From: Mebrahtu Asfaha (mebrahtuasfaha@yahoo.ca)
Date: Tue Jun 17 2008 - 11:54:03 EDT
United States, Eritrea, and the Horn of Africa:
The Political Rhetoric of Democracy and the Era of Hegemony
Lessens to Be Learned
Mebrahtu Asfaha
The Issue:
Eritrea is, as Marcus Aurelius would say, “Like the promontory against which the waves continually break, but it stands firm and tames the fury of the water around it”.
The Horn of Africa has been a turbulent region of giants locked in tragic war or the fevered preparations for war. The region has seen proxy wars fought on behalf of big powers and ethnic cleansings committed by unscrupulous leaders. Sweet and good is the name of peace.
A report commissioned by the New York based World Policy Institute called “Deadly Legacy: U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War” implicates the United States in besetting wars and troubles in Africa. The report states the “United States played a significant role in propelling the cycles of violence and economic problems that confronts tens of millions in Africa.” [i]
Moreover, the report by Arms Trade Resource Center provides empirical data by stating that:
“In 1998, Africa suffered 11 major armed conflicts, more than any other continent. For the first time since 1989, Africa is the world’s most war-torn region. In this decade alone, 32 African countries have experienced violent conflict, and many of those face continuing civil war or the looming threat of renewed fighting. Notably, most of the African countries engaged in serious conflict over the past fifty years have also been the recipients of U.S. weapons and training. In the process, the U.S. propped up corrupt dictators, armed someof the world’s worst human rights abusers, and fueled violent conflict.” [ii]
However, what is most interesting is the finding by U.S. Bureau of Intelligence and Research states that “the U.S. has failed to acknowledge its own role in fueling conflict and undermining democratic development in Africa.” In addition, this report, written in July 1999, just a year after the start of the Ethio-Eritrean War of 1998 clearly observes "Arms transfers and trafficking and the conflicts they feed are having a devastating impact on Sub-Saharan Africa.” [iii]
The Arms Trade Centre, which prepared the report “Deadly Legacy: U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War”, after having provided an extensive analysis and empirical data on U.S. involvement in fueling conflicts in Africa, proposed key policy recommendations to the U.S. administration to follow through by
“restricting the flow of weapons and training and increasing support for sustainable development policies’, and suggested that ‘the U.S. could help create the conditions needed for peace and stability to take root’, and predicted prophetically that ‘Until the U.S. is willing to serve the interests of long-term peace and stability, rather than short-term profit and politics, its Cold War policies will live on in Africa – wreaking destruction in places like the DRC, Angola, and Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Ethiopia.” [iv]
However, since the release of the report, the United States has tremendously increased it military activity in Africa. Even the Democratic Representative Donald Payne (D-NJ), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health on the House Committee for Foreign Affairs, who have toured, most recently, many African countries including Eritrea and who has seen at first hand the devastation of the War in the Horn, has described the United States increase in Military Activity in Africa as “militarization of U.S. aid to Africa.”[v]
In fact, the figures in military trade activities, since the release of the document are astounding, and according to Gerald LeMelle who wrote an authoritative article in February 7, 2008, published in Foreign Policy in Focus, under the titled “African Policy Outlook 2008, indicated that the United States has tremendously increased its military trade and military activity in Africa since 2002, and the author observes the United States
“has increased from about $40 million over the five years from 1997 through 2001 to over $130 million between 2002 and 2006, and in January 2007, the military announced that Camp Lemonier will expand from its current 97 acres to more than 500 acres.” [vi]
Therefore, the expansion of Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, and the current non existing border issues between Eritrea and Djibouti, concocted by the U.S. administration to serve its strategic interest in the region, and the conflicts in Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Djibouti are part of this grand evil design to control the Red Sea Basin.
It is instructive to observe that LeMelles’ writing provides insight into the dark agenda of U.S. policy in the Horn and the author comes into conclusion that:
“The primacy of U.S. security interests and militarization in the Horn of Africa has gone a long way towards further destabilizing an already volatile are. As part of Operation Enduring Freedom’s Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Initiative, U.S. naval vessels have engaged in several military strikes in Somalia. Over a thousand people have died since U.S. war planes bombed towns in southern Somalia and up to half a million people have fled the eruption of violence in Mogadishu to live in camps. The United States has allied with unpopular and repressive Ethiopian president Meles Zenawi and orchestrated the invasion of Somalia by Ethiopian troops. This appears to have accomplished little more than another human rights and humanitarian crisis with hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people, untold numbers of refugees in neighboring countries, and regular reports noting the brutality of rape, beating, shooting, and indiscriminate shelling by all
parties to the conflict in and around Mogadishu.
