It has been a while since we started discussing unity in Assenna and I appreciate the involvement of brilliant individuals in the exchange. I was very impressed to read Adhanom’s SICK MOTHER example to our situation and I do not think it can be exemplified better. I encourage readers not to miss his creative and excellent analogical analysis of our situation in his last article to synchronize with the participants’ state of awareness on the issue of unity. In the mean time, I encourage Adhanom to continue his outstanding input in Assenna and God bless you!!!!

Reality: Everything in life is conditional on something. The existence of God as we understand it would have been impossible with out the existence of the Satan or Satan was the condition for the significance of God’s spiritual value, although God could have ignored creating the Satan with a consequence. We would not have known the concept of badness or evil had we been denied knowledge about the Satan.

This article will clarify my position on the question of UNCONDITIONAL UNITY and try to negotiate with the advocates of CONDITIONAL UNITY on uniting our forces all over the place. How about comprpmising on certain conditions to integrate the two complementary ideas into something called Conditional Unconditional Unity against dictatorship? I will start this subject acknowledging that it originated from many ideas in the forum.

From the FORUM
Some things are predictable and some are not. Afwerki’s rigidity on any issue and his anti-peace and democratic reactions are predictable, for example as has been the vulgarity of his blind supporter Asmara 2/3. This dude is the product of Afwerki: well seasoned to reflect the backward mindset of our leaders in all aspects of life; the reason he is fighting against us alone like his boss is doing it against the universe. But lately, he appears in transition from perversion to civility. He has at least started to ask questions of course in the condition the answers are exactly the way he expects them to be with no room for other ideas to stand independent on. I welcome his development although he is miles away from understanding the meaning of justice, freedom and independent mind.

One of the people who noticed the difference is Genet, an individual partially responsible for educating him at least to this point of decency. With a little help from others, it looks like there may be hope for civilizing the many people like him cultivated by the unethical regime after it leaves us alone one way or another.

Genet wrote “Asmara2, What a change, you are asking questions. That is a big change from your usual airhead and filthy mouth rants. Now, start to run your filthy mouth 1,2…. You are so predictable.”

I congratulate him for picking up a lesson and wish him be a better man if he continues attending his classes but guess what: he reacted as she predicted in his next forum appearance. Is Geni a Psychologist that has already figured out his mentality inside out? Enjoy the show!!!

Genet : “Dear Petros; This endless bickering between the opposition parties, as well as between intellectuals (Petros & Fistum) is costing us our future. As you stated, Fistum is offering “populist propaganda” correct me if I am wrong. You know populist propaganda, when it is used appropriately, it can be useful to awaken the sleeping mass. Without the participation of the Eritrean people, no opposition party will succeed.

When it comes to the opposition’s current status, you said, Fistum, advocates for unconditional unity; You Petros, think it should be about a great deal of compromising and give and take. I think a great deal of compromising and give and take will lead to unconditional unity for the sake of our future.

What do you think the motivating factors should be for intellectuals like you and Fistum to endure a great deal of compromising or unconditional unity?”

 Comment: Genet clearly says that compromising can produce unconditional UNITY.

 Ghenet: ”Dear Fitsum, I have been following the discussion and from what I see there are people who actually are fixated on Ethiopia and our issues with it. This is taking the discussion off the main track of our demand for democracy. Our Issues with Ethiopia are different from our issues with PFDJ. Our issues with PFDJ/DIA are about our rights and democracy. Our issues with Ethiopia are half solved. What is left is the on ground demarcation of the boarder. The Eritrean people have been denied their rights and there is no rule of law in the land. We actually cannot talk to DIA about our rights and democracy without ending up in dungeons. This by default means we have no right to talk about the boarder. So you see, for us to talk about boarder we should have the right to talk first and make decision as people.

