The UNSC’s Sanctions on Eritrea Revisited

-->

Abraham G. Ghiorgis ***

(*** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)

This is a follow up to the “Eritrea Walks into the Sanction Trap.” It is to be remembered that on December 23, 2009, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) imposed sanctions on Eritrea for “its role in Somalia” and over “its refusal to withdraw its troops following conflict with Djibouti.”
Instead of showing remorse and mending their erroneous ways, the People’s Front for Democracy & Justice (PFDJ) and its supporters in their non-stop “Mekete” meetings both inside and outside of Eritrea, appear to have irrationally decided to entrap themselves more, and in their resistance have come up with badly informed words and arguments. Is their behavior that crude? Or is there something else also at play here?
Considering its insatiable appetite for hard currency, it is possible that the PFDJ is trying to milk the sanctions for what they are worth, before they take effect by appealing to “Eritrean patriotism.” It so happens that we have among us, some Eritreans who are still easily hoodwinked by the PFDJ. These gullible Eritreans will lose their hard earned money; it appears that they have not yet wizened up from bitter experience. Once the PFDJ replenishes its coffers of hard currency, it may take a roundabout turn and may completely comply with all the directives of the UNSC’s resolutions. There is a very strong possibility that this scenario may be at play here.
In its appeal to “patriotism,” the PFDJ is in the habit of referring to the sanctions as “the illegal and vicious US sanctions resolution adopted in the name of the Security Council.” So much so some naïve Eritreans have wrongly taken these to heart and assume that the sanctions are “illegal” and moreover they presume that the sanctions have nothing to do with United Nations and rather much to do with the USA. It is lost to them that once the UNSC imposes the sanctions then these punitive measures are not owned by a single nation like the USA. On the contrary, the sanctions are legally owned by all members of the United Nations – that includes Eritrea and I might add Ethiopia too. Also, the sanctions cannot be illegal (more of that later).
Are the Sanctions Illegal?
One can in principle argue that the sanctions are unjust or unfair, though to speak for myself, I do not believe so. However, based on the law, are the sanctions “illegal” as the PFDJ is claiming? The word illegal is a loaded word, and it boggles the mind that the PFDJ is suddenly in infatuation with the law. Can the PFDJ and its supporters pinpoint to us to a single rule of the United Nations that allege the sanctions imposed on Eritrea are illegal?
According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, “illegal” is defined as: “prohibited by law; against the law; unlawful; illicit; also, not authorized or sanctioned, as by rules.” Is the UNSC “prohibited by law,” to pass the sanctions it imposed on Eritrea? To understand whether the sanctions on Eritrea are legal, we need to cover some elementary and basic facts about the UNSC pertaining to our issues. The following are the most important points.

· “The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

· There are 15 members of the Security Council, consisting of five veto-wielding permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) and ten elected non-permanent members with two-year terms. This basic structure is set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter.

· Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions on all substantive matters require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote, or veto, also known as the rule of "great Power unanimity", by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes (9).

· Security Council Resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter.”

Source: On the Security Council

As the words above denote the UNSC is legally designated to maintain peace and security in the world. As to our subject in question: sanctions – what are the procedural requirements that the UNSC has to follow when it orders resolutions on sanctions? And on what rules are those sanctions based?

First and foremost, it may be necessary to draw attention to the fact that it is not routine for the UNSC to impose sanctions. For sanctions to be imposed there are two tests that need to be met. The first requirement is that a veto-wielding power nation should not oppose the sanctions; this hurdle is very difficult to clear, since the five veto-wielding power nations are usually not in the same wavelength, bearing in mind that they have varied national interests that are in variance with each other. That the first hurdle was cleared so easily in the case of Eritrea is something that we, Eritreans, have to seriously contemplate of the gravity of the sanctions, and that we have to come to terms with the fact that we are harboring a rogue regime in our midst. Once the first hurdle is cleared, the second test requires yes votes of nine out of the total fifteen members of the UNSC. The second test is a very easy requirement to fulfill; for all intents and purposes, the second requirement appears to be only a formality. And only when the two tests are met do sanctions take effect. In simplistic terms, these are how the procedural rules of the UNSC work regarding sanctions and other resolutions of great consequence.

That the UNSC imposed sanctions on Eritrea is either an aberration, or that Eritrea is now internationally recognized as a pariah nation. If it were an anomaly, how come such an incongruity was unrevealed to Russia, China, France, the UK and even the USA? I for one believe that Eritrea is not a normal nation, where the rule of law be it internal or external is respected; the lawless nature of the PFDJ regime finally caught up with it in the world arena.

The sanctions have placed Eritrea in the same bad company of such nations -- Rhodesia during Ian Smith, South Africa during the apartheid leaders, Iraq during Saddam Hussein, and Liberia during Charles Taylor. There is no other name for this except disgrace and humiliation.

