Response to the 'Media & Politics Branch' of the EIDM
By: Abdurahman Sayed
22nd October 04

I recently read an article written by the "Media & Politics Branch" of the EIDM, which was posted on Dekebat-Eritrea and Awate.com on October 14,2004. This article accused me of "lying" and "grossly misrepresenting" the "EIDM's proposal" of a decentralised system of governance, "which was posted on August 21, 2004". First, I personally have not read this article and my recent interview comment with gabeel.com was based on another article published by the EIDM about two years ago on atleast one of the Eritrean websites where they advocated for "republican federalism" based on the 8 administrative provinces. This same article was also recently quoted by an Ethiopian writer (http://www.aiga1992.org/mathza0403.htm) who stated that the "The Eritrean Independent Democratic Movement's (EIDM) concept for federal republican governance in Eritrea appears to be not very different from that of EFDR [M]" (emphasis mine). In addition to this, I happen to have good communication with at least one of the EIDM founders and leading members, Mr. Hailemariam Tesfay. Mr. Hailemariam is the EIDM's last chairperson and is the current secretary for external relations. He had two meetings with the EFDM leaders in Stockholm and London during August 2004. When I read the accusations of "misrepresentation", I immediately contacted my colleagues in both cities to further verify and re-confirm what was said in both meetings. Both reiterated to me that Mr. Hailemariam reported to them that 'the EIDM endorsed federalism based on 8 states at its second conference'. I further contacted a third party who was present at the London meeting who equally confirmed what Mr. Hailemariam reported. Thus when I referred to our welcoming of the EIDM and Negusse MensaAy's proposals as ideas enriching our discourse on federalism, it was done in good spirit and not to "misrepresent the EIDM" as alleged in the above cited article.

That being the fact, even if I misquoted or 'misrepresented the EIDM', it would have earned the EIDM some public respect had they avoided resorting to name-calling and presented their version of the story without inflating their relevant stature dramatically by indicating that the EFDM was using the EIDM's story to attract public support. Such a statement is false, because the EFDM is a reputable Eritrean organisation that knows its subject too well, has a clearly laid out strategic approach to the notion of governance and knows how to reach out to the Eritrean public without the need for mediators or third parties. The EFDM does not need licenses from the EIDM or anyone for that matter to preach and promote what we believe in to any quarter of our country or our heterogeneous society. Our approach to partnership with sister organisations like the EIDM and others in the opposition camp is not based on narrow interests, but a genuine one that is based on promoting common good with the national interest of our people and our country at heart.

Nonetheless, the vulgar language and name-calling that was used to dismiss the federal proposal and promote the newly "unveiled truth" of the EIDM seems the work of some irresponsible individual(s) and or those with the interest of widening the gap between our Eritrean diverse views and sister organisations. Since the publication of the "Media & Politics Branch" article a week ago, I had few exchanges of courtesy calls and emails with my friends in the EIDM, in particular Mr. Hailemariam, to verify if this was indeed their official comment to my recent interview with gabeel.com. As expected, I learned that my friend and a number of his leadership colleagues were as shocked and surprised as I was and that a "telephone conference meeting was scheduled for Sunday October 17,2004, at 5pm (pacific time) to discuss and clarify the matter". I was also asked to wait for the outcome of the meeting and for clarification that would come out of it. A week later from that anticipated and unrealized meeting, no clarification or a statement of "disassociation" from the vulgar language has been made, which left me with no choice but to come up with my own response, because I owe it to the reader to clarify my position on the matter. I believe it does not take days to disclaim an unprovoked and rude language presented in the name of an organisation that claims to have found and unveiled "the truth" to solve the Eritrean problem.

The author(s) of the "Media & Politics Branch" article claims to have suddenly discovered the key to "denigrating the confusion between decentralisation and federal system of governance" and consider(s) that there "are no clear domestic boundaries along the various communal ethnic groups". These claims are a clear indication that there is a confusion about the two systems inside the organisation whose name was used in the abusive article and the degree of the hidden uphill struggle that some in the opposition camp are undergoing in denying our ethnic and cultural groups the legitimate God-given right to self-determination as well as to the right to administer their own affairs autonomously and within their traditional territories. It is common knowledge among many Eritrean political organizations that there exist historical boundaries between the territories of the Afar, the highland and the lowland. It is a well-known fact that each of our ethnic groups, tribes and/or clans has a traditionally demarcated territory of common and exclusive use that has been administered through centuries-old deep-rooted traditions and customary laws.

