Eritrea: Defending The Indefensible Via Logical Fallacy

Yemane Ghebremeskel

Loyalists including full time and part-time members of the interim governmental authorities in Eritrea have been brainwashed/indoctrinated into believing that fallacious arguments (logical fallacy) justify any and all wrongs of the one-man, one-party tyrannical rule by the barrel of the gun that has befallen our country, Eritrea, for now 16 years and counting.

First it was the ultimate man and law of the land, Essayas Afewerki, who pulled a logical fallacy to justify detentions and detentions without trial in Eritrea by pointing to Guantanamo. Now it is Mr. Yemane Ghebremeskel, Director of Afewerki’s Office, who is exposing his affliction by this same logical fallacy by pointing to media restrictions/censorship brought about by US policy of "embedded journalism” and "pool system" including the media situation in Somalia in order to justify the virtually non-existent press freedom in Eritrea.

Mr. Ghebremeskel was responding to the question “According to Reporters Sans Frontier, Eritrea finds itself in the bottom rung of countries that allow free press, which is considered virtually absent in the country. How do you explain this?” posed by a friendly Italian writer in an interview posted on the website of the ruling party, shaebia.org, 9 July 2007. “To accuse or single out Eritrea for taking legitimate measures in a situation of conflict is for me hypocrisy and double standards.” Mr. Ghebremeskel summed up his response.

Drawing contrasts between Eritrea and the US on free press issue is way far fetched. The US is actively engaged in warfare while Eritrea, by Ghebremeskel’s own admission, finds itself in a ‘no-war-no-peace’ state, which is way far from being at war. As a matter of fact, the head of the interim governmental authority in Eritrea, Afewerki, has publicly ruled out war.

Be that as it may, if, for all the reasons Mr. Ghebremeskel might have, the measures taken by the US constituted breach of press freedom, then for Eritrea to take the same measures for the same purpose and intent on grounds that others are guilty of equivalent wrong does not make it right because two wrongs do not add up to one right nor do two negations cancel out.

Moreover, if something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of hypocrisy, double standards, being singled out or even if others appear to get away with it. Pointing to other equivalent wrong no matter how persuasive fallacious arguments may sound cannot defend what is arguably wrong. Whatever has gone wrong needs to be corrected irrespective of similar wrong/s that might persist somewhere else.

With regards to free press in Eritrea, Ghebremeskel acknowledged that the media ordinance that was issued by the rulers of Eritrea in 1996 had major flaws including loopholes for foreign infiltration and funding and failure to implement it. Ergo, free press in Eritrea has been banned since 2000/2001 pending full review. Well, that was then. What is the hold up now? It doesn’t take 6-7 years to overhaul the old media ordinance or even promulgate a new one at least ad interim? Ghebremeskel also acknowledged in no uncertain terms “a free press is essential for a healthy society.” But the health of the Eritrean society has been deprived of this essential ingredient for the last 7 years and is already in coma. How long yet before the Eritrean society dies of chronic deficit of free press, this essential ingredient of its societal health, Mr. Ghebremeskel?

If the media ordinance of 1996 failed to function as designed, then the solution is fixing the ordinance not banning free press for it constitutes a blatant violation of a basic human right to free speech. Absent freedom of speech, it is all one-man, one party tyrannical rule by the barrel of the gun.

One other thing that jumped at me was the myth of the bogus 1993 referendum. Mr. Ghebremeskel’s audacity to fault The Jehovah Witnesses, for “refusing to participate in the national referendum to determine Eritrea's independence” is utterly ridiculous. The referendum did not determine Eritrea’s national independence and Eritrea’s national independence has nothing to do with the referendum despite and in spite of massive efforts of Afewerki/PFDJ to dupe the people into believing that under the deceptive mantra “Msell. Re. Isse. Woo.sAne” in Tigrigna or “the right of nations to self-determination”.