There is also a need to clarify that as it is very difficult for a nation to be sanctioned, it is also knotty for the sanctions to be lifted once they are imposed. In order for the sanctions to be lifted, a nation in such a quagmire has to satisfy the requirements that are asked of her by the five veto-wielding power nations; in essence there are five Kings lording over a poor nation, who invariably have divergent requirements as stated above.

Strangely enough, some in the opposition are captivated by this tricky prospective lifting of the sanctions that so much so they opted to oppose the arms embargo sanction (more of this later). It does not make sense to me. I believe we have to cross the bridge of liberty first, instead of unnecessarily wracking our brains of what will transpire in a post PFDJ. If we are fortunate enough to arrive at our destination of freedom, then we tackle the lifting of the arms embargo sanctions from our back, when such mundane issues stare us straight in the face. For now, the lifting of the arms embargo sanction, sometime in the future, should be the least of our worries, since we do not even know how the PFDJ will behave when the time of reckoning arrives. For all I know, the PFDJ, when cornered and consistent with its past behavior, may shamefacedly comply with all the UNSC’s directives and requirements; in the final analysis, all its bravados and boastings may amount to nothing.

From the legal perspective, the UNSC is the highest international authority where its resolutions and rules become part of the international law. “Security Council Resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter.” The sanctions on Eritrea were passed under Chapter VII, and thus are legally binding. We simply have to examine the text. The resolution in part states as follows:

· “Adopting resolution 1907 (2009) by a vote of 13 in favour to 1 against (Libya), with 1 abstention (China) under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, [emphasis mine] the Council reiterated its demand that Eritrea withdraw its forces to the positions of the status quo ante in the area where its conflict with Djibouti had occurred, acknowledge its border dispute and cooperate fully with the Secretary-General’s good offices. It further demanded that the country cease all efforts to destabilize or overthrow, directly or indirectly, the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia.” Source: S/C 9833

Impact of the Arms Embargo Sanction on the Military Balance between Eritrea and Ethiopia

As to be expected the supporters of the PFDJ try to link the arms embargo sanction with the yet unresolved Eritrea-Ethiopia border conflict, though the text of the sanctions do not bring Ethiopia into the equation. In a nutshell, they allege that the arms embargo will create a military imbalance between Eritrea and Ethiopia and that this will favor Ethiopia to the disadvantage of Eritrea. It is unfortunate that some in the opposition, who incidentally I have tremendous respect of, have also accepted such a maxim, though coming from a different angle. I believe this emanates from having an exaggerated and embellished view of Eritrea’s economy and the size of its population in comparison with that of Ethiopia. Such people assume Eritrea to be in par with Ethiopia in all matters of economies. Is that so?

To do a real service on this important matter of military balance, one has to examine and compare the size of the economies and demographics of Eritrea and Ethiopia. Arms embargo sanction or not, this significant issue will be with us for ever. Once armed with such facts and figures a reasonable person will recognize that the attainment of a military balance between the two nations, absent of bankrupting the Eritrean nation, is a self-delusion and fantasy.

Table 1

Comparisons of the Sizes of Gross Domestic Products (GDP) and Populations

Nation	Gross Domestic Product (purchasing power parity)	GDP rank in the world	Population	Population rank in the world
Eritrea	$3.83 Billion	160	5,647,168	108
Ethiopia	$55.27 Billion	82	85,237,338	14
USA	$13,820 Billion	1	307,212,123	3
Canada	$1,263 Billion	13	33,487,208	37

Source: GDP and Others

Note: (“The purchasing power parity (PPP) theory uses the long-term equilibrium exchange rate of two currencies to equalize their purchasing power… Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of different countries, rather than just a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) comparison.” Source: Purchasing Power Parity In lay man’s terms the PPP is nothing but a one USA dollar buys more goods and services in Eritrea and Ethiopia for example, than the same dollar does in the USA.)

(In order to avoid superfluous misunderstanding, I need to put certain things out of the way. I believe that a comparison of military balance between two nations can be accomplished by comparing total GDP and not GDP per capita. For example, the GDP per capita of Luxembourg ($79,600) is higher than that of the USA ($46,300). However, this does not mean that Luxembourg is militarily more powerful than the USA. If one uses the total GDP one finds that the USA’s economy is $ 13,820 billions, while that of Luxembourg is only $37.78 billions. In other words, the USA’s economy is equivalent to 365 Luxembourgs, hence the superiority of the military power of the USA.)

