When I heard about the “Book event” at the Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, I decided to attend. The line up was a clear hint that this event, like all the others in the last 12 years, was going to be another Eritrea bashing event. Richard Reid, a known anti-Eritrea “scholar”, was going to be there to promote Chatham House’s book, “Eritrea's External Relations-Understanding Its Regional Role and Foreign Policy” which Reid edited. The essayists in the book were Dan Connell, Gaim Kibreab, Kidane Mengisteab and Redie Bereketeab, all of which are known to harbour anti-Eritrea, anti-Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front (EPLF) and anti-Government of Eritrea sentiments.

 

As if the book were not in and all by itself an insult to the people of Eritrea, in addition to Reid, I found out that Bereket Habte Selassie, head of the Eritrean Quislings League (EQL)[i] was going to be on hand to “critic” the book. I wrote to Steve McDonald who was going to moderate the session and expressed my strong reservations and why I believed it was a disservice to the Wilson Centre’s patrons and clients who expect these events to be based on truthful information.  I told him that I believed the book was biased and not representative of the views and opinions of the vast and rich Eritrean populace, but rather, that it was a collection of the rehearsed 12-year long “monologues” presented to us by the  like-minded, self professed “intellectuals and scholars” and their handlers. He was kind enough to respond. He wrote:

 

“…Thank you for your views.  We certainly appreciate that there are strong differences of opinion on the performance of the Eritrean government in recent years.  This event, co-sponsored by Chatham House of London, is a book introduction, but the Wilson Center always seeks to present a balanced perspective and we will, as always, provide for an exchange with the audience so that questions of disagreement might be underlined, as long as that exchange is reasonable and temperate.  You are a welcome participant…”

 

I didn’t expect that there would be any meaningful or truthful discussion about Eritrea, least of all from Chatham House and these wannabe “Eritrea-ologists’, but I decided to attend and add my personal views to the “exchange” and not allow them to go unchallenged.

 

The conference room was small but it was filled to capacity. Eritrea was of interest to many and the presence of former and current US state Department officials, members of the intelligence community, members of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, and of course representatives of the various think tanks in the Washington, DC area who help formulate US Foreign Policy, attested to that fact. Unfortunately, it also showed how easy it was to disseminate erroneous information in just one sitting. After a 12 year long vilification and defamation campaign to isolate Eritrea and present it as a pariah, Reid and Dr. B want us to believe that their intention is to “understand” Eritrea. How condescending. At a time when Eritreans around the world are staging protests against the unjust, unfair and illegal UN Security Council Resolution 1907 (2009), Bereket Habte Selassie and his cohorts are back again to insult the peoples intelligence.

 

Francis Njubi Nesbitt in “African Intellectuals in the belly of the beast” provides descriptions of the three types of migrant intellectuals: the comprador intelligentsia, the postcolonial critics and the progressive exiles. His description of the “comprador intelligentsia” fits Dr. B and his cohorts. Here is how Nesbitt describes the African migrant scholars who are well positioned, by virtue of their education and linkage with the continent, to take advantage of opportunities in international organizations:

 

”… Members of the comprador class use their national origins, color and education to serve as spokesmen and intellectual henchmen for organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. They serve as the sweetener that makes it easier for African countries to swallow the bitter pills of illegitimate debt and structural adjustment. Although some of them work directly for the international financial institutions, most continue to teach at colleges and universities in the West while serving as "consultants" to international financial institutions… They can be seen touring the continent on generously funded "research" junkets and attending international conferences where they defend the global structures and heap blame upon African countries for corruption, "tribalism" and ineptitude. This collaboration between Black scholars and international capital in the exploitation of African resources has a long history…”

 

Dr. B and his cohorts are an example of “academics and scholars” who have abused their academic credentials to “act as intellectual auxiliaries to the normal U.S. agencies for espionage”.

 

Speaking of agencies for espionage, Ambassador G. Houdek who served as Clinton's deputy assistant secretary for African affairs and an officer with the National Intelligence Council (NIC) was also there. Ambassador Houdek also served as US Ambassador to Eritrea in 1993. He has also served as US Ambassador to Ethiopia and Uganda was also there. There have been at least three other Ambassadors since he left in 1996 and yet he seems to be the most “interested”. He has become a staple at all Eritrean Studies Association events and a few years back, I saw him at an African Studies event in Washington, DC, where one of the essayists in the book, Kidane Menghisteab, undermined and berated the government of Eritrea. Most recently, Ambassador Houdek was also in attendance at another Eritrea bashing event sponsored by a European NGO, Europe External Policy Advisors (EEPA) in November 2009. I wonder if he spends as much time on other African issues as he does with Eritrea.  After all he is listed as being an officer of the NIC responsible for Africa, not just Eritrea.

