To this end it is similarly important, if not a symbiotic result, to delve deeper into our history and document it. As research into the Eritrean history and its interaction with its neighbors develops we are bound to find surprising relationships. To this end, the evidence seems to point to the famed Russian author Alexander Pushkin, to be part Eritrean.

His great grandfather was General Abraham Petrovich Hannibal and he was kidnapped from his village as a young boy from his village just south of the Eritrean capital, Asmara (Lagwen is shown below). Through a circuitous journey Abraham was eventually brought to the Russian Empire and became a General. In recognition of his lineage, the Government of the Russian Federation as decided to cement the connections between Eritrea and Russia.

Near the current Asmara Public Library a monument of bronze will be erected to Alexander Pushkin while near the Milano restaurant a Pushkin Center will be constructed (General Abraham Hannibal, General Ivan Hannibal, Alexander S. Pushkin and Descendants). This is a tremendous coup for the people of Eritrea as it brings recognition of our history to the global stage. Further it will help young Eritreans recognize the importance of developing our cultural heritage while safeguarding our country’s youth.

Further the Pushkin Center, which will function as a library will be an impetus to young readers to consume more books. The apetite of Eritreans for knowledge is voracious and hopefully the young, the future of the State, will embrace this new library as the have the existing library.

Callous though it may seem the political freedoms that we enjoy in America come with a heavy caveat, you only have one home. Granted, for most Americans this is not an issue, most have both feet firmly planted on American soil, but in an increasingly globalized world, many more of us try to keep our ties to ancestral homes. At the dawn of this new period of engagement with other countries, this is in fact an asset to our country.

Consider each American with ties abroad as an ambassador for our country. For nearly a decade America’s face to the rest of the world has been by the barrel of a gun, threatening and generally ineffective in turning our foes into friends. In fact, it turned many of our friends into irritated observers. A telling example of this policy has been that of Eritrea.

Charged by Dr. Jendayi Frazer, the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, as supporting terrorist elements, Eritrea has been left with fewer options. Before this charge was leveled by the Bush Administration, Eritrea had had cool relations with the United States due to a simmering dispute with Ethiopia. For more than half a century the United States, through successive administrations has been a strong advocate for what was the Ethiopian Empire, today the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. To that end, in the border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia, which was judicially concluded more than half a decade ago, has become an obstacle to Eritrean-American relations. the United States has not admonished Ethiopia for ignoring an international commission’s ruling. Although seemingly trivial globally, for Eritrea this border decision is of supreme importance.

Eritrea is a country in which 80% of the population is engaged in agriculture, and the occupied land is amongst the best farmland in this semi-arid country. Further, the land that Ethiopia is occupying is fully 20% of Eritrea. Understanding why this is so important to Eritrea will be important for the next administration because this insight will be necessary to repair relations between Eritrea and its larger friend, the United States. On the side of the United States, one of the reasons the State Department has been focused on pressuring Eritrea is for its alleged support for terrorists.

The numerous denials by Eritrean officials, calling the argument a red herring, seems credible given Eritrea’s experience with terrorism. At independence Eritrea was the victim of a number of terrorists attacks out of Sudan which were eventually thwarted to some extent by the deployment of Eritrean soldiers to the frontier. Since then however, particularly after the conflict with Ethiopia, Eritrea has fallen prey to at least half a dozen confirmed terrorist attacks. Of particular interest however, is the location of the most recent terrorist attacks.

Both have occurred in the western Gash-Barka region which borders with Ethiopia. In fact, recently it has been reported that Ethiopia has moved an entire division of troops into this occupied Eritrean region. How such an attack could occur so near this frontier without Ethiopian knowledge would either indict Ethiopia as negligent or incompetent. Either way, the implication is that Bush’s ally is permitting cross-border terrorism.

This of course runs counter to the War on Terrorism. This is of course an affront to both my own sensibilities as both an American and an Eritrean, but further, it is an affront to all Americans. It is of little consolation that this administration is on its way out; I do of course have great hopes for the next. We can only hope that the Eritrean President and American President will see eye to eye and open a new chapter in Eritrean-American relations.

How else should two countries who were victims of colonial oppression approach one another? It is the destiny of Eritrea and the United States to have cordial relations, however this fact cannot be taken for granted, and must be nurtured. It is the hope of all Eritreans, especially Eritrean-Americans that the hand of friendship the President of Eritrea extended towards President-Elect Obama will be accepted, and we will move forward into the future.

Ironically this comes on the eve of the President’s congratulatory statement to the President-Elect of the United States, Barack Obama. The key to representative governance is that to have a voice you have to show up. During the whirlwind years after independence until roughly 1995 Eritreans from all over the world participated in a constitutional congress. From the United States, Europe, Canada and Asia came representatives of the Eritrean Diaspora to develop an entirely homegrown political system.