Based on Table 1 above, the GDP of Ethiopia is equivalent to the GDPs of about 14 Eritreas of the world. Or to put it differently, the Eritrean economy is as small as 6.9% of the Ethiopian economy. Since the PFDJ is pretending to compete with the USA, it may be necessary to bring to light that the economy of the USA is comparable to the economies of about 3,608 Eritreas of the world. Knowing one’s limitation is a sign of wisdom. In boxing terms, Eritrea will be fortunate to be in the class of economic featherweight, while the USA is in the class of the economic heavyweight; the PFDJ should not try to punch beyond its economic weight, otherwise it is lethal to its health.

Again based on Table 1, the population of Ethiopia is about 15 times larger than that of the population of Eritrea. In other words, for a one Eritrean soldier, Ethiopia if it so desires can field 15 Ethiopian soldiers just in order to keep the relative balance between the two nations unaffected. While that the population of the USA is about 54 times larger than the population of Eritrea.

Naturally, from this follows a vital truth -- there never will be a military balance between Eritrea and Ethiopia that is in tune with the respective size of their economies and the numbers of their populations. Parity in a military balance can be only imprudently achieved by bankrupting Eritrea and driving the Eritrean people into a wretchedly poor level of existence. Otherwise the numbers do not favor Eritrea to match Ethiopia’s military capacity. An asymmetrical military balance that favors Ethiopia is a natural result that Eritrea cannot avoid.

Eritrea cannot compensate for its relative weakness in its demographics and its economy through a relatively superior technology. Right now, the technology of Ethiopia, if not equal to that of Eritrea, may be even higher than that possessed by Eritrea, since I surmise that unlike Eritrea, Ethiopia has a relatively stable and adequate educational system of a long standing. In other words, there is no way Eritrea can play the role in the Horn of Africa akin to the role that the technologically advanced Israel plays in the Middle East.

Right off the bat, this means that there is already a big military imbalance between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Just because of its relative large size, Ethiopia already has an upper hand over Eritrea in military matters. The marginal impact of the arms embargo sanction on Eritrea in the military balance between Eritrea and Ethiopia is almost zero and negligible. People who believe that such an embargo will suddenly put Ethiopia militarily on top in the Horn of Africa are hallucinating, since Ethiopia is already relatively a giant in the Horn of Africa. The sad part is that we may have among us still people who harbor war mongering mentality. The PFDJ is seriously afflicted with such malady.

To elaborate more, for example, there is a huge military imbalance between Canada and the USA. There is nothing Canada can do about that, since it is relatively much smaller in terms of its economy and its population compared to the USA. The economy of the USA is equivalent to the economies of about 11 Canadas of the world; and the population of the USA is about 9 times larger than Canada. The only thing Canada can do is to learn to live in peace and harmony with its giant neighbor. In fact, the USA and Canada are the best trading partners and that their economies are so interlinked and harmonized that it is almost impossible that war can erupt between these two nations. Eritrea and Ethiopia should learn such valuable lessons from the Canadian-American friendly relationship.

Free Trade is one of the Engines of Prosperity and Peace

Eritrea should have an army that is commensurate with its economic size and its demographics. To maintain parity in military balance with Ethiopia will result in enslaving the whole Eritrean youth in unproductive service in the army. This is a big drag to the economy. There is another road Eritrea can take. It should be in the forefront of peace. One of the best historical proven roads of salvation from poverty and towards the advancement of economic prosperity is to have free trade. Eritrea should pursue unfettered trade and the movement of capital and labor with all its neighbors in the Horn of Africa, and in particular with Ethiopia. Eritrea under the PFDJ is an extremely abnormal nation that does not trade at all with its neighbors since it is at odds of one sort or another with all of them. The economy of Eritrea is nothing but autarky – hence tremendous poverty. Nations whose economies are intimately interlinked do not resort to war to solve misunderstandings unless led by unstable and paranoid leaders. This is one of the best ways of avoiding wars, conflicts and large armies. First things first though -- all peace loving and democratic Eritreans should hope that the UNSC’s sanctions get more tightened and help in finishing off the PFDJ from its existence in Eritrea.

Notes: All posts are compiled at: http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

Eritrea Walks into the Sanction Trap

-->

Mogos Tekeste
(This is the pen-name of Abraham G. Ghiorgis)

On December 23, 2009, the Security Council imposed sanctions on Eritrea for “over its role in Somalia, [and] refusal to withdraw troops following conflict with Djibouti.” See S/C9833. The PFDJ is blaming the USA for this sanction. It is in the works that the PFDJ may conduct a massive demonstration against the USA. Here, I am not debating the merit of the sanction. For arguments sake, let us assume that the USA is not a saint on this issue. For a change, I will act as if I were a good friend of the PFDJ. In that capacity, I will help the PFDJ not to bark at the wrong tree and somehow guide it to where its protests, angers and arrows should be directed.

The Security Council rarely imposes sanctions. The supporters of the PFDJ need to come back to earth and see things as they are; they have to come to grips with the fact that Eritrea under the PFDJ is completely isolated in the international arena. If nothing else that is the crucial message of the sanction.

