Eritrea’s Resilience:  A Corollary of Unremitting External Hostility

By Tesfay  Aradom, PhD

Introduction

 During the last ten decades, the people of Eritrea have endured immense suffering for asserting their inalienable right to dignity and self-determination. Following an arduous, protracted and definitively successful military and diplomatic struggle, they achieved their long-sought political independence.  Currently, having foiled relentless regional and international political and diplomatic intrigues, the Eritrean people and government find themselves in a favorable diplomatic, political, financial and military situation. As a result, they are well poised to consolidate their hard-won achievements and pursue their national reconstruction and social justice programs with more vigor and resolve. It is, therefore, incumbent upon every Eritrean to develop the necessary historical and political insights to sustain the uniquely Eritrean political, social and psychological conditions created and nurtured by the Government of Eritrea. 

  An objective historical analysis of the global community reveals that a small minority has been engaged in a protracted practice of human servitude, persecution of minority populations, oppression of people in far-away lands and unfettered exploitation of their human and natural resources. Racially motivated acts of genocide have also been committed to advance and protect geopolitical and economic interests. The experience and destiny of the Eritrean people have parallels that of the peoples in Asia, Africa and Latin America. For the last several decades, Eritrea has been a victim of horrendous injustice and persistent political, diplomatic and economic conspiracies perpetrated by successive US administrations, Western Europe and Russia, formerly the USSR and their regional client, Ethiopia. As a result of their collective experience of discrimination and national oppression and their long struggle against them, the people of Eritrea gradually forged a cohesive national identity and its concomitant national characteristics of resilience, tenacity, self-reliance and unflinching commitment to justice.

British, Italian and US Collusion

  Italy’s racist policy and actions in Eritrea have been well documented. For instance, in the late nineteenth-century rabidly racist Italian officials and officers unleashed an intensive campaign to hunt, detain, torture and kill innocent Eritreans in Nakura within the Dahlak Archepelago (east of Massawa) based on fabricated charges of political subversion (Bruner, 2017). As the British had retained much of the Italian colonial system and personnel, a willful collusion with the racist Italian officials in the commitment of additional unprovoked atrocities against innocent Eritrean civilians was common practice (Almedom,2006). From the outset, the British made it abundantly clear that their intention was not to liberate nor advocate for the self-determination of Eritrean people. On the contrary, they left no stone unturned to concoct and advance patently fallacious political, economic and historical narratives aimed at mutilating it and eventually erasing it from the world map.   Historical documents have also revealed that upon their victory against the Italians in Keren in March of 1941, the British officials displayed, at best, a condescending and, at worst, a discernibly racist behavior toward Eritrean civilians who, true to their tradition, greeted them with deference and kindness (Wrong, 1980). The betrayal of trust that the British displayed towards the Eritrean people is demonstrated by the content of the leaflets they disseminated to the Eritrean population (Pateman, 1998)

The unprovoked collusion of violence against innocent Eritrean civilians persisted even during the British Military Administration (BMA) as illustrated in the Aba Shawl incident of May 1941 in which dozens of innocent civilians were terrorized and murdered in a house-to-house raid (Almedom, 1996). Furthermore,  British obsession to destroy Eritrea both as a political and economic entity continued unabated. For instance, in August of 1944 Stephen H. Longrigg, the Administrator of the BMA, wrote a highly provocative editorial opinion piece entitled “ Some thoughts on the future of Eritrea” in the Eritrean Weekly News (EWN) under an assumed authorship of “Hade Eritrawi” falsely claiming that he was an Eritrean highlander.  In the article, he shared his divisive and malicious intent:

 As was the case in other British colonies, Longrigg’s intent was to sow discord among Eritrean nationals through a “Divide and Rule” or “Divide and Conquer “ strategy. Some actually suspected Ato Woldeab Woldemariam, the editor of the Tigrigna edition of the newspaper, as the author of the infamous and incendiary letter (Almedom, 2006).  British determination to destroy Eritrea continued as it methodically destroyed its relatively vibrant economy by dismantling its main industries and infrastructure. The political and economic steps taken by the BMA had as their main objective the destruction of this nascent nation and thus “prove” to the international community that it cannot be a viable nation-state. However, such obstacles did not prevent Eritreans from forging a fledgling but discernible sense of national sentiment developed through a persistent struggle against racial discrimination, colonial oppression and political intrigues.

