Extracted PDF page text

Microsoft Word - PP2004a.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.

 1
Past and Present, Eritrea’s Leadership is to blame. Does Eritrea really learn? 
Negarritt-Gazette 89E (NG89E) January 01 2005 
 
“Eritrea needs us and we need Eritrea” (NG89E). 
 
“The visibility of the invisibility in politics proclaims that there is no-hiding place for  
   suzerains but the end of their political commodities” (NG89E). 
 
 “Nay gizieyen bottan hitto  de-a-ember  zi-h-baaEs  yel-lon”(NG89E). 
 
Introduction:  
 
NG89E was founded on February 15 2001. Its first version appeared on the internet 
on April 6 2002. The second version was published on December 28 2002. This is 
now its third version to publicise. Its motto is:  ‘free information to a free generation 
in a freed body and mind’  as well as  ‘ex cultu robur’ meaning ‘strength through 
knowledge’. 
 
NG89E represents the voice of the 8 states  and 9 ethnic communities in Eritrea. This 
makes 89 as its code of identification. One of  its focuses is to expose Eritrea’s current 
or past history of any kind of  political, social, or cultural activities that had or had 
been performed but manipulated by an indivi dual, an organisation, a government or a 
community. It functions as a ‘watch dog ’ with a philosophical theory as its 
background principle.  Its philosophical theo ry is that ‘learning is building up and 
moving forward to make a difference’. Educat ionally, it adopts the principle of self-
critical learning. Learning to a self-critical is one step forward. It recognises the 
concept of living in difference. It reject s suffering in silence for good reason – give 
and take information. To share its information with the people of Eritrea, for Eritrea is 
its ethical and moral obligation.  It takes this as its prime task. NG89E declares to 
have no political affiliation to EPLF / PFDJ  or ELF Parties.  NG89E draws the line 
not to take sides but it firmly believes in unity of all Eritreans, for peace and justice 
under the practice of the right democracy. 
 
It is the pleasure of NG89E to be here today and to have this opportunity to speak on a 
topic which it feels so pa ssionately by taking the ma tter seriously. The issue of 
today’s writing is about a political an alysis focusing on the current different 
leadership personalities and different politi cal parties emerged from the EPLF / PFDJ 
in Eritrea. The analysis is mainly centred on the nature of EPLF – DP / EDP based on 
a survey study of 486 Eritrean respondent s in 10 months in 2003. These respondents 
are composed of Eritreans of both genders of different ages li ving in USA, Canada, 
Europe, Australia, Middle East and Africa, including Eritrea.  
 
 
Political Analysis – The EPLF-DP / EDP 
 
NG89E has welcomed the creation of the EP LF-DP as an oppositi on political party. 
Its welcome is based not only on its move  and motive in taking a stand of opposition 
to the undemocratic rule of the Government  of Eritrea (GoE), but because of the 
NG89E’s principle of philosophical convectio n to believe and accept the practice of 

 2
freedom to establish a system of multi-parties in a democratic society as a bedrock to 
a nation’s development. 
 
NG89E uses its own observations to captur e and measure events of current political 
phenomena. Whenever it assesses the delicate issue of politics in Eritrea, it does not 
rush to make a conclusive judgement or re port. It encourages itself to deal with 
reservations because of what it observes, it needs time for reflection and verification 
of the observed action before advancing to  report.  Based on this, NG89E admits 
openly to have exalted th e EPLF-DP’s co-founder, lead er and chairman General 
Mesfin Hagos (GMH). This took place as he appeared in Europe for the first time in 
2001 as a political ‘icon’ of opposition. GMH is known to the Eritrean public as one 
of the signatories of the ‘O pen Letter’ of the so called ‘reformers’. These reformers 
were the high-ranking dissidents  known as G15. 11 out of G15 are still in Eritrean 
custody of President Issaias Afeworki’s  (PIA’s) in an unknown place, since 
September 18 2001. However, for unknown reasons, GMH has remained untouched 
being away from the trouble of his jailed comrades by enjoying freedom in Europe.  
The freedom in Europe is GMH’s re-birth to  mould the rest of his life with a new 
shape of mental development. But in practi ce, this does not seem to have occurred. 
The question to be raised is ‘why is he in Eu rope’? Certainly, it is far too early to be 
judging. It is not easy to answer the question either. But, arguably, there is a grey area 
in Eritrean politics that is stifled between the GMN and the detained G-11 as well as 
between GMH and PIA. However, according to the NG98E’s survey study of 10 
months, most Eritreans (95.8%)  believe the mystery is between GMH and PIA. The 
truth is yet to come. It is only a matter of time to reveal the dodgy affair which has 
already started to be palpated by our people.   
 
However, retrospectively speaking and in  the re-assessment of NG89E, that high 
praise given to GMH was for nothing. Such praise in erratum will remain only as an 
occasion for disappointment but certainly scar in the memo ry in history. At the same 
time it is also good to know why NG89E praised GMH so highly. This was because 
firstly, NG89E has a moral obligation to encourage GMH or a ny other politician 
individual who sides to our oppressed peopl e. Secondly, NG89E respects, recognises 
and preserves the Eritrean cultural heritage of  the meaning of an ‘old age’ of a person 
in our society. In a positive sense, an old age has a significant role to play. ‘Becoming 
and being older’ means to get priority in our  tradition in many respects of decision 
making in the daily life of our people. 
 
As a result, NG89E has been aware of the old age of GMH. It considers his old age 
uniquely as an era of a golden historical lifespan. The question to be asked is that why 
‘uniquely’? By way of example, NG89E atte mpts to describe the ‘uniqueness of his 
lifespan’. Our societal tradition of oral hist ory is partly based on a logical view and 
makes here an account to endorse the uni queness. ‘GMH, through his ups and downs 
in his life experience, is expected to ha ve developed a better body and mind’, as our 
ancestor’s golden proverb says “Sah-Erin leb-be’n enda-hadere yibek-kul”  
(word by word it is said that ‘grass and human heart grow and develop every night 
with the increase of age’). In the light of this background, and by that time, NG89E 
took the personal and physical appearance of GMH into account as he began to tour in 
Europe and attend Eritrean public meetings of the diaspora. NG89E  viewed this as a 
valuable political asset in the opposition  camp and positive step of progress in a 
political road. By that time, GMH seemed committed to fight his own PFDJ but now 

 3
failing to show any transferability as the time rolls by. At this point, it should be noted 
that some Eritreans were already critical of GMH for his cloak-and-dagger behaviour. 
Today, in a political analysis, the critics have proved to vindicate the case that there is 
some truth with the cloak-and-dagger behaviour of GMH. For them (the critics), 
GMH’s behaviour did not come as a surp rise. GMH’s politics  is perceived and 
revealed today as an act of a smoking gu n of a mushroom cloud shot by microwaves 
of artificial bullets. This issue of cloak- and-dagger behaviour will be treated later 
more clearly.  
 
Putting the behaviour aside, NG89E goes back  to address the point of the concern of 
old age. GMH was highl y regarded as a veteran fighter  in the Eritrean struggle for 
independence. Hence, it was e xpected that he would be an ambassador of truth, at 
least, ethically and politically. It was expect ed that he might contribute some positive 
aspects of winning and leading political strategi es to the divided soci ety of Eritrea. It 
was expected that his contribution might heal the old wound between ELF and EPLF / 
PFDJ. As a result, it was expected that our people might come to work in unity. All 
the hope put on the shoulders of GMH blurred away on one day like a wind on the 
desert or like a human shadow that can’t be touched and controlled. All this ended up 
with the disappointment of our people. Wi thout exaggeration, all the expectations 
blew away like chimney smoke from the mi nds and hearts of our people. Our people 
simply have earned disappointments from one  event to the other since his presence in 
Europe and in particular as the specu lations and observation surrounding GMH 
negatively grew as he was unable to show determination in addressing a clear political 
programme to fight the Asmara regime. His la ck of credibility grows as he is and was 
unwilling to tell the truth to the public whenever he was asked in every meeting.  
 
