Eritrea: Democracy allergy, perverted view of regional politics

Commentary

28 August 2007

In an abbreviated re-run of his latest TV interview on US-Eritrea relations via the one and only state-owned radio station on 24 August 2007, the ruler of Eritrea, president Isaias Afewerki, exposed his perverted understanding of regional politics and his now all-too-well-known and life threatening allergy to democracy.

Certainly, Eritrea is not and cannot be uninterested partner in a region that is in flames. No one, including the US, demands, has the right to demand, or demanded that of Eritrea. But to think, therefore, this is a carte blanche for Afewerki to dictate regional policy and to take unilateral measures to deal with matters that could impact the entire region under the pretext of “right to defending national interest” is an utterly perverted understanding of regional politics for it defies the very concept of regional stability which concept, for all purposes and intent, precludes unilateral action in matters that have the potential of impacting the entire region adversely.

Further, for Afewerki to think that matters of peace or war in the Horn of Africa region can be resolved without US involvement is plane naiveté, for the US does have a vested interest in the stability of the Horn. The Algiers Peace Agreement wouldn’t have been achieved without US involvement, for example.

In his radio interview, Afewerki once again made a mockery of democracy as practiced in India. “If we take the largest democracy in the world, India, there is no democracy, no human rights” lamented Afewerki. Now, where does Afewerki’s negative attitude towards India come from when India is not known for its hostility toward Eritrea? Simple, Afewerki is allergic to democracy.

Mr. President, this might help: In the Eritrean context, reference to the term ‘democracy’ pertains only to our Eritrean national constitution not to democracy as practiced in India, the USA or any other country in the entire world. So, when we say there is no democracy in Eritrea, we mean that our country is not governend by the letters and dictates of our national constitution. What is termed ‘democracy’ by others is termed ‘the national constitution’ in Eritrea.

In line with that, let me take this opportunity to kindly ask all Eritreans not to use the term ‘democracy’ because the ruler of Eritrea, president Isaias Afewerki is allergic to it. In lieu of that please call for constitutional governance in Eritrea. Thanks

US-Eritrea relation is not broken, it is only strained. Given skillfull diplomacy, it can be restored to normalcy in no time. But for president Afewerki to set conditions/preconditions to that effect is rediculous because bilateral relations cannot be dictated by the demands, wishes, or needs of either side. It is all driven by mutual interests. In international diplomacy, you can’t have it your way Mr. President. Your tyrannical ‘my way or the highway’ mode of operation is limited only to Eritrea because you have the barrel of the gun to enforce it. The answer to the soured US-Eritrea relation is constructive engagement not confrontation. Mr. President, what do you think the US have to lose by ignoring your preconditions?

The situation of the people of Eritrea cannot be any more worst than what it already is. It would be thus preposterous to think that the US would let out its frustration with the tyrannical regime in Eritrea on the people, which have been cowed to absolute submission.