http://ascenteq.com/project/epdp

ኣብዚ ዘለናዮ እዋን፡ እቲ ኣብ መንጎ ሃገራት ዝጸንሐ ምክብባርን ምትሕልላውን ክነቓነቕ፡ እተን ዘይማዕበላን ናእሽቱን ሃገራት ብሓያላት ከይድፈራ፡ ማእከላይ ኮይኑ ዝጸንሐ ኣህጉራዊ ኮነ ዞባዊ ሕግታትን ውዑላትን ሓይሉ ክደክም ይረአ’ሎ። ብሰሪዚ ድማ  ዓለምና ኣብ ከቢድ ናይ ውግኣትን ስግኣትን ወጥሪ ተጸሚዳ፡ በቲ ሓደ ወገን  ህዝቢ ክሃልቕን ክማዛበልን በቲ ካልእ ወገን ከኣ ንብረቱን ትካላቱን ክዓኑ መዓልታዊ ናይ ስግኣት ተርእዮ ይኸውን ኣሎ።

 ካብዚ ብዘይፍለ፡ መንግስቲ ኢትዮጵያ ብተደጋጋሚ ኣብ ልዕሊ ኤርትራ ዘልዕሎ ዘሎ ሕቶ፡ ምስንዳእ ንዓመጽ ካብ ምዃን ሓሊፉ ካልእ ትርጉም የብሉን። እቲ ሕቶ ዋል’ኳ ስንኩፍ ኣታሓሕዛ ዝምድናታት ህግደፍ ዘተባብዖ እንተኾነ፡ ንኢትዮጵያ’ውን መዘዙ ነዊሕ ስለ ዝኾነ፡ ሻቕለቱ ኣብ ኤርትራውያን ጥራይ ተደሪቱ ዘይተርፍ፡ ንኹሎም ምእንቲ ፍትሒ፡ ልኡላውነትን ሰላምን ዝሕለቑ ወገናት’ውን ዘየቕስን’ዩ። ምኽንያቱ “ጭሕሚ ዓርክኻ ክላጸሲ፡ ጭሕምኻ ማይ ልኸ” ከም ዝበሃል፡ ዓመጽ እንተ ሳዕሪሩ፡ ሎሚ “ደሓን ኣለና ንዝብሉ” ወገናት’ውን ጽባሕ ነዓኣቶም ውሕስቲ ኣይክትከውንን’ያ። ብልጽግናን “ንሕና ኣለናልኩም” በሃልቶምን፡ ሕቶኦም ርትዓዊ ንምምሳል፡ ዝጽፍጽፍዎ ምኽንያታት ሓቅነት ስለ ዘየብሉ፡ ምልክዑ ዝቐያይር’ምበር መወዳእታ ዝተሳእኖ፡ ሓደ ክፈርሶም እንከሎ ካልእ ክምህዙ እዮም ከይደቀሱ ዝሓድሩ።

ሃንቀውታ መንግስቲ ኢትዮጵያ ብጉልበት ኣፍደገ ባሕርን ወደብን ምውናን ዝድረት ዘይኮነ፡ ንብምልእታ ኤርትራ ዓምጢሩ ንምውሓጥ ዝደናደን ምዃኑ ምግንዛብ የድሊ። እቲ “ዝመንጨትና ምስ መንጨትና ኣብታ ዝተረፈት ኤርትራ ልኡላውነት ከነኽብር ኢና” ክሳብ ምባል ዝበጽሕ “ማይ ዘይጠዓመ ጽውጽዋይ” መዳህለሊ ኣብ ዝበሃለሉ መድረኽ ኢና ዘለና። ከምቲ “ስቕ በሉ ዝብኢ እዩ እግረይ ዝበልዕ ዘሎ” በለ ፈራሕ  ዝበሃል፡ ኤርትራ ኣፍደገ ባሕራን ወደባን ድሕሪ ምውራር፡ “ዝተረፈ ኣካላ ክድሕን’ዩ” ኢልካ ንገዛእ ርእስኻ ምድዕዓስ፡ ናይ ጥዕና ከምዘይከውን ብሩህ እዩ።

