Extracted PDF page text

Microsoft Word - CDRiE_4.doc

Machine-extracted derivative; not a transcript or translation. Reading order, spacing and characters have not been editorially verified. PDF page numbers are file positions, not printed page labels. No OCR has been added.

Open unchanged original PDF · Download unchanged PDF

Extraction status: extracted-unverified.

 
ጉጅለ ስድሪን ሃለዋቶምን 
 
ዝኸበርኩም ደለይቲ ፍትሒ ኤርትራውያን ኣሕዋት፣ ኣብ ዝሓለፈ ጊዜ ብተኸታታሊ ንክልተ 
እዋን <መሪሕነት ኤ-ዲ-ኪ ሓደራ ከይትህመሉ ብምስምስ ዕርቂ > ብዝብል ኣርእስቲ ኣብ ልዕሊ 
ኪዳን ብስም ዕርቂ ንዝተኣልመ ሽርሒ ኣመልኪተ መጠንቀቕታ ኣቕሪበ ምምባረይ ዝዝከር 
ኢዩ። ስለዚ በቲ ዘቕረብክዎ መጠንቀቕታታት ተስፋ እገብር ግርም ኣመት ረኺበምሉ ክኾኑ።  
ካብኡ ሓሊፉ ግን ኣብቲ ዘቕረብክዎ ዳሕረዋይ ጽሑፈይ፣  
http://www.assenna.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3052:2010-
09-27-22-12-16&catid=53:2010-05-10-22-41-45&Itemid=100598 ኣቶ ጳውሎስ ወዲ 
ባዓታይ ብስም ህዝቢ ኤርትራ እናነገደ ዝኣከቦ ገንዘብ ጌሩ ብኸመይን ንመንን ከም ዝዓስብን 
ከም ዝኸትብን ገሊጸ ነይረ፣ ከም ውጺኢቱ ክኣ እንሆ ድሮ እቶም ሰብ ኢንታ ከስቆርቁሩ 
ጀሚሮም ኣለዉ። ነቲ መልሶም ንምንብብ ኣብዚ ጠውቁ፣ 
http://www.assenna.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3065:2010-
10-01-19-22-03&catid=53:2010-05-10-22-41-45&Itemid=100598  
እንተኾነ ናይ’ዞም ሰብ ኢንታ ጽቡቕ  ነገር <ኣብ ውሽጣዊ ጉዳይና እንታይ ኣእተወካ ።>  ድኣ 
ኢዮም ዝብሉ ዘለዉ ’ምበር፣ ድሓን ይእተዉ እቲ ዝተመጠወሎም ገንዘብ ህዝቢስ 
ኣይክሓድዎን። ስለዚ ሕጂ’ውን በዚ ኣጋጣሚ ደጊመ ከብርሃሎም ዝደልዮ ነገር እንተሎ፣ ኣብቲ 
ኣቶ ጳውሎስ ወዲ ባዓታይ ብስም ህዝቢ ኤርትራ ዝኣከቦ ገንዘብ ጌሩ ክጥቀመሎም ዝፈተነ ድኣ 
ኢየ ዝተዛረብኩ እምበር፣ ኣብ ውሽጣዊ ጉዳይኩም ዝኣተኽዎ ነገር ከም ዘየልቦን፣ ብሕጂ ’ውን 
ዘእትው ምኽንያት ከምዘይብለይን እናኣረጋገጽኩ ናብቲ ቀንዲ ናይ ሎሚ ዛዕባይ ከተኩር 
እፈቱ።  
 
መበገሲ ጽሑፈይ እምባኣር ከምቲ ኣብ ኣርእስቲ ‘ጉጅለ ስድሪን ሃለዋቶምን ’ ኢለ ጠቒሰዮ 
ዘለኹ፡ ኣብዚ እዋን’ዚ ጉጅለ ስድሪ ካብ ውሽጦም ዝተረኽበ ሓበሬታ ከምዘረጋገጾ፡ ኣብ ክልተ 
ሪኢቶ ተኸፋፊሎም ኣብ ቅልውላው ከምዝርከቡ እ ዩ ዝሕበር። እቲ መበገሲ ምኽንያት ኮይኑ 
ዘሎ ክኣ፡ ብሰንኪ እቲ ንመትከላት ሰብኣዊ መሰላት  ኢና ንቃለስ እናበሉ ብግብሪ ግን ኣብ 
መንጎ ደምበ ተቓውሞ ሌላን ጉሌላን እናፈጠሩ ሻራነት ብምዝውታሮም ዝነቐለ ኢዩ። ኩሉ ከም 
ዝፈልጦ ጉጅለ ስድሪ ኣብ ዋዕላ ንደሞክራሲ ለውጢ ካብ ምስታፍ ነብሱ ድሕሪ ምግላሉ 
ቅድምን ድሕርን ዋዕላ ማዕረ ማዕረ ሰልፊ ደሞክራሲ ህዝቢ ኤርትራ ኣንጻር ኪዳንን ዋዕላን 
ውጽኢቱን ክኹንንን ክነቅፍን ኢዩ ክርአ ጸኒሑ። ይኹን ’ምበር ሕጂ ኣብዚ ዝሓለፈ ቁሩብ 
መዓልታት ግን ካብ መንጎኦም ዓገብ ዝብሉ ለባማት ተረኺቦም ኣለዉ።  
 
ቅድሚ ናብቲ ጉዳይ ምእታው ኣብ ‘ጉጅለ ስድርን’ ‘ጉጅለ ኤርትራውያን ዜጋታት ንሰላምን’፡ 
ብሰንኪ ዝኸሓነ ውልቃዊ ጽልኦም ንመትከላት እቲ ምትእኽኻብ ጓዕጺጾም ኣንጻር ኪዳንን ዋዕላን 
ዝተሰለፉ ቀንዲ ተዋሳእቲ ባእታታትን መንነቶምን ቁሩብ ክጠቓቕስ ክፍትን። 
 
1. ዶክቶር ጋይም ክብርኣብ፣- ድርብ ኣባልነት ዘለዎ መስራትን ኣባልን ስድሪን መስራትን 
ኣባልን ‘ኤርትራውያን ዜጋታት ንሰላም’(Eritreans Citizens for Peace) 
 
2. ኣቶ ዳዊት መስፍን፣ - ድርብ ኣባልነት ዘለዎ፣ መስራትን ቀንዲ ኣመሓዳርን ‘ኤርትራውያን 
ዜጋታት ንሰላም’ (Eritreans Citizens for Peace) 
ልዕሊ ኹሉ ክኣ ኣባል ሰልፊ ደሞክራሲ ህዝቢ ኤርትራ ናይ ምርምርን መጽናዕትን ሓላፊ። 
 
3. ወይዘሮ ሰላም ኪዳነ መስራቲት ኣባልን ጸሓፊትን ‘ኤርትራውያን ዜጋታት ንሰላም ’ 
(Eritreans Citizens for Peace) 
 

4. ኣቶ ሱሌማን ኣደም ፡ ድርብ ኣባልነት ዘለዎ መስራትን ኣቦ-መምበር ስድሪን ፡ መስራትን 
ኣባልን ‘ኤርትራውያን ዜጋታት ንሰላም’ (Eritreans Citizens for Peace) 
 
5. ኣቶ ዓብደልራሕ ማን ሰይድ ኣባል ፈጻሚ ኣካል ስድርን ኣባል ነ በር ምንቅስቓስ ፌደራልያ 
(ብኣቶ በሽር እስሓቕ ዝምራሕ) 
 
6. ኣቶ ጳውሎስ ተስፋጊዮርጊስ (ወዲ ብዓታይ) መስራትን  ላዕለዋይ ሓላፍን መዋልን  
‘ኤርትራውያን ዜጋታት ንሰላም’ (Eritreans Citizens for Peace) ኢዮም። 
 