The five veto wielding members of the Security Council are the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China. As far as sanction against Eritrea is concerned, in practical terms, the alignment of forces in the Security Council is unanimous. This needs to be digested. One has to forget the no vote of Libya since it amounts to nothing. Just concentrate on the five veto wielding nations. Even when it comes to the veto wielding nations, for this analysis one needs to ignore the USA, UK and France; I will even go further and assume that these three nations are hell bent to “harm” Eritrea. That is the assumption of the PFDJ anyhow. Then let us concentrate on the two nations that historically had been in the opposite camp of the USA – Russia and China.

No matter from which angle one examines and scrutinizes the matter, China's vote in real terms amounts to a support for sanction against Eritrea. No one should be fooled by China’s vote of abstention. Measured by its impact, an abstention by a veto wielding power in such a situation is tantamount to a “Yes" vote for sanction. If China was opposed to the sanction, it could have stopped it by a straight forward “No” vote to sanction. The real and pathetic story is that Eritrea could not get the support of China. The big question is why? Is it a diplomatic ineptness? Is it because Eritrea is so out-and-out wrong that nothing can be done? Whatever answers one gives to these questions, the real tribulations are within Eritrea.

Russia point blank voted for the sanction, so much so about the erection of the Pushkin monument in Asmara, much ado about nothing; as always there are misplaced priorities in Eritrea. How come Eritrea cannot get the support of Russia? The sanction did not come suddenly out of the blue. It was in the air for a very long time. What kind of assurance did Eritrea get from the Russian dignitaries who were visiting Eritrea? Or was this issue never discussed? Was Eritrea unable to read the signals coming from the Russians? Did the Eritrean leaders bungle this? Again, the bottom line is that the problems are still inherently within Eritrea.

There is a Tigrinya saying: “there is no cure for the one who hides his ailments.” Eritrea under the PFDJ is sick. It appears that the Eritrean leaders have lost all senses of reality; they are living in a delusion of grandeur; they act in the world stage as if they were leaders of a nation that is not small, war ravaged and poor and; they pretend to go toe-to-toe with the mightiest nation on the Earth – the USA. There is no diplomatic or political remedy for such kind of an ailment. The cure is as simple as a walk to the nearest psychiatric ward. All this hoopla in front of the whole wide world may be a mercy call for such an intervention. The supporters of the PFDJ need to wake up from their deep slumber and face this heartbreaking reality.

Stalin was a brutal dictator; he caused the deaths of millions of innocent Russians and East Europeans; still he was a master of diplomacy; he was able to charm the USA and the UK, so much so that he persuaded them to do his external bidding with the result that at the end of the World War II, he controlled half of Europe. When it comes to internal Eritrean matters, it appears that the PFDJ has perfected Stalin’s brutality and butchery; however when it comes to external matters the PFDJ has been unable to learn from the flexibility and finesse of Stalin's foreign diplomacy. (See: “Stalin the Court of the Red Star, by Simon Sebag Montefiore”)

Now, the PFDJ has to figure out how to cure its self inflicted pain. The problem is not external; it is not with the USA, or Ethiopia, or the United Nations. The problem is internal and the solution is within Eritrea. Insulting the USA or the UN will not help the matter.

For starters, Somalia does not border Eritrea; there is Ethiopia on one side and Djibouti on the other side separating Eritrea from Somalia. To put this in perspective, the geographical proximity between Eritrea and Somalia is akin to the geographical proximity between Eritrea and Kenya, or between Eritrea and Egypt. Thus, instability in Somalia should have no direct bearing to the national security of Eritrea. In addition, the fight in Somalia is mostly internal -- it is a civil war among Somali clans. In accordance with the rule of law, this civil war should not concern foreigners -- that is external forces should not interfere by favoring one group over another -- including Eritrea. No nation has a right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. As for Djibouti, it appears that the PFDJ has not learned an iota of a lesson from its uncalled border war with Ethiopia, another telling sign that the PFDJ is sick in the head. The PFDJ has an aversion to the rule of law -– it is lawless in its internal and external dealings. See The Rule of Law in Eritrea

I do not believe in name-calling and foul language. Nor does the current sanction call for any kind of protest when one really knows that the problem that needs immediate attention is internal to Eritrea. Still, if the PFDJ insists to go down the road of verbal abuse it better direct its rudeness against China and Russia for not “defending” Eritrea; if it still insists to protest through a massive demonstration then it better demonstrate against China and Russia; if it earnestly believes that the problem is external then it must face and confront China and Russia – two nations that “betrayed” and might have given the PFDJ a false hope and yet when it really counted they turned around and enabled and emboldened the USA to "punish" Eritrea. If the PFDJ cannot garner the support of Russia and China, then its isolation in the world arena of the power shakers and movers is complete.

