Additional detailed remarks and responses

Re.: Solomon’s views,

Gabriel’s suggestions, &

A. Tesfay’s “Riding a dead horse”

M. Filli A.

Greetings all!

First, thank you all for your kind words and gracious encouragements. Having said that, allow me to add the following remarks regarding the rapprochement (M’qrirab) at hand prior to engaging in the issues you all have raised.

· The purpose of this rapprochement is to re-establish or renew friendly/cordial relations between Eritreans that were previously hostile or unfriendly to each other, to establish a state of peaceful political and social environment, and to get over mutual “non-recognition”, to use Feissaha Habte’s phrase, as a first, indispensable, and vital step towards its ultimate objective of reconciliation. Hence, “M’qrirab nab Irqi kebtsahana zeki’il qedamai Sigumti di’amber Irqi Aykonen” because reconciliation is the end result of a social process called rapprochement. Either way and inarguably “M’qrirab” is way much more better than “M’rhihaq”

· The purpose of M’qrirab is not to discuss or justify our differences but to establish a state of peaceful and harmonious environment to resolve such issues.

· The purpose and intention of M’qrirab is to cooperate with and not to confront our Government.

· This proposal neither preempts similar initiatives of our government nor does it take any thing away from our government’s sole authority over people and land of ours. It is simply an attempt to call for the attention of our government to yet one more possible way, not that they don’t know it, to forge a state of cooperation and harmony between all of us, despite and in spite of our differences.

· This proposal does not necessitate the approval or acceptance of those who stand in opposition to it in whatever form, but it definitely, definitely necessitates the consent, approval and acceptance of our government by the simple virtue that it has not only the sole authority over people and land but also over politics and policies of this land. In fact, the government has the authority to implement this proposal without anybody’s consent, yes. It will then be up to all those who stand in opposition to it to reject it and bear the consequences.

· The purpose and intention of this proposal is not and can never be to put our government in equal footing with the opposition because it would be rubbish and nonsensical, to say the least.

· The purpose and intention of this proposal is not and can never be to craft a deal of political power sharing. That would be another nonsense even to think about, to say the least, again. To those who try to misconstrue this proposal to mean that, I say: It will not happen, get back to reality.

· M’qrirab neither implies nor means amnesty to all those, whom our government and the people of Eritrea want to take up issues with. What M’qrirab does is, it enables us to take up issues with whom or whatever we want (Call them whatever you want) in a peaceful and harmonious social and political environment.

· The purpose and intention of M’qrirab is not and can never be to reconcile our government with some leaders of some opposition groups but to re-establish/establish peace, harmony, and cordial relations between the people of Eritrea to the extent of its ultimate objective of national reconciliation.

· This proposal does not and by no means requires that our government secure legitimacy from this or that group. No, no. It is absolutely to the contrary: It is those that stand in opposition to it that must accept, acknowledge, and recognize the legitimacy of our government so that they (the opposition) can be recognized by our government. That is a must, sine qua non, for the opposition.

· M’qrirab is devoid of any kind of preconditions, demands, or dictation. In fact, M’qrirab starts with those who stand in opposition to our government by voluntarily meeting the requirements set by this proposal as soon as only possible.

With that in mind, let me now turn to the suggestions of Gabriel Tecle Hagos:.

Gabriel suggests “Under "Accepting " The objective realities you mentioned in our country, should not and cannot be an excuse for the government not to implement the already overdue constitution without delay after singing the agreement.”

My friend Gabriel, with all due respect, the purpose of M’qrirab is not to dictate but to cooperate with the priorities of our government. It is also not and cannot be the purpose and intention of rapprochement to tell the government why, how, and when the constitution should or should not be implemented. Consequently, your suggestion is contrary to spirit and letter of M’qrirab.

Further, Gabriel suggests that

“2a.Under "shall" regarding the government; I would like to see the sentence "on probationary basis " be deleted here and replaced by anther sentence in 2b.

Because it seems to me (correct me if I am wrong) that it gives the impression, that the dissidents and all other political prisoners are already guilty of the accusation forwarded by the GOE, but we all know that one is innocent until proven guilty.”

Dear Gabriel, though it might sound rhetorical, the phrase “one is innocent until proven guilty” does not mean that one cannot be taken into custody. Impressions are just that. They are not realities. Having said that, guilty or not guilty of persons under the custody of the government is beyond the purpose, scope, and intention of M’qrirab.

“2b.Under "shall" regarding the government; to all Eritrean who, individually or as a group, stood in political opposition.

The word "on probationary basis " doesn't simply fit here because to stand in political opposition is not a crime at all. As a matter of fact it one's democratic right. It would be more appropriate to replace it with "All accusation should be dropped immediately & unconditionally."”

Dear Gabriel, I have no problem with your observation that “to stand in political opposition is not a crime at all. As a matter of fact it one's democratic right.” But the statement that “All accusation should be dropped immediately & unconditionally” poses not only a demand, contrary to the spirit of M’qrirab, but also implies that people are being accused for nothing, with which I disagree and which you would not know, either. It is therefore just right to apply the phrase "on probationary basis " when and wherever a case has not been settled one way or the other.

With that, let me know turn to A. Tesfay’s “Riding a dead horse”. To this, I would first quote from Aya Fisseha Habte’s article posted July 10, 2002 on Dehai. Org, who responded to this as follows:

“Dear A. Tesfai (Aba Gomera)

You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect it. There are some of us who, wrongly or rightly, are of a different opinion . I, for one, feel that the blame should be directed towards the failed "Cavalry Regiment" as a "body" or as an "entity", which caused the death of many brave horses. Now that the Cavalry has failed in its evil mission of distracting us from our peaceful voyage to freedom, and the Cavalry Regiment disbanded, I feel, as a simple individual, using "conventional wisdom" (not tribal), that it is wiser to try, as a last resort, "rapprochement" with the misguided, but good and lovable leaderless live single horses to harness their potential to ensure that they help us pull the "cart of peace, love and progress" to our commonly sought destination. I am ready to be convinced if you think otherwise. Just a thought........

Fisseha Habte”

Next, here is a link, that was forwarded to me by a fellow Eritrean, to see where this “Riding a dead horse” came from: Please click on the link below and see it for your self:

http://www.gomilpitas.com/homeschooling/humor/056.htm

It was just a matter of copy&past other people’s work and get credit for it hoping that nobody would find out the source.

Now to Solomon Seyoum’s views.

Solomon raised the following issues: proposal is premature, it places the cart before the horse, and it is all in one basket. Solomon and I are equally entitled to our views. Solomon did not make any specific suggestions but only critique. Solomon fails to distinguish between rapprochement and reconciliation, apples and oranges. From the point of view of reconciliation, his views might find good resonance but from the point of rapprochement, there couldn’t be a better time than now to launch this proposal, hence, with all due respect, the proposal is not premature but just timely.

Solomon claims that the proposal places the cart before the horse. Well, that is absolutely wrong because rapprochement is the first and vital step toward ultimate national reconciliation. Further, Solomon claims that it is “all in one basket”. No, my friend, there is only one thing in the basket: Rapprochement, there is no reconciliation, or power sharing deal in it.

Finally, in my humble opinion, Solomon’s attitude appears to be confrontational rather than cooperative and that is not productive.

Let us give Eritrea a kiss of peace and meet halfway.

M. Filli A.