Dear Daberra,
Matters of any civil war are extremely complicated and shouldn’t be
trivialized. They are matter of life and death for many, who will die or
live. To this day American historians study the Civil War which took place
over 100 years ago and precisely on the issue of self-determination. The
conflict in Northern Island is not resolved because it’s practically
impossible to draw the state line between the neighbors (Catholics and
Protestants). If you follow the wars in former Yugoslavia, you see that
every ethnic minority can claim its right for statehood. In Ethiopia’s case
the story is ten times more complex.
Few months ago I tried to suggest that the Eritrean problem is nothing less
than the continuation of the civil war which goes in Ethiopia for the last
25 years. Democratic countries, dear friends, are in fact the first victims
of revolutions and civil wars -- you have to have some freedom (at least,
freedom of mind) to start the fight for self-identification. The paradox of
history is that nation has to be advanced enough to “afford” civil war.
Future historians will see Ethiopian troubles of the end of the 20th century
as a historical heritage, when Ethiopians were determined to search for
their national identity and future. And yes, this is the sight of life and
growth. Yes, even if they have to pay such a high price.
I have difficult time understanding why Ethiopians, who know the situation
better than westerners (especially journalists) keep referring to Eritrean
conflict as the war between two states. The 1993 referendum and several
years of peaceful and cooperative coexistence weren’t the result of Eritrean
sovernity, but, on the contrary, because Eritrea was fully integrated --
economically, politically and even ideologically (with the present
government in Addis).
For many years I had to return to this topic in my discussion with
Ethiopians (including the times of the Dergue). My advise to them was to
study Federalist Papers to understand the differences between, federation,
confederation, union and so on. Unfortunately the most influential doctrine
of the day is still of the Soviet origins. “The right of self-determination”
the way it is still circulated today was defined by other than Stalin in
1924. Even then his definition of national policies in multinational state
had many critics among the Marxists themselves. The formula “national in
forms, Soviet in essence” was nevertheless adapted for the first constitution of USSR, and we still don’t know what “Soviet” means. This theory is practiced in Addis with the similar outcome. Try to ask any official what does unite Ethiopians who are so different in “forms”? I never got my answer.
“Independence” in itself is not the answer. American and more recently
African experience tells us that wars for independence are only a prelude for civil war. The institution of State exists since the beginning of history and,
yes, the state has own logic and behavior. We just witnessed American
constitutional crisis when two branches of US government were confronting
each other. Why should Ethiopia be excluded from those universal laws of
history? Why Ethiopian government must be perfect in representing all its
citizens? The government has it own “independence” from the society and when
it becomes completely “independent,” you have the tyranny.
Eritrean independence was only political (formal), very much like the border
line which is debated with guns. Eritrea was separated but never divorced
from Ethiopia. Two wars with Italy should be a good enough proof of this
fact.
One doesn’t have to support the TPLF in order to be an advocate for a strong
government. Strong nations do have strong governments. One doesn’t have to
be Amhara or Oromo to defend interests of Ethiopia. Meles didn’t returned to
Tigrey after 1991 victory not because the fact that Addis Ababa was in a
vacuum of power and he could have it, but also because he is an Ethiopian. I
said it before and I have to say it again -- Hitler was German and Mengistu
wasn’t French or Chinese. You want to change things?
First accept the reality.
Do you want to see media doing better job in reporting the events of
Ethiopian history? Help them. Educate the world about the facts of Ethiopian
history.
Behind every war is the war of ideas and the present one is no exception.
Footnote. If you saw our website, you know that I’m married to the great
grand-daughter of Haile Sellassie and this bashing of the past leaders of
Ethiopia bothers me (this time -- Menelik). None of them are in power, they
are long dead and belong to history books. I don’t know anybody on
EthioForum personally, I don’t know what you did for the sake of Ethiopia,
but I do know what Menelik did -- bad or good, history continues its
judgment. Frankly, I think that the disrespect so often demonstrated on this
forum to each other is a result of the disrespect for your own history, the
common experience of all who call themselves “Ethiopians.” You see what
takes place when Ethiopians insist on calling themselves Eritreans.
Anatoly
I do not post Daberra's responce since I have no permission, but here is my follow-up.
Eritrean conflict was and is a product of misplaced notion of independence
and self-determination. In my view, the success of “United States” v.