Moreover, the disappointment was clearly hi ghlighted and realised as the members of 
the EPLF-DP came for a meeting from 20 to 22 February 2004 in Tuebingen, 
Germany. According to reliable sources, in  the meeting, on the first introduction day, 
Ambassador Adhanom Ghebre-Mariam (AAG ) declared his withdrawal from the 
EPLF-DP. Even though AAG decided to l eave the party that he co-founded, he 
contributed his ideas to the Party in developing its future programme. In the debate, in 
summary, 1) AAG strongly opposed the cu rrent governmental inter-state boundaries 
(Awrajatat) and that he suggested the re-instatement of the old geographical system in 
Eritrea. 2) AAG advocated for the study of  the two available national languages in 
Eritrea and that a final decision could only be made by the people of Eritrea 
themselves. Third, AAG suggested the view of the length of time of a president to be 
four years and that the re-election shoul d be maximum two times including the first 
election. Four, AAG contributed  the benefits of the practice of executive, legislative 
and judiciary system in the Eritrean democracy. The debated programmes were finally 
approved by the party, even though GMH and hi s like tried to oppose to some of the 
passed motions, for example, changing the inter-sate boundaries (Awarajatat) to their 
status quo positions and the questions of national languages.  
 
However, on top of the prog rammes debates, the meeting was dominated by the 
party’s internal and external conflicts ma inly between GMH and AAG. On the third 
day, AAG gave a full account of his withdrawal from the party. His speech brought to 
light that there were signi ficant failures committed from the side of GMH and his 
allies that led to disarray of the co-founders due to lack of co-operation, collaboration, 
transparency,  responsibilities and accounta bilities. Such an open conflict in the 

 4
leadership of the EPLF-DP, brought anger, frustration and disappointment to many 
members and delegates of the party.  
 
In a political analysis, such a conflict means to drive the political wheel of EPLF-DP 
backwards rather than forwards. On the othe r hand, such a conflict may bring forth a 
birth of new politics. From the view point of AAG’s addressed issues and 
explanations, there was a serious conspiracy  theory against the Deputy Chairman of 
the EPLF-DP. This conspiracy theory caused destruction of the relationship within the 
leadership of EPLF-DP that was marred for a long time by many deteriorating and 
negative factors. As declared by AAG, one of the disturbing examples of the 
conspiracy theories was that when GMH made secret meetings with Ethiopian 
authority officials in Norway  without the consultation of his deputy, AAG, on what 
issues to talk about and the nature of the plan before meeting any Ethiopian official.  
 
The question to be raised here is that how could GMH do this to his Deputy? After all, 
he has been his comrade for decades but why then GMH kept secret? As long as 
GMH does not give a clear answer and expl anation for his unilateral action, such 
action and behaviour can only be interprete d or perceived as a political plot or 
conspiracy theory. However, the fact remain s that such inexcusable human failures in 
the politics of the EPLF-DP led to build an open bridge within itself. This open bridge 
of a political highway is curre ntly in an un-negotiable position between the founders 
of the EPLF-DP who were once the old comrades in both the pre- and post 
independence of Eritrean. Whil e so was the case of both disruption and construction 
at the heart of the three-day-meeting in Tu ebingen, it was declared that the EPLF-DP 
was transformed into another party, calle d ‘Eritrean Democratic Party’ (EDP). 
Furthermore, the party nominated its new le aders but with more or less the same old 
personalities. For those who already know the Eritrean politics, the change of a 
party’s name and the nomination of the same leaders could not come as surprise.  
 
In an interpretative analysis, the change of name from EPLF-DP to EDP is nothing 
more than dressing the old gown and gloves. It could only be orchestrated and 
crowned by the old tricks and track record of  the EPLF’s outdated leadership tactics. 
Our people are well experienced with such be haviour of the EPLF. If that was not the 
case, AAG would not leave the EPLF-DP. No matter of what type of changes the 
EDP might make, the perception of our pe ople towards EDP leadership will remain 
unchanged as long as GMH and his allies in the leadership remain unclean in every 
action of their approaches to their own pe ople. For our people, the EPLF’s oral and 
recorded histories are both evidence of a li ving bible for such unclean make-up of the 
EPLF’s nature.  Consequently, as stated above, besides his declaration to withdraw 
himself from the party, AAG announced cl early that he would fight the Asmara 
regime in his own way.   
 
In the eyes of the NG89E, this is a bold and remarkable action of AAG. But such bold 
action has yet to be seen in practice whethe r AAG will stick to the guns of his words. 
Time will measure and prove the future  achievements of AAG. However, in 
preliminary analysis, it is fair to witnes s that AAG can currently claim that he has 
achieved something GMH never managed. This is to say the goal-oriented struggle of 
AAG to establish either a united political part y and/or political parties in partnership  
in Eritrea in less than a years time, is the reality of our time. In a comparative analysis 
of political development between AAG and GMH, there is nothing tangible so far that 

 5
GMH can offer to the Eritrean people. NG89E  can equally stand on the side of GMH 
by the time, he invents ‘a wonder or magic medicine’ to Eritrea but in action and not 
words.   
 
NG89E believes that political unionism must face up to the new realities in Eritrea. 
Further, NG89E believes that a peace proc ess – any peace process – is enormously 
difficult. But with determination and a preparation to take risks and make 
compromises, a peace process can succeed. For this, South Africa can be a good 
example. But a peace process can also fa il. Good example for this happening is the 
tragedy unfolding each day in Middle East, esp ecially, Iraq, Palestine, Israel etc. Let 
us learn from these places of political turmoil. 
 
However, what has come up, significantly, with this move, was the nature of the 
naked personality of GMH. Th is move has given an opport unity to examine, analyse 
and question GMH. To begin with, the basic questions are that: 1) What is wrong with 
GMH? 2) What makes him silent? 3) How long  is his silence? 4) When is the time 
that he speaks out the truth? 5) When is the time that he tells us what he knows? This 
move may seem a new phenomenon of politics for those who do not know who GMH 
is or was.   
 
In a political analysis, the move is about a stage of demonstration of a political arena 
in which GMH is hit back by self-exposure of plot in having a hidden agenda after 
two years of underground rehearsal in a cl osed circle. It seems to NG89E that GMH 
does not grasp that the majority of our people are no more credulous to accept 
everything as it was in the past. On the contrary, today, our people are becoming more 
and more critical and reflective. From the viewpoint of social sciences, it is the debate 
and questioning that sharpens the test of  democratic taste of our peoples’ mind. 
Weighing up all these factors and driving forces, NG89E is keenly determined to look 
at the EDP’s leadership personalities. Therefore, NG89E makes the following account 
of GMH’s fait accompli culture. 
 
In the light of the above given background of explanations, there are considerable 
characteristics of GMH that prove him to disqualify himself from being a good leader 
and a good politician. Why is it so? The mega-bite- deep-store of his hidden agenda is 
now going to be operated one by one in the proceeding part of different issues. 
 