The exercise has weakened Ethiopia considerably in its still-unresolved border dispute with Eritrea (despite an Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission decision in 2002 which the Ethiopian government refuses to abide by even after both countries’ repeated pledges that the decision of the commission would be binding and final). Ethiopian actions have also angered and inspired ethnic Somalis in Ethiopia’s Ogaden region. Given the increasingly complicated and tense reality in the Horn today, it would be interesting to see if American Officials believe the U.S. police in the region actually achieved any counter-terrorist goals. Ironically, it is only in the internationally unrecognized but clearly democratic state of Somaliland (known as northwest Somalia), that there is Peace.”[vii]
Furthermore, a document released to Congress in March 10, 2008, in the Congressional Report Services, prepared by African analyst Lauren Ploch and released under the titled “Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the Role of the U.S. Military in Africa ” states that
“In recent years, analysts and U.S. policymakers have noted Africa’s growing strategic importance to U.S. interests. Among those interests are Africa’s role in the Global War on Terror and potential threats posed by uncontrolled spaces; the growing importance of Africa’s natural resources, particularly energy resources.” [viii]
In addition, the report makes interesting economic findings in the areas of oil and global trade by revealing that
“Africa now supplies the United States with roughly the same amount of crude oil as the Middle East. Nigeria is Africa’s largest supplier of oil, and is the fifth largest global supplier of oil to the United States. - President Bush announced in his 2006 State of the Union Address his intention to ‘to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.’ - and analysts estimate that Africa may supply as much as 25% of all U.S. oil imports by 2015.”[ix]
Therefore, it is this kind of strategic interest that makes Africa “key U.S. interest” and it is the protection of oil supply and the oil route through the Red Sea that makes the Horn of Africa a volatile region. It is also this kind of strategic interest that compelled the Department of Defense to institute in 1997 the African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI), which is a scaled down version of the African Crisis Response Force (ACRF) that was originally proposed. Many questioned this initiative including Daniel Volman, director of the Africa Research Project, who has noted,
"While the scope and scale of the ACRI program are quite limited, a number of important questions about the impact of the program and about future involvement of the United States in peacekeeping operations and other kinds of military activities in Africa remain unanswered….The declared intent of the program is to enhance the capability of [African] forces to conduct peacekeeping operations. But much of the training and equipment provided can also enhance their capability to engage in counter-insurgency operations or conventional warfare with other states.[x]”
It is saddening to observe that when it comes to Africa the U.S. administration has no intention to change its course of action and does not heed the recommendations by interest groups such asRep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, when he said
"We need a simple and transparent set of rules to govern all our military education programs. The first rule should be that the United States does not give any kind of military assistance whatever to governments that murder their own people.”[xi]
The Control of the Red Sea Basin
The control of the Red Sea Basin and, the U.S. strategic interest in the Horn of Africa has a long history of injustice perpetuated against the people of the region and a long history of fueling devastating conflicts that have caused havoc to the people of the Horn of Africa.
Here it is instructive to mention the statement uttered by the then U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles 1953-1959, that reflects the long standing position of the U.S. administration when it comes to its strategic interest in the region. Disregarding the moral value of justice, he honestly reiterated the ‘Realistic value” of the U.S interest by stating openly "From the point of view of justice, the opinion of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless, the strategic interests of the United States in the Red Sea Basin and world peace make it necessary that the country be linked with our ally Ethiopia."
It has to be remembered that John Foster Dulles was a member of the first Committee on the Present Danger (CPD). At that time the purpose of CPD was to mobilize public support against communism as an evil empire. Now we have a new CPD which is the reincarnation of the first CPD, but with different purpose.
The new CPD is formed in July 2004 by Senator Joseph Lieberman. However, unlike the first CPD that had its mission the anticommunist rhetoric, and the containment of the “Evil Empire”; the new CPD mission is, according to Senator Lieberman, “to advocate policies intended to win the war on global terrorism—terrorism carried out by radical Islamists opposed to freedom and democracy.” [xii]
It is important to note that this organization has CIA affiliations as well. The chairman of the CPD is R. James Woolsey, who served briefly as former President Bill Clinton’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director and has often referred to the battle against radical Islam as “World War IV”, and vehemently stated “The Committee intends to remain active until the present danger is no longer a threat, however long that takes.” [xiii]
Hence, the occupation of Somalia, through its surrogate country Ethiopia Ethiopia, and the announcement made in January 2007 by U.S.. administration to expand camp Lemonier in Djibouti from its current 97 acres to more than 500 acres has to be viewed in line with the new CPD’s mission and hegemonic ambition of dominating the Horn of Africa and the world..
Here what is important to the U.S. administration is not the notion of democracy and justice and the rule of law, but the implementation of the so called ‘Return of the Realists” in U.S. foreign policy. This “doctrine of realism, or its Prussian-accented cousin realpolitik,” according to Walter Isaacson “emphasizes a hard-nosed focus on clearly defined national interests, such as economic or security goals”,[xiv] rather than the notion of democracy and good governance.
Recently, many influential policy makers such as the current U.S. Defense Minister Robert Gates have been advocating vigorously for the implementation of “doctrine of realism” in U.S. foreign policy. In addition, “the intellectual godfather of contemporary realists, Henry Kissinger, who was the whipping boy of the original neocons during the Ford Administration, has also been weighing in with his emphasis on an unsentimental calculation of America's strategic interests.” [xv]
Therefore, U.S. occupation and subjugation of other peoples and nations in the region, and support for corrupt leaders such as Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia has to be understood within the context of this framework of U.S. neo-cons hegemonic ambition in the Horn of Africa and the control of the Red Sea Basin, and in the process of securing its strategic interest the U.S administration has “propped up corrupt dictators, armed some of the world’s worst human rights abusers, and fueled violent conflict.”[xvi]
The Neo-cons Doctrine and its Application in Africa
In arrogant self centricity, and in unthinking short-sightedness, American foreign policy in Africa wants to replace legitimate regimes with puppet governments. Contrary to acceptable international political norms of non interference, in unsophisticated and in unarticulated manner, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi E. Frazer, declared so in regard to the Eritrean leadership.