What I am trying to say is, we need to prioritise our issues. Let us talk about what we can do to create a platform where we can have a say and the power to decide of what happens to the boarder. No matter what Ethiopia intends to do about it, the Eritrean people have to make the decision not DIA. So the basic thing, it seems, is to prioritise our problems and solutions. To me, it is unconditional unity to focus on the right of our people so that they can stand for themselves and they own land! Our questions now should be Do we all want to save this battered nation/people? Do we want to relieve our people from the yoke they are heaving?”

Comment: Ghenet in my understanding is advocating unconditional unity as a priority in order to answer the emergency call of our people.

 Kalighe:  “Brother Petros, I think Fistum has come with the idea of unconditional unity  just to stress the importance of national unity. Nations are built on historical compromises, and as such, conditions and thorny issues are there, but mutual acceptance makes it easy to settle them for the sake of the country. At times, those who think can easily impose their preconditions, won’t give-in to popular pressure. They have 1001 ways and excuses to avoid national unity government. This is more true where the level of education of the people is low and the country has limited experience in party politics. Obviously,it’s in the interest of common good that politicians learn or are pressurized by their constituencies to compromise. Arm twisting and challenges are the worst way of doing national politics. Although, many Eritreans would like to see a functioning liberal democratic system in Eritrea as soon as the super brute leaves the stage, initial few years will require a lot of compromises and national governments based on national unity instead of competitive liberal democracy. As long as there is good will and justice there is no issue that cannot be tackled.”

Comment: this brother/sister sounds pro unconditional unity for very important reasons to my understanding (pls correct me if I read you wring): neither the resistance has the capacity and our people have the time to accomodiate endless conditions for unity from the forces, nor can we achieve democracy without a working period for organizing groups interested in political power through democratic election. That period to my understanding is Transitional Period and the central motion of the road to democracy runs under a Transitional Government that can only be secured by unity.

The three decent individuals above have been intact in the forum for me to find their comments important for what has been going on between brother Petros Haile and me on the question of unity. I want to mention the importance of Adhanom in this list as a strong advocate of unconditional unity. In the mean time, I found the following exchange of ideas important for us all to converge to a common thought on the burning question of our society

Petros: Dear Fistum  & (Its apple and orange) , The political resistance of the federation era was purely against a foreign force where a minimum unifying grounds was necessary  &. Ato Woldeab and Shek Ibrahim unified their struggle in defense of a foreign hostile involvement, in fact they clearly identified it as the independence block, there was no ideological differences except to be free from the Ethiopian threat, and the British partition plan , however on today’s crisis it is a little more complicated, for one thing it is a host of issues that requires heavy emphasis with the civil rights, and how to manage diverse conflicting local interest with in the confines of Eritrean soverngity  & a simplistic formula of lets love each other, would not do it … the current dilemma requires a different strategy since it encompasses the rights of the citizens interest from all angels  &and there is no forign element to blame !

Comment: Apple and orange are fruits that have equal significance in view of nature. There is no color or ethnicity of oppression but oppression and so is there no color or ethnicity of justice and freedom but justice and freedom. People can unite based on external threat or internal threat: the External enemy or threat was the unifying ground then for the two symbols of our unity and why cannot we unify on the grounds of the internal enemy? They united to safeguard Eritrea from external threat and we need to unify for our freedom from domestic dictatorship. Civil rights issues, the SAWA slavery, ignorance as State policy, the exodus, the Sinai crisis, the economic paralysis, the indefinite taxation for Eritrean identity, the injustice on our unlawfully caged prisoners and the suffocating absolute dictatorship (the worst of its type) as a package are the common elememts today for Eritrean unity as significant as the external threat that motivated the two fathers to unite had been. Cannot the question of democracy and the unbearable dictatorship unite us for now? Brother Petros has to provide his version of solution to the immediate problems of the society should he continue resisting unconditional unity based on the common factors that affect all Eritreans.

Petros says, “the current dilemma requires a different strategy since it encompasses the rights of the citizens interest from all angels  &and there is no forign element to blame!”

Me: Can you please teach us your strategy pricesely? You have to have something to show to legitmately contradict our concept of unconditional unity towards a temporary government strictly aiming at allowing the diversion of political parties within to address social issues and compete for power in democratic Eritrea. Cannot the right of the parties to eventually diverge out of the united front and organize according to their national programs during the transition period for democratic election serve as a compromising factor of unity to the opposition forces? What else then?

