The Eritrean Mereb

The Eritrean Constitution

2011-06-06T15:24:00.007-04:00

Preamble

We the people of Eritrea, united in a common struggle for our rights and common destiny, standing on the solid ground of unity and justice bequeathed by our martyrs and combatants: With Eternal Gratitude to the scores of thousands of our martyrs who sacrificed their lives for the causes of our rights and independence, during the long and heroic revolutionary struggle for liberation, and to the courage and steadfastness of our Eritrean patriots;

Aware that it is the sacred duty of all Eritreans to build a strong and developed Eritrea on the bases of freedom, unity, peace, stability and security achieved through the long struggle of all Eritreans, which tradition we must cherish, preserve and develop;

Realizing that in order to build a developed country, it is necessary that the unity, equality, love for truth and justice, self-reliance, and hard work, which we nurtured during our revolutionary struggle for independence and which helped us to triumph, must become the core of our national values;

Appreciating the fact that for the development and health of our society, it is necessary that we inherit and improve upon the traditional community-based assistance and fraternity, love for family, respect for elders, mutual respect and consideration;

Convinced that the recognition, protection and securing of the rights and freedoms of citizens, human dignity, equality will guarantee a balanced development; lay down the groundwork for satisfying the material and spiritual needs of citizens; usher in a democratic order that is responsive to the needs and interests of citizens, guarantees their participation and brings about economic development, social progress and harmony;

Noting the fact that the Eritrean women's heroic participation in the struggle for independence and solidarity based on equality and mutual respect generated by such struggle will serve as an unshakable foundation for our commitment and struggle to create a society in which women and men shall interact on the bases of mutual respect, fraternity and equality;

Desirous that the Constitution we are adopting will be a covenant between us and the government we will be structuring by our free will and serve as a means for governing in harmony this and the future generation; and for bringing about justice and peace, founded on democracy, national unity and the rule of law; today ..., on this historic date, after active popular participation, approve and solemnly ratify officially, through the Constituent Assembly, this Constitution as the fundamental law of our Sovereign and Independent State of Eritrea.

Chapter I General Provisions
Article 1 The State of Eritrea and its Territory
(1) Eritrea is a sovereign and independent State founded on the principles of democracy, social justice and the rule of law.
(2) The territory of Eritrea consists of all its territories,
including the islands, territorial waters and airspace, delineated by internationally recognized boundaries.
(3) In the State of Eritrea, sovereign power is vested in the people, who shall exercise such power through their representatives, duly elected pursuant to the procedures authorized by the provisions of this Constitution.
(4) The State that is to be established by a democratic process to represent the people's sovereignty shall have strong institutions, capable of accommodating people's participation and of serving as foundation of a viable democratic and political order.
(5) The State of Eritrea shall have a unitary government divided into units of local government. The powers and duties of these units shall be determined by law.

Article 2 Supremacy of the Constitution
(1) This Constitution is the legal expression of the sovereignty of the Eritrean people.
(2) This Constitution enunciates the principles on which the State is to be based and guided by and determines the organization and operation of government. It is the source of government legitimacy and the guarantor for the protection of the rights, freedoms and dignity of citizens and of just administration.
(3) This Constitution is the supreme law of the country and the source of all laws of the State, and all laws, orders and acts contrary to its letter and spirit shall be null and void.
(4) All organs of the State, all public and private associations and institutions and all citizens shall be bound by and remain loyal to the Constitution and shall ensure its observance.
(5) Pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution and other laws, the conduct of the affairs of government and all organizations and institutions shall be accountable and transparent.
(6) This Constitution shall serve as a basis for instilling constitutional culture and for enlightening and ensuring that organizations of the State and citizens respect fundamental human rights and duties.

Article 3 Citizenship
(1) Any person born of an Eritrean father or mother is an Eritrean by birth.
(2) Any foreign citizen may acquire Eritrean citizenship pursuant to law.
(3) The details concerning citizenship shall be regulated by law.
Article 4 National Symbols and Languages
(1) The Eritrean Flag shall have green, red and blue colors with golden olive leaves located at the center. The exact description of the Flag shall be determined by law.
(2) Eritrea shall have a National Anthem and a Coat of Arms appropriately reflecting the history and the aspiration of its people. The details of the National Anthem and the Coat of Arms shall be determined by law.
(3) The equality of all Eritrean languages is guaranteed.

Article 5 Gender Reference
Without consideration to the gender wording of any provision in this Constitution, all of its articles shall apply equally to both genders.

Chapter II National Objectives and Directive Principles
Article 6 National Unity and Stability
(1) As the people and government struggle to establish a united and developed Eritrea, within the context of the diversity of Eritrea, they shall be guided by the basic principle Unity in diversity.
(2) The State shall strengthen the stability and development of the country by encouraging democratic dialogue and national consensus through participation of all citizens; by building strong political, cultural and moral foundation; and by promoting national unity and social harmony.
(3) The State shall ensure peace and stability by establishing appropriate institutions that encourage people's participation and by creating the necessary conditions capable of guaranteeing, hastening and engendering equitable economic and social progress.

Article 7 Democratic Principles
(1) It is a fundamental principle of the State to guarantee its citizens broad and active participation in all political, economic, social and cultural life of the country.
(2) Any act that violates the human rights of women or limits or otherwise thwarts their role and participation is prohibited.
(3) There shall be established necessary institutions to encourage and develop people's participation and initiative in the areas where they reside.
(4) Pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution and laws enacted pursuant thereto, all Eritreans, without distinction, are guaranteed equal opportunity to participate in any positions of leadership in the country.
(5) The organization and operation of all political and public associations and movements shall be guided by the principle of national unity and democracy.
(6) The State shall create the necessary conditions for establishing a democratic, political culture defined by the development of free and critical thinking, tolerance and national consensus.
Article 8 Competent Justice System
(1) The justice system of Eritrea shall be independent, competent and accountable pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and laws.
(2) Courts shall work under a judicial system that is capable of producing fast and equitable judgments and that can easily be understood by and is accessible to all the people.
(3) Judges shall be free from corruption or discrimination and, in rendering their judgment, they shall make no distinctions among persons.
(4) The State shall encourage out-of-court settlement of disputes through conciliation, mediation or arbitration.
Article 9 Competent Public Administration

(1) Eritrea shall have an efficient, effective and accountable public service.
(2) All administrative institutions shall be free from corruption, discrimination and delay in the delivery of services.
Article 10 Economic and Social Development
(1) The State shall endeavor to create opportunities to ensure the fulfillment of citizens' rights to social justice and the economic development and to fulfill their material and spiritual needs.
(2) The State shall work to bring about a balanced and sustainable development throughout the country, and shall use all available means to ensure all citizens to improve their livelihood in a sustainable manner, through their development.
(3) The State shall have the responsibility to regulate all land, water and natural resources and to ensure their management in a balanced and sustainable manner and in the interest of the present and future generations; and to create the right conditions for securing the participation of the people to
safeguard the environment.

Article 11 National Culture
(1) The State shall have the responsibility of creating and maintaining the necessary conditions for enriching national culture, which is the expression of national identity and unity and progress of the Eritrean people.
(2) The State shall encourage the values of community solidarity and the love and respect of family.
(3) The State shall promote the development of arts, sport and science and technology and shall create an enabling environment for individuals to work in an atmosphere of freedom and manifest their creativity and innovation.

Article 12 National Defense and Security
(1) Defense and security forces of Eritrea shall owe allegiance to and defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country, the Constitution and the government established pursuant thereto.
(2) Defense and security forces are an integral part of society, and shall be productive and respectful of the people.
(3) The defense and security of Eritrea are rooted on the people and on their active participation.
(4) The defense and security forces shall be subject and accountable to the law, shall be competent and pass these requirements for posterity.

Article 13 Foreign Policy
The foreign policy of Eritrea is based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of countries and on promoting the interest of regional and international peace, cooperation, harmony and development.
Chapter III Fundamental Rights, Freedoms, and Duties

Article 14 Equality under the Law
(1) All persons are equal before the law.
(2) No person may be discriminated against on account of race, ethnic origin, language, color, sex, religion, disability, political belief or opinion, or social or economic status or any other factors.
(3) The National Assembly shall, pursuant to the provisions of this Article, enact laws that can assist in eliminating inequalities existing in the Eritrean society.

Article 15 Right to Life and Liberty
(1) No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.
(2) No person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

Article 16 Right to Human Dignity
(1) The dignity of all persons shall be inviolable.
(2) No person shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
(3) No person shall be held in slavery or servitude or required to perform forced labor not authorized by law.

Article 17 Arrest, Detention and Fair Trial
(1) No person may be arrested or detained save pursuant to due process of law.
(2) No person shall be tried or convicted for any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when it was committed.
(3) Every person arrested or detained shall be informed of the grounds for his arrest or detention and the rights he has in
connection with his arrest or detention in a language he understands.
(4) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be brought before the court within forty-eight (48) hours of his arrest, and if this is not reasonably possible, as soon as possible thereafter, and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond such period without the authority of the court.
(5) Every person shall have the right to petition the court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Where the arresting officer fails to bring him before the court of law and provide the reason for their arrest, the court shall accept the petition and order the release of the prisoner.
(6) Every person charged with an offence shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a court of law; provided, however, that such a court may exclude the press and/or the public from all or any part of the trial for reasons of morals, the public order or national security, as is necessary in a just and democratic society.
(7) A person charged with an offence shall be presumed to be innocent, and shall not be punished, unless he is found guilty by a court.
(8) Where an accused is convicted, he shall have the right to appeal. No person shall be liable to be tried again for any criminal offence on which judgment has been rendered.

Article 18 Right to Privacy
(1) Every person shall have the right to privacy.
(2) No person shall be subjected to unlawful search, including his home or other property; there shall be no unlawful entry of his premises and no unlawful seizure of his personal possessions; nor shall the privacy of his correspondence, communication or other property be violated.
Article 19 Freedom of Conscience, Religion, Expression of Opinion, Movement, Assembly and Organization
(1) Every person shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief.
(2) Every person shall have the freedom of speech and expression , which include freedom of the press and other media.
(3) Every citizen shall have the right of access to information.
(4) Every person shall have the freedom to practice any religion and to manifest such practice.
(5) All persons shall have the right to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peaceably.
(6) Every citizen shall have the right to form organizations for political, social, economic and cultural ends; and to practice any profession, or engage in any occupation or trade.
(7) Every citizen shall have the right to move freely throughout Eritrea or reside and settle in any part thereof.
(8) Every citizen shall have the right to leave and return to Eritrea and to be provided with passport or any other travel documents.
Article 20 Right to Vote and to be a Candidate to an Elective Office
Every citizen who fulfills the requirements of the electoral law shall have the right to vote or to campaign to be elected to any office of leadership in government.
Article 21 Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Responsibilities
(1) Every citizen shall have the right of equal access to publicly funded social services. The State shall endeavor, within the limit of its resources, to make available to all citizens health, education, cultural and other social services.
(2) The State shall secure, within available means, the social welfare of all citizens and particularly those disadvantaged.
(3) Every citizen shall have the right to engage freely in any economic activity and to pursue a livelihood.
(4) The State and society shall have the responsibility of identifying, preserving, developing, when necessary, and bequeathing to succeeding generation historical and cultural heritage; shall lay the necessary groundwork for the development of arts, sport, science and technology; and shall encourage citizens to participate in such endeavors.
(5) The National Assembly shall enact laws that guarantee and secure the social welfare of citizens and other rights and responsibilities listed in this Article.

Article 22 Family
(1) The family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and is entitled to the protection and special care of the State and society.
(2) Men and women of full legal age shall have the right, upon their consent, to marry and to found a family freely, without any discrimination and they shall have equal rights and duties as to all family affairs.
(3) Parents have the right and duty to bring up their children with proper care and affection; and, in turn, children have the right and the duty to respect their parents and to sustain them in their old age.
Article 23 Right to Property
(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-Article 2 of this Article, any citizen shall have the right, any where in Eritrea, to acquire, own, and dispose of all property individually or in association with others and to bequeath to his heirs or legatees.
(2) All land, water and natural resources below and above the surface of the territory of Eritrea belongs to the State. Usufruct rights of citizens shall be determined by law.
(3) The State or any of its organs authorized by law may expropriate property in the national or public interest, subject to the payment of just compensation and in accordance with due process of law.
Article 24 Administrative Justice
(1) Any person with a complaint shall have the right to be heard respectfully by administrative officials and to receive appropriate and quick answer from them.
(2) Any person whose rights or interests are interfered with or threatened shall have the right to seek due administrative redress.

Article 25 Duties of Citizens
All citizens shall have the duty to:
1. owe allegiance to Eritrea, strive for its development and promote its prosperity;
2. be ready to defend the country;
3. complete one's duty in the National Service;
4. advance national unity and the well-being of the people;
5. know, respect and defend the Constitution;
6. respect the rights and freedoms of others;
7. respect the rule of law and comply with the requirements of the law.

Article 26 Limitation Upon Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
(1) The fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under this Constitution may be limited only in so far as is necessary in a just and democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, health or morals, for the prevention of public disorder or crime or for
the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
(2) Any law providing for the limitation of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed in this Constitution must:
a) be consistent with the principles of a just and democratic society; b) be of general application and not negate the essential content of the right or freedom in question; c) specify the ascertainable extent of such limitation and identify the Article or Articles hereof on which authority to enact such limitation is claimed to rest.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-Article 1 of this Article and other Articles of this Constitution to the contrary, the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under Articles 14 (1) and (2), 17 (2), 19 (4) of this Constitution shall not be limited.
Article 27 State of Emergency
(1) At a time when public safety or the security or stability of the State is threatened by external invasion, by civil disorder or by natural disaster, the President may by a proclamation published in the Gazette of Eritrean Laws declare that a state of emergency exists in Eritrea or any part thereof.
(2) A declaration under Sub-Article 1 hereof shall not become effective unless approved by a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority votes of all members of the National Assembly. In the case of a declaration made when the National Assembly is session, the declaration shall be presented within two days after its publication, or otherwise the National Assembly shall be summoned to meet and approve the publication within thirty days of its declaration.
(3) A declaration approved by the National Assembly pursuant to Sub-Article 2 hereof shall continue to be in force until the expiration of a period of six months after such approval. The National Assembly may, by a resolution of two-thirds majority votes of all its members, extend its approval of the declaration for periods of three months at a time.
(4) The National Assembly may by resolution at any time revoke a declaration approved by it pursuant to the provisions of this Article.
(5) Any measures undertaken or laws enacted pursuant to a declaration of a state of emergency shall not: a) suspend Article 26 (3) of the Constitution; b) grant pardon or amnesty to any person or persons who, acting under the authority of the State, have committed illegal acts; or
c) introduce martial law when no external invasion exists or civil disorder prevails.