Jendayi Frazer’s statement has to be viewed in its full context and comprehended from the perspective of neo-cons agenda.. What is amusing is that she is not even part of this elite group of neocons, but a mouthpiece to the organization. Who dictates the tone and the agenda for Jandayi Frazer, is the author and the architect of the neocons Frank Gaffney Jr. He is the founder and president of the Centre for Security Policy. He wrote an article in November 5th, 2005 in National Review on Line by advocating “Regime change — one way or another — in Iran and North Korea, the only hope for preventing these remaining "Axis of Evil" states from fully realizing their terrorist and nuclear ambitions;[xvii]
Moreover, he advocates:
“Adapting appropriate strategies for contending with China’s increasingly fascistic trade and military policies, Vladimir Putin’s accelerating authoritarianism at home and aggressiveness toward the former Soviet republics, the worldwide spread of Islamofascism, and the emergence of a number of aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America.”[xviii]
The author, anticipating fierce criticism from the opposition camps to neo-cons doctrine, concludes his remark by stating that “these items do not represent some sort of neocon "imperialist" game plan. Rather, they constitute a checklist of the work the world will demand of this president and his subordinates in a second term.”[xix]
It is interesting to note that Frank Gaffney Jr. enumerates the list of who is who in the neo-cons circles and conveys his profound appreciation
“Among those who deserve credit for shaping this stunning triumph of American virtues and values are the much-maligned "neoconservatives" and their friends, who have been responsible for helping Bush design and execute his wartime agenda. Special recognition and thanks are thus accorded, for example, to: Vice President Dick Cheney and key members of his staff (including Lewis "Scooter" Libby, John Hannah, and David Wurmser); the National Security Council's Condoleezza Rice, Robert Joseph, and Elliott Abrams; the Defense Department's Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and William Luti; and the State Department's John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, and Paula DeSutter. These people — and too many others — have helped the president imprint moral values on American security policy in a way and to an extent not seen since Ronald Reagan's first term.”[xx]
How the Neocons Doctrine is Implemented in Africa
The notion of neocons doctrine of uncontested power and hegemony in the Horn of Africa that was formulated by Frank Gaffney Jr and implemented by the Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others, as we have seen it in the above pages, is to divide the continent of Africa into sub-zones and rule it through proxy and subservient countries, the US Africom army and the alms of USAID.
Therefore, by “acknowledging the emerging strategic importance of Africa,”[xxi] the Department of Defense with the cooperation of the State Department and the Pentagon has established the US Africa Command Force. The Africom
“reflects a much more integrated staff structure, one that includes significant management and staff representation by the Department of State, USAID and other government agencies involved in Africa and it is led by a senior State Department diplomat as one of two command deputies under Army Gen. William E. "Kip Ward.” [xxii]
According to Gerald LeMelle, the idea for the formation of Africom started in
“October 2003, James Jay Carafano and Nile Gardiner, both from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, proposed to the Bush Administration the creation of a centralized Africa command for the U.S. military. The Carafano/Gardiner proposal makes clear that the objective is to preserve U.S. access to African oil and other natural resources on the continent. Africa produces 90% of the world’s cobalt; 64% of its manganese; 50% of gold; 40% of platinum; 30% of uranium; 20% of total petroleum; 70% of cocoa; 60% of coffee; over 80% of coltan and 50% of palm oil. The Heritage report also points to the strategic importance of Africa in the global “war on terror.”[xxiii]
Hence, currently the U.S. has increased its weapons and equipment sales
“Under State Department oversight, commercial sales by U.S. manufacturers to sub-Saharan Africa from just $900,000 in 2000, to FY 2008 they are estimated $92 million, an 80% increase from FY 2006. At present, the United States has Cooperative Security Location (CSL) agreements with five African countries, which are now operational in Entebbe, Uganda; Libreville, Gabon; Accra, Ghana; Dakar, Senegal; and Lusaka, Zambia. There is also a new joint U.S.-Ugandan intelligence fusion center, just outside of Kampala in Uganda.”[xxiv]
This Cooperative Security Location is in addition to the camp of Lemonier in Djibouti and the training camps in Ethiopia and the willingness of its leaders to become surrogate nations and obedient leaders to the U.S strategic interest in the Horn of Africa.
Moreover, this king of foreign policy has raised the suspicion among many African countries, and analysts in African Affairs started to ponder that:
“The fundamental question for many is whether the U.S. will utilize this increased military presence to support freedom, self determination, growth, prosperity, and accountability on behalf of the majority of the nearly one billion people in Africa or if this new initiative will instead serve to oversee surrogate nations whose leadership is accountable first to U.S. security and economic interests.”[xxv]
The apprehension and refusal by numerous countries in Africa to allow the Africom in their territories is a telling testimony to their suspicion of U.S. grand evil design of exploitation, and subjugation of the continent. As LeMelle has stated
“This escalation has not gone unnoticed. Concerned civil society groups in the U.S. and across the continent of Africa have expressed persistent apprehension over the potential dangers of this change and the absence of any accountability in the process. Democratic governance, sustainable development and human rights are serious challenges in many countries in Africa, but considerable progress has been made by activists, advocates, and civil society organizations over the last few decades. The militarization of aid to Africa could dramatically sharpen the slope of this already uphill battle for social, political and economic justice on the continent.”[xxvi]
What Are the Two U.S. Neocolonial Instruments in Africa?
In this respect it is important to note that the two most significant instruments of American neocolonial strategies of subjugation used in Africa are the US Africom, and USAID and both have the hallmarks of the coming of European conquest in Africa. It is to be recalled that the coming of European conquest in Africa, under the pretext of Civilizing Mission of White Man’s Burden, had brought devastating advance of emotional, psychological and physical annihilation and arrogant cultural superiority by dismissing the original peoples of the region as a savage fauna fit only to be relieved of their land, their treasure, their identity and their souls.
