IN PEOPLE’S NAME

“There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept.” Winston Churchill

As an individual, I have always in mind and regarded history as a source material, which provides a record. Thus, if any person wants to heed about the things in life, no one is in better circumstance to tell - so long as keeping in mind the possibility to miss all those things where we are in no position to observe. But why did people want their story or history to be told?

Peace and freedom are two essential tips in human life. Freedom is a universal value that would come in time to all people in the world, and that we all had a responsibility to help speed the coming of that day from every angle. That is why we need to be committed to the large idea of rule of law and legitimacy in order to realize and practice the existence of tranquility.

At different moments, certain persons may rise to prominence largely as a matter of opportunity. It is pleasant to see a number using all the opportunities at hand in leading the populace to betterment all through such life span. To the contrary, however, we observe also commitments conked out and guiding principles revolutionize in the name of nationalism, reformation, opposition, etc. in order to fit some personal ambitions as well as short-term reaching.

Eritreans have stepped back from the brink of chaos quite more than a few times in the past several decades. In 1950s, civilization gasped in horror to cause suffering of the country at its capacity via annexation. Yet again, in the years of 60s, 70s and 80s where the world joined in a further step away from the fairness without any reaction to the injustices done upon the Eritrean populace and its struggle for freedom. Though the 90s was a bit of breath giving time, yet another story of war quashed the clear skies of people’s hope. And at the present, in the new era of millennium, the unfortunate border conflict with neighboring nation and former ally, Ethiopia, which has been extended to ‘no peace - no war’ situation. This time not only the world has make it very clear to give its back but the people have been disrespected, ignored, denied by the at most concerned few nationalists. More to these realities the country is almost in isolation from global international relations.

The extended dark shadows of the long war, however, were beginning to retreat. The mouthful air of serenity displayed the defrayal and straightening up of bountiful homes. Many were cheerful to see the long last economic and social tribulations being driven away in such a short instance during the mid of 90’s. Nonetheless, the light of truth, the fresh breeze of justice and synchronization are virtually languishing about this new, peaceful and free land. The rule of law marches out of the institution of justice down to an absolute rule. The pain, agony, the destruction and uncertainty are invigorating. The saga again and again is war, national security, in plea of sovereignty of the country and its people’s free will.

The country’s situation is heartbreaking, and so is the thought that many Eritrean citizens have come to see the motherland as enemy-occupied territory. Youth, running away from the country not only for better opportunities but with almost extreme dislike of the ruling system; the aged surrounded by wretchedness; and the children missing any slight hope as well as protection for their future. Politicians, akin to the existing figures, inside and outside of the country - and everybody else - who push emotional buttons, have themselves to blame as those sentiment are turning against them. The appeal is subtler than that and more conflicted.

The calamity is Eritrea has one of the largest groups of reform-minded in East Africa. It seems an odd combination, though: a good number of conservative society and a vast swath of modernists. Because of the war for independence, tens of thousands of its citizens had been forced to dwell in the Western world over the past few decades. Unlike other African countries, nearly all did not return home espousing the present government. For the most part, they liked the West, especially the life style of the United States and Europe, wealth and the so-called ‘democracy’ of the modern world to some extent. There may be also some other unknown reasons. Their return, however, could have, at least, contributed at shaping the present system not to commit such grave ill-mannered mistakes upon its own people. Especially, those who were fully aware the way the system was moving its political agenda. I would say that the presence of such people could have been played as a deterrent factor in many respects.

With the exception of small in number along with different raison d'être, many were confident in the then leadership in the hope that the country will become a prominent paradigm in Africa. That it will unleash economic reforms: that education will flourish; that general public problems will be moved out of the shadows of everyday life; that Eritrea will be sited in libretto of books of records eternally. Though they were in complete support, everyone was also exceedingly desperate to see encouraging changes in several sectors of the government. The problem, however, is for the most part Eritreans do not want to appear anti-autocracy, albeit they are. The possible reason for this might be that still the largest part of the population supports the existing leadership. In such circumstances, those citizens in disagreement retort by an unusual means. Some by assimilating themselves with a group which at least gives them a room to score upon others fault and backbite because they can say, look he’s an Eritrean who’s done such and such off beam ends. Others also either they keep themselves to a distance or remain quite. Hear no evil, see no evil. Prejudices, however, are always reassuring to those who hold them.

The current government may have not taken any formal vow of silence. As its existence is predicated on the singularly Eritrean conviction that what goes on during the morning in the office and what goes on during the evening behind closed doors bear no relationship to one another, and must always remain compartmentalized and separate. Probably it is to their credit that these people of the hours of darkness regard their roles as a kind of public trust, but in any case, these people who violate that trust put themselves in an untenable position. In that they had dominance, power, and pre-eminence, taken as a whole advantage over anyone in the country at present. However, their ties with the native country had already been severed. This may be an announcement, at least in part, why they no longer felt constrained to silence but why they chose to march down the horrendous path.

Acknowledging error is not weakness: it can be wise statecraft. It is a common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all it is worth to try something. At this instant the new generation is facing inferno in diverse arenas. The best effort to grasp and apply the lessons of what has gone wrong before need to be revealed in solving the forth-coming disastrous event.

To prevail over hostility, the regime needs to make accessible a room for the opponents, activist, and reformists. Every noxious version of opposition has had a free rein in Eritrea, and yet all liberal ideas and debates have always been closed down. Even the infant but fruitful steps the regime has allowed - publication of private press – have been followed by reversals. When the so-called “liberals” put forward a request suggesting reforms that would lead to a constitutional government, the regime arrested some of them and forced them to recant. Similarly, when several ordinary as well as professional Eritrean citizens stepped forward to present their self-discipline to resolve the disagreement within the leadership, they were branded as hypocrites and conspirators. The government continues to imprison those who refuse to take part in this charade. Such vicious and illegitimate act was extended to many ordinary citizens who candidly were trying to advocate and familiarize the public with the rule of law. With this kind of imbalance, is it any surprise that the public is more receptive to the fundamentals of the government than reformist thought? Eritrea is a bit conservative society. But it also has political and social elites who have reinforced and perpetuated that conservatism for their purpose.

Patience of the people should not be considered as submissiveness. This tolerance is not a manner of passivity, as the natives have developed a culture to remain quiet in order to circumvent conflict among each other; to avoid the demise of its own historic reaching; to embark upon obnoxious of unfamiliar guiding principles; to bring significant solutions to differences, and in anticipating the leadership will be heedful in the corollary of superfluous clash within the general public. Beyond any belief, Eritrea is bestowed with people who are more commonsensical and considerate to their determination than the leadership. If this is considered as passivity then, those people who are fond of pointing a finger should mind more about what should be unawareness and dilemma. They need to ask themselves why this is happening.

Finally, those who involve themselves in politics have to act in a way that doesn’t create a much bigger problem than it solve. In a jiffy incident I spent some time speaking to young Eritreans and asked them who their role models in the country are. “That is our basic problem,” replied one of them, a former student from the new colleges in Eritrea and deeply patriotic about his country. He carries on without waiting to my response, “We have no role models at all. Not one.” I asked if there was someone in the country or any other place he looked up to and he simply laughed. His laughter was not a simple chuckle but a deep sigh of sadness.