Article 28 Enforcement of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
(1) Save in so far as it may be authorized to do so by this Constitution, the National Assembly or any subordinate legislative authority shall not make any law, and the Executive and the agencies of government shall not take any action which abolishes or abridges the fundamental rights and freedoms conferred by this Constitution. Any law or action in violation thereof shall be null and void.
(2) Aggrieved persons who claim that a fundamental right or freedom guaranteed by this Constitution has been denied or violated shall be entitled to approach a competent court to enforce or protect such a right or freedom. Where the court ascertains that such fundamental right or freedom has been denied or violated, the court shall have the power to make all such orders as shall be necessary to secure such applicants the enjoyment of such fundamental right or freedom, and where such applicants suffer damage, to include an award of monetary compensation.

Article 29 Residual Rights
The rights enumerated in this Chapter shall not preclude other rights which ensue from the spirit of this Constitution and the principles of a society based on social justice, democracy and the rule of law.
Chapter IV The National Assembly

Article 30 Representation of the People
(1) Any Eritrean citizen, of eighteen years of age or more, shall have the right to vote.
(2) The National Assembly shall enact an electoral law, which shall prescribe for and ensure the representation and participation of the Eritrean people.
Article 31 Establishment and Duration of the National Assembly
(1) There shall be a National Assembly which shall be a supreme representative and legislative body.
(2) The National Assembly shall be composed of representatives elected by the people.
(3) Members of the National Assembly shall be elected by direct and secret ballot by all citizens who are qualified to vote. (4) Members of the National Assembly are representatives of the Eritrean peoples as a whole. In discharging their duties, they are governed by the objectives and principles of the Constitution, the interest of the people and the country and their conscience.
(5) The first session of the National Assembly shall be held within one month after a general election and its term shall be five years from the date of such first session. Where there exists a state of emergency which would prevent a normal general election from being held, the National Assembly may, by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds vote of all its members, extend the life of the National Assembly for a period not exceeding six months.
(6) The qualifications and election of the members of the National Assembly and the conditions for vacating their seats shall be determined by law.
Article 32 Powers and Duties of the National Assembly
(1) Pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution: a) The National Assembly shall have the power to enact laws and pass resolutions for the peace, stability, development and good governance of Eritrea; b) Unless, pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution or authorized by law enacted by the National Assembly, no person or organization shall have the power to make having the force of law.
(2) The National Assembly shall be bound by the objectives and principles of the Constitution, and shall strive to realize the objectives stated therein.
(3) The National Assembly shall approve the national budget and enact tax law.
(4) The National Assembly shall ratify international agreements by law.
(5) The National Assembly shall authorize government to borrow money pursuant to law.
(6) The National Assembly shall approve a state of peace, war or national emergency.
(7) The National Assembly shall have the power to oversee the execution of laws.
(8) The National Assembly shall have the power to elect, from among its members, by absolute majority vote of all its members, the President who shall serve for five years.
(9) Pursuant to the provisions of Sub-Article 6(a) and (b) of Article 41 hereof, the National Assembly, by a vote of two-thirds majority of all its members, shall have the power to impeach and charge the President before the end of his term of office.
(10) The National Assembly may approve the appointment of any person or persons pursuant to this Constitution.
(11) The National Assembly may pass such resolutions and undertake such measures as are necessary and establish such standing or ad hoc committees as it deems appropriate for discharging its constitutional responsibilities.
Article 33 Approval of Draft Legislation
Any draft law approved by the National Assembly shall be transmitted to the President who, within thirty days, shall sign and have it published in the Gazette of Eritrean Laws.

Article 34 Chairman of the National Assembly
(1) In its first meeting, the National Assembly shall elect, by an absolute majority vote of all its members, a Chairman for five years.
(2) The Chairman of the National Assembly shall convene session of the National Assembly and preside at its meetings, and shall, during the recess, coordinate and supervise the operations of standing and ad hoc committees of the National Assembly.
(3) The Chairman of the National Assembly may be replaced by an absolute majority vote of all the members of the National Assembly.

Article 35 Oath
Every member of the National Assembly shall take the following oath: "I, ..., swear in the name of the Eritrean martyrs that I will be faithful and worthy of the trust the Eritrean people placed on me; that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of Eritrea; and that I will endeavor to the best of my ability and conscience for the unity and development of my country without seeking or being enticed by private gain."

Article 36 Rules of Procedure in the National Assembly

(1) The National Assembly shall have regular session and shall determine the timing and duration of its regular session.
(2) At the request of the President, its Chairman or one-third of all its members, the National Assembly shall have emergency meeting.
(3) The quorum of the National Assembly shall be fifty percent of all the members of the National Assembly.
(4) Except as otherwise prescribed by this Constitution or other laws, any question proposed for decision of the National Assembly shall be determined by a majority vote of those present and voting, and in case of a tie of votes, the Chairman may exercise a casting vote.
(5) The National Assembly shall issue rules and regulations concerning its organization, tasks, operations and internal processes and those of the standing and ad hoc committees, including the rules governing the code of ethics of its members and transparency of its operations.
Article 37 Office and Committees of the National Assembly
(1) The National Assembly shall have a secretariat under the direction of its Chairman and committees for various fields of interest, as circumstance may dictate.
(2) The various committees established pursuant to the provisions of Sub-Article 1 of this Article shall have the power to call any person to appear before them to give evidence or to submit documents.
Article 38 Duties, Immunities and Privileges of Members of the National Assembly
(1) All members of the National Assembly shall maintain the high image of the National Assembly. They shall regard themselves as humble servants of the people and maintain close contact with them.
(2) No member of the National Assembly or of its committees may be arrested or charged for any crimes he commits during the session of the National Assembly, unless he be apprehended in flagrant delicto. Nevertheless, where the National Assembly, by a majority vote of those present and voting, revokes his immunity, the member may be charged.
(3) No member of the National Assembly may be arrested or charged for words uttered or written statements submitted by him at any meeting of the National Assembly or any meeting of its committees or any utterance or statement made outside the National Assembly in connection with his duty as member thereof.
(4) The duties, responsibilities, immunities and compensation of the members of the National Assembly shall be determined by law; and all members shall be entitled to the protection of such immunities and shall perform the duties enumerated therein.

Chapter V The Executive

Article 39 The President: Head of State and Government
(1) The President of Eritrea is Head of State and Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Eritrea.
(2) The executive authority is vested in the President, and shall be exercised, in consultation with the Cabinet, pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution.
(3) The President shall ensure the respect of the Constitution; the integrity of the State; the efficiency and effectiveness of the public service; the interests and safety of all citizens, including the enjoyment of their fundamental rights and freedoms recognized under this Constitution.
Article 40 Qualifications to be a Candidate to the Office of the President
Any member of the National Assembly to be elected President of Eritrea shall be a citizen of Eritrea by birth.
Article 41 Election and Term of Office of the President
(1) The President shall be elected from amongst the members of the National Assembly by a vote of the majority of its members. A candidate for the office of the President must be nominated by at least 20 percent vote of all the members of the National Assembly.
(2) The term of office of the President shall be five years, equal to the term of office of the National Assembly that elects him.
(3) No person shall be elected to hold office of the President for more than two terms.
(4) When the office of the President becomes vacant due to death or resignation of the incumbent or due to the reasons enumerated in Sub-Article 6 of this Article, the Chairman of the National Assembly shall assume the office of the President. The Chairman shall serve as acting President for not more than thirty days, during which time, the National Assembly shall elect another President to serve the remaining term of his predecessor.
(5) The term of office of the person elected to serve as President under Sub-Article 4 of this Article shall not be considered as a full term for purposes of Sub-Article 3 of this Article.
(6) The President may be removed from office by two-thirds majority vote of all members of the National Assembly for the
following reasons:
a) violation of the Constitution or grave violation of the law;
b) conducting himself in a manner which brings the authority or honor of the office of President into ridicule, contempt and disrepute;
c) being incapable of performing the functions of his office by reason of physical or mental incapacity.
(7) The procedures for the election and removal of the President from office shall be determined by law.
Article 42 Powers and Duties of the President
The President shall have the following powers and duties:
1. once every year, deliver a speech in the National Assembly on the state of the country and the policies of his government; 2. subject to the provisions of Article 27 hereof, declare state of emergency, and when the defense of the country requires, state of war; 3. summon the National Assembly to an emergency meeting and present his views to it;
4. sign and publish in the Gazette of Eritrean Laws draft laws approved by the National Assembly;
5. ensure the execution of laws and resolutions of the National Assembly;
6. negotiate and sign international agreements and delegate such power;
7. appoint with the approval of the National Assembly, ministers, commissioners, the Auditor-General, head of the National Bank, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and any other person or persons who are required by any other provisions of this Constitution or other laws to be appointed by the President;
8. appoint justices of the Supreme Court upon proposal of the Judicial Service Commission and approval of the National Assembly;
9. appoint judges of the lower courts upon proposal of the Judicial Service Commission;
10. appoint and receive ambassadors and diplomatic representatives;
11. appoint high ranking members of the Armed and the Security Forces;
12. pardon, grant amnesty or reprieve offenders;
13. establish and dissolve such government ministries and departments necessary or expedient for the good governance of Eritrea, in consultation with the Public Service Administration;
14. preside over meetings of the Cabinet and coordinate its activities;
15. present legislative proposals to the National Assembly;
16. confer medals or other honors on citizens, residents and friends of Eritrea in consultation with relevant persons and institutions;
17. pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution, remove any person appointed by him.

Article 43 Immunity from Civil and Criminal Proceedings
Any person holding the office of the President may not be sued in any civil proceedings or charged for a crime, save where such proceedings concern an act done in his official capacity as President or proceedings involving Sub-Article 6(a) and (b) of Article 41 hereof.
Article 44 Privileges to be Given to Former Presidents
Provisions shall be made by law for the privileges that shall be granted to former Presidents.
Article 45 Oath
Upon his election, the President shall take the following oath: "I, ..., swear in the name of the Eritrean martyrs that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of Eritrea and that I will strive with the best of my ability and conscience to serve the people of Eritrea."

Article 46 The Cabinet
(1) There shall be a ministerial Cabinet, which shall be presided by the President.
(2) The President may select ministers from among members of the National Assembly or from among persons who are not members of the National Assembly.
(3) The Cabinet shall assist the President in:
a) directing, supervising and coordinating the affairs of government;
b) conducting study on and preparing the annual budget;
c) conducting study and preparing draft laws to be presented to the National Assembly;
d) conducting study on and preparing policies and plans of government.
(4) The President may issue rules and regulations for the organization, functions and operation of his office, the Cabinet or other government institutions, and for the code of ethics involving officials of the executive branch of government.

Article 47 Ministerial Accountability
(1) All ministers shall be accountable:
a) individually to the President for the administration of their own ministries; and
b) collectively to the National Assembly, through the President, for the administration of the work of the Cabinet.
(2) The National Assembly or its committees may, through the Office of the President, summon any minister to appear before them to question him concerning the policies or operation of his ministry.
Chapter VI The Administration of Justice
　

Article 48 The Judiciary
(1) The judicial power shall be vested in a Supreme Court and in such other lower courts as shall be established by law and shall be exercised in the name of the people pursuant to this Constitution and laws issued there under.
(2) In exercising their judicial power, courts shall be free from direction, control and supervision of any person or authority. Judges shall be subject only to the law, to a judicial code of ethics determined by law and to their conscience.
(3) A person exercising judicial power shall not be liable to any suit for any act or omission in the course of exercising that judicial power.
(4) All organs of the State shall accord to the courts such assistance as they may require to protect their independence and dignity so that they may exercise their judicial power appropriately and effectively pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution and laws issued there under.
Article 49 The Supreme Court
(1) The Supreme Court shall be the court of last resort; and shall be presided by the Chief Justice.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power of:
a) sole jurisdiction of interpreting this Constitution and the constitutionality of any law enacted or any measure undertaken by government; b) sole jurisdiction of hearing and adjudicating upon charges against a President who has been impeached by the National Assembly pursuant to the provisions of Sub-Article 6 (a) and (b) of Article 41 hereof; and c) hearing and adjudicating cases appealed from lower courts pursuant to law.
(3) the organization and operation of the Supreme Court shall be determined by law.
(4) The tenure of justices of the Supreme Court shall be determined by law.

Article 50 Lower Courts
The organization, jurisdiction and the procedures of lower courts and the tenure of their judges shall be determined by law.

Article 51 Oath
Every judge shall take the following oath: "I, ..., swear in the name of the Eritrean martyrs that I will adjudicate in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and laws enacted there under and I will exercise the judicial authority vested in me, subject only to the law and my conscience, without seeking or being enticed by any private gain."
Article 52 Removal of Judges from Office
(1) A judge may be removed from office before the expiry of his tenure of office by the President only, acting on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Sub-Article 2 of this Article for physical or mental incapacity, violation of the law or judicial code of ethics.
(2) The Judicial Service Commission shall investigate whether or not a judge should be removed from office on grounds of those enumerated in Sub-Article 1 of this Article. In case the Judicial Service Commission decides that a judge should be removed from office, it shall present its recommendation to the President.
(3) The President may, on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, suspend from office a judge who is under investigation.

Article 53 The Judicial Service Commission
(1) There shall be established a Judicial Service Commission, which shall be responsible for submitting recommendations for the recruitment of judges and the terms and conditions of their services.
(2) The powers, organization and duties of the Judicial Service Commission shall be determined by law.
Chapter VII Miscellaneous Provisions

Article 54 Auditor General
(1) There shall be an Auditor General who audits the revenues and expenditures and other financial operations of government and who reports annually his findings to the National Assembly.
(2) The Auditor General shall be appointed for five years by the President with the approval of the National Assembly. He shall be accountable to the National Assembly.
(3) The detailed powers, duties and organization of the Auditor General shall be determined by law.
Article 55 National Bank
(1) There shall be a National Bank, which performs the functions of a central bank, controls the financial institutions and manages the national currency.
(2) The National Bank shall have a Governor appointed by the President with the approval of the National Assembly. There shall be a Board of Directors presided by the Governor and whose members shall be appointed by the President.
(3) The detailed powers, duties and organization of the National Bank shall be determined by law.
Article 56 Public Service Administration
(1) There shall be established a Public Service Administration, which shall be responsible for recruitment and selection of civil servants as well as for determining the terms and conditions of their employment including their rights and duties.
(2) The detailed powers, duties and organization of the Public Service Administration shall be determined by law.
Article 57 Electoral Commission
(1) There shall be established an Electoral Commission, operating independently , without interference, which shall, on the basis of the electoral law, ensure that free and fair elections are held and manage their implementation; decide on issues raised in the course of the electoral process; and formulate and implement civic educational programs relating to elections and other
democratic procedures.
(2) An Electoral Commissioner shall be appointed by the President with the approval of the National Assembly.
(3) The detailed powers, duties and organization of the Electoral Commission shall be determined by law.
Article 58 Amendment of the Constitution
(1) A proposal for the amendment of any provision of this Constitution may be initiated and tabled by the President or 50 percent of all the members of the National Assembly.
(2) Any provision of this Constitution may be amended as follows:
a) where the National Assembly by a three-quarters majority vote of all its members proposes an amendment with reference to a specific Article of the Constitution tabled to be amended; and
b) where, one year after it has proposed such an amendment, the National Assembly, after deliberation, approves again the same amendment by four-fifths majority vote of all its members.

