terrorism. But there is a third one we haven’t looked so far: it is in the nature of PFDJ to conduct its affairs through confrontation only; as a dysfunctional entity, it knows no other way to relate itself to others. In assessing PFDJ’s “personality”, one has to look at its behavioral past, the principle that guides that behavior and the way it translates that principle on the ground.
The brand of terrorism that PFDJ espouses cannot be seen differently from the nature of PFDJ itself. First, the only “ideology” that explains almost every action that this organization has taken since its inception (as Shaebia) – that of “vulgar pragmatism” – also happens to explain best its brand of terrorism. Second, the “terrorism variable” permeates and dominates almost every aspect of decision taken in its domestic, regional and foreign policies as no other variable does; that is, the terrorism policy has attained an overarching status. And third, the terrorism we are witnessing today simply happens to be the logical extension of its confrontational past, where it used to get things done through force only. Although aspects of these three factors are to be found among the terrorism-sponsoring states, it is only in the Eritrean case that they converge in their unadulterated forms. Lets now look at these three factors in detail.
Vulgar pragmatism at work
Shaebia’s overarching “principle,” one that guides it in whatever it does, has been its vulgar pragmatism. The vulgar twist in its pragmatism is explained by the fact that it is guided by NO other higher economic, social, political, ideological or moral principle. The single objective of this pragmatism always remains the same: “Self-preservation of the regime above everything else!” The means of achieving this objective is: “Whatever it takes!” The only inhibiting question that it asks in pursuing its objective is: “Can I get away with it?” And particularly now, at a time when the PFDJ believes that the only “weapon of choice” it has for enforcing its domestic, regional and foreign policies is terrorism, this “pragmatic” choice turns out to be a fait accompli.
Among the terrorism-sponsoring states, what commonly holds true is that they at least share the “cause” of the terrorist groups they sponsor, be it religious fundamentalism, ethnicism or communism. That is not the case with Eritrea. True to its vulgar pragmatism, the Isayas regime’s terrorism policy has no “higher” religious, racial, ethnic, political, humanitarian or ideological principle that guides it. When it supports the Islamic fundamentalists in Somalia, it is not because it shares their religious zealotry. When it supports the South Sudanese, it is not because it sympathizes with them in their racial grievances (against the Arabs in the North). When it supports disgruntled Tigray elements, it is not because of ethnic solidarity. When it supports the Darfur cause, it is not because of the humanitarian disaster that has been unfolding in that region. When it supports many “democratic” elements from Ethiopia, it is not because it shares their concern for democracy. A good evidence that it doesn’t give a damn about the “causes” of these rebel groups is the fact that at the moment anyone of them fails to fit in its calculation of the survival game it pursues ruthlessly, it drops it nonchalantly with no qualms at all; the Sudanese story is a case in point.
The fact that the terrorism policy of the Isayas regime has an enduring pragmatic twist shouldn’t be confused for it being less pernicious than the ideologically driven ones, for it is precisely the lack of a higher guiding principle that makes it an enduring and ubiquitous phenomenon in whatever it does. It is probably instructional to notice that, odd as it may seem, there is something central to what they do that terrorism-sponsoring states and terrorism-fighting states share in common: an appeal to a higher cause. The former appeal to their fundamentalist ideologies for guidance. The latter appeal to liberal democracy for motivation to fight back. In the hands of the principle-less Shaebia though, terrorism becomes an extension of its confrontational past, a pragmatic tool of choice. And as such, while it keeps dropping one “cause” and adopting another, what remains invariable is the tool itself: terrorism. It is a habit instilled in it through decades of confrontation, one that it cannot wean itself out of, short of its final demise. In short, terrorism has become part of what it is, something that it cannot hold apart from itself.