“ኤርትራ ባሕራን ወደባን ካብ ዘይተጠቕመትሉ፡ ኢትዮጵያ እንተወሰደቶ እንታይ ጸገም ኣለዎ”፡ ዝብሉ  ገለ ኤርትራውያን መዳመቕቲ ዓመጽ፡ ምስማዕ ከኣ ዳርጋ ልሙድ ዝተዓዛዝብ ይኸውን ኣሎ።“ስለ ዘይንጥቀመሉስ፡ ይውሰድዎ”ኸ  ይበሃልድ’ዩ” ዘብለና ዘሎ ከኣ፡ ተስፋ ምቑራጽን ብሩህ መጻኢ ዘይምምዕዳውን ግጉይ ስለ ዝኾነ’ዩ። ህዝቢ ኤርትራ ብሰንኪ ህግደፍ ዘይጥቀመሉ ዘሎ፡ ባሕሩን ወደባቱን ጥራይ ዘይኮነ፡ እንተላይ ካልእ ተፈጥሮኣውን ሰብኣውን ጸጋታቱ ምዃኑ ርኡይ እዩ። ክሳብ ክንዲ’ዚ ናይ ጸጋታቱ ዘኽታም ዝኾነ ከኣ፡ በቲ ዋጋ ዝኸፈለሉ ኩለ-መዳያዊ ሃብቱን መሰሉን ናይ ምጥቃም ድሌትን ቅሩብነትን ሰለ ዘየብሉ ኣይኮነን።  እንታይ ደኣ ብሰንክ’ቲ ከም ቁርዲድ ጨምዲዱ ሒዝዎ ዘሎ ህግደፋዊ ጭቆና ምዃኑ፡ ኣይኮነንዶ ንጐረቤት ኢትዮጵያ ዓለም ብዓለማ’ውን እትፈልጦን ትሻቐለሉ ዘላን ሓቂ እዩ። ሓይልታት ለውጢ ኤርትራ ስንና ነኺስና ነካይዶ ዘለና ቃልሲ ድማ፡ ህዝብና ንዘይተጠቕመሉ ባሕሩ ይኹን መሬቱ ቆርሚምካ ንዘይግበኦም ንምምጣው ዘይኮነ፡ ልዕልናኡ ብሕገመንግስቲ ኣውሒሱ፡ ናይ ኩሉ ሃብቱ ዋና ዝኾነሉ ኩነታት ንምጥጣሕ ምዃኑ ምስትውዓል የድሊ።

ብመንግስቲ ኢትዮጵያ ይረአ ንዘሎ፡ ንመገላገሊ’ውን ዘጸግም ልኡላውነት ኤርትራ ናይ ምግሃስ ላዕልን ታሕትት ብዝምልከቶም ዞባውን ኣህጉራውን ትካላት ተቐላጢፍካ “ኣይፋል” ዝብል ድምጺ  ዘይምስምዑ፡  ሓደገኛ ሳዕቤን ከየኸትል ዘሰክፍ’ዩ። ገለ ምእንቲ ልኡላውነት ሃገርን ሓድነት ህዝብን ኣብ ቃልሲ ኣለና ዝብሉ  ወገናት’ውን፡ ንዓሎቕ ብልጽግና ከጸባብቑ ይስማዕ እዩ።  ኣብዚ ቀረባ መዓልታት ሓደ “ምዕራብ ትግራይን ራያን ናብ ንቡር ንምምላስ እቃለስ ኣለኹ” ዝብል ትግራዋይ ፖለቲከኛ፡ ኦሪያ ኣብ ዝተባህለት መዲያ ቀሪቡ፡ “ኢትዮጵያ ኣፍደገ ባሕርን ወደብን ክትውንን ርትዓዊ እዩ” ዝብል  ሓሳብ ከቕርብ እንከሎ ምስማዕ ክሳብ ክንዳይ ገለ ወገናት ኣብ ተጋራጫዊ ማዕበል ይሕንብሱ ከም ዘለዉ የመልክት።