To know this, and ignore it, while embracing a political system that was forced upon Eritreans is at best an error or at worst a farce. The political system and agenda of Eritreans of all nationalities in the 1950’s was imposed and largely ignored. Further, to advocate the Eritrean agenda (the Independence agenda) was to risk assassination by the Imperialists. Complicit of course are the foreign (Ethiopian, British, or American) powers; the recent declassification of diplomatic wires serve as verification.

It is no wonder why today Eritreans the world over are hesitant of international intervention in domestic issues (either ours or others). What is difficult to understand however, is how some seem to cling to the Federation’s perceived political plurality? Such openness did not exist but the claim is interesting as it may serve as a clue to ones’ intention.

The implication is that Eritrean politicos were better off under Ethiopian administration than native administration. Further, it also suggests that one did not recognize the importance of the constitutional congress mentioned above worse yet; it shows ignorance about recent developments. This should be taken into account, as the proverbial grain of salt, although in this particular case it makes the argument inedible.

Although it is true that generally speaking, non-polluting forms of energy production are more expensive, when taking into account the cost of climate change, it not only comes out in the wash, but is likely to be advantageous, particularly for coastal and low-lying nations. Eritrea is a country that is has been dwelling this conundrum since independence.

The Government of Eritrea however, has taken the hard course, the right course, in developing its environmental policies. At independence, the entirety of Eritrea’s energy production was provided by an old diesel generator in the highlands, it was replaced by a larger, more efficient generator on the port. Early on however, it was recognized that although an important short term step, a much more sustainable policy would have to be developed.

To this end it embarked, with researchers around the world to study the suitability for wind power generation. As a consequence, a pilot program was developed near the southern Red Sea port of Asseb. Although just a pilot program, it is in fact one of the largest wind power generation facilities in Africa.

Although the energy sector is generally one of the worst polluting sectors of any economy, it was recognized too in Eritrea that sustainability and development are not just catch words, but synonymous. Realizing this meant that Eritreans should also develop their environmental resources. This has meant proposing to develop the longest protected shoreline in the world and preserving rainforests. It has also meant, investing significant energy to replant millions of trees, to return Eritrea forests.

Of course for this to be sustainable curbs had to be placed on the cutting of these trees for fuel and construction. This meant that cooking stoves had to be developed to provide villagers with an alternative. To the delight of environmentalists worldwide, villagers in Eritrea, and of course the Eritrean Energy Research and Training Centre, a stove was developed that used significantly less fuel to provide the same cooking capacity, furthermore, it could be fueled by organic waste which was readily available.

These developments do not of course conclude Eritrea’s focus on environmental sustainability, and in the future developments will become increasingly difficult and expensive, but it is a brief narrative of policies, which if adopted globally, could significantly reduce human impact on the environment. In the future, the energy policies of our country will need to also be as revolutionary and forward-looking, especially if we must mitigate the impact of other nations as well.

We are capable of such wonderful works, but without inspiration we tend not to push ourselves to the levels where such deeds can be done. For the last eight years, in the United States, we have dealt with a President who we can only hope will be the least eloquent of our lifetime.

Of course, eloquence for eloquence’s sake is not a virtue, instead this eloquence can be used as a lens into the mind of the leader, and that is what is important. Knowing that a mind is at work is critical, especially in this day of age where problems are most efficiently solved by the pen and not the hatchet.

Ironically the lack of eloquence is just one of many reasons to doubt competency of many in the US Federal Government. Indeed, it reminds one of the rises to power by the ill-prepared in HMS Pinafore, the 19th century operetta. We can but hope that in the end, just as in the operetta, those who are fit to lead do indeed lead.

Myth #1: Eritrea has always been a part of Ethiopia

As for this particular myth, it has been purported by those who would rather gloss over some very important bits of history. Often this is to suit a particular political purpose, although to be frank to correct it is a political act as well. Irrespective, to understand the history of Eritrea’s relation with Ethiopia it is simplest to go backwards through history.

• Medieval Eritrea (15th to 19th century): Initially a governor was appointed by the Ethiopian Emperor (think of the Roman Governors appointed to rule Spain) to rule over the Eritrean highlands while the lowlands were ignored by Ethiopia. During the 16th century onwards the Eritrean highlands were autonomous from Ethiopia although privy to the occasional raids. This extended to foreign policy wherein Jesuit priests who were threatened and expelled from Ethiopia were received and protected in the Eritrean highlands.
• Aksum (4th to 8th century): Although people frequently misunderstand the genesis of the Aksumite kingdom it is important that it be recognized to not be an “Ethiopian” empire. It was an empire that was divided into two regions. The half that was mostly in northern Ethiopia is where the empire began to coalesce however, later (and for the majority of its history) the economic and urban center shifted to the Eritrean half.
• Pre-Aksum: This phase of relation requires far more exploration and research. It is quite murky and although it is clear that there was not an official Eritrea and Ethiopia per se, there were certainly urban centers in several places throughout the Eritrean highlands. The Eritrean lowlands on the other hand were less populated and although trading with highlanders, were not integrated into sedentary society. The Eritrean population centers included: Qohaito, Matara and Sembel. Archaeological investigation continues to this day.