“United Nations” is due to the fact that the states, not nations are the
subject of unification. I am glad to see that the European Union went on the
same pattern and it does bother me when I hear about “European Identity.”
The present government in Ethiopia follows the "League of Nations" model
applied to the Ethiopian multicultural society and since this model isn’t
working and never worked it has to use the state (army and party) as an
instrument of compensation for the lack of actual unity.
I’m married and my family is a union of two lives, the process, but I’m
still in possession of my own body and my own mind. Haile Sellassie tried
provinces instead of states and there was a reason for that model. Ethiopia
at that time had 100 years of history as a new (modern times) empire (united
state). Should Eritrea alone have its unique federation or confederation
status? Perhaps, but this is academics now. The real question is the future.
Eritrea and the present political philosophy in Addis are out of touch with
the historical trend in the global society, when countries are looking for
economic unification and transparent borders. Since both government are not
concerned with economics they seek political and military solutions without
even trying trade agreements. The new Eritrean currency was a political
statement, very much the same with the border dispute.
Could Eritrea be an independent state? Why not? But it has to act as an
independent state. The Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) are
trying to do the same since 1990. They threw their energy into economy,
banking system, trade, international cooperation. Tomorrow the Russians can
move their armies and there are no real Baltic armies to fight them. But
McDonald’s corporation contracted Estonian construction firm to build 20
stores in Russia -- and that is the real victory and success in independence
. Almost the half of Estonia population are Russians and after several years
of worthless “patriotic” propositions Estonians decided that is good enough
for any ethnic Russian who lives, works, has family and speak Estonian
language, to be called Estonian citizen. The groundless ethnic pride
surrendered to the interests of the Estonian state in order for Estonian
society to flourish. Like Eritrea Estonia has no natural resources with
population around two millions.
What did Eritrea do during the same years with its newly acquired state
based on “national identity”? It had Eritreans working abroad and in
Ethiopia, fought its neighbors, maintained (proudly) one-party system and
still uses Marxist language since it has no other to call its own. What is
this Eritrean sovereignty (without guns)? They developed NEGATIVE identity
(as non-Ethiopians). But who are they? Can I define myself as not-you?
History is not about arguments but about simple survival. Looks like
Estonians can prove that they can survive without Mother-Russia and live better
without her. Any Eritrean military success is a death sentence to the real
success of Eritrean independence and self-determination. In psychiatry it’s
called “co-dependency” (when a partner lives of the relations even if the
abusive ones). Eritrea could defeat Ethiopia militarily which would make
Eritrean matters even worse. They will be face with the same situation as
Meles who doesn’t know how to manage multicultural country the size of the
half of Europe.
Of course, Eritreans are trained in propaganda wars. As “Eritreans” they
know nothing but war. As “Ethiopians” they are good traders. Of course, they
have to use bullets and words, what else speaks by itself for Eritrea?
Economic, cultural, intellectual achievements? In order to advance in peace
they have to become Ethiopians again. So what that Issayas made Eritrea
independent? Castro did it with Cuba against no lesser odds. Did it bring
prosperity to Cubans? Right now they are not independent, they are isolated.
Poverty is the price for their overdone exercise in self-determination. And
why would I get married if I want my independence? Why to have children? My
independence is not for itself, but to pass it on, to give, to do more, not
less. I often think about it of the Forth of July, the Independence Day. The
American Revolution wasn’t about getting even with England.
Daberra, we all know little about Ethiopia, otherwise Ethiopia’s problems
would solved. There is nothing sarcastic in my statement that Ethiopian
ethnic problems are ten times more complex than in Yugoslavia. Till the
Islamization of the Balkans after the fall of Byzantine empire the people of
this region were ethnically of the same makeup (Yugo-Slavians means
“Southern Slavs”) -- that is why Serbs (as Slavic and Orthodox) insist on
their leading role. In Ethiopia cultural diversity goes beyond religion.
Ethiopian were the “melting pot” of races and cultures long before this term
was invented and in many ways Ethiopian model of mixing culture, while
preserving them, is an alternative to the famous American model. Maybe now
this model causes so much troubles but history is very long on-going
experiment and I think that Ethiopian experience will be more valuable in
the future for the global society than Communist or American models of
unification by destroying the different.
