Tamrat Negera Feyisa, an Ethiopian political scientist/analyst, was hosted by Sheger Times Media to share his reading on what transpired in Ethiopia the week prior to January 1, 2010. Since that included the time that Eritrea’s president Isaias Afwerki was in Ethiopia for several days, Tamrat gave his reading of the visit which touched on Ethiopian policy towards Eritrea. This resulted in a lot of blowback and he was invited again on January 6 to expound on his views. The following is a translation of what he said in both interviews, provided without commentary All errors in translation are the fault of my Amharic teachers.
January 1, 2020:
Let’s focus on the relationship between Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and President Isaias Afwerki. It is very hard for me to describe it as relationship between Ethiopia and Eritrea. When receiving his Nobel Peace Prize, Prime Minister Abiy complimented President Isaias Afwerki as his peace partner. And, if you remember, in Norway, the Eritrean opposition had come out to demonstrate: there is no peace, etc. The norm when awarding the Nobel Peace Prize is, for example, when President Nelson Mandela received his, so did [South Africa Apartheid-era President] de Klerk. Yasir Arafat, I think, got it along with Shimon Perez. So people thought both President Isaias Afwerki and Prime Minister Abiy would be conferred the award jointly.
But, by many measures, because President Isaias Afwerki is not fit for the Nobel Peace Prize, or any prize, he did not receive it. And because this snub may upset President Isaias Afwerki and derail Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s strategic plans and ideas, the trip [Isaias Afwerki visit to Ethiopia] was a consolation prize. The “Ethiopia-Eritrea relationship”, or what I call the “Isaias-Abiy relationship”, is not founded on researchable, tangible institutions, ideas, or laws. There is no explicit mention of the two countries national interest and a clear articulation of it. It is based on permission and goodwill of two individuals. Prime Minister Abiy wants to contain TPLF [Tigray People’s Liberation Front] and thus needs President Isaias and is using him. Prime Minister Abiy wanted many Ethiopian opposition groups, including Ginbot-7, to be expelled from Eritrea, and for that he needed President Isaias. He has achieved that. President Isaias wanted to solve his private problems, as well as to lift UN sanctions that were triggered by Ethiopia. Not just sanctions but isolation, the status of a pariah state. And that he received from Prime Minister Abiy. So, it is mutual interest of two individuals, not on the interest of the two countries.
The very existence of Eritrea is a question mark. By existence, I mean sovereignty, that which Eritrea claims to have. It is illusion of sovereignty. Its sovereignty is based on disfavor of Ethiopia: denying it access to sea; allying with its historic and contemporary enemies. This existence is not enduring. The day Ethiopia decides Eritrea shouldn’t exist, Eritrea won’t. There is no force that can stop Ethiopia. Not the United Nations, nobody. But for now, domestic issues have blocked us. And Eritreans know this. Every Eritrean knows this: the day Ethiopia exercises its will, there will be no such country as Eritrea.
On the Ethio-Eritrea issues, one of the things Prime Minister Abiy has done is to clearly tell the international community that Ethiopia cannot go on without having a port; he has established a Naval force. And these steps cause anxiety among Eritreans. The wish of Ethiopians is unfulfilled; the anxiety of Eritreans is un-addressed. So there is just a tit-for-tat now to meet the private interests of the two [Isaias Afwerki and Abiy Ahmed.] So I see this just as a transitional phase. The fundamental questions have not been answered. Not only have they not been answered, they are not even being discussed. One thing that the Prime Minister has done differently and better from his predecessors–Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, President Mengistu, Haile Selasse I–is to take the Eritrean issue not to Eritrea but to Arab countries, and bring it to its conclusion. Partially. He initiated the case by going to United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. This shows the Eritrean issue is not an Eritrea issue but that of those who move it in the background, the Arabs. He was able to soothe and pacify them. We will see how long it will last but for now: he has allowed them to invest and trade, to ally with them by eschewing hard power and opting for soft power such as trade, economy and diplomacy.
So, it has been partly addressed. What I am saying, though, is a lasting solution that addresses Ethiopia’s lasting needs has not been addressed. How do we do that is something that is still in its formative stage. And, as I always say, Prime Minister Abiy also treats those issues vaguely or with generalities.
QUESTION ON ASAB, BORDERS and NAVAL FORCE
On Asab, the roads are being constructed on the Eritrean side.