ግርም እምባኣር ናብቲ ኣብ ላዕሊ ዘመንጎኹዎ ክመለሰኩም መንቀሊ ኣ ብዚ ቀረባ እዋን 
ዝተኸስተ ፍልልይ ሓደ ኣብ መርበብ ሓበሬታ ስድሪ ብስም ቦርድ ምስ ሰልፊ ደሞክራሲ ህዝቢ 
ኤርትራ ዝወገነ ካብ መትከላት ን ዕላማን እቲ ማሕበር ዝወጸ ጽሑፍ፡ ( ነቲ ጽሑፍ ንምንባብ 
ኣብዚ ጠውቁ)፣  
http://www.cdrie.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87:eritrean-
people-deserve-a-better-opposition&catid=34:english-articles&Itemid=53  እሞ ኽኣ እዚ 
ኣብ ላዕሊ ዘሎ ጥብቆ ብኣባል ስድሪ ዘ ይኮነ፣ ማለት ካብቲ ማሕበር ወጻኢ ዝኾነ ውልቀ-ሰብ 
ቢኢሜል ዝተላእኾ ኣቶ ረድኢ ዓይቡ መስራትን ኣባልን ስድሪን ዘልዓሎ ሕቶ ኢዩ ዝጅምር።  
ኣቶ ረድኢ እቲ ዝወጸ ጽሑፍ ነቲ ናይ ማሕበርና ተልእ ኾን መትከልን ዝጻረር እዩ ይብል። 
ከምኡ’ውን እቲ ጽሑፍ ነቲ ዋዕላ ንዲሞክራሲ ያዊ ለውጢ ዕላምኡን ሽቱኡን ዘይፈልጥ፡ እቶም 
ኣዳለውቲ ብሕልፊ ንኪዳን ኣብ ሞንጎ ኣባላቱ ክጉስጉስ ዘይኸኣለን ደገፍ ዘይረኸበን ኢሉ ’ኳ 
እንተወቐሰ፡ ኣቶ ረድኢ ስድሪ’ኸ ንኣባላቱ ነቲ ዋዕላ ንኽ ድግፍ ዝገበሮ ምትብባዕ ኔሩ ’ዶ? ኢሉ 
ይሓትት። ከምኡ’ውን ብዛዕባ እቲ ጽሑፍ ኣባላት ስድሪ ብማሕበሮም ክሕበሩ እኳ እንተነበሮም 
እቲ ጥብቆ ናይቲ ጽሑፍ ብ ኣባል ናይ ስድሪ ዘይኮነ ባእታ ከምዝተልኣኸሎም እዩ  ዝሕብር። 
እቲ ተረኺቡ ዘሎ ሓበሬታ ብሓደ ገዲም ካድረ ናይ ሰልፊ ደሞክራሲ ህዝቢ ኤርትራ 
ከምዝተሰደደ እዩ ዝንገር።  ኣቶ ረድኢ ንረብሓ መን’ዩ እዚ ጽሑፍ እዚ ተጻሒፉ ኣብ መርበብ 
ሓበሬታ ስድሪ ዝተዘርግሐ? ኢሉ’ውን ሓቲቱ እዩ።  
 
ብድሕሪ’ዚ ኣቶ ብርሃነ ገብረንጉስ  ኣበጋስን መስራትን ስድሪ ’ውን ነቲ ኣቶ ረድኢ ዘልዓሎ 
ሕቶታት ከምዝድግፎን ንነዊሕ እዋን ቅሳነት ከሊእዎ ከምዝጸንሐ ን ብሰንኩ ድማ እቲ ውሽጣዊ 
ኣሰራርሓ ናይ ስድሪ ባህ ስለ ዘይበሎ ዳርጋ ነብሰ -ምድስካል ጌሩ ከምዝጸንሐ  ይገልጽ። ንኣቶ 
ረድኢ ኣዝዩ ኣገዳሲ ሕቶታት ብምሕታቱ የመስግኖ። ንኣባላት ስድሪ ድማ ነቲ ዝተሓተተ 
ሕቶታት ክዛተይሉ ይላቦው። ኣቶ ብርሃነ መልሲ ናይ ዶር ጋ ይም ክብርኣብ ከምዘስደመሞ’ውን 
ይገልጽ። እቲ ስድሪ ዘይ ሻራውን ናጻን ዝኾነ ማሕበር እዩ ዝብል መርገጽ በቲ ተጻሒፍ ዘሎ 
ጽሑፍ ከምዝተጣሕሰን ገለ ኣባላት ካብቲ ኣብ  ሞንጎኦም ዝግበር ዘሎ ክትዕ ብዛዕባ ናይ ስድሪ 
ተልኣኾ መምርሕን ዕላማን ንጹር ተረድኦ ከም ዘይብሎም ይሕብር። ብሓፈሻ ስድሪ ብዛዕባ ኣብ 
ኣዲስ ኣበባ ዝተኻየደ ዋዕላ ዘለዎ መርገጽ ሻራውን ብዕሊ ርእይትኡ ኣድልዎ ከምዝገበረን እዩ 
ዝገልጽ።  
ኣቶ ብርሃነ ነቲ ብብጾቱ ኣካየድቲ ሽማግለ ስድሪ ዝካየድ ዝነበረ ኣሰራርሓ ክጻወሮ ስለ  ዘይክኣለ 
ካብቲ ተመሪጽሉ ዝነበረ ናይ ኣካየድቲ ሽማግለ ቦታ ብፍቓ ዱ ከምዝወረደ ’ውን ይሕብር።  
ብሓፈሽኡ ስድሪ ሸውዓተ ኣመሓደርቲ ሽማግለ እኳ እንተነበሩዋ፡ ብድሕሪኡ ኣቶ ስምኦን 
ወልደሃይማኖት’ውን ገዲፍዎ ክምዝኸደን ኣቶ ሃብቶም ዮሃንስ ’ውን ብዘይ ኣገባብ ኣደስኪሎሞ 
ከምዘለው ኣብ መርበብ ሓበሬታ ተሓቢሩ ከምዝነበረ ኩላህና ንዝክሮ እዩ።  
 

ስድሪ ኣብ’ዚ እዋን’ዚ ኣርባዕተ ኣካየድቲ ሽማግለ ኣለዎ። እሳቶም ከኣ፡  ኣቶ ሱሌማን ኣደም ፡ 
ወ/ሮ ጸዳል ዮሃንስ (ሓፍቲ ኣስቴር ዮሃንስ)፡ ዶር የዕብዮ ወልደማርያምን ኣቶ ዓብዱልራሕማን 
ሰይድን እዮም። 
 
ኣቶ ብርሃነ ነ ቲ ዘዛርብ ዘሎ  ጽሑፍ ካብ መርበብ ኢንተርነት ስድሪ ከልግስዎ ይጽውዕ፡ 
ከምኡ’ውን ነቶም ኣካየድቲ ሽማግለ ኣንቀጽ 5 ናይ ስድሪ ቻርተር ክውከሱን ንስድሪ ካብቲ 
ተምሰረተትሉ ራእን መትከልን ከየርሕቑዋ ይላቦ። 
 
 
ወሲኹ ናይ ኣቶ ተወልደ እስጢፋኖስን ፕሮፌሶር ኣርኣያ ደበሳይ ሪኢቶ ኢሉ ’ውን ብኸምዚ 
ዝስዕብ ጌሩ ኣስፊርዎ።  
 
ሀ- ኣቶ ተወልደ እስጢፋኖስ (ኣባል ስድሪ)፣ ካብዚ ዝኸይድ ዘሎ ክትዕ፡ ኣባላት ስድሪ ብዛዕባ 
መትከልን ዕላማን ስድሪ ንጹር ተረድኦ ከምዘይብሎም እዩ ዘርእይ። ስድሪ ካብ ዝኾነ ንጥፈታት 
ፖለቲካን ጸግዕነት ናይ ፖለቲካ ወድባት ክርሕቕን ናጻ ኾይኑ ክሰርሕ ኣለዎ።  ኣብ ሕቶ 
ፍትሒ፡ ደሞክራሲ፡ ትምህርቲ፡ ማዕርነት፡ ወዘተ.. ግን ተሪር መርገጽ ወሲዱ ክቃለስ ይግባእ። 
ከምኡ’ውን ይብል ኣቶ ተወልደ፡ ገለ ኣባላት ስድሪ፡ ስድሪ ምስ ገለ ናይ ፖለቲካዊ ውድባት 
ዝተሓጋገዝ ምንቅስቃስ ወይ ማሕበር እዩ ዝብል  ጌጋ መረዳእታ እንተሊዎም ኮይኑ ይጋገዩ 
ከምዘለው ይሕብር።  (ኣቶ ብርሃነ’ውን ነቲ ሓሳቡ ከምዝድግፎ ይገልጽ) 
 
ለ- ዶር ኣርኣያ ደበሳይ፣ ድማ ከምዚ ይብል፡ <ካብዚ ዘካትዕ ዘሎ፡ ብስድሪ ዝተጽሓፈ ኣሰካፊ 
ጽሑፍ ተማሂርና ንመጻኢ ኣብ ነውጽኦ መግለጺታት ክንጥንቀቕ ኣለና። እቲ በሊሕ ብርዕና 
ኣንጻር ኢሳያስ ኣፈወርቂን ተሓጋገዝቱን እንበር ናብቶም ነቲ ስርዓት ንኸልግሱ መስዋእቲ 
ከፊሎም ዝቃለሱ ዘለው ክኽ ውን የብሉን፣ ዋላ ’ውን ዕቃበታት ኣብቲ ዝገብሩዎን ዝወስዱዎ 
ስጉምትታትን እንተለና> ይብል። <ከምኡ’ውን እቲ ካብ ስድሪ ዝድለ ነቶም ዝውቀሱ ዘለው 
ጉጅለታት ሃናጺ ሓገዝ ኣበርኪትካ እቲ ዝድለ ዘሎ ቅኑዕ ውሳነታትን ስጉምታትን ከመዝግቡ 
ምግባር እዩ> ይብል። (ኣቶ ብርሃነ’ውን ነቲ ዝበሎ ክምዝሰማምዓሉ ይገልጽ)። 
 