Similarly, the American foreign policy in Africa through its neocolonial instruments of US Africom and USAID has burdened the peoples of this region with the sward of war, the avarice of blunder, the compulsion of religion and the stains of disease.
Certainly, in our contemporary world politics the rugged Legionaries of the colonial armies are replaced by more sophisticated and more refined US Africom Command Force; and the helping hands of zealot missionaries are replaced by USAID and NGOs as almoners. Certainly the alms to proxy and surrogate nations are administrated advalorem to their subservient services.
Eritreaand the World
Therefore, to generations of Eritreans born into this fearful dark shadows of the kingdom of the night i.e. the U.S. hegemonic ambitions in the region, the cold war conflicts and the intervention of superpowers in the Horn of Africa; the liberation of Eritrea from foreign powers, which culminated in internationally supervised referendum of 1993, has offered a glimpse of a new dawn of peace.
Thus, Eritrea through insightful determination and incisive unity of its people has torn back the sordid curtains of thoughtless denial of its sovereignty. The country, energized by a powerful dedication to the writing of wrongs, made meaningless the statement by the U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles 1953-1959, who declared "From the point of view of justice, the opinion of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless, the strategic interests of the United States in the Red Sea Basin and world peace make it necessary that the country be linked with our ally Ethiopia."
Now the people and the leaders of Eritrea has shown to the world that they are gifted observers of tarnished past and are not prepared to compromise their sovereignty, and independence, and they are challenging the neo-cons ambition of subjugation of the peoples and nations of the Horn of Africa by determined effort, and by becoming faithful guardians of the their country. They have labored during the difficult time of the armed struggle not to become subservient and now are determined to resurrect and to affirm the vital instrumentality of its people’s involvement in the creation of the country we now call Eritrea in their own Image and Likeness, just to use a Biblical phrase.
For Eritreans, as the Roman, author, orator, and politician Cicero would say “the name of peace is sweet, and the thing itself is beneficial, but there is a great difference between peace and servitude. Peace is freedom in tranquility; servitude is the worst of all evils, to be resisted not only by war, but even by death”.
Thus, it is with this formidable sense of pride and fortitude that the modus operandi of nation building process in Eritrea has begun. After independence, Eritrea has sought not the triumphs of the sward, but as the Latin poet Horace would say “now my armour and my lyre – its wars over – will hang on this wall”.
The country set aside the clenched fist of hostility and offered its hand, open, in trust and reconciliation even with those who were the architects of its occupation: the United States, the United Nations, and the Ethiopian Imperial power. Since then Eritrean path has been a passionate quest to bring the fragile Horn of Africa and the whole continent of Africa into the shade of the tree of peace. Blessed is the peacemaker.
Moreover, searching for the bloodless revolution of the mind, Eritrea tore down walls and sought to still the dead hand of the past. With unwavering faith in the creativity of the human spirit, it embraced the ferocious whirlwind of change by establishing economic and military cooperation with neighboring states; embraced the economic of globalization with the rest of the world; shaped the destiny of East Africa by becoming an active member of IGAD and formulated policies and strategies for its performance; and finally, Eritrea, established a solid alliance with the United States by becoming a member of the Coalition of the Willing for the fight against terrorism.
Thus, Eritrea loosed the warm of sunshine upon captive souls frozen in the long winter of despair and colonization and racism. Confident in the invigorating possibilities of change, it offered up the heady elixir of free choice and gave voice to peoples, long powerless and held in enforced silence. Eritrea has become a resolute author of reform in land, economics, mining and mineral explorations by allocating its natural resources to the rightful owners of the land. Hence, Eritrea has become determined architect of hope, dynamic herald of new era.
However, Eritrea as an exemplar nation among developing nations that serves its people with integrity and social justice; a country that quietly encourages with grace and intelligence the practice of self-reliance; a country that engenders the respect and admiration of its people; and a country that has become a model to other African societies pose a grave danger to the United States neocolonial doctrine of uncontested power and hegemony in the Horn of Africa.
What Are The Implications for Eritrea?
What are the implications for Eritrea for having a defiant spirit and determine sense of sovereignty and independence? What are the consequences for Eritrea for refusing to be a subservient vis-à-vis the America neocons ambitions to subjugate and dominate the peoples and the nations of the Horn of Africa?
The political incongruity created by Eritrea’s fierce sense of sovereignty and independence on one hand, and the America neocons political ambitions of uncontested domination and subjugations of other peoples and nations in the Horn of Africa on the other hand, has created a political contradictions that necessitated to make Eritrea and its leaders as a pariah state and a bad example not to be imitated by other countries. And for its refusal to become a subservient to their political strategy it was decided, should face the wrath of the “invisible hand”.
Thus, as a form of punishment a systematic and a well orchestrated campaign against the people and leaders of the Eritrean nation started. A litany of poisonous writings, and insidious disinformation by State Department followed. Regional alliances were created such as the tripartite Sana’a Forum to isolate Eritrea. Paid agents and the Eritrean oppositions were organized. The labyrinthine halls of Ethiopia capital were transformed to become the headquarters of the opposition camps, with some, among them, openly declared Jihadists and terrorist organizations. Consequently, boisterous scrum of alliances, and mini alliance, under the umbrella of EDA, were created. Meetings were organized with State Department representatives and tantalizing secrets and strategies where provided to them by the experts of State Department to sell and fragment the country.
