A Commentary on Tedros

A Commentary on Tedros - Tseggai Dialogue

By: Asegedech Alemu Mekonnen

I read Dr Tedros Kiros’s article last night and decided to get into the dialogue. These are impulsive, right- on -the -spot responses, and would like to apologize beforehand for any lack of clarity the reader may encounter. I realize that Tedros’s response is specifically directed at Tseggai. But I can’t refrain from commenting on the issues that are common to all Ethiopians.

For clarity purposes, I have copied the questions he posed and the answers he proposed.

Now to the points

<<(1). The cessation of Eritrea is illegal, and that Ethiopia’s border reaches the confines of the Red Sea;

Ever since my writerly career began twenty years ago, I have maintained a singularly consistent view on the idea of Self-Determination on philosophical grounds.. …….

... In Self-Determination, I wrote,

The quest for self-determination in the Horn of Africa must be viewed as a necessary point of departure with a pragmatic intent. The intent is that granting the highly sought independence to those who are doggedly pursuing it has the strong potential to enable the combatants be delivered from the hatred, resentment and bitterness of the protracted experience of war has imposed on them. Independence then has the very important purpose of providing the fighters and the masses that follow them with a sense of identity, dignity, and the new attitude of readiness for reconciliation. (P, 100).>>

The fact that one doggedly pursues an objective does not necessarily mean that he/she achieves it. Nor should one condone the achievements of such objectives if they are realized through deceit, sheer use of power and other sinister machinations. In the case of Ethiopia and Eritrea, there is a contentious border issue. The right of Ethiopia and Ethiopians can’t be shoved away because we lack a leadership that ‘doggedly’ pursues Ethiopia’s interest. The request of Ethiopians (Badme, Irob, Assab) is a minimum request that is based on a fair allocation/ reallocation of resources that satisfies the wishes and aspirations of the concerned inhabitants.   Here, there is nothing that remotely implies our desire for confrontation/war/ with Isayas’s Eritrea.

<<The psychological and ethical dimensions of self-determination still hold. Nothing has changed to convince me that cessation, the highest form of self-determination, is illegal.>>

I understood from your previous statements that your argument was based on philosophical grounds. As Tseggai and many able Ethiopian legal experts showed convincingly, the cessation of Eritrea is wrong on legal grounds. I would not waste precious time of readers by repeating what has been said before. But I was a bit surprised to read your bold statement above that nullifies our legal ground for claiming the contested territories including Assab. Furthermore the ‘ethical dimension’ – the dimension that relates to the loss of ancestral lands of the Irob, Afar and Badme people should be a forceful factor worth considering before one advocates for the right of those who ‘doggedly’ fight to gain their freedom. The freedom of one group can’t be achieved at the expense of the other.

In general, your answer did not say anything about border demarcation and sea outlet. Eritreans, if they decide to remain separate have the right to do so. But know that land is contested. As you said in your response (# 5) like Badme and Irob, Ethiopians claim Assab because they were born there; their ancestors came from there. Afars of the Assab environs claim, and rightly, so that they are Ethiopians. Your argument on Badme and Irob should equally hold on Assab.

Conceptually, your understanding of self-determination may sound logical but it seems to challenge pragmatic thinking. If Tigray or Oromia or Gurage or Afar or Kunama or Sidama chose to apply self-determination, as did Eritrea, where is the end point? Will these small entities be economically viable self-supporting states? What is the benefit of the realization(= breaking away)? How is the right of the Kunama, or the Saho or the others respected in the break away province? Never mind Eritrea, how is right of the many minorities within the ethnic groups we mentioned in Ethiopia to be respected? When one realizes the problematic, wouldn’t one conclude the fallacy of the realization of self-determination as propagated by the Marxists of our world past and present? Besides, how is it that many circles in different forms are lecturing us, that a eurocentric view self-determination is a universal solution to ethnic problems? Even if one says the above is a universal truth, does one see the United States letting California or Puerto Rico cede from the main land US on the basis of self-determination?

<<(2) International Forces have equally illegally reinforced the illegal idea of Ethiopian independence.

First, it is paranoiac, to think that just because the UN is threatening Ethiopia and Eritrea with sanctions, if they do not comply, with the boarder commission, it therefore readily follows that there is a conspiracy against Ethiopia. There may be. Anything is possible in this finite world. Reasonable people, however, need not be thinking this way so readily. Historic Ethiopia is precious to Ethiopians only. The rest of the world is too busy making money, building industries and securing the future of its citizens. We Ethiopians make much out of our heritage, which is intrinsically empowering. But we need to modernize our proud ways, when political reality demands it. We better spend our time building our non-existent future with creative entrepneurs, industries, and productive land, instead of wasting our imagination on hunting non-present enemies. Considerably simplifying, I would like to argue that external forces do not see much to be exacted from occupying Ethiopia. Ethiopia is economically too problematic to be of much use to Imperialism. We need to internalize this brutal fact of our existential condition quickly and thoroughly, or else there will no remedy for our condition.>>

Europeans of 1940’s abandoned Ethiopia, even when they knew the dangers of fascism and nazi Germany.   Precedents do not suggest that we are ‘paranoid’ when we raise the fear of them trumping on our rights again. I do not believe that the reason why the west keeps an eye on Ethiopia is because it is a benevolent society of righteous men and women. They have an interest. We need not spend time trying to debate on this fact. National security interest of the West and especially the US dictates that states are rearranged in such a way that it is suitable for them. Whether they are protecting their interest through their interventions is another matter. But we should better realize sooner than later and be prepared to take things into our own hands.