ሐ- ዶር የዕብዮ ወልደማርያም፣ -(ኣባል ኣካያዲት ሽማግለ ስድሪ) ንኣቶ ረድኢ ንመጀመርታ 
ጊዜ ብግሉጽን ቃልዕን ንናይ  ውሽጣዊ ኣሰራርሕኦም ብዝምልከት ኣዋጣሪ ሕቶታት ዝሓተተን 
ስክፍትኡ ዝገለጸ ኣባል ምዃኑ ኣሚኑ፡ ግና ይብል እቲ ዝወጸ ጽሑፍ ንርእይቶ ኣባላት ሽማግለ 
ጥራይ ዘይኮነስ ንናይ መብዛሕትኦም ኣባላት ስድሪ ኣብ ልዕሊ ኪዳንን ዋዕላን ውጺኢቱን 
ዘለዎም ርእይቶን ሓሳባትን  ዘንጸባርቕ እዩ ይብል።  
 
እዚ ከምዚ ኢሉ እንከሎ ብወገን እቶም ናይዚ ሽግር ፈጠርቲ ዝኾኑ ሰባት ናይ ምክልኻል 
ቋንቋኦም ብኸምዚ ዝስዕብ ከቕርብዎ ፈቲኖም፣- 
 
ዶር ጋይም ክብርኣብ፣-  
ስድሪ ከም ሲቢክ ማሕበር ንረብሓ ህዝብን ንህዝብን ተባሂሉ ዝግበር ጉዳያት ክምርምር፣ 
ርእይቶ ክህብ፣ ክቃወም፣ ከጠንቕቕ፣ ከምክትን ክኹንን ከምዝኽእል ይሕብ ር። እቶም ኣብ 
ኣዲስ ኣበባ ዝተጋብኡ ዋዕለኛታት ሕልሞምን ቀልቦምን ምስ መወልቶ ም ኮይኖም ነቲ ኣብ 
ኣስመራ ዘሎ ስርዓት ምትካእ እዩ ይብል።  ስለዚ ስድሪ ሓላፍነቱ  እዩ ነቲ ንኹሉ ዝገ ብሩዎን 
ዝሓስቡዎን ክቆጻጸር፣ ድኽመቶምን ዝኾነ ውዲትን ሕማቕ  ዝንባሌኦምን  ከቃልዕን ንህዝቢ 
ከተጠንቅቕን ይብል። ምስኡ ኣተኣሳሲሩ  ዶር ጋይም ነቶም ነታ ተዛርብ ዘላ ጽሕፍቲ ዝጸሓፉ 
ኣካየድቲ ሽማግለ  ስድሪ ክምስገኑ ይግባእ ክኣ ይብል።  
 

ዶር ጋይም ነቶም ኣብ ኣዲስ ኣበባ ዝተኣከቡ ዋላ ዝጠቅም ለውጢ ከምጽእ ዝኽእል ዛዕባ 
ከምዘይነበሮምን እቲ ዋዕላ ፍሹል ከምዝኾነ ይገልጽ። ነቲ ወጺኡ ዘሎ ጽሑፍ ’ውን ንጠቕሚ 
ህዝቢ ኢሉ እዩ ተዘር ጊሑ ይብል። ብሽም ተቓወምቲ እዮም ኢልና ክጋገዩ ከ ለው ዓይንና 
ዓሚትና ነሕልፈሎም ምኽንያት የለን ይብል። ነቶም ዝቃወሙ ዘለው’ውን ዘይተጠርነፉ ብቕዓት 
ዘይብሎምን ስልጣን ኣብ ቢያቲ ተጌሩ እንተዘይተዋሂቦም ባዕሎም ተቃሊሶም ለውጢ ከምጽኡ 
ዝኽእሉ ኣይኮኑን ይብል።  እንተተዋሂ ቡዎም’ውን ክዕቅቡዎ ዝኽእሉ ኣይኮኑን ይብል። 
ከምኡ’ውን ብቐሊሉ ነታ ሃገር ኣብ ኩናት ሕድ ሕድ ከእትውዋ ከምዝኽእሉ እዩ ዝገልጾም።  
 
መብዛሕትና ለውጢ ብዝመጸ ይምጻእ ብዘየገድስ ኢና ንብል። እቲ ብድሕሪኡ ክመጽእ ዝኽእል 
ጸገማት ኣይንሪኦን ኢና፡ እንተኾነ እቲ ዘድሊ ለውጢ ነታ ሃገር ዘረጋግኣን ሰላምን ቅ ሳነትን 
ዘምጽእ እንበር ብሃይማኖትን ብሄራትን ዘናቑ ት ክኸውን የብሉን ይብል። ህዝብና ናይ 
ሃይማኖት፣ ዓሌትን ብሄርን ፖለቲካ ኣብ ኣርብዓ ታት ብእንቢታ ነጺጉዎ እዩ ፡ ኣብ መጻኢ’ውን 
ኣብ ኤርትራ ቦታ የብሉን ይብል።  
  
ኣቶ ዓብደልራሕማን ሰይድ (ቦሓሽም) ፣ - <ሰላማት ኣያ ብርሃነ ገብረንጉስ፡ ካብተን ከልተ 
ኢሜልካ ከምዝተረዳእኩዎ፡ እቲ ጉዳይ ብዛዕባ እቲ ብስድሪ ተጻሒ ፉ ዝወጸ ጽሑፍ ኣይኮነ ን። 
ነገር ምፍሕታር ባእስን ክስን ግብረ መልስን ሓ ጋዝን ሃናጽን ኣይኮነን።  ኣብዚ ከምዚ ዓይነት 
ኩነታት እቲ ዝሓሸ እቶም ኣካየድቲ ሽማግለን ኣባላት ስድርን ነቲ ዝመጽእ ዘሎ ናይቲ ማሕበር 
ጉባኤ ንኸዳልው እንተዝግደፍ ምሓሸ። ክስታትካ ብጭብጥታት ኣሰኒኻ ኣብቲ ጉባኤ ንኸተቅርቦ 
የተባብዓካ> ይብል። 
 
ኣቶ  ሱሌማን ኣደም (ኣቦ መንበር ስድሪ)፣ < እቲ ብዛዕባ ዋዕላን ውጽኢቱን ዝተጻሕፈ ጽሑፍ 
ንኣባላት ስድሪ ንኽካትዕሉ ዘይኮነ ተጻሒፉ፡ ኣካየድቲ ሽማግለ በቲ ዝተወሃቦም ስልጣን መሰረት 
እቲ ዝመስሎም እዮም ዝገብሩ ዘለው > ይብል። <እዚ ድማ ስጋዕ እቲ ናይ ስድሪ ራእይን 
ተልእኾን ዘይተጻረረ እቶም ዝተመርጹ ሽማግለ ንክመርሑን ክውስኑን እዮም ዝምረጹ እሱ ድማ 
ኢና ጌርና> ይብል። <ብዝኾነ ኣባላት ብዛዕብኡ ክሓቱ ይኽእሉ እዮም > ይብል። ስዒቡ ’ውን 
ስድሪ ናይ ዝኾነ ወገን ጸግዒ ከምዘይወሰደ ይሕብር። ነቲ ኣብ መርበብ ኢንተርኔት ስድሪ 
ወጺኡ ዘሎ ኣካታዒ ርእሲ ዓንቀጽ ድማ ባዕሉ ከምዘውጽኦ ይኣምን። ስድሪ ናይ ሲቢክ ማሕበር 
ምዃኑ እኳ እንተኣመነ፡ ኣብቲ ዝካየድ ዘሎ ናይ ፖለቲካ ክትዕን ጉዕዞን ግን ነጢ ፉ ክዋሳእ 
ምዃኑ ይሕብር። እቲ ወጺኡ ዘሎ ጽሑፍ ድማ መቀጸልታ ነቲ ስጋዕ ሕጂ ክገብሩዎ ዝጸንሑን 
መርገጽ ስድሪ ኣብ ልዕሊ ዋዕላን ውጽኢቱን ዘረጋግጽ እዩ ። ብዛዕባ መርገጽ ስድሪ ኣብ ልዕሊ 
ዋዕላ ክገልጽ ከሎ፡ ስድሪ ኣብቲ ካብ መስርሕ ምቅርራብ ጀሚሩ ብዙሕ ጌጋታት ዝነበሮ ኣብቲ 
ዛዕብኡ ንጹር ዘይነበረ ኣብ ቃንኡን ኩለንትንኡን ፈላላይ ዝነበረ ዋዕላ ኣዲስ ኣበባ ክሳተፍ 
ድልየት ከምዘይነበሮ ይሕብር። ኣብቲ ዝወስድዎ ስጉም ቲ ድማ ተጽዕኖ ናይ ዝኾነ ናይ ደገ 
ሓይሊ ከምዘይነበረን ናይቶም ኣካየድቲ ሽማግለ ምዃኑ የረጋግጽ።  
 