In my message I had one point only that the present conflict is the result of
the ongoing civil war. I thought that people on EthioForum could benefit
from the experience of other nations which already went through the process
and pains of self-determination. And I addressed myself to you as “Dear
Daberra” because anybody who is concerned about Ethiopia and contributes to
Ethiopia’s well-being is dear to my heart. I myself or Haile Sellassie are
not the issues -- the idea of self-determination is. Ethiopians and
Eritreans are paying for it with their lives. It needn’t be the case, the
problem is not excessively Ethiopian.
Anatoly
Feb. 16, 1999
The Crisis of Identity
Eritrean, Ethiopian, African Identity Crisis?
Marxists call it “subjective factors of history”; postmodern theories -- symbolic powers, but rank them as important as “objective factors.” “Stagnant thinking” or any other ideological traits are the legitimate part of history, which has in its body plenty of old and new demons.
My suggestion to re-examine the notion of self-determination was meant for Ethiopians as well as Eritreans. There are issues Eritrea could and should solve by itself, but some do require Ethiopian participation, intellectual at least.
Tactically, Ethiopia-Eritrean military conflict is a still-match. Since both are military states, total victory of one over another is unlikely, and mostly because the big war would trigger international intervention. We’ll see UN, NATO, US and so on again brokering “cold peace” under the name of peacekeeping forces. (Last year I wrote about the silent big players on my “politics” page at http://www.angelfire.com/ak/sellassie/page27.html)
We already see the embargo calls and we saw the same scenario many times before. US troops are still in Bosnia without even any date of the possible withdraw. They are over there indefinitely because the big powers have no political solutions for Bosnia. Not only they have no strategic plans, they have no strategies to develop them. Multi-national problems never were American problems and Europe was solving them so long ago that Germans or Swiss forgot how they arrived to their federation model. The Statements issued by the State Department can tell you how much American specialist in foreign policy know the subject. In the post-Cold War decade American and European minds were at rest. They thought that the collapse of the Soviet Union is the solution to all problems, forgetting the existence of the Soviet power had its very sound reasons. Surprise! The communists resurfaced again! Because those very reason for their existence are still there. Market analysts would say -- supply and demand.
In my mind, the biggest crisis of all is in so-called Western Identity. West was full of this pre-conceived notion that it represents universal answer to everybody’s prayers, but in reality Asia, Africa, or even Latin America were never included in its universal history. To this day nobody dares to suggest that Americans might learn something by studying the systems of governing from a so-called “developing country” (they are not “developed” to learn anything from them). How could American president be called a leader of the free world (you can count of your fingers the bastards who are free yet), when this leader has very little knowledge of the world he leads? Most troubling is that he even doesn’t know that he must learn just because he is defacto in this position to lead. Never mind Africa, they didn’t study Russia with nukes before their team of coaches came to Moscow to teach ex-communists how to be capitalists. The stock market exchange doesn’t exit in Addis Ababa not because Ethiopians weren’t told about it. You can talk about democracy forever and it will not produce democracy in Ethiopia. Because there is no such a thing as “democracy”; it’s always specific democracy and American democracy is different from British, German or French. To function in Ethiopia it has be “Ethiopian democracy,” not a generic concept they talk about. Nobody can import or export ready-to-use-culture, this product doesn’t exist.
So, who study Ethiopia now in order to understand the task? Ethiopian studies are not popular because the Marxists are gone and with them American stategic interests in the Horn of Africa. I couldn’t find much publications of the post-Dergue period. We can celebrate the global society arrival, the favorite occupation of all brain-dead politicians, and from time to time play being shocked --Rwanda? My God! What’s wrong with them? Perhaps for the entertainment consumed children of Europe who forgot that their millions already were slathered in centuries of wars over national, religious and statehood issues, that should be a shocker. Here is the real identity crisis for you -- no
identity at all.
I see some positive aspects in the recent massive Ethiopian presence in the West, the new generation with the experience and knowledge of both worlds would be able to ask real questions. History pains are never for nothing.
There is a lot of blood is still ahead. This wee alone in three days around ten thousand died on both sides, the wounded are as usual twice that much.
forum 
guests 
folders 
glossary 
hot * Make THEATRE/FILM w/ANATOLY your homepage -- click here!