Young people have higher expectations. They are more optimistic and see through the shams of and phoniness more than the existing folks of an older age (with all due respect to all their bravura contribution). The aged people have become accustomed to the sham of Eritrean politics and are not as prone to challenge it. “Father Knows Best” is long since off the air. Let’s give an opening to other young people to prove their thoughtfulness, solidarity, and support. Success will depend not only on the military mission or past reputation but on the follow-on phase of wise nation-building process in different aspects and issues. If it is done with careful planning, international support and coordination with local groups, undeniably it has a big payoff. Let’s hope everyone will learn from the mistakes of our leaders ubiquitously. Once the rock starts going down a hill, there is nothing to stop it. God forbid.

Opposition: Symbolic Psyche v Practice and Adequacy

It has been more than a while now since I left my home country and started residing in my present consign. Sometimes I look behind to see what I left, as I always believe I belong to such place and environment. At other instances I would like also to witness what I benefited from my present status as a second citizen in others realm. I could not pronounce and formulate the exact expression, however, as I see the contemplation of many contemporaries being changed in the gush of circumstances.

In the past recent years, a lot of people were trying to get involved in the political atmosphere of Eritrean politics. It might be considered as a superior motive on one hand but on the other hand there is an unsolved question which crosses our psyche. An issue which could be framed as: Is it because everyone assumes the responsibility to contribute in such arena or is it for the reason to hit upon some attention only? As a result of such initiation, conversely, people could immerse themselves in to a vicious circle as an individual or in a group for various reasons: to overcome their horrendous dissatisfaction and annoyance, to save their interest from any damage, having confidence in supremacy of law and order, or to curb those in authority from being off limits etc, etc, etc. All these, however, could pilot too many an unusual behavioural change which could in turn be disastrous, more violent and revengeful act if not put into service wisely. This can hold true as emotions are becoming a common ground and part of the Eritrean diasporas leaving aside the merits of knowledge, expertise and experience.

It is such a superb exertion when people try to commend or criticize what they perceive and listen to. Indeed it is so civil to give your observations and share your ideas optimistically. Undeniably it is good to pin your ears back to your conscience. It is also polite to not put in the picture the bogus to create impressions. These are some of the trouble-free errands in which people could make the most of in life.

In considering these, it is very crucial to remember what the rationale behind the opposition is. Nowadays, what numerous people appear to recall is that the oppositions are in favor of full democracy. In fact, leaving aside the debatable definitions and points, the issues of democracy need to be raised as a more fundamental demand not only at the present but potentially any time when considered necessary. That is, as one of the gadgets to eradicate not only dictatorship but to craft a well organized institutional chain of command, responsible persona, healthy political atmosphere, etc. It is the belief of intellectuals as well as the people at large that the establishment of democratic institutions is the only way to root out government absolutism without violence and effectively.

However, anyone who wants to avail himself from the present situation should not just tune out in the name of opposition. It is surprising several individuals believe that you have only to denounce the current ruling government in order to be named as a resistant group. Just take your pen and write whatever crosses your mind, without giving a second thought to all the evils that could crop up as a result of one’s instigation. This is a fantasy of self-interest without any philanthropic principle to facilitate the mainstream concern. May be one can get himself in to a difficulty where the point of opposing inadvertently mounting to another level of hatred.

What are some of the plain and primary leading points in opposing any other disposition in power at individual or group level?
• To make sure that you have principles compatible to almost the internal situation and in consideration of the international arena.
• To point out the ideas and rules you are in difference with and the reasons why.
• To dedicate enough time and personality in achieving the goals aimed at.
• To be tolerant and optimist not only in practicing your ideas but also in sharing others thought as well.
• To ingenuously partake in shaping the ruling leadership whenever it is indispensable.

Why most of the opposition groups at hand, who abruptly come up with different names in time, seem to sound they are only the most concerned about the situation the country is facing now? Here, take me not that I do not understand or am in opposition to those who feel sorrow and are working for the good of change in resisting and opposing the present government. It is unquestionable that there are many citizens and groups who really are alarmed and work for such purpose to overcome the calamity the country and its people are facing. This being the patent certainty, almost all of the individuals involved in these different groups have been given more than enough chances in the past; either to shape the government constitution or in opposing its rule of governance and in rectifying other major and minor slip-ups. Most of them have been going hand in hand for years like almost nothing was happening, either inside the realm of the government or upon the rest of the populace (the outsider). And some of them, differing for many years during the armed struggle, had made a reunion after the country’s independence. Here, my point is only to tip at the foundational spot of ‘trust’.

Well now, should not we (the populace) and those who are entering in to the struggle for change ask initially what happened to the friendship and trust among each of them? Is it because one man was found very distrustful which made all the wrongs and evils to become real? If yes, what was the role these people could have played in such instances? Isn’t it possible to put forward your observation upon the real findings on time, or put together remarks, convince, and make your position clear and finally resign where there is no room to accommodate all other possibilities?

One should ask whether the oppositions are capable of overcoming their internal divisions and ousting a burly and so-called charismatic president at one time and still to some emotionally driven people. My point here is about the time lost to come to a unified agenda and solution. Should they formulate a specific governing platform of their own? Will opposition supporters, many of them distrust their leaders as much as they have an aversion to each other; show up to in sufficient numbers? And, perhaps most important, who will rule the country, and how, if the present government is forced out (talking about the collective and participatory rule)? These are some issues which need to be addressed by the oppositions sequentially to win the heart of the majority and grow to be trustful among the masses.

The lack of a thoughtful, trustful and charismatic leader who appeals to the masses is the oppositions’ greatest vulnerability. The most important enemy for the oppositions is not only the present government, save for abstention of the people. But one should ask why? It’s for the undemanding reason that they still need to build upon the populace the buoyancy on how to put his faith on their principles before engaging in a further blunder. Though these oppositions have some committed members, they need an excellent base in order to mobilize the large, so-called neither/nor segment of the population, who are skeptical of both sides.

It seems that the opposition coalition is more held together almost exclusively by its members’ dislike of the present President of the country and his advantage taking collaborators. A kind of following the belief “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,’ or at least “the rival of my rival is my temporary ally,” and they make alignments and split-ups time and again irrespective of whether their chosen allies are dictatorships or democracies. These groups have regularly promised to unveil their own policy platform, and regularly failed to do so. The presiding government has taken advantage of this political vacuum to supply the answer itself. The oppositions’ leadership is declared as a group of terrorist coup plotters, who obey “foreign masters” and baptized upon. Their program is accordingly said to end social programs and hand the county over to hyenas (azabè). Yet, they could not crack this barricade to benefit and succeed the majority’s heart and confidence even when the people and the country are at a desperate time and end.

Regretfully to say so but it’s sad, though not always, to see people organizing themselves for evaluation rather than giving priority to their veracity in life. It is in the name of people that loads of things are happening presently everywhere, whether it is inside the country or in other places of the world, where many Eritreans are scattered for breathing. Taking such situation, however, into ones advantage in order to satisfy your willpower is not acceptable or justified at any circumstance. This is factual in a sense, as the off-putting impact could be massive and dangerous to repair the damage done and afterwards there is almost no way to alter it to good where it reached the peak phase.