ብዛዕባ እቲ ዝወጸ ጽሑፍ ክዛረብ ከሎ፡ ብወገን ስድሪ ንህዝቢ ብዛዕባ እቲ ዝተኻየደ  ዋዕላን 
ኣተገባብሩኡን ጥራሕ ዘይኮነ ብዛዕባ ሓፈሻዊ ዛዕባታት ሃገራዊ ረብሓ ክገልጹሉ ከምዘለዎም 
ስለዝኣመኑ ምዃኑ ይነግር። ነቲ ብዋዕ ላ ዝወጸ ኣዋጅ  ክገልጽ ከሎ መሰረት ሓድነትናን 
ሉኣላውነትናን ዝፈታተንን ዘዳኽምን እዩ ይብል፡ ነቲ መሰል ብሄራት ስጋዕ ምግንጻል ዝብል 
ድማ ሓደገኛ ውሳኔ ስለዝኾነ ንህዝብና ካብ ሓደጋ ክንከላኸለሉ ይግብኣና ይብል። ብዛዕባ እቲ 
ኣብቲ ዋዕላ ተመስሪቱ ዘሎ ኮምሽን ዝተዋህቦ ሓላፍነት ከም ኣብ ውሽጢ ዓመት ባይቶ ምቛምን 
ምንዳፍ ኮንስቲዩቲሽን ’ውን ስክፍታ ከምዘለዎ ይገልጽ። ብዛዕባ ተራ ናይ ኢትዮጵያ ኣብቲ 
ዝካየድ ዘሎ ንጥፈታት ናይ ኤርትራውያን ተቃወምቲ ውድባት’ውን እንታይ’ዩ ኢሉ ይሓትት.። 
 
መደምደምታ፣-  
ዝኸበርኩም ደለይቲ ፍትሒ ኤርትራውያን ኣሕዋት፣ እዚ ኣብ ውሽጢ ስድሪ ኣጋጢሙ ዘሎ 
ቅልውላው ኣዚዩ ብዝተጸምቆ ኣገባብ ከምዚ ኣብ ላዕሊ ቀሪቡ ዘሎ ኮይኑ፣ እንተኾነ እቲ ኩሉ 

ናይ ኢመይላት ምምልላሶም ብቋንቋ ኢንግሊዘኛ ከምዘለዎ ኣብ ታሕቲ ኣለኩም ’ሞ ባዕልኹም 
ኣምቢብኩም ፍረዱ። ካልእ ኣብዚ ቀሪቡ ዘሎ ሓበሬታ እቲ ቅልውላው ብዝተወሰኑ ግለ -ሰባት 
ዝተፈጥረ ድኣ’ምበር ብዙሓት ብቕንዕና ዝሰርሑ ከምዘለዉ’ውን ክስሓት ኣይግባእን። ስለዚ በዚ 
ኣጋጣሚ ብወገነይ ነቶም ብቕንዕና ንሻራውን ወጋንን ኣካያይዳ መሪሕነትኩም ነቒፍኩም ናብ 
ቅኑዕ ማኣዝን ንምምላስ ትቃለሱ ዘለኹም ብልቢ እናኣድነቕኩ ደገፈይ ብምግላጽ ዓወት 
እምነየልኩም።  
 
ዓወት ንደሞክራሲያዊ ለውጢ! 
ኣስመሮም ሃይለ 
03/10/10  
 
ምምባብ ቀጽሉ …………..  
 
 
 
Selamat Ustaz Abdulrahman Sayed, the EC and All members, 
  
(Although this reply was drafted to be posted early last 
week, in recognition and the spirit of Eid ElFitr and 
Kudus Yohannes, I decided  
to delay until today) 
  
1-  Abdulrahman thank you for your response to the emails 
we exchanged on the subject of CDRiE’s editorial on the 
Addis NCDC meeting.  I assure you that I, too, am not 
interested on a tit-for-tat or on ‘not constructive’ 
arguments.   On the other hand I don’t agree   with you 
if you think that the useful contributions of all those 
who participated in the discussion as unhelpful or 
unconstructive tit-for-tat argument.  
Frankly, I am disappointed by the unfriendly, terse, 
dismissive and condescending tone of your response. 
  
2-  In contrast to Chairman Suleiman’s earlier attempt to  
explain the situation in detail and inviting us to freely 
air our opinions, your  
message gives the impression of your desire to stop or 
restrain discussions on this important subject.  I 
consider this effort, to curtail discussion on the 
desirability of the editorial and the other points raised 
as unconstructive, unhelpful and contrary to the spirit 
of CDRiE - it is un-CDRiE like. In my humble opinion, 
‘organizing a congress’ should not take precedence over 
discussion by the members of  

a subject which is pertinent to the core principles of 
the organization.  In any case the two   – the discussion 
and the organizing-  
could easily go hand in hand. 
  
3-   From email exchanges we had last week, no doubt, the 
editorial has been found to be controversial by many 
‘highly respected CDRiE  
members’.  Some even suggested Skype or paltalk 
discussions on the subject amongst the members. One, 
namely  Elias H/S in turn suggested  
“the EC to appoint a committee to look into the matter 
thoroughly and come up with recommendation that would 
satisfy the majority CDRiE members”. Strange enough the 
EC refused to react positively to any of these 
 suggestions. 
  
  
4-  It is now evident that there is a major 
misunderstanding by some members of the unique twin 
qualities of CDRIE – that of its nonpartisan  
and neutral nature.  These two pillars are amongst the 
ones that make CDRiE different from many so called Civic 
organizations. And these two  
have been the victims of the editorial.   Dr. Araya and 
Tewelde have a clear understanding of these traits.  Both 
have succinctly clarified  
their understanding of the terms as used in CDRiE’s 
Charter.Here below are excerpts of some of their 
statements: 
  
A) Tewelde: in his last posting wrote, quote “…..  .  The 
current misunderstanding occurring  several years into 
CDRiE's life is symptomatic that something is still not 
clear. Therefore it is critical that we reaffirm what 
CDRiE stands for so we all have a common understanding as 
we move forward. I am of the opinion that CDRiE's  
stature will be greatly enhanced if it stays neutral -- 
neutral to politics and political parties but not neutral 
to questions of justice,  
democracy, education, equal opportunity etc. CDRiE will 
be more productive and will have more credibility by 
staying neutral.”Further he said  “…… are we learning our 
lessons or do members have mismatched   assumptions about 
what CDRiE is all about? CDRiE being or appearing to be a 

mass organization for any political party is the last  
thing I want to see.” (Emphasis mine) 
 
B) Dr. Araya: In his last posting about the editorial he 
said quote”… The lesson we need to draw for the future is 
that we need to be careful with  the statements we issue.  
We should be directing our sharp arsenal, our pen, 
towards PIA and his entourage and not against those who 
are committed to end his ruthless regime, no matter how 
much reservation we might have with their approaches and 
the steps they take. The challenge on CDRiE is to 
constructively help these groups to do the right thing, 
and that is only possible if we maintain a healthy 
relationship with all the opposition groups”( Emphasis 
mine) 
  
5-  As one of the founders of CDRiE my stand on this 
point of nonpartisanship and neutrality is well known to 
all past and   present members of the EC and many of the 
founding members. I was always for nonpartisanship and 
neutrality as described above.  This was the major bone 
of contention which forced me to resign from the EC; 
Indeed, I did this with a heavy heart.   
 
I must admit the reason why I withdrew from the EC was 
nothing but because  of my strong principled difference 
in understanding between me and some of the EC members of 
the role of CDRiE as an impartial and neutral 
organization. Of course, this neutrality only deals with 
the opposition.  Every fair minded member knows how much 
I had dedicated myself and how much I loved playing my 
role in the initiation and in all the attempts that 
followed to attain its intended mission.   
 
To the chagrin of many of the members, in order to 
maintain CDRiE’s unity I did my best to keep silent and 
bury my concerns within myself before and after I left 
the EC.   I took this stance, partly because I was hoping 
that the EC would come back to their senses and refrain 
from applying their hawkish tendencies. I sincerely 
hopped they would move to the center.  Sadly, I was wrong 
and the result turned out to be more contrary to my 
expectations. The EC finally moved much further to the 
right.  In fact  I am afraid if continues the same route 
it could end up being part of the problem in the muddied 

waters of the Eritrean Diaspora politics. 
  
6-  However, it is encouraging to note that many members 
do see the role of CDRiE in exactly the same way I do.  
Dear friends, the original mission of CDRiE and the role 
it was meant to play are clearly stated in Article 5.1. 
For many of you I am sure it is very clear and it should 
not have been a subject for misunderstanding. Here it is:        
  
  
Articles 5 - Governing principles of CDRiE 
1.  On carrying its activities towards   realization of 
its aims, CDRiE  
shall be nonpartisan with regard to its standing on the 
Eritrean body politic. In this regard, CDRiE shall be 
guided by neutrality, objectivity and professionalism. 
(emphasis is mine) 
  
The framers of CDRiE’s Charter knew exactly what they 
wanted CDRiE to be and expressed their intentions  
clearly.  Allow me to be a little bit pedantic if I 
stress that they knew the words: 
  
Nonpartisan means: unbiased, impartial, unprejudiced, 
independent, neutral, external and nonaligned; 
andNeutrality means: impartiality, aneutral stance, 
detached, objectivity, refusal to take sides and 
nonaligned status. 
Please note that CDRiE’s neutrality is only in reference 
to the ‘Eritrean body politic’ i.e.  only when it comes 
to the friction, clash or tug-of-war between and amongst 
the opposition groups.  CDRiE’s commitment to any and 
every thing Eritrean as opposed to or in   relation to 
other nations (Ethiopia, Sudan  etc) is the raison d’être 
of its existence  hence,  there is no space for 
neutrality or debate. 
All of us, the founding members, discussed freely and 
arrived at the above description of the role expected of 
CDRiE in the Eritrean body politic if it was going to act 
as a unifier  of the divided opposition.  
How did the change come about then?  I would let every 
member muse over it if he/she cares about the wellbeing 
of CDRiE. 
  