The borders are closed to address Eritrean concerns, not Ethiopian concerns. President Isaias is unable to control the people-to-people relations and the [cross-border] trade. Additionally, they want to contain movement of TPLF and that of Eritrean opposition. It appears to me they [Eritreans] want to control their domestic issues. What this shows is, as I said earlier, that fundamental questions of the two nations based on concrete findings have not been addressed: money, trade, people-to-people relations, political order. There is nothing transparent. Specially from the Eritrean side. When you compare the balance of benefit, it appears Eritrea benefited more [from the normalization.] When we say Eritrea, I don’t mean the country but President Isaias: a regime that was on the verge of death got life; a government that was isolated has been opened up to the world. America’s interest as it relates to regional war has contributed to this.
As it relates to Ethiopia Naval force, Eritrea was never an option. This [what the interviewer suggested] is the first time I am hearing of it. And I don’t think Eritrea wants that. It was always Djibouti, or since Djibouti is a puppet state of France, the agreement was with France. Djibouti is already hosting French, American, Chinese, German and other naval bases and for Ethiopia to establish it there, for now, is proper. Until we return to our historic property, Massawa, and establish our camp there, it is not bad for it to be in Djibouti. It is a good location: close to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. At least for now, while our naval forces are in their infancy. We will see together what the future will bring.
ON FORMALIZING THE ERITREA-ETHIOPIA RELATIONS
I really don’t care about Eritrea or Isaias. What concerns me is Ethiopia. Ethiopia’s interest: what does Ethiopia want in the Middle East and Africa? When we, specially our government, make that clear to ourselves…. for buzz, for diplomacy all that “we are one people” and such like myth and mythology is good. In actuality, what Ethiopia wants, first and foremost, is its own port. Rent, lease, own: its own. It needs access to the sea. That’s first. Secondly, we must construct an Eritrea that can never pose a danger to Ethiopia. We don’t need all this “we are brothers, we are sisters” idle talk, in my view. Clearly: an Eritrea without an armed force; one without diplomatic presence of embassies, a police force that carries nothing stronger than a stick is what we need. You create an Eritrea that can’t pose political, economic, diplomatic threat and give it to them. And in this regard, for Eritreans not to be educated, not to work [not to advance] and be a strong country, we should not forget the big favor President Isaias had done for us in the past 30 years. That’s what we should build and work on. A police force equipped with a stick, and one embassy: in Addis Ababa. All their international relations should be handled by Ethiopia’s Foreign Ministry. Creating such a state is possible and necessary. Then access to sea with our armed force becomes totally ours. Outside that, with our permission, they can participate in the Olympics…[laughs]
This is one definition. You don’t get involved in Eritrean nationalism and quandaries. They can have their own government: some sort of administration. Unity, we are one people, etc is not necessary. What we want is our access to the sea, and, secondly, a country that doesn’t pose political, diplomatic, economic threat. In my view, this is the way forward. To do that, we need an agreement among the elite on what is it that we want.
January 6, 2020
ON REACTION TO HIS FIRST INTERVIEW AND CLAIMS HE IS DECLARING WAR
Two things. First, if you remember, we mentioned the Eritrean case in passing. Our main subject was the developments in Oromia Region. Secondly, an individual doesn’t declare war. Only governments have power, authority and legitimacy to declare war. Many are talking as if I am an advisor to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed: I wish! I am not even a government official, so I can’t declare war. When I am capable of it, we will discuss it then: in the meantime, I can’t. So what am I saying? Minimally, as a citizen, a politically-active citizen, I have things to say to the two countries, particularly their two leaders: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and President Isaias Afwerki.
With regards to Abiy Ahmed, I have already stated: I am an admirer of the measures he took to approach Eritrea using its Arab chiefs, something never been done by prior Ethiopian governments. I hope he continues with that approach. But that is the first phase. The thing I want to say is that Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s way of communicating policy is very informal. For example, he presents himself as Eritrea’s Foreign Minister. There are no institutionalized policies…for example, in the Foreign Ministry, Defense Ministry, National Service Office, I don’t see anyone in his proximity from the many who have almost 50 years of experience about Eritrea. For example when the Eritrean delegation arrives in Addis Ababa, most of their delegation members are over 70 years old. When you look at the Ethiopian delegation, the one you can say has some experience as it relates to Eritrea is Dr. Arkebe [Ouqubay].