 

As an officer of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) responsible for producing the National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), Houdek bears responsibility for the accuracy of information gathered and reliability of his sources. According to the NIC:

 

“…NIEs are the DNI's (Director of National Intelligence) most authoritative written judgments concerning national security issues. They contain the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community regarding the likely course of future events. The NIC's goal is to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information—regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to US policy…”

 

Best, unbiased and unvarnished? Well, listening to his comments at the Wilson Center, it’s hardly the impression that I got from Ambassador Houdek. His contempt for the Government of Eritrea and the person of H.E. President Isaias Afwerki was obvious. His entire demeanor was a puzzle to me. He seemed to be frustrated about something. I could not understand where his frustrations were coming from. Why else would a seasoned diplomat pound his fists on the table in such an irate manner just to make a point? Why is Eritrea such a personal issue for him?  

 

In any case, there were three things that he mentioned at the “book event” that need to be made clear. Whoever is providing him with information about Eritrea is not giving him the full story. Omitting the facts will not promote a “better understanding of Eritrea and its external affairs”. It serves no purpose to perpetuate these falsehoods about Eritrea, its government and its people. Allow me to address them so there is no further confusion about these three “issues”:

 

1.      Ambassador Houdek said that Eritrea had refused to accept the credential of the US Ambassador in Eritrea. That is not true. In Eritrea, as in all other countries, precedence is regulated by seniority, dating from the notification of the arrival of the envoy. When it was time for Ambassador McMullen and those in his group to present their letters of credentials to H.E. President Isaias Afwerki, Ambassador McMullen was not available; he decided to go on travel, even though he was notified about the date almost a month earlier. I am not sure, but on inquiring about this matter, I believe he had gone on vacation, instead of remaining in Eritrea to present his credentials. It is unfair to blame Eritrea entirely for this issue; the US Ambassador bears some responsibility here. What possible reason could Eritrea have for not accepting Ambassador McMullen’s credentials? There are none that I know of. Personally I found him to be a very pleasant gentleman, unlike his predecessors.

 

2.      Ambassador Houdek said, “Our Ambassador and Embassy staff cannot go 50 miles out of Asmara”. Isn’t Ambassador Houdek neglecting to mention something important here? Isn’t it true that the Eritrean Ambassador and his staff right here in the United States also cannot go anywhere without getting permission from the US State Department? The truth is that both Ambassadors have to request permission in order to travel outside of the 25 mile range. Jendayi E. Frazer, the incompetent and vindictive former US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs called it “reciprocity”… I call it childish. Eritrea has had to take several actions to protect Eritrea’s national peace and security in the last 12 years, and this restriction could be one of them.

 

3.      Ambassador Houdek said that Eritrea had refused to give Johnny Carson, US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, a visa to enter Eritrea. That is also not true. On 18 June 2009, Voice of America reported the following about Johnny Carson:

 

"… I met with the Eritrean ambassador and asked to meet with President Isaias Afewerki. If he will give me a visa, I will be there." However, after Carson left his passport with the Eritrean embassy "for an extended period" he was surprised to find it returned "without a visa in it…If relations are not improved it will not be because we're not trying to act as a respected partner." "

 

I will allow the reader to judge for him/her self and decide if this childish ploy can honestly be considered as an act of a “respectable partner”.

 

The Eritrean Ambassador to the United States, H.E. Ghirmai Ghebremariam clarified the issue in an interview with Voice of America. He at no time denied Carson a visa. He expressed his desire to visit Eritrea, but did not specify when. Eritrea’s Ambassador to the United States advised Mr. Carson that the Eritrean officials that he wanted to meet with were not going to be available; they were on travel out of the country. The Eritrean Ambassador told him that his visa would be issued within minutes when he had fixed his travel to Asmara. Since he was going to attend the African Union summit in Libya, Mr. Carson said that he needed to get a visa and that he would send someone to pick up his visa from the Eritrean Embassy, and that is what he did.

 

Soon after he picked up his passport, Voice of America reported that Eritrea had refused to issue Mr. Carson a visa. If Mr. Carson was serious about engaging Eritrea in a “respectful” manner, why not pick up the phone or have his assistants call the Eritrean Embassy? Was it necessary for him to go to the press? What was so “diplomatic” or respectful about that?