  

7-  It is worth remembering that the perception of 
CDRiE’s role in the 
  
society was completely misunderstood from the very 
beginning.  Some accused CDRiE of sympathy with the GOE 
others said we were against EDA etc.  Without dwelling 
too much on this it is clear to every concerned CDRiE 
member that there is the perception that CDRiE is not an 
impartial or a neutral organization. You all know that 
perception plays a more defining role than reality 
especially in societies like ours. The fact that more 
could have been done to dispel this perception was one of 
the contentious issues that sapped my energy when I was 
in the EC. Sadly, after I left the EC, Simon and Habtom 
also left for various reasons and the EC has been reduced 
from 7 elected  officers to only 4.  Thus it could be 
stated that the 4 on their own may not have time to spare 
to fight the perception. But on the flip side you could 
say they should not have had the time and the dare to 
take it all the way out from neutrality to open 
favoritism. 
  
8-  Dear CDRiE members, like the EC officers and you, the 
reason why I have resorted to detailing the above is 
simply because I love CDRiE and its original sacred and 
unique mission.  Except love I have no malice towards 
none, especially to the EC.  If I sounded like that 
please accept my apologies. Now I have an   honest appeal 
addressed to you and the EC. 
  
A)  To the EC 
I)  As many of us have concluded the editorial has been 
controversial. Thus, the wise thing to do for the EC is 
to remove the editorial from cdrie.net, at least until 
the EC convinces the majority of the members otherwise. 
 
 
 
II) Please assure us that we  still uphold CDRiE’s 
original principle. If not let us know if we are having 
second thoughts and want to change our non-political and 
civic status. I for one would like to know why the EC is 
having a difficulty in understanding the letter and 
spirit of what our Charter i.e.  Article 5 stands for. 
III)   Above all, please do not discourage discussion on 

any important subject and especially on the 
interpretation and understanding of the articles in 
CDRiE’s Charter. 
 
IV) The reason why the discussion should continue (before 
the GOC) is if you do not give us a satisfactory answer 
to   8AII above, in a democratic setting, all members 
should be given the freedom to participate in a dialogue 
on the points between now and the GOC. I say this taking 
into account the fact that most of CDRiE’s members, like 
me live outside the UK and may not be able to attend the 
Conference in person.  Thus any  discussion that does not 
include a sizable number of members may be legal but may 
not really represent all. It could be judged simply 
unfair.  That is why I plead with the EC not to dismiss 
the requests by some members for Skype, Paltalk and email 
discussions before the GOC. 
Personally, I do not think that preparations for CDRiE’ 
General Conference will be affected by the discussion. On 
the other hand, I believe introduction of such discussion 
(which is rare in CDRiE culture) would enrich the 
understanding of CDRiE’s vision and would encourage 
participation by members. 
  
B)  To the   members: 
 
I)  The subject that some of us have been discussing in 
the last few days is an important matter that requires 
serious discussion by all concerned. Every one of us 
should participate and should not be left only to the few 
individuals. 
 
II) Of course, I would request you not to change the 
discussion into  an argument or into a personal clash.  
Let us not second guess on the motives or intentions of 
others. Above all let us not lower our discussion to the 
level of the political parties or that of hgdef whose 
motto is   “those who are notwith us  are against us;  or 
those who are not with Isayas (or the leader)  are 
against Eritrea”  
 
III)  I assure you that those of us who have presented 
our comments and/or our suggestions (Redi, Tewelde Araya 
myself and others) are simply stating that ‘something is 
still not clear’ within our CDRiE. We are at the same 

time inviting everybody to help   clear the problem or 
misunderstanding in a calm and collected manner. We want 
all members and the EC to be on the same page and to go 
forward in unison towards CDRiE’s intended mission and 
vision. Please take an interest and join in the 
discussion about  the future of CDRiE as a neutral, 
impartial and  nonpartisan Eritrean  Civic Organization 
  
I thank you all for reading my comments. I apologize to 
those whom I may have inadvertently offended by my 
frankness and/or naïveté.  I also hope that you will all 
take my appeal seriously. 
 
  
Best regards to all 
Berhane G Negus 
  
  
  
From: Bohashem <bohashem@gmail.com> 
Meeting 
  
  
Salamat Aya Berhane G/Negus, 
  
It is clear from your last two emails that the issue here 
is not about CDRiE.Net’s editorial. Delving into tit-for-
tat allegations and counter allegations is not and will 
not be helpful and constructive. In such a case, it is 
best that the EC and the membership are left to organise 
CDRiE’s general organisational congress (GOC) as already 
announced in our last e-newsletters. A General Congress 
Preparatory Committee has already been set up and will 
soon be engaging and informing  members of the details 
and logistics to the upcoming event, which is only few 
months away from now. 
  
As you may be aware, the main business of the GOC is, 
among others, to review the EC's performance during its 
tenure, and to measure its successes and failures against 
CDRiE's stated mission and vision.  To this end, you are 
highly encouraged to   substantiate your allegations with 
evidence and present it at the congress. I am sure this 
way you will be contributing a great deal to our internal 
organisational democracy and efficiency as well as paving 

the way for the future EC to improve and do better than 
the current one. 
  
With Best Wishes 
Bohashem   
  
  
  
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 11:23 PM 
  
  
Dear Suleiman and All 
  
  
Thank you very much for favoring us with a reply. As they 
say good things come last.  But most of all I thank you 
for your  generous comments and welcoming me back to 
CDRiE’s discussions. My apologies for not having been 
active in the fraternal communications of the last few 
months.  To be frank, this time too, I was saddened but 
not that much surprised by the editorial.  In fact, more 
than the editorial it was  
Dr. Gaim’s   comments which knocked me off my snoozing 
sofa back into CDRiE’s cauldron.  When I read Gaim’s 
earlier email consoling Redi not to despair, I was 
honestly expecting a different approach and less radical 
than the EC’s usual stand. Unfortunately, it was not 
going to  
be. 
  
  
Again, I for one am grateful for your detailed coverage 
on the subject.   I prefer not to engage into a detailed 
point by point rebuttal.  For if I do I may need  to 
refer to materials  from my  days  as a member of the EC 
– according to my experience  I consider some of them as 
privileged info. of the EC. Thus suffice to say that I 
have no problem agreeing with most of the general points 
you raised. 
  
Still I am not yet convinced of your interpretation of 
the core point which is “CDRiE’s principle for neutrality 
and non-partisanship”.   The editorial is but a small by 
product of this interpretation.  To cut to the chase I 
would go to the extent of accusing the EC, contrary to 

the mission and aims of CDRiE, of having been overtly 
partial in favor of one political group against another 
opposing group in the EDA.    This, my friend Suleiman, 
is the heart of the problem.  Precisely principle of 
neutrality and reconciliation is the understanding which 
I always had and that Redi, Tewelde, Araya and many 
others have repeatedly advocated. Impartiality, 
neutrality and non-partisanship are the cornerstones in  
which CDRiE’s foundation is built upon.  The on-going 
expression of the unfavorable reaction to the editorial 
is proof that the EC has over-stepped its mandate.  If 
you and the EC are genuinely not convinced about the 
interpretation and you are sensitive to the members’ 
wishes, as has been suggested by   our friend Elias 
Habtesselasie you should pass the matter to a task force. 
  
My best regards to you and your family.  Ramadan Mabruk! 
Berhane G Negus 
  
  
 
From: Suleiman Hussein <slmn.hussein@gmail.com> 
 
  
Dear Berhane, Redi, Gaim and all,First of all, let me say 
that I am extremely delighted to see a heated debate 
going on in CDRiE forum. More important is the fact the 
debate is around a core CDRiE principle, i.e. our 
mission. 
Since the recent editorial is what triggered this debate, 
I will address some of  the issues raised by Redi and 
other colleagues. But before that, let   me thank Redi 
for initiating the debate. 
Let me also thank Dr. Gaim for his very articulate and 
detailed comment. The same goes to all those who have 
taken time to send their comments. Regardless of whether 
agrees or disagrees with the content of the editorial, it 
is good to see CDRiEts exchanging views on a current 
issue and suggest ideas that they consider is consistent 
with CDRiE mission and mission.I should also thank 
Berhane for his detailed comment. Berhane, your input was 
missed for a long time and now that we have you back, I 
hope we will not miss you again. While I disagree with 
some of the points you made, I have great respect to your 
opinion and above all, your contribution and commitment 

to CDRiE.After this brief introduction let me take to the 
editorial: 
 
1.  The editorial was not put for  discussion. I agree. 
But isn’t issuing an editorial or any public   statement 
for that matter, a prerogative of the EC as long as it 
does not contradict the vision and mission of the 
organisation it is elected to lead? Disagreeing with its 
content and ask for explanation is fine and this is what 
has been going on. Of course it would have been much 
better if the tone was different as Berhane has rightly 
said but nevertheless, discussing is much better than 
not. It would have also been better to say with which 
point or points one disagrees rather than generalise. I 
will come back to this point and address the editorial 
from a general perspective. 
 
