July 8, 2002
|
|
In defense of Rapprochement (M’krirab) Re.: Abraham’s concerns M. Filli A. Greetings all! I am writing to address the
concerns of my compatriot, Abraham G. Ghorgis (MIT). But before that allow me
to explain why I chose this title, to suggest how we should handle this
issue, and how we communicate with each other regarding this issue. I chose this title because I dare
to say that there is no single Eritrean who would be against this proposal,
because rapprochement (M’krirab) is certainly better than permanent
polarization (M’rhihaq). Some might express concerns, some might need
clarification/explanation here and there, and others might want various
questions answered, not because people are apprehensive to the proposal but
simply because Eritreans don’t take anything for granted. Hence issues raised
regarding rapprochement should not and cannot be considered as “Pros and
Contras” but as a sincere and decent debate/discussion in search of a
consensus. Therefore, it is up to all of us, Eritreans, to actively
participate in the debate and to make the proposal happen. The proposal is
just that. It can be amended, re-written, debated, accepted, or rejected? But
those, who reject rapprochement between Eritreans are those who don’t want to
see a united, peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous Eritrea and those who have
a stake in a “divided” Eritrea. I hope and trust you all that this will never
happen? That being what it is, I appeal
to all of you not to personalize Rapprochement but to direct your comments to
all of us. Hence, allow me to suggest the following format in debating this
issue: Heading:
In defense of Rapprochement (M’krirab) Re.: Abraham’s concerns, Ali’s
questions, or Haregu’s comments, and
so forth Your Name Text format: Greetings
all, Hi all, Selam all, Selamat compatriots, or anything in that fashion. In my humble opinion, this format shows the respect we have
for each other despite our differences of opinion and initiates rapprochement
(M’krirab). Having said that, let me now turn
to the issues raised by Abraham. Dear Abraham, first of all thanks for your
kind words and I certainly appreciate and congratulate you for participating
in this debate. Kindly enough and to make life easier to all of us, Abraham
has categorized his concerns in four groups and I will address them
accordingly: I. Diversity
In this category, Abraham writes:
“The need of freedom of expression and freedom of association is
mandatory for Eritrea not because we are a multi-ethnic group. It is because
it is a right no state can give or take away from individuals and
groups. Even if we were a society composed of one ethnic group, we will
still need the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association”. You are damn right about that and the proposal at hand
neither postulates nor hints to the contrary. The proposal acknowledges the
multiethnicty and the consequential multi-visionary nature of our society,
which in turn makes the expression of such views and opinions inevitable.
Even if we were mono-ethnic people, multiplicity of visions and the
consequential need for freedom to express such diverse views and opinions
would still be inevitable because we are not identical twins. So, there is no
contradiction rather an affirmation of what you so rightly said in this
regard. II. Did the GoE put the
dissidents in prison because Eritrea was heading towards chaos? Although the answer to this
question is the subject of a free, open, and an independent judiciary seting,
I will touch on it. Dear Abraham, you and I agree that the departure of the
Dissenters from the GOE and their subsequent detention polarized the Eritrean
society more than ever? You and I agree too that severe and grave
polarization of a society to the extent of creating discordance and division
among the people would inevitably lead to chaos and anarchy if not recognized
and remedied at its early stage? With that, you and I have reached a
consensus and the answer to your question is only consequential to our
consensus and is affirmative. The rest is rhetoric and finger pointing,
which, if necessary, should be a subject to be dealt with once a state of
peace and harmony, rapprochement, has been achieved. You and I agree that we
are talking about rapprochement and not trying the case of the dissenters,
here? Dear Abraham, you agree with me that finger pointing is not going to
solve our problem and that rapprochement (M’krirab) is indisputably better
than permanent polarization (M’rhihaq)? Dear Abraham, let me briefly
touch on the case of “loyal opposition”. The
key word here is “loyal”. Loyalty to whom or what? It is loyalty to the
expressed interests of the people and country, loyalty to the supremacy of
our national and territorial sovereignty, and loyalty to our national
security (The maintenance of peace and order, and societal normalcy), and
respect for government and country, despite the opposition’s disagreement
with it. That being my basic understanding of loyal opposition, the proposal
at hand only paves the way for such a loyal opposition. III. The verdict of The Hague You state:“I can assure you that all Eritreans are in
agreement that all in all the verdict of The Hague was fair balanced and
wise. Since we went for arbitration we are bound to lose some pieces of land
here and there, it goes with the territory. Overall Eritrea came out of
The Hague okay. Thus, this issue should never be politicized.” Here, I am again in agreement with you. The reason it was
mentioned in the proposal was only to point to the fact that despite such a
huge and a very important victory for our country, the polarization of our
society persisted and persists. So, no politicization, here. IV. Opposition In this category, Abraham
asserts: “the GoE should not be bothered if any group calls it
illegitimate or legitimate”. That is true. But what
does it hurt to eliminate such name calling if they are, as you say,
inconsequential? Nothing and that is what the proposal is calling for. You ask “The big question
is then why does the GoE ask for legitimacy from groups who it teats as
"traitors and disloyal." My brother
Abraham, you may not agree with the government but to accept the legitimacy
of the government of your country is showing respect for the people of your
country and honor to those who lost their lives to make our country what it
is today? It is not the GOE that is asking for that, it is the challenge of
our people and country. Finally your personal suggestion “Personally,
I would have left out the signing of the letter”.
Dear Abraham, rapprochement is a political agreement. And politics does not
function based on the trust or good faith of others. Hence, the signing of
the rapprochement lends it a legal basis, whose violation will have grave
legal consequences. With that, I say Let’s give Eritrea a kiss of
peace and meet halfway. Best regards, M. Filli A. |