Dictators never learn. Foolish of me to equate Isaias with Stalin, there are dictators that belong in a major league such as Stalin. Isaias relatively speaking though he matches Stalin in some of his brutality, he is not in the same club as Stalin -- a world figure who was intimately knowledgeable of world politics, a very well read and extremely intelligent man.

Rather, it seems that Isaias is in the little league of dumb dictators like Idi Amin of Uganda, Pol Pot of Kampuchea and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. To paraphrase a famous historian that it invariably happens that when a despot is not checked within his own nation by his own people, he gets checked by external powers that are superior to him. It appears that this is taking place here. All the above minor league dictators were not checked by their own peoples. Their undoings were due to foreigners. Idi Amin was checkmated by Tanzania; Pol Pot was checkmated by Vietnam and; Hussein was checkmated by the USA. If things go as they are today in Eritrea without any qualitative change, it looks that eventually Isaias will face the fate of Saddam Hussein. This may be a blessing in disguise for the Eritrean people.

Mogos Tekeste ***

Notes:

*** For past articles visit: http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

The Rule of Law in Eritrea

Abraham G. Ghiorgis ***

(*** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)

There seems to be a lot of confusion on the status of the rule of law in Eritrea.

This confusion contributes towards the opposition being at odds with each other, extends a life support system to the oppressive political order of the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) and finally, it baffles the international democratic forces and discourages it from lending an effective and valuable targeted support to the Eritrean people.

Some use “the rule of law” clumsily and without having a deep understanding behind the meaning of that terminology. The current intensive debate about the current land ownership and use is a case in point; some want to solve the problems using group rights based on a very nebulous power sharing arrangement. An arrangement that is not in synch with the rule of law. If one scrutinizes their stands on other important issues such as -- working languages, the Eritrean-Ethiopian border demarcation -- one also finds their proposals have no basis on law.

Others naively claim that there is the rule of law in Eritrea. To sustain their claim, they maintain that Eritrea is ruled by the charter that was adopted by the PFDJ in its congress of 1994. They assert that this is a temporary and transient mechanism. (Heaven only knows how a system that has lasted for about fifteen years can be characterized as an ephemeral and a momentary one.) According to them, the charter is the law of the land. There is no contest on that point. However, from this, they erroneously equate this law of the land with the rule of law.

History of Legal Liberty:

From the legal perspective the history of liberty has progressed through three distinctive and qualitative stages. This progression may not be a one way linear progression in all societies. (At times there are regressions too. That had been the history of the East Europeans during the heydays of socialism.) Still, the general trend over a long period of time is progressive.

· “For much of human history, rulers and law were synonymous -- law was simply the will of the ruler.

· A first step away from such tyranny was the notion of rule by law, including the notion that even a ruler is under the law and should rule by virtue of legal means.

· Democracies went further by establishing the rule of law. Although no society or government system is problem-free, rule of law protects fundamental political, social, and economic rights and reminds us that tyranny and lawlessness are not the only alternatives.” See The Rule of Law

The First Stage, Where the Law of the Land is Arbitrary Edicts and Decrees:

In this stage, there are no rules to speak of. The leader essentially rules through arbitrary edicts and rules. There are no known and predictable rules that bind the leader. The leader and the state are synonymous. In such a system liberty is trashed. The words of the leader are the laws of the land. The living conditions of the people are no better than that of slaves or serfs. For the most part, Eritrea under the PFDJ is currently in such a very primitive stage of liberty.

The Second Stage, Where the Law of the Land is the Rule By Law:

In the second stage, the state is governed and bound by strict laws. The leader has to follow the rules. And mostly these rules are written. That is there are constitutions. These rules become the law of the land. Such a state is characterized as having a system that is governed by the rule by law.

In a system that is governed by the rule by law, though there are constitutions and rules, in real practice there is the absence of some civil liberties. Hence, even barbaric violation of human rights take the cover of legalities and court approvals. The second stage, though much more advanced than the first stage -- where the leader, or Capo, or King is the law --, the state sometimes has little respect for what are generally referred to as negative liberties. The most significant are: respect of freedom of religion, of association, of expression and of movement; respect of property rights; guarantee of the due process of law, such as “the existence of due process of law, for example, the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty; the concept of writ habeas corpus – ‘the right to be brought before a court to determine whether one has been lawfully detained.’” and; the enforcement of contracts and etc. These are rights that are reserved for individuals, and the state is legally prohibited from interfering with.

One can mention Ethiopia and China as two typical examples that have states that are governed by the rule by law. Both nations have constitutions and their leaders can substantiate to all they do to some articles and rules in their constitutions, despite the fact that some of their rules may violate various civil liberties. In short, they have legal covers to what they do. Still, a state that is governed by the rule by law is much better than a state that is not governed by any laws. At least, there are functioning courts. This second stage may enable a nation to move forward to a stage where civil liberties are respected – a period where the rule of law is supreme.