 
Issue One: Silence v Exposure 
 
NG89E, in all is efforts, articulates its wo rds to make GMH aware of himself and his 
leadership. In its emphasis, NG89E says that human minds are like parachutes, 
and that they work best only when open. What does this statement mean? And 
how is it related to GMH? Its relati onship is that the mind of GMH has the 
characteristics of either being totally closed  or one-sided. It is one-sided when GMH 
makes a deal with his Master in Asmara to  represent PIA to continue the legacy of 
dictatorship not only inside Eritrea but also  outside Eritrea. Such behaviour is easily 
interpretable to describe GMH the type of ‘Ende Rassie’, i.e. GMH is representing the 
GoE himself in the name of PIA.  That is why, it is easily thinkable to those who are 
experienced politicians to see this way or come to the doubt of the availability of 
political conspiracy theory. This is not unexplainable. GMH is totally closed when he 

 6
does not open the door to share his heart with the other political parties and concerned 
individuals that consider themselves as repr esentatives of the Eritrean people in the 
interest of Eritrea. This t ype of behaviour makes GMH di stinct that he may not only 
be the ‘Representative of PIA or PFDJ’ but perhaps another person by far worst than 
the PIA, when he does not learn anything from the past. At this point, it is notable to 
ask the question: Can the old age be a cause  for the absence of self-reflection? Self-
reflection means it is as just as looking y ourself in a mirror to make adjustments that 
reflect realities. How did this happen to GM H that he is not self-reflective? But our 
forefathers were still self-reflective even when they try to defend themselves. For how 
long can a ‘Berlin Wall’ behaviour continue? For how long is the dogmatic belief of 
‘no inclusion but exclusion’ to continue?  For how long can a political ‘isolation’ be 
in limbo? What is the consequence of being ‘a Berlin Wall’? To elaborate on this, it is 
a scientific and logical argument to highl ight the practical and factual problems 
associated with ‘a parachute’.  If the parachute does not open that means the one 
hanging on the parachute has little chance to su rvive. That is to say a death or a body 
injury is to be anticipated, resulting fr om a fall in an unknown area – ocean, lake, 
rock, forest etc. Hence, the risk of being no t open is greater than its value. Such a risk 
in politics can be interpreted as a risk fo r self-death / self-murder / self-hanging, or 
self-isolation. Then why does GMH seek risks rather than safety. That is why people 
think of conspiracy theory that there is so mething a kind of political gamble with the 
Asmara regime. 
 
 
What is the meaning of silence? 
 
The other side of silence versus exposure is hiding valuable information from the 
people of Eritrea. This equates GMH in his behaviour to suggest that he is trying to 
prolong his existence of self-adva ntage and his Master’s life to stay in authority. That 
means GMH is hiding all the present and past  conspiracies and crimes of the inside-
closed-circle life of the EPLF. Imagine how many Eritreans lost their lives since the 
inception of the EPLF for the legacy of  PIA. Imagine how many Eritreans have 
become disabled mentally or physically or both. If GMH is unwill ing to tell the truth 
of his personal experience of the inside-closed-circle life of the EPLF, then there is 
only one option to think about. Th is one option, is to think is that GMH is directly or 
indirectly but deliberately to be blamed fo r hiding the facts needed to be exposed to 
the Eritrean public. Surely, this is to opt with hindsight of the political interpretation 
that GMH is doing it for the purpose of cover up and of self-survival as well as of PIA 
as highlighted earlier.  
 
As a result, NG89E strongly criticises GMH’s failure to accept to say: ‘I have learned 
a huge lesson. Now I have to stand up for what  is right’. His insisting on divulging is 
as if someone is deliberately keeping his cards close to his chest for fear that his 
Master PIA will withdraw the title and authority of ‘Ende Rassie’ as well as reject 
him from clinging to power after PIA. 
 
All this will not help GMH if a thing is to be  rectified.  It is worth to think that every 
act that occurred in the Eritrean struggle for independence is important. It is the 
highest time to reflect and be critical to th e self. GMH’s life is a part of Eritrean 
history because it is and was a part of our pe ople’s life. Therefore, what is essentially 
needed, is the whiteness and purity of his hear t in all dimensions. It is worth noting to 

 7
remember the words of the Italian sculptor and painter, Michael Angelo: ‘Trifles make 
perfection, but perfection is no trifle’ . In contrast, what is needed from GMH is 
clarity, candour, transparency, accountab ility and competence and not silence, 
conspiracy and hostility against each other or the ELF as a whole. 
 
In light of the above arguments and explanations, one thing NG89E can’t resist telling 
GMH is that to bear in mind that the cloc k is ticking against him with every step his 
foot lands at a different angle, which is ra rely the kind of angle nature intended, and 
that every footfall could lead to a sprain, fracture or fall. This is an anatomical 
analysis that describes the political realities and possibilities in Eritrea today and in 
the past.  
 
Now the time seems to be ripe so that politicians do the job squarely and efficiently. If 
GMH learns to welcome new experience, he will find he can cope with a wide variety 
of situations in new and helpful ways. But the fact is that GMH does not look to be. If 
he is to remain the driving force within hi s party or other Eritrean parties, first, he 
must prove a pill too bitter for him to swallow. This is that NG89E asks GMH to spell 
out the following events without any reservation: 
 
A. How GMH feels today when he thinks or reflects  back, just to mention a few 
examples,  about:  
 
1. The Eritrean civil war, i.e. killing each other between EPLF and ELF in 1960s 
– 1980s? 
2. The documentary agreement between PIA and the CIA in Asmara, Decamere 
or Alla – Seled - Berazio in the 1960s - 1970s, perhaps even later?   
3. The death of Abraham Tewolde in Alla, Egela-Hames, Akele-Guzai in 1960s? 
4. The killing of Eritrean students, known as ‘ Deki Kebessa ’ in the ELF in 
1960s? 
5. The killing and imprisoning of innocent fighters / Tegaldeti/  in 1970s – 1980s 
being called Menka-E members? Those dead ones came to the war field 
voluntarily to fight the Ethiopian Imperial  Rule in order to fulfil their dreams 
of Eritrea’s total independence and soci etal freedom, but unfortunately, they 
were labelled by the EPLF leadership as Extreme Leftists ( Huluf 
Tsegemawian) and Extreme Rightists ( Huluf Yemanawian). This was because 
of their demand to see the implementati on of democracy in practice within the 
rule of the EPLF. 
6. The death of Woldemichael Haile (Wedi Haile or Te-ame Haile) in 1977?  
7. The death of Amanuel Flanssa (Wedi Keshi) in 1970s? 
8. The death of Betsaiy Goitom Berhe in 1970s? 
9. The death of Ibrahim Affa in 1980s? 
10. The death of Solomon Woldemariam in 1980s? 
11. The death of Issias Tewolde (Wodi Flanssa) in 1980s? 
12. The death of Tesfa-Giorghis Georgo (Wedi Georgo), Addis Ababa, in 1990s?  
13. The imprisonment of fighters after the ev ent of demonstration that took place 
in Asmara football stadium in 1993? 
14. The death of the physically handicapped fighters ( Akale Senkulan Tegadelti)  
in Mai-Habar 1994? 
15. The abuse of our females from Tegadelti and civilians since decades? 

 8
16. The execution of ca 150 Eritrean prisoners on June 18 and 19, 1997 in the 
outskirts of Asmara, around Kushet? 
17. The imprisonment of close comrades, i. e. the Government Ministers, called 
the G-11, on September 18 2000?  
18. The current death of the youth and adults in Addi Abbetto in November 2004. 
They were composed of civilians and Tegadelti? 
19.  and many more? 
 
B. How would GMH describe the above deaths  to the public: murder (as a first hand 
murder, or second hand murder) slaughter, frie ndly killing or shooting, natural death, 
etc.? And how would GMH justify the death of each individual? 
   