An index of African governance

2010-10-07T13:00:00.002-04:00

An index of African governance

A rum old mix

The Economist

From happy islands to the swamps of misery

Oct 7th 2010 | Nairobi

ONCE again Africa’s worthiest and perhaps happiest countries, according to Mo Ibrahim’s latest measure of all-round governance, scrutinising data gathered for last year, are offshore. Mauritius is the runaway winner, followed by the Seychelles in second place and Cape Verde fourth (see table). On the African mainland, Botswana, with the advantages of ethnic homogeneity, a small population, diamonds and good leaders, does best, in third place, with South Africa, by far the weightiest country in Africa, fifth. At the other end of the scale, the most wretched land is Somalia, with Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe competing for Africa’s wooden spoon.

[Editor's Note: The worst nations in a chronological order are as follows: 53, Somalia; 52, Chad; 51, Congo; 50, Zimbabwe; 49, Eritrea; 48, Sudan; 47, Central African Rep.; and 46, Equatorial Guinea. For a display of the table visit: The Economist.]

There are no big changes in the pecking order. The yardsticks applied by Mr Ibrahim, a Sudanese-born British telecoms magnate and philanthropist, judge countries on a mix of four main criteria: “safety and the rule of law” (looking at the murder rate and corruption, among other things); “participation and human rights” (that little matter of being able peacefully to chuck out a bad government); “sustainable economic opportunity” (including such things as fiscal management, free markets and inflation); and “human development” (in essence, education and health care).

Some countries do surprisingly well despite their lack of democracy. Tunisia, which is run by a dictator but gives its people a decent life in other respects, comes eighth; Libya, which has one of the nastiest human-rights records in Africa but gives its people loads of welfare, is a respectable 23rd. Others, despite wealth and civil vibrancy, do notably badly. Nigeria is down in 40th place and Angola, though it oozes oil, comes a dismal 43rd. Two countries favoured by many development buffs, Rwanda and Ethiopia, do badly because of their deteriorating human-rights records: Rwanda is in 31st place and Ethiopia in 34th.

In regional and religious terms, it may be noted that Muslim and Maghreb countries do badly on the democracy and human-rights index. Green-minded advocates also think Mr Ibrahim should think of applying a new criterion for managing natural resources and tackling climate change. Urban planning and innovation could also usefully be measured. Particularly pleasing, for Mr Ibrahim and for Africa’s well-wishers at large, is that governments across the continent are taking the table seriously. There is nothing like a bit of naming, shaming and praising.

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/17209794?story_id=17209794

Sometimes a “Draw” is Good

2010-09-30T20:31:00.001-04:00

Mogos Tekeste

On September 21, 2010, the International Crisis Group (ICG) issued its report on Eritrea titled “Eritrea: The Siege State.” The ICG succinctly summarized the Eritrean history in its glories and its failings. To speak for myself, this is the best summary of Eritrea‘s history that I have read. This is an outstanding primer, which one can consume in a single sitting of reading and I could confidently recommend as a worthwhile reading to anyone who wants a quick grasp of the complexities of Eritrea including my college-educated children. That is how valuable I consider this document.

On September 29, 2010 Saleh Younis gave his critical appraisal of the “The Siege State.” I believe Sal did an admirable job; the following major highlights are some of my misgivings on his appraisal.

The Eritrean regime is up to arms against “The Siege State.” This in itself speaks volumes of how the Eritrean regime considers damaging the article is to its persona. Remember, the international community will care about Eritrea if many organizations such as the ICG expose the atrocities of Isaias - the authoritarian leader of Eritrea. If the exposition of the wrongdoings of the Eritrean regime is limited only to that of Eritreans, it will amount to nothing, and no one will take us, democratic Eritreans, seriously. It is also naive to assume that the views of the ICGs and other outsiders will invariably align one hundred percent of the time with the views of the Eritrean liberal democratic opposition. Sad to state but it is a fact that our own Eritrean opposition itself does not have a coherent message and a simple solution to our problems that is acceptable to the overwhelmingly majority of the Eritrean people. This being the case it is not fair to demand such exactitude from non-Eritreans. If we do not recalibrate our views realistically, we will consistently be disappointed and will unnecessarily alienate forces that can be of use for the good of the Eritrean people. I believe the ICG is a formidable force that the Eritrean opposition can make to good use. The ICG has a lot of credibility within the power movers and shakers in the United Nations.

Essentially, the ICG has almost taken the banner of the opposition in exposing the gross abuses of human rights that are taking place in Eritrea under the rule of Isaias in its “The Siege State.” That the ICG views the Eritrean problems in almost exact fashion as democratic Eritreans do should at least entitle us to congratulate ourselves that someone else is also listening to the appeals of the sufferings and pains of the Eritrean people.

Fundamental solutions to Eritrea’s agony can only come from the Eritrean people. Outsiders can only be facilitators. Thus, we should not be discouraged of any solutions that the ICG is proposing if it happens to be to our dislike; instead we should concentrate on their good points at elucidating the fundamental problems of Eritrea -- which undoubtedly “The Siege State” does admirably. If we do that, our mindset will take “The Siege State” as a win for the Eritrean people. To reiterate, the findings of solutions to our problems are up to us Eritreans. No NGO worth its salt proposes a solution that is a win-lose result from the protagonists’ viewpoint. By its very nature an NGO is not in a position and business to directly and bluntly shame one group and elevate the prestige of another group. A good proposal will always be either a draw or a win-win situation, an impossibility in Eritrea. In the current circumstances of the Eritrean liberal democratic opposition, a draw is not bad.

In some instances, I believe that as a rule it is unwise to guess a hazard as to whose pen is behind the contents of an article. This may unwisely bias people against an article despite its excellence, which I believe “The Siege State” is. I hope we are aware of the powerful lessons “Common Sense” played during the American Revolution. That pamphlet was signed "Written by an Englishman." Though unknown to the majority of the “Common Sense” readers at its time of publication, Thomas Paine wrote the pamphlet. The American people read the pamphlet with an open mind, and they gave their verdict based on the merits of the ideas it espoused and not based on the personality of the author behind it.

It sounds that some are suddenly opposed to the concept of “dialogue,” despite the fact that they were at one time messengers of dialogue. This was even when it was clear that the Ethiopian regime was in the wrong for outright rejection of the Eritrean-Ethiopian Boundary Commission’s verdict when it was issued the first time. More Eritreans died in the Eritrean-Ethiopian wars than in the internecine fighting among Eritreans themselves. It is very astounding that they enthusiastically support dialogue with Ethiopia and I might add rightly so, but on the other hand, it seems they oppose certain dialogues among Eritreans. This is either hypocrisy or lack of deep knowledge of the power of dialogue. By any measure, dialogue does not free the Eritrean leadership from any wrongdoing it committed, if one wants to be vindictive and not forgiving. It is foolish to be allergic to the concept of dialogue when outsiders propose it, since invariably that is what they will propose. The wise thing to do is not to out rightly reject dialogue but to come up with creative mechanisms to overcome it in order to make it work for the welfare of the Eritrean people. NGOs are supposedly in the business of peace and thus they see dialogue as a solution. This does not mean they are not doing other things. They are and a perfect example is the UNSC’s sanctions on Eritrea. There are many documents incorporated within the sanctions orders that finally will incriminate Isaias and his lackeys in a court of law for their illegal actions outside Eritrea. This is on top of their lawless activities inside Eritrea. All tools are necessary to dismantle the authoritarian Eritrean regime. If Mandela was able to use dialogue as one of his tools to take to pieces the Apartheid regime, why should one deny the Eritrean people this powerful instrument if used wisely?

Many democratic Eritreans played a bad role during the 1998-2000 war. Some were cheerleaders of the war. This includes some of the top leadership of the PFDJ -- the G15. In essence, the G-15 was a mouthpiece of Isaias. Finally, the G15 publicly recanted its serious errors and seriously apologized to the Eritrean people. Among other things, it appealed for the restoration of the rule of law in Eritrea and it paid a heavy price for its heroic repentance and defiance.

In the Diaspora, the majority of educated Eritreans was for the war and this included some members of the Awate Team itself. Now, after the fact it is not good to self-righteously demand from others to repent for their past sins when one knows for sure that the accusers who try to wear a saintly mantle are not holy themselves. It is about time that the Awate Team practices what it preaches. Otherwise it is hypocrisy and immoral. The Diaspora cheerleaders of the past war were outside the leadership of the Eritrean regime; their cheerleading gave Isaias an undeserved legitimacy and a blank check in his disastrous war with Ethiopia. There is no need to be more saintly and more self-righteous than others are. If people recant for past mistakes, not through mere words as the Awate Team is demanding, but through concrete good deeds then that is priceless in my book. In that regard, as far as I am concerned, no Eritrean has been able to write as an excellent article as “The Siege State”. If the Awate Team so desire then I personally take “The Siege State” as an apology to the Eritrean people, since this mere short pamphlet is a powerful weapon in the domains of those who hold power in the world. We have to have big hearts to help our people who are still supporting Isaias to mend their erroneous ways, and more importantly, we have to forgive, forget, and move positively forward.

The ICG appears to be indecisive on the UNSC’s sanctions on Eritrea, and criticisms on this issue are valid. In fairness however, we also know who was insipid on this very issue when the United Nations imposed sanctions on Eritrea. The Awate Team is on record for opposing the arms embargo part of the sanctions. In fact, I obtusely reprimanded the Team on my article “The UNSC’s Sanctions on Eritrea Revisited.” In fact, I do not see that much of a difference on the position of the sanctions on Eritrea between that of the ICG and that of the Awate Team. It is within the realm of possibility that the Awate Team may have wrongly influenced the ICG to take an ineffective position on the sanctions. You reap what you sow.

Eritrea: The Siege State ***

2010-09-28T11:56:00.006-04:00

Eritrea: The Siege State

Africa Report N°163 21 Sep 2010

International Crisis Group

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Eritrea has been deeply troubled since independence in 1991. Following the devastating war with Ethiopia (1998-2000), an authoritarian, militarised regime has further tightened political space, tolerating neither opposition nor dissent. Relations are difficult with the region and the wider international community. At African Union (AU) behest, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions in 2009 for its support of the Somali Islamic insurgency. It has become, in effect, a siege state, whose government is suspicious of its own population, neighbours and the wider world. Economically crippled at birth, it is a poor country from which tens of thousands of youths are fleeing, forming large asylum-seeking communities in Europe and North America. But Eritrea is an extreme reflection of its region’s rough political environment, not its sole spoiler. More effort to understand the roots of its suspicions and greater engagement rather than further isolation would be a more promising international prescription for dealing with the genuine risks it represents.

The militarism and authoritarianism which now define the political culture have their roots in the region’s violent history. The 30-year war of independence was part of a network of conflicts which devastated north-east Africa. The real significance of that legacy has only become clear in the last decade, as President Isaias Afwerki and a small cohort of ex-fighters have strengthened their grip on power, while suppressing social freedoms and economic development in favour of an agenda centred on an obedient national unity and the notion that Eritrea is surrounded by enemies. Isaias’s supporters, diminishing in number, assert that only he has the vision to guide it through difficult times; the growing ranks of his critics argue that he has hijacked the nation-building process; betrayed the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands who achieved and defended independence, and brought ruin to the country.

Conditions are worsening dramatically. Since the 2001 crackdown that ended a brief period of public debate, jails have been filled with political prisoners and critics, religious dissidents, journalists, draft evaders and failed escapees. Isaias uses the standoff with Ethiopia to justify severe internal discipline and military adventures across the region. Ethiopia has reneged on part of the Algiers Agreement that ended the war, in particular by not accepting what was to have been a special commission’s binding decision on the border. The Security Council’s failure to compel compliance reinforced the sense in Asmara that the international community is inherently hostile. Eritrea subsequently placed restrictions on UN peacekeepers that led to their withdrawal in 2008 from the demilitarised zone between the belligerents, citing total lack of cooperation. Isaias’s foreign policy became even more fixated on forcing Ethiopia to accept the border decision, with proxy warfare rather than conventional diplomacy the favoured tool.

Militarised politics has spilled into foreign policy, the latter frequently involving armed responses and aggressive adventurism at the expense of conventional diplomacy. To date, Eritrea has fought, directly or indirectly, with Ethiopia, Yemen, Djibouti and Sudan and involved itself in various ways in the conflicts in eastern Sudan, Darfur and Somalia. While it asserts that it is pursuing legitimate national security interests and lambasts the U.S. in particular for intervening in the affairs of others, the aggressive approach and abrasive tone have left it increasingly isolated. The willingness of potential friends to consider the legitimacy of at least some of its concerns is diminished by Eritrea’s unwillingness to demilitarise its foreign policy and to make concessions on any level.

The economy has been shattered by the vagaries of regional rainfall, the state’s destruction of the private sector and the huge costs of military mobilisation. Society more broadly is under enormous strain. Remarkably, there have not yet been serious protests, but pressure is building, both inside the borders and in the extensive diaspora, whose remittances have been a major financial support. A range of external opposition groups – though still deeply divided – are lining up against the regime.

To avoid a fresh crisis in the Horn of Africa, the international community and the Eritreans alike will need to demonstrate a new level of imagination and flexibility. It is vital that the international community engages with Eritrea, politically and economically, and rigorously assesses the country’s internal problems as well as its external pressures. Development assistance and improved trade links should be tied to holding long-promised national elections and implementing the long-delayed constitution. At the same time, in particular the UN Security Council should pressure Ethiopia to accept the border ruling. All this is necessary to prevent another failed state from emerging in the Horn. That outcome is otherwise distinctly possible given the widespread lack of support for the government within the country and the deteriorating state of the army, whose ability to either sustain Isaias Afwerki’s regime or to successfully manage regime transition is increasingly questionable.

Nairobi/Brussels, 21 September 2010

Source: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/africa/horn-of-africa/ethiopia-eritrea/163-eritrea-the-siege-state.aspx

_______________________________________________________

***Note: For a full PDF Report please visit: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/africa/horn-of-africa/ethiopia-eritrea/163%20Eritrea%20The%20Siege%20State.ashx

Praise and Criticize

2010-07-31T10:07:00.002-04:00

Mogos Tekeste

First and foremost, I congratulate Mejlis Ibrahim Mukhtar for taking the initiative of amending the Eritrean constitution using a mixture of the 1952 Eritrean Federal constitution and the ratified 1997 Eritrean constitution in his The Eritrean Accord contribution. Rightly you deserve a great praise on this one. Hopefully, others will follow you.

I for one am on record for advocating the use of the ratified 1997 Eritrean constitution to unify the Eritrean people in their quest for establishing the rule of law in Eritrea. See the Rule of Law in Eritrea. This is assuming that it is amended to remove provisions that violate the rule of law such as the allowance of the sole ownership of land by the state. I am not infatuated with the 1997 ratified Eritrean constitution; if the rule of law can be established in Eritrea using an amalgam of the 1952 Eritrean federal constitution and the ratified 1997 constitution so much the better.