Myth #2: Algiers Agreement was Unfair

To claim that a political treaty that was entered into freely by both parties is unfair is illogical. To claim that the judgment that was issued as a result of such a claim, although logical, ignores the fundamental point; this fundamental point is that the centerpiece of civilization is an adherence to agreements and laws. In fact it finds a timely simile. The crux of the global financial crisis rests in the arrest of short-term borrowing between banks.

Typically, short-term borrowing between financial institutions is a given, however, today there is a lack of trust in the financial system and so banks will not supply one another with credit. Consider that literally speaking the Algiers Agreement is a contractual obligation of the State of Eritrea and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Metaphorically, it is as if both parties extended credit (trust) to one another to fulfill the contract. At the conclusion of the contract however, one party chooses to renege on their commitment to the contract and decides that they want to write a new contract.

Now imagine if a bank extended a mortgage loan to a client, and this client proceeded to ignore the terms of the loan. To add insult to injury, the borrower decided to come back to the bank to get another loan. Would this client be likely to get another loan? No, of course not! If the bank did the investors would suggest that the bank was negligent! Now how can the two move forward? The first phase would be to have the client return to the contract and fulfill it. Without it there is no chance whatsoever that the bank would ever consider doing business with the said client again.

Although a metaphor, it is apt as the only way for Ethiopia and Eritrea regain one another’s trust is for Ethiopia to commit itself to the laws that it has already signed (i.e. the Algiers Agreement).

Myth #3: Asseb Should Belong to Ethiopia

For some reason this myth rears its ugly head from time to time, typically when the economy is either particularly sour or soaring but rarely in between. Obviously it is driven by a desire to have sovereign control over access to the high seas. It must be understood at the outset however, that this is not a fundamental right of a state; rather it is a privilege of geography. Ironically it is one that has never legally been Ethiopia’s and even more importantly would not have even occurred to modern Ethiopia without the insistence of the British.

This claim typically is based on the idea that the Afar are an oppressed minority in Eritrea who desire not only independence from Eritrea, but to take what has historically been land under their control. The first thing that must be said is that it is exceedingly difficult for me to refer to the Eritrean Afar as “them” or “those,” as we together fought tooth and nail for our independence. Secondly, it cannot be lost on the reader, as it certainly is not on the writer, that what was historical controlled by those of the Afar linguistic group, happens to be Eritrea’s two ports (among other territory surely).

Furthermore, Ethiopians find this convenient as the Afar speaking population is split among three states, the largest population by far living in Ethiopia. Thusly, if a referendum of all (and exclusively) Afar were to take place, surely the Ethiopian Afar would want to be unified with their brethren in one state. Finally, to argue though that Asseb is a part of Ethiopia as a result of an ethnic referendum would be similar to having a referendum for:

• the Ogaden to return it to Somalia,
• California to be returned to Mexico, and
• the Falkland Islands returned to the Argentines.

But really, none of these examples is the prime reason reject his philosophy out of hand.
The prime reason to reject this myth is that it would illegal. Put simply, it is counter to the letter of the law acceded to by all members of the OAU/AU, whose home is in Ethiopia. The agreement in no uncertain terms states that colonial boundaries were of paramount importance and would be respected.

The final nail in the coffin of this myth is that the premise is simply false, the Eritrean Afar are by no means oppressed, rather, the Eritrean people continue to raise the standards of living of all Eritreans. The Afar ethno-linguistic group has suffered over a century of neglect, but the current administration seems keen to rectify the mistakes of past ones. To this end opportunities for healthcare and basic education have been expanded to the sparsely populated regions so that as Eritrea pulls itself up by its bootstraps, none will be systematically left behind.

Myth #4: Eritrea Arms Terrorists

Whether this claim is true or false the writer has no clue. My impression however is that the groups that are aided in spirit by Eritreans are nationalist groups. These groups respect the sanctity and sovereignty of states. This particular claim has come of late for the alleged assistance given to Somali groups. These groups although sharing a common bond of Islam are not terrorists. On the other hand there are many secular Somali politicians whose primary reason for fighting against what has been billed the Somali Transitional Federal Government is that it is backed by their arch-foe, Ethiopia. In fact, since the Ethiopian occupation of Somalia over a third of that Parliament has defected to those fighting against both the Ethiopian occupation and the Somali TFG.

