U.S. Officials stop demonizing Eritrea, a young and principled African nation
Sophia Tesfamariam
August 15, 2007
In light of the recent developments in the Horn of Africa and the continued hostility of and unwarranted attacks by the US State Department on Eritrea, the Government and its people, I have decided to share the following article with Chronicle readers.
U.S. Officials stop demonizing Eritrea, a young and principled African nation
Ghidewon Abay Asmerom
August 15, 2007
US-Eritrea relations are deteriorating by the day. The latest order by the Bush Administration to close the Eritrean consulate in Oakland, California is one more piece in this worsening relationship. Each side is saying the other is to blame. United States officials will tell you Eritrea is to be blamed. Why? Their answer is: “Who is poor and small Eritrea, to challenge the United States?” In their opinion, Eritrea should know its place in the international pecking order of nations. Of course Eritrean officials will also tell you that the United States is to blame. Why? The United States, as a country that authored the Algiers Agreement, is not at the forefront pushing for the expeditious implementation of the “final and binding” Decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC). Quite to the contrary, Eritrean officials say: “the United States is behind every act of Ethiopia and the United Nations that had made the implementation of the EEBC Decision impossible.” They add “we have nothing against the United States, except the fact that it is showing a blind favoritism towards a lawless regime in Ethiopia at the expense of Eritrea.”
Paradoxically both countries are right. Eritrea should have known that no one challenges the United States, no matter how justified the cause, and lives in peace.
International laws and norms are not meant for the rich and strong nations like the United States, but for the poor and the defenseless. Since Eritrea is of the latter, it should know its right place. Furthermore, Eritrean officials are not supposed to question any United States policy; their duty is to go along with whatever they are told. In addition, United States officials, no matter how insignificant, always know what is best for Africa and Africans. They are used to giving orders and developing countries’ officials like that of Eritrea are supposed to say “yes mom” or “yes sir” without any preconditions. More importantly, Eritrean officials shouldn’t forget John Foster Dulles’ “famous” words “From the point of view of justice, the opinion of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless, the strategic interests of the United States in the Red Sea Basin and world peace make it necessary that the country be linked with our ally Ethiopia.”
Is it any wonder then to read the following words from one Foreign Service officer of the United States, Mr. James Swan, working for the same State Department that John Foster Dulles once lead: “The Eritrean Government has fabricated a national mythology by demonizing neighboring Ethiopia, for the central purpose of garnering complete compliance with his autocratic domestic policies. By channeling Eritreans' patriotism into hostility toward Ethiopia, the government ensures that [it] can rule as it likes, without public opposition?” No, not at all! It is clear to everyone that U.S. policy towards Eritrea is based neither on justice nor on facts and fairness. This was the case in the late 1940s and 1950s and it remains the same today.
However, there are a couple of questions Mr. Swan needs to think of carefully. Will it be fair to assert that President Bush is “fabricating a national mythology by demonizing Al–Qaeda for the central purpose of garnering complete compliance with his autocratic domestic polices”? Of course not! We have all seen how Al-Qaeda, in cold blood, attacked America, killing thousands and terrorizing millions. The terror of 9/11 is real, not “any invented story, idea, or concept.” If President Bush tries to demonize Osama Bin Laden, he is only trying to defend America from any future Al-Qaeda attacks, not “fabricating a national mythology to demonize Al-Qaeda.” The American public needs to be made aware of the evils of global terrorism so as another 9/11 would never occur again. Not on American soil and hopefully no where in the world as well!
Can anyone also accuse the Jewish people, the survivors of the Holocaust, of “fabricating a national mythology” if they try to demonize Nazi Germany? God forbid! The Holocaust was real, not some “unproved or false collective belief” or myth. Millions have lost their lives in Hitler’s gas chambers!