Moreover, non existing border problems are concocted by the State Department between Eritrea and Djibouti and immediately the disinformation campaign and press release by the State Department are disseminated such as “The United States condemns Eritrea’s military aggression against Djibouti in the vicinity of the border between the two countries at Ras Doumeira.,”[xxvii] in order to achieve their political agenda. (Please refer to the index for the press statement by the State Department and the corresponding responses by Eritrean Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
This assertion is contrary to what the facts are in the ground, and according to the report by Agency Press France which wrote “French forces based in Djibouti had carried out a reconnaissance on Thursday at the government’s request but had not been able to confirm an incursion.”[xxviii]
In addition, the invisible hands of neocons instruments, and their financial institutions started to strangulate the life line of this tiny and proud nation as the World Bank and the IMF serve “the ideologically defined interests of the U.S. and other wealth member states.”[xxix]
In order to denigrate Eritrea’s image some experts were called and questionable institutions were created, and the so called human rights organizations where deployed to lend credence to the dissemination of the disinformation. In addition, dubious experts who were called to give academic credence the State Departments agenda in the Horn have predicted the life expectancy of this tiny and proud country to last only for six months.
Consequently, the intervention in Somalia through Ethiopia’s proxy war, the displacement and the prolonged suffering in Darfur (remember its huge reserve of Uranium, and oil), the non existing border issues concocted between Eritrea and Djibouti, and the prevention of permanent solution to the border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, notwithstanding the virtual demarcation, and the oppression of nationalities in Ethiopia are some of the tangible manifestations of the neocons ambitions, and the ultimate political expediency of American foreign policy in Africa.
Here it is sufficient to observe how the honorable Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, President of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, responds to the trickery and old fashioned political deception by the Ethiopian leader Meles Zenawi vis-à-vis Ethiopian and Eritrean border adjudication. (Please refer to Index 3 for the letter in its entirety, which was originally attached to paragraph 6 of the twenty-second report of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission. The letter is dated November 27, 2006)
Have the State Department Achieved the End Result Vis-à-vis Eritrea?
Now it is imperative, and prudent to ask, if, with all their preparations and Machiavellian strategic maneuverings, the neocons have achieved the end result of their ambition i.e. to make Eritrea their surrogate state and its people and its leader subordinate subjects?
The indubitable answer to the above question is that the overwhelming majority of the Eritrea people rejected this sinister strategy of domination. This is clearly manifested by their rejection to the artificial formation of EDA by the State Department, supposedly, to replace the government of Eritrea. Remember when Alexis Tocqueville said when he was talking about democracy that “No man can struggle with advantage against the spirit of his age and country, and however powerful a man may be, it is hard for him to make his contemporaries share feelings and ideas which run counter to the general run of their hopes and desires.”
Thus, the EDA political ideology of subservient is clearly against the spirit of the overwhelming majority of the Eritrean people. Meetings organized by State Department with EDA representatives to give them some sort of acceptance and recognition in the eyes of the world, however powerful that gesture may be, is hard to make the Eritrean people “share feelings and ideas which run counter to the general run of their hopes and desires”. This, therefore, explains the failure of EDA to mobilize the Eritrean people behind its agenda to “change the regime”.
The Eritrean people, driven by fidelity to the past and blessed with bold dreams of the future of their country, stood with their government in the vanguard of their country, each as a member of a noble companionship of warriors saying as Epictetus would say “no man can rob us of our free will”.
Moreover, contrary to the predictions of the experts that have discounted the country as insignificant, Eritrea with an amazing ability and compelling sacrifice has fought a gallant war to preserve its hard won independence and its territorial integrity in the battlegrounds of Badme that was instigated by the Bush administration.
The people and the leaders of Eritrea have declared, in unison voice, against the neo-cons hegemonic ambition, as Churchill had declared to the fight against the evil hegemonic empire of domination of Hitler
“ We shall go on to the end, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our islands (country), whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which (we) do not for a moment believe, this (country) or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our (country) , armed and guarded by the (Warsay - Yikaalo), would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, (the total liberation of our country is secured). Emphasis is mine.
What Is the Solution And Proposed Recommendations?
It is hoped, at the present time, that the decision makers at the State Department have become aware and educated themselves about the tenacity and endurance of Eritrea’s struggle against colonialism and neocolonialism.
The Eritrean people and their leaders uphold to the memory of their martyrs, who have sacrificed to make this nation free and independent, and promise to adhere to the norms of morality and conduct of a free nation. For Eritreans, to repeat it again, as Cicero would say “the name of peace is sweet, and the thing itself is beneficial, but there is a great difference between peace and servitude. Peace is freedom in tranquility; servitude is the worst of all evils, to be resisted not only by war, but even by death”.
Eritrea’s lesson is astonishing and instructive for a number of reasons. Here is a nation that has defied the trickery of big power politics, first U.S. annexation of Eritrea to its Ethiopian ally in order to safeguard the strategic interests of the United States in the Red Sea Basin, and latter, during the Cold War, it has defied the largest army in sub-Saharan Africa, armed and supported by the Soviet Union in competition with the U.S. for the control of the Horn of Africa.
