Wednesday , March 21 2018
Home / U-Turn / U-TURN


To start by getting this out of the way and for those who may care to know, my real name, if there is anything real about names, is Younis Hossein (for details, I would be glad to have an autobiography ready for you and we can always negotiate the price). I have in the few times that I managed to write anything been using the Pen Name “Ali Salim”. My apologies to anyone to whom this might have caused any inconvenience – above all the Awate Team and especially my good friend Saleh “Gadi” Johar (for taking some good knocks). For some reason, I seem to like the Pen Name better and if you all do not mind, I will keep using it. However, that is not what I am writing about, and please do not ask any more questions. Excuse me – here is a New Born and a total Amnesia.

Disclaimer: This is not an academic journal written for the esoteric value of intellectual consumption – it is a blog written on personal initiative to promote a specific ideological point of view of the PFDJ paradigm. SENSITIVE READERS – PLEASE, STAY OUT.

I have become an evangelist and I am on a mission to convince you to join me in taking the detour and making a U-Turn. It took me a few years to understand that we are heading the wrong way and to gather some courage, stand up and say, “I am sorry” – tetallile antum metalelti. I am serious by the way! “Metaleli” is always the case when you follow the policy: “Zib’ee, siga ms’belwo, nabey keybele goyu”. I might, in my “Zib’ee” state, have done some biting, but it was all with the intention of forcing people to talk about what I considered to be “of critical urgency”. Once, “what I considered critical” had been settled (by almost all taking note of the seriousness of the subject and many of those who took an initiative in response shooting it out or flashing it down) I had nothing to say and very few to listen (a point of saturation was reached). Therefore, I quit.

My primary argument has always been this: if you take the “land grabbers” (and, hence, all competing ethno-religious interests) out of the equation of Eritrean politics, the best alternative that Eritrean politics can ever offer (given the circumstances and the “opposition” that you don’t need me to tell you more about) is the PFDJ (defined in terms of a one-man-show). In whatever I will be writing from now on, I have in response to the wish of the majority of readers taken “the land grabbers” out of the equation (and with them of course their governance structure: the “neo-Nazi” dimension). I have simply assumed them out: we have never seen or heard of them, they have never existed and “indi’elom”.

Hence what I will write is nothing but what a good PFDJ should be writing at his or her best.  I am expecting this to be a reasonably long set of articles hoping that it would contribute renewed energy to our political debates. This article is “dah’sas” (a survey of points of resistance) to why so many people are insisting on heading the wrong way even when they know it is a no-go. Why did I do that myself? One reason why any two of us would disagree, on virtually everything (such as whether that thing that just took off flying is “abagumbaH”), is partly because we do not have shared tools of arriving at conclusions. I am hereby sharing how I ended up on the U-Turn. Anyone may Google any of the terminologies and concepts and so I have not added any references in order not to restrict their definitions to standard academic interpretations. All the words used here mean what I have said they mean. If there is any conflict with how a certain concept is usually used in academic literature, please use their conception as used in this article. The arguments, here and forward, rest on one assumption: that “ALL OTHER THINGS REMAIN EQUAL”. This is to say that whatever we may imply in our writings (or the writings of any human being), is pure speculation – not reality – because reality is so complex that it can never be written, described, represented or even known by mortal humans, who are themselves part of the things they claim to know. Nothing has confused philosophers, old and new, more than the challenge of proving that we actually know what we claim to know. That is why Muslims add after every claim of knowledge the profound statement: “Allahu-A’elem” (God is the Knowing).

My hope is that we try to rationalize possible ideological underpinnings of the PFDJ paradigm and to invite all Eritreans irrespective of their positions on the PFDJ or the Opposition to come over. Here, I will try to promote the idea that there is no credible opposition (that you can trust) to the PFDJ regime (“regime” defined as system of rules that govern) and that whatever the opposition organizations as we have known them for years have been doing so far was “selling out” on Eritrea. I need to say a few words to show that, what I mean is not pointing fingers to specific “sell outs”.

The claim rests on a consequentialist point of view, where our struggles are judged by the consequence of what we do, not by our intentions or material inputs into the production process. Given what you know about the history and practice of Eritrean politics, your starting point (I am sure) is that “the PFDJ is good intentions with bad consequences – the opposition is bad intentions with potentially good consequences”. Of course we may argue endlessly about who has better intentions and “how do we know” – but that is the subject of the debate that this “zereba Hareg” is supposed to introduce. However, I do not think there is much argument (especially in an extreme opposition website hosting our debates) about the second part of the claims: that the PFDJ is bad consequences – the opposition is potentially good “unintended” consequences.

Assuming basic rationality in most of us, you would expect ordinary Eritreans to apply the logic of “nifelTo sheyTan – kab’zeynifelTo mel’akh” and vote for the PFDJ. If you are of the kind that believes “the PFDJ is good intentions with bad consequences – the opposition is bad intentions with potentially good consequences”, the logic you would be applying is actually: “nifelTo mel’akh – kab’zeynifelTo sheyTan”. In theological terms (I assume in all the religious inspirations that I believe structure the way we reason) the proposition is that an angel (mel’akh) is innocent and always with good intentions. It cannot be assumed, that all the consequences of the deeds of angels produce good things. On the other hand, a devil (sheyTan) is inherently with evil intentions, and by the same logic, we cannot claim, that all the deeds of devils always (without exception) produce bad things. You probably have your own reflection of things you did and are sure were the motivations of “sheyTan” but nevertheless would not argue that the experience itself (judged categorically as an end independent of the means) was a net plus on your “utility function”. You also have many counter examples to the contrary of the claim above, where you got in trouble (bad outcome) for trying to help someone (good intention). However, because religion is about the purity of means, not ends, we are always advised to side with angels against devils not only because in repeated trials good intentions are more likely to produce good results but also because good intentions are ends in themselves.

