Clarifications about my Article “The Underside of the Eritrean Issue”

                                    Messay Kebede

I have received numerous reactions both from Ethiopians and Eritreans to the article depicting the hidden face of the Eritrean imbroglio. While most of these reactions agree with my analysis, a few express disagreement, which is, of course, their absolute right. However, among these reactions, some have a clear intent of smearing my name. Such is notably the case of a reply posted on many websites titled “Does Mr. Issayas Support Ethiopian Unity? Response to Professor Messay Kebede.” The author of the reply assumes that I consider Issayas as a promoter of Ethiopian unity and takes it on himself to teach me that I am wrong, that Issayas is a horrible person, and, most of all, that “there is no doubt that Mr. Issayas’s wish and desire is to see a weak and disintegrated Ethiopia.”

In thus interpreting my article, the author wants nothing less than to present me as a supporter of Issayas, which support naturally angers many Ethiopians and Eritreans. Yet, the article suggests nothing of the kind. I am a writer, and so I weigh carefully my words before using them. I ask the reader to do the same, that is, to read carefully the text with the assurance that the words have been carefully chosen. I write the following: “directly contradicting the policy of fragmentation pursued by the TPLF, the Eritrean government puts on the role of a staunch defender of the Ethiopian unity” (Ethiomedia).  Any English dictionary will tell you that the verb to “put on” means to “assume insincerely or falsely.” It is synonymous with to pretend, fake, or masquerade. In other words, my statement says that Issayas’s defense of Ethiopian unity is just a make-believe.

Not only do I point out the phoniness of Issayas’s position, but I also give the reason why it is adopted. The position expresses primarily the resolution to weaken the TPLF government by showing that the Eritrean government “is more concerned about the integrity of Ethiopia than its own government” (Ethimedia). A unitary position undermines ethnicization which, we know, as an ideology of divide and rule only serves the TPLF. This means that the defense of the Ethiopian unity does no more than express the rivalry between the two regimes and so has little to do with good intention toward Ethiopia. Be it noted, however, that the masquerade of good intention is necessary to rally Ethiopians.

As to the accusation that I advocate the use of force to achieve the reunification of Eritrea with Ethiopia, I respond that the article does not contain such a statement. I agree with the writer: “The unification of Eritrea depends totally on the decision of the Eritrean people and not on the TPLF or other outside forces” (Deki-Alula). Still, we cannot exclude the possibility of peaceful reunification in a peace accord ending the hostility between the two countries after the defeat of the Eritrean army. More importantly, I have already expressed my firm opposition to any attempt to obtain reunification by means of force in an article that infuriated many Ethiopians. Written in 2002 and titled “Assab or how to Make the best of a Predicament,” the article argues that peace is better for the survival and long-term interest of Ethiopia than an endless war with Eritrea over Assab. Please refer to the article at http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2002/02/01-02-02/Assab.htm