Still, I need to stress the fact that on this item, a major one in my book, you are one of the first groups who have finally seen the daylight and the wisdom that using the constitution as a unifying factor is the best method to struggle against the PFDJ. Moreover, only those kinds of constitutions are the solutions to Eritrea's problem – the need to create a state that is governed by a constitutional liberalism. This seems to me a paradigm shift that is a thinking that swings away from the fight for group rights (highlanders versus lowlanders) to the fight for the respect of the rights of individual citizens and the respect of the rights of minorities of all kinds and the fight for the rule of law. The route is the constitution.

Now to the major blunders you committed. At times you seem to personalize issues and view items from highland versus lowland dichotomy and inter-Kebessa conflict (Hamsien v Seraye v Akelguzai) and not examine policies and ideologies in their historical contexts. If you delve into personalities, you will do major errors, and thus lose all credibility you may have and thus you will be unable to convince Eritreans on the major project, for example the harmonizing of the constitutions.

To speak bluntly, most of your points highlighted in bullet items eight to twelve are rubbish, unsubstantiated rumors, and in some instance pure lies and conjectures in order to propagate false theories. These are unworthy to come out from the pens of educated and assuming ethical and rational Eritreans. You assert you are for the rule of law, but on the other hand maybe unconsciously, you propagate fanaticism of regions and religions that are not in tune with the current sociological factors of Eritrea. You also violate rights of privacy and the protection of property rights. Let me bring to your attention two major blunders and pure lies. Unfortunately I will delve into accomplishments of individuals to prove my points, and show you that in essence you have not fully grasped the concepts of the rule of law and the respect of the rights of individual citizens. That includes the respect of the rights of individuals who are not in your group and I might add that includes also people who you may even consider your enemies. The rule of law has to be applied equally to all. Mind you it is not only the state that violates the rights of individuals, many non state actors do so such as you have done in my following examples. The only reason we concentrate on the state is that when the state violates those rights it is worse since the state can go the extra mile and use violence.

First, on item #10: You presented that the firing of so many teachers from Asmara University in mid 1990s is because of the “conflict” between Hamasien and Akleguzai. This seems to me that you are copying the playbook of Isaias Afwerki. I never imagined such an utterance to come out from an opposition group and a liberal one at that. To substantiate your argument, you claim that Andebrhan Woldegiorgis is from Akeleguzai. Nothing is far from the truth; this is a lie of the highest order. I know for a fact that Andebrahan is from Seraye, a village not far from Mendefera. (Disclosure: I myself am from Seraye, from Adi Quala.) In addition, you claim that Andebrahn does not have the academic credentials to run the Asmara University. I have no clue about the academic credentials of the members of your group. What I know is that Andebrhan has a graduate degree from the University of Colorado. At one time he was a lecturer at the Business School at Haile Selassie University. He was a PhD candidate at Harvard University before he joined the EPLF in the field. What more do you want?

Branding a person of something he is not is equivalent to the approbation of his property which is a violation of the rule of law. Property rights do not deal only with land and houses or other tangible properties, but they also deal with intangible properties like once being, intellect and once origin. Spreading falsehood about a person is tantamount to the violation of his property rights and the violation of his privacy. This applies also to people who you may consider are in the “enemy camp,” including Isaias himself. What are the points of the lies then?

Truth be told, Isaias is anti educated Eritreans and thus in order to demolish the Asmara University; he does not need someone from “Akeleguzai,” nor does he need someone with a PhD from Yale University. Isaias only needs an errand boy. I am not here to defend Andebrahn, the least of my concern, I have no idea what his role was in the demolition of the university. I also know the university was demolished much later under a different administrator. I am here to expose a lie despite the fact that it carries the banner of an opposition. I firmly also believe in the concept of the due process of law and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This has nothing to do with Andebrahn being an “Akeleguzetai” or not having “academic credentials” – both counts false. As far as Isaias is concerned that messenger assigned to demolish the university can be from Keren or Agordat or Massawa. If one were to take your analysis to its logical conclusion then one would wrongly characterize it as a conflict between the highlanders and the lowlanders and not face the truth that Isaias is anti high caliber education. And we have seen a lot of that kind of shoddy analysis.

Isaias does not care about Hamasien, nor does he hate Seraye or Akelguzai or Keren or whatever. He cares only about his power, and he will use regionalism or provincial attachments to pursue his interests. I do not believe the Eritrean people are in the game that Isaias plays. Just examine the intermarriages between the highland provinces in your area. The problem is that if you view items through the lens of regionalism or religion you will always fall into the very traps of Isaias – an Eritrean society divided along religious and region lines. If you view it from the point of view of individual citizen rights and not group rights (in this case Akeleguzai and Hamsien) and the rule of law you will not fall into that trap.

Second, on Item 11. You falsely assert that the Eritreans for Liberation in North America (EFLNA) was established when the Ethiopian Army started massacring highland Christians. This is a deliberate lie to falsely accuse that educated Christian highlanders never cared about the plight of their fellow Eritrean lowlanders. EFLNA was established in 1970 when a major massacre took place around Keren when an Ethiopian Army general was ambushed and killed by the ELF. The last time I checked Keren is in the lowlands. The massacre of Christian highlands started around 1975 when the Derg was in full control, about five years after the establishment of the EFLNA. What is the point of the lie? Your mind seems to be so clouded with viewing all issues through the prisms of religion and region that you have become so audacious to distort and falsify facts that are well known to all.

It seems in certain instances you are unable to do a simple fact check. The point is if you are not careful with such simple facts and disseminate such falsehood to the whole world, how can I trust you with other earth shattering and consequential facts to the Eritrean people? Once these untruths are exposed some of your analysis about the so called dichotomy of the Christians and Muslims and the inter-Kebessa squabbling you yourself created in your writing to fit your assumptions that are hinged on falsehoods will crumple down like a house of cards.

“Majority Rule” and “Minority Rights”

2010-06-11T09:27:00.000-04:00

Mogos Tekeste

I have great respect for Semere Tesfai for boldly articulating his views. There are crucial points that he and I are in complete concurrence, in particular his analysis of not resorting to group rights to solve Eritrea's problems; that is the main crux of his analysis. I believe the solution still remains a state that is governed by a constitutional liberalism.

One major quarrel I have with Semere and I believe his Achilles’ heel on his otherwise excellent analysis is his understanding of "Majority Rule" and "Minority Rights."

He comes across to me, maybe inadvertently, as advocating for the majorities to do whatever they desire since they have the numbers. Democracy may allow this, but the rule of law does not. Democracy without the rule of law is unworkable; in fact it becomes a “tyranny of the majority.”

Today, in the USA democracy and the rule of law go hand in hand. For example, the white Americans just because they have the numbers do not mean they can lord over the black Americans, which they “legally,” institutionally and openly did at one time. That was a violation of the rule of law. Actually, the rule of law is a break on democracy.

In a multi ethnic and multi religious and as of yet culturally and economically undeveloped Eritrea, we need more the rule of law than democracy. If we can achieve both - the rule of law and democracy - at the same time, it is prefect, but that is living in a pipedream. The opposition is infatuated with “democracy,” a concept that is wrecking havoc in Africa, since most African nations just like Eritrea do not have a basic prerequisite for democracy – the rule of law.

The rule of law protects the rights of individuals as well the rights of minorities of all kinds, and it constrains the state and the majorities from abusing their power. If we can achieve the rule of law, it will eventually enable us to have a democratic and prosperous society. England the mother of all civil liberties for centuries was ruled by monarchs and yet that power emanated and was constrained by the rule of law; the same in the USA -- the rule of law preceded democracy. (Singapore is a typical example where the state is governed by a very adequate rule of law; yet there is no democracy that is comparable to the USA. Can we, Eritreans, learn something valuable from this?)

To elaborate more, here is a succinct explanation of the balance between "Majority Rule" and "Minority Rights” as explained by a state department site.

The text is as follows:

"On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

· Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

· Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

· Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.

· Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

· Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

· Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

· There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved -- only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights." Source: Principles of Democracy

Mogos Tekeste

The Time of Reckoning Part II

2010-05-04T16:33:00.001-04:00

Mogos Tekeste

Canada has issued a plan of the implementation of the UNSC Resolution 1907. Appendix O deals with Eritrea. See the Canada plan.

Lately, the top guns of the Eritrean regime have been travelling the globe. This appears to be to avert the UNSC Resolution 1907 from taking effect; though their engagements include only nations who are not members of the UNSC – be it permanent or non permanent members. President Isaias went to Qatar and Egypt, and the foreign minster of Eritrea was dispatched to South Africa. This is an excursion in futility, too late for such kind of detours. Such maneuvers are ill advised, since they do not answer the underlying requirements of the UNSC Resolution 1907. Globe trotting will not change anything. Qatar, Egypt and South Africa cannot overturn the UNSC Resolution 1907; on the contrary like all other members of the United Nations they are duty bound to abide by the UNSC Resolution 1907. (Resolutions passed under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charters are mandatory legal requirements on all members.)

It appears that the major powers that have significant impact on Eritrea -- in terms of financial aid to and trade with Eritrea -- have already issued their plans on how they plan to implement the resolution in their respective jurisdictions. These include Australia, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and the European Union. (I assume the plan of the European Union covers for such big nations as the UK, France, Germany, Italy and so forth.)

As far as I know, the only important Western power that has as of yet not issued its plan is the USA. The questions are: Will there be any surprise when the USA issues its plan? Is the USA contemplating the suspension of its diplomatic relationship with Eritrea? Will the USA outlaw the PFDJ from operating in the USA?

Terrorism is not taken lightly in the USA. We now that for all intents and purposes the USA has already branded the top political guru of the PFDJ as a terrorist. The implication of such an acknowledgement is that the very organization that such a top rabbi leads itself must be a terrorist one too. This is an external recognition. As far as the Eritrean people are concerned, the PFDJ is an organization that is terrorizing them everyday, and Eritrea under the PFDJ is hell on earth. That the USA is now approximately in the same wavelength with the Eritrean people regarding the nature of the PFDJ is a godsend. Currently, the USA includes Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria in its list of states that sponsor terrorism. In all likelihood, Eritrea may join this infamous list. In that case, what follows next will be the suspension of diplomatic relationship between Eritrea and the USA. And then real pain will be inflicted on those Diaspora supporters of the PFDJ who reside in the USA, who are the lifeline of the oppressive organization. That will help in heralding the quick downfall of the Eritrean regime.

Eritrea under the PFDJ is an abnormal nation. The abnormality emanates from the inherent nature of the Eritrean regime to act outside the laws. In the international arena, one of the results of the lawless nature of the Eritrean regime is that it brought upon itself the UNSC Resolution 1907, and it is in direct combat with the USA -- and of all things issues that deal with terrorism. The relationship between the USA and the Eritrean regime cannot continue as is. I believe the USA will have an ordinary and customary relationship with Eritrea only when Eritrea becomes a normal nation -- that is a nation that subscribes to the rule of law internally and respects international law externally.

These days one is forced to recollect the fates of Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin and Ian Smith; such villains lived outside normal laws and acted as if they were omnipotent and supreme in their days; are the actions of Isaias that different?

The Time of Reckoning

2010-04-22T16:19:00.012-04:00

Mogos Tekeste

The deadline of the submission of the implementation plans of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1907 by member states in their respective jurisdiction is by April 23, 2010.

The following note is a brief recap of where we are as of April 22, 2010.

“United Nations Security Council Resolution 1907, adopted on December 23, 2009, imposed an arms embargo on Eritrea, travel bans on its leaders, and froze the assets of some of the country's political and military officials as punishment for aiding anti-government rebels in Somalia and refusing to withdraw troops from its disputed border with Djibouti, following a conflict in 2008.” Source: UNSC Resolution 1907

The UNSC Resolution 1907 Paragraph 20 “calls upon all Member States to report to the Security Council within 120 days of the adoption of this resolution on steps they have taken to implement the measures outlined in paragraphs 5, 6, 10, 12 and 13 of the resolution. The reports of Member States are expected to be submitted by 23 April 2010.” Source: UNSC April 2010 Forecast

As of April 22, 2010, I believe the European Union, Switzerland, Australia and Japan have issued their plans of the implementation of the UNSC Resolution 1907. It is expected that by April 23, 2010 all member states will present their plans of the implementation of the resolution 1907 in their respective jurisdictions. This is a legal requirement.

How about the Eritrean regime, will it buckle and shamefacedly comply with all the requirements of the UNSC Resolution 1907, despite all its bravados and boastings? Will the Eritrean regime present its plan of complying with the UNSC Resolution 1907? If not, then the clock starts ticking for the UNSC to go up to the extent of the use of military force to compel the Eritrean regime to abide by its orders since the resolution was passed under Chapter VII of the United Nations charters.

The Eritrean regime has been slandering, bad mouthing and accusing the USA for allegedly instigating the UNSC sanctions against Eritrea. In essence, the Eritrean regime has implied that all members of the UNSC including Russia and China toe the line of the USA, at least when it comes to the case of Eritrea. In addition, the Eritrean president accused the USA for setting off the Eritrean-Ethiopian border war and for all intents and purposes has branded the USA as an archenemy of Eritrea.

The question is how will the USA take such accusations? Will it ignore all the tantrums and stick to what the UNSC sanctions on the Eritrean regime call upon or will the USA go beyond what the minimum requirements stipulate when it issues its implementation plan of the UNSC Resolution 1907?

The time of reckoning has approached. It is April 23, 2010.

A Fool’s Errand

2010-02-10T01:12:00.017-05:00

Mogos Tekeste

The People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) is set to demonstrate against the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) Resolution 1907 through massive showings of its followers in the streets of Washington DC, San Francisco, Melbourne and Geneva on February 22, 2010. The questions that arise are: what are the demonstrations for and why are they not set in New York City?

Background

The UNSC is composed of five veto-wielding permanent and ten non veto-wielding non-permanent nations. The five veto-wielding members are: (1) the USA; (2) the UK; (3) France; (4) Russia and (5) China, and for the 2009-term, the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council were: (1) Burkina Faso;(2) Libya; (3) Uganda;(4) Vietnam; (5) Japan;(6) Costa Rica; (7) Mexico; (8) Turkey;(9) Austria; and (10) Croatia. Source: 2009 SC

The UNSC’s Resolution 1907 is a legal verdict, under Chapter VII and it complied with article 27 of the United Nations (UN) Charter, which states that: “Security Council decisions on all substantive matters require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote or veto … by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes (9).” Source: Security Council. The resolution was adopted by a 13 “yes” votes, 1 “no” vote by a non-veto wielding member, and 1 “abstention.” This means there is no other higher international legal authority that Eritrea can appeal to in order to annul the resolution. The only thing left for Eritrea is to strictly comply with all the directives and requirements of the resolution, and at best only then will the sanctions be lifted. The time for petitions, street demonstrations and politics are already gone.

Why not New York City?