You go to the grave with your means (intentions) not with the ends that those intentions achieved in this world. In the next world you will be deprived of all capabilities, (you will not need to dream if you are in heaven, where all dreams are true – you would not be able to dream if you are in hell). Ends are of this world and this world alone. If you jump into a river to save a drowning person, it does not matter whether you actually saved that person or whether he/she died in the process – you still get the same credit. We call martyrs all those who died in battles that we won as well as those who died in battles that were lost.  In the case of the drowning person, for instance, the outcome of your action is irrelevant as it is what you do that matters – not what others do to you. Based on your intentions, you decide whether your action was good. You are the only one who can do that because you are the only one who can possibly know the goodness of your intentions. Based on the outcome of your action, the other (second) person decides whether your action was good. Only that person can know and hence decide if you did a good job. God as we all know judges each individual on his/her own and that implies two things: (1) there is no “Class Action” in the next world, (2) there is no good-intention charity that flows from one person to the next. Even in those stories where whole populations are stomped for transgression, God’s actions are never arbitrary and indiscriminate. Similarly, even the Prophet could not save his own father with his own good intentions.

Say if we had only two criteria (and in fact there are only two criteria that make sense in cases of responsible evaluation of action): (1) intention as means, (2) outcome as end. Which criteria would we (responsible and prudent citizens) be applying to judge whether the PFDJ regime is good and hence deserves our support or bad and hence deserves our blind condemnation? Having seen the horrific stories of “slave labor”, refugees and horrors at sea, I have no doubt that even the PFDJ people would not argue that applying the “outcome” criteria is the way to go. In fact, that is what classic PFDJ supporters actually do and that, I believe, is why they keep losing supporters. They keep stubbornly defending the construction of micro-dams and achievements in education, health care, and above all the border and cross-border conspiracies with the neighbors trying to play down the horrific costs of those achievements. Applying the logic described in the preceding paragraphs, only the first-person can make any legitimate claim on intention and only on intention (nothing more than intention). The actual fruits of those intentions are the exclusive domain of the second-person (those employed as means to those intentions as well as those final consumers of the fruits).

You may have made the conclusion that the outcome from PFDJ’s action is terrible; and hence either the intention is irrelevant to you deciding on whether to support the PFDJ; or you have drawn your decision backwards from the statement that “bad intentions lead to bad results”. Applying the reverse logic, you would say, if the outcome is bad it is more likely than not that the intention was bad. “Intention” here is broadly defined to include and reflect all ideological, institutional and policy expressions of the means that one employs to deliver outcomes. Say the PFDJ has a dictatorial regime as a means to achieving its ends, then the intention we are talking about is the expression that finds itself in the dictatorial regime and everything about the PFDJ is nothing but “intention”.  One way I believe (the only way) to know you have made the right choice is to check the consistency of your choice process. How about applying your choice process to post-Saddam Iraq where there is a relatively much more democratic regime with elections and freedoms. If you were an ordinary Iraqi citizen, would you say what you have now is better than what you had under Saddam? I am not trying to pick a bad example and feel free to pick any other country where change did occur such as Egypt, or Syria or Libya (just stay close to the region for fair comparability).

Of course, you would turn the table on me and say “intention” as expressed in the “democratic” institutions of these countries is perfect (at least much better than a dictatorial regime), even if the outcome (just as the PFDJ’s) is horrible. If we ended up justifying the PFDJ on consideration of “intention” irrespective of the catastrophic ends, we should have no problem justifying other regimes on the same grounds. However, what you would effectively be saying is that intention, whether it is expressed in democratic or dictatorial regimes, is irrelevant. Or at least, you would be admitting that intention is at its best only one factor that may or may not lead to predetermined ends. If you have a TV at home and are able to see for yourself and entertain the possibility that the damage that the “democratic intention” caused in Iraq, Libya and Syria at least is much more immediate and horrific than that caused by the “dictatorial intention”, you would be able to entertain this fact: where intentions go wrong in translating into coherent institutional means, the destructiveness of the “democratic intention” is actually much larger than that of the “dictatorial intention”.

Most Eritreans and many peoples under dictatorships know this fact and that I believe is why every call for the so-called “democratic alternative” comes crumbling under one question: when something does go wrong, under which regime would it be possible to restore order more easily than in the other? I don’t think you would even try to convince people who have known nothing other than disasters that nothing would ever go wrong. Moreover, this I believe is because democracy empowers individuals and groups at the expense of the totalizing power of the state. Dictatorship empowers the totalizing power of states at the expense of intention of individual liberties. And the state is nothing but a totalizing intention.

It is your responsibility and that of any political entity to define the “Categorical Imperative” of good intention. Intention, as you know, is not a straight line that can go either way – it is a vector with direction. For instance, if you say “I have an intention to buy a car”, there are a few things that you are saying without saying (basic economics). At the very least you are saying: (a) “I have a gap in my utility, that I want to fill with what the car will offer to me”; (b) “I have an idea of what the car is capable of offering to me”; and (c) “I know how my state of utility will be transformed when I actually buy the car”. The reason we do not say all these things is that, “they are known” and therefore internalized in the definition of the word “intention”. Every intention (means) necessarily has more than just an end built into it. The end need not be unique to the means, and there might be ends without means (such as those ends in dreams) but there can never be means without ends predetermined.

Anything that is “predetermined” then necessarily rests on the assumption that “ALL THINGS REMAIN EQUAL” because it involves a process of knowing. As defined or presumed in this article and subsequent ones, you do not apply a process of knowing to something that is known just like you did not bother to say all those things just to say you intend to buy a car. Knowing is beyond known and hence is prediction and prediction is probability that, in every single trial, has a much greater chance of turning wrong than right. Known is the situation where ALL THINGS WERE NOT EQUAL. It is what you get after everything that could possibly go wrong, in every iteration of your intention processing, did actually go wrong. A baby stumbling between the coffee table and a chair is in the process of knowing how to walk. Walking for you is known, and you probably appreciate that, learning actual walking, required more than hoping that ALL THINGS REMAIN EQUAL except for the teacher’s input that you hoped would work. Hence, you cannot even explain if you know how to walk or describe if your walking is different from any other way of walking (of comparable creatures). You just stand and do it. You can help babies to stand on their feet and walk but you can certainly not teach babies to know how to walk. Known things are internalized into reflexive action – and reflexive action is the exclusive intransitive function of the self. Known things become part of you and you cannot isolate a part of you and know it independent from the rest of you.

