Information: The EDA constitution did not have any clause that restricts a member party or a party leader from denouncing Idris Awate for any reason; thus removed the Kunama Democratic Party illegally only based on sentimental obligation of Eritreans to shut up on! Further, asking Qornoleus to apologize for his mistake in denouncing Awate on the question of Kunama was fundamentally wrong since it is like asking Eritreans to apologize for expressing negative opinions on their oppressors (Italia, Ethiopia, HGDEF, etc.). There was a more practical way of solving this problem, they call it forgiveness! Instead of asking the victim to apologize for expressing opinion on the victimizer, EDA could resolve this issue by forgiving the man who said it. Further, people may say that he said what he said at the wrong time or he should not have said it because it was a sensitive issue. I disagree: there is no good or bad timing, sensitive or otherwise for freedom of speech. A feeling should be openly expressed any time and at any occasion whether it is sensitive or not. You either provide freedom of speech fully or you deny it since you cannot do this partially!

Narrative: It has become clear that Brother Yoseph Gebrehiwot did not change his mind since 2010 as he continues to teach his confusing and obscure method of solving the Eritrean situation in the face of the resistance’s vision to install democracy in the country. His opinions in 2010 and in 2014 have no difference based on his latest article at Asmarino and I will discuss his view from his two articles posted at Asmarino in 2010 and in 2014. Enjoy the friendly debate presented hereunder;

Yosief: ‘How is it possible for an entire people – and I have Kebessa Eritreans, in particular, in mind – to fail to see that they are heading to the edge of existential disaster, as they die in their tens of thousands in one war after another; as they perish in their thousands in the Arab Passage, in the Sahara Desert, in the Sinai Peninsula and in the Mediterranean Sea; as their women are singularly targeted for fighters and fighter-incubators, with all kinds of demographic consequences that these two entail; as their villages, towns and cities are being emptied of their most productive population group in epic proportions; as their youth are made to flee their country in their hundreds of thousands; etc? How is it possible for an entire people to blissfully march for half a century towards mass suicide, even as the tell-tale signs were there from the very beginning, given the alien nature of the mission that their elite had embarked?”

“To take a most conservative estimate, if we take the Kebessa adult men that left the land to be around 200,000, then we have at minimum roughly 600,000 unborn children to take into account. If the women, the overage and underage refugees are included, we could say Kebessa Eritrea has lost almost a million within a span of time of just a decade. And this estimate is reached only if we go by the conservative numbers that the UN has provided”; YG in (I) Kebessa Eritrea’s Suicide Mission from Sahel to Lampedusa:The Other War

Comment: I think the most obvious reality to the Eritrean people is that they very well know what is happening to them from practical experience. We know that we sacrificed at least 65,000 fighters in the long struggle for independence and lost thousands of people in the process. The next war we fought was the Badme war where the government admitted of losing about 19,000 people in, though some people think we did sacrifice more than that. Sadly enough, we could have lost around 5000 people in the seas and deserts of the world so far and we may have about 10,000 prisoners and we know this as well. We are aware that our cities are vacating for the exodus at the highest rate of refugee crisis per capita in the world (in hundreds of thousands). It is clear that the situation will affect population growth in the country such that it will slow it down, because displacement procrastinates people’s natural flow of making families. This happened during the struggle for independence and it is happening today.

But the situation is not close to “mass suicide” or “existential disaster” because we are marching ahead under these adverse circumstances with more than 4 million people intact scattered around the world. Displacement is not existential threat but means of survival under difficult or better conditions. Our people are running away from the system in big numbers for better survival with few of them dying in the process but they don’t have existential crisis like the Jewish, Rwandans and people of Darfur had in their respective experiences.

