Is the Real Issue the Brussels Conference?

On October 29, 2009 www.awate.com ¹ reported a conference organized by the European External Policy Advisory (EEPA), a Belgian NGO entity, and represented by Dr. Mirjam Van Reisen and an Eritrean “Task Force”² to take place in Brussels, Belgium. The conference’s aim was to align the policies of the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) in promoting democracy and human rights in Eritrea and the Horn of Africa region. In reaction to this news, the chairman of the Eritrean Democratic Alliance (EDA), Mr Tewolde Gebreslassie, sent an open letter to the European Commission president Mr. Jose Manuel, in which he condemned the conference and accused EU of exclusion and endangering the unity of EDA. In addition, we read many articles: some supporting the initiative while others opposing it for different reasons.

The main criticisms that I gathered are mainly lack of transparency and inclusiveness. To EDA and to some critics, it was irrelevant whether the “Brussels Conference” hosted by EEPA and the Eritrean Task Force will have a positive outcome or not. Their verdict was already handed down way before the hearing (the conclusion of the conference) began to take place. Condemning the initiative undertaken by the EEPA and the Task Force not only was a hasty reaction, but also the open letter addressed to the EU appeared to have been dropped to the wrong entity. The European Union will now have two different views and versions on their table: one that condemns their effort and the other that appeals for a coordinated engagement of EU and US. But the most concerning of the open letter is that it sends a wrong message to the international arena, which gives the impression that the Eritrean opposition camp is too fractured to have one voice. In addition, EDA failed to see its moral obligation in supporting any positive initiation by Eritrean individuals, especially scholars. As EDA has the right to tackle the Eritrean agonizing issue at hand, any Eritrean also has a democratic right in tackling the same issue.

The main objection to the Brussels conference points to a number of CIDRIE members in the Task Force, their chairman of CIDRIE, Mr. Suleiman Hussein who was invited to the conference, and Mr. Woldeyesus Ammar, the Joint Leadership Committee of the Eritrean Democratic Party (EDP), Eritrean People’s Movement (EPM) and Eritrean People’s Party (EPP). Abdurahman Sayed, the spokesperson of the Task Force, in his interview to “Assenna” said the selection of Mr. Ammar was based on the individual’s skill-set or resume on international matters and his journalism skills (paraphrase is mine). But rather than seeing the participation of Mr. Ammar, who is a member of EDA, as a positive contribution to our cause, it was used as a scapegoat to undermine the conference and its objectives. If Mr. Ammar had known this kind of pity reactions, I do not think he would have attended the conference. Do Eritrean people really care who the messenger is as long as the objective of the conference is to promote democracy and human rights in Eritrea? What better presentation or better outcome could the chairman of the EDA have achieved if he had attended the conference? You saw it; you heard it. You be the judge.

But does any Eritrean who takes initiative for the public good – to promote democracy and human rights need a license from EDA or its member organizations? Who gave EDA the mandate and authority to dictate any activity or initiative that aims to alleviate the suffering of the Eritrean People from the dictatorial regime of PFDJ? Although it is very hard sometimes to deal with Eritrean politics, we Eritreans need to establish and agree on some basic fundamental truth as people. For example, the “Task Force” members are within their own right to invite anyone that they think is acceptable to represent the message based on pre-determined criterion for their selection. The same is true for any EDA member organization to have the right to engage with any organization or state government on matters related to Eritrean politics. Mr. Woldeyesus Ammar was invited to participate in the conference as a member of the Joint Leadership of the three organizations (EDP, EPP and EPM) and not as a representative of EDA. Under the EDA charter, can any leader or member of the EDA organizations tell the Eritrean People what part of the laws of the EDA Mr. Ammar has violated?

The Brussels Conference episode reminds me of the so called “border war of Badme” between Eritrea and Ethiopia during 1998. We, in the opposition camp, know that the Badme war was used as a scapegoat or as an excuse to cover the existing animosity between Meles Zenawi lead Ethiopia and Esayas Afeweki lead Eritrea. Although this was denied by the Eritrean government for 11 years, President Isayas admitted during his interview with Voice of America (VOA) this year that Badme was used as an excuse (“mismis”). As Badme was used as a scapegoat for the war, the Brussels Conference was also used as an excuse to cover the real issue, which is the existing mistrust among the member organizations that make up the Eritrean Democratic Alliance. Some of the mistrust is real and some of it is fabricated (intentional creation) depending on the motivation of a member organization. In short, the Brussels conference was used as a sledge-hammer to alienate or isolate some of the EDA member organizations and CIDRIE both from the opposition camp and from the public, mainly because these entities subscribe to the peaceful and democratic means of struggle.

