Fact: In paragraph one Ato Abebe wrongly charges that I “tried to speak on behalf of Professor Tesfatsion”. I think this is inappropriate. Far from it, I attended the three-day conference like anyone, and only wrote my perceptive observations on Ato Abebe’s article regarding Mr. Yuusuf Yassin and the organizers, among other things. My piece was, wholly and solely, intended to be “a necessary correction”.
Fact: In paragraph three Ato Abebe implies that according to Mr. Assefa the people’s “consent and wishes” was needed only as regards Eritreans. Here, too, he is off the base. Such consent and wishes are required as regards both Ethiopians and Eritreans. In my sentence it refers specifically Eritreans because I was stating quite succinctly in respect to Eritrea. It did not imply at all that such consent and wishes are not required as regards Ethiopians also.
Fact: In paragraph four Ato Abebe says that the professor “delineated the difference between what he called `closed confederation´ and … `open confederation´”. Professor Tesfatsion rather used the phrase “open confederation”. But no phrase like “closed confederation” was used, even though one can say that his discussion implied there is also a type of confederation that remains only a relationship of sovereign states. Such sweeping unqualified assertion is usually unsafe.
Fact: In paragraph five Ato Abebe says that Professor Tesfatsion advocated an open confederation that can lead to reunion based on a fair “federal arrangement”. Actually, what Tesfatsion said was that the confederation can develop on the basis of the “full freedom and willing consent” of the “peoples”. The federation is not the basis as such, but the framework into which the confederation can develop.
Fact: In paragraph six Ato Abebe says that Tesfatsion argued that “open confederation was by far better than closed confederation”. ProffessorTesfatsion did not discuss such a distinction at all. In fact, as noted above, he did not use the phrase “closed confederation,” though there was the implication that confederation can also be of a type that remains a relationship of cooperation between sovereign states.
Fact: In paragraph eight Ato Abebe says his “report contained no misrepresentation”; and in the 11th paragraph he reiterates that “I stand by the accuracy of my report in spite of the fact that the phrase ´process of reunification that can lead up to federation” can better be replaced by
confederation that can steadily develop into federation”. My understanding is that, in the case of Ethiopia and Eritrea today, there is a very important difference between “reunification” and “confederation”. This s not merely an “issue of semantics”.
But despite the differences, I thank Ato Abebe for the dialogue. And as one compatriot to another , I can only offer the words of Dr. Samuel Johnson, the great 18th-century English writer, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