C. Can GMH tell the Eritrean people about  the selection criteria of squads in 
organising the process of hujjum wars in the past? Who made decisions on who 
should go to die (similar to euthanasia: involuntarily sentence to death)? Who was 
allowed to stay to serve the interest of  the leaders within the EPLF? C1) Can GMH 
tell us today, whether those Eritrean fighters were, in reality, suicide bombers or not? 
C2) Did they give their consent when they were asked to do the job of ‘hujjum’? Were 
they voluntarily giving their names to go for ‘hujjum’? Or C3) were they forced to do 
so because a democratic right of questioning and answering was not an issue at all and 
that there were no criteria at all? Or C4) as the EPLF exploiting and commanding 
motto insists, ‘do the job first and then ask’, or   face a military discipline’. 
That means someone asks when he dies. Such a military exploiting measure was 
barbaric, unrealistic, impossible, immoral, unethical, and inhumane despicable and 
inexcusable act. 
 
By the way, what is hujjum? Hujjum is originally an Arabic word. It may have a 
different meaning than this version. Howe ver, according the Eritrean EPLF military 
use, experience and perception of it, it me ans that a soldier fights the enemy in an 
open way by giving his / her life  to be martyr. In its practi ce, it was a forced martyr 
and not voluntary because the soldier was chosen by the leader to act in such a 
manner to accomplish the military message with great probability of dying. If the 
chosen soldier did not accept the command of  his / her leader, he / she should face a 
military action. Even today this behaviour  is exercised in the battle field. The 
evidence is the recent border war with Ethiopi a. The only difference to the past is that 
today an individual is not chosen but a unit or units ( ‘ganta’ in Tigrigna) as a whole. 
One ‘ganta’ has three units. Each unit has 16-20 members. Three units make up one 
‘ganta’ of 40-60 members of fighters. One ‘g anta’ from a company or battalion is 
chosen respectively, for every necessary occasion to be a martyr, for example, to clear 
away a mined area to create a loop or a passage for use to run away from or attack an 
enemy position. Such a circumstance, obviou sly, presents and demonstrates the 
occurrence of deliberate death with great probability. 
 
D. Can GMH tell us about the land ownershi p system, the ‘selling or buying criteria’ 
and their processes in the Region of his pa st administration in which our people still 
blame his management in the South Zone of Eritrea? 
 
E. Can GMH tell us about how the gender issu e in Eritrea is thrown under the carpet 
when our females have become slavers of the male dominance culture within the 
authority positions of the PFDJ.   

 9
 
F. Can GMH tell us who was a real CIA agent in Eritrea? 
 
G. Can GMH tell us who was preaching to the Eritrean people, saying we are fighting 
against Ethiopian rule and a ll other types of capitalism, imperialism of the Western 
World and Zionism of Israel?  
 
H. Can GMH tell us about who was getti ng medical treatment in the care of the 
Israelites in the heartland of Israel? 
 
I. Can GMH tell us of how many Eritreans were allegedly accused of beings agents of 
Imperialism and Zionism, and then sentenced to death?  
 
J. Can GMH tell us who have been the gamblers and alcoholics in the secret pubs of 
Asmara or other cities or towns in Eritrea at nights since 1991? 
 
K. Can GMH tell us about the hidden ag enda between the EPLF and TPLF in the 
1980s and 1990s as well as between PIA and Ethiopia’s PM Me les Zenawi in the 
1990s? 
 
L. Can GMH explain to our people, why EPLF or PFDJ works under the cover of the 
wrong unhealthy systematic operation of ‘no- trust- culture’ throughout its life which 
has become the ultimate main cause to its self-destruction? Is PFDJ aware of this? 
 
In conclusion, in the mind of NG89E, ‘only the dead have seen the end of the war’ 
and of the ‘no- trust- culture’. Analytically, this means that our people are not blessed 
to live peacefully. On the contrary, our pe ople are sentenced to die in continuum to 
see the end of war not necessarily by the God’s Will  but by the human exploiting 
abuse of power in order to serve the one man’s life, the Eritrean President including 
his handful of diehard followers. 
 
Up and down the country, let us look at what is happening now. Some highways are 
no longer in control under the world of th e Government of the odious tyrant, since 
there is no safety and security outside the capital. This is evident on the account of the 
state of emergency in certain areas outside the capital. The spirits and courage of our 
youth have melted away by forcibly locking th em up in the front for fire and cold in 
the name of an Army of National Defence  and in the name of the National Service. 
Development projects of the reconstruction of the nation have come to halt when 
people are not available to work with inte rest and full capacity. When the country’s 
economy is hit and its fuel has become ra tionale, isn’t this the sign of the GoE’s 
corruption and collapse? Then how can a govern ment run?  When jailing people is on 
the daily agenda and when jail centres out number the healthcare staff and healthcare 
institutions, then how can a nation function? National e ducation suffers under poor 
resources. How can education function when  the educators and the learners are not 
there in the schools? How can education function when the youth and adults are 
hunted down from their homes for military purposes in continuum? No one 
understands the circumstances of our youth and adults when their minds are beset 
with the physical and psyc hological pressure, terror, intimidation of their own 
Government. Hence, there is no wonder when education is failing. The cost of daily 
life is painful when there is a big ga p between supply and demand in the common 

 10
market.  It is logic to say where there is no national income and where there is no 
national production and where there is no free market economy, it is not only a matter 
of the quality of living of the community to  be questioned but also a matter of the end 
of life for the community. That is why many of our youths have fled their country to 
the neighbouring countries, such as the S udan, Ethiopia, Dji bouti, Yemen, Saudi 
Arabia, and fled further up to Kenya, Libya,  Egypt and then to Malta and Italy to the 
Mediterranean Sea; from there again to the rest of the world. All this is to search for a 
place of better life, peace of body and mind,  freedom of speech and press, dignity and 
respect of human rights, shelter and pr otection from the physical, psychological, 
mental and social stresses of the human labo ur exploitation in their homeland by their 
own governors. These governors (from the highest to the lowest level of the 
administration) seem not only to lack the faintest idea of how to bring peace to 
Eritrea, but they also seem not to understand the values – such as basic human rights – 
which our people hoped to bring to our c ountry. Was this all that our people should 
have to deserve? Was this all the meaning of our martyrs those who gave their lives 
for the sake of their country, Eritrea and people of Eritrea? Was this all that our 
people voted in referendum for the total i ndependence of Eritrea in 1993?  Was this 
all what EPLF / PFDJ promised to do 1977, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1994 etc?   All these 
are the realities and not illusions of our time.   But there is one fact that remains and 
this is, as to the mind of NG89E, ‘only the dead have seen the end of the war’, as 
stated before. This means, these are our martyrs who are lying in peace beneath the 
earth. Their suffering is gone once and for all. But those who are alive are having a 
bitter agony that is not only once and for all but in continuity as long as they live on 
earth under the legacy of their bad governor s. The question is how could have our 
people been so mislead? Once, twice, trice etc? 
 
 
Issue: GMH’s Nomination as EDP’s Chairman ??? 
 
History repeats itself. This is a typical EPLF’s behaviour of elections behind doors 
throughout its life. Who is to be nominate d or elected is already decided not by the 
grass root members but by those who are po litical power seeks who are at the top 
level. Grass roots members can only act as tools and cover-ups. There are many 
examples of such unethical and undemocratic practices of incorrect procedures and 
rules in Shabia / EPLF . Precisely, this old trick wa s played down in the EPLF-DP 
Congress in Tuebingen, Germany. The incorrect rule is simple to explain. Things are 
organised  and arranged in advance:  
 
1. in how to nominate someone as a candidate; 
2. who from the grass roots has a privat e voice (‘per pro’ means ‘through an 
agent’) to mention that candidate of th e hidden agenda in the name of the 
majority;  
3. or who from the already available lead ership members can give his voice of 
support to nominate someone to ensure  the representation of their interest.  
 