One thing is apparent: We had refugees in hundreds of thousands during the struggle and many of them were ready to return home after independence as witnessed between 1992 and 1997; until the government stood in the way. The same thing is repeating today because of the dictatorship: people leaving the country in mass until change arrives in the future. Like any other similar societies we are going through this process of disintegration with a strong prospect to reintegrate after the regime with better potential for developing our country in all aspects of life. The refugee crisis is a blessing in disguise though imposed on us by circumstantial conditions beyond our control. It will apparently benefit the future of our society because of exposure, a little money in the pocket, skills developed in the process of survival, linguistic versatility, a practical concept of freedom and democracy, better health and dieting orientation, education, etc. We have seen worst situations that survived their existential dilemmas into becoming relatively decent societies (Somalia, Rwanda, Sieraleon, Liberia, Cambodia, Southern Sudan, etc.). We are travelling the journey to a decent society from the first experience of directly managing the society after independence and we will succeed like the other similar societies that made it in the end. Our journey after this first experience under the first government of Eritrea will give us the chance to have a better society ahead if we prepare well right now. All this will be over soon and we don’t have to be that desperate to the point of philosophizing the reality out of context.

My argument is that we Eritreans don’t have the so taught existential crisis by the distinguished brother in the resistance. We are suffering but surviving. We may end up winning after losing 1 or 2% of the society in the road but we will make it with at least 98% of our population in place in this fight for survival. Further, we deeply understand what we have been accused of failing to understand (our current problems). I think this is why we are fighting back unfortunately without an assertive leadership which will naturally evolve in the experience.

To summarize this, I don’t really see any difference between what this brother is suggesting and what the resistance is trying to do. He appears to concentrate too much on how we got here instead on of how we can move forward and speculates about reversing the course of history to correct the “mistakes” we made in constituting the foundation of our struggle for independence. Ready to be corrected but the theory sounds to me like ‘A superfluous foundation caused a superfluous or unnecessary struggle that ended up causing the superfluous situation at hand that should be reversed to the point of the foundation for correction.’ At a point in the go, the brother slides his idea in obscure fashion and therefore I cannot understand what is in his mind to confidently entertain it for reaction. I respect Yosieph’s full right to philosophize on the Eritrean experience but I don’t think past experience should dictate the future of Eritreans more than their concrete reality, for they cannot help living with their sovereignty any longer. They are destined to live a sovereign life whether they like it or not. Eritreans should therefore focus on their society leaving their history for books because that is the only and the best choice they have.

Anything else is a disaster and impractical at this point in our experience. We cannot cause havoc in our society for generations to come by contemplating undefined arrangements with Ethiopia instead of independently removing this regime and starting the process of democracy in the country should the theory advocate this. We cannot take unnecessary risks with Ethiopia for something that we can do independently and in a short time, if this was my brother’s message in his article. Yet, I wish I clearly understood his suggestion for proper input! I am tripping out on my own speculations because of confusion.

Yosief: “At the root of this self deception is the preoccupation with the sideshows of the carnival, be it as participants or onlookers. The sideshows tend to be mostly of three types of preoccupations: with ghedli, which the urban elite still want to proudly own despite its newly acquired ambivalence towards it; with the alien colonial identitiesthey want to identify themselves with, immaterial of the human cost that such a search entails; or with the democracy project, an entirely superfluous preoccupation that cannot be undertaken without normalizing the crimes of the totalitarian regime. “

Comment: We have to identify with something and what we have is Eritrea to do this. We cannot see our situation different from other colonized Africans that the experience slightly modified their identities. Therefore, I don’t see our situation separate from the collective African experience. Eritreans cannot avoid carrying their Eritrean identity because that is what they have for identification, colonialism generated or not. Almost all Africans and colonized third world societies share this common denominator and we can’t be exceptional.

The central point of his outlook in my opinion rests at the notion that ‘we need a normalizing body that deals with our neighbors and the Eritrean people immediately as a priority to democracy because of the threat to our existence by this dictatorship. We have existential issue, an emergency situation that prioritizes normalization to democracy or normalization should be our immediate objective”

The resistance is saying that “we have a country infested with problems everywhere and a youth that is deserting it in alarming fashion. Our family structure is disintegrating. Therefore we have to organize and get rid of the dictatorship by any means necessary and transform our society to democracy through the process by which the concept is reduced to practice (transition). We need to normalize our relationship with our neighbors and the situation of our people in the process of democratizing our country.” Refer the voices of Vaccaro, EPDP, EDA and all the Civic organizations and individual activists like me.