Of all places the PFDJ has no plans to demonstrate its displeasure of the Resolution 1907 in front of the UN headquarters in New York City -- the very city where the sanctions against Eritrea took place. And yet there are plans of demonstrations in places as odd as Melbourne, Australia – a nation that is not a permanent member of the UNSC nor a non-permanent member of the 2010 term, and San Francisco, California – it looks just for the heck of it. There seems to be no rationale and logic.

New York City is the permanent home of the UNSC, and since its inception the UNSC is in a continuous secession. “Security Council members must always be present at UN headquarters in New York so that the Security Council can meet at any time. This requirement of the United Nations Charter was adopted to address a weakness of the League of Nations since that organization was often unable to respond quickly to a crisis.” Source: Security Council.

The Resolution 1907 cannot be annulled through a show of demonstration. Still, if the PFDJ wants to demonstrate, then it is illogical to avoid New York City. The plan to demonstrate in Washington DC and not in New York City may have originated from several misconceptions.

First, by going to Washington DC the PFDJ may believe that it can influence the State Department, president Obama and Congress, all, at the same time on the necessity of the “annulment” of the Resolution 1907. It is wrong on all counts.

Congress has oversight but no direct and active role on the conduct of the foreign policy of the USA – that role strictly resides with the executive branch of the government. The State Department though it has overall coordination of the foreign policy of the USA, when it comes to the UN and UNSC, the permanent representative of the USA to the UN has complete control.

The ambassador of the USA to the UN directly reports to the president bypassing the State Department. This is not the Bush Administration whose disrespect for international institutions had no bounds. The PFDJ may have wrongly assumed that the representative of the USA to the UN in the Obama Administration continues as is without qualitative reporting changes from that of the Bush Administration. How wrong they are. This is extremely elementary, yet the PFDJ does not have a grasp even of basic facts. Susan Rice who is head of the USA mission to the UN has a cabinet post just like Hillary Clinton of the State Department, and both of them directly report to president Obama. This means that Susan Rice has complete control of the Resolution 1907 as far as the USA is concerned. See Susan Rice.

Second, dictators assume that all leaders are like them, and that they wrongly believe that even democratic leaders may overturn a carefully studied decision willy-nilly. President Isaias may have assumed that president Obama behaves like the way the president of Eritrea behaves – that is contradict and overturn a policy today despite the fact the very same policy was initiated by him only yesterday. Moreover, in the USA the president respects the wisdom of his cabinet secretaries (ministers), unlike the ministers in Eritrea. The cabinet secretaries have complete freedom to pursue policies that advance the national interests of the USA. A decision is achieved basically through a methodical serious study by cabinet ministers in their respective jurisdictions with the final blessings and tweaking of the president. There is a delegation of responsibilities. This is not a nation ruled by one man. More, it is “a nation of laws and not men.” And the Resolution 1907 is a law.

Third, even if we assume that president Obama were going to have second thoughts about the wisdom of the Resolution 1907, there is nothing he or the USA can do now. The Resolution 1907 has become a law. And a president cannot overturn a law be it in his own national jurisdiction or otherwise.

The Resolution 1907 is in the international jurisdiction and is owned by all members of the UN and UNSC; the USA has no longer full control of it. That is why New York City is more important than Washington DC. France and the UK compared to the USA are economically small nations; they cannot have a strong influence as the USA has in the international arena; the only place they are on equal footing with the USA is in the UNSC; the veto powers of France and the UK are as strong as the veto power of the USA. The same goes with Russia and China; in addition historically they had always been at odds with the USA in the UNSC. All this seems to be lost among the supporters of the PFDJ regime. Influencing only the USA will not do. The other four veto-wielding power nations at the UNSC are as influential as the USA. Staging demonstrations against the Resolution 1907 in Washington DC, Geneva, Melbourne and San Francisco is nothing but a fool’s errand.

Ineptitude in Diplomacy

The PFDJ alleges that it is not guilty as charged by the Resolution 1907. If so then how was it unable to extricate itself from the “trap?” Does this mean that the PFDJ is openly admitting that it is not capable to legally and diplomatically defend itself in the international arena? To speak for myself, yes it is true that the PFDJ is incompetent in the fields of international law and diplomacy and most of its practices at home and abroad are illegal. The PFDJ’s inherent nature of illegality had more to do with its undoing at the UNSC than its diplomatic awkwardness.

Still, an elaboration of the PFDJ’s diplomatic ineptitude using a very simplistic possible scenario (many other scenarios could be proposed) is necessary to illustrate that the PFDJ does not do any wise calculation ahead of time before it suddenly finds itself into a quandary. Out of the ten non-permanent nations of the UNSC only Uganda, if at all, may be antagonistic to Eritrea, since its role in Somalia is opposite to that of Eritrea. The rest, at most, are neutral to what is going on in the Horn of Africa. Since Eritrea was assured of a “no” vote from Libya, it only needed to convince the other eight non-permanent members of the UNSC to simply take a neutral stand of abstention (this is ignoring Uganda); they do not even have to cast a “no” vote to the Resolution 1907. In that case, the Resolution 1907 would not have passed. The result would have been: five “yes,” one “no” and nine “abstentions;” and this would not have fulfilled the requirements of Article 27 of the Charter. Not only is the PFDJ diplomatically inept, but it is also clueless about figures and numbers. Simple common sense dictates that one does such a calculation and gets assurances from some nations before the Resolution 1907 come to the casting of votes. One is not supposed to leave it to simple chance. This was in the air for a very long time. That the PFDJ could not get abstentions from Burkina Faso, Japan, Costa Rica, Mexico, Turkey, Austria, and Croatia is astounding.

The PFDJ is isolated from the power shakers and movers of the world – the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China. It is also isolated from the rest of the world as the votes of the non-permanent nations of the UNSC clearly show. This is a teaching moment for those Eritreans who are still sitting in the fence instead of opposing the PFDJ regime.

The Ramification of Chapter VII

The Resolution 1907 was passed under Chapter VII. This is the most serious legal penalty that the UNSC can impose on a nation. To put this in perspective, “from 1967 to 1989 the UNSC passed 131 resolutions directly addressing the Arab-Israel conflict,” none was passed explicitly stating Chapter VII, despite the fact that the Arab-Israel conflict is a very serious matter. See: Resolution on Israel

Resolutions passed under Chapter VII are also legally binding on all members of the UN. The UNSC gave Eritrea ample time to mend its erroneous ways. We, Eritreans, have to understand the gravity and ramifications of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Chapter VII in part is as follows:

· “Under Chapter Seven, the Council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving ‘threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression’. In such situations, the Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force ‘to maintain or restore international peace and security’. This was the basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950 during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Decisions taken under Chapter Seven, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members.” [emphasis mine] Source: Security Council.

· “The UN Charter's prohibition of member states of the UN attacking other UN member states is central to the purpose for which the UN was founded in the wake of the destruction of World II: to prevent war. This overriding concern is also reflected in the Nuremberg Trials' concept of a crime against peace "starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties or agreements..." (crime against peace), which was held to be the crime that makes all war crimes possible.” Source: Chapter VII

The implementation of the Resolution 1907 is “within 120 days of the adoption” of the resolution. See Paragraph 20 of the Resolution 1907. According to my calculation, the drop date of the implementation is by April 21, 2010 or thereabouts. By April 21, 2010, all members of the UN have to report to the UNSC and show clearly how they plan to implement the Resolution 1907 in their respective jurisdictions. As for Eritrea, it has to prove to the UNSC that it has completely complied with all the directives.

Absent of that, on top of the economic sanctions, the UNSC has now a legal cover under Chapter VII to use the threat of a military force, if it so desires, to compel Eritrea to abide by its orders. This is an extremely grim situation for Eritrea. The remedy is not though by a show of a mob and cult followers aka Hitler in the streets, nor is it by conducting petitions, nor is it by appealing to president Obama, as the followers of the PFDJ plan to do on February 22, 2010. Since it is a legal requirement, and there is no other superior legal organ that one can appeal to, one is left with a single recourse -- simply comply with all the directives in their entirety. This is akin to the situation when the Supreme Court of the USA passes a verdict on a certain issue; once the verdict is issued, then it is not appealable, one is forced to abide by the decision. The question that follows then what comes next?

On the surface, it may appear that once Eritrea complies with the Resolution 1907 then everything will return back to normal. I believe the reality is yes and no. At its best, the sanctions will be lifted from Eritrea, and in that case, yes, everything will be back to normal.

When it comes to the fates of the Eritrean leaders though it is a completely different matter, based on the Resolution 1907, the UNSC has already tacitly charged the Eritrean leaders as guilty in the destruction of properties and the loss of lives in both Somalia and Djibouti either as auxiliaries or as active and direct participants. This is an important concealed message in the resolution. This verdict of guilty will hover over the Eritrean leaders’ heads. This means that the UNSC has already done all the important leg works and indispensable documentation for any international lawyer or human rights activist to bring those said leaders in a court of law to be charged for crimes against humanity. The Eritrean leaders will not be able to avoid this, and it appears that finally they are legally caught for all their bad deeds not in Eritrea but in the international arena. Charles Taylor of Liberia was brought to detention legally not for his crimes against his own people, but in the role he played outside his nation in Sierra Leone. It appears there are some similarities here. See Charles Taylor

Maybe this tacit charge that is embedded in the Resolution 1907 is haunting the Eritrean leaders that from their perspective whether they comply with the 1907 resolution or not become irrelevant, since they have already put themselves in a no win situation. Consequently, they may have cruelly decided to take the whole Eritrean nation to the ditch with them. The only wise thing we, Eritreans, have to do, particularly those of us who are also American citizens, is to distance ourselves from the PFDJ and completely wash our hands from its sins.

All past posts are compiled at: http://www.eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

The UNSC’s Sanctions on Eritrea Revisited

2010-01-20T16:18:00.018-05:00

Mogos Tekeste

This is a follow up to the “Eritrea Walks into the Sanction Trap.” It is to be remembered that on December 23, 2009, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) imposed sanctions on Eritrea for “its role in Somalia” and over “its refusal to withdraw its troops following conflict with Djibouti.”

Instead of showing remorse and mending their erroneous ways, the People’s Front for Democracy & Justice (PFDJ) and its supporters in their non-stop “Mekete” meetings both inside and outside of Eritrea, appear to have irrationally decided to entrap themselves more, and in their resistance have come up with badly informed words and arguments. Is their behavior that crude? Or is there something else also at play here?

Considering its insatiable appetite for hard currency, it is possible that the PFDJ is trying to milk the sanctions for what they are worth, before they take effect by appealing to “Eritrean patriotism.” It so happens that we have among us, some Eritreans who are still easily hoodwinked by the PFDJ. These gullible Eritreans will lose their hard earned money; it appears that they have not yet wizened up from bitter experience. Once the PFDJ replenishes its coffers of hard currency, it may take a roundabout turn and may completely comply with all the directives of the UNSC’s resolutions. There is a very strong possibility that this scenario may be at play here.

In its appeal to “patriotism,” the PFDJ is in the habit of referring to the sanctions as “the illegal and vicious US sanctions resolution adopted in the name of the Security Council.” So much so some naïve Eritreans have wrongly taken these to heart and assume that the sanctions are “illegal” and moreover they presume that the sanctions have nothing to do with United Nations and rather much to do with the USA. It is lost to them that once the UNSC imposes the sanctions then these punitive measures are not owned by a single nation like the USA. On the contrary, the sanctions are legally owned by all members of the United Nations – that includes Eritrea and I might add Ethiopia too. Also, the sanctions cannot be illegal (more of that later).

Are the Sanctions Illegal?

One can in principle argue that the sanctions are unjust or unfair, though to speak for myself, I do not believe so. However, based on the law, are the sanctions “illegal” as the PFDJ is claiming? The word illegal is a loaded word, and it boggles the mind that the PFDJ is suddenly in infatuation with the law. Can the PFDJ and its supporters pinpoint to us to a single rule of the United Nations that allege the sanctions imposed on Eritrea are illegal?

According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, “illegal” is defined as: “prohibited by law; against the law; unlawful; illicit; also, not authorized or sanctioned, as by rules.” Is the UNSC “prohibited by law,” to pass the sanctions it imposed on Eritrea? To understand whether the sanctions on Eritrea are legal, we need to cover some elementary and basic facts about the UNSC pertaining to our issues. The following are the most important points.

· “The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

· There are 15 members of the Security Council, consisting of five veto-wielding permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) and ten elected non-permanent members with two-year terms. This basic structure is set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter.

· Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions on all substantive matters require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote, or veto, also known as the rule of "great Power unanimity", by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes (9).

· Security Council Resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter.”

Source: On the Security Council

As the words above denote the UNSC is legally designated to maintain peace and security in the world. As to our subject in question: sanctions – what are the procedural requirements that the UNSC has to follow when it orders resolutions on sanctions? And on what rules are those sanctions based?

First and foremost, it may be necessary to draw attention to the fact that it is not routine for the UNSC to impose sanctions. For sanctions to be imposed there are two tests that need to be met. The first requirement is that a veto-wielding power nation should not oppose the sanctions; this hurdle is very difficult to clear, since the five veto-wielding power nations are usually not in the same wavelength, bearing in mind that they have varied national interests that are in variance with each other. That the first hurdle was cleared so easily in the case of Eritrea is something that we, Eritreans, have to seriously contemplate of the gravity of the sanctions, and that we have to come to terms with the fact that we are harboring a rogue regime in our midst. Once the first hurdle is cleared, the second test requires yes votes of nine out of the total fifteen members of the UNSC. The second test is a very easy requirement to fulfill; for all intents and purposes, the second requirement appears to be only a formality. And only when the two tests are met do sanctions take effect. In simplistic terms, these are how the procedural rules of the UNSC work regarding sanctions and other resolutions of great consequence.

That the UNSC imposed sanctions on Eritrea is either an aberration, or that Eritrea is now internationally recognized as a pariah nation. If it were an anomaly, how come such an incongruity was unrevealed to Russia, China, France, the UK and even the USA? I for one believe that Eritrea is not a normal nation, where the rule of law be it internal or external is respected; the lawless nature of the PFDJ regime finally caught up with it in the world arena.

The sanctions have placed Eritrea in the same bad company of such nations -- Rhodesia during Ian Smith, South Africa during the apartheid leaders, Iraq during Saddam Hussein, and Liberia during Charles Taylor. There is no other name for this except disgrace and humiliation.

There is also a need to clarify that as it is very difficult for a nation to be sanctioned, it is also knotty for the sanctions to be lifted once they are imposed. In order for the sanctions to be lifted, a nation in such a quagmire has to satisfy the requirements that are asked of her by the five veto-wielding power nations; in essence there are five Kings lording over a poor nation, who invariably have divergent requirements as stated above.