In EPLF’s view, this design shows that it is  a practice of an open democracy. In 
reality, this is a robbery of democracy. The grass roots have not an autonomous say 
but to accept the passed resolution. On the other hand, it is organised, how the would-
be candidate to behave or react during the el ection process. This is to show disinterest 
in the candidacy, responsibility, management , leadership and ultimate power. This 

 11
may mean in the politics that someone who is a candidate may look innocent and 
disinterest in having power at all. In fact , the political bargain has already been made. 
In such agreement, the end goal of achievin g power is already secured. This system 
has been working for decades in the EPLF  and now witnessed in our modern time, 
especially in the heart of Eu rope. Members are faced with a fait accompli rule  when 
decisions affecting them have been made. The following statements from a reliable 
source confirm what GMB said in his own words in Tuebingen during the nomination 
and election of the new EDP leadership:  
 
“I will not seek political office and I will not accept the nomination of my party for 
another term as your Chairman because I am not physically fit for the demanding 
position” (GMH 20-22 February 2004 Tuebingen, Germany). 
 
 When some members insisted and some objected to the nomination, GMH said  “I 
can only contribute as a member not as an officer”. 
 
The political drama did not st op there. His (GMH’s) colleague, Dr. Asefaw Tekeste 
took a position by raising his voice in support of GMH. Dr. Asefaw emphatically said 
“the Party can’t function without GMH”.  
 
As GMH heard such a pre-designed voice of support, it did not even take him (GMH) 
a fraction of a second to change his (GMH’s) mind. All the rhetoric of GMH was out 
of the window. Finally, GMH said, “If you insist I will accept the nomination”.  
 
As it was pre-organised, this enabled GMH to  be a chairman of the EDP. Questions: 
If GMH really feels physically unfit, why di d he accept it? How about mentally, is he 
really fit to lead a party? What made him change his mind in seconds as if he was not 
for nomination and election? Is this a sign of a positive metal health when GMH 
changed his mind in seconds? Where is GMH’ s honesty? What is his relationship to 
Dr. Asefaw Tekeste in particular? What do they have in common? Why did Dr. 
Asefaw Tekeste show a special interest in GMH? Or is GMH a political tool for Dr. 
Asefaw’s unknown mission or ambition? Time will come to expose every one and 
question. Time will set the record straight for the sake of truth and the public. 
 
Conclusion: In a political analysis, GMH’s election of chairmanship in Tuebingen 
was and is an act of conspiracy. This is to say his nomination was illegal, unethical 
and undemocratic process. This  was and is the same as it was and is in the EPLF’s 
history, the current PFDJ’s administration, and in the PIA’s leadership style that does 
not allow transparency and accountability. 
 
 
Issue Two: GMH’s Speech on August 22 2004   
 
The other dilemma of GMH is his speech delivered on August 22 2004. In his speech, 
he made clear that he tr ies to represent the PIA by advocating the case of the 
boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia. The po int is that GMH still fails to address 
the bone of contention in Eritrea. The bone of contention has two main factors waiting 
for resolution. One is that internal and the other is external. The external is dependent 
on the internal factor. This means the internal factor is the internal problem in Eritrea. 
 

 12
The external factor is the external probl em with Ethiopia and the rest of our 
neighbouring countries. The in ternal factor is multifaceted. On the one hand, the 
problem is between the Government and th e people including the opposition parties 
and inside the Government within itself.  On  the other hand, it is among the different 
opposition groups.  All these problems and fa ctors affecting each other are the result 
of the GoE for not being able to lead a country and its people appropriately. GMH 
fails to mention the main problems and fails to criticize PIA openly. Any sustainable 
solution in Eritrea is dependent on the quality, ability and capacity of Eritrea’s 
Government and its relation to its own people.  
 
But the reality is that the GoE has proved to have neither quality, ability and capacity 
to govern nor has positive relationship to its own people. Where there is lack of 
governance, relationship, communication, co -ordination and co-operation, it means it 
is a downfall of a nation. When this is th e case of our current problem which is not 
only imminent but visible and palpable, how on earth can GMH talk about the conflict 
on boundary with Ethiopia rather than to pi npoint and articulate the main problem of 
Eritrea that it has with its own Governme nt and its own people. This must have a 
priority in finding a solution for it is a prim ary in its nature rather  than to speak from 
the issue of  boundary which is secondary by comparison.  
 
The reason is simple to explain. The i ssue of boundary is a pure political game for 
both leaders in Eritrea and Ethiopia. Neither PIA nor PM  Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia 
can change the decision that is signed by them in 2000, Algeries, Algeria.  
 
However, both these leaders and signatories may try to intrigue their own peoples by 
creating internal and external conflicts in order to lengthen the time of their 
undemocratic rule now and then so that the two peoples of the two countries will not 
be able to live in peace and unity in their own homelands of separate entities. Peace in 
a nation and unity of people mean shorteni ng the life of trouble makers who are 
corrupt politicians, rulers and administra tors. Therefore, GMH has nothing to fear 
from Ethiopia but from his ma ster, the PIA whose life is surrounded and baptised by 
the spirit of conflict, deception and crime fr om the time of his leadership in Barka, 
then in Sahel and now throughout Eritrea.  
 
Therefore, the  fact of the matter is that the issue of boundary is not in the hands of 
PIA or PM Meles Zenawi but it is in the hands of the Hague’s Boundary Commission, 
UN, USA, EU, AU. These bodies are all together accountable to the decision made 
between Eritrea and Ethiopia. In other terms,  the decision is in the hands of the world 
community. Therefore, the decision is a dead issue that can’t be altered. That is why 
the decision is concluded and termed as ‘final and binding’ and ones for all. This 
argument is precisely proved with the a nnouncement of the Ethiopian Government on 
25 November 2004 that the Eritrea-Ethi opia Boundary Commission (EEBC) decision 
is wholly accepted and respected after Ethi opia’s rebellion but in vain. The world 
community has spoken with one voice in support of Ethiopia’s acceptance to the 
EEBC decision to start demarcation in a physic al way. Now the ball is in the court of 
the GoE for the implementation of the de marcation process. However, Eritrea, 
regardless of Ethiopia’s a cceptance, has already reject ed the Ethiopian positive 
response of the demarcation implementation.  The question is that who is moving the 
carriage wheels from the back to the front of the horse so that it will  be an obstacle - 
Eritrea or Ethiopia? Which leader is trying to buy time to lengthen reign by killing the 

 13
peace initiative – Eritrea’s or Ethiopia’s leader? Considering the current political 
developments on the Horn of Africa, the an swers for both questions  seem to be clear 
for the peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia.  
 
Hence, it would make more sense if GMH co uld be wise and talk about the unity of 
our people, the unity of the opposition parties as  his priority in his political agenda to 
get rid off the PIA if peace is to prevail in Eritrea. Without  an internal peace, no one 
can think of an external peace. In our past struggle for independence, it was the 
internal factor and not the external that was decisive in driving Ethiopia out of Eritrea. 
History repeats itself. Therefore, to win the internal factor means to defeat the PIA. 
This logical strategic solution of a long term  of an internal glory can only serve to 
prepare the next stage of managing the external factor. 
 
But GMH could not and cannot deliver this to  the people of Eritrea in this crucial 
period in which our people feel fatigue. On the contrary, GMH has disassociated 
himself from the people of Eritrea by spea king on behalf of the GoE and PIA. In a 
political analysis, this is to interpret that GMH is again acting as the PIA’s 
representative or the ambassador outside Eritrea . In a true sense, an ambassador is an 
honest man sent abroad to lie for his count ry. However, GMH does not seem to have 
any sign of ‘honesty’ in all his political activities. That is why it is a free option for 
NG89E or any other politician to think a nd to link the behaviour of GMH with a 
conspiracy theory.    
 