So, first of all, who should participate [from the Ethiopian side] are those who have studied the Eritrean issue for long and are experienced in it. Secondly, drop the informality and formalize it. In writing. What does Ethiopia want? For example, recently they embarked on creating an independent economic commission. The Eritrean case requires such an approach, in appears to me. For example, in this case, Brigadier General Tsadkan, has a stand different from TPLF. His stand is closer to that of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Such people should be included in the caucus. Outreach must begin. That’s all I am saying. Formalizing it prevents mistakes, and strengthens it with details. Getting it wrong would not be a trivial thing. For example, from my standpoint, there were sanctions preventing Eritrea from acquiring weapons. They [Ethiopian government] got those lifted. So, if tomorrow, war is waged, it will be using weapons we allowed to be carried. To prevent such developments, the Prime Minister must transition from informal to formal, and instead of using novices, use experienced people. This is all I have to say to Prime Minister Abiy.
As for President Isaias, I only have one thing to say. You have wasted a lot of opportunities to solve the Eritrea-Ethiopia issue properly. Now, and until death, he has an opportunity to address his issue with his people and with Ethiopia. Don’t be like Robert Mugabe, and exit from power in humiliation. Or like his friend and relative Meles Zenawi: to be pre-empted by death. He has an opportunity to improve his legacy. Let him think about it. If he is grooming his son for his position, there is no benefit to him or the people by doing that. It will only make matters worse. That’s all I have to say to him.
War? I have no ability, I am only a citizen.
ON ERITREANS ANGER TO THE FIRST INTERVIEW
Eritrean issues are their issues. I didn’t talk about their country. I have neither love nor hatred on this issue. It’s cold heart when discussing policies: love doesn’t enter into it. It is about self-interest. What I talked about is my country’s interest. And anything that stands opposed to my country’s interest, I won’t let go even if it’s my mother’s child. So, this is not their issue, it is my issue. That’s first.
Secondly, about Eritreans, specially the outspoken ones. They like to play house with countries. They fought a country that, measured by population, history, economy, military, diplomacy, exceeds them by millions; they became its enemy, its neighboring country, denied their ports and want to play a country. But they don’t want to pay the price of what it takes to be a country. But whether they want to or not, they have to pay.
The problem with Haile Selasse and Derg is that they always treated this as a civil war. And because of that, they never dismissed Eritrean officials from power. Including critical ones like Foreign Ministry, military generals, officers, Ethiopian Airlines… senior positions. Because they didn’t take collective punitive measures. Who started expulsions was the one who helped them in their secession from Ethiopia, their mom’s child, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. Derg didn’t do that, Haile Selasse didn’t do that. During the Derg and Haileselasse era, atrocities were committed on Eritrea, just as they were in other parts of Ethiopia. Killing and arrests. Neither the Derg nor Haile Selasse government was guilty of selling kidneys. It was their own government which did that. We didn’t do that. The Derg closed houses of faith all over Ethiopia, including Eritrea, then a province. But the violation of the right of worship we see now in Eritrea has never been done anywhere in Ethiopia, even by Derg. We all know Protestantism was banned claiming it was a “CIA faith.” This was never done: it was done by their government.
What else can I say? It was their government who arrested them in the desert, inside containers. Not us. Universities were not closed during the Derg era. In fact, to incentivize them not to go to the field [to join the revolution], Eritrean youth were allowed to join universities with lower marks. Isn’t it their government which claims that it fought for them, liberated them that is doing all this? Isn’t this the government they are defending? PAY THE PRICE! You will pay the price. I am not the one charging it. Getting angry at me will not change that. Threatening me won’t bring any results. Let them first sit down and think about the issue. Let them dialogue about it. Their elders and their educated should sit down and ask how do we stop this from continuing the way it is. To deal with their insecurity. By the way, all the loudmouths are loud because they know what I said is the glaring truth. They know it is factual. Being an Eritrean and being Ethiopia’s historical enemy can’t continue. How do we address Ethiopia’s interest and Eritrea’s interest? What is Ethiopia’s interest and what is Eritrea’s interest? And which interests do we have the ability to meet, is the question we should be asking.