I know it sounds crazy but it is an important premise when later we try to challenge those who fall into the temptation to “democratize” Eritreans – i.e. those who would apply a process of knowing to connect Eritreans to predetermined end of specific forms of democratic institutionalism. We will come to this in later articles but just think of the following for illustration. Once you have determined that the intention of Eritrea should be to set up a well-defined and specific form of democracy (say elections), then just like the example above: (a) Eritrea has a gap in its utility that can be filled with democracy (say election, for simplicity); (b) you know what democracy will offer to Eritrea; and (c) you know the state transformation that will take place when a democratic regime has been implemented in Eritrea. Mind you: you are not talking about something as trivial as an individual deciding to buy a car, where if something does go wrong with the car it is very unlikely that it would usher-in a national catastrophe. The magnitude of the implicit claim in something as simple as “Eritrea should implement this or that democratic system”, should be understood in light of the discussion above. Presumably, for both the claimant and his/her object of analysis, Eritrea, the answers to those questions are known. This of course means that both parties has so internalized the prerequisites of democratic practice into their reflexive action they do not even think of the answers to those questions as implicit in their claims.

Now compare these grand claims with the PFDJ’s version of what Eritrea should intend to do. The PFDJ’s philosophy starts from the proposition that Eritrea is not a baby, where we may presume a clean slate that would sponge and absorb spoon-fed new knowledge completely replacing existing internalized knowledge. I do not think you would disagree with that simple proposition that Eritrea did not fall from the sky. Hence, you would agree that Eritrea is a culmination of a system of historical dynamics. You cannot imply any history to thinking human beings without also implying at least two things: (a) presuming existing internalized knowledge (stored in some form of collective reflexive impulse); and (b) some system of accumulation and internalization of that knowledge. If you agree that once something is known (and hence internalized into some reflexive system), it would be reasonable to expect limitations to forms of intentions that would be compatible with the bounds of expectations that may be presumed on the capabilities of the reflexivity of the system as a whole. Even if you assume zero reflexivity (i.e. no subconscious resistance to change), people do not live in vacuums and they will still be bound by some resistant reflexivity introduced by material circumstances in their environment.

You may shoot this argument down by simply pointing out that it is the PFDJ, which is assuming Eritrea was born in 1991. It is the PFDJ, which is trying to download all kinds of spam-software on Eritreans. Your challenge would then be to propose an alternative premised on the same logic that recognized the restrictions imposed by stored knowledge.

You may also point to the inherent flaw in the argument: the assumption that Eritrea’s collective reflexive impulse is incompatible with election-centered democratic change. If you do that, you would be caught-up in the chicken and egg question: do elections bring democracy or does democracy bring elections? The PFDJ as you know views democracy as a set of guiding principles, whose compatibility, to what we have described as collective reflexive impulse, must be proven through a protracted process of trial and error. The difference between the two views is a difference of degree in that while one side holds the intention of a “top-down radical change to democracy”, the other envisions a gradual and “bottom-up piece-by-piece process of transformation”.

The only material difference between the two views lies in that: while one party views elections as the starting point of democratic transformation, the other (PFDJ) views elections as the culmination of a process of democratic transformation. The first view of course has been tried in the “democratizations” of Palestinian Authority, Iraq, Egypt and Libya to say a few. There are very few who would argue that what followed the elections in each of those cases was the start of the anticipated democratic transformation that the election were supposed to trigger in the first place. These potential counter-examples to the rosiness of election-centered democratization initiatives do imply that those who promoted these ideas made unfounded claims in answering the three questions implicit in the statement of intentions (described above). For convenience, we may say, they did not have a sufficient specification of intentions. Now here is your question: if there is any chance our intention may be under-specified (by admitting that we do not know what will come out of it), would you not think the one who is raising the red flag on democracy has an equal chance of being right as the one raising the green?

Say you are someone who believes that elections do not create democracies, but democracies create elections. Here you would be defining elections as a “mechanism for administering existing democracies”. You would of course be suspicious of those who call on employing elections where no democracies pre-exist those elections and there is a good chance that the intention might be under-specified. If you assume that those promoting this kind of change are intelligent and rational people, and that as defined above you believe that every intention necessarily has a predetermined end built-into it, what kind of outcomes would you think they would be expecting out of elections? My guess is that, if you are extremely decent and have a bit of respect for the intelligence of the promoters, you would say they want elections for the least of what elections are supposed to achieve – regime change. That I believe is part of the logic behind the PFDJ’s fixation with the CIA. If you know of other alternative entities, other than the CIA,  that are running around changing regimes on this planet, please feel free to suggest.


Neither this article nor those that will follow is intended to bleach the sins of the PFDJ. Horrible things did take place and do continue to take place. However, it is one thing to say that horrible things have happened in Eritrea and we need to talk and find remedies so that they do not happen again. It is another thing to say that everything that happened in Eritrea was horror and terror.  It is one thing to point out that the regime is responsible for some of those horrors and even most of the horrors that happened to Eritreans. It is another thing to think that every tornado in the Diaspora was caused by a conspiracy in Asmara and it is another thing to hold the regime responsible for every fever that befalls an Eritrean across the planet. Shame on us for exploiting and abusing such horrible tragedies as those that Eritreans continue to face in the Sinai and the Mediterranean for cheap political ends and trivial PR campaigns.

Contrary to the mainstream of our opposition, the suggestion here is that the horrors did not happen because of the “one-man-show” (the Nsuness of the regime), but in spite of it. Let us assume that we entertain your view that the “one-man” is responsible for all the horrors and hence must go. What alternative are you suggesting, now that he has decided not to go? Don’t you think it is a little dumb and irresponsible to suggest we follow the Syrian example and torch the green and yellow in the process?

The hope here is to try to reverse the way we see Eritrea and interact with its developments towards the optimistic point of view that THE GLASS IS HALF-FULL – NOT EMPTY. There is much more that Eritrea and its people can gain by all of us doing our parts in defending its interests. No decent person would go to bed in peace having lobbied and kissed to restrict the possibilities of thousands of people who are literally digging the grounds with bare hands in search of a better future. If you are one of those who do that – Please do it during the night and in the dark – as a decent Eritrean, you make me sick. I am of the conviction that we can do better.

