I thank the writers of the article for putting the effort to provide very interesting subject matters in prolific articulation. I could not ignore it without contradicting myself; without being one of the people that blow opportunities constantly looking for answer bypassing important venues for solution as proposed in this constructive material. In being transparent in this situation, I expect response to my ANSWER (ERITREA PEACE AGREEMENT) from the writers at any moment of their convenience, preferably soon in order to accelerate the momentum at hand like I do from all resistance elements including the Civic groups, humanitarians, Websites and political parties for the same reason. Should direct communication be found important as I do, I suggest the writers to take the initiative by calling us at 202-702-3977.

The authors started with our history and the mind of Isaias Afwerki teaching us a lot in general. The teachings until that point in the presentation were mature and enlightening but immaterial to the priority of our challenge in my opinion. Many stories have been told about our history and the dictator’s performance from many minds in the past for Eritreans to be substantially aware of the topics by now. We have no interest in agreeing on our history and the mind of Afwerki more than finding a solution to our problems, yet the lessons are well appreciated.

I believe we need to pass this stage into the main agenda, a strategy for change that we have so far been obscure about. This is because the subject matters have been exhausted to the point of monotony with differences in between intact and subject for future writers and social scientists to contemplate in democratic Eritrea. Certainly, discussing our history and the dictator are beneficial to our people in terms of mobilization but not significant to change our desperate condition which can only be reconfigured with strategic unity for transitional government in Eritrea. It was, however, nice to see the writers using our history and the psychic value of Afwerki as introduction to their important message, the main beef of the material in my opinion being on the Outline of the plan spelled out as follows towards the end of the fascinating presentation.

Reaction: This is a beautiful idea that Eritreans have been trying without success for so long but is this possible in the current state of the scattered around civic groups and their incapacity to arrange debates between their intellectuals and with other independent minded individuals that generate new ideas to the table?

Can we do 5.5.1 in the current situation of EDA where things have been frozen because of internal division, lack of strategy and refusal to adopt SECULAR DEMOCRACY as the minimum program for Eritrea as few groups like the Kunama Party have been rigorously fighting for within and from the periphery of the Alliance without any visible support from the civic groups? Please read Chairman Kornoleos’s interview with Amanuel Mahdere at http://www.mesel-biherat.com/DMLEK/ and his recent interview released at MESKEREM to understand what I am talking about. You may also read my three articles in response of the Mahdere interview at this Website if you have the time: you will pay the price if you don’t!!

Is it possible to do this without the civic groups breaking their silence on EDA and starting to neutrally involve in its concrete situation on the basis of the minimum common (secular democracy or democracy free of ethnic and religious politics) components of the Eritrean people?

The reason EDA dominates my issue in this regard is because it has been an umbrella of over ten Political Parties that want to lead Eritrea after the dictatorship; the negligence of our civic groups to collectively balance and check its activities being the reason for its current terrible situation.

How is EDA today? The answer to this question should help us relate the proposal to reality. As it stands, EDA has no capacity to do this because it cannot even sustain the unity of its members. About 16 years after it was formed in 1999 for instance, dependable sources of information say that “five organizations are outside of [EDA’s] grand coalition, waiting the declaration of the [remaining] organizations which are in meeting. DMLEK, ERDF EMDJ, ESNF, and EPDP are the ones divorced and forced to divorce from the grand coalition because of EDA’s dictatorial, undemocratic and lack of strategic leadership.”

A divided umbrella should then be pressurized by the civic groups to first create unity within itself on the minimum common in order to approach other groups for membership or EDA’s internal unity precedes its capacity to attract other elements into while said unity is impossible without a unified voice of the civic groups in support of secular democracy. There is a lot of work to be done in this area by independent resistance elements other than the political parties and in the following areas:

1)                  For the civic groups to decide having a common focal point on the importance of directly involving in EDA matters and taking collective initiative to this effect.

2)                  For the civic groups to create conducive environment for debate between Eritrean intellectuals without discrimination.

3)                  Researching and producing a strategic document for all groups in the resistance to accept. If there is nothing so far proposed by any element of the resistance to this cause which appears to be true, we humbly beg our civic groups to consider what we have already proposed simulating the ACCRA PEACE ACCORD for Liberian Democracy according to the Eritrean reality. We strongly suggest that the ERITREA PEACE AGREEMENT that we exposed at ASSENNA and Mesel-Biherat Websites under the title THE ANSWER is good enough to serve as the preliminary strategic document in this contemplation. We otherwise humbly ask any element of the resistance that has a problem with the document to give an alternative solution or at least formal reasons for rejecting it. The fact remains that the outstanding proposal of the writers will remain a theory without first restructuring EDA and producing a strategic document that should be signed by all members of the resistance that proclaim to bring democracy in Eritrea. I humbly remind the writers to consider the ANSWER, the only product of its type in the market as a preliminary formula to that effect (ready to reverse the opinion with apology in the presence of material proof, otherwise).