Now we are entering a new phase of the same old game, and Eritrea will emerge triumphant as it has done numerous times throughout its history.. It is indubitable that Eritrean triumph is assured because the rule of law is the basis of our freedom and shapes the common good. The true measure of our success as a society and country is to be found in the effort we make to achieve the idea of justice. Throughout our existence we remained steadfast to our inalienable right to exist as a nation. This articulate and well crafted principle in the fight to ascertain our existence as a nation wove new strands into the fabric of this nation.
The challenge that we, as a nation, encounter explaining Eritrean gallant struggle for independence is daunting task empirically, which consist fundamentally of making, the decision makers in the State Department, to reconsider their perception of the Horn of Africa and provide them with concrete and tangible history lessons of Eritrea’s fierce struggle to assert total sovereignty and independence from foreign powers. This could be achieved by instructing them with empirical data that they will commit grave errors by alienating Eritrea, and, instead will gain tremendous advantage by embracing and establishing an equal partnership with Eritrea.
However, the theoretical difficult to achieve the reconsideration and change of perception within the decision makers in the State Department vis-à-vis the Horn of Africa, is shown by the utterly démodé and old fashioned school of thinking in the State Department where policy makers and advisers are schooled in the old social theory of East and West rivalry, where the inability to see the world in reciprocal benefit have led to disastrous policy decisions for the African people. The vast literature in the Horn of Africa is permeated with Ethiopian studies of Solomonic legends that has no relevance to contemporary history and politics. As a result of this general lack of knowledge, all kind of misunderstandings and myths about Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa is developing. These misconceptions, moreover, have broader implications for the way in which events are reported in the Horn of Africa.
Now to make matters worst, the U.S. administration has opened an annex at the U.S. embassy in Ethiopia in 2006, the Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS), to train new servants, who will be capable of establishing surrogate nations and perpetuate this myth and the suffering of their own people. The Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS) was created, according to Lauren Ploch,
“In 1999 as one of DOD’s five regional centers for strategic studies. It conducts a variety of academic activities for African, American, and European military and civilian officials aimed promoting good governance and democratic values, countering ideological support
of terrorism, and fostering regional collaboration and cooperation in the African
defense and security sectors. ACSS, which is based in Washington, DC, opened an
annex at the U.S. embassy in Ethiopia in 2006 and is planning future annexes
elsewhere on the continent.”[xxx]
Therefore, the new approach should be to revise the old history that calls to acknowledge the injustices inflicted, and what has for so long been denied to people their fundamental, and inalienable rights. As Patrick W. Quirk state in “Democracy promotion Doublespeak” that ‘the next administration must ‘decontaminate’ democracy promotion from the negative acquired under Bush, and ‘reposition’ it away from its current affiliations with the war on terrorism, and ‘recalibrate’ it to account for an ever-changing international context.
It is only following this approach to foreign policy, “one which constantly probes who we are, who we are becoming as country and as community, and what this means for the decisions we make in foreign policy, can we avoid blowback in the future as we engage the world in the 21st century.”[xxxi]
Then Eritrea, given opportunities to interact with giants and to collaborate with kinder spirits, will work, as it has cooperated in the past, with enthusiasm and vigour, by investing its intelligence and its insight to focus on the manifold challenges facing our cotemporary world.
Conclusion
In these skeptical and cynical times, it is heartening to discover the extent to which committed and vigorous the Eritrean people, inside and outside the country, have invested their lives and their talents, and their financial contributions in the advancement of this country through allegiance to their government and to the power of their own rich history. With an amazing patriotism and an incisive eye for detail, Eritrea shines the light of clarity upon a complex world of people and issues hitherto hidden to the outside world about the Horn of Africa.
There is civic courage in choosing not to follow in the undemanding footsteps of those who have gone before and who have become a subservient to foreign powers. There is daring in taking first steps down an unfamiliar and less traveled road. Fraught with perils, manifest and undiscovered, this new road to a new land is neither smooth nor easy nor predictable, nor, is the end yet in sight. But, the historic journey has begun. And Eritrea will be as Marcus Aurelius would say “like the promontory against which the waves continually break, but it stands firm and tames the fury of the water around it”.
Index
1.
Press Release: Statement on US Allegations
By Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Jun 12, 2008, 19:28
The US State Department has issued a statement today, maliciously accusing Eritrea of committing military aggression against Djibouti. This statement is neither new nor surprising.
As part and parcel of her routine vilification campaign against Eritrea, US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa claimed, on May 12 last month, that Eritrea had made an incursion into Djibouti.
It is unfortunate that the US Administration is currently embroiled in instigating, compounding and inflaming regional conflicts with the purpose of creating turmoil as an excuse for managing the ensuing crisis.
Indeed, the sad and well-known fact is that US policy and meddling in our region starting from the border conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia to the situations in the Sudan, Kenya and Somalia is contributing to the proliferation and aggravation of crises. Consequently, the resolution of problems has become elusive and the stability of our region undermined..
In the event, the baseless and mendacious statement that the US State Department issued today cannot be seen outside the context of the unconstructive practices described above.
The Government of Eritrea rejects, as always, this stance in letter and spirit.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
12 June 2008
Asmara
2.
Press Statement
Gonzalo Gallegos, Director of Press Relations
Washington, DC
June 11, 2008
Eritrea–Djibouti Border
The United States condemns Eritrea’s military aggression against Djibouti in the vicinity of the border between the two countries at Ras Doumeira. These hostilities represent an additional threat to peace and security in the already volatile Horn of Africa. We understand that at least nine Djiboutians have been killed and over 60 injured as a result of the Eritrean attacks.