The PFDJ’s confrontational past
There is something foolhardy, yet consistent, about PFDJ’s confrontational past in that it fails to discriminate among its “enemies,” irrespective of their weaknesses or strengths. It adopts the same confrontational stance in solving its “problems” against defenseless individuals (the elderly mediators, parents of deserters, handicapped veterans, etc.), influential foreign diplomats (ex: Ambassador Bandini), indispensable NGOs (ex: USAID), international media (BBC, Reuters, etc.) prestigious world institutions (Red Cross, UN, etc.) giant neighboring countries (Yemen, Sudan and Ethiopia) and mighty world powers (US and EU). In enforcing its domestic terrorism policy, it puts helpless elderly mediators and aging parents of deserters and draft dodgers behind bars. In pursuing its regional policy, it picks fights with all the neighboring countries and turns itself into a hub of all types of disgruntled elements. In enforcing its confrontational foreign policy, it bullies the UN (constraining their movement, shutting off their information outlets, selectively expelling their staff, etc.), harasses NGOs (constraining their activity, possessing their vehicles, expelling them out of the country, etc.) and antagonizes foreign diplomats (expels Ambassador Bandini, arrests American embassy employees, constrains the movements of Western diplomats, etc.). There is not a single major case in its past, where this organization (as PFDJ or as Shaebia) has solved its problem through peaceful means only. If this is not a well-established behavior of a dysfunctional entity whose confrontation-oriented worldview drives it to solve all of its perceived problems through confrontation only, nothing is. Thus, the Isayas regime’s excursion into easily identifiable form of terrorism (identifiable by the world body) is simply a logical extension of its confrontational past.
On first impression, it seems that this well established track of confrontational past of the regime goes against the pragmatism we are attributing to it, however vulgar it may be. But this needn’t be so, for Shaebia’s pragmatism has no inbuilt mechanism that warns it of impeding disaster. Its corrective mechanism works only after the fact; the only time it becomes aware of danger is when it is in the midst of it. It doesn’t allow itself any margin of error in whatever it does. It lacks eyes that warn it of an impeding wall ahead of it; the only way it would come to know about it is by bashing its head on it. The history of its mieda past is full of such wailing walls. That is why Shaebia’s history is a history of repeatedly coming back from the edge of disasters. And this phenomenon, instead of instilling caution in its behavior, has created a false sense of invincibility. The belief that it would eventually come out of any danger triumphant is the primary stuff out of which the true believers’ “Book of Miracles” is made. Now, it seems it has jumped into a quicksand where, unlike a wall, no bouncing back is ever possible.
Terrorism as a state policy
As a central policy for its survival, the PFDJ has been using terrorism as its main and only card in pursuing its domestic, regional and foreign policies. This record is unmatched by any other state sponsor of terror. Except for North Korea, none treats its own people the way the PFDJ does. And when it comes to outside its territory, North Korea’s terrorist threats have no bite at all.
In its domestic policy, the PFDJ gets things done through terror only. No consultations or legal proceedings are ever taken. If it wants land, it grabs it without any compensation. If an enterprise suddenly becomes profitable, it monopolizes it by bankrupting the “competing” merchants or businessmen. If it wants recruits for its army, it conducts giffa. If it wants to build a road, it uses slave labor. If it wants to stop desertion, it takes parents hostage. If it doesn’t like a religion, it throws its members into prison. That is how the government “communicates” with its subjects; it doesn’t know any better. That is how it is; violence is in its very nature.
The terror under which the Eritrean masses have been living is aptly summed up by a commentator by the name of Sereke who describes the nation as “the biggest open prison in the world.” That renders statements like “There are tens of thousands of prisoners in Eritrea” an understatement. To comprehend the labyrinthine prison system in Eritrea, think of a Warsai recently released from a prison, only to end up in “agelglot,” a huge prison in the wilderness, where hundreds of thousands of adults are quarantined for years without end. And if by any chance he succeeds in escaping from this hell-hole of never-ending slavery, he ends up somewhere in Eritrea where he has to remain hidden in fear – sometimes for years – until he either makes it to the neighboring countries or is fetched back by PFDJ authorities to repeat the same cycle of horror (if he is lucky). Probably, it is this state of a “prison within a prison within a prison” that describes the domestic terrorism in Eritrea the most. Imagine this system as being made of three concentric circles, one embedded in the other. In the outermost circle, we find four million inmates (the whole Eritrean population); in the middle circle, we finds the hundreds of thousands inmates (those in the military service); and in the inner most circle, we find the tens of thousands officially recognized prisoners. The misery index of a citizen is measured by how deep into this system of concentric circles he finds himself in.