Strangely enough, some in the opposition are captivated by this tricky prospective lifting of the sanctions that so much so they opted to oppose the arms embargo sanction (more of this later). It does not make sense to me. I believe we have to cross the bridge of liberty first, instead of unnecessarily wracking our brains of what will transpire in a post PFDJ. If we are fortunate enough to arrive at our destination of freedom, then we tackle the lifting of the arms embargo sanctions from our back, when such mundane issues stare us straight in the face. For now, the lifting of the arms embargo sanction, sometime in the future, should be the least of our worries, since we do not even know how the PFDJ will behave when the time of reckoning arrives. For all I know, the PFDJ, when cornered and consistent with its past behavior, may shamefacedly comply with all the UNSC’s directives and requirements; in the final analysis, all its bravados and boastings may amount to nothing.

From the legal perspective, the UNSC is the highest international authority where its resolutions and rules become part of the international law. “Security Council Resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter.” The sanctions on Eritrea were passed under Chapter VII, and thus are legally binding. We simply have to examine the text. The resolution in part states as follows:

· “Adopting resolution 1907 (2009) by a vote of 13 in favour to 1 against (Libya), with 1 abstention (China) under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, [emphasis mine] the Council reiterated its demand that Eritrea withdraw its forces to the positions of the status quo ante in the area where its conflict with Djibouti had occurred, acknowledge its border dispute and cooperate fully with the Secretary-General’s good offices. It further demanded that the country cease all efforts to destabilize or overthrow, directly or indirectly, the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia.” Source: S/C 9833

Impact of the Arms Embargo Sanction on the Military Balance between Eritrea and Ethiopia

As to be expected the supporters of the PFDJ try to link the arms embargo sanction with the yet unresolved Eritrea-Ethiopia border conflict, though the text of the sanctions do not bring Ethiopia into the equation. In a nutshell, they allege that the arms embargo will create a military imbalance between Eritrea and Ethiopia and that this will favor Ethiopia to the disadvantage of Eritrea. It is unfortunate that some in the opposition, who incidentally I have tremendous respect of, have also accepted such a maxim, though coming from a different angle. I believe this emanates from having an exaggerated and embellished view of Eritrea’s economy and the size of its population in comparison with that of Ethiopia. Such people assume Eritrea to be in par with Ethiopia in all matters of economies. Is that so?

To do a real service on this important matter of military balance, one has to examine and compare the size of the economies and demographics of Eritrea and Ethiopia. Arms embargo sanction or not, this significant issue will be with us for ever. Once armed with such facts and figures a reasonable person will recognize that the attainment of a military balance between the two nations, absent of bankrupting the Eritrean nation, is a self-delusion and fantasy.

Table 1

Comparisons of the Sizes of Gross Domestic Products (GDP) and Populations

Nation	Gross Domestic Product (purchasing power parity)	GDP rank in the world	Population	Population rank in the world
Eritrea	$3.83 Billion	160	5,647,168	108
Ethiopia	$55.27 Billion	82	85,237,338	14
USA	$13,820 Billion	1	307,212,123	3
Canada	$1,263 Billion	13	33,487,208	37

Source: GDP and Others

Note: (“The purchasing power parity (PPP) theory uses the long-term equilibrium exchange rate of two currencies to equalize their purchasing power… Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of different countries, rather than just a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) comparison.” Source: Purchasing Power Parity In lay man’s terms the PPP is nothing but a one USA dollar buys more goods and services in Eritrea and Ethiopia for example, than the same dollar does in the USA.)

(In order to avoid superfluous misunderstanding, I need to put certain things out of the way. I believe that a comparison of military balance between two nations can be accomplished by comparing total GDP and not GDP per capita. For example, the GDP per capita of Luxembourg ($79,600) is higher than that of the USA ($46,300). However, this does not mean that Luxembourg is militarily more powerful than the USA. If one uses the total GDP one finds that the USA’s economy is $ 13,820 billions, while that of Luxembourg is only $37.78 billions. In other words, the USA’s economy is equivalent to 365 Luxembourgs, hence the superiority of the military power of the USA.)

Based on Table 1 above, the GDP of Ethiopia is equivalent to the GDPs of about 14 Eritreas of the world. Or to put it differently, the Eritrean economy is as small as 6.9% of the Ethiopian economy. Since the PFDJ is pretending to compete with the USA, it may be necessary to bring to light that the economy of the USA is comparable to the economies of about 3,608 Eritreas of the world. Knowing one’s limitation is a sign of wisdom. In boxing terms, Eritrea will be fortunate to be in the class of economic featherweight, while the USA is in the class of the economic heavyweight; the PFDJ should not try to punch beyond its economic weight, otherwise it is lethal to its health.

Again based on Table 1, the population of Ethiopia is about 15 times larger than that of the population of Eritrea. In other words, for a one Eritrean soldier, Ethiopia if it so desires can field 15 Ethiopian soldiers just in order to keep the relative balance between the two nations unaffected. While that the population of the USA is about 54 times larger than the population of Eritrea.

Naturally, from this follows a vital truth -- there never will be a military balance between Eritrea and Ethiopia that is in tune with the respective size of their economies and the numbers of their populations. Parity in a military balance can be only imprudently achieved by bankrupting Eritrea and driving the Eritrean people into a wretchedly poor level of existence. Otherwise the numbers do not favor Eritrea to match Ethiopia’s military capacity. An asymmetrical military balance that favors Ethiopia is a natural result that Eritrea cannot avoid.

Eritrea cannot compensate for its relative weakness in its demographics and its economy through a relatively superior technology. Right now, the technology of Ethiopia, if not equal to that of Eritrea, may be even higher than that possessed by Eritrea, since I surmise that unlike Eritrea, Ethiopia has a relatively stable and adequate educational system of a long standing. In other words, there is no way Eritrea can play the role in the Horn of Africa akin to the role that the technologically advanced Israel plays in the Middle East.

Right off the bat, this means that there is already a big military imbalance between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Just because of its relative large size, Ethiopia already has an upper hand over Eritrea in military matters. The marginal impact of the arms embargo sanction on Eritrea in the military balance between Eritrea and Ethiopia is almost zero and negligible. People who believe that such an embargo will suddenly put Ethiopia militarily on top in the Horn of Africa are hallucinating, since Ethiopia is already relatively a giant in the Horn of Africa. The sad part is that we may have among us still people who harbor war mongering mentality. The PFDJ is seriously afflicted with such malady.

To elaborate more, for example, there is a huge military imbalance between Canada and the USA. There is nothing Canada can do about that, since it is relatively much smaller in terms of its economy and its population compared to the USA. The economy of the USA is equivalent to the economies of about 11 Canadas of the world; and the population of the USA is about 9 times larger than Canada. The only thing Canada can do is to learn to live in peace and harmony with its giant neighbor. In fact, the USA and Canada are the best trading partners and that their economies are so interlinked and harmonized that it is almost impossible that war can erupt between these two nations. Eritrea and Ethiopia should learn such valuable lessons from the Canadian-American friendly relationship.

Free Trade is one of the Engines of Prosperity and Peace

Eritrea should have an army that is commensurate with its economic size and its demographics. To maintain parity in military balance with Ethiopia will result in enslaving the whole Eritrean youth in unproductive service in the army. This is a big drag to the economy. There is another road Eritrea can take. It should be in the forefront of peace. One of the best historical proven roads of salvation from poverty and towards the advancement of economic prosperity is to have free trade. Eritrea should pursue unfettered trade and the movement of capital and labor with all its neighbors in the Horn of Africa, and in particular with Ethiopia. Eritrea under the PFDJ is an extremely abnormal nation that does not trade at all with its neighbors since it is at odds of one sort or another with all of them. The economy of Eritrea is nothing but autarky – hence tremendous poverty. Nations whose economies are intimately interlinked do not resort to war to solve misunderstandings unless led by unstable and paranoid leaders. This is one of the best ways of avoiding wars, conflicts and large armies. First things first though -- all peace loving and democratic Eritreans should hope that the UNSC’s sanctions get more tightened and help in finishing off the PFDJ from its existence in Eritrea.

Notes: All posts are compiled at: http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

Eritrea Walks into the Sanction Trap

2009-12-30T00:46:00.012-05:00

Mogos Tekeste

On December 23, 2009, the Security Council imposed sanctions on Eritrea for “over its role in Somalia, [and] refusal to withdraw troops following conflict with Djibouti.” See S/C9833. The PFDJ is blaming the USA for this sanction. It is in the works that the PFDJ may conduct a massive demonstration against the USA. Here, I am not debating the merit of the sanction. For arguments sake, let us assume that the USA is not a saint on this issue. For a change, I will act as if I were a good friend of the PFDJ. In that capacity, I will help the PFDJ not to bark at the wrong tree and somehow guide it to where its protests, angers and arrows should be directed.

The Security Council rarely imposes sanctions. The supporters of the PFDJ need to come back to earth and see things as they are; they have to come to grips with the fact that Eritrea under the PFDJ is completely isolated in the international arena. If nothing else that is the crucial message of the sanction.

The five veto wielding members of the Security Council are the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China. As far as sanction against Eritrea is concerned, in practical terms, the alignment of forces in the Security Council is unanimous. This needs to be digested. One has to forget the no vote of Libya since it amounts to nothing. Just concentrate on the five veto wielding nations. Even when it comes to the veto wielding nations, for this analysis one needs to ignore the USA, UK and France; I will even go further and assume that these three nations are hell bent to “harm” Eritrea. That is the assumption of the PFDJ anyhow. Then let us concentrate on the two nations that historically had been in the opposite camp of the USA – Russia and China.

No matter from which angle one examines and scrutinizes the matter, China's vote in real terms amounts to a support for sanction against Eritrea. No one should be fooled by China’s vote of abstention. Measured by its impact, an abstention by a veto wielding power in such a situation is tantamount to a “Yes" vote for sanction. If China was opposed to the sanction, it could have stopped it by a straight forward “No” vote to sanction. The real and pathetic story is that Eritrea could not get the support of China. The big question is why? Is it a diplomatic ineptness? Is it because Eritrea is so out-and-out wrong that nothing can be done? Whatever answers one gives to these questions, the real tribulations are within Eritrea.

Russia point blank voted for the sanction, so much so about the erection of the Pushkin monument in Asmara, much ado about nothing; as always there are misplaced priorities in Eritrea. How come Eritrea cannot get the support of Russia? The sanction did not come suddenly out of the blue. It was in the air for a very long time. What kind of assurance did Eritrea get from the Russian dignitaries who were visiting Eritrea? Or was this issue never discussed? Was Eritrea unable to read the signals coming from the Russians? Did the Eritrean leaders bungle this? Again, the bottom line is that the problems are still inherently within Eritrea.

There is a Tigrinya saying: “there is no cure for the one who hides his ailments.” Eritrea under the PFDJ is sick. It appears that the Eritrean leaders have lost all senses of reality; they are living in a delusion of grandeur; they act in the world stage as if they were leaders of a nation that is not small, war ravaged and poor and; they pretend to go toe-to-toe with the mightiest nation on the Earth – the USA. There is no diplomatic or political remedy for such kind of an ailment. The cure is as simple as a walk to the nearest psychiatric ward. All this hoopla in front of the whole wide world may be a mercy call for such an intervention. The supporters of the PFDJ need to wake up from their deep slumber and face this heartbreaking reality.

Stalin was a brutal dictator; he caused the deaths of millions of innocent Russians and East Europeans; still he was a master of diplomacy; he was able to charm the USA and the UK, so much so that he persuaded them to do his external bidding with the result that at the end of the World War II, he controlled half of Europe. When it comes to internal Eritrean matters, it appears that the PFDJ has perfected Stalin’s brutality and butchery; however when it comes to external matters the PFDJ has been unable to learn from the flexibility and finesse of Stalin's foreign diplomacy. (See: “Stalin the Court of the Red Star, by Simon Sebag Montefiore”)

Now, the PFDJ has to figure out how to cure its self inflicted pain. The problem is not external; it is not with the USA, or Ethiopia, or the United Nations. The problem is internal and the solution is within Eritrea. Insulting the USA or the UN will not help the matter.

For starters, Somalia does not border Eritrea; there is Ethiopia on one side and Djibouti on the other side separating Eritrea from Somalia. To put this in perspective, the geographical proximity between Eritrea and Somalia is akin to the geographical proximity between Eritrea and Kenya, or between Eritrea and Egypt. Thus, instability in Somalia should have no direct bearing to the national security of Eritrea. In addition, the fight in Somalia is mostly internal -- it is a civil war among Somali clans. In accordance with the rule of law, this civil war should not concern foreigners -- that is external forces should not interfere by favoring one group over another -- including Eritrea. No nation has a right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. As for Djibouti, it appears that the PFDJ has not learned an iota of a lesson from its uncalled border war with Ethiopia, another telling sign that the PFDJ is sick in the head. The PFDJ has an aversion to the rule of law -– it is lawless in its internal and external dealings. See The Rule of Law in Eritrea

I do not believe in name-calling and foul language. Nor does the current sanction call for any kind of protest when one really knows that the problem that needs immediate attention is internal to Eritrea. Still, if the PFDJ insists to go down the road of verbal abuse it better direct its rudeness against China and Russia for not “defending” Eritrea; if it still insists to protest through a massive demonstration then it better demonstrate against China and Russia; if it earnestly believes that the problem is external then it must face and confront China and Russia – two nations that “betrayed” and might have given the PFDJ a false hope and yet when it really counted they turned around and enabled and emboldened the USA to "punish" Eritrea. If the PFDJ cannot garner the support of Russia and China, then its isolation in the world arena of the power shakers and movers is complete.

Dictators never learn. Foolish of me to equate Isaias with Stalin, there are dictators that belong in a major league such as Stalin. Isaias relatively speaking though he matches Stalin in some of his brutality, he is not in the same club as Stalin -- a world figure who was intimately knowledgeable of world politics, a very well read and extremely intelligent man.

Rather, it seems that Isaias is in the little league of dumb dictators like Idi Amin of Uganda, Pol Pot of Kampuchea and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. To paraphrase a famous historian that it invariably happens that when a despot is not checked within his own nation by his own people, he gets checked by external powers that are superior to him. It appears that this is taking place here. All the above minor league dictators were not checked by their own peoples. Their undoings were due to foreigners. Idi Amin was checkmated by Tanzania; Pol Pot was checkmated by Vietnam and; Hussein was checkmated by the USA. If things go as they are today in Eritrea without any qualitative change, it looks that eventually Isaias will face the fate of Saddam Hussein. This may be a blessing in disguise for the Eritrean people.

Mogos Tekeste ***

Notes:

*** For past articles visit: http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

The Rule of Law in Eritrea

2009-12-03T17:09:00.007-05:00

Mogos Tekeste

There seems to be a lot of confusion on the status of the rule of law in Eritrea.

This confusion contributes towards the opposition being at odds with each other, extends a life support system to the oppressive political order of the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) and finally, it baffles the international democratic forces and discourages it from lending an effective and valuable targeted support to the Eritrean people.

Some use “the rule of law” clumsily and without having a deep understanding behind the meaning of that terminology. The current intensive debate about the current land ownership and use is a case in point; some want to solve the problems using group rights based on a very nebulous power sharing arrangement. An arrangement that is not in synch with the rule of law. If one scrutinizes their stands on other important issues such as -- working languages, the Eritrean-Ethiopian border demarcation -- one also finds their proposals have no basis on law.