About Ali Salim

Check Also

The ELL: Context And Method

Disclaimer: Say you are telling a friend in Adi-Qontsi about an argument you had with …

  • Amanuel Hidrat


    What part of my argument is extremist view? Did you follow all my writings? Just summarize my position if you clearly understood my positions. Without stating what extremist view I argued (if there are any) is just blackmailing. So I gave you home work to do justice on what I argued rather than trying to blast for someone who doesn’t agree with you. By the way do you know by any means what this U-turn means? Do you know how it will end while he is still at the initial curve of the U-turn he is? Don’t even assume you understood him at this point of his departure? If you don’t answer my questions now you aren’t serious and you aren’t even comprhend the argument of Younis H.


  • Sinibaldi

    Son mystérieux.




    jeunesse le







  • saay7

    Selamat SM:

    Selamat SM:

    This is a case where your wishful thinking is running away with you. When you describe what the regime has done as “mischiefs” and your position is for giving PFDJ/DIA the “benefit of doubt”, you are exercising your right to be wrong. When you say that that is my position, you are just playing wrong: ትደልይኦሞ ይዝንጋዓክን.

    First of all, what the Dictator has committed are not “mischiefs”; the dictionary says that mischief is “behavior or activity that is annoying but that is not meant to cause serious harm or damage. a playful desire to cause trouble.” No, no, no. What the Dictator has done is to abuse of power, to violate trust placed upon him by his collegues and by the Eritrean people, with malice aforethought and he has caused massive harm/damage to the country. The only serious discussion is whether these harms/damages on Eritrea are reversible or irreversible; forgivable or unforgivable.

    With respect to my position, which part of “democratic coup” are you not understanding? I am calling for the sane part of the PFDJ (those who placed their trust in him to sail the ship of state through rough waters without throwing them overboard every time somebody criticizes him) to overthrow Isaias Afwerki and whoever is enlisted in Fedayeen Isaias. That is not a position of someone who is calling for giving the dictator more “benefit of doubt.” It is a position of someone who considers that surgical removal of Eritrea’s tumor is the least destabilizing, least risky way to bring about change to Eritrea. I consider the other two approaches–waiting for the light bulb in Isaias’s head to turn on or declaring open warfare with an objective of total win–impractical and more damaging/harmful to the country.

    Speaking of mischief, I believe Ali Salim is having a moment of mischief. Because, unless he announces that he has joined one of PFDJ’s mass organizations (because he considers his previous memberships in two of them as some of his fondest memories), what he has done is not a U-turn but a course correction. (But “course correction” makes for such a boring headline.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with a call to re-evaluate strategy so long as the objective remains the same. Just yesterday, another prolific writer and activist Selam Kidane (whom the lady you referenced in quoting a hallucinatory piece written about treasonous Eritreans refers to often as an Enemy of the State), wrote to suggest that since change is most likely to come from within, and since, in her opinion, the PFDJ hierarchy is made up of crooks, cowards and pragmatists, our job should be to identify and work with the pragmatists. I consider all of them– Ali Salim, Selam Kidane and Medrek–are saying to be healthy diversification of the opposition position because, for far too long, the opposition had adopted a “total change, by any means” strategy. There was no Plan B; there was no “what if our strategy doesn’t work.” Now there is.

    In contrast, there is zero evaluation from the Isaiasist–it is, what it has always been: Nkhid Tray. Onward and forward. How many Isaiasists called for reconsideration of the regime’s position regarding Somalia? None. It was a good strategy when Isaias was escalating his rhetoric against the Internationally-supported Somali government; it was a good strategy when he claimed he recognizes them. How many Isaiasist called for engaging the UN about its human rights violations? None. It was a good strategy to disengage and it was equally a good strategy to engage. You are big on reconciliation, so am I. Have you heard of a single call for reconciliation from the Isaias regime? Ever?


    • SM

      Points well taken cousin. My frustartion is lack of clear vison and strategy by the Opposition.
      Surgical removal?? I love that. Am not going to ask you how as I understand where you are coming from.
      The Plan B now you are claiming is still unclear and devoid of any meaningful and tangible /concrete approach.
      Other than wishful rhetoric, I do not see any concrete evidence that you or the opposition have achieved.rather, I see a total failure, which has strengthened the regime in question.
      You are not even close to the beginning and we are running out of time but just waiting for the situation on ground to run its course.
      Can we figure out as to why we cannot mobilize the public? What I see now is total confusion and chaos.
      40 organizations and new ones arriving every morning with different agendas–etc-
      We cannot even try to be on the same page let alone to fight for change,other than toothless rhetoric.
      What I have been trying to say is that we have to able to come closer to some kind of a mid-way solution rather than wishful thinking and rhetoric and extremism of weeding out this and that..
      I am taking based on the factrs oin the ground.
      If we are bale to mobilize the Public to be fully aware of what is going on at home and clarify our vison and startgey, we could do something.
      But you people are making us to runn in a parallel way. We are looking for an intersection.
      We know the problems then our job should be to develop a strategy followed by ways of implementing the strategy.
      Every time a groups comes up with a suggestion, we rush into condemning it or belittling it.
      I see no tolerance or respect for each other..
      Typical Eritrean Political Culture?? “keini-semaamaa’ tesemaamina” thing?We agreed NOT to agree?

  • SM

    Good summary for discussion.
    So, you do not believe in ” National Reconcilaition” like Haile and SJG/AT?
    You missed it as a point of discussion.

  • SM

    Again,Haile “the Great”,I am for the Rule of Law and I agree with due process,no matter what.
    But I do not buy the HRW and Amnesty Int’l ‘s one sided and deliberate routine defamatatory campaign,which was the real purpose of their creation by the WEST particularly the USA’s Foreign Intelligence Service, financed by the National Democratic Endowment and the alikes,as you all know better than most of us..
    We have plenty of evidence and FACTS on the perceived and real threats Eritrea,its people and the PFDJ have faced ,as much facts as you might have on the atrocities of the PFDJ. I think SelaliA’s comments make sense even though they should not be considered as excuses or justification for the “lawlessness”.
    For sure you are going to tell me that the PFDJ and DIA should be ” weeded out by all means possible” and no matter what,what the WEST/HRW and Amnesty Int’l are doing incuded.
    Then the PFDJ and DIA have all the right and an obligation then,and “by All Means Possible” to defend themselves,for that matter, to defend Eritrea.
    I am with SelaliA on this.
    My dilemma here is: How do we apporoach this issue,other than trying to “weed out PFDJ”?
    Why are we ignoring the bigger picture itself–the almost more than 60yrs old De Facto Declaration by the WEST and its on-going open threats against the existence of Eritrea?Do NOT ask me for referenecs as you have a better access to the FACTS.