ኣብ መንጎ ኤርትራን ኢትዮጵያን ወጥሪ ኣብ ዝበረኸሉ፡ ይስምዑ ካብ ዘለዉ፡ “ኣብ ሎሚ ኮይንካ ኣብ ትማሊ ክትነብር” ምፍታን እዩ። ከም መርኣያ ናይዚ፡ ኢጣልያ ንኤርትራ ነዚ ሒዛቶ ዘላ ቅርጺ ኣትሒዛ ምግዘኣ፡ ኮነ ኢላ ኢትዮጵያ ምስ ባሕሪ ከምዘይትራኸብ ናይ ምግባር ተንኮል’ዩ እናበሉ ምስ ህልዊ ቅርጺ ኤርትራ ዝራገሙ’ውን ኣለዉ። እዚ ጉዳይ ኣብቲ ሃጸይ ምነሊክ ንኢትዮጵያ ካብ ኢጣልያ ንምድሓን ብዝብል ምስ  ኢጥልያ ዝተፈራረመሉ እዋን እንተዝኸውን ትርጉም መሃለዎ። ሎሚ ድሕሪ ናይ ኤርትራ ሃገርነት ብኹሉ መለክዕታት ምድልዳሉን፡ ኣብ ቀረባ ግዜ’ኳ ብመሰረት ውዕል ኣልጀርስ ጉዳይ ዶብ ክልቲአን ሃገራት ናይ መወዳእታን ቀያድን ውሳነ ተወሲኑ፡ ኣብ መወዳእታ መስርሕ ኣተገባብራ እናሃለወ፡ ልዕሊ100 ዓመታት  ንድሕሪት ተመሊስካ ምምራር፡ “ድሕሪ ማይ ናብ በዓቲ”  ዝዓይነቱ ህውተታ፡ መግለጺ ፖለቲካውን ታሪኻውን ንድየት  እንተዘይኮይኑ ካልእ ትርጉም የብሉን።

ኣብ ግዜ ደርጊ “ርእሰ-ምምሕዳር ዓሰብ (የዓሰብ ራስ ገዝ)” ዝበሃል ከባቢ ምንባሩ ዓሰብ ናይ ኤርትራ ዘይምዃና ዘመላኽት’ዩ ክበሃል’ውን ይስማዕ’ዩ። ብዛዕባ ግዜ ደርጊ ዝተባህለ እንተተባህለ፡  ዓሰብ ጥራይ ዘይኮነት መላእ ኤርትራ’ውን ኣብ ትሕቲ መግዛእቲ ኢትዮጵያ እዩ ነይሩ። ደርጊ ኣብታ ግዝኣቱ ዝነበረት ኤርትራ ከም ድላዩ ጠንቀላዕላዕ እንተበለ ድማ ዳኛ ኣይነበሮን። እቲ ድሕሪኡ ዝማዕበለ፡ ናይ ህዝቢ ኤርትራ ብቕልጽሙ ንመግዛእቲ ምስዓርን ኣህጉራዊ ኣፍልጦ ብዝተኻየደ ህዝበ-ውሳነ (ረፈረንደም)፡ ኤርትራ መዓርግ ልኡላውነት ምልባሳን፡ ኣብቲ ኣብ ግዜ ደርግን ቅድሚኡ ዝነበረ ነበረያነበረ ዘምጸኦ መሰረታዊ ለውጢ ዘይምርዳእ ኮይኑ፡ “ክበልዕ ዝበለስ ገደል ኣፉ” ከም ዝበሃል ተዓሚትካ ንቕድሚት ምጉያይ ጥራይ’ዩ ዝኸውን።

ዝሓለፉ መራሕቲ ኢትዮጵያ፡ ኣብ ጉዳይ ኤርትራ ኮነ ካልእ ዛዕባ ነናቶም ኣሰር ገዲፎም ዝሓለፉ እዮም። ኩሉ ተግባራቶም ከኣ ብስም ኢትዮጵያ ከም ውርሻ ታሪኻ ዝምዝገብ እምበር፡ ሒዘምዎ ዝኸዱ ወይ ዝስረዝ ኣይኮነን። ኢትዮጵያውያን ከምቲ ምነሊክ ንኢትዮጵያ ዘመናዊ መንገዲ ኣትሒዝዋ ኢሎም ዝሕበንሉ፡ ምስ ኢጣልያ ዝኸተሞም ስምምዓት ከኽብሩ’ውን ቅሱባት እዮም። ተጠሊዕካ፡ “መንግስቲ ኢህወደግ ዝገደፈልና ልቓሕ ናይ ኢትዮጵያ ዕዳ ስለ ዝኾነ፡ ንኸፍሎ  ኣለና” እናበልካ፡ ተጠዊኻ ንውጽኢት ረፈረንደም ተቐቢሎም ንልኡኣውነት ኤርትራ ኣፍልጦ ምሃቦም ሓጥያት’ዩ ምባልከ ብኸመይ’ዩ ዝቃዶ።