Yes, we should be more inward looking. Handouts and following the dictates of the western world be it in our economic and political outlooks has not helped us a bit. We should be tolerant of each other and think of how we can address our common objectives as Ethiopians. The respect for human rights of the individual is a pre-requisite for our collective development. Your comments on the importance of being internally focused are well put. I believe many are realizing that.

<<(3) On following the footsteps of a moribund regime as its unpaid propagandist

…If it happens that my vision and that of the EPRDF overlap, it is because truth sometimes is located at the meeting point of concentric circles. Thus EPRDF’s policies on Ethnicity - at least in the beginning - was the correct one, as is the recent highly pragmatic discussions of the Boarder issue, and I agreed with it. The vision passed one of the conditions of imaginative thinking, accommodating political reality, and thinking about the long-range national interests of Ethiopia, particularly its contemporary place in this fast changing world.

I wouldn’t for a moment characterize the good student of philosophy as a propagandist. My issue is with the substance and not the character.

The question of ethnicity seems to be pulled on different angles. No democrat objects to the full right of all ethnic groups developing their linguistic, cultural and other values. Any person that does not appreciate the suppression of other cultures and languages of Ethiopia either lacks the facts/knowledge or is not yet ready to acknowledge the facts. Whether that suppression was the result of government policies or a historical ‘accident’ is of course, debatable. Hence the objection was not on EPRDF trying to address the inequality that existed in our society. This is a task that all democratic forces of Ethiopia need to diligently follow through.

What EPRDF did was create a mechanism where the common Ethiopian agenda was relegated to the second place to the extent of what some people called ‘bantustanization’. Of course the strong bondage of our people has greatly weaken the schemes of EPRDF. My reading is now, despite the ethnic klilization, the spirit of Ethiopianess is gaining momentum. I do not see any difference between your views and mine if you are saying there is a problem in EPRDF’s ethnic klilization and the handling of border issue.

Of course, as is the case with the economic policy and small steps in democratization process, the empowerment of the different ethnic groups has brought about growth and development of cultural and linguistic profiles of our different communities. This is true despite the negative factors that accompany these changes. Reasonable people are arguing that this government listen to the issues that people raise and correct the negative aspects of its policies. Its failure to do so has made it commit mistakes that could be characterized as treasonous by many.

Yes, imaginative thinking, what we laymen call visionary leadership and approach is vital. We know that time will come when the neigbouring countries will come to think of their interest as complimentary. But countries also think about the short-term interest of their state. In the long term we are all dead (Keynes the economist), hence we fight hard to address the current needs and aspirations of the Ethiopian mass.

No layperson let alone an economist will trivialize the importance of a port for economic progress. The issue of Assab is not only a people issue, it is also an economic issue. It must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Ethiopian psyche. As the motto of enlightenment described by Tedros states, we Ethiopians are thinking for ourselves when we categorically demand that Assab be the domain of Ethiopia. Its economic significance can’t be overstated.

<<(4) Dr. Kiros blindly follows EPRDF’s policies on Badme and its politics of Ethnicity

I leave it to the legal theorists to establish the boundaries which belong to Ethiopia and those, which are rightly Eritrea’s. I continue to learn enormously from the rigorous and passionate writing of Mr. Tseggai on legal matters…... For me what is at issue is not the status of the sovereign territories, but the mood for war, in order to stretch Ethiopia’s boundaries to the Red Sea, is the only solution. What happened to dialogue, discussion free of domination, under the sovereignty of the imagination, as equally if not more necessary vehicles of addressing the boundary issues? Why are we Ethiopians so willing to flex our muscles only when we can just as impressively flex our imagination to serve our interests? ( Italic mine) And why do intellectuals resort to name calling when they are confronted with others who simply disagree with their views. >>

Ethiopians have never been ‘so willing’ to flex their muscle. That is a statement that I would differ sharply. I remain to be corrected but I don’t think that your characterization of Ethiopians as people who ‘flex their muscles’ is right. In fact, that deficiency might have cost us dearly in the past hundreds of years. We fought against the Turks, Egyptians, the British, the Italians, the Siad Barie Somalia, and now Isayas’s Eritrea when each and every one of them came to subjugate us, to take away what we consider ours. Hence, I would ask Tedros to let us know if he knows differently.

If the statement is generally stated to advise us that we should peacefully resolve the issue of border demarcation, then that is again a point where all reasonable people agree. There is no news here. The consistent message has been that Ethiopians should not go into any kind of war with Eritrea. What I think might be the difference between my views and Tedros’ is that I insist on rejecting the border demarcation/ Algiers Agreement/ in its entirety. Some may argue that such a stand is tantamount to declaration of war. Ato Meles certainly goes to that conclusion. But the fact is many countries now live peacefully without their borders being demarcated. There is no unique condition that makes Ethiopia sign any unfair agreement with anybody.

