ERITREA: A Nation held hostage by the EU October 16,
2001
Dr. M. Filli A. Misrepresentations and the ensuing misconceptions about
the political situation in Eritrea have led to the current diplomatic row between
the EU (European Union) and Eritrea to the extent that the EU is now holding
the nation hostage over its recent comprehensive pledge for Development Aid.
Hence, a brief chronological background of the political situation and the
events that led to the EU diplomatic blackmail of Eritrea is just in place. At independence, May 24, 1991, Eritrea had neither a
national government nor a national constitution towards that effect. Ergo,
the then EPLF and now PFDJ was entrusted with the national mandate to maintain
peace and order, to protect and defend the national sovereignty, and to
transition the country to a constitutional government. Accordingly, the PFDJ
constitutes the transitional Government of Eritrea (GOE). First,
international formality to legitimize the political independence of the
country was ascertained via a national referendum in 1993, and by 1997 the
national constitution was ratified by a constituent assembly, which was then
transformed into the current transitional National Assembly (NA) to
constitute a legislative body. The implementation of the national constitution was interrupted in 1998 for the country was then engaged in a full-fledged war to protect and defend its sovereignty against the WAYANE (ETHIOPIA) aggression, and if it were not for the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities (June, 2000) and the subsequent presence of UN Peacekeeping troops (UNMEE July 31-present), the war would be going on as we speak and we wouldn’t even be in the present political situation. The
war left the country with a big question mark behind its national
sovereignty, indeed a question mark behind its very existence as a nation,
hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people (IDP), and over 200,000
young Eritreans in constant military deployment. The resolution of those
issues is what engages the nation most. Every thing else is therefore
subservient to that but not irrelevant in essence. While the UNMEE is diligently carrying out its responsibility to resolve the territorial issue (target date: February, 2002), and humanitarian NGO’s are working hard to alleviate the indescribable sufferings of the IDP’s, the democratization process (implementing of the constitution) has resumed ( Laws governing Elections and Political parties are now in the hands of the NA), and the country is now in the process of creating international environment favorable to its cause of national reconstruction, social and economic development, and raising the people’s living standards. It is this backdrop that qualified the application of the ACP-EU Cotonou Agreement to Eritrea. Eritrea’s development partners, spearheaded by
the EU, responded positively to this political setting when on September 14,
2001, a pledge of Millions of dollars of Development Aid to Eritrea was publicly
announced. The people welcomed this news with joy, raising high hopes and
expectations for prosperous and peaceful Eritrea. Hence, the crucial nature
of the Aid was signaled to the EU, which was already conscious about. With that in mind, let me now address the
political squabble that triggered the unholy alliance of EU-Countries against
Eritrea: Inner party wrangling, which was brewing for a
while within the GOE produced a splinter group of 15 highly notable members
of the government (D15-, D: for dissenters), who came out publicly with an
“open letter” at the end of May, 2001 expressing their discord with the GOE
but pledging their allegiances to the PFDJ; hence giving rise to a classical
political power struggle. The dissenters are still members of the PFDJ in
good standing. The issues raised by the D15 were then discussed by the public
in all possible media forms for over 4 months to the extent that the country
appeared to be on the verge of plunging into chaos and anarchy. At that
juncture, the activities of the D15 and the private media were seen by the
government as discordant and divisive, thus, on September 18, 2001 it took
drastic restraining measures against them in order to curb their activities,
to restore peace and order, and to assure orderly and proper function of
society. There is no question that the actions of the GOE are regrettable but
they were necessary for there can be only one government at a time if peace
and order is to reign in any given country. The action of the GOE sparked off a diplomatic
avalanche of protest from the EU-countries to the point where they used the
already pledged Development Aid as leverage to pressure the government to
reverse its decision, in effect telling the government of a sovereign state
how to do its job? They went as far as organizing the rarely practiced
‘demarche’ of all EU diplomatic corps to prevent the GOE from fulfilling its
mandate to maintain peace and order; and here is how the French Ambassador,
Louis le Vert, put it “recalling an ambassador for consultations is the
traditional way for a government to show displeasure. It is unusual, though,
for EU countries to do this jointly." Well, I might add that
this is a plot to interfere in Eritrea’s internal affairs in the disguise of
‘human rights’ or ‘democracy’. Now that the GOE did not yield its political
sovereignty even to the ‘demarche’, the EU-Presidency in Luxenbourg had to
recall all 15 EU Ambassadors out of Eritrea and stated that it was going to
reconsider the already pledged Dev. Aid, a move designed to put pressure on
the People of Eritrea. This is a futile attempt to incite the people of a
sovereign state against its own government. This is inconsistent with UN and
ACP-EU charters and it will fail. Although foreign development aid has a
political component, the principal beneficiary is the people of the recipient
country, for governments come and go.
The people of Eritrea will prevail in spite of all odds. “ACKNOWLEDGING that a political environment
guaranteeing peace, security and stability, respect for human rights,
democratic principles and the rule of law, and good governance is part and
parcel of long term development; acknowledging that responsibility for
establishing such an environment rests primarily with the countries
concerned;” PREAMBLE ACP-EU Cotonou
Agreement “All Members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” UN CHARTER Chapter I: People and Country First Dr. M. Filli A. |