ዶር ደረጀ ዘለቀ፡ ኣብ ዩኒቨርሲቲ ኣዲስ ኣበባ  መምህር ዓለምለኸ ሕጊ ዝነበረ፡ ብ2019 ኣብ ሓደ ኣጋጣሚ፡ “ብመንጽር ሕጊ ዓሰብ ናብ ኢትዮጵያ ናይ ምምላስ ዝኾነ ይኹን ዕልድ የለን። ካብዚ ወጻኢ ብጉልበት ክጥቀምየ ንዝብል፡ ኣነ ከም ናይ ሕጊ ፈላጥን ጠበቓን ኣይድግፎን እየ። ዝከኣል እውን ኣይመስለንን። ካብ ኢድ ናብ ኣፍ ዝነብር ህዝቢ ናይ ካልእ ሃገር መሬት ወሪሩ ብሰላም ክነብር’ዩ ዝብል እምነት ከኣ የብለይን” ዝበሎ  ምዝካር ከኣ ኣገዳሲ እዩ።

In a number of strongly-worded memorandums addressed throughout 1992 and 1993 to UN Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali, with copies to UN member states, the leadership of the then Eritrean Liberation Front-Revolutionary Council (ELF-RC), repeatedly begged the world organization to make the proposed referendum a good start as an ABC of democracy in new Eritrea.

Mainly drafted and sent to the UN by Martyr Seyoum Ogbamichael (Harestai) for  the Executive Committee of ELF-RC as its head of foreign relations, the series of memorandums exposed the already started gross violations of the Eritrean people’s rights and aspirations by the “anti-democratic polices” of the Provisional Government of the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF). The writings deeply expressed the “concern about the future of Eritrea, given the EPLF's policies of exclusion and suppression.”

The memorandums again and again appealed for UN action “for the safeguard of democracy and the protection of human rights in Eritrea” and went on:”We specifically  implore you to take the necessary steps to guarantee the right of all Eritrean organizations to function freely as autonomous political bodies.”

Positive support of the UN would, the memorandums hammered on, “would help “reverse EPLF's anti-democratic agenda; otherwise, Eritrea will be entangled in another crisis whose impact can be as devastating as the thirty-year-war we just concluded.”

The September 28 1992 memorandum, whose full text is presented below, especially for interested readers and researches of the still ill-documented Eritrean struggle, explained the situation that prevailed in Eritrea, including the social and political plurality which was already being fully denied by the EPLF leadership. It warned the UN should not one again make a mistake by standing only with one organization. It said Eritrea did not belong only to the EPLF but to all the existing political and civil organizations, large and small, together with their supporters that are being ignored wrongly and blatantly.

The ELF-RC message underlined that the task “cannot be left to the EPLF, which will only continue to monopolize state power. The UN was wanted not only to push for democratizing the referendum by ensuring the participation of the society as a whole but also be ready to “supervise national elections and the setting up of the first government” in newly liberated Eritrea.

As friends and comrades-in-struggle of the late Seyoum Ogbamichael are about to mark the 20^th commemoration of his martyrdom this December, the EPDP Information Office shall share with readers similar writings drafted by him, including another sharp memorandum addressed to the UN system about the referendum on 2 December 1992. Good reading).

*****

 Democracy and the 1993 Referendum in Eritrea  

Memorandum To: Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali,

Secretary-General
United Nations, New York, NY

From: Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF-RC)
Foreign Relations Office,

Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany
28 September, 1992

Your Excellency,

We, members of the Executive Committee of the Eritrean Liberation Front - Revolutionary Council (ELF-RC) respectfully submit this memorandum for your kind consideration.

Our appreciation of the ideals underlying the United Nations Organization and our trust in the UN's resolve to live up to its aims and objectives inspire us to address this petition to your good offices. We seriously urge you to consider the points raised below with a view to taking appropriate action to salvage the situation in our homeland.