Others naively claim that there is the rule of law in Eritrea. To sustain their claim, they maintain that Eritrea is ruled by the charter that was adopted by the PFDJ in its congress of 1994. They assert that this is a temporary and transient mechanism. (Heaven only knows how a system that has lasted for about fifteen years can be characterized as an ephemeral and a momentary one.) According to them, the charter is the law of the land. There is no contest on that point. However, from this, they erroneously equate this law of the land with the rule of law.

History of Legal Liberty:

From the legal perspective the history of liberty has progressed through three distinctive and qualitative stages. This progression may not be a one way linear progression in all societies. (At times there are regressions too. That had been the history of the East Europeans during the heydays of socialism.) Still, the general trend over a long period of time is progressive.

· “For much of human history, rulers and law were synonymous -- law was simply the will of the ruler.

· A first step away from such tyranny was the notion of rule by law, including the notion that even a ruler is under the law and should rule by virtue of legal means.

· Democracies went further by establishing the rule of law. Although no society or government system is problem-free, rule of law protects fundamental political, social, and economic rights and reminds us that tyranny and lawlessness are not the only alternatives.” See The Rule of Law

The First Stage, Where the Law of the Land is Arbitrary Edicts and Decrees:

In this stage, there are no rules to speak of. The leader essentially rules through arbitrary edicts and rules. There are no known and predictable rules that bind the leader. The leader and the state are synonymous. In such a system liberty is trashed. The words of the leader are the laws of the land. The living conditions of the people are no better than that of slaves or serfs. For the most part, Eritrea under the PFDJ is currently in such a very primitive stage of liberty.

The Second Stage, Where the Law of the Land is the Rule By Law:

In the second stage, the state is governed and bound by strict laws. The leader has to follow the rules. And mostly these rules are written. That is there are constitutions. These rules become the law of the land. Such a state is characterized as having a system that is governed by the rule by law.

In a system that is governed by the rule by law, though there are constitutions and rules, in real practice there is the absence of some civil liberties. Hence, even barbaric violation of human rights take the cover of legalities and court approvals. The second stage, though much more advanced than the first stage -- where the leader, or Capo, or King is the law --, the state sometimes has little respect for what are generally referred to as negative liberties. The most significant are: respect of freedom of religion, of association, of expression and of movement; respect of property rights; guarantee of the due process of law, such as “the existence of due process of law, for example, the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty; the concept of writ habeas corpus – ‘the right to be brought before a court to determine whether one has been lawfully detained.’” and; the enforcement of contracts and etc. These are rights that are reserved for individuals, and the state is legally prohibited from interfering with.

One can mention Ethiopia and China as two typical examples that have states that are governed by the rule by law. Both nations have constitutions and their leaders can substantiate to all they do to some articles and rules in their constitutions, despite the fact that some of their rules may violate various civil liberties. In short, they have legal covers to what they do. Still, a state that is governed by the rule by law is much better than a state that is not governed by any laws. At least, there are functioning courts. This second stage may enable a nation to move forward to a stage where civil liberties are respected – a period where the rule of law is supreme.

On the other hand, Eritrea is not even in the second stage, for now we might as well forget the rule of law. Worse, the leaders of the PFDJ are not even bound by the charters and rule of their very own organization, hence no known and predictable law of any kind. The leaders of the PFDJ cannot legally substantiate to some of their actions. See the Coup d’état in Eritrea

The Third Stage, Where the Law of the Land is the Rule Of Law:

In the third stage civil liberties are respected and a state that respects civil liberties follows the rule of law. Two typical examples of states that follow the rule of law are the USA and South Africa; in these nations the law of the land is the rule of law.

These civil liberties are also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights are also embedded in the ratified Eritrean constitution; something that the opposition rarely highlights and does all it can to bury it under the rug. I judge the merit of the ratified constitution by its superb stand on civil liberties. If Eritrea were to implement its constitution and strictly abide by its letter and content, for the most part one may rightly conclude that the law of the land in Eritrea is in tune with the rule of law. As a rule of thump, a nation that does not respect the universal declaration of human rights violates the rule of law. This is where Eritrea is now.

Like all theoretical explanations of stages, no phase is pure. Take the USA, for example, for the most part the constitution of the USA was in harmony with the rule of law. Still, there were some major blunders. The very constitution that protected liberties for the majority denied the same rights to the black minority and espoused slavery. This is a violation of the rule of law. It took almost hundred years and the presidency of Lincoln to restore the rule of law regarding the status of African-Americans. “More than 600,000 men died [in a bitter civil war] before the sin of slavery was purged.” Lincoln had to resort back to the declaration of independence where it claimed all men are created equal and not the constitution to have a legal footing in his fight to eradicate slavery. The very constitution of the USA also disenfranchised women for many years until the constitution was to be amended. They used the amendment process to refine their constitution and to be in concord with the rule of law.

This history is also lost among the Eritrean opposition; a group that is not saintly itself and yet has the audacity to demand an impossible perfection from others -- a perfect constitution is a pipedream. The ratified Eritrean constitution has an amendment provision too; another item that the opposition remains to be silent about, since it is easier to reject an entity than improve and develop it which requires a difficult, contemplative and arduous work. (For more insights on the rule of law, please see the books noted below. **)

The Need for a Single Coherent Message:

Some in the opposition emphasize on elections and not the rule of law as highlighted above. Recently, others claim that the problem in Eritrea, irrespective of the current coercive political order, is the dichotomy between the highlanders and the lowlanders, which they believe has disadvantaged the lowlanders. Or to put it differently and bluntly they claim that the highlanders are reaping benefits under the rule of the PFDJ. Nothing is far from the truth. Then they advocate for the Eritrean people to organize along sectarian and religious lines in order to fight for group rights. They categorize the highlanders (read Christians) in one group and the lowlanders (read Muslims) in another group. This so called dichotomy of the highlanders versus the lowlanders is blown up beyond proportions; in this the perpetuators of such half truths are no different than the PFDJ. Needles to say, the PFDJ is as repressive to the highlanders as it is to the lowlanders.

The solution to the problems of Eritrea is the establishment of the rule of law. We have to advocate for constitutional liberalism and the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism is defined as follows:

· “Constitutional liberalism … is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source -- state, church, or society. The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it rests on the tradition, beginning with the Romans, of the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of the individual's right to life and property, and freedom of religion and speech. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation of church and state. Its canonical figures include the poet John Milton, the jurist William Blackstone, statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill, and Isaiah Berlin. In almost all of its variants, constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them. Thus in 1215 at Runnymede, England's barons forced the king to abide by the settled and customary law of the land. In the American colonies these laws were made explicit, and in 1638 the town of Hartford adopted the first written constitution in modern history. In the 1970s, Western nations codified standards of behavior for regimes across the globe. The Magna Carta, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the American Constitution, and the Helsinki Final Act are all expressions of constitutional liberalism.” See The Rise of Illiberal Democracy

I often stress that the only document that can effectively unify the Eritrean people is the ratified constitution. This is assuming that it be amended to exclude the state from being the sole owner of all Eritrean land, and to include the official languages of Eritrea. Regarding the other items of the rule of law, the ratified constitution is as good as many constitutions in the world including that of the USA.

The sad part is that we have an opposition that is unable to see something good, if not prefect, albeit not of its own creation in the ratified constitution. It is oblivious to the fact that it is much easier to rally the people inside Eritrea behind the ratified constitution. It is unaware to the fact that the international democratic force can be an effective advocate for the implementation of the constitution. All our grievances be it freedom of the press, religion, association and movement; respect of property rights and due process of law can be handled by a simple message that all Eritreans to the last person can propagate – implement the constitution.

It appears that the outright rejection of the constitution has become a shackle on the neck of the opposition. The rejection of the ratified constitution by many has completely left the opposition paralyzed. It simply does not have a coherent message. Hence the constant and petty squabbling and the non stop reorganizing and splitting. The PFDJ is equipped with a mindset that is engrossed in envy and hatred of educated Eritreans. The opposition should do its best to avoid an affliction of such grave malady. We should celebrate success and great works of Eritreans; and the constitution authored by Dr. Bereket and his colleagues is a work of great acclaim.

Dictatorial regimes eventually crumble down. History teaches us that the fate of the PFDJ will not be any different; if nothing else, the force of its deadweight inertia will be its undoing. When that time comes, the only weapon that the Eritrean people possess to create a secure, united, stable and viable liberal democratic state is the speedy implementation of the ratified constitution. This will be accomplished by the people inside Eritrea. The Diaspora opposition has a choice to speed up or delay this process.

Mogos Tekeste

Notes:

*My earlier posts are compiled in my BlogSpot. The site also provides links to articles that succinctly elucidate the concept of the rule of law and constitutional liberalism. The address is as follows:

http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

** Important books on the rule of law in a descending chronological importance:

1. The Constitution of Liberty, by F. A. Hayek

2. The Open Society and its Enemies, by Karl Popper

3. The Future of Freedom, by Fareed Zakaria

The Coup D’état in Eritrea

2009-11-05T00:33:00.060-05:00

Mogos Tekeste

We know that there is no rule of law in Eritrea, worse; there are no known rules of any kind, only arbitrary edicts and decrees. In fact the very People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) itself does not abide by the rules of its own organization. It is an organization that is gliding haphazardly without political radar even of the socialist kind.

In the organization of the PFDJ, the hierarchy of power is set up in a pyramid fashion. The chain of the formal reporting is as follows: the Chairman reports to the Executive Committee, which in turn reports to the Central Committee, which in turn reports to the general Congress. However, the real and effective power is at the apex of the pyramid, in the hands of the Chairman of the organization. This is a typical power structure of a leftist organization. Such a system inherently is a dictatorship. And one does not expect that such a system will respect the rule of law. This paper does not intend to address the concept of the rule of law. Rather, it simply shows that the leadership, as it stands now, is an illegal one as judged by the very rules and charters of the PFDJ itself. The leadership of the PFDJ is above the laws of the organization it is supposed to lead. And most importantly it is a leadership devoid of any moral and ethical values.

The components of the power structure of the PFDJ based on its own rules are supposed to have regular scheduled meetings in order to report, assess and correct their respective activities. The meetings are as follows: the congress every two years (extraordinary circumstances every two and half years); the central committee every six months and; the executive committee regularly less than six months. The question is does the PFDJ abide by these organizational rules? Does it conduct regular meetings of its various components?

The first congress of the PFDJ took place for the first time in an independent Eritrea in 1994, whereby it elected its Central Committee and promulgated its agenda and vision for Eritrea. Right there and then, the Central Committee elected the Executive Committee and its Chairman -- the components of the power structure that implement the agenda of the organization as stipulated by the Congress. At that time many Eritreans were still in the euphoria stage of the Eritrean independence; and as such some might have accepted this result as a temporary power structure for Eritrea too. They might have naively considered this as a temporary proxy representative leadership of Eritrea that is until the nation transitions to a parliamentary representative government based on the constitution. Sadly, however, it was never to be, the leadership of the PFDJ betrayed the implicit trust bestowed on it, and irrevocably broke the social contract.

Technically, the PFDJ’s second congress should have taken place by the latest sometime in 1997. However, the second Congress never met. If one goes strictly by the PFDJ’s rules and charters, the Central Committee, the Executive Committee and the Chairman of the PFDJ are all illegitimate. The legitimacy of the Congress that elected these bodies expired sometime in 1997. These bodies have no legal standings. By the PFDJ’s own rules, they are all illegal entities and illicit leaders.

The congress of the PFDJ has not met for about fifteen years in a sovereign and independent Eritrea. In between those years, one can have at least five general meetings of a congress. (To put this in perspective, during the armed struggle the EPLF conducted two meetings of its congress; the time that elapsed in between the two was ten years.) This means there are no summations and assessments of where Eritrea is heading even by the socialist standards that the PFDJ swears on. To be fair, the real Central Committee and the Executive Committee, elected in 1994, do not exist since many of its members are either in the dungeon or dead or have left the organization. The sole and only entity that exists and exerts power is the Chairman of the organization -- Isaias Afwerki. This very chairman has usurped the powers of the Congress, the Central Committee and the Executive Committee of his organization. Currently, no one can pinpoint to any charter or rule of the PFDJ that can support the legitimacy and the legality of the powers of the Chairman of the organization.

If we take the Central Committee of the PFDJ, the last time it met was in 2001. After its last meeting, the G-15 and other dissenters were put in prison. Even the leftover of the Central Committee has not met for about eight years. In between those years, one can have at least sixteen Central Committee meetings. There are no checks and balances within the PFDJ organization right now, since no scheduled meetings and reporting of activities take place. If the PFDJ itself does not practice a so called “participatory democracy,” how can there be a “participatory democracy” in Eritrea?

Some of the main appeals of the G-15 were that the PFDJ abide by its own rules and charters; that it holds another congress, that its central committee meets every six months, and that its executive committee submit reports of its activities to its leadership -- the central committee, as stipulated in the rules of the organization. These are simple and innocent demands; that is if we ignore the pleas of implementing the ratified constitution. Isaias would not listen to the simple and earnest request of his colleagues, and that his organization actually mandates.

In practice, a very sly and quiet coup d’état took place in Eritrea. Isaias and his accomplices by violating the rules of their organization illegally usurped power. This seems to be lost among all of us, worst of all among the members of the PFDJ -- who are still blind to the fact that their leadership has no legal ground to stand on.

Despite the fact that the power structure of the leftist organizations by their very nature are dictatorial, the conducting of regular scheduled general meetings of congress and central committee, sometimes allow for the emergence of relatively reformist personalities. Such are the cases with Khrushchev and Gorbachev in the Soviet Union and Deng Xiaoping in China. Not a chance in Eritrea, since such outlets for the possibility of the emergence of a reformist leadership within the PFDJ itself is closed, since scheduled meetings of the power structures do not take place.

Isaias does not want to take a chance of having a meeting of a general congress or a central committee of the PFDJ. It appears he does not want to gamble with having such a wide gathering, since he does not know of what may transpire in such a meeting.

It is as clear as daylight that Isaias and his top disciples have violated the rules and charters of their organization. The question then arises how come Isaias has still followers? The answer lies in the characteristics and moral fabric of those who follow him. One has to study the history of collectivist and socialist systems and their followers to understand the integrity of those Eritreans who still follow Isaias.