In conclusion, what GMH should or could do,  is, for example: i) to expose all the 
crimes done by the GoE and inflicted upon our people not only since May 1991 or 
May 1993, but since 1969, the Ad-dobha Convention ( Ackeb-ba Ad-dobha), the time 
of separation between ELF (Abbay Jebbha) and EPLF; ii) to speak for the Eritrean 
human right situation, and press freedom; iii)  to speak from national unity, national 
reconciliation, and national conference; iv) to open a debate on different important 
issues that are thought to divide the Eritr ean people, for example, national languages, 
inter-state boundaries (Awrajataat), private properties, land ownership; v) to advocate 
for a political consensus among all Eritrean  opposition parties, civil societies and 
religious institutions; and vi) to discus s on how to prepare a ground for the 
establishment of ‘Eritrean Parliament in Exile’ to avoid the risk of anarchy for power 
at a time of a political vacuum of transition. 
 
 
Issue Three: Foreign Policy 
 
History reveals that Eritrea  without the support of the Sudan Government and the 
Sudanese people would never exist as a nation with sovereignty, today. Eritrea is land, 
a country, a nation and a home of popula tion. Any population needs another 
population be a neighbour or else in order to survive. There is a need to understand 
that human beings are not like an island that  is isolated that is surrounded by water. 
Even the island bears human beings that need the support of the neighbouring island’s 
people. This is a natural law linked to explain the question of human existence. 
Therefore, it is a basic human and soci al requirement to have communication and 
relationships with any neighbouring countri es surrounding Eritrea even farther than 
that. When this is the f actual case, why then GMH makes a false propaganda that 
Eritrea does not need to meet the resp ective governments of the neighbouring 

 14
countries thinking they are the enemies of Eritrea. Precisely, this view of GMH is the 
PIA’s view on the other way round. But on the other hand, GMH was revealed for his 
involvement, for example, in the Ethiopian ca mp. This can be expl ained, as indicated 
before, that GMH, through the medi ation of Paulos Tesfaghiorgis (Weddi Be-a-Tai), 
met Ethiopian Officials in Oslo, Norway . Then why did GMH contradict his own 
wrong theory? Why did GMH oppose the other Er itrean opposition leaders when they 
try to contact the Ethiopian, Sudanese or Jemeni governments respectively? If there is 
no communication and relationship esta blished and no support from neighbouring 
governments is offered or provided, how could any political part y organise its own 
people those who live in the neighbouring count ries? In the view of NG98E, there is 
nothing for nothing unless there is a polit ical, economical and social compromise 
among all neighbouring countries accordingly. Do all Eritrean politicians understand 
this basic necessity in human life? This is not only a need but an imperative 
requirement for neighbouring countries to be able to live side by side in peace.  
 
In conclusion and analysis, this is again a double standard of GMH’s foreign policy. 
  
 
Issue Four:  EDP Leadership’s Attitude towards ELF (Abbay Jebha) in General 
 
GMH has never been in the position to recogni se the political will and capacity of the 
ELF. If that was the case, the TPLF could not come to vandalise on the Eritrean soil 
on the cost of the ELF, Eritrean people a nd our land. Such a black history that took 
place in the past between the two political  parties (ELF and EPLF) of one mother-
land, can’t be forgotten. In summary, all th is was a result of EPLF’s ‘politics of no 
share and care’ which is an end of politics in itself. Yet, this negative attitude towards 
ELF still remains a long way off. If this wa s not the case, the EDP could have already 
worked with the ENA, the major political party of the ELF ( Abbay Jebha ) having 
thirteen organisations in the past two or three years. Instead the EDP leadership has a 
special preference or inclination to make a deal with ELF-RC, a faction of the ELF. 
This is evident with the expression of Dr  Bereket Hapteselassie on August 23 2003 in 
London. During the question – answer session of  his seminar in regard with the issue 
of ‘Eritrean opposition parties’, he said in his own words: “Etti bezuhh emmento 
zigiber-rella zinneb-berre Sewrawi Baito ab kilte temmekilla” . “Ter-nuf kalssi kessab 
hejji irri-E yelleckun ”. The former statement makes clear that the EDP has no 
intention to work with the ENA. But in contrast, this statement indicates that the EDP 
leadership intends to work with a part of the whole rather than with a whole of the 
ELF. 
 
In a political analysis, this is to interpret that the EDP leadership is trying to exploit to 
widen up the gap between the ENA and ELF-RC rather than trying to unite them 
together by bridging the gap closer. 
 
 
Issue Five: Relationship between EDP & ELF Branches or Factions – i.e. EDP,  
                    ELF-RC and ELF  
 
As indicated above, the EDP’ s current attempt to make a deal with ELF-RC and the 
ELF will not help the EDP to make even an inch of progress. Let it be clear to any 

 15
Eritrean that the NG89E is not against the id ea of unity of political parties at all. But 
the NG89E has many reasons to criticise these parties for their faults.  
 
Criticism one is that all these three parties ar e already embattled and impoverished 
by their own internal and external problems. This is to say that ELF and ELF-RC have 
never agreed to live together within the main umbrella of ENA collectively. If ELF-
RC was already clean in its political identities and strategies, why then the ELF-RC 
has been against its sister ENA, all origina ting from the main root of the ELF, i.e. 
Abbay Jebha? Why the ELF-RC split itself into two? What does this splitting tell us? 
 
Criticism two is that the contemporary and past hi story tells us that the EPLF / PFDJ 
as a whole, has been labelling and stereo typing the ‘ELF political factions’ as a 5th 
Party or Columnist, Jihad group, Mujahidin, Woyane’s instrument, Ethiopia’s spy 
etc. How and why the EDP can now plan to work with a party that has been insulted 
and vilified with avalanche of words for decades? What now makes EDP to go this 
direction?  
 
Criticism three  is that about GMH and the EPLF / PFDJ as a whole. The EPLF / 
PFDJ has been against the ELF’s (no matter  which political party or branch from the 
ELF / Abbay Jebha ) existence on the Eritrean soil. EPLF / PFDJ has never been 
willing to accept and recognise the ELF neit her as political coalition partner nor a 
political party of opposition in Eritrea. Wasn ’t it the EPLF’s dream and determination 
to see the elimination of the ELF? Wasn’t it the EPLF intentional advocacy not to 
tolerate the existence of two political parties on the Eritrean soil? Wasn’t it the EPLF 
that had strongly objected any ELF’s partic ipation on its own right in the National 
Referendum for Eritrea’s Independence in May 1993? How on earth do GMH and his 
like make now a U-turn?  
 
Criticism four is that about the EPLF as a whole. The EPLF exterminated the lives of 
many Eritrean ELF Tegadelti and the military existence of the ELF in the 1980s. This 
extermination of own brothers and si sters underwent with the support of the Woyane, 
i.e. TPLF.  How is it now possible and so easy to sit together side by side with ELF 
political branches or factions? How coul d harsh enemies of different backgrounds 
come to co-operate sporadically?  
 
Criticism five  is that the consideration of th e historical backgrounds and current 
situations of each of these three parties - EDP, ELF-RC and ELF. The outcome is that 
these three do not seem to have won the hear ts and minds of the great majority of our 
people because of their negative backgrounds as highlighted already.   
 
Criticism six is that about the EDP itself. The ED P is currently not in the position to 
work with the EPM and not able to unify all the members of the EPLF-DP into one? 
According to the survey study of NG98E, the great majority (96.7%) of the EPLF-DP 
are now members of the EPM. As to the study, by average 2-3% of the total number 
of the EPLF-DP belong today to the EDP. Why does EDP fail to have adequate 
members? This is because mainly of the ED P’s leadership lack of honesty, openness, 
transparency and accountability in all its ac tions. As to the study, the EDP leadership 
is obsessed by fear of losing power on the co st of the baseless and narrow propaganda 
of regionalism in Eritrea. 
 

