According to Mr. Assefa, “One cannot help but notice that the reporter profoundly misunderstood and misrepresented Professor Tesfatsion 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…. “Evidently, what Professor Tesfatsion was suggesting [was] 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?” according to Mr. Assefa’s flourishing but vague representation.
Here is the problem. Mr Assefa introduced a new concept that I did not hear before, i.e., “willing consent and wishes of Eritreans as supreme condition,” as if his confederation was a one-way process based solely on the wishes of Eritreans. To be fair to the professor, he did not talk about this kind of confederation, despite the fact that his argument is more academic than practical, that hinges only on the will of Eritreans as supreme condition without reciprocal interest on the part of Ethiopians.
Mr. Assefa only managed to give us half the truth. Professor Tesfatsion did not propose confederation, per se. The professor clearly delineated the differences between what he called “closed confederation”, which will not stretch far beyond its intended purpose, and “open confederation” that can lead up to federation.
He was very emphatic on his preference to open confederation. Unless my understanding falls short of grasping a simple concept, the professor tried to sell his idea by arguing that the final destiny of his “open confederation” will be federation. So I reported: “The professor said that Ethiopians and Eritreans, should the pre-conditions be fulfilled, need to consider an “open confederation” that can lead to reunion based on a fair federal arrangement.”
Leaving aside the unnecessary details in the small print, the Professor was clear about his vision when he argued that open confederation was by far better than closed confederation, which will not lead to anything other than limited cooperation between two or more independent nations.
That being the case, Mr. Assefa asserted that the professor’s “ 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.” I found the wordy eulogy and homage quite strange as it seems that Mr. Assefa’s view on the professor’s persona has clouded the substance and content of his talks. Unfortunately, my focus was more on the content than these unnecessarily flourishing depictions. I am sure the professor will only find Mr. Assefa’s eulogy quite discomforting as humility is the best expression of scholarship and wisdom.
Needless to say, I had conversations with Professor Tesfatsion. The first one was after his speech. I asked him to give me a copy of his paper. He refused to do so as he thought that the organisers wanted to publish it. I insisted that I would only borrow a few quotes, but he was not willing to provide me with a copy. So I had to rely on my notes which were more than enough for a story. The second conversation I had with him was when he rang me up as he appeared to have failed to notice a paragraph or two from my article posted on Ethiomedia. However, after I read to him the whole portion dealing with his presentation over the phone, he clearly told me that my report contained no misrepresentation despite the fact that he advised me to find another phrase to replace “process of reunification” as it was open to distortion. There were of course other reasons he mentioned that have more to do with the reactions than with the flesh of the story.
Mr. Assefa’s second complaint was that I did not write about the organising committee and failed to applaud their efforts. While the organizers have done a commendable job, it would just have been stating the obvious that adds no value had I spent time and words on side issues and matters that are widely publicized and known to the wider public. It is a classic example of the dilemma of reporting a story. While “dog bites man” is no news, “man bites dog” makes a more interesting story. In fact, I had even written about the committee and other details but had to cut it out while I was downsizing the length of the original story, which contained well over 2000 words.
Another point for Mr. Assefa was my failure to report on a certain paper. Again, I tried to present the main issues and topics discussed at the conference. There were of course so many interesting views and ideas presented by many prominent scholars and members of the public. Unless a live TV coverage was arranged, no one could achieve the impossible task of detailing a three-day conference in a few paragraphs.
It is very natural to fail to please everyone. However, I can confidently say that my report, which was made possible due to my well-intentioned and timely free service, has generated a great deal of conversations and debates. That was more important to me than the marginal distractions and debates on semantics. Again, 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 with “confederation that can steadily develop into federation,” just to borrow Mr. Assefa’s phrase. But it will be a gross misrepresentation if I quote the Professor as calling for “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.” To be honest, I haven’t heard such an absurd statement during the course of the conference. What he said was that democracy and free will, among others, were important preconditions on both sides. As the professor spoke in Amharic, and I wrote the story in English, the issue of semantics can be understandable but it cannot be a cause for “profound misunderstanding and misrepresentation.”
Last but not least, while disagreeing with him on the main points he raised, I would like to thank Mr. Assefa for inviting me, in a way, to clarify my position.