If you look at Ethiopia’s population, over 70% is under 30 years old. If you see Eritrea, it is the reverse. After the exodus, the country has been reduced to that of the aged and elderly. A country without a bank? An amazing country with a bank where people can’t even withdraw their own money? We didn’t do that. This is the sort of thing they should discuss among themselves. Then they can have the comprehension to propose solutions.
ON WHETHER WHAT HE IS CALLING FOR IS TANTAMOUNT TO DECLARATION OF WAR
This doesn’t require war. The reason for the shouting is because they know Ethiopia’s capacity. What do I mean by that? If Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was to write a one-page letter, one page, one page, to the United Nations, Eritrea’s existence is reduced by 80-90%. It was the then-President Meles Zenawi who gave up Eritrea. Ethiopia does not have to fire a bullet. Just one letter to the United Nations. With a cc to the African Union. Then it continues its diplomatic efforts. How China deals with Taiwan is to go after every country and ensure it doesn’t have an embassy in Taiwan. Has it fired a shot? No, it hasn’t. Ethiopia can even use its indebtedness as a leverage to countries like China: if you want us to repay our loan, close your embassy in Eritrea. Adjust the position you have with UN vis-a-vis Eritrea, is what you say. China, America, and pick France or UK. After that it is lobbying. Without a single bullet, you can worsen the lives of Eritrean by 90%. This is the first step.
It was the Prime Minister who got the sanctions lifted for Eritrea. All that needs to be done is to request it be reinstated. You don’t have to fire a single bullet: just use your diplomatic power. Then you will see what happens? Is it a matter of ports? We can continue with Berbera, Djibouti, Port Sudan. Point is: to incapacitate Eritrea, you don’t have to fire a bullet. The government they claimed liberated them has done more than 50% of the work for us. It has formed a government that is second in line to North Korea in its awfulness. The government they say they paid their children’s lives to form. With its cooperation, we don’t have to fire a shot.
Moreover, what did the Prime Minister do? With goodwill, he opened the borders. Who is migrating en masse here? Did we go there? Even if we say, let’s go to war, there is nobody to go to war with. We can stroll there brushing our teeth. Technically, who are you going to war with? It is a country one can enter riding a mule. And they know this. They have witnessed it. There is no such thing as war. Firstly, the matter will be concluded diplomatically. Secondly, even if you declare war, there is nobody to have war with. Everybody who is making noise is in the Diaspora.
ON ETHIOPIANS WHO OPPOSE HIS MESSAGE
Let me classify these Ethiopians.
There are those who are drunk on Amara-Oromo-etc politics, the provincial ones. All they think about is their ward, their little jurisdiction. Their focus is micro-issues. Oromo-Amara-Gurage-Welkait…We are discussing about a nation and geo-politics. They don’t have the capacity to address this issue. Their view-point, their know-how, their interest don’t make them capable to discuss this. All they are capable of is ward-issues. And I don’t want to answer them.
The second group are those who see themselves as liberal, enlightened, progressive. They want to be perceived as such. They want to be perceived as more knowledgeable than Tamrat about international law. They want to strengthen intra-people relations. These, to me, are like a married man, father of 3 children, with an ailing mom and hosting a brother or sister-in-law. But he spends all his time and money at the brew-house. He ignores the education of his own children and family members, but sends the child of the brew-house owner to private school. These people are like the man I just mentioned. They are weak.
First, know what is in your nation’s best interest before you talk about international law. International law is written to protect world order, while accommodating the nature of States. Let alone a country like Ethiopia with its own historical ports, these are States who have plundered other people’s ports and are protected by international law. There is no economy that is not based on plundering resources. Why is China here? How about the US in Iran and Iraq? What were the Brits and French doing and what are they doing now? What is France doing in Africa? What is Little Rwanda doing in the Congo? Did Rwanda acquire wealth and development by working or by plundering Congo? What about South Africa? When the Arabs and Saudis come here to grow rice…what are they doing? When they send us Al Amoudi, what are they doing? They must know these fundamental things and stop being naive.
The others…those who are tuned in Asmara, those who compete on who can sell the country first.. There are those who are breast-fed on the tits of EPLF. With those, history will be their arbiter. We can’t give an answer to these type. As I said, they are tuned in Asmara, and what they talk about now is what was tuned in Asmara. You can’t tell them to be cured or heal themselves. History will be what we will use to debate with them.