    • haile

      Hello SM

      – If you’re talking about the $30,000 grant money (allegedly) extended to some activists in SA in the early 2000s to translate non-violent techniques of struggle and how that was disbursed, well I know little and yeleKulan dma..tezarbeni deliKa’do!

      Let’s get to the direct issue at hand. Do you believe the regime of IA is committing injustices on Eritreans or not? If the answer is on the negative, then you must support it and support it fully, unreservedly and practically. It needs support more than at any point in its past due existence.

      If the answer is on the affirmative,then: a) does it morally concern you; b) what is your take on the nation’s ability to continue as a result of these injustice; C) most importantly, what is your role in helping to improve the situation?

      There may be an organization here or there that you believe is not serving the cause of justice faithfully, how does that propel you to be on the side of the perpetrator of the injustice? A criminal murders your son/daughter and you lose faith on the lawyer who is persecuting the killer, how does that be a reason for you to side with your child’s murderer? Didn’t it occur to you that you would either try to find a lawyer you would trust or become a lawyer yourself?

      I doubt there are any minds left in the Eritrean political landscape that are supporting, calling for reconciliation or reform of the PFDJ for lack of any knowledge. All are playing dangerous games;

      Supporters: are those who see no other exit, hence are hoping against hope that something will give.

      Reform/reconcile…: very mean game on the Eritrean people’s misery really. Yes, there is a talk that PFDJ is weakened, but so are the Eritrean people and the Eritrean nation. As diaspora, our role is to support the country and people get back in their feet once the regime is gone. If anyone is hoping about going to Eritrea after the regime to obtain any position, let them forget it, would never work. Eritreans in Eritrea are fully capable and organized enough to set up their own administrations and government. Our role is to help in various sectors that the nation needs to move forward, such as finance, network, business & investment, political support…. Unfortunately, some are shamelessly counting their chickens instead of coming in unison to condemn the regime.

      PFDJ never faced any problems from outsiders more than any other country. It has no evidence, besides decade long empty claim, that outsiders are out to get it. That was never a good reason to put Eritreans in an indefinite jail term inside their country’s life as a citizen, from which many thousands continue to scale its walls and runaway every month (with tragic consequences for many). The only thing it has to show for external hostility is Ethiopia’s (country at war) active support of UN sanctions as a means of persecuting its conflict by other means. Well, hello, they happen to be conflict and supporting each others opposition (sanction is one opposition in itself).

      If you see reason to support the regime, you can’t see reason for need to rule of law. Period. As I said, today nobody needs explanation, it is a matter of making simple and straight forward choices. And, it doesn’t really surprise anybody as to what one chooses.


      • haile

        PS: BTW when you have an organization with a mission, then you have to be funded from somewhere, unless one prints money. Eritreans paying 2% are not doing it for respecting human rights but violating others and maximizing their individual interest. Being financed is not bad, not new, will never be done any other way, the issue is transparency, prudence and integrity. PFDJ fails in all those respects, so do many opposition.

        • dine

          you start talking to yourself man, take a break for once and come back after refresh a while.

      • SM

        What you are saying is when you are in the perfect metaphysical world.The issue here is not supporting or not supporting the PFDJ or the GoE.
        I would like you to see the scenario in its totality.Where the heck in this world have you seen a perfect system?
        I support Mr. Yemane Ghebre’ab’s assertion or arguement about the status of 1991-1997 case scenario of Eritrea–socio-economico-politically where he compared and contrasted that period of the time with post 1998-2000 war.
        You are deliberatyely choosing to be ” blind and deaf” and to be one sided and focusing only on one box–the “DIA/PFDJ should be weeded out obssession”.
        As you may see, your bodies at Awate are trying to make a U-Turn.
        In other words, what I am suggesting is that let’s balance things and come up with a workable strategy/solution.
        PFDJ/DIA will be gone one way or another, and it is a matter of time.But if your arguement is to expedite the dawnfall of the system,still we have to have a working strategy.How,by whom, under what condition,etc….
        I am glad you admitted that you know about the third party fudning.
        Yeah,as you said, any organization needs money /funding but it depends as to who is finduing who, and what,under what circumstance,for what purpose——
        Take the cases of the NDE Funding,the Freedom of Religion Committee factor–and review the history–the cases of Latin America,Libya,Iraq,Syria,Afghanistan—even the case of Eritrea–I was amused to see Anglican Church Group,Baptist Church group–etc–in Eritrea.The case of the dangerous Wuhabism in Eritrea–funded by the KSA—
        Look at what our famous Ms “Asmara Rose” reported about those few “Eritrean”guys who have been working with the State Department–hope you are not one of them,where they have a clear Startegy and Guidance as to how economically destroy Eritrea and their deduction was that PFDJ will collapse economically overnoght after applying their evil strategies.
        You seem to be in this club,body and I stand firm on this that I will fight those kind of begots with my two hands under any condition.
        The PFDJ and “DIA” has gone through thick and thin and horrondous challenges,which you have belittled or claimed that those challenegs are mere made up stories by the same PFDJ,when you in fact, have been witnessing that things have been happening in front of your eyes!!!Who are you trying to deceive?
        This is not to justify the mischiefs of the PFDJ but you have to see and judge the PFDJ from the reality based on the ground and we should give PFDJ/DIA the “Benefit of doubt”,to use your own bodies’ language–including SAAY/Ali Salim–
        Just to remind you: There was a clear cut and open strategy by the weyanes backed by the West where they developed-a-four-step strategy,shared with the State Dept(USA) as to how to change the regime–by all means possible.Just review the Wikileaks–be it full or “cut and paste” report.
        My point is that we have to consider all things and try to come up with real solutions.
        If you are going to be obssessed only with DIA/PFDJ thing and repeating the Litany of the bloodiest enemies of Eritrea, you will never have an audience let alone to succeed in “weeding out” the PFDJ.
        You have to convince and mobilize the real stake-holders–the Eritrean Public in Diaspora and at home–How?That is your home work.