2. The editorial contradicts our mission. This also fine 
except that the burden is on who thinks it s so to spell 
out how and in which way does the editorial contradict 
CDRiE mission. Let me quote the CDRiE organisational 
charter  which says: 
  
Articles 5 - Governing principles of CDRiE 
 
1.   on carrying its activities towards realization of 
its aims, CDRiE shall be nonpartisan with regard to its 
standing on the Eritrean body politic. In this regard, 
CDRiE shall be guided by neutrality, objectivity and 
professionalism. 
2. In view of the fact that the core aim of CDRiE is 
related to issues of human rights and democratization, 
CDRiE shall be guided by the main regional and 
international human rights treaties. 
Specifically, CDRiE shall be governed by accountability, 
openness, and tolerance. 
  
The above quotation was also quoted by Berhane and I am 
using it here because I agree with him on its relevance 
to our discussion. Some colleagues have also mentioned 
the principle of neutrality in dealing with Eritrean 
civic and political organizations. While its healthy to 
continuously check on the EC to make sure that  is 
leading the organization in a manner consistent to its 
mandate as stipulated in the organizational charter, The 

EC has never taken sides or favoured one side against the 
another. With our own initiative, we have approached 
organizations like Tadamun and the National Salvation 
Front. With the later, we were able to develop a very 
warm relationship. When a delegation of their leadership 
was on working visit to the UK a couple of months ago, we 
took part in a meeting they called with community leaders 
and we also had a high level bilateral meeting. This was 
the second of its kind in one year. This year CDRiE was 
even invited to take part in the annual Kassel festival. 
As for Tadamun, I personally sent an official letter to 
Mr. Hussein Khelifa congratulating him on his election as 
the new chairman and inviting for a dialogue. In no 
different manner, we also developed a good relationship 
with EPDP and  this was consistent with our mission too. 
What I find sad here is that this particular relationship 
is put under constant check and spotlight as if to 
suggest we should have refrained from opening a channel 
of communication lest we are considered partisan. Where 
did this perception come from then? I understand those 
outside CDRiE who started a vilification campaign before 
we even had any contact with any political organization. 
This was simply because we CDRiE highlighted by way of 
its founding documents the principle of pursuing non 
violent means of struggle as the best way to establish a 
sustainable democracy in Eritrea. Since one of our core 
principles was behind all or most of the attacks directed 
towards us, we had no choice but to stand for our 
principle without at the same time engaging in a tit for 
tat campaign. Did we succeed, I think we did to a great 
extend. Some of the organizations  with whom we have 
close relationship today, had a completely different view 
of us last year. Could have we done things better?  No 
doubt about it. As a nascent organization, we still have 
a lot to learn from and the kind of debate we are having 
now is one of those learning processes. In CDRiE we are 
blessed with membership of a very high caliber. 
  
3. The editorial was sent by an external source. It is 
possible but nothing wrong with that. Many people who 
liked the editorial sent the link to their contacts. I 
even received one and probably from the same source as 
Redi. This is in spite of the fact that I personally 
uploaded the editorial on our website. The fact remains 
that it was posted on our website before anyone knew 

about it and immediately thereafter, the link was sent 
through our Google group. If this wrong, please let me  
know? 
  
4. The EC is too political and partisan. Here too, I 
would confidently say no. Why? I believe that becoming 
partisan is taking sides in a conflict. The EPDP and the 
rest of EDA are clearly in a conflict before even the 
process of national conference has started.  
 
Did we issue any statement favouring one against the 
other? My answer is a definitive no. Why then some of our 
members think otherwise? For me this is another proof for 
the need to have a continuous internal debate on issues 
relevant to our mission. Let us continue the debate like 
the one we are having now. Is stating a position on an 
important issue of national interest the same as taking 
sides or be partisan? Wasn’t CDRiE formed to become a 
civic organisation which is politically proactive without 
becoming political, i.e. aspiring for political power? 
What did we mean by that? I think here too, we need a 
thorough internal debate. The recent Addis conference is 
of such significance to our cause that one way or 
another, we had to make our position clear in a manner we 
believed to be consistent with our mandate and mission. 
  
What is now coming into public knowledge proves the point 
I am trying to make but I agree with the call to conduct 
an internal debate. We at the EC feel that even the 
editorial did not come out of the blue but is consistent 
with positions held previously. Few months ago, the issue 
was discussed at the EGS board. Our position then and our 
position now is the same. We had always been of the 
opinion that CDRiE should not be part of conference that 
is clearly flawed in its process, ambiguous in its agenda 
and divisive in its tone. All these were communicated 
regularly by way of our monthly newsletter that we work 
so hard to produce monthly. At no point was any objection 
made  known to us. In fact those of us who happen to be 
in London and who have the advantage to hold   regular 
meetings had the opportunity to discuss the issue of 
national conference. After a fruitful debate, we felt 
that we were all of the same opinion. Unfortunately, and 
I am sorry to have to say it here, Redi never attended 
any CDRiE meeting since the founding conference. 

  
  
My dear colleagues, in what follows, I would like to 
briefly discuss the editorial from the content point of 
view. Please bear with me, I will try to keep it brief; 
  
The editorial is about the recent conference and not 
about those who participated or boycotted it. The fact 
that EPDP and some others boycotted it is completely 
irrelevant. We would still have the same position even if 
all EDA organisations were in Addis on the 31st of July. 
In May 2008 we went through a similar situation. At the 
time, CDRiE was not yet formally launched. The four 
organisations that later merged to form today’s EPDP   
were all in Addis taking part in the conference but that 
did not prevent us from deciding to stay away from the 
conference. Wemay have this debate about EDA as much as 
we want and it is ok to have different view about it. The 
only reason I am bringing it here is to make one point. 
For right or wrong, we have always made our decisions 
completely independently. We would also continue to do so 
until the end of our mandate. No external party is factor 
in our making decisions on behalf of CDRiE. The EC is 
only accountable to CDRiE members. 
  
Going back to the editorial, here is what lead us believe 
it was necessary to address the wider Eritrean public on 
issues of national interest. Not only the process leading 
to the conference inflicted further damage to the already 
divided opposition but the  conference itself came with 
resolutions and signals that have the potential of 
undermining the foundation of our national unity and 
territorial integrity. It was clearly a platform where 
strange ideas such self determination up to secession 
were promoted in broad light as if the problems of our 
county can be reduced to that of self determination of 
nationalities. We thought that this dangerous attempt to 
transform the Eritrean political landscape should not go 
unchecked. As a civic organisation not interested in 
petty politics, it is our role and duty to play the role 
of a watch dog and warn our compatriots before it is too 
late. Do we agree that this dangerous? If yes, how do 
deal with it? If no, how do see it then? I would like to 
hear comments on this specific issue. 
  

Another issue of concern and which was highly present 
during the discussions in Addis is that of national 
assembly.  This is the same as a government in exile. 
Isn’t it? Do we want to have two competing governments 
claiming to represent our nation or do we need an 
opposition that is effective enough to become the vehicle 
for positive change in our country? What does government 
in exile mean any way and what does this imply to the 
future of our country? Finally, wasn’t this what the 
final communiqué says? Wasn’t the drafting of a 
constitution entrusted to the newly formed commission? Is 
this the mandate of an opposition? 
  
Last but not least is the reference made to the host 
country which has become an integral part of any 
opposition activity since several years?  
What is new here is the recent surge in ethnic based 
organisations with their secessionist agenda. Just days 
before the main conference,  
two mini conferences about the right to self 
determination of nationalities up to cessation were  held 
in Mekele and Smara, in the Afar Killil. Both conferences 
were planned and financed by EPRDF who even brought two 
scholars, one Ethiopian one Canadian, to give lectures  
on the subject. Isn’t it right to ask what exactly is the 
role of the Ethiopian government in what is going on 
within the opposition camp?  
Since any healthy relationship is primarily based on 
mutual respect, i don’t think it is wrong to ask 
questions. The same way we sent a letter  
of appreciation to PMMZ following the decision of his 
government to allow Eritrean to live outside the 
designated camps, we should be able  
to express our concerns openly and frankly. 
  
I hope the above would positively contribute to the 
ongoing discussion which should go on to include other 
important issues such as our  
upcoming organisational congress as well as the 
strengthening and consolidation of CDRiE. 
  