We aren’t saying democracy was the immediate solution to our immediate problems because we are aware that it is not possible; but that we should get there through a transitional body that first normalizes our external and internal issues in the process of navigating us to that destination. Is not the so said transitional body a normalizing catalyst with no capacity to immediately provide democracy in the country that the brother is talking about? If this brother agrees that we need time to normalize our situation before we install democracy in the country, why is he not accepting the popular vision of the resistance on a transitional body that exactly fits his specifications? Is not the role of a transitional body to normalize situations by managing the immediate priorities of a dictated or monopolized society until it erects a democratically elected government in a given country? One visible difference is that he stops at normalization point of the challenge and the resistance goes beyond, defining its ultimate destination as being democracy. Considering the next stop after normalization being democracy, where is the difference between the brother’s concept of normalization through a normalizing body and our concept of normalization through a transitional body in this situation except that of wording?

Yosief: “If there is any doubt that Kebessa Eritrea is on its way to a demographic collapse and, consequently, that Eritrea is at a looming risk of disintegration, the above numbers make it crystal clear. Yet, the delusional Eritrean elite that time and again have failed to read the writing on the wall keep obliviously discussing “nationalist” side issues that have little to do with their people’s existential predicament: democracy and constitutionality, the type of government they want to install post-Isaias (federalism or centralized), the alien national language they want to impose on the masses, the wishful revolution that never came to be (the Forto event), the disrespect shown to the shiftaAwate, ghedli and all its paraphernalia, a wistful “unity” (hadnetna) that never existed, the proliferation of “political parties” in the middle of nowhere, etc – most of these subjects being the trademark of all the bayto meetings in Addis Ababa. They detachedly talk about establishing “civic society” in post-Isaias Eritrea, in a place where the entire middle class is being wiped out. They nonchalantly talk about the kind of democracy they want to see in the aftermath, while the entire educated section that could sustain such a culture is being irretrievably decimated. “

Comment: I still don’t understand what the brother wants the resistance to do in solving the problem other than focusing on democracy like other societies that did it from dictatorship. Is there any known destination other than democracy for a society under dictatorship? I don’t think Eritreans are disintegrating and there is no concrete sign that suggests this was the case. The middle class is displaced and surviving better in other countries specially Africa. Quiet a few Eritreans are to some extent making money all over Africa while suffering the consequence of refugee life for the most part. We may have some misunderstanding in-between but we don’t have civil war or ethnic conflict that threatens our coexistence. In fact, the most visible political parties are organized under EDA although they still have to work harder in order to be qualified and more effective.

We are running from our country because of a common enemy, temporarily disintegrating from the motherland so to say but not disintegrating within the society. The Eritrean extinction is in view of the land and not in view of the society in my opinion although the situation should naturally affect our family structures temporarily. We will be back when the time allows us to, as a result of the resistance and law of nature, reintegrating at home like we tried to do after independence. Eritrea will remain a nation for ever and will not disintegrate. Our exodus and the society’s current difficult survival do not imply the disintegration of our society at all. They rather imply that the society is surviving under unwanted and unfriendly conditions; desperately looking for a solution from this ridiculous dictatorship and deserting out of the scene until the solution arrives (sociopolitical change). I believe our question of survival during the struggle was harder than today’s because we were fighting war with Ethiopia inside our country while simultaneously disintegrating away from it. The fact remains that every house and piece of land in Eritrea will be re-occupied by their owners after this regime disappears; it is just a matter of time!

I don’t think democracy is alien to any society in today’s world since it is the most popular and unavoidable universal vision and our capacity to unite is a proven fact during the struggle that can be repeated by genuine and assertive leadership in this resistance. It is tiresome of course because it takes longer for people to challenge internal enemies than external enemies but we are slowly getting there with all the ego-driven complications in the resistance. We cannot so far unite on the basic things we have to do instead trying to dominate the course of history according to our individual philosophical flamboyances. We keep on prolonging the solution by refusing to accept universal standards and procedures that take a society from dictatorship to democracy.

