Serious and more productive discussions are underway thanks to the arguments raised by many Ethiopian scholars, the latest of which were Zeru Kihishen, Belai and Dagmawi himself. The continuation of these discussions in a constructive manner should be encouraged. It is possible that the current government,( through consistent pressure from the public and perhaps by being aware that its governance and acceptance will be boosted as a result), could get lessons from it.

It has been over a week since we started analysing and commenting issues thanks to Dagmawi’s probing commentary. Here, I would like to share my observation on the manner these discussions proceeded and why that was the case.

I have a starting premise. As far as the nature of the political organizations is concerned, save the few political parties/ movements that are currently functioning in Ethiopia under difficult circumstances, all lack accountability and democratic principles. TPLF, EPLF, EPRP, MEISON,OLF, etc..are all structured in such a way that the existence of one precludes the other. It is no wonder then, that the so called Ethiopian political organizations fail to reach into a single uniting factor in issues that have national significance. Their views even have been reflected in sometimes elusive way in the current discussions. Let me forward these general statements.

• The vast majority of Ethiopians are happy that the active conduct of war is over. Thousands, if not tens of thousands of lives of young Ethiopians, not to mention the huge material loss, have been saved as a result of the cessation of hostilities. It is against the wishes of the ordinary Ethiopian to advocate for a continuation of the war.

• The current opposition against the ongoing negotiation that is being pushed by the Ethiopian government, should not be construed to mean an advocacy to continue the war. It is obvious that some writers implicitly reflect that point of view, but certainly not the majority.

• The opposition is against Meles’ stated objective, or rather assertion that Assab is Eritrean. The border demarcation issue is an issue of negotiation. He denied Ethiopia the right to demand Assab: free port, issue of sovereignty over the land, joint administration or any form that usage may take is another thing. It is either a serious omission or a deliberate and unhelpful move for people to argue as if all those that oppose the current move advocate for a forceful occupation of Assab.

• Some in the electronic forum are not arguing for Ethiopia. In fact they argue as to why one can’t claim Assab as Ethiopian. They assert that since Eritrea is an independent country, claiming Assab will be against international law. They dismiss historical precedence as not very helpful. They do no think that it is worthwhile to claim access to the sea on the negotiating table. They accept the deal between TPLF/EPRDF and EPLF to create a separate Eritrea as fair and final. They do not believe that this organization has made a mistake in the past. Hence, they in fact become obstacle for the organization to apologise its past mistakes and rectify those when opportunities to do such arises.

• While Meles had clearly and repeatedly declared that the Assab issue is not on the negotiating table, some writers who have come on his defence are telling us otherwise. If that is meant to confuse the reader then it does not reflect well on the part of the writer. If it is the case for which the writer has a priviledge of knowing that Assab is indeed on the agenda , well then it is indeed a pleasant surprise.

• Some writers that oppose the government move have mixed their otherwise important contribution with divisive and incorrect statements that are not helpful to the current discussion. Some could be an oversight, a mistake but others are deliberate. As the TPLF uses the nationality/ethnic race whenever it is cornered, so do other extreme elements that strive on hate and division among people. Both elements the TPLF and the extremists target the people of Tigray that the former perpetrates to represent. One writer characterizes those that write against the policies and negotiating stance of the government as non-Tigrians. God knows how he was able to arrive at such incorrect conclusion. In any case his /her approach is non-constructive and divisive.

Helpful inputs that strengthens Ethiopia’s case for a sea access have been mentioned by many. Most of us have not been very good in the way we delivered these messages. The messenger is sometimes as important as the message. It is one thing to freely write on factual statements, but one needs to be careful when introducing subjective commentaries that may not be appreciated by the receiver. Here, we have a collection of people with different perspective on the internal governance of the country but have similar views on the question of sovereignly and national interest of Ethiopia. Let’s not lose that big picture in our continuing discussion.

I have enjoyed and learned a lot from the latest postings including Thedros’. They build upon the points raised by Hailu, Zeru-Belai, Negussie and others. I believe an important document could be compiled from these proceedings.

Tedros may need to cut on some of his rhetoric though. Here is how he cleverly (?) inserted ugly statements that are characteristics of hateful personalities such as the infamous ‘professor’:

“ The Woyane regime even to this day continues to have extremely questionable legitimacy. Upon its seizure of power in Addis Ababa in 1991, it was a ragtag of mostly illiterate peasant army recruited from a minority Tigrean ethnic group, with NO experience in political governance and international diplomacy, coming more with a sense of vengeance against the majority than with a cool-headed and genuine desire to bring about change.....”

What kind of vengeance would that ‘rag-tag’ peasant have? That rag tag peasant of Tigrai enjoys having the whole of Ethiopia as his home. He travels from the northern most to the southernmost, from eastern to western part of Ethiopia, perhaps like no other people in the country. He has never questioned his Ethiopian identity from time immemorial. Why did Thedros chose to put this statement in his article. If it is that sinful hate towards people/ ethnic groups deeply ingrained in some people’s mind that has forced him to spew these words, then it is his choice to live that life of hate and bigotry. If it was an honest mistake, if he has ‘pasted’ a wrong paragraph in his article ( reasons that he could only provide us), then I am willing and able to forget and forgive. If it is the former it only shows us how a person is capable of producing good and bad at the same time. It is unfortunate that some people could not shelve their behaviours in their own closets at moments of national crises. Let’s stop ethnicising politics. Enough damage has already been done. Leave the people of Tigrai alone!! Stop undermining these people from ‘within’ and ‘without’. What they want is their Ethiopianess, peace and prosperity.