Descriptive things in due time and in an acceptable approach are also crucial to the endurance of any civilization. All this can be cuddled by the word “eloquence.” Let’s not forget, it is the dishonesty and recurrence of fabricated information which led the many regimes in Africa and other least developed nations to turmoil. Thus, distinguishing the comments given in the light of advancement to generate a feasible environment in the long run of the kick against despotism could create a viable atmosphere to a shared opinion and tolerance.

Is it that much hard to choose a leader or is it because we are told that it is difficult? Is it because we fear for a change that we want to make a bond only to what we are familiar with earlier (Kab zeytfelto melak, tifelto sheytan) or is it because there is a real possibility that power-gap can be created, akin to the information we listen to? So when is the time to get one? Or are we waiting for a messiah to be born?

I want to be hopeful – and there are some hopeful signs in many respects. I discern that governments change when they have to. The government, nonetheless, may probably weather this storm and continue to hammer back the oppositions. The haughtiness may buy off other critics for some years to come. But without wrenching change, Eritrea will not achieve the promise of genuine modernization that its liberals and reformers hope for. The young Eritreans who lamented viable atmosphere, an opening for the bright future, and role models need legroom and genuine coordination. Perhaps history will recognize us as the people and country that could have been. History is a material source.

The above specifics stated does not mean only to disapprove of what is factual and imperative at the present. It is not as well to stand and/or try to see at the progress of many constructive ideas as a piece of twaddle. I myself believe on the intact liberty of Eritrea and its political attitude and beyond the lot freewill of the people at large. The reader, yet, is left upon his verdict to evaluate whether or not the reasons were really as plain as this.

Interconnectedness of Environmental Degradation to Global Risk, Consumption, and Empowerment

By Ws Hag

ABSTRACT

At present, global environmental problems are well demonstrated in different ways. These crisis issues are interrelated to various causes and their impact could result in global environment degradation to appalling degree. As long as the superfluous consumption of natural resources continues to take place, there is a global risk in the environment. In here, the role of awareness and mobilization is important in the process of cutting such increase in global consumption and in order to protect environmental degradation. The challenge, however, is in adjusting our establishments so as the force of such environmental degradation is channeled in to ways that contribute to sustainable development. To this end, the text will deliberate the issues of global risk, consumption and empowerment in relation to environmental degradation, as the impact or safety approach of one problem has an influence on the others as well.


Introduction

Human history has always been linked to the control, extraction and use of natural resources. However, the increase in resource consumption of the world and energy efficiency has accelerated the extent of environmental degradation. The general point here is that small changes can have momentous effects. Even the tiny variations in the initial parameters of a process may lead to major differences in the outcome.

Global climate change and other environmental issues demonstrate well that single states are unable, on their own, to regulate the conditions for human and habitat survival. This explains that in a steadily more interconnected world, the distance between cause and effect in environment is often enormous. In fact, it is this interconnectedness that is building a network for people across continents with both opportunities and constraints. In this regard, there is a need of global cooperation and strategy in order to overcome the serious threats and consequences the planet is facing.

Furthermore, many institutions recognize the importance of sustainable development. And their role in crafting awareness and assisting to define strategies could be vital in reducing such escalation of environmental degradation.

Global Risk

The vast majority of experts are now convinced that the earth’s climate is changing. The main causes can be described as the massive emission of green house gases from industry, private appliances and traffic. As a result, the global temperature is increasingly rising, icebergs and glaciers shrinking, and desertification mounting. On a global scale such aspect of environmental degradation may lead or result to an enormous consequences (e.g. El Nino like events are described as human-induced global warming effects).

The issue of cooperation among nations is a point that needs consideration. The reluctance of states to various proposals to agreement is one of the most unjustified causes for environmental degradation. Success in confronting climate change depends very heavily on how we make strategies and agree to implement them. The world today owes much to the nations that are still refusing to ratify international agreement (e.g. the United States to Kyoto Protocol). This unwillingness or little concern of some nations to become part in the global agreements to reduce global warming is assisting the problem at hand. Instead of aiming at a global level, some nations are giving more priority to their economic or other interests. Hence, the most polluters are becoming more hesitant to tackle the global problem. This is factual as such nations are benefiting from not making the deal and at the same time damaging the planet’s environment unequivocally. The benefits of applying similar standards on a global scale are obvious, and the risk of not doing could be so extreme.

Another point worth mentioning is the impact of huge corporations that have grown worldwide and are benefiting from globalization. Although these business sectors are the economic machines, they have crated havoc upon the global environment. Their input to greenhouse-gas emissions is growing and in a way becoming one of the major causes to global warming. And often such companies get access to participate in the destruction as a result of government policies (e.g. Brazilian government subsidies to logging companies). It is true that these business sectors are playing in a great role in maximizing the development of the economic division. However, it needs not to be at the cost of environmental degradation which in turn has an immense impact on the global natural ecosystems.

Although the extent of a given risk is difficult to estimate, many environmental risks and vulnerabilities are produced locally and thereby heighten in to global forms. Urbanization, though a prerequisite for development, can be described as one of the great increases in vulnerability to the poor parts of the world. It is becoming increasingly clear that the fastest, cheapest way to reduce emissions is to build more energy-efficient cities. It is highly recommended that with the taking place of new urbanization, a long-term consideration must be given to the causes that could contribute to environmental degradation. High population densities of cities make it easy in occupying unsafe land, construct risky habitations, and thus causing damage to the environment.

The unbalanced aspect of the environmental degradation is another point for global concern. This is to mean that the distribution of impact can be uneven and to that extent less developed areas are generally at greatest risk. Among the risks are reductions in food security, increased water stress and desertification; as a result there will be an exposure to disease and other health related perils. It is also true that there is also variable risk among the developed nations, especially the human settlements in Polar Regions.

In general, looking at the magnitude, timing, persistence, and other social as well as scientific factors, it can be reflected that there is a change in climate. Whether its effect is greater or smaller than welfare gains or losses needs a thorough study and assessment. However, smooth and gradual climate change may lead to damages that are considered harmful beyond a certain point (e.g. increase in sea-level).

Global Consumption

Today, global trade affects a broad range of social outcomes. As a result both individuals and governments are involved in multiple opportunities and constraints. It is factual that while trade affects global markets, it also determines what natural resources will be used and at what environmental costs. Furthermore, understanding the interaction between human and environmental systems is essential. Such consideration helps in developing appropriate strategies and innovations for achieving sustainability, equitable distribution of resources and wealth.

Governmental policies and consumption often promote one industry or sector at the expense of the others. The most visible effect occurs in one of the others, that is environment. However, such gains are one sided and consequential because of the impact occurring on the environmental distributions. Moreover, such situation creates a conflict among those of economic interests against other values of global environment and sustainable development agendas.

Currently, global inequalities in consumption are severe. The major cause of such global environmental deterioration is an unsustainable pattern of consumption and production. In particular, the industrialized countries are aggravating poverty and imbalances. The beginning of international conferences (Stockholm 1972) is a good indication on how such deterioration has an impact globally. This and other subsequent events are formed to look beyond scientific issues to broader political, social, and economic issues. This means that it becomes an international political agenda and thereby paved a way for intensified multilateral co-operations focusing on tackling unsustainable patterns of consumption.