I believe that Tedros is aware of the consequences of all forced treaties on Ethiopia (with England/Egypt regarding the Nile. The treaties between Menilik and Italians/French just to name a few). Advising the current regime to follow suit will be disastrous. Some people characterize this as an unpatriotic move. Hence, their strong and vehement denunciation and condemnation of the current regime in Ethiopia.

<<The second issue of contention that infuriated Mr. Tseggai is the issue of Ethnicity. In Two Concepts of Ethnicity, I had advanced the thesis that ethnicity requires an analytic specficity, and introduced positive Ethnicity and Negative Ethnicity to meet the condition. The distinctions were lost on the legal theorist; instead he extracted the poisonous elements of ethnicity and collapsed both into PE. >>

Here again, many have written extensively about the respect and promotion of ethnic identities, as they are the wealth of the nation. The problem we have with narrow nationalists ( ethnicists) and chauvinists are that they both equally endanger our nation by appealing to the basic raw instincts of differentiation based on ethnicity or tribal ties. That is the main difference between the existing ethnic based organizations and those that believe in a political process that is based on multi-ethnic principles. In simplistic terms Tedros’ thesis on the Two Concepts (as quoted above) is no different from what we have been saying for a long time now.

<< (5) The reduction of poverty is used as an excuse to compromise the sovereignty of Ethiopia

“ Surely, sovereign bodies require land in which to live, in dignity and freedom, in which to flourish when possible, and realize their dreams for themselves and generations to come. Badme and Irob, to mention only these two places, might be “ godforsaken places”, but that is not the point. These are places in which Ethiopians were once born and died, in which dreams took place but were not realized, where lands were cultivated by any means necessary for the future of the Ethiopian nation.”

Yes, that applies to the Afar people and the perimeters of the Assab seaport. Establishing facts about the rightful demand of Ethiopia to have Assab is not to be in a mood for war.   Democrat Ethiopians do not have a different view than the Prime Minister of Ethiopia when he said he would not go to war with Isayas unless provoked. Our only difference is with his stated goals and the effort he doggedly exerts to make Assab Eritrean and Ethiopia landlocked.   One would expect any Ethiopian of good intention to have an issue with the PM of Ethiopia.

<< The central part of that project ought to be the elimination of poverty by good policy, a policy that links the fight for sovereignty to the fight against poverty, and against AIDS. Our immediate domestic policy, if we have none, should be educating our people that fighting for our territories requires peace as a condition, and that the elimination of poverty presupposes the presence of sovereign Ethiopian bodies, freed from envy, resentment, the savagery of hunger and AIDS- so that they can fight for their lands when they have to, as they did the first time Eritrea was the aggressor. When they were provoked they responded heroically. >>

I generally agree with the above statement. It will be unfair if we do not mention the good work that is being done in the fight against AIDS and other maladies of Ethiopia by dedicated Ethiopians. I know of dedicated men and women abroad as well as at home who labour day and night to fight the scourge of AIDS and other diseases in Ethiopia. Peace is the dream of the common man and women of Ethiopia. We need to challenge the current leaders to pave the way for peace. And the best way to do that is to free the institutions of democracy from their grip, to allow a free and fair election, to stop exerting pressure on the judiciary system, give an ear to the requests many genuinely concerned Ethiopians.

I for one would like to challenge Ethiopians to open a dialogue with open-minded Eritreans. I am impressed by the bold steps of the AWATE group in their call for moderate elements to enter into a dialogue. I must say that I feel bad for not finding the time to respond to their call todate. I intend to respond to their call and challenge reasonable people of my country to be open to the call for dialogue.

The one track thinking of the last thirty years exhibited by Ethiopians and Eritreans alike should be replaced by a visionary approach that is open, compromising, collaborative and forward looking. We should be wise and acknowledge our failures. That is a pre-requisite for change.

True, negative elements will always try to stifle the good work of good intentioned people. But we should stand up to the challenge. The perseverance of positive thinking individuals and groups has to prevail this time around.

Last night I was watching television ( Hardball) where the guest was the reverend Al Sharpton. A panelist asked him if he really believes that a black person could be the president of the USA; if the American people are ready to elect a black president.. The reverend, sensing the implication of the question replied by affirming the existence of racism and oppression in the USA. What most impressed me was his last response. He said that when the Civil Rights movement started and black leaders spearheaded the fight, America was not ready. Yet, the movement was able to rally the people behind it and won rights to its constituents. The reverend continued and said, similarly we are not going to stop from competing for the US presidency on the assumption that America is not ready to elect a black person. America may not be ready now but we will lead and America will follow. We will fight and one day we will win.

There is an essential point we people of the horn need to grasp from the above story.   Naysayers and negative elements maybe in the majority. But if we pursue and forward constructive, compromising and collaborative solutions the Ethiopian, Eritrean and other people will rally behind what is right and establish the long awaited peace in the region. A peace that is a precondition for progress and economic self-sufficency.