In my observation, there is a concerted effort by some EDA member organizations, affiliated members, some Eritrean Websites, and some Paltalk Rooms against the democratic organizations, namely the Eritrean Democratic Party (EDP), Eritrean People’s Party (EPP) and Eritrean People’s Movement (EPM) and CIDRIE (a civic society organization). This blackmail effort has been in the working for some time now. In fact, as the unity process among these organizations approaches to its final phase, the defamation and blackmail has intensified exponentially.

In my recollection, it first started by the commentary given by Shiek Mohammed Turki³ (one of the leaders of the member organization of EDA). Then, soon Ali Salim followed using Awate’s website as a safe-haven. Another campaign was only on the works by Dr. Tesfazion Medhanie and Ghirmai Kidane (Wodi Philipo). Although people do not take Wodi Philipo seriously, he claims he supports the “Democratic Front of Eritrean Nationalities.” Dr.Tesfazion Medhanie accused the three organizations of trying to ally with PFDJ in the speech he gave to the Eritrean National Salvation Front festival in Kassel, Germany. But Dr. Tesfazion failed to provide even the slightest evidence to support his accusation. Mr. Ghirmai Kidane has been on the defamation business against leaders of the three uniting organizations, but more against leaders with EPLF backgrounds. In addition, what I have witnessed in the past few weeks in the various Eritrean Paltalk forums was also the same defamation tactics being used by some members of the opposition. Interestingly, the accusation, defamation, and blackmailing were not attributed to any lack of information and knowledge, but they were intentional strategic and evil act with the single purpose to alienate these organizations from the public. Their aim: to pursue their own narrow organizational agenda. Some of the accusation tactic they use is both laughable and manipulative. For example, they like to take words out of context and interpret them to justify their own self-created accusation.

I believe it is appropriate for any organization or members of rank and files of any political organization or any citizen to challenge or question any Eritrean political organization’s political program and strategy, but it has to be in a civilized manner. What is not democratic and civil is to blackmail and falsely accuse any organization or individual in order to gain some leverage for your own narrow organizational political agenda. During the last three weeks, the issue of the Brussels conference has been the main topic of discussion in various Eritreans sponsored Paltalk Rooms. For the most part, the discussion was nasty and full of blackmailing and defaming against the Brussels conference participants and the organizations that were associated with the conference.

I understand the current Chairman of EDA, Mr. Tewolde, served as the head of his own organization (“Saghim”) since the 80s, but such long career on the same position doesn’t make him an outright candidate to the conference. It is not my business to get involved in his own organization, but it becomes my business when his rank and files of his organization and other EDA member organizations are on a blackmailing campaign against the participants of the conference. It becomes my business when the rank and files of EDA member organizations accuse the three organizations (EDP, EPM and EPP) by equating them to PFDJ without weighing in the damages that these accusations and lies can bring both to the people’s struggle and to the unity of the opposition camp.

It is very easy to see the hate mongering members of some of the organizations in the Paltalk rooms who use pen names and spend time spewing vitriolic and hateful messages against others. Some even went to the extent of injecting religion into the mix to insult a leader and a hard-working public servant during the Paltalk room discussions (I chose not to insert those comments in this piece because of their sensitivity and divisive nature). This is really the Eritrean politics at its worst level when blackmailing and religious tactics are used to divide the Eritrean people. Some have even taken their grievances to the extreme by accusing the Brussels conference participants of harboring PFDJ secret agenda and called on EDA members to split. What I have witnessed is that these individuals employ the same tactic as the PFDJ supporters do in their use of outright lie and blackmail for their selfish and narrow agenda. It was proven to me that their agenda is not in line with the people’s agenda, which is transforming our society to live in peace and in unity within the context of our diversity in post PFDJ democratic Eritrea. It was demeaning and undignified to listen how good citizens were being insulted by individuals who gave their organization’s agenda above and beyond our people’s suffering and national agenda. To me, there is no difference between the blackmailing tactics used by PFDJ against the opposition when it labeled them the Fifth Column (“Hamushay Mesrie”), and the blackmailing and defaming tactics used by some EDA member organizations against the EDP, EPP and EPM in addition to portraying them as PFDJ recruits, messengers, and reformists. It was not hard for me to imagine what Eritrea would look like if these kinds of people were in power.