  • Nitricc

    Hahahahahahahahah lol Semere toothlessssssssssss very funny.
    one thing for real though; I am proud SAAY is friend and my mentor. thanks for the idea; i should write him a thanks note.

  • AMAN

    From day ONE until now,
    I have been on the moderation lane and not on the extremism lane.
    So I am not required to make any U-turn or something.
    I have made that U-turn you are talking about 10 years ago
    and remained steadfast on it (the lane).
    I don’t think it concerns to me.
    Let those who have been on the other lane make their U- turns

  • SM

    Why are you guys deliberately playing games here?
    Here is Semere Tesfay’s reaction in my opinion, of course.:
    1:Blunt one to the blunt accusation by Ali Salim—-“If you are going to decimate the “Land Grabbers/Highlanders/Christians,Haile the Great included–if he is really Haile,then those Land Grabbers/Highlanders—will defend themselves too
    2-His main Positive Reaction:
    -Let’s forget and forgive as we all messed up and ,move forward—for Real ” National Reconciliation”
    3-Semere does not have a single right or capacity to impose the so called ” Majority Rule, Minority Right-thing—-At some point,as he admitted,-he might have argued for the sake of arguement, but since he differed from you in his approach and /or stand,you are cursing him.My way is the HIGHWAY thing.
    Again, extreme ideology–will never work.
    Everything is relative and we have to work for a middle way so as to have an intersection,rather than running in parallel,where we will never achieve anything

  • SM

    Wedi Hidrat,
    Here you go Aman–Do NOT live in “Yesterdays”.By the way, I love Pharmacists!!
    What if Sal is making a U-Turn–in fact, a legal ONE?The guy knows what he is talking about and every thing he says,as you may agree, makes a ” perfect” sense,except when he acts like a simple human being.
    That is my point,i.e.,try to balance things and avoid extremist ideaology and mentality as they will never help us to resovle our problmes.
    Respect each other and each others’ opinion!!
    Come to the table!!
    Give DIALOG a chance -;avoid being prematurely judgemental.
    Make Legal “U-TURNS”!!
    Reconciliation without preconditions,would have been the Pefect Solution,but your “extremism and exclusionism” wil take us NO WHERE.
    Let’s practise what we preach!!

  • SM

    Ermi and Rodab,
    If you mislabel me again,I will take an action as well,worse than that of the moderator.
    Why would you waste your time labelling people this and that?
    You yourself should be lablled as a “Psychopath”,to use your own word,not Nitricc.

  • AMAN

    Sometimes people say that I have been too hard in my opinions and rhetorics
    in my opposition to the woyanes and their supporters. But that is not true and
    doesn’t make sense.
    Because if the woyane and supporters are denigrating and defiant against justice
    and those calling for justice and their only purpose is to be like a conqueror rather
    than engage the opponent in a true spirit of peace and reconciliation it is them and
    not me that is considered to be hard and violating the other’s rights.
    And clearly the woyanes and their supporters have taken the risk by choosing to be
    seen as victorious warrior conquerors at the expence of peace and justice for over
    20 years by denigrating against international and local norms, laws and customes.
    They chose to follow the footprints of those failed and buried regimes and juntas who
    ruled Ethiopia and ultimately headed to their grave. there is this wrong notion in Ethiopia,
    unfortunately, that to be against peace and justice is called “politics” (actually negative or
    destructive politics) which sadly afflicted woyane at the time of its last phase of existence.
    Woyane has become the last victim to be afflicted by these disease that lasted for over
    100 years in Ethiopia. Too sad and unfortunate for woyane junta !!

  • jo


    Yes, I do. That is why I am saying lets break this cycle of vengeance and counter vengeance. Sometime somehow we have to break that cycle, and the start, I think, is the implementation of the constitution. It creates a platform for everybody to come closer and a reference point to mitigate the wrong done on people collectively or individually.

    I don’t know where you inferred the notion of me condoning the actions of the PFDJ from. I am far from it. I was condemning the state of mind of vengeance or the “an eye for an eye” attitude to deal with our predicament. I don’t think that attitude has brought any solution, harmony or closure to any pain, for anybody anywhere in this world. If you know one, I am all ears. South Africans and Rwandese are testimonies to the alternative way. Can you imagine if the South Africans or the Rwandese had decide to retaliate for what was done to them, what the outcome of it would be? To be honest with you, you may say things emotionally, we all do from time to time, but when you are sober, let alone anyone of your caliber, I don’t think even a hardcore criminal would entertain that sort of notion.

    • Haile Zeru

      Actually, I think you don’t have a heart that have the sense of love. if you reread what you wrote you will see that is condoning a crime. if you do not see it, that is an indication that your heart is defective. You are equating criminals to people who say criminals should be punished. Our hearts are twisted because we protested verbally the abuses of a government that made our country an open air prison.
      You are mentioning the south african reconciliation in favor of your argument. That is totally false.
      In case of South Africa the criminals came and asked for forgivness to the families of the victims in public. All political prisoners were released, set free. Have you ever heard Issayas asking forgivness for his crimes to the eritrean people and the families of his victims? are all political prisoners set free in Eritrea now? You are advocating for the devil and that can hardly break the cycle of violence. Actually it will prpetuate it. Because accumulating wealth, fame and power using criminal activity will be a norm. bringing to justice criminals will deter criminality. I think you are no one to lecture about closure. Leave that to the people who lost their loved ones.

      • Jo


        What you think of me is not an issue here. The issue is in how to deal with the predicament we are in. No. I never equated criminals with NON CRIMINALS, never!!! what you are implying, though, and it is leading you to make wrong judgement on me and others, You are equating, if not at least you are assuming, those who say criminals should be punished are innocent. That perception alone could lead us into more disaster in the future. How do we avoid this from reoccurring again, simply by implementing the constitution. Then everybody will be accountable to the rule of law. You see, I never said criminals should not be punished, or equated criminals with those who say criminals should be punished. I think, unless you want to be stubborn, you could read between the lines and see what I am trying to say. No body should take the law into their own hand. Having said that, I understand the desire to inflict pain upon those who inflicted pain on others, But where does that lead us?

