|
Everlasting glory and fame to our
Martyrs 
Eritrea no different than any other
country
By M. Filli A.
June 18 2003
The twentieth day of June of
every calendar year has been proclaimed as a national holiday specially
designated to commemorate those who lost their lives in the great war for the
independence and liberation of the people and country of Eritrea including
those who recently lost their lives in another great war to defend, protect
and preserve the so attained Eritrean sovereignty against the Woyane
aggression.
After all Eritrea’s initial
20-year struggle for its legitimate national right by peaceful means had
failed and Eritrea was faced with the deaf ears of the international
community, in 1961 the first bullet was fired and the people of Eritrea took
up arms risking life and limb and against all odds to bring about today’s
Eritrea unconditionally, whenever, however, and by whatever means necessary.
And that was achieved 30 years later and after paying huge human sacrifice in
1991. For that we all remain eternally grateful to our Martyrs and disabled
and not disabled veterans. Once a Martyr, always a Martyr, and once a war
veteran always a war veteran. All our war veterans are our heroes for they
risked their life and limb for our national independence, but not all heroes
are war veterans.
That being what it is, on June of the year
2003 our Martyrs get the following unblushing distortion of Eritrea’s
colonial and geo-political history thrown in their face:
“Eritrea finds itself in an unusual
situation. Its delayed birth has in many ways been a blessing in disguise,
but in some important aspects it has complicated its predicament. Had Eritrea
been born in the 60s together with Zambia and Gambia, it would have been part
of the continental historical tide, and its legitimacy would have largely
gone unquestioned. But because Eritrea was born off season, the world
continues to put unfair demands on it and question its legitimacy at every
given opportunity. It seems Eritrea has to make it big, real big, before it
can get people like Nikolas Kristoff off its back” click for
source. Well,
may our Martyrs rest in peace and assured that these are all but opportunistic
statements wrought with vacuous analogies/comparisons and baseless
consequences. And following is why:
Eritrea is a self-governing and politically
independent sovereign state. Eritrea’s national independence is not the
result of a political charitable act, a political compromise or some kind of
political agreements, but the inalienable national right of the people of
Eritrea that was attained by the blood, sweat, and tears of our Martyrs and disabled
and not disabled war veterans. Hence, unless it is unusual for former
colonial territories to become independent, the country of Eritrea today is
no different than any other post-colonial country in Africa, and there is
nothing unusual about that?
The talk about Eritrea’s “delayed birth” is utterly nonsensical because
Eritrea’s birth was not delayed but denied, completely denied. And as
our president in his recent address to the public correctly said: Eritrea’s
birth was yes completely denied for 50 years! Otherwise, if there was a set
calendar date for Eritrea’s national independence we would have waited that
out and gained our independence without even firing a single shot, no matter
how late? No, no, Eritrea was born when it had to be born on May 24,
1991 and there is nothing wrong with that birth date?
The 60’s are remembered because it was a
decade when a sizeable number of African countries happened (for it was not
by design) to declare their national independence then. That is all there is
to that decade: A chronological not a historical significance to Africa. It
is the 19th century that constitutes a continental historical
tide- I will come back to it later. As far as Eritrea is concerned, the 60’s
occupy a very important chapter in our history for it was then that our
successful armed struggle was born, which we celebrate annually- Bahti
Meskerem! Other than that, the 60’s did not constitute a fix decade, a
historical deadline, or a predetermined season as to when colonial
territories should have become independent or born as independent nations in
order to fit into an arbitrary category where they would not be labeled
“special” and disadvantaged in whatever form and shape because of their
“premature”, “off-seasonal”, or
“delayed” birth? Hence, the argument that Eritrea was born
“off-season” because its birth date falls outside the 60’s, hence “special”,
is just vacuous and doesn’t hold water. It is simply ludicrous, to say the
least. For example, Countries whose birth dates fall outside the 60’s
include: Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan (pre-60’s), Mozambique, Angola, Namibia,
Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, (post-60’s). So, what do we have here? A bunch of
“special” countries in Africa that are disadvantaged and whose legitimacy is
continuously questioned and hence must be sustained via a carrot-and stick
foreign policy because they were born “off-season”? What a joke? I don’t know
about the others, but Eritrea certainly not, thanks to our Martyrs, veterans,
and the people of Eritrea at large.
The argument “..because Eritrea was
born off season, the world continues to put unfair demands on it and question
its legitimacy at every given opportunity” is utterly nonsensical. Firstly, let me
reiterate that the international community/world has no reason to and never
questioned or threatened to deny Eritrea political legitimacy unless certain
conditions were met, at any time? Why should they? Secondly, political
legitimacy of a country is not bound to some arbitrary season or date of
birth of that country and has nothing to do with it. Political legitimacy of
any country is not a privilege but a right that is inherent in and is
dictated by its geo-political history in particular and the right of its
people to national self-determination in general. Eritrea had legitimate
political right to national independence in 1941, 1951, and in 1962, which,
even then, was not questioned but denied by force? But thanks to our Martyrs
and war veterans, that force was crushed once and for all in 1991 when
Eritrea’s legitimate right to exist as self-governing and politically
independent sovereign state became an undeniable reality? And since then,
Eritrea has been a member of the international community of sovereign states
with full rights and is in good standing.