You might be curious to know why all these negative campaign against these organizations. Let’s look at the survey conducted by www.awate.com ⁴ on matters related to the unity of these organizations. The survey deals whether or not a visitor of the website supports the “The Recent Merger/Consolidation Attempts of the Eritrean Opposition Groups”. As of November 21st, 2,097 voted and 23% (488 out of 2,097 vote) said the merger of these organizations is negative. Although the Website is considered an opposition website, let’s make a fair and unscientific assumption that about 8% of those who voted are PFDJ supporters. Taking this assumption into consideration, you would have about 15% from the opposition camps who do not like the unity of these organizations to happen. This 15% is a very smaller number based on my observation and from what I have witnessed in the Paltalk room discussions within the opposition camp.

At the center of all of the accusation was the Eritrean People’s Party (EPP). The question is why? The following points are my personal observation and assessment not my party’s assessment. Anyone with different perspective has the right to disagree with my own assessments.

1. EPP is at the center of gravity advocating both the unity of the opposition and the empowerment of our people to overthrow the dictatorship of PFDJ and replace it with a democratic system that gives power to the people.

Petros Tesfagiorgis in his article, Belgium Task Force Making the Eritrean Case Visible⁵ said, “The empowerment of the people is critical to achieving genuine democracy in any country.” In 2006, ELF-RC decided to transform itself to a new party in order to accommodate and unite the opposition on basis of Party Platform/political program and vision for post PFDJ Eritrea. It took more than two years to transition to a Party level. EPP approached many of the opposition organizations to join it in the formation of the new Party. The only positive response was from the Eritrean Democratic Party (EDP). The negotiations between ELF-RC and EDP were previously initiated to dismantle the ELF and EPLF divide and to work together to democratize Eritrea under a constitutional government regardless of the past history. It was envisaged as a step forward in the healing process for the wounds that had been created during the armed struggle.

Many people use the name EPP interchangeably with the former ELF-RC without having enough knowledge about the composition and political programs and strategy the party embraces. It is accurate to say the majority of EPP members came from the former ELF-RC, but to say EPP is wearing the same hat ELF-RC wore before is absolutely false.

My involvement with EPP is as old as its foundation, which is August 1, 2008. Many of us joined EPP after August of 2008 based on the political platform and the means of struggle that was laid-out. The fact is the new composition of the new EPP, its diversity if you will, compounded with the desire for change by former ELR-RC members played a major role in heralding a new political phenomena and vision in Eritrean politics. EPP is about empowering our people to become owners of their country. EPP is not about imposing. EPP sees itself as a catalyst for change by involving our people in their own affairs; EPP strives for fundamental involvement of our people to dismantle the artificial dividing line of ELF vs. EPLF, region against region, ethnicity (“Bhier”) vs. another ethnicity, one religion against another religion etc. EPP is leading the way in breaking down the divide of our people (status quo) that existed for many decades, sort of taking down our own little “Berlin Wall.” But this unusual phenomenon is being seen by some of the opposition camp members as a threat both to the status quo and to their very own existence.

I believe that without having a genuine and credible political organization or party not only the plight of our people will be prolonged, but also there is a potential that our people can be betrayed for the second time in post independence Eritrea. We must empower our people today not tomorrow to become real participants in the struggle for democracy. This is what EPP is trying to do.

But we also need to face the larger problem, the EDA. I do not think the current EDA is credible enough to replace PFDJ and achieve a democratic change and a lasting peace in post PFDJ Eritrea. The true character of the EDA has been magnified and exposed during the last three weeks of the Brussels episode. You cannot replace dictatorship without having a credible reputation entrusted by the people on basis of democratic principles and culture that gives priority to the people’s plight and envisions a lasting peace both in our country and in our region.