 Unable to make headway with its nefarious intent, it proceeded to introduce a devious plan aimed at literally mutilating the country and undermining the Eritrean people’s sustained determination to forge a viable  Eritrean nation-state. With the full support of the US Administration, the Foreign Ministers of the UK and Italy, Ernest Bevin and Count Carlo Sforza respectively introduced the Bevin-Sforza plan to the UN General Assembly on May 10, 1949.  The plan proposed the partition of the country between the Sudan and Ethiopia. Although several versions of the plan were voted on, a definitive recommendation on the future status of each former Italian colony could not be arrived at. Finally, when a decision was made to vote on the plan as a complete package, it was rejected by 37 votes against, 14 in favor and 7 abstentions.  The preposterous rationale of the British is illustrated by a statement found on page 14 of a memorandum written by the Secretary of State Affairs to the British Cabinet on the 18^th of April, 1946 ( AGE, 2010) 

The British became very incensed in the aftermath of the Bevin-Sforza plan fiasco and proceeded to formulate plans that would make it impossible for the emergence of an Eritrean nation-state. So, on September 6, 1950 in a British Cabinet meeting Chaired by the Prime Minister the following absurd statement was formulated  (AGE, 2010) 

In the meantime, the US administration introduced a Federal Arrangement against the expressed wishes of the Eritrean people to serve , as JF Dulles clearly put it, the strategic interests of the USA.  Eventually it became obvious to all Eritreans that the UN proposal was nothing but a ruse to gradually eradicate both the collective national consciousness, and the modicum of statehood necessary for Eritreans to exercise their inalienable right for self-determination. Soon after the UN General Assembly voted to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia, Haile Sellasie’s ravenous desire to gobble up Eritrea became apparent. He committed several violations of the Federal Acts in a blatant defiance of international law.  To cite just a few examples: lowering of the Eritrea flag, placing strategic administrative structures under firm Ethiopian control and imposing Amharic, an alien language to Eritreans, on the population.  However, as the Eritrean struggle for self-determination intensified and became increasingly popular, the Emperor, in complicity with his American advisor, John Spencer, decided that it was time to abrogate, illegally that is, the Federal Acts.  Eritrean resistance was met with a sustained and pervasive campaign of intimidation and violence by Ethiopia. According to (Pateman,1998), the British Foreign Office determined to dismember or erase Eritrea from the map, sent Frank S. Stafford to Eritrea to disrupt the pro-independence campaign. On November 13, 1962, the Eritrean Assembly defeated a motion to dissolve the federation four times. The Assembly, which at the time,  was surrounded by the Ethiopian Second Division under the command of General  Abbiye Abebe, was unable to take a vote on November 14 because of obvious intimidation. Instead, Asfaha Woldemichael, the Emperor’s right-hand man in Eritrea, merely read a statement in Amharic prepared for the emperor several weeks in advance by his advisor, John Spencer, requesting the Assembly to dissolve the federation and unite Eritrea with its “motherland” Ethiopia (Pateman, 1998)

Eritrean Popular Resistance Persists.

 Eritreans had put up sustained and stiff resistance against Italian race based discrimination, land expropriation and failed attempts at religious conversion. They foiled British strategy to destroy Eritrea and US machinations to deprive them of their well-deserved right to self-determination. When all peaceful means of resistance were exhausted, they resorted to armed struggle in September 1961 against successive Ethiopian regimes that continued to be the beneficiaries of consistent financial, diplomatic and military support by the West (1953-1975) and the Soviet Bloc (1975-1991). 

The creation of the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front in 1970 had taken the independence movement to a higher level politically, socially and militarily and further consolidated the military and political gains. So, such intrigues did not break the indomitable Eritrean spirit as Eritreans persevered in their struggle for self- determination with stronger conviction. Furthermore, through intense political education, the EPLF instilled among the population what (Doyle, 1996) calls core values. Here is a summary of the core values:

• Adherence to high moral and ethical standards even in victory and setbacks. For instance, even though Ethiopia committed atrocious crimes on Eritreans, the EPLF treated Ethiopian POWs in a humane manner. 
• Use public meetings both at home and in the Diaspora to freely and critically discuss domestic political and social matters.  
• Instilling a sense of perseverance among the entire spectrum of the population as exemplified during the struggle for independence and the equally important task of national re-construction
• Promoting, embracing and internalizing both individually and collectively, the concept of self-reliance.  This was and continues to be a critical factor both during the war for independence and the post-independence national re-construction endeavor.
• De-emphasizing pursuit of individual life goals and objectives  in favor of developing a genuine sense of responsibility and concern for the family, community and the nation.

The individual and collective adoption of such values and their daily practice during the protracted and bitter struggle for independence and defense of territorial integrity and sovereignty have contributed to a collective supra-religious and supra-ethno-linguistic national identity (Doyle, 2006; Garcetti, 1999). 