ON PORTS: WHY CAN’T WE USE THE AUSTRIA-SWITZERLAND MODEL
The Austria-Switzerland model cannot be used as model. In “The Bottom Billion”, Paul Collier uses Ethiopia and Eritrea as a model. There is a cost to not having a port. If those who own the ports are not hostile to you, for example the case of Austria and Switzerland… but Eritrea’s national identity is based on hatred of Ethiopia. They have inferiority complex and see Ethiopia as colonizing power…their imagination is very limited and the Austria-Switzerland model can’t work. That’s first. If the Eritrean nationalists understood this and, at the bare minimum, gave Asab to Ethiopia, we could have a discussion.
Secondly, people don’t understand what a port and its benefits are. This is because the TPLF has conducted an extensive indoctrination via its media, education policy, and its “let them use it [Asab] as watering holes for camels” propaganda. But in reality, it is precious: everything we import includes a port cost. If you have your own port, there would be a cost reduction of, at minimum, 25%. Secondly, you lack options in transportation and services.
Something else many, including those viewing this station, don’t understand: how the Internet works. How does Ethiopia get access to the Internet? We are getting it via Djibouti and Port Sudan via cables that we paid for. We could have gotten it from Asab, 60 kilometers away [from mainland Ethiopia.] This is submarine cable. 99% of the internet is carried via this cable. This is what you are deprived from. Right now we are connected via Djibouti and Port Sudan, at cables installed at our cost. Our internet is based on the goodwill of these two countries. Any problem and they can turn the switch off. They can also see every information you are communicating. How can I explain how grave this issue is and how dangerous it is.
Moreover, the Ethiopian Airlines we are proud of? Because you have no port, your air traffic is based on the good will of your neighbors. If you have no port, you have no airline route without the permission of those who have ports. In peaceful times, all appears normal. But what if some country is angry with you or is at war? Why don’t we think about that? Every Ethiopian has a duty to think about this.
Leaving aside those who can’t think beyond their wards, the national parties, including the Prosperity Party, must be asked about this issue. What is their agenda? Because, for a nation, this is not just a matter of economy, but survival. Those who say we can live without ports, your obligation is not just to survive. But to give a future generation a more secure country. People save money, why? Similarly, owning a port is about national survival.
You have 110 million people, and you want to be industrialized and you don’t have a port? When investors go to a country they evaluate three things: I mean major investors not oil factories. I am talking about major, transformative investment. Something that can create jobs for 100 to 200 thousand people. You want that? You have to have a port. And if you can’t do that, maybe you don’t survive as a nation. This generation must ask this question of survival. Past generations have paid the utmost to answer it. And this generation must pay the price.
By the way, when you see Ethiopians hosting Eritreans, embracing them, shedding tears and you tell yourself, “Ethiopians don’t think like Tamrat”? You are very, very mistaken. I don’t care if you are tuned in Asmara or Japan. Ethiopians do not forget this thing. And they can’t because it is a matter of survival. It is not personal grudge; it is a matter of survival.
ON WHY ETHIOPIAN PARTIES DON’T HAVE A POSITION ON THIS ISSUE
The party headed by Prime Minister Abiy, Prosperity Party, looks at this issue delicately, diplomatically and has chosen to be quiet. I think instead of talking the way I do, it has chosen to speak with the voice of diplomacy. So I will give a pass to Prime Minister Abiy and the Prosperity Party.
EZEMA [ECSJ, Ethiopian Citizens For Social Justice, formerly known as Ginbot 7], as I said, was tuned in Asmara. Don’t expect this from them or their leadership. After spending all that time kissing the shoes of Isaias Afwerki, don’t expect them to speak up for Ethiopia’s national interest.
What are you left with OFECO, [OFC – Oromo Federalist Congress] etc. That too, has people like Jawar, who spent all that time bowing to Isaias.
And the ethnic parties? It is not in their interest, because they are focused on their ward. So Ethiopians must find other ways to think about this. But political parties still should be held accountable. Anybody who says I am a supporter or voter for them should ask them. Since I am not a member of any party, my question is directed to the government.
ON IMPLEMENTATION
My wife asked me, “so who is going to implement what you are saying?” This is a question every Ethiopian must ask themselves. Anybody who calls themselves Ethiopian must ask this question of port ownership and how it can be implemented. Do your homework. What is next will come when it is time.
Leave A Reply