Anything Even More Obscure?

Anything Even More Obscure?
Saleh AA Younis
June 19, 2000

A writer at Walta commenting about the "cult status" of President Isaias Afwereki was providing the following as proof: "It would seem that even the direct mention of his name was tacitly considered to be blasphemous; he was instead respectfully called "wede Afewerki" - the son of Afewerki."
Yes, this is what passes for insight in Walta Land. The writer, let's call him "wedi Shiferaw" - the son of MegaFrightener - postulates the brand-spanking-new theory that referring to people as "son-of-so-and-so" is not a term of endearment but fear of blaspheming by using the entire name. So when Eritreans referred to the now martyred Eritrean fighter who escorted the first few dozen TPLF fighters (now grown to monsters) from Sahel via Akeleguzai to Tigray as "wedi Afa" and not by his full name (Ibrahim Afa), that is a tacit admission that to call him by his full name was blasphemy? Sure. What about referring to the Eritrean fighter who engineered the TPLF march from Tigray to Addis as "wedi Ephrem" and not by his full name "Sebhat Ephrem"? Ditto.
This is new to me. As far as I know, in Eritrean culture, there are only two reasons why you shouldn't be called "wedi-so-and-so" (in Tigrigna) or "wed-so-and-so" (in Tigre) or "ibn-so-and-so" (in Arabic):
1. if you are using a pen name and your name is bogus or
2. if your mother is not sure of who your father is/was.
Another Walta writer was supposedly writing about the importance of freedom of the press within the Ethiopian context. The writer, after identifying that the flaw of government press is self-censorship, circled around his wagons and did not once make reference to the big while elephant in the middle of the room: why Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has been named as Enemy of the Press for the five consecutive years. As Alanis Morisette would ask: "isn't it ironic?" Meles, she might say is like:
A traffic jam when you're already late
A no-smoking sign on your cigarette break
Speaking of the good Prime Minister, he gave another rambling briefing to Your Excellencies in Addis Ababa. The PM and his entire cadre of the thieving, lying, looting accomplices have developed this habit of prefacing all their lies by saying "as you know", "as you all know." Protocol prevents the diplomats from saying, "no, we don't know that" so they have to be silent conspirators but the reporters, once in a while, will say, "no, we don't know that" as the BBC told Salome when she was saying-"as you know"-- Ethiopia accepted the peace proposals and Eritrea didn't. An unusually alert BBC reporter reminded the Spokesperson of Ethiopia's procrastination on the Technical Arrangements long after Eritrea accepted the deal.
Back to the Prime Minister. In the ego massages that go for serious addresses, he told his captive audience that unlike in Ethiopia, (where the ruling party was just re-elected with over 90% of the vote in a free and fair election), in Eritrea, matters of war and peace are decided by "key individuals in Asmara." Then he felt that that was too generous and said that Eritrea is "a one man show." He didn't name who the one man is but went about saying things about sons and daughters that is usually said by people in a straitjacket. Maybe "wedi Shiferaw" would consider the Prime Minister avoidance of naming the "one man" as tacit fear of blasphemy. Maybe our freedom of the press advocate Walta writer will tell us what the Prime Minister's role was in this two year mess. Maybe Walta can tell us why the Prime Minister who objected to the Technical Arrangement because it, among other things, was advocating too much role for the UN because it was "inconsistent" with the Framework Agreement that envisioned no more than 30-40 Observer Group is now asking for about 2000-3000 UN Peacekeepers that has to be approved by the US.
I recently read a piece about the alleged "US Invasion of Eritrea." I hope to do a serious assessment of the role of the US in Eritrea and the entire Horn of Africa fairly soon but for now please read the following excerpt from an exchange between the State Department spokesperson and the press that was reported on June 2, 2000:
QUESTION: Did you take a position on Ethiopia's insistence on international guarantees they won't be attacked again or, alternatively, on the Eritrean demand -- refusal to declare a cease-fire until the Ethiopians withdraw?
MR. REEKER: The US delegation is at the peace talks, and they're working very actively to do that. And I think our statements stand for that, and we're trying to get a resolution to this. Other subjects, ANYTHING EVEN MORE OBSCURE? [Emphasis mine]
No matter what our "first black President" Clinton tells you, the death of tens of thousands, the displacement of hundreds of thousands and the maiming of thousands more Africans-in short, the deadliest war in the world--is nothing more than an obscure fact because it happened in Africa. What is sadder is that the politicians who should have made the most noise about this--the Congressional Black Caucus--were nowhere to be found. In fact the only American politicians who stood up for Eritrea were people who would be dismissed as right-wingers in nice progressive circles. Was this a coincidence or does it have something to do with the fact that Eritrea is a self-sustaining, dependency-hating, freedom-loving, iconoclastic country?

"Wedi Abdu"