Unfiltered Notes: Made In Eritrea

First, the obvious – measured against perfection anything can be declared a failure. And that, to me, seems to be the core of the problem. Folks who have not achieved perfection themselves are tearing down good people who tried to do something noble and worthwhile imperfectly. I think those who participated in the conference deserve our gratitude instead of this endless second-guessing. Dr. Van Reisen, director of Europe External Policy Advisers (EEPA), who hosted the event gave further clarifications to awate.com that those who attended the conference did so “in their personal capacity” and that the participants paid all or some of their expenses. Among the topics discussed include the dire refugee crisis. If people get together spending their own money and time to lobby for issues as important as this, more power to them.

I am totally ignorant of what subtexts might be at play here and the wrath of various commentators seems grossly misplaced to me. I listened to Abdurahman Sayed’s interview with Assenna.com. Improvements are always possible as Abdurahman readily accepts (“the work has only began…”, “… it will require the participation of all of us…” to finish the job). Call me dense but I am still scratching my head as to what all the fuss is about. Decent Eritreans participated in the conference – Elsa Chrum, a courageous lady I respect greatly, among them. Given Elsa’s track record of action (not just talk as many, myself included, can rightly be accused of), I would think 10 times before criticizing an event that Elsa was a part of. Additionally, since everyone came in their “personal capacity”, why are certain individuals being singled out for the vicious attacks? Or is the issue NOT about the Brussels conference and simply about individuals we don’t happen to like?

I hope this is just a huge misunderstanding and cooler heads will prevail soon. EDA addressing its complaint to the EU – an entity that did not fund or organize the conference, for example – is indicative that the misplaced anger is likely based on cumulative misunderstandings. I think EDA itself would have been better served if it had thanked Dr. Van Reisen and all the participants for bringing relevant Eritrean issues to the front burner first. It, then, could have proceeded to use this opening to engage the powers that be to help EDA (and/or others) in their efforts to accelerate Eritrea’s day of redemption. Otherwise this sort of negativity primarily encourages inaction and stagnation. It discourages people from taking the initiative to act in whatever capacity they can because their positive actions could be trivialized and second-guessed so willfully.

Selam Kidane’s excellent example (http://www.awate.com/portal/content/view/5368/5/) of her “weaker” childhood friend successfully turning the tap on where ‘machos’ failed is a perfect analogy to use here. I attempted to make a similar point in http://unfilterednotes.blogspot.com/2009/10/unfiltered-notes-rosa-parks-moment-for_3868.html where “failed” attempts by those before her incrementally built the solid foundation for Rosa Parks to take the struggle for justice to a higher level. Instead of tearing apart the good intentions and considerable efforts of good folks to the delight of the oppressive regime in Asmara, it would have been more constructive to accept the Brussels conference, at the very least, as a step in the right direction. Small and incremental steps, such as those of Selam’s childhood friend and Rosa Parks (especially when they are least expected), could just be what we need to release Eritrea from the grip of death it currently finds itself. But spending our energies and our precious time condemning each other -- and against positive action at that – will only make us look silly.

On Inclusiveness / Exclusiveness

From what I understand so far, reflecting Eritrea’s full diversity was not the objective of the Brussels conference. This doesn’t mean striving to represent Erirea’s diversity is not a good thing. It absolutely is. But, no matter who does it, defining the focus of a conference narrowly on what can be achieved realistically, such as improving the plight of ALL Eritrean refugees or asking world powers to align their policies towards Eritrea is absolutely the right thing to do as well. Therefore, trying to measure the conference by objectives it did not start out to accomplish is unfair to say the least.

I do understand and appreciate the concern some are voicing for vigilance against justifications of good outcomes achieved through wrong means. But I also see the same voices going to the other extreme ready to throw the baby with the bath water. The Brussels participants included men and women of different faiths. Although not perfect, it seems obvious to me that there was some level of diversity. Paraphrasing Abdurahman: assenna.com started its program in Tigrigna and later on added Arabic. But still not all of Eritrea’s languages or all of Eritrea’s diversity is reflected in assenna.com today. This is a relevant point. No one can deny assena.com is making progress, but it is also true that Eritrea’s full diversity is not represented either. And that is why I am having such a hard time grasping the logic behind the uproar. As imperfect as we all are, why do we demand perfection from others? Again, measured against perfection anything can be declared a failure.

Although the overly negative reactions can probably be brushed off as growing pains in the democratic process, it is a bit unnerving that the most vicious attacks are voiced by very articulate folks with obvious capacity, if they so wished, to re-channel this misplaced anger in a constructive manner. I was particularly dismayed when those flaunting the chauvinism card resorted to demeaning some participants of the conference as ornaments fronted by “chauvinists”. Why such viciousness? If the target is who I think it is, and based on what I know and heard so far, he certainly is nobody’s ornament.

There is no question chauvinism exists (a global phenomenon) but I don’t think it is present in every closet as some are making it out to be. As mentioned earlier, the Eritreans in the Brussels conference included men and women of different faiths. Is it a reflection of all of Eritrea? No. But it would also be wrong to brush off what was represented as ornamental. It is not. Acknowledging progress when it occurs breeds more progress. By contrast, failure to do so stifles excellent ideas from flourishing. I will venture a guess that chauvinism against women is the most pervasive in all segments of Eritrean society -- I believe, with no exceptions. Is it fair then, to give undue importance to real or perceived 'chauvinism' if it is perpetuated by ‘outsiders’ while remaining silent about the sure thing in our midst?

This will probably be misunderstood but I will close with one other point. Abdurahman is unfairly being criticized for saying “we started out with people we know” or words to that effect. I can see why this would generate objections but isn’t that exactly how just about everything gets started? If one has a brilliant idea one wants to act on, doesn’t one start with people one knows first? The founders of American democracy come to mind and no one can deny it was an exclusive club that did not include women, blacks or Native Americans. But one can’t deny the greatness of their ideas either. How diverse an audience the idea ends up attracting in the long run is a bit more complex and dynamic.

It will depend on who the people you know also know and, in turn, invite to the table. It depends on the level of trust between groups and how interconnected they are. It will depend on how open and receptive the originators of the idea are to welcome others. It also depends on the initiative of enlightened ‘outsiders’ willing to ‘invite’ themselves in. If one of the weaknesses of the originators of a good idea is not being inclusive (hopefully not always intentional), wouldn’t it also be reasonable to expect an enlightened ‘outsider’ to say: “hey guys, I like what you are trying to do and I want to be part of this. Count me in. By the way, shame on you for not reaching out to me and people like me out there. And here is a list of who you should include, etc.”

Chauvinism in all its forms should be opposed although I doubt it will be eradicated. The Brussels conference is an indication, I think, that this monster is being overplayed and is driving people who should be cooperating to the extremes of polarized positions. I believe the Brussels group acted positively. With apologies to all those who are taking positive action, the rest seems to be just talk (mine included by the way). Talk devoid of action is cheap. Eloquent talk without a sense of balance, although not worthless, is even cheaper. If we can only split atoms the way we seem to be splitting hairs!!

Tewelde Stephanos
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.   
Blog: http://unfilterednotes.blogspot.com