To all those who  contributed with their suggestions and 
comment, I say again thank   you. 
  
Regards, 

Suleiman 
 
  
On Sep 3, 2010, at 3:27 PM, Simon <simoxen2001@gmail.com> 
wrote: 
   
Dear all, 
My apologies to Redi for not getting timely attention to 
his issues! The editorial was written by the EC and I 
agree with Ato Berhane that explanation should have come 
from the EC. Dr. Yebio, Tewelde and Amal responded in 
their individual capacity. Thank you all! Gaim, thank you 
very much for your detailed note! It is like a paper and 
it worth the wait. The same goes to Ato Berhane. But, 
communication in writing is not enough to address issues 
of this nature. Even though nothing of extraordinary 
proportion has happened, I’d like a paltalk/skype 
discussion on this   issue to address it comprehensively. 
I’ve 4 pages long reaction but I still think it is in  
adequate. 
What do you think? 
Simon  
  
  
2010/9/3 BerhaneGNegus <ashkerit2@aim.com> 
  
Selamat Redi, Gaim and All. 
  
Redi I would like to join all those who commended you for 
your dedication to CDRiE from its inception  and now for 
raising such a serious issue.  This very question is the 
one which has been haunting me for a long time. Hence my 
silence.   By the kind of reactions your question 
engendered, I am glad to witness that you have helped to 
uplift the discussion to a level and seriousness that the 
originators of CDRiE intended it to be.  Of course I wish 
the discussion was of a different tone than the one we 
are dealing now. Dr Gaim's response also caught me by 
surprise. Attached please find my input. The question you 
raised is so crucial that all   the other members old and 
new should partake in earnest in the discussions and let 
them   contribute their piece to define CDRiE's position. 
  
I wish all the best for CDRiE. 
  

Best  regards 
Berhane 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: gaim kibreab  
 
Sent: Thu, 
Sep 2, 2010 7:01 am 
Subject: [EritreanCitizens] '1765' RE: Response to Redi’s 
and Tewelde’s comments and a succinct reflection on the 
Ad dis Ababa Meeting 
  
  
  
Dear all, 
  
This is a belated response to the debate on CDRiE's 
Editorial on the Addis Ababa Conference. I would like to 
thank Redi, Tewelde, Yebio and  
Amal for inititiating and keeping the debate alive. In 
view of the length of my intervention, an attachment 
would have been more appropriate but I have chosen to 
adopt this format as the   debate is internal to CEDiE. 
  
  
Dear Redi, 
  
  
  
The thing I like about your stance is that on top of  
being guileless, you thrive in playing a 'devil's 
advocate.' Unfortunately, such qualities are in short 
supply among the civically and politically active members 
of our diasporic communities. Keep it up, but also bear 
in mind the following caveat—‘The road to hell is paved 
with good intentions.’ 
  
Let me briefly address the issues you raised in your 

commentary on CDRiE’s editorial on the Addis Ababa 
Meeting.  
  
  
1.You wrote, "The Editorial contradicts our mission." 
  
  
· However, you did not spell out how and in what way it 
does that.  The raison détre of any civil society 
organisation committed to public causes is,   among many 
other things, to scrutinise, criticise, oppose, warn 
against, counteract and, if necessary, condemn the 
follies of those in power and those  who aspire to take 
their place.   
  
· If their dream becomes true, those who convened the 
Meeting in Addis and their ‘Big Brother’, the Sponsor, 
are hoping to effect regime change and replace the 
incumbent in Asmara. 
  
· Hence CDRiE, as a civil society organisation, has a 
duty and responsibility to scrutinise their actions, 
expose their follies, weaknesses and conspiratorial 
proclivities, as well as warn our people of the potential 
dangers. 
  
· Our people have been let down by the leaders of the 
PFDJ in a very bad way and there should be no room for 
complacency any more. CDRiE’s Executive Committee should 
therefore be congratulated on their bold, albeit, mildly 
framed Editorial. 
  
2.You  wrote, “the editorial says ‘Not only was it unable 
to identify the goals and objectives of the so-called 
conference, but it was also unable to rally its member 
organisations behind the idea of a national conference.  
In whose interest was editorial written? Why do members 
of the organization get the link from external sources? 
Did the writers rally their members?”   
  
· It is very clear to any critical and non-partisan 
observer that those who convened the Meeting had no 
viable agenda for change based on civic citizenship. The 
Editorial is therefore right to call the ‘spade’ by its   
name.  

  
· You wonder, “In whose interest  was the editorial 
written?” This is a rhetorical question. You know the 
answer yourself.  
 
It is written in the interest of the Eritrean public 
cause. 
  
·You also wrote, “Why do members of the  
organization get the link from external sources?” I will 
leave this question to the EC. 
  
·You also wondered, “Did the writers rally their  
members?” Unless I am mistaken, the EC is mandated to 
issue editorial and other statements as it deems fit 
provided it complies with our    
organisation’s constitution. Nevertheless, the EC’s 
alleged failure to rally its members cannot be a 
justification of the EDA’s failure to  
rally its own  members. 
  
·I think the reason the EC raised this point is not as an 
expression of grievance but rather as a point of 
principle. The Addis meeting’s failure is not solely 
measured by the absence of some member organisations, but 
more importantly by the dearth of common purpose of the 
member organisations. 
  
· What do the different organisations that  
constitute the EDA have in common with each other except 
a common enemy they want to unseat from power? In fact, 
they don’t even seem to have a    
common understanding where the realm of the enemy begins 
and ends. They don’t even characterise the regime in 
Asmara in the same  way. 
  
· The removal from power of a government, which has 
deliberately destroyed most pre-existing formal and 
informal institutions and arrested the emergence and 
consolidation of new ones, by opposition groups that lack 
common vision and purpose is, to say the least, lethal or 
dangerous. 
  
3. I think it is important that we, the members of CDRiE, 

encourage our EC to warn us and our people that every 
group that is opposed to the PFDJ and clamours for regime 
change is necessarily free from bigotry and parochialism. 
It is only then we will be able to distinguish between 
those who are committed to the common good of our people 
and those determined to sow seeds of division and 
disharmony.   
  
4.Any  civil society organisation that is unable to 
distinguish between ‘wax and gold,’ to borrow Donald 
Levine’s captivating metaphor, is not worth its name. 
  
5.  We should avoid turning a blind eye or become 
oblivious to the follies of the opposition just because 
we want to get rid of the repressive regime in Asmara. 
What happens the hour or even the minute after is much 
more important than the mere act of removing the 
incumbent. Whether the opposition groups divided and 
incompetent as  
they are will ever be able to defeat the regime in Asmara 
is highly contentious unless they are served power on a 
plate. If that were to  
happen, they are unlikely to be able to maintain it. They 
may rather plunge the country into a fratricidal civil 
war.     
  
6. Most of us seem to be excessively obsessed with the 
notion of change without considering the potential 
pitfalls that may ensue as a  
result. May be some of the opposition groups are not 
bothered about what may happen the day after 
as long as their arch enemy in Asmara is brought to his 
knees. Is this the kind of change our people have been 
striving for? 
  
7. The change we seek should be one that is able to bring 
about political stability, human dignity, prosperity, 
respect for the sanctity of rule of law and human life, 
maintain national unity and promote human rights, social 
justice, gender and all other forms of equality, civic 
but definitely not ethnic or faith-based citizenship,  
as well as participatory and democratic decision-making. 
It is on the basis of these core values that we should 
judge whether a political    
group deserves our support or opposition. 

  
8. Our people had defiantly rejected the  anti-politics 
of religion, ethnicity and tribalism in the 1940s and the 
groups that are trying to turn the wheel of history are 
unlikely to have any future in Eritrea otherwise the risk 
of our martyred brothers and sisters turning in their 
graves will be high. 
  
 
 
A Brief Comment on Tewelde’s intervention 
  
Tewelde also wrote on the subject: 
  
“I must admit I don't know the players and the nuances of 
opposition politics but I agree with Redi that CDRiE, as 
a civic organization, should not align itself with any 
political group. We may still have our personal 
preferences but in order to be effective and relevant, 
CDRiE should remain neutral at all times.” 
  
  
I agree with you that CDRiE should avoid aligning itself 
with any political   group. In principle, this is a 
highly valid point of view. A civil society organisation 
that aligns or affiliates itself with a political group 
ceases what it claims to be.   
  
  
  
Nevertheless, the EC’s criticism and its critical 
scrutiny of the Addis Meeting is not the same as aligning 
itself with a political group. 
  
  
  
In my view, the EC’s editorial is based on principle 
rather than on support or opposition to any political 
group. 
  
  
I would like to congratulate Redi, Tewelde and Amal on 
initiating the discussion. The reason I did not comment 
on Amal’s intervention is because I agree with all the 
points she raised. 

  
In the following I will seize the opportunity to share 
with you a few questions I have about the Addis Ababa 
Meeting.  
  