PFDJ conducts its regional policy with the same ruthlessness and “pragmatism”. Eritrea’s neighbors (for instance, unlike North Korea's neighbors) are very susceptible to terrorism for various reasons. Ethnic, clan, religious, regional, racial and political strife is to be found in the region in abundance. With a willingness to arm, train and amply provide disgruntled elements, it is easy to exploit simmering antagonisms that have been there for decades and turn them into full blown confrontations. And that is what Eritrea has been doing; it has turned itself into a haven for all types of terrorists that are stocking the neighborhood. There is almost no armed movement in the region that at one time or another has not been supported by the regime. The despot’s intrusive hands are to be traced in all the recent terrorist undertakings in the region, including the hostage taking of the British and Ethiopian subjects in Afar and the on-going war in Somalia. Whatever the despot wants to achieve in the region is done through terrorism only; he cannot think of any other peaceful means to conduct his regional policy.
PFDJ’s confrontational foreign policy defines the relationship that it has had with three foreign entities that have been playing essential roles in the nation’s short history: NGOs, the UN and US (and EU). NGOs have played a vital role in staving off one disaster after another, beginning from Shaebia’s days in mieda to the border war; in the process, saving hundreds of thousands of lives from starvation. The UN, with its heavy presence in the TSZ, has been the sole guarantor of peace in the region for seven years; without its presence, we would have undergone many rounds of war by now. And the US and EU are two indispensable world powers who have helped the young nation economically more any other country in the world. Yet, in every single case, confrontation has been the only mode of communication that the dysfunctional government uses. Now there are no NGOs in the country; almost all of them have been expelled. It has also been abusing the UN from day one, as if it is some kind of foreign occupation force. And when it comes to the US, it has been stoking the embassy for years before it turned into a full blown opponent of American policy in the region.
The case of Sudan contains elements from the three terrorism policies mentioned above: domestic, regional and foreign. So lets take a closer look at it.
Blackmailing Sudan
The Sudanese case is a good example of how terrorism has evolved into the sole means through which the Isayas regime conducts its regional policy, one that is inextricably tied with its domestic and foreign policies. And not incidentally, the despot’s vulgar pragmatism seems to inform all the “diplomatic” maneuvers he takes in every turn of events.
Eritrea’s ever-gyrating relation with Sudan is a reflection of how the Isayas regime has been using the terrorism card “pragmatically,” for pragmatism demands that one be in accord with the varying, unfolding events. A few years back, the Asmara regime was the main supporter of all the rebel movements in South, East and West Sudan. With the peace agreement in South Sudan and with the newly found oil-wealth in the country, the Asmara regime realized that its chances of destabilizing Sudan to the extent it had aspired was getting slimmer by the day. Besides, the tension on its Ethiopian border was getting worse. So the despot decided to abruptly switch alliance, and dropped the “Darfur cause” and “convinced” the Eastern rebels to sit down at the peace table. After that, he became an ardent supporter of Sudan in the Darfur case, to the point of officially opposing “the UN interference in Sudan’s internal affair”.
The despot’s peace overtures to Sudan by no means indicate a change of heart in his terrorism policy. To the contrary, his professed eschewal of terrorism against Sudan is meant to pave the way for three other forms of terrorism, all dictated by changing times. First of all, in the case of Sudan itself, the tyrant has not abandoned terrorism as a weapon; he has only SUSPENDED it. It still exists in its potent form as a THREAT. He has left his options open by retaining an amiable relationship with most of the former rebel groups, in case he will need them sometime in the future. Eritrea’s dogged insistence to sit on the peace table – as a primary peace broker – in all the peace settlements that relate to Sudan is designed to keep its contact and influence with the rebel groups alive. The Sudanese government (another rogue state) realizes that it is being blackmailed. But at this point in time, with the ongoing conflict in Darfur and with all the fragile peace agreements still pending, it cannot afford to antagonize the Asmara regime. The Sudanese are no fools; they are only biding their time. And with their newly found wealth, it won’t be long before they turn the tables to their favor. For now though, they cannot but do Isayas’ bidding.
