|
July 15, 2002 |
|
|
|
In defense of rapprochement (M’qrirab) |
|
Re: Dr. Michael Fissehaye’s questions |
|
|
|
M. Filli A. |
|
|
|
Greetings all! |
|
In an article posted on July 11, 2002, Dr. Michael Fissehaye poses the rhetorical question: "Dr. Filli's Rapprochement: A Naïve Or A ''Wolf in Sheepskin''Approach?" |
|
|
|
Dear Dr.Michael, during our
liberation struggle, reporters posed the following question to our president:
“ Is your movement a communist, socialist, or nationalist movement?” President
Issayas Afeworki’s response was plain and simple: He said: “Call it whatever
you want to call it and give it what ever label you want to give it but what
we are doing is just the right thing for our country”. Equally, my
friend, my answer to your question above is: Call it whatever you want to
call and give it what ever title you want to give it but let us debate point
by point the merits/demerits and viability/non-viability of rapprochement in
whatever way you choose to approach it. Next question “Does Dr. Filli understand or know the Eritrean reality to come up with such impractical and dishonest approach to rapprochement in the Eritrean political landscape?” Again, call it whatever you want to call it, I have approached and presented rapprochement the best way I know. I am entitled to that and you are entitled to give it whatever label you want to give it; but that aside and as a person who understands the Eritrean reality best, why don’t you present your “practical” and “honest” approach to rapprochement “in the Eritrean political landscape” as an option and let us debate it point by point? Now to your statement “Either Dr. Filli is ….who is looking at the national issues in a childlike, simplistic, and idealistic way”. Dear Dr. Michael, if that were the way I looked at rapprochement, why don’t you present rapprochement the way you would look at it in a “mature”, “non-simplistic”, and “ non-idealistic” way and let us debate it exhaustively? Let us present our views to the public, in whatever way you choose to approach it, and let it have the final word, or if I may approximate it to what our president would say in such instances “Eza Zaaba nab Hzibi Nowridamo Hzbi tekhati’uh Baa’lu yefred”? Next question “Does Dr. Filli know that the damage to the motherland by the very people he is trying to get close and reconcile has reached “beyond pardon”?” My short answer is, there is nothing that our constitution can’t resolve when implemented. My long answer follows: My Friend, rapprochement neither
implies nor does it mean amnesty, freedom from guilt, or exemption/immunity
from legal, constitutional or any other kind of prosecution. To the contrary,
Rapprochement establishes the necessary peaceful and harmonious political and
social ambience to implement our constitution and to resolve whoever or
whatever we want to take up issues with. Hence, your question does not,
should not, cannot, and must not preclude the establishment of rapprochement
between Eritreans. Now to your statement “Incidentally, we do not have to go far back for it was only yesterday that we were called for rapprochement, “reconciliation’, and “inclusion”, by …, the “gypsy”. Dear Dr. Michael, firstly, I have
never called for reconciliation with this or that group of Eritreans.
Secondly, I am only calling for rapprochement between Eritreans, and should
that lead to reconciliation, which I don’t doubt, then the goal has been
achieved. If not, let the chips fall where they may. My friend, I don’t know, forgive my ignorance and please correct me if I were wrong, of any published or unpublished call for rapprochement hitherto. Please prove me wrong? If you mean to claim that rapprochement is the same as reconciliation, then please explain and provide supportive literature or any thing else to justify it and I will rest my case. Deal, Dr. Michael? Having made that pledge, allow me now to express in few words my understanding of rapprochement and reconciliation: Rapprochement (M’krirab) is a social and
political process that leads to the establishment/re-establishment of
friendly or cordial relations between a group of people that were previously
hostile or unsympathetic toward each other. It is a state of
peaceful and harmonious social and political environment, the first, vital,
and inevitable step of a social and political process toward, and the
foundation of ultimate reconciliation. Rapprochement is a non-partisan,
secular, non-discriminatory, and an equal opportunity enterprise. It
establishes a social and political ambience, despite and in spite of social
and political differences, where all kinds of differences and issues can be
dealt with in a peaceful, harmonious, and democratic environment. The
ultimate objective of rapprochement is political and social reconciliation in
the sense of mutual recognition at the least. Reconciliation (Irqi) is the end act or the ultimate objective of
rapprochement that cannot be achieved overnight, by signing documents, round
table discussions, forging power sharing deals, or by holding conferences but
only after going through the process of rapprochement (M’qrirab). “Bimessrih nai M’qrirab gheru zeyhalif Irqi messerret
yebilun, hatsirin fesh’alin dima yekkewin”. For reconciliation prior to establishing mutual
recognition is doomed to fail because it has no foundation. And mutual
recognition can only be established after going through the process of
rapprochement (M’qrirab). In my humble opinion, the Eritrean society finds
itself in a state of “mutual non-recognition” (Fisseha
Habte). Hence reconciliation cannot be
achieved prior to getting over this state of “mutual non-recognition”. And
that can be achieved only after going through the process of rapprochement.