We call on both sides to cease all military hostilities immediately and to reduce tensions by withdrawing troops from the border area. The United States calls on Eritrea and Djibouti to move forward at once to resolve border issues peacefully, in accordance with international law, and for Eritrea to accept offers of third party mediation in this regard.
2008/484
Released on June 11, 2008
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/jun/105834.htm
3
S/2007/33
07-20892 14
Enclosure
Attachment to paragraph 6 of the twenty-second report
of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission: letter dated
27 November 2006from the President of the Commission to
the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia
I have received and read with care your letter to me of 13 November 2006.
Although it is not usual for international tribunals to respond to criticisms made by a
discontented party, it is not possible for the Commission to leave your observations
without some response — the more so as you have already given much publicity to
your letter and have requested that it should be published as a Security Council
document. I do not reply in full detail because the Commission’s understanding of
the facts is set out in the Statement which it is issuing today, of which I attach a
copy. Nonetheless, with great respect, I have to tell you that, insofar as your letter
purports to set out facts, those that it states are, regrettably, in significant detail
wrong or highly selective.
At the outset, as a striking example of misleading selection, I refer to the
manner in which, towards the end of your letter, you refer to the statement made by
the President of the Security Council on 17 October 2006. You quote the whole of
that statement with the exception of the highly relevant final paragraph bearing on
the conduct of Ethiopia. This reads as follows: “Members of the Security Council
call on Ethiopia to implement fully the EEBC decision”. This was not the first time
that the Security Council has called on Ethiopia to fulfil its obligations in respect of
the Demarcation Decision. Nor is Ethiopia’s failure to respond positively to such a
call the first time that it has disregarded the call of the Security Council. It is a
matter of regret that Ethiopia has so persistently maintained a position of
non-compliance with its obligations in relation to the Commission.
You again put forward Ethiopia’s contention that the Commission’s procedure
“does not conform with international practice and does not allow sufficient
consideration of anomalies and impracticabilities as between the lines set out in the
April 2003 Delimitation Decision and the realities on the ground”. (The Decision
was actually rendered a year earlier than the date you give.) The Commission has
met this contention in detail in its Observations of 21 March 2003. There the
Commission explained that it was not empowered by the Algiers Agreement to vary
the line of delimitation that it had determined on the basis of the evidence before it.
Indeed, the Commission is expressly prohibited from doing so by the provision in
the Algiers Agreement that “the Commission shall not have the power to make
decisions ex aequo et bono” (Article 4 (2)). The prohibition of recourse to ex aequo
et bono can only mean that the Commission must implement what it finds to be the
strict legal position in accordance with the terms and procedures clearly prescribed
by the Parties.
You complain of the conduct of Eritrea, saying that it “has refused to heed
either the Commission’s requests or the Security Council’s demand” and you
observe that “under the circumstances, I cannot imagine that appeasement of Eritrea
is the appropriate step”.. There is no basis for the suggestion that the Commission
has been appeasing Eritrea. Nor can such a suggestion, however unfounded, obscure
the fact that Ethiopia has itself been in breach of its obligations under the Algiers
Agreement in several important respects. It is sufficient here to mention one serious
one, namely, Ethiopia’s continued failure to comply with the Commission’s Order of
17 July 2002 requiring Ethiopia forthwith to arrange for the return to Ethiopian
territory of those persons in Dembe Mengul who were moved from Ethiopia
pursuant to an Ethiopian resettlement programme since 13 April 2002 and to report
to the Commission on the implementation of this order by 30 September 2002.
Ethiopia has made no report to the Commission. A more detailed account of
Ethiopia’s lack of cooperation and breaches of its obligations is set out in today’s
Statement of the Commission.
You state that “it is impossible to understand or accept the Commission’s plan
to issue a Demarcation Decision, notwithstanding the clear understanding by the
Parties and Witnesses to the Algiers Agreement that the final demarcation would be
impossible without a cooperative process with a view to understanding and dealing
with anomalies and impracticabilities”. A “cooperative process”, it is true, is
important if it can be achieved. What you do not mention is the fact that Ethiopia
has by its conduct on many occasions repeatedly obstructed the Commission’s field
personnel and prevented them from carrying out the necessary investigations in the
field and made a “cooperative process” impossible. Ethiopia’s actions in this respect
preceded the more recent episodes in which Eritrea’s conduct, largely by making it
impossible for UNMEE to provide necessary assistance to the Commission’s field
personnel, has contributed to the impasse.
The Commission does not contest the assertion that its approach to
demarcation by way of setting out coordinates indicating precise Boundary Points
was not part of its original intention. Its intention had been to go on the ground and,
in consultation and cooperation with the Field Liaison Officers of the Parties, to
establish the locations for the emplacement of boundary pillars. Despite repeated
initiatives on the part of the Commission supported by requests of the Security
Council that the Parties cooperate, Ethiopia, for one, has made this approach
impossible. The Commission cannot be left in limbo as a body charged with a
function that the very Parties creating it have prevented it from performing.
One of the elements in Ethiopia’s complaints is that Eritrea is guilty of the
same obstruction. Eritrea’s non-cooperation with the Commission only really
developed after Ethiopia insisted that the boundary should be altered to meet with
what Ethiopia chose to call “anomalies and impracticabilities”, despite the clear
statements of the Commission that this could not be done. When asked to confirm
its continuing acceptance of the Delimitation Decision, Ethiopia repeatedly qualified
its position by saying that it wished negotiations to take place regarding such
“anomalies and impracticabilities”. Eritrea’s insistence on strict adherence to the
terms of the Delimitation Decision was a position which it was entitled to adopt in
accordance with the Algiers Agreement.