Environmental degradation, as Martinez-Alier put it, is also caused by people “too poor to be green.” Poverty and pressure of population on resources can be mentioned as the main problems related to environment change. The problems are the result of economic activities causing pollution, the using up of scarce resources, disturbance of ecosystems, and destruction of habitats. These problems must be considered as important factors affecting in particular the potential for long term development, and in general to the global environment.

Consumption of resources is appropriated by world industrial centers with no much reflection to many environmental damages. The advanced industrialized countries produce around three quarters of total world carbon emissions. From this perspective, not only do they play a great role in environmental degradation but also in victimizing the less developed nations as a result of the inequalities and responsibility to take action. While improving their local environmental standards, and maintaining a high level of production and consumption, the burdens are shifting to the third world countries. Thus, it is an unsound and detrimental to global environment and sustainable development as it causes uneven growth and imbalance between nations of the world.

Global Empowerment

The contemporary world is a multi-centered place in which states, intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, individuals and other international and local organizations partake as actors. These various institutions can be related to each other when it comes to the function they act upon in relation to environmental issues. Empowerment, thus, can be explained as the process of enhancing the capacity of individuals or groups to make choices and to transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes.

The initial trend is the growing role of information as a driving force in the global environment protection. Powered by the ability to reproduce and distribute it ever more quickly and cheaply by new technologies, the internationalization of such aspect can be achieved. Thus, empowering the information centers (such as media, TV, etc) with the ability to disseminate the consequences of climate change is playing an essential role. It creates awareness, not only at an individual level but also in a way to recognize such calamity with common knowledge everywhere. The awareness constructed by the global information has a massive influence in the maturity of the people and societies as a whole. Accordingly, the part of social responsibility to tackle various issues related to development will rise concurrently.

Social movements are an opening to mobilize people in a context of networking and cooperation to resist the crisis of environmental degradation. These movements may come up with different strategies, demands, groups, technologies, etc. It is true that several movements are combating such global concern by building a unity among them. This profound organizational link can be a form of authority to make their devotion a possible reality. Today, the international movement of environmentalist’s is becoming stronger with time where it is no longer possible to stop their demands. The individual nations are more under pressure to merely turn down the demands of such institutions in international arena. This is due to the growing global awareness and mobilization of individual people, organizations, and institutions

Furthermore, the establishment of different conferences, agreements, conventions, etc is open with the purpose advancing the concept of sustainable development in combination with economic policies (Rio, Kyoto, etc). I can state that recognition to the loss of environmental degradation is one of the motivations for the organization of such conferences and agreements. To this effect, many developing countries understand the need to integrate environment in to their development policies. This will help in cutting their wasteful consumption models, though it could be difficult to implement such policies in short period of time.

The position of NGOs, specially agricultural and humanitarian organizations can be explained as a means in appealing to such environment degradation. For instance many NGOs are concerned with that of attracting foreign direct investment, as the developing countries would appeal to eliminate or ignore environmental standards. The fear is that a host country may not have strict pollution standards, which in turn could have an impact on the ecosystems and development choices.

Conclusion

It can be stated as a concluding remark that environmental degradation is undeniably an increasing problem now days. This crisis is interconnected to the three overarching global issues, namely global risk, global consumption and global empowerment. Likewise, these global issues are interrelated to each other as the impact or safety strategy of one problem has an influence on the others as well.

As long as the unwarranted consumption of natural resources is taking place, there is a global risk in the environment. Equally, the risk is not confined only to the nature but also has a significant effect on human health, even to the extent of conflict over critical resources, as there is lack of safety measures. Thus the power assumed to influence the polluters primarily lies on the society and other varied and keen institutions. Empowering them could create awareness and mobilization in the process of cutting the increase in global consumption. It is true that governments could play a great role in here; however their reluctance or unwillingness needs to be taken in to account.

The big question here is can we overcome the global environmental degradation our planet is facing? And is it possible that the various groups, which are contributing to such global degradation, work in harmony with the pro-environmental individuals and institutions? The response to these issues could be, why not? As described in the deliberation of the text, it is an issue of taking responsibility in finding viable protection strategies, through awareness, mobilization, and alternative mechanisms, in order to share the benefits of sustainable development.

Therefore, the challenge is to adapt our institutions so as the force of such environmental degradation is channeled in to ways that contribute to sustainable development. Whether this situation advances or undermines sustainable development depends on how policies are crafted and linked case-by-case to get a win-win solution.

Wide of the mark III

By Ws Hag

Sound of oppositions - does it matter?

More than fair enough, the sound not only matters but it should be considered as a driving force for the existent transformation of the country’s situation. Most of the issues raised by the majority of the opposition groups are just and meaningful. Leaving aside the historical opinions, the fundamental questions as to constitutionality of the government, rule of law, accountability, prisoners’ rights, and other human rights issues are in need of solution. The people and the country are still keen to breathe the air of absolute freedom and democracy. People are very desperate to see a government, which can respect their basic rights and be bothered of the majority’s need. A body of command, concerned with the demands of its citizens and their security rather than to a very limited personal or group aspirations.

To carry out these errands, however, it requires individual heads committed, honest, and escorted with much more optimistic ideas plus principles supposedly to last long enough. The power of smartness and wise thinking must defeat the popular and massive will of emotion. The entertainment of thoughts needs to be applauded and make its way in replacing the mere inspiration of passion. The idea of reasoning has to be encouraged and overcome personal attachments.

In a nutshell, if those assertions are supported with genuine endeavor and in the interest of the whole society - to uphold justice and democracy where the people of the nation have the devotion to rely on, to bring everlasting solution for the crisis in order to avoid the repetition of mistakes and overcome the situation, meant for peace as it is the important vehicle for development and prosperity, to control and shape the government creating a viable environment for transparency, to disseminate the truth and only the honest fact, and to bring about growth so as to change the living standard of the people at large. Taken as a whole, “freedom” is the general covet.

The Eritrean people do not expect a dramatic change. However, they are in need of promising figures who can live and share their beliefs without putting down a slight doubt. Peace and justice are the crucial dynamics, which can hold back normalization and stability of the country at this instance. If in relation to these factors the oppositions concentrate and work to bring an everlasting solution, they will win not only the mind of the majority, but also the struggle against absolute rule, for social equality and impartiality in short time. The time factor, these days, is a central point as the people inside the country are in unconditional necessity more than ever before.

On the other hand, the problem is when the principles of these groups bend to a trivial political agenda other than the factual and legitimate interest of the country and its people. Thumbs down is, thus, the reply where these oppositions are making progress not enough to echo to the claim of the people to compel and guarantee the security of the country. Where the change of government is not for most part of the people and without any change to the basic conditions of life, the reverberation is limited and of no magnitude. As the people have learned the hard way, what required now is more than mere promises. Practically, these groups need to put forward and work to a justifiable common objective taking into account the common good of the country and its people. Nothing is required except the free will of their respective assembly to be candid and flexible enough to engage as well as to construct reasonable ground for compromise.

Looking back at the records, however, selfishness, dishonesty, fabrication, and inadequate principles are the worst scenario of the majority of the oppositions except to the contribution they claim. Such weaknesses are the consequence of personal antagonism among most of the representatives in these different groups. Expressly, the method they take up in assailing the politically involved characters is intolerable. Furthermore, the making of disarray in the people’s unity is mainly a horrible plan; simply fooling around with the classy pride of the citizens and their motherland. At this critical stage, however, all must be aware of that the law belongs to everyone and the rule of law, as a mere concept is not enough without the moral say-so. Practice what you preach. Though tomorrow is another day, the inaccurate manners and talks could always detach all the exertion for nothing.