That is my understanding of this matter in few words. Let us move on to the next
question “Where was Dr. Filli in the last ten years and more
specifically in the last four years?” Dear Dr., firstly, I don’t know
for sure what is behind it but you are raising this question just out of the
blue because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about? Secondly, the
issue at hand is not about my, your or any other Eritrean’s whereabouts from
yearX to yearZ? Thirdly, what does it matter? There was neither a deadline
set nor criteria outlined by anybody as to when and by whom a proposal for
rapprochement should have been made or submitted? Hence, unless you have
ulterior motives, this question is misplaced, here. What matters is that the
proposal is there and let us debate it and let the chips fall where they may,
my friend. Next question “I do not
think a rational thinking Dr. Filli could came up to lecture us about
“reconciliation” and “rapprochement” Dear Dr. Michael and others,
please accept my regret and apology if you by any means felt that way because
it was not meant to be that. Next “Eritreans may learn
and pray for peace and harmony; but peace and harmony without accountability
and justice is no longer acceptable.” I agree with you here, and the
proposal at hand only reaffirms that by establishing the necessary peaceful
and harmonious social and political ambience for accountability and justice
to be served. Next, “Time for Dr. Filli to call on the Jihad/Harakat, the Tigrai Manifestonians, the Unionists to seek mercy and forgiveness from the Eritrean people.” Dear Dr., It would be
preposterous of anyone to call on others when or where “to seek or not to
seek whatever they want from the Eritrean people” It is up to each and all
Eritreans to take whatever action they deem necessary in order to comply with
the proposal at hand. Finally “Time for Dr. Filli to call on the men in Mekele/Gondar to lay down their arms, renounce their Jihad,” Dear Dr. Michael, there is a
provision to that effect in the preamble (introduction) of the proposal that
reads as follows: “Recognizing that transition of political power can be achieved only
through peaceful and democratic means.” One change that might be
necessary here would be replacing “Recognizing” with “Accepting” which I am
willing to accomplish on your behalf for I have no problem with it. “denounce Weyane first and
foremost.” That goes without saying because
accepting the proposal presupposes that. But if you insist, I will be more
than willing to insert such a statement under “Opposition” on your behalf for
I have no problem with that, too. Dear Dr. Michael Fissehaye,
the issue here is not about the personality and political stance of the
messenger or yours, but about the message. As others have already stated, let
us debate the merits/demerits or viability/non-viability of the message,
which we can amend, re-write, accept or reject, regardless of our political
stances and personalities. That being the story of July 11, 2002, following is now what Dr.
Michel posted on Dehai messageboard only one day later on July 12. 2002: “July, 12 2002
02:46:58 PM [A] Wedi Afa/Gobey……Dr. Filli’s call is noble and honorable; with one problem. Dr. Filli has yet to address the question of “when? and “with whom?”. Dear Mike, thanks for your
statement that “Dr. Filli’s
call is noble and honorable;”. Rapprochement is a
process that only needs to be launched by our government. When?