On the other hand, Eritrea is not even in the second stage, for now we might as well forget the rule of law. Worse, the leaders of the PFDJ are not even bound by the charters and rule of their very own organization, hence no known and predictable law of any kind. The leaders of the PFDJ cannot legally substantiate to some of their actions. See the Coup d’état in Eritrea

The Third Stage, Where the Law of the Land is the Rule Of Law:

In the third stage civil liberties are respected and a state that respects civil liberties follows the rule of law. Two typical examples of states that follow the rule of law are the USA and South Africa; in these nations the law of the land is the rule of law.

These civil liberties are also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights are also embedded in the ratified Eritrean constitution; something that the opposition rarely highlights and does all it can to bury it under the rug. I judge the merit of the ratified constitution by its superb stand on civil liberties. If Eritrea were to implement its constitution and strictly abide by its letter and content, for the most part one may rightly conclude that the law of the land in Eritrea is in tune with the rule of law. As a rule of thump, a nation that does not respect the universal declaration of human rights violates the rule of law. This is where Eritrea is now.

Like all theoretical explanations of stages, no phase is pure. Take the USA, for example, for the most part the constitution of the USA was in harmony with the rule of law. Still, there were some major blunders. The very constitution that protected liberties for the majority denied the same rights to the black minority and espoused slavery. This is a violation of the rule of law. It took almost hundred years and the presidency of Lincoln to restore the rule of law regarding the status of African-Americans. “More than 600,000 men died [in a bitter civil war] before the sin of slavery was purged.” Lincoln had to resort back to the declaration of independence where it claimed all men are created equal and not the constitution to have a legal footing in his fight to eradicate slavery. The very constitution of the USA also disenfranchised women for many years until the constitution was to be amended. They used the amendment process to refine their constitution and to be in concord with the rule of law.

This history is also lost among the Eritrean opposition; a group that is not saintly itself and yet has the audacity to demand an impossible perfection from others -- a perfect constitution is a pipedream. The ratified Eritrean constitution has an amendment provision too; another item that the opposition remains to be silent about, since it is easier to reject an entity than improve and develop it which requires a difficult, contemplative and arduous work. (For more insights on the rule of law, please see the books noted below. **)

The Need for a Single Coherent Message:

Some in the opposition emphasize on elections and not the rule of law as highlighted above. Recently, others claim that the problem in Eritrea, irrespective of the current coercive political order, is the dichotomy between the highlanders and the lowlanders, which they believe has disadvantaged the lowlanders. Or to put it differently and bluntly they claim that the highlanders are reaping benefits under the rule of the PFDJ. Nothing is far from the truth. Then they advocate for the Eritrean people to organize along sectarian and religious lines in order to fight for group rights. They categorize the highlanders (read Christians) in one group and the lowlanders (read Muslims) in another group. This so called dichotomy of the highlanders versus the lowlanders is blown up beyond proportions; in this the perpetuators of such half truths are no different than the PFDJ. Needles to say, the PFDJ is as repressive to the highlanders as it is to the lowlanders.

The solution to the problems of Eritrea is the establishment of the rule of law. We have to advocate for constitutional liberalism and the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism is defined as follows:

· “Constitutional liberalism … is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source -- state, church, or society. The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it rests on the tradition, beginning with the Romans, of the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of the individual's right to life and property, and freedom of religion and speech. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation of church and state. Its canonical figures include the poet John Milton, the jurist William Blackstone, statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill, and Isaiah Berlin. In almost all of its variants, constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them. Thus in 1215 at Runnymede, England's barons forced the king to abide by the settled and customary law of the land. In the American colonies these laws were made explicit, and in 1638 the town of Hartford adopted the first written constitution in modern history. In the 1970s, Western nations codified standards of behavior for regimes across the globe. The Magna Carta, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the American Constitution, and the Helsinki Final Act are all expressions of constitutional liberalism.” See The Rise of Illiberal Democracy

I often stress that the only document that can effectively unify the Eritrean people is the ratified constitution. This is assuming that it be amended to exclude the state from being the sole owner of all Eritrean land, and to include the official languages of Eritrea. Regarding the other items of the rule of law, the ratified constitution is as good as many constitutions in the world including that of the USA.

The sad part is that we have an opposition that is unable to see something good, if not prefect, albeit not of its own creation in the ratified constitution. It is oblivious to the fact that it is much easier to rally the people inside Eritrea behind the ratified constitution. It is unaware to the fact that the international democratic force can be an effective advocate for the implementation of the constitution. All our grievances be it freedom of the press, religion, association and movement; respect of property rights and due process of law can be handled by a simple message that all Eritreans to the last person can propagate – implement the constitution.