 16
Criticism seven is that the great majority of the EPLF-DP members through out the 
world have already rejected and condemned GMH’s unilateral political actions since 
the Tuebingen meeting in Germany. At this point, two examples can be given for such 
rejection and condemnation of GMH’s and Dr Assefaw Te keste’s leadership. These 
two examples are / were the members of  the EPLF-DP in the United Kingdom and 
New York, USA. Therefore, how could GM H or Dr Assefaw Tekeste justify their 
approaches towards the coalition or relation ship with rival parties, when they are 
unable to lead their own party? How co uld GMH or Dr. Assefaw Tekeste convince 
our people that they are right in doing th is? Nevertheless, NG89E hopes that there 
would a time in which the EDP leaders woul d be reflective in seeing and admitting 
their wrongs by saying ‘sorry’ to their own people. 
 
In conclusion, as indicated above, the NG 89E welcomes any attempt of movement 
towards political unity that is beneficiary to  our Eritrean people. But, in the eyes of 
the Eritrean politics in general from what has been seen, heard and experienced, such 
unity could not be an easy task. Further, when looking through a needle into the 
microscope of the current situation and the background of these three rival parties of 
old enemies, it does not seem hard to interpret that such formula of ‘political unity’ or 
‘a friendly click’ shines to be more a house of sinners rather than the house of angels 
for the good of Eritrea. This is because of  their failure to linking their own people 
with the real politics in Eritrea. Further, this is not only a matter of trust but also a 
matter of a political party or government that is out of touch with its people. 
Therefore, NG98E gives its full support and advice to every party that comes and 
stands clean to work for unity from the heart of common interest of our people. Doing 
this it may count as one of the positive prec onditions for every party if it is to earn a 
good name from its own electorates. Ever y party, weak or strong, concerned 
individual or group, should believe in the in clusion of all parities and people. They 
have to avoid hatred of each ot her recognising the strategy of ‘consensus’ to establish 
a co-operative team. That is what ‘politics’ really means. If possible, every leader 
should have a criterion of ‘charmanistic’, i.e. someone who acts as a force of drive 
and someone who is a visionary not necessarily from the viewpoint of the appearance 
of the physical body of the leader but from th e natural intelligence of the mind of the 
leader. Unfortunately, no one of these three leaders fulfils this criterion. 
 
 
Issue Six: Reformation and Negotiation with PIA and the Interview of  
                  Dr. Assefaw with the Voice of America (VoA) 
 
Any realistic, reflective and critical politic ian does not necessarily  reject the idea of 
‘negotiation’ provided that it is meaningful with in a given framework of conditions. 
To ‘negotiate’ with someone over something is to make a deal. As such, ‘negotiation’ 
is one of the many aspects of a democratic rule in se ttling political, economical or 
social problems. But there are some crucial questions to be asked in doing this. The 
crucial questions include: 1) what is th e ground for negotiation with PIA? 2) Why 
negotiation with PIA is an option more than  any other means? 3) Are all other means 
tested and exhausted? 4) Who is negotiating ? 5) Are all concerned political parties, 
religious institutions and civic societies incl uded in the ‘negotiation’? 6) For whom is 
the ‘negotiation’ after all? 7) Who benefits  from the ‘negotiation’? 8) What drives 
GMH, or Dr. Assefaw Tekeste, and their like to negotiate with PIA?  
 

 17
If GMH, Dr. Assefaw Tekeste, and their fo llowers believe that a change could come 
through the means of ‘negotiation and reformation’, then  
 
a. Why did they leave Asmara for Europe and America from the very 
beginning?  
b. Why did they prefer to be political  refugees or asylum seekers in 
Europe or America?  
c. Why did / do GMH, Dr. Assefaw Tekeste and their alike not go back to 
Eritrea and show their political muscles either against PIA or in 
support of PIA in an open way?  
d. What drives them to come to Europe or America at all?  
e. If they believe on ‘reformation’ through the means of ‘ negotiation’, 
then what has been their cause of protest to be against their master, 
PIA?  
f. What is the sense of their protest by  settling in Europe or America or 
else where out side Eritrea?  
g. If GMH or Dr. Assefaw Tekeste and their alike believe in negotiation 
with PIA, what have they learned from the past at all?  
h. What was the sense of becoming a si gnatory or signatories against the 
wish of PIA?  
i. Do they think that the concept of ‘negotiation and reformation’ is a 
new philosophy or discovery or phenomenon in the Eritrean politics?   
 
Bur Eritrea and its people have experien ced many types of political games of both 
good and bad. There is nothing new in Eritre an politics except that all the same old 
intrigues of the EPLF happening now and then.  
 
In a political analysis, such a character of GMH and his alike is to be interpreted or 
perceived as controversial, politics of  double standard as well as an open ‘apostle of 
PIA’. This shows that such leading people do  not only lack the capacity of political 
leadership but also could not see beyond thei r noses or eyebrows in scrutinizing the 
realities and politics. Again, this shows that  Eritreans never learn to learn. But our 
wise ancestors have left for us their unforgettable lesson: ‘ash-shaan ay-yigberka, 
mel-le-bem-min ay-yick-laa-ekka’. Therefore, when do Eritreans learn from the past? 
In the view of NG98E, it dares to say we, Eritreans have diffic ulty to learn from 
realities. We, Eritreans have to accept that we are more emotionally governed rather 
than intellectually and that we are too weak to make our own views clearly and 
strongly.  Instead, we have the habit to critic ise others rather than to support the critic 
when we know the intention and content of the critics are right. 
 
However, past and contemporary history tells  us there are many factual events that 
can’t be easily erased from the memories of Eritrean minds when considering the evil 
nature of the EPLF.  Three examples can explain the theories of such facts and events.  
 
Example A:  
 
There are yet untold true stories of the so-called  MenkaE , those who asked for a 
democratic rule in 1970s in which it is remained a mystery for our people.  

 18
Example B:  
 
There were barbaric killings of the physically disabled Tegadelti in Mai-Habbar in 
1994, those who demanded the GoE to have a better social life but ended with the loss 
of their own lives.  
 
Example C:  
 
There was an open mass demonstration of Tegadelti in Asmara 1993, in which they 
demanded the Provisional Government of Eritr ea (PGoE) to have social, political and 
educational changes in Eritrea. But what happened in the aftermath of their 
demonstration, many Tegadelti were picked up one by one and in groups to be put in 
jail and some were sentenced to their deat hs without the realisation of their demands 
of what were promised to them by Issaia s Afeworki. The question is that how could 
PIA be trusted?  
 
In the light of the above examples, there is one simple fact that helps us to bring to 
light. This fact is that if GMH and Dr. Assefaw Tekeste, or their alike believe a 
change could come by  ‘negotiation and reformation’  with PIA, where are their 
comrades, today, i.e. the G11 – Mahmood Sherriffo, Petros Solomon, Haile 
Woldetensae, etc.?  Do they think their comrades, those who were the signatories, are 
on rehabilitation since the last 3 years? If GMH or Dr. Assefaw Tekeste and their 
alike believe in negotiation with PIA, w hy are thousands and thousands of Eritrean 
are in jail in continuum?  
 
Therefore, such view (of GMH, or Dr. Assefaw Tekeste and their alike) for the 
NG89E, is not only the cheapest  political will but the worst political strategy to be 
seen and heard. In other words, this poor  political action makes an equal meaning to 
the Tigrigna’s proverb that says ‘teha-zibka ab chikka’. The critic is not because of 
the idea of negotiation, but the critic is because none of these politicians like GMH, 
Dr. Assefaw Tekeste and their alike is / ar e realistic, reflective and critical in 
weighing up the Eritirean polit ics objectively; and that non of them have learned 
anything from the past.  
 