Depending on its national priorities, our government can launch the process
of rapprochement at its earliest convenience. And considering the huge task
that our country is facing today, the sooner the better, for our country
needs the participation and the resources of its entire people to get it back
on track. Personally, since the year 2002 has been a year of good news to our
country, this would be the most opportune year to launch it. “With whom?” Dear Mike, first, please allow the
following humble pointer just to avoid misunderstanding: In my humble
opinion, rapprochement takes the preposition “between” and not “with”. Hence
your question “with whom?” becomes “between whom?”. With that in mind, my
answer to your question is then: Between and among each, every, and all
Eritreans, individually or in groups, who comply with the provisions, spirit,
and letter of the rapprochement at hand beyond any shadow of doubt. I say
this with the understanding that there is nothing, absolutely nothing that
our constitution can’t resolve when implemented, given a peaceful,
democratic, and cooperative environment, which can be achieved by way of rapprochement. Next, “July, 12 2002 02:45:10 PM Dear Mike, I thank you and
congratulate you for your ascertainment that “…No body is against Dr.
Filli’s rapprochement but the methodology.”. Please
allow me to take that to mean agreement in principle but disagreement in
methodology. The rest of your concerns that were listed in your post above
and even the conditions that precipitated the disagreement in methodology are
well, very well covered by the provisions of the rapprochement and the
additional remarks in general, and my detailed response to you above in particular. Thus, there shouldn’t be disagreement in
methodology as well? Dear Dr., it is my firm opinion
that rapprochement (the message) can be achieved regardless of my (messenger)
personal political stance toward this or that group. Having said that allow the following remarks: Rapprochement neither means that we cease to have differences of opinion about all aspects of our societal life nor does it prevent us from expressing such differences freely, openly, peacefully, democratically, as individuals or in groups as long as there is strict compliance with the provisions, spirit, and letters of rapprochement and our constitution. The key words here are: Peacefully, democratically, and the provision “strict compliance with the provisions, spirit and letters of rapprochement”. Hence, personal views and drive adverse to this or that group that is conducted within the provisions of rapprochement should not, cannot, and must not be the stumbling blocks not to support rapprochement? One final remark, here: Opinions and views held by people are matters of conviction, to which they, you, and I are entitled? Hence, it would be again preposterous of you, I, or anybody else to call on them to abandon that simply because it happened to be contrary to our own views and opinions? Expressed views and opinions of others is just that: Take it or leave it, and that is why we are entitled to it? Having said that, it is up to those who held views and opinions adverse to our government to reconcile their views/opinions with the provisions of rapprochement if such views/opinions stood in violation of the spirit and letters of rapprochement. Dear Mike and others, please accept that this is my personal understanding of this matter and is by no means intended to lecture any body. Thanks. Next
“Host: 150.167.26.79 Dear Mike, thanks again for you reassurance. Those two questions have already been answered above. Next, in a related subject, a certain “Border Patrol” posted following remarks on same website as above: “July, 12 2002 04:02:21 PM I break with Dr Filli's
proposal because I believe we have differences and then we have
irreconciliable differences. The distinction is very important lest we
'create a hole in the Eritrean household' that would eventually consume the
Eritrean family.” Dear “Border Patrol”, thanks for participating in the debate over rapprochement. Having said that, I would like to assure you that there is nothing our constitution can’t resolve, reconcilable or irreconcilable differences, when implemented. Hence, there is no need for you to break with me because of that. Even treason can be resolved by our constitution, when implemented. The Eritrean society finds
itself in a state of “mutual non-recognition”. The only viable
solution is to get over this “mutual non-recognition” and to establish a state
“of mutual recogniton” through the process of rapprochement (M’qrirab). With that I rest my case, wish Dr. Michael Fisehaye well, and remain Sincerely yours, M. Filli A. PS: For a better understanding, I appeal to you all to read the original proposal in tandem with the additional remarks, contained in my response In defense of rapprochement (M’qrirab) M. Filli A. July 11, 2002 |