You place great emphasis on “the need for dialogue and support by neutral
bodies to help the two Parties make progress in demarcation and normalization of
their relations”. Of course, “the normalization of relations” is a desirable objective
but that is a matter that falls outside the scope of the Commission’s mandate, which
is solely to delimit and demarcate the border. The scope for “dialogue” is limited to
what is necessary between the Commission and the Parties to further the actual
process of demarcation on the ground. There is no room within the framework of the
Algiers Agreement for the introduction of “neutral bodies” into the demarcation
process.
You ask “Why has the Commission abruptly and without notice chosen to
abandon the process for demarcation embodied in its rules, instructions and
decisions?” The answer is that the Commission has been unable to make progress,
initially, because of Ethiopia’s obstruction and, more recently, because Eritrea has
followed a similar course. Matters cannot be left in this uncertain condition.
Something must be done. You will see from today’s Statement of the Commission
attached to this letter that the Commission has not abandoned the idea of pillar
emplacement. In that Statement the Commission again provides the Parties with an
opportunity to cooperate with it in the pillar emplacement process. Only if no real
progress is made during the next 12 months will the Commission resort to
demarcation by coordinates alone to identify boundary point locations.
You complain about the Commission’s “engagement” with the Security
Council. You disregard the fact that the Commission has since its inception been
“engaged” with the Security Council by reason of the Commission’s quarterly
reports to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which have then been
annexed by him to his own reports to the Security Council and have formed the
basis of numerous references to the situation and requests to the Parties by the
Security Council. Moreover, the Security Council has repeatedly shown its concern
with the process of demarcation by the adoption of a number of resolutions calling
upon Ethiopia, and more recently Eritrea also, to comply with the terms of the
Algiers Agreement.
Your letter seeks to blame the Commission for Ethiopia’s failure to meet its
obligations under the Algiers Agreement. Such blame is entirely misplaced. The
truth of the matter appears to be that Ethiopia is dissatisfied with the substance of
the Commission’s Delimitation Decision and has been seeking, ever since April
2002, to find ways of changing it. This is not an approach which the Commission
was empowered to adopt and is not one to which the Commission can lend itself.
I regret that it has been necessary to address you in such direct terms but your
letter — and the publicity that you have given it — have left me with no alternative.
It would be unacceptable for an international tribunal to be exposed to the kind of
criticism which you have lodged without replying to it in necessary detail.
(Signed) Sir Elihu Lauterpacht
President of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission
________________________________
[i] William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix, Deadly Legacy:
U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War, January 2000 http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm
[ii] Ibid
[iii] Ibid
[iv] Ibid
[v] Ibid
[vi]Gerald LeMelle, African Policy Outlook 2008, Foreign Policy in Focus, February 7, 2008 http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4949
[vii] Gerald LeMelle
[viii] Lauren Ploch, AfricaCommand: U.S. Strategic Interests
And the Role of the U.S. Military in Africa, March 10, 2008
[ix] Ibid
[x] William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix
[xi] Ibid
[xii] Jim Lobe, They’re Back: Neocons revive the Committee on the present danger, this time against Terrorism, Interhemispheric Centre, July 21, 2004
[xiii] Ibid
[xiv] Walter Isaacson, The Return of Realists, Time Magazine, November12, 2006
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1558325,00.html
[xv] Ibid
[xvi] William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix
[xvii] Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Worldwide Value, National review on Line, November 5, 2004
http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200411051020.asp
[xviii] Ibid
[xix] Ibid
[xx] Ibid
[xxi] Africom, can be viewed at: http://www..africom.mil/
[xxii] Ibid
[xxiii] Gerald LeMelle
[xxiv] Ibid
[xxv] Ibid[xxv] William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix, Deadly Legacy:
U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War, January 2000 http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv]Gerald LeMelle, African Policy Outlook 2008, Foreign Policy in Focus, February 7, 2008 http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4949
[xxv] Gerald LeMelle
[xxv] Lauren Ploch, AfricaCommand: U.S. Strategic Interests
And the Role of the U.S. Military in Africa, March 10, 2008
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] Jim Lobe, They’re Back: Neocons revive the Committee on the present danger, this time against Terrorism, Interhemispheric Centre, July 21, 2004
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] Walter Isaacson, The Return of Realists, Time Magazine, November12, 2006
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1558325,00.html
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix
[xxv] Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Worldwide Value, National review on Line, November 5, 2004
http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200411051020.asp
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] Africom, can be viewed at: http://www.africom.mil/
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] Gerald LeMelle
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] U.S. Department of State, Gonzalo Gallegos, Director of Press Relations
Washington, DC, June 11, 2008http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/jun/105834.htm
[xxv] AP, June 12, 2008
[xxv] Ibid
[xxv] Lauren Ploch
[xxv] Scott M. Thomas, How and Why to Support Religion Overseas, Foreign policy in Focus, November 6, 2007
[xxvi] Ibid
[xxvii] U.S. Department of State, Gonzalo Gallegos, Director of Press Relations
Washington, DC, June 11, 2008http://www..state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/jun/105834.htm
[xxviii] AP, June 12, 2008
[xxix] Ibid
[xxx] Lauren Ploch
[xxxi] Scott M. Thomas, How and Why to Support Religion Overseas, Foreign policy in Focus, November 6, 2007
__________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
http://www.flickr.com/gift/