 

Ambassador Ghirmai Ghebremariam had told him that he could have gone anytime after the meetings were lined up to get his visa to Asmara, but Mr. Carson, in his own “respectful” way, chose to create a “diplomatic row” where there was none.

 

It’s as if there is some self fulfilling prophecy going on at the US State Department in its relations with Eritrea. That is why I have long maintained that US-Eritrea relations were soured by design.

 

I did not need to open Reid’s book to know that I could never spend a single penny on it. Chatham House’s diabolic intentions were clearly exposed by the picture on the cover of the book. The deliberately doctored picture is of a fighter, presumably an EPLF fighter, waving a white flag-an international symbol of capitulation/surrender, something that is in stark contradiction to the recorded facts about the EPLF and its glorious, unparalleled history. Talk about stooping low. Chatham House and its racist “scholars” can be excused, but what can we make of the “scholarly” essayists featured in the book and Bereket Habte Selassie who traveled all the way to Washington to promote it? Dr. B admitted to not reading the book, but how could he miss the cover?  If he had any self respect left in him, he would have called Reid on the picture during his “critic”… but he didn’t.

 

Richard Reid was the first to address the audience and right from the get go, he belittled the country and its leadership and for those of us who are familiar with the labels placed on Eritrea and its leadership in the last 12 years, it was not hard to figure out who his sources were. In his published papers about Eritrea, contrary to the rules for “scholarly” essays, his sources are always “anonymous”, making it difficult to check out the veracity of his “research” and the “methodology” used. He defined the book as a “scholarly” analysis when he knows clearly that it was not. The book is a shameless collection of the 12 year long anti-Eritrea diatribe by scholars sponsored by the UK’s Chatham House.

 

Learning by rote? His was a script right out of the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry…Sometime during his incoherent narrative on Eritrea and its leadership, Reid mentioned a popular Eritrean phrase, “the dogs will keep barking and the camel will keep on marching”, but said that the “international community” did not know where the camel was marching to. It’s not that they do not know where the Eritrean camel is marching to…rather it is that they have not been able to divert its attention and lead it astray. Eritrea remains a threat-a threat of a good example. Developing Eritrea’s human infrastructures, building internal capacity, building roads, railways and airports, building clinics and hospitals, building dams, canals and irrigation systems, building schools and colleges throughout the country is not something these neocolonialists want to see in Africa…

 

When I asked Reid why other Eritreans who would have had a different view and therefore present a more balanced read were excluded, he arrogantly responded by saying that it was a book written by scholars and that there were no Eritrean scholars who had differing views of Eritrea. Unfortunately Reid and these Eritrean “comprador intelligentsia” have made a mockery of the objectivity, integrity and expertise which used to epitomize “scholarly” essays and greatly undermined the ability of policy makers, preventing them from crafting sound and coherent policies for Africa in general and the Horn of Africa in particular. There are hundreds of Eritrean scholars in the Diaspora tenured at European and American Universities and Colleges and yet Chatham House and its partners in the DC area choose to recycle reports presented by the likes of Bereket Habte Selassie, a bitter opportunist. But as they say, birds of a feather…

 

As in all the other conferences, symposiums and discussions funded by European and American government agencies, neither the views nor opinions of the Eritrean government or its representatives, nor those of representatives of the many Eritrean communities of the vast Diaspora populations around the globe are ever represented. Only individuals representing the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) astro-turf sponsored cyberspace organizations are invited and provided a forum to spew their filth. As they say, garbage in, garbage out. It is no wonder then that US and UK polices for the Horn of Africa have repeatedly resulted in deadly miscalculations and strategic blunders. Suffice it to mention most recent blunders in Somalia, Eritrea-Ethiopia, Sudan-Chad, Nigeria (Abiola to Obasanjo) etc. etc.

 

As I said earlier, the book was nothing more than a collection of the anti-Eritrea “monologues” that we have been reading for the last 12 years. All their machinations against Eritrea have failed and now they- and not Eritrea-find themselves stuck in the headlights of history.  The EQLs aversion to honesty and open dialogue was evident at the Wilson Center too. When this author asked Bereket Habte Selassie some questions, he did what he has done for the last 12 years. He refused to answer my questions…in essence, by not answering my questions, he said a lot.

 

For more on that exchange with Dr. Bereket visit:  

http://natna.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/sophia-tesfamariam-vs-dr-bereket/