Eritrea is not and has never been a subject of “the right of nations to self-determination” but a clear case of a nation state, a distinct colonial territory with distinct territorial sovereignty secured by distinct and legal treaties, under the blatant military occupation of Ethiopia. Hence, the issue is how to end the forcible occupation for it is not Eritrea trying to secede from Ethiopia but Ethiopia trying to perpetuate its military occupation and annexation of Eritrea.

In May of 1991, Ethiopia’s occupation of Eritrea ended the way it did and Eritrea re-claimed its national independence that was denied of forcibly ever since the end of Italian colonialism in 1941. Case closed.

So, what was then the rational for the referendum?

Afewerki/PFDJ duped the people into believing that the referendum is necessary in order to legitimize Eritrea’s national independence and in reverence to the rule of law. At the time, questions such as “what law, if any at all, would Eritrea’s national independence violate? Or conversely, what law on earth would have prohibited Eritrea’s national independence?” popped up but remained unanswered to-date.

Regardless, Afewerki/PFDJ proposal for the referendum, though not mandated by any law and not necessary, would have been accepted if the referendum were conducted on Eritrea’s terms.

But the referendum was conducted on Ethiopia’s terms based on article 39 of the Ethiopian constitution (the right of nations to self-determination) that allowed Eritrea to secede from Ethiopia. It was only after Afewerki/PFDJ bowed to Ethiopia’s terms that the referendum was reluctantly approved. That is treasonous for it grants Ethiopia’s unequivocal sovereignty over Eritrea (for why would Eritrea be subjected to Ethiopian laws?) thereby perpetuating Ethiopia’s expansionist and irredentist claims over Eritrean sovereignty, legitimizing and justifying Ethiopia’s military occupation and annexation of Eritrea, which is a betrayal of the cause for which nearly 70,000 lives were sacrificed and comparable number disabled: Reverse Ethiopia’s occupation by all means necessary and re-claim national independence.

It is preposterous, therefore, for Ghebremeskel to criminalize those that refused to participate in an arguably treasonous act of selling out Eritrea’s sovereignty under the mantel of referendum.

Eritrea’s national independence is not an issue to be voted on; it is a legitimate entitlement that was denied by all means necessary when it was due and then reclaimed by the same means in 1991. The cause which tens of thousands of Eritreans died for is not questionable.

The next charge against the JW’s is “They maintain that they do not recognize a Government on earth (temporal state) as they are accountable to Jehovah only". What about it? That does not constitute breach of law and is no reason to restrict their religious freedom.

“They cannot have it both ways: refuse to recognize the Government but at the same time ask legal services from the same Government” charges Ghebremeskel further.

The obligation and duty of all citizens is to abide by the laws that emanate from the ultimate law of the land- the national constitution, regardless of their attitude towards the government de Jour. The law of the land does not require citizens to recognize the government de jour in order to benefit from what they are entitled to by law. The government does not have its own laws. There is one set of laws that emanates from the national constitution and by which set of laws all citizens including the government must abide.

If the government as an executive branch provides services mandated by the law of the land, then all law-abiding citizens are entitled to benefit from it without distinction. Not recognizing the government for whatever reason cannot lead to forfeiture of entitlements mandated by law.

While valid, the charge that the JW’s “also objected to the mandatory national service when it was enacted in 1994.” cannot be ground for restricting religious freedom. It is not uncommon for people to refuse engaging in war or training for war on religious grounds. The remedy is not to deprive them of their religious freedom but to making them pay for their action in the form of jail sentences or other appropriate similar measures.

The rule of law mandates that people in detention for high crimes including treason are accorded due process and tried in a court of law. What ‘the entire population knows’, ‘what Facilitators know’, hearsay, or their history cannot replace trial in a court of law.

Fallacious arguments (Logical Fallacy) are not going to do it. There is no justification for a one-man, one party tyrannical rule by the barrel of the gun but constitutional governance.

Author can be contacted at bmtekeste@yahoo.com

Speaking Truth To Empower