This memorandum contains an assessment of the current political atmosphere in Eritrea bearing in mind the conditions desired for the success of the forthcoming referendum. Its focus is on the rejection of democracy and the violation of human, civil, and political rights [of our people] by the Provisional Government of the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF).

1. Unanswered Questions today:

For the most part the news disseminated by the print and electronic media on Eritrea are not adequately revealing or enlightening. They belabor the point that a referendum is being expected for next year. But they are silent on the crucial details of what is going on in this preparatory phase of the referendum process. Just how democratic is the actual process in Eritrea today? What is the political landscape of present-day Eritrea? How many and what types of political forces are there? Do Eritrean organizations other than the EPLF have any role in the ongoing process? Are they free to function as autonomous organizations? Are individual activists free to criticize and express viewpoints different from those of the EPLF? Are human, civil, and political rights of such individuals being respected by the EPLF's Provisional Government? In short, do the policies of the EPLF and the political atmosphere they have generated make for a free and fair referendum? Will these policies lead to democracy and lasting peace in Eritrea and to stability in the Horn of Africa?

Regrettably, none of the above questions can be answered in the affirmative, Due to the anti-democratic policy of the EPLF, the situation in Eritrea is severely flaw-ridden, precarious and tense. An eruption any time in the future cannot be ruled out.

2. The ELF had always favored Peaceful Solution:

It was under the leadership of the Eritrean Liberation Front that Eritreans raised arms claiming their right to self-determination. They sought to assert their identity as a people. However, though they resorted to armed struggle, they had consistently expressed their readiness for a peaceful solution to the problem. Even at the time when   ELF was in control of most of Eritrea, it was ready and willing to engage in a process of peaceful settlement.

Negotiations were attempted between Ethiopia on the one hand and the components of the Eritrean movement on the other. It is to be recalled that we, the ELF-RC, had demanded the participation of the United Nations in those negotiations. Unfortunately, due to intransigence on the part of successive Ethiopian governments and the non-involvement of the UN, our efforts for peaceful settlement were thwarted

3. Our Critical Support for the Planned Referendum:

Following the defeat of the Ethiopian forces, it was agreed in the London peace Conference that a referendum will be held in Eritrea. This was confirmed, or in effect ratified, by the participants in the Addis Ababa Conference of July 1991. Implied in the conference's position on this issue is that the fundamental human, civil, and political rights including "the freedom of conscience, expression, association and peaceable assembly" and "the right to engage in unrestricted political activity and to organize political parties" as stated in article 1 (a and b) of the Transitional Period Charter of Ethiopia will be respected in Eritrea as well. It is also implied that in general "individual and human rights" as expressed in "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly by resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948" shall be "respected fully, and without any limitation whatsoever" in Eritrea.

Initially, i.e., soon after the defeat of Ethiopian forces, our organization was not favorably inclined to the idea of a referendum. But later on, seeing the whole process in the light of the protection of democratic rights contemplated in the Ethiopian Charter, we gave a critical support to the idea of a referendum being held in Eritrea, Underlying our critical support was the conviction that through a democratically conducted referendum the Eritrean people will freely express their wish which the world should respect regardless of the claims of Ethiopia. In other words, we proceeded from the premise that observance of the principles of democracy would ensure international recognition for the outcome of the referendum.

We had no doubt that at least a very large majority of Eritreans favored establishing their own separate, sovereign state. We are still convinced that this is the case. Nevertheless, we would like to state our principled stand thus: So long as the referendum is conducted democratically, we are prepared to respect the outcome whether or not it conforms with our conviction and particular choice on the status of Eritrea.

4. Political Pluralism - a Reality in Eritrea:

Multiplicity of organized political forces characterize the actual political situation in Eritrea today. There are at least seven major political organizations. Such has in fact been the reality in Eritrea since long time ago. The EPLF, now the Provisional Government, is only one of these organizations. Throughout the years, EPLF's relations with us and other Eritrean forces has been severely confrontational, culminating quite often in armed conflicts. Our organization has consistently adhered to the policy of resolving intra-Eritrean conflicts and problems peacefully and democratically. And so, when the Eritrean Revolution attained final military victory over the Ethiopian forces, we called for a broad coalition government as a transition to a multi-party democracy in Eritrea. We proposed that a Charter be drawn up stipulating the basic principles and providing the constitutional framework for such a transition. We emphasized the need for a broad-based transitional government in which all the political forces would participate.

