The conference was conducted mostly in Amharic – without making a political point of it, Tigrinya, and invariably from time to time in English. The general mood was upbeat energetically. The moderator successfully managed the job to the end, despite attempts desperate attempts by a few disgruntled elements that tried to torpedo the august conference. Over all, it seemed like a chamber of voices being heard equally and validated as well as represented. Never before have Eritreans and Ethiopians known anything smooth like the one which ended without any emotional flare-up.
However, one cannot help but notice that the reporter profoundly misunderstood and misrepresented Professor Tesfasion Medhanie in his speech that he wants the process of “reunification” that can lead to a “federation’. When nothing could be further from the truth, the Professor was repeating time and again a “confederation” like mantra. His summaries are simple with mellifluous speaking voice, clear, sharp, incisive, physically embodied and his critique are apt, thought provoking and all the while, his polymathic nature of his scholarship was there for all to see. It was hard to miss the essence of what Tesfasion was seriously saying.
With this in the backdrop, Professor Tesfasion precisely delineated the difference between confederation and federation – drawing on real historical facts on the two respective countries. The line of his speech on Eritrea/Ethiopia was clearly defined unambiguously and closely observed long before the conference started in earnest. Evidently, what Professor Tesfasion was suggesting a confederation with various permutations that can develop steadily into federation based concretely on the willing consent and wishes of Eritreans as supreme condition in a democratically elected government?
In sharp contrast to what Professor Tesfasion was saying, Professor Daniel Kinde stated his political position that Eritrea has nothing to offer and everything to gain by included in the “federation”. All this statements can be readily checked with the audiences and speakers, and if untrue, could be used to the reporter’s credit. At any rate, the idea of “unification” is absurd for anyone to entertain at the moment – unless one’s grasp of history had a yawning gap. One may ask what is the reporter’s stated mission. The pain is raw and the scars are real on both sides – a fact Abebe seems oblivious to a degree that is astounding. Historically, it is a difficult time.
Again, the report was over- the- top in what follows next: when dealing with truly unsung heroes of this event. There is a complete blackout about the crucial roles played by the organizers. One does not have a clue what it takes to organize financially an event like this with passion and energy, not to mention the time and the grinding expenses that have to be paid soon. The correspondent should have highlighted this salient detail to the readers. Nor was it clear why kudos must not be given to those who were largely responsible for this historic and precedent setting. What does one make out of this? Moreover, what is his stated mission? Also the curious omission of Mr. Yesouf Yacine’s paper, one of the speakers who could not make it unfortunately for health reason was jarringly disturbing. His papers provide a significantly nuanced, more polychromatic view of counter-history to prevailing official interpretations of the current governments in both Eritrea and Ethiopia. It was the most poignant moment that the audiences were simply bowled over by his range and eloquence.
Finally, the problem with mistakes like that cast a cloud of doubt over the accuracy and fairness of the article. The conference merits a concise, comprehensive and factual stellar coverage, nothing more, nothing less. It is in this hope that I am forced to write this note. Thank you.
