ERITREA: EU Has Nothing To Show For Its ‘Engagement Policy’

Network of Eritreans for Constitutional Governance (NECG)

ERITREA: EU Has Nothing To Show For Its ‘Engagement Policy’

Op-Ed
Berhane M Tekeste
09 April 2009

Under the pretext of 'engagement', Louis Michel(EU) working overtly hand in hand with certified tyrant, Isias Afawarki(r), in perpetuating tyrannical oppression in Eritrea. EU, quo vadis?

Save for sustaining tyranny, the EU(European Union) has nothing to show for the persistent advocacy of its 'Engagement Policy' in its dealings with Eritrea tyrant Isias Afawrki todate.

For all practical purposes and intents, Fascism is certainly dead. But if you think fascistic policies are dead too, think again. There, where Fascism was born, had lived, and was finally buried, in Europe, fascistic policy persists under different shades. In the case of Eritrea, European fascistic policy persists under the guise of the bright and shining colors of 'engagement policy'. But, alas, at long last and in the end, in the long battle of Democracy/Human Rights versus tyranny in Eritrea, those bright and shining colors of EU's 'engagement policy' faded away and EU's true and genuine colors of its fascistic policy vis-a-vis Eritrea were exposed: EU went for tyranny and decided to perpetuate it by pumping in yet another set of millions of Euros into the tyrannical system without any conditions whatsoever. This, despite stern warnings of some member of the European parliament, like Olle Schmidt, a Swedish Liberal and Ana Gomez of Portugal-socialist party, that this EU's stance would send the wrong political signal. This indeed wrong political signal the European MP's are talking about is, rightly so, the fear of Europe reverting to fascistic policy.

But the person at the helm of EU's Development and Humanitarian aid and proponent of EU's 'engagement policy', Monsieur Louis Michel, is not budging an inch. He doesn't have too. But the fact is, Mr. Michel has nothing, absolutely nothing to show for it in words, deeds, or otherwise except for banking on its effective fallacious appeal, only thing that is keeping it afloat.

In their attempt not to appear to be rejecting something thing that looks good, sounds good, is persuasive and even applicable in resolving conflicts, people tend to whitewash the perpetuation of tyrannical oppression under the guise of 'engagement'. To that effect, arguments like such approach 'leaves the door open for constructive dialogue', kind of routine mantra they bellow in order to conceal their acts of appeasing and pampering tyranny, while valid per se, they miss the point. Dialogue toward what end? So far, EU's dialogue was manifestly towards sustaining the tyrannical status quo not toward ending the status quo or change for the better, for, as stated above, the EU has nothing to show for it. Consequently, this argument is nothing less than a lame and disingenuous excuse to perpetuate the tyrannical status quo?

Then there are also arguments that “the Commission continue its presence in the country as sort of a mediator and human rights reporter”. That beats me. I have never heard of the EU acting as a 'human rights reporter'. To my knowledge and on the record, there is no consequential EU human rights report on Eritrea? I would also be dumbfounded if the EU were investing this kind of money in a country without sound knowledge of the country's human rights record? Moreover, what more human rights violation is there to report about Eritrea that the world does not know already? Finally, why would the EU invest that kind of money for an opportunity to be a human rights reporter? That is a lame excuse.

Now to this line of argument: “Eritrean government is now denied the luxury of isolation. With every disbursement of these funds there will be a direct encounter with the EU and no doubt questions related to human rights and governance will be raised". Since when is isolation a luxury? EU's grant does not stipulate that 'with every disbursement of these funds consequential questions related to human rights and governance will be raised”? So where does this 'no doubt' certainty come from? Absent contractual evidence, this is only pure speculation and wishful thinking. What happens during the interval between disbursements? Tyrannical oppression continues? Is that justifiable?

All that was about wishful expectations once the capital kicks in. How about now and today? Do the human rights and governance issues, the tyrannical status quo today, warrant standing by the perpetrater of the tyrannical status quo in any form or shape, or in this case in the form of multi million financial aid? The answer is unequivocal no, because even if we forget Eritrean considerations, the tyrannical status quo is absolutely antipodal to even EU's own core ideals and the ACP agreement, if they mattered at all? So, why not raise those questions relataed to human rights and governance here, now, and today? Sorry, I am only trying to make sense of all these lame line of arguments, which appear to be designed to whitewash the real aim of the funding: Sustaining the tyrannical status quo..

If the EU were genuine in its concern for Human Rights and Democracy, true to its core philosophical ideals expressed by it charter, and serious about the Cotonou Agreement it signed with ACP-countries, the right and genuine approach to handle the tyrannical status quo in Eritrea is the widely known and practiced 'Carrot-and-Stick' approach: A Strategy often used in negotiations where one side(EU) offers the other (Eritrea tyrant) something (multi million Euros) it wants while threatening negative sanctions if the other side (Eritrea tyrant) does not comply with its (EU's) requests as expressed by the Cotonou Agreement and in line with the goals and objectives of its own charter. The carrot-and-stick strategy lends itself perfectly well to handle such situation because it is effective and transparent. Such approach is also perfectly compatible with the tired, lazy, and worn out mantra of 'leaving the door open for constructive dialogue' for whatever purpose. Carrot-and-stick strategy serves both the purpose of pursuing EU's strategic interests and the imperatives of Human Rights and Democracy at the same time. So why is EU not pursuing the carrot-and-stick strategy? For fear of offending the tyrannical stalwart of its interests? EU's 'Engagement Policy' is all carrots no sticks!

Here now one last line of argument: “Who knows, may be the “engagement” Louis Mitchell strongly believes in will have some positive impact.” This is like the EU trying to appeal to the conscience of a certified tyrant to come to terms with Democracy and Human Rights! It is like expecting a tyrant to voluntarily commit political suicide or like putting an arsonist in control of the fire hose! That won't work because it would defeat the purpose of the arson?

And what is all about this empty rhetoric of 'EU reviewing its policy with each disbursement of the Funds'? Does any one in his/her right mind believe that the EU does not know what it is getting into and who and what it is dealing with? For God's sake, give me a break! Stop whitewashing (for political gaints) EU's manifest collaboration in perpetuating tyrannical oppression in Eritrea under the guise of 'Development aid'! Check out the thorough groundwork that was done before EU decided to fund tyranny in Eritrea for yourself below:

June 2008

Luis Michel, European Commissioner responsible for Development and Humanitarian Aid, made an official visit to Eritrea on June 14th and 15th. Commissioner Michel, who was accompanied by a delegation from the European Commission headquarters, had in depth discussions with President Isaias on development cooperation and the essential elements of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, on the support that Eritrea can lend to the EU Horn of Africa Strategy and on the development of the Economic Partnership Agreements, that the EU is currently signing with sub-regional groups of ACP countries.