The Unjust and Biased Stance of the ‘West’
By: Rishan Beyene
December 15, 2004
The 'Western' powers unjustly allowed the then Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie
to annex Federal Eritrea, thereby causing Eritreans to begin the thirty years
of armed struggle for liberation. Now, it seems history is repeating itself
in that the 'Western' powers are allowing the expansionist Woyane regime in
Ethiopia to continue occupying sovereign Eritrea's territory by failing to discharge
their duty of ensuring the implementation of the ruling of the EEBC.
Presented with all the evidence, suffice to say here that a layperson would find it insulting if asked who the defiant party is, and on the appropriateness of action against the defiant party in order to enforce the verdict of the border commission. Ethiopia's defiant stance vis-a-vis the verdict, however, has not only been tolerated by the international community, but even encouraged by 'inventing' diplomatic manoeuvres for the Woyane regime. The case in point here is Meles's 'in principle' - the latest in a series of delaying tactics - provided for them by the UK's minister for Africa, Chris Mullin. If Eritrea was the defiant party, however, the wrath of the international community would have been unleashed upon Eritrea in a manner, possibly, never witnessed before. But why this bias against Eritrea? To this writer, the answer lies on the respective countries' choice of accountability. Let me explain.
In the world we live in, there are two sets of 'applause' that are contradictory to one another, and both require accountability. Because of the contradictory nature of the 'applause', a country like Eritrea would have to choose to be accountable to one over the other. The first 'applause' results from being accountable to the 'West', and the other to one's own people. The 'Western applause' is conditional on adopting the 'Western agenda'. The more a country is accountable to the 'West', the more 'applause' it receives from them; and the more accountable a country is to its citizenry, the less 'applause' it receives from the 'West'. Even worse, there are grave consequences for choosing to be accountable to one's own people over the 'West'. I argue here that Eritrea is being punished for choosing to be accountable to its citizenry, while expansionist Meles is being rewarded for being a 'good slave' of the 'West'. Let me elaborate.
The progress that has been made since liberation, has transformed Eritrea from a war-shattered into a country no-one could write-off as a 'non-viable' economy. Indeed, if it was not for the expansionist Woyane's war of aggression, Eritrea's level of development could have been a success unparalleled in history. And this monumental progress was being acheived by pursuing the time-tested Eritrean Way (mesmerna), not the 'Western agenda'. Not surprisingly, this unique development was not pleasantly received by the 'West' as well as the envious Woyane regime in Ethiopia. Consequently, these two evil found unity in their common hatred of the Eritrean government's way of working. Their motive is, of course, for Eritrea to discard its time-tested and proven way of working, and be governed, instead, in accordance with the 'Western agenda'.
With regard to Ethiopia, one word describes the development that has been taking place since the expansionist Woyane took power, i.e. dependency. Indeed, dependency has long been Ethiopia's distinguishing feature, a feature further cemented by the Woyane regime. This development, albeit disturbing, is very pleasing to the 'West' for it is exactly what the 'Western agenda' is designed to bring about in the developing world. In turn, Meles was rewarded when he was chosen to preside over a commission the 'West' themselves created for Africa, for successfully making Ethiopia a country to be modelled on by other African countries - a dependent country. Meles's other reward is, of course, the soft approach taken by the 'West' for his defiant stance vis-a-vis the ruling of the EEBC.
One thing is certain however; the truth always prevails as proven by the emergence of 'free Eritrea'. We only need to adopt to our current situation the tremendous spirit that carried us through the difficult years of struggle for liberation, that of working against all odds. And through hard work, dogged perseverance and unity, I have no doubt that we will come out of this testing time yet again victoriously.
To this writer at least, then, the choice between our time-tested way of working and the 'Western agenda' is synonymous with choosing between dignity and slavery respectively. The 'Western agenda' is designed to enrich the 'designers' while our way (mesmerna) aims to bring about social justice in our society.