|
|
ERITREA: Special Report on 12 years of independence
[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations]
|
© irin
The Shidda monument in Asmara - a tribute to the liberation fighters
|
NAIROBI, 22 May 2003 (IRIN) - On the eve of its 12th independence anniversary – and its 10th year of formal independence - Eritrea is confronted with difficult choices. President Isayas Afewerki, under fire for an increasingly autocratic rule, faces the difficult task of moving his country out of an apparent impasse.
Ten years ago, Eritrean independence - gained on 24 May 1991 when the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) marched into Asmara - was formalised in a referendum in which the people voted overwhelmingly (99.9 percent) for their freedom. But emancipation from neighbouring Ethiopia came at a huge cost. Tens of thousands of people lost their lives during the 30-year liberation struggle, and hundreds of thousands more became refugees, mostly in Sudan. The EPLF was faced with a mammoth task of reconstruction and economic revival.
For the next few years, there was peace and Eritreans rallied behind their leaders to work to rebuild their shattered country. The EPLF transformed itself into the People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) and plans were made for eventual multipartyism and general elections. Cooperation with now-landlocked Ethiopia was smooth for the first few years, and Ethiopian trade kept the ports of Massawa and Assab busy and profitable.
CRACKDOWN
But then came renewed war with Ethiopia in 1998, sparked by a border skirmish in the remote town of Badme, and years of progress were reversed almost overnight. Resources had to be diverted to the war effort, thousands of people were called up for military service and once again, hundreds of thousands of citizens were displaced or forced to flee across borders.
Although the war was ended by a peace agreement, signed by both sides in December 2000, Asmara has remained jittery and this has led to a tough government policy, which some say amounts to a crackdown on political dissent.
"The war has so deeply scarred Eritrea that it seems no longer able to define itself except in relation to its opposition to Ethiopia," said one political observer.
But the Eritrean government rejects this view. It insists it is acting to preserve its territorial security and to keep its borders safe. To this end, it defends the arrest of 11 prominent politicians and the closure of the private press in 2001 on the grounds of "national security", and denies that people are arrested for expressing their views.
"People are free to write whatever they want, they are free to express their opinions," acting Information Minister Ali Abdu Ahmed told IRIN.
However, human rights organisations have expressed concern about the growing number of detainees in Eritrea's jails, saying that very often they are held incommunicado for long periods of time, without charge and with no recourse to an independent court. According to the US State Department, Eritrea's "poor" human rights record worsened still further last year.
Eritrea was one of the few African countries to publicly express its support for the US-led war on Iraq and observers note the diverging policies of the State Department and the Pentagon towards the tiny, strategically-placed nation.
"The Pentagon is keen to build relations with Eritrea, but the State Department says human rights issues and democratisation should be addressed first," said a regional expert. "The US has been divided over Eritrea ever since the crackdown began in 2001."
"Eritrea has been lobbying very hard to get some US military presence on its territory," he added. "The reasons are both for obvious economic advantages, and for political advantage - if the US commits troops to Eritrea, the military threat from Ethiopia would be dissipated."
PROTECTING NATIONAL INTERESTS
As a small and vulnerable country, surrounded on two sides by giant and hostile neighbours Ethiopia and Sudan, Eritrea says it has to protect its national interests and will not bow to external pressure. Regional observers point to the fiercely independent, “go-it-alone” Eritrean psyche, borne out of a 30-year struggle that was largely unsupported by the international community. In independent Eritrea, officials frequently state their refusal to “play the game”.
|
searching for water during the drought
|
But the country is facing the worst drought of its short history, and humanitarian workers have warned of “catastrophe” unless there is a marked increase in the tiny amounts of aid that have so far arrived. The Food and Agriculture Organisation said that nearly two-thirds of the country’s 3.5 million population are facing severe food shortages.
President Isayas recently accused the international community of using assistance as a “political tool” and described Ethiopia, also suffering from a devastating drought, as the “spoilt child of the west”.
"The difference between Eritrea and Ethiopia is that Ethiopia does know how to play the game,” one observer said. “They realise they have to make and keep friends in order to maintain support and certainly to keep the money flowing in, despite a lacklustre record of success with their programmes.”
Eritrea has always maintained it can rely on the nationalistic pride of its people, and particularly contributions from diaspora Eritreans. But disillusionment is setting in.
“High morale is what drove the EPLF to victory, but morale now appears to be waning,” the observer added. "There is progress in the social and economic sphere and tremendous resistance in the political sphere.”
|
Trenches at Nakfa during the liberation war
|
“Instead of Eritrea remaking the EPLF, the EPLF remade Eritrea in its image,” says academic David Pool, who spent time with the combatants in the 1970s.
In his book on the EPLF, ‘From Guerrillas to Government’, Pool writes that the “transition from a centralised and tightly organised liberation front is fraught with difficulties, not the least of which is putting aside the components of victory”.
“Perceiving threats to national unity has frequently provided the justification for the maintenance of secretive and unaccountable political systems which in their turn generate division,” he says.
Continued
|
|