“Had Eritrea been born in the 60s together
with Zambia and Gambia, it would have been part of the continental historical
tide, and its legitimacy would have largely gone unquestioned.”
First of all, Eritrea
is part of the only continental historical tide: the 19th Century.
An era when colonialism created today’s African countries and Eritrea is one
proud part of that historical tide! That was most defining historical
colonial tide because if it were not for colonialism we wouldn’t be talking
about countries let alone Eritrea. Like all other African countries, Eritrea
was established during the colonial historical tide of the 19th
century and like all post-colonial African countries, Eritrea has the same
and legitimate political right to exist as a nationally independent sovereign
state. Thus, there is nothing that makes Eritrea’s legitimacy different than
that of other post-colonial African countries and cannot be considered in
isolation from it, let alone be questioned. However, in light of the massive
and mounting malicious distortion of our geo-political history, Eritrea’s
political legitimacy must be cultivated and maintained through skillful
diplomacy.
Having said that, had Eritrea been born
together with its sister colonies Somalia and Libya, not together with Gambia
and Zambia, we wouldn’t be where we are today.
But, what do Eritrea, Zambia, and Gambia
have in common? Nothing, absolutely nothing! But, let us see:
While
Eritrea was established as a distinct colonial territory, Gamabia and Zambia
were parts of one or the other kind of political associations prior to their
independence: Gambia was part of the “Commonwealth of Nations” and gained
independence via a referendem,1965, and Zambia was part of “the Federation of
Rhodesia and Nyasaland” and declared its independence, 1963, following the official dissolution of which.
Accordingly, Gambia and Zambia gained independence by breaking loose from a
political association. But how does Eritrea fit into this picture? For
Eritrea to fit into this picture, one must believe, think, and accept that
Eritrea was part of some kind of political association with Ethiopia prior to
its national independence, just like Zambia and Gambia. And unless one wants
to accept, justify, and legitimize the “federal Act” of 1952, that is a malicious
distortion of Eritrea’s geopolitical history. Moreover, one must also believe
that a referendum would have been conducted in 1962 and Eritrea would have
gained independence. This argument is not only naïve and farfetched but also
illusionary.
The
“fedral act” of 1952, which was imposed upon Eritrea against the will and
wishes of its people, was the penultimate measure to prevent not to
pave the way for Eritrea’s national independence. Ethiopia never had in mind
to conduct a referendum on Eritrea’s independence. It was all designed to
give Ethiopia some time to “Ethiopianize” Eritrea in its favor, if not to
annex Eritrea, which it did with the tacit consent of the world. It is,
therefore, absurd and devoid of any intellectual touch to even think of such a
political constellation, let alone draw parallel to other countries.
“It seems Eritrea has to make it big, real big, before it can get
people like Nikolas Kristoff off its back”. Eritrea has nothing to prove, to make it big
or small to N. Kristoff or any body else to get them off its back. In my
humble opinion, all Eritrea needs to do is to take a very good look at and
give a serious consideration to what our president correctly said 13 years
ago: “A one-party system could be a major threat to the very existence of our
country” PIA, Adulis magazine, 1990. That would do it.
Finally, Eritrea does not find itself in any
predicament. Eritrea is exactly where we all want it to be: Politically
independent and sovereign state, a country we can proudly call home and for
which being we paid a very expensive human cost and which we recently
defended and still defend against an aggression to reverse its very being, so
dearly. This is not a predicament but it is what we want and wanted? I don’t
know what the equivalent of the word “predicament” is in a language other
than English, but the plane definition of predicament in English is :
predicament noun
[C] SLIGHTLY FORMAL
an unpleasant situation which is difficult to get out of:
predicament
noun
difficult situation: a
difficult, unpleasant, or embarrassing situation from which there is no clear
or easy way out
A
perfect example of predicament is that where the Woyane finds itself today:
They lied to their people about The Hague verdict and now they are struggling
for their political survival to get out of it.
Eritrea
is no different than any other post-colonial country in Africa and its
legitimacy is rock solid. Border conflicts and internal political discords
are part of our colonial heritage because colonial borders were drawn
arbitrarily and without consideration of our ethnic and cultural diversity
and we must be able to handle that under the guidance of the slogan of our
constitution: Unity in Diversity.
With
that, I rest my case.
Everlasting
glory and fame to our Martyrs
Long
live our veterans.
Dr. M. Filli A.
|