My questions: What is the precise solution suggested here in simple English? Our suggestion is direct and crisp: what is the suggestion here in clear words? What is the said normalization process and how does it come about and by whom? What is the best method of creating a normalization ambiance in our situation and who should cause this process? Should Eritreans do it themselves or through foreign forces and who may the forces be if this was the case?

Yosief:  “But if we are to identify the most important side issue that never fails to galvanize the Eritrean elite, in general, and the Kebessa elite, in particular, it is identity. Any perceived threat to the “Eritrean identity” they want to preserve not only attracts an undivided attention, but is also met with vigorous resistance. “ “Again, notice how identity trumps survival issues; only this time it has to do with the identity that Kebessa elite do not want to identify with – the habesha one beyond the Mereb River. And the example of the woman seems to fit the state of mind of these elite perfectly: miktal miktalus, deqina yiqteluna!” YG in (I) Kebessa Eritrea’s Suicide Mission from Sahel to Lampedusa: The Other War

Comment: I think most of us know our historical roots as being the Habesha in broader sense. We are one of the oldest in the region if not the oldest. Ethiopians (Amharas) are our derivative; we were there first and they evolved from us (the Amharic language is a derivative of our Tigrigna). We share the history of the region at equal level of significance if not beyond; the closet language to Geez is Tigre, after all. I argue that other communities in the region may have to think about their Habesha roots but we Eritrean don’t have that pressure on this because we know it very well and we accept it without a problem. I don’t think we need reminders that we were Habeshas. Whether Habesha was beyond the Mereb River or not is immaterial here for there are two countries formed out of the common experience in the region: Eritrea and Ethiopia. Our old history remains in place as apparent as our contemporary Eritrean history does. What matters now is that we have an independent nation called Eritrea that must do the right thing to prosper; this is our concrete reality. What is clear though, Eritreans as the original Habashas don’t need to be with Ethiopians in order to secure the trade-mark; I have no idea if they have to be with us to secure theirs. We don’t have to prove that we were Habeshas by identifying with other Habeshas in the region because the two elements are mutually exclusive in view of our respective sovereignties.

I think this is basic to any citizen of the world. People nationalistically attach to their motherlands. Every human being in the world carries an identity that traces one to one’s origin. People in our zone are identified as Sudanese, Ethiopians, Egyptians, Somalians and we identify as Eritreans: there is no human being without identity and I think we were naturally conditioned to be identified as Eritreans through the colonial experience similar to all other Africans in the continent. Resisting the Eritrean identity cannot be done without resisting the identity of all Africans created as a result of Colonialism. There would not be legitimate Nigeria, Cameron, Libya, Ethiopia, etc. once defying the Eritrean identity for all of them have colonial connotations behind their identities.

Eritreans should certainly preserve their identity by challenging any force that threatens it like any society in the world would do. We gave undivided attention for this against the Ethiopians; I wish we could face the current enemy with the same determination in this fight for freedom and democracy. Unfortunately fighting the internal enemy is harder than fighting an external enemy in any society and we are facing our share of this unfortunate reality today.

We are people that identify with our culture and the motherland that we must protect from any external danger; nor can we forge another identity from the neighborhood. What is the problem with this? Why should Eritreans be expected to be exceptional in this situation?

Yosief: “When the inconsequential Demhit incident took place in Asmara, it happened to cause a huge uproar among the Kebessa elite, even though the roundups for national service have been a staple in the Eritrean landscape for years. What riled them up were not the roundups themselves but who did those roundups. It is very telling of the urban elite that, even though it is the national service that is at the root of their people’s existential predicament, they felt more threatened when they perceived a foreign element in it; that is, death and destruction under the hands of their own kind always gets minimal attention. That is why even when few of them dare to address the mass exodus problem extensively, it is always by carefully factoring out the Kebessa component, lest it threatens the elusive “Eritrean identity” they want to preserve. If so, the elite’s motto seems to be: identity over existence!”