5. EPLF seeks to set up a dictatorships:

Ignoring our pleas, the EPLF established a Provisional Government which is solely its own It rejected the counsel of many peace loving forces in our region who tried to influence It in keeping with our calls and demands. The EPLF has effectively blocked the path to national reconciliation and peace.

The EPLF intends to monopolize the political process and to prevent democratization of the Eritrean polity. As regards the referendum, it has forbidden the participation of all other Eritrean organizations and movements. Throughout both the preparatory and the voting phases, the EPLF is to be the sole organization conducting the referendum. There is a sinister aim behind excluding other Eritrean organizations from the process: laying the basis for consolidating an overtly dictatorial regime after the referendum.

6. EPLF's Pretexts and Propaganda:

EPLF's Provisional Government has fabricated some excuses for disallowing the existence and functioning of other Eritrean organizations. It portrays itself as the sole champion of Eritrean independence.

The EPLF is trying to eclipse the issue of democracy amid propaganda amounting to chauvinist demagogy. It falsely presents all the other Eritrean organizations as opting for association with Ethiopia. At times, it even compares the choice of association with Ethiopia to a vote for "slavery." (See for example its Announcement of October 16, 1991). This, incidentally, is rather strange. For years the EPLF has been advocating referendum with separation, federation, and autonomy as choices available for Eritreans. Thus, in a sense, it was the EPLF itself which first put forward a status short of "independence" (short of separation) as an option for the Eritrean people!

We would like to stress here that, though our own choice is to establish a sovereign Eritrean state, we nonetheless maintain that Eritreans have the right to freely opt for association with Ethiopia; furthermore, we firmly believe that at the present it is anti-democratic for a "government' in charge of a referendum process in Eritrea to defile any option presented to the people as one for "slavery."

7, EPLF's Current Policy:

Slandering the other Eritrean organizations as advocates of "slavery”, the EPLF is taking measures violating fundamental human, civil, and political rights. Some of its measures have been noted and correctly assessed by major international organizations like the European Community (EC).

In August and September 1991, the EC issued a statement in which it expressed “many serious reservations about the current behavior of the EPLF." Here are two "reservations” most pertinent to our case:

(i) The EC expressed its concern that the EPLF may not respect the right to campaign for one's viewpoint on the referendum. It noted that it "now seems unlikely that the EPLF will allow freedom of expression and political campaigning". (Quoted in Horn of Africa Bulletin, Uppsala, No./Dec. 1991, p. 24)

(ii) The EC also observed that the fundamental right of association, of the press and expression, which are crucial for progress towards multi-party democracy and a genuine referendum, are not being respected by the EPLF's Provisional Government. In the words of the EC's statement: There is no freedom of the press and no freedom of association, no multi-party system, and almost every indication is that it is not the intention of the EPLF to permit such `luxuries”. (Quoted in Horn of Africa Bulletin,
Uppsala, No./Dec. 1991, p. 24)

Subsequent to September 1991, the EPLF took several measures, confirming the observations and fears expressed in the statement of the EC. It actually intensified its policy of repression. And as the Africa Confidential reported our organization, ELF -RC, has become a main "target for EPLF kidnappings and assassinations". (Africa Confidential, July 31, 1992). Some of the measures the EPLF has taken so far
this year are the following:

(i) In January 1992, the EPLF's Provisional Government launched an all-out military offensive, The targets were our organization (ELF-RC), the Democratic Movement for the Liberation of Eritrea (DMLE), the ELF- Central Leadership (SAGHM), and other national organizations.

(ii) In collaboration with its regional ally, the fundamentalist regime in Khartoum, the EPLF kidnapped in April 1992 in Kassala two senior members of our Executive
Committee. They are Wolde-Mariam Bahlibi and Tekle-Berhan Ghebre-Tsadik. Our kidnapped colleagues were taken to Asmara where they are incarcerated at the Mercato prison.

(iii) The EPLF has not only intensified its policy of banning other organizations and suppressing democratic right, but  it continued to detain thousands of Eritreans who
are supporters of our organization and of other national organizations that insist on their democratic right to autonomous existence.

