| Eritrea: Its Present is the Remote Future of Others (from Archives) | | Print | |
| Written by Abdul Rahman Mohamed Babu |
| Sunday, 15 November 2009 23:54 |
|
What the Ethiopian regime refers to as “bandits” are in fact Eritrean revolutionaries who have liberated their country, more than 80% of it – by means of armed struggle. I have just spent two weeks in the liberated areas, including the recently captured and recaptured town of Barentu. And I am not ashamed to admit that I have been overwhelmed by what I saw. Living, working and eating with these staunch revolutionaries I am tempted to echo the famous quote: “I have seen the future of Africa and it works”. This is not an easy statement to make after so many political, social and economic shocks that we went through in the post-independence Africa. Who can be enthusiastic in the midst of the political chaos of military coups and counter-coups and the economic pains of bankrupted and heavily indebted nations? Of the humiliating and degrading experience of dependence on the very imperialism that cost Africa’s lives and hardships to be rid of? Of the pathetic call of despair for a dream-world of failed politicians known as the New International Economic order? But experiences with liberated Eritreans give you confidence in the capacity of the African masses to take history in their own hands during the challenging journey from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. Where in Africa today would you see doctors, engineers, mechanics, technicians, all of world standards, inspired enough to flock back home enthusiastically from foreign universities and institutions of learning to serve their country without pay? Where in Africa would you see mature community minus the pompous party functionaries, insensitive bureaucrats and overindulged diplomats? In short, it is a unique experience of the absence of the exploited or exploiter, of the true equality between man and woman, experience of witnessing normal human beings free from hang-ups, engaged in an honourable struggle to liberate the rest of the country on the basis of self-reliance and independent of external power. This armed struggle is the longest in Africa, now its 25th year on 1 September: it is the most ignored by the African states who conveniently regard it as an “internal affair” of Ethiopia in which no member of the OAU can “interfere”: it has been protected from international scrutiny by the notorious resolution of the 1964 OAU Summit in Cairo which ensured a permanently divided Africa by recognizing the boundaries inherited from colonialism as intangible and sacrosanct. Although Tanzania, the architect of this resolution which guarantees and rationalises Africa’s balkanization, did not feel bound by it when she, together with Zambia and other countries, decided to recognize Biafra in 1969, allegedly after pressure from the Vatican. However, the same resolution in fact strengthen the case for recognition of Eritrea for the simple reason that its boundaries were set by the Italian colonialist in 1889 and the Eritrean nation as we know it today evolved within those same boundaries. They ware the very boundaries which separate it from Ethiopia. But unfortunately, one of the saddest shortcoming of the OAU is that its members are bound by the last century imperialist-induced norms of classical international law which ignores peoples and their rights and deals only with relations between states, and consequently, in the myopic eyes of the OAU, Eritreans do not exist. Sooner or later, though, the world will have to acknowledge that the Eritrean question is not a secessionist struggle: it is a liberation struggle against Ethiopian colonialism as authentic as Namibian struggle against South Africa, the only difference being that Ethiopia a Third World colonial power and the member of the OAU and South Africa neither. Namibia was a German colony and was given to South Africa to administer after the defeat of the Germans in the First World War. Eritrea an Italian colony and was given to Imperial Ethiopia to administer after the defeat of the Italians in the Second World War. And after a brief period of UN imposed “federation” with Ethiopia, the Emperor of that Imperial country decided unilaterally to annex Eritrea and made it part of his empire on 14 November 1962. In the proclamation to this effect, the Emperor ordered that “… Eritrea which continues to constitute an integral part of the Empire of Ethiopia, is herby wholly integrated into the unitary system of administration of Our Empire …” and that Eritrea would thus be governed by the feudal Emperor and his feudal laws of the Empire. Annexation The Emperor’s argument for his singularly predatory act, apart from fictitious claim to history, was that Ethiopia was a landlocked country which needed an outlet to the see and a “front gate to the world”. This is as untenable as, for instance, Malawi annexing Mozambique on the pretext that it needs an outlet to the sea. The Emperor, however, got away with it because he had powerful supporters at the UN. The western powers, with whom the Emperor had allied himself, were interested in Ethiopia’s occupation of Eritrea. John foster Dulles, the outspoken US Secretary of State, way back in 1952, addressing the UN Security Council had this to say: “From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless, the strategic interest of the United States in the Red