“With all the websites joining in the Demhit mania, no one was speaking about the brutality of giffa itself, which has directly to do with the existential predicament of the masses, but about the identity of the enforcers. But it was the awate team that, with the deepening of the above-mentioned wedge in mind, has put the distinction cleverly this way^.” TG in (I) Kebessa Eritrea’s Suicide Mission from Sahel to Lampedusa: The Other War

Comment: I have been a strong opposer of the foreign forces in Eritrea protecting the regime and messing up with our society. I believe our people have fundamentally been against the Giffa ever since its inception and the interference of the foreign force had nothing to do with their consistent position against the crime. We were against Giffa way before the DEMHIT came for discussion. We criticized the Giffa for a long time and our people are rejecting it through the exodus. The people, however, resented their situation more when the regime did it using the foreign force called DEMHIT, a reaction expected from any society in that situation. What is wrong with this?

I believe Eritreans should resist foreign intervention in a strong unified voice and I am one of the people in this category. I have personally warned the foreign forces in our country including the DEMHIT several times that they will be responsible for any adverse action against our people including the Giffa. I have reminded them in my writings to consider their safe exit before it gets too late! I did this to the useless GONBOT 7 Ethiopian parasites as well!

They have no purpose interfering in our internal business and we will respond appropriately when the time arrives. The Demhit and all other armed external Ethiopian forces working with the regime are obstacles of peace and normalization that the author projects as being the first priority in the resistance (the central point of his solution to the Eritrean problem). This is contradictory because the anti-Ethiopian forces supporting the regime in our country are collectively a problem to our normalization process between Ethiopians and Eritreans in view of both societies and MERCENARIES in view of the Eritreans; and we know that Mercenaries have no protection from the UN!

In summarizing this, we Eritreans had a problem with Giffa from its onset and also have elemental problem with Mercenaries in the country. Considering that the mercenaries have been accused of executing Giffa against our kids in favor of the dictatorship; why does the author want us to see the two mutually inclusive elements separately and uniquely? Why should Eritreans only concentrate on Giffa ignoring the role of the Mercenaries in the practice all together? It does not make sense at all! The reason we were against the DEMHIT vis-à-vis Giffa is not because we concentrated on this illegal force more than the action itself but because they (DEMHIT involvement and the Giffa) took place simultaneously to qualify for mutually inclusive relationship. Therefore, the conclusion does not make sense!

Yosief: “..the measure of “Eritrean identity” has always been how much one is willing to renounce (or “sacrifice”) one’s own, both in terms of one’s own heritage and one’s own people, for the sake of the elite’s “Eritrea”. Notice that this is a strange kind of sacrifice, for it asks one to sacrifice nothing less than the real Eritrea for an alien one that the elite wanted to construct. When pushed to its logical end, this would mean that at its sacrificial most, one has to be willing to “sacrifice” one’s identity for the sake of that alien “Eritrea”!”

Comment: It is very difficult to understand what alien and real Eritrea may be. What we know is that there is a nation called Eritrea that freed itself from two forms of colonialism (white and black//European and African) through blood and sweat. The international community knows one Eritrea like we do. There is no alien Eritrea, which is unheard of before this experience. There is only one real Eritrea the universe acknowledges irrespective of how its struggle for independence started and effectuated. Any struggle in the world by the way is initiated by its elites and so was ours (Cuba, South Africa, Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, etc.). Therefore, there is nothing unique in our experience to entertain two types of Eritrea (“alien and real”). Our people sacrificed for Eritrean independence that was initiated by the elite members of the society to produce real Eritrea out of the experience. There is no alien Eritrea that can fit into this straight forward sociological experience: Neither can a nation be alien to its people nor can people be alien to their land: there is no concept of nationhood without its people like there is no Eritrea without Eritreans; thus both elements are mutually inclusive and real.

Whatever may have caused the Eritrean struggle for independence and however the Jebha made it real (with the Arabs or not) history says that the Eritrean struggle might have gotten assistance from our immediate neighbors (Arabs), Europeans and few Africans (Sudan and Somalia, etc.) but no Arab or foreign people ever involved in the real action that defined the Eritrean resistance against colonialism and for its independence.

No struggle ever succeeded without external assistance any way. I am not ignoring the mutual cooperation between the Weyanes and the EPLF during the experience; only talking about the fundamental foundation of the struggle and the main architects in the confrontation that brought independence.