Conclusion
The emergence of democratic institutions and of the arrangements, which hold them together, cannot be engineered as an act of will; it requires patience and modesty. It is evident in particularly to understand the obstacles to democracy in a multiethnic and multi-religious society. However, this does not mean that integrating its principles should be left out as democracy by itself can create a solution to such impediments.

No one can predict what judgment leaders will make years from now. But leaders in both the present government and in the opposition’s camp have a responsibility to help and shape the judgments of emerging generations. They must go beyond keeping nationalism, to view history through the prism of the most recent experience. A great concern should to be given to the aspiration and requisite of the people within the country.

All concerned with the future of the country, thus, must find ways to cooperate so that the world will gain see Eritreans working toward common destiny both at home and in the community of nations. It is to such effort that this article seeks to make a contribution. In particular, the opposition’s relationship, to be meaningful, needs to have a special character. They should be prepared to do things for each other in the sphere beyond the immediate dictates of personal interests and insisting on collective consensus. As an unsurpassed achievement will only depend on leadership quality and the subsequent outcome of public partaking as well as classlessness, hope every one of them will gain awareness from each other’s slip-up.

This dilemma of our age may be summed up by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace.” It would come out either by human foresight or by a series of catastrophes that leave no other choice. Which of these two will be is the ultimate question to whoever rules the country as it is destined for perpetual peace.
*** END ***

መንዮም መን?

By Ws Hag

ከለው ዝደቀሱ
ረኺሶም ዘራኽሱ
ድጋመት ዘፍሰሱ

ይፍትኑ
እወ ይወናወኑ
ጥራሕ ንእዋኑ

ይውንጅሉ
ብምቁንጻብ የቃልሉ
ነብሶም’ውን እናታለሉ

ዘረባ ከመቅሩ
መሳምር የስምሩ
ዘዝተረኽበ ክምእርሩ

ዕድለይ ዝዕድላ
ንኹሉ እንከላ
እንታይ ክንሕፉላ

ዘብለዩ መዛንኦም
ዘይበልየሎም ንባዕሎም
ሆ... ይብሉ ከምኣመሎም

መትከሎም ኣይፍሉጥ
ኣካይዳኦም ዘይስሉጥ
ሕልና ዘቅወጥውጥ

እንታይሞ… ኣክቢዶም ትሕዝቶ
መሲልዎም ብቀሊሉ ዝእቶ
ረሲዖሞ ከምዘሎ ህውታቶ

ግን…ኣለዎ ንኹሉ ደረጃ
ኣየስተብሃሉን ከምዘሎ ወረጃ
ቀዲሙ ዝኾነ በጃ’ወ በጃ።

Wide of the mark II

By Ws Hag

Odds of avoiding the situation

While there are many factors, both internal and external, that can explain as the cause; it was years of bad governance, dishonesty and the denial of basic human rights that created the deplorable conditions. Instead of implementing positive and progressive policies, the ills and self-serving machinations were carried on for extended time. Lack of institutional bodies exposed the vast majority of the people into a state deprivation. In our days, not only government accountability is fictional, more to that political dissent and expressions are still non-existent. In general terms, democracy and the rule of law are completely out of question and dead alive.

Naturally, the current predicament could have been evaded through different approaches. However, I consider the following rationales as foremost in achieving the dream of the people at large to grow and prosper. Well-timed unconditional discussion and debate on different issues among senior officials is one of the crucial points. Such dialogue can convincingly create a healthy and viable political atmosphere among those formally power is entrusted. Once you choose to accept responsibility, it is indispensable to understand that the power of persuasiveness has more weight and supremacy over the emotional opinions. This, however, was not the case when it comes to the reality of the land and its higher officials. The consequence, thus, is the loss of varied prospects in handling cases on time. This unpopularity of identified and timely dialogues has left a deep scar of concern and hopelessness in the people.

The extensive participation of concerned authorities and the people is another central point. The ultimate beneficiaries of any improvement in a country are its citizens. It is only via good involvement and pay-attention that one can realize the desires. Such participation facilitates the government to point out what is needed and to make research in order to lay out major principles and policies that could elevate the desire of the people. One has to keep in mind that governments are meant to respect the will of the people not vice-versa. The breakdown of such partaking, however, gave the government an upper hand to become a free rider. This in turn has brought about catastrophic measures as a result of the implementation of erroneous principles based on assumptions and passions rather than on vast study, knowledge and understanding.

Making analysis on decisions is an additional important attribute, which facilitates in staying away from snags. Failure to notice the right and wrong resolutions can be a means to craft analogous mistakes time and again. Once a fault is pointed or found, acknowledgment is the initial step that leads to the occupation in finding a solution. If not, the recurrence of another related mistake is in place. In other words it is a kind of becoming an accepted practice to make a mistake and go on with it without any responsibility. This could also lead to the cunning act of deliberate mistake. Today, indeed one can utter that the mistakes look as if intentionally done as no one from the inside is taking an initiative to convert the wrongs to right in due time. The consequence as such is am immature political brawl among those officials who were supposed to solve problems rather than create them without merit and to no ones gain. In general, it would have been very wise and constructive formulating the scrutiny in due time.
Other additional and not less important points are also worth mentioning. Well recognized and healthy negotiation with neighboring political figures. This lends a hand not only in a matter of relationship but also in stability, trade flow, and so forth. Cooperation with various organizations is another factor that can be helpful in acquiring different material and professional aid. To cut a long story short, compromise in the interest of the people, drawing flexible and feasible policy, and building better global relations can be pointed out as means of averting the current situation and by that promoting a firm and credible standing in a diplomatic arena.

Nevertheless, most of the above tips were not sincerely taken into account, not hitherto and may be not in the whole life of the current government’s continuation. The corollary, thus, is profound.


Lessons learned by the leadership

Sorry to say it but none at all. There might be instances that the leadership uttered on some lessons gained on the process only by word of mouth. Yet on the practical arena a matching maneuvers is taking place. One can name a lot of reasons as to why the leadership failed or did not meet the people’s expectation. Egotism, military accepted wisdom, trepidation to change, corruption, lack of any solemn objection by the people are a number of the major factors or realities in which the government is still bonding with. This wrongly implanted bond became an addiction to all those who are in love with “power” instead of “principles and rule of law.”

This particular period reflects an extraordinary failure of leadership on the part of many of those involved in the government, public life and civil society within the country. The one time professed very enlightened and visionary leadership emerged to steer the country away from the glide into chaos, war and devastated life of despair. Legal, political, administrative or any other important reforms and measures are completely over and done. Specifically the repetition of mistakes committed, violations or abuses upon citizens’ rights, and old-fashioned governance need to be identified, foiled and curtailed. These adjustments in turn could facilitate the values of human dignity, tolerance, and respect for the rights of all persons. In particular, it will help to create an open and vibrant democracy in which all are treated equal before the law of the country.

For this, the leadership is facing new challenges played out on the global rather than local stage. It is unclear, however, whether the traits that explain alleged success at home will help us to realize the future in fulfilling the country’s enduring dream of joining the global politics. It is evident that success at home is the basis and step to the global challenges. Yet, is there any real success internally?

