Sanctions and its “supporters”

According to CDRIE the sanctions “are nothing but the result of the failure of the Eritrean government in the field of diplomacy.” You see the problem CDRIE and its likes have with the Isaias regime is not its lawlessness in regional politics (a reflection of its lawlessness in domestic policy) but its lack of finesse and skill in executing such a policy. They apparently feel had they not been booted out by the “the man” they would have executed these same policies with the necessary diplomatic skill and things would have turned out okay for Eritrea.

The UN says the sanctions were imposed because of the regime’s lawless actions and because as a result the regime is a threat to regional peace. The regime says that is non-sense. The real problem, the source of it all is that the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia is not demarcated. CDRIE and its ilk join the regime and suggest that the border issue is the cause of regional instability and the pre-condition of democracy and rule of law in Eritrea.

To the identical twins of the PFDJ in the “opposition camp” the fact that the regime’s lawlessness started well before the border war erupted does not mean much. The fact that Isaias had provoked a border war with Yemen, initiated the first border problem with Djibouti, and provoked a stand off with Sudan well before 1998 and that the border conflict with Ethiopia was not the first but the last of the so-called border conflicts provoked and initiated by the lawless regime is an inconvenient truth that is best ignored. The most recent edition of the border conflict with Djibouti, in which, the Isaias regime took the 1996 conflict to its logical conclusion, by occupying territories administered by Djibouti and denied that there is a dispute at all is a minor foot note. According to these identical twins, Isaias provoked a border conflict with Djibouti because the border conflict with Ethiopia was not resolved. Make head or tail out of such a statement if you can! All of the actions of lawlessness and regional destabilization of the regime even those that happened before the border conflict with Ethiopia have to be explained by the fact that there is an unresolved border conflict with Ethiopia.

The lawlessness of the regime in domestic policy too is “explained” in the same manner. Never mind the fact that hundreds of Muslims were “disappeared” long before the border war. Never mind the fact that many religious minorities were persecuted before the border war. Never mind the fact that tens of veterans were mowed down simply because they dared to protest when the Isaias regime was still enjoying the honeymoon period with Ethiopia. In other words the anti-democratic nature of the regime which had manifested itself so thoroughly before the border conflict is an inconvenient truth that is best ignored.

It is quite easy to understand why those who were booted out by Isaias in 2000 and joined the “opposition” thereafter should try to justify everything done by the regime prior to 2000. They were critical elements of the regime and vital executors of the policy. It is also easy why they feel the problem is that in their absence the regime has become inept in executing these policies. They probably believe that they were the intellectual force behind the regime, and once the regime lost their services it inevitably began to execute policies in a particularly stupid manner.

While all of that is perhaps easily explained, the exceptionally close relation between these elements of the “opposition” and the current regime in Ethiopia is not. We know that the CEDRIE types pride themselves with getting no support from Ethiopia and publicly state so. We also know that they get more support from the regime in Ethiopia than the other elements of the opposition. The report of the recent visit of Mesfin Hagos to Ethiopia and the apparent royal reception members of his family received in Ethiopia is merely the latest manifestation of the close relationship between the Ethiopian regime and the CEDRIE types. We can guess that the regime in Ethiopia is likely to be unhappy about the justification of the lawlessness of the regime in Eritrea through the border conflict, but this has not deterred it from providing all the support it can give to the Mesfin Hagos types. Why? Are there bonds between the regime in Ethiopia and the Mesfin Hagos types that are deeper than these apparent differences? If there are what exactly are they? And what are the implications of these ties for the future of Eritrea? Perhaps some one better informed than myself can enlighten us all.

To come back to the sanctions issue, the CEDRIE types do not accept the reasons given by the UN for the decision. They do not believe the Isaias regime is by its very nature and actions a threat to regional peace. They believe he is just diplomatically inept. Their support to the sanction decision cannot therefore be genuine.

When we read between the lines, we get another reason why the CEDRIE types are uncomfortable with the sanction decision. Their chairman says that he hopes that it “will not increase the suffering of the Eritrean people”. They in the past had opposed sanctions because according to them, such action would increase the suffering of the Eritrean people. This time around they are not saying that sanctions will or will not increase the suffering of the Eritrean people. They are merely saying that they hope there will be no increase of the suffering of the Eritrean people. It is quite clear that their support for the sanctions can at best be half hearted because they do not agree with the reasons given for the decision and because they are not sure it will not increase the suffering of the Eritrean people. Why are they declaring their support for the sanctions then?

I believe they are declaring their support for the sanctions because there is nothing they can do now to stop it and have decided that the policy of if you cannot stop them, join them is an appropriate one for them. They are joining the bandwagon, because as their statement in Brussels suggests they want the West to replace the diplomatically inept Isaias regime with the diplomatically smart CEDRIE types so that they can pursue the policy of their identical twins with better skill. That I believe is why they are joining the bandwagon that they cannot stop. Unfortunately for them, as I have argued elsewhere if and when the Isaias regime goes it will take all possibilities of its replacement by its identical twins down with it.