4)                  Solid unity of the civic groups based on the strategic document ahead of the unity drive proposed here as coalition by the writers. The document (ANSWER) will greatly enhance the fragile unity of the civic groups giving them the capacity to collectively pressurize the political parties into forming said coalition in this presentation with or without other members of the resistance. In the absence of considering it as a preliminary strategy, we humbly challenge the writers and the rest of our intellectuals in the struggle to provide the Eritreans official response in case of rejection or an alternate strategy in rationally disqualifying the ANSWER.

5)                  One of the reasons for EDA’s failure was clearly the QUIETIST approach of the civic groups towards its members. We can no longer afford being silent when there are known problems within EDA that impeded the resistance to this point of stalemate. The civic groups should collectively take clear positions on the substance of the political parties that want to lead Eritrea after the dictatorship without fear of the taboos. I want to know as a citizen why they want to lead and what they are offering for me to consider their value to the society as much as possible and so should the rest of us. The reason is direct: they want to lead the society and their integrity affects me directly as a citizen!

6)                  The exhausted experimentation phase should be over by now replaced by strategic action. We should challenge them individually based on their political programs in order to know who is who vis-à-vis the interest of the Eritrean people and try to convince them accepting secular democracy as the minimum goal of the resistance, move on otherwise with the progressive forces in and outside EDA that are currently challenging EDA’s leadership on this subject. We need to stop silence for taboos because this is about the future of the country and every citizen of that country. We should not allow our future dictated by politicians that don’t accept secular democracy as the minimum projection of our society and I have no idea why we have been passively accommodating this hurdle in the resistance while trying to get rid of the dictatorship in Asmara in favor of democracy. What a contradiction this has been!

EDA is currently struggling to stay alive by hanging on with fragile unity of its shrinking members; how can it accomplish the proposed effect in this situation with the rest of the resistance elements (Civic Organizations, humanitarians, intellectuals, etc.) quietly looking the drama from distance? What we have is confused organizations with fragile relationship that have a problem getting to the point. How can Eritreans form said coalition without packing up the opposition groups with a common strategy that they must sign together to practically apply it? The proposal in 5.1.1 is fantastic and the right thing to do but there is no suggested strategy to reduce it to practice unless the writers teach us about in the follow-up.

5.1.2. “The coalition must quickly start to play the virtual role of a Provisional Eritrean Government in exile without officially declaring it at least initially.

Question: What coalition Sirs and Madams? Is there any that we don’t know and can you please teach us more on this? How can the so far imaginary coalition do this without written strategy to form a transitional government through signed agreement of whoever may involve? On what basis should said coalition come about if it does not exist and who may it include and exclude? EDA may have a guideline signed by its members but this agreement is not to form a transitional government that can only be answered by a written strategy agreed upon and signed by the associated parties in the pool. EDA’s agreement (constitution) is just for the parties to cooperate with each other against the dictatorship with their autonomy intact which in fact did not work very well because of its leadership’s tenacity to refuse acceptingsecular democracy as the minimum program to Eritrea and taking actions not supported by law-cases in the agreement like illegally dismissing the membership of the Kunama Democratic Party on the Awate controversy behind the support of the Bayto without any constitutional justification (Bayto’s testimony in its last meeting in DC).

EDA’s constitution cannot be the constitution of a transitional government that we all want to see formed because a transitional government requires a common strategy for all to unite and work under a temporary constitution and President that is impossible under the current situation with EDA and the Bayto, yet without a written strategy. We, however, believe that the ANSWER (Eritrea Peace Agreement) based on the Accra Accord can serve as a written strategic document if the resistance gives it a chance because it is the only one of its type in our entire community without which the proposed ideas in the paper cannot be practically implemented. It can certainly unite the civic groups into a collective Eritrean voice that must be taken seriously by the political parties. Nothing will be accomplished here until the civic groups first agree on a strategic document as in the ANSWER to enhance their capacity of checking and balancing the parties with strategic authority.

Response: Once again the reason none of the Eritrean activists and groups could accomplish good relationship with the international community is because of lack of written strategy. Therefore the proposal is beautiful but impossible to achieve with the missing link in my opinion. This proposal (5.2) will remain a theory without the tool that crystallizes it to having the capacity of convincing international politicians for assistance. We need a bulldozer to crash a building down instead of bullets fired from all directions. Neither can we crash the dictator nor can we attract international politicians by individually scratching the regime without common strategy, the bulldozer in the analogy. We cannot bring Afwerki to ICC and expect international recognition without providing and abiding by a written strategy for transitional government based on our concrete experience like distinguished figures (Dan Connel and Kofi Annan to say the least) told us in the past in different occasions. If we don’t have a written strategy based temporary government who would accomplish the proposed idea on behalf of the Eritrean people? This is why we came up with the ANSWER based on the Liberian experience for all Eritreans to consider in the absence of any other alternative. Our agreement based on signing the strategy (ANSWER in our opinion) precedes suing Isaias at the ICC for we need a transitional government to do so and said government cannot be erected without a written strategy.

 

Here is our outline of what must be done with urgency.