If you think EDA is ready to give power to the people and is credible enough to represent the people’s welfare, you are living in a dream world. Consider this: if you are not trustworthy, credible, and capable enough to influence the people (particularly Eritreans in Diaspora) to join the EDA and EDA member organizations, how could you say for certain that you are credible enough to represent the welfare of the people at large? It appears that EDA is not ready to tackle this kind of issues. It also appears that some of us who joined EPP recently are being frustrated by the dilemma that our Party is in. On one side, you want to strengthen EDA as a multi-party system platform; on the other side, you are being both squeezed and restrained by EDA. We feel we are being held hostage as we cannot openly discuss the shortcomings of EDA while the majority of EDA member organizations are in the defaming game against our party.

2. EPP’s political program is not agreeable with some EDA member organizations

•  
  • If the ethnic groups’ or nationalities’ equal rights are respected under the constitution, I do not see the need for adding a clause in our future constitution to legitimize secession unless secession is their ultimate goal.
  • The Eritrean people fought for almost half a century to have an independent sovereign state as one people. Inserting a wording in our future constitution that calls for secession is a dangerous move that could lead to the fragmentation of Eritrea. It will also invite unwanted interference from outside entities for their own national interest. In my own opinion, this issue could be addressed by having two houses of parliament “parlamas”, one based on majority representation and the second based on equal representation from each ethnic group regardless of the size of a given ethnic group. This kind of government structure would help advance checks and balances between the majority elected body and the representatives elected by ethnic groups. If the ethnic based organizations and other EDA member organizations that support a clause of “self-determination up to secession” are not satisfied with such alternatives or other similar ones, Eritrean people should have the ultimate say whether secession of nationalities is a viable solution for Eritrea. EPP doesn’t have a problem debating the issue on the public arena in a civilized manner. But it appears those EDA member organizations who subscribe to the notion of secession are putting this issue behind their closet and do not seem to advocate for it. And yet it still exists in their political programs.

EPP believes that the dictatorship in Eritrea doesn’t care about region, race or religion; it is incessantly oppressing Eritrean people as a whole without discriminating. This doesn’t mean that PFDJ is innocent of using the divide and rule tactic in using region, race or religion - it is far from it. But since the Eritrean people are suffering as a whole at the hands of PFDJ, we at EPP see a solution to the problem that is at hand. It is true that EPP’s understanding of the problem in Eritrea differs from some EDA member organizations. As a result it is natural for member organizations to provide different solutions. But our proposed solution to the problem goes beyond the fault line of region and religion, which is fundamental to creating a democratic society.

We strongly believe we have a common objective in removing the dictatorial regime of PFDJ, as well as in creating a foundation that ensures a democratic change in post PFDJ Eritrea. However, this can only be guaranteed if our people are empowered, and if we as political organizations engage our people to participate and become the masters of their future destiny. Yet we cannot achieve such national objectives if we do not embrace and pursue a peaceful and democratic means of struggle, which is again a pillar to Eritrea’s peaceful transition to democracy.

We as a party have a platform or roadmap if you like on how to remove PFDJ/dictatorship, as well as a vision for post PFDJ Eritrea. We take unity as a cornerstone principle to defeating the dictatorship in our country, which is why we encourage all political organizations that have similar programs and visions to establish a united organization and work as one entity (in unity). We encourage anything that prevents the fragmentation of Eritrean political forces. We even supported the formation of the Eritrean Solidarity Front, “Tadamun” as well as the unity of the two ethnic-based organizations despite our opposing political programs. But while EPP respects their right to organize and unite on grounds of religion and ethnicity, the leaders and members of “Tadamun” have continuously and falsely accused the three organizations of advocating for “Christian highlanders.” It is ironic to get accused by such kind of sectarian organizations that are blind and cannot see their own diversity.

We like the present diversity of the three political parties; but we still need to work more on how to attract women and youth to come and participate in our party. But I can comfortably say EPP is the most diverse and representative than any existing organization in terms of region and religion composition. If those feelings and facts were otherwise, the Movement of Gash and Setit would not have joined EPP. It is not only the composition of the three uniting organizations that matters most, but also their inclusive political programs that envisions a decentralized form of government for future Eritrea both under one sovereign state and under one national constitution.