That is why the collective Eritrean national consciousness today is cohesive and transcends religious and ethno-linguistic identity.  It is worth noting that many developed and developing countries are yet to fully achieve this level of collective national consciousness (Chua, 2018; Garcetti, 1999). 

So, it is within the historical-political context highlighted above that the hostilities against Eritrea in the last two decades spanning from 1998 to the signing of the Peace agreement in July 2018 between Eritrea and Ethiopia should be analyzed. For Western countries this has clearly been a case of unfinished business. For the present-day equivalents of Longrigg, Stafford, Dulles and Spencer like Susan Rice, Jenday Frazer, James Bevan, Chris Mullen, Martin Plaut, Kjetil Tronvoll, Michael Rubin and Alex Dewaal to name a few, the existence of a viable Eritrean nation-state has been a hard pill to swallow. So, they have left no stone unturned to wreak havoc within the population and destabilize the government. Without even an iota of verifiable evidence, they accused the Eritrean government of destabilizing the region and, as preposterous as this may seem, committing grave human rights violations against its own people. 

If these countries were so concerned about human rights violations and the supremacy of law, why did they remain silent when the Ethiopian regime expelled 70,000 Eritreans women, children and the elderly (as well as Ethiopians of Eritrean descent) after illegally expropriating their hard acquired material and financial assets; when it desecrated a martyr’s cemetery, a symbol of Eritrean resistance, sacrifice and resilience. Furthermore, their inaction and hypocrisy was remarkable when the human rights of the entire Eritrean population were violated because of Ethiopia’s refusal to honor its obligation to the final and binding decision of the Eritrean Ethiopian Border Commission (EEBC). In fact, the British, as in the past, tried to appease and, thereby, embolden the Ethiopian regime to defy the international community. For instance, James Bevan, the British Director for Africa, stated that he would not “shoot Ethiopia on the head” for not accepting the decision of the EEBC. Similarly, Chris Mullen, the British Minister for Africa, coined the phrase “accepting in principle” that was employed by the regime in Ethiopia to hoodwink the international community (AGE, 2010).

Conclusion

The main objective of this article is not to delve deeply into the protracted and complex history of resistance the Eritrean people put up against European colonialism and its intrigues to eradicate Eritrea as a nation-state. There is an abundant number of Eritrean and non- Eritrean historians who have shouldered that responsibility with eloquence and authenticity. So, its modest objective is to highlight a long and consistent anti-Eritrean political and diplomatic conspiracy by successive US administrations and the West spanning more than eight decades. The Eritrean people, in characteristic fashion, are not going to ruminate over the past but will focus on the future. Despite persistent external intrigues, the Government of Eritrea has today earned the respect and admiration of the peoples and governments of the region because of its integrity, magnanimity and vast experience in regional and international diplomatic and political affairs.

Notwithstanding Ethiopia’s saber-rattling and unprovoked assault on Eritrea’s sovereignty and territorial integrity based on blatantly fallacious historical and legal claims, the Government of Eritrea continues to exercise patience and underscore the supremacy of international law and bilateral amicable resolution to inter-state conflicts. The unprecedented political and economic realities at the global level have underscored the necessity for sustainable regional cooperation. The lingering hostility toward Eritrea in Ethiopia by an inept oligarchy will only constitute a nuisance that cannot derail the tempo and positive regional dynamics set in motion by the resilience and vision of the Government of Eritrea and its partners in the region.

References

• Action Group for Eritrea –AGE-(2010). Mutilating Eritrea along its lines of cleavage: An Unfinished Business
• Almedom, A. (2006) Re-reading the Short and Long – Rigged History of Eritrea 1941-1952: Back to the Future ? Nordic Journal of African Studies 15(2): 103-142 
• Bruner, C.S. (2017). Late Nineteenth- Century Italy in Africa: The Livraghi Affair and the Waning of Civilizing Aspiration. Cambridge Scholars Publishing
• Chua, A. (2018). Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations. Bloomsbury,
• Garcetti, E. (1999). Civic and Ethnic Allegiances: Competing Visions of Nationalist Discourse in the Horn of Africa. Paper presented at the International Studies Association
• Hoyle, P (1996). The Eritrean National Identity: A Case Study. The author is an international boundary lawyer
• With Le Boeuf, Lamb, Greene and MacRae in Washington D.C. She served as an Adjunct Professor of Geography  and Law at the University of Asmara during 1996.
• Pateman, R (1998). Eritrea: Even The Stones Are Burning. The Red Sea Press, Inc