The same is true of the terror the Eritrean population faced from Ethiopia. The terrorist gang in Ethiopia, with the blessing of some people in the U.S. government, the likes of Mr. Swan, had attacked Eritrea, killing thousands and terrorizing hundreds of thousands. Ethiopia’s refusal, through the encouragement of the likes of Jendayi Frazer, to unconditionally demarcate the Eritrea-Ethiopia border and thus once more seeding the war clouds over the Horn of Africa is also real not a fabrication of the Eritrean government. One need not go far than reading the EEBC’s reports to see these facts. This means the Eritrean government doesn’t have to fabricate any mythology to demonize Ethiopia’s minority regime; its acts are there for anyone to see.
Mr. Swan is willing to look the other way, but what the minority regime is doing to its own people like those in the Ogaden is also another evidence that no body needs to fabricate anything to demonize the regime in Ethiopia. Thus the crimes of Ethiopian regimes, past and present, against the Eritrean people are hard facts not myths. But it is precisely these kinds of callous attitudes and remarks by our Foreign Service officials, the likes of Mr. Swan, towards other victimized people around the world that is denying us Americans the friends we deserve. Mr. James Swan might have thought, through his venomous speech against Eritrea, he was attacking Eritrea, however, by this kind of dishonest presentations he is doing more harm to the credibility of the United States government. This is a great disservice to this great nation. What a shame!
Mr. Swan also told his Kalamazoo audience, “We believe it is essential for the parties to discuss directly how to implement a workable boundary regime.” Does this mean the US now considers the Commission’s Delimitation is not binding because it didn’t come up without a workable boundary? Doesn’t this mean calling for an alternative mechanism, to which the EEBC had already called it “a departure from, and thus an amendment to, the terms of Article 4.2 of the Algiers Agreement?” Could it be these kinds of prejudiced statements that are making the Eritrean government blame the United States government for the impasse in demarcation and the deterioration of US-Eritrea relations?
It seems the real reason behind the deterioration of relation is because Mr. Swan’s boss, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Ms. Jendayi Frazer, is angry at the Eritrean government, because it refused to allow her to usurp the Border Commission’s authority and mandate. It is to be remembered, eighteen months ago, Secretary Frazer had, unilaterally, tried to amend the Algiers Agreement’s Article 4.2. While the Algiers Peace Agreement had clearly stated that the EEBC has no power to delimit and demarcate the border on “ex aequo et bono,” she insisted and is still insisting, from what Mr. James Swan told the gathering at Western Michigan University, that the border should be demarcated on “ex aequo et bono.”
This was precisely why Ms. Frazer had demanded to travel to Badme and other parts of the Eritrea-Ethiopia border. She wanted to look at the border for herself and then draw a new “workable boundary.” In fact she had tried to push such a new map and a General Fulford as an advisor to the EEBC, in one of the Commission’s meeting last year. The Eritrean government emphatically said NO to all these and according to the Commission “Eritrea’s insistence on strict adherence to the terms of the Delimitation Decision was a position which it was entitled to adopt in accordance with the Algiers Agreement.”
Thus the crux of the matter is that some U.S. officials have no interest in seeing the border demarcated and the tension between Eritrea and Ethiopia resolved. That is why they are insisting to change the substance of the Commission’s Decision knowing fully well that Eritrea is not going to compromise.
All what we are witnessing these days, including Mr. Swan’s statement at Western Michigan, the order to close the Eritrean consulate in Oakland, placing Eritrea on the list of Countries of Particular Concern, and the fabrication of Eritrean involvement in Somalia are retaliatory corollaries to the principled and legal stand of Eritrea.
In addition to all these, the planned press conference by Assistant Secretary Jendayi Frazer is designed to give some traction to the UN Somali Monitoring Group's report because it did not seem to have had the reception Dr. Frazer and her office had hoped for. It is the same group that had said there were 2000 Eritrean troops in Somalia last year but could not find a single Eritrean soldier when Ethiopia invaded that country. Every bit of that report must have been fabricated because there was not even a single Eritrean soldier in Somalia.
So, here is a question all concerned journalists should ask: It seems the group's earlier allegation against Eritrea had no basis in fact, so, why should the international community believe these recent charges against this country? The monitoring group last year told the international community that it was going to be a proxy war--between Eritrea and Ethiopia-- in Somalia. However, many now feel that allegation was in fact designed to provide a cover for Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia.