By successfully blackmailing Sudan, the despot has paved the way for two other forms of terrorism. One has to do with the domestic one. The Sudanese government has not only denied all opposition forces a foothold in its territory, it is also making life difficult for the Eritrean refugees; round-ups and threats of deportation have become daily reality to many of the refugees. It also gives a blind eye when the Eritrean army pursues deserters deep into its territory; and consequently, the military feels comfortable in ruthlessly implementing its shoot-at-sight policy on the Sudanese border. One of the main objectives that Isayas had in mind when he made peace with Sudan was to stem the flow of deserters, an alarming phenomenon that has been depleting the army at a fast rate (according to UNCHR, since 2003, more than 20 thousand refugees has made it to Sudan). Since Sudan has been the favorite destination for most of the escapees, that the despot saw a dividend in his rapprochement with the Sudanese government is only understandable. We could then easily see how regional terrorism (in its blackmail form) is used to foster domestic terrorism, which in turn would be used to extend the lifespan of the regime.
The other dividend that Isayas foresaw in the rapprochement was a safe passage to Ethiopia, one that would be used to transport all types of ethnic rebel movements that he has been grooming. With the TSZ spanning all along the Ethiopian-Eritrean border and with heavy militarization on both sides of the border, it has become next to impossible for Eritrea-based rebels to infiltrate Ethiopia through Eritrean territory. As soon as the Asmara regime made peace with Sudan, it began in earnest to transport these rebel elements through the Sudanese route. Given the long ragged borderline that Sudan shares with Ethiopia, this indeed makes strategic sense. The Sudanese are furious, but they have been giving it a blind eye for fear of jeopardizing the fragile peace treaties they had so laboriously clobbered together recently.
And last, we can even see how the tyrant is exploiting the situation in Sudan to conduct his foreign policy. His ambivalent stand on the Darfur conflict, supporting Sudan in its stand against the UN and the US while leaving his options with the rebel groups open, is an effort to make himself indispensable in the region; his message being that without him, the US would find it very difficult to make any peace agreement hold. In other words, he is attempting to blackmail the US into siding with him (at least, in not siding with Ethiopia), foolish as this endeavor may seem.
Conclusion
The purpose of this article has been to show that terrorism is in the nature of PFDJ. To talk about the PFDJ is to talk about its confrontational past, its vulgar pragmatism and its confrontational policy. First, in Shaebia’s past, there isn’t a single case where it has resolved a crisis through peaceful means; that, by itself, talks volumes. Second, the only “ideology” that this organization has been beholden to is that of vulgar pragmatism, where the end – the regime’s survival – justifies the means. And third, its domestic, regional and foreign policies are all conducted through terrorism, be it in its active or latent form.
If the above characterization of the PFDJ is true, the idea that it could be talked into changing its behavior is naïve. It is true when the despot has been cornered with his back on the wall; he is known to have momentarily relented, but only to revert back to his old confrontational habit once the pressure is lifted off him. That is to say, no weight should be given to his word, even if he is willing to suspend his activities in Somalia. He won’t rest until he finds ways of circumventing whatever restrictions are put on him.
We know that the US is currently considering to put Eritrea in the state sponsors of terror list. This article has been written with one single objective in mind: that, in its assessment, the US should pay enough attention to the dysfunctional nature of the PFDJ. It is not for nothing that one’s criminal records are always brought up in matters of importance, be in court or in employment. Similarly, PFDJ’s past, how it conducts its business and the ideology that guides its behavior are as good as anything in predicting its behavior in the future. This is an organization beyond redemption, and it should be treated as such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)