In a dictatorial political system the worst of a society gets to the top. Hayek writing about the collectivist and the socialist systems gives the following points in describing the ethical attributes of a group that follow a dictator.
• "If a numerous group is needed, a strong enough to impose their views on the values of life on all the rest, it will never be those with highly differentiated and developed tastes -- it will be those who form the 'mass' in the derogatory sense of the term, the least original and independent, who will be able to put the weight of their numbers behind their particular ideals.
• ... [The dictator] will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.
• ... It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program -- on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off -- than on any positive task. The contrast between the 'we' and 'they,' the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. ... The enemy, whether he be internal … or external, seems to be an indispensable requisite in the armory of a totalitarian leader.
• … The desire of the individual to identify himself with a group is very frequently the result of a feeling of inferiority and that therefore his want will be satisfied only if membership of the group confers some superiority over outsiders. Sometimes, it seems, the very fact that these violent instincts which the individual knows he must curb within the group can be given a free range in the collective action toward the outsider, becomes a further inducement for merging personality in that of the group.
• ... While to the great individualist social philosophers ... power itself has always appeared the archevil, to the strict collectivist it is a goal in itself.... It is only... that the desire to organize social life according to a unitary plan itself springs largely from a desire for power. It is even more the outcome of the fact that in order to achieve their end, collectivist must create power -- power over men wielded by other men -- of magnitude never known , and that their success will depend on the extent to which they achieve such power.
• ... The principle that the end justifies the means in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule; there is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves 'the good of the whole,' because the 'good of the whole' is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done.
• ... To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state, it is not enough that a man should be prepared to accept specious justification of vile deeds; he must himself be prepared actively to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him. Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own, they must be above all, be necessarily committed to the person of the leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything. They must have no ideals of their own which they want to realize; no ideas about right or wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader.
• ... Yet while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by [moral standards] to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous. There will be jobs to be done about the badness of which taken by themselves nobody has any doubt, but which have to be done in the service of some higher end, and which have to be executed with the same expertness and efficiency as any others. And as there will be need for actions which are bad in themselves, and which all those still influenced by traditional morals will be reluctant to perform, the readiness to do bad things becomes a path to promotion and power."

See: "The Road to Serfdom," Chapter 10, "Why The Worst Get On Top," by F. A. Hayek.

If not the rank and file members of the PFDJ, the middle and high level cadres of the PFDJ do possess such vile ethical attributes.

The PFDJ and its leaders have no legitimacy. They have violated their own rules and charters. One cannot talk of the PFDJ as an organization representing any Eritrean. It only serves Isaias and his top cadres.

The Language Question Revisited

2009-10-28T17:40:00.010-04:00

Mogos Tekeste

This is a follow up and a refinement to “A Modest Proposal for a Away Out,” to the working languages of Eritrea.***

Native Languages of Eritrea and their Percentage Shares:

Primarily, in order to have a firm grounding on this issue, we have to start from the same base as to what the native languages of Eritrea are. In addition, what their percentage breakdowns are?

Table of Eritrean Native Languages

Language	Percentage
Tigrinya	50%
Tigre	31%
Saho	5%
Afar	5%
Beja (spoken by Hedareb)	2.5%
Arabic (spoken by Rashaida)	2.4%
Bilen	2%
Kunama	2%
Nara	1.5%

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Eritrea

(Note: The total percentage above comes to 101.4%. I surmise that the discrepancy appears to be of the percentage that Wikipedia displays for the Saho as 5%. The CIA Worldfact book generally matches with Wikipedia, except for the Saho where the CIA shows 3%. If one makes that adjustment of the Saho to 3% the total percentage is pretty close to 100 %.)

This table highlights some very significant points. First, Tigrinya and Tigre as native languages cover eighty one percent (81%) of the Eritrean population. From this, one can reasonably deduce that Tigrinya and Tigre qualify to be the working languages of Eritrea. No reasonable person will raise any eyebrow to such a proposal. Second, Arabic as a “native language” covers only 2.4%; a share that is less than that covered separately by Saho, Afar and Beja as native languages. If one were to go strictly by a “native language” criterion then declaring Arabic as a working language of Eritrea will be an aberration.

Cultural and Heritage Issues:

I perfectly understand cultural and heritage norms and values flourish and advance through native languages, since they are expressions of a national identity. Hence, it is important that native languages be preserved and enriched. In addition, through the studying of the words that native languages use for animals and plants it helps anthropologist and geneticists to trace the genetic makeup of animals and plants, their original source, how they were domesticated, their dispersion through out the world and the routes they took in populating the wide world. (See: “Guns, Germs and Steel - The Fates of Human Societies” by Jared Diamond.) This gives an added importance to the preservation of native languages. A liberal democratic government should enforce that the native languages be taught in schools and universities as regular language classes. In addition, all necessary materials should be provided so that experts in departments of history, anthropology, linguistics, sociology etc can study the native languages. The locals are also free to use their native languages in however they desire in their markets, day-to-day lives, religious institutions, and private associations. This should include dealings with government entities. One cannot conclude from this though that all native languages become the working languages of a nation. It is not practical or workable. Otherwise, either by deliberate design or by default one language (or two languages) becomes the de facto working language/s - such as Tigrinya in current Eritrea.

In my first post, I received some constructive criticisms by wise and astute compatriots. I went back to the drawing board and did further research. Now, I admit that one cannot conduct affairs that are of cultural and national nature in a foreign language, though this is usually of a symbolic nature, for example the conducting of as simple as a national anthem. This involves matter of national identity, dignity and pride. That is also how Singapore addresses its working language issues; that is English is the working language of all matters; however, when it comes to issues of identity then affairs are conducted in Malay, one of the three official languages along with English. I reconsider my original position of sticking only to English as the working language of Eritrea. Instead, I recommend that English to be one the working languages of Eritrea, along with Eritrean native languages. As to the native languages, my personal desire is to designate Tigrinya and Tigre as the official languages of Eritrea because of their wide coverage of the Eritrean population.

Why English?

I have no intention to rehash points already covered in “A Modest Proposal for a Way Out.” (Sep. 5, 2009, Asmarino.com). (Also, See: “English as a Global Language” by David Crystal.)

In this post, I want to add three very important points. (It so happens that some were admirably covered in “Cabbages and Kings and Why the Sea is Boiling Hot - VII, by Mengs TM - Oct 20, 2009, at Awate.com.”)

First, over the last forty years a big portion of the Eritrean people has been dispersed all over the world. Some estimates conducted during the armed struggle era put the number as high as one third of the Eritrean total population. Heaven only knows how high that number is now, there is no doubt that it is a huge number.

A big share of that number includes Eritreans born and raised in foreign lands; this includes not only children but also grand children of Eritrean immigrants. The majority has no ability to speak the native Eritrean languages, but it has a good command of the English language, and relatively speaking is highly educated and talented. The only medium of communication among itself across the world and with the rest of the population in Eritrea is English. How does such a group get integrated with Mother Eritrea? Let it speak Tigrinya or Tigre or any other Eritrean native language is not an answer. Here is where English becomes handy. By any measure, this is a big asset to Eritrea. Including English as one of the working languages of Eritrea will facilitate such an accommodation of a very talented group.

Second, some sort of economic integration will come about in the Horn of Africa or in the whole continent of Africa. This may be akin to the European Union. This is a realistic wish list. It is a question of survival and a necessity. When that time comes, I believe that the official working language of such an African entity will be English. Adopting English as one of the working languages of Eritrea may not give us a competitive edge over other Africans, since English is an official language of many important African nations, but at least it will enable us to be in the game. For sure, we will not put ourselves in a disadvantageous position.

Third, English is one of the official languages of many Asian and African nations, despite the fact it is not a native language of such nations. Hence, we have to get rid of any inhibitions we may have of adopting a foreign language as one of the working languages of Eritrea.

In Asia, English is one of the official languages of the following nations: Fiji; India; Pakistan; Philippines and; Singapore.

India is a very proud ancient nation with a very highly developed civilization. No one in his right mind would accuse the Indians of having a colonized mind. Yet, with the advent of the Internet, their good command of the English language has given them a tremendous advantage in the global economy on top of their scientific and mathematical prowess.

Singapore though a city-state has some similarities with Eritrea. It is a multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic nation. At one time, its bigger neighbors wanted to swallow it. It pushed peaceful good neighborly relations with all its neighbors and consequently greatly benefited from free trade. At one time, the EPLF wished of replicating Singapore in the Horn of Africa. That is a very good wish to keep. We can learn a lot from Singapore. In Singapore, the English language became a unifying factor on top of its economic advantages. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, if we can learn something positive from a nation similarly situated like ours. (See: “From Third World to First: The Singapore Story 1965 - 2000” by Lee Kuan Yew.)

In Africa, English is one of the official languages of the following nations: Botswana; Cameron; The Gambia; Ghana; Kenya; Lesotho; Liberia; Madagascar; Malawi; Mauritius; Namibia; Nigeria; Rwanda; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; South Africa; Sudan; Swaziland; Tanzania; Uganda; Zambia and; Zimbabwe.

Regarding this matter, there are two nations of a special note in Africa. These are Madagascar and Rwanda. They were not colonies of an English-speaking nation. Up until recently, English was not recognized as one of their official languages, since they did not interact with the language. However, they realize that with the growing importance of the Internet and hence English, they did not want to be left out of the economic prosperity that the Internet provides and as such, they decided to include English as one of their official languages.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official_language

In sum, Eritrea uses English in all matters of importance. Going one-step forward and declaring English as one of the working languages of Eritrea will only enhance and help advance what is already a reality on the ground. It could unify our ethnic groups without Eritreans losing indigenous heritage and culture. We will be in good company with five Asian and twenty-two African nations.

As aside, Negarit of Awate.com in an article (“Like an Aged Wine”) posted it its site of October 2009 opposing English to be the working language of Eritrea. Awate.com invariably carries sixteen articles in its front page. On average, English articles are about 14, which is 88%; sometimes all sixteen articles are in English, which is 100%. Considering this real practice of Awate.com, opposing English as a working language of Eritrea does not make sense. Awate.com in its daily practice implicitly admits that in Eritrea, English has more value than Arabic.

The Case of Arabic:

It is important to clear out of the way, in my belief, two wrong-headed ideas.

First, some are advising the Tewhado and Tigrinya that we should leave it to our Muslim compatriots as to the decision of considering Arabic to be one of the working languages of Eritrea. According to them, Tigrinya is allowed to be the working language and Arabic should be the working language without any opposition. I believe this is a wrongheaded proposal. A working or official language is a national matter that should involve all and not one segment of the people. I strongly believe in the rule of law. In a nation where there is the rule of law, the minority rights are respected. The majority cannot use the cover of democracy to enforce the tyranny of the majority. So far, in this debate I do not see such a danger. To be sure, no one is opposed to the use of Arabic in whatever way one wants to use it. The debate is about the working languages of Eritrea. There is a lot of difference between the two.

Second, I do not accept as a gospel truth and as a sacrosanct what our fathers might have decided during the Federation era in Eritrea. What I know for sure is that the Eritrean people did not vote for Federation. In my view, all that took place during that time including the acceptance of Tigrinya and Arabic as official languages of Eritrea are open for reexamination and scrutiny.

Now back to the beef of why I believe that Arabic does not qualify to be one of the working languages Eritrea. The issues revolve around two significant points.

First, Arabic is a native language of only the Rashaida in Eritrea. As the table above shows as a native language, Arabic covers only 2.4% of the Eritrean people. If that is not the case, the onus is on those who advocate for Arabic to be the working language of Eritrea to substantiate it with figures and numbers. In all fairness, how can one with a straight face choose Arabic to be the working language of Eritrea and not Tigre - which has coverage as a native language of 31% of the Eritrean people?

Second, some claim that they use Arabic in their religious schools and religious institution thus Arabic should qualify as one of the working languages of Eritrea. Similarly, the Tewahdos use Geez in their religious schools and churches. They use Geez in such important occasions as religious holidays, prayers, baptism, marriage ceremonies, funereal services and all the attendant ceremonies that follow. Here, I do not see that much difference in the way the Tewahdos use Geez from that our Muslim compatriots use Arabic during comparable occasions. I can attest to the fact that the Tewahdo masses have no clue of the Geez language. I conjecture that may be the case with the Eritrean Muslim masses regarding Arabic. Still no matter how one cuts it, a language does not become a working language of a nation just because a religious institution uses it. To examine this issue in more detail, it becomes important to examine how non Arab Muslims handle the Arabic language. The question is do Muslim nations who are not Arabs accept Arabic as one of their official languages?

The most important almost exclusive Muslim nations in Asia are Indonesia; Pakistan; and Afghanistan. In none of these nations is Arabic one of the official languages.

India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Singapore have significant percentages of their populations of Muslim faith. Yet, in none of these nations is Arabic one of the official languages.

In the Middle East, Turkey and Iran are two non-Arab nations with almost hundred percent Muslim populations. Yet in none of these nations is Arabic one of the official languages.

In Black Africa, some of the major nations with significant Muslim populations are Nigeria, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, Guinea, Ethiopia, The Gambia, and Sierra Leone. Yet in none of these nations is Arabic one of the official languages.

The story above cannot be an anomaly and just a simple fluke. The real anomaly exists with those who are advocating for Arabic to be an official language despite the fact that the coverage of Arabic as a native language in Eritrea is only 2.4%. We are now reaping the fruit of the deadly seeds sowed by the Federation by imposing Tigrinya and Arabic to be the official languages of Eritrea. What is that poisonous fruit?

Polarization of the Eritrean Society:

What are the ramifications to the Eritrean society if we mandate that Tigrinya and Arabic to be the two official languages of Eritrea? I believe such a mandate will be nothing but tantamount to creating two different societies in Eritrea. One a Christian anchored around Tigrinya, and one a Muslim anchored around Arabic. Eritrea will be a house divided, two mindsets that will be unable to reconcile with each other. This will be the worst polarization of a society. This kind of social engineering is not in tune with the sociological factors of the Eritrean society. How does one assume such will be the result? One can see the result of this in our very debates. Then find its roots by going back to the way the public educational system was during the Federation era.

During the Federation era, we had two parallel educational tracking systems, at least in the elementary school. One that employed exclusively Tigrinya as a medium of instruction (up to fourth grade) that almost solely catered to the Christians, such a school never provided Arabic even as a language class. Its opposite one exclusively employed Arabic as a medium of instruction that almost solely catered to the Muslims. In keeping with its opposite, such a school, I surmise, never provided Tigrinya even as a language class.

This misguided language based, and in real practice religion based, parallel educational tracking system right from the start created two different societies within one nation. This division was ingrained in the minds of children who were not sophisticated enough to understand what was going on. The only impression such a system left in their minds was that they had to avoid the children who did not go to the Tigrinya based schools; implicitly and subtly, they were told that the other children were not like them. The same went on with those who went to the Arabic based schools. The result is gross and complete miscommunication, and we had two artificially created “incoherent camps” of schoolchildren. I believe this was one of the fertile and divisive grounds that contributed to the bickering and misunderstanding of the EPLF and the ELF.

Those who are advocating for Arabic and Tigrinya to be the working languages of Eritrea have to tell us clearly how they will overcome such a hurdle; some of us who are in opposite camps of such a debate are products of that educational system in Eritrea. Sadly, the minds of some are stuck in the 1950s and 1960s. Their minds are so clouded and cluttered with some of the undesirable baggage of the Federation era that they are unable to look forward. We have to look ahead and appreciate the value of the English language as a unifying factor on top of the economic advantages it provides. Peace.

Mogos Tekeste