My succinct Reflections on the Addis Meeting: 
  
I am acutely aware of the fact that the   interests of 
the Eritrean people are inextricably interwoven with the 
interests of the Ethiopian,  
Sudanese, Somali and Djiboutian people. Notwithstanding 
this commonality of interests, inter-state relationships 
in the region have  
always been permeated by excessive interference in each 
other’s internal affairs. This norm of mutual 
intervention in each other’s domestic affairs has reached 
unprecedented heights in the post-border war period. Both 
the Eritrean and the Ethiopian governments are determined 
to effect regime changes in each other’s capitals in 
order  
to replace the incumbents by their own quislings. 
  
The Addis Ababa conference was conceived by its 
architects as harbinger of regime change in Asmara. By 
the same token, it is only a question of time before the 
government in Asmara reciprocates by holding a copycat 
conference of Ethiopian opposition groups in one of the 
Eritrean   cities in the near future. The critical 
question that arises is: 
  
  
should genuine democratic and participatory  change-
seeking Eritreans and Ethiopians avail themselves to 
being used as instruments or stooges by the two 
governments that are engaged in incessant struggles of 
mutual destruction without any regard to the consequences 
on the  
well-being and interdependent livelihood systems of the 
peoples of the two impoverished countries? 
  
OR should they reject and expose the two governments’ 
follies by taking a principled stand in favour of 
regional peace and stability? 
  
  

Bearing this brief introductory remark in mind some of 
the many questions that Eritrean civil society 
organisations should raise in connection with the recent 
Addis Ababa conference are the following:     
    
i. If my sources are reliable, the full cost of the 
meeting was made good by the Ethiopian government. 
  
ii. It is a known fact that Ethiopia like  
its northern neighbour, Eritrea, is one of the poorest 
nations in the world where every penny belonging to the 
state should have high  
opportunity cost. 
  
iii. Although it is not known how much the  
total outlay of the meeting was, for a   poor country 
whose citizens live in abject poverty, there must be 
benefits to be had that outweigh the costs lest the 
Ethiopian government, as a rationale decision-maker faced 
with competing demands, would  not squander its scarce 
resources.  
If the Ethiopian taxpayers were to have a say, 
would funding such a meeting be their priority?   
  
iv. The Ethiopian State like any other of its kind is 
neither a charitable organisation nor is it a neutral 
arbiter, especially in view of the unsettled border 
dispute and the prevailing state of no-peace-no-war. All 
states’ behaviour is governed by self-interest. The 
decisions and actions of the Ethiopian government are 
therefore evidently driven by self-interest. What are 
these  
interests? Have they been   spelled out to the leaders of 
the Eritrean opposition? Have the latter communicated 
these to the Eritrean people  
in a clear and transparent manner? To what extent are the 
interests pursued by the  Ethiopian government compatible 
or detrimental to Eritrea’s short, medium and long-term 
interests? I am not suggesting they are detrimental or 
beneficial. I am simply asking those who allege to be in 
the ‘driving seat.’ 
  
v. Can the Eritrean opposition groups, who are dependent 
for their daily bread on the Ethiopian government’s 
handouts and who lack any form of fall back position in 

case the relationship based on patronage collapses, be 
able to negotiate on  
behalf of Eritrea on equal footing with the power that 
feeds them? Shouldn’t this disconcerting fact give cause 
for concern? 
  
vi. Can a political organisation that is dependent lock, 
stock and barrel on a self-interested external power and 
which lacks the means of generating revenues from 
alternative  
sources, including from its constituency be able to lead 
the process of democratic change by developing and 
implementing an independent  
political programme? Since there has been no such 
precedent in history, the burden of proof lies on those 
who want us to believe such a miracle  
is possible. 
  
vii. A distressing issue that should give cause for 
serious concern and   which may be a manifestation of the 
EDA’s narrow-mindedness is its blanket endorsement of the 
divisive  
resolutions adopted by the tribal entrepreneurs who met  
at Mekelle a few days before the Addis Ababa meeting. The 
Mekelle, meeting attended  
by Eritrea’s future tribal warlords in making, was a 
precursor of the Addis meeting. The tribal entrepreneurs 
were lectured in the rights of  
nationalities, including the right to secede by a Tigrean 
and Canadian consultants based on Joseph Stalin’s dull 
theory of the ‘national question.’ To what extent was the 
Addis Ababa meeting informed by the sectarian resolutions 
of the tribal warlords in making? How can an alliance 
that endorses the resolutions of tribal entrepreneurs 
whose raison détre is to fragment Eritrea and Eritrean 
society into minuscule  
tribal fiefdoms aspire to be a viable substitute to the 
regime in Asmara?   
        
In conclusion, a movement or an alliance which on the one 
hand, draws no  lessons from history and on the other, 
tries to turn the wheel of   
history backward in a rapidly globalising world is likely 
to end up in the museum of antiquity. However, unless 
Eritrean democrats are vigilant and guard against such 

dangers, some irreparable damages may be inflicted on the 
cause the fallen heroes and heroines paid their precious 
lives for. 
  
The two most important lessons people striving to replace 
the incumbents in Asmara should learn from history are 
firstly, there are no short-cuts to power. As people who 
suffered 65,000 deaths and more than 100,000 injuries, we 
should be able to realise the value of such an adage. 
Only individuals and organisations that are in a state of 
delusion would think that they can sustain power served 
to them on a plate. 
  
Secondly, any political   organisation or movement that 
is determined to bring about political change should not 
allow itself being used as an instrument in the two 
governments’  ominous scheme of mutual destruction.    
  
It is vital, therefore, that CDRiE and other like-minded 
organisations raise and debate the uncomfortable and 
disconcerting scenarios that  
have been unfolding in our region always bearing in mind 
the common good of the voiceless people of Eritrea and 
the region. A certain dose  
of humility is also necessary, namely, it is it is 
important to guard against speaking on behalf of the 
people. We should only speak from our  
own perspectives without pretending to know what our 
people think.    
  
  
  
2010/8/31 Yebio Woldemariam  
  
  
Dear Redi 
This is the first time that the EC was challenged 
directly and in the open for the actions it took on 
behalf of CDRiE. In my opinion, I consider this as 
positive development in the long journey of CDRiE to 
evolving  into truly civic organization ready to 
accommodate diverse  
views within it. I also choose to consider the   present 
dialogue as a continuation of the debate/discussion 
albeit, universal (remotely connected to the situation at 

home)  that has been going on in CDRiE's  
Googlegroup in the past two years and in particular 
during the early months of this year. Although the 
discussion conducted failed to  
attract many and was confined to few members of our 
organization, namely Bee, Amal, Gaim, Tewelde and few 
others whose name escaped me, nevertheless it was 
passionate and educational for us to remember.   
Be that as it may, the most direct query one dealing with 
the inner working of our organization in relation to the 
political situation in Eritrea is  raised by you (Redi) 
and you alone. Personally and as a member of EC, I 
appreciate you for questioning the wisdom behind the 
recent  editorial regarding the NCDC in AA. In truth the 
EC as an executive body embodies the spirit and sentiment 
of it's members. To that effect it took the liberty to 
approve the editorial posted in CDRiE.net. Was that an 
appropriate statement at the time were unity of  
purpose and action is most needed? I leave that to 
members to discuss it thoroughly. Therefore, your query 
is not out of place.  
  
  
At the time were communication through various electronic 
means is possible, it is up to the rank and file to 
discuss about our relationship with the political parties 
and civic organizations. The imperative of becoming 
active in the forthcoming "big" national conference and 
our role in influencing events by engaging with the 
Commission recently established in AA squarely lays in 
our hands. We are fortunate that our membership ranges 
from highly educated to  
moderately educated, old and young, Moslem to  Christian.  
 
Moreover, although we lack an equal representation of all 
the  nationalities that Eritrea is composed of, I would 
say we have sizeable number of women whom I find very 
active and deserve leadership position in the next Board 
election.   
It is therefore, incumbent upon  members to become active 
in shaping our role with regard to the political 
situation  in Eritrea and our  
relationship with the political organizations, Ethiopia, 
the Commission and host of other things that help bring 
an end to the tyrannical rule in Eritrea and peace within 

our region. 
  
Who said that medium of communication in the Googlegroup 
should only be in English? Tigrigna which I personally 
prefer more than English and  
Arabic can be used to relay messages with brief 
highlights of the theme in either of the three languages. 
  
  
In conclusion let me state one fact; in a situation  
where there is no proper tool to gauge the felling of 
members (the entire or more  
realistically partial), the EC has no choice but use the 
wide guidelines put in CDRiE's mission and Charter to 
express it's views. 
  
  
I therefore  implore upon each and everyone of us to 
discuss issues mentioned in passing and strive to be true 
to ourselves before pointing fingers at the leadership 
which is basically the reflection of the entire 
membership, that is, how mature and committed it is Thank 
you again, Redi 
 
Regards 
Yebio 
  
  
   
Dear Dr Yebio, 
  
Thank you for the note.  I don’t believe I raised a 
controversial issue.  The Editorial (author/s) raised the 
issues.  The simple fact is the ed