So just as the Eritrean people fought for both national reconciliation and independence, the Somali people fight for their independence from Ethiopian hegemony. This is not a terrorist act, it is a nationalist act!

Eritrea’s Greatest Generation was the forefathers who fought for independence; together, they simultaneously staved off the geo-strategic objectives of the Cold War’s superpowers, and forged a national identity based on solidarity and unity in diversity. This inclusive political and social justice agenda emphasizes the rights of minorities and equality of women; while promoting education and rights for all.

Nearly forty years later, this agenda continues to resonate with Eritreans everywhere, especially the Eritrean youth of the Diaspora.  As the next generation, Eritrean youth in the Diaspora are steadfastly organizing to carry the torch of their forefathers.

This year’s conference was by far the best, with the seminars led by Mr. Yemane Gebreab, an Eritrean government representative.  In the tradition of the struggle, Mr. Yemane preferred we refer to him in revolutionary style, lending a relaxed atmosphere to his seminar, removing any sense of pretense.
Over the course of four days, Mr. Yemane, spoke with the youth, with at least a fifth of this time spent answering our questions. During this session the assembled group asked many pointed questions with responses and explanations that showed a cogent analytical framework and reasoning.

Of particular interest was the fact that between this and the last conference there has been a renewed interest in strengthening our national identity — not just in the political sense, but the cultural sense as well. Although this is challenging in a society with numerous nationalities, it seems to be aimed at each equally.

The most important message of this conference however, seemed to be aimed at the youth, and just as importantly at those who observed from afar. The time is now! Not only are the youth on the rise, not only is it their destiny, but it is the desire of the Greatest Generation to accommodate the voice of the next generation and to let them lead.

Though the Greatest Generation brought us Independence, it is the next generation’s task to protect it. This, Yemane said, is a significant challenge and will require fortitude and robust internal analysis, and so each youth must develop themselves mentally, just as they would physically for any other struggle. With this mission, the assembled launched on their mission, renewed.

Since the town of Badme was determined to be in Eritrea, Ethiopia has prevented the demarcation of the boundary. By the terms of the agreement signed with Eritrea, giving the EEBC the authority to delimit and demarcate the border, Eritrea and Ethiopia agreed to accept the result.

Ethiopia has asked for reconsideration based upon the needs of local villagers. The EEBC itself was expressly forbidden from consideration of ex aequo et bono;(Agreement Between Eritrea and Ethiopia) rendering Ethiopia’s call for review forbidden under the Treaty.

Ethiopia’s claim that the virtual demarcation is simply “legal nonsense” (Ethiopia rejects “virtual” border with Eritrea)  was in response to the Government of Eritrea’s acceptance on 16 January 2008 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Release) of the “virtual demarcation.” The virtual demarcation was done according to international practice, and recently was done to demarcate the border between Iraq and Kuwait in 1993.

Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, unlike Meles Zenawi’s Ethiopia, eventually followed the letter of the agreement and recognized the border that was virtually demarcated.

“They don’t want peace….because of the rigid behavior of the Eritrean Government.” Well now this seems to grave indication of Ethiopia’s intentions at this meeting. Could it mean that they are trying to elicit a response from Eritrea?

What is more likely is that Ethiopia is trying to strong arm the press knowing full well that until the end of the talks, following their modus operandi, the Eritrean Government is unlikely to comment.

And after all, wasn’t it Ethiopia that held up the border demarcation until the EEBC become so frustrated that it left the region? Was it not the Ethiopian government who signed the Algiers Agreement in 2000 and agreed to abide the Commission’s ruling that came out in 2002? Did Ethiopia not ask in September 2003 for a new ruling, even though that would have been in contravention of the original Agreement? Furthermore have they not essentially rejected the ruling until the last meeting when they turned 180 degrees and accepted the decision fully?

I think its pretty apparent who is responsible for what. Don’t you?

It may surprise the reader to discover that the discussion of war on the other side of the border has been close to nil. Typically a side issue in Eritrea amid news of development works going on in the Northern Red Sea Zone or the return of refugees to redeveloped homes in the Southern Zone. Certainly it doesn’t seem that the people have forgotten about the war, but they have chosen to move on with their lives.

The specter of war that Meles Zenawi has tried to let loose on the world stage is countered by Eritrean President, Issayas Afwerki, when in a discussion at the Hager Media Hall he said, “…[we] need to restore the country’s forestry…” and promote water conservation.

Well it seems the only nation pushing the pursuit of violence is Ethiopia, or perhaps it is just the Prime Minister himself, either way, it seems that both parties will be attending the EEBC meeting in London. Are we edging towards peace? It seems Eritrea hopes so.