At times the EPLF claims that it is postponing multi-partyism and related freedoms only in order to realize the success of the referendum process and to secure international recognition for Eritrea's independence. But this claim is patently false and makes no sense.

The referendum can vindicate the right of the Eritrean people only if it is "free" and "fair”. The EPLF's actual policy in Eritrea detracts from the quality of the referendum as "free" and "fair"; to that extent it makes international public opinion reluctant to cooperate in the process; it may even jeopardize the chances for international recognition of the referendum's outcome. And this is quite evident. For example, the EC statement cited
above admonished that if the "organization" of "manifestations" by the opposition, including "anti-independence" groups is "frustrated ... then the outside world may consider to express disapproval, or even to not get involved in supervising any referendum". (Quoted in Horn of Africa Bulletin, Nov./Dec. 1991, p. 24) Undoubtedly, the EC made this remark in the light of the EPLF's anti-democratic practices.

8. "Free" and "Fair" Referendum:

This implies that the people must be free from any pressure to decide one way or the other; it also denotes that they should not be prevented or even limited in debating and campaigning on the pertinent issues. In the case of Eritrea the following need to be fulfilled so that the process may be "free" and "fair":

(i) The referendum should be organized and conducted under the supervision of the United Nations. This means the UN should supervise both the preparatory and the voting stages of the referendum.

(ii) The ELF-RC and all other Eritrean organizations should participate in the preparatory and voting stages of the process.

(iii) The process should be attended by observers from various countries and international organizations. The observers should monitor not only the voting but also all the activities in the phases preceding voting.

(iv) All Eritreans of voting age - residing inside and outside the country - should vote. Needless to say, this includes Eritreans residing in Ethiopia; it also includes Eritreans who may opt not for separate statehood but for some form of association with Ethiopia.

(v) During the preparatory and voting phases of the process, the army of the EPLF should withdraw to the barracks. This liberal atmosphere is absolutely essential. Only then can prevail in the country; only then can the people debate the issues and vote freely and voluntarily.

(vi) Closely related to the conduct of the referendum is the election of the first Parliament and the establishment of the first Government in Eritrea. There will have to be a parliament and a government no matter whether Eritrea is going to be a separate state or affiliated with Ethiopia in one form or another. This task cannot be left to the EPLF, which will only continue to monopolize state power. The UN should therefore supervise the national elections and the setting up of the first government.

 In the case of Eritrea, a process of "free" and "fair" referendum as explained above is worthwhile for a number of reasons in addition to facilitating international recognition as discussed above. The wish expressed by the majority of our people will have a much better chance of being accepted and supported in Ethiopia than it would if the process is not "free" and "fair". Moreover, such a referendum would also provide a national base to the order that wou ld be established in Eritrea. It will foster an atmosphere conducive for launching a process of political consensus and national reconciliation which, in turn, willconstitute a peaceful transition to a democratic political order. Hence, "free" and "fair" referendum in Eritrea will directly contribute to peace and stability in the Horn of  Africa.
 
9. The Role of the ELF -RC:

10. UN's Responsibility: Our organization, the ELF-RC, is ready and willing to participate fully in a referendum which is "free” and "fair" as described above. With its large mass following inside and outside Eritrea and “considerable political credibility” confirmed by international observers (see Africa Confidential, July 31,1992), it la prepared to do everything it can for the success of a democratically conducted referendum. And as already stated, the ELF-RC is willing to respect the outcome.

The United Nations has the responsibility to make sure that the referendum will be
conducted democratically. If it fails in this responsibility, it will be held at least partially accountable for the negative consequences that may follow. What are the possible consequences?

If the UN does not intervene in Eritrea, the EPLF will continue to apply the same anti-democratic approach, at variance with the reality of pluralism in our society. The
EPLF will install a dictatorial regime. On the other hand, due to the absence of democracy in the process, the outcome of the referendum may be controversial, to say the least.

An overt EPLF dictatorship will mean continuation and intensification of the violations of human rights. It would also mean an increase in the pro-democracy resistance movement, a continuation of our struggle. The end result would be further instability in the Horn of Africa. In short, unless the UN intervenes now to check and reverse the EPLF's anti-democratic agenda, Eritrea will be entangled in another crisis whose impact can be as devastating as the thirty-year-war we just concluded.