It appears that the outright rejection of the constitution has become a shackle on the neck of the opposition. The rejection of the ratified constitution by many has completely left the opposition paralyzed. It simply does not have a coherent message. Hence the constant and petty squabbling and the non stop reorganizing and splitting. The PFDJ is equipped with a mindset that is engrossed in envy and hatred of educated Eritreans. The opposition should do its best to avoid an affliction of such grave malady. We should celebrate success and great works of Eritreans; and the constitution authored by Dr. Bereket and his colleagues is a work of great acclaim.

Dictatorial regimes eventually crumble down. History teaches us that the fate of the PFDJ will not be any different; if nothing else, the force of its deadweight inertia will be its undoing. When that time comes, the only weapon that the Eritrean people possess to create a secure, united, stable and viable liberal democratic state is the speedy implementation of the ratified constitution. This will be accomplished by the people inside Eritrea. The Diaspora opposition has a choice to speed up or delay this process.

Mogos Tekeste

Notes:

*My earlier posts are compiled in my BlogSpot. The site also provides links to articles that succinctly elucidate the concept of the rule of law and constitutional liberalism. The address is as follows:

http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

** Important books on the rule of law in a descending chronological importance:

1. The Constitution of Liberty, by F. A. Hayek

2. The Open Society and its Enemies, by Karl Popper

3. The Future of Freedom, by Fareed Zakaria

The Coup D’état in Eritrea

Abraham G. Ghiorgis ***

( *** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)

We know that there is no rule of law in Eritrea, worse; there are no known rules of any kind, only arbitrary edicts and decrees. In fact the very People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) itself does not abide by the rules of its own organization. It is an organization that is gliding haphazardly without political radar even of the socialist kind.

In the organization of the PFDJ, the hierarchy of power is set up in a pyramid fashion. The chain of the formal reporting is as follows: the Chairman reports to the Executive Committee, which in turn reports to the Central Committee, which in turn reports to the general Congress. However, the real and effective power is at the apex of the pyramid, in the hands of the Chairman of the organization. This is a typical power structure of a leftist organization. Such a system inherently is a dictatorship. And one does not expect that such a system will respect the rule of law. This paper does not intend to address the concept of the rule of law. Rather, it simply shows that the leadership, as it stands now, is an illegal one as judged by the very rules and charters of the PFDJ itself. The leadership of the PFDJ is above the laws of the organization it is supposed to lead. And most importantly it is a leadership devoid of any moral and ethical values.

The components of the power structure of the PFDJ based on its own rules are supposed to have regular scheduled meetings in order to report, assess and correct their respective activities. The meetings are as follows: the congress every two years (extraordinary circumstances every two and half years); the central committee every six months and; the executive committee regularly less than six months. The question is does the PFDJ abide by these organizational rules? Does it conduct regular meetings of its various components?

The first congress of the PFDJ took place for the first time in an independent Eritrea in 1994, whereby it elected its Central Committee and promulgated its agenda and vision for Eritrea. Right there and then, the Central Committee elected the Executive Committee and its Chairman -- the components of the power structure that implement the agenda of the organization as stipulated by the Congress. At that time many Eritreans were still in the euphoria stage of the Eritrean independence; and as such some might have accepted this result as a temporary power structure for Eritrea too. They might have naively considered this as a temporary proxy representative leadership of Eritrea that is until the nation transitions to a parliamentary representative government based on the constitution. Sadly, however, it was never to be, the leadership of the PFDJ betrayed the implicit trust bestowed on it, and irrevocably broke the social contract.

Technically, the PFDJ’s second congress should have taken place by the latest sometime in 1997. However, the second Congress never met. If one goes strictly by the PFDJ’s rules and charters, the Central Committee, the Executive Committee and the Chairman of the PFDJ are all illegitimate. The legitimacy of the Congress that elected these bodies expired sometime in 1997. These bodies have no legal standings. By the PFDJ’s own rules, they are all illegal entities and illicit leaders.

The congress of the PFDJ has not met for about fifteen years in a sovereign and independent Eritrea. In between those years, one can have at least five general meetings of a congress. (To put this in perspective, during the armed struggle the EPLF conducted two meetings of its congress; the time that elapsed in between the two was ten years.) This means there are no summations and assessments of where Eritrea is heading even by the socialist standards that the PFDJ swears on. To be fair, the real Central Committee and the Executive Committee, elected in 1994, do not exist since many of its members are either in the dungeon or dead or have left the organization. The sole and only entity that exists and exerts power is the Chairman of the organization -- Isaias Afwerki. This very chairman has usurped the powers of the Congress, the Central Committee and the Executive Committee of his organization. Currently, no one can pinpoint to any charter or rule of the PFDJ that can support the legitimacy and the legality of the powers of the Chairman of the organization.