If negotiation would help Eritrea under the l eadership of PIA, Eritrea could not go to 
war with Ethiopia, Yemen, Djibouti, and th e Sudan. If negotiation would help Eritrea 
under the leadership of PIA, the G11 (the  signatories who were the ministers), the 
professional journalists, many individual c oncerned Eritreans, many religious leaders 
of different confessions, many Tegadelti and many other Eritrean civilian or 
businessmen could not have been put into jails. It should be emphasised that this 
shows that GMH and his allies like Dr. Assefaw Tekeste, Dr. Bereket Habte Selassie 
do not seem to have ever learned from the past. After all, according to the survey 
study and a reliable source of informat ion of those who still know and knew Dr. 
Bereket Habte Selassie, he has never admitte d that he was put behind bars of the 
EPLF in Sahel for three months in 1975. Some inmates and observers of the EPLF jail 
of that time are still alive. Of course, NG89E accepts, believes and respects such a 
view that Dr Bereket Habte Selassie has no ob ligation at all to tell  the public that he 
was in Issaias’ jail or anywhere else. Furt her, according to the harsh EPLF Policy, 
every victim of EPLF’s prison is str ongly mannered during the release from the 
‘Halewa Sewra’ (Security Centre of th e Revolution, i.e. Prison)) not to tell anybody 

 19
that he or she was in a prison. It is a taboo to talk about it after the release. But, at 
least, Dr. Bereket Habte Selassie should admit from not telling the truth when he gave 
his lecture on Constitution in a public  meeting on August 23 2003 in London - 
Stockwell, United Kingdom. In his explanati ons and responses to the questions raised 
by the attendants, he said in hi s own words at different times:  “emnet yedilli iyu ni  
mengisti; genkes amin-na intay rek-kibn a. Emmnet auw-dikknalu nerr-na netti 
Kqu-wam (Constitution) ab ghebri kew-ullo etti mengisti. Ne Issaias an-ne E-
amnellu neyrre iye. Entay-emmo yigeb-ber, amin-nayo . When these statements 
translated into English, they may mean or convey the message roughly as following:   
 
“To trust a Government is necessary. Howe ver, even though we have a trust, we 
have got nothing. We trusted that the Government of Eritrean would implement 
the Constitution. I had been trusting Issai as and/or I had had trust on Issaias. 
However, what could we do, even though we trusted”.  
 
There are five incidents that Dr. Bereket Habte Selassie could not and should not trust 
Issaias Afeworki: one was that after his jailing in Sahel 1975. Two was that after he 
wrote a book in 1989 with the title ‘Reflections on the Future of the Political System 
in Eritrea’. In this book, Dr Bereket Habte Sela ssie articulated his mind with clarity 
that all parties should be allowed to be pa rt of the multiparty system in Eritrea 
including the ELF. However, Issaias Afeworki became snappish and demonstrated his 
dissatisfaction with the content of the book and rejected the idea of Dr Bereket Habte 
Selassie in regard with the multi-party system formation.  Three was that after the so-
called Berlin Manifesto (Letter of Critic writte n to PIA) sent to PIA that ended with a 
total rejection of the critic. Four was that  after PIA ordered to close down the action 
of the ‘Constitution Committee’ led by Mini ster Mahmood Sheriffo. Five was that 
after the jailing of the ministers in 2002.   The second incident was explained and 
confirmed by Dr Bereket Habte Selassie himself while delivering his speech to the 
public on the issue of the ‘Eritrean Cons titution’. On the other hand, Dr. Bereket 
Habteselassie advises the public by saying (in his words)  “ni mengistik-kas fittow-wo 
ember ay-ti-em-menno. Hijji gin temmah-hirrna” . This means according to Dr. 
Bereket Habte Selassie, “you can like your government but do not trust. But now 
we have learned’. At this stage, the question to be asked is that where is the end 
stand of Dr. Bereket Habte Selassie with his good professional career and academic 
knowledge and life experi ences, as well as his effective lecture on Law and 
Constitution nationally and internationall y but surrounded by controversy and critic 
from the public because of his mistake to make an emphasis of his ‘trust’ on Issaias 
Afeworki instead of saying ‘sorry’ for the public for his wrong belief.   
 
From the viewpoint of an ethical / moral, or a political issue, it is now worthwhile to 
remember Socrates, the Greek philosopher for his golden statement. Socrates says that 
“the unexamined life is not worth living” . This means that every thing in life should 
be tested and examined to see if it has a value at all. The statement of Socrates is 
correct from the viewpoint of the real worl d, but this does not fit into the Eritrean 
politics in regard with GMH’s, or Dr. Assefaw Tekeste’s or Dr. Bereket Habte 
Selassie’s thinking about ‘reformation through negotiation’.  In fact, it is the opposite. 
Why, because these people alre ady knew and still know that negotiation with PIA 
never woks at all. Throughout their lives, these people have been working and co-
operating with PIA. These people have been  observing and examining the nature of 
Issaias Afeworki, at least, since the conc eption of the EPLF. Of course, these people 

 20
have a democratic right to give their view s and express their fee lings. The question is 
whether their views are acceptable or unacceptable, realistic or unrealistic, or 
objective or subjective, or right or wrong. It is imaginable or thinkable to many 
Eritreans that these people are old enough to know what is good or bad, first for 
themselves and then for Eritrea.  
 
But there is one truth to bear in mind. This truth is that the lesson that Eritreans have 
learned so far is that there is nothing at al l that PIA can offer the Eritrean people.  
Then isn’t this a good proof in itself that Eriteans never learn from their past when 
speaking from ‘reformation and negotiation’? Therefore, what is the purpose of such 
a wrong political propaganda of illusion? What is the purpose of misguiding the 
Eritrean mass to make a wrong hope? What is  behind this scene of political drama, a 
drama that cannot be materialised? A word  is enough for a wise man. However, the 
message in writing these five examples of incidents is to make political intellectuals 
self-reflective by considering the realities in  Eritrea, but such people do not want to 
learn. When comparing the three politicians (GMH, Dr. Assefaw Tekeste and Dr. 
Berekt Habte Selassie) in terms of their backgrounds in education, profession, life 
experiences, and their world-views, then NG89E cannot blame GMH for his misdeeds 
and poor intellectuality but it blames more the intellectuals those who are registered in 
the book of the scholarly club but act in closed doors. 
 
In the eyes of NG89E, such thinking of ‘negotiation and reformation’ is not only ill 
but just a waste of golden time and resources.  If GMH and his alike still stick to this 
false political slogan of ‘reformation and negotiation’, it is no more than a plot of 
political conspiracy in making a handover of transfer of Government between PIA’s 
handful loyalties and th e GMH and his alike. All this is to occur without the consent 
of our Eritrean people, the majority of our Eritrean political parties and the concerned 
religious institutions, etc.  
 
Therefore, the conclusion is that NG89E does no see any point to negotiate with a 
failed Government of PIA that has neve r condemned violence on its own people can 
act in any sphere of public life. As a result, NG89E advi ses any individual, political 
party, group or community to spurn offer of  talk with the GoE as long as the GoE 
does not ask publicly but constructively by fulfilling the demands of our people 
without ‘buts and ifs’.  On the other hand, all Eritrean should come together if they 
are to secure ‘our third liberation’. We can at this point identify some of our needs. 
There is no freedom, no independence, or no liberation without a total unity within a 
diversity of our people. This is our basi c requirement that every Eritrean has to 
recognise. To deny this requirement is to  fix a cloud in the sky. To deny this 
requirement is to gamble with the fate of our people. If we are not successful, let us 
not blame PIA and his cronies alone but also ourselves for not doing the right ways. 
 
Note: NG89E welcomes any constructive feedback 
 
The banner of the truth of our  oppressed people will win and ‘ our third liberation’ 
will come sooner rather than later.  
 
Happy New Year 2005  
Negarritt-Gazetta 89E (NG89E)