But rather than challenging the three organizations on grounds of their political platform, some EDA member organization’s rank and file chose to blackmail them with unfounded accusations. Are the three organizations guilty because they saw the source of the problem differently than the other EDA members? The point is if you view the source of the problem differently, it is reasonable to reach a different conclusion as to the solution of the problem itself. And yet, it does not mean that you have the right solution. For example, “Tadamun” see the current government as a Christian highlander that imposes its dictatorship practices on the lowland Muslim population and as such they created sectarian organizations to solve the problem. On the other hand, we see a dictatorship imposing its will on the Eritrean people as a whole; and we have a solution that is national in nature (not sectarian) irrespective of region, ethnicity, and religion. We believe a dictatorship over Muslims is a dictatorship imposed upon Christians and vice-versa no matter what our individual beliefs are. Ask yourself, which one is inclusive and which one is excusive? I for one do not have a problem whether or not they are inclusive or exclusive; but it becomes my problem when they blackmail the three organizations because they do not subscribe to what they believe in.

I grew up with my brothers and sisters of Islamic faith side by side, 100 meters apart. As a symbol of friendship and brotherhood, my Christian grandfather, Beyen, named my father Emam, which is a common Moslem name. In addition, our grandfathers not only showed such a good gesture on humanity, but also shared the land that they had owned for generations when our Muslim community first settled in the village that I grew up. My point is if our fathers got along very well in the 19^th century, what is wrong with us or our generation in the 21^st century? I cannot fathom whether or not this is an imported phenomena. Although this is a touchy and sensitive issue, I think we need to talk these kinds of issues in a civilized and democratic manner without using region and religion as a tool for personal gains or for some narrow political agenda. Why? It is because the Eritrea that I see tomorrow and the people that inhabit it deserve to live in harmony and peace regardless of their religious and ethnic backgrounds. We are all equal under one roof (the sky) and on top of the land called Eritrea. We should respect each other irrespective of our faith, ethnicity or family origin. This is the main essence of our individual liberty and sense of our brotherhood in diversity. This is the foundation of the vision upon which EPP was founded with the objective to create an atmosphere of mutual respect under a common law – constitutional law. A constitutional law founded on equality in a context of Eritrean diversity and experience and not an imported one and not a narrower one, either.

For example, EPP differs from some EDA member organizations when it comes to ethnic equality. EPP believes that all nationalities/ethnic groups in Eritrea should be treated equally under one sovereign state and one constitution. Given the importance of our diverse nature, a decentralized form of government would help ease any tensions among ethnic groups, discourage the majority groups from dominating ethnic minorities, and accord Eritrean ethnic groups the right to govern their locals and be the main beneficiaries of their wealth and natural resources. It also means the majority needs to be sensitive and responsive to the minority rights where an outright majority decision should not be the framework of every aspect of legislation. In other words, the majority rule should not be used as a road to oppress minority rights in future Eritrea.

While EPP advocates for the equality of Eritrean nationalities under one sovereign state of Eritrea, there are some EDA member organizations who subscribe to self-determination of nationalities up to secession. Although EPP respects their opinion, we respectfully differ on the secession part for couple reasons:

3. The strategy of peaceful and democratic means of struggle of EPP is incongruent with most of the EDA member organizations’ program.

This is one of the most controversial areas of the difference that most EDA member organizations are struggling to accept. They believe PFDJ should be removed by all means possible including by waging an armed struggle, while EPP, EDP and EPM believe that a peaceful and democratic means of struggle can remove the dictatorial regime from power. Referring to our past experiences, the prospects for democratic constitutional form of government and sustainable peace in Eritrea is very much hinged on whether we take the road of peaceful and democratic struggle or not. Certainly, the peaceful means has a lot of advantages when it is compared with the strategy of waging armed struggle to remove the dictatorial regime of Isayas. To have an in depth understanding of the reasons why EPP believes a peaceful and democratic means of struggle is the only viable and realistic option, please click on the following link and read a piece posted by EPP Department of Information and Culture on September 7, 2009 http://nharnet.com/September_2009/EPP_E_IC%2091-9(!)_September0809.pdf. In addition, I recommend Dr. Daniel Rezene’s presentation on the 2009 Frankfurt Festival on the same topic. Dr. Daniel’s full presentation can also be obtained by ordering the DVD at the following website: http://www.nharnet.com/November_2009/EDPEPP_Festival%20DVD%20Ad_NOV0309.pdf or by emailing Berhane Adhanom at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

I believe the path to a lasting peace is a struggle based on a peaceful and democratic means and not through the barrel of gun or civil war. If EDA member organizations believe “Warsay” is the enemy, then they might as well go ahead and legitimize their armed struggle strategy. In my opinion and EPP’s understanding, “Warsay” is a victim of dictatorship and is an ally of the forces for change; it is not an enemy.