Petros has previously mentioned the SANCTION and DISARMING THE OPPOSION FORCES as negotiating factors for unity. In my opinion, the view on Sanction should not be a divisive factor; it should be bypassed as difference in opinion and something irrelevant for our unity. I support the santion and Petros doesn’t, should this difference stand on the way of our unity? I do not think so.

As for disarming the forces, it is premature now and should produrally wait until the forces are united. We will give practical analysis for this part in the follow up material.

Petros:  “The random observation conducted in Eritrea indicated a major rift in attitude and choices by the pro independence and unity with Ethiopia groups, purely on the basis of religion, region and ethnicity  &.At that time our visionary leaders kept it together  & this is what the art of diplomacy and far sighted leaders can be able to do , imagine if today’s Fistum try to tell Ato Woldeab and Shek Ibrahim Sultan not to organize themselves on the basis of their religion or ethnicity  & that is what I call wisdom by the two pioneers of the colonial era ,  &”

Response: I believe in people organizing themselves in terms of religeon and ethnicity as long as they do not try to be exceptional in a given society. We are here because we belong to the same society and there is nothing wrong organizing ourselves as Eritreans as long as we don’t affect the international community negatively. So can our people organize in terms of religeon and ethnicity only to help their communities and defend their constitutional rights but only in the condition they do not negatively affect other communities in the country. Unconditional unity for a transitional government has nothing to do against people religeously or ethnically organizing themselves with equal recognition of other communities in the society. I certainly would not have discussed this matter with the fathers of unity since it is clear and within the circumference of democratic principles.

Petros: “Brother Fistum, please don’t forget we were given a highly conditional deal, when our constitution was drafted by U.N representative; to accommodate the diverse cultural setting of Eritrea, and the heavy emphasis of the Tigringna, christian , and highlanders of Ethiopia…  by the way the independece blocks were composed of many parties, and the liberal party, led by Ato Woldeab, and the Islamic league by Ibrahim Sultan were among the five or six that constitute the block  &. here the process was conditional, the application was a give and take, and the composition were very diverse  & as you assume it was not a sham and unconditional unity….

 Adhanom: “In my opinion, if the opposition parties are capable and mature enough to hold a constructive compromise, it can be a turning point in political development of Eritrea, but what we can do if the political elites fail to engage in. There are a lot of catalyst factors or elements that motivate and determine Eritreans to establish at least to stand up for unconditional unity to get rid of autocracy that could bear a fertile environment to saw a civilized seeds of compromise in the near future..”. This brothr gave nine reasons or conditions to support his argument of unity.

Response: The constitution was conditionally given to our political parties of the time in order to “accommodate the diverse cultural setting of Eritrea”. The question is: can we make a deal for unconditional unity on the following conditions?

Condition 1: It is only to form the transitional government in post Afwerki Eritrea. The so said unity ceases to apply after the transitional government completely plays its role of democratizing the country. The unity is not final but rather only for as long as the commonly agreed transitional period lasts. Therefore, it is time sensitive that expires after the transition period is experienced.

Condition 2: It allows and equally respects the healthy differences of all groups or people and forces within.

Condition 3: The so said unity would have a temporary constitution only focused on managing the nation until the point of democratic election, immaterial or useless otherwise. The temporary condition dies out with the transitional government in favor of a democratically elected government in the country.

Condition 4: The parties will then compete for power based on the national constitution that would be open for amendments during the transitional period if necessary.

Condition 5: Democratically elected people within the union would lead the temporary government until it completes its obligation under neutral international surveillance.

In conclusion, we can unite on the itemized conditions and more (half way) keeping the premature activities of the parties to unconditionally stay within their jurisdiction (half way) until we manage to form the so-visualized transitional government. They can then come out to the public and work on their issues during the transitional period based on the all-inclusive national constitution.

To be continued