It is worth delving here, the tolerant ordinary Eritreans are dejected with the incompetence and dishonesty of their political masters. By all counts, any kind of leadership needs not only worldly-wise men but also candid. Though reasonably good during and after the struggle for independence, our politicians are something rube in diplomacy and very clandestine. The insularity is compounded by the fact that the leadership often makes choices based on gut emotion, reinforced by the usual attitudes of party leadership. This dangerous mixture generates disastrous policy choices in the opportunity of the country, the same as what went before.

Instead, it was required the introduction of a transparent regime in which citizens would have reasonable access to government information, where senior officials disclose their financial interest and where government informs people down to the community level what amounts are being spent on services and amenities.

Eritrea’s future, thus, goes far explaining the angst clouding the courtship. To judge the country just in terms of how it may or may not fit into the world politics ultimately falls on the real point of home reformation. However, imperfect as the leadership is, the damage is already done upon the motherland. If this continues, and will, the country will be forced to move from political dysfunction and economic quagmire to being law-less civil society.

It is the legacies of dehumanization, hatred and fear which must be confronted on the basis that there is a need for tolerance, not prejudice; a need for acknowledgement, not recrimination; a need for reparation, not retribution; a need for community, not victimization; a need for understanding, not suspicion; a need for reconstruction, not greed. Taking such reasonable steps promptly and without any irrational excuse within its means was the responsibility of the government.

Wide of the Mark I

By Ws Hag

“The inspiration is let’s sprint, if we can’t sprint, let’s run, if we can’t run, let’s walk, if we also can’t walk, then let’s crawl, but in any way possible, let’s keep moving.”
Wuire Mamadu Tamba Barrie


Political grievances that come from political groups, lacking the benefit of a possible solution, need to be quashed with no hesitation. No party or political group has the monopoly of virtual wisdom. Individuals as well as groups, who are involved in this arena, should look at the people as ‘immense precedence’ and ‘valuable’ when compared to the loved land and state.

The present government seemed reactive and defensive. When asked to respond, still comes off as more energetic, disciplined and effective repeatedly. Eritrea is in an intense geopolitical struggle and its people wanted to understand how their leaders would lead. Let alone those who are in power, those who will become are also under the enfold of this irrefutable question. Their strengths and weaknesses as leaders in war and peace; how they define conflict, success and the achievement of victory. The up-to-the-minute war with our neighbors is really much like political, economic and social struggle for hearts and minds. In such circumstances, it is crucial to balance success against political effects.

Great time war leaders know that they owe their public the bad news the same as the excellent ones. Such honesty maintains a leader’s credibility and reassures the public that it is not being manipulated. The refusal to acknowledge mistakes is not simply an image problem. It is a gravest fault not to accept and work upon it when the reality on the ground is different from your own theories and principles. The present politicians of our country may verbalize well of themselves as “Catholics more than the Pope.” They want us to know as if they are clean of any momentous blunders. What is happening, however, is the opposite.

Equally, democratic societies have always debated war leadership vigorously, even in the middle of hostilities. So a spirited debate during a war is not to be feared. Being a good politician, Pericles of Athens could be mentioned as an outstanding model who quickly came back as his leadership frustrated in the Peloponnesian War. War is not a reason to suspend democracy. In fact, it is justified when democracy is at its most far-reaching and vibrant position.

Any government, in such occurrence, has to realize that it can’t remain in power and rule thousands of citizens against their will and consent indefinitely. People need a government, which can play by the rules; good governance meant for the salient and silent law abiding majority who pay their dues. By the same token, politicians have a duty to respond to the people. If they messed up, either they need to make good their mistakes or they have to step down. It is indeed worthy and requisite to tell the truth after the run up of any debatable issue. If not, they need to be forced to lose their job, as they would be desperate to be commended for the admirable work they might did or do.

The current group in command has said so much but delivered hardly anything to the best and patient ingredient, except few, in Eritrea. People are drained with ‘talk’; they want action of real concern. These few individuals need to listen, not only to their own aspirations but also to the tight spot of the majority who already became victims of the unsolved political issues. It is apposite and gratifying at this juncture, with deep compassion, to realize and acknowledge the role our youngsters are paying with their opportunity, time, labor and more than anything else their dear life. It is more than pleasing to give a sensible respect and practice to your own lexis than to listen and disregard.

Each person owes this country everything what he/she have. However, the few influential individuals still think that the country still owes them a lot as a reward for their long struggle as freedom fighters or political undertaking. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. What will be the reward for those who paid with their irreversible lives then? Cash…. This is poignant. This is not the purpose they bestow their last gasp for. Let’s remember their very last words, “awet n’hafash”. Yes indeed for their much-loved people and country, not simply for the group who were and are in the leadership. It is only when the assurance which made them offer their dear existence is respected that the country comes to relax at peace.

Nearly two decades later, however, people are still wearisome to divine the significance of the “rule of law” and the event that led to the brutal crackdown of the present government. The nation wanted to know what precipitated the wave of post war mayhem that swept across the country and its citizens.

Mobilize the “quite”

By Ws Hag

“French politicians write lots of books to prove and hold public office, US voters favor the candidate they can envision sharing a beer with, African leaders like better docile people.” (See www.greatepicbooks.com/epics/june99.html)

Upcoming opposition groups must face the challenges head on. If they want to succeed, they must first loosen the ideological straitjacket and dare bring in new voices: entrepreneurs, intellectuals, and young people, expats who left the country for lack of opportunities and other different reasons. Otherwise, they will end up with the same gridlock, same arguments, and same lagging dogma the current government is locked up in. And this will be a huge quagmire, as is now, that can be undone for years where many would keep on in an inert position.

Nowhere have the government systematically dealt with its own oppositions as others do. It is indeed the responsibility of politicians to do better to rally the progressive mainstream. If they fail to do so, it is blatant that the country will face grave challenges not only to its democracy, but also to its valuable social integrity. The snail’s-pace economy is producing too few good situations, and the majority won’t be satisfied, or silent, forever.

Ordinary Eritreans fear a return to the chaos and poverty of the 1970s and 80s, fueled by recent border war and unending demarcation process. Businessmen and investors fear an increasingly capricious government that denies them what they need most - stability and a clear set of rules. What about politicians?

The man who is “so-called” an inspire to this fear is nearly all-powerful. He has exploited a string of the border incidents, most notably – the confrontation of higher officials, which left many behind bars and angered the world – to further consolidate his position. Many Eritreans think consolidating power in the leadership’s hand is the only way to bring the country’s feuding politicians to heel. But a system built on one man (if I may say so an undersized group) and held together by fear is proving to be much shakier than it looks.

As democracy was uprooted, power is leaking from head of the state to the military authorities. While decentralization is working in other parts of the world for the common good of governance, this kind of power transference, nonetheless, spawned local corruption and gave birth to regional dynamos. The joke today is that long-ago bribes went to a select few who got results except nowadays there are so many local hands to grease and it is level impossible to get things done.