Yet when it comes to the peaceful and democratic struggle, some EDA members have relished not only focusing on blackmailing the three organizations and banding them together with PFDJ, but also associating peaceful means to a struggle of reform and not a fundamental change. For example, according to Dr. Tesfazion Medhanie, the PFDJ will invite the three uniting organizations to compete against PFDJ in an election scheduled to take place in 2011. You do not expect this kind of low politics from a Doctor who claims to be knowledgeable about Eritrean politics and world affairs. Maybe General Tesfazion Medhanie will honor us all with his noble ideas on how to wage and win an armed struggle and resolve the Eritrean issue. More important, we like to hear how a civil war or an armed struggle bears fruits, removes the dictatorship from power, and leads to democratic constitutional form of government that brings a lasting peace in Eritrea.

4. EPP is being accused by many rank and files of EDA member organizations of its effort to grow and wishing to be a powerful and cohesive organization at the expense of EDA.

Does this accusation make sense? Isn’t any organization’s duty to strengthen its own organization so that it is in a better position to solve the plight of its people? We, in the EPP, believe that in order for EDA to be capable and to be a formidable umbrella, its member organizations should have the support of the people. You need stronger member organizations for a stronger EDA. Can you have a stronger body if you have failing kidneys, heart, lung etc? We, at EPP, see a political organization as means or a tool for meeting objectives or goals. The fact that you have an organization is not a goal in itself; the goal in our case must be to remove the dictatorship in our country and replace it with a democratic constitutional form of government. In the same way, having a stronger EDA is not the goal; the goal should be to use EDA as a means to empower our people on how to achieve a democratic constitutional form of government in post PFDJ Eritrea. Above all, it means democratic principles need to be engrained and practiced both within the EDA member organizations and EDA as an umbrella body itself. Veering from this path would only be replacing PFDJ with another PFDJ like government.

I do not think at this juncture that EDA represents the aspiration of the majority of the Eritrean people. Hence, recognizing the shortcomings of EDA should be the first step to fixing and fulfilling what is expected of it.

But EDA and its members have a lot of things to consider while they are trying to reform EDA. First, we need to recognize there are many political organizations outside of EDA that have as much stakes as the EDA in their country’s well being. Second, there are many civic society organizations and associations that are not part of EDA; nevertheless that are working day and night to promote democracy and human rights in our country. Last, there are thousands or millions of Eritreans who oppose the dictatorial regime, but are not associated with EDA, simply because they do not take EDA to be a serious umbrella organization.

The difference between EPP and some of the EDA member organizations is that EPP recognized the shortcomings and it is working hard to be a catalyst for change by calling for unity among organizations that share the same political programs and vision, as well as by trying to empower our people to participate in any organization of their choice. But without having a credible democratic organization, it would be very hard to change the status quo and win the hearts and minds of the Eritrean people who have a vast power to remove the dictatorship and achieve a lasting peace in our home-land.

In conclusion

I hope the above personal observation will help some stakeholders in the EDA to direct their discussions toward resolving the existing issues both within EDA member organizations and within EDA as an umbrella itself.

Rather than discussing on the symptoms of the contradictions, I hope we use our limited resources in focusing on the source of the problem and in the process foster a positive and constructive outcome to establish a credible, democratic, and strong EDA, which encompasses the wishes and aspirations of the majority of peace and justice loving Eritreans. Accusing each other and festering inner-fighting within EDA will not resolve the contradiction within EDA, nor will it promote democracy in EDA or in Eritrea proper.

Finally, for those who are criticizing for inclusiveness in the Brussels task force, you may need to start by looking your own organizations and ask yourself whether or not you are inclusive and diverse when it comes to Eritrea. For those who are demanding transparency particularly those of awate website, you may need to see your own daily practice and tell us whether or not you are promoting transparency. Tell us how allowing your website to be used as a safe-heaven for those who use pen-names such as Ali Salim to promote a divisive agenda accounts for any semblance of transparency on your part. You may also need to start telling us whether or not you have prematurely misused the information of Brussels conference you received from the spokesperson of EEPA/Task Force.