        When there is a rule of law everything is possible. Assuming the eventuality of anything, then become absolute about it, and take action before that happening, I believe is dangerous and that is what I am saying should not happen. That is what got us into all this mess to begin with. I get the comfort, though, in you willing to entertain reconciliation. I also agree with you to bring criminals to justice and get their dues. I think, vengeance is evil, but, forgiveness/reconciliation is divine. Again, please don’t assume, that because people asked for reconciliation and want to break the perpetual cycle of misery as if they are not victims; that is irresponsible. People react and deal with their pain in different ways, your way is not the only way, and please stop translating their asking for an alternative way to anything else but that. Do not take away the right of anyone in how to deal with their pain, whether you agree with it or not; that is the only thing they have left.

        If I sounded as if I am lecturing my apologies, that was not my intention at all. But, if I was you, before accusing anyone I would look myself in the mirror. I hope you are not trying to slander me to silence.

        Have a pleasant evening!!!

  • Haile Zeru

    You said,

    “What an extremely irresponsible thing to say!!! You people; Saleh Johar, Haile, and Haile Zeru, your hearts are so twisted with hate you have veered from the Eritrean way of civility and magnanimity.”

    ..And your PFDJ’s heart is filled up with love. isn’t it. So much so that they did not want the G-15 to be brought in front of a court of law but they put them in fox holes in 45 + degrees celsius to make them die slowly but painfully one by one. This is just one example. How righteous is your heart to condone the acts of PFDJ and talk about our twisted hearts for condemning PFDJ. I wonder if you have a heart (the sense of love) at all.

  • Nitricc

    Just to finish the task at hand, when I refer to let it burn, I meant let’s wait for the proper exit to get to our destination, safe and sound. I think that is the only way it makes sense to me. Regarding putting down myself, I do that just to make my opponents feel better about them selves. They are so weak and fragile they need some who they think is less than them. I am just throwing them a bone. 🙂 Other than that, I am cool my man. I can not be better.
    Regarding Ermias, well, what can I say, I thought I got rid of Exciter then here comes Ermias. I am intrigued though, why does he care if I can use 100 names? What is to him? If I want to go low and to use a different nike, it is on me. So far I am five persons. Hagos, Aaray,Smichal,dawit, revolution. What a waste of time
    As a person I have never worried nor cared about my reputation but I will die protecting my character.
    I don’t have a problem with Haile. He is a wise man I once broke his nose, he never bothered me again J although I wish he could have a balanced view that he has once.
    About Serray. He is hypocrite to the highest order.
    Here is what triggered to my comment about him and his brother. At one time Serray told to Amanual Hidarat that the reason he did not participated in Gedli is because he turned off by the war of two brothers ( between EPLF and ELF) that gave me the insight of Serray’s hypocrisy. And I ask him point blank
    If Serray can abandon his own blood because his brother believed in different line politics, what does Serray do to me when I differed from him in my stand in politics?
    The answer came to me clear, he will kill me or worst he will put me in prison for life.The end of the story. I don’t intend to see a system with Serray’s mentality and set mind; that can not tolerate and respect others point of view. If he cannot accept and respect his own brother’s view, HE WILL NEVER ACCEPT main or yours. Case close!
    At that I have said my peace and I let it go. For the matter of fact I have too many enemies; time to chill out J
    we should be afried to state the truth.

    • Serray


      Let me answer your question this one time. Yes to everything you wrote I want to do to you and people like you; that is, unless there are people who want to be entertained by a single-brain cell psychopathic cleaning units in free eritrea (Sal, I have to insert this exception with you in mind). I don’t believe in reforming evil.

      I have a question for you, why do you use a nick? Let me answer that for you, because deep down you know you deserve everything you think I will do to you in free eritrea. It is that last remaining brain cell of yours doing its job. Be a man and defy it and I will have as much respect for you as I do a rabid dog.

      • Semere Andom

        Nitricc’s thank you letter to Sal on the occasion of the long awaited Lucidity of our very own Nitricc

        Dear Sal, ma nigger:

        You “aksed” many questions, but because of my constant assignments and reassignments in my brain cells that affects my mood and my real jovial nature, I was not able to prove you right about my caliber. And since Haile made me toothless, I am sill dizzy. But unlike your other toothless friends I can still bite, but when no one is watching, only in the dead of the darkness, away from the light.

        Sal, my man you “aks” me many questions, “aks” me and I will answer, but I am not sure if I can heed your advice about your toothless buddies.

        But I will give the devil its due and I will give your credit for teaching me that my beloved “Sawa” has nothing to do with my beloved “Sewa”, and since I now know “Sewa” has nothing to do with “Sawa”, I will abandon my dream of fortifying Sawa in the future, I now know where to find the “Sewa” that is responsible for my one celled brain in Eritrea, I never drunk it as long as some of my friends, who possess millions of brain cells, but in a medical miracle I inherited its damages and hence the once cell brain. But after I squeezed the last lucidity about the analogy of the highway exit that impressed you and your impression warmed my heart and I feel that have doubled the cells in my brain to two. That is 100% gain nigger. Give me five my man.

        Also one more thing I learned from you as my mentor is that Sawa was not the place where all the 65,000 SwuAt died. I somehow thought Sawa is also somehow linked to our martyrs. These two miss conceptions lead me to love “Sawa” and my big idea of keeping the militarization of “Sawa” was for to respect the sacrifices of my history. My bad.

        I also would like to thank you for believing in me, for challenging me when your toothless friends ganged on me. Also I thank you for recommending the book “The brain that changes itself “, by Norman Doidge. From the snippets I read, I believe that it will quintuple my brain cells. I am tired of it, I cannot afford to be a protozoan. After heeding your advice and doing the exercise you have prescribed I think we are in our way to found the Ministry of Talent of the future.