Sea basin and consideration of security and world peace make it necessary that the country had to be linked with our ally Ethiopia”. At the time of annexation in 1962, there were hectic diplomatic moves and arm-twisting going on among independent African countries in the effort to establish what later became the organization of African Unity. The tug-of-war was between the “Casablanca Group” and the “Monrovia Group”, the first radical, the second conservative. The radicals, headed by Nkrumah, were ready to go to any length to get the organization set up, while the conservatives were hesitant and slow moving. The emperor cunningly made himself indispensable by taking a neutral position between the two groups. He mediated between them and even offered Addis Abeba as the center for the first summit and eventual headquarters of the organization. He at once become the respected father-figure and its was thus bad manner and undiplomatic to raise awkward questions about his Empire. The radicals, traditionally fighters against injustice in Africa and elsewhere, conveniently overlooked the Eritrean issue for the greater cause of African unity. The Emperor took advantage of this diplomatic retreat by the radicals and on the fact that, as the host of the first summit, he chaired the conference and from his vantage position, he shrewdly inserted in the newly-drafted charter the clause of “non-interference in the internal affairs of a member state”. Henceforth, Eritrea become an internal affair of Ethiopia, whatever the three-and-a half million Eritreans think about it. A shrewd move Most of the countries which voted to perpetuate this injustice knew nothing about the history of the Eritrean people and cared less. But by this time, however, the Eritreans had already taken up arms to defend their inalienable right to self-determination, OAU or no OAU. In this determination, they realized that they would have to depend entirely on their own effort and ingenuity, having been abandoned by both the UN and the OAU. They proceeded to create “facts” to bring forth the Eritrean reality through intensified armed struggle. This was no easy task considering the military might of Imperial Ethiopia which was being backed militarily by the US which made sure that their client state was one of the best equipped in Africa. Furthermore, soon after his diplomatic victory at the first OAU Summit in 1963, the Emperor in the same year turned to Israel for additional military assistance which included training of their predatory army. One of the cadres to benefit from this training was of course Mengistu Haile Mariam, the present leader of Ethiopia. The card which the Emperor played to win Israeli support was the “Arab menace”: that the Arab states were out to dismember Ethiopia: that the Eritrean struggle was in fact only terrorist activity engineered by a handful of bandits paid for by Arab reactionary rulers; and that His Imperial Majesty was ready to offer a rear-base for the Israeli army in their fight against Egypt and other Arab states and so on. To the American and the West, the cunning little Emperor presented the Eritrean struggle as communist instigated rebellion whose purpose was to advance Soviet influence and hegemony in the Horn of Africa. The Soviet Union at the time did indeed support the Eritrean struggle, but not, as we understood it then, to advance her influence but to abide by the Leninist major principle of upholding the “right to self-determination” of the colonized people up to and including secession”. The Emperor got his unlimited military ware from the US on the basis of this Soviet card. But the Eritrean made it quite clear at the time that although they enjoyed Soviet moral, diplomatic and material support, and that they did share socialist aspirations, they were not fighting the Emperor in order to bring in the Soviets or anybody else. States have permanent interest, never permanent friends or enemies. History has proved them right. As soon as his Imperial Majesty was overthrown in Ethiopia and the army took over, the Soviets immediately shifted their allegiance to the new regime. When Mengistu emerged as the leader of the so-called “military left”, after eliminating the anti-imperialist forces such as EPRP and progressive trade union leaders, and allied himself with the Soviet Union and declared himself the leader of the Marxist-Leninist military vanguard, the socialist camp began to regard the Eritrean revolution as “objectively reactionary” (in the famous Stalinist principle) because it opposed Mengistu who was anti-imperialist. And the Soviet Union now took over as the supplier of unlimited arms and ammunition in place of the US and Israel. Like emperor, like heir Many sympathizers of the Mengistu take-over, including many progressive Ethiopians, had hoped that he would now take advantage of the favourable political situation to resolve the Eritrean question politically rather than militarily. That as a Marxist-Leninist, he would accept it as a colonial question first of all, and secondly handle it on the principle of the right to self-determination. He, of course, did neither. Instead, he first silenced all progressive Ethiopians and the traditional anti-imperialist elements, consolidated himself firmly in power and then he not only refused to seek political solution to the problem, he actually denied the existence of the Eritrean problem. Lithe the Emperor before