Response: Great idea but impossible to implement without said strategic document as discussed. It is not possible to achieve this without uniting the forces in the resistance through the document, the proof being 16 years of standoff as of today with a fragile unity of the political parties that are breaking away a piece at a time. This makes the priority of the resistance to focus on the document for all the goodies to take place.

Response: This is the right thing to do and let us please do it without delay if we are serious about changing the situation swiftly. I am afraid this beautiful idea and the only practical way of solving the problem may expire like the many opportunities we blew in the past unless we make it practical, the reason I took it seriously enough to invest my time on this response. We don’t need infatuation with ideas any more but personalizing and taking care of them to mushroom into a productive actuality! In the mean time, I encourage the writers to push for this idea as much as they can while begging them to consider the ANSWER we provided as the preliminary foundation to this effect. Said technocrats can develop it to be more comprehensive instead of looking for a solution from the scratch which most likely would take a long time if it ever takes place ending up being similar to the ANSWER if not the ANSWER itself.

Response: How about in English as well?

Response: Wonderful ideas and right approach to the stalemate. To this effect we one more time strongly suggest for any Eritrean in this state of mind to consider our ANSWER as the preliminary strategy of this dignified suggestion and take it from there. The reason is simple: we don’t have another strategy yet! Nothing otherwise will work for us without that critical substance as we said it time and again and as we have seen it with our concrete experience of failure in the past. It worked to change the situation of Liberians and no other document except the strategic will open the closed doors to diplomacy, still based on experience.

Remarks: Very good points to mention and it is true that we did not have said clear strategies and tactics to outsmart the dictator, the question is how about now? The intellectuals that offered this article of course did not have the chance to see the ANSWER (ERITREA PEACE AGREEMENT) that was displayed almost at the same time of their message. I think things take place for a reason and there may be one for the two workloads to accidentally synchronize, but how do they see it now? Do they still think we don’t have a strategy after reading it or otherwise? Can they write something to either accept or challenge it or will ignore it without any comment? Will they be transparent to us like we have been to them or let the opportunity opaquely slip away as usual without feedback analysis? Time will tell but the initiative they took on the subject matter would not allow them to stay quite on the extremely relevant ANSWER and so should we eagerly wait for reaction in the near future in respect of us like we responded in respect of them. I hope we don’t repeat the same mistake ignoring it out of the way!

“We have said enough about Isayas and his rotten regime. We should now put the focus on ourselves as the opposition. We need to scientifically study thoroughly where we have been going wrong and establish the facts. It will then be clear what we need to do. We may now have some ideas, but they are not adequate – although we may start with them for the time being.  Things will start to move quickly and the ground under the dictator’s feet start to shake only when we are guided not by guess work and loud talk but research based facts and scientific thinking. We must end the days of guess work, backward thinking, mediocrity and mediocre leadership that have only made us endlessly go in circles in the dark – wasting our lives in vain!!”

Response: Well said and true, hopefully, the prophecy will be reduced to practice by commenting on our ANSWER. Our transparent communication in this situation may guarantee the continuation of our interdependent relationship thereby making a mark in the badly needed debate between our people as suggested by the writers. It may as well signify the first initiative to this effect, would as usual be extremely expensive for the society otherwise.

In conclusion, I feel optimistic at least seeing something like the proposal of our intellectuals at this stage where we are incapable of moving forwards because of lack of cooperation and strategy. For some reason I cannot understand, it took ages for Eritreans to realize the missing link responsible for our failure in everything (from unity and challenging the regime to diplomacy) but I don’t think they will be excused being ineffective after they saw the futile product of their past methods of struggle and in the presence of great ideas by our educated family members and a materially prepared strategy, the ANSWER for ERITREA PEACE AGREEMENT.

Eritreans may remain in their beltway without exist by choice and recklessness but I have personally exited out of it through the ANSWER to once again remind you not to waste this opportunity and keep paying the dire cost of your choice.

In providing the ANSWER to the people, I declare I have no reason to attend Eritrean meetings from now on, on looking for a strategy (solution) ignoring our ANSWER without academic reaction for I believe I have found it to the point of my satisfaction. I have no time to waste on searching something I feel already achieved but have plenty of it to invest debating on and lobbying the Eritreans to accept it in the complete absence of anything to this effect. This was what I promised to deliver at the end of my journey and thank God I feel I have done it with a lot of work and concentration needless to say that I cannot personally come with a better solution to our problems than the ANSWER, which is at the court of the Eritrean people in general and the educated class in particular. I let you go telling you that I have no doubt that the Afwerki regime is shaking of it right now and probably praying for Eritreans to slip this opportunity away because they know how fast it can change the situation from the LIBERIAN EXPERIENCE. They will not categorize you as “INTERNET TEGADELTI” anymore if you accept and nurture it to produce democracy in Eritrea. Good luck with this opportunity but I have nothing more to offer as far the desperately needed STRATEGY is concerned! I advise you to personalize it, print it out and discuss it in groups needless to further strongly remind you that you are responsible for pressurizing your leaders to officially respond to the ANSWER if you want us to continue the drive or get back to your endless beltway in search of whatever is in your mind as dedicated “INTERNET TEGADELTI” forever