        I assure you “aya” Sal, that the potential fermenting in me will take your toothless friends, especially, especially that hypocrites and SOBs Serray, Semere Andom, Emma, Haile by storm and they will not know what hit them, they will be so dizzy and will wonder whether it was s drone, a missile or a stone. I will unleash onto them, but after I am freed from my demons it will not be venom as you know it, it will be truth. As Plato once said, “Truth always flows towards those with one celled brain. “

        Nitriccly yours

      • Nitricc

        Serray have you lost all together? You are using a pen name and you wanted me to reveal my real name? Do you see any problem with your inquiry? I did not know you got some jokes.
        Anyway before you lose all your marbles I have told you and let me tell you again. You are a very smart man, I do acknowledge that and I see you having no problem coming to power in future Eritrea. Don’t expect me to give a free pass. If you are going to be some where in the power circle; which I don’t doubt but I need some one with tolerance; vision, respect and acceptance of different views. For you to abandon your brother for no other reason but his political views what the hell with and go to hell. I don’t want you need the power despite your smartness poetical skills. I will respect you and I will stop calling you the hypocrite in the highest order when you go and talk to your brother and make it right. You have the right to oppose PFDJ and he has the right to support PFDJ. What is the problem? I do believe if you come to power you will kill me because you don’t like what I believe and I believe different than yours. Can you get that to your head? I doubt that knowing you, you are a stubborn as a mule.
        Once again do the right thing.
        I don’t have a problem with you I have a problem with your hypocrcy. that is all

    • Semere Andom

      Nitricc’s thank you letter to Sal on the occasion of the long awaited Lucidity of our very own Nitricc

      Dear Sal, ma nigger:

      You “aksed” many questions, but because of my constant assignments and reassignments in my brain cells that affects my mood and my real jovial nature, I was not able to prove you right about my caliber. And since Haile made me toothless, I am sill dizzy. But unlike your other toothless friends I can still bite, but when no one is watching, only in the dead of the darkness, away from the light.

      Sal, my man you “aks” me many questions, “aks” me and I will answer, but I am not sure if I can heed your advice about your toothless buddies.

      But I will give the devil its due and I will give your credit for teaching me that my beloved “Sawa” has nothing to do with my beloved “Sewa”, and since I now know “Sewa” has nothing to do with “Sawa”, I will abandon my dream of fortifying Sawa in the future, I now know where to find the “Sewa” that is responsible for my one celled brain in Eritrea, I never drunk it as long as some of my friends, who possess millions of brain cells, but in a medical miracle I inherited its damages and hence the once cell brain. But after I squeezed the last lucidity about the analogy of the highway exit that impressed you and your impression warmed my heart and I feel that have doubled the cells in my brain to two. That is 100% gain nigger. Give me five my man.

      Also one more thing I learned from you as my mentor is that Sawa was not the place where all the 65,000 SwuAt died. I somehow thought Sawa is also somehow linked to our martyrs. These two miss conceptions lead me to love “Sawa” and my big idea of keeping the militarization of “Sawa” was for to respect the sacrifices of my history. My bad.

      I also would like to thank you for believing in me, for challenging me when your toothless friends ganged on me. Also I thank you for recommending the book “The brain that changes itself “, by Norman Doidge. From the snippets I read, I believe that it will quintuple my brain cells. I am tired of it, I cannot afford to be a protozoan. After heeding your advice and doing the exercise you have prescribed I think we are in our way to found the Ministry of Talent of the future.

      I assure you “aya” Sal, that the potential fermenting in me will take your toothless friends, especially, especially that hypocrites and SOBs Serray, Semere Andom, Emma, Haile by storm and they will not know what hit them, they will be so dizzy and will wonder whether it was s drone, a missile or a stone. I will unleash onto them, but after I am freed from my demons it will not be venom as you know it, it will be truth. As Plato once said, “Truth always flows towards those with one celled brain. “

      Nitriccly yours

  • Haile Zeru

    I know I am stubborn but I guess I can’t help it….

    I always thought that the “Right to self-determination up to secession” was not conducive
    to the reality of Eritrea. Besides this principle is valid for entities that have enough economic and social conditions to form a state by themselves. I never thought of it to be exercised to secede from one country and join another one. This is the case of all the Eritrean minorities. Especially the ones that are fighting pfdj. Can one say the incorporation in their programs of the principle of the “right to self-determination up to secession” is a Weyane insinuation only?
    My understanding was that it is possible to include articles that protect the minorities so that recourse to secession however meaningless will not be necessary.
    But look at the present (not active yet) Eritrean constitution and in light of Semere Tesfay writing think for yourself if Eritrean minorities have any legal means to address their grieviances.

    “Article 8 Economic and Social Development
    (3) In the interest of present and future generations, the State is responsible for managing all land, water, air and natural resources and for ensuring their management in a balanced and sustainable manner; and for creating the right conditions to secure the participation of the people in safeguarding the environment.”

    Very nicely crafted and hard to say it has anything wrong. But if you know that the all land belongs to the state was already active law before this constitution, this article is just a window dressing to what is already fait accomply.

    “Article 59 Amendment of the Constitution
    (2) Any provision of this Constitution may be amended as follows:
    a) where the National Assembly by a three-quarters majority vote of all its members proposes the amendment with reference to a specific Article of the Constitution tabled to be amended; and
    b) where, one year after it has proposed such an amendment, the National Assembly, after deliberation, approves again the same amendment by four-fifths majority vote of all its members”

    Can you imagine a minority to master the above percentages to effect any change on the Eritrean constitution? Basically ones this constitution is accepted and activated Eritrean minorities will have ZERO leverage. Actually the constitution does not mention or acknowledge the existence or issues of minorities. If I am wrong please correct me.

    • Saleh Johar

      Haile Zeru,
      I shudder at the thought that the 97 constitution might be adopted. To me it is meant solidify a perpetual injustice and consolidate dictatorship of the majority for a long time. I wonder what people see in that despicable, tailor-made document. It deserves the drawer and Isaias deserves it.

      • Haile Zeru

        Any change will require 75% of the national assembly. If a group masters 75% then it must be an absolute majority. Where does that leave the Nara with 2% or may be less share of vote (if these percentages that are floated arround are true).

      • SM

        Did you tell your best body,Dr Bereket Habtesilassie, about this and if so, what was his response?

  • Sabina

    Nice U turn but too late!

  • Amanuel Hidrat

    Hey Sem Andom,
    That is a good one. Removing the Saleh Issue towards the end of your comment, you exactly read the mind of Semere Tesfay and the mind of the majority speaking about what their poltical generosity is. Think about it when they are questioned about “equitable” issues they will only see it in terms what you have said it in your comment. Good one and I love your sarcasm.
    Amanue Hidrat