If we take the Central Committee of the PFDJ, the last time it met was in 2001. After its last meeting, the G-15 and other dissenters were put in prison. Even the leftover of the Central Committee has not met for about eight years. In between those years, one can have at least sixteen Central Committee meetings. There are no checks and balances within the PFDJ organization right now, since no scheduled meetings and reporting of activities take place. If the PFDJ itself does not practice a so called “participatory democracy,” how can there be a “participatory democracy” in Eritrea?

Some of the main appeals of the G-15 were that the PFDJ abide by its own rules and charters; that it holds another congress, that its central committee meets every six months, and that its executive committee submit reports of its activities to its leadership -- the central committee, as stipulated in the rules of the organization. These are simple and innocent demands; that is if we ignore the pleas of implementing the ratified constitution. Isaias would not listen to the simple and earnest request of his colleagues, and that his organization actually mandates.

In practice, a very sly and quiet coup d’état took place in Eritrea. Isaias and his accomplices by violating the rules of their organization illegally usurped power. This seems to be lost among all of us, worst of all among the members of the PFDJ -- who are still blind to the fact that their leadership has no legal ground to stand on.

Despite the fact that the power structure of the leftist organizations by their very nature are dictatorial, the conducting of regular scheduled general meetings of congress and central committee, sometimes allow for the emergence of relatively reformist personalities. Such are the cases with Khrushchev and Gorbachev in the Soviet Union and Deng Xiaoping in China. Not a chance in Eritrea, since such outlets for the possibility of the emergence of a reformist leadership within the PFDJ itself is closed, since scheduled meetings of the power structures do not take place.

Isaias does not want to take a chance of having a meeting of a general congress or a central committee of the PFDJ. It appears he does not want to gamble with having such a wide gathering, since he does not know of what may transpire in such a meeting.

It is as clear as daylight that Isaias and his top disciples have violated the rules and charters of their organization. The question then arises how come Isaias has still followers? The answer lies in the characteristics and moral fabric of those who follow him. One has to study the history of collectivist and socialist systems and their followers to understand the integrity of those Eritreans who still follow Isaias.

In a dictatorial political system the worst of a society gets to the top. Hayek writing about the collectivist and the socialist systems gives the following points in describing the ethical attributes of a group that follow a dictator.
• "If a numerous group is needed, a strong enough to impose their views on the values of life on all the rest, it will never be those with highly differentiated and developed tastes -- it will be those who form the 'mass' in the derogatory sense of the term, the least original and independent, who will be able to put the weight of their numbers behind their particular ideals.
• ... [The dictator] will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.
• ... It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program -- on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off -- than on any positive task. The contrast between the 'we' and 'they,' the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. ... The enemy, whether he be internal … or external, seems to be an indispensable requisite in the armory of a totalitarian leader.
• … The desire of the individual to identify himself with a group is very frequently the result of a feeling of inferiority and that therefore his want will be satisfied only if membership of the group confers some superiority over outsiders. Sometimes, it seems, the very fact that these violent instincts which the individual knows he must curb within the group can be given a free range in the collective action toward the outsider, becomes a further inducement for merging personality in that of the group.
• ... While to the great individualist social philosophers ... power itself has always appeared the archevil, to the strict collectivist it is a goal in itself.... It is only... that the desire to organize social life according to a unitary plan itself springs largely from a desire for power. It is even more the outcome of the fact that in order to achieve their end, collectivist must create power -- power over men wielded by other men -- of magnitude never known , and that their success will depend on the extent to which they achieve such power.
• ... The principle that the end justifies the means in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule; there is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves 'the good of the whole,' because the 'good of the whole' is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done.
• ... To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state, it is not enough that a man should be prepared to accept specious justification of vile deeds; he must himself be prepared actively to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him. Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own, they must be above all, be necessarily committed to the person of the leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything. They must have no ideals of their own which they want to realize; no ideas about right or wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader.
• ... Yet while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by [moral standards] to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous. There will be jobs to be done about the badness of which taken by themselves nobody has any doubt, but which have to be done in the service of some higher end, and which have to be executed with the same expertness and efficiency as any others. And as there will be need for actions which are bad in themselves, and which all those still influenced by traditional morals will be reluctant to perform, the readiness to do bad things becomes a path to promotion and power."

See: "The Road to Serfdom," Chapter 10, "Why The Worst Get On Top," by F. A. Hayek.

If not the rank and file members of the PFDJ, the middle and high level cadres of the PFDJ do possess such vile ethical attributes.

The PFDJ and its leaders have no legitimacy. They have violated their own rules and charters. One cannot talk of the PFDJ as an organization representing any Eritrean. It only serves Isaias and his top cadres.