Every blood drop and sweat that materialized the Eritrean independence came from the Eritrean people. The Eritrean struggle was formed by elites like any other struggles in the world but the basic contradiction of the society with the external forces that necessitated the struggle was mass based. We fought Italian colonialism first and Ethiopian colonialism later purely through self-reliance to achieve our independence. Eritreans did not sacrifice for alien Eritrea for the sake of the elites but for true Eritrea expecting freedom and tranquility in their country. They were sabotaged by the enemy like in many similar situations elsewhere but this does not refute the fact that we fought for freedom and democracy ending up with independence and dictatorship. The next target is democracy and we shall make it for there is no other parking spot ahead in this trip.

Yosief: “In fact, there is a vivid example from Jebha’s past that depicts how far the Muslim elite were willing to disown their own in order to embrace the “Arab heritage”:they burned all books written in Tigre at mieda! If this evokes the image of the medieval world where books of “heresy” were burned, it is because the very idea of writing books in Tigre was taken as heretic to the Arab project! The fear was that if Tigre-speaking masses began to read and write in their language, they might not be willing to give it up for an alien language, thus derailing the Arab colonial aspiration of their elite. ´The Author keeps on going on this subject matter and asks the following question;

Why is it seeking such blatantly alien language as Arabic is not seen as un-Eritrean, while a Tigrigna spoken with an accent becomes an immediate suspect amongst them?

Comment: Well people’s opinions differ: Some think Arabic is an exceptional language that connects our Moslems to the Koran, thus more important than Tigre, so to say. Individually I believe Tigre is more important to the Eritreans than Arabic because it is native and spoken by the majority of Eritrean Moslems, while acknowledging the importance of Arabic to our Moslems and their right to continue attaching to it like all Moslems in the world do. I don’t think we have to fight over this in the presence of more important issues to work on. I am sure society modifies its norms through time and the next generations will work on this harmonically. The connection of our Moslems to Arabic is not Arab project at all but a spiritual commitment to the Holy Koran because it is written in Arabic. This is the cause of the universal connection of Moslems to Arabic except that we consider Arabic as a second language in our country in respect of this concept. I have no problem with this although once again, I believe that Eritrea should respect the Tigre language more than Arabic and give it its appropriate place in our society (equal to Tigrigna).

Yosief: ”The Kebessa elite fought hard for the 30 years to secede from a larger habitat in which they were thriving, and out of which a viable nation could have been made, to create a claustrophobic and uninhabitable nation. The young generation, sensing that there is not even a semblance of nationhood in this Eritrea, have decided to “move out” in their hundreds of thousands in search of a new habitat. Thus, the Tigrigna elites’ foolishness can be summed up as a population group that has embarked on a difficult life time journey to create a toxic habit from which they wanted to move out instantly; that is, immediately after they “moved in”.”

Comment: The entire Eritrean people fought for independence expecting freedom. Unfortunately it went wrong because of one man’s absolute dictatorship. This unexpected hiccup does not imply the foolishness of our people at all.

Yosief: “And the anesthesiologists are at it again, as usual numbing the Kebessa elite on their way to oblivion. Lately, as part of that numbing process, there has been this unabashed rooting for PFDJ from their quarters. These happen to be the very people who used to hate Shaebia at a gut level; so much so, they used to actively solicit anything anti-Shaebia in their website. [In] the first U-turn, they decided that the primary enemy was Ethiopia, and not the PFDJ; and hence, they set out to protect PFDJ from Ethiopia. And at the time the toxic highlander-lowlander politics was dominating their website – that is, in their second U-turn – they decided that the primary enemy was Kebessa Eritrea, and not the PFDJ; and hence, they set out to protect PFDJ from Kebessa Eritrea. This is because it has slowly dawned to them this important realization: the Isaias regime, by driving out the Kebessa youth out of the nation in epic proportions, is doing an excellent job of finishing off Kebessa. If so, their rationale goes, why stop it now? After all, if Kebessa collapses, so would Shaebia. The aim is for total victory. Blinded by their demographic calculations, they fail to see the most crucial factor: that if Kebessa goes, so would the rest of Eritrea.