11. UN's Inaction on Eritrea in the Past:

If Eritrea suffers as a result of UN inaction it would not be for the first time. We recall that the UN's mishandling of the Eritrean question in 1950 and the UN's failure to intervene in subsequent years was, to a significant extent, responsible for the war which devastated our country for three decades. Eritrea was incorporated into Ethiopia on the basis of UN Resolution 390 A (v) of 1950, which, contrary to the wishes of the majority of Eritreans, provided that our country shall be "an autonomous unit federated with Ethiopia under the sovereignty of the Ethiopian crown". This so called "federal" resolution embodied the plan of the United States, which had coveted Eritrea’s strategic location. It was actually the outcome of a deal between the US and its ally, Haile Selassie's Ethiopia. Once the "federation" came into effect the US established military bases in our country. And for its part, Haile Selassie's regime eroded Eritrea's "federal" status and finally dissolved it making our country a mere province in the Ethiopian empire.

Over the years when the "federation" was being violated the UN kept silent. It took no steps whatsoever to correct the situation even though Eritrean political leaders at the time repeatedly appealed for UN help. The denial of democratic rights and the failure of the UN to act prompted our people to wage an armed struggle for their right to self-determination - a  struggle which continued for thirty years.

12. The US does it again:

In May 1991, the London Peace Talks, brokered by the United States, dealt with the
question of Eritrea in a way which led to the present problem. Represented
by the Assistant Secretary of State for Affairs, Mr. Herman Cohen, the US was not just a mediator in the talks but virtually the adjudicator. In that capacity, it assigned full and exclusive control of Eritrea to the EPLF whose leaders had accepted the “precondition” that the referendum would be put off for two years.

It should be noted here that the US had negotiated this “precondition” earlier with the EPLF, in particular with its supreme leader, Isaias Afeworki. This fact is now being openly stated by US strategists involved in the process. One of these, Paul Henze, writes: "Isaias Afeworki, head of the EPLF, agreed to accept publicly a previously discussed two-year postponement of a referendum on Eritrean independence
as a precondition for this (London) Conference." (See Paul Henze, "Ethiopia in Transition, Part II", Ethiopian Review, Los Angeles, August 1992, p. 24).

Having agreed to postpone the referendum, the EPLF was allowed to monopolize state power in Eritrea, i.e. to exclude all other Eritrean organizations from any share in power. It is important to recall two facts in this connection:

(i) The US specifically required the new government in Ethiopia -a coalition dominated by the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) - to observe democracy and human rights. Paul Henze implies in the above quoted article that as the government in Ethiopia (the EPRDF) or any other organization "should be democratic and committed to the protection of basic human rights". But the US made no such explicit request on the EPLF, which was left free to execute its own agenda on Eritrea regardless of democracy and human rights.

Not surprisingly, when, upon taking control of Asmara, the EPLF unleashed a full scale suppression of other organizations, the US did not raise any objection. Thus, as in the past, a US-backed government in Eritrea is oppressing our people at the present.

Is the UN going to watch this dangerous situation with folded arms? We hope not.

13. UN Intervention urgently Needed:

The UN ought to assume positive involvement in Eritrea now. Otherwise, the situation in our country will deteriorate to the point that civil war could be triggered again.

We would like to recall here the foremost ideal stated in the preamble of the UN Charter
“to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war". These words best express the sentiment of our people today. Certainly, the bitter experience of the three-decade-war concluded last year is a major explanation for this sentiment; but equally
important is also the concern about the future, given the EPLF's policies of exclusion and suppression as explained above.

We are therefore appealing to you, dear Sir, in your capacity as the UN Secretary-General, and through you, to the members of the Security Council and the UN system in general, to do everything within your powers and possibilities for the safeguard of democracy and the protection of human rights in Eritrea today. Specifically, we would like to implore you to take the necessary steps to guarantee the right of all Eritrean organizations to function freely as autonomous political bodies. Such an intervention would avert problems, conflicts, and related socio-economic catastrophes [from facing our new Eritrea].

For/

The ELF-RC Executive Committee,

Seyoum Ogbamichael,

Head of Foreign Relations Office,

Bonn, Federal Germany, 28 September 1992