U.S. Officials stop demonizing Eritrea, a young and principled African nation
Ghidewon Abay Asmerom
August 15, 2007
US-Eritrea relations are deteriorating by the day. The latest order by the Bush Administration to close the Eritrean consulate in Oakland, California is one more piece in this worsening relationship. Each side is saying the other is to blame. United States officials will tell you Eritrea is to be blamed. Why? Their answer is: “Who is poor and small Eritrea, to challenge the United States?” In their opinion, Eritrea should know its place in the international pecking order of nations. Of course Eritrean officials will also tell you that the United States is to blame. Why? The United States, as a country that authored the Algiers Agreement, is not at the forefront pushing for the expeditious implementation of the “final and binding” Decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC). Quite to the contrary, Eritrean officials say: “the United States is behind every act of Ethiopia and the United Nations that had made the implementation of the EEBC Decision impossible.” They add “we have nothing against the United States, except the fact that it is showing a blind favoritism towards a lawless regime in Ethiopia at the expense of Eritrea.”
Paradoxically both countries are right. Eritrea should have known that no one challenges the United States, no matter how justified the cause, and lives in peace.
International laws and norms are not meant for the rich and strong nations like the United States, but for the poor and the defenseless. Since Eritrea is of the latter, it should know its right place. Furthermore, Eritrean officials are not supposed to question any United States policy; their duty is to go along with whatever they are told. In addition, United States officials, no matter how insignificant, always know what is best for Africa and Africans. They are used to giving orders and developing countries’ officials like that of Eritrea are supposed to say “yes mom” or “yes sir” without any preconditions. More importantly, Eritrean officials shouldn’t forget John Foster Dulles’ “famous” words “From the point of view of justice, the opinion of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless, the strategic interests of the United States in the Red Sea Basin and world peace make it necessary that the country be linked with our ally Ethiopia.”
Is it any wonder then to read the following words from one Foreign Service officer of the United States, Mr. James Swan, working for the same State Department that John Foster Dulles once lead: “The Eritrean Government has fabricated a national mythology by demonizing neighboring Ethiopia, for the central purpose of garnering complete compliance with his autocratic domestic policies. By channeling Eritreans' patriotism into hostility toward Ethiopia, the government ensures that [it] can rule as it likes, without public opposition?” No, not at all! It is clear to everyone that U.S. policy towards Eritrea is based neither on justice nor on facts and fairness. This was the case in the late 1940s and 1950s and it remains the same today.
However, there are a couple of questions Mr. Swan needs to think of carefully. Will it be fair to assert that President Bush is “fabricating a national mythology by demonizing Al–Qaeda for the central purpose of garnering complete compliance with his autocratic domestic polices”? Of course not! We have all seen how Al-Qaeda, in cold blood, attacked America, killing thousands and terrorizing millions. The terror of 9/11 is real, not “any invented story, idea, or concept.” If President Bush tries to demonize Osama Bin Laden, he is only trying to defend America from any future Al-Qaeda attacks, not “fabricating a national mythology to demonize Al-Qaeda.” The American public needs to be made aware of the evils of global terrorism so as another 9/11 would never occur again. Not on American soil and hopefully no where in the world as well!
Can anyone also accuse the Jewish people, the survivors of the Holocaust, of “fabricating a national mythology” if they try to demonize Nazi Germany? God forbid! The Holocaust was real, not some “unproved or false collective belief” or myth. Millions have lost their lives in Hitler’s gas chambers!
The same is true of the terror the Eritrean population faced from Ethiopia. The terrorist gang in Ethiopia, with the blessing of some people in the U.S. government, the likes of Mr. Swan, had attacked Eritrea, killing thousands and terrorizing hundreds of thousands. Ethiopia’s refusal, through the encouragement of the likes of Jendayi Frazer, to unconditionally demarcate the Eritrea-Ethiopia border and thus once more seeding the war clouds over the Horn of Africa is also real not a fabrication of the Eritrean government. One need not go far than reading the EEBC’s reports to see these facts. This means the Eritrean government doesn’t have to fabricate any mythology to demonize Ethiopia’s minority regime; its acts are there for anyone to see.
