Our View on the London Eritrean Peace Conference

Boqo3 let’reEtu wedde, wa hawan molad 3aleb (ብቁዕ ለትረኤቱ ወደ: ወ”ሓዋን ሞላድ ዓልብ بقع لترئيتو ودي, وحوان مولاد علب ) is an old Tigrayit proverb that depicts the difference between a “competent or doer and a mere curious idle person”.  A doer, according to the wisdom behind the proverb, is someone who would do anything s/he considers to be ‘right’, while “hawan”* refers to someone who would sit idle, backbiting those who do, and counting a perceived glorious past of grand parents to acclaim a status without actually earning it, and thereby justifying his idleness.

Since last December 2009 a (competent – according to his critics) veteran EPLF member – Mr. Paulos Tesfagiorgis (Ba3atay) - has been mobilising support for his “vision” to realise “peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia”. In doing so, Paulos approached selected Eritreans from both faiths (Christians and Muslims) and different ethno-linguistic groups residing in the UK to form adhoc-committee to organise larger and wider meetings. This led to their first preliminary meeting on 18 December 2009, in London, which scrutinised the “peace” vision. This London Peace Conference (as it came to be known) brought together 32 Eritreans from diverse social, cultural and religious backgrounds as well as from as far places as Australia and the US. After a three day discussions, they agreed to advocate for the promotion of peace within Eritrea as a pre-requisite for wider regional peace in the long run. To this end, they replaced the appointed adhoc committee by an elected one from this meeting of 32 Eritreans. The new committee has been working on preparing a “Peace Charter” and a follow-up, albeit larger meeting (conference), of Eritreans to be held on 21-23 May 2010. The May 2010 meeting will include additional 30 Eritreans to the 32 attendees of the December 18th meeting.  

While we appreciate the work and efforts of Paulos Ba3atay, his adhoc and non-adhoc committees, and those participating Eritreans, we think it is appropriate to share our own views concerning their effort with the public. In doing so, we do not intend to undermine the efforts of the genuine participants or the project-initiators, but rather to reflect on them for the common good.  

“Peace” is a noble cause. It does not matter whether it is peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia, or Eritrea and Djibouti; whether it is regional peace or peace within Eritrea. Any effort for “peace” should be applauded and encouraged. Thus far, we are supportive of any “peace initiative” regardless of the details and or the focus of attention for it. Our concern therefore is with the logistics and technicalities pursued towards the peace effort.

Although it is valid to think of the urgent need for peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia, and peace in the turbulent region of Horn of Africa, in the case of Eritrea it would have been better if the focus was on the injustices perpetrated by the pfdj regime against the Eritrean people, which, at present, is the main source of threat to intra-Eritrean peace.  

Effective resource management is another issue that we believe has been overlooked by the “Peace Conference” organisers. The cost associated with the Peace Conference events is burdensome. Is peace attainable by holding expensive meetings and conferences? Can there not be other cost-efficient alternatives to achieve the same end result? Especially if we consider that this is not a peace event between conflicting parties with a specific mandate to resolve a specific conflict.  

If the idea behind holding the conferences is to consult with Eritreans from different backgrounds, then there would have been far cheaper ways of organising the very same meetings via alternative mediums such as “paltalk”. In one paltalk room, for example, over 200 people can be hosted. Each invited person would be enabled to enter the online room using a special pass word to ensure uninvited guests are kept out. This medium would cost nothing to the organisers and participants except few hours of their time to participate in a meeting from the comfort of their homes.

If people are serious enough about promoting “peace” at national and regional levels, surely amongst the best approaches would have also been to assess and support existing resources rather than holding expensive one-off events or reinventing the wheel by duplicating existing initiatives that have “Promotion of Peace” as part of their core values and missions within the world of Eritrean political and civic activism.  

For example, the role of media, in particular Radio and Television, is crucial to any promotion of “Peace”. In this regard, institutions like Radio Meselna Delina could have been given a fraction of the amount of funds spent on travel and accommodation costs to run radio programmes on Peace in different Eritrean and English languages. In Sweden there is a movement of Horn of Africa grass roots civic groups who have been holding annual Peace conferences in Stockholm tackling all the factors of instability in the Horn of Africa. Their experience would have been encouraged and strengthened by any new support both in human and material terms.

Another example is CDRiE. This is a global civic movement composed of Eritrean intellectuals, academics and activists from diverse social and cultural background. Article 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8  of CDRiE’s Charter clearly stipulates the promotion of peace and integration at national and regional levels. Empowering such institutions to deliver their declared aim for inclusive peace and justice would have been more useful and cost-effective.

Unfortunately, the above opinion may be a little too late to remedy the already spent-fund, but we do seize the opportunity to inform and alert the public about our reserved support for the call for peace without raising their expectations to unrealistically high level.  

Happy May Day!  

Arkokabay Team

May 2010

*   For clarity's sake, the word "hawan" here does not refer to any particular person or group, but comes as an integral part of the quoted proverb.

_______________

April 2010 Editorial: Agents for Change are needed (a commentary on EDA’s ill-conceived conference preparation).