him, he defined the Eritrean struggle merely as a “group of dissidents willing to sell out the interest of the Eritrean people to the highest bidder”. With this definition and Soviet backing, Mengistu intensified the military option, the war of conquest, and proved himself to be more ruthless than the Emperor himself. His army now with the combined resources of both the US and Soviet Union at its disposal, he was certain he would march to victory over the “bandits” in a matter of months if not weeks. A Soviet-Ethiopia offensive of 1978 on Asmara and other major towns (from which the Eritrean fighters chose to withdraw strategically) gave Mengistu a false hope to confirm his prediction of easy victory. So, what has happened to the prediction? A string of disasters, the major one being the Red Star offensive of 1982 in which the Ethiopian army suffered almost unbearable losses in equipment which went to strengthen the Eritrean arsenal. From then on, the Eritreans have been scoring spectacular victories – the blowing up of 33 planes at Asmara airport, the conquest of Tesseney: the battles of Tokombia and Molki and Sahel in which the deputy commander Col. Girma Tessema was captured together with 3000 soldiers. The most spectacular victory, however, was the capture of Barentu on July this year [1985]. This was a well fortified garrison which had never been occupied by the Eritreans, even at the height of their near-total domination of Eritrea prior to 1978. Its capture has confirmed the total isolation of the Ethiopian army even in the still occupied Eritrea. This spectacular Eritrean offensive which lasted only 19 hours was organized and mobilized for weeks in the area but not a word escaped to the Ethiopian intelligence and they were caught completely by surprise at considerable cost in men and material. In mid August, however, the Ethiopians recaptured it after the withdrawal of the Eritrean combatants. Armed at prayer All these military and civil activities have afforded the Eritreans enormous experience and in every field – social, economic, political, military and so on and have given them a lot of confidence. This sense of being on the top of things is visible throughout the liberated areas, whether in factories, in hospitals, in laboratories. It is visible among the nomads, the peasants and the urban dwellers. For instance, when the daily Ethiopian MIG sorties thunder overhead, people go about their daily routine unruffled. I’ll never forget the sight of some Muslim nomads saying their evening prayer with submachine guns besides them. When the Ethiopian MIGs threateningly passed overhead, the Eritreans continued with their prayers, quite in the open, as if nothing was happening. This calm confidence goes on in spite of ruthless air raids on civilians. Arriving at refugee camp H.50 at Elmat ten hours after it was bombarded with napalm, the whole atmosphere was reeking of the lethal bombs as 70-year old Meksa Karar Mohamed Satak was put on a stretcher crying in agony with both her legs broken. Others had already been taken to the hospital with more serious injuries. But in all of them, the injured and the hungry, there was a look of determination and confidence. This is the most important asset which will ensure their eventual victory. It is clear that even the current massive counter offensive by the Ethiopians, with the most sophisticated Soviet weaponry, this issue cannot be won by military force. The Americans have learnt this lesson in Vietnam with bitter memories. And Mengistu and his Soviet backers must face the obvious fact that the solution to the problem can only be found through political means, not by war. If Mengistu is a genuine revolutionary as he claims to be, he must accept the fact that the Eritrean question is a colonial question and its solution is through acknowledging the revolutionary principle of the “right to self-determination up to and including secession”. The Eritreans have already proved that they cannot be ruled by force. Remember the old revolutionary dictum: No country can be free if it denies the freedom of others. A costly war The war is already costing his regime more than it can earn. One MIG sortie costs the Ethiopian people $13,000 and the 20 sorties or so a day which patrol, harass and bomb Eritrean nomads and peasants is costing them more than a quarter million US dollars per day. And this is only one and least costly item of the war. The cost of keeping more than fifteen divisions of unproductive soldiers with advanced and sophisticated weapons in an unwinnable war is astronomical. For a country in which millions of its people are permanently threatened with starvation, the war option verges on the criminal. The only beneficiaries in this war are the arms suppliers. If Mengistu continues with his dream victory, Africa must not go along with it. Individual African states, as well as the OAU, must rethink their position on the issue. The Eritreans have already created the facts and reality more solidly and permanently then ever before, and we must never allow ourselves to be bamboozled again as were by His Imperial Majesty in 1963. That year it was an African Imperial stance that caught us; this time it is a “proletarian revolutionary” stance that is presented to us to achieve the same colonial objective. We must be wise and reject both. Eritrea must be free, shold be Africa’s slogan which corresponds with Africa’s reality. |