Comment: I believe there should be some people that think in terms of what the author brought here for interaction. The criticism may be directed to people that the Author aims at and the assumption may be correct as well but I believe the majority of our people feel the pressure of the exodus deeply whether the escapees were majority Kebessians or not. People that feel comfortable with the terrible situation of the exodus do not represent our mass in Eritrea and elsewhere. It is unfortunate thinking as such but will not change the decent futurity of the Eritrean people after the bug is cleaned out of the way. Elites that see the Eritrean situation ethnically will never succeed in future Eritrea and there is nothing we can do now except sharing our ideas in the open. The collapse of Kebessians will be reversed soon like it almost did after independence. The Diaspora is a temporary home for most Eritreans that will return after this regime’s fall and I hope normal life will return in Eritrea soon. But there is nothing we can do about few individuals in this mindset except telling them to live with it individually. Nor should we be like them and attack our innocent people from their ethnicities for revenge like uncivilized and mentally corrupt individuals would do. Their destructive motion has nothing to do with our people at home and thus, should not really be a cause of more friction between us.

Yosief: “On the Ethiopian side, what is cooking remains an enigma. Meles Zenawi’s clear strategy of bringing matters to an end with regime change in Asmara within a reasonable range of time seems to have been abandoned. Instead, with its non-interference policy (or rather, “no peace no war” policy) coalescing, Ethiopia’s strategy seems to have inadvertently coincided with those of the anesthesiologists. But I don’t think it is a farsighted strategy. To reiterate the main point, if Kebessa goes, so does the rest of Eritrea. And the disintegration of Eritrea will come at a huge expense for Ethiopia, in general, and for its border territories, in particular.”

Comment: Looking at the near future, I don’t think this regime will survive for a very long time. We don’t need the Ethiopians to change our situation not only because we can do it ourselves but they cannot solve our problems. Ethiopians are doing fine without us and they don’t want to involve in our situation. This is a correct position in my opinion because it is none their business. I am totally against Ethiopian intervention in Eritrea because it is unnecessary, we are not that desperate and it is strategically dangerous. We cannot visualize the Eritrean future in terms of the Kebessians either bur rather in terms of all of us. We cannot invite the Ethiopians to protect the Kebessians from disintegrating because they had been the main cause of our disintegration. Our issue is direct: changing this exhausted regime out of the way and living life in a better political setup. We cannot involve Ethiopians here to further complicate our situation and dignity. We changed the Ethiopian situation for the better and we will change ours for the better without any assistance from our neighbors except, may be of moral and material. Eritreans must be confident on this capacity and I think we are slowly doing it.

In conclusion, I found the author a little confused about what to do next. I also feel that the brother has a problem exiting from his means of solution (entrapment) which so far is not clear to the average Eritreans. His accusation that we don’t understand our situation is baseless in my opinion needless to state that Eritreans do not have existential problem but certainly of survival. We don’t have genocide, society threatening starvation; epidemic disaster; civil war, etc. that jeopardize the existence of the society but we have a problem of survival. Therefore the brother’s theory sounds more desperate than reality.

The resistance is focusing on democracy for the most part of course without a written guideline which must be produced in full soon. We are doing our part here with some Professors working on it in Europe and the US; I wish the brother was part of this experience for whatever result it may produce. Irrespective of what exactly he wants for us Eritreans, I believe he would better serve his society joining the democratic zeal of the resistance. The objective reality in today’s resistance is working for the overthrow of the regime in favor of democracy. Therefore, a scholar’s subjective opinion that does not respect the objective reality and fails to clearly specify a method of solving the situation cannot manipulate terms without being dictatorial and anarchic. I would very much like to see his subjective reality succumb to the objective reality because the later should dictate matters of resolving the Eritrean question one way or another.

All given, I admire brother Yosief for his fearlessness, courage to say whatever he wants to say fully using his freedom of speech and his capacity in philosophy, creativity and literature. I hope the brother understands this communication as being friendly only aimed at narrowing our difference on confronting the Eritrean struggle for freedom and democracy. I hope he will spell out his tactic and strategy precisely so that we can communicate transparently and effectively in the future. Happy Independence Day!