I understand there had been vigorous attempts in the last 50 or so years to change the Eritrean demographics in favour of the hegemonic ethnic group reminiscent with the attempts of the Amhara "neftegna" in Ethiopia, where they have aggressively grabbed other Ethiopians' land and fiercely imposed a policy of "Amharising the entire country". Had the members of the "Media & Politics Branch" been reading gabeel.com or VKP (kunama website) among other sites, they would have certainly thought twice before issuing such an absurd statement or even assuming that any EFDMite or I would confuse the difference between the two systems of governance. I mentioned the two sites because they happen to be among the few Eritrean media outlets that contain articles and studies on systems of governance, land issues, traditions etc. Read for example the following articles:-

1. EFDM conference papers on: Federalism in Eritrea, why and how?, Political and Social analysis, which could easily be downloaded form the 'documents' page of http://www.gabeel.com. These two papers discuss the Eritrean issue from different perspectives and in greater lengths.
2. "What is the difference between decentralisation and federalism?" by Gabeel Team, June 2004, Editorial http://www.gabeel.com .
3. Latest article by an EFDMite, "further disentangling federalism and unitary decentralized systems, by Yussif Yassin October 18,2004: http://www.gabeel.com .
4. The Kunama land is not a "market commodity" but an "ethnic identity": By The VKP, April 28,2004 http://www.eritrean-kunama.de/

The claim that the Eritrean regime "has indiscriminately oppressed the whole citizens of the nation" is also another attempt to deny the existence of discrimination and atrocities committed against specific ethnic, religious and regional groups. It is true that today everyone has been victimised by the Eritrean regime in one way or another. However, this does not negate the fact that certain sectors of our society have been the recipient of greater abuse than others. If one has any doubts about this, I refer you to read the most recent testimonies of those who are abandoning the regime, such as Mr. Andeberhan Estifanos' letter to the UNHCR reported by the Eritrean Centre for Media Services on October 15, 2004 http://www.gabeel.com, which only confirms what we already know of how Eritrean refugees were left in their rotten and malaria infested refugee camps for decades simply because they were Muslims. The settlement villages and farm lands that has been created in forcefully evacuated lands of those refugees and those of the other oppressed ethnic groups are monuments of evidence of the crimes against humanity faced by some of our people and not just a simple abuse of human rights that is equal to those who might have been victimised as individuals rather than as religious, regional or ethnic groups.

We are fully aware that there are plenty of chauvinists and opportunist elements that would very much wish to see the Eritrean status quo maintained and would do anything in their capacity to create obstacles on the road towards federalism and inclusive democracy in Eritrea. We also know the methods they employ to confuse and steal the struggles of our cultural, ethnic and social groups by appearing to be interested in 'diversity' and 'decentralisation', words that are increasingly being abused these days just like the over-used phrases of 'national conference' and 'multi-party democracy'. However, what they fail to see is the reality that none of our struggling social or cultural entities are interested in being at the receiving end of some centrally prescribed "rights". For the last 13 years, it is the very oppressed cultural and ethnic groups that have been challenging the status quo and paving the way for a fundamental change. What these patriots and Eritrean federalists are, thus, calling for is shared rule, unity by consent, and above all, the right to reclaim their lands and traditional territories as well as autonomous administration in those lands and territories.

Finally, given the contents of the "Media & Politics Branch" article, I concede that my reference to the EIDM as a well-meaning group was an overstatement and mainly generated by the profound respect I have for brothers Hailemariam Tesfay and Asmerom Berhe and the many views and ideals that I share with them. I also agree that the EIDM and EFDM views are not only different in that the first promotes "unitary decentralisation" and the later "federalism", but also in their diagnosis of the Eritrean political stalemate. The EIDM, according to its Media branch, argues that the "mistrust among our population [has been] created by the current [Eritrean] government as well as by some of the leaders of the opposition camp", whereas for the EFDM, the problem is deep rooted in our cultural and social diversity as well as in our contemporary history and that the "current Eritrean government" and "some leaders of the opposition camp" are only some ugly symptoms of the deep rooted problem. This means, the EIDM sees the Eritrean problem would end with the end of the Eritrean regime, whereas we in the EFDM do not believe this would be the case. Regime change in Eritrea, in our view, will only pave the way towards restoring our people's land, political, economic and cultural rights, but will never become a solution in its own right. We also remind our friends in the EIDM and elsewhere in the opposition camp that the departure of the PFDJ regime could potentially be the beginning of anarchy and lawlessness unless genuine attempts are made like those of the EFDM, to make a properly studied courageous diagnosis of our political ills and start working, with the EFDM, on the most conducive federal systems of governance appropriate to our heterogeneous society.

For more civilized exchange of ideas you can contact via:Ramadan Karim.
May Justice and Peace prevail in Eritrea!