EUROPE AND ERITREA

Like father like son

The European Union’s new found love with Eritrea is one of those few events that are surprising. One can rationalize the event in terms of geo-politics. Europe is in bed with Eritrea to counter the Ethio-American alliance in the Horn of Africa. One can also appreciate the development from a cultural frame of reference. After all Eritrea is clearly an Italian creation, therefore its existential nationalist purview is inherently imbued with European norms and values. Although both assertions are to some extent valid, they are nonetheless far off the substantive reason. Premising the whole dynamics to geopolitical and cultural will eventually transpire not only in a skewed interpretation of reality, but also in elevating both Europe and Eritrea to unwarranted credibility.

Thus, instead of looking at the unfolding phenomenon from strictly geopolitical or economic perspectives, which in the final analysis elevate Europe to pre eminent morality and Eritrea to respectable agency, it would be much more fruitful to look at the matter from a cultural-historical vantage point. Europe is no stranger to Africa in general and the Horn in particular. After all, the systemic peripheralization that the continent is locked into is not only instigated but also regularly overhauled by European power politics. It is too simplistic to define Europe’s relationship with Africa in strictly economic and political terms. As much as the two dimensions are important, it would be counterproductive to qualify them as the alpha and omega circumscribing social-historical relational processes. Such reductionist view misses the main point. It would, therefore, be much more beneficial to see the whole matter from a phenomenological angle that encompasses the entire range of historical/cultural relationship between the two continents.

The long-drawn-out epic of modern history, which is articulated in a power relationship between Europe, white, metropole/empire on the one hand, and on the other, Africa, black, periphery/colony, is nothing but the elevation of Europe to global hegemony while it is concurrently the relegation of Africa to the bottom. Obviously, the mutual yet uneven construction of the two continents while beneficial to Europe’s self depiction is detrimental to that of Africa. Europe needs Africa not only for material (economic and political) means, but also for psycho-cultural and existential ends. No wonder, Europe’s active role in the tragedies of Rwanda and Congo, to name the most prominent cases, does not make sense if looked at strictly in material terms (economic and political), it has a lot to do cultural imperatives. Both the Genocide in Rwanda and the obliteration of the Congo are actively sanctioned by European. The African peoples have been all along engaged in bitter struggle to overcome the institutional racism that is so ingrained in hegemonic discourse and structure of the modern world.

When it comes to the Horn of Africa, the European experience is not that different from those in the rest of the continent. There is no need to recount here the countless and well recorded unprovoked belligerences that the peoples of the region have endured over the course of the last few centuries. What’s crucial to understand is the current form of aggression the Europe is conducting. Beginning from the 2005 election through the present war in Somalia, Europe has been engaged in destabilizing the region by creating havoc. Specifically, always claiming to support the peoples’ will, Europe is busy flirting with the Islamic Court in Somalia and now with Shabia in Eritrea.

Is the European move really informed by geopolitical concerns vis å vis the US? I think not. After all, isn’t Europe part of NATO engaged in the Afghan war along side the US? I also do not think that Europe is true to its so-called liberal-democratic values. Even though Anna Gomez was up in arms against the Ethiopian government to the point of joining the rank of the disloyal opposition all in the name of democracy, the outright support to Shabia makes the point null and void. The whole world knows that the state in Eritrea is a highly totalitarian turning the country into a de facto gulag and its citizens into perpetual convicts; so much for Europe’s conviction to democracy and human right.

The European psyche does not tolerate Ethiopia because it represents all of the potentials that are nemesis to its self-appraisal. Therefore, it cannot sit back and look a country of blacks pull itself by the boot strings in order to decide its own future. As far as the European cultural norms and existential identity is concerned such proposition ought to be destroyed before it holds ground. In Ethiopia democracy has been designed and implemented by Ethiopians for Ethiopians. In the process, democracy has been able to exonerate itself from its antithesis liberalism, which is inherently a European construct that thrives by excluding social minorities and women. Thus rather than seeing the possibility of a new version, this time more inclusive form of democracy, Europe chose an outright despot.

Most importantly, Europe is much more comfortable with the nationalism of Eritrea advocated by Shabia. Inflated with an out of control super-ego and expressed in a crude form of superiority complex. Unfortunately, when looked at closely, the whole pedestal of superiority is supported by the colonial legacies and its imperial artifacts. After all, it’s the only form of African nationalism that is openly proud of its Italian heritage. It is proudly exhibited to undermine those non-colonized peoples of Ethiopia. Apparently, if there is one salient thing that historical figures such as Alula, Gobana, and Menilik gave to their posterity is the cultural and psychological emancipation from the colonial psychosis.

Shabia and its misplaced ego rather than searching for and embracing its inherent African identity is obsessed with its European pedigree; a phenomenon that is factually non-existent and existentially toxic. Since its ascendancy to power, in order to outclass its African neighbors, Shabia has never ceased in pursuing belligerent acts. Until of course, it has finally seen the day of reckoning in the war with Ethiopia. Shabia cannot accept the defeat because doing so is tantamount of a European power being defeated by natives. And this very notion is not foreign to Shabia’s version of nationalism because it is deeply rooted in Italy’s debacle at Adwa. Like father like son, Issayas did not go to Europe for consultation but rather for consolation.

Eritrea is a poor African country that needs respite from half century misfortunes of war and mayhem. The people of Eritrea deserve better life and cordial relationship with their neighbors. Unfortunately, as long as the regime stays in power that is not going to be a possibility. Figuratively speaking, the relationship between Shabia and Eritrea is like an enormous Phallus attached to the body of a baby boy. The time has come to liberate the boy from the weight of the phallus. Shabia is willing and has clearly demonstrated its willingness of turning the country into a wasteland and the people into cannon fodders to satisfy the bottomless pit of its delusional obsession with the destruction of Ethiopia. And its sick desire is openly encouraged and tacitly supported by its congenital master – Europe. Let Europe take its Eritrean phallus and accord it membership in the EU. After all, it has left IGAD. And let the baby stay home in the nurturing environment of loving neighbors.

My advice to the Government in Ethiopia is this. Whether we like it or not Shabia is not going to disengage from its multifaceted nefarious activities. I wish I am wrong; but sooner and later I truly believe that war is inevitable. Like cancer which requires painful procedure of either chemotherapy or radiation, the extrication of Shabia from the Horn is a necessary precondition for a better future.

Mehretab Assefa

May 05, 2007