Ordinary people call this period the time of stagnation. Economists, in contrast, call them “administrative barriers,” and they come in different forms and in different places – corrupt officials, demands for bribes or just bureaucratic delays. The problems are too big for individuals to tackle, as power has grown so centralized. Without local self-government, sensitive to local needs, “business can’t grow.” Unless this worry is lifted, the economy will continue to slide not just backward and hit bottom rock but it will be nowhere near that one can uplift it until a decade or two to overtake, if luckily.

The country, as a result, needs pragmatists if it hopes to have a grasp at the progressing world. It doesn’t matter whether the leadership is from the East or West, North or South, so long as it is able to catch the good fish. The people have to have a headship with solid promises and which can pronounce the “do not worry and we are going to reborn again” demonstration. Administrations that can keep and make the people undoubtedly united as before to look at their future and the vision of peace and even handedness.

The solutions, to launch judicial reforms, outline practical policy, incentives to foreign investors, involvement of citizens, etc. There is no end to the possibilities of reform, if the war-ravaged and poverty stricken land is able to open up to democracy. Nonetheless, it is all pretty vague right now, and the insiders are watching for any adjustment and improvement. The outsiders as well are concerned equally since most of them are left helpless and do not even know how to identify or solve the intricacy. There is a difficult balance to strike between bringing in those who are willing to change and excluding those who remain opposed to the government. The tragedy of the country is “a tragedy of mediocrity.”

It is good to keep in mind, however, that the overall objective during such time of opposing is to win the battle of ideas and the political struggle for freedom, rule of law, democracy and justice. The center of gravity in this kind of struggle, thus, is the local population. Wining and maintaining their support is crucial. Gaining the participation and contribution of the population and eliminating support for the ruling privileged is more important. Without political strategy to deal with the grassroots, even the best plans will never work.

Meanwhile the number of opposition groups in diaspora is sometimes mushrooming and at other times going into coalition. Perhaps we are hearing much about them everyday now because the debate has gotten so high-pitched. Not because they are the highest gear than before but it seems that the other side’s endurance is moving towards a critical down falling situation. It is now and again; the point of discussion hangs around only in considering no more than on the wrongs and statements of the government. Although, it is the most cynical contemplation to discount the importance of opposition, yet at times you find the level of the debate rather juvenile more often. The question is whether these oppositions can whip the muddle into shape as well as mobilize the people with crystal clear principles devoid of reviving any dictatorial methods to reach the important milestone.

I’m out and peace to all who care about it !!

Global Expansion of Trade and Sustainable Development

By Ws Hag

Whatever the balance of threats or opportunities, the reality of global trade expansion is beyond dispute. To this effect, I will discuss how trade expansion affects, both positively and negatively, on sustainable development.

Expansion of global trade can be seen as an affirmative end in terms of its economic and political impacts. This is factual as such expansion leads to economic growth through creating larger markets and introducing competition (Snarr & Snarr, Introducing Global Issues, p.245). Supplies of commodities also find their ways worldwide without much difficulty. Moreover, developing countries may have the opportunity to use foreign standards as an incentive to make new investments and implement new systems.

Likewise, the political force of global trade increases mutual dependence and encourages cooperation among nations (Aaron Cosbey, Lessons Learned on Sustainable & Development, p.9). This cooperation paves a way in lessening the degree of conflict and increases peaceful solutions to differences. As a result, both individuals and governments could enjoy the advantage of such composure for their progress.

Today’s scale of modern urbanization, transfer of technology, knowledge as well as idea, and employment opportunity are the result of such expansion (Review of “The Environmentalism of the Poor”, Journal of Agrarian, p.432). The awareness constructed by the global trade has a massive influence in the development of the people and societies as a whole. Accordingly, the part of social responsibility to tackle various issues related to development will rise concurrently.

The negativity of trade expansion globally can be described in terms of the range of technical requirements imposed by developed countries. Though the standards and technical specifications have positive impact, they will affect the progress of developing nations, as the conditions can be more burdensome (NIS Project, Globalization, Trade and Sustainable Development, P.11). This could develop in to constructing a complex system that distinguishes seriously among countries on the basis of their level of development (e.g. EU regulation on consumer health protection, US shrimp harvesting methods, labeling requirements, etc.). Hence, it can be explained as the potential tension that could frustrate the sustainable growth in developing countries, though attempts has been made to address their concern.

The effect in environment is another point which I refer to as appalling aspect. Global trade pushes environmental standards lower by allowing competition from firms that pollute more than expected (Louise Takeda, Political Ecological Economics: An Emerging Transdisciplinary Approach to Sustainability, p.43). The products themselves may be a cause for environmental damage in the process (e.g. energy efficiency, recyclability, etc.). Often, pollution from the products contributes to global environmental problems such as ozone layer destruction, biodiversity loss or global warming.

In fairness terms, the expansion by itself is not well distributed and inequality between nations is reflected (J. Martinez-Alier, Metabolic Profiles of Countries And Ecological Distribution Conflicts, p.11. The most benefited part of such global trade is the wealthy actors of the developed world. Hence, the development in such areas meets the needs of the people with the ability of future thought. However, the other part of the world is becoming victim of such unequal distribution of resources and forced them to stay behind with limited opportunities for development.

To sum up, global expansion of trade can be both good and bad to sustainable development. The challenge is to adapt our institutions so as the force of such trade expansion is channeled in to ways that contribute to sustainable development. Whether trade expansion advances or undermines sustainable development depends on how policies are crafted and linked case-by-case to get a win-win solution.

PEACE INTIATIVE: Decision v Package

3...It must be assumed that now that Ethiopia has accepted, in principle, the decision of the Boundary Commission, together with the other points contained in the five-point peace proposal, it will help the Eritrean people to understand Ethiopia's full commitment to peace...

5...Start Dialogue Immediately with the view to implementing the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission's decision in a manner consistent with the Promotion or Sustainable Peace and Brotherly Ties between the Two Peoples...” …The acceptance of the decision in principle, and then proceeding with implementation in a manner consistent with durable and sustainable peace and, in this connection, making adjustment as and when necessary in the course of implementation, is an internationally accepted demarcation practice.”…

The above are some extracts as words and supposedly “new scheme for sustainable peace and good neighborliness” issued by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia in addressing the Parliament of his country in the aftermath where the Boundary Commission ruled its decision.

It appears new, advanced and unmarked initiative coming towards the peace and normalization process of the two countries, when seen at a glimpse along with such elongated time of no war and no peace situation. It might as well attract the attention of many different people, countries, organizations and other concerned bodies. They might believe the attitude of the Ethiopian government has changed towards peace and demarcation process in line with the aspiration to witness the prevalence of peace in that region. The only tone, if changed, however, is the tendency which stated that the Ethiopian government has accepted the ruling though still stressing on the principle that the Boundary Commission’s decision is unjust and illegal.

It has been said so much on the legality or illegality of the Commission’s ruling. Yet, there are two odd points which draw my attention from the peace initiative set down by the Ethiopian Prime Minister. That is, accepting the ruling and declaring at one fell swoop its illegality. Tolerable enough, as it could be argued that Ethiopia has acknowledged the decision but it is only stating its observations and remarks on the decision. It is very sensible and diplomatic to put forward your annotations in any situation where it is decisively evidenced. In any ruling there is a likely victor as there is a possible loser. Hence, it is natural and likely to come about making some comments and even rejecting the decision in a situation where you put your confidence of not losing as it comes to the final finding and enlightened you lose. It does not make any sense at all, however, to recognize the decision while in unison disagreeing and demanding with the ruling just for the consideration of peace and unreserved cooperation.