Mr. Swan is willing to look the other way, but what the minority regime is doing to its own people like those in the Ogaden is also another evidence that no body needs to fabricate anything to demonize the regime in Ethiopia. Thus the crimes of Ethiopian regimes, past and present, against the Eritrean people are hard facts not myths. But it is precisely these kinds of callous attitudes and remarks by our Foreign Service officials, the likes of Mr. Swan, towards other victimized people around the world that is denying us Americans the friends we deserve. Mr. James Swan might have thought, through his venomous speech against Eritrea, he was attacking Eritrea, however, by this kind of dishonest presentations he is doing more harm to the credibility of the United States government. This is a great disservice to this great nation. What a shame!
Mr. Swan also told his Kalamazoo audience, “We believe it is essential for the parties to discuss directly how to implement a workable boundary regime.” Does this mean the US now considers the Commission’s Delimitation is not binding because it didn’t come up without a workable boundary? Doesn’t this mean calling for an alternative mechanism, to which the EEBC had already called it “a departure from, and thus an amendment to, the terms of Article 4.2 of the Algiers Agreement?” Could it be these kinds of prejudiced statements that are making the Eritrean government blame the United States government for the impasse in demarcation and the deterioration of US-Eritrea relations?
It seems the real reason behind the deterioration of relation is because Mr. Swan’s boss, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Ms. Jendayi Frazer, is angry at the Eritrean government, because it refused to allow her to usurp the Border Commission’s authority and mandate. It is to be remembered, eighteen months ago, Secretary Frazer had, unilaterally, tried to amend the Algiers Agreement’s Article 4.2. While the Algiers Peace Agreement had clearly stated that the EEBC has no power to delimit and demarcate the border on “ex aequo et bono,” she insisted and is still insisting, from what Mr. James Swan told the gathering at Western Michigan University, that the border should be demarcated on “ex aequo et bono.”
This was precisely why Ms. Frazer had demanded to travel to Badme and other parts of the Eritrea-Ethiopia border. She wanted to look at the border for herself and then draw a new “workable boundary.” In fact she had tried to push such a new map and a General Fulford as an advisor to the EEBC, in one of the Commission’s meeting last year. The Eritrean government emphatically said NO to all these and according to the Commission “Eritrea’s insistence on strict adherence to the terms of the Delimitation Decision was a position which it was entitled to adopt in accordance with the Algiers Agreement.”
Thus the crux of the matter is that some U.S. officials have no interest in seeing the border demarcated and the tension between Eritrea and Ethiopia resolved. That is why they are insisting to change the substance of the Commission’s Decision knowing fully well that Eritrea is not going to compromise.
All what we are witnessing these days, including Mr. Swan’s statement at Western Michigan, the order to close the Eritrean consulate in Oakland, placing Eritrea on the list of Countries of Particular Concern, and the fabrication of Eritrean involvement in Somalia are retaliatory corollaries to the principled and legal stand of Eritrea.
In addition to all these, the planned press conference by Assistant Secretary Jendayi Frazer is designed to give some traction to the UN Somali Monitoring Group's report because it did not seem to have had the reception Dr. Frazer and her office had hoped for. It is the same group that had said there were 2000 Eritrean troops in Somalia last year but could not find a single Eritrean soldier when Ethiopia invaded that country. Every bit of that report must have been fabricated because there was not even a single Eritrean soldier in Somalia.
So, here is a question all concerned journalists should ask: It seems the group's earlier allegation against Eritrea had no basis in fact, so, why should the international community believe these recent charges against this country? The monitoring group last year told the international community that it was going to be a proxy war--between Eritrea and Ethiopia-- in Somalia. However, many now feel that allegation was in fact designed to provide a cover for Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia.
Print
Email