Thus, it is practical to pose some questions, what kind of acceptance the Ethiopian government has provided? What does it mean accepting the decision in principle? Furthermore, is acceptance of the decision subject to any condition? Is it a real move by the government of the Prime Minister for peace and good neighborliness or to put Eritrean people and government in saddle? These are imperative issues which need a come back, whether civil or extreme, ahead of jumping to any conclusions.

Acknowledgment of the decision in principle

After deliberation and taking time for some years, the Prime Minister, affirmed that his government accepts the decision in principle. It is not, however, the decision that should be accepted in principle. It is the Algiers Agreement, in which both parties signed and decided to be bound prior to the meeting of the ruling, which should be accepted as a principle. This agreement proves that the parties affirmed, as a standard, their intention to recognize and implement no matter what the Commission’s outcome is. The establishment of this Boundary Commission was on the basis of such preceding agreement and principle of both Eritrea and Ethiopia. Hence, it is on the fundamentals of such principle that the decision must be recognized and implemented, not in any other subsidiary opinion. This principle has basically ended, at least for the past four or more years, the devastating war and cleared the phase which meant for peace of the people and the region.

If one is in no agreement with any decision specified, the ordinary procedure is to make a plea to the case without introducing any fresh substantiation. In this situation the two countries had earlier agreed to comprise the clause “final and binding” in the Algiers Agreement. This clause was included in order to keep the two governments together and later to stand for not to differ from the ruling once the Boundary Commission presented its final decision. To this effect, however, the government of Ethiopian is still not responding to this particular clause as if not necessarily advanced. It is not clear whether the Prime Minister is referring to this particular clause in pronouncing the government accepts the decision of the Commission? Using general terms and making no suggestions, thus, on this meticulous clause cannot be considered as an innocent oversight.

The conditions:

1. Dialogue immediately.

It is very constructive and civil to engage in discussions to resolve conflicts anytime. Recalling and believing on the agreement, both Eritrea and Ethiopia where committing themselves to the Boundary Commission until the time of the ruling date. There is no mention as whether any of the two governments complained during the assessment period and the way the case was handled. Ethiopia never called for any exchange of ideas to find a solution by mutual negotiations or any other means for peaceful settlement out of the Commission’s dominion during such time. May be the Prime Minister and his government were overconfident enough to be awarded with the disputed area. The act of complaining and the voice of discussion prior to demarcation were heard sometime after the ruling came public. It is this particular calling for a dialogue by the Ethiopian government, before implementation of the decision, which cut short the phase to demarcation process for almost two years now. Though it was too premature to act in such a way, yet, nothing changed.

It is true dialogue could help for good relations or so, but is it on the interest of both parties to make any dialogue while the Ethiopian government ruled out the decision of the Boundary Commission? What was the dialogue for, if the demarcation is going to be based on the decision accepted by Ethiopia? Now the Prime Minister is calling for immediate dialogue in view of implementation of the Commission’s decision. What is the innovative and guarantee which can rush Eritrea to enter into discussion? Let alone these initiative, the world is witnessing how the government of Ethiopia is not willing to realize its pledge to the Algiers agreement and to the decision of the Commission.

The decision of the Boundary Commission is meant to be respected not negotiated. Likewise, implementation of the decision should be more of practice and less discussion. It is only when difficulties are experienced in the process of carrying out the ruling on ground that discussion can be called as a next choice, yet, upon the Boundary Commission’s consultation. Thus, where Eritrea involves in the discussion prior to seeing the observance of the decision and before any initiative is taken by the Ethiopian government to fully accept and implement the decision, it can mean to a point accepting the Ethiopian assertion tacitly.

At any circumstance, discussion for sustainable peace and brotherly ties between the people can come only after defining what belongs to whom. This can be secured solely based on the Algiers Agreement followed by the decision of the Boundary Commission. Dialogue is a bilateral subject to be decided by both parties. One party cannot force the other to come into a discussion just because to carry out the interest needed.

2. Acceptance in connection with making adjustment.

The other difficulty in this new initiative is the acceptance of the decision by Ethiopia is not only subject to dialogue but it includes the making of adjustments in the process of implementing demarcation. Wow what a noble idea… In here, the idea of acceptance needs to be stated unambiguously. Making any amendment upon the Commission’s decision prior to its implementation is the same as rejecting it. On the other hand, what is “necessary adjustment?” It may not be of any significance to one party what seems necessary to the other party. Hence, the adjustment could fall not on what is necessary but in upholding ones interest. How difficult could it be to realize that it is this interest which took these countries to raise arms instead of minds?

Past all the human and material destruction, and following the Algiers Agreement to settle the conflict by the decision of the Boundary Commission, still the government of Ethiopia is voicing out its own interest only. The ruling of the Commission, however, was of benefit to the interest of both countries chiefly as it is meant for peace. The decision was intended to be accepted with all its advantages and disadvantages by both governments as it was agreed to be final and binding. What is now the Prime Minister indicating by presenting this new proposal? Yet, if the parties disagree in this situation, what can be the next solution? Going back to the decision, or again to wait for another couple of years and come up with similar novel initiative? It is absurd.

The only fresh words are “acceptance” and “sustainable peace and good neighborliness” in this initiative. It was not long to remember that Ethiopia has already rejected in part the decision of the Boundary Commission for its own reasons. Still it is unclear from such package what the innovative proposal is on the lookout for. Peace, attention, make an impression, demonstrate Eritrea as flawed… Now again, the acceptance is still conditioned in a very political way adding enjoyable words, nonetheless, without any variation from the previous theory of rejection.

The Motive

They say, ‘you can’t wake a person who slept consciously.’ It is not far from reality to say this goes to the Prime Minister and his government. It is not in the interest of the public of the region to go round and round the decision. Again it is not in the interest of the two governments as it could no more draw the attention of the international community to facilitate for there is no room to do so. This might be what the Ethiopian government would like to bring into play as an occasion and as a means to extend the mischief gone on for the past years. If this is only about what interests Ethiopia, yes as they have claimed at the outbreak of the war in 1998, zwesede ywsed, whatever it takes.

The Eritrean people are not blindly accusing the Ethiopian government, exclusively based on the propaganda of the government of Eritrea, particularly for not implementing the decision. It is because of the difficulties which have been created by the Ethiopian government time and again. The Ethiopian government may call the distinct initiatives and suggestions issued as major efforts plus flexibility for peace on its side. But a peace scheme needs to promote both sides interest. It should not be a safe haven for one and a burden to the other. It should be inclusive rather than exclusive.

The Prime Minister did not want to acknowledge the decision simply not because he is against peace but he knows its political effect. But how can one stay wide awake without any sleep in fear of a dream. It is impossible. The ground-breaking theory suggested along with the other contents of the package in the Prime minister’s predictable proposal is the “give and take.” What to offer and what to acquire...

Why does not the Ethiopian government state all the subject matter of the dialogue wanted, their offer as well as their demand clearly? The dialogue may be to make demands which are related or distinct with the issue of demarcation. The issue of port, Badma area